proactive influence tactics and leader member exchange
Post on 03-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
1/27
1
Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
Gary Yukl & John W. Michel
University at Albany, State University of New York
In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.),Power and influence in organizations: New
empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 87-103). Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
2/27
2
Introduction
An important determinant of managerial effectiveness is the ability to influence
subordinates to carry out requests and implement decisions (Yukl, 2002). The success of an
attempt made by the agent to influence the target person depends in part on the tactics used by
the agent (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Since the early 1980s a number of studies have been
conducted to determine the effectiveness of specific influence behaviors (see Yukl & Chavez,
2002). Influence tactics can be classified according to their primary purpose and time frame
(Yukl, 2002). Proactive tactics are used in an attempt to influence someone to carry out an
immediate request. Reactive tactics are used to resist unwanted influence attempts by other
people, or to influence someone to modify a request so that it is more acceptable. Impression
management tactics are used to create a favorable image and build closer relationships. Some
types of influence tactics can be used for more than one purpose, but they may not be equally
effective for different purposes.
Early research by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) identified several distinct types
of proactive influence tactics, and the researchers developed an agent self-report questionnaire
called the Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS). Subsequent research by
Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) found evidence for the construct validity of six POIS tactics for
upward influence attempts with a boss, i.e., rationality, assertiveness, exchange (or bargaining),
ingratiation (or friendliness), coalition, and upward appeal. In a separate program of research
that began in 1989, Yukl and colleagues identified 11 proactive tactics that can be used for
influence attempts with subordinates, peers, and superiors (see Yukl & Chavez, 2002). These
tactics are measured with a target questionnaire called the Influence Behavior Questionnaire
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
3/27
3
(IBQ). The IBQ measures five tactics that are similar to those in the POIS and six additional
tactics. The 11 tactics are defined in Table 1.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 1 About Here
---------------------------------
Several studies on the relative effectiveness of different proactive tactics have been
conducted using research methodologies such as surveys (e.g., Yukl & Tracy, 1992), critical
incidents (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Falbe 1996), experiments (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999), and
scenario studies (e.g., Fu & Yukl, 2000). These studies found that the proactive tactics most
likely to elicit task commitment include rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, and
inspirational appeals. The four tactics have subsequently been termed core tactics (Yukl, 2002).
Another subject of research on influence behavior is the determinants of a managers
choice of influence tactics. Yukl and Tracy (1992) proposed that agents will use tactics that are
socially acceptable, feasible in terms of the agents position and personal power in relation to the
target, not costly (in terms of time, effort, loss of resources, or alienation of the target), and likely
to be effective for a particular objective given the anticipated level of resistance by the target.
Support for most of these propositions was provided by several studies (e.g., Yukl, Falbe, &
Youn, 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
However, most of this research treats influence attempts as isolated episodes, rather than as
reciprocal processes that occur in a continuing relationship between the agent and target.
Although the authority relationship between agent and target has been included in some studies
on determinants of tactic selection and effectiveness, the research seldom considers the
interpersonal relationship and variables such as trust and mutual regard. In this chapter we will
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
4/27
4
consider how proactive influence tactics are related to the social exchange relationship between
leaders and individual subordinates.
Leader-Member Exchange
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the role making processes between a
leader and each individual subordinate and the social exchange relationship that develops over
time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The basic premise of the
theory is that leaders develop a separate exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two
parties mutually define the subordinates role. Graen and Cashman (1975) suggested that
exchange relationships are formed on the basis of personal compatibility and subordinate
competence and dependability. Because of limited time and energy, leaders with many
subordinates develop a close working relationship with only a few trusted subordinates (Graen,
1976; Graen & Schiemann, 1978).
The basis for establishing a high exchange relationship is the leaders control over
outcomes that are desirable to a subordinate, such as better assignments, more responsibility,
higher status, and tangible rewards such as a pay increase, special benefits (e.g., better work
schedule, bigger office), and facilitation of the subordinates career (e.g., recommending a
promotion, giving developmental assignments with high visibility). In return for these benefits, a
high exchange subordinate has additional obligations and costs. The subordinate is expected to
work harder, to be more committed to task objectives, to be loyal to the leader, and in some cases
to share some of the leaders administrative duties. The development of high-exchange
relationships occurs gradually over a period of time; through reciprocal reinforcement of
behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again. Unless the cycle is broken, the
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
5/27
5
relationship is likely to develop to a point in which there is a degree of mutual dependence,
loyalty, and support.
The benefits to the leader from a high exchange relationship are evident. Subordinate
commitment is important when the leaders work unit has tasks that require considerable
initiative and effort on the part of some members to be carried out successfully. The assistance
of committed subordinates can be invaluable to a manager who lacks the time or energy to carry
out all of the administrative duties for which he or she is responsible. However, the high-
exchange relationships create certain obligations and constraints on the leader. To maintain
these relationships, the leader must provide attention to the subordinates, remain responsive to
their needs and feelings, and rely more on time-consuming influence methods such as persuasion
and consultation. The leader cannot resort to coercion or heavy-handed use of authority without
endangering the special relationship.
The exchange relationship established with the remaining subordinates is substantially
different. In a low exchange relationship there is a relatively low level of mutual influence. To
satisfy the terms of this outgroup relationship, subordinates need only comply with formal role
requirements (e.g., duties, rules, standard procedures, and legitimate directions from the leader).
As long as such compliance is forthcoming, the subordinate receives the standard benefits for the
job (such as salary).
Prior Research on LMX and Influence Tactics
There are numerous studies on the antecedents and consequences of LMX, and this
research has been reviewed by several scholars (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day,
1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). However, few studies have been conducted to
investigate the relationship between LMX and the use of influence tactics by the leader and
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
6/27
6
subordinate. Leadership scholars (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Schriesheim, Castro, &
Yammarino, 2002) have noted the need for such research. We found only four studies that
examined this relationship, and they all involved upward influence attempts by subordinates.
A field study by Deluga and Perry (1991), investigated how LMX is related to the use of
six influence tactics by subordinates in their attempts to influence their boss. The researchers
wanted to ascertain whether higher quality LMX relationships were related the use of bargaining,
reasoning, and friendliness (i.e., hypothesis 1) and inversely related with assertiveness, higher
authority, and coalition (i.e., hypothesis 2). Subordinates reported their use of influence tactics
with the agent version of the POIS. The study found that LMX was correlated positively with
rationality and negatively with exchange, pressure, and coalition tactics (including upward
appeals).
The second study, by Dockery and Steiner (1990), investigated how LMX was related to
upward influence tactics used by subordinates during the early development of a new
relationship with their boss. This study was conducted in a classroom setting using
undergraduate student participants to investigate whether upward influence attempts by the
subordinate toward to leader during the initial interaction would influence the leader to initiate a
favorable LMX relationship. Subordinate use of three influence tactics in influence attempts
with the boss was reported from both the perspective of the subordinate and the boss. Students
who served as subordinates used the agent version of the POIS, and students who served as
bosses used the target version of the POIS. For the data from subordinates, LMX was positively
correlated with ingratiation and rationality and negatively correlated with assertiveness. For the
data from bosses, LMX was correlated positively with ingratiation and rationality. However,
there was not a significant correlation between LMX and assertiveness.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
7/27
7
Two studies examined the relationship between LMX and a subordinates use of
impression management tactics with the boss (Deluga & Perry, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990).
Although impression management tactics have a different objective than proactive tactics, some
of the specific tactics are the same. Both studies found that ingratiation was correlated positively
with LMX.
Although these four studies suggest a link between LMX and tactics, the researchers
examined only a small number of tactics used in upward influence attempts with superiors.
There has been no attempt to investigate how LMX is related to a leaders use of influence
tactics with subordinates, or to examine a broader range of tactics. The purpose of our study was
to investigate this research question.
Hypotheses
There is ample reason to expect a relationship between LMX and some tactics used by a
leader to influence a subordinate, and the relationship may involve causality in either direction.
That is, the quality of the existing exchange relationship affects the agents choice of tactics, and
tactics used by the agent will affect the quality of the future exchange relationships. The
following hypotheses do not specify the direction of causality, but instead consider the
possibility that it may be in either direction.
Hyp. 1: LMX is positively related to consultation.
Prior research has found that LMX is correlated positively with subordinate participation
in making work-related decisions (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986; Yukl & Fu, 1999). The
influence tactic called consultation is a limited form of participative leadership. The target
person is not allowed to select the objective but can participate in determining how it can be
attained. Causality is likely in both directions, but it is probably stronger from LMX to
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
8/27
8
consultation than from consultation to LMX. To be effective, consultation requires shared
objectives and mutual trust between agent and target. The target must trust that the agent is not
being manipulative, and the agent must trust that the target is sincere about improving the
proposal or plan rather than pursuing a personal agenda. Use of consultation may also improve
an exchange relationship, but it is only one of many determinants of LMX and any effect is
likely to be weak.
Hyp. 2: LMX is positively related to collaboration.
Collaboration includes aspects of supportive leadership such as offering to help the target
person carry out a requested task or to provide adequate resources to do the task. Prior research
has found that LMX is correlated positively with supportive leadership (Basu & Green, 1997).
Therefore, it is likely that collaboration increases the positive affect of a subordinate toward the
leader. Moreover, in a high LMX relationship the leader is more likely to ask a subordinate to
perform nonroutine, difficult tasks for which it is appropriate to provide additional resources and
assistance.
Hyp. 3: LMX is positively related to inspirational appeals.
Inspirational appeals involve attempts to link a proposed activity or change to values and
ideals. One type of inspirational appeal is to communicate a vision of an exciting achievement
or a better future. This type of tactic is often used by transformational and charismatic leaders to
gain support for new initiatives and major changes (Yukl, 2002), and prior research finds a
positive correlation between LMX and transformational leadership (Deluga, 1992; Howell &
Hall-Merenda, 1999). In a strong LMX relationship, the high level of trust may make
subordinates more receptive to leader appeals that involve sacrifices and risk of failure.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
9/27
9
However, this explanation is highly speculative, and other explanatory processes may be
involved.
Hyp. 4: LMX is positively related to rational persuasion.
Rational persuasion involves an effort to explain why a request or proposed activity is
important for attaining shared objectives and why it is feasible. The tactic often includes
subjective opinions that cannot be verified, and the effectiveness of such information in
influencing target attitudes requires agent credibility. If the target person perceives that the agent
is exaggerating benefits or providing biased forecasts, then the influence attempt is unlikely to be
effective. Thus, rational persuasion is easier to use and more likely to be effective when the
target person trusts the agent. As noted earlier, two studies on upward influences (Deluga &
Perry, 1991; Dockery & Steiner, 1990) found a positive correlation between LMX and
rationality.
Hyp. 5: LMX is positively related to apprising.
Apprising involves providing information about positive benefits that may be obtained by
carrying out a request or doing a task. The benefits for the target person are personal and may be
relevant to career advancement. A leader is more likely to provide advice about career
advancement to a subordinate who is highly competent and able to perform difficult, highly
visible tasks. This type of advice also occurs in mentoring relationships, and prior research
found a positive correlation between LMX and mentoring by leaders (Scandura & Schriesheim,
1994; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996). Apprising also involves providing relevant advice about
reward contingencies, which is one type of contingent reward behavior; prior research has found
a positive correlation between LMX and contingent reward behavior (Howell & Hall-Merenda,
1999).
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
10/27
10
Hyp. 6: LMX is negatively related to pressure tactics.
Most pressure tactics are based on coercive power, and extensive use of such tactics can
be expected to elicit resentment and negative affect in most people. This effect is a reason to
expect a negative relationship with LMX. Because pressure tactics can undermine personal trust
and positive affect, leaders may avoid using them to influence a subordinate for which there is a
high LMX relationship. However, there are many types of pressure tactics, and some are softer
than others (Yukl, 2002). A negative relation is more likely for hard forms of pressure (e.g.,
threatening to fire a subordinate) than for softer forms of pressure (e.g., persistently asking when
a late assignment will be completed). In addition, when pressure is combined with some other
tactics such as rational persuasion or exchange, the adverse side effects can be reduced. Finally,
there is some evidence that in a favorable relationship with high mutual trust it is safer for the
agent to use appropriate pressure tactics when necessary to resolve problems in the work
(Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). These factors suggest that only a weak negative
relationship is likely between LMX and use of pressure tactics to influence subordinates.
Hyp. 7: LMX is positively related to ingratiation.
