Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 385–402 | Cite as

Usage of and Compliance with Power Tactics in Routine Versus Nonroutine Work Settings

  • Joseph Schwarzwald
  • Meni Koslowsky
  • Tali Ochana-Levin


This study examines situational determinants of power usage and compliance derived from the Interpersonal Power Interaction Model. Organizations where routine tasks predominate were compared with those where complex tasks prevail. Samples of workers (N = 194) and supervisors (N = 100) from four companies representing routine tasks and complex ones completed three versions of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (Raven, Schwarzwald & Koslowsky, 1998). Results indicated that in settings where routine tasks predominate usage of and compliance with harsh power tactics was greater than in complex ones. Yet, soft tactics were not related to task complexity. It was also found that rank and tactics interacted. Regardless of settings, supervisors as compared to subordinates reported more frequent usage of soft tactics and less frequent usage of harsh ones. The discussion suggests a mechanism for understanding these patterns.

compliance social power interpersonal influence organizational structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguinis, H. & Adams, S. K. R. (1998). Social-role versus structural models of gender and influence used in organizations: A strong inference approach. Group and Organization Management, 23, 414-446.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of type A behavior pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 281-297.Google Scholar
  3. Bui, K. V., Raven, B. H., & Schwarzwald, J. (1994). Interpersonal satisfaction and influence tactics in close heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 429-442.Google Scholar
  4. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.Google Scholar
  5. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.Google Scholar
  6. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A sex-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145-158.Google Scholar
  8. Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.Google Scholar
  9. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638-652.Google Scholar
  11. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-629.Google Scholar
  12. 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, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  13. Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Organization and Administrative Science, 61, 143-165.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, E. F. (1975). The managerial decision making process. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99-110.Google Scholar
  16. Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1983). An influence perspective on bargaining within organizations. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiating in organizations (pp. 303-319). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Koslowsky, M. & Schwarzwald, J. (1993). The use of power tactics to gain compliance: Testing aspects of Raven's (1988) theory in conflictual situations. Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 135-144.Google Scholar
  19. Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2001). The power interaction model: Theory, methodology, and empirical applications. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.) The Use and Abuse of Power (pp. 195-214). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J. & Ashuri, S. (2001). On the Relationship between Subordinates' compliance to Power Sources and Organizational Attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 555-476.Google Scholar
  21. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Mintzberg, H. (1983a). Power in and around organizations: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Mintzberg, H. (1983b). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Podsakoff, P. M. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven's bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387-411.Google Scholar
  25. Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.). Current studies in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.Google Scholar
  27. Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (Whole no. 4): 227-251.Google Scholar
  28. Raven, B. H. (1999). Influence, power, religion, and the mechanisms of social control. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 161-186.Google Scholar
  29. Raven, B. F., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. G. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict (pp. 69-109). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 307-322.Google Scholar
  31. Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1999). Gender, self-esteem, and focus of interest in the use of power strategies by adolescents in conflict situations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 15-32.Google Scholar
  32. Tedeschi, J. T. (1990). Self-presentation and social influence: An interactionist prospective. In M. J. Cody and M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 301-323). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  33. Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R, & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist. 26, 685-695.Google Scholar
  34. Vecchio, R. P., & Sussmann, M. (1989). Preferences for forms of supervisory social influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 135-143.Google Scholar
  35. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Schwarzwald
    • 1
  • Meni Koslowsky
    • 2
  • Tali Ochana-Levin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  2. 2.Bar Ilan UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations