Upward influence and grades in higher education.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of propensity of student upward influence behaviors with instructors on classroom performance. Students from a mid-sized regional comprehensive university returned completed surveys. Support for the proposed model was found and findings suggest that student self-perceived individualized consideration and passive leadership styles predict grades received for coursework from instructors. Limitations, implications for instructors and students, and directions for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Extant leadership literature demonstrates many aspects of downward influence from leader to follower. However, leadership can also be viewed as a process of mutual and counterinfluence between leaders and followers where followers have the potential to influence, shape, and even direct leader behavior (c.f. Bass, 1981). This so-called upward influence can be considered informal because subordinates exercising influence do not have formal authority or hierarchical power over the superior (Chacko, 1990). Just as upward influence is found in business organizations, it is also found in higher-education classroom environments. Instructors have reward power over students in terms of the grades given in a course and as such there is potential for students to influence grades received by employing any number of upward influencing tactics.

Background

Recent literature has focused on individual success associated with followers gaining compliance from leaders in a higher organizational level (c.f. Cable & Judge, 2003; Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor & Goodman, 1997; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1998). This concept is referred to as upward influence where followers using multiple influence tactics are able to gain favor, better relationships, and even enhanced perceptions of promotability from such behavior (Thacker & Wayne, 1995). A study by Chacko (1990) examined the effects of subordinates' use of specific upward influence-directed behaviors such as reasoning, coalition, higher authority, bargaining, friendliness, and assertiveness to influence superiors. Findings from the study suggest that reasoning and coalition were the most often used upward influence tactics and that followers use assertiveness and higher authority more often when leaders exhibit low structure initiation and individualized consideration behaviors.

Maslyn, Farmer, & Fedor (1996) point out that most research on upward influence assumes that such behaviors are a single event and that follow-up actions are irrelevant. However, the opposing view that upward influence is an ongoing process is reasonable considering the process of leading and following is itself an ongoing process. Consequently, formal influencing (downward) and informal influencing (upward) together encompass the leadership relationship between leaders and followers. This ongoing process is illustrated by Maslyn et al. where findings suggest that upward influencing behaviors after a failed attempt at informal influence can be predicted with situational variables such as goal importance. In the case of college students, grade in a course is an important measure in the present study given the findings from Pollio and Beck (2000) which suggest that grades represent primary goals to students in the learning process.

Leadership from the point of view of the leader has been studied in a variety of ways. Transformational and transactional leadership have generated much research including studies focusing on the emotional intelligence of transformational leaders (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006), employee cynicism (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005), and technology acceptance (Schepers, Wetzles, & Ko, 2005) to name a few. One component of transformational leadership is individualized consideration behavior. Individualized consideration is the degree to which a leader focuses on the needs of each follower and develops them to their full potential. One component of transactional leadership is passive/avoidant behaviors. Passive/avoidant behavior is the degree to which a leader reacts to problems only after they have become serious and the degree to which a leader avoids making decisions at all (Bass, 1985; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).

Although it may seem counter to extant leadership theories and research, the leadership style of the follower has not been given attention as to the influencing, both formal and informal, that exists between leader and follower. Since followers have potential to influence leaders the leadership style of the follower becomes an important component of the leadership process. The present study proposes that the leadership style of the follower, namely individualized consideration and passive/avoidant leadership tendencies, will predict course performance. Students who are high on the individualized consideration leadership component will seek out a one-to-one relationship with the instructor. Consequently, this relationship will lead to upward influence, instructor perceptions of effort, and higher grades given in a course. The opposite is true with students with a high passive/avoidant leadership component. These students wait until problems with coursework are too deep to correct and even when attention is given to these problems, instructors will view this last-minute approach to the learning process negatively and this will be reflected in grades given for the course. Given these two leadership components are at odds with one another in terms of upward influence, there will be a negative relationship between students' individualized consideration and passive/avoidant leadership tendencies.

Current Study

After a review of the literature, a conceptual model was constructed to study propensity for upward influence by students on instructors and its ability to predict class performance. Measures for propensity for upward influence included student self-perceived individualized consideration and self-perceived passive leadership from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003). The sample consisted of 317 students from 26 management courses who completed nine items on a survey to assess self-perceived individualized consideration (five items) and passive leadership (four items). One item from the passive leadership scale was removed due to low reliability. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Class performance was measured from grade received in the course as reported by instructors and ranged from A (4.0 grade point) to F (0.0 grade point).

Data were analyzed using AMOS 4.0 to obtain regression weights, standardized regression weights, squared multiple correlations for the endogenous variables, and significance levels for test statistics. Since multiple items were collected per variable in the proposed model, scale scores were created using a mean of the items for estimation of each construct. The model included one exogenous variable, two endogenous variables, and two error variables, one for each of the endogenous variables.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and scale correlations for measures in this study are shown in Table 1. See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2006.htm As hypothesized, passive leadership was negatively related to individualized consideration (standardized regression weight = -0.20, p<0.01), passive leadership was negatively related to class grade (standardized regression weight = -0.14, p<0.05), and individualized consideration was positively related to class grade (standardized regression weight = 0.31, p<0.01). Squared multiple correlations for the two endogenous variables, individualized consideration and class grade, were 0.04 and 0.13 respectively.

Limitations and Further Research

There were several limitations associated with this study. First, the researchers measured students' propensity to engage in upward influence using two leadership styles rather than measuring actual upward influence behaviors. In the present study, it was difficult to obtain measures of actual upward influence behaviors in terms of source and procedure and propensities to upward influence were used instead. Second, the leadership measures were self-perceived rather than obtained from secondary sources. Problems of social desirability and misperceived self attributes may influence results. Third, the sample consisted of undergraduate, business students only; a more diverse sample is called for in subsequent research to increase the ability to generalize results to higher education students.

Implications and Conclusions

The findings related to the present study suggest that students with a higher preference for passive leadership tend to get lower grades than those with lower passive leadership preference scores and this relationship would be consistent with the literature discussion of the dynamics associated with passive leadership. In particular, passive leaders tend not to take action until a crisis exists. From a student's perspective, this propensity for passivity would be consistent with the scenario whereby the student earns poor grades on a number of assignments. Rather than seeking out the root cause of the low levels of performance at an early stage, there would be an accumulation of poor grades that may only become salient to the student as a result of a realization that the semester is drawing to a close, the ranking of the student on posted gradesheets, or another intervention that draws particular attention to the student's plight.

Conversely, the results suggest that students who self-rated their preferred leader behaviors as high in individualized consideration generally perform better than students with lower ratings. Given that students who place a high value on leadership behaviors that represent individualized consideration (i.e., identifying and responding to the needs of others) have a higher propensity to exhibit those behaviors themselves, these findings would be consistent with the scenario where the student would seek out the instructor in order to address his or her particular need. For example, a student may request clarification of an assignment or clarification of feedback related to a particular assignment so as to use that feedback as input to a more effective effort in subsequent assignments. Using these examples, clearly a likely outcome of behaviors relating to high levels of individualized consideration would be a higher level of course performance as compared to students who rate themselves lower in preference for this dimension of leader behavior.

Another implication drawn from analysis of these data is additional insight into the phenomenon associated with individualized consideration juxtaposed with passive leadership. Specifically, these entities have frequently been conceptualized as two independent constructs. However, results of the present study suggest that these behaviors may exist to some degree as a continuum within a single construct in the upward influencing context.

If a student prefers passive leadership behaviors this inclination appears to have a negative influence on course grades while a student's preference for high levels of individual consideration in leadership behaviors seems to lead to higher course grades. Therefore, it appears that individual consideration is desirable in courses and while this can be facilitated without difficulty in smaller classes where an instructor can get to know his or her students relatively easily it is not an easy task in larger classes. Suggestions for instructors to help students with this issue include the following:

* Be available to students during office hours and make sure that students feel welcome to come to them for assistance

* Share information with students about the relationship between a preference for individualized consideration leader behaviors and higher course grades

* Make students aware that students who work hard in classes and make efforts to get to know their instructors are more likely to be successful in their courses

* Encourage students to make themselves known to the instructor by going to office hours and participating in class discussions and activities

* Provide multiple opportunities for students to get to know the instructor in a non-threatening environment

* Form peer learning groups in classes so that students may come as a group to the instructor for assistance, therefore making it easier for students to comfortably approach the instructor

* Provide opportunities for students to work in small groups that interact with the instructor therefore increasing opportunities for individual consideration

Suggestions for students to enhance their prospects for improved performance in college courses include:

* Take the steps necessary to get to know the instructor

* Be proactive and going to the instructor during office hours at the beginning of the term to establish a positive connection instead of waiting until there is a problem in the course

* Become acquainted with at least one other student in the class so that class information may be shared and so that students may go to the instructor together

* Utilize any tutoring opportunities available

* Attend all class periods and study sessions

Overall, these findings suggest support for the existence of the upward influence model in an academic environment. However, these findings represent an initial attempt at examining the upward influence model in a classroom setting. Perhaps a better model for observing the phenomenon would be to relate propensities for upward influence to actual upward influencing behaviors and in turn relate these behaviors to performance. A more cumbersome method for collecting the student leadership behaviors would be to collect them from secondary sources. In addition to the present study, experienced faculty members have ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that students legitimately exert behaviors that are directed toward shaping the behaviors of those who are in positions of superior authority. There are a number of opportunities that exist that would help educators better understand that dynamic to the advantage of both educators and students.

References

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Jung, D. I., & Garger, J. W. (2003). Assessing shared leadership: Development and preliminary validation of a team multifactor leadership questionnaire. In C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership (pp. 143-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barbuto, J. E. Jr. & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 51-65.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733-753.

Cable, D. M. & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 197-214.

Chacko, H. E. (1990). Methods of upward influence, motivational needs, and administrators' perceptions of their supervisors' leadership styles. Group & Organization Studies, 15(3), 253-265.

Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(7), 17-42.

Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M. (1998). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 528-542.

Pollio, H. R. & Beck, H. P. (2000). When the tail wags the dog: Perceptions of learning and grade orientation in, and by, contemporary college students and faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (1), 84-102.

Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: Do followers practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 496509.

Thacker, R. A. & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21(4), 739-756.

John Garger, Binghamton University, NY

Paul H. Jacques, Western Carolina University, NC

Cynthia S. Deale, Western Carolina University, NC

John Garger is a Doctoral Candidate at Binghamton University; Paul H. Jacques, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in Management & International Business; Cynthia S. Deale, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Hospitality & Tourism, Department of Management & International Business.