LEADER SOURCES OF POWER, REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT,
AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS
____________
A Thesis
Presented
to the Faculty of
California State University, Chico
____________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Psychology
Psychological Science Option
____________
by
Scott T. Wallace
Spring 2010
LEADER SOURCES OF POWER, REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT,
AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS
A Thesis
by
Scott T. Wallace
Spring 2010
APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF
GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES:
_________________________________
Mark J. Morlock, Ph.D.
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
_________________________________
Linda M. Kline, Ph.D., Chair
_________________________________
Lawrence G. Herringer, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Tables..............................................................................................................
iv
List of Figures.............................................................................................................
v
Abstract.......................................................................................................................
vi
CHAPTER
I.
Introduction ..............................................................................................
1
II.
Literature Review .....................................................................................
5
Sources of Power..........................................................................
Supervisory Reinforcement and Punishment Behavior................
Workplace Deviance ....................................................................
Hypotheses ...................................................................................
5
8
11
15
Methodology.............................................................................................
20
Participants ...................................................................................
Measures.......................................................................................
Procedure......................................................................................
20
21
25
Results ......................................................................................................
26
Testing Hypotheses ......................................................................
Discussion.....................................................................................
Limitations....................................................................................
31
40
47
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................
50
References ..................................................................................................................
53
III.
IV.
V.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
Subordinates Descriptive Data..................................................................
27
2.
Supervisors Descriptive Data....................................................................
28
3.
Perceived Supervisor Use of Sources of Power........................................
30
4.
Perceived Supervisor Use of Leader Reward and Punishment
Behavior ............................................................................................
30
5.
Self-Reported Employee Attitudes ...........................................................
31
6.
Self-Reported Employee Behaviors..........................................................
32
7.
Sources of Power and Contingent/Non-Contingent Punishment
and Reinforcement ............................................................................
34
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Contingent/Non-Contingent
Punishment and Reinforcement.........................................................
36
9.
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Sources of Power .............................
38
10.
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Demographic Data ...........................
40
8.
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1.
PAGE
Hypothesis ................................................................................................
v
16
ABSTRACT
LEADER SOURCES OF POWER, REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT,
AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS
by
Scott T. Wallace
Master of Arts in Psychology
Psychological Science Option
California State University, Chico
Spring 2010
Supervisors have five sources of power to lead subordinates, including legitimate, reward, referent, expert and coercive power. The use of each power source
depends on situational variables and individual characteristics of the supervisor and
subordinate. Supervisors can be more or less effective, depending on whether reinforcements and punishments utilized are contingent or not on the specified behavior.
Contingent consequences are consistently more effective. The present study explored
relationships between perceived supervisor bases of power, perceived supervisor reinforcement and punishment, and workplace deviance of subordinates. Ninety-two Sisco
Enterprises subordinates and 30 Sisco Enterprises supervisors participated by completed inventories
vi
assessing demographic information, Sources of Power measure, Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire, and the Employee Perceptions Survey.
Results supported the prediction that contingent reinforcement would be significantly correlated with all five sources of power (positively related to legitimate, reward, referent, and expert power, and negatively related to coercive power). Contingent
punishment was also positively related with legitimate and expert power. Relationships
with constructs related to job satisfaction and other employee attitudes and behaviors
were also observed. Contingent reinforcement was positively related to company contentment and negatively related to dissatisfaction, whereas non-contingent punishment
was positively related to dissatisfaction and negatively related to company contentment.
Coercive power was positively related to theft approval, intentions to quit, and overall
job dissatisfaction. Results also indicated that supervisors perceived themselves in a more
positive light as compared to subordinate perceptions. These findings extend previously
published work on bases of power and use of contingent reinforcement and punishment.
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
As the culture of business continues to evolve into a global market,
competition remains fierce with companies continuing to search for ways to improve
efficiency, increase profits, and achieve sustainability. An important component of any
business is the dynamic relationship that supervisors share with their subordinates. This
relationship can play an integral role in how effectively business operates. Standard
responsibilities of any supervisor, such as ensuring product quality, implementing
company policy, and controlling costs and profits are all directed through subordinates.
In order to manage responsibilities, supervisors shape subordinate behavior by
relying on multiple sources or methods of influence. A supervisor’s effectiveness often
depends on the way in which he communicates and lead others and which power sources
are relied upon to change or sustain subordinate behaviors (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994).
French and Raven (1959) proposed five potential sources of interpersonal power:
legitimate, coercive, reward, referent, and expert power. Supervisors rely on their power
to influence subordinate behavior. To a certain degree, everyone holds each source of
power, however a subordinate’s perception of the supervisor’s power ultimately
determines effectiveness (French & Raven, 1959).
A person who has the right, or the authority, to tell others what to do has
Legitimate Power, and employees are obligated to comply with orders. For example,
1
2
when a supervisor writes a staff schedule, they are influencing subordinates by utilizing
legitimate power, which is granted from their position. Someone who has Reward Power
influences others because they control valued rewards, which generates employee
compliance. A supervisor who grants an employee permission to leave early, or provides
them with a raise is using reward power. Coercive Power is in the hands of a person who
controls punishments and employees comply to avoid being punished. When supervisors
administer corrective action they are using coercive power to change subordinates’
behavior. With Referent Power, a supervisor has personal characteristics that appeal to
others. People comply because of admiration, a desire for approval, personal liking, or a
desire to be like the leader. When supervisors create an enjoyable work environment for
subordinates, while still leading by example, they are using referent power. Lastly, Expert
Power exists when someone has certain expertise or knowledge, and employees comply
because they believe in, can learn from, or can otherwise gain from that expertise (French
& Raven, 1959; Hinkin & Schreisheim, 1994).
In all supervisor-subordinate relationships, the five sources of power operate
to a certain degree. How much, depends on the individual characteristics of those on both
sides of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. More importantly, subordinates are
generally more responsive to some sources of power compared to others. For example,
the continued use of reward, referent, or expert power, tends to increase the attraction of
the subordinate to the supervisor, increasing the extent of influence and overall
effectiveness (French & Raven, 1959).
Another approach to understanding leadership behavior is to observe the way
supervisors punish and reward subordinates. One important variable includes whether or
3
not these leadership behaviors are being administered contingent on the targeted
behavior. When supervisors reward subordinates, based on their performance, they are
providing Contingent Reinforcement. Similarly, when supervisors punish subordinates
based on their performance they are administering Contingent Punishment. Supervisors
who reward subordinates on criteria that are not based on their performance are
exercising Non-contingent Reinforcement, and supervisors who punish subordinates on
criteria that are not based on their performance are using Non-contingent Punishment.
Both punishment and reinforcement are most effective when they are applied
contingent to the specific behavior intended to influence. Contingent reinforcement is
supported as the most effective method in changing or sustaining behavior, as it is
strongly associated with desirable affective and behavioral states such as job satisfaction
and performance (Williams & Podsakoff, 1988). In comparison, contingent punishment
has a small positive relationship with desirable affective and behavioral states. Noncontingent reinforcement has little effect on subordinate outcomes and no relationship
with desirable affective and behavioral states, and non-contingent punishment has a very
negative relationship with subordinate affect (Williams & Podsakoff, 1988).
As supervisors, there are multiple ways to influence subordinates into
complying with orders. Since some methods are more effective than others, it is critical
for researchers to identify the consequences and benefits of someone utilizing a particular
source of power and with the different types of reinforcement and punishment.
The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between leader sources
of power and contingent/non-contingent reinforcement and punishment. Hinkin and
Schreisheim (1994) previously established these relationships. I intended to replicate
4
their findings and extend the research to subordinate outcomes, as measured by their
attitudes and behaviors related to the workplace. It is important to understand which
sources of power most effective and to gauge the impact of contingency on behavior
change. Another valuable component of this research study included a real-world
business environment, which further added to the validity of the previous supporting
findings.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sources of Power
Over the last half century, the ideas French and Raven proposed in their
sources of social power research have lead to a better understanding of these concepts
and their contributions toward leadership. Legitimate, Coercive, and Reward power are
distinguished as sources of position power since they are all granted by a person’s role or
position. With these powers, the sources are attained externally, such as with rank and
position, or the ability to administer rewards or punishments. Referent and Expert power
are both uniquely different to the individual because they are distinguished as sources of
personal power. With these powers, the sources are attained internally, such as with the
ability to persuade people, or the possession of superior knowledge, judgment, or respect
(Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994).
