Rachel E. Sturm

Interpersonal Power A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda

Power is a fundamental force in social relationships and is pervasive throughout various types of interactions. Although research has shown that the possession of power can change the power holder, the full extent of power’s consequences on individuals’ decision-making capabilities and social interactions within organizations is not fully understood. The goal of this paper is to review, synthesize, and critique the literature on power with a focus on its organizational and managerial implications. Specifically, we propose a definition of power that takes into account its three defining characteristics—having the discretion and means to enforce one’s will—and summarize the extant literature on how power influences individuals’ thoughts, emotions, and actions both in terms of prosocial and antisocial outcomes. In addition, we highlight important moderators of power and describe ways in which it can be studied in a more rigorous manner by examining methodological issues and pitfalls with regard to its measurement and manipulation. We also provide future research directions to motivate and guide the study of power by management scholars. Our desire is to present a thorough and parsimonious account of power’s influence on individuals within an organizational context, as well as provide a foundation that scholars can build upon as they continue to make consequential contributions to the study of power.

Validating the Feedback Orientation Scale in a Leadership Development Context

Feedback orientation is an individual difference variable that represents individuals’ receptivity to feedback. In 2010, Linderbaum and Levy developed and validated a measure of feedback orientation called the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). We investigated the validity of the FOS using 172 participants in a leadership development program designed for middle- to senior-level leaders. Our results support the FOS’s convergent validity, as it was correlated with implicit person theory (assumptions regarding the malleability of personal attributes) and achievement motivation. We also found support for the FOS’s criterion-related validity, as it was correlated with participants’ reactions to their 360-degree feedback. Participants’ feedback orientation, however, was unrelated to coach ratings of their openness, likelihood to change, and defensiveness during their feedback sessions.