Four Types of Leadership

and Orchestra Quality

Diana E. Krause
Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt
This study analyzes the effects of a conductors power-based leadership on orchestra quality. The structure of power-based leadership and the hypotheses were tested with a sample
of musicians from German orchestras. Confirmatory factor analyses verify four types of
power-based leadership of the conductor vis--vis the musicians: (1) expert/referent power,
(2) informational power, (3) legitimate power through position, and (4) impersonal and
personal reward and coercive power. The relative importance of the four forms of powerbased leadership on artistic quality was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM).
The results supported the hypotheses that expert power and referent power have the strongest
positive impact on artistic quality than all other forms of power-based leadership under
study. Contributions to theories of leadership and power, research methods, and practice
are discussed.
Keywords: leadership, power, power bases, artistic quality, orchestra

Introduction: Previous Investigations

onLeadership in Orchestras
Research on leadership in orchestras has been silent (Boerner and Gebert 2012, 347, Hunt,
Stelluto, and Hooijberg 2004, 148; Koivunen and Wennes 2011, 53). To date, there have
been only a handful studies that investigate the impact of dierent forms of leadership attributes (who the leader is) and leadership behaviors (what the leader does) of an orchestra conductor on the musicians and/or the artistic performance of the orchestra (Allmendinger and
Hackman 1994; Atik 1994; Boerner and Krause 2002; Boerner, Krause, and Gebert 2001,
2004; Boerner and von Streit 2007; Koivunen 2003; Koivunen and Wennes 2011; Kping
2007; Ladkin 2008; Rowold and Rohmann 2009). These studies use dierent conceptualizations of leadership and dierent approaches (see Atik 1994) to analyze the phenomenon
of leadership in the orchestra context. For example, the classical study by Allmendinger and
Hackman (1994) has shown (among other things) that the well-being of orchestra musicians
increases if leadership is existent and constructive. This result is important because research
has documented that the general satisfaction of musicians (Allmendinger and Hackman
1995) as well as their specic satisfaction with compensation, growth opportunities, and
Correspondence to: Diana E. Krause, Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt, Human Resource Management, Leadership
and Organizational Behavior, University Street 6567, 9020 Klagenfurt Austria. E-mail: DianaEva.Krause@aau.at.
Journal sponsored by the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

Nonprofit Management & Leadership, vol. 25, no. 4, Summer 2015

2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21132

431

432

KRAUSE

work relationships is relatively low (Allmendinger and Hackman 1996), and that many
orchestra musicians suer from performance anxiety expressed in a lack of condence, worry,
emotionality, and physical symptoms (Langendrfer et al. 2006).
Using a qualitative approach (newspaper articles, archival data, and interviews) combined with
aesthetic analysis, Koivunen and Wennes (2011) describe three key leadership dimensions
of a conductor: relational listening, aesthetic judgment, and kinesthetic empathy. Relational
listening is understood as a natural talent of the conductor, which can also be developed and
which requires knowledge, experience, and presence in every single moment and full concentration by the conductor. The authors describe aesthetic judgment as an opinion that depends on
sensuous perception of the conductor and that includes the evaluation of the whole sound of
all instrumental groups. This aesthetic judgment becomes manifest in the conductors vision
and interpretation of the music, which needs to be (nonverbally) communicated to the musicians. Kinesthetic empathy refers to the conductors nonverbal behaviors to transform his or
her interpretation of the score into shared action by using gestures, body movements, or facial
expressions. Based on case study approach, Ladkin (2008) recommends three fundamentals for
leadership in the music domain: mastery, congruence between form and content, and purpose.
Compared to the aesthetic analysis of leadership in orchestras and in line with the traditional
trait approach of leadership (see Yukl 2012), another body of research focuses on certain
attributes of a conductor that might be crucial for artistic performance. Outstanding conductors are described as charismatic, visionary, inspirational, competent, enthusiastic, heroic,
grandiose, demanding, strict, autocratic, despotic, and/or credible (Atik 1994; Hunt et al.
2004; Kping 2007; Marotto, Roos, and Victor 2007; Weick, Gilllan, and Keith 1973).
Other studies focus on what the conductor does and analyze the effects of transactional,
transformational, or directive-charismatic leadership behaviors in orchestras.1 For example,
Rowold and Rohmann (2009) investigated the role of transformational and transactional
leadership on subjective performance criteria (musicians satisfaction, their extra eort, and
their assessment of the conductors effectiveness) in nonprofit orchestras that considered
musicians positive and negative emotions. They found that transformational leadership as
well as transactional leadership behaviors promote performance, and that musicians positive
emotions contribute to performance indicators whereas negative emotions do not.
Following the transformational leadership approach in orchestras, Boerner and von Streit
(2007) confirmed an interaction effect of selected facets of transformational leadership
(charisma, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation) and musicians positive
group mood on orchestra performance. According to Boerner and Gebert (2012), the functionality of a conductors transformational leadership behaviors on artistic performance can
be explained by two mechanisms: transformational leadership fosters the positive eect of
ensemble diversity on idea generation and simultaneously decreases the negative effect of
ensemble diversity on idea integration.
Moreover, it has been empirically documented that the conductors directive leadership style
is functional to the orchestras success (Boerner et al. 2001) especially ifat the same time
the musicians perceive the conductor as an indisputable authority (Boerner and Krause
2002). Because of the high interdependency of tasks and the related high demands concerning the coordination of processes (Saavedra, Earle, and Van Dyne 1993), external coordination through the conductor is central in larger orchestras. This statement is valid for the
interplay within the instrumental groups (for example, rst and second violins) as well as for

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

the interplay among the instrumental groups (woodwind, violins, violoncello, double bass,
brass, percussion, harp). Contrariwise, a decentralized self-coordination of the musicians
would lead both to time-consuming conicts concerning the artistic standards that need to
be achieved and to inaccuracies in the synchronization of playing, and might thus aect the
artistic quality negatively. Therefore, in larger orchestras a centralized coordination through
a conductor is needed (Boerner and Gebert 2012; Boerner and von Streit 2007). Thus, the
performance of classical music in a larger orchestra differs from the performance of jazz
music where decentral improvisation (Kamoche and e Cunha 2001) is crucial for the right
groove live on stage (Hatch and Weick 1998).
The results of earlier studies (Boerner et al. 2001; Boerner and Krause 2002) lead to the question on which forms of power the authority, the transformational, or the charismatic-directive
leadership behaviors of a conductor are based upon and which consequences these types of
power have on orchestra quality. As impressively pointed out by Canetti (1998, 468), There
is no better expression for power than the work of a conductor. In other words, There is no
doubt that the conductor is a powerful gureboth in front of a symphony orchestra, and as
a popular metaphor for authority and good management (Koivunen and Wennes 2011, 58).
Nevertheless, research on conductors leadership through dierent forms of power vis--vis
the musicians and its consequences for leadership outcome criteria such as orchestra quality is
rare. It is unclear which power bases the conductor relies on, and how the conductors exertion
of the various bases of power may inuence the artistic quality of the orchestra.

Aims of the Present Study

This study builds on previous studies on leadership in orchestras and analyzes what the
forms of power used by conductors are and to what extent the use of dierent types of power
promotes artistic quality of orchestras. The present article intends to contribute to previous investigations on leadership in orchestras in three ways. First and foremost, this study
focuses on orchestra quality. This specic focus is substantial because (1) there is evidence
that the effects of leadership vary depending on the emphasized outcome criteria (Hiller
et al. 2011) and (2) the eects of dierent types of power vary depending on the accentuated
outcomes (Elangovan and Xie 2000). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the consequences of
forms of power in the orchestra context is needed. Second, the conceptualization of conductors leadership behaviors diers from previous research on leadership in orchestras. As briey
described previously, most research exclusively studied the role of transactional, transformational, or charismatic-directive leadership in orchestras. However, there is reason to assume
that leadership described in terms of the use of power has dierent eects on orchestra quality compared to other leadership behaviors. Third, hypotheses are developed that predict the
leadership outcomethe artistic quality of the orchestra performancedepending on the
power bases that the conductor uses vis--vis the musicians. This study examines the exercising of power in a new context, leading an orchestra. It diers from previous power research
in two respects: (1) the hitherto existing ndings in the eld of power research are separated
from those described here through the investigation of the structure of the individual power
bases in the orchestra; (2) research on power is expanded as the functionality of the conductors power use is empirically documented. This study diers from traditional power research
(see Yukl 2012) because leadership is linked to power, and the outcome of power-based leadership (Krause 2004; 2011) is applied to a new context, the artistic domain. Finally, implications for leadership and power theories, research methods, and practice are derived.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

433

434

KRAUSE

Power-Based Leadership as Antecedent

ofOrchestra Quality
The conductors power is his or her ability to inuence a musician insofar as the musician is
doing something which he or she would not do otherwise (Dahl 1957, 202). A conductor exerts power to achieve his or her particular interpretation of a composition (Krause and
Boerner 2001). This is necessary because the artistic production process involves conicts. As
the musicians imaginations of the correct interpretation of a composition dier, task conicts (De Dreu and Weingart 2003) are likely to emerge. However, to achieve high artistic
quality, a coherent interpretation shared by all musicians is required.
In the orchestra, dissent over various interpretations is not regulable through mutual consent
but rather through a central leading conductor (Boerner and Krause 2002). Through the
establishment of power, the conductor realizes a coherent interpretation of a certain score
and coordinates various sections within the orchestra (Khodyakov 2007). The conductor is
responsible for the entire musical score, whereas the orchestra musicians have the notes only
for their own instruments. The conductor is in charge to ensure a unied and coordinated
performance. In this process, power and control in the conductormusician relationship are
important because the conductor determines the goal, the way of achieving it, and the musicians have to follow the conductors vision (Khodyakov 2007). In doing so, the conductor
can use various power bases that are classied dierently in the literature (for example, Cartwright 1965; French and Raven 1959; Mintzberg 1983; Pfeer 1981). In the current typology of power bases by Raven (1992) and Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky (1998), eleven
power bases are distinguished on a theoretical level: impersonal reward; personal reward;
impersonal coercive power; personal coercive power; position power; legitimate power
through (1) reciprocity norm, (2) equity norm, or (3) the social responsibility norm (power
of the powerless); referent power; expert power; and informational power. Empirically, these
eleven power bases were not reproduced. Factor analyses rather showed seven surface factors
and two source factors (Raven et al. 1998).
In the following, the relevance of selected power bases used by the conductor to lead the
musicians is investigated. The central argument of this article is that the use of expert power
and referent power is more functional for the artistic quality of the orchestra than the use
of all other types of power. The rationale for this argument lies in the fact that the orchestra
musicians perceive themselves to be artists who do not pursue careers but rather follow their
calling (Boerner and Krause 2002). Orchestral musicians are highly trained and skilled
persons (Hunt et al. 2004) who are experts for their specic instruments. Crucial for the play
of the musicians is their intrinsic motivation (Langendrfer et al. 2006). If intrinsic motivation is high, the task will be performed because the task itself is enjoyable and not because
of anticipated consequences. The importance of high intrinsic motivation and the combined
ow experience (Csikszentmihalyi and Lefevre 1989) is documented for the orchestra context
(Kping 2007). If the intrinsic motivation of the musicians is low, negative secondary eects
have to be expected. In this constellation, the musicians assume the conductors conception,
not out of conviction, but rather only half-heartedly or as a work-to-rulewith corresponding consequences for orchestras quality.
According to Amabile et al. (1994), intrinsic motivation has two facets, namely, challenge
and enjoyment. The conductors use of power vis--vis the musicians reduces the musicians
degrees of freedom and can jeopardize their intrinsic motivation. The reduction of the artistic

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

freedom is associated with lower degrees of challenge and enjoyment. In addition to challenge and enjoyment, a task is intrinsically motivating if the task is assessed as meaningful
and valuable (Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl 1999). Such an assessment is more likely if the
content of the task is congruent with the personal value system of the musicians. If the musicians perceive the conductors artistic conception as meaningful and valuable, their intrinsic
motivation will be high.
Against this backdrop, the signicance of expert power becomes understandable. The attribution of strong expert power to the conductor by the musicians is a condition for the musicians experience of challenge and their perception that the conductors artistic conception
is meaningful and valuable. Expert power is based on the musicians perception of the conductors abilities, knowledge, and/or skills. Expert power refers to what Ladkin (2008) calls
mastery. The conductor is considered a highly trained professional by the musicians when
they believe that the conductor masters the artistic and technical possibilities and limits of
all the instruments in the orchestra, as well as their combined performance, while the musician is, as a rule, only an expert in his or her own instrument. The conductor can not only
assess the interaction of the instruments better than the musician; he or she is in the position
to develop an artistic conception for the whole orchestra, as well as able to diagnose and correct errors during the realization of this conception. To reach a coherent interpretation of the
music, it is important that the conductor communicates his or her message nonverbally in a
clear manner to the musicians (Atik 1994). Conversely, if the musicians perceive the conductor as an incompetent leader, they often ignore his or her gestures and instructions (Bathurst
and Ladkin 2012).
Strong referent power increases the likelihood that the conductors artistic conception is in
line with the personal value system held by the musicians. A conductor exercises referent
power if he or she serves as a positive role model for the musician, that is, as someone whom
the musician perceives to be, for example, reliable, charismatic, or attractive.
Yet, a conductor inuences a musician through impersonal rewards, in that he or she explicitly praises the orchestral musician (see Atik 1994) for artistic achievements, supports him or
her emotionally, and provides attention or personal recognition. Contrariwise, a conductor
exercises impersonal coercive power when he or she reprimands a musician in front of his or
her colleagues, or criticizes, defames, or ignores him or her. A conductor uses power through
personal reward if he or she, for example, acts as a positive inuence on future instrumentation or castings. Contrary to this, negative inuence on the musicians career opportunities
denotes personal coercive power. The exercise of impersonal reward or coercive power will
have a lower impact on the musicians intrinsic motivation compared to the use of expert
power and referent power. The use of personal reward or coercive power would endanger the
musicians intrinsic motivation because reward and coercive power contradict the self-concept
of a musician as an artist. Through reward and coercive power, no persuasion of the orchestra
musician is achieved but rather merely a perfunctory willingness (obedience).
Legitimate power is based on the conviction of the orchestral musicians that the conductor legitimately has the right to request something from the musicians, based upon various
values and norms that the orchestral musicians have internalized or have particular requirements, and the musicians comply with these expectations. In the orchestra the reciprocity
norm, the equity norm, or the norm of social responsibility is less dealt with, rather generally
accepted positions within the orchestra (called position power or legitimate power through
position). The conductors use of legitimate power on the basis of position takes place when

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

435

436

KRAUSE

the musicians feel bound by their roles as orchestral members to comply with the conductors
vision. In this case the orchestral musician complies with the conductors instructions simply
because he or she is the conductor. The use of position power will not have a great inuence
on the musicians intrinsic motivation because position power is not directly associated with
the content of the musicians task itself.
Informational power is based on information that the conductor relays to the musician.
With the exertion of informational power, the musician can review and comprehend the
adequacy and relevance of this information, which is not always possible when the conductor
uses expert power. A conductor exercises informational power when he or she, for example,
explains the historical performance practice of a composition or demonstrates the reasons
for necessary changes in interpretation. If the conductor uses informational power, the musicians perception of the value of the artistic conception will be lower compared to the use of
expert power and referent power. The reason is that informational power provides merely elucidation without considering the emotionality inherent in playing music.
To this extent, the musicians are less convinced by informational power, position power,
impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power than by the exercising of expert power
and referent power. The preceding line of argumentation leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. The use of the conductors expert power has a stronger positive effect on
the artistic quality of orchestras than the exertion of informational power, position
power, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power.
Hypothesis 2. The use of the conductors referent power has a stronger positive effect
on the artistic quality of orchestras than the exertion of informational power, position
power, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power.

Methodology
The following section describes the methodology of the study.

Respondents
To test the relative frequency of use of the various power bases by orchestra conductors, the
researcher developed a questionnaire about leadership through power and the artistic quality
of orchestras. In line with most dominant approaches regarding the measurement perspective
in leadership research (Hiller et al. 2011), the researchers measured power-based leadership
used by a conductor by asking for the musicians perspective (follower perspective). A rst
version of the questionnaire was discussed with two conductors and two academic experts
who study power for the questionnaires face validity, namely, the clarity of the wording. The
orchestra managements were respectively asked for the participation of their musicians in the
study. All questionnaires were handed out to the musicians in face-to-face interactions. After
completing the questionnaires, the musicians returned them in a closed envelope so that
full condentiality was ensured. Given this procedure, the response rate was relatively high
(more than 70 percent). Overall, 436 musicians from German theater and concert orchestras were surveyed. The investigated sample of musicians is largely equivalent to the actual
composition of an orchestra: the majority of the musicians (59 percent) belong to the string

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

section; 23 percent are woodwind; 14 percent are brass; and 4 percent belong to the percussion section. Approximately half of those surveyed were tutti (54 percent), approximately
a quarter were section leaders (22 percent), and the rest were soloists (23 percent); missing values account for the remaining 1 percent. The musicians average age was forty years
(SD = 10.30), and their average professional experience was seventeen years (SD = 10.65).
The musicians were asked to specify the degree to which a conductor uses the various power
bases that induce them to correspondingly change their initial interpretations of a score.
Moreover, the musicians were asked to assess the artistic quality of their orchestra, and at the
same time to think about their conductor.

Measurements
Artistic quality of the orchestra. In contrast to performance quality in the music theater
(Boerner and Jobs 2013; Boerner et al. 2008), artistic quality in orchestras as a leadership
outcome has rarely been investigated in previous leadership research (Hiller et al. 2011).2
Building on previous studies (Boerner 2004; Boerner and Krause 2002; Boerner et al. 2004),
the present study gathered facets of the reactions to the quality of the orchestra, such as the
resonance of the audience, the reactions by the press/critics, guest soloists assessments, the
conductors assessments, and musicians assessments (operationalized by their personal quality expectations, individual musical skills, musical skills of the whole orchestra, and the overall judgment). The reliability (Cronbachs alpha) for the entire nine items that measured the
orchestras performance was .90. Table 1 provides an overview of the items to measure artistic
quality and their intercorrelations. The items were consolidated into a cumulative value
called artistic quality for further statistical analysis.
The researcher additionally attempted to estimate the validity of this quality measurement.
For this purpose, the researcher reverted to an established classication of orchestras into
tari classes. The following tari classes are distinguished: A/F1 = outstanding-tari class;

Table 1. Items to Measure Artistic Quality of the Orchestra and Their Intercorrelations
Variable

1 Musicians overall quality judgment

2 Musicians quality assessment compared

to their expectations

.84***

3 Musicians quality assessment compared

to their musical skills

.78***

.86***

4 Musicians quality assessment compared

to the musical skills of the whole orchestra

.79***

.77***

.76***

5 Others overall quality judgment

.63***

.56***

.55***

.53***

6 Resonance of the audience

.53***

.50***

.49***

.50***

.72***

7 Resonance of press/critics

.18***

.17**

.20***

.16***

.37***

.44***

8 Quality assessment of the conductor

.24***

.23***

.29***

.20***

.36***

.28***

.25***

9 Quality assessment of guest soloists

.65***

.64***

.63***

.63***

.66***

.57***

.23***

.36***

Notes. Pearsons correlation coefficients, two-tailed significance. N varied between 420 and 435 due to missing values
in the variables.
**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

437

438

KRAUSE

A = very high-tari class, B = high-tari class, C = moderate-tari class, D = lowest-tari

class. In this study, orchestras of the tari classes A/F1, A, and B took part. An analysis of
variance shows that the three tari classes signicantly dier from each other with regard to
the artistic quality of the orchestra (F (3, 400) = 25,60; p < .001). The Sche post hoc test
of multiple mean dierences shows signicant dierences among all three tari classes with
respect to the expected tendency in artistic quality (see Table 2). Orchestras in higher-tari
classes received higher ratings of artistic quality than those in lower-tari classes.
Power bases used by the conductor. To date, no established measurement of the power bases in
the orchestra eld exists. Therefore, the researcher developed new scales for all power bases.
This operationalization of the power bases relied heavily on previous power research in other
settings, which has shown valid measurements for each power base (for example, Frost and
Stahelski 1998; Raven et al. 1998; Yukl and Falbe 1991). The operationalization is aligned
with French and Ravens (1959) frame of reference and its enhancement by Raven (1992).
The conductors use of power is evaluated from the perspective of the orchestra musicians
being led by him or her. Each of the investigated power bases was operationalized through
several context-specic items. In doing so, the number of items per examined power base varied. As a response, I used a seven-point rating scale.3
Given that previous measurements of personal power are based on various classifications
of power bases (Krause 2008), they are distinguished from one another, inter alia, in the
number and type of power bases measured. In the context of orchestras, there are reasons
to assume that the number of power bases deviates from Raven et als. (1998) classication.
Therefore, the researcher initially veried empirically the number of power bases in orchestras to test the number of power bases used in orchestras and calculated conrmatory factor
analyses (see Table 3).
Table 2. Results of Post Hoc Tests by Scheff to Test of Multiple Mean Differences of Tariff
Class in Terms of Artistic Quality of the Orchestra
Means of Scale Sums
of Artistic Quality of
the Orchestra

Cases per
Tariff Class

A/F1

5.62

24

.85***

.22

1.38***

.22

4.80

224

.54***

.11

4.27

155

Tariff
Class

Tariff Class A Mean

Standard-Difference
Error

Tariff Class B Mean

Standard-Difference
Error

Note. N = 403 due to missing values in the variable tariff class.

***p < .001.

Table 3. Model Fit of the Structure of Power Bases in Orchestras

Coefficients Model

df

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

G-factor model of power bases

119

977.13

< .0001

.76

.69

.14 .14 .15

Six-factor model of power bases

117

951.95

< .0001

.79

.73

.13 .12 .14

Five-factor model of power bases

109

699.40

< .0001

.86

.81

.11 .10 .12

Two-factor model of power bases

42

202.89

< .0001

.95

.83

.09 .07 .10

Four-factor model of power bases

80

177.60

< .05

.95

.91

.05 .04 .06

Notes. AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; 2 : Chi-Square Value; GFI: Goodness of Fit Index; df: degrees of
freedom; RMSEA: Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; p: probability. In all tested models, correlated factors
were assumed. Below the point estimation of the RMSEA, the confidence interval is provided.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

In the rst stage, the researcher tested the six-factor model of power bases according to Raven
(1992) and the general factor model of power bases, where the full variance is traced back to
a single factor. In the second stage, the researcher tested a ve-factor model of the conductors power bases because it can be assumed that impersonal and personal reward and coercive
power are related categories and therefore can be combined. The ve-factor model of power
bases in the orchestra was accordingly represented by the following power bases: impersonal
and personal reward/coercion, legitimate power through position, referent power, expert
power, and informational power. Corresponding to the empirical factor structure (source
factors) by Raven et al. (1998), in the third stage the researcher tested a two-factor model,
which is displayed through the hard power bases and the soft power bases. In the fourth stage
of the testing procedure, a four-factor model of power bases was tested because a substantial
relationship between impersonal and personal reward and coercion and a tight link between
expert power and referent power can be assumed.
Consequently, the four-factor model is represented by the power bases of impersonal and
personal reward/coercive power, legitimate power through position, referent power/expert
power, and informational power (see Table 4).4 Given that a conductor rarely uses a single
power base but rather various power bases in combination with each other, correlated factors were accepted for the conrmatory model tests. As Table 3 shows, the six-factor model
and the G factor model, as well as the ve-factor model and the two-factor model of power
bases in the orchestra, are unsatisfactory with regard to all t indicators. For this reason, the
researcher discarded these models. With regard to all indicators of model adaptation, the
four-factor model of power bases in orchestras shows an acceptable t.
The means, standard deviation, and intercorrelation of the conductors power bases are
shown in Table 5. Signicant positive relations between expert/referent power and impersonal and personal reward/coercion appear. Moreover, expert/referent power correlates positively with informational power.
It becomes obvious that legitimate power through position is the most intensely used kind
of power compared to all other power bases under study. This nding contradicts previous
results about the use of power in other organizations that have shown that expert power
(Frost and Stahelski 1988) or referent power (Yukl, Kim, and Falbe 1996) was predominantly
used to inuence other individuals attitudes and/or behaviors. The second most important
reason for the changes in the musicians manner of interpretation is informational power
followed by expert/referent power. In fourth place is the classic power source of reward and
coercion. Reward power and coercive power have the lowest mean, which can be explained
by the fact that the conductor has, on the one hand, fewer possibilities to reward or punish
orchestra musicians compared to leaders in for-prot organizations. On the other hand, the
low mean of reward and coercive power in the orchestra setting can be explained in terms of
the self-esteem of the musicians: to keep and maintain self-esteem it is common that the attitude or behavioral change was forced through legitimate power or expert power, for example,
rather than in expectation of a reward or to avoid some sort of punishment. An analysis of
variance with single contrasts and legitimate power through position as reference category
shows a signicant eect of the used legitimate power through position compared to the used
informational power (F (1, 410) = 99.34, p < .001), compared to the used expert/referent
power (F (1, 410) = 272.92, p < .001), and compared to the used impersonal and personal
reward and coercive power (F (1, 410) = 1042.85, p < .001) of the conductor. The discussion
section refers to this point.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

439

440

KRAUSE

Table 4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Four Power Bases in Orchestras

Instruction: If the conductor asks me to change my
way of interpretation of a composition and I do it
although I hesitated initially, I follow his or her wish
because . . .
Factor

Item

1. Expert/
referent power

2. Impersonal
and personal
reward and
coercive
power

3. Legitimate
power through
position

4. Informational power

Factor Loadings
Mean

SD

F1

F2

F3 F4

. . . he or she convinces me through his or her artistic skills. (EI1)

3.67

2.02

.99

. . . he or she persuades me through his or her personality. (EI2)

3.41

2.05

.97

. . . he or she demonstrates solid knowledge of the score. (EI3)

4.13

2.02

.89

. . . he or she appears authentic to me. (EI4)

3.47

2.02

.88

. . . he or she convinces me through his or her manual skills. (EI5)

3.47

1.93

.84

. . . according to my experience, his or her interpretation was excellent

in the past. (EI6)

3.11

1.81

.82

. . . I identify with him or her and therefore adapt my interpretation in

terms of his or her role model. (EI7)

2.57

1.76

.54

. . . he or she presumably knows how to play this piece in the best

manner. (EI8)

2.84

1.62

.46

. . . I know that he or she will recognize me and praise me for that. (RC1)

1.91

1.41

.99

. . . a positive performance appraisal would increase my career opportunities and/or my reputation. (RC2)

2.07

1.64

.55

. . . a long-term disagreement would hinder my future career. (RC3)

2.69

1.99

.28

. . . he or she is able to influence future instrumentations, which might

have a negative impact. (RC4)

1.90

1.57

.01

. . . I am supposed to act in line with his or her requests due to my role

as an orchestra musician. (L1)

5.70

1.76

.42

. . . we are both part of a whole production and should have the same
opinion. (L2)

3.56

2.17

.35

. . . as a matter of principle, only accommodating of all musicians and a

synchronized play appears to be suasive. (L3)

5.41

1.87

.32

. . . he or she offers background information about the composition

(e.g., historical performance practices). (I1)

3.55

2.07

.91

. . . he or she explains in detail the reasons for the expected change in

the way of interpretation. (I2)

4.10

1.20

.78

Note. A 7-point response scale was used.

To analyze the eects that the various power bases used by the conductor vis--vis the musicians have on the artistic quality of the orchestra, the researcher applied linear structural
equation modeling. The four-factor model shows a very good match, with exclusively direct
eects of the forms of power on the artistic quality of the orchestra (df = 128, 2 =155.63,
GFI = .97, AGFI = .92, RMSEA = .02). The results, therefore, conrm the recursive fourfactor model with direct effects on artistic quality. The path diagram with the parameter
estimation for the four-factor model of the conductors power bases as determinants of the
artistic quality of the orchestra is illustrated in Figure 1 (standardized solution).
The gure claries that the various power bases of the conductor increase the artistic quality
of the orchestra in dierent degrees: expert/referent power has the strongest positive eect

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations of a Conductors Power Bases

Power Bases of a Conductor
1. Expert and referent power

Mean

SD

3.31

1.50

2. Impersonal and personal reward and coercive power

2.14

1.28

.13**

3. Legitimate power through position

4.89

1.37

.07

.13**

4. Informational power

3.83

1.76

.53***

.03

.04

5. Orchestra quality

0.59

0.33

.50***

.13**

.10*

.32***

Notes: Pearsons correlation coefficients, two-tailed significance. 7-point Likert scales were used to measure the power
bases. Scale to measure orchestra quality ranged from 0 to 1. N varied between 416 and 432 due to missing values in
the variables.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

on the artistic quality of the orchestra. In contrast, informational has a medium positive
eect on the artistic quality. Impersonal and personal reward/coercive power and legitimate
power have, to approximately the same extent, a weak positive eect on the artistic quality
of the orchestra. The diering amounts of path coecients in the model can be interpreted
as a conrmation of hypotheses 1 and 2 that the use of expert power and the use of referent
power are the most signicant predictors of the artistic quality of the orchestra compared to
all other power bases applied. The power bases analyzed here account for a total of 72 percent of the variance of artistic quality, which can be evaluated as a meaningful amount of
explained variance.
To control the data error per construct, the researcher estimated the portion of explained variance according to Holling (1993, 293) (squaring the path coecients after relativizing them
in terms of their dierent reliabilities). To calculate the eect sizes of the single predictors, the
researcher compared the amount of explained variance with and without this predictor in the
criterion. The following reduced explained variance in the criterion artistic quality through
elimination of the predictor was the result: without expert/referent power, the amount of
reduced explained variance is 64 percent; through the elimination of informational power,
the amount of reduced explained variance is 7 percent; through the elimination of legitimate
power, the amount of reduced explained variance is 1 percent; and through the elimination
of impersonal and personal reward and coercive power, the amount of reduced explained
variance is 0 percent. This comparison shows that expert/referent power has the strongest
eect size. In light of these results it can be concluded that this study successfully identied
relevant predictors of the artistic quality of the orchestra.

Discussion
The present study analyzed the conductors applied power bases as predictors of the artistic
quality of orchestras. The investigation contributed to the literature in three ways. First,
it has shown that four power bases can be distinguished in the orchestra setting. Second,
positive eects of power bases on the artistic quality of the orchestra have been empirically
documented. Third, the results have shown that the conductors expert and referent bases
of power are more conducive to orchestra quality than legitimate power through position,
informational power, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power. In the following,
consequences of the study for leadership and power research, research methods, and practice,
as well as study limitations are discussed.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

441

442

KRAUSE

Figure 1. Results of the Structural Equation Modeling: Four-Factor Model of Power Bases as
Determinants of Orchestras Artistic Quality
EI3
EI4

EI2
.49

EI5

.50

EI6

.51
.54
.38

EI7

.34

.53

EI1
.51

Expert and
Referent
Power

EI8
I1
I2

PQ1
.88***

.69
.58

.99
.00

Informational
Power

.40***
Artistic
Quality

L1
L2
L3

.12
.65
.72

.17***
Legitimate
Power

RC1
RC2
RC3

.56
.55
-.02
-.36

.98

PQ3

.92

PQ4

.90
.70

AQ1

.72
.29

AQ2

.35

AQ3

.75

.18*

PQ2

AQ4
AQ5

Reward and
Coercive
Power

RC4
Notes: Standardized solution. Circles represent latent variables; rectangles represent manifest variables; for the manifest
exogenous and endogenous variables, per factor correlations among the residuals were postulated. Bold coefficients
means significant. Not bold means not significant.
*p < .05; ***p < .001

Implications for Leadership and Power Research

This study combined leadership and power research. In contrast to traditional leadership
research (see Yukl 2012), the conductors leadership behavior was described in terms of the
use of power. Previous power research has shown that power bases are used to a dierent
extent in diverse organizational settings. In hospitals, for example, informational power, position power, expert power, and legitimate power through the norm of social responsibility are
the most important power bases (Raven et al. 1998). Conversely, in schools, teachers inuence their students primarily through reward and coercive power (Koslowsky and Schwarzwald 1993). In companies, expert power, referent power, and legitimate power are used
most frequently (Frost and Stahelski 1988; Yukl and Falbe 1991; Yukl et al. 1996). For the
orchestra domain this study has shown that legitimate power through position is most frequently used followed by informational power and expert/referent power. The classical power
bases, reward power and coercive power, are rarely used in the orchestra context. So far, a
theoretical explanation for the dierent use of the power bases depending on the research

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

context is absent. Against this background, it could be meaningfulin analogy to the contingency approach of leadershipto distinguish the manner of power use according to the
specic situation. As shown, in orchestras the combination of expert and referent power is
important to enhance orchestra quality. The rationale for this specic application of power
lies in the specic constellation in orchestras: the need for a directive leadership style, on the
one hand, to ensure coordination and the need for maintenance of the intrinsic motivation
of the musicians, on the other hand.

Implications for Methods in Power Research

The results support the research strategy used. The application of the context-specific
approach of the power bases is accompanied by a high explanatory value for the respectively considered, context relevant performance. Through the structural equation modeling
of power bases in an orchestra context, four power bases could be conrmed. This is evidence that the typology of the power bases of French and Raven (1959) and Raven et al.
(1998) cannot be generalized to all contexts. Although, theoretically, six (Raven 1965) or
rather eleven power bases (Raven et al. 1998) are distinguishable, in the orchestra setting
four power bases are empirically supported: expert/referent power, impersonal and personal
reward/coercion, legitimate power, and informational power. In comparison to other organizational contexts, expert power and referent power, as well as reward power and coercive
power, are more closely linked together in the orchestra setting. The close liaison between
expert power and referent power can be explained by noting that orchestra musicians are primarily prepared for a solo career during their training. Therefore, they see each other as professionals and, hence, identify with a similarly professional conductor whom they credit with
a high degree of expert knowledge. The perception of expert knowledge leads to a higher
desirability of the conductor and, therefore, fosters parallel referent power. This argument
that expert power leads to referent power is also meta-analytically documented (Carson, Carson, and Roe 1993). Furthermore, reward power and coercive power are closely connected
in orchestras. These power bases are generally dicult to distinguish from each other, so it is
challenging to determine in a special case whether a reward or coercion is presented (Raven
et al. 1998, 315). The withholding of a reward can imply a coercion technique and, conversely, the detention of coercion can demonstrate a reward technique.
Hence, it would be methodically necessary to use a more than the hitherto context-specic
approach of power that is aligned with the respective organizational type (for example, hospitals, schools, universities, prisons, churches). The use of a context-specic approach (Krause
and Kearney 2006) would be beneficial because some inconsistencies in previous power
research (Podsako and Schriesheim 1985) could be reduced. Certainly, it would eliminate,
from an operationally pragmatic viewpoint, informed statements about leadership outcome
criteria depending on the kind of organization. In sum, this investigation encourages other
scholars to analyze other leadership outcome criteria in the orchestra context such as musicians motivation, ow experiences, burnout, mental and physical health, substance abuse, or
commitment to the conductor or orchestra. This research would be benecial to expand our
knowledge on the eects of orchestra leadership.

Implication for Practice

The results of the study illustrate practical consequences for leadership in orchestras. From
the viewpoint of the musicians, the conductor is using legitimate power through position

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

443

444

KRAUSE

most frequently to enforce his or her way of the interpretation. Yet, to promote the artistic
quality of the orchestra, it is not legitimate power through position that is most crucial, but
expert/referent power (see Figure 1). However, the musicians perceived that expert/referent
power is used less frequently compared to legitimate power through position. Therefore, a
discrepancy between the ideal and the reality becomes obvious: from the viewpoint of the
musicians, many conductors rely on their leadership position instead of convincing the
musicians through expertise and referent power. Considering that many musicians perceive
the artistic quality of their orchestra as in need of improvement (Boerner et al. 2001), consequences for action are immediately indicated. Based on the perspective of the musicians that
was chosen in this study, the education of conductors should focus on professional competence and alsoas in other leadership positionson the social competence or interpersonal
skills (Hunt et al. 2004) of the conductors to enhance the likelihood to become a positive
role model and consequently promote orchestra quality. Overall, a balancing act seems to be
necessary between the enhancment of professional competenceto increase the potential for
expert powerand social competenceto enhance the potential for referent power. According to the results of this study, these two competencies, which manifest themselves in expert
and referent power, are the central components for the highest degrees of artistic quality.

Limitations
Although the analysis had advantages, it also involved problems. One issue is the measurement
perspective. This study measured the conductors leadership behaviors from the perspective of
the musicians, and consequently the musicians perceptions come into play. This measurement
perspective is not unique for the present study but is the dominant measurement perspective in
leadership research during the past twenty-ve years (Hiller et al. 2011). Another problem of
this cross-sectional study is the possibility of a common method bias (Podsako et al. 2003).
Given that both the power bases and the artistic quality were estimated by the same source, the
amount of the calculated path coecients could, in principle, also be based upon an overestimation of the predictorcriterion relationships. In light of this issue, it would be benecial in
further investigations to use multisource data and to classify the artistic quality of the orchestra
through various groups of individuals. A longitudinal design is recommended for this purpose.
Another issue is that good orchestras attract good conductors. Consequently, the reputation of
an orchestra approximately thirty years ago is associated with the artistic quality of the orchestra
today. Therefore, it needs to be concluded that variations of orchestras quality are also contingent upon other characteristics and not only upon the leadership behaviors of the conductor.
Moreover, all orchestra musicians came from German orchestras. Given that, future research
is encouraged to reanalyze the impact of power-based leadership on orchestra quality in other
countries before generalizations can be made. A prerequisite for those generalizations would be
cross-cultural research on leadership in the orchestra domain.

Notes
1. Moreover, the study by Bathurst, Williams, and Rodda (2007) analyzed events and processes during a change
process in an orchestra and did not apply a specific leadership approach.
2. There are several challenges in measuring artistic quality of orchestras: first, no standard criterion for the
operationalization of the construct exists; second, the application of a standardized performance criterion would
mitigate individual musicians standards.
3. The rating method has advantages compared to the ranking method in power research: the ipsativity of the
data connected to the ranking method would lead to linear dependence in the set of the power bases to be assessed,

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

whereby the statistical analysis of the underlying linear structures would become problematic (Schriesheim, Hinkin,
and Podsakoff 1991). For this reason, my measurement is based on the tradition of the deductively developed frameworks for measuring personal power in organizations.
4. With the successive confirmatory model tests, the researcher used a covariance matrix as a starting matrix, the
variances were fixed as latent variables, and all loadings were freely estimated, respectively.

References
Allmendinger, J., and R. Hackman. 1994. Bringing Music to the People: Continuity and Discontinuity in
East German Orchestras. Cross-National Study of Symphony Orchestras. Report No. 3. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University: Harvard University Press.
. 1995. The More the Better? A Four-Nation Study of the Inclusion of Women in Symphony Orchestras. Social Forces 74 (2): 42360.
. 1996. Organizations in Changing Environments: The Case of East German Symphony Orchestras.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41:33769.
Amabile, T. M., K. G. Hill, B. A. Hennessey, and E. M. Tighe. 1994. The Work Preference Inventory:
Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
66:95067.
Atik, Y. 1994. The Conductor and the Orchestra. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 15 (1):
2228.
Bathurst, R., and D. Ladkin. 2012. Performing Leadership: Observations from the World of Music.
Administrative Science 2:99119.
Bathurst, R., L. Williams, and A. Rodda. 2007. Letting Go of the Reins: Paradoxes and Puzzles in Leading
an Artistic Enterprise. International Journal of Arts Management 9 (2): 2938.
Boerner, S. 2004. Artistic Quality in an Opera Company: Toward the Development of a Concept. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 14 (4): 42536.
Boerner, S., and D. Gebert. 2012. Fostering Artistic Ensemble Performance. Exploring the Role of Transformational Leadership. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 22 (3): 34765.
Boerner, S., and J. Jobs. 2013. Enjoying Theater: The Role of Visitors Response to the Performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 7 (4): 391408.
Boerner, S., and D. E. Krause. 2002. Fhrung im Orchester: Kunst ohne knstlerische Freiheit? Eine
empirische Untersuchung [Leadership in an orchestra: Art without artistic freedom?]. Zeitschrift fr
Personalforschung 16 (1): 90106.
Boerner, S., D. E. Krause, and D. Gebert. 2001. In der Kunst untergehenin der Kunst aufgehen?
Empirische Ergebnisse zur Funktionalitt einer direktiv-charismatischen Fhrung im Orchester [Submerging or drowning in art: Empirical results on the function of directive-charismatic leadership in orchestras].
Zeitschrift Fhrung und Organisation 70 (5): 28592.
. 2004. Leadership and Cooperation in Orchestras: An Empirical Study. Human Resource Development International 7 (4): 46579.
Boerner, S., H. Neuhoff, S. Renz, and V. Moser. 2008. Evaluation in Music Theater: Empirical Results on
Content and Structure of the Audiences Quality Judgement. Empirical Studies of the Arts 26 (1): 1535.
Boerner, S., and C. von Streit. 2007. Promoting Orchestral Performance: The Interplay between Musicians
Mood and a Conductors Leadership Style. Psychology of Music 13 (1): 13546.
Canetti, E. 1998. Masse und Macht [Mass and power]. Frankfurt: Fischer.
Carson, P., K. Carson, and C. Roe. 1993. Social Power Bases: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Interrelationships and Outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (14): 115069.
Cartwright, D. 1965. Influence, Leadership, Control. In Handbook of Organizations, edited by J. March,
147. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

445

446

KRAUSE

Csikszentmihalyi, M., and J. Lefevre. 1989. Optimal Experience in Work and Leisure. Journal of Personality
56:81522.
Dahl, P. A. 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 56:20115.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and L. R. Weingart. 2003. Task vs. Relationship Conflict and Team Effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (4): 74149.
Elangovan, A. R., and J. L. Xie. 2000. Effects of Perceived Power of Supervisor on Subordinate Work
Attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 21 (6): 31928.
French, J. R. P., and B. Raven. 1959. The Basis of Social Power. In Studies in Social Power, edited by D.
Cartwright, 150167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Frost, D. E., and A. J. Stahelski. 1988. The Systematic Measurement of French and Ravens Bases of Social
Power in Work Groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18:37589.
Hatch, M., and K. E. Weick. 1998. Critical Resistance to the Jazz Metaphor. Organization Science
9:600604.
Hiller, N. J., L. A. De Church, T. Murase, and D. Doty. 2011. Searching for Outcomes of Leadership: A
25-Year Review. Journal of Management 37:113777.
Holling, H. 1993. Zur Anwendung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen in der psychologischen Forschung. In Arbeitsund Organisationspsychologie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grundlagenforschung und Anwendung [Work and
organizational psychology in the area of conflict between fundamental research and applied sciences], edited
by W. Bungard and T. Herrmann. Bern: Huber.
Hunt, J. G., G. E. Stelluto, and R. Hooijberg. 2004. Toward New-Wave Organization Creativity: Beyond
Romance and Analogy in the Relationship between Orchestra-Conductor Leadership and Musician Creativity. Leadership Quarterly 15:14562.
Kamoche, K., and M. P. e Cunha. 2001. Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innovation. Organization Studies 22 (5): 73364.
Khodyakov, D. M. 2007. The Complexity of TrustControl Relationships in Creative Organizations: Insights
from a Qualitative Analysis of a Conductorless Orchestra. Social Forces 86 (1): 122.
Koivunen, N. 2003. Leadership in Symphony Orchestras. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
Koivunen, N., and G. Wennes. 2011. Show Us the Sound! Aesthetic Leadership of Symphony Orchestra
Conductors. Leadership 7 (1): 5171.
Kping, A.-S. 2007. The Creative Compost: Playing and Conducting Musical Events. In Aesthetic Leadership. Managing Fields of Flow in Art and Business, edited by P. G. de Monthoux, C. Gustafsson, and S.-E.
Sjstrand, 1532. Chippenham and Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koslowsky, M., and J. Schwarzwald. 1993. The Use of Power Tactics to Gain Compliance: Testing Aspects of
Ravens Theory in Conflictual Situations. Social Behavior and Personality 21:13543.
Krause, D. E. 2004. Influenced-Based Leadership as a Determinant of the Inclination to Innovate and of
Innovation-Related Behaviors: An Empirical Investigation. Leadership Quarterly 15 (2): 79102.
. 2008, April. Effects of Power-Based Leadership on Innovative Behaviors at Work. Paper presented
at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
. 2011. Enhancing Process Innovations: The Role of Cognitions, and Power-Based Leadership.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 3:21230.
Krause, D. E., and S. Boerner. 2001. Experts Lead Experts. Das Orchestra 49 (12): 811.
Krause, D. E., and K. Kearney. 2006. The Use of Power in Different Contexts: Arguments for a Context
Specific Perspective. In Power and Influence in Organizations. New Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives,
edited by C. A. Schriesheim, and L. L. Neider, 5986. Hartford, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Ladkin, D. 2008. Leading Beautifully: How Mastery, Congruence and Form Create the Aesthetic of
Embodied Leadership Practice. Leadership Quarterly 19 (1): 3141.
Langendrfer, F., V. Hodapp, G. Kreutz, and S. Bongard. 2006. Personality and Performance Anxiety among
Professional Orchestra Musicians. Journal of Individual Differences 27 (3): 16271.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

FOUR TYPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESTRA QUALITY

Leonard, N. H., L. L. Beauvais, and R. W. Scholl. 1999. Work Motivation: The Incorporation of SelfConcept-Based Processes. Human Relations 52:96987.
Marotto, M., J. Roos, and B. Victor. 2007. Collective Virtuosity in Orchestras: A Study of Peak Performance
in an Orchestra. Journal of Management Studies 44 (3): 388413.
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Boston: Pittman.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology
88:879903.
Podsakoff, P. M., and C. A. Schriesheim. 1985. Field Studies of French and Ravens Bases of Power: Critique,
Reanalysis, and Suggestions for Future Research. Psychological Bulletin 97 (3): 387411.
Raven, B., J. Schwarzwald, and M. Koslowsky. 1998. Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction
Model of Interpersonal Influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (4): 30732.
Raven, B. H. 1965. Social Influence and Power. In Current Studies in Social Psychology, edited by I. D.
Steiner and M. Fishbein, 37182. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
. 1992. A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence: French and Raven Thirty Years Later.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 7 (2): 21744.
Rowold, J., and A. Rohmann. 2009. Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles, Followers Positive
and Negative Emotions, and Performance in German Nonprofit Orchestras. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership 20 (1): 4159.
Saavedra, R., P. C. Earley, and L. Van Dyne. 1993. Complex Inter-Dependence in Task-Performing Groups.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Psychology 78:6172.
Schriesheim, C. A., T. R. Hinkin, and P. M. Podsakoff. 1991. Can Ipsative and Single-Item Measures Produce
Erroneous Results in Field Studies of French and Ravens (1959) Bases of Power? An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 76:10614.
Weick, K. E., D. P. Gilfillan, and T. A. Keith. 1973. The Effect of Composer Credibility on Orchestra
Performance. Sociometry 36 (4): 43562.
Yukl, G. 2012. Leadership in Organizations. Prentice Hall, NJ: Pearson.
Yukl, G., and C. M. Falbe 1991. Importance of Different Power Sources in Downward and Lateral Relations.
Journal of Applied Psychology 76:41623.
Yukl, G., H. Kim, and C. M. Falbe. 1996. Antecedents of Influence Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology
81:30917.

DIANA E. KRAUSE is professor and head of the Department of Human Resource Management,
Leadership and Organizational Behavior at the University Klagenfurt in Austria.

Nonprot Management & Leadership

DOI: 10.1002/nml

447