Determining which type of power to use is often times dependent on
situational variables, such as current business needs, or individual characteristics of the
supervisor or subordinate. Multiple power sources can also operate at one time. For
example, a supervisor who lets an employee go home early because they worked hard is
using both legitimate and reward power. French and Raven (1959) suggest that effective
leadership is comprised of the balance use of personal power (Referent and Expert) and
position power (Legitimate, Coercive, and Reward).
5
6
There are consistencies that occur across the five sources of power. For
example, when the use of legitimate power is outside the range of what is warranted, the
effectiveness of use decreases, and so does the responsiveness of the follower to the
leader. With reward, referent, and expert power, use over time tends to increase the
attraction of the follower to the leader by leading to an independent system. An
independent system is advantageous because the associated region of behavior becomes
positively valanced, often spreading to other regions of the life space, and in effect
become stronger sources of reinforcement (French & Raven, 1959).
Comparatively less effective over time, coercive power tends to decrease the
attraction from follower to leader, continuing to be a dependent system. As a result, the
associated region of behavior becomes negatively valanced; often spreading to other
regions of the life space, and in effect lessening the strength of influence between the
individual and the reinforcement mediator (French & Raven, 1959).
Richardson, Swan, and Hutton (1995) examined how power distributors
respond to using certain powers differently than using others. In their findings, the
presence and use of reward power sources was positively related to distributor
satisfaction. Consistent with previous research, the relationship also consistent from the
other end of the spectrum with power distributors relying on coercive power sources also
reporting less satisfaction.
The sources of power have also been more recently differentiated according to
soft sources of power, such as reward, referent and expert power, and harsh sources of
power, such as legitimate and coercive power. Koslowsky, Schwarzwald, and Ashuri
(2001), gathered data from 232 nurses and 32 supervisors from 2 municipal hospitals and
7
asked questions about power, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. One
objective was to explore compliance differences between harsh and soft bases of power.
Compliance was argued to be a reflection of the quality of leadership. Previous research
supports this rationale suggesting that compliance, which is attributed to fear of
punishment or an expectation to fulfill contractual obligations, emphasizes subordination
rather than voluntary acceptance (Avolio & Bass, 1988).
The results of Koslowsky et al. suggested that job satisfaction is positively
related to compliance with soft sources, such as reward, referent, and expert power, while
also negatively related to compliance with harsh sources, such as legitimate and coercive
power. The leadership objectives attained through soft sources were more effective
because they were more task relevant and compliance was gained through personal rather
than organizational resources. These soft sources de-emphasize the positional advantage
of the supervisor and instead focus on the personal resources of the leader (2001).
Carson, Carson, and Roe (1993) completed a meta-analysis examining the
interrelationships and outcomes of the five social power bases developed and examined
by French and Raven (1959). Each power base was examined considering their
relatedness to satisfaction with one’s supervisor, job satisfaction, and job performance
results. The results of their research indicated that Legitimate power exerts little influence
on either satisfaction or performance. Reward power did not have a significant affect on
satisfaction, however it did have a positive influence on performance. Coercive power
appeared unrelated to performance but negatively affected satisfaction. Referent power
strongly influenced satisfaction and expert power positively influenced all three
outcomes. These results further support reliance on personal power bases (referent and
8
expert) to attain the most desirable outcomes. Other research suggests that leadership is
most effective when the behavior modifier is applied contingent to the behavior that is
intended to be sustained or changed.
Supervisory Reinforcement and
Punishment Behavior
Contingent reinforcement is strongly and positively associated with desirable
affective and behavioral states, while contingent punishment has a small positive
relationship or none at all. Non-contingent reinforcement also has a small positive or no
relationship with these dependent variables, and non-contingent punishment tends to be
very negatively related (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1986;
Williams & Podsakoff, 1988).
Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) explored these concepts further and identified
relationships between perceived leader reinforcement behavior and the perceived leader
power sources by identifying correlates of the two constructs. Two-samples, one intraand one inter-organizational were used in their study, with participants responding to
survey questionnaires. One sample included 375 full-time employees of a state-operated
hospital located in the southern United States. Another sample included 297 mid-level
managers employed at 100 financial institutions throughout the United States.
The researchers used the Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire
(LRPQ) to identify preferred leadership behaviors, and another measure developed by
Hinkin and Schriesheim’s (1989) was used assessing French and Raven’s (1959) bases of
social power. The researchers also collected demographic information and also tracked
satisfaction levels through The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).
9
Their findings showed perceived contingent reinforcement enhancing all five
bases of power, especially referent and expert power. As expected, contingent
reinforcement was also associated with positive subordinate affect. Perceived contingent
reinforcement was also negatively related to the perception of coercive power, a power
source that is generally viewed unfavorably by subordinates (Podsakoff & Schriesheim,
1986). Examples of contingent reinforcement within the LRPQ include supervisors
responding to subordinates doing well, by giving praise, administering a reward, or
recognizing improvements in their performance. These leadership reinforcement
behaviors were found to be more associated with the soft bases of power.
Perceived non-contingent punishment behavior showed a negative
relationship with referent power, therefore suggesting that supervisors should avoid the
use of this leadership behavior. Examples of non-contingent punishment within the
LRPQ include supervisors responding incorrectly by being undeservingly critical,
reprimanding, and displeased with subordinates.
Perceived non-contingent reward behavior showed no relationships with
perceived power sources, therefore suggesting the use of non-contingent reinforcement as
ineffective.
Previous research has supported that reinforcement and punishment appear to
be related to the sources of social power. Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) found a
relationship between contingent reinforcement and the enhancement of all five sources of
social power, and especially within referent and expert power. This is a valid association
since contingent reinforcement is strongly associated with desirable affective and
behavioral states, and so is referent and expert power. Also, with the enhancement of
10
power, a positive valance, or emotional value associated with a stimulus, develops which
increases the supervisor’s extent of influence over the subordinate (French & Raven,
1959).
On the other end of the spectrum, reliance on non-contingent punishment can
be very negatively related to desirable behavioral and affective states and can decrease
one’s power bases due to negative valances (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994). Similarly, the
reliance on coercive power tends to decrease the attraction from the subordinate to the
supervisor, often spreading negative valences onto other regions of the life space (French
& Raven 1959).
The findings of Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) have shown relationships
between perceived sources of power and perceived leader reward and punishment
behavior. While a supervisor’s effectiveness can be reliably assessed according to these
two constructs, equally as important should be the results of their leadership. I am
interested in exploring subordinate attitudes that develop and behaviors that occur in
response to the use of sources of power and supervisor reinforcement and punishment.
My objective is to replicate the findings of Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) and to extend
the research scope by including comparison of relationships across subordinate attitudes
and behaviors.
For example, if supervisors can lose their power due to negative valances
associated with the reliance of coercive power or by applying punishments noncontingently, then what types of behaviors and attitudes should we see from
subordinates? Perhaps, more unfavorable actions such as absenteeism, privilege abuse,
and theft are associated with coercive power and use of punishment. This information is
11
valuable for businesses because they struggle when employees are noncompliant with
policies or steal; common forms of stealing include discount violations, theft of product,
or grazing, which includes sampling or tasting of product (Hollinger & Clark, 1983).
Workplace Deviance
In 2004, when the National Food Service Security Council investigated 1,083
restaurants representing 10 companies, nearly half (44%) of the respondents reported
some form of theft from their employer (Langton & Hollinger, 2005). Other estimates
have suggested that between 1/4 and 1/2 of all employees steal to some degree from their
employers, with annual costs ranging from $6 billion to $200 billion (Diefendorff &
Mehta, 2007; Hollinger & Clark, 1983). Losses of this magnitude directly affect a
company’s bottom line and threaten their sustainability.
Workplace deviance is defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its
members, or both” (Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007, p.556). Workplace deviance can be very
costly as it includes theft, acts by employees against the property of the organization and
counter-productivity, the violation of the norms regulating acceptable levels of
production (Hollinger & Clark, 1983).
Employee theft can be debilitating for businesses, however counterproductivity is often a more pervasive form of rule breaking by employees, and one that
is more difficult to measure (Hollinger & Clark, 1983). Counterproductive behaviors
exhibited by employee’s can be a major contributing factor to business failures (Hollinger
& Clark, 1983; Kamp & Brooks, 1991).
