23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx

23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
HDM Modeling as a Tool to Assist Management With
Employee Motivation: The Case of Silicon Forest
Georgina Harell, Portland State University
Tugrul U. Daim, Portland State University
the various options more than once, and put a number to the
importance of one option over another.
This study shows a pathway to employee motivation more than
the traditional HDM approach which has the end result being
one
choice. The group survey results provide a better understanding
of
the differences and the specific values of the groups and smaller
sub-groups. For example, management can conclude from this
survey that women’s tangible motivators are pay and bonuses
followed by outside environment and working conditions.
Literature Review
The theory of human motivation started as an interest of
psychologists, but managers soon realized the importance of
knowing how to motivate their workforce. The work of human
motivation started as early as the Greeks (Skinner, 1965), and
is still intriguing many researchers today. Motivation through
conditioning responses has been explored in great detail since
the
late 19th century. The most famous account of conditioned
responses
has to be that of Pavlov’s dog—where a dog was conditioned to

salivate at the sound of a bell by repeatedly reinforcing that
after a
certain sound food would be presented. This type of response
has
been termed a conditioned reflex. In short, the subject has been
trained to produce a response normally associated with stimulus
A when stimulus B is presented. Pavlov’s work was just the tip
of the iceberg in terms of understanding human behavior in
response to a stimulus (Skinner, 1965). E.L. Thorndike
expanded
the knowledge of human behavior by exploring the concept of
learning curves. Thorndike did considerable research examining
how long it took creatures to solve a simple problem, for
example,
how to escape from a latched box. Thorndike noted that initially
the creature would take a considerable amount of time to solve
the
problem, but after more and more attempts at the same situation
the solution came more and more quickly. Learning curves help
clarify how behavior in complex situations are sorted,
emphasized,
and reordered. Thorndike’s work is a pivotal step toward the
more
modern concept of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1965).
Operant conditioning is far more complicated than the
simple notion of reflex conditioning illustrated by Pavlov.
Operant conditioning looks at human behavior as a complicated
series of tendencies, and rather than looking at responses as
either
happening or not happening, operant conditioning considers
a response as having a probability of occurring. By examining
human behavior as a probability of a response occurring, more
complicated interactions can be examined. There are two points
in operant conditioning—operant reinforcement, where a subject
is conditioned to respond in a desired fashion more frequently,

and operant extinction, the slow fading of the increased
response
frequency after reinforcement has been removed. What is
critical
Refereed management tool manuscript. Accepted by Associate
Editor Farrington.
Abstract: This article gives a brief introduction into the
history of human motivation research and discusses a
variety of motivational theories. From the numerous theories
reviewed, the main motivational elements are assembled
into a Hierarchical Decision Model (HDM). A pairwise
comparison survey was developed as a tool for managers
to use when trying to develop a motivational strategy, i.e.,
which motivational theory or theories works best for their
employees. Finally, as a proof of concept, the questionnaire
was tested with 50 professionals in the high tech industry in
the Portland area also known as the Silicon Forest.
Keywords: Employee Motivation, Hierarchical Decision
Model (HDM), Pairwise Comparison
EMJ Focus Areas: Organizational Performance and
Assessment
In the definition of motive, the root word is motivate—
“something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act”
(Merriam-Webster, 2007). Many managers are contemplating
how and what they can do to motivate their workforce. The
consequences of unmotivated employees are a huge expense in
the
way of innovation, production, and quality. Management cannot
treat people like machines and expect positive results; people
offer specialized abilities, actions, vigor, and time commitments

that machines cannot provide (Davenport, 2000). In terms of
organizational benefit, humans can contribute new and
innovative
ideas, put in extra time and energy to make a strategic partner,
or have a unique talent that no one else possesses.
Organizations
benefit most when employees are committed and engaged
(Davenport, 2000).
Managers need to make sure they are in tune with their
employees’ motivators and not just blindly following a
motivational
theory. Asking employees what motivates them and listening
and
acting on the responses is very important. Not all employees are
created equal or value the same thing, so managers may need to
tailor a motivational strategy whenever possible. An example
from this survey is how the social psychological motivator
shows
that the male group valued autonomy/responsibility/variety of
task more than all other social psychological motivators in the
survey, while the female group valued growth/development/
advancement above autonomy/responsibility/variety of task.
We showed that using pairwise comparisons is a good way
to get your employees to actually weigh each criterion against
the others. This method makes employees actually think about
24 March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management Journal
in operant conditioning from an employee motivation
perspective
is how to identify operant reinforcing events (Skinner, 1965).

Two types of reinforcers have been identified: positive
reinforcers and negative reinforcers. Positive reinforcers consist
of
adding a positive stimuli to the environment, e.g., providing
food
or water. Negative reinforcers, on the other hand, are the
removal of
negative stimuli from the environment, e.g., reducing a
disturbing
noise or bright light. When dealing with individuals, several
generalized reinforcers have been identified: attention,
approval,
affection, submissiveness, and a token. In the work
environment,
the reinforcer types of approval, submissiveness, and token are
the most applicable. People generally respond to the approval of
a peer or manager while dominance or a perceived pecking
order
can invoke a submissive response. Finally, a token, often money
or
some other physical reward, is a strong reinforcer (Skinner,
1965).
In 1943, A.H. Maslow came out with “A Theory of Human
Motivation,” in which he discussed how humans have basic
needs
that need to be met, and once these basic needs have been met
a higher level of needs arises. According to Maslow, individuals
have a hierarchy by which their needs are ordered, and since
everyone is different their needs order will vary. The five basic
needs that are identified in Maslow’s theory are: physiological,
belonging, self-actualization, safety, and esteem (Maslow,
1943;
Hughes, 1999). Maslow further surmised that human beings are
never satisfied and, as such, their goals are never fully
achieved.

Because individuals always want, they play a game of give and
take with the order and priority of their goals. In other words,
as
goals are met or reprioritized, there is always another need to
take
its place (Maslow, 1943).
The Hierarchy of Needs theory makes a valid observation
regarding humans’ basic needs and their continuous desire to
strive for more which results in a never ending reprioritization
of needs and goals. Management can definitely benefit from
learning what their employees value in regard to their needs and
goals. A key piece for managers to take away from the
Hierarchy
of Needs is that an employee’s needs are continuously changing
and, therefore, what satisfies and motivates an employee today
may not be’ what motivates them a year or six months from
now.
In the 1950s McGregor published his theories of X and Y.
Theory X makes the statement that people do not want to work
and that they are inherently lazy and need to be coerced into
working and led by management. McGregor alludes to Maslow’s
theory and the five main goals that Maslow states as people’s
main goals as he explains that in today’s society theory X will
not work to motivate employees because “…physiological and
safety needs are reasonably satisfied and whose social, egoistic,
and self-fulfillment needs are predominant” (McGregor, 2000).
McGregor then goes on to explain how we must now use Theory
Y in which he talks about workers having a potential and
capacity to take on responsibility, but management is needed to
motivate and guide the employee. Instead of the workers being
unintelligent and unmotivated, employees simply need the
right motivators. Management’s purpose, therefore, is to find
the correct motivators for their employees and help them with
any issues they may encounter (McGregor, 2000). Theory X is

a highly involved management structure, while Theory Y leans
more toward management giving the employee the objective,
and
the employee self-managing and completing the project.
McGregor seems to be discussing two different types of
motivational styles for two separate types of workers, and not
so
much the evolution of motivation based on the meeting of basic
needs in the hierarchy model mentioned in Maslow’s theory.
The
manager needs to figure out what type of employees they are
dealing with so they can use the correct type of motivational
theory
when deciding between X and Y. Some employees may also
need
a mixture of these theories. For example, if you have an
employee
who desires a large work load but also desires plenty of
direction,
he or she can be motivated by making sure they are given a
sizeable
work load but are also given access to feedback and direction as
needed. Another example might be the highly skilled laborer
who
needs little direction to accomplish a task, but requires prodding
to actually get the job finished. Both theories have valid
attributes,
but making a generalization to use one theory or another could
be
disastrous to a manager’s career and an employee’s motivation.
Herzberg developed the Motivation-Hygiene Theory which
discusses management’s inability to motivate workers and how
motivation does not come from just raising salaries, fringe

benefits, or duties of the worker (Herzberg, 1987). He talks
about management’s need to use the KITA (Kick In The Ass)
management style (Herzberg, 1987). Negative KITA occurs
when the management has to use force to get the employee to
work, whereas positive KITA occurs when management dangles
a reward to get the employee to finish the task. Neither method
is a good form of management and is definitely not motivation.
Herzberg goes on to explain that positive personal KITA,
where the employee kicks himself into doing the task, is the
true motivator. Since Herzberg’s theory, management has spent
considerable time and money developing ways to get employees
to motivate themselves. Some examples of programs to develop
positive personal KITA are: sensitivity training, human
relations
training, and employee counseling, just to name a few
(Herzberg,
1987). Unfortunately these types of trainings have an initial
positive result but they only work for a short duration. As a
result, in order to sustain positive personal KITAs, more and
more programs have to be developed and implemented with no
guarantee the desired results will be achieved. The hygienes or
KITAs he lists in his theory are the factors that cause employees
to be discontented: company policy and administration,
supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions,
salary, status, and security (Chapman, 1995; Herzberg, 1987).
The motivators he list are the factors that cause employees to be
motivated: achievement, recognition for achievement, the work
itself, responsibility, growth, or advancement (Chapman, 1995;
Herzberg, 1987). Managers need to work to place people in the
correct job and use their skills effectively. Keeping employees
motivated and eliminating as much hygiene as possible will help
the people and company as a whole gain many rewards,
including
bottom line benefits. Herzberg also mentions that if you are not
using employees to their full level of abilities, management will
see motivational problems (Herzberg, 1987).

Sirota talks about Herzberg’s “motivator theory”. The theory
suggests that it is challenging and interesting work that keeps
employees motivated, and working conditions, wages, and
benefits
have little to do with working employee motivation. He argues
that Herzberg’s theory only pertains to a small percentage of the
workforce. The author believes job enrichment includes four
key
elements (Sirota, 1973): (1) rating the responsibility level of a
job,
(2) increasing the discretion with which the job is performed,
(3)
increasing “closure” (doing “the whole thing”), and (4)
increasing
the timeliness of performance feedback. An enrichment program
in a silicon slicing company proved that if you give employees
responsibility then they are happier and perform better. Each
employee was given a toolset to own that they did not share.
The
employees were given responsibility to do maintenance on their
own, replace blades when they decided it was necessary, and to
call repairs in directly without a manager’s approval. The
outcome
was no more dog tools, increased yields, cost of maintaining
tools
decreased, and employees were happier. This concept also
worked
on assembly lines where jobs tended to be segmented down
under
the assumption that the more segmented management could

make
the jobs the less skilled and less training the employees would
need
(Sirota, 1973). Job enrichment is not the answer to every
problem at
a company, by questioning employees and analyzing their
answers
management can identify the problems employees feel are
important
and need to be solved. Job enrichment is an important aspect in
employee motivation and it can help if it is one of the things
that is
wrong with employee working situations (Sirota, 1973).
Herzberg is correct that it is a benefit, especially to managers,
to understand what motivates employees in a positive way. By
this,
what is meant by motivate is what makes them want to do work
themselves without the need for pushing, prodding, or micro-
managing. Sirota makes an argument against Herzberg’s theory
based on employee’s need of financial recognition and more
than
just employees needing positive feedback but needing timely
positive feedback. The timely feedback component identified by
Sirota is a very important factor that cannot be overlooked by
management. If someone does a good job but does not get any
feedback for a few months about the successfulness of the work,
then how are they to know their work was not a failure. Both
men make points on appreciation, but only Sirota comes out and
highlights that raises and bonuses are a form of appreciation
and,
thus, motivation. Some individuals will take on responsibility,
but
they do not seek it or totally thrive when given it.
McClelland developed the Three Needs Theory, also called

the Acquired-Needs Theory or the Learned Needs Theory.
McClelland’s theory states that an individual’s needs were
developed through their life events and over a period of time.
The major needs of an individual could be classified into one of
the following three categories: affiliation, power, or
achievement
(McClelland, 1961). Furthermore, individual’s motivational
factors are influenced by one of these three needs. An
individual
who highly values affiliation wants to have good relationships
with people and strives to have more personal interactions. An
individual who is driven by power can be classified into two
subsets, either a person who seeks personal power or a person
who seeks institutional power. Personal power is the
individual’s
need to be in charge of others (McClelland, 1961).
Alternatively,
institutional power seekers are not looking to have power
over others; instead they seek the power to organize and meet
objectives. The last type of need is achievement. People who
are
directed by their achievement needs are overachievers and tend
to work alone or with people who also highly value achievement
(McClelland, 1961). Every person tends to stick to their needs
at
varying levels, so you may have two people who have a high
need
for institutional power, but one of them may value this more
than
the other person and push to lead the project team.
The three needs theory has many positive attributes and
can benefit a manager when they are trying to pick a person for
certain roles in the organization or when combining a team for
a project; however, McClelland does not look into the
possibility

of an individual actually being made up of two or three of these
needs. He does discuss how people have higher need strengths
but they also may fall directly into two categories. A person
who
is extremely institutionally power driven could get the job done,
but a better choice for leading a team could be the person who
is
not only intuitionally driven but also highly affiliation driven.
This
type of individual can do a better job of negotiating with
outside
vendors and, in turn, not only get the job accomplished but also
make strategic partnerships with outside vendors while doing it.
The Equity Theory was developed by J. Stacy Adams and is
also called Adam’s Theory of Inequity. The theory presents how
motivation (specifically for employees) is directly related to
how
people judge themselves against others. These judgments are
made by looking at their specific inputs and outputs as
compared
to others and judging if they are being treated reasonably
(Adams, 2002). The inputs are things such as qualifications,
time, expertise, intelligence, etc. Examples of outputs are salary
perks, power, benefits, etc. People tend to do a mathematical
ratio comparing their individual outcomes and individual inputs
to others’ outcomes and others’ inputs (Adams, 2002). Based
on the perception the employee has on their ratio compared to
others’ ratios will correlate directly to their personal motivation
(Adams, 2002). Adams theory is illustrated below in Exhibit 6.
An example of this theory is that people who judge themselves
as
being underpaid are two times as likely to leave a job as
employees
who perceive themselves as adequately compensated financially

(Goodman, 1971). Employees will increase or decrease their
inputs (i.e., performance level) to maintain a balance if they
believe a disproportion in equity exists compared to their peers
(Goodman, 1971). Studies have been performed that backup
Adam’s theory. An example is in a situation where workers
seem
to be aware of the discrepancies pertaining to pay discrepancies
in output: the hourly worker who is paid less will consistently
produce less than the higher paid employee, whereas in a piece-
rated system the higher paid individual will produce higher
quality pieces but at lower quantity (Goodman, 1971).
Adams has an extremely applicable theory, especially in today’s
society where everyone is trying to “keep up with the Jones’s.”
Most
individuals are striving to get the newest and best of everything
while judging their value and happiness against others.
Management
may feel they are able to control this (equity ratio judging) by
mandating rules about disclosure of salary and compensation,
but they are fooling themselves. Employees talk, and salaries
and
compensation packages are known throughout the company –
not
just by management. Also, employees do not judge on salary
alone,
and they may lower their effort level if they feel all their peers
are not
giving the same effort to make the ratio equal in their minds.
Vroom developed, and Porter and Lawler built upon, the
Expectancy Theory. Vroom was the first to propose VIE as a
theory.
Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) Theory looks at the
relationship between task characteristics and intrinsic
motivation

to achieve higher employee performance. The theory contends
that human behavior is a function of three related factors: (1)
belief
that effort will result in a desired performance level, (2) belief
that
performance will lead to rewards, and (3) the value of
performing
and accomplishing a task and the associated believed reward for
that performance. These three factors are valence, expectancy,
and
instrumentality, and multiplying the three individual beliefs for
an
individual will give you their motivation to work (Vroom,
1964).
Vroom believed that the three VIE components were mentally
directing and prompting of our actions (Sunil, 2004). Vroom’s
definition for Valence is the emotional desire for the perceived
outcome. Instrumentality is the individual’s believed probability
that the action will lead to the perceived outcome. Expectancy
is
whether or not the individual believes that the result of their
effort
is probable (Sunil, 2004). Lawler, Porter, and others have built
on
Vroom’s theory, but the core VIE elements remain tried and
true
throughout the majority of research that has investigated the
VIE
Theory (Porter, 1968; Kesselman, 1974). Porter and Lawler put
in
feedback loops that add into the model such as role perceptions,

extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, etc. The model showed the
source
of V and E and showed the links between effort, performance,
and job satisfaction (Porter, 1968; Kesselman, 1974).
Vroom et al. have a valid point—people want to know
what the reward for the effort exerted will be before initializing
a task, and they also make a personal judgment of the value of
the reward. If they feel the reward is well worth the payoff then
they will be more motivated to accomplish the task. Managers
will have to exert less effort in motivating employees to
perform
a task or project if they can help employees realize and find
value
in the outcome before they begin.
In the 1950s, Eric Trist studied the English coal mining
industry and concluded that the technological increases in the
industry, i.e., machines taking over human jobs, had actually
decreased people’s productivity. The main conclusion of his
research was the development of the Socio-Technical Theory
which concludes that both social and technical systems are at
play
in the workplace. The way the systems are interconnected plays
a
vital role in the success of the whole system (Richard, 2002).
The Social/Human system takes a holistic approach to
motivating employees by properly matching individuals with
jobs.
When Trist did a critique of scientific management, his model
stressed the need to include social and psychological aspects
into employee satisfaction models rather then focusing merely
on organizational and individual needs. To accomplish this Trist
devised several socio-technical requirements of job design
based

on psychological requirements of the job. The psychological
requirements are the need for the job to provide reasonably
demanding content, an opportunity to learn, autonomy, support
and recognition, a relationship between the product and
employee’s life, and the feeling of a desirable future. Analyzing
these psychological requirements resulted in the following
seven
job design principles (Trist, 1970):
A variety of tasks1.
A series of tasks that relate to a single overall task2.
An optimal length of work cycles3.
Standards of performance and recognition4.
Boundary tasks5.
Tasks requiring some level of skill and worthy of respect6.
Tasks that are perceived to contribute to the overall product.7.
Trist’s theory makes a great argument for aligning people
with jobs that will motivate them based on what motivates them
psychologically. Although the seven principles make sense for
the
majority of people, the theory still needs to expand to
encompass
that not all employees are going to be motivated by the seven
principles outlined. As an example, a manager might notice that
their employee is motivated and enjoys doing repetitive tasks. If
they push this individual to do a variety of tasks they are going
to
actually unmotivated this employee.
In developing the Requisite Task Attribute Model, Turner and
Lawrence devised six key task characteristics believed to be
critical
to job satisfaction: variety, autonomy, responsibility, knowledge
and skill, optional interaction, and required interaction. When

correlating the weighted index developed from the six task
characteristics, it was found that no strong correlation to job
satisfaction could be devised (Turner, 1975; Steers, 1977).
Upon
further research into these findings, Turner and Lawrence found
that individual differences such as rural vs. urban backgrounds
and situational differences such as coworker relationships or
management style played a critical role in which characteristics
led
to job satisfaction. The realization that individual and
situational
differences play a large part in employee satisfaction was the
key
finding of this research (Turner, 1975; Steers, 1977).
During the 1950s Drucker discussed the need for management
to be both economically and socially minded. He believed that
the changes in business put higher standards on managers, and
that they needed to develop and incorporate both skills—not
just one or the other (Drucker, 1955). He went on to explain
that
human capital is a truly valuable resource and the building
block
of companies. His conclusion about highly skilled workforces
was
that management needs to create motivation by doing several
things. First, realize that the people cannot be ordered and
micromanaged as in the past. Employees need motivation and
that motivation comes from management. Second, management
needs to design jobs that are challenging, and give the employee
growth opportunity and a sense of accomplishment. Third, make
sure people are paired with the correct job for them. This can
and
does change over time. Fourth, people need objectives that are
precise and exact. Management also needs to make sure workers

are expected to do excellent work and not just let them get by
with
average performance and production. Fifth, give the employees
tasks aligned with their strengths and also the tools they need
to get the job done. This includes proper training, supplies, etc.
Lastly, make sure you are rewarding employees properly for a
job
well done (Drucker, 1955).
Sirota, Michkind, and Meltzer discussed that the main belief
is that management is meant to motivate employees.
Management
should make employees happy—thus it will positively affect
employee morale and performance—thus helping the company’s
bottom line (Sirota, 2005). A major amount of research supports
the assumption that employee morale positively correlates to
company performance including stock price. New employees
have
the highest job satisfaction and it goes down considerably until
the ten year mark when it seems to show a little improvement.
Ten percent of organizations do not notice this loss in morale—
in fact, they seem to harness the motivation and use it for their
advantage. Management negatively affects morale by making
policy and business decisions based on the “bad seeds” or
negative employees, and by not giving employees enough credit
or kudos for doing their jobs well (Sirota, 2005). Layoffs are
never
going to help morale—they make employees feel like a
disposable
commodity. Also, high levels of bureaucracy are not good for
morale. Gaining high morale takes work, and managers need
to work on treating employees fairly not only with monetary
compensation but also with respect and fair treatment. Managers
need to challenge employees with their work so they can learn
new skills and feel a sense of accomplishment. Also, managers
need to show appreciation for their employees’ work which in

turn
will benefit the organization by increased employee motivation.
Managers need to satisfy employees socially by allowing them
good team members with whom to work and supporting a
teamwork environment. A successful organization should follow
the rules below to keep employees motivated (Sirota, 2005).
Employees are laid off as a last resort and not the first thing •
management does
Compensation and benefits are competitive or slightly above •
the industry average
Employees are treated respectfully both by their immediate •
supervisors and by the organization as a whole (for example,
all employees may be salaried, and superfluous status symbols
are kept to a minimum)
Employees are organized into self-managed teams where •
they control many aspects of their work processes
Obstacles to performance are removed, usually on the basis •
of employee input
The financial benefits of employees’ performance are shared •
with employees (through plans such as “gainsharing,” by far
the most effective way to pay for performance)
Employees receive full communication regarding all aspects •
of the business
The company’s vision and strategic direction are largely •
centered on satisfying customers and doing so through the
effort, ideas, and ingenuity of the workforce

The models reviewed had two types of motivators. First,
employees were motivated by psychological and social elements
of the job. Second, employees were motivated by tangible
benefits
such as pay, awards, etc. The elements extracted from the
literature
review that made it into the survey developed for this study are
listed below in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1. Employee Motivational Factors
Social-Psychological Tangible
1. Autonomy, Responsibility,
Variety of Tasks
2. Growth/Development,
Advancement
3. Interactions: Feedback,
Coworker Relationship,
Manager Relationship
4. Power, Respect
5. Pride, Sense of
Accomplishment
1. Pay Bonuses
2. Fringe Benefits (Health
Insurance, Life Insurance,
Vacation, Retirement, SPP)
3. Recognition (awards)
4. Outside Environment

5. Working Conditions (Work
Environment, Hours, Ame-
nities, Activities)
The items listed in Exhibit 1 were extracted from the numerous
theories reviewed based on common motivational factors
identified
amongst the theories. Common factors were lumped together
into groups for the purpose of the survey. Exhibits 2 and 3 list
the
motivational categories identified and which theories reviewed
identified these categories as motivational factors.
Autonomy,
Responsibility,
Variety of Task
Growth,
Development,
Advancement
Pride,
Sense of
Accomplishment
Interactions,
Feedback,
Relationships
Power,
Respect
Top two tiers of Maslow’s

pyramid
Second tier of Maslow’s
pyramid
Second tier of
Maslow’s pyramid
Fourth tier of Maslow’s
pyramid
pyramid
McGregor theory Y McGregor theory Y McGregor theory Y
Herzberg’s motivators Herzberg’s motivators Herzberg’s
motivators Herzberg hygiene factors Herzberg hygiene factors
McClelland
achievement
McClelland affiliation McClelland power
Adam’s equity Adam’s equity Adam’s equity Adam’s equity
Adam’s equity
Trist’s
Socio-Technical
Trist’s
Socio-Technical
Trist’s
Socio-Technical

Requisite Task
Turner and Lawrence
Requisite Task
Turner and Lawrence
Requisite Task
Turner and Lawrence
Pay
Bonuses
Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working
Conditions
pyramid
pyramid
pyramid
pyramid
McGregor theory Y McGregor theory Y McGregor theory Y
McGregor theory Y
Herzberg’s hygiene factor Herzberg’s motivators Herzberg’s
hygiene
factor
Herzberg’s hygiene
factor

McClelland achievement
Adam’s equity Adam’s equity Adam’s equity Adam’s equity
Vroom et. al expectancy Vroom et. al expectancy
Trist’s
Socio-Technical
Trist’s
Socio-Technical
Trist’s
Socio-Technical
Requisite Task
Turner and Lawrence
Requisite Task
Turner and Lawrence
Exhibit 2. Socio-Psychological Motivational Factors
Exhibit 3. Tangible Motivational Factors
Research Methodology
We wanted to further explore the motivational factors in
Exhibits 1, 2
and 3, and identify which ones are preferred over others in
different
settings. This article focused on technical professionals and

used a
sample of technical professionals in the Portland, Oregon area.
We used a hierarchical decision model (HDM) to address
multiple levels involved in this decision making process. The
concept of hierarchical modeling (also know as Analytical
Hierarchy Process, or AHP) can be applied to structurally
decompose complex problems (Saaty, 1978, 1979, 1990, 1994).
Previous studies have used either three level or four level
hierarchical models for evaluation and assessment of
alternatives
(Gerdsri and Kocaoglu, 2007). The scores used in selection
methods are the relative importance measures of the various
criteria and attributes. The weights assigned to criteria,
attributes,
and other parameters in decision models represent the final
impacts of a series of interrelated actions on the outcomes of
those models (Chen and Kocaoglu, 2008).
Hierarchical decision models are used in several different
decision problems: Bohanec and Zupan (2004) in real estate;
Bohanec et al. (2000) in health care, Cakir and Canbolat (2007)
in
inventory management, Al-Subhi and Al-Harbi (2001) in project
management, Karami (2006) and Montazar and Behbahani
(2007)
in irrigation management, Leung et al. (1998) in pelagic fishery,
Mau-Crimmins et al. (2005) in national forest planning, Rabelo,
et
al. (2007) in construction, Azadeh et al. (2007) in railway
system
improvement and optimization, Bozbura et al. (2007) in human
resource management, Parra-López et al. (2007) in agriculture,
Bertolini et al. (2006) in public work contracts, Wong and Li
(2008) in evaluation of innumerable intelligent building
products,

Lin et al. (2007) in identifying customer requirements, Durán
and Aguilo (2007) in evaluation and justification of an
advanced
manufacturing system, Celik et al. (2007) in building, Galan et
al. (2007) in manufacturing.
The Hierarchal Decision Model (HDM) using a pairwise
comparison survey was chosen for this research study due to the
complex decisions that managers face when motivating
employees.
A manager does not face one right answer or straight line to
follow when motivating employees since there are multiple
levels
and types of motivators to consider (e.g., psychological/social
elements and tangible benefits). Using the main motivational
elements identified from the literature, a two part survey was
developed to provide pairwise comparison of the key
motivational
factors. Pairwise comparison forms the basis of an HDM
process.
Pairwise Comparison reflects the relative importance of a pair
of
elements as perceived by the expert. The relative importance is
measured by distributing 100 points between the two options.
This is then converted into weights using scale normalization
and
priority matrices (Kocaoglu, 1983).
The questionnaire was developed from the historic data
gathered from the motivation theories presented in the literature
review. The final survey developed and administered during this
research project can be seen in Appendix A. The survey was
given
to 50 professionals in the high tech industry of the Portland,
Oregon, area. Each person was given the survey and given
three weeks in which to complete the survey and return it to the

author. Out of the 50 people given the survey, 30 people or 60%
responded. Within the 30 survey respondents, 13 were female
and
17 were men. Three separate analyses were conducted on the
data
gathered from the surveys. First, the entire group was analyzed,
and then the male and female sub groups were analyzed to
assess
any potential motivational differences between the sexes.
The HDM model developed for the survey can be seen in
Exhibit 4. The first level is the goal of this research study, i.e.,
how
to motivate employees. The second level consists of the
intangible
motivators identified and illustrated above on the right side of
Exhibit 1. Finally, the third level of the HDM contains the
tangible
motivators that were listed on the left side of Exhibit 1.
Appendix B provides the details of the model that resulted
through the surveys. The first set of pairwise comparisons
from the survey gave the weighting of the social-psychological
motivators as compared against the objective and can be seen
for
the three groups (total, men, and women). The light gray labels
are the results for the group as a whole. The medium gray labels
are the results for the men only, and the dark gray labels are the
outcomes for the women only.
Results
The results for the Social-Psychological motivators with respect
to the objective shown in Exhibit 4 shows that the overall group
equally valued autonomy/responsibility/variety of task and
pride/sense of accomplishment. The overall group valued
power/

respect the least among the five social-psychological
motivators.
On the other hand, autonomy/responsibility/variety of task was
clearly the dominant motivator among the male group. Finally,
the women’s group top motivator was growth/development/
advancement, but only by a slim margin. Both the male and
female groups agreed with the overall group in terms of the
least
motivating factor being power/respect.
The results for the tangible work motivators with respect to
autonomy/responsibility/variety of task showed that all three
sets
(combined/men/women) all put pay and bonuses as their top
motivator. Men and the combined group were decisive on the
second place tangible motivator, choosing working conditions.
On
the other hand, the second place motivator for women was a tie
between recognition, outside environment, and working
conditions.
Tangible work motivators with respect to growth/development/
advancement also showed pay and bonuses as the top motivator
for all three sets, with working conditions coming in second for
all three sets. Fringe benefits were the least motivating item for
all
three sets. Tangible work motivators with respect to pride/sense
of
accomplishment also came out with pay and bonuses as a clear
top
tangible motivator. Women had the largest separation between
pay
and bonuses and the second motivator, which was a tie between
working conditions and outside environment. Men and the group
also chose working conditions in second place and all three
groups
put fringe benefits in last place. Tangible work motivators with

respect to interactions/feedback/relationships had pay and
bonuses
as the first choice as a tangible motivator; however, women
chose
outside environment as a second place motivator while the
group
Exhibit 4. HDM Diagram for Motivation Survey
Power
Respect
Objective
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks
Growth
Development
Advancement
Pride
Sense of
Accomplishment

Interactions
Feedback
Relationships
Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Benefits Recognition
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Motivated Employees
and men chose working conditions again for the second position
as a motivator. Tangible work motivators with respect to power/
respect had similar results to most of the other models with pay
and
bonuses as the top motivator and working conditions coming in
second. The results demonstrate that all sets of people show that
pay
and bonuses is the top choice for managers to motivate
employees.

