See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235263813

Effects of power concepts and employee performance on managers'

empowering

Article  in  Leadership & Organization Development Journal · April 2006

DOI: 10.1108/01437730610657730

CITATIONS READS
25 8,398

2 authors:

Dean Tjosvold Haifa Sun

Lingnan University Sun Yat-Sen University
322 PUBLICATIONS   14,003 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   860 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Business Ethics in Chinese Societies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dean Tjosvold on 20 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Power concepts
Effects of power concepts and and employee
employee performance on performance
managers’ empowering
217
Dean Tjosvold
Lingnan University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, and Received April 2005
Haifa Sun Reviewed August 2005
Accepted September 2005
Management School, Sun Yat-Seng University, Guangzhou,
People’s Republic of China

Abstract
Purpose – Despite calls for empowerment, employees often do not feel their managers assist and
support them. Traditional views of power as limited and involving overcoming resistance may
seriously obstruct empowerment efforts.
Design/methodology/approach – About 60 male and 60 female undergraduates majoring in
management and recruited from universities in Guangzhou, China, were randomly assigned to six
conditions, 10 males and 10 females in each condition. They prepared for the interaction, then
interacted with an employees, and then completed measures of the dependent measures.
Findings – Results from an experiment conducted in China indicate that participants used their
capacity of power to assist, encourage, and in other ways empower employees when they viewed
power as expandable rather than independent or limited. They also responded to the needs of the
employee by providing assistance to low performing employees but they developed an ongoing
relationship and felt their power was reinforced with high performing employees.
Research limitations/implications – Results were interpreted as suggesting that, even in high
distant power societies like China, beliefs that power is expandable and cooperative goals both
reinforce leader empowering.
Practical implications – The tendency to confound power and competition may have important
organizational implications. The prevalence of viewing power as limited may be an underlying reason
why developing a cooperative, supportive relationship between managers and employees appears to
be so difficult.
Originality/value – This study demonstrates experimentally that viewing power as expandable can
help managers actually empower employees and also suggests these findings apply in China.
Keywords Empowerment, Performance management, China
Paper type Research paper

Researchers and leaders worldwide have called for the empowerment of employees to
help their organizations compete successfully in the highly competitive marketplace
(Deming, 1993; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999). Leaders are to assist, resource, support, and
in other ways empower employees so that employees contribute significantly to the
organization. Despite the appeal of empowerment, many employees do not feel Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 27 No. 3, 2006
The authors thank their research assistants from South China Normal University for their able pp. 217-234
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
assistance in conducting the study. They also appreciate the financial support of the Research 0143-7739
Grants Council of Hong Kong, RGC grant project (Project No: LU3013/01H) to the first author. DOI 10.1108/01437730610657730
LODJ empowered by their managers. Indeed, surveys have consistently revealed that a clear
27,3 majority of US employees find their boss the single largest source of stress on the job
(Hogan et al., 1994). Research has not much clarified the conditions under which
managers are willing and able to empower employees (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999;
Spreitzer, 1996; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). This study argues that manager’s
attitude toward power is often an obstacle to effective empowerment (Coleman, 2004,
218 2000; Heller, 2003). However, managers who view power as expandable are motivated
and able to empower employees through providing assistance and support of
employees, and developing ongoing relationships while simultaneously feeling their
own power reinforced. This study also examines the effects of employee performance.
Whether managers are working with a high- or low-performing employee is also
expected to affect the dynamics of power and their empowering.
Power is thought to have a pervasive impact on management actions and employee
responses but research is needed to specify these effects (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002;
Pfeffer, 1992, 1994; Van Knippenberg and Steensma, 2003). A critical issue is the
definition of power. Theorists have traditionally defined power in terms of getting
others to do what one wants, even if they resist (Bigley and Wiersema, 2002; Keltner
et al., 2003; Dahl, 1957; Emerson, 1962; Kipnis, 1976; Weber, 1947). However, this
perspective seems to suggest that power is fixed-sum in that the more powerful the
manager, the less powerful the employee, thus allowing little room for power to be used
to empower employees. In contrast to the fixed-sum perspective, empowerment theory
argues that power is an expandable pie (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Power is to be
shared and mutually developed by managers and employees so that employees are
able to act effectively on their own (Follett, 1924; Kanter, 1979, 1977). Managers seek to
develop “power-with” employees rather than “power-over” them (Follett, 1973).
Power can be defined without assuming it is a fixed, scarce resource as part of
interdependence that occurs when one person is able to affect the outcomes of another
(Fiske, 1993; Goodwin et al., 1998; Lawler and Yoon, 1996; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
Expressed in field theory rather than behavioral terms, power is the control of valued
resources: A has power in relation to B when A has resources that can affect the extent
that B accomplishes goals (Tjosvold, 1981). Control of valued resources is consistent
with widely used operations of power (French and Raven, 1959; Munduate and Dorado,
1998; Schriesheim et al., 1991). This study operationalizes power as the possession of
information that could help solve the employee’s problem and earn the employee
tangible benefits.
Studies have begun to explore the positive face of power (McClelland, 1970, 1975).
Lawler and Yoon (1996) found in a series of experiments that the total power and
mutual dependence among negotiators facilitate valued exchanges, which in turn
result in relational cohesion. Social power needs, when combined with activity
inhibition, motivate managers to have an empowering impact on employees
(McClelland, 1975). Argyris and Schon (1996) demonstrated that managers could
embrace mutual influence and joint determination to become more effective. Power can
be used to promote mutual interests as well as selfish ones (Scholl, 1999).