12
Antecedents to employee deviance include negative interpersonal treatment,
and workplace experiences such as frustration, injustices, and threats to self (Bennett &
Robinson, as cited in Diefendorff & Mehta, 2007; Robinson & Greenberg, 1998).
Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) conducted survey research and showed how abusive
supervision is positively related to all types of workplace deviance. Abusive supervision
has been defined as the subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors
engage in the sustained display of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical
contact (Tepper, 2000). Abusive managers have also been described as supervisors who
callously and arbitrarily use their power and authority to mistreat employees (Ashforth,
1997). Perceived non-contingent punishment could be considered abusive supervision.
Data was collected from 427 individuals who were called for jury duty by a
county circuit court in Southeastern United States. The researchers did not address
anything related to the jury or court system, but instead asked the potential jurors
information about sensitive issues related to their regular job. The survey results
suggested that abusive supervision negatively affects employee attitudes. In reaction to
supervisor abuse, employees became less willing to engage in positive behaviors, such as
collaboration on tasks or recognition of issues, and more willing to engage in negative
behaviors, such as organizational deviance, supervisor-directed deviance, or reciprocating
negatively in response to others behaviors.
In other studies, abusive supervision has also been shown to be related to
lower levels of satisfaction, lower levels of commitment, altered perceptions of justice
that is fair, higher levels of turnover, and psychological distress (Mitchell & Ambrose,
2007).
13
Many researchers have looked at other variables related to deviant employee
attitudes and behaviors. Deviant employee attitudes, such as the intention to quit and job
dissatisfaction, have been widely used to predict employee compliance and productivity
behaviors (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001). Mangoine and Quinn (1975) identified
psychological predictors of employee counterproductivity. Their findings suggested that
tolerant attitudes toward violence and dissatisfaction significantly predicted on-the-job
damage by employees. Also, condoning attitudes towards violence or dishonesty and
dissatisfaction with co-workers reliably predicted on the job waste by employees.
Relationships between demographic variables, such as age and employee
deviance have also been observed. In an extensive research study, Hollinger and Clark
(1983) explored correlates of employee deviance across three industrial sectors; retail,
hospital, and manufacturing, and three metropolitan areas; Minneapolis-St. Paul, DallasFort Worth, and Cleveland. Self-report questionnaires were completed by 9,175
participants from their homes answering questions about their involvement in property
theft activities within the formal employment setting.
Hollinger and Clark reported negative relationships between employee
deviance and job satisfaction, age, education, continuous employment, and tenure. A few
of their findings in particular were strongly supported. In all three job sectors, employees
who were actively looking for a new job were significantly more likely to participate in
behaviors that were considered theft. A similar relationship was found for tenure. Again,
in all three sectors, employees were less likely to engage in theft behaviors the longer
they were at their occupation. As a whole, their findings suggest that employee deviance
is more likely to be found with employees who were less satisfied, younger in age, less
14
educated, less tenured, and also with those who had not maintained continuous
employment with their employer.
Bennett and Robinson (2003) identified three distinct research trends within
workplace deviance. One includes studies where deviance was conceptualized as a
reaction to experiences at work. Another focuses on examining deviance as a reflection of
employee’s personality, and a third investigates deviance as an adaptation to the social
context of work. The three research trends were conceptualized based on reviewing a
collection of reviewed research studies.
In the first research trend, job dissatisfaction was studied in terms of reactions
to experiences at work. Research has established job dissatisfaction as being related to
measures of deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2003) and also withdrawal behaviors (Hulin,
1991). Those who reported being more dissatisfied than others also reported higher
incident of both deviant and withdrawing behaviors. The subordinate’s reaction was
within the elements of the task at hand, or something contingent specifically of their job
performance. The effects of their own job dissatisfaction generally only interfere with
their own job performance and not others.
With the second research trend, evidence suggested that anger and hostility,
constructs within the individuals personality, were positively related to deviance and
counterproductive behaviors (Fox & Spector, 1999; Lee and Allen, 2002). This research
focus concerned detrimental or potentially destructive acts that hurt colleagues or
organizations. This knowledge is invaluable because many forms of counterproductive
deviance such as insubordination or corporate sabotage can be very damaging to the
infrastructure of a business system.
15
In the third research trend, Robinson and Greenberg’s (1998) findings
suggested that unfair interpersonal treatment is prominent in social influence on deviance.
Those who perceived themselves as being mistreated or disrespected, and were within a
work culture fostering deviance, were more inclined to be counter-productive, deviant,
and have more negative attitudes.
All three research trends are compelling and particularly relevant focus areas
for my current topic at hand. The preceding research findings support the notion that
leadership and supervisory behavior can have a tremendous impact on employee attitudes
such as satisfaction, which can then affect employee behaviors. It becomes essential to
evaluate the interactions, which occur between supervisor and subordinate, in order to
gain a better understanding of workplace deviance.
Hypotheses
The general purpose of this study is to explore relationships between
perceived supervisory reinforcement and punishment behavior, sources of power, and
employee attitudes and behaviors. Another objective is also to further understand sources
of social power further in terms of soft and harsh bases.
This study is also designed to follow up the work of Hinkin and Schrieshiem
(1994) by exploring relationships between perceived sources of power and perceived
leader reward and punishment behavior. The present study sought to extend their findings
to deviant employee attitudes and behaviors. Considering other relationships of employee
deviance, mentioned earlier (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001; Hollinger & Clark, 1983;
Mangoine & Quinn, 1975), additional demographic variables, such as age, sex,
16
education, job tenure, continuous employment, supervisory experience, work schedule,
and familiarity of workshop classes will also be included in the research design. Refer to
Figure 1 for a diagram of all the hypotheses.
Figure 1. Hypothesis.
Hypotheses #1: Supervisor Behavior and
Power Sources
In line with Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994), I predicted that relationships
would exist between perceived supervisor reward and punishment behaviors and
perceived power sources. I predicted positive relationships between contingent
reinforcement and legitimate, reward, referent, and expert sources of power, and a
17
negative relationship between contingent reinforcement and coercive sources of power.
Referent and expert power, the personal power bases, should show the strongest
correlations with contingent reinforcement. Carson et al.’s (1993) meta-analysis provides
supportive data linking referent power with positive satisfaction with one’s job and one’s
supervisor. Their research also showed relationships with the other personal power base,
expert power, with positive satisfaction with one’s job, one’s supervisor, and better
individual performance at their job. I predicted that perceived supervisory personal power
would be negatively correlated with non-contingent reinforcement.
Regarding management contingent punishment, I predicted positive
relationships between contingent punishment and legitimate sources of power as well as
expert sources of power. Non-contingent punishment was predicted to be negatively
correlated with legitimate, reward, referent, and expert sources of powers. Noncontingent punishment was predicted to be positively correlated with coercive sources of
power.
Hypothesis #2: Leader Behavior and
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
I predicted significant relationships between perceived supervisory reward and
punishment behavior and both employee attitudes and employee behaviors. For employee
attitudes, I predicted significant negative relationships between contingent reinforcement
and approval of theft, intent to quit, and job dissatisfaction, as well as a positive
relationship with being content with the company for which they work. With regard to
employee behaviors, I predicted negative relationships between contingent reinforcement
and absenteeism, substance abuse, and theft.
18
With regard to non-contingent punishment and employee attitudes, I predicted
positive relationships with approval of theft, intent to quit, and job dissatisfaction. I also
predicted a negative relationship between non-contingent punishment and company
content, a construct which considers an employee’s overall satisfaction with a company
and their policies. Considering employee behaviors, I also predicted positive relationships
between non-contingent punishment and absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse,
and theft. No predictions were made for both contingent punishment and non-contingent
reinforcement.
Hypothesis #3: Sources of Power and
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
Relationships should exist between power sources and employee attitudes.
With regard to reward, referent, and expert sources of power, I predicted negative
relationships between these power sources and theft approval, intent to quit, and
dissatisfaction. I predicted a positive relationship between the power sources and
company content. I predicted positive relationships between coercive power source and
theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction, as well as a negative relationship
between coercive power source and company content. No predictions were made for
legitimate power.
Relationships should also exist between power sources and employee
behaviors. For reward, referent, and expert sources of power, I predicted negative
relationships between these power sources and absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege
abuse, and theft. With regard to coercive power, I predicted positive relationships
19
between absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft. No predictions were
made for legitimate power.