Conclusions
Technical managers need to make sure they are in tune to their
employees’ motivators and not just blindly following a
motivational
theory. Asking employees what motivates them, and listening
and
acting on the responses is very important. Not all employees are
created equal or value the same thing, so managers may need to
tailor a motivational strategy whenever possible. An example
from this survey is how the social psychological motivator
shows
that the group and men value autonomy/responsibility/variety
of task more than all other social psychological motivators in
the survey while the female group more highly valued growth/
development/advancement. Using pairwise comparisons is a
good way to get your employees to actually weigh each criterion
against the others. This method makes employees actually think
about the various options more than once and put a number to
the importance of one option over another.
This study shows a pathway to technical employee motivation
rather than using the traditional HDM approach which has
the end result being one choice. The group survey results are
very nice to have and they provide a better understanding of the
differences and the specific values of the groups and smaller
sub-
groups. The pathway to motivate the group of women is shown
in
Exhibit 5; the top weighted motivators are shown in dark gray.
The
management can conclude from this survey that women’s
tangible
motivators are pay and bonuses followed by outside
environment
and working conditions. Women’s social-psychological
motivators

are growth/ development/advancement followed by pride/sense
of
accomplishment and interactions/ feedback/relationships. The
men’s
motivational HDM pathway, above, shows that pay and bonuses
along with working conditions are the top tangible motivators.
The
top social psychological motivators are
autonomy/responsibility/
variety of task followed by growth/development/advancement
and
then pride/sense of accomplishment. The group surveyed was
almost
exclusively from the high tech industry, so while the
methodology is
applicable to any industry the results may very greatly.
References
Adams, S. J., “Inequity in Social Exchange,” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 2 (2002), pp. 267-299.
Ajgaonkar, P., A. Auysakul, R. Jefferis, S. Shinriki, “Use of
Hierarchial Decision Modeling for Site Selection of a Major
League Baseball Stadium in Portland,” PICMET, (July 2003).
Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, K.M. “Application of the AHP in Project
Management,” International Journal of Project Management,
19:1 (2001), pp. 19-27.
Azadeh, S.F. Ghaderi, and H. Izadbakhsh, “Integration of DEA
and AHP with Computer Simulation for Railway System
Improvement and Optimization,” Applied Mathematics and
Computation, in press, corrected proof, (2007).

Bertolini M, M. Braglia, G. Carmignani, “Application of the
AHP Methodology in Making a Proposal for a Public Work
Contract,” International Journal of Project Management, 24:5
(2006), pp. 422-430.
Bohanec M., and B. Zupan, “A Function-Decomposition Method
for Development of Hierarchical Multi-Attribute Decision
Models,” Decision Support Systems, 36:3 (2004), pp.215-233.
Bohanec M, B. Zupan, and V. Rajkovi, “Applications of
Qualitative
Multi-Attribute Decision Models in Health Care,” International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 58-59:1 (2000), pp. 191-205.
Bozbura FT, A. Beskese, and C. Kahraman, “Prioritization of
Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP,”
Expert Systems with Applications, 32:4 (2007) pp. 1100-1112.
Cakir O., and M.S. Canbolat, “A Web-Based Decision Support
System for Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using
Fuzzy AHP Methodology,” Expert Systems with Applications,
in press, corrected proof, (2007).
Celik M., I.D. Er, and A.F. Ozok, “Application of Fuzzy
Extended
AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: The
Case of Turkish Maritime Industry,” Expert Systems with
Applications, in press, uncorrected proof, (2007).
Chapman, Alan, “BusinessBalls-Ethical Work and Life
Learning,”,
available online at http://www.businessballs.com/, accessed
July 10, 2007 (1995).
Chen H., and D.F. Kocaoglu, “A Sensitivity Analysis Algorithm
for Hierarchical Decision Models,” European Journal of

Operational Research, 185:1, (2008), pp 266-288.
Davenport, T.O., “Workers as Assets: A Good Start But....,”
Employment Relations Today, (Spring 2000).
Drucker, P.F., “Integration of People and Planning,” Harvard
Business Review, 33:6 (1955), pp. 35-40.
Durán O., and J. Aguilo, “Computer-Aided Machine-Tool
Selection Based on a Fuzzy-AHP Approach,” Expert Systems
with Applications, in press, corrected proof, (2007).
Galan R, J. Racero, I. Eguia, and J.M. Garcia, “A Systematic
Approach for Product Families Formation in Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 23:5 (2007), pp. 489-502.
Gerdsri N., and D.F. Kocaoglu, “Applying the Analytic
Hierarchy
Process (AHP) to Build a Strategic Framework for Technology
Exhibit 5. Women‘s (dark gray) and Men’s (light gray)
Motivators HDM Pathway
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks
Power
Respect
Objective
Social-

Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
Fringe
Power
Respect
Objective
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
Growth
Development
Advancement
Pride
Sense of
Accomplishment
Interactions
Feedback
Relationships

Pay
&
Bonuses
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Motivated Employees
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks
Growth
Development
Advancement
Pride
Sense of
Accomplishment
Interactions
Feedback
Relationships
Pay
&

Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Motivated Employees
Roadmapping,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling,
46:7-8 (2007), pp. 1071-1080.
Goodman, P.S., A. Friendman, “An Examination of Adams’
Theory
of Inequity,” Administrative Science Quarterly, (1971).
Herzberg, F. “One More Time: How Do You Motivate
Employees,”
Harvard Business Review, 46:1 (1987), pp. 53-62.
Hughes, R.L., R.C. Ginnett, G.J. Curphy, Leadership Enhancing
the Lessons of Experience (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill (1999).
Karami E., “Appropriateness of Farmers’ Adoption of Irrigation
Methods: The Application of the AHP Model,” Agricultural
Systems, 87:1 (2006), pp. 101-119.

Kesselman, G.A., E.L. Hagen, R.J. Wherry, “A Factor Analytic
Test
of the Porter-Lawler Expectancy Model of Work Motivation,”
Personnel Psychology, 27:4 (Winter 1974), pp. 569-579.
Kocaoglu, D.F., “A Participative Approach to Program
Evaluation.” IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 30:3 (1983), pp.37–
44.
Leung P, J. Muraoka, S.T. Nakamoto, and S. Pooley,
“Evaluating
Fisheries Management Options in Hawaii Using Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP),” Fisheries Research, 36:2-3 (1998)
pp. 171-183.
Lin M, C. Wang, M. Chen, and C.A. Chang, “Using AHP and
TOPSIS
Approaches in Customer-Driven Product Design Process,”
Computers in Industry, in press, corrected proof, (2007).
Maslow, A.H., “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychol.
Rev., 50
(1943), pp. 370-396.
Mau-Crimmins T., J.E. de Steiguer, and D. Dennis, “AHP as
a Means for Improving Public Participation: a Pre-Post
Experiment with University Students,” Forest Policy and
Economics, 7:4 (2005), pp. 501-514.
McClelland, D.C., The Achieving Society, D. Van Nostrand
(1961).
McGregor, D., “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Reflections,
2:1
(Fall 2000), pp. 6-15.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, “Definition of Motive,”
(2006-2007), available online at www.m-w.com/dictionary/
motive, accessed July, 1 2007.
Montazar, A. and S.M. Behbahani, “Development of an
Optimised
Irrigation System Selection Model Using analytical Hierarchy
Process,” Biosystems Engineering, 98:2 (2007), pp. 155-165.
Parra-López C., J. Calatrava-Requena, and T. de-Haro-Giménez,
“A Systemic Comparative Assessment of the Multifunctional
Performance of Alternative Olive Systems in Spain Within an
AHP-Extended Framework,” Ecological Economics, in press,
corrected proof, available online (June 11, 2007).
Porter, L.W., E.E. Lawler, “Managerial Attitudes and
Performance,”
Homewood IL: R. D. Irwin (1968).
PSU ETM PCM Software, Version 1.4, (June 4, 1991).
Rabelo L, H. Eskandari, T. Shaalan, and M. Helal, “Value Chain
Analysis Using Hybrid Simulation and AHP,” International
Journal of Production Economics, 105:2 (2007), pp. 536-547.
Richard Scholl, “Home page - Dr. Richard Scholl,” (Oct. 2002)
available online at http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/
Notes/Motivation_Expectancy.html, accessed June 25, 2007.
Saaty T., “Applications of Analytical Hierarchies,” Mathematics
and Computers in Simulation, 21:1 (1979), pp. 1-20.
Saaty T., “Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and
Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European
Journal of Operational Research, 74:3 (1994), pp. 426-447.

