Follower Upward Influence Tactics Key Findings from the literature

Authors: Najla Alshenaifi* and Nicholas Clarke**

*PhD Student and corresponding author, **Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Institution Information: School of Management, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ Tel: 023 8059 8911 E-mail: [email protected] Stream: Creativity-Innovation-Sustainability stream

Key words: Upward Influence Tactics, Influence strategies, Followership.

1 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Introduction Being able to influence one's peers, subordinates or top management is often quoted as one of the key reasons behind an individual’s success or failure (Cohen and Braford, 2005; Castro et al., 2003). Much managerial success hinges on the ability to influence others (Yukl et al., 2005; Krishnan, 2004). The type of behaviour one person uses to influence the attitude or behaviour of another person is called ‘influence tactics’ (Yukl et al., 2008; Yukl et al., 2005). Most people do not exert influence over others for the sheer joy of changing their behaviour; they do so with a specific reason in mind (Krishnan, 2004). Employees use influence tactics to obtain their desired goals regardless of whether they are organisational or personal. The study of the influence processes in organisations is still in its infancy and as yet, there are a limited number of theories available to help understand them (Yukl et al., 2005; Castro et al., 2003) as well as a limited number of studies (Terpstra and Ralston, 2002; Farmar et al., 1997; Kipnis et al., 1980). The principal concern of the few studies available has been downward influence (Porter et al., 1981) where the focus is on how to give clear directions and to ensure compliance. However, currently there is a greater requirement to manage laterally and upwards and less need to simply send instructions downwards (Cohen and Braford, 2005). In addition, limited information is available on how people at work influence their superiors, referred to as ‘upward influence’ (Terpstra and Ralston, 2002; Schilit and Locke, 1982), the behaviour used to gain compliance or obtain a desired goal from those at higher levels in the formal organizational structure (Kipnis et al., 1980; Farmer et al, 1997). In recent decades, organizations have evolved towards more horizontal designs (Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013) downsizing, right-sizing and flattening their structures in response to economic pressures. This trend has led to a decline in the number of hierarchical levels, resulting in more horizontal relationships (Pfeffer, 1993). In consequence, there has been an increase in the formal and informal power of lower-level members when it comes to

2 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

influencing decisions that were previously the exclusive right of higher-level management (Pfeffer, 1997; Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013), involvement in decision-making involves more upward request for information, for resources, and for more authority (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, and Goodman, 1997; Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013). The study of influence tactics is an important field because the methods that employees use to achieve things have important consequences for the organizational culture. This includes the way in which people relate to one another, career advancement, organizational effectiveness and on the quality of work relationships (Cable and Judge, 2003; Ralston et al., 1995; Ansari et al., 2007; Ringer and Boss, 2000). An understanding of influence processes will also facilitate an understanding of the many facets of organizational behaviour including decision making, organizational design, communication, and motivation (Porter at al., 1981). Thus, an organisation in which subordinates use pressure and persistence to get things done may attract and retain a very different type of workforce than one in which subordinates gain support through rational persuasion and fact-based logic (Cable and Judge, 2003). Organizations that effectively promote and manage upward influence through employee empowerment and involvement activities may also enjoy greater organizational effectiveness as well as greater employee satisfaction and effectiveness (Akhtar and Mahmood, 2009; Egri et al., 2000; Schilit and Locke, 1982). Upward influence therefore allows participation and involvement in decision making (Olufowote et al., 2005) specifically the concept of upward influence sits comfortably with the idea of the empowerment of subordinates (Maslyn et al., 1996). Since Porter et al.’s (1981) earlier observation that upward influence receives less conceptual and empirical attention than that received by downward influence or lateral, the interest in upward influence has increased (Schermerhorn Jr., and Bond, 1991). Part of the reason for this increased interest is that it mirrors shifts in power distribution in many organisations and the importance of employee involvement. The management field has also witnessed a shift in

3 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

its focus from leadership to followership. This is of major significance since significant relationships have been found between upward influence tactics and several important outcomes; job performance (Yukl and Tracy, 1992), assessment of promotability (Thacker and Wayne, 1995), salary increase (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1988), and LMX (Botero, 2012). To date, only one review of upward influence tactics studies has appeared within the literature. Thus the objectives of this paper are: 1. To synthesis findings from a review of the empirical literature on upward influence tactics, the last and only upward influence tactics review was in 2002 which is over a decade ago. Since then a number of empirical works have been published making it timely to undertake a further review. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in leadership as a relational phenomenon, particularly LMX, which has generated interest in followership. 2. To present an integrated model of follower upward influence tactics that is derived from the empirical literature. Influence tactics literature has tended to be fragmented and there is a need to bring together the insights from the empirical literature in order to develop a more coherent, integrated framework to underpin future research in the field. Identification of studies; A search of the following databases (Emerald, Psych INFO, SAGE, JSTOR, WILEY, Science Direct, and SpringerLink) was conducted to locate empirical studies on influence tactics. The keywords used in the search were influence tactics, upward influence tactics, influence strategies and subordinates’ influence. As influence studies were not carried out until the late 1970s (Kipnis et al., 1980; Mowday, 1978), we used Kipnis et al., (1980) and Mowday (1978) as a starting point to review the published empirical studies to date. Over 2000 references were identified in the initial search. Almost 150 abstracts were read in order to ascertain relevant empirical studies which matched the primary criteria for inclusion in this review which were as follows: 4 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke



Studies specifically addressing upward influence tactics.



Published in peer reviewed journals



Written in English

Studies which were excluded were those which examined areas such as ingratiation because they did not focus on follower ingratiation in leadership relationships. Impression management studies were also excluded unless they also addressed upward influence tactics. Studies were excluded if they concentrated only on downward or lateral with the exception of two downward and two downward and lateral studies, as they were used to validate measures. Other references were obtained via a manual search for references listed in published studies. Google Scholar was also used to identify other research. As a result, 62 papers were included in the present review as fulfilling the criteria; 41 papers studied upward influence, 11 papers examined all three directions of influence (upward, downward and lateral), three studies addressed upward and downward influences together, two studies focused on downward and lateral influence, two studies focused on downward influences and one study which reexamined a previously scale. Two reviews were included, one concerned upward the other the three directions of influence tactics. For organization purposes, this review is classified as: I. II. III.

Characteristics of the studies Key findings from the literature and critical analysis. Future research and conclusion.

I. Characteristics of the studies Very little attention was paid to influence behaviour and informal power by management researchers until the late 1970s (Terpstra and Ralston, 2002). Since then, particular interest around the application of interpersonal influence theory has emerged (Higgins et al., 2003). Influence behaviours and their relationships with other variables have been studied using a variety of research methods; survey questionnaires, scenarios, incidents, and experimental

5 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

simulations (Terpstra and Ralston, 2002; Fu and Yukl, 2000). In reviewing the literature, nine major themes were selected to categorize the obtained studies: (1) pioneering early work, (2) influence tactic typologies and measures, (3) influence tactics and objectives/goals, (4) influence tactics and work outcome/Human Resources decisions, (5) influence tactics and culture, (6) influence tactics and leadership style, (7) influence tactics and gender, (8) influence tactics and other factors and (9) influence tactics reviews. 1. Pioneering early work This section provides a chronology of the early and most important studies in the field. One of the earliest studies was carried out by Mowday (1978) who examined the results of managers’ upward influence in organizational decision-making situations. He studied intrinsic, instrumental motivation, and self-perception of power. Results indicated that head teachers who were rated high in influence activity were characterized by high instrumental, intrinsic motivation, and self-perceptions of power. Highly effective principals were likely to use manipulation. Mowday was one of the first scholars to cast light on the general area of upward influence tactics thereafter more focussed and advanced works have appeared. The earliest taxonomy of influence tactics was developed by Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980) by analysing critical incidents from descriptions of successful and unsuccessful influence attempts. The researchers conducted two studies, firstly inductively deriving a taxonomy of interpersonal influence processes using this to then develop measures for use in future investigations. They started by asking managers to write essays about ‘how I get my way’. Through content analysis, 370 influence tactics were recognised and classified into 14 categories. Next, they developed 58 survey questionnaire items and administered these to 754 employed graduate students asking how frequently in the last six months they had used any of these tactics to influence their managers, co-workers or subordinates. Factor analyses resulted in the identification of eight dimensions of influence: (1) assertiveness e.g. expressing anger

6 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

verbally, reminding repeatedly, demanding and bugging, (2) ingratiation e.g. showing a need for help, acting very humbly/friendly, praising and making others feel good/important, (3) sanctions e.g. threatening loss of promotion or unsatisfactory performance evaluation or giving no salary increase), (4) rationality e.g. writing a detailed plan as justification or using logic/reasons/full information to convince others, (5) exchange of benefit e.g. offering an exchange/help, reminders of past favours, (6) upward appeal e.g. obtaining

the

formal/informal support of superiors, (7) blocking e.g. threatening to notify an outside agency/ stop working or ignoring them and (8) coalition e.g. obtaining the support of coworkers and/or subordinates. This was then the basis of a self-report questionnaire, the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS), this study consequently considered a landmark in influence research and used as the foundation for much of the consequent research. Porter et al., (1981) suggest a joint examination of organizational politics and upward influence to analyse behaviour processes. They identified specific organisational contexts that may influence political activity:1) political norms structure, 2) learning that norms, 3) situational factors, e.g. organizational change, personnel changes, budget allocation, ambiguity, and resource scarcity, 4) actor characteristics, e.g. beliefs about action-outcome relationship, manifest needs (nPow, nAch), and locus of control, 5) target selection, e.g. the importance of power, costs of approaching target, agent-target relationship, and 6) methods of upward influence, e.g. classification of methods and factors in the choice of method. In 1982, Kipnis and Schmidt modified Kipnis et al., (1980) scales in order to develop a commercial version of POIS. Six upward influence tactics were identified comprising: reasoning/rational persuasion, bargaining/exchange, assertiveness, higher authority, coalition and friendliness/ingratiation. Some tactics’ names were changed and two tactics were later omitted - sanctions and blocking - due to infrequent use and conceptual problems (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1984).

7 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Sometime after affecting these changes, a major study was conducted by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) to critique, examine and refine Kipnis et al.’s (1980) subordinate influence subscales. Schriesheim and Hinkin claimed that although Kipnis et al.’s study which combined three subsamples (boss, co-workers and subordinates) yielded a good respondentto-item ratio, this process generated interpretation problems. In particular, the factor structure may not be replicable and the scales may have contained some items that do not have strong validity. Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) therefore conducted four studies to explore the quality of Kipnis et al.’s scales, the first study focussing on content validity, the second and third examining the factor structure of the scales, the fourth examining a revised set of scales, designed to improve on those of Kipnis et al. In all four studies, the measure under investigation consisted of the six Kipnis et al., (1980) subscales that assessed the tactics used by subordinates to influence superiors, including ingratiation, exchange of benefit, rationality, assertiveness/pressure, upward appeal and coalition. Study 1 revealed that six of the 27 items did not have strong validity. In studies 2 and 3, several other scale items were shown to possess poor or marginal perceptual (factor-analytic) distinctiveness. In response to these results, Schriesheim and Hinkin produced a refined 18-item instrument to measure upward influence with enhanced content, validity and perceptual distinctiveness and with adequate reliability. Further work began in 1990 by Yukl and Falbe (1990) followed by Yukl et al., (1992) and others (10 other studies). Yukl and his colleagues developed the first version of the Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ), which included scales to measure the six POIS tactics in addition to consultation, inspirational appeals, personal appeals and legitimating. In 1995, Rao et al., studied upward impression management using Kipnis and Schmidt’s (1982) scale. Author integrated impression management and influence literature, this leading to the identification of three groups of factors affecting the choice of influence tactics:

8 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

individual factors e.g. the need for power, attribution processes, the goals and relative power of the influencer and the level of expertise; situational factors e.g. the role of the organisation, management style, task ambiguity, resource scarcity; and the subordinates’ audience. 2- Influence tactics typologies and measures The measurement of influence tactics began 34 years ago, when Kipnis, et al., (1980) developed the first comprehensive list of influence tactics. Since then, various tactics have been identified in parallel with the development of a range of measurements by pioneers in this field. Studies have used a variety of influence tactics (see Table 1) these typologies having a degree of overlap in places. Three major scales are found: the Profile of Organisational Influence Strategies (POIS), the Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ) and the Strategies of Upward Influence (SUI). It must be noted that some of the research using these scales studied all three directions of influence (downward, lateral and upward), while others concentrated only on upward influence. Three measuring techniques have been used: self-report, reports on others’ behaviour by target or peers and a mix of both (see Table 2). 2-1 Profile of Organisational Influence Strategies (POIS) (Kipnis et al., 1980) Kipnis et al., (1980) represents the first full-scale measures designed to capture influence behaviours in organizations; downwards, upwards and lateral. Eleven studies used Kipnis et al., (1980) as a foundation collecting self-report data using an agent questionnaire (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1982; Ansari and Kapoor, 1987; Dreyer et al., 1989; Hinkin and Schrisheim, 1990; Higgins et al., 2003; Akhtar and Mahmood, 2009; Schermerhorn Jr. and Bond, 1991; Bhatnagar, 1993; Vigoda and Cohen, 2002; Ansari et al., 2007; Yagil, 2006). Five studies used Kipnis et al.’s scale to study upward influence from the perspective of the agent and the target (Schilit and Locke, 1982; Erez, Rim and Keider, 1986; Yukl and Falbe, 1990; Tepper et al., 1993; Dockery and Steiner, 1990). Schilit and Locke (1982) were somewhat different excluding - ingratiation and blocking - adding adherence to rules and manipulation.

9 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

During the 1980s, Kipnis and Schmidt conducted several studies using the original Kipnis et al., (1980) scale. In 1982, they developed a further scale (POIS form M) for corporate use and used it in their next series of studies. In 1983, they studied downward influence and classified managers according to their use of tactics. In 1984, they studied upward influence and classified the goals behind exerting influence. In 1985, they classified tactics into hard, soft and rational strategies. In 1988, they studied upward influence styles and clustered managers into four influence types. In addition to those four studies above, five more studies used Kipnis and Schmidt’s (1982) (POIS form M) as self-report (Wayne et al., 1997; Krishnan, 2004; Rao et al., 1995; Deluga and Perry, 1991; Deluga, 1988) and one study used it from the perspective of agent and target (Thacker and Wayne, 1995) (see Table 2). Schriesheim and Hinkin’s (1990) refined the POIS scale of Kipnis et al., (1980) as mentioned earlier in this paper, the refined scale was focussing only upward influence tactics. Ten studies used Schriesheim and Hinkin’s (1990) scale (i.e. Farmer et al., 1997; Botero et al., 2012; Castro et al., 2003; Alshenaifi, 2007; Su, 2010; Shim and Lee, 2001; Olufowote et al., 2005; Farmer and Maslyn, 1999; O'Neil, 2004; Ringer and Boss, 2000) and providing support for its validity and reliability while, Hochwarter et al., (2000) provide modest support. 2-2 Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ) (Yukl et al., 1992- 2002) The IBQ was developed by Yukl and his associates as a target questionnaire where respondents were asked to rate what agents use, in terms of influence tactics, to influence their target. Yukl and Falbe (1990) conducted two studies to determine firstly whether the findings of Kipnis et al.’s (1980) study could be replicated using a different methodology and secondly to extend the research to include additional types of influence behaviour and objectives. They conceptualised six of Kipnis et al.’s (1980) dimensions and added two new tactics: inspirational appeal and consultation tactics. They measured the frequency of influence tactics and objectives as reported by agents and by targets. Yukl and Tracey (1992)

10 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

also used the same version of the IBQ in their research which was completed only by targets. Researchers here excluded upward appeal and added personal appeal and legitimating tactics. To reiterate, four new tactics - inspirational appeal, consultation tactics, personal appeal and legitimating tactics - were included in the IBQ, inspired by the literature on leadership and power. In 1992, Yukl et al., validated Yukl and Falbe’s (1990) IBQ version providing support for nine of the ten tactics. The 1992 version of the IBQ was used in three more studies, where participants reported their own experiences as targets and as agents (Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl et al., 1995; Yukl et al., 1996). Yukl and Seifert (2002) revised and extended the IBQ scale by including two more tactics: collaboration and apprising. This version was called IBQ-R and consisted of 11 influence tactics and four items for each (Yukl et al., 2008). Yukl et al., (2005) assessed the construct validity of the new two tactics and found strong evidence that these factors were distinct from the nine other influence tactics. Yukl et al., (2008) later conducted four studies to evaluate the IBQ-R and also created IBQ-G, a version which is useful for longitudinal studies. IBQ-G measures an agent’s use of 11 tactics, with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Yukl et al., (2008), argued that the validity of this version (IBQ-G target version) does not generalise to agent versions. Few studies have used the agent version of the IBQ (i.e., Cable and Judge, 2003; Yukl and Falbe, 1990). 2-3 Strategies of Upward Influence (SUI) (Ralston & Gustafson, in Ralston et al., 1993) Strategies of Upward Influence (SUI) was developed as a cross-cultural measure of upward influence tactics by Ralston et al., (1993) to address the limitations of using the POIS or IBQ measures in other cultures. In order to form the tactic items in this scale, input was generated from individuals across cultures vis a vis Hong Kong Chinese, German, French and American (the POIS and IBQ both being from the US). Their results comprised a set of influence typologies that were significantly different from the Kipnis et al. (1980) taxonomy as ingratiation and rational persuasion were the only common dimensions. The final tactics

11 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

comprised good soldier, image management, personal networking, information control and strong-arm coercion, which were identified for the first time as influence tactics. Three dimensions were then added; organisationally sanctioned behaviour, destructive legal behaviour and destructive illegal behaviour, adapted by Ralston et al. (1993) from power classifications by power researchers (such as French & Raven, 1959; Mechanic, 1962; Raven, 1974). Egri, Ralston, Murray, and Nicholson (2000) developed the SUI explaining the perceptions of relative acceptability of the following four types of upward influence tactics. Organizationally sanctioned behaviour describes behaviours that tend to be directly beneficial to the organization such as self-enhancement and ingratiation, volunteering for high-profile projects, helping subordinates, and maintaining good working relationships with rational persuasion, showing expertise and the exchange of benefits. Non-destructive/legal behaviours, the ‘me first’ approach, sees self-interest as above the interests of others, but are still behaviours that tend not to be harmful. These include impression management that promote one’s visibility and reputation in the organization, ingratiation, upward appeal, personalized help, showing dependency and diplomacy. Destructive/legal behaviours, the ‘get-out-of-myway-or-get-trampled’ approach are behaviours which are legal but they often tend to hurt others. These tactics include information control, blocking and manipulative tactics such as withholding information and putting false information on a job resume. Destructive/illegal behaviours are illegal and harmful to others and include coercive tactics such as blackmail, stealing valuable corporate documents and harassment. In addition to the three measures above (POIS, IBQ, SUI), some researchers have grouped influence tactics into three mega-categories calling these influence strategies. They include hard tactics, for example assertiveness, upward appeal and coalition, soft tactics for example, friendliness or ingratiation and exchange (Farmer et al., 1997), or only ingratiation (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988), depending on the author, and rational strategy for example, rationality,

12 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

bargaining and some forms of exchange (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; 1985) or only rationality (Farmer et al., 1997). Other researchers have clustered managers into four influence types: shotgun which includes those who always use all six tactics; tacticians who use rational persuasion more so than other tactics; ingratiators who use more ingratiation in comparison to other tactics and bystanders who score low in the usage of all tactics (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Kipnis et al., 1984). Other researchers for example Fu et al., (2004) grouped the tactics into; persuasive making use of rational persuasion, inspirational appeal and consultation; assertive using persistence, pressure and upward appeal; and relationship based including those who give gifts, have informal engagement, personal appeal, socialize and exchange. Other researchers had other typologies of influence tactics but these typologies did not seem to have the same appeal as the other 3 scales previously mentioned. Porter et al. (1981) classified tactics as sanctions, both (positive and negative) and informational including persuasion, manipulation and manipulative persuasion. Mowday (1978) used: (1) threat, (2) appeals to legitimate authority, (3) persuasive arguments, (4) rewards or exchange of favours, and (5) manipulation. Krone’s (1991) approach was to cluster previously identified influence methods: 1) open persuasion. 2) Strategic persuasion and 3) manipulation. Another major point is that ingratiation has received attention from social psychologists in the context of upward influence (Ansari et al., 2008). Initially, it was treated as a one-dimensional construct (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Jones and Pittman (1982) categorized self-presentation tactics and were the first to distinguish the tactic of self-promotion attempting to create an appearance of competence - from ingratiation (Higgins et al, 2003). 3- Influence tactics and objectives/goals The goals of influence are categorized into organizational goals and individual goals (Kipnis et al., 1980; Ansari & Kapoor, 1987). Individual goals include seeking assistance in one’s job, favourable performance appraisal and personal benefit.

13 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

(Table-1) summary of influence tactics

Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson 1980

Porter et al.

Schillit and Locke

Kipnis & Schmidt

Hinkin & Schriesheim

Yukl and Falbe

Krone

Yukl and Tracy

Yukl & Seifert in Yukl et al 2008

1981

1982

1982

1990

1990

1991

1992

2002

Ralston & Gustafson in Ralston et al. 1993

The exercise of upward influence in organizations

Intraorganizationa l influence tactics: Explorations of getting one’s way.

The politics of upward influence in organizations

A study of upward influence in organizations

Profile of organizational influence strategies

Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts

Effects of leader‐memb er exchange on subordinates’ upward influence attempts.

Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers and the boss

Preliminary validation of an extended version of the Influence Behaviour Questionnaire

Strategies of upward influence: A cross-national comparison of Hong Kong and American Managers

Journa l/ book

Administrativ e science quarterly

Journal of Applied Psychology

Research in organizational behaviour

Administrativ e Science Quarterly

Influence tactics used by subordinates: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis and Refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales Journal of applied psychology

Journal of Applied Psychology

Communicati on Research Reports

Journal of Applied Psychology

Tactics

Threats Legitimate authority Persuasive arguments Rewards Manipulation

Assertiveness Ingratiation Rationality Sanctions Exchange of benefits Upward appeal Blocking Coalition

sanctions (positive and negative) informational (persuasion, manipulative persuasion, manipulation)

Assertiveness Rationality Sanctions Exchange of benefits Upward appeal Coalition manipulation adherence to rules

Ingratiation Exchange of benefits Rationality Assertiveness /pressure Upward appeal Coalition

Pressure Upward appeal Exchange Coalition Ingratiating Rational persuasion Inspirational appeal Consultation

open persuasion strategic persuasion manipulation

Rational Persuasion Inspirational appeal Consultation Ingratiation Exchange Coalition Pressure Personal appeal Legitimating

Author

Mowday

Year

1978

Name of study

Assertiveness Ingratiation Rationality Exchange of benefits Upward appeal Coalition

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Rational persuasion Inspirational appeal Consultation Ingratiation Exchange Coalition Pressure Personal appeal Legitimating Collaboration apprising

Ingratiation Rational Good soldier Image management Personal networking Information control Strong-arm coercion Organisationally sanctioned behaviour Destructive legal behaviour Destructive illegal behaviour

14 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

(Table-2) Summary of methodologies and measures employed in the studies

Measures POIS Kipnis et al. 1980 Agent Self-report

IBQ

Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982

Kipnis et al. 1980 A Kipnis & Schmidt,1982 U Ansari & Kapoor, 1987 U Dreyer et al. 1989 U Jr & Bond, 1991 (U+D) Hinkin & Schrisheim, 1990 U Hinkin & Schrisheim, 1990 D Bhatnagar, 1993 (U+D) Akthar & Mahmood, 2009 U Vigoda & Cohen, 2002 A (some items from IBQ) Ansari et al., 2007 U (with other instruments) Yagil, 2006 U

Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983 Schmidt & Kipnis, 1984 Kipnis & Schmidt, 1985 Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988 Wayne et al. 1997 Krishnan, 2004 Rao et al., 1995 Deluga and Perry,1991 Deluga, 1988

Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990

D U A U U U U U U

Farmer et al. 1997 U Botero et al., 2012 U Castro et al., 2003 U Alshenaifi, 2007 U Su, 2010 U Shim and Lee, 2001 U Olufowote et al.,2005 U Farmer & Maslyn,1999 U O'Neil, 2004 U Ringer and Boss, 2000 U

Target report others

Combination of Agent Self-report & Target report others

Schilit & Locke, 1982 Erez, Rim & Keider,1986 Yukl & Falbe, 1990 Tepper et al, 1993 (with other instruments) Dockery and Steiner, 1990

U (U+D) A U

Thacker & Wayne 1995

U

U

Cable & Judg, 2003 U Fu & Yukl, 2000 A (scenarios + some items similar to POIS) Yukl et al, 2003 (scenarios) U Fu et al., 2004 A

Yukl & Tracy, 1992 A Yukl et al., 2008 (D+L) Falbe and Yukl, 1992 A (critical incidents) Yukl et al , 2005 (D+L) Yukl et al, 1993 A Yukl et al, 1995 A Yukl et al, 1996 A (Last three used critical incidents) Ralston et al, 1993 Ralston et al, 1995 Egri et al, 2000 Ralston et al, 2002 Ralston et al, 2005

Peer report

U: upward influence D: downward influence POIS ; Profile of organisational influence strategies (Kipnis et al., 1980) IBQ ; Influence behaviour questionnaire (Yukl et al. 1992) SUI; Strategies of upward influence (Ralston & Gustafson in Ralston et al., 1993)

SUI

L: Lateral

A: all three directions

15 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

U U U U U

Organizational goals include selling new ideas, getting more responsibility, and assigning work (Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009). Finding was inconsistent across studies (Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009). Olufowote et al. (2005) found employees manage self-serving attributions by using rationality when pursuing personal /organizational benefit and by using coalitions when pursuing organizational ones. Kipnis et al. (1980) identified five objectives for using influence tactics: (1) to assign work; (2) to change behaviour; (3) to get assistance; (4) to get support; and (5) to get personal benefits. Three other studies used these five objectives (Schmidt & Kipnis, 1984; Ereze et al., 1986; Yukl et al., 1995). While Yukl and Falbe (1990) identified eight influence objectives: to assign tasks or projects, request better performance, request changes, request advice or help, request resources, request approval/sign off, request proposal support and request information. Kipnis et al., (1980) found that respondents who sought personal assistance used ingratiation, while who assigned work used assertiveness. Respondents who tried to convince about new ideas used rationality. Schmidt and Kipnis (1984) classify Kipnis et al.’s (1980)goals as personal and organisational. 4- Influence tactics and HR decisions/work outcomes Despite the fact that scholars have examined the effects of influence tactics on work outcomes over the past decades (Higgins et al, 2003), the empirical results of the relationship between influence tactics and outcomes and HR decisions are inconsistent and conflicted (Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009; Higgins et al., 2003; Terpstra & Ralston, 2002). Twenty two (36 %) of the studies found in the literature examined the relationship between influence tactics and different work outcomes and HR decisions. A few studies focussed on immediate outcomes in terms of being either successful or unsuccessful and found that successful influence attempts resulted in positive outcomes and that the tactics used were rational persuasion and exchange (Schilit & Locke, 1982). Ringer and Boss, (2000) tested the effect of; power of subordinates, interpersonal trust and the locus of control and found that individuals high in power tended to use all of the influence tactics. High interpersonal trust discourages the use of assertiveness and upward appeal. Instead of simply focusing upon successful

16 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

and unsuccessful influence attempts, three studies (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al., 1996) finding evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of an influence attempt can be evaluated more precisely by distinguishing between three immediate outcomes of influence attempts: task commitments; task compliance; and task resistance. Each one of these researchers identified the most and least effective tactics. The most effective tactics are; consultation, rationality and inspirational appeal while, the least effective tactics were pressure, coalition and legitimating these seldom resulting in commitment producing the most resistance and socially undesirable (Falbe and Yukl, 1992; Yukl and Tracey, 1992). Moving to the third study, Yukl et al.’s (1996) found that influence tactics, agent power and content factors (essential and enjoyable) affected influence outcomes. Seventeen studies out of twenty two (79%) studies addressed some specific work outcomes including performance evaluation, promotability, salary, trust, psychosocial mentoring functions, careerrelated mentoring functions, burnout, and LMX. Dreher et al.’s (1989) found that upward influence tactics affected salary allocation decisions; rationality tactics were used by women with higher salaries. Women who used exchange tended to receive smaller salaries while men who used the same tactics earned higher salaries. Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) found that ‘shotgun’ managers had the lowest performance ratings, earned less and had more job tension than male tacticians. Male tacticians received the highest performance rating. Regarding female, bystanders and ingratiatory received the highest performance ratings. Exploring gender effects, Tepper et al. (1993) found that men who used strong tactics obtained higher performance and more career-related mentoring functions, while women who used weak tactics obtained more psychosocial mentoring functions. Thacker and Wayne (1995) discovered that ingratiation was significantly negatively related to supervisors’ perceptions of promotability and assertiveness. In comparison, reasoning was positively significantly related to promotability. Wayne et al.’s (1997) study showed that employees’ influence tactics were not related to human resource decisions. They found employees who used reasoning and

17 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

assertive tactics received higher interpersonal skill assessments, while those who used bargaining and self-promotion received lower assessments. Employees have been found to have multiple strategies of ingratiation, bargaining, and assertiveness when seeking favourable assessment (Rao et al., 1995). Castro et al. (2003) widened the field investigating the positive affect and found that participants who have highly (PA) received higher performance when more tactics were employed. Su (2010) found assertiveness was negatively associated with performance ratings and level of manager trust, while rationality positively predicated performance appraisals and trust. Yagil, (2006) found personal accomplishments were negatively related to forceful and positively related to persuasive tactics. In terms of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), mixed results were found. Dockery and Steiner (1990) studied early days of the employment and found LMX was positively correlated with ingratiation and rationality for both subordinates and managers but negatively correlated with assertiveness for subordinates. In addition, Farmer et al. (1997) found that LMX was negatively related to use of soft strategies. Taking this line a step further, Botero (2012) explored LMX and Power Distance (PD) and found that the higher LMX and PD, the lower the use of soft strategy. While, those who have lower LMX were most likely to use rational strategies. Those who low LMX were less likely to use hard strategies. To further confuse the picture Krishnan (2004) found that LMX related positively to reasoning and friendliness tactics, while it was negatively correlated with higher authority. Further research into the LMX was conducted by Deluga and Perry (1991) who found that higher LMX was positively associated with upward influence effectiveness, while negatively correlated with coalition, upward appeals and assertiveness tactics. While Olufowote et al., (2005) study showed that high LMX employees reported using rationality in minimal change situations. On the contrary, Krone (1991) found in-group subordinates used more open persuasion and strategic persuasion in their upward influence. Ansari et al. (2008) study revealed that OutGroup subordinates increase the frequency of self enhancement tactic use while In-Group show a greater use of target enhancement tactic.

18 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

5- Influence tactics and culture Twenty studies were found in term of how culture affects individuals’ choices of upward influence tactics. The results revealing significant societal differences in the upward influence tactics use (Ralston et al., 2005). In this domain, there are country comparison studies with 16 countries have been examined (Hong Kong, China, Germany, the Netherlands, India, Mexico, Switzerland, Thailand, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan, Turkey, Thailand, and Colombia)-most studies using the US as the comparison- and studies examining the use of influence tactics in specific countries; Bhatnagar, 1993; Ansari & Kapoor, 1978 in India; Alshenaifi, 2007 in Saudi Arabia; Ansari et al., 2007; 2008 in Malaysia; Su, 2010 in Taiwan; Shim and Lee, 2001 in Korea; Yagil, 2006 in Israel, Rao et al. 1995 in Britain; Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013 in Argentine. In terms of comparison studies, no differences were found between the US and Colombian in the use of upward influences (Botero et al., 2012). Swiss and Americans had similar ratings of tactics (Yukl et al., 2003). Many differences were found between Americans and Chinese (Schermerhorn Jr and Bond, 1991: Fu and Yukl, 2000: Ralston et al., 1993). Cultural values and traditions also featured in the work of Ralston et al., (2005), Yukl et al. (2003), Fu et al. (2004), Egri et al. (2000) and Ralston et al., (2002) who comparing 2, 6, 12, 4, and 6 cultures respectfully. The findings produced more evidence that cross-cultural differences were consistent with cultural values (i.e. in-group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance) and traditions. As well as cross cultural work, some studies have examined upward influence tactics within specific cultures. Alshenaifi's (2007) studied upward influence tactics in Saudi culture and found a different tactic; highlighting self-image (when an employee talks about the type of his/her knowledge and the very important person VIP he/she is connected to). Ansari et al. (2007) studied the Malaysian culture and found demonstrating expertise was the most effective tactic. Shim and Lee (2001) studied the Korean leaders and found that Koreans differ in how they mixed tactics. Rao et al. (1995) found that British did not use coalition nor ingratiation.

19 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

6- Influence tactics and gender The movement of women into management positions over the last fifty years has inspired an abundance of research into the differences between male and female (O'Neil, 2004). The literature has yielded inconsistent results on the link between gender and the influence tactics (Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009; Terpstra & Ralston, 2002). Nine studies were found to address this; some studies support the idea that males and females influence their superiors in different ways (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Tepper et al., 1993; Castro et al., 2003; Ansari et al., 2007; Knippenberg and Steensma, 2003), however other studies do not (i.e. Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009; O'Neil, 2004) and others (i.e. Dreher et al., 1989: Ralston et al., 1993) found few differences. While Knippenberg and Steensma (2003) claimed that men used influence tactics more than women. Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) found that women ingratiators obtained the highest performance evaluations by male supervisors, while the highest performance evaluation was given to tactician male workers and supervisors. Tepper et al. (1993) found men used strong tactics while women used weaker ones to obtain the desired outcomes. In addition, subordinates reported that they employ weaker tactics on female supervisors. Ansari et al. (2007) found employees used ingratiation and upward appeal more with female. In contrast, more use of expertise, exchange, and showing dependency with male. Castro et al.’s (2003) suggested that females who used higher levels of the ‘shotgun’ approach, upward appeals, coalition received higher job performance ratings. Studies suggest that hard influence tactics may be less effective when employed by women. 7- Influence tactics and leadership style Six studies were found in relation to this topic. Ansari and Kapoor’s (1987) results showed that individuals responding to authoritarian managers showed a greater tendency to employ blocking, upward appeal and ingratiation. In contrast, those responding to nurturing tasks or to participative managers showed a greater tendency to choose rational persuasion. Looking at two different leadership styles – transactional and transformational - Deluga (1988) found perceived transactional

20 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

leadership to be more strongly inversely related to reported employee upward influencing behaviour than transformational leadership while transformational leadership was more closely associated with leader effectiveness and employee satisfaction than transactional leadership. Interestingly, Cable and Judge (2003) research concluded that managers were more likely to use influence tactics like consultation and inspirational appeal when their supervisor was a transformational leader, but were more likely to use exchange, coalition, legitimisation and pressure tactics when their supervisor displayed a laissez-faire leadership style. An explanation for the effects of transformational style leadership may be found in the work of Krishnan’s (2004) who established that transformational leadership was positively related to reasoning and friendliness tactics, but negatively related to higher authority. Employees were found to frequently use influence tactics such as ingratiation and upward appeal to influence autocratic supervisors (Ansari et al., 2007) while used a variety of tactics; manipulation, showing dependency, and rational persuasion to influence participative managers. When it comes to the contradictory area of abusive leadership and supportive behaviour, Yagil, (2006) found that abusive leadership was positively related to the use of forceful tactics. Supportive leadership behaviours were related to the use of upward influence. 8- Influence tactics and other factors Some studies mentioned other factors that may affect the use of influence tactics: 8.1. Future interaction: Knippenberg and Steensma’s (2003) study revealed that the expectations of future interactions reduced the use of influence tactics in general and of hard ones in particular. 8.2. Work Setting: Shilit and Locke (1982) suggested that structural differences have a significant impact on upward influence. Workers in small organizations used informal methods of upward influence. A virtual work setting was examined by Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert (2013) who interviewed employees whose supervisors were located off-site and with a different mother tongue. Results revealed the three most frequent tactics as rationality, intermediation (where difficult issues need addressing, and employee looked for someone to help in convey intentions) and coalition.

21 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

8.3. Personality: Cable and Judge (2003) used the five-factor model of personality and found that type of personality make different use of tactics e.g. extroverts were more likely to engage in inspirational appeal and ingratiation. Shim and Lee (2001) found personal characteristics; the need for achievement and self-monitoring, affect the selection of influence styles. 8.4. Patterns of influence: tactics different in initial influence attempts, in immediate follow-up influence attempts, in delayed follow-up influence attempts, and if they used alone or in combination (Yukl et al., 1993). Combinations tend to be more successful than single tactics, but only when carefully chosen (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). In terms of appropriateness, Bhatnagar (1993) found that reason tactics emerged as the most appropriate and effective influence tactic. Friendliness was the second most effective tactic, while bargaining and upward appeal were given low ratings. Maslyn et al., (1996) study demonstrated that the upward influence actions following a failed influence attempt can be predicted by; goal importance, influence agent characteristics, and agent-target relationships. Three alternative scenarios were used: to persist with the same supervisor, withdraw and persist with a different manager. Subordinates are more likely to persist with the same supervisor. 8.5. Organizational politics: Vigoda and Cohen (2002) found a positive effect of influence tactics on the perception of organization politics that mediated by employees’ expectations being met. When expectations were not met, maladjustment arise, and work setting is perceived as unjust and unfair. 8.6. Interactional Justice: Ansari et al. (2007) found employees use ingratiation and upward appeal with fair supervisor. Interestingly, more frequent use of influence tactics such as showing expertise, exchange and rational persuasion with their unfair supervisor than with their fair supervisor. 8.7. Age: younger differ than older people in the use influence tactics (Akhtar and Mahmood, 2009; Ralston et al., 2005; Deluga and Perry, 1991). 8.8. Organizational culture: Roa et al. (1995) found that subordinates in innovative organizations used less reason.

22 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

8.9. Social Beliefs: Fu et al. (2004) examined the effect of individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of influence strategies: cynicism, reward, religiosity, fate control and social complexity. 9- Influence tactics reviews Only two literature reviews were found in this field; Terpstra and Ralston’s (2002) work - which only examined upward influence tactics - presented a review and developed a cross-cultural influence behavioural model to synthesise their knowledge in cross-cultural upward influence and provide a framework for future research opportunities. They used Porter et al.’s (1981) work to identify five categories of factors that affect influence decisions: agent characteristics, target characteristics, agent-target relationship, situational characteristics and agent belief system. By the end of a thoughtful review, they concluded that further cross-culture research was needed including an exploration of the outcome of influence attempts in other cultures; the impact of individual demographics (age and gender) on the selection of influence tactics; the link between organization culture and climate and influence tactics and the impact of influence tactics on the decision making process. Moreover, Higgins et al. (2003) utilized a meta-analytic technique between influence tactics and just work-related outcomes and covered the three directions of influence tactics. III. Key findings from the literature and critical analysis: A summary of the key findings from the 62 influence tactics studies reviewed here is shown in Figure 1 where upward influence tactics, moderators and outcomes are represented by numbers beside each influence tactic and each outcome illustrating how many times that tactic or outcomes was addressed in the empirical studies. Figure 1 only includes the tactics that have relationships with outcomes and upward influence studies.

Studies which examined all three directions are not

included here. The findings of this review are as follows: 1-

A debate continues in relation to influence tactics measures. Different scholars have tried to

develop influence tactics measures; some have modified existing measures and others have created new ones. However, the POIS scale developed by Kipnis et al. (1980), both in its original or its

23 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

revised forms (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982; or Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990), has been the one most commonly applied in the field, having been used in 37 studies (59.6%), with 28 of the 37 studies (75.6%) only studying upward influence tactics. POIS is of the most widely used in research into influence tactics and has been empirically and methodologically validated over the years. IBQ was used in 11 studies (17.7%). Of these 11 studies, two addressed upward influence tactics. The SUI scale has limited use and has had limited application, with only five studies considering upward influence tactics (see Table 2). The reason behind the popularity of the POIS scale could be either that it was the first and most basic measure in the field or because of its ability to measure the three directions of influence and the upward influence tactics at the same time. On the other hand, the IBQ, which was based on the POIS scale, was used more often to study the three directions of influence and is used to examine downward and lateral influence more so than POIS. Therefore, its accuracy or ability in measuring upward influence is not verified. The SUI was the least popular measure, and that may be because not many researchers have studied influence tactics in other cultures. The major limitations of both the original and the refined versions of the POIS were that some researchers examined only self-perception of influence tactics and objectives, creating the possibility of systematic bias. Respondents may have exaggerated or faked their use of socially desirable influence tactics such as rational persuasion because of the sensitivity of information about upward influence tactics that may affect their relationships with their managers. Yukl and colleagues tried to overcome this limitation by developing the IBQ as a target- report, but that measure may again cause the same problem. Ralston and colleagues attempted to avoid the bias implicit in self-reports by asking the participants to report information about their co-workers’ influence behaviour thus trying to overcome some of the agents self-reporting issues by using peer-other report. However, this approach also has limitations, because the peer may not be precisely accurate in describing the influence tactics of his/her colleagues due to having a friendship/competitive relationship, or exaggeration may also occur as with the previous two methods.

24 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Another limitation exists in studies which classify tactics as hard, soft and rational. There are problems with this classification because there are some forms of exchange tactics which could be considered as soft tactics and others as rational leading to confusion. The same can be said of studies that classify individuals according to their use of influence tactics: shotgun, tactician, ingratiators or bystanders. From our perspective, each tactic should be treated separately. 2- Influence tactics effect: In the framework below, papers that examined all three directions of influence were not included nor studies that used other scales rather than (POIS, IBQ, SUI). In addition, Tepper et al. (1993) study was also excluded because the authors did not clarify which tactics were considered hard, soft or rational; they just stated that they obtained the strength of the tactics by multiplying the frequency of use by the tactics’ corresponding scale value and summing across. Although upward influence tactics can have an impact on tangible and intangible outcomes for followers, the results of many studies have often been inconclusive. Positive relationships have been found between some upward influence tactics e.g. ingratiation, rationality, exchange of benefits, upward appeal and coalition) with performance assessment while assertiveness produced mixed findings. Assertiveness and ingratiation have a negative relationship with promotability while rationality was found to be positively related to promotability. Rationality and assertiveness have a positive relationship with interpersonal skills while self-promotion and exchange of benefits were negatively associated. Exchange of benefits had mixed findings regarding salary whereas rationality related positively to salary. Trust was also mixed relating positively to rationality and negatively to assertiveness. LMX had a positive relationship with ingratiation and rationality but negative relationships with self-promotion, upward appeal, assertiveness and coalition. LMX also has a negative relationship with soft and rational tactics and positive relationship with hard tactics which contradict the previous results. Therefore, rationality can be considered as having a greater number of positive outcomes, while assertiveness has a greater number of negative outcomes.

25 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Figure-1 Follower Upward Influence Tactics and Outcomes Framework Moderators; Culture, Gender, Leadership Styles

Bystanders

Upward Influence Tactics

Outcomes

Performance evaluation/appraisal (9+ and 3-)

Soft tactics (2) Rational tactics

Tacticians Shotgun ( 3 )

-2

(5) 3 Self- presentation/ selfpromotion (2 )

promotability, (1+ and 2-)

Interpersonal skills (2+ and 2-)

Rational Persuasion/Reason (8)

Tangible

Ingratiators

Ingratiation/ Friendliness

3 Salary (1+ and 2-)

Exchange of benefits/ Bargaining (3)

LMX (7+ and 9-)

Assertiveness/ Pressure (7)

-2

Intangible

Hard tactics

Upward Appeal/Higher Authority (3)

-2 Trust

Coalitions (2)

(1- and 1+)

Mixed results (+ and -) + Results - Results

26 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

This point to the importance of followers considering carefully which influence tactics they might chose to use in order to achieve their desired outcomes. This in turn, leads to the recognition of the importance of studying the positive and negative sides of each specific tactic. 3- Moderators: Different moderators affecting influence and outcome have been found in the literature, namely culture, gender and leadership style. The use and the effect of followers’ influence tactics may also be culturally determined so culture may be a key moderator in follower influence tactics-outcome relationships. There are tactics that some cultures accept and consider the use of them completely normal, while other cultures would find the same tactics unacceptable considering use of them as disrespectful. For example, while gifts are accepted as influence tactics in China, other cultures would see them as a bribe leading to negative outcomes. In addition, exchange of benefit may also be accepted in some cultures and yet be considered unacceptable in others. Similarly, gender may be a significant moderator. Some tactics are acceptable when used by men, such as those that might be considered to be ‘hard tactics’, while these same tactics are viewed as unacceptable when used by women. This may be due to personality and stereotypical gender differences between men and women. This scenario raises questions about the possibility of success or failure of influence tactics if women subordinates use them with the same gender (female managers) or with the opposite gender (male managers).With regard to leadership style, it is logical that some influence tactics could work with some leaders and achieve the desired outcomes, while they would not work with others. This reflects on the importance of matching the influence tactics used by subordinates with the leadership style of their leader to obtain the required outcomes. Other more minor moderators impacting on the influence process were found for example, positive effects (Castro et al., 2003), political tendencies and organizational socialization (Su, 2010), work settings (Shilit & Locke, 1982), personality (Cable & Judge, 2003), interactional justice (Ansari et al. (2007), patterns of influence (Yukl et al., 1993; Falbe & Yukl, 1992), social beliefs (Fu et al., 2004), organizational culture (Roa et al., 1995), age (Akhtar and Mahmood, 2009; Ralston et al., 2005), and

27 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

future interaction (Knippenberg and Steensma, 2003). Based on the studies reviewed here it is noticeable that there are inconsistent and mixed results. It is thought that the reasons behind this could be due to some gaps or limitations have been found in some studies as follows: a) Historically, there has been a reliance on self-report measures which increases the potential for social desirability bias (56.4%). This is especially the case if the research has been based on sensitive topics where people tend to respond in ways that maintain a socially positive self-image (Yukl et al., 1996). Differences in the measurements - POIS, IBQ and SUI must also be considered. It is clear that more research is needed to solve controversies over the appropriate number of influence styles (Shim and Lee, 2001). A substantial number of the papers examined here studied the three directions of influence; upward, downward and lateral. Research has found that some tactics can be useful for influencing subordinates or peers because of authority and position of power, but they have not examined the effectiveness of these tactics for influencing other target people such as managers (Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl et al., 2008; Schermerhorn Jr. & Bond, 1991; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988). Hinkin and Schriesheim (1990) pointed out that the mix of the three different perspectives in relation to subordinates, peers and superiors, could have altered relationships and results. b) Methodological issues: Some of these studies used students as a sample. This will simply not give the same results as studies which used an appropriate target sample - experienced employees (11.4% of the studies used full time students and 21% of the studies used evening MBA students who have full time jobs). There are other methodological limitations found in some of the studies for example, do these research capture the same or identical construct; what about common method variance; Subjectivity of the measures and sample size. There is also a scarcity of longitudinal studies in the field, inclusion of which may help to minimize any effects of the initial survey on respondents’ ratings.

28 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

c) Fragmentation of the literature. The available literature is not guided by specific theory, which has raised important questions about what underpins influence tactics and what the theoretical model is. Explanations have been based on different lines of argument, the answer to this question potentially found within the next four theories;  The Theory of Reasoned Action TRA was developed by Martin and Ajzen (1975, 1980) and has been revised and extended by Ajzen into the theory of planned behaviour also termed as the Fishbein behavioural intentions model. This theory argues that individuals consider the consequences or implications of their actions before they decide to involve or not in certain behaviour. Its fundamental assumption is that any specific behaviour reflects the influence of individual factors (i.e., personality) as well as the influence of other external factors exclusive to the specific situation. When challenged with the need to decide on a course of action, individuals consider their beliefs about the consequences of existing alternatives, beliefs about the normative expectations of important individuals or groups, and the required resources and potential impediments characterizing the environment around them (Fu et al., 2004)  Cognitive Dissonance Theory is defined by Aronson (1968) as: “…a negative drive state which occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognition (ideas, beliefs and opinions) which are psychologically inconsistent” (Jermias, 2001)  Since influence processes are social, the nature of the relationship between the agent and target is key when attempting to understand the influence strategies used (Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert, 2013). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), the more developed theory of those for consideration representing relational leadership, could explain influence processes. The concept of LMX according to Graen & Uhl-Bien (1991: 1995) is that effective leadership processes happen when leaders and followers are able to develop mature leadership relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to the many benefits of this relationship.

29 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

 The exercise of influence can be viewed as a behavioural act directed toward the achievement of specific goals in the work place. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) or expected utility model of preferences and behaviours (Steensma, 2007) (which is based on expectancy theory) could explain that. In both approaches it is assumed that the person exercising influence cognitively evaluates the probability of successful influence and the costs or benefits associated with alternative courses of action. It is expected that the influencer will choose the course of action that maximizes the expected value of the outcome and the perceived probability of success (Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert 2013; Mowday, 1978; Ringer and Boss, 2000). According to the expected utility model (Steensma, 2007), choosing an influence tactic that minimizes potential setbacks (or has a lower perceived cost) is considered to be more beneficial (Steizel and Rimbau-Gilabert (2013). Expectancy theory could provide a useful framework for predicting and understanding the selection of upward influence tactics. Organization members undertake a series of subjective cost-benefit analyses, using salient available information. Some of the more explicit information available is the political actor’s knowledge of the results of past attempts at social influence. Thus, individual ‘expectancy set’ regarding the efficacy of engaging in upward political influence will be at least in part determined by what has gone before (porter et al., 1981). It is also believed that three separate theoretical perspectives have informed the literature: Power Theory, Impression Management Theory and Ingratiation Theory. These three theories have had an influence on shaping the upward influence tactics used by employees when communicating with and influencing their supervisors, which may be why the literature relating to upward influence tactics is incoherent. The study of upward influence tactics was framed in the beginning as part of organizational politics, with a focus on examining how power was exercised (Terpstra & Ralston, 2002). The research carried out by Kipnis et al., (1980) about influence tactics is guided by anecdotal evidence or ‘armchair speculation’, which has been organized into rational classifications of power tactics (e.g. French & Raven, 1959). Kipnis et al., (1980) began to question whether French and

30 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Raven’s six bases of power (Legitimate Power, Reward Power, Expert Power, Coercive Power, Referent Power and Informational Power) were sufficient to encompass all influence attempts in the workplace (Elias, 2008). One problem with these classifications of power tactics as Raven (1974) has pointed out is that they overlap with each other, although each varies in the number of influence dimensions that are described. A further problem with the existing classifications of power tactics is that when influence acts are actually studied, it is found that people do not exercise influence in the ways predicted by rational classification schemes (Kipnis et al., 1980). Through their research, they were able to identify eight methods of influence in the workplace. Goffman’s (1959) Impression Management Theory posits that being viewed by others in a favourable manner is the basic motivation of individuals, either inside or outside of organizations (Montagliani & Giacalone, 1998). They then try to influence and possibly shape the target’s perceptions through positive and constructive self-presentation (Goffman, 1959). Impression management tactics have different objectives to that of proactive tactics (Yukl & Michel, 2006) but there is still a lack of overall homogeneity. The Ingratiation Theory (Jones, 1964) is defined as: “…a class of strategic behaviours illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal qualities … ingratiating behaviours are illicit because they are directed toward objectives not contained in the implicit contract which underlies social interaction.”

Ingratiation literature has had an impact on upward influence tactics literature because two tactics are related to this literature: ingratiation and self-presentation/self-promotion. These explanations should be investigated separately in order to develop a coherent and clear vision about the theoretical mechanism of upward influence and to justify and underpin influence behaviours. However, despite the relevance of followers’ upward influence to followership in general, and to an understanding of followers in particular, the research concerning upward influence and followership are not well integrated. It is noticeable from the literature reviewed here that there is a failure to integrate more recent ideas emanating from the followership literature in particular. 31 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

Figure 2 Integrated framework of upward influence processes Upward Influence tactics Ingratiation

self-promotion

rationality

exchange of benefits

upward appeal

assertiveness

coalition

1- Goal of influence (Organizational or personal) Major Moderators:

Situational Factor; - organization & personnel change, - budget allocation, - situational ambiguity, - lack of structure, - resource scarcity - information availability

Subordinate’s characteristics; - Machiavellianism - Locus of control - Age - Work experience - Personality type - Social Beliefs - manifest needs - nPow and nAch

Supervisorsubordinate relationship

- LMX quality - Liking - Demographic similarities

Supervisor’s characteristics; - Machiavellianism - Locus of control - Age - Work experience - Personality type - Leadership Style - Social Beliefs

- Gender - Culture differences (i.e. PD, Collectivism) - Organizational culture - Work setting

Minor Moderators:

2- Cost of influence and risk 3- Selecting influence tactics 4- Implementing influence

- Future interaction - Pattern of influence - Organizational politics - Interactional justice - Positive effect

Tangible and intangible outcomes (Performance appraisal, Salary, promotion, Trust, Respect, Work-life balance, flexible working hours, stress, training opportunities, implement organizational change, support new ideas, access to resources, interpersonal skills, career progression, fairness, prestige, status, affiliation, recognition, organization and work effectiveness, employee satisfaction, employee involvement in decision making, ….etc )

32 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

We develop a model of influence tactic processes and its relationships with major outcomes. Figure 2 above is said model according to this review of the upward influence tactics literature and after reviewing major models of impression management and others (Terpstra & Ralston, 2002; Wayne et al., 1997; Rao et al., 1995; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Ferris et al., 1990; Porter et al., 1981).

IV. Future research and conclusion: As more than ten years have passed since 2003 and only one review of the topic carried out by Terpstra and Ralston (2002), the time is right to ask what future research is needed regarding upward influence tactics. A key question remains: “Do upward influence tactics make a difference in terms of tangible outcomes?”. At this point in time it is not possible to give a definitive answer. What can be stated unequivocally that improvement in methodologies and research design is needed. Studies have only focussed on a narrow range of outcomes, namely tangible outcomes (either physical or those which can be observed) such as promotion, performance assessment, interpersonal skills and salary. Other types of tangible outcomes have not been researched such as training opportunities, work-life balance, flexible work hours, access to resources, career progression and fairness. Furthermore, an area that remains to be investigated concerns the way in which influence tactics affect intangible outcomes (things which are inferred from behaviour) such as prestige, status, respect, affiliation, psychosocial mentoring functions, career- related mentoring functions and recognition. This is with the exception of trust and LMX. Of the 62 studies found in the literature, less than half (24) have addressed the relationship between influence tactics and outcomes. A longitudinal investigation of the selection and effectiveness of different employee influence tactics over time will over some of the previous limitations (Wayne et al., 1997). Bearing in mind that most of the empirical research on influence tactics literature has been conducted in Western cultures and that the research has provided some evidence that upward influence behaviours may be related to the cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism/collectivism, there is a need to test these

33 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

tactics and their outcomes in different cultures. This is especially pertinent in this age of multicultural, global organization (Yukl et al., 2003; Schermerhorn Jr. & Bond, 1991; Ralston et al., 1993, 1995; Botero et al., 2012; Terpstra & Ralston, 2002). Similarly, there is a need for more research into gender differences in upward influence processes in order to assess the effectiveness of the ‘social composition’ of organizations as research has also revealed that the social roles of males and females in Western societies are more similar than they are in Asian societies (Akhtar & Mahmood, 2009; Schermerhorn Jr. & Bond, 1991; Castro et al., 2003; Terpstra & Ralston, 2002). Research also needs to be carried on the effectiveness and appropriateness of each upward influence tactic to determine their relative impact. Each direction of influence needs examining separately as this will be more effective to uncover in detail the relationships, patterns, consequences, appropriateness and moderator factors of each influence process direction. It will be beneficial to use methodologies that are more comprehensive and those which have moved beyond self-reports of influence tactics measures. Study of moderators and mediating variables impacting upward influence tactics is vital. The more that can be uncovered about the role of mediating variables and moderators determining whether employees can successfully achieve their goals through using influence tactics, the more the influence process will become clear. Other moderators or mediators such as agent characteristics, target characteristics and agent skills or qualities, could affect the use of upward influence tactics implying the need for more research in this area. Lastly, we suggest shifting from research that shows whether influence tactics are effective to research that simultaneously focuses on the issues of why influence tactics work and to examine the theoretical mechanism behind this thus building more comprehensive theoretical frameworks. Findings from such research could then underpin the understanding of influence processes and their outcomes. In doing so, employees and organizations may both begin to reap far greater benefits. On a practical level, employees and managers might consider the ways in which different types of influence tactics are likely to be swayed because of how they are employed, their appropriateness,

34 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

their pattern of use, with which leadership style they are used and with which gender and culture. Empirically based guidelines and training programmes would be helpful to assist the effective use of influence tactics, improving influential skills to achieve desired goals providing guidance on which tactics are likely to achieve success and build solid work relationships. Including this subject in career planning programmes would also be useful. In addition, understanding employees’ rights, job descriptions, organizational policies and roles and management authority will help to clarify the relationship between manager and employee and will minimize the negative use of influence tactics and encourage rational tactics. All of these contribute in achieving desired goals, positive outcomes and 'win-win' situations for both managers and employees and for the organization as a whole. In conclusion, this paper is based on previous research on upward influence tactics and has sought to highlight some key areas of interest. The paper has traced the early work in the field, highlighted key insights from the research to date in areas of influence tactic typologies, measures, influence tactics and their objectives and goals. It has also identified the outcome of the use of influence tactics and the factors that appear to moderate influence tactics including culture, leadership style and gender and has then provided and discussed the key findings of the literature. The chief finding is that although upward influence tactics can have an impact on the production of positive outcomes for followers, the results from many of the studies are inconclusive. The most significant contribution or impact of this paper is to enrich the body of knowledge about influence tactics and to address deficiencies in the literature. In addition, the paper attempts to derive an empirically based framework for understanding upward influence processes, moderators and outcomes. This will be helpful for those who are involved in the development of both the followership and leadership field.

35 Copyright © 2014 Najla Alshenaifi and Nicholas Clarke

References: Akhtar, S. & Mahmood, Z. 2009. A Tri-prong variable analysis of influence strategies. Journal of world applied sciences, 7(9): 1080-1089. Ansari, M. & Kapoor, A. 1987. Organizational Context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 40(1): 39-49. Ansari, M., Aafaqi, R., and Zainal, S. 2007. Supervisory Behavior and Upward Influence Tactics: The Impact of Gender. Paper presented at the twenty second annual meeting of the Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology (SIOP), New York. Alshenaifi, N. 2007. Influence tactics used by subordinate to influence superior: comparison study. Unpublished master’s thesis, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Botero, I. C., Foste, E., and Pace, K. M. 2012. Exploring Differences and Similarities in Predictors and Use of Upward Influence Strategies in Two Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5): 822-832. Bhatnagar, D. 1993. Evaluation of managerial influence tactics. Journal of managerial psychology, 8(1): 3-9. Cohen, A. R. and Braford, D. L. 2005. Influence without Authority. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cable, D. M. & Judge, T. A. 2003. Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24(2): 197214. Castro, S., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G. and Frink, D. 2003. The Effects of Positive Affect and Gender on the Influence Tactics -Job Performance Relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1): 1-18. Deluga, R. J. 1988. Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with employee influencing strategies. Group & Organization Management, 13(4): 456-467. Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. 1991. The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behaviour, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader—member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3): 239-252. Dreyer, G., Dougherty, T., and Whitely, W. 1989. Influence tactics and salary attainment: a genderspecific analysis. Sex roles, 20(9-10):535-550. Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. 1990. The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group & Organization Management, 15(4): 395-413.

36

Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicholson, J. D. 2000. Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal of International Management, 6(2): 149-171. Erez, M., Rim, Y., and Keider, I. 1986. The two sides of the tactics of influence: agent vs. target. Journal of occupational psychology, 59(1): 25-39. Elias, S. 2008. Fifty years of influence in the workplace: The evolution of the French and Raven power taxonomy. Journal of Management History, 14(3): 267-283. Ferris, G., Judge, T., Rowland, K., and Fitzgibbons, D. 1994. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process; test and a model. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 58(1): 101-135. Fu, P., and Yukl, G. 2000. Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United State and China. leadership quarterly, 11(2): 251-266. Farmer, S., Maslyn, J., Fedor, D., and Goodman, J. 1997. Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of organizational behaviour, 18(1): 17-42. Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. M. 1999. Why are styles of upward influence neglected? Making the case for a configurational approach to influences. Journal of Management, 25(5): 653-682. Falbe, C., and Yukl, G. 1992. Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of management journal, 35(3): 638-6532. Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Peng, T. K., & Cheosakul, A. 2004. The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4): 284-305. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247. Hinkin, T. R. and Schriesheim, C. A. 1990. Influence tactics used by subordinates: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis and Refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of applied psychology, 75(3): 246-257. Hinkin, T.R. & Schriesheim, C.A. 1990. Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human relation, 43(3): 221-237. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., and Ferris, G. R. 2002. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24(1): 89-106.

37

Hochwarter, W. A., Harrison, A. W., Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., and Ralston, D. A. 2000. A reexamination of Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) measure of upward influence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(5): 751−771. Jones, E. E. 1964. Ingratiation, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. Jermias, J. 2001. Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2): 141-160. Kipnis, D.; Schmidt, S. M.; & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations of getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4): 440–452. Knippenberg, B. and Steensma, H. 2003. Future interaction expectations and the use of soft and hard influence tactics. Applied psychology, 52(1): 55- 67. Krishnan, V. 2004. Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies. The leadership and organization development behaviour, 25(1): 58-72. Krone, K. J. 1991. Effects of leader‐member exchange on subordinates’ upward influence attempts. Communication Research Reports, 8(1): 9-18. Montagliani, A., & Giacalone, R. A. 1998. Impression management and cross-cultural adaption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(5): 598-608. Mowday, R. T. 1978. The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 137-156. Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. 1996. Failed Upward Influence Attempts Predicting the Nature of Subordinate Persistence in Pursuit of Organizational Goals. Group & organization management, 21(4): 461-480. Olufowote, J. O., Miller, V. D., & Wilson, S. R. 2005. The interactive effects of role change goals and relational exchanges on employee upward influence tactics. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(3): 385-403. O'Neil, J. 2004. Effects of Gender and Power on PR Managers' Upward Influence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1): 127-144. Porter, L. W., Allen R. W., and Angle, H. 1981. The politics of upward influence in organizations. In B.M. Staw & L.L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 3: 109-149. Ringer, R. C., and Boss, W. 2000. Hospital Professionals' use of Upward Influence Tactics, Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(1): 92-108. Ralston, D. A., Hallinger, P., Egri, C.P., and Naothinsuhk, S. 2005. The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of world business, 40(3): 321-337. 38

Ralston, D., Vollmer, G., Srinvasan, N., Nicholson, J., and Wan, M. 2002. Strategies of upward influence: a study of six cultures from Europe, Asia and America. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32(6): 748-755. Ralston, D., Terpstra, R, Cunniff, M., Gustafson, D. 1995. Do Expatriates Change their Behavior to Fit a Foreign Culture? A Study of American Expatriates’ Strategies of Upward Influence. Management International Review, 35(1): 109-122. Ralston, D., Gustafson, D., Mainiero, L., and Umstot, D. 1993. Strategies of upward influence: A cross-national comparison of Hong Kong and American managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(2): 157-175. Raven, B. 1974. The Comparative Analysis of Power and Power Preference. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed), Perspectives on Social Power, 172-198. Chicago:Aldine. Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. H. 1995. Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48(2): 147-167. Schermerhorn Jr, J., & Bond, M. 1991. Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(2): 147-158. Schmidt, S., and Kipnis, D. 1984. Managers' pursuit of individual and organizational goals. Human Relations, 37(10): 781-794. Schilit, W. K., and Locke, E. A. 1982. A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(2): 304-316. Schmidt, S., and Kipnis, D. 1988. Upward-influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4): 528-542. Shim, D., & Lee, M. 2001. Upward influence styles of R&D project leaders. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 48(4): 394-413. Su, C. 2010. An examination of usage and impact of upward influence tactics by workers in the hospitality sector of Taiwan. Canadian journal of Administrative science, 27(4): 306 - 319. Steizel, S., & Rimbau-Gilabert, E. 2013. Upward influence tactics through technology-mediated communication tools. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(2): 462-472. Thacker, R. A. and Sandy J. W. 1995. An Examination of the Relationship between Upward Influence Tactics and Assessments of Promotability. Journal of Management, 21(4): 739-756. Terpstra-Tong, J. and Ralston D. A. 2002. Moving toward a global understanding of upward influence strategies: An Asian perspective with directions for cross-cultural research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2): 373-404.

39

Tepper, B., Brown, S. and Hunt, M. 1993. Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics and gender Congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(22): 1903-1919. Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. 2002. Influence tactics and perceptions of organizational politics A longitudinal study. Journal of Business research, 55(4): 311-324. Wayne, S., & Ferris, G. R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisorsubordinate interactions: A laboratory expermint and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5): 487–499. Wayne, S., Liden, R., Graf, I. and Ferris, G. 1997. The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personal psychology, 50(4): 979- 1006. Wayne, S. J., and Liden, R. C. 1995. Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 232–260. Yukl, G. and Falbe, C. 1990. Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2): 132–140. Yukl, G. and Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers and the boss, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 525-535. Yukl, G., Falbe, C., and Youn, J. 1993. Patterns of influence behaviour. Group & organization management, 18(1): 5-28. Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Soitolano, D. 1995. Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization Management, 20(3): 272-296. Yukl, G., Kim, H., and Fable, C. 1996. Antecedents of Influence Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3): 309-317. Yukl, Gary A. 1998. Leadership in organizations, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J. Yukl, Gray; Fu, Ping; and McDonald, Robert, 2003. Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied Psychology, 52(1): 68-82. Yukl, G., Chavez, C., and Seifert, C. F. 2005. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(6): 705−725. Yukl, G., Seifert, C. F., & Chavez, C. 2008. Validation of the extended influence behaviour questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5): 609-621. Yukl, G., & Michel, J. W. 2006. Proactive influence tactics and leader member exchange. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical and theoretical perspectives, 87-103. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Yagil, D. 2006. The relationship of abusive and supportive workplace supervision to employee burnout and upward influence tactics. Journal of emotional abuse, 6(1): 49-65. 40