Hypothesis #4: Demographic Data and
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
Relationships should exist between demographic variables and employee
attitudes. With regard to age, education, continuous employment, and tenure, I predicted
negative relationships between these and theft approval, intent to quit and dissatisfaction.
I predicted positive relationships between company content, age, education, tenure, and a
negative relationship with non-continuous employment. Relationships should also exist
between demographic variables and employee behaviors. With regard to age, education,
and tenure, I predicted negative relationships between these demographic variables and
absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft. Non-continuous employment
will also have a positive relationship with absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse,
and theft.
Hypothesis #5: Store Location and Employee
Attitudes and Behaviors
Relationships should exist between store location and employee attitudes and
behaviors. I predicted that pre-identified, high-deviance stores would report high levels of
theft approval, intent to quit, dissatisfaction, absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege
abuse, and theft, when compared to the pre-identified, low-deviance stores. The preidentified high-deviance stores will also report lower levels of company content
compared to the pre-identified low-deviance stores.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants consisted of 122 Sisco Enterprises employees from six Round
Table Pizza locations. Of the 122 participants, 92 were subordinates and 30 were
supervisors. Slightly more than half of the total sample (56.2%) was male and the mean
age was 23.45 years (SD = 8.45). The youngest participant was 16 years of age and the
oldest participant was 55 years of age with a variance of 71.48.
The level of education was fairly representative with 24.6% at a high school
level, 22.1% with a high school diploma or equivalent, 44.3% with some college
education, 6.6% with a college degree, and 1.6% were graduate students. The average
tenure was 32 months (SD = 49.37). The least tenured participant had been employed for
1 month, and the most tenured participant had been employed for 26 years, with a
variance of 2,437.14 months. The majority (73.8%) of employees at Sisco Enterprises
reported continuous employment.
Of Sisco Enterprises’ 23 store locations, three were pre-identified as highdeviance locations, based on recent prevalence of incidents. These three stores were
included in the target population at the request of Sisco Enterprises. Four locations were
eliminated from the selection procedure to avoid potential biases due to the researchers
20
21
familiarity of employees. Out of the remaining 16 locations, three target locations were
randomly selected and classified as low-deviance locations.
Measures
To assess the respondents’ perceptions of leader power, Hinkin and
Schriesheim’s (1989) measure of the five bases of social power was used. This measure
has four items for each of the five power bases (i.e., Legitimate, Coercive, Reward,
Referent, and Expert). Also, it uses a 5-point Likert response format (1 = Strongly agree,
5 = Strongly disagree). This measure has reported coefficient alpha reliabilities ranging
from.77-.90 based on three samples. One consisted of 251 upper-level undergraduates
enrolled in two different business courses at a large southern U.S. university. Another
sample consisted of 375 full-time employees of a large southern U.S. psychiatric hospital.
A third consisted of 220 part-time MBA students taking organizational behavior and
business policy classes at a medium-sized southern U.S. university (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 1989; Hinkin & Schreisheim, 1994). The supervisors evaluated their own
behavior while the subordinates evaluated their supervisor’s behavior. This measure is
most typically used as a self-report instrument of one’s behavior.
Content validity of the social power measure developed by Hinkin and
Scheisheim (1989) was established. Originally, 53 items were selected and retained for
further assessment. Two independent panels of judges (N = 37 and N = 42) were
presented with the construct definitions and were instructed to classify the randomly
ordered items into one or more power categories. The 42 items, which were assigned to
22
the proper a priori category more than 60% of the time by both panels, were retained,
thus supporting appropriate content validity for the measure.
Scores were calculated by averaging the responses to the 20 questions in
groups of five composite scales according to the sources of power: legitimate, reward,
coercive, referent, and expert. For example, one of the items measuring legitimate power
asked, “To what degree can your supervisors make you feel like you have tasks to
accomplish?” Measuring coercive power, another question asked, “To what degree can
your supervisor make work difficult?”
Perceived leader reward and punishment behavior was assessed using the 23item Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire (LRPQ), which was developed by
Podsakoff and Skov (1980). The instrument consists of four psychometrically sound
subscales (i.e., Contingent Reinforcement, Contingent Punishment, Non-contingent
Reinforcement, and Non-contingent punishment), with a 5-point Likert response format
(1 = Strongly agree, 5 = Strongly disagree). This measure has demonstrated the
appropriate internal consistency levels and reliabilities, all above .70 based on two
samples. One consisted of 375 full-time employees of a large southern hospital, and
another included 297 mid-level managers employed at over 100 US financial institutions
( Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1984, 1986; Schriesheim,
Hinkin, & Tetrault, 1991). The supervisors evaluated their own behavior while the
subordinates evaluated the perceptions they have of their supervisor’s behavior. This
measure is most typically used as a self-report of one’s behavior.
Scores for the Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire measure were
calculated by averaging the responses to the 23 questions in groups of four composite
23
scales according to reinforcement, punishment, contingency and non-contingency. For
example, one of the items measuring contingent reinforcement asked, “To what degree
can your supervisors give you positive feedback when you do well?” To measure
contingent punishment, another item asked, “To what degree can your supervisors let you
know if you perform poorly?”
The 39-item Employee Perceptions Survey (EPS) (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001)
was used to assess employee attitudes and employee behaviors. This measure was
divided into two parts (Attitudes and Behaviors) and consists of four subscales for each
section. The employee attitudes measure assessed using four subscales; Theft Approval,
Company Content, Intent to Quit, and Dissatisfaction. Employee behaviors included
Absenteeism, Substance Abuse, Privilege Abuse, and Theft. For the Attitudes section,
persons could respond to each statement on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly
agree) to 5(Strongly disagree), and for the behaviors section, responses could range from
1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
Five point Likert scales were used for both parts of the EPS (Attitudes and
Behaviors). The EPS has reported coefficient alpha reliabilities ranging from .62 - .88
based on a sample of 1,759 entry-level restaurant employees and 2,763 entry-level
supermarket and grocery store employees (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001).
Robinson and Bennett (1995) provided supportive evidence for the construct
validity of the EPS. They developed a list of 45 deviant workplace behaviors. Participants
then rated the similarity of these behaviors to each of the other 44 behaviors. The
researchers concluded that deviant workplace behaviors vary along two dimensions: 1) a
24
minor/serious dimension, and 2) a dimension that identifies behaviors that harm the
organization and those that harm the individual (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001).
Scores for the EPS measure were calculated by averaging the responses to the
20 questions from the attitudes section into groups of four composite scales, according to
theft approval, company content, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction. For example, to
measure theft approval an item suggests, “I could steal from my employer anytime,” and
asks for a response from 1 to 5 to indicate the strength of agreement. Other items are
weighted for more than one category. Question #9 states, “I will leave my current job in
the next three months.” This item measures both intent to quit and dissatisfaction.
The EPS behaviors section was also calculated by averaging the responses to
the 19 questions into groups of four composite scales according to absenteeism,
substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft. For example, to measure absenteeism, one
item suggests, “I have been absent without a legitimate excuse,” and asks for a response
from 1 to 5 to indicate the strength of agreement. Similar to the attitudes section, some
items also measure more than one construct. Item #11 suggests, “I have eaten food at
work without paying for it,” which is a measure of both privilege abuse and theft.
To analyze the data, the responses were reduced into composite variables
based on the intended subscales of each measure. The responses for perceived leader
power were reduced into five subscales: Legitimate power, Reward power, Coercive
power, Referent power, and Expert power. The Leader Reward and Punishment
Questionnaire was reduced according to four subscales; Contingent reward behavior
(CR), Contingent punishment behavior (CP), Non-contingent reward behavior (NCR),
and Non-contingent punishment behavior (NCP). The Employee Perceptions Survey:
25
Attitudes section was reduced into the four intended subscales: Theft approval, Company
Content, Intent to Quit, and Dissatisfaction. The Employee Perceptions Survey:
Behaviors section was also reduced into four intended subscales: Absenteeism, Substance
Abuse, Privilege Abuse, and Theft.
Procedure
The daily procedure for collecting data consisted of pulling voluntary
participants from the daily workforce to complete the measures. All data collected
occurred during open business hours and all participants individually completed the
measures with the proctor. Data collection occurred over the time span of 30 days.
After the informed consent process, the participants completed the measures
in the following order: Demographic Data, Power Sources, Leader Reward and
Punishment Questionnaire (LRPQ), and The Employee Perceptions Survey (EPS):
Attitudes (A) & Behaviors (B). Supervisors were asked to report on perceptions of their
own behaviors for the Sources of Power measure, the Leader Reward and Punishment
Questionnaire and for the Employee Perceptions Survey. Subordinates were asked to
report on perceptions of their supervisor’s behaviors for the Sources of Power measure
and the Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire. However, the subordinates in
slight difference did report on perceptions of their own attitudes and behaviors for the
Employee Perceptions Survey.
Following completion of the survey, the participants were debriefed and their
names were entered for a $50 Best Buy gift certificate drawing. The entire running
procedure was 30 minutes long.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Responses from supervisors and subordinates were compared on all measures.
There were several t-tests with each one looking at one dependent variable. The
independent variable was supervisor or subordinate, while the dependent variables
included the constructs measured according to their appropriate subscales. For the
sources of power measure, supervisory and subordinate differences in response to the
subscale questions were compared for legitimate, reward, coercive, referent, and expert
powers. For the Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire, supervisory and
subordinate differences in response to the subscale questions were compared for
contingent reinforcement, non-contingent reinforcement, contingent punishment, and
non-contingent punishment. For the Employee Perceptions Survey, supervisory and
subordinate differences in response to the subscale questions were compare for theft
approval, intent to quit, dissatisfaction, company content, absenteeism, theft, privilege
abuse, and substance abuse. Although the number of t-test comparisons is large (25), the
total number of significant findings exceeds chance levels for multiple tests. For
descriptive statistics behind each of the measures see Table 1 and Table 2.
One objective of the study was to determine how accurately supervisors view
their own leadership behaviors in terms of effectively motivating their subordinates.
Since the effectiveness of a power source is determined by the receiving agent it is
26
27
Table 1
Subordinates Descriptive Data
Subordinates (N = 92)
Mean (SD)
Minimum
Maximum
Legitimate Power
4.26 (SD = .61)
3
5
Reward Power
3.36 (SD = .77)
1.5
5
Coercive Power
3.07 (SD = 1.16)
1
5
Referent Power
4.30 (SD = .72)
2.5
5
Expert Power
4.21 (SD = .63)
2.5
5
Non-Contingent Reinforcement
2.45 (SD = .74)
1
4.5
Non-Contingent Punishment
2.17 (SD = .77)
1
4.25
Contingent Punishment
2.96 (SD = .48)
1.6
4
Contingent Reinforcement
3.44 (SD = .66)
1.6
4.5
Theft Approval
2.15 (SD = .84)
1
4.33
Company Content
3.37 (SD = .32)
2.44
4.22
Intent to Quit
2.92 (SD = .76)
1
4.67
Absenteeism
1.48 (SD = .45)
1
3.2
Substance Abuse
1.25 (SD = .47)
1
3.75
Privilege Abuse
1.59 (SD = .62)
1
3.83
Theft
1.32 (SD = .42)
1
3.6
Dissatisfaction
2.97 (SD = .62)
1.33
4.42
28
Table 2
Supervisors Descriptive Data
Supervisors (N = 29)
Mean (SD)
Minimum
Maximum
Legitimate Power
4.32 (SD = .57)
3
5
Reward Power
3.27 (SD = .82)
1
5
Coercive Power
3.23 (SD = 1.39)
1
5
Referent Power
4.63 (SD = .44)
3.5
5
Expert Power
4.58 (SD = .44)
3.75
5
Non-Contingent Reinforcement
2.47 (SD = .73)
1.25
4
Non-Contingent Punishment
1.68 (SD = .41)
1
2.5
Contingent Punishment
3.04 (SD = .54)
2
4
Contingent Reinforcement
3.97 (SD = .32)
3.1
4.5
Theft Approval
2.68 (SD = 1.03)
1
4.67
Company Content
3.41 (SD = .35)
2.67
4.11
Intent to Quit
2.78 (SD = .83)
1
4.17
Absenteeism
1.45 (SD = .40)
1
2.4
Substance Abuse
1.32 (SD = .52)
1
3
Privilege Abuse
1.84 (SD = .82)
1
3.67
Theft
1.49 (SD = .51)
1
3.1
Dissatisfaction
2.81 (SD = .68)
1.33
4.08
29
critical for supervisors to understand if their directives are being accurately understood by
the subordinates. Because of this, I decided to group the supervisor responses together
and the subordinate responses together, to compare perceptual differences. The two
groups showed notable differences in the Sources of Power measure and the Leader
Reward and Punishment Questionnaire.
Independent samples t-tests revealed that 30 supervisors self-reported
significantly more use of referent power than perceived by subordinates, t(82) = 2.98, p <
.005. The supervisors also self-reported significantly more expert power, than perceived
by subordinates, t(71) = 3.57, p < .001. There were no significant differences with regard
to legitimate power, reward power nor coercive power. Some of the participants chose
not to answer some of the survey questions; therefore, some of the data reports lower
participant levels than total participants. See Table 3 for the means and standard
deviations.
A second set of independent samples t-tests explored possible differences
between supervisors and subordinates regarding contingent reinforcement, contingent
punishment, non-contingent reinforcement, and non-contingent punishment.
An independent samples t-test revealed that supervisors self-reported
significantly less non-contingent punishment than perceived by subordinates, t(89) = 4.46, p < .001. The supervisors also self-reported significantly more contingent
reinforcement than subordinates perceived, t(120) = 2.81, p < .01. There were no
significant differences with regard to contingent punishment and non-contingent
reinforcement. Please refer to Table 4 for the means and standard deviations.
30
Table 3
Perceived Supervisor Use of Sources of Power
Power Source
Supervisors
N = 30
Subordinates
N = 92
Legitimate Power
4.32 (SD = .57)
4.26 (SD = .61)
Reward Power
3.27 (SD = .82)
3.36 (SD = .77)
Coercive Power
3.23 (SD = 1.39)
3.07 (SD = 1.16)
Referent Power*
4.63 (SD = .44)
4.31 (SD = .72)
Expert Power**
4.58 (SD = .44)
4.21 (SD = .63)
*p < .01 **p < .001
Table 4
Perceived Supervisor Use of Leader Reward and Punishment Behavior
Leader Behavior
Supervisors
N = 29
Subordinates
N = 91
Contingent Reinforcement*
3.97 (SD = .32)
3.44 (SD = .66)
Contingent Punishment
3.05 (SD = .54)
2.95 (SD = .48)
Non-contingent Reinforcement
2.47 (SD = .73)
2.45 (SD = .74)
Non-contingent Punishment**
1.68 (SD = .41)
2.17 (SD = .77)
*p < .01 **p < .001
31
A series of independent samples t-tests explored possible differences in
deviant attitudes and behavior between supervisors and subordinates. There were no
significant differences. Please refer to Tables 5 and 6 for means and standard deviations.
Table 5
Self-Reported Employee Attitudes
Employee Attitudes
Supervisors
N = 30
Subordinates
N = 92
Theft Approval
2.68 (SD = 1.03)
2.15 (SD = .84)
Intent to Quit
2.78 (SD = .83)
2.92 (SD = .76)
Dissatisfaction
2.81 (SD = .68)
2.97 (SD = .62)
Company Content
3.41 (SD = .35)
3.37 (SD = .32)
Testing Hypotheses
Hypothesis #1 predicted that relationships would exist between perceived
supervisor reward and punishment behaviors and perceived power sources. Positive
relationships should exist between contingent reinforcement and legitimate, reward,
referent, and expert sources of power, and a negative relationship between contingent
reinforcement and coercive sources of power. Referent and expert power also should
have the strongest correlations with contingent reinforcement. Referent and expert should
be negatively correlated with non-contingent reinforcement. With management
contingent punishment, positive relationships were predicted between contingent
32
Table 6
Self-Reported Employee Behaviors
Employee Behaviors
Supervisors
N = 29
Subordinates
N = 92
Absenteeism
1.45 (SD = .40)
1.48 (SD = .45)
Substance Abuse
1.32 (SD = .52)
1.25 (SD = .47)
Privilege Abuse
1.83 (SD = .82)
1.59 (SD = .62)
Theft
1.49 (SD = .51)
1.32 (SD = .42)
punishment and legitimate sources of power as well as expert sources of power. Noncontingent punishment was also predicted to be negatively correlated with legitimate,
reward, referent, and expert sources of powers. Non-contingent punishment was
predicted to be positively correlated with coercive sources of power.
Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships between
contingent reinforcement and each source of power. For this section, the subordinate data
was analyzed separate from the supervisor data because the subordinates provide the
most relevant responses in terms of perceived supervisory sources of power. For all the
hypotheses, bivariate correlations were used. Although the number of separate
correlations is large (25), the total number of significant findings exceeded chance levels
for multiple tests. Results indicated there were significant positive correlations between
contingent reinforcement and legitimate power, r(92) = .335, p < .005, reward power,
r(92) = .255, p < .005, referent power, r(92) = .367, p < .001, and expert power, r(92) =
33
.337, p < .005. A Pearson correlation analysis also indicated that there was a significant
negative correlation between contingent reinforcement and coercive power, r(92) = -.273,
p < .01. Subordinates who perceived supervisors as displaying contingent reinforcement
also perceived supervisors as using legitimate, reward, referent, and expert power, as well
as using less coercive power. Pearson product moment correlations explored possible
relationships between non-contingent reinforcement and the personal bases of power,
referent and expert power. There were no significant findings
Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships between
contingent punishment and each source of power; legitimate, coercive, reward, referent,
and expert. A significant positive correlation was found for contingent punishment and
both legitimate power, r(91) = .303, p < .005, and expert power, r(92) = .238, p < .01.
Subordinates who perceived supervisors as displaying contingent punishment also
perceived supervisors as using legitimate and expert power.
Contingent punishment was not significantly correlated with reward, coercive,
and referent power. Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships
between non-contingent punishment and bases of power. A significant correlation was
found for non-contingent punishment and legitimate power, r(92) = -.218, p < .05.
Subordinates who perceived supervisors as displaying non-contingent punishment also
perceived supervisors as not using legitimate power. Non-contingent punishment was not
significantly correlated with coercive, reward, referent, and expert powers. See Table 7
for supporting data.
Hypothesis 2 predicted significant relationships between perceived
supervisory reward and punishment behavior and both employee attitudes and employee
34
Table 7
Sources of Power and Contingent/Non-Contingent Punishment and Reinforcement
Legitimate Power
Contingent
Reinforcement
Contingent
Punishment
NonContingent
Reinforcement
NonContingent
Punishment
.335**
.303**
.055
-.218
Coercive Power
- .273**
.125
-.066
.186
Reward Power
.255*
-.041
.232
-.132
Referent Power
.367**
.123
.081
-.158
Expert Power
.337**
.238*
.038
-.156
**p < .001 *p < .01
behaviors. For employee attitudes, I predicted significant negative relationships between
contingent reinforcement and approval of theft, intent to quit, and job dissatisfaction, as
well as a positive relationship with being content with the company they work for. For
employee behaviors, I predicted negative relationships between contingent reinforcement
and absenteeism, substance abuse, and theft.
With regard to non-contingent punishment and employee attitudes, I predicted
positive relationships with approval of theft, intent to quit, and job dissatisfaction. I also
predicted a negative relationship between non-contingent punishment and company
content, which is a construct which considers an employee’s overall satisfaction with a
company an their policies. Considering employee behaviors, I also predicted positive
35
relationships between non-contingent punishment and absenteeism, substance abuse,
privilege abuse, and theft.
Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships between
contingent reinforcement and each employee attitude. Results indicated there was a
significant negative correlation between contingent reinforcement and dissatisfaction,
r(92) = -.325, p < .005. There was a significant positive correlation between contingent
reinforcement and contentment with the company, r(92) = .335, p < .001. Subordinates
who perceived supervisors as displaying contingent reinforcement, reported less
dissatisfaction and greater contentment with the company. There were no significant
correlations between contingent reinforcement and theft approval and intent to quit.
Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships between
non-contingent punishment and employee attitudes. Results indicated a significant
positive correlation between non-contingent punishment and dissatisfaction, r(92) = .314,
p < .005. Subordinates who perceived supervisors as displaying non-contingent
punishment, reported more dissatisfaction. There were no significant correlations
between non-contingent punishment and theft approval, intent to quit, and company
content.
Pearson product moment correlations explored possible relationships between
contingent reinforcement and each deviant employee behavior. There were no significant
correlations between perceived leader reinforcement behavior and deviant employee
behaviors. Pearson product moment correlations also explored possible relationships
between non-contingent punishment and each deviant employee behavior, which also
revealed no further significant correlations. See Table 8 for supporting data.
36
Table 8
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Contingent/Non-Contingent Punishment and
Reinforcement
Dissatisfaction
Company Content
Contingent
Reinforcement
Contingent
Punishment
NonContingent
Reinforcement
NonContingent
Punishment
-.325*
.163
.020
.335*
.208
.301*
-.246
.314*
Intent to Quit
-.202
.217
.066
.227
Theft Approval
-.134
-.043
.118
.186
Absenteeism
-.009
.132
.015
.055
Substance Abuse
.019
.074
.155
.094
Privilege Abuse
.022
.132
.131
.074
-.077
.117
.057
.103
Theft
**p < .001, *p < .01
Hypothesis 3 predicted relationships between power sources and employee
attitudes. With regard to reward, referent, and expert sources of power, I predicted
negative relationships between these power sources and theft approval, intent to quit, and
dissatisfaction. I predicted a positive relationship between the power sources and
company content. I predicted positive relationships between coercive power source and
theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction, as well as a negative relationship
between coercive power source and company content.
37
Relationships should also exist between power sources and employee
behaviors. For reward, referent, and expert sources of power, I predicted negative
relationships between these power sources and absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege
abuse, and theft. With regard to coercive power, I predicted positive relationships
between absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft.
Pearson product moment correlations were completed between bases of power
and attitudes. Results revealed significant correlations between coercive power and theft
approval, r(92) = .348, p < .005, intent to quit, r(92) = .444, p < .001, and dissatisfaction,
r(92) = .458, p < .001. Subordinates who reported and perceived supervisors as using
coercive power tended to be more approving of theft, have more intentions to quit, and be
more dissatisfied with their job. Pearson product moment correlations were also
conducted to analyze relationships between employee behaviors and power sources. No
significant correlations were found for relationships between referent, expert, legitimate
and reward power and the constructs measuring employee attitudes and behaviors. See
Table 9 for supporting data.
Hypothesis 4 predicted relationships between identified demographic
variables and employee attitudes. With regard to age, education, continuous employment,
and tenure, I predicted negative relationships between these and theft approval, intent to
quit and dissatisfaction. I predicted positive relationships between company content, age,
education, continuous employment, and tenure. Relationships were also predicted to exist
between demographic variables and employee behaviors. With regard to age, education,
continuous employment, and tenure, I predicted negative relationships between these
demographic variables and absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft.
38
Table 9
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Sources of Power
Legitimate Coercive
Power
Power
Dissatisfaction
Company Content
-.148
.263
.458**
.039
Reward
Power
Referent
Power
Expert
Power
-.187
-.268
-.144
.073
.173
.167
Intent to Quit
-.065
.444**
-.139
-.129
-.071
Theft Approval
-.176
.348*
-.121
-.140
-.096
Absenteeism
-.090
.130
-.023
-.112
.051
Substance Abuse
-.022
.195
.116
-.053
.081
Privilege Abuse
-.223
.147
-.131
-.171
-.115
Theft
-.221
.256
-.070
-.186
-.098
**p < .001 *p < .01
Supervisors and subordinates were analyzed as group in these analyses
because the content of the questions were related to each individual’s attitudes and
personal demographic information. This approach was considered appropriate because
these variables were not related to the interactions that occur between the supervisors and
subordinates in regard to sources of power or reinforcement and punishment behaviors.
Pearson product moment correlations revealed significant correlations for age
and intent to quit, r(121) = -.323, p < .001 and dissatisfaction, r(121) = -.344, p < .001.
Data from supervisors and subordinates suggested that older persons had less intent to
quit and less dissatisfaction.
39
Pearson product moment correlations also revealed significant correlations for
non-continuous employment and absenteeism, r(122) = .323, p < .001, privilege abuse,
r(122) = .236, p < .001, and theft, r(122) = .349, p < .001. Continuous employment was
associated with less absenteeism, privilege abuse, and theft. The predicted relationships
with education, continuous employment, and tenure did not result in significant findings
with theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction. Additionally, the predicted
relationships with age, education, and tenure did not result in significant findings with
absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft. Tenure, interestingly was
positively correlated with theft approval, opposite as predicted, r(122) = .301, p < .001.