Saaty T., “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, 48:1
(1990), pp 9-26.
Saaty T., “Modeling Unstructured Decision Problems – The
Theory
of Analytical Hierarchies,” Mathematics and Computers in
Simulation, 20:3 (1978), pp 147-158.
Sirota, D., “Assumptions That Kill Morale,” Leader to Leader,
2005:38 (Fall 2005), pp. 24-27.
Sirota, D., “Job Enrichment – Is It For Real?” SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 38:2 (Spring 73), pp. 22.
Skinner, B.F., Science and Human Behavior, Macmillan Co.
(1965).
Steers, R.M., R.T. Mowday, “The Motivational Properties of
Tasks,”
Academy of Management Review, 2:4 (Oct 1977), pp. 645-658.
Strategos: Consultants, Engineering, Strategist, “Principles of
Socio-Technical Design,” available online at http://www.
strategosinc.com, accessed July 8, 2007.
Sunil, R. “A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their
Implications for Employee Retention Within Organizations,”
Journal of American Academy of Business, 5:1/2 (Sept. 2004),
pp. 52-63.
Swenson, David, “Homepage - Dr. David X. Swenson,” (Feb.
2000), available online at http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/
web/LEAD/McClelland.html, accessed June 23, 2007.

Trist, E. “A Socio-Technical Critique of Scientific
Management,”
presented at the Edinburgh Conference on the Impact of
Science and Technology, (May 1970).
Turner, A., Industrial Jobs and the Worker—An Investigation of
Response to Task Attributes, Harvard University Press (1965).
Vroom, V., Work and Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1964).
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, “Diagram: Maslow’s
Heirarchy
of Needs,” (Oct. 2006), available online at http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Maslow_hierarchy_of_needs, accessed July 2, 2007.
Wong J.K.W., and H. Li, “Application of the Analytic
Hierarchy
Process (AHP) in Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Selection
of Intelligent Building Systems,” Building and Environment,
43:1 (2008), pp. 108-125.
About the Authors
Georgina Harell is a PhD student at Portland State University
(PSU) in the Engineering and Technology Management
Department. Her research interests include building trust and
motivating teams, renewable energy, and predicting future
demand for emerging alternative energy sources. She has an
MS in engineering and technology management from PSU and
a BS in biomedical engineering from Michigan Technological
University and she is also a PMP certified project manager. She
has a wide breadth of work experience including high-tech
industry and academic research labs.
Tugrul U. Daim is an Associate Professor of engineering
and technology management at PSU. He had been with Intel

Corporation before he joined PSU as a full-time faculty.
His research involves exploration of technology assessment
in industries including automotive, energy, semiconductor
manufacturing, communications and health care. He is also a
visiting Professor at Technical University of Hamburg Harburg.
He has over 100 papers published in journals and conference
proceedings. He is the editor in chief for International Journal
of Innovation and Technology Management. He has a PhD in
Systems Science and Engineering Management (EM) and MS
in EM from PSU, MS in mechanical engineering from Lehigh
University and a BS in mechanical engineering from Bogazici
University in Turkey.
Contact: Tugrul U. Daim, Portland State University,
Department of Engineering and Technology Management,
PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207; phone: 503-725-4582;
[email protected]
Appendix A. Motivational Survey
Appendix B. Detailed Results
Objective
Motivated Employees
Social-

Psychological
Motivators
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks
Growth
Development
Advancement
Pride
Sense of
Accomplishment
Interactions
Feedback
Relationships
Power
Respect
.22
.25
.17
.21
.20

.23
.22
.21
.22
.20
.18
.21
.16
.15
.18
HDM Model of Social-Psychological Motivators to Objective
Women
Men
Group
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks
Social-

Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
.33
.35
.29
.12
.12
.13
.15
.12
.19
.16
.15
.19
.23
.26
.19

Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Autonomy, Responsibility and Variety of Task HDM Model
Women
Men
Group
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
.30
.31
.30

.12
.12
.13
.16
.15
.18
.17
.15
.19
.24
.26
.20Women
Men
Group
Growth Development and Advancement HDM Model
Autonomy
Responsibility
Variety of
Tasks

Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Pride
Sense of
Accomplishment
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
.32
.33

.30
.13
.12
.14
.15
.13
.17
.17
.15
.19
.23
.26
.19
Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment

Working
Conditions
Pride and Sense of Accomplishment HDM Model
Women
Men
Group
Interactions
Feedback
Relationships
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
.35
.36
.34
.13
.13
.14

.13
.13
.12
.18
.15
.21
.22
.24
.18
Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Interaction and Feedback HDM Model
Women

Men
Group
Power and
Respect
Social-
Psychological
Motivators
Tangible
Motivators
.34
.35
.34
.14
.13
.14
.13
.13
.15
.16

.14
.18
.23
.25
.19
Pay
&
Bonuses
Fringe
Outside
Environment
Working
Conditions
Power and Respect HDM Model
Women
Men
Group
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

Running head: SCRIPT WRITING 1
SCRIPT WRITING 2
Justin Hedberg
Script Writing
Liberty University
CINE 201

Theme: The Wrong Suspect
FADE IN
INT. RESTAURANT-NIGHT
Inside of the restaurant. Dylan is seated on a rounded table at
the corner of the restaurant. At a closer look, one will identify
that there is an issue running through his head. Probably it is
because he is tired of waiting for his date, Marynne.
Dylan has been waiting for Marynne for quite some time and it
seems that he started getting bored.
He closely watches as the other couples in the restaurant enjoys
their perfect time together.
However, one cannot fail to notice the fact that Dylan, looks a
little bit different from the rest.
For instance, most of the gentlemen in this particular restaurant
are clad in well-tailored suits while Dylan feels comfortable in
his pair of Khakis trousers and a simple polo shirt.
He closely observes a rose flower that he carried along for his
date and abruptly looks at his wristwatch.
No sooner has he finished looking at his watch than Marynne
walks into the surprise in a bright mood and one cannot fail to
acknowledge the smiles that are present on her face.
MARYNNE
Hey Dylan, am sorry for keeping you waiting, I guess I just had
a rough day. Starting from a flat tire to heavy traffic on my way
here.
DYLAN
There is no problem. I am happy that you made it. Sorry for
having a rough day. These issues happen once in a while and are
always good that one gets prepared for such incidents. Anyway,
how have you been? I hope you have been fine. Well, it’s seem
long since I last saw you.
MARYNNE
Yes, and it seems like forever since I put a glance on you. Still,
remember that night and thank you a lot. That date was amazing
and wonderful like nothing that I have ever seen before. Well, I
have some good news that I would like to share with you. I am

very happy, since you are the first personal am telling this.
Well…….guess what my proposal got an approval from the dean
after waiting for that long. I feel super excited
WAITER
Good evening madam? How may I help you? Today we have
great offers for our customers and I believe that you will like
here tonight.
DYLAN
Thank you very much for your concern but I do not think I will
have something to eat. I believe that I have a problem with my
digestion. Guess I ate a lot of beef yesterday and beef is not
good for my digestion. It will be really nice if you get us a glass
of wine. Please. Thank you in advance.
(Smiling back to Marynne)
Well, am happy for you. Last week I told you that I had a strong
feeling about your particular proposal.
From the view of things, I believe that am right. I told you not
to doubt yourself. I think that calls for a celebration for you my
dear and a toss for this great news.
The two drink wine as they chat along about the various
activities that they have engaged themselves in since they last
met.
They engage in a talk where they talk if throwing a party to
celebrate Maryanne’s success or not.
Suddenly, Dylan excuses himself so that he can use the
washrooms and respond to a call of nature. Marynne uses this
particular occasion to put a white substance on Dylan’s drink.
Surprising enough Dylan does not sip this drink after returning
from the washrooms.
FROM BLACK
INT. DYLAN’S OFFICE-NIGHT
Dylan cannot imagine how Marynne planned to poison him. It is
clear that Dylan saw Marynne put a white substance on his
drink and this prevented him from taking any more of that

drink.
He is engaging with a fellow detective with whom he tries to
share what happened that particular night.
PARKER
Are you sure that is what happened? I do not think that Marynne
can do such a thing. Maybe you are mistaken.
DYLAN
There we go again Paker I can believe that you still doubt me
after those years that we have worked together. Am sure partner
of what I saw double sure for that matter. But I cannot figure
out why she wanted to do that.
PARKER
Does she know that you are a detective? Probably that may be
one of the reasons as to why she chooses to do that.
DYLAN
To my knowledge, she just knows that am a home-based banker
and nothing more. And I do not plan on disclosing my
profession to her.
Fade out
THE END
References
Friedmann, A. (2014). Writing for visual media. New York:
Focal Press.
Samaroo, M. (2012). The Complete Guide to Writing a
Successful Screenplay: Everything You Need to Know to Write
and Sell a Winning Script. Place of publication not identified:

Atlantic Publishing Group Inc.
Fifty years of influence
in the workplace
The evolution of the French and Raven power
taxonomy
Steven Elias
Auburn University Montgomery, Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose – While focusing on the renowned bases of social
power put forth by French and Raven in
1959, this paper aims to address the history and future of this
taxonomy within organizational
settings. Topics include the evolution of the power taxonomy,
the power/interaction model, and
matters relevant to future research and practice.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a historical overview of
the French and Raven power
taxonomy is provided. Second, ways in which the taxonomy has
been updated over the past several
decades are discussed. Third, an overview of Raven’s
power/interaction model (1993) is presented.
Lastly, implications for future research and practice within
organizations are offered.

