Rsponse to the article: "Interrelations Among a Channel Entity's Power Sources: Impact of the Exercise of Reward and Coercion on Expert, Referent, and Legitimate Power"

          This article was published in the Journal of Marketing Research in February of 1986 by John F. Gaski, a professor of Marketing at Notre Dame.  This article was of particular interest to me because I can atest to its findings based on me work experience.  The article is an emperical study based on the Ravenand French framework (5 bases of power). It examined the relationship between the use of coercive and reward power and their affect on legitimate, referent, and expert power.  The study found that when managers use coercive and reward power, it actually hurts and undermines legitimate, referent, and expert power.  At my job, I feel as though my managers ONLY use coercive and referent power.  It has created a bad environment as people do not like or respect the management team, they lie to get away with things for fear of getting in trouble, and they are not committed or dedicated to the job because they do not feel valued.  I enjoyed this article because it re-iterated what I already believed and what we learned in class.  Our book discusses the 3 reactions to power from employees: committment, compliance, and resistance.  Employees who are committed are highly motivated by requests that are important to the leader, is dedicated to the organization and applies great effort.  Employees who are compliant simply do what they need to do to get by; they don't go the extra mile and are not especially motivated by management or exert extra effort.  Those who are resistant reject or fight the manager's wishes.  The book discusses a framework introduced by Gary Yukl; the framework points out that when managers exercise coercive power, committment is very unlikely, compliance is possible, and resistance is likely.  When reward power is exercised, committment is possible, compliance is likely, and resistance is also possible.  This framework supports the findings from the article and thus it can be concluded that exercising reward or coercive power should not be used regularly and should be the last resort.  The other forms of power will be much more beneficial to the organization  

Response to Stacy's post "Employee's Attitudes"

          In Stacy's post, she mentioned that  in an article she found, the researchers labeled the 5 most common reasons for negative employee attitudes as:
-excessive workload
-concerns about leadership effectiveness
-anxiety about job and financial security
-lack of challenging work, boredom, frustration
-insufficient recognition
          When I read these reasons, I identified with all of them and can understand why they are the most common reasons for negative attitudes from employees.  I think it all goes back to what my Professor adamantly stressed in my first management class: that managers must never forget that their employees are their biggest assests.  Managers should be aware that negative attitudes from their employees result in a hostile work environment and will ultimetly affect productivity, therefore, keeping employees happy is extremely important.  In other words, managers should use the human resource appraoch to management.  This means that they must understand that their employees are capable and willing to make genuine contributions.  People want to feel useful; they want to feel like they are significant and that they can make a difference.  They also want security and to be treated with respect.  When this doesn't happen, they feel undervalued, frustrated, unmotivated, and will therefore exhibit poor performance.  Managers must remember this if they are going to create a lasting, profitable, organization and must remember that their employees are their biggest assets!