Cognitive Differentiation and Organizational Influence Tactics: Findings and Implications for Leaders as Agents of Influence

Abstract

About the Authors: Chris Crawford (ABD, University of Kansas) currently teaches organizational and group communication at Fort Hays State University. Chris was an instrumental player in building the FHSU Leadership Studies program and teaches classes in leadership from time to time. Chris is executive director of CK Consulting Groupe, specializing in a variety of organizational and leadership related topics. Chris' current research interests focus on innovation, mediated delivery methods, technological leadership, and other organizational topics.C. Sue Strohkirch (Ph.D., University of Washington) teaches communication education classes as well as a variety of presentation and interpersonal related classes. Dr. Strohkirch is also the Basic Course Director for the department. Sue's research interests center around communication apprehension, gender studies in communication, and communication pedagogy. Executive SummaryThis paper examines the relationships between cognitive differentiation and three different methods of influence. A brief summary of cognitive differentiation examined the historical formulation, the organizational applications, and the measures and methods involved. Similarly, a review of organizational influence summarizes the important of influence as well as the organizational and leadership applications of influence. Subjects (N=238) completed copies of the Role Category Questionnaire and the Assessment of Influence Behaviors. Findings suggest that people more cognitively differentiated used more charismatic and team influence, but no more reward/punishment/manipulation influence than did less differentiated subjects. Specific conclusions and implications for leadership addressed.

Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge management

“…Findings in the current study strongly support that basic conclusion. Researchers have suggested that it is the person‐centered nature of transformational leadership that makes the difference, presumably because of the authentic and ethical nature of the influence relationship (Crawford, 1998; Crawford and Strohkirch, 1997a, b). Additionally, these findings show that knowledge management is not enhanced by transactional leadership, and is significantly slowed by laissez‐faire leadership.…”

“…Champions are generally considered to be key organizational decision‐makers that advocate enhanced use of technological solutions, but often are not as technologically literate as specialists in the organization. Champions operate in three ways:Implement rational methods that promote sound decision making based on organizational rules and procedures.Engage in a participative process, enlisting others' help to gain approval and implementation of the innovation.Work outside the formal channels of bureaucratic rules and engage in the renegade process (Howell and Higgins, 1990a, b, c).In a series of articles, Crawford (1998), Crawford and Strohkirch (1997a, b, 2000), and Crawford et al (2003) established the argument that transformational leadership was related to personal innovation. In their findings, transformational leaders were significantly more innovative than transactional and laisse‐ faire leaders.…”