Findings – A review of the historic and contemporary writings
dedicated to social power would
indicate that the advances made to the original French and
Raven power taxonomy have not been
incorporated into the management and organizational behavior
literatures.
Practical implications – Practitioners and scholars interested in
issues related to influence in
organizational settings would benefit from an understanding of
the historical developments that have
occurred to the power taxonomy over the past half-century, as
well as the formation of the
power/interaction model.
Originality/value – This paper provides readers with a historical
overview of the development of
the French and Raven social power taxonomy, in addition to
addressing the field’s more recent
developments. As such, the paper will be of value to anyone
interested in influence within
organizational settings.
Keywords Management power, Influence, Workplace,
Management history
Paper type General review
Undoubtedly, among the most popular and widely accepted
conceptualizations of social
power is the five-fold typology developed by French and Raven
in 1959 (Podsakoff and
Schriesheim, 1985, p. 387).
In order for managers to be effective, they must be able to
influence their subordinates,

peers, superiors, stakeholders and many other individuals both
affiliated and
unaffiliated with their organizations (Elias and MacDonald,
2006; Vecchio, 2007; Yukl,
1989; Yukl and Falbe, 1990). This ability to influence is
typically brought about, in
large part, through the use of social power (Wilensky, 1967).
The importance of
possessing an understanding of power in the workplace is well-
documented in the
historical (Dubin, 1951) and contemporary (Farmer and
Aguinis, 2005) literatures, as
well as texts marketed and readily available to laypeople
(Kouzes and Posner, 2002;
Lee, 1997). As evidenced by the above Podsakoff and
Schriesheim (1985) quotation,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm
Influence in the
workplace
267
Journal of Management History
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2008
pp. 267-283
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1348
DOI 10.1108/17511340810880634

when those familiar with the literature think of social power,
they typically think of the
seminal five-fold typology developed by French and Raven
(1959).
Given the significance of French and Raven’s work, as well as
the reality that their
original focus was on supervisor – subordinate relationships
(Raven, 1993, 1999), it is
no surprise that research dedicated to the study of social power
continues to be popular
among management scholars. In fact, Bruins (1999) describes
the state of affairs
pertaining to social power research as quickly growing in force,
size, and impact, while
texts dedicated to the topic continue to be produced (Lee-Chai
and Bargh, 2001).
However, what many fail to realize is that the original five-fold
taxonomy was not
meant to be the all-inclusive classification for the bases of
power. As French and Raven
(1959, p. 150) originally proposed:
[. . .] there is no doubt that more empirical knowledge will be
needed to make final decisions
concerning the necessary differentiations, but this knowledge
will be obtained only by
research based on some preliminary theoretical distinctions.
Indeed, the original taxonomy has been differentiated and
broadened over time (Raven,
1965, 1993) to the extent that there are currently 14 bases of
power and a detailed
power/interaction model. However, a review of the management

literature dedicated to
such topics as power, influence, and leadership would indicate
that with relatively few
exceptions (Schwarzwald and Koslowsky, 2001; Raven et al.,
1998; Schwarzwald et al.,
2004), this development has gone undetected. As a result, the
heuristic value of the
advances made within the area of social power as it pertains to
management
and organizational behavior has gone untapped. The purpose of
this paper is to shed
light on the theoretical and empirical changes that have been
made to the power
taxonomy over the past several decades, with the hope that
future research and
practice will benefit from such an understanding. In addition,
this paper will address
how several decades of social power research has resulted in the
development of the
Defining social power
According to Cartwright (1965), the defining characteristic of
an organization is its state
of being organized. This state of being organized typically
depends on the exertion of
some form of influence or social power (Gilman, 1962).
However, even though power is
commonplace within organizations, as well as society in
general, defining social power is
not an easy task. Cartwright (1959a) himself presents seven
independent definitions for
the construct while expressing what would seem to be
frustration at how authors
typically “invent” their own definitions to suit their needs.
Nevertheless, after taking

Lewinian field theory (Lewin, 1951) into account, Cartwright
(1959a, p. 188) settled on the
definition of power as, “. . . the induction of (psychological)
forces by one entity b upon
another a and to the resistance to this induction set up by a.”
For example, in a situation
where a manager uses his or her expertise to persuade a
subordinate to comply with a
request, even though the subordinate may initially resist
complying, social power is said
to be at use. Given the early difficulty and apparent frustration
associated with defining
social power, readers may be surprised to discover that more
recent explanations of
power (Fiol et al., 2001) are comparatively consistent with that
of Cartwright.
French and Raven (1959) quantify a powerholder’s capability to
persuade a target as
being the maximum possible influence he or she can exert,
although he or she may not
JMH
14,3
268
use all of his or her power in a given situation. Therefore, while
a manager may have
great power in that he or she can potentially terminate an
individual’s employment for
non-compliance, he or she need not resort to such an extreme
measure in order to make
use of power. Also noteworthy is the fact that power and

influence do not only occur in
situations where the powerholder possesses a higher status or
rank than the target of
the influence attempt. For instance, Yukl and colleagues (Yukl
and Falbe, 1990, 1991;
Yukl and Tracey, 1992) have differentiated between upward
(e.g. a subordinate
influencing a supervisor), downward (e.g. a supervisor
influencing a subordinate), and
lateral (e.g. peers influencing one another) influence attempts.
The historical development of the social power taxonomy
Although social power was a central topic of discussion during
Tuesday evening
seminars at the University of Michigan’s Research Center for
Group Dynamics (RCGD)
in the late-1950s (Raven, 1993), it was still considered to be an
under researched topic
(Cartwright, 1959b). This is not to say social power in the
workplace was not being
investigated, because it was the topic of numerous studies. For
example, after studying
the staff of a Naval Command unit, Stogdill and Shartle (1948)
concluded that a leader’s
power usage would have the greatest impact on his or her
immediate subordinates,
rather than on other people within an organization. Pelz (1952)
demonstrated
the relationship between first-line supervisors’ power usage and
such issues as job
satisfaction and morale among manufacturing employees. Based
on research
conducted at a motor-truck manufacturing plant, Fleishman et
al. (1955)
demonstrated the importance of taking an organizations power
structure into

account when devising supervisory training programs. Founded
on results from the
Ohio State Leadership Studies, Stogdill (1950) demonstrated
how one’s position in an
organization dictates whether or not he or she has power over
other employees. While
examining issues pertaining to unequal power in groups,
Hurwitz et al. (1953) shed
light on how a supervisor can frame his or her influence
attempts in such a way as to
justify these attempts. Upon conducting an experiment at a
pajama production plant,
Coch and French (1948) demonstrated how resistance to
influence attempts could be
reduced by allowing employees to have input in decision-
making processes. However,
even when taking these varied studies into account, a consistent
theory of social power
had not yet been developed.
In an attempt to integrate these diverse research findings,
French (1956) set out to
put forward a formal theory of social power that would allow
for the generation of
testable hypotheses. This theory was based on the research cited
above, as well as the
prior and simultaneous work of such notables as Kurt Lewin,
Solomon Asch, Carl
Hovland, Leon Festinger, Dorwin Cartwright, Stanley
Schachter, Herbert Kelman, and
Musafer Sherif, several of whom were affiliated with the
RCGD. Interestingly, Raven
(1993) would later write that while Lewin’s name is not
typically associated with social
power, his insights on power and power fields had a most
important impact on the

subject matter. Reinforcing Raven’s belief is the fact that within
their author note,
Coch and French (1948, p. 512) acknowledge drawing
“repeatedly from the works and
concepts of Kurt Lewin for both the action and theoretical
phases of this study.”
While French’s (1956) theory included several postulates, the
first postulate
revolved around interpersonal power and the potential bases of
such power.
Drawing from the work of such individuals as Back (1951),
Moore (1921) and
Influence in the
workplace
269
Hovland and Weiss (1952), French believed such characteristics
as the attractiveness,
expertness, and legitimacy of an influencing agent would impact
these bases of social
power. As a result of these beliefs, shortly after beginning his
quest to develop a formal
theory of power, French co-authored a chapter (French and
Raven, 1959) that not only
identified specific bases of power, but also became the most
frequently utilized
model of social power in general (Northouse, 2007), as well as
in the workplace
(Mintzberg, 1983).
French and Raven’s (1959) original power taxonomy was

comprised of five types of
power: reward, coercive, legitimate, expert, and referent power.
Reward power is said
to be at use when a powerholder promises some form of
compensation to a target in
exchange for compliance. For instance, a supervisor may
provide a monetary incentive
to a subordinate in exchange for the subordinate completing a
task that is not part of
his or her job description. Coercive power is at use when the
threat of punishment is
made in order to gain compliance. For example, a manager may
threaten a subordinate
with termination should he or she not comply with a certain
request. Legitimate power
stems from one having a justifiable right to request compliance
from another
individual. For instance, subordinates may comply with a
supervisor’s request simply
because the supervisor has a right to ask them to do their work
in a certain way. Expert
power is at use when one relies on his or her superior
knowledge in order to gain
compliance. For example, management may follow the advice of
consultants because
those consultants are perceived as possessing a high-level
expertise in their field.
Referent power is at use when a target complies with the request
of a powerholder due
to his or her identifying with the influencing agent. For
instance, an employee wishing
to move up the organizational hierarchy will likely comply with
requests made by
managers due to his or her wanting a similar position as those
managers in the future.

Although many academics and practitioners may be under the
impression that
informational power (i.e. explaining to a target why compliance
is desired) was
included in the original power taxonomy, this is not the case.
French (1956, p. 184)
originally surmised that expert power was driven by a
powerholder’s “superior
knowledge and information.” In essence, this combined expert
and informational
power into one base, even though Raven suggested that
informational power should be
separate from expert power. While Raven (later citing his lack
of informational power
at the time; Raven, 1993) was unable to convince French on the
matter prior to the
publication of their 1959 chapter, he eventually did distinguish
informational power as
a sixth power type (Raven, 1965).
While several researchers (Bass, 1981; Kipnis, 1984) have
described the six bases of
power in terms of being either “harsh” (i.e. punitive and overt)
or “soft” (i.e. subtle and
positive), as previously noted, the taxonomy that included the
six bases of power
became the dominant means by which individuals would
classify potential sources of
influence. However, researchers such as Kipnis et al. (1980)
began to question whether
six bases of power were sufficient to encompass all influence
attempts in the
workplace. Through their research with lower-level managers,
Kipnis et al. were able to
identify eight means of influence in the workplace
(assertiveness, ingratiation,

rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward appeals, blocking, and
coalitions). Using data
obtained from volunteers attending a management development
workshop, Yukl and
Tracey (1992) examined the effectiveness of each of nine power
tactics (rational
persuasion, inspirational appeal, consultation, ingratiation,
exchange, personal appeal,
JMH
14,3
270
coalition, legitimating, and pressure). While French and
Raven’s (1959) assertion that
the original taxonomy was meant to be a starting point for
classifying bases of power
went ignored for decades, it was becoming apparent that the
taxonomy was in need of
further development.
The contemporary development of the social power taxonomy
In response to the call for the power taxonomy to be updated,
rather than starting
anew, Raven decided to differentiate the six bases of power that
had become foremost
in the literature. Interestingly, in order to do this, he relied
rather heavily on the
literature produced by his predecessors and his colleagues
working at the RCGD in the
1950s. Distinctions were made between personal and impersonal
forms of reward and
coercive power, while legitimate power was partitioned into

four types (i.e. position,
reciprocity, equity, and dependence). Positive and negative
forms of expert and referent
power were identified, while informational power was
partitioned into direct and
indirect forms.
Personal versus impersonal reward and coercive power
In their original power taxonomy, French and Raven (1959)
conceived of reward and
coercive power as involving the ability of a supervisor to
manipulate objects and
events of relevance to employees (e.g. increased pay or
termination). While issues
pertaining to a supervisor’s personal approval and/or
disapproval had previously been
thought of as a component of referent power, this categorization
was latter determined
to be inappropriate (Raven, 2001). This conclusion was based
on the contention that
personal approval from another individual can be a very strong
reward, while the
threat of rejection can be a very strong form of coercion.
Support for this contention can
be obtained from the University of Michigan studies on the
“employee orientation”
leadership style, which places a strong emphasis on the
relationships that exist
between supervisors and subordinates (Bowers and Seashore,
1966). As a result,
reward and coercive power are now treated as taking either
personal (i.e. interpersonal
factors) or impersonal (i.e. positive or negative valences) forms.
Four forms of legitimate power: position, reciprocity, equity,
and dependence

Legitimate power was initially said to be at use when a
powerholder had a genuine
right to ask a target to comply with a request. For example,
some subordinates will
comply with a supervisor’s request simply because they believe
the supervisor has a
right to make requests of them. However, important
differentiations have been made
between this initial form of legitimate power (legitimate
position power) and other
forms of legitimate power that are based on several social
norms. Legitimate
reciprocity power is at use when the powerholder has previously
done something for
the target, and in essence, calls in a favor (e.g. I let you leave
work early yesterday,
so today I need for you to stay late). This reliance on
reciprocity is directly linked to one
of the most basic social obligations to return to others what they
have given to you
(Gouldner, 1960; Levine, 2003).
Similar to legitimate reciprocity power is legitimate equity
power. The key
difference between these two bases of power is in terms of how
much the powerholder
has previously done for the target. With reciprocity power, the
powerholder is asking
the target to do something similar to what the powerholder has
done for the target in
Influence in the
workplace
271

the past (e.g. stay late today because I let you leave early
yesterday). With equity
power there is a substantial difference in terms of what the
powerholder has done for
the target in the past and what is now being asked of the target
in return (e.g. stay late
today because for years I fought to provide you with adequate
work resources).
Legitimate dependence power stems from the social norm that
we should help those
who are dependent upon us (Berkowitz, 1972; Batson and
Powell, 2003). Therefore, any
time a powerholder lets it be known that his or her ability to do
something depends
upon a target’s compliance (e.g. I cannot meet this deadline
without your help),
legitimate dependence power is at use.
Positive versus negative expert and referent power
In the original power taxonomy (French and Raven, 1959), both
expert and referent
power were thought of in terms of being positive bases of
power. With positive expert
power, a subordinate complies with the request of a supervisor
because the supervisor
knows best. With positive referent power, a subordinate
complies with the request of a
supervisor because the subordinate identifies with the
supervisor. However, there are
situations in which expert and referent power can take negative
forms. For example,
while a supervisor may possess superior knowledge about a
certain facet of his or her
job, possessing such knowledge does not necessarily mean that

it will be put to use in a
way that will benefit his or her subordinates. On the contrary,
that supervisor’s
knowledge may be used in such a fashion (i.e. negative expert
power) that strictly
benefits him or herself, resulting in resistance to the influence
attempt. Negative
referent power is said to occur when a supervisor who is
disliked or not identified with
by his or her subordinates attempts to utilize social power. In
such situations, reactance
or doing the opposite of what the supervisor requests is likely to
occur given his or her
subordinates view him or her as being unattractive or
unappealing (Raven, 1992, 1993).
Direct versus indirect informational power
Recall that informational power involves providing a rational
explanation as to why
compliance should occur. However, information is not always
presented in a direct
fashion. For example, rather than directly confronting the issue,
it may be more
appropriate, effective, and less intimidating for a subordinate to
hint or suggest to his
or her supervisor that improvements can be made in the
workplace. While some have
put forward that indirect influence is more effective than direct
influence (Dunlap,
1934), others have empirically demonstrated this claim in
relation to what can best be
described as informational power (Hovland and Mandell, 1952).
Based upon a review of
the literature at the time, Hovland et al. (1953) concluded that
certain variables would
impact the effectiveness of direct and indirect persuasion (i.e.

kind of powerholder, kind
of target, and kind of issue). When considering this historical
research, as well as more
contemporary research examining the effect of gender on the
effective use of
informational power (Johnson, 1976), it became clear to Raven
(1992) that informational
power needed to be thought of in terms of being either direct or
indirect.
Alternative taxonomies and theories of social power
While the French and Raven (1959) taxonomy is arguably the
most popular and
utilized conceptualization of social power, numerous other
power taxonomies and
theories can be observed in the management literature.
However, many of these
JMH
14,3
272
taxonomies and theories can either have their roots traced to, or
have a considerable
amount in common with, the French and Raven nomenclature.
For example, while
emphasizing the importance of power to organizational affairs,
Morgan (1997)
distinguishes among 14 sources of power. Parallels can be
drawn between many of
these sources of power and the broadened French and Raven
taxonomy. For example,
formal authority, control of scarce resources, and the control of

knowledge and
information can, respectively, be thought of as alternative forms
of legitimate position,
impersonal reward, and informational power (direct or indirect).
Furthermore,
consistent with the writing of Morgan is that numerous studies
making use of the
original, as well as broadened, French and Raven taxonomy
have demonstrated
the role gender plays in one’s ability to use social power (Elias,
2004; Elias and
Cropanzano, 2006; Elias and Loomis, 2004).
Salancik and Pfeffer’s (1977) strategic-contingency model of
power distinguishes
between two forms of power frequently observed within
organizations: political and
institutionalized. Political power is obtained when an individual
or sub-unit is best able
to cope with the critical problems confronting an organization at
a particular point in
time. Institutionalized power is said to be in use when
individuals or sub-units take
steps to legitimize their power while reducing the power of
others. An emerging trend
in the management literature is the examination of managerial
power in terms of
restrictive versus promotive control (Elias, 2008; Elias and
MacDonald, 2006; Scholl,
1999). Restrictive control refers to situations in which a
manager relies on his or her
organization’s power structure in order to influence
subordinates. Promotive control
refers to situations in which a manager attends to his or her
subordinates opinions and
provides them the opportunity to have input during decision-

making processes.
Interestingly, neither political power, institutionalized power,
restrictive control, or
promotive control is linked to any specific means of
implementation. However, of each
of these methods of influence can be implemented through the
use of one or more of
French and Raven’s bases of power. For example, political
power can be exerted
through the use of positive expert and/or informational (direct
or indirect) power.
Institutionalized power and restrictive control can be
implemented through the use of
legitimate position power. Promotive control can be
implemented through positive
referent and, potentially, personal reward power.
In terms of the power process, Pfeffer and Fong (2005) have
written that in order for
one to acquire more power and influence in an organization, he
or she must attract
allies and supporters. While discussing the social psychology of
organizations, Baron
and Pfeffer (1994, p. 192) indicate “. . . social relationships at
work represent a major
source of satisfaction and are an important reward and
preoccupation for individuals
in the workplace.” Given the importance of social relationships
to the workplace in
general, and to the acquisition of power in particular, one can
see how the use of
personal forms of power (reward and coercive) can either
enhance or inhibit one’s
influence. Since personal reward power relies on positive
interpersonal interactions, the
use of such power will likely be associated with positive

outcomes (e.g. the attraction of
allies and supporters). Contrarily, because personal coercion
relies on negative
interpersonal interactions that do little to attract allies and
supporters, such power
usage would likely be deleterious. Indeed, Elias (2007) has
observed that in academic
settings, the use of personal coercion on the part faculty
members is perceived by
students as being highly inappropriate.
Influence in the
workplace
273
While an attempt has been made to differentiate the French and
Raven power
taxonomy from other power classifications and theories, the
breadth and scope of the
alternative classifications and theories presented should not be
considered exhaustive.
For example, while vastly different from the types of power
addressed above, there is a
substantial and sophisticated critical management studies
literature dedicated solely to
organizational power (Clegg et al., 2006). Furthermore, other
scholars have attempted
to differentiate the French and Raven taxonomy from additional
taxonomies not
presented here. For example, Vecchio (2007) has differentiated
the French and Raven
taxonomy from the classifications of power proposed by Kelman
(1961) and Etzioni

(1975). Pfeffer (1992) has done an outstanding job of exploring,
for example, sources of
power, methods of utilizing power, and means by which power
may be lost. In essence,
the hope is that by presenting alternative categorizations of
power, readers will be able
to situate the French and Raven taxonomy within the broader
literature addressing
issues of power in the workplace.
The power/interaction model
Based on several decades of research, Raven (1992) came to
appreciate that social
power was far more complex than a powerholder simply
utilizing one or more forms
of power in order to gain compliance from a target. As a result,
he developed the
power/interaction model (Figure 1), which offers a theoretical
perspective on several
factors that, in combination, help determine what means of
social power an individual
will use when attempting to influence another person. What
follows is an overview of
the model from the perspective of a supervisor influencing a
subordinate.
The first component of the power interaction model (motivation
to influence)
revolves around motivational factors that impact a supervisor’s
choice of influence
strategies. While it was not uncommon for philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes and
Friedrich Nietzsche to write that humans have a universal
motive for power,
philosophers with a specific interest in social power (Russell,
1938) came to realize that

one’s motivation to utilize power can be either instrumental or
intrinsic. For example,
a supervisor with a strong, rather than weak, power motive (i.e.
an intrinsic need to
seek power or a strong concern with having influence over
others (Winter, 1973;
McClelland, 1985)) will be more likely to desire influence over
subordinates and will
Figure 1.
The power interaction
model
Motivation to Influence
(e.g., Role requirement,
attainment of extrinsic goals,
personality, motivation)
Assessment of Available Power
Bases
(e.g., Individual bases of power,
manipulation, invoking the power
of a third party)
Assessment of Available Bases
in Relation to Target, Power
Preferences, and Inhibitions
(e.g., Effort, organizational
culture, secondary losses)
Preparing for Influence
Attempts

(e.g., Setting the stage, self-
presentation strategies,
enhancing power)
Choice of Power Bases and
the Influence Attempt
Effects
(e.g., Public vs. private
compliance, damage to the
supervisor – subordinate
relationship, resistance)
Source: Raven (1992, 1993)
JMH
14,3
274
attempt to use a wider variety of power bases (Frieze and
Boneva, 2001). Contrarily, a
supervisor who uses power only when he or she must attain
certain organizational
objectives is likely to rely primarily on the legitimate forms of
power associated with
his or her supervisory position (Cartwright, 1965). In a similar
manner, a supervisor’s
role requirements or display rules (e.g. service with a smile)
may motivate him or her to
only utilize those bases of power that will conform with his or
her organization’s
standards and be perceived of in a positive light.

The second component of the model (assessment of available
power bases)
addresses the specific types of power a supervisor may have
available to him or her, as
well as the possible outcomes associated with using each tactic.
For instance, while
some supervisors may feel they have substantial direct
informational power at their
disposal, they may refrain from using it due to the perceived
effort that would go into
logically explaining their requests. Likewise, a supervisor may
know that he or she
possesses impersonal coercive power (e.g. the ability to
terminate employment at will),
but does not wield it frequently because such actions run
counter to the organizations
culture and can result in a backlash. Hogg and Reid (2001)
address the selection of
power bases from a social identity perspective. Specifically,
when a leader possesses a
strong in-group identification with his or her subordinates, he or
she is unlikely to use
coercive or caustic forms of power because such negative
behavior directed at in-group
members is, in effect, also directed at oneself. In addition, the
appraisal of potential
outcomes associated with power usage is consistent with classic
research (Hovland
et al., 1953) indicating an influencing agent should estimate the
intelligence of his or her
audience in order to determine whether a direct or indirect
persuasive message would
be most effective.
The third component of the model (preparing for influence

attempts) involves a
supervisor setting the stage for his or her use of power.
Typically, this would involve
supervisors doing certain things or presenting themselves in
certain ways that remind
or reiterate to employees that they possess social power. For
instance, physicians
enhance their positive expert power by prominently displaying
their degrees and
certifications. One may enhance his or her ability to use
legitimate reciprocity power by
offering another individual unsolicited favors ahead of time
(Raven, 2001). Johnson and
Lennon (1999) have edited a text with the primary purpose of
informing readers as to
how their attire can be used to increase their ability to
effectively use social power. For
example, research based on interviews of female employees
indicates that if females
want to project a powerful image in the workplace, they should
wear jewelry made
from expensive materials such as gold, diamonds, and pearls
(Rubinstein, 1995; Rucker
et al., 1999).
The fourth component of the model (choice of power bases and
the influence
attempt) involves a supervisor deciding on which base or bases
of power to use, and
then carrying out the attempt to influence a subordinate. The
final component of the
model (effects) serves as a feedback loop that has the potential
to impact a supervisor’s
future influence attempts. Specifically, the outcomes associated
with an influence
attempt will have an effect on the supervisor’s future motivation

to influence, and his
or her assessment of available power bases. For example, if a
supervisor associates the
use of personal reward power with increased productivity from
his or her employees,
that supervisor’s motivation to use such power in the future will
be strengthened.
In this instance, it can be said that the outcome associated with
the influence attempt
Influence in the
workplace
275
has served to reinforce or fortify (Skinner, 1953) the
supervisor’s motivation. Similarly,
if personal coercion is associated with a great deal of resistance
and discontent on the
part of an employee, a manager may no longer assess personal
coercion as being an
effective means of influence in relation to this worker. In this
instance, it can be said
that the outcome or effect associated with the influence attempt
has served to weaken
the supervisor’s ability to use personal coercion.
Future research and practice
Because of the advances that have been made to the power
taxonomy over the past
50 years, as well as the development of the power/interaction
model, there is a great
deal of potential knowledge for researchers and practitioners
alike to discover and

apply. From an empirical standpoint, perhaps the most pressing
need is a
methodologically sound measure of the broadened power
taxonomy. Currently, there
is but one measure of the broadened taxonomy, the interpersonal
power inventory
(Raven et al., 1998), but this measure does not assess each of
the 14 power bases.
Specifically, indirect informational, negative expert, and
negative referent power are
not measured by this questionnaire, leaving important
information pertaining to these
tactics unexamined (see Schwarzwald and Koslowsky (2001) for
a review of studies
that have made use of the interpersonal power inventory).
It is likely that social power is at use any time two or more
individuals are
interacting with one another in the workplace. However, given
leadership is typically
described as a social influence process (Bryman, 1996; Avolio
et al., 2003; Northouse,
2007), scholars and practitioners in the field of leadership stand
to benefit from an
understanding of the broadened power taxonomy and the
power/interaction model. At
this point, it is important to note that leadership and power are
separate, albeit-related,
variables. However, according to Zaleznik (1998, p. 63),
“Leadership inevitably requires
using power to influence the thoughts and actions of others.”
That being said,
leadership involves getting followers to pursue your vision for
the organization,
while power involves getting individuals to comply with your
requests, even if they are

reluctant to do so (Hogg, 2005). While this distinction is
common place in the
contemporary power and leadership literatures, the
differentiation dates back to
Barnard (1938), who distinguished between authority based on
one’s leadership skills
versus authority based on one’s position within an organization.
Important information would be obtained from examining the
relationships that
likely exist between the 14 bases of power and perceptions of
leadership in terms of
being either transactional or transformational, a distinction that
is currently a major
focus in the leadership literature (Lowe and Gardner, 2000).
Transactional leadership
focuses on the exchanges that occur between a supervisor and a
subordinate, while
transformational leadership focuses on the connection between
the supervisor and the
subordinate, which can serve to elevate both individual’s
motivation and morality
(Burns, 1978). Given transformational leadership is associated
with such issues as trust
and increased organizational citizenship behavior (going beyond
the call of duty to
better the organization (Podsakoff et al., 1990)), knowledge of
which power bases foster
perceptions of transformational leadership would be of
importance to both researchers
and practitioners.
It is likely that specific forms of social power are related to the
leader-member
exchange (LMX) that exists between a supervisor and his or her
subordinates.

JMH
14,3
276
LMX theory views leadership as hinging upon the quality of the
interactions that occur
between a leader and an individual follower (Graen and Uhl-
Bien, 1995). In a high-LMX
relationship, a good amount of reciprocity occurs between the
leader and the follower,
while in a low-LMX relationship, subordinates typically come
to work, do their job,
and go home (Northouse, 2007). Furthermore, subordinates that
are part of high-LMX
relationships tend to receive more personal (e.g. confidence and
concern) and
impersonal (e.g. information and influence) benefits from their
supervisors than do
those involved in low-LMX relationships. When considering the
benefits associated
with a high-LMX relationship, it becomes apparent that there
are likely links between
the development of high LMX and legitimate reciprocity,
personal and impersonal
reward, personal and impersonal coercive, and positive referent
power. Similar to the
concept of LMX is a variable known as team-member exchange
(TMX). TMX refers to
the extent to which a team member works effectively with his or
her team members, as
well as, the level of reciprocity that occurs between the team
member and his or her

peers (Seers, 1989). Given the differences that exist in the
outcomes associated with
upward, downward, and lateral power usage (Yukl and Tracey,
1992), researchers may
wish to examine how the various types of power used within a
workgroup impact
TMX quality.
While the potential studies alluded to above are important, they
are only scratching
the surface in terms of the ways in which the broadened power
taxonomy and the
power/interaction model can be applied to organizational
research and the
management literature. For example, important information can
be gleaned from
projects investigating the links between the differentiated bases
of social power and
such variables as organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
organizational
citizenship behavior, absenteeism, burnout, turnover intentions,
locus of control,
self-efficacy, productivity, mentor-mentored relationships, and
any number of other
important constructs. Furthermore, it is worth reiterating the
fact that the power
interaction model offers a theoretical perspective as to how
several variables interact
to influence the ways in which we use social power. While
numerous studies have been
cited as evidence for the veracity of certain components of the
model, confidence in the
model will be greatly enhanced once research has been
completed that examines and
supports the model as a whole.

Given the popularity of continuing education workshops, in-
service trainings, and
leadership development programs, practitioners stand to benefit
from an
understanding of the broadened power taxonomy and the
Perhaps, one the most widely read texts among practitioners in
the area of leadership is
The Leadership Challenge (Kouzes and Posner, 2002), which
offers countless pieces of
advice on how to be an effective leader. A fair amount of this
advice can be thought of
in terms of how a leader utilizes his or her power when
interacting with subordinates.
For example, according to Kouzes and Posner (2002, p. 255),
“It’s absolutely essential
that every leader keep the norms of reciprocity and fairness in
mind.” This suggestion
is due to the belief that when leaders utilize reciprocity within
their organizations, they
develop cooperative relationships among their employees. It is
likely that such a belief
has implications for the ways in which leaders make use of
legitimate reciprocity and
legitimate equity power.
In terms of what employees look for in leaders, Kouzes and
Posner (2002) contend
that employees want leaders who express caring attitudes
towards their
Influence in the
workplace
277

23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx

23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a 23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx

Semelhante a 23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx (20)

Mais de tamicawaysmith

Mais de tamicawaysmith (20)

Último

Último (20)

23March 2010Vol. 22 No. 1Engineering Management JournalHD.docx