Ingratiation includes expressing respect for the target persons skills and praise for the
targets achievements and contributions to the team or organization. Prior research has found
that ingratiation is an effective tactic for improving relationships and increasing positive affect as
long as it is perceived as sincere. The direction of causality is likely to be primarily from
behavior to LMX. The rationale for an effect of LMX on the use of ingratiation is less clear.
When the relationship is already strong, there is less need for relationship building tactics such as
ingratiation. On the other hand, high LMX subordinates may get more explicit recognition
because they are more competent and are given more important tasks to perform. These factors
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
11/27
11
suggest that there is a positive relationship between LMX and use of ingratiation tactics to
influence subordinates.
Other Tactics
Most exchange tactics involve explicit offers to provide a reward if the target person does
what the agent wants. Even though LMX involves a social exchange relationship, there are no
obvious reasons to expect a significant correlation between LMX and the leaders use of
proactive exchange tactics. In a good relationship there is little need for the leader to offer
specific rewards when asking a subordinate to carry out a task. An explicit exchange agreement
is more appropriate for dealing with a lateral peer or someone who is not a member of the same
organization. In a high LMX relationship between leader and subordinate, the leader will be
trusted to reward the efforts of the subordinate in a way that is appropriate and equitable.
Legitimating tactics involve efforts to demonstrate that a request is legitimate and the
agent has the authority to make it. In a high LMX relationship, the leader may be more trusted to
make only legitimate requests, which would suggest a negative correlation. On the other hand,
there is little need to use legitimating tactics in downward influence attempts, so no difference is
likely to be found for this tactic.
Coalition tactics involve getting the support of other parties to assist in influencing the
target person. When the coalition partners pressure the target person to comply with a request it
is viewed by the target person as a hard tactic. However, research finds that coalition tactics are
seldom used with subordinates in the United States (Yukl & Fu, 1999), and the low frequency for
this tactic is a constraint on finding any relationship with LMX.
Personal appeals involve attempts by an agent to use the favorable relationship with the
target person as the basis for getting a favor. Personal appeals are not feasible if the relationship
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
12/27
12
is impersonal or hostile. On the other hand, a personal appeal is unnecessary when the
relationship is very good, and it may be viewed as manipulative. Thus, personal appeals may be
used most often in moderately good relationships. Finally, personal appeals are used most often
to attain personal objectives (rather than task objectives), and in a downward direction such
requests are usually inappropriate. The low frequency of personal appeals in downward
influence attempts, and the curvilinear relationship with LMX make it unlikely for researchers to
find any simple, linear correlation.
Method
A survey study was conducted during the period from 2004-2005 to examine the
relationship between LMX and proactive influence tactics for two samples of subordinates.
Measures
Influence Behavior Questionnaire. Proactive influence tactics were measured with scales
from the target version of the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) developed by Yukl and
colleagues. A sample for rational persuasion is the following: Explains clearly why a request or
proposed change is necessary to achieve task objectives. A sample item for inspirational appeal
is the following: Makes an inspiring presentation to build enthusiasm for a proposed activity or
change. A sample item for collaboration is the following: Offers to provide any assistance or
resources you need to carry out a request. A sample item for consultation is the following:
Asks you to suggest things you can do to help him/her attain a task objective or resolve a
problem. The version of IBQ used in these studies was composed of 11 tactic scales. Each
scale had three items with the following response choices:
5 He/she uses this tactic very often with me
4 He/she uses this tactic moderately often with me
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
13/27
13
3 He/she occasionally uses this tactic with me
2 He/she very seldom uses this tactic with me
1 I cant remember him/her ever using this tactic with me
Leader-Member Exchange-7. Member rated LMX was measured with the LMX-7 scale
(see Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984). LMX-7 measures the
quality of the exchange between supervisors and subordinates. Sample items for the LMX-7
scale includes the following: Do you know where you stand with your bossdo you usually
know how satisfied your boss is with what you do? How well does your boss recognize your
potential? I have enough confidence in my boss that I would defend and justify his/her
decision if he/she were not present to do so? Each of the seven LMX items was rated on a five-
point scale. A mean scale score for LMX (ranging from 1 to 5) was calculated for each
participant.
Sample 1
The sample included 70 MBA students at two medium-sized public universities
participating in a study designed to investigate the relationship between LMX and proactive
influence tactics. The mean age of respondents was 27 years, and the sample was about equally
composed of male and female students. As noted above, the target version of the IBQ was used
to rate the proactive influence tactics used by the boss for work-related requests. The LMX-7
was used to rate the leader-member exchange relationship with the current boss, and most of the
bosses were lower-level or middle level managers. Respondents filled out the IBQ two weeks
before they provided LMX scores. Introducing this time lag between the administration of the
IBQ and LMX reduces the probability of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003).
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
14/27
14
Sample 2
The sample consisted of 87 employees in four organizations, including a financial
counseling services company, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, a dairy products
company, and a printing company. Respondents used the LMX-7 to describe the exchange
relationship with their boss and the target version of the IBQ to describe how the boss used
proactive influence tactics. Both questionnaires were the same as the ones used for the first
sample. The median age of the sample was 33 years, and the median tenure with their
employing organizations was 3 years. The sample was 74% male. Most of the bosses described
by the respondents were lower-level or middle-level managers. The respondents were
anonymous and they mailed back their questionnaires directly to the researchers.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha values for the LMX and influence
scales in both samples are shown in Table 2. Inspection of the values suggests that internal
consistency reliability was relatively strong for all measures, especially considering the size of
the sample and that each of the IBQ scales consisted of only three items. A multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was calculated to determine if leaders used different influence tactics
depending on whether the LMX relationship with a particular subordinate was high or low. High
and low LMX subgroups were created based on the frequency distribution of LMX scale scores.
Specifically, respondents with the lowest 40% of scores were identified as Lower Quality LMX
Relationships and respondents with the highest 40% of scores were identified as Higher
Quality LMX Relationships. In the first sample, the two subgroups were identical in size; there
were 28 respondents in each subgroup. In the second sample, the lower quality LMX group was
composed of 36 participants and the higher quality LMX group was composed of 40 participants.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
15/27
15
----------------------------------
Insert Table 2 About Here
----------------------------------
The data suggested that the assumptions for MANOVA were met for both samples.
Examination of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity indicated that a multivariate analysis of the data
was appropriate for both sample 1 (2
= 192.06, df= 65,p < .001) and sample 2 (2
= 258.46,
df= 65,p < .001). The MANOVA yielded significant results on Wilks Lambda test for both
samples;F(66, 8930) = 129.61,p < 0.01 for sample 1 andF(66, 17055) = 203.64,p < 0.01 for
sample 2.
The means, standard deviations, and univariateFtests for each sample are shown in
Tables 3 and 4. Significant differences were found for 5 of the 11 tactics in each sample. In
both samples, LMX was significantly related to consultation, collaboration, inspirational appeals,
and rational persuasion, providing support for hypotheses 1 through 4. Examination of the
means from both samples revealed that the four core tactics were used more frequently in higher
quality LMX relationships. Hypothesis 6 stated that LMX would be negatively related to
pressure. This hypothesis was supported in sample 1, but not in sample 2. Hypothesis 7 stated
that LMX would be positively related to ingratiation. This hypothesis was supported in sample
2, but not in sample 1. Hypothesis 5 stated that LMX would be positively related to apprising.
This hypothesis was not supported in either sample. As expected, LMX was not significantly
related to exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, or coalition in either sample.
--------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 & 4 About Here
--------------------------------------
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
16/27
16
Because the results were mostly similar for the two samples, they were combined for a
subsequent analysis with greater power to detect small differences. The combined sample also
included the participants from the middle LMX groups, and the final sample size was 156
participants. The correlation of each influence tactic with the LMX is shown in Table 5.
Examination of the correlation coefficients provides support for all seven hypotheses.
----------------------------------
Insert Table 5 About Here
----------------------------------
Discussion
As noted above, this was the first study to investigate how LMX is related to a leaders
use of proactive influence tactics with subordinates. Our study yielded results consistent with
the literature on influence tactics and leader behavior. The hypothesized relationships between
LMX and the proactive influence tactics were mostly supported.
In both samples, rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals, and
collaboration were used more frequently in high quality LMX relationships then in low quality
relationships. As noted earlier, consultation is a limited form of participative leadership, which
requires that the agent and target have shared objectives and mutual trust. Collaboration is a
supportive behavior that increases the positive affect of the subordinate toward the leader.
Inspirational appeals arouse emotions in others and helps build trust between the leader and
subordinate. Finally, rational persuasion is used to explain why a proposed activity is important
and feasible for achieving shared objectives.
Mixed results were obtained for ingratiation and pressure tactics, but the relatively small
samples made it difficult to detect weak relationships. The correlation analysis for the combined
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
17/27
17
sample supported the hypothesized relationships of LMX to these tactics and apprising. Finally,
as expected, exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, and coalition were not significant in either
the MANOVA or the correlation analyses.
The findings provide some initial support that leaders use different proactive influence
tactics depending on the nature of the LMX relationship they share with their subordinates.
However, the study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, neither LMX nor
the influence tactics were manipulated, and the direction of causality cannot be determined from
this study. Because the data were gathered in a single time period using the results could have
been influenced by extraneous factors, reverse causality, or response biases and attributions.
Second, LMX was rated only from the subordinates perspective. Previous research has
suggested that LMX should be measured from both the leader and subordinate perspectives
(Gerstner & Day, 1997).
Future research needs to be conducted to better understand dynamic relationships
between leaders and followers as the exchange relationship develops over time. Researchers
should attempt to assess the extent to which reciprocal causality occurs between LMX and leader
use of influence tactics. Also, future research should be conducted to examine the influence
behavior by both members of a leader-subordinate dyad rather than only focusing on the leaders
behavior. There may be symmetry in the use of the tactics by both parties. For example, if a
leader frequently uses hard tactics such as pressure and legitimating with a subordinate, the
subordinate may in turn, use similar tactics on the leader. Finally, researchers should measure
changes in explanatory variables (i.e., perceived trust, credibility) as exchange relationships
develop overtime. Clearly there is a need for longitudinal research with a broader perspective on
the exchange process.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
18/27
18
References
Basu, R. & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An
empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,27, 477-499.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. E. Clark, M.
B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.),Impact of Leadership, (pp. 234-247). Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing
behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member
exchanges.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239-252.
Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in
leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67-86.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and further development.Academy of Management Review, 11, 619-634.
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member
exchange. Group and Organization Management, 15, 395-413.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent
developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
19/27
19
Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),Leadership, (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and
China.Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251-266.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Graen, G. & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A
development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),Leadership Frontiers (pp.
143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange
and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G. & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,63, 206-212.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting
follower performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:
Explorations in getting one's way.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
20/27
20
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998, August). Hardball: The impact of trust,
distrust, and relationship quality on hard influence tactic use. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, California.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past
and potential for the future.Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,
15, 47-119.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
428-436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide
autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Scandura, T. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career
mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An
examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-
member exchange using traditional and multivariate within-and-between-entities
analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
21/27
21
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (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, 246-257.
Thibodeaux, H. R., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and
mentoring: An investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 11, 97-114.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study.Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.
Yukl, G. (2002).Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. L. Neider & C.
A. Schriesheim (Eds.),Leadership (pp. 139-165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers.
Group and Organization Management, 18, 5-28.
Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives
with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group and Organization Management, 20, 272-
297.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence
behavior as determinants of target commitment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 137-
143.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes.Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
22/27
22
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers,
and the boss.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
23/27
23
Table 1
Definitions of Proactive Influence Tactics
Influence Tactics Definitions
Rational Persuasion The agent uses logical arguments and factual evidence to show thatrequest or proposal is feasible and relevant for important task objectives.
Apprising The agent explains how carrying out a request or supporting a proposal
will benefit the target personally or will help to advance the targetscareer.
Inspirational Appeals The agent appeals to the targets values and ideals or seeks to arouse the
target persons emotions to gain commitment for a request or proposal.
Consultation The agent asks the target to suggest improvements or help plan aproposed activity or change for which the target persons support is
desired.
Collaboration The agent offers to provide relevant resources or assistance if the targetwill carry out a request or approve a proposed change.
Ingratiation The agent uses praise and flattery when attempting to influence the
target person to carry out a request or support a proposal.
Personal Appeals The agent asks the target to carry out a request or support a proposal outof friendship, or asks for a personal favor before saying what it is.
Exchange The agent offers something the target person wants, or offers to
reciprocate at a later time, if the target will do what the agent requests.
Coalition Tactics The agent enlists the aid of others, or uses the support of others, as away to influence the target to do something.
Legitimating Tactics The agent seeks to establish the legitimacy of a request or to verify that
he/she has the authority to make it.
Pressure The agent uses demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistentreminders to influence the target to do something.
Copyright 2001 by Gary Yukl
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
24/27
24
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Reliability of LMX and the IBQ Scales
Sample 1 (N = 70) Sample 2 (N = 87)
Scale M SD M SD
Consultation 2.97 1.13 0.90 3.21 1.03 0.82
Collaboration 3.03 1.15 0.87 3.43 1.13 0.86
Inspirational Appeal 2.46 1.06 0.87 2.46 1.16 0.89
Rational Persuasion 3.43 1.03 0.84 3.55 1.01 0.84
Apprising 2.55 1.08 0.87 2.56 1.08 0.90
Pressure 1.90 0.97 0.82 1.65 0.72 0.69
Ingratiation 2.46 0.84 0.85 2.70 1.04 0.83
Exchange 1.73 0.78 0.83 1.92 1.05 0.89
Legitimating 2.82 1.19 0.84 2.92 1.06 0.75
Coalition 1.98 1.05 0.85 1.55 0.70 0.76
Personal Appeals 1.70 0.93 0.90 1.57 0.86 0.85
LMX 3.50 1.02 0.88 3.63 0.71 0.85
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
25/27
25
Table 3
Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 1
Influence Tactic Low (N=28) High (N=28) F(1, 53) 2
Consultation 2.33 3.52 20.35** 0.28
(1.04) (0.91)
Collaboration 2.23 3.80 38.85** 0.42(0.89) (0.97)
Inspirational Appeal 1.93 3.01 20.26** 0.28
(1.02) (0.75)
Rational Persuasion 2.81 3.94 21.26** 0.29(0.88) (0.93)
Apprising 2.27 2.76 2.67 0.05
(1.03) (1.18)
Pressure 2.27 1.58 6.97* 0.12(1.15) (0.75)
Ingratiation 2.32 2.71 2.95 0.05
(0.78) (0.91)
Exchange 1.75 1.85 0.18 0.00(0.88) (0.74)
Legitimating 2.77 2.91 0.18 0.00
(1.24) (1.27)
Coalition 2.06 1.96 0.12 0.00(1.09) (1.04)
Personal Appeals 1.59 1.79 0.54 0.01
(1.08) (0.87)
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.*p < .05.
**p < .01.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
26/27
26
Table 4
Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 2
Tactic Low (N=36) High (N=40) F(1, 74) 2
Consultation 2.80 3.63 13.48** 0.15
(0.99) (0.97)
Collaboration 2.79 4.03 32.89** 0.31(0.89) (0.99)
Inspirational Appeal 1.98 2.89 13.29** 0.15
(0.89) (1.23)
Rational Persuasion 3.12 4.03 18.21** 0.20(0.92) (0.93)
Apprising 2.28 2.76 3.88 0.05
(0.95) (1.15)
Pressure 1.71 1.55 1.01 0.01(0.76) (0.66)
Ingratiation 2.44 3.04 6.78* 0.08
(0.96) (1.03)
Exchange 1.68 2.13 3.85 0.05(0.77) (1.16)
Legitimating 2.96 2.93 0.03 0.00
(1.09) (0.97)
Coalition 1.57 1.55 0.02 0.00(0.69) (0.69)
Personal Appeals 1.48 1.68 1.02 0.01
(0.74) (0.98)
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
*p < .05.**p < .01.
-
7/29/2019 Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange
27/27
27
Table 5
Correlations between LMX and Influence Tactics for the Total Sample
Influence Tactics N = 156
Consultation 0.47**
Collaboration 0.62**
Inspirational Appeal 0.44**
Rational Persuasion 0.51**
Apprising 0.25**
Pressure -0.26**
Ingratiation 0.31*
Exchange 0.15
Legitimating 0.00
Coalition -0.08
Personal Appeals 0.13
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
top related