A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from American Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Developing Leaders for Tomorrow
I III I II
Power and Leadership in Organizations
Relationships in Transition
Edwin P. Hollander
Baruch College and University Graduate Center,
City University of New York
George Washington University
Lynn R. Offermann
I I
ABSTRACT: The trend in research on power and lead-
ership in organizations toward greater interest in the role
of followers is examined. The historical development of
this trend is reviewed, along with current applications
aimed at greater follower involvement in organizations.
Problems and prospects of empowering subordinates are
discussed, along with challenges to be met. Although power
and leadership research has made notable progress in ad-
dressing questions of relevance to organizations, sugges-
tions are offered for additional work to be done.
Over the past decade or more, significant developments
have occurred in thinking about the participation of fol-
lowers in leadership and the exercise of power in orga-
nizations. Concepts of empowerment and power sharing
reflect a shift in focus from a leader-dominated view to
a broader one of follower involvement in expanding power
(see e.g., Burke, 1986; Kanter, 198 I). This development
has been affected by the greater attention to groups and
team effort in the workplace attributable in part to Jap-
anese management practices (e.g., Ouchi, 1981), which
had precursors in the "human relations" approach (e.g.,
Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960). Accordingly, there now
is a context of thinking encouraging the value of partic-
ipative leadership, at least in organizational psychology.
In this article, we present the background of the expanding
power of followers, review some of its current features
and applications, and point to new directions of effort.
Leadership clearly depends on responsive followers
in a process involving the direction and maintenance of
collective activity. Central to this process are one or more
leaders who are the primary actors serving vital functions,
especially defining the situation and communicating it to
followers. Other leadership functions are such roles as
problem solver and planner, adjudicator of conflict, ad-
vocate, and external liaison. Because the leader cannot
do everything alone, these functions need to be dispersed
and involve sharing power and engaging others' talents
through empowerment. Leadership is therefore a system
of relationships with constraints as well as opportunities
(see Stewart, 1982). System constraints include not only
Ill l I I I I I
task demands but also the expectations and commitments
of followers.
Power is not the same as leadership, but often is seen
as a feature of it (see Maccoby, 1976, 1981; McClelland,
1975; Zaleznik & Kets deVries, 1975). Power in organi-
zations has three identifiable forms, which often exist to-
gether as a result of an individual's position in a time and
place, as well as his or her personal qualities. The most
familiar form is
power over,
which is explicit or implicit
dominance. Clearly, leadership in organizations involves
such power in varying degrees. But Freud (1921/1960),
for one, compared dominance unfavorably with leader-
ship, and Cowley (1928) called such authority-based
power "headship." A leader's dependence on this kind of
power has costs in undermining both relationships with
followers and goal achievement (Kipnis, 1976). A second
form is
power to,
which gives individuals the opportunity
to act more freely within some realms of organizational
operations, through power sharing, or what is commonly
called empowerment.
A third form is
power from,
which
is the ability to resist the power of others by effectively
fending offtheir unwanted demands. High status carries
the potential for all of these power forms, while lower
status participants may at best have one or two of the
latter forms available to them.
Both leadership and followership can be active roles,
given the reality that hierarchical organizations require
both at every level. The traditional view of the follower
role as mainly passive is misconstrued. Although leaders
command greater attention and influence, there is more
awareness now of follower influence on leaders, especially
insofar as follower expectations and perceptions affect the
process of leadership (see Hollander, 1985, 1986; Lord &
Maher, 1990), as will be discussed in more detail later.
Historical Developments
From Traits to Attdbutlons
The original trait conception of leadership was founded
on the major assumption that leaders possessed universal
characteristics that
made
them leaders. These character-
istics were seen to be fixed, largely inborn, and applicable
across situations. Broadly speaking, this was the essence
February 1990 - American Psychologist
1990 by the American
Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75
Vol. 45, No. 2, 179-189
179
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
