Personal and group factors in leaders' social perception.

Maas, Henry S.

doi:10.1037/h0059851

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(3) face-to-face techniques of leadership behavior give way to more impersonal techniques of coordination (Van de Ven, 1975); (4) demands on the leaders become more complex and numerous, and group members become more tolerant of highly structured and directive leadership (Hemphill, 1950;Maas, 1950). These research findings suggest the following hypotheses:…”

Section: Size Of Work Unitmentioning

confidence: 93%

Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations

Ven¹,

Delbecq²,

Koenig³

1976

American Sociological Review

1,373

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Size Of Work Unitmentioning

confidence: 93%

Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations

Ven¹,

Delbecq²,

Koenig³

1976

American Sociological Review

1,373

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such behaviors may account for the documented suspicion of the motives and intentions of the powerful: Individuals find it difficult to trust that powerful people have prosocial intentions and are more likely to believe that leaders act within their own best interest (Kramer, 1994). Even when leaders show positive qualities, such as expressing pride in their followers (Ritzenhöfer et al, 2019) or being more effective in their roles (Maas, 1950), they tend to be seen as more selfish-perhaps because they seem to expect others to accommodate their goals and needs as they work toward success.…”

Section: The Perception Of Powerful Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

The P‐Word: Power aversion and responsibility aversion as explanations for the avoidance of power

Hull

Overbeck

Smillie

et al. 2022

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though we typically think that power is desirable, individuals will sometimes avoid power. One explanation for this behavior is some individuals are averse to the responsibility associated with power and will therefore avoid positions of power.However, people may also avoid power because they perceive it as being inherently negative. This is supported by research on lay theories of power, which suggests that those who endorse the coercive lay theory perceive powerful people as manipulative and deceitful. In this paper, we propose a new theory of power aversion that expands upon the coercive lay theory to more thoroughly explain how negative perceptions of power cause some individuals to avoid it. We draw from previous research to identify specific negative traits associated with power. Based on this, we propose that some power-averse individuals believe that possessing power will turn them into immoral, cold, selfish, and unjust people. For this reason, they avoid power. We also consider the relationship between power aversion and responsibility aversion and suggest a convergence between research on responsibility aversion and lay theories of power.

show abstract

“…An illustration of this relational emphasis appears in the field study of Maas of 22 students who acted as leaders or advisers to youth groups of a religious, ethical, social, or recreational character (8). The groups varied in their goals and activities and in their openness of structure, i.e., whether or not they were open to all comers.…”

Section: Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 98%

Social Psychology and Group Processes

Katz¹

1951

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social psychology continues to be the meeting ground for specialists trained in many disciplines: clinicians, public opinion researchers, anthro-' pologists, perception psychologists, personnel technicians, sociologists. To the purist this means that social psychology has no field of its own and repre sents no distinctive branch of science; to the old-time social psychologist it means the belated recognition that many of the other disciplines are really branches of his own subject; to the educator it means a welcome fruition of the interdisciplinary approach he has long dreamed about. No matter what the interpretation, the facts are that the personality approach of the clinician and the social-structure approach of the sociologist are among the most important vitalizing influences for research and theory in social psychology.During the past year there has been a good balance between laboratory experimentation and field studies. Experiments upon group effects have become more sophisticated and more ingenious. They have also been more related to the variables operative in natural social situations and hence more meaningful for good social-psychological theory. The growth of laboratory experiments has not been at the expense of field studies. Surveys and field observations are more prolific than ever and a number of universities have set up cooperative arrangements for social psychologists and social scientists to conduct field research. In addition, surveys have become more theory oriented and more concerned with study design.Social psychology is enthusiastically taking over the paraphernalia of the older sciences in its rush for theoretical models, derivations, and hypotheses. This healthy development should prove fruitful, since it will foster rigor in methods and make possible generalization through theory testing. The objec tion can be made that social psychology is trying to jump an inductive stage in its development as a science since it still lacks adequate empirical and descriptive facts. Real growth, however, will come from the interaction of inductive and deductive procedures. Empiricism is a sufficiently strong part of the American culture to continue to provide the necessary correction tend encies for the model builders.Three major trends of the decade still dominate the field. (a) The phenom enological emphasis of Gestalt psychology has made itself felt in almost all areas of investigation. The environmental or stimulus-situation has been replaced by the psychological field. Prestige suggestion is now explained as cognitive restructuring; social norms are not statistical averages or modes but consciously shared beliefs and values; groups are not defined as common objective roles but as the mutual awareness of one another by group mem bers; leadership exists only when the leader is perceived by the follower as

show abstract

Personal and group factors in leaders' social perception.

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations

Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations

The P‐Word: Power aversion and responsibility aversion as explanations for the avoidance of power

Social Psychology and Group Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About