Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

Science Research Group Leaders

Power and Members Compliance
and Satisfaction with Supervision
Yi Meng, Jia He, and Changkun Luo
Third Military Medical University
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the correlations between science research group members
perceptions of power bases used by their group(lab, team) leader (coercive, reward,
legitimate, expert and referent) and the effect of those perceptions on group
members attitudinal compliance, behavioral compliance, and satisfaction with
supervision. Participants were postdoctoral and Ph.D. students at a research
institution in the UK that is a world leader in its fields. Three questionnaires,
including the Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI), the Compliance with
Supervisors Wishes (CSW), and the satisfaction with supervision facet of the Job
Descriptive Index (JDI), were used. The results of statistical descriptive analysis
indicated that group members perceived expert power used by the leader as the
greatest among five power bases; while the results of the multiple regression analysis
indicated legitimate power and expert power were positively related to attitudinal
compliance; legitimate power, coercive power and expert power had positive
correlations with group members behavioral compliance; and referent power,
reward power, and expert power were positively associated with group members
satisfaction with supervision. Based on the findings, this study offers
recommendations for the effective exercising of power in research groups and draws
implications for advancing administration in science institutions.

INTRODUCTION
Leadership is a process whereby

the role of power in leadership is to act

an individual influences other

as an engine of influence (Bass & Bass,

individuals to achieve a common goal

2008). However, no research has been

in a group or an organization

conducted on the power-influence

(Northouse, 2010, p. 3). The essence of

processes underlying the relationship

leadership is influence over followers;

between power and effective

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

leadership; as Pfeffer (1981) pointed

Kim, & Kim, 1994; Student, 1968; Yagil,

out, power has been neglected in

2002) on leader power mainly focused

management studies. While Yukl

on business and political

(1989) stated that some studies on the

organizations, and seldom on the area

power-influence approach attempted

of education, health, and other public

to explain leadership effectiveness in

service organizations, and even more

terms of the degree of power

rarely on science research institutions.

possessed by a leader, types of power,

Nevertheless, science research

and how power is exercised, Gordon

organizations contribute not only to

and Yukl (2004) concluded that the

human progress but also directly to

answer remains elusive despite the

the national economy. Research

countless studies carried out to

groups are the basic units of research

identify effective leadership over the

institutions, where great inventions

past half-century. People have lost

and discoveries are made. The

interest in the topic of power because

performance-related outcomes desired

of the flat organizational structure and

by a leader for research groups

empowerment popular in todays

include infinite commitment and

worls. Nevertheless, power still exists

satisfaction by group members. Thus,

in flattening organizations and

leaders should be aware of multiple

empowerment still involves sharing

sources of power in work situations

power with others. As always,

and how they affect the attitudes of

understanding power is significant for

group members.

understanding organizational

The aim of this study was to clarify

behavior and leadership effectiveness

correlations between research group

(Benfari, Wilkinson, & Orth, 1986;

members perceptions of the power

Pfeffer, 1981; Rahim, 1989; Yukl &

bases used by their leader and the

Falbe, 1991).

effect of those perceptions on group

members compliance and satisfaction

. . . understanding power is
significant for understanding
organizational behavior and
leadership effectiveness . . . .

with supervision. The framework for

this study is shown in Figure 1. The
five power bases of French and Raven
(1959)reward power, coercive
power, legitimate power, referent

Earlier research (Rahim, 1989;

Rahim & Afza, 1993; Rahim,

power, and expert powerwere

Antonioni, Krumov, & Ilieva, 2000;

defined as independent variables of

Rahim & Buntzman, 1989; Rahim,

the correlation, while members

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

attitudinal compliance, behavioral

answers to the following questions:

compliance and satisfaction with

1. How do science research group

supervision were dependent variables.

members perceive their group

This study attempted to supply the

leaders use of coercive power,

missing link in leadership

reward power, legitimate power,

effectiveness research; draw

expert power, and referent power?

implications for administrators in

2. What is the correlation between

building and maintaining an advanced

science research group members

institution for science research; and

perceptions of leader power bases

give recommendations for effective

and group members attitudinal

leadership practice in research groups.

compliance, behavioral compliance

The specific objective was to obtain

and satisfaction with supervision?