Cooperation and competition as mediators

Research on the positive and negative faces of power suggest that it is not power itself
that frustrates employee empowerment but it is viewing power as fixed-sum and
limited that is an obstacle. Indeed, managers who view power as expandable are more Power concepts
likely to involve employees in decision making (Coleman, 2004). This study uses and employee
Deutsch’s (1973) theory of cooperation and competition to probe the effects of viewing
power as expandable rather than limited. The overall argument is that with a view of performance
power as limited, managers are apt to see their relationship with employees as
competitive; whatever employees gain comes at their manager’s expense. Considering
power as expandable leaves managers more open to believe they have a cooperative 219
relationship where the success of employees can make them successful.
The basic premise of the theory of cooperation and competition is that the way goals
are structured determines how individuals interact, and the interaction pattern
determines the outcomes of the situation (Deutsch, 1949). When a situation is
structured cooperatively, goal achievements are positively correlated; individuals
perceive that they can reach their goals if and only if the others also reach their goals.
When a situation is structured competitively, goal achievements are negatively
correlated; each individual perceives that when one person achieves his or her goal, all
others with whom he or she is competitively linked fail to achieve their goals. When a
situation is structured individualistically, there is no correlation among participants’
goal attainments. Each person perceives that he or she can reach his or her goal
regardless of whether other individuals attain their goals.
To the extent that people conclude their goals are primarily cooperative or
competitive, Deutsch (1973) theorized, profoundly affects their orientation and
intentions towards each other, and specifically, how they use their resources. In
cooperation, people want others to act effectively and expect others to want them to be
effective because it is in each person’s self-interest to do so. They trust their efforts will
be welcomed and reciprocated. They believe they can rely upon each other and are
sensitive and responsive to each other. These mutual expectations of trust lead to
efforts to support and assist (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson and Johnson, 1989).
Competitive expectations, on the other hand, lead people to promote their own
interests at the expense of others, and even to interfere actively with each other
(Deutsch, 1973; Johnson and Johnson, 1989). An atmosphere of mistrust restricts
information and resource exchange. They withhold information and ideas in the
expectation that they can win the competition. Independence induces an indifference to
the interests of others and a withdrawal from interaction. Persons have few incentives
to communicate and exchange resources. Generally, independence has been found to
have similar though not as strong effects on interaction and productivity as
competition (Deutsch, 1973; Johnson and Johnson, 1989).
Recent studies conducted in North America have examined goal interdependence in
power situations. Experiments indicate that cooperative compared to competitive goals
induce greater support, more persuasion, and more trusting and friendly attitudes
between high- and low-power persons (Tjosvold, 1981, 1985a, b). Some evidence
indicates that the theory of cooperation and competition applies to the relationship
between managers and employees in North America (Tjosvold, 1989).
Previous research on power and the theory of cooperation and competition suggest
that applying different concepts of power affects how power is used. Understanding
power as expandable encourages the development of cooperative links between
managers and employees. Managers believe by helping employees be more able and
successful, they can also be more powerful and successful.
LODJ However, with the view that power is limited, sharing abilities with employees
27,3 implies that managers are losing their power at the expense of employees becoming
more resourceful. Rather than diminish their own power, managers withhold
assistance and support.
Much of the power research has focused on the enduring needs and values of
individual managers. However, organizational theories and assumptions of
220 expandable power are also apt to affect the relationship between managers and
employees (Coleman, 2004; Tjosvold et al., 2003). This study investigates the effects of
organizational concepts that power is expandable, independent, or limited. Results
could potentially suggest that changing an organization’s values toward power is a
useful way to develop a highly empowered workforce.

Employee performance
In contrast to power concepts, employee performance may have more complex effects
on manager’s efforts to empower. When employees perform at a high level, managers
may well find they can easily support and encourage their employee. Indeed, they may
well feel more powerful and successful themselves as they know that their employee is
performing well. They may also develop more positive attitudes and want to work with
the high, compared to the low, performing employee in the future.
However, employee needs may also motivate managers to empower. From an
empowerment point of view, power is used to provide the resources employees need to
perform effectively (Ashforth, 1997; de Jong and van Witteloostuijn, 2004; Kirkman
and Rosen, 1999; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Managers are likely to conclude that
successful employees do not require their direct assistance as much as those
performing more ineffectively. Managers empower low-performing employees through
concrete assistance but are not fully empowering. Low-performing employees leave
managers feeling frustrated and powerless, and thereby undermine a supportive,
ongoing relationship.

Power in Chinese organizations

Chinese societies have been considered more accepting of power and status differences
than Western ones and indeed power is thought to be used largely in a unilateral,
autocratic manner. However, recent theorizing and research suggests that power can
be used to assist and support employees (Tjosvold and Su, 2003). Realizing that leaders
have considerable power, Chinese societies have developed expectations for leaders
designed to channel power for socially productive purposes (Cheng, 1995; Farh and
Cheng, 2000).
Researchers have emphasized that Asians consider organizations as “families”
(Cheng, 1995; Farh and Cheng, 2000; Redding, 1990; Westwood, 1997). The
organization, as a “family” should be tightly knitted and managed by one person.
Farh and Cheng (2000) argued that the three major dimensions of Asian leadership are
authoritarian, benevolence, and morality. Leaders assert control, build up their
authority, and instruct employees who are expected to comply respectfully. Benevolent
leaders privately show their personal caring of individuals as well as avoid
embarrassing employees in public. Asian moral leaders serve unselfishly and model
appropriate good citizenship behavior. Employees reciprocate the benevolence and
morality of their leader with gratitude, respect, and identification.
 The values of guanxi and collectivism support the strong element of benevolence in Power concepts
the Asian model of leadership. Chinese leaders are supposed to develop personal and employee
relationships with employees and show favoritism toward in-group members. Indeed,
researchers have emphasized that personal connections are critical for doing business performance
in Asia (Hui et al., 1999; Tsui and Farh, 1997; Triandis, 1995; Tung, 1991). In support of
the idea that guanxi develops trust, Cheng et al. (1999) in their study of 173
superior-subordinate dyads from six private Taiwanese companies found that a close 221
manager-employee relationship led to more generous treatment.
Spencer-Oatey (1997) found quite different attitudes and outcomes toward the
unequal power and status of tutors and their pupils in the West and in China. Chinese
tutors felt both interpersonally close to as well as having considerable more power than
their students. British tutors thought they should have be more equal power with their
students but also were more interpersonally distance. These results suggest that
Chinese people can find unequal power and close relationships compatible.
Recent theoretical and empirical work suggest then that Chinese managers can use
their power to support and assist employees. This study empirically examines the
effects of concepts of power and the level of employee performance on managers’
empowerment in China.
Hypotheses
Based on the above research and reasoning, it is hypothesized that:
H1. Managers whose organization considers power as expandable, rather than as
independent or limited, develop cooperative interdependence and use their
valued resources to empower employees.
H2. Managers feel more powerful when working with a high performing
compared to a low-performing employee, but use their valued resources to
empower low compared to high-performing employees.

