The Effects of Subjective Power Experience on Leadership Variables and Team Performance - Literature review Example

Empirical articles Program: Supervisor: April 9, Empirical articles Introduction The of each study The following are the article’s titles, identified as article 1, article 2, and article 3. Title of article 1: When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance Title of article 2: Leader behavior and subordinate motivation Title of article 3: Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation The author of each study The following are the list of authors for the respective articles. Article 1: Tost, L., Gino, F. and Larrick, R. Article 2: Klimoski, R. and Hayes, N. Article 3: Schulh, S., Bark, H., Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P. and Dick, R. Comparison of the purposes of each study The purpose of Tost, Gino, and Larrick was to investigate effects of subjective power on leadership teams’ performance. The article’s title, abstract, and hypotheses shows this (Tost, Gino, and Larrick, 2013). Klimoski and Hayes however aimed at investigating effects of managers’ behavior on employees’ motivations variables. Tost, Gino, and Larrick’s purpose is therefore narrow in its dependent and independent variables, unlike Klimoski and Hayes’ purpose (1980). Schuh et al. (2014) however aimed at investigating difference in degree of power motivation between men and women and possible effects of the difference in the parity by gender in leadership positions. While it focuses on leadership power, like the other articles, its other variables are gender representation in leadership and role of power difference by gender. Comparison of the authors statements of why the study is important Tost, Gino, and Larrick identify significance of their study to management of leadership power experience to minimize adverse impacts, a scope that is relevant to managers, directors, and researchers. Klimoski and Hayes also identify significance of their study to managers for improved performance and for training and establishing programs. Schuh et al also note significance their study to top managers for theory development and actual measures into gender empowerment and motivation. Research Questions The researchers do not offer explicit research questions for their studies but inferences can be made from the studies’ titles and hypotheses. The implied research question for Tost, Gino and Larrick’s study is as follows. What is the effects of subjective power experience on leadership variables and team performance? Implied research question for Klimoski and Hayes is however as follows. What are the effects of managerial behavior on subordinates’ motivation variables? Research hypotheses in the study by Schuh et al. infer the following research questions. Is power motivation lower for women than for men? Does a positive correlation exist between power motivation and leadership role occupancy? Does power motivation mediate role of gender on leadership occupancy? As the purposes of the studies indicate, the inferred research questions focus on manager’s power. Inferred research questions for Tost, Gino and Larrick, in addition, focus on leadership potentials and performance of subordinates. Klimoski and Haye’s inferred research question also focuses on subordinates’ potentials through motivation variables. The implied questions for the study by Schuh et al however focuses on leaders, and not subordinates, with interest on effects of gender on power motivation and leadership position by gender. Sample Populations Population for the study by Tost, Gino, and Larrick was diverse and replication of the study explains this. The first sample is a group of university students, both undergraduate students and MBA students and a sample size of 106, from a university in southeastern United States, was used. The second group of participants for the study was general residents of a city in the northern section of the United States, consisting of 144 participants. Sample in the study by Klimoski and Hayes consisted of 2 groups, 231 editors-subordinates, and 15 assistant managers. Even though the sample was recruited from the same organization, it identifies a stratification that also exist in the study by Tost, Gino, and Larrick (Denise and Beck, 2013; Gravetter and Forzano, 2011). The stratification in Tost, Gino, and Larrick’s study was however more geographical while that in the study by was based on professional positions and related more with the study’s variables. The study by Schuh et al also considered categories of participants, for its different tests. Participants from the first two sample segments were students from a German university while the third segment was from a general population while the fourth segment consisted of employees. Stratification is therefore a common feature, though different bases were used. Results Major elements of Tost, Gino, and Larrick’s results of first study are manipulation, degree of talking, openness among leaders, team output, and mediation evaluations. Results show that leaders in high power positions are more influential, talk more, and have lower perception of openness as compared to leaders in low power positions. The leaders in high power position however elicit lower team performance than those in neutral power position do and amount of time taken while talking, authority openness, and leaders’ subjective power adversely affects team performance. Replication affirmed significance of power on manipulation, amount of talking, and team performance. Replication also affirmed effects of leaders’ subjective power on talking, manipulation, and team performance to validate the results (Tost, Gino, and Larrick’s, 2013). Klimoski and Hayes’ results also reports effectiveness in managers’ behavior on considered factors. The factors are effort expenditure, contingencies, and aspects of job satisfaction among employees. even though the results lacked replication for establishing validity, findings coresonds with that of Tost, Gino, and Larrick’s study for effectiveness of leaders’ behavior (Klimoski and Hayes, 1980). Results by Schuh et al. also establish validity because of consisteny in findings from each replication. The researchers ascertained claim in their hypotheses that power level differ between men and women in which women report have lower power level. In addition, results show that power level disparity determines composition of top leadership occupancy by gender (Schuh et al., 2014). A common elements of results from the three studies is therefore significance of leadership positions in organization in terms of perceived power. Validity and reliability are also evidence in the results because of the replications in studies and the significantly large sample sizes that the researchers used. The quantitative nature of the studies also supports validity. Conclusion Tost, Gino, and Larrick are explicit in their discussion of limitation to their study and they identify three limitations. The first limitation relates to research design and they associate it with a threat to external validity. Threat to generalizability and failure to record conversation among teams members are other identified limitations to the study. Klimoski and Hayes however failed to discuss limitation to their study even though they indicated lack knowledge, among managers, on subordinates towards their efforts on work. Schuh et al. however explains limitations to their study these include small sample size in their study two and the type of measure in study three (2014). These develop insights in interpretation of the study’s results. Tost, Gino, and Larrick (2013) do not offer a formal conclusion to their study but an informal one under the study’s limitations and recommendations. The conclusion however identifies the major theme and results of the study. Klimoski and Hayes (1980) however failed to include a conclusion to their study while Schuh et al. (2014) offers a formal conclusion to their study in which they re-state the study’s theme and implication. Tost, Gino, and Larrick (2013) offer a general research implication of their study, having contributed to existing literature. According to their discussion on implication, further research is necessary on their explored variables and other associated concepts. Klimoski and Hayes and Schuh et al. offer no recommendations for further research. Limitations in the study by Schuh et al. however indicate implications for further research and this include possible replication of study two through a larger sample size and application of research design that are more suitable. References Denise, P. and Beck, C. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Gravetter, F. and Forzano, L. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Klimoski, R. and Hayes, N. Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personal Psychology 33, 543-555. Schuh, S. et al. (2014). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics 120(3), 636-379. Tost, L., Gino, F. and Larrick, R. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal 56(5), 1465-1486. Read More