Figure 1. Leaders Power Bases and Group Members Compliance and Satisfaction

LITERATURE REVIEW
Power and Power Bases
1981). The second defines power as a

Power is an intangible force in an

capacity (Greiner & Schein, 1988;

organisation (Daft, 1999). However,

Rahim, 1989). Nevertheless, all

the phenomenon of power is pervasive

definitions seem to be concerned with

in all groups and organizations; yet

the exercise of social influence to fill

the concept of power is so complex

some need or meet some goal

that each one of us probably thinks

(Greiner & Schein, 1988, p. 13). In this

about it a little differently. From

study, the term power was defined as

among numerous definitions, two are

the capability of an individual agent to

more popular. The first defines power

influence the behavior or attitudes of

as a force (Bass & Bass, 2008; Pfeffer,

one or more designated target persons

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

(Rahim, 1988). This definition implies

(personal power) on the one hand, and

that this study on power was limited

reward power, coercive power and

to the influence of one individual

legitimate power (position power) on

(group leader) over other individuals

the other. Such findings supported

(group members).

Basss categories. According to Yukl

and Falbe (1991), these two types of

. . . the phenomena of power

are pervasive in all groups
and organizations; yet the
concept of power is so
complex that each one of us
probably thinks about it a
little differently.

power are relatively independent and

each includes several distinct but
partially overlapping components.
Moreover, they extend the number of
power sources within three broad
categories: information power,
persuasiveness, and charisma.

Where does the capability of one

However, some problems in overlap

person to influence another one come

within two pairs of scales need to be

from? In other words, where does

resolved (Yukl & Falbe, 1991, p. 442).

power come from? Power bases have

Gaski (1986) also pointed out that

been conceptualized in a variety of

these alleged power sources appear to

ways by scholars. French and Raven

have already been captured within the

(1959) presented a power bases

French and Raven framework.

taxonomy: legitimate power, reward

So far, the power bases suggested by

power, coercive power, exert power,

French and Raven seem to be fairly

and referent power. Benfari,

representative and popular in

Wilkinson, and Orth (1986) added

application. Earlier studies (Hinson &

three more power bases to French and

Schriesheim, 1989; Podsakoff &

Ravens: information power, affiliation

Schriesheim, 1985; Rahim, 1989)

power, and group power. Another way

provided empirical evidence of this

to conceptualize power bases is a

framework. Hence, this study

simple two-factor taxonomy of

employed the power bases described

position power versus personal power

by French and Raven. Admittedly,

developed by Bass in 1960 (Bass &

legitimate power, reward power, and

Bass, 2008). Power can derive from

coercive power derived from leaders

ones personal or social position. The

position are called position power;

findings of Student (1968) indicated a

while expert and referent power from

qualitative distinction between

a leaders own training, experience,

referent power and expert power

and personal qualities are called

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

personal power (Rahim, 1988; Rahim,

the requests of their supervisors; the

Kim, & Kim, 1959). The definitions of

other is about the various reasons for

these power bases by French and

subordinates job satisfaction and job

Raven (1959) are provided below:

performance. The principal reasons for

1.

the use of leader power are to gain

Reward power is based on the

perceptions of subordinates that a

compliance from followers and keep

superior can reward for desired

them satisfied with supervision

behavior.

(Rahim et al., 1994).

2. Coercive power is based on

Job satisfaction is an attitude that

subordinates perceptions that a

individuals maintain about their jobs,

superior has the ability to punish

developed from their perceptions of

them if they fail to conform to his

job characteristics (Robbins & Judge,

or her influence attempt.

2010). Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969)

3. Legitimate power is based on the

described five areas of satisfaction: the

belief of subordinates that a

work itself, the co-workers, the pay,

superior has the right to prescribe

the supervision, and the promotion

and control their behavior.

opportunities. One facet of job

4. Expert power is based on

satisfaction, satisfaction with

subordinates belief that a superior

supervision, was used to identify the

has job experience and special

superior-subordinate relationships in

knowledge or expertise in a given

this study. Satisfaction with the leader

area.

is a function of team performance

5. Referent power is based on

(Jernigan & Beggs, 2005). Early studies

subordinates desires to identify

(Busch, 1980; Rahim, 1989; Rahim &

with a superior because of their

Afza, 1993; Rahim & Buntzman, 1989;

admiration or personal liking of

Skinner, Dunbinsky, & Donnelly, Jr.,

the superior.

1984; Yagil, 2002) illustrate that expert

power and referent power are

Outcomes of Power

positively correlated with followers

Burke and Wilcox (1971) stated that

satisfaction with supervision; the

people will ask two interrelated

relationship between coercive power

questions when the relationship

and satisfaction with supervision is

between a supervisor and a

negative; the relationship between

subordinate is discussed in terms of

legitimate power and reward power

influence and control. One is why

with satisfaction are inconsistent.

people in organizations comply with

Compliance implies acceptance of

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

the more powerful persons influence

METHOD

(Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 263). In reality,

Samples

the three distinct outcomes of the

The research site was a UK-based

exercise of power for target persons

are commitment, compliance, and

world-leading research institution. By

resistance. Commitment is usually the

the time the survey was conducted,

most successful outcome from the

there were over 400 scientists and

agents perspective with regard to

support staff at this institution.

carrying out a complex and difficult

Participants were postdoctoral and

task; compliance is necessary to

Ph.D. students who directly carried

accomplish a simple and routine task;

out research in 61 groups. Based on

the result of resistance is the agent that

institution records, simple random

may not perform any task (Yukl, 2010).

sampling led to the selection of 150 (n)

Early studies (Rahim, 1988, 1989;

samples from 281(N) group members

Rahim & Afza, 1993; Rahim et al.,

from the 61groups attached to 4

1994) based on French and Ravens

divisions. A total of 150 questionnaires

power typology frequently touched

were distributed; 97 were actually

upon followers compliance with a

received by participants; 86 group

superiors wishes and effectiveness in

members had responded; and 84

relation to the supervisors particular

questionnaires were usable, for a

power bases. They found that

response rate of 86.59%. The average

legitimate, expert and referent power

age of the participants was

bases generally induce compliance

31.98(S.D=8.74) and 68.21% were male.

from followers, while coercive and

Of 86 respondents, 47.64% were

reward power bases are weak reasons

postdoctoral students and 52.46%

for compliance. More specifically,

were Ph.D. students; these reported an

referent power is positively correlated

average dyadic tenure (years worked

with behavioral and attitudinal

with research group leaders) of 2.74

compliance; expert power to

years (S.D=3.52).

attitudinal compliance is significantly

The insertion of each questionnaire

positive; and legitimate power

into the pigeon hole mail rack at the

influences behavioral compliance.

research site was the only permissible

way to distribute it. A total of 53
questionnaires were still in pigeon
holes two weeks after 150 packages
were sent out. High group member

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

turnover at the research site was

and my superior does not have the

possibly the main reason the

expert knowledge I need to perform

distributed packages were not taken

my job.

away: Ph.D. students and postdoctoral

2. Compliance with Supervisors

researchers listed in institution records

Wishes

had graduated or left workstations at

Group member compliance was

the time of this survey. The other

measured with Compliance with

reason might be that some

Supervisors Wishes (CSW) developed

international postdoctoral and Ph.D.

by Rahim (1988). This instrument has

students lacked experience in

10 items; respondents were asked to

participating in this kind of survey.

rate their agreement with each item on

a 15 Likert scale. Five items formed a

Measurement

subscale for attitudinal compliance,

1. Leaders power bases

while the other five items formed a

The power bases were measured

subscale for behavioral compliance.

using the Rahim Leader Power

Item responses were averaged to

Inventory (RLPI) developed by Rahim

measure attitudinal and behavioral

(1988). This 29-item instrument uses a

compliance. The reliability coefficients

5-point Likert scale to measure

were .754 and .925, respectively. A

subordinates perceptions of their

higher score indicated greater

supervisors power bases. This scale

compliance with the leaders wishes.

has five dimensions: coercive power (5

Sample items included: I prefer not to

items, =.649), reward power (6 items,

comply with my supervisors

=.717), legitimate power (5 items,

instructions, and I do what my

=.784), expert power (6 items, =.791),

supervisor suggests.

and referent power (6 items, =.882).

3. Satisfaction with Supervision

Respondents (group members) were

Group members satisfaction with

asked to rate these 29 statements from

their supervision was measured using

1 to 5. Indices of the five power bases

dimension of satisfaction with

were constructed by averaging

supervision from the Job Descriptive

participants responses to selected

Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin,

items in each factor. A higher score

1969). This 18-item instrument asked

indicated that a supervisor had larger

the respondent to describe his/her

power bases. Sample items included:

satisfaction with supervision, stating

it is reasonable for my superior to

yes, ?, or no for each item. A

decide what he/she wants me to do,

3-point scale was used to represent

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

yes, ?, or no. Based on the score for

on the three questionnaires. Three

each item, the average of 18 items was

stepwise regression analyses were

used to measure satisfaction with

used to further investigate the

supervision. The higher the average

relationship among the five

score, the greater was the satisfaction

independent variables and each of the

with supervision. The reliability

three dependent variables. In the first,

coefficient was .819. Sample items

second, and third regression analyses,

included supportive and hard to

the five power bases were regressed

please.

on attitudinal compliance with

leaders wishes, behavioral compliance

Analysis

with leaders wishes, and satisfaction

The data obtained from three

with supervision score, respectively.

questionnaires were analyzed using

Each dependent variable was

SPSS 18.0 for Windows. Mean scores

regressed against the five independent

for each item on the three

variables at the stepwise criteria:

questionnaires were calculated for

p<=.050 to enter and p >=.100 to

each respondent. In this study, the

remove. The mean score for five

independent variables were coercive,

sub-dimensions of RLPI provided an

reward, legitimate power, expert

answer to research question 1 and the

power, and referent, while behavioral

results of three stepwise regression

compliance (BC), attitudinal

analyses provided an answer to

compliance (AC), and satisfaction with

research question 2.

supervision (SS) were dependent

RESULTS

variables. The number of items, mean,

standard deviation and standardized

Table 1 presents means, standard

Cronbachs alpha for all variables and

deviations, and Cronbachs alpha for

Pearson correlations for the five

the measures. Cronbachs alpha is a

independent variables and three

commonly used test of internal

dependent variables were calculated.

reliability (Bryman, 2008). According

Standardized Cronbachs alpha for

to Pallant (2011), Cronbachs alpha

each of these 8 sub-scales was used to

values above .7 are considered

establish the internal consistency of

acceptable, while values above .8 are

the items. Pearson correlations were

preferable. Among sub-scales for RLPI,

calculated to assess intercorrelations

CSW and JDI, only the Cronbachs

among five power bases, for two types

alpha for coercive was slightly less

of compliance, and for all sub-scales

than .7. The mean scores for power

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

bases indicated that expert power (3.82)

and .50<r>1.0 indicates a strong

was greatest, followed by referent

correlation.
Regression analysis is a statistical

(3.78), legitimate (3.45), reward (3.11),

and coercive (3.08). The results from

technique for investigating the

the descriptive analysis for CSW

strength of the relationship between

revealed that group members

variables. Multiple regression analysis

indicates the influence of two or more

attitudinal compliance with group

independent variables on a designated

leaders power (3.64) was stronger

dependent variable (Bryman, 2008).

than behavioral compliance (3.54).

Therefore, with the Pearson

Group members responses to the

correlations identified above,

satisfaction with supervision facet of

regression analysis was used to further

JDI suggested that group members

investigate the relationship between

satisfaction with their leader (2.59) was

the independent and dependent

very high. Thus, research question 1

variables. The results are shown in

has been addressed.

Table 3. Stepwise regression analysis

Table 2 presents Pearson

for attitudinal compliance showed that

correlations between power bases and

legitimate and expert met the entry

compliance and satisfaction with

requirement, while the other three

supervision subscales. Correlation

variables were excluded. The adjusted

analysis was used to describe the

R indicated that about 30.5% of the

strength and direction of the linear

variance in attitudinal compliance

relationship between two variables.

could be explained by the two

The Pearson correlation coefficient (r)

predictor variables (R2= .305,

can only take on values from -1 to +1.

F=19.183, p=.000). Statistically

The minus or plus symbols indicate

significant correlations emerged

whether there is a negative or positive

between attitudinal compliance and

group members perception that a

correlation, while the size of the

group leader uses legitimate power

absolute value indicates the strength

(=.354, t=2.966, p=.004) and expert

of the relationship (Pallant, 2011).

power ((=.271, t=2.267, p=.026).

(Pallant, 2011)Cohen (as quoted in

Stepwise regression analysis for

Pallant, 2011) suggests the following

behavioral compliance revealed that

guidelines for interpreting the values

three variableslegitimate, coercive,

of the correlation coefficient: .10<r>.29

and expertwere included in the final

demonstrates a weak correlation

equation, while the other two

between two variables; .30<r<.49

variablesreward and referentwere

shows a medium correlation;

rejected. The adjusted R indicates that

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

about 56.2% of the variance in

requirement, while the other two were

behavioral compliance is explained by

rejected. About 55.0% of the variance

the three predictor variables (R =.562,

in satisfaction was accounted for by

F=36.529, p=.000). Statistically

the predictors (R2= .550, F=34.860,

significant correlations emerged

p=.000). Statistically significant

between behavioral compliance and

correlations emerged between

group members perception that a

satisfaction with supervision and

group leader uses legitimate power

group members perception that a

(=.370, t=3.763, p=.000); uses coercive

group leader is using referent power

power (=.403, t=5.338, p=.000); and

(=.531, t=5.351, p=.000); reward power

uses expert power (=.283, t=2.945,

(=.187, t=2.472, p=.016); and expert

p=.004). Stepwise regression analysis

power (=.209, t=2.125, p=.037). These

for satisfaction indicated that referent,

results answered research question 2.

reward and expert met the entry

Table 1
No. of Items, Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Cronbachs Alpha for
Subscales of the RLPI, CSW, and JDI
Subscales
No. of Items
Mean
SD
Cronbachs Alpha
Coercive
5
3.08
.650
.649
Reward
6
3.11
.641
.717
Legitimate
6
3.45
.598
.784
Expert
6
3.82
.661
.791
Referent
6
3.78
.734
.882
AC
5
3.64
.616
.754
BC
5
3.54
.808
.925
SS
18
2.59
.297
.819
Table 2
Pearson Correlation among All Independent Variables and Dependent Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.Coercive
1
.085
.210
.002
-.099
.221*
.482**
.037
2.Reward
1
-.034
.185
.218*
.048
-.049
.341**
3.Legitimate
1
.642**
.414**
.528**
.637**
.328**
4.Expert
1
.664**
.498**
.522**
.597**
5.Referent
1
.246*
.300**
.711**
6.AC
1
.717**
.340**
7.BC
1
.415**
8.SS
1
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

10

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

Table 3
Stepwise Regression Analysis among Three Dependent Variables with Five Independent
Variables

Dependent
(Standardized
Variables
Model
R2
df
F
Sig.
Coefficients)
t
Sig.
AC

.305

2,81

19.183

.000

Legitimate

.354

2.966

Expert

.271

2.267

.000
.004
.026

-2.345

.021

(Constant)

3.883

Predictors (Constant), Legitimate, Expert

BC

.562

3,80

36.529

.000

(Constant)
Legitimate

370

3.763

.000

Coercive

.403

5.338

.000

Expert

.283

2.945

.004

Predictors (Constant), Legitimate, Coercive, Expert

SS

.550

3,80

34.860

.000

(Constant)

7.327

.000

Referent

531

5.351

.000

Reward

.187

2.472

.016

Expert

.209

2.125

.037

Predictors (Constant), Referent, Reward, Expert

the purpose of this study, two research

DISCUSSION

questions were asked and studied. The

The purpose of this study was to

first was answered using statistics

descriptive analysis: from a list of five

clarify the relationship between

power bases, group members

research group members perceptions

perceived that expert power was used

of the power bases used by their

most often by the leader, followed by

leader and the effect of those

referent power, legitimate power,

perceptions on group members

reward power, and coercive power.

compliance and satisfaction with

This finding differs from that offered

supervision. To this point, there has

in earlier studies (Rahim & Buntzman,

been no previous field study of those

1989; Rahim, Kim, & Kim, 1994),

correlations in the science research

which showed that legitimate power

area. Findings from this study will aid

was the greatest power employed. The

efforts to refine and broaden

leaders of science research groups in

management theory relating to power

this study are gurus in biology,

and effective leadership. To achieve

11

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

genetics, biochemistry, chemistry and

such results could be that knowledge

physics; therefore, it is reasonable for

and expertise are valued by group

these leaders to use expert power most

members in research settings. Yukl

often, rather than legitimate power.

(2010) suggested the following ways to

The second question was addressed by

use and maintain this power: explain

stepwise regression analysis:

the reasons, importance, and

legitimate power and expert power

perspective of a proposal by using

were positively associated with

evidence; avoid making rash, careless,

attitudinal compliance; legitimate

or inconsistent statements; never lie,

power, coercive power and expert

exaggerate, or misrepresent the facts;

power were positively correlated with

listen to the others concerns and

behavioral compliance; referent power,

suggestions seriously; and act

reward power, and expert power were

confident and decisive in a crisis. In

positively associated with satisfaction.

terms of science research groups, the

These results were similar those from

most convincing way to display expert

previous studies (Burke & Wilcox,

power is by solving important

1971; Podsakoff & Schriescheim, 1985;

problems, making good decisions,

Rahim & Afza, 1993), which tended to

providing sound advice, and

suggest that legitimate power, expert

successfully completing challenging

power, and referent power were

but highly visible projects.

related to compliance, while expert

Nevertheless, expert power should be

power and referent power were

used carefully to avoid lowering

related to satisfaction.

group members creativity, which is

The implications of this study for

the most precious contributor to

leadership practice include the

research group tasks. Moreover, the

following: group leaders can be more

group leader should remember that

effective in promoting their group

expert power used by itself is very

members satisfaction by combining

limited power base (Benfari,

their own referent power, expert

Wilkinson, & Orth, 1986, p. 14).

power, and reward power; and leaders

The implication for administrators

can acquire their group members

of research institutions is that the

compliance by increasing their use of

authority of group leaders (legitimate

legitimate power and expert power.

power) should be defined in as clear

Expert power had a notably significant

and explicit a manner as possible in

effect on both satisfaction and

institutions documents, such as the

compliance. The possible reason for

organization charter and written job

12

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

descriptions. Those documents should

leader, and so on. However,

be consistent with the basic values and

representatives of the research site and

culture of the organizations in order to

the strong psychometric properties of

promote leadership effectiveness. In

the three published research

addition, as referent power relates to

instruments used are study strengths

satisfaction with supervision, the

Future studies could replicate this

human resources department should

study with a larger sample size at

consider the individuals personal

other leading research institutions in

characteristics and integrity in

different countries, or examine further

selecting a group leader although the

outcomes of the use of power in a

basic requirement is expertise capacity.

research group, such as group

Three limitations apply to this

creativity. Also, the qualitative

study. The first has to do with the

approacha case study employing

studys generalizability, since the

interview and observation

research work was only conducted at

techniquesmight be used to better

one institution. The second is an

understand some of this studys

objective limitation from the research

interesting findings, such as the

site concerning confidentiality and the

removal of the group leaders use of

condition of anonymity. The last was a

referent and reward power from

subjective limitation, in which the

equations of attitudinal and behavioral

study only paid attention to

compliance. In addition, extraneous

independent and dependent variables,

variables ignored by this study, such

while extraneous variables were

as gender, age, time spent being a

ignored, such as leaders age, leaders

group leader and so on, should be

gender, length of time as a group

considered by future studies.

LITERATURE CITED
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications, 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
Benfari, R. C., Wilkinson, H. E., & Orth, C. D. (1986). The effective use of power.
Business Horizons, 29(3), 1216.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burke, R. J., & Wilcox, D. S. (1971). Bases of supervisory power and subordinate job
satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3(1), 183193.
Busch, P. (1980). The sales managers bases of social power and influence upon the
sales force. Journal of Marketing, 44(3), 91101.
Daft, R. L, (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace and

13

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

Company.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A.
Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory, 3rd ed. Wilshire: Redwood
Press Limited of Trowbridge.
Gaski, J. F. (1986). Interrelations among a channel entitys power sources: Impact of
the exercise of reward and coercion on expert, referent, and legitimate power
sources. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 6277.
Gordon, A., & Yukl, G. (2004). The future of leadership research challenges and
opportunities. German Journal of Human Resource Research, 18(3), 359365.
Greiner, L. E., & Schein, V. E. (1988). Power and organization development: Mobilizing
power to implement change. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new
scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 561567.
Jernigan, I. E., & Beggs, J. M. (2005). An examination of satisfaction with my
supervisor and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35(10), 21712192.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual, 4th ed. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. New York: Harper Business.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriescheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Ravens
bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research.
Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 387411.
Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 23(4), 491503.
Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction
with supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of
Management, 15(4), 545.
Rahim, M. A., & Afza, M. (1993). Leader power, commitment, satisfaction,
compliance, and propensity to leave a job among U.S. accountants. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 133(5), 611625.
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., Krumov, K., & Ilieva, S. (2000). Power, conflict, and
effectiveness: A cross-cultural study in the United States and Bulgaria.
European Psychologist, 5(1), 2833.
Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling
conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 123(2), 195210.
Rahim, M. A., Kim, N. H., & Kim, J. S. (1994). Bases of leader power, subordinate
compliance, and satisfaction with supervision: A cross-culture study of
managers in the U.S. and S. Korea. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 2(2), 136154.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour. Beijing: Tsinghua

14

Research Management Review, Volume 20, Number 1 (2014)

University Press.
Skinner, S. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Donnelly, Jr., J. H. (1984). The use of social bases of
power in retail sales. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 4(2), 4956.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally and Company.
Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work-group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 52(3), 188194.
Yagil, D. (2002). Substitution of a leaders power bases by contextual variables.
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5(3&4), 383399.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 251289.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Newark, NJ: Pearson Education
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward
and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 416423.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Changkun Luo is a senior researcher in health administration; president of the Third
Military Medical University of China (TMMU); vice chairman of the Science Research
Management Committee for Chinese Medical Association; and senior editor of the
Chinese Journal of Medical Science Research Management. He was closely involved in the
planning and management of TMMUs research projects for many years. His main
area of research interest is science research management.
Yi Meng, MSc, is a PhD candidate of Health Management and a lecturer of the
Department of Social Medicine and Health Service Management, Third Military
Medical University of China. She is interested in the leadership at the science
research group.
Jia He, MHPE, is a professor of Medical Education and the head of the Department
of Social Medicine and Health Service Management, Third Military Medical
University of China. Her main area of research interest is medical education.

15