CHANGING DEFINITIONS OF

POWER, LEADERSHIP & MOTIVATION:

Does the Culinary Union’s Criticism of Zappos.com CEO Tony Hseih

symbolize the evolution of scholarly thought on power and

leadership?

What role does motivation play in that power and leadership?

By Ellie Tumbuan

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTheoretical themes and ideas:

Power & Leadership - Authoritative, coercive power was once thought of as the most important characteristic of leadership; charisma only more important when (Weber, 1947) in times of change and when more direction is needed. In the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Taylor (1911) valued efficiency as the most critical measure of success. Hollander & Offermann (1990) discuss these but illuminate the transformational, empowering qualities of modern leaders and their effective use of follower influence and participation in guiding their behavior and in shaping their organizations’ successes.

Motivation – Extrinsic rewards are often misused to address intrinsic motivations. Needs, personal and national values influence motivation (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Expectancy and valence, or the belief that one’s action’s will play a role in a desired positive outcome, matter (Vroom, 1988).

EXPLANATION OF THE CASE:CULINARY UNION VS. TONY HSEIH Fortune 500 company Zappos relocates to Las Vegas

following the housing market crash; led by visionary leader, Tony Hsieh, who plays a historic, collaborative and key role in revitalization efforts for the city.

Hseih convinced 70% of his company’s employees to relocate to Las Vegas with him, demonstrates significance of organizational culture on profitability, employee loyalty, and overall corporate success.

The Culinary Union criticized Hseih for doing business with a non-union employer, who it had been in a long dispute.

The Union publicly harassed Hseih and his employees, drawing much media attention.

The Union charges the public to boycott Zappos.com in a further attempt to exercise its power and influence.

CASE ANALYSIS USING POWER, LEADERSHIP & MOTIVATION THEORIES Union and Hseih each represent different types of power: Union

using coercive, Hseih using charismatic (Weber, 1947), transformative empowerment (Hollander & Offerman, 1990) to grow his and Zappos.com’s influence and role in revitalizing the city of Las Vegas.

The Union’s motivations may be perceived as slightly desperate, recognizing its decreasing significance to the local economy. The expectancy and valence in its desired positive results is reflected in its request to the public to boycott (Vroom, 1988). Its needs to remain relevant by using harassment and public critique and to remain in business by asking the public to boycott Hseih’s company may reveal the basic motivation of survival and security (Maslow as cited by Latham & Pinder, 2005).

Hseih’s motivations may be perceived as traits, needs and values due to his experimental leadership, his empowerment of his employees Latham & Pinder, 2005), and his valence in his expectations for his and Zappos.com’s influence in Las Vegas are all factors here (Vroom, 1988).

CONCLUSION: YES, THE SPECTRUM OF THOUGHT ON POWER IS HERE The Union used an “outdated” form of power (coercive),

which was met with transformative and charismatic power by Tony Hseih and his followers, which represents an evolution of scholarly thinking in power and leadership studies (newest thinking emphasizing role of follower influence on leaders).

Hseih was motivated by his personal values, and possibly his corporate interests, to revitalize Las Vegas. The Union was likely motivated by its membership interests, its changing position in and share of the new Las Vegas marketplace.

It is possible that the type of motivation inherent in each party’s behavior determined the type of power they used.