Method
Participants
Sixty male and sixty female undergraduates majoring in management and recruited
from universities in Guangzhou, China, volunteered to participate on a study on
organizational interaction. They were randomly assigned to six conditions, 10 males
and 10 females in each condition. They received one chance for a gift in a lottery for
their participation.

Procedure
The experiment was conducted in three parts: participants prepared for their
supervision of an employee by learning the setting and activities, supervised the
employee working on a problem, and were debriefed. Two participants and two
confederates (posing as participants) were scheduled at each session.
To begin Phase 1, the experimenter divided them into two groups, each with one
participant and one confederate. He escorted them into different rooms and outlined
that the research studied communication between persons in organizations and they
would take the role of managers and the other group the employees. They were to read
the written instructions and discuss them with each other to understand the situation
and their role.
LODJ The participants read that they were to take the role of managers in a company that
27,3 specializes in solving problems brought to them by other companies. Their department
would shortly be given two problems. As manager, they would solve math problems
and the employee would solve a problem on the motion of a special insect. They read in
the instructions that they would supervise the employee through written messages
with no oral communication allowed.
222 To give participants power, they received an additional information sheet with the
employee problem, four hints that would help the employee solve the complex problem,
and the final answer. In addition, participants were given three hints that they were
told were plausible enough to be believed but would mislead the employee from
completing the task. Participants were told that, while they could help or obstruct the
employee in any way they chose, they could not give the correct answer; none did.
Participants were expected to believe they had power in that they had resources and
information that the employees would value as facilitating and frustrating their task
and affecting their outcomes (Fiske, 1993; Goodwin et al., 1998; Lawler and Yoon, 1995,
1996; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
To begin Phase 2, the experimenter had the confederates exchange room and
introduced them as employees. He reminded the participant and confederate that they
were to communicate only through written messages. They were also informed that
experimenter would check each person’s progress on their tasks give feedback. After
20 minutes, the experimenter returned and ended Phase 2, separated the participant
and confederate, and had the participant complete the post-interaction questionnaire.
Participants were then fully debriefed, thanked, and asked not to discuss their
experience with others who might participate. All participants were given one chance
in the lottery.

Independent variables
Expandable, independent, and limited concepts of power and high and low
performance were crossed to form six conditions. The instructions and confederates
induced the power concepts induction. Participants randomly assigned to the
expandable power condition read in Phase 1 that managers in this organization
understood that information and other resources are the power they can employ. They
believe they are more powerful when employees are powerful, for powerful employees
help them be more powerful. Power is greater when managers and employees combine
their resources. By integrating their efforts and abilities, managers and employees both
become more powerful. The organization has prospered from this approach to power.
Therefore, they will gain chances in the lottery to the extent that they use their power
to enhance their employee’s power.
The confederates reinforced these instructions. In Phase 1, the confederates
indicated that the participants should gain chances in the lottery by promoting the
power of the employee as well as themselves. They also indicated that as observers
they would evaluate the participant on the basis of expanding power.
Participants in the independent power condition read that managers in this
organization understand that information and other resources are the power they can
employ. They believe that power is earned by one’s ability and knowledge. Therefore,
managers and employees can develop power individually and independently by their
ability and knowledge and by doing their own job well. Therefore, they will gain
chances in the lottery to the extent that they practice their company’s culture and use Power concepts
their power and information to solve their problem. and employee
Participants in the power as limited condition read that managers in the
organization understand that information and other resources are the power they can performance
employ. They believe that, because there is only so much power to go around, when
they gain power in an organization, someone else loses power. Managers believe that to
give power to employees undermines their position. Therefore, they try to keep their 223
power and use it to gain more power. The organization has prospered from this
approach to power. Therefore, the participants will gain chances in the lottery to the
extent that they protect and enhance their power, not relinquish it to employees.
The performance induction required participants to believe that their employee had
high or low performance on their task. Participants read in Phase 1 that the
experimenter would check the progress of the manager and employee problem solving
after five and fifteen minutes during the second part of the experiment. He would
inform them of each other’s progress to facilitate mutual communication. After five
minutes of the second part of the experiment, the experimenter checked the
participant’s and the confederate’s progress and announced that managers were
solving their problems effectively. In the high-performance condition, he announced
that employees had completed the first step of the problem. Ten minutes later, he again
reassured the manager and indicated that the employees had completed the first two
steps and 15 minutes later announced the employees had nearly completed the
problem. In the low-performance condition, he announced that employees had no
progress in completing the problem. Ten and fifteen minutes later, he again reassured
the manager and indicated that the employees had made a little progress and still had
not reached step one.

Mediating and dependent variables

Managers are thought to empower their employees when they assist, support,
encourage, and develop relationships that are likely to help employees complete their
tasks effectively.
There were four sets of dependent measures in this study. The Appendix has the
items for all scales. Goal interdependence was expected to affect the consequences of
power views. Participants indicated on three items (a ¼ 0.85) the extent that their
goals were compatible with the others. On three items, participants rated the extent
they had independent goals (a ¼ 0.77) and on another two items that their goals were
incompatible and competitive (a ¼ 0.73). These scales were based on ones used in
previous experimental and field studies (Alper et al., 1998; Tjosvold, 1981).
The second set of dependent measures involved assistance and support to the
employee. Two measures, assistance and encouragement, were coded from the written
messages and two measures, empowerment and facilitate, were included from the
post-interaction questionnaire. To measure assistance, the number of hints the
participants wrote to the employee during Phase 2 was counted. Two trained
undergraduates, unaware of the hypotheses or the experimental conditions, coded the
written participants’ messages. They first independently identified the number of clues
the participants sent that would help the employee solve the problem. The raters
agreed on 100 cases out of 120. They then discussed the disputed cases and their
agreed upon ratings were used in the analyses. Similarly, the coders indicated the
LODJ number of misleading hints that the participants sent. The raters agreed on 106 cases
27,3 of 120.
Encouragement was measured through the participants’ written messages.
Comments that showed confidence in the employee were identified as supportive
and were scored as three. Neutral messages were deemed not to have any appreciable
positive or negative impact on the employee’s confidence, motivation, or performance
224 and were scored as two. Discouragement was comments that undermined or interfered
with the employee’s performance and were scored as one. The raters studied this
definition and applied it to the written messages. Two raters agreed on 94 cases of the
120 on these support ratings. They then discussed the disagreed cases and their agreed
upon ratings were used in the analyses.
In the post-interaction questionnaire, three scales measured the effects of
experimental conditions on assistance and support. Empowerment was measured
by three items asking the extent the participant gave clues and help (Cronbach
a ¼ 0:86). Facilitate was measured by two items (a ¼ 0.66) indicating the extent the
participants provided assistance regardless whether they were asked to do so.
Misleading was measured by two items (a ¼ 0.73) indicating the extent the
participants try to obstruct the employee’s progress.
The third set, power attitudes, included the measures of responsibility and
reinforced power. Participants indicated in four items the extent they felt responsible
for assisting the employee (a ¼ 0:83). They rated on three items the extent their power
and position were reaffirmed working with the employee (a ¼ 0.85).
The final set involved the interpersonal relationship. Participants rated the extent
that they developed a team relationship with the employee in four items (a ¼ 0.84).
They also indicated the extent they would like to work with the other in the future on
four items (a ¼ 0.89).

Tasks
The confederates in the role of employees were given the Joe Doodlebug problem,
which requires an examination of basic assumptions and creative thinking to solve
(Rokeach, 1968). Joe Doodlebug can only jump in prescribed ways to get to his food.
The task or the employees was to explain why he needs four jumps in the particular
situation described in the problem.
When employees were working on this problem, participants had their own task to
complete, which were 16 math questions taken from college textbooks. According to a
pretest of eight university students in a management course, these questions were
challenging to solve in 20 minutes but within their capabilities.

Confederates
Four undergraduate students were recruited to be confederates. They were given 15
hours of training in how to induce participants’ involvement and commitment in the
experimental situation and carry out the experimental induction. The confederates
were observed piloting six participants each to ensure their competence in fulfilling the
confederate’s role. Each confederate participated in all four conditions.
Induction measures Power concepts
Checks were conducted to document whether the experimental conditions were created. and employee
ANOVA result showed that participants in different experiment conditions endorsed
power as expandable to a different extent, Fð2; 117Þ ¼ 54:39; p , 0:01: Tukey analysis performance
of items included on the post-interaction questionnaire indicated that participants in
expandable condition indicated that they believed power was expandable (M ¼ 6:16;
SD ¼ 1:01) more than participants in individual power condition (M ¼ 4:18; 225
SD ¼ 1:41), p , 0:01; who in turn accepted power as expandable more than those in
limited power condition (M ¼ 3:23; SD ¼ 1:39Þ; p , 0:01: ANOVA result also showed
the conception of considering power as limited was associated with experimental
conditions, Fð2; 117Þ ¼ 49:12; p , 0:01: According to Tukey tests, participants in the
limited power condition considered power as limited (M ¼ 4:71; SD ¼ 1:63Þ more than
those in expandable condition (M ¼ 1:64; SD ¼ 0:87Þ; and more than those in
individual power condition (M ¼ 3:67; SD ¼ 1:57Þ: Finally, participants’ beliefs that
their power depended upon their own individual abilities and resources dependent upon
their experimental conditions, Fð2; 117Þ ¼ 4:76; p , 0:01: Participants in individual
power condition admitted power as based on individual ability (M ¼ 4:11; SD ¼ 1:21Þ
more than those in expandable condition (M ¼ 3:44; SD ¼ 1:17Þ; p , 0:05; and more
that those in limited condition (M ¼ 3:25; SD ¼ 1:36Þ; p , 0:01:
Items in post-interaction questionnaire checked the validity of employee
performance induction. Participants in the low performance condition indicated that
the employee performed poorly ðM ¼ 2:60; SD ¼ 1:18Þ compared to participants in the
high performance condition ðM ¼ 5:67; SD ¼ 1:00Þ; Fð1; 118Þ ¼ 236:00; p , 0:01:
These results indicate that the view of power and attribution for low-performance
inductions were successful.

