On the role of power and affiliation motives for leadership and selfishness in men and women

It is not fully understood which motives are desirable in leaders. Early studies proposed that leaders ought to strive for influence and control (power motive) and should have a low desire for positive relationships (affiliation motive). However, the evidence that has accumulated since then is somewhat inconsistent and contradictory. This dissertation revisits the role of power and affiliation motives for leadership with two important differences to previous studies. First, it distinguishes between desirable (functional) and undesirable (dysfunctional) variants of both power and affiliation motives based on existing conceptualizations of these variants. Second, it distinguishes between two different classes of indicators of effective leadership. We refer to the first group as prototypical indicators of effective leadership because they contain a substantial amount of subjective judgments which are influenced by leadership prototypes. We refer to the other group as prosocial indicators of effective leadership. Method: In a first step (Chapter 1) we provide an overview of previous research on the role of subconscious (implicit) power and affiliation motives for leadership (k = 24, N = 2,113) and derive our goal to develop scales measuring functional and dysfunctional variants of conscious (explicit) power and affiliation motives. Chapter 2 introduces and validates these scales using data from a field survey (N = 961) and a longitudinal survey (N = 35). Chapter 3 examines the relationships between motives and four prototypical indicators of effective leadership (peer- and self-rated leadership competence, motivation to lead, and leadership role occupancy) using the field sample. Chapter 4 focuses on the relationships between motives and three prosocial indicators of effective leadership. It uses data from a laboratory study (N = 201) in which groups of 3 to 4 persons play a game of Settlers of Catan: Oil Springs. We assess participants’ verbal endorsement of cooperation (vs. selfishness) and the number of oil spills that they caused. Chapter 4 also draws on data from the field survey in which participants (including N = 257 actual leaders) responded to scenarios providing opportunities for unethical business decisions. Chapter 5 compares men and women in the functional and dysfunctional variants of power and affiliation motives. Results: Model comparisons indicate that functional and dysfunctional variants of power and affiliation motives can be distinguished from each other. Further analyses reveal that prototypical indicators of leadership relate positively to a functional power motive and negatively to a dysfunctional affiliation motive. Prosocial indicators of leadership relate positively to a functional affiliation motive and negatively to a dysfunctional power motive. Women report, on average, a stronger functional affiliation motive whereas men report a stronger dysfunctional power motive. Women score higher on prosocial indicators of leadership which can be partially attributed to gender differences in motives (mediation). Many of the results were robust across subsamples with different occupational statuses and after controlling for personality, reasoning, or implicit motives. Discussion: The present dissertation contributes to the literature on the role of motives for leadership by showing that power and affiliation motives can both be beneficial in leaders but for different classes of outcomes. It is important to distinguish between functional and dysfunctional variants of each motive because dysfunctional variants may impede some classes of leadership criteria. It is noteworthy that men and women do, on average, systematically differ in some motive variants in the direction of a female leadership advantage (women report higher levels in a desirable variant and lower levels in an undesirable one). When organizations use this information for recruiting, selecting, and developing leaders, this may attract more women into leadership positions. However, Chapter 6 points to potential hurdles when pursuing this endeavor. More specifically, raters tend to evaluate selfish behavior as effective leadership behavior (which is in line with male leadership stereotypes and favors men according to our data). Mere awareness of gender-based discrimination does not prevent these stereotypical patterns of evaluation. We call for interventions that increase the appreciation of cooperative leaders instead of increasing a power motive in women