Refer to Table 10 for further supporting data.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that relationships should exist between store location
and employee attitudes and behaviors. I predicted that pre-identified, high-deviance
stores would report higher levels of theft approval, intent to quit, dissatisfaction,
absenteeism, substance abuse, privilege abuse, and theft, when compared to the preidentified, low-deviance stores. The pre-identified high-deviance stores were also
predicted to report lower levels of company content compared to the pre-identified lowdeviance stores. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted with high/low deviance
stores as the independent variable and employee attitudes and behaviors as the dependent
variables. The results indicated no significant differences in employee attitudes and
deviant employee behaviors across store locations.
40
Table 10
Employee Attitudes/Behaviors and Demographic Data
Age
Gender
Dissatisfaction
-.344**
-.089
.080
-.204
.164
Company Content
-.171
.000
.142
-.091
.101
Intent to Quit
-.318**
.004
.055
-.197
.086
.140
-.086
.158
Absenteeism
-.012
-.027
Substance Abuse
-.077
Privilege Abuse
Theft
Theft Approval
Education
Tenure
NonContinuous
Employment
.301**
.082
-.088
.176
.323**
-.131
.006
.122
.195
-.198
-.004
.006
.097
.236**
-.062
-.059
.040
.173
.349**
**p < .001 *p < .01
Discussion
Supervisors can influence subordinate behavior by administering rewards and
punishments. To most effectively influence behavior, rewards and punishments should be
administered contingent to the specific behavior (Hinkin & Schreisheim, 1994).
Supervisors can also influence subordinate behavior through any of their five power
bases: Legitimate, Coercive, Reward, Referent, and Expert Power, (French & Raven,
1959).
41
The primary focus behind this study was to explore relationships between
employee attitudes and behaviors with respect to perceptions of supervisory use of
reinforcement, punishment, and sources of power. Relationships between perceived
supervisory reinforcement behavior and perceived supervisory sources of power were
also assessed, extending the research of Hinkin and Schrieshiem (1994). Support was
found for many of the hypothesized relationships.
Supervisor and Subordinate Perceptions
An important focus within this study was exploring the perceptions of both
subordinates and supervisors concerning supervisory use of reinforcement behavior and
bases of power. This is an important subject because perception is reality when
considering the interactions between this dyad. A supervisor’s use of power or their
issuance of a reward or punishment is only as effective as the subordinate’s perception.
Some common themes relative to this sample include supervisor’s
overestimating their effectiveness. Supervisors interestingly rated themselves
significantly higher in both of the personal-interaction based powers, referent and expert
power, when compared to their subordinate’s assessments. Supervisors also rated
themselves having used contingent reinforcement significantly more than the
subordinates had reported. These are all particularly interesting results because
differences in responses ultimately reflect how accurately the supervisors perceive their
own leadership behaviors. Since accuracy is “in the eyes of the beholder,” the responses
which, most relevantly reflect the power sources and reinforcement and punishment
behaviors, are the subordinate responses.
42
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor Behaviors and
Power Sources
Perceived Contingent Reward Behavior. Hinkin and Schreisheim (1994)
specifically examined relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisory
reinforcement behaviors and the five French and Raven (1959) bases of social power in
employees of a hospital and mid-level managers in 100 financial institutions. The present
study replicated their findings. Hypothesis 1 was primarily supported.
Consistent with Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994), the use of contingent rewards
had the greatest effect on enhancing the four most favorable power bases, legitimate,
reward, referent, and expert, while also reducing the least favorable power base, coercive
power. Perceived contingent reward behavior significantly correlated with legitimate
power, reward power, referent power, expert power, and negatively with coercive power.
The strongest effect was with one of the more positively perceived power sources,
referent power, which is developed based on personal interactions (Podsakoff &
Schriesheim, 1986).
These finding reflects the notion that referent power is a soft power that is
developed through personal interactions. Reliance on these soft powers is viewed more
favorably by subordinates, eliciting compliance in a positive form. These findings are
consistent with previous research suggesting contingent reinforcement behavior as being
related to the sources of power and most similarly related to soft bases of power, which
are also most associated with positive subordinate satisfaction (Williams & Podsakoff,
1988). The results are also consistent with Carson et al.’s (1993) meta-analysis examining
the interrelationships and outcomes of the five French and Raven (1959) social power
43
bases. When researching supervisor satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance,
the power sources developed through personal-interactions, referent and expert powers,
generated the most desirable outcomes.
Perceived Contingent Punishment Behavior. Consistent with the hypotheses, a
supervisor’s perceived contingent punishment behavior was positively associated with
both legitimate and expert sources of power. Punishment appears to enhance legitimate
power and expert power when it is contingent on behavior. This suggests that supervisors
should not resist punishing inappropriate subordinate behavior just as long as the
punishment is administered contingent upon the specific inappropriate behavior.
Perceived Non-contingent Punishment and Non-contingent Reinforcement
Behavior. The perceived used of non-contingent punishment and non-contingent
reinforcement did not have the predicted relationship with the power sources. Consistent
with past research (Hinkin & Schreisheim, 1994) noncontingent consequences were
predicted to be less connected with power bases, however, several predictions were made
and not supported by the data. Continued research on this topic might better elucidate the
relationship between non-contingent consequences and bases of power.
Hypothesis 2:Leader Behavior and Employee
Attitudes and Behaviors
Hypothesis 2 predicted relationships between supervisor reinforcement and
punishment behaviors with employee attitudes and behaviors. As predicted, contingent
reinforcement was both negatively correlated with employee reported dissatisfaction, and
positively related to employee reported contentment with the company. Essentially, when
44
supervisors use contingent reinforcement, employees are less dissatisfied and are more
content with the company they work for.
The results also revealed non-contingent punishment was positively correlated
with dissatisfaction, which supported the second hypothesis. Interestingly non-contingent
punishment was perceived significantly less by supervisors compared to subordinates
while contingent reinforcement was perceived significantly more by supervisors
compared to subordinates. This result suggests that supervisors must improve on the selfawareness of their own behavior. Having a skewed perspective of their effectiveness, as
leaders, will hinder the supervisor’s ability to reinforce and change subordinate behavior.
Some of the hypothesized predictions did not surface potentially because of a
self-report bias, most particularly with the Employee Perceptions Survey. Many of the
questions within the survey were controversial by nature, with the content including
topics of employee deviance. Some participants chose not to answer some of these
questions, and during data collection a few participants asked for further clarification of
their confidentiality rights.
Hypothesis 3: Sources of Power and
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
With respect to the sources of power, one of the most revealing findings from
this study includes strong positive correlations between the perceived supervisory use of
coercive power and subordinate theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction.
Previous research suggests coercive power to be associated with a decreased attraction
from the subordinate to the supervisor, often spreading negative valences onto other
regions of the life space (French & Raven, 1959).
45
Theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction are all negatively oriented
constructs, generally intended to be at a minimum. The use of coercive power should be
strongly discouraged and generally seen a last resort option. Results of the present study
support the negative connection between perceived coercive power and negative
employee attitudes and behaviors.
Some of the hypotheses from this section were not supported and it is believed
to again be primarily due to self-report biases for the Employee Perceptions Survey.
There was more support for the predicted hypotheses concerning the Attitudes section, as
opposed to the Behaviors section. This could suggest that participants were more
comfortable and honest when answering the Attitudes section of The Employee
Perceptions Survey, compared to the Behaviors section.
Hypothesis 4: Demographic Data and
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors
Other considerations for this project were demographic constructs such as age
and employment status. These items were analyzed across the subordinate attitudes and
behaviors. The findings from this sample showed age to be negatively correlated with
intent to quit and also dissatisfaction. This is consistent with previous research (Hollinger
& Clark, 1983), and fairly logical considering the natural progression of life including
acceptance, consistency, and more satisfaction.
The findings from this sample also supported Hollinger and Clark (1983),
showing non-continuous employees as more likely to be absent, abuse their privileges,
and steal, when compared to employees who have had continuous employment.
46
Employers should be cautious when considering bringing back previous employees.
Diligence in their process and careful consideration of ethics would be best.
Other relationships that were hypothesized were not supported. Based on
Hollinger and Clark’s (1983) research, education level was predicted to be related to
more positive employee attitudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction. No significant
relationships were found in either direction for education level, which likely is related the
relatively low education level of the demographic majority. Tenure at Sisco Enterprises
was also predicted to be related to the more positive constructs within employee attitudes
and behaviors and not related to the less favorable items. However, the results were
surprisingly supportive in the opposite direction with tenure positively correlated with
theft approval. This would be a valuable direction for future research.
