See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322961072

The need for power, need for influence, sense of power, and directiveness in
female and male superiors and subordinates

Article in Current Issues in Personality Psychology · February 2018

DOI: 10.5114/cipp.2018.72200

CITATIONS READS

9 1,574

2 authors:

Dagna Kocur Eugenia Mandal

University of Silesia in Katowice University of Silesia in Katowice
25 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 319 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Need for Power and Influence, Sense of Power and Directiveness Among Teachers View project

Manipulation tactics of patients with neurotic disorders View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dagna Kocur on 06 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

current issues in personality psychology · volume 6(1), 8
doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2018.72200

original article

The need for power, need for influence,

sense of power, and directiveness in female
and male superiors and subordinates
Dagna Kocur B,C,E,F, Eugenia Mandal A,D,E,F

Institute of Psychology, Department of Social and Environmental Psychology, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

background with other people, with colleagues, and in superior-sub-

The purpose of the study was to examine the phenomenon ordinate relations. The number of male leaders was con-
of power within an organisation from the vantage point of spicuously greater than the number of female leaders. Fur-
gender, the occupied position, earnings, and the number thermore, women had fewer subordinates than men and
of subordinates. earned less than men. Female participants scored lower on
the sense of power and the need for power scales.
participants and procedure
The sample group comprised 107 female and 98 male par- conclusions
ticipants. The mean age was 42.14 years (SD = 11.73). The Occupying either an executive or subordinate position dif-
study covered 100 superiors and 105 subordinates. The ferentiates between women and men in terms of sense of
research tools were: the Need for Power and Influence power in interpersonal relationships. The findings on sense
Questionnaire (Bennett, 1988), the Personal Sense of Pow- of power in the professional context may be applied in or-
er Scale (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012), and the Direc- ganisational psychology in order to increase employees’
tiveness Scale SD (Ray, 1976). competence and qualifications.

results key words

The superiors scored significantly higher on the need for power; need for power; sense of power; gender; superiors;
power, need for influence, and directiveness. They also subordinates
scored higher in terms of the need for power in relations

corresponding author – Dagna Kocur, Ph.D., Institute of Psychology, Department of Social and Environmental
Psychology, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, e-mail: dagna.kocur@us.edu.pl
authors’ contribution – A: Study design · B: Data collection · C: Statistical analysis · D: Data interpretation ·
E: Manuscript preparation · F: Literature search · G: Funds collection
to cite this article – Kocur, D., & Mandal, E. (2018). The need for power, need for influence, sense of power,
and directiveness in female and male superiors and subordinates. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 6(1),
47–56.
received 29.04.2017 · reviewed 04.06.2017 · accepted 07.11.2017 · published 18.12.2017
 Power at the workplace

BACKGROUND a great need for power. Should they not hold power,
they may also be satisfied by influencing others, util-
The situation in which a person occupies a manageri- ising means other than pressure, coercion, or direc-
al position in the professional hierarchy is a specific tions. The need for power and need for influence are
one and may affect this person’s general function- therefore conceptually distinct constructs that are
ing patterns. Empirical studies have confirmed the not necessarily correlated (Bennett, 1988).
consequences arising from holding a superior posi- The Personal Sense of Power is a perception of
tion on the following levels: cognitive (Fiske, 1993), one’s own ability to influence another person or
behavioural (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magge, 2003), other people (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). It
emotional (Wojciszke & Strużyńska-Kujałowicz, is vital to emphasise that in this case, power is de-
2007), and social (Galinsky et al., 2006, 2008). Inter- fined as the ability to affect other people. Personal
estingly, leadership positions are most frequently sense of power may differ substantially depending on
held by people with specific personality and dispo- the kind of interpersonal relationship. Studies have
sition traits, such as intelligence, stereotypical mas- shown that it is greater in relations with friends than
culinity, extraversion, and great adaptation skills with parents. Personal sense of power arises not only
(Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Hence, a question from objective factors of a social nature that create
may arise, of whether people in managerial positions special conditions for individuals who are in pos-
differ from one another also in terms of the need for session of greater resources. Personal variables also
play an important role in determining how powerful
power and influence and the sense of power itself.
a person considers him or herself to be. Studies by
According to French and Raven, power is a special
Cameron Anderson, Oliver John, and Dacher Keltner
relationship between two people, which is a source
(2012) show individual differences in personal sense
of power for one over the other (French & Raven,
of power, even when it comes to people in similar
1959). Thibaut and Kelly (1959) perceive power as
social positions. Individuals who hold similar social
the ability to influence the type and the quality of
positions but differ in terms of their personal sense
other people’s behaviour as well as the control of re-
of power exhibited, among others, dissimilar extra-
sources, which enables those in possession of power
version levels.
to obtain the potential necessary to exert influence.
The Euro-American culture tends to attribute
In psychology, a number of researchers treat power
power to males. The existence of a glass ceiling – an
and influence as interchangeable constructs; howev-
invisible barrier that prevents women from climbing
er, a more in-depth analysis makes a case to draw
the career ladder and gaining managerial positions
a distinction between the two. Minton (1972) argues – has been proven by several studies and analyses
that social influence is a potential that enables a per- (cf. Mandal, 1995; Mandal, 2007; Brannon, 2002; Woj­
son to affect other people’s actions, whereas power ciszke, 2002; Titkow, 2003). In 2017 in the USA there
is the ability to influence those actions. According to were 21 women per 100 senators; out of 435 members
Wendell Bell (1975), power consists of the ability to of the House of Representatives, 84 were women. In
employ positive and negative sanctions (threats and Poland, women occupy less than 20.00% of the seats
promises, among others), while influence occurs in in Parliament. The differences between the two sex-
communications aimed at changing other people’s es are reflected in earnings: in 2014 men earned on
behaviours in the absence of those sanctions. Joel average 4600 PLN while women – 3600 PLN (Polish
Bennett (1988) differentiates between the need for nationwide compensation survey by Sedlak & Sed-
power (nPower) and the need for influence (nInflu- lak, 2014). Every fourth male employee earned 7700
ence), implementing certain psychometric tests. The PLN or more, while every fourth female employee
writer argues that nPower consists of striving to gain received 5700 PLN or more. Women are more like-
a certain position, whereas nInfluence is the need to ly to have low-paying jobs, such as teacher, nurse,
persuade others and exert an impact on them (Ben- or cleaner. Typically, male professions, such as pro-
nett, 1988). grammer or machine operator are, on the other hand,
Research and analyses conducted by Joel Bennett better paid (Saltzman, 1991; Brannon, 2002).
(1988) have proven that individuals differ with re- There are numerous differences between women
spect to their need and striving for power as well as and men in the professional context, and they exist
when it comes to their need for power. Power-mo- on multiple levels. However, research conducted by
tivated individuals crave a position that will enable Eugenia Mandal (2007) showed that the differences
them to exercise their power for their own sake – between the sexes within an organisation are less
for instance to derive satisfaction from dealing with significant than the differences between superiors
people who depend on them. Individuals motivated and subordinates. The research carried out in a large
by the need to exert impact strive to influence events professional organisation showed more differences
and other people. People who are characterised by between the groups of superiors and subordinates
a considerable need for influence may also exhibit than between women and men. Female superiors

48 current issues in personality psychology

 Dagna Kocur, Eugenia Mandal

were more masculine than female subordinates, and nurse, cleaner, sales representative, and many others.
had a greater internal locus of control and a high- The majority of participants (65.00%, n = 134) had
er level of social competence, especially in terms of a university degree. Most of the participants lived in
assertiveness and social exposure. Those differences towns and cities with a population of 10,000-500,000
were not observed when comparing women and men (41.00%, n = 84).
in leadership roles. The findings emphasise the great- The study was carried out among employees of
er importance of the professional role, as a superior companies, firms, enterprises, and organisations in
or a subordinate, rather than the differences between the Silesian and Mazovian provinces. It was con-
genders. ducted in an anonymous and voluntary manner. The
Empirical studies prove how women and men sampling technique used for the study was purposive
vary in terms of the need for power and sense of with respect to the occupied position (superiors and
power. A study by Bennett (1998) revealed lower fe- subordinates).
male scores in terms of the need for power and lower
resistance to taking orders. In several studies women
also scored lower than men on directiveness (Ray, MEASURES
1976; Brzozowski, 1997). There may be two reasons
for this situation. Firstly, biological differences may Need for Power. Index of Personal Reactions (Bennet,
give rise to differences in the sense and need for pow- 1988; Polish adaptation of authors) is a tool that was
er between men and women. Physical strength and designed to analyse the need for power and influence
high level of testosterone are linked with the need as personality traits. The factor analysis confirmed
and motivation for power and domination (Schul- the distinction between nPower and nInfluence. The
theiss, Campbell, & McClelland, 1999; Schultheiss, tool consists of four scales: Ability to Influence and
Dargel, & Rhode, 2003; Schultheiss et al., 2005; Sell- Exercise Power (12 items, for example: I usually know
ers, Mehl, & Josephs, 2007). Secondly, the process of how to get what I want); Need for Power (13 items, for
socialisation provides women with information on example: I want to be a decision-making person); Need
what is a stereotypical female behaviour and what for Influence (eight items, for example: I like to feel
is not (Brannon, 2002; Mandal, 2008). Since their ear- that what I have to say has an influence on other peo-
liest years, women are taught that because of their ple); and Resistance to Subordination (eight items, for
gender they will have less power, so they do have less example: I have difficulties accepting somebody’s power
power in the future, which may also account for low- [control] over me). The participants provided answers
er sense of power among female superiors. Processes on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (does not describe
linked with the self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal me well) to 5 (describes me well). In this survey, the
& Jacobson, 1968) as well as stereotyping risk (Steele tools’ reliability ranged from α = .75 to α = .88.
& Aronson, 1995) may play an important role here. Sense of Power. The Personal Sense of Power (An-
The purpose of the study was to answer the ques- derson, John, & Keltner, 2012; Polish adaptation by
tion of whether the individual differences in the need the authors; Mandal & Kocur, 2015) is designed to
for power and sense of power differentiate people in measure personal sense of power. It consists of two
terms of their job position. Those differences could parts. First, the examiner chooses the area (relation)
arise both from the individual differences that led that is to be evaluated. For instance: In my relation
some of the participants of the study to gain man- with others…; In my relation with my partner (in
agement positions, but may also result from the pos- a close relationship)…; In my relation with my supe-
session of power itself. Another purpose of the study rior… or other. After the relationship has been de-
was to determine the dependence of gender in the termined, the subject of the study takes a stance on
context of the need for power and sense of power and eight statements regarding various manifestations
power in the professional environment. of power (e.g. I can make other people listen to what
I have to say, or I can make others do what I want them
to do). The participant provides answers on a scale of
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE 1 (I strongly disagree) to 7 (I strongly agree). The high-
er the score, the stronger the sense of power. In this
The study involved 205 participants: 107 wom- survey, the tool’s reliability ranged from α = .67 to
en and 98 men, with a mean age of 42.14 years α = .84 (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012).
(SD = 11.73 years). The group consisted of 100 in- Directiveness. The Directiveness Scale SD (Ray,
dividuals in managerial positions and 105 subordi- 1976; Polish adaptation by Brzozowski, 1997) was
nates. The respondents had different occupations, compiled as part of the analysis of an authoritarian
for example: entrepreneur, electrician, teacher, office personality. It is utilised to examine directiveness
clerk, shop assistant, salesperson, administrative construed as aggressive dominance, a tendency to
worker, miner, economist, physician, psychologist, impose one’s will on others. The scale comes in two
manager, white-collar worker, electronic engineer, versions: complete (D-26), which consists of 26 ques-

volume 6(1), 8 49

 Power at the workplace

tions, and abridged (D-15), with 15 questions. In this observed. The superiors scored substantially higher
study, an abridged version was used. Sample items on the following subscales: Ability to Influence and
include: Do you belong to the category of people who Exercise Power (p < .001), Need for Power (p < .001),
always like to have everything their own way? Do you Need for Influence (p < .001), and Resistance to Sub-
have an inclination to dominate the conversation? The ordination (p = .029). The results are shown in Table 1.
participants answer by choosing one of the three op- Furthermore, the analysis found discrepancies in
tions (YES, ?, NO). A high score translates into a high terms of sense of power in different relations of su-
level of directiveness. In this survey, the scale’s reli- periors and subordinates. The former scored higher
ability is satisfactory (α = .78). on sense of power in relations with other people
Demographic and occupational data. This tool con- (p < .001), sense of power in relations with col-
sists of two parts. The first one covers questions re- leagues (p < .001), and in relations with superiors
garding sociodemographic features of the participants (p < .001). No significant statistical differences were
of the study. The second part concerns power within observed with respect to sense of power in close
a professional organisation. It is implemented in order romantic relationships (p = .151). The results are
to define the position that the subject holds, his or her shown in Table 2.
earnings, and the number of subordinates (in the case The study also revealed differences in terms of
of participants occupying managerial positions). directiveness in superiors and subordinates. The su-
periors were characterised by a higher level of direc-
tiveness (p < .001) than the subordinates. The results
RESULTS are shown in Table 3.
In the group of superiors, the study showed a cor-
POWER IN MANAGERIAL POSITIONS relation between the number of subordinates and the
sense of ability to influence and exert power (r = .28;
Based on the results of the study, differences between p = .005), the need for influence, (r = .27; p = .006),
people in positions of power and subordinated was sense of power in relations with others (r = .21;

Table 1
Need for power and need for influence in superiors and subordinates

Variable Managerial Non-managerial Z p r*

positions positions
M SD M SD
Ability to influence and
43.68 8.44 35.73 10.90 –5.55 < .001 –.39
exercise power
Need for power 31.05 9.12 25.05 8.30 –4.52 < .001 .32
Need for influence 37.64 8.42 30.48 10.30 –5.24 < .001 –.37
Resistance to subordination 18.88 4.90 17.23 4.81 –2.18 .029 –.15
Note. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

Table 2
Sense of power in different relations in superiors and subordinates

Variable Managerial Non-managerial Z p r*

positions positions
M SD M SD
Sense of power in relations
41.40 6.59 37.52 6.67 –4.01 < .001 –.28
with others
Sense of power in relations
41.90 6.32 40.14 7.29 –1.43 .151 –.10
with partners
Sense of power in relations
43.31 6.34 37.03 6.67 –6.37 < .001 –.45
with colleagues
Sense of power in relations
38.85 6.85 34.24 6.54 –4.36 < .001 –.30
with superiors
Note. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

50 current issues in personality psychology

 Dagna Kocur, Eugenia Mandal

Table 3
Directiveness in superiors and subordinates

Managerial Non-managerial Z p r*
positions positions
M SD M SD
Directiveness 34.87 8.40 29.27 5.76 –4.88 < .001 .34
Note. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

Table 4
Correlations between the need for power, sense of power and directiveness, and the number of subordinates and
earnings

Variable Number of subordinates Earnings

(n = 100) (n = 168*)
r p r p
Ability to influence and exercise Power .28 .005 .34 < .001
Need for power .14 .158 .28 < .001
Need for influence .27 .006 .32 < .001
Resistance to subordination –.07 .465 .11 .157
Sense of power in relations with others .21 .037 .31 < .001
Sense of power in relations with a partner .24 .018 .17 .027
Sense of power in relations with colleagues .11 .284 .37 < .001
Sense of power in relations with superiors .12 .236 .17 .024
Directiveness .04 .697 .34 < .001
Note. *168 participants disclosed the amount of earnings.

p = .037), and with a partner in a close relationship ward stepwise approach was applied and the regression
(r = .24; p = .018). models obtained are presented in Table 5. Among the
The participants’ earnings correlated positively predictors expressing the sense of power, the sense of
with all the variables, with the exception of resis- power in relations with other people was statistically
tance to subordination (r = .11; p = .157). The results relevant. Other predictors, due to statistically irrelevant
are shown in Table 4. growth of the aforesaid variation after they were added
Backward stepwise approach analysis was carried to the model, were not eventually included in the ulti-
out on a variable number of subordinates as a result mate regression model. Among the predictors express-
of which, relevant predictors were not obtained. Also, ing the need for power, the ability to exert power and
a forward stepwise approach analysis was carried out influence proved to be of statistical importance. Others,
for the income variable. Two regression models were due to a statistically irrelevant growth of the discussed
developed to explain the income variable for each group variation after their inclusion in the model, were not
of predictors (sense of power, need for power). The for- eventually included in the ultimate regression model.

Table 5
Backwards stepwise regression for income variable

Predictors b* t F df R2
Sense of power in different relations
Sense of power in relations with others .22 2.93** 8.57** 166 .04
Need for power
Sense of power in exerting power
.18 2.37* 5.63* 166 .03
and influence
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

volume 6(1), 8 51

 Power at the workplace

Table 6
Managerial and non-managerial positions and gender

Gender Managerial positions Non-managerial z p

positions
N % N %
Males 63 63.00 35 33.33 4.25 < .001
Females 37 37.00 70 66.67 4.25 < .001
Total 100 100.00 105 100.00
Note. The p-values for one-tailed test.

Table 7
Comparison of women and men in terms of the number of subordinates and earnings

Variable Women Men U Z p r*

M SD M SD
Number of subordinates
9.35 7.12 39.51 83.01 657.00 –3.63 < .001 –.36
(n = 100)
Participants’ earnings
3787 1917 7033 7203 468.50 –3.27 < .001 –.26
(n = 186)
Earnings of people
in managerial positions 5045 1851 8610 8170 2052.00 –4.68 < .001 –.50
(n = 86)
Note. The p-values for one-tailed test. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

GENDER AND POWER IN THE WORKPLACE Women scored significantly higher on the sense
of power in relations with other people (p < .001),
Significantly more males (63.00%) occupied manageri- colleagues (p < .001), and with superiors (p = .002).
al positions than females (37.00%), p < .001. The find- Additionally, analysis was conducted solely among
ings are shown in Table 6. On average, women had supervisors. In this case, no discrepancies were ob-
fewer subordinates (M = 9.35) than men (M = 39.51), served between men and women. Only on the statis-
p < .001. Furthermore, overall, women earned less tical trend level did women score lower on the sense
(M = 3787 PLN) than men (M = 7033 PLN), p < .001. of power in relations with superiors (U = 906.50,
The comparison between women and men holding Z = 1.85, p = .064). The results are shown in Table 8.
leadership positions also confirmed lower women’s The conducted analyses revealed lower scores
incomes (M = 5045 PLN) in contrast to (M = 8610 PLN) in women in terms of the sense of ability to influ-
those earned by male professionals, p < .001 (Table 7). ence and exert power (p < .001), need for power

Table 8
Comparison of women and men in terms of subjective power in a professional organisation

Variable Women (n = 107) Men (n = 98) U Z p r*

M SD M SD
Sense of power with other
37.75 6.66 41.24 6.71 3708.50 –3.62 < .001 –.25
people
Sense of power in the
40.55 6.93 41.49 6.82 4968.00 –0.65 .259 –.05
relation with partner
Sense of power with
38.66 6.76 41.65 7.41 3788.00 –3.43 < .001 –.24
colleagues
Sense of power in the
35.08 6.18 38.02 7.66 4036.00 –2.84 .002 –.20
relation with a superior
Note. The p-values for one-tailed test. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

52 current issues in personality psychology

 Dagna Kocur, Eugenia Mandal

Table 9
Comparison of men and women with respect to personal power determinants
Variable Women Men U Z p r*
(n = 107) (n = 98)
M SD M SD
Ability to influence and
36.64 10.71 42.86 9.37 3378.00 –4.40 < .001 –.31
exercise power
Need for power 26.63 9.14 29.45 9.07 4295.00 –2.23 .013 –.16
Need for influence 32.37 10.55 35.71 9.27 4211.50 –2.43 .008 –.17
Resistance to subordination 17.78 4.73 18.32 5.11 4822.50 –0.99 .161 –.07
Directiveness 29.89 8.06 34.31 6.69 3552.00 –3.98 < .001 –.28
Note. The p-values for one-tailed test. *Estimator of the effect size proposed by V. Glass.

(p = .013), need to influence (p = .008), and directiveness showed that people with a greater need for power are
(p < .001) (Table 9). In the group of superiors, no dif- better able to recognise emotions on the basis of fa-
ferences between women and men were observed. cial expressions. Those findings suggest that one of
For a more exact analysis of results, a two-factor the means that allow people exhibiting a strong need
analysis of gender variations was carried out as well for power to obtain a high social position may be con-
as the position, where the dependent variables in- nected with their heightened sensitivity to emotional
cluded the sense and need for power. The occupied signals in their social environment.
position in the place of work proved to be the fac- The results showed that superiors scored higher
tor differentiating the level of six variables: sense of in terms of sense of power in relations with others,
power in relations with others, in relations with col- sense of power in relations with colleagues, and also
leagues, in relations with superiors, need for power, in relations with superiors. Such a result may arise
need for influence, and objection towards subordina- from the objective perception of their position in the
tion. The gender only differentiated the level of two social hierarchy or the metamorphic effects of power
variables: the sense of power in relations with others (Kipnis, 1972, 1976). It may also be the consequence
and the sense of having influence and exerting pow- of the individuals’ original perception of the power
er. The effects of interaction of both factors (gender they actually possess. This conviction of possession
and occupied position) proved to be statistically irrel- of power may have an impact on the way they in-
evant. The results are presented in Table 10. fluence other people, independently of their position
within the society structures and in parallel with it.
Individuals who perceive themselves as people who
DISCUSSION are in power behave in a more effective manner, thus
increasing their actual authority (Bandura, 1999; Bu-
The conducted studies demonstrated that superiors gental & Lewis, 1999; Mowday, 1978).
scored significantly higher with respect to the need The study demonstrated that among the superiors
for power and influence, as well as directiveness. Such there is a link between the number of subordinates
a result may be both the reason and the consequence and the sense of ability to influence and exert power
of possessing power in a professional environment. and the need for influence. The results are similar to
Firstly, power changes people on cognitive, be- the research conducted by Karoly Varga (1975) con-
havioural, and social levels (cf. Fiske, 1993; Galinsky, cerned with the need for power and influence in sci-
Gruenfeld, & Magge, 2003; Wojciszke & Strużyńs- entists and engineers in the context of failed and suc-
ka-Kujałowicz, 2007; Mandal, 2007; Mandal, 2008; cessfully carried out scientific projects in the fields of
Galinsky et al., 2006, 2008). For individuals occupying pharmacy and chemistry. The study showed that the
managerial positions the need for power may intensi- need for influence was strongly correlated with tech-
fy. Secondly, those who gain power are characterised, nical and economic success. The need for power was
among others, by a greater level of stereotypical mas- linked with both those types of success as well, but
culinity (Lord, de Vader, & Aliger, 1986) and domina- only when it occurred jointly with the need for influ-
tion (Judge et al., 2002; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004), ence. The need for power itself was connected with
which are directly connected with the need for power more frequent failures. Therefore, a larger number of
and directiveness. Research by Donhauser, Rösch, and subordinates observed among superiors who exhibit
Schultheiss (2015), on the interdependency between a greater need for influence may be accounted for by
implicit nPower and the ability to identify emotions, their increased efficiency.

volume 6(1), 8 53

 Power at the workplace

Table 10
Analysis of variance (2 × 2) for variables concerning power in considerations of the gender and position in the
place of work factors

SS F p η p2
Sense of power in relations with others
Gender 306 7.14 .008 .03
Position 451.70 10.54 < .001 .05
Interaction between the gender and position 0.70 0.02 .987 .01
Sense of power in relations with the partner
Gender 9.80 0.21 .648 .01
Position 131 2.81 .095 .01
Interaction between the gender and position 103 2.21 .139 .01
Sense of power in relations with colleagues
Gender 70.70 1.68 .197 .01
Position 1611.50 38.19 < .001 .16
Interaction between the gender and position 50.40 1.20 .276 .01
Sense of power in relations with the superior
Gender 137.70 3.11 .079 .02
Position 800.30 18.07 < .001 .08
Interaction between the gender and position 55.40 1.25 .265 .01
Ability to exert influence and power
Gender 835.80 9.14 .003 .04
Position 2041.70 22.32 < .001 .10
Interaction between the gender and position 193.80 2.12 .147 .01
Need for power
Gender 60.50 0.80 .372 < .01
Position 1459.60 19.34 < .001 .09
Interaction between the gender and position 171.60 2.27 .133 .01
Need for influence
Gender 82.40 0.92 .338 .01
Position 2117.40 23.72 < .001 .11
Interaction between the gender and position 35.40 0.40 .530 < .01
Objection against subordination
Gender 0.14 0.01 .939 < .01
Position 123.35 5.19 .024 .03
Interaction between the gender and position 2.81 0.12 .732 < .01
Note. SS – sum of squares.

The participants’ earnings correlated with the teem. The participants’ earnings correlated positive-
sense of power. Such a result may be indirectly ac- ly with the need for power and influence, as well as
counted for by agency and self-evaluation. The find- with directiveness. This may be accounted for by the
ings of studies conducted by Agata Gąsiorowska link between activation of the concept of money and
(2014) point towards a link between an individual’s an enhanced agency, which is in turn correlated with
wealth and her or his self-focus, agency, and self-es- a more egoistic attitude and a greater inclination to-

54 current issues in personality psychology

 Dagna Kocur, Eugenia Mandal

wards dominance (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Wojcisz- individual secured power on a professional level in
ke, 2010). the first place?
Males held managerial positions more frequently The findings on the sense of power in the profes-
than females. Women had fewer subordinates than sional environment may be implemented in occupa-
men, and earned less than men even in leadership tional and organisational psychology, as well as for
roles. These findings are proof of existence of the so- training aimed at increasing competence and qualifi-
called glass ceiling. It should be noted, however, that cations and during therapy.
Poland was ranked fourth on the list of EU coun-
tries where the gender pay gap between females
and males is narrower (the biggest differences were CONCLUSIONS
observed in Estonia; furthermore, globally those
discrepancies are even more marked than in the Superiors are characterised by a greater need for
EU) (Eurostat, Gender pay gap statistics, data from power, and a stronger sense of power and directive-
March 2016). ness than subordinates.
In the conducted studies women scored significant- Men hold managerial positions more frequently
ly lower on the sense of power in general relations than women.
with other people, colleagues, and superiors. The re- Male executives earn more and they are in charge
sults concerning the general sense of power (in rela- of a greater number of subordinates than female su-
tions with others) differ from the findings of research pervisors.
by Anderson, John, and Keltner (2012), where no dis- Women score higher on the need for power and
similarities between men and women were observed. sense of power, as well as on directiveness.
Sense of power in the context of the working envi- Incomes of women and men correlate positively
ronment has not been a focus for extensive research. with need for and sense of power.
The findings on sense of power coincide with objec-
tive power on the professional level. A study by Hil-
ary Lips (1985) on the perception of power in women References
and men and the perception of females and males as
possessors of power has yielded compelling data. Both Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and com-
women and men (but men to a greater extent) more munion from the perspective of self versus others.
frequently perceived males as those who are in pos- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
session of power rather than females. One important 751–763.
factor might be social convictions. From an early age, Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The
as a result of socialisation, women learn that because personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80,
of their gender they hold less power. This causes them 313–344.
to actually possess less power in the future. A relevant Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of person-
factor here may be the essential processes similar to ality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook
a self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 154–196).
and a stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). New York: Guilford Press.
The results showed that in comparison with men Bell, D. V. (1975). Power, influence, and authority: An es-
women have a lower sense of power, need for power, say in political linguistics. Oxford: University Press.
influence, and directiveness (cf. Ray, 1976; Brzozow­ Bennett, J. B. (1988). Power and influence as distinct
ski, 1997). Stereotypical femininity and masculinity personality traits: development and validation of
play important roles here. The theory of agency and a psychometric measure. Journal of Research in
community as personality orientations shows ele- Personality, 22, 361–394.
ments characteristic of both women and men. Agency Brannon, L. (1999). Gender: psychological perspec-
is a positive element of the stereotype of masculinity, tives. New York, London: Taylor & Francis.
whereas communion is a positive element of the fem- Brzozowski, P. (1997). Skala Dyrektywności Johna J.
ininity stereotype (Wojciszke, 2010). Women scored Raya [Scale of Directiveness by John J. Ray]. War-
lower than men on agency (Wojciszke & Szlendak, szawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.
2010). However, agency is directly connected with the Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. (1999). The paradoxical
need for power, as well as with directiveness. misuse of power by those who see themselves as
Further studies and analyses ought to be supple- powerless: How does it happen? Journal of Social
mented with information, which would determine Issues, 55, 51–64.
the reason and the result of the connections between Donhauser, P. W., Rösch, A. G., & Schultheiss, O. C.
the possessed power in the professional context and (2015). The implicit need for power predicts rec-
the sense of power and the need for it. Are they the ognition speed for dynamic changes in facial ex-
consequence of the possessed power, or are they pri- pressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 39,
mary in relation to it and it is due to them that an 714–721.

volume 6(1), 8 55

 Power at the workplace

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. The Minton, H. L. (1972). Power and personality. In J. T.
impact of power on stereotyping. American Psy- Tedeschi (Ed.), The Social Influence Process. Chi-
chologist, 48, 621–628. cago: Aldine-Atherton.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward in-
social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Studies in So- fluence in organizations. Administrative Science
cial Power (pp. 150–169). Ann Arbor, MI: Universi- Quarterly, 23, 137–156.
ty of Michigan. Sedlak, K. (2014). Ogólnopolskie badanie wynagro-
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., dzeń [Polish nationwide compensation survey].
Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Pow- Kraków: Sedlak & Sedlak.
er reduces the press of the situation: implica- Ray, J. J. (1976). Do authoritarians hold authoritarian
tions for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307–325.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in
1450–1466. the classroom. The Urban Review, 3, 16–20.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruen- Saltzman, A. (1991). Trouble at the top. US News
feld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not tak- & World Report, 17, 40–48.
en. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074. Schultheiss, O. C., Campbell, K. L., & McClelland, D. C.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magge, J. C. (1999). Implicit power motivation moderates
(2003). From power to action. Journal of Personali- men’s testosterone responses to imagined and
ty and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466. real dominance successes. Hormones and Behav-
Gąsiorowska, A. (2014). Psychologiczne znaczenie ior, 36, 234–241.
pieniędzy. Dlaczego pieniądze wywołują koncentra- Schultheiss, O. C., Dargel, A., & Rhode, W. (2003).
cję na sobie? [Psychological meaning of money. Implicit motives and gonadal steroid hormones:
Why money leads to self-focus?]. Warszawa: Wy- eVects of menstrual cycle phase, oral contracep-
dawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
tive use, and relationship status. Hormones and
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.
Behavior, 43, 293–301.
(2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative
Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., Torges, C. M., Pang,
and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psy-
J. S., Villacorta, M. A., & Welsh, K. M. (2005).
chology, 87, 765–780.
Effects of implicit power motivation on men’s
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). A me-
and women’s implicit learning and testosterone
ta-analysis of the relationship between intelli-
changes after social victory or defeat. Journal of
gence and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 174.
ogy, 89, 542-552.
Sellers, J. G., Mehl, M. R., & Josephs, R. A. (2007). Hor-
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41. mones and personality: testosterone as a marker
Kipnis, D. (1976). The Powerholders. Chicago: Univer- of individual differences. Journal of Research in
sity Press. Personality, 41, 126–138.
Lips, H. M. (1985). Gender and the sense of power: Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat
Where are we and where are we going? Interna- and the intellectual test performance of African
tional Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 483–489. Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). chology, 69, 797–811.
A meta-analysis of the relation between personal- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psy-
ity traits and leadership perceptions: an applica- chology of groups. New York: Wiley.
tion of validity generalization procedures. Journal Titkow, A. (2003). Szklany sufit: bariery i ogranicze-
of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410. nia karier kobiet: monografia zjawiska [Glass ceil-
Mandal, E. (1995). Seksizm a praca i bezrobocie kobiet ing: barriers and limitations in women’s careers:
[Sexism and female employment and unemploy- a phenomenon monography]. Warszawa: Fundac-
ment]. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 38, 235–240. ja Instytutu Spraw Publicznych.
Mandal, E. (2007). Kobiety i mężczyźni a władza Varga, K. (1975). Achievement, Power and Effective-
w organizacji [Women and men and power wi- ness of Research and Development. Human Rela-
thin an organization]. Kolokwia Psychologiczne tions, 28, 571–590.
(Psychological Colloquia), 16, 153–174. Wojciszke, B. (2010). Sprawczość i wspólnotowość
Mandal, E. (2008). Miłość, władza i manipulacja w bli- [Agency and communion]. Gdańsk: GWP.
skich związkach [Love, power and manipulation Wojciszke, B., & Strużyńska-Kujałowicz, A. (2007).
in close relationships]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition,
Naukowe PWN. 25, 472–494.
Mandal, E., & Kocur, D. (2015). Poczucie władzy a po- Wojciszke, B., & Szlendak, M. A. (2010). Skale do po-
czucie satysfakcji seksualnej w intymnych rela- miaru orientacji sprawczej i wspólnotowej [Scales
cjach [Sense of power and sexual satisfaction in measuring agency and communion]. Psychologia
intimate relationships]. Seksuologia Polska, 13, 1–7. Społeczna, 5, 57–70.

56 current issues in personality psychology

View publication stats