Results
ANOVAs (3 £ 2) were conducted on the dependent measures. Post hoc Tukey-t tests
were used to compare the power conditions. Overall, results support the hypotheses
that power concepts and level of employee performance impact managerial
empowerment.
Hypothesis testing
The results on the set of goal interdependence measures support the reasoning that
cooperation and competition mediate the relationship between power concepts and
managerial actions and reactions. Results of ANOVA and Tukey test indicated that
managers with a view of power as expandable ðM ¼ 6:13Þ believed they
had cooperative goals with their employee compared to those with an independent
ðM ¼ 3:90Þ or a limited ðM ¼ 3:20Þ concept of power. Managers in the expandable
condition ðM ¼ 1:90Þ thought their goals with employees were less independent
than did those with an independent view ðM ¼ 4:49Þ and those with a limited view
ðM ¼ 4:27Þ: With the concept of power as expandable, managers ðM ¼ 1:87Þ indicated
that their goals were less competitive than those in the independent concept of power
condition ðM ¼ 4:25Þ and those in the limited condition ðM ¼ 4:67Þ:
ANOVA results support H1 in that the power concept was found to affect
empowerment measured in terms of the actual assistance given and the encouragement
offered by the participants (Table I). Post hoc Tukey tests indicated that participants in
the expand power condition ðM ¼ 1:98Þ gave more assistance in terms of hints to the
 27,3

226
LODJ

Table I.
Significant comparisons
Expand Independent Limited ANOVA
DV measures H-perf L-perf H-perf L-perf H-perf L-perf F(2, 117)b F(1,118)c Tukeyd

Cooperation 6.05 6.20 3.97 3.82 3.25 3.15 64.86 * * * E . I***

1.17 0.81 1.33 1.40 1.14 1.27 E . L***
I . L*
Competition 1.78 1.95 4.40 4.10 4.15 5.18 43.24 * * * E . I***
1.20 1.52 1.26 1.48 1.66 1.55 E . L***
Independent 1.80 2.00 4.50 4.47 3.97 4.57 56.62 * * E . L***
0.82 1.11 1.12 1.19 1.30 1.57 E . I**
Assistance (hints) 1.65 2.20 1.00 1.45 0.90 1.40 7.76 * * * 7.97 * * * E . L**
0.75 0.95 0.97 1.10 0.85 1.14 E . I**
Encourage 2.50 2.35 2.20 2.10 1.95 1.75 9.14 * * * E . L***
0.51 0.49 0.52 0.72 0.76 0.55
Empower 5.92 4.87 4.68 4.28 3.58 4.03 11.56 * * * E . L***
1.24 1.53 1.55 1.33 1.67 1.50 E . I*
Facilitate 3.60 3.43 2.63 2.55 1.73 2.25 12.36 * * * E . I**
1.64 1.87 1.22 1.23 1.01 1.13 E . L***
Misinformation (belief) 2.45 2.20 3.93 3.65 4.03 4.08 14.63 * * * E . L***
1.45 1.31 1.63 1.61 1.53 1.66 E . I***
Responsible 6.24 6.06 3.99 4.14 3.99 3.76 48.59 * * * E . I***
0.91 0.56 1.48 1.15 1.31 1.24 E . L***
Reinforced Power 6.28 5.77 4.65 4.23 4.09 3.46 40.80 * * * 6.15 * E . I***
0.90 0.94 1.41 0.94 1.28 1.28 E . L***
I . L*
Team membership 5.99 5.33 4.09 3.81 3.70 3.58 37.39 * * * E . I***
0.85 1.32 1.29 0.95 1.07 1.20 E . L***
Future collaboration 5.98 4.75 4.65 3.39 4.79 3.55 13.30 * * 27.37 * * * E . L***
0.86 1.29 1.36 1.20 1.01 1.36 E . I***
Misinformation used 0.15 0.20 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.20
0.37 0.52 0.63 0.57 0.88 0.52
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01; * * * p , 0:001: aThe means are above the standard deviations; bsignificant differences among the power concept
conditions; csignificant differences between the reasons conditions; and dTukey tests indicated significant comparisons within the power concept
conditions
other than those in the independent power ðM ¼ 1:23Þ and in limited power conditions Power concepts
ðM ¼ 1:15Þ: Participants in expand condition ðM ¼ 2:43Þ also gave more and employee
encouragement to the other than those in the limited condition ðM ¼ 1:85Þ:
Participants in expand power condition ðM ¼ 5:40Þ thought they had empowered the performance
employee more than did those in the independent power ðM ¼ 4:48Þ and limited
conditions ðM ¼ 3:80Þ: The expand power participants ðM ¼ 3:52Þ rated that they had
facilitated the other’s goals more than did participants in the independent ðM ¼ 2:59Þ 227
and the limited condition ðM ¼ 1:99Þ: Expand power participants ðM ¼ 2:33Þ rated that
they had given less misinformation to the other than did participants in the independent
ðM ¼ 3:79Þ and the limited condition ðM ¼ 4:06Þ: Although expand participants were
recorded as giving fewer misleading messages, these differences did not reach statistical
significance.
In the third set of dependent measures, expand power participants ðM ¼ 6:15Þ
rated that they felt more responsibility to assist the employee than did independent
ðM ¼ 4:07Þ and the limited participants ðM ¼ 3:88Þ: Expand power participants
ðM ¼ 6:03Þ rated that their power had been more reinforced than did participants in
the independent ðM ¼ 4:44Þ condition who also rated their power as more reinforced
than those in the limited ðM ¼ 3:78Þ condition.
The last set of dependent measures focused on the relationship. The expand power
participants ðM ¼ 5:66Þ indicated that they felt more like a team with the employee
than did participants in the independent ðM ¼ 3:95Þ and the limited condition
ðM ¼ 3:64Þ: Finally, participants with an expand concept of power ðM ¼ 5:37Þ wanted
to work more with the employee in the future than did independent ðM ¼ 4:02Þ and
limited power participants ðM ¼ 4:17Þ:
Results support H2 that the level of performance affects how managers use their
power. Participants who worked with the low performing employee ðM ¼ 1:68Þ
provided more assistance as hints than did participants with a high-performing
employee ðM ¼ 1:18Þ: Participants rated that they had given the low performer
ðM ¼ 3:31Þ less misinformation than did those who worked with the high performing
employee ðM ¼ 3:47Þ: There were no statistical differences though in the actual
misleading messages sent. Participants with the low performing employee ðM ¼ 4:49Þ
rated that they felt their power was less reinforced than those with the high-performing
employee ðM ¼ 5:01Þ: Participants indicated that they were less interested in working
with the low-performing employee ðM ¼ 3:90Þ that the high-performing employee
ðM ¼ 5:14Þ:

Discussion
Results indicate that the perspective of managers toward power, not just power
itself, very much affects how power is used and the extent managers are
empowering. Findings also support the utility of the theory of cooperation and
competition for understanding how viewing power as expandable, independent, or
limited affects managerial empowering. Employee actions were also found to impact
empowering. Indeed, effects of the employee performance level suggest the
complexities of empowering. Managers were more empowering of high performing
employees in that they wanted to work with the other in the future and felt their
own power was reinforced. However, they provided more assistance to the
low-performing employee.
LODJ As suggested by empowerment researchers, viewing power as limited was found to
27,3 undercut support and assistance of employees whereas understanding power as
expandable led to empowering (Follett, 1924; Kanter, 1979, 1977). In addition to
providing direct empirical support for this proposition, the study contributes to this
theorizing by developing evidence that social interdependence theory can help
understand the dynamics between power concepts and empowering (Deutsch, 1973).
228 Developing strong, cooperative interdependence appears to be an important
foundation for managers to empower employees whereas viewing power as limited
and independent leads to competitive and independent goals that undermine
managerial empowering.
Understanding that power is expandable was found to leave managers open to
the conclusion that they and the employee have cooperative goals where they
succeed together. They can believe their power and employee effectiveness
reinforce each other so that they can be more powerful as the employee succeeds.
With this goal interdependence, they were prepared to facilitate and encourage
employees and believed their power was reinforced. However, with the view that
power was limited or independent, managers were found to have competitive and
independent goals. Managers appear to conclude that if their employee performs
effectively their power is threatened. Using their power to assist the employee
requires them to diminish their own power and effectiveness; employee success
means goal frustration for themselves. Therefore, they withhold providing
assistance despite their power to do so.
Consistent with the idea that power involves interdependence, results confirm that
employee performance as well as managerial concepts affects empowering. All
managers had power but their use of this power depended in part on the employee.
However, this impact was complex and seems to be generated by the managers’
attempts to respond both to the needs of the employee and to their own interest in
developing an ongoing relationship. As suggested by the empowerment argument that
managers respond to employee needs, participants gave more useful information to the
employee making little progress than to a high performing one. Yet managers seem to
want interpersonal distance between themselves and this low performing employee.
They indicated that they did not want to work with the low performing employee in the
future and that their power was reduced. They appear to have found the low
performing employee frustrating while at the same time they gave actual assistance. It
may be that continued low performance re-aligns the strength of these forces so that
managers withdraw more forcefully from the low-performing employee, resulting in
less concrete assistance. Future research is needed to explore this speculation.
Power defined as the capacity to affect outcomes or the control of valued resources
does not imply a limited view of power that results in competitive goals (Fiske, 1993;
Goodwin et al., 1998; Lawler and Yoon, 1996; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). Because an
employee has valued resources does not mean that the manager has fewer valued
resources. In this study, managers could use their power to support and encourage the
employee without losing power. Indeed, managers with an expandable view of power
concluded that their power was reinforced as did those who worked with a
high-performing employee.
Power has been thought to corrupt managers, resulting in attempts to control and
devalue employees subject to power (Kipnis, 1976). Participants taking the role of
managers were prepared to use their valuable resources to assist employees, especially Power concepts
when they viewed power as expandable. Results of this experiment document that and employee
power can have much different dynamics. Even in high power distance China, power
can assist and empower (Pye, 1985; Spencer-Oatey, 1997). Managers were sensitive to performance
employee needs; they used their resources to assist low performing employees.
Results of this study suggest that findings that China is a high power distant
society do not imply that Chinese managers use power to control under all conditions. 229
Leaders in China can both assert their authority and use power but also develop
relationships with their employees. With an understanding that power is expandable,
especially when their employee lacks ability, Chinese participants used their power to
assist and support employees.

Limitations
Results are of course limited by the sample and operations. In addition, the tasks
assigned were not very typical of the ones most managers and employees confront in
organizations. Spector and Brannick (1995) have argued that the most effective way to
overcome methodological weaknesses is to test ideas with different methods. Previous
experiments in North America with different situations and operations as well as field
studies there suggest that major findings may have both internal and external validity
(Coleman, 2004; Tjosvold, 1989, 1985a, b; Tjosvold et al., 1998). It would be desirable to
provide direct experimental verification of the theory in actual organizational settings
in both the USA and China.

