Sex Roles

, Volume 13, Issue 11–12, pp 625–639 | Cite as

Sex and situational influences on the use of power: A follow-up study

  • Christine S. Koberg


This study, which is patterned after an earlier study of male students by Goodstadt and Kipnis [1970], investigated the influence of sex and self-confidence of the subject and kind of worker problem encountered (motivation vs. ability) on the use of supervisory powers by male and female students in a simulated production situation. Contrary to previous research and sex-role stereotypes, males and females were not found to differ in power use or in self-ratings of self-confidence. Neither sex of the subject nor level of self-confidence was found to influence choice of power. Rather, type of worker problem influenced the use of power, with ability problems evoking the use of expert and coercive powers and motivation problems evoking the use of reward powers.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bedeian, G., Armenakis, A. A., & Kemp, B. W. Relation of sex to perceived legitimacy of organizational influence. Journal of Psychology, 1976, 94, 93–99.Google Scholar
  2. Brenner, O. C., & Vinacke, W. E. Accommodative and exploitative behavior of males versus females and managers versus nonmanagers as measured by the Test of Strategy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1979, 42(3), 289–293.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. K. The woman manager in the United States. Washington D.C.: Business and Professional Women's Foundation, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. Chusmir, L. H. Job commitment and the organizational women. Academy of Management Review, 1982, 7(October), 595–602.Google Scholar
  5. Colwill, N. L. The new partnership: Women and men in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, H., & Mendelson, J. L. Androgynous management: Key to social responsibility. S. A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 1977, 42, 25–35.Google Scholar
  7. Emerson, R. M. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 31–41.Google Scholar
  8. Epstein, C. F. Women's attitudes toward other women — myths and their consequences. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1980, 34(3), 322–333.Google Scholar
  9. French, J., & Raven, B. H. The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Goodstadt, B., & Kipnis, O. Situational influences on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 201–207.Google Scholar
  11. Goodstein, L. D. Getting your way: A training activity in understanding power and influence. Group and Organization Studies, 1981, 6(3), 283–290.Google Scholar
  12. Harlan, A., & Weiss, C. L. Sex differences in factors affecting managerial career advancement. In P. A. Wallace (Ed.), Women in the workplace. Boston: Auburn House, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. Instone, D., Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. Gender, self-confidence, and social influence strategies: An organization simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 322–333.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, P. Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32(3), 99–109.Google Scholar
  15. Kanter, R. M. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Kanter, R. M. Structuring the inside: The impact of organizations on sex differences. In B. L. Forisha & B. H. Goldman (Eds.), Outside on the inside. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Kipnis, D. Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 33–41.Google Scholar
  18. Kotter, J. P. Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, July–August 1977, 125–136.Google Scholar
  19. Leventhal, G. S. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr., & Fry W. R. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. Mechanic, D. Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962, 7, 349–364.Google Scholar
  22. Miner, J. B. Motivational potential for upgrading among minority and female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62(6), 691–697.Google Scholar
  23. Osborn, R. N., & Vicars, W. M. Sex stereotypes: An artifact in reader behavior and subordinate satisfaction analysis? Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 439–449.Google Scholar
  24. Sargent, G. Training men and women for androgynous behaviors in organization. Group and Organization Studies, 1981, 6(3), 302–311.Google Scholar
  25. Schein, V. E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57(2), 95–100.Google Scholar
  26. Schein, V. E. Relationships between sex-role stereotype in requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 340–344.Google Scholar
  27. Schuler, R. S. Male and female routes to managerial success. Personnel Administrator, February 1979, 35–44.Google Scholar
  28. Skrabanek, R. L. The growing power of women. American Demographics, September 1980, 23–26.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, H. L., & Grenier, M. Sources of organizational power for women: Overcoming structural obstacles. Sex Roles, 1982, 8, 733–746.Google Scholar
  30. Van Wagner, K., & Swanson, C. From Machiavelli to Ms: Differences in male-female power styles. Public Administration Review, 1979, 39(1), 66–72.Google Scholar
  31. White, K. S., & Rowberry, S. H. Management is a family affair. Atlanta Economic Review, 1977, 27, 40–47.Google Scholar
  32. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
  33. Winkler, R. L., & Hays, W. L. Statistics: Probability, inference, and decision. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine S. Koberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Business AdministrationUniversity of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations