Emerson's (1962, 1972ab) power-dependence model has had a profound impact on the manner in which power can be viewed in relationships. However, there has been little empirical work examining Emerson's approach, and even less focused at the individual level. The present study takes a psychological approach to Emerson's theory of power and dependency. The study has two objectives. First, it examines the existence and distribution of dominant power-balancing styles among Indian managers. Second, it begins to validate an approach to operationalizing Emerson's conceptualization ofpower and dependency at the individual level. The study is based on a managerial sample from a cross-section of Indian industries. Findings provide partial support for the predicted relationships among power-balancing styles and other psychological variables. It also provides some support for the construct validity of the instrument used to measure power-balancing style.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BLAU, P.Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley, 1964.
2.
COTTON, C. C.Power balancing styles and some of their correlates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 307-319.
3.
CRONBACH, L.Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed). New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
4.
DAS, G. S. Balance of power and implications for managerial behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta, 1980.
5.
DAS, G. S.Power-balance style: An approach to measurement. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 1982, 18, 263-271.
6.
DAVIS, J. W.Work involvement of executives. Personnel Administration, 1966, 29.
7.
DUBIN, R.Industrial workers' world: A study of the central life interests of industrial workers. Social Problems, 1956, 3, 131-142.
8.
EMERSON, R. M.Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 31-41.
9.
EMERSON, R. M.Exchange theory; Part 1: A psychological basis for social exchange. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M., and Anderson, B. (Eds.), Sociological theories in process (Vol. II). Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1972. (a)
10.
EMERSON, R. M.Exchange theory: Part 2: Exchange relations and network structures. In Berger, J.Zelditch, M., and Anderson, B. (Eds.), Sociological theories in process (Vol. II). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. (b)
11.
FIEDLER, F. E.A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
12.
FREEDMAN, S. C.Threats, promises and coalitions: A study of compliance and retaliation in a simulated Al setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1981, 11, 114-136.
13.
FRENCH, J. R. P., & RAVEN, B. H.The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.,) Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1959.
14.
HAIR, J. F., JR., ANDERSON, R. E., TATHAM, R. L., & GRABLOWSKY, B. J.Multivariate data analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PPC Books, 1979.
15.
HESKETT, J. L., STERN, L. W., & BEIER, F. K.Bases and uses of power in interal relations. Boston: Harvard Business School Monographs, 1970.
16.
HICKSON, D. J., HININGS, C. R., LEE, C. A., SCHNECK, R. H., & PENNINGS, J. M.A strategic contingencies theory of interorganisational powerAdministrative Sciiences Quarterly, 1971, 16, 216-229.
17.
HOUSE, R. J., & DESSLER, G.The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post-hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt, and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974.
18.
KAHN, R. L., WOLFE, D. M., QUINN, R. P., SNOEK, J. D., & ROSENTHAL, P. A.Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley, 1964.
19.
KERLINGER, F. N.Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.
20.
LODAHL, T., & KEJNER, M.The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 24-33.
21.
MAINIERO, L. A.Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment-strategy usage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31, 633-653.
22.
MANZ, C. C., & GIOIA, D. A.The interrelationship of power and control. Human Relations, 1983, 36, 459-476.
23.
MECHANIC, D.Sources of power of lower participants in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962, 7, 349-364.
24.
NUNNALLY, J. C.Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.
25.
OSBORN, R. N., & HUNT, J. G.An adoptive-reactive theory of leadership: The role of macro variables in leadership research. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson, Leadership frontiers. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1976.
26.
PFEFFER, J.Power in organizations. Marshfield, Massachusetts: Pitman Publishing Co., 1981.
27.
PFEFFER, J., & SALANCIK, G. R.Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis. Human Relations, 1975, 28.
28.
SIEGEL, S.Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
29.
STINSON, J. E., & JOHNSON, T. W.The path-goal theory of leadership: A partial test and suggested refinement. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 18, 242-252.
30.
THOMPSON, J. D.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
31.
THOMPSON, J. D., & VAN HOUTEN, D. R.The behavioral sciences: an interpretation. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1970.
32.
VANDENPUT, M. A. E.Bases of authority from which managers operate. In Tilley, K. W. (Ed.), Leadership and management appraisal. London: The English University Press, 1974.
33.
WOODWARD, J.Management and technology. London: Her Majesty's Printing Press, 1958.