Practical implications
The tendency to confound power and competition may have important organizational
implications. The prevalence of viewing power as limited may be an underlying reason
why developing a cooperative, supportive relationship between managers and
employees appears to be so difficult (Hogan et al., 1994; Rudolph and Peluchette, 1993).
Yet the challenges of the international marketplace are thought to make it more critical
that leaders use their position to empower employees (Burke, 1986; Conger and
Kanungo, 1988).
Based on theorizing of the destructive impact on power, interventions have long
focused on equalizing power and minimizing power differences (Higgins, 1997; Walton,
1987). However, this study adds to the empirical base suggesting that viewing power
as expandable can help build cooperative, not competitive, relationships which in turn
very much help managers use their valued resources to assist, support, and encourage
their employees. Rather than minimize and avoid power, managers and employees are
oriented toward helping each other expand and develop their valued resources and
capacity to assist each other. Shared goals, integrated roles, common tasks, and shared
reward distributions may further build cooperative goals (Hanlon et al., 1994; Tjosvold
and Tjosvold, 1995). Then managers and employees feel that they are on the same side
so that as one succeeds, others succeed and are prepared and confident to use their
valued resources for mutual success. These conclusions would seem to contribute
substantially to positive power and productive work (Deutsch, 1973).
Results more specifically suggest that managers in Chinese organizations are open to
viewing power as expandable and developing cooperative relationships with employees
(Tjosvold and Su, 2003). Indeed, Chinese managers are expected to assert control, build
LODJ up their authority, and instruct employees but also to develop relationships with
27,3 employees and show concern for them. Results indicate that organizations clearly
communicating that power is expandable is an important condition that can facilitate
the positive use of power and relationship development in China.
Although widely recommended, managers often do not empower their employees
and this study suggests that traditional thinking that power is limited and involves
230 overcoming resistance can interfere. Results indicate that understanding power as
expandable helps managers believe their goals with employees are cooperative,
thereby leaving them more open to provide assistance, encouragement, and
relationships that can empower employees while reinforcing their own power.
Managers were also found to respond to employee needs in that they provided concrete
assistance to low performing employees. However, they felt their power was reduced
and did not want to work with the employee in the future. Viewing power as
expandable and developing cooperative interdependence appear to be basis for
empowering employees even in a high distance power culture like China.

References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, S.A. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74, pp. 33-52.
Anderson, C. and Berdahl, J.L. (2002), “The experience of power: examining the effects of power
on approach and inhibition tendencies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 1362-77.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents
and consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 126-40.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
Bigley, G.A. and Wiersema, M.F. (2002), “New CEOs and corporate strategic refocusing: how
experience as heir apparent influences the use of power”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 47, pp. 707-27.
Burke, W. (1986), “Leadership as empowering others”, in Srivastva, S. (Ed.), Executive Power,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 51-77.
Cheng, B.S. (1995), Authoritarian Values and Executive Leadership: The Case of Taiwanese
Family Enterprises, Taiwan’s National Science Council, National Taiwan University,
Taiwan (in Chinese).
Cheng, B.S., Farh, J.L. and Chang, H. (1999), Employee Categorization and Managerial Behavior in
the Chinese Context: A Theoretical Model and its Validation, unpublished paper.
Coleman, P.T. (2000), “Power and conflict”, in Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P.T. (Eds), The
Handbook of Constructive Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Chapter 5, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 108-30.
Coleman, P.T. (2004), “Implicit theories of organizational power and priming effects on
managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental study”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 297-321.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 471-82.
Dahl, R.P. (1957), “The concept of power”, Behavioral Science, Vol. 2, pp. 201-18. Power concepts
de Jong, G. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2004), “Successful corporate democracy: sustainable and employee
cooperation of capital and labor in the Dutch Breman group”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 54-66. performance
Deming, W.E. (1993), The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Deutsch, M. (1949), “A theory of cooperation and competition”, Human Relations, Vol. 2, 231
pp. 129-52.
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Emerson, R.M. (1962), “Power-dependence relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27,
pp. 31-41.
Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2000), “A culture analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organization”, in Tsui, A.S. and Li, J.T. (Eds), Management and Organizations in China,
Macmillan, London.
Fiske, S.T. (1993), “Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 48, pp. 709-26.
Follett, M.P. (1924), Creative Experience, Longman Green, New York, NY.
Follett, M.P. (1973), “Power”, in Fox, E.M. and Urwick, L. (Eds), Dynamic Administration: The
Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, Pitman, London, pp. 66-87.
French, J.R.P. Jr and Raven, B.H. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. and
Zander, A.F. (Eds), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 150-167.
Goodwin, S.A., Operario, D. and Fiske, S.T. (1998), “Situational power and interpersonal
dominance facilitate bias and inequality”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 54, pp. 677-98.
Hanlon, S.C., Meyer, D.C. and Taylor, R.R. (1994), “Consequences of gainsharing: a field
experiment revisited”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 19, pp. 87-111.
Heller, F. (2003), “Participation and power: a critical assessment”, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, Vol. 52, pp. 144-63.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1280-300.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. and Hogan, J. (1994), “What we know about leadership: effectiveness and
personality”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49, pp. 493-504.
Hui, C., Law, K.S. and Chen, Z.X. (1999), “A structural equation model of the effects of negative
affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role
performance: a Chinese case”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 77, pp. 3-21.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989), Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research,
Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.
Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. (1979), “Power failure in management circuits”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 65-75.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Anderson, C.A. (2003), “Power, approach, and inhibition”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 110, pp. 265-84.
Kipnis, D. (1976), The Powerholders, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 58-74.
LODJ Lawler, E.J. and Yoon, J. (1995), “Structural power and emotional processes in negotiation: a
social exchange approach”, in Kramer, R.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Negotiation as a
27,3 Social Process, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 143-65.
Lawler, E.J. and Yoon, J. (1996), “Commitment in exchange relations: test of a theory of relational
cohesion”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, pp. 89-108.
McClelland, D.C. (1970), “The two faces of power”, Journal of Affairs, Vol. 24, pp. 29-47.
232 McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experience, Irvington Publishers, Inc., New York, NY.
Munduate, L. and Dorado, M.A. (1998), “Supervisor power bases, cooperative behaviour and
organizational commitment”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 7, pp. 163-77.
Pfeffer, J. (1992), “Understanding power in organizations”, California Management Review,
Vol. 34, pp. 29-50.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pye, L.W. (1985), Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Redding, S.G. (1990), Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Rokeach, M. (1968), The Open and Closed Mind, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Rudolph, H.R. and Peluchette, J.V. (1993), “The power gap: is sharing or accumulating power the
answer?”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 9, pp. 12-20.
Scholl, W. (1999), “Restrictive control and information pathologies in organizations”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 55, pp. 101-18.
Schriesheim, C.A., Hinkin, T.R. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1991), “Can ipsative and single-item
measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven’s (1959) five
bases of power? An empirical investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76,
pp. 106-14.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (1995), “The nature and effects of method variance in
organizational research”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 249-74.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997), “Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: a
comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 284-302.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structure characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 483-504.
Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York, NY.
Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 666-81.
Tjosvold, D. (1981), “Unequal power relationships within a cooperative or competitive context”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 137-50.
Tjosvold, D. (1985a), “Effects of attribution and social context on superiors’ influence and
interaction with low performing subordinates”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 361-76.
Tjosvold, D. (1985b), “Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, pp. 281-93.
Tjosvold, D. (1989), “Interdependence and power between managers and employees: a study of
the leader relationship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 49-64.
Tjosvold, D. and Su, F. (2003), “Positive power in organizations: the contribution of Chinese Power concepts
values”, Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, Vol. 4, pp. 71-89.
Tjosvold, D. and Tjosvold, M.M. (1995), “Cooperation theory, constructive controversy,
and employee
and effectiveness: learning from crises”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team performance
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 79-112.
Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Law, K. (1998), “Empowerment in the leader relationship in Hong Kong: 233
interdependence and controversy”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138, pp. 624-37.
Tjosvold, D., Coleman, P.T. and Sun, H. (2003), “Effects of organizational values on leader’s use
of information power to affect performance in China”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 152-67.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Tsui, A.S. and Farh, J.L. (1997), “Where guanxi matters: relational demography and guanzi in the
Chinese context”, Work and Occupation, Vol. 24, pp. 56-79.
Tung, R. (1991), “Handshakes across the sea: cross-cultural negotiating for business success”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 14, pp. 30-40.
Van Knippenberg, B. and Steensma, H. (2003), “Future interaction expectation and the use of
soft and hard influence tactics”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 52,
pp. 55-67.
Walton, R. (1987), Managing Conflict: Interpersonal Dialogue and Third-Party Roles,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Westwood, R. (1997), “Harmony and patriarchy: the cultural basis for “paternalistic headship”
among the overseas Chinese”, Organization Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 445-80.