Hypothesis 5: Store Location and Employee
Attitudes and Behaviors
In this hypothesis, relationships were expected between store location and
employee attitudes and behaviors. Pre-identified, high-deviance stores were expected to
report higher levels of theft approval, higher intentions to quit, more dissatisfaction, more
absenteeism, more substance and privilege abuse, and higher incidents of theft, when
compared to pre-identified, low-deviance stores.
The results of the study did not support any of these hypotheses indicating no
difference between the pre-identified high and low deviance stores relative to the
constructs measured. The Employee Perceptions Survey presented reporting accuracy
challenges, as previously stated. It is also possible that some of the deviant employees
47
were no longer working at the stores, compared to the original time the stores were preidentified as high-deviance.
Limitations
The design of the study included a homogeneous population of 122 Sisco
Enterprises employees from six Round Table Pizza locations. Of the 122 participants, 92
were subordinates and 30 were supervisors. Of their 23 store locations, three preidentified high-deviance locations were included in the target population along with three
randomly selected locations.
All participants completed the Sources of Power measure, the Leader Reward
and Punishment Questionnaire, the Employee Perceptions Survey, along with additional
demographic data. The participants completed the surveys in a 30-minute time period, in
a one-on-one basis with the proctor, while on the job. This method strengthened the
external validity of the study, however a response bias was also a strong possibility.
Given the nature of the topic, a homogeneous population became necessary
with respect to the context in which I measured perceived sources of power, perceived
leader reward and punishment behavior, and employee attitudes and behaviors. This was
important so that each participant could be measured consistently across the same scale.
One of the strengths of this study includes having achieved this goal. All participants
responded to the survey questions from the perspective and experience of working for
their current employer, Sisco Enterprises. They also responded to these questions while at
the workplace, thus further strengthening the results of my study with a real-world
environment.
48
While a homogeneous population was achieved, this procedure does however
introduce potential limitations to the study. The participants represent only one
organization, Sisco Enterprises These findings should easily generalize to other customer
service type environments but they may not be valid for other comparisons. The design of
the study still attains sound internal consistency, based on the measures used in previous
studies, the generalizability of the study remains weak based on the sample population
being from one employer in one demographic.
Many of the research findings were compelling, yet did not meet the
minimum qualifications determining statistical significance. Many different variables can
contribute error into any study, which merits the appropriateness of exploring these
relationships again in future studies.
While coercive power did not show the specific relationships as expected with
some of the more negative employee attitudes and behaviors, such as theft, absenteeism,
or privilege abuse, I believe this is a relationship worth exploring further. I believe this
because one of the weaknesses of my study includes the potential for incorrect responses
specifically with the deviance measure, via self-report biases or dishonest responses. The
Employee Perceptions Survey asked many questions that were controversial by nature
and could be viewing as self-incriminating. Due to this, self-report biases are likely a
source of error within some of the results. I would suggest for further researchers to
consider either using a different measure for assessing deviance or developing an
alternative, sound procedure that is even more assuring that responses remain anonymous
and non-reciprocated.
49
Understanding deviance behaviors is important. It is recommended that future
researchers include a more appropriate method of gathering deviance information. The
current instrument was effective in gathering information relevant to the study, however
there was a large potential for self-report biases and dishonest responses based on fears of
retaliation from one’s employer. I also suggest modifying the environment or context in
which the questions are asked. While asking responses while employees were on the
clock provided strong validity, it may have introduced error into some of the measures
and damaged reliability, most particularly the more controversial measure, The Employee
Perceptions Survey.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study contribute further towards a better understanding of
the relationships that exist between supervisors and subordinates. The quality of this dyad
can have a major impact on the success of a business. One of the objectives behind this
study was to explore workplace deviance in relation to supervisors and subordinates. The
concept follows Robinson and Greenberg’s (1998) findings, which suggest that unfair
interpersonal treatment is prominent in social influence on deviance. One of the findings
in the current study suggested that perceived use of coercive power was positively
correlated with theft approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction.
The results of the study replicated Hinkin and Schriesheim’s (1994) findings
and showed perceived supervisory reinforcement and punishment to be clearly related to
perceived sources of power, and when used effectively and appropriately, perceived
power is enhanced. Contingent reinforcement shared a positive relationship with
legitimate power, reward power, referent power, and expert power, including a negative
relationship with coercive power. Contingent punishment also shared a positive
relationship with legitimate power and expert power.
Reinforcement is a form of reward within itself and when used appropriately it
merits legitimacy and respect, as reflected in referent and expert power. It is no surprise
50
51
that as predicted, the personal powers, referent and expert power, showed the strongest
correlations with contingent reinforcement. There were no significant findings for noncontingent punishment and non-contingent reinforcement.
While the predicted relationships were found between supervisors and
subordinates in regard to sources of power and reinforcement and punishment behaviors,
the predicted relationships with employee deviance were not as clearly supported. Many
of the predicted relationships with employee attitudes were supported, however none of
the predicted relationships with employee behaviors were backed by the data.
As for employee attitudes, the perceived use of contingent reinforcement
appears to be consistent with employees who are satisfied and content with the company.
The perceived use of non-contingent punishment appears to be consistent with employees
who are dissatisfied and not content with the company. The perceived use of coercive
power also had strong relationships with undesirable employee attitudes, including theft
approval, intent to quit, and dissatisfaction.
I would encourage business owners to businesses utilize the more responsive
forms of social power and encourage their supervisors to use their reward, referent, and
expert powers. It is also important to focus on having reinforcements and punishments
contingent on the specific behavior. Both increasing the extent of a supervisor’s influence
and these leadership behaviors are associated with higher job satisfaction and better
performance (French & Raven, 1959; Williams & Podsakoff, 1988).
Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) appropriately tie the concepts together by
suggesting, “it would be beneficial for managers to take advantage of the opportunities to
52
provide contingent rewards, to avoid the use of non-contingent punishment, and to not be
hesitant to use contingent punishment” (p. 791).
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of
antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
14(2), 126-140.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational
contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
22, 1-70.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond.
In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. H. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Emerging leadership vistas (pp.29-50). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace
deviance research. In J. M. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The
state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bolin, A., & Heatherly, L. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: The relationship
between bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology,
15(3), 405-418.
Carson, P. P, Carson, K. D., & Roe, W. (1993). Social power bases: A meta-analytic
examination of interrelationships and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23(14), 1150-1169.
54
55
Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(4), 967-977.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915-931.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and Application of New Scales
to Measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 4, 561-567.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). An examination of subordinate-perceived
relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and leader
bases of power. Human Relations, 47(7), 779-791.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445-505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Kamp, J., & Brooks, P. (1991). Perceived organizational climate and employee
counterproductivity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 447-458.
56
Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. (2001). On the relationship between
subordinates compliance to power sources and organizational attitudes.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 455-476.
Langton, L., & Hollinger, R. C. (2005). An empirical test of the relationship between
employee theft and low self-control. Deviant Behavior, 27(5), 537-565.
Lee, K., & Allen, M. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 131-142.
Mangoine, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior,
and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 114-116.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational
deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1984). Leader reward and punishment behavior:
A methodological and substantive review. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate
School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1986). Leader reward and punishment behavior:
A conceptual, methodological, and integrative review. Bloomington, IN:
Graduate School of Business, Indiana University.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Skov, R. (1980). Leader reward and punishment behavior scales.
Unpublished research, Graduate School of Business, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
57
Richardson, L. D., Swan, J. E., & Hutton, J. D. (1995). The effects of the presence and
use of channel power sources on distributor satisfaction. The International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 5(2), 185-201.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journals, 38(2),
555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions,
determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Trends in
Organizational Behavior, 5, 1-30.
Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Tetrault, L. A. (1991). The discriminant validity of
the leader reward and punishment questionnaire (LRPQ) and satisfaction with
supervision: A two-sample, factor analytic investigation. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 64(2), 159-166.
Tepper, D. T. (2000). Responses to Cohen’s (2000) case study. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 150-152.
Williams, M. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1988). A meta-analysis of attitudinal and
behavioral correlates of leader reward and punishment behaviors. Southern
Management Association Proceedings, 161-163.