Exploratory Study of Machiavellianism and Bases of Social Power in Bankers

This study focused on relationships between Machiavellianism in subordinates and perceived social power bases of supervisors in a sample of 168 bank officers in the western United States. Regression analyses showed no significant relationships between subordinates' Machiavellianism scores and four supervisory power bases subscales. The association between scores on Machiavellianism and coercive power reached p < .06.

Relationships between Bases of Power and Work Reactions: The Mediational Role of Procedural Justice

Though research has addressed relationships between social power bases and several work-related variables, processes that may underlie such relationships have generally not been examined. The present study considered relationships between bases of social power and subordinates’ affective work reactions, hypothesizing that procedural justice would mediate such relationships. Two samples, one drawn from two service-oriented companies and one collected from a hospital, were used to test a mediational model reflecting this hypothesis. Using theoretically grounded measures of social power and procedural justice, support was found for full mediation effects in connection with subordinates’ affective work reactions. Implications regarding the development of social power bases are discussed.

Supervisees' Perceptions of Supervisors' Social Power in Speech-Language Pathology

Most speech-language pathologists function as supervisees and supervisors at various points in their careers (Anderson, 1988). This study investigates supervisees' perceptions of their current and ideal supervisors' social power during the clinical supervisory process in speech-language pathology education. Perceived social power was measured by two modified versions (Wagner, 1994) of the Rahim Leader Power Inventory (Rahim, 1988). This inventory measures the five French and Raven (1959) social power bases: expert, reward, referent, legitimate, and coercive. Graduate supervisees completed one version of the inventory by rating their current supervisor and a second version of the inventory indicating their ideal supervisor. Results revealed significant differences among supervisees' perceptions of current versus ideal supervisors relative to expert, reward, referent, and legitimate power. Overall, these results have implications for supervisors in speech-language pathology who may wish to modify their perceived social power in order to enhance supervisory relationships.