Further reading
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1995), The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Law, S.A., Hui, C. and Tjosvold, D. (1998), “Relational approach to understanding conflict
management: integrating the theory of cooperation and competition, leader-member
relationship, and in-role and extra-role performance”, paper submitted for publication,
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
Rahim, M.A. (1989), “Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with
supervision: evidence from a national sample of managers”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 15, pp. 545-56.
Raven, B.H. (1999), “Influence, power, religion, and the mechanisms of social control”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 55, pp. 161-86.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-704.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1981), “Effect of partner’s effort and ability on
liking for partner after failure on a cooperative task”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 109,
pp. 147-52.
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I.R. and Struthers, J. (1991), “Power and interdependence in work
groups: views of managers and employees”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 16,
pp. 285-99.
LODJ Appendix. Measurement scales and items
27,3
Scales and items a
Cooperation 0.85
To what extent is your benefit compatible with the other’s benefit
. . . the other’s success can help you to succeed
234 . . . your objective consistent with the other’s objective
Independence 0.77
To what extent the other is for his or her own goal and you for your goal. Both persons have
independent goals
. . . is your benefit and the other’s benefit independent
. . . is the other’s success unrelated to your success
Competition 0.73
To what extent do you feel that the other’s success is your failure
. . . do you compete with the other for your benefit and the other for his or her benefit
Empowerment 0.86
To what extent did you give clues to help the other solve the problem
. . . you really help the other solve the problem
. . . the information you gave to the other really improve the other’s problem solving
Facilitate 0.66
To what extent did you actively provided information to help the other solve the problem
. . . would you provide assistance to the other even if the other did not approach you
Misinformation usage 0.73
To what extent, did you pass misinformation to the other
. . . did you communicate misinformation to the other
Responsibility 0.83
As a manager how much did you believe you had a responsibility to help the other solve the
problem
As a manager how much did you believe you had a responsibility to give hints to the other
(reversed) It’s the other’s responsibility to solve his or her problem, not yours
(reversed) Your responsibility is to solve your problem and the other’s is to solve his or her
problem
Reinforced 0.85
To what extent did you feel more powerful as you help the other solve the problem
___ did you feel that you have a high social status after you gave information to help the other
solve the problem
___ did you feel pleasure after you help the other solve the problem
Team membership 0.84
To what extent did you feel that you and the other belong to the same team
___ you are pleased to work with the other as a team
___ you and the other help each other as team members
___ you act as team member regarding the other’s progress
Collaboration in the future 0.89
To what extent are you willing to work together with the other in the future
___ are you confident that you can work together with the other in the future
___ are you confident that it will be efficient if you work with the other in the future
(reversed). . . do you think that the other is not a person with whom you can work together
Table AI.

Corresponding author
Dean Tjosvold can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats