Tacticas de Influencia Lee2016 PDF

LEAQUA-01166; No of Pages 19
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on

influence tactics
Soojin Lee a, Soojung Han b, Minyoung Cheong c, Seckyoung Loretta Kim d, Seokwha Yun e,⁎
a
Chonnam National University, College of Business Administration, 77, Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea
b
Temple University, Fox School of Business, 1801 Liacouras Walk, Alter Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122, United States
c
Binghamton University, State University of New York (SUNY), School of Management and Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, United States
d
Incheon National University, College of Business Administration, 119 Academy-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea
e
Seoul National University, College of Business Administration, Gwanakno 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-916, Republic of Korea
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Despite considerable research investigating the role of influence tactics on work-related out-
Received 27 May 2016 comes in organizations, consensus on the effectiveness of influence tactics has been elusive.
Received in revised form 28 October 2016 Specifically, there is a lack of integration concerning the relationships between proactive influ-
Accepted 3 November 2016
ence tactics and their outcomes. We investigate the effectiveness of 11 influence tactics from a
Available online xxxx
comprehensive perspective using meta-analytic techniques. In particular, the current study fo-
cuses on relationships between each of the 11 influence tactics (i.e., rational persuasion, ex-
Keywords: change, inspirational appeal, legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratiation,
Influence tactics
consultation, personal appeals, and coalition) and task- and relations-oriented outcomes. In ad-
Meta-analysis
dition, we investigate the moderating effects of the direction of influence tactics, measurement
Task- and relations-oriented work outcomes
of influence tactics, singular influence tactic (versus use of a combination of influence tactics),
independence of data sources, and study setting involved in the study. Regardless of task- and
relations-oriented outcomes, based on 49 independent samples (N = 8987), our results show
positive relationships between outcomes and rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, appris-
ing, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, and a negative relationship between pressure
and outcomes. Rational persuasion is the only tactic which held stable positive relationships
with both categories of outcomes regardless of moderating factors. Implications and directions
for future research in the area of influence tactics are discussed.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Introduction
Influence is essential to get one's way (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). The success of an attempt to influence the atti-
tudes and behaviors of others depends to a great extent on specific type(s) of behavior used to exert influence, which is called
influence tactic(s) (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl, 2006; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Seifert, 2002). For the past three decades, a number
of organizational researchers have linked influence tactics to broader range of work-related outcomes, such as performance ap-
praisal, helping behavior, resistance, leader–member exchange (LMX), and commitment (Kolodinsky, Treadway, & Ferris, 2007;
Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006; Tepper, Eisenbach, Kirby, & Potter, 1998). Despite this research, inconsistent findings re-
garding the effectiveness of influence tactics persist. For example, whereas Rao, Schmidt, and Murray (1995) suggested a positive
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: soojinlee@jnu.ac.kr (S. Lee), soojung.han@temple.edu (S. Han), mcheong1@binghamton.edu (M. Cheong), loretta@inu.ac.kr (S.L. Kim),
syun@snu.ac.kr (S. Yun).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.001
1048-9843/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article as: Lee, S., et al., How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics, The Leadership
Quarterly (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.001
2 S. Lee et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
effect of ingratiation on favorable performance appraisal, Thacker and Wayne (1995) suggested ingratiation has a negative effect
on supervisors' assessments of focal employee's promotion. Similarly, Su (2010) found a negative relationship between coalition
and performance appraisal, while Rao et al. (1995) found the opposite result regarding the same phenomenon.
These inconsistent findings have limited the extent to which the literature of influence tactics can be meaningfully integrated
with management practices. Therefore, the present study seeks to shed light on confusion surrounding influence tactics by utiliz-
ing meta-analysis to estimate true effects of various influence tactics on outcomes in the workplace. The prior literature on influ-
ence tactics has identified many different influence behaviors such as blocking and sanction (Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991;
Vecchio & Sussmann, 1991), manipulating, socializing, negotiating, and politicking (Steensma & van Milligen, 2003). However,
in terms of getting systematic state of the field, it is meaningful to investigate the effectiveness of most frequently used influence
tactics in a work setting that are generally examined by many researchers in this field. Thus, this study focused 11 proactive in-
fluence tactics identified by subsequent research of Yukl, Seifert, and Chavez (2008) (i.e., rational persuasion, exchange, inspira-
tional appeal, legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, personal appeals, and coalition). Because
each individual may use different influence tactics in various situations, examining these 11 proactive tactics may contribute to
our comprehensive understanding of interpersonal influence behaviors in organizations.
In addition, the effectiveness of specific influence tactics used by a particular agent can be examined from many different perspec-
tives. In a work setting, individuals choose to use proactive influence behaviors to obtain a desired outcome. For example, they may
use rational persuasion to attain their task-oriented outcomes, such as receiving a favorable performance appraisal, while they may
apply an ingratiation tactic to enhance their relations-oriented outcomes such as creating a favorable impression with their managers.
The early examination of leadership and organizational literature has focused on the use of task-oriented and relations-oriented be-
haviors as measures of individual and organizational effectiveness (Bass, 2008; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954). Specifically, task-oriented be-
haviors focus on the task to be accomplished by others, whereas relations-oriented behaviors pay more attention to the quality of the
relationship with others (Bass, 2008). Although prior research has examined distinct antecedents of task-oriented or relations-orient-
ed outcomes and linked outcomes to individual and organizational effectiveness (Bass, 2008; Sherwood & DePaolo, 2005), little effort
has been directed toward how each influence tactic may influence task-oriented and relations-oriented outcomes. Given the exten-
sive use of various influence tactics in a workplace (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013; Lam, O'Donnell, & Robertson, 2015), the impacts of
each influence tactic on outcomes may vary between task-oriented and relations-oriented outcomes. As such, understanding the ef-
fectiveness of each influence tactic under a parsimonious yet thorough framework of task-oriented and relations-oriented outcomes
is a critical component involved in effective leadership.
Further, because of the complicated nature of interpersonal influence processes at the workplace (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003),
scholars have highlighted the importance of understanding boundary conditions that affect the magnitude of relationships between
each influence tactic and task-oriented and relations-oriented outcomes (e.g., Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Higgins et al., 2003; Yukl & Tracey,
1992). In particular, in their meta-analytic review on influence tactics, Higgins et al. (2003) provide potential moderators that remain
to be clarified and urge scholars to examine the moderating effects further. Specifically, the authors suggest the direction of the influ-
ence tactic (i.e., downward, lateral, and upward) is likely to affect its effectiveness since supervisors and subordinates are in a different
position to recognize and understand original intention of specific influence tactic use. Also, Higgins and colleagues note that although
there are some representative instruments used to measure influence tactics (i.e., POIS and IBQ), little is known about whether the
magnitude of effectiveness varies depending on instruments employed. Lastly, Higgins and colleagues argue that prior studies show-
ing certain combinations of tactics are useful to obtaining desirable outcomes (Falbe & Yukl, 1992), indicating future research in this
field needs further examination on the effectiveness of use of combined influence tactics over a singular influence tactic.
Therefore, the present study investigates above three suggestions as moderators to answer the call from Higgins et al. (2003).
In addition, going beyond Higgins et al.' (2003) recommendations, we further consider two additional moderators. First, we inves-
tigate the moderating effect of data sources (i.e., same source vs. different sources), as single-source bias may inflate the true cor-
relations between influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).
Second, the effectiveness of particular forms of influence could vary across different contexts (Ferris & Judge, 1991). As such,
we examine the moderating effect of the study setting of the prior research (i.e., public and private organization) as well.
In sum, the purpose of this study is to summarize quantitatively and evaluate the relationships between each of the 11 pro-
active influence tactics and its effectiveness with task- and relations-oriented outcomes, using meta-analytic techniques. Notably,
our study contributes to the area of influence tactics in three ways. First, our study updates a prior meta-analysis of the influence
tactics by including studies conducted from the year of 2001 to 2015, as the year of 2000 was the cutoff year for including the
articles in meta-analysis of Higgins et al. (2003). By doing so, the results of our meta-analysis could expand the literature of in-
fluence tactics and accumulate the effectiveness of influence tactics on their outcomes over the prior work. Moreover, in the cur-
rent study, we also include and provide the results of meta-analysis of the effects of a wider range of influence tactics (i.e.,
inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, apprising, personal appeals, legitimating, pressure, and coalition tactics) on their out-
comes which were not considered in the work of Higgins et al. (2003).
Second, we classify the outcomes of influence tactics into task- and relations-oriented categories and examine their relation-
ships, providing a more general, yet novel, comparison of the effects of influence tactics on targeted outcomes. Examination of
the effectiveness of each influence tactic under this parsimonious outcome category is meaningful given the importance of the
categories of task- and relations-oriented behaviors/outcomes in both the literature on leadership and organizational behavior
as well as real work setting.
Third, we expand on prior meta-analysis of influence tactics by examining various moderators (i.e., the direction of influence tac-
tics, measurement of influence tactics, singular influence tactic use, independence of data sources, and study setting involved in the
S. Lee et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3
study) which can possibly affect and alter the effectiveness of influence tactics on their outcomes, demonstrating a complex picture of
influence tactics. Overall, the current meta-analysis takes additional steps toward an integrative theory of influence tactics and fills a
gap in the literature by estimating both the strength and consistency of various influence tactics–work outcomes relationships. These
integrative findings will be important and essential for further theory development in the literature of influence tactics.
Hypothesis development
Direct effects: influence tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes
Influence tactics. Over sixty years ago, Goffman (1955) introduced to the behavioral sciences the notion that individuals make an
effort to manage the image they wish to convey to others. Although this perspective was not a new idea at that time, it had a
significant impact on theoretical development and evolution within interpersonal behavior science, especially with regard to re-
search on influence tactics. Accordingly, many researchers have investigated the influence process using the specific types of pro-
active behaviors termed “influence tactics” (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 2008).
Related to influence tactics, researchers have investigated the effects of impression management tactics and political tactics in
the workplace (e.g., Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006; Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002). With regard to impression man-
agement tactics, some scholars categorized tactics as job-focused, self-focused, and supervisor-focused tactics of impression man-
agement (Bolino et al., 2006). For example, supervisor-focused tactics are ingratiatory behaviors, whereas self-focused tactics
include exemplification behaviors, while job-focused tactics involve self-promotive behaviors. Moreover, other scholars classified
impression management tactics as assertive and defensive impression management tactics (Ellis et al., 2002). Assertive impression
management tactics include the behaviors of self-promotion tactics and ingratiation tactics; while excuses, justifications, and apol-
ogies are classified as defensive impression management tactics.
With regard to political tactics, Zanzi and O'Neill (2001) classified these political tactics as sanctioned and non-sanctioned.
Sanctioned political tactics are a legitimate type of behavior involve persuasion, use of expertise, superordinate goals, image build-
ing, whereas non-sanctioned political tactics are an illegitimate type of behavior including manipulation, control of information,
blaming or attacking others, and using surrogates. Although influence tactics differ from impression management and political
tactics, there exist similarities between them such as ingratiatory behavior, persuasion, and image building behaviors.
Based on these varied views of influence, impression management, and political tactics, Yukl and his colleagues identified 11
proactive tactics and suggested that each influence tactic can be used for more than one purpose and can be different in its effec-
tiveness (Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl et al., 2008). Regarding differential effectiveness, because the nature of characteristics and ob-
jectives within task- and relations-oriented work outcomes may differ (Bass, 2008), examination of the effectiveness of each
influence tactic across differential outcome categories may help account for inconsistent and contradictory findings in prior re-
search. Therefore, in this research, we examine the effect of each of the 11 influence tactics thorough a framework of task- and
relations-oriented work outcomes using meta-analytic techniques.
Rational persuasion tactic. Rational persuasion involves using logical arguments and explanations to persuade others that a request
or proposal will result in the attainment of important task objectives. Previous researchers labeled these influence attempts as
“reason” or “rationality” (Kipnis et al., 1980; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990), while Yukl and Falbe (1990) called this influence be-
havior “rational persuasion.” This flexible tactic is most frequently examined (Gattiker & Carter, 2010) and can be widely used for
influence attempts in any direction (Yukl, 2006). Moreover, it requires the least amount of psychological demand to engage in as
compared with other tactics (Epitropaki & Martin, 2013).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, many researchers suggested the rational persuasion tactic is the most effective tactic for
engaging target commitment to carry out a request (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). In par-
ticular, rational persuasion is most likely to be effective both when the target perceives the agent to be a trustworthy and credible
source of information and when they share a common task objective (Yukl, 2006). Clarke and Ward (2006) suggested that ratio-
nal persuasion was effective in encouraging employee safety participation in a U.K.-based manufacturing organization. In addition,
according to Yukl and Tracey (1992), managers' use of the rational persuasion was significantly and positively related to their
managerial effectiveness.
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, Su (2010) suggested that the supervisor's beliefs concerning rationality by the subor-
dinate are related positively to subordinate trust. In addition, Kolodinsky et al. (2007) found that rationality has the positive ef-
fects on important supervisor perceptions and evaluation. Specifically, in their study, results indicated that there are the
positive relationships between the use of rationality and two supervisory perceptions, notably supervisor liking of subordinates
and perceived similarity to subordinates. That is, subordinates who regularly use rationality tactic in their influence attempts
are likely to be better liked by, and perceived as more similar to, their supervisors. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1. Rational persuasion is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Exchange tactic. Exchange is characterized by the offer of explicit or implicit rewards or benefits for performing a favor or comply-
ing with the agent's request. Scholars have noted that individuals tend to use exchange tactics in a downward or lateral direction
rather than upward direction (Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993). Moreover, because an agent needs to provide benefits to a target,
exchange tactics are not often selected for an initial influence attempt (Yukl et al., 1993). If a target perceives that an agent is able
and willing to fulfill the promise of future favors or benefits, the exchange tactic is likely to be effective, which results in engaging
target commitment to a request or proposal (Yukl, 2006). An agent is most likely to adopt exchange when a target is unwilling to
do what the agent desires without an additional benefit or inducement (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, a few researchers suggested positive effectiveness of exchange tactic in enrolling targets for
important tasks where their intrinsic motivation is required (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Sparrowe et al., 2006). For example, Sparrowe
et al. (2006) demonstrated that leaders' exchange tactics are positively related to members' helping behaviors for members who
perceived high-LMX relationships. When exchange is successful, it produces an obligation to reciprocate on the part of the agent
in return for the target's discretionary compliance or favor (Sparrowe et al., 2006).
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, Thacker (1999) found the mediating role of supervisor's perceptions of trust in a sub-
ordinate in the relationship between exchange and performance ratings. The results indicated that the significance of exchange
tactics' total effect on performance ratings is mediated by supervisors' trust in their subordinates. In addition, Falbe and Yukl
(1992) suggested that exchange was a moderately effective tactic, as were ingratiation and personal appeals. Therefore, we pre-
dict the following:
Hypothesis 2. Exchange is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Inspirational appeal tactic. Inspirational appeal is the practice of arousing a target's enthusiasm by appealing to values and ideals or
by enhancing the target's confidence to gain commitment for a request or proposal. To be an effective appeal, the agent must have
insights into the target's values, aspirations, and ideals. Thus, the use of inspirational appeal is likely to be effective when an agent
and a target share values and goals, or when the target believes the agent affirms his/her goals and aspirations (Sparrowe et al.,
2006).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, previous research suggested the inspirational appeal tactic was associated with a favorable
target response to an agent's request (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Sparrowe et al., 2006). For example, Jensen
(2007) suggested this tactic was not only used frequently in structured decision settings, it also was highly effective in changing
decision outcomes in group decision-making settings. In addition, Clarke and Ward (2006) noted that managers' use of inspira-
tional appeal can encourage employees to increase their safety participation.
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, Yukl and Falbe (1990) found that inspirational appeal was effective and frequently
used at gaining cooperation from others. Also, Sparrowe et al. (2006) suggested that leaders' use of inspirational appeal is asso-
ciated with favorable member response because members are likely to interpret the use of inspirational appeal as a confirmation
of their relationship with the leader and relative standing within the group. Thus, it would be expected that leaders' inspirational
appeal can make high-quality leader-member relationships. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 3. Inspirational appeal is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Apprising tactic. Apprising is the practice of explaining how fulfilling a request or supporting a proposal will produce personal ben-
efit or help to progress the target's career. The apprising tactic was added to Yukl's proactive influence tactics with collaboration
through subsequent use of the IBQ in a feedback workshop (Yukl & Seifert, 2002). Like rational persuasion, this tactic often in-
volves the use of logical arguments and factual evidence. Thus, in the broad meta-categories of influence tactics (e.g., hard, soft,
and rational tactics), the apprising tactic is often classified as a “rational” tactic with rational persuasion (Enns & McFarlin,
2005). However, there is an important difference between apprising and rational persuasion in respect of their mediating process-
es. Apprising generally underlines tangible benefits to the target, which entails extrinsic motivation, while rational persuasion un-
derlines successful fulfillment of a significant task, which generally entails intrinsic motivation (Yukl, Chavez, & Seifert, 2005).
Outcomes related to apprising in the context of organizations have not been systematically evaluated in previous research. How-
ever, if a target has confidence in an agent's information about provided benefits and career issues, the apprising tactic is likely to
be effective, which results in both engaging target commitment to a request or proposal and increasing the target's positive affect
toward the agent (Yukl, 2006). Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 4. Apprising is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Collaboration tactic. Collaboration is characterized by the offer to provide necessary resources and assistance if the target will ap-
prove a proposal or carry out a request. This tactic includes various types of behaviors, such as offering to show the target how to
perform a requested task and offering to assist the target to solve a problem related to the requests. As mentioned, the collabo-
ration tactic was added to Yukl's proactive influence tactics with apprising through Yukl and Seifert's research (2002). Similar to
an exchange tactic, this tactic involves an offer to provide something for the target person when he/she agrees to carry out an
agent's requests (Yukl, 2006). However, collaboration offers something directly related to helping the target accomplish the re-
quested task while exchange usually offers a benefit that is unrelated to an agent's request (Yukl et al., 2005).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, although there are few prior studies on the consequences of using collaboration, we can
expect that a collaboration tactic is likely to lead to a target's commitment. Because collaboration involves an agent's efforts to
help carry out a task, the use of collaboration may lead to a target's positive affect toward an agent, which makes it easier for
an agent to obtain a positive reaction to the requested task (Yukl et al., 2005). Thus, collaboration is likely to be effective in en-
gaging the target person's commitment to a request.
In the same vein, regarding relations-oriented outcomes, the use of collaboration can develop high-quality interpersonal rela-
tionships between a target and an agent because the agent's use of collaboration tactics is likely to be perceived by the target as
supportive and favorable behaviors (Yukl et al., 2005). Thus, collaboration tactic can increase the target's positive affect toward
the agent. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 5. Collaboration is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Ingratiation tactic. Ingratiation is the practice of making a target feel better about an agent before or during an influence attempt,
often taking the form of flattery and praise. An agent seeks to increase a target person's cooperation by obtaining a target's good
mood or positive affect toward the agent (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Yukl (2006) asserts that ingratiation is more effective for a long-
term strategy to build cooperative relations than as an immediate influence attempt. In general, ingratiation is considered to be a
socially powerful and appropriate tactic across many situations and frequently is used as the initial tactic in beginning interper-
sonal interactions (Su, 2010).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, previous studies confirmed that the ingratiation tactic was associated with positive work
outcomes, including task commitment (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). For example, Furst and Cable (2008) suggested that the use of in-
gratiation tactics was related to lower employee resistance to organizational change for those with high LMX. In addition, ingra-
tiation was often positively associated with performance appraisals ratings (Higgins et al., 2003; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne &
Liden, 1995), salary increases, and promotions (Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, prior research has generally shown that the use of ingratiation can have a positive ef-
fect on the feeling of friendliness and liking the recipient experiences toward the ingratiatory (Bolino, Klotz, & Daniels, 2014;
Epitropaki & Martin, 2013; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995). For example, meta-analytic results of Higgins et al.
(2003) suggested that ingratiation is positively associated with interpersonal attractions. In addition, Bolino et al. (2014) found
that the use of ingratiation positively influences supervisor evaluations of subordinate likability. Therefore, we predict the
following:
Hypothesis 6. Ingratiation is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Consultation tactic. Consultation can be described as seeking the target's participation in planning an activity or change for which
the target's support and assistance is desired. Asking the target for input and ideas on the proposed request may encourage him/
her to take responsibility for the request or proposal (Clarke & Ward, 2006). This tactic may develop the target's favorable attitude
and commitment in the change process because the target person feels a greater sense of control and ownership for his/her work
as a result of engaging in planning it (Furst & Cable, 2008). Indeed, leadership research suggested that the use of consultation in-
creases subordinates' acceptance of a decision in specific situations (Vroom & Jago, 1988).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, several previous researchers suggested the consultation tactic typically was related to pos-
itive outcomes, including the high level of commitment and perception of the agent's effectiveness (Higgins et al., 2003; Yukl &
Tracey, 1992). For example, Clarke and Ward (2006) demonstrated that consultation would be positively related to safety partic-
ipation for employees. In addition, Furst and Cable (2008) found that controlling for company effects and demographic differ-
ences, the use of consultation tactics is associated with less resistance to organizational change.
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, consultation can be quite effective in developing high-quality relationships between an
agent and a target because this tactic can give the target a greater sense of control over his/her work, which leads to develop
more favorable attitude toward the agent. For example, Clarke and Ward (2006) suggested that managers' use of consultation tac-
tic increase employees' perceptions of the extent to which they are trusted by managers, which in turn yields positive responses
and outcomes. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 7. Consultation is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Personal appeals tactic. Personal appeals are the practice of appealing to the target by promoting a feeling of friendship or loyalty
toward an agent before asking a target to fulfill a request or support a proposal. In particular, this tactic is most likely to be in-
volved when an agent's request is not part of a target's regular job responsibilities. Thus, the stronger a target's friendship or loy-
alty for an agent is, the more an agent can ask of a target.
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, even though there is little prior research on the consequences of using personal appeals,
we expect this tactic is likely to result in the target's commitment. Yukl and Tracey (1992) suggested that personal appeals cor-
related significantly with task commitment for subordinates and peers. In addition, according to Falbe and Yukl (1992), personal
appeals are moderately effective tactics, as are ingratiation and exchange.
In the same vein, regarding relations-oriented outcomes, personal appeal tactics may yield positive relationships between an
agent and a target because personal appeals involve the target person's feelings of loyalty and friendship toward the agent in in-
fluence attempts. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 8. Personal appeal is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Legitimating tactic. Legitimating involves seeking to establish the appropriateness of a request or to verify the authority to make a
request. With this tactic, agents warrant their requests or proposal by appeal to official policies or to their hierarchical positions.
Because a legitimating tactic mainly depends on an agent's authority and organizational rules and policies, there is little reason to
expect this tactic is likely to result in intrinsically motivated commitment to his/her requests, and it may even arouse resistance
when used in a haughty manner (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, prior research suggests that the legitimating tactic is ineffective, having no effect on task
commitment or perceptions of the agent's effectiveness (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Furst & Cable, 2008; Higgins et al., 2003). For exam-
ple, Furst and Cable (2008) found that for employees with low LMX, legitimization tactics relate positively to resistance to orga-
nizational change, even though legitimization tactics are unrelated to resistance for employees with high LMX. In addition, both in
the critical incident study by Schilit and Locke (1982) and in the questionnaire study by Mowday (1978), use of legitimating was
not significantly related to influence success.
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, legitimating tactics can seldom result in favorable relationships between an agent and
a target. For example, Furst and Cable (2008) suggested that employees in poor LMX relationships are likely to view managers'
use of legitimation tactics as calculative and impersonal approach, which in turn could undermine perceptions of trust. Also,
Falbe and Yukl (1992) indicated legitimating was the least effective tactic, along with coalition and pressure. Therefore, we predict
the following:
Hypothesis 9. Legitimating is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Coalition tactic. Coalition involves seeking help from others (e.g., peers, subordinates, superiors, or outsiders) to influence a target
to do something. Yukl (2006) asserts that use of the coalition tactic is likely to be ineffective for persuading others to fulfill an
assignment or enhance performance, in particular if the target viewed this tactic as an attempt to gang up on him/her.
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, prior research suggests that this coalition tactic is not useful for eliciting the target's com-
mitment (Tepper et al., 1998; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). For example, Clarke and Ward (2006) suggested that coalition tactics have a
negative impact on engaging employee safety participation. In addition, Falbe and Yukl (1992) indicate that coalition seldom
brings about a target's commitment, even when combined with other tactics. Moreover, use of the coalition tactic is not signifi-
cantly associated with outcome success in the incident study by Schilit and Locke (1982).
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, coalition tactics are generally ineffective in developing good relationships between an
agent and a target because this hard or forcing influence tactic can signal a loss of standing within a target person's group. For
example, Tepper et al. (1998) found that managers' use of hard influence tactics, such as coalition, constituted unfair treatment,
which, in turn, brings about greater resistance from subordinates. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 10. Coalition is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented work outcomes.
Pressure tactic. Pressure involves the use of demand, threats, continual checking, and repeated reminders to influence a target to
carry out a request. In general, a pressure tactic may cue a target that an agent expects compliance with his/her requests regard-
less of a target's intrinsic motivation (Sparrowe et al., 2006).
Regarding task-oriented outcomes, prior research suggests this tactic is ineffective in engaging target commitment, and may
have serious side effects (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Moreover, Sparrowe et al. (2006) indicate pressure tactics
are linked to abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) or tyrannical leadership (Bies & Tripp, 1998), which relates to a negative effect
on employee attitude and behavior. In a study by Schilit and Locke (1982), both the agent and target report pressure tactics are
likely to be unsuccessful. In addition, according to Falbe and Yukl (1992), as with legitimating and coalition, pressure is the least
effective tactic. As a result, we expect this tactic is likely to be counterproductive in involving a target's voluntary commitment
and motivation.
Regarding relations-oriented outcomes, a pressure tactic can seldom make favorable relationships between an agent and a tar-
get because this tactic is mainly based on threats or persistent demanding in an attempt to influence a target. For example, Tepper
et al. (1998) suggested that managers' use of pressure tactic can arouse concerns about the degree to which managers can be
trusted to support the subordinate's benefits, which results in the perception of interactional injustice. Therefore, we predict
the following:
Hypothesis 11. Pressure is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Moderating effects
Because of the calling from previous meta-analytic review on influence tactics and the complex nature of interpersonal influ-
ence processes (Higgins et al., 2003), we comprehensively investigate the moderating effects of the direction of influence tactics,
the measurement of influence tactics, singular influence tactic (versus use of a combination of influence tactics), the independence
of data sources, and the study setting in the relationship between each influence tactic and task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
We pose five research questions regarding whether the magnitude of the relationships between influence tactics and task- and
relations-oriented outcomes varied depending on each of these factors.
Direction of influence tactics

Influence tactics in the workplace may be distinguished according to the direction of the influence behaviors (i.e., upward, lat-
eral, and downward) (Erez, Rim, & Keider, 1986; Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Prior research as-
serts the directions of influence tactics are likely to affect the strength of the relationships between influence tactics and work
outcomes. For example, Yukl and Tracey (1992) suggest ingratiation and exchange are moderately more effective in a lateral
and downward direction than in an upward direction. In contrast, rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, and consultation
are the most effective tactics in all three directions (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). As such, there is a high probability the direction of
the influence tactics may intervene on impact the effect of influence tactics on outcomes. Therefore, in an exploratory manner,
this study investigates whether differences in downward, lateral, and upward influence attempts influence the magnitude of
the relationships between influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Research Question 1: Will the direction of influence tactics (i.e., downward, lateral, and upward) moderate the relationships between
influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes?
Measurement of influence tactics

In the current study we examine the effectiveness of 11 proactive tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes using the
IBQ (Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl et al., 2008) as well as the POIS (Kipnis et al., 1980; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Specifically, we
comprehensively investigate the effectiveness of 11 proactive influence tactics using the extended Influence Behavior Question-
naire (IBQ) (Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl et al., 2008) as well as part of the Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS)
(Kipnis et al., 1980; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990) by cumulating the results across studies.
There are discrete differences between the two measures. Specifically, the POIS has been developed as an agent self-report
questionnaire and as a measure of influence behavior directed at superiors in many studies, not directed toward subordinates
or peers (Deluga, 1991; Schmidt & Kipnis, 1984; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Wayne et al., 1997). In general, self-reports of a person's
behaviors are not as accurate as reports of behaviors by others (e.g., supervisor, peers, or subordinates), as it tends to be inflated
and is vulnerable to leniency and social desirability biases (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Compared
with the POIS, the IBQ was developed as a target questionnaire and was used to measure influence tactics directed at supervisors
as well as subordinates or peers. In addition, the extended IBQ not only included influence tactics that are comparable with those
in the POIS, but also added new items such as consultation, legitimating, apprising, and collaboration.
Researchers have adopted each measure of influence tactics (i.e., POIS and IBQ) depending on various conditions such as re-
search purposes, targeted influence tactics of interest, and a designated agent (e.g., a supervisor, a peer, or a subordinate). For ex-
ample, Thacker and Wayne (1995) investigated the relationships between subordinates' influence tactics and supervisors'
perceptions of promotability using the POIS. In contrast, Sparrowe et al. (2006) examined the relationships between leaders'
downward influence tactics and members' helping behaviors using the IBQ. As such, we expect that the measurement instrument
could potentially affect the relationships between influence tactics and work outcomes.
Thus, we investigate whether the magnitude of the relationships between influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented
outcomes vary depending on what measurement instrument used in a study.
Research Question 2: Will the measurement instrument (i.e., POIS and IBQ) moderate the relationships between influence tactics and
task- and relations-oriented outcomes?
Use of a singular influence tactic (versus a combination of influence tactics)

Influence tactics can be used in the form of a single tactic or different combinations of tactics in the workplace. Kipnis and
Schmidt (1985) first suggested that influence tactics could be classified into three basic strategies–hard, soft, and rational–and
many researchers have adopted these meta-categories to examine the relative effectiveness of different tactics combinations
(Berson & Sosik, 2007; Case, Dosier, Murkison, & Keys, 1988; Clarke & Ward, 2006; Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997;
Tepper et al., 1998; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). Although there may be a slight difference in the degree to which each meta-cate-
gory includes individual influence tactics, it is generally suggested that soft and rational influence tactics are effective in engaging
a target's commitment to a request (Yukl et al., 1996) while hard influence tactics tend to be ineffective (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
Prior research suggests use of a singular influence tactic versus a combination of influence tactics impacts the effectiveness of in-
fluence tactics. For example, Case et al. (1988) demonstrates more successful long-term outcomes occur for a combination of in-
fluence tactics rather than for only a single influence tactic. In addition, Falbe and Yukl (1992) suggest a combination of influence
tactics is usually more successful than a single tactic, but the effectiveness of different combination of tactics mainly depends on
the potency of its component tactics. For example, a combination of different two hard tactics is likely to be no better than a sin-
gle hard tactic, and a hard-soft combination is likely to be no better than a single soft tactic. Therefore, we examine whether the
use of a singular tactic versus a combination of influence tactics impacts the magnitude of the relationships between influence
tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Research Question 3: Will the use of a singular tactic (versus a combination of tactics) moderate the relationships between influence
tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes?
Independence of data sources

We investigate whether the strength of relationships between influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes
varies depending on the independence of data sources (i.e., same source vs. different sources). It is expected that the relationships
between influence tactics employed and a criteria is stronger when the tactics and criterion variables are measured and rated
from the same source, rather than different sources due to common source bias (Clarke & Ward, 2006; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
For example, Yukl and Tracey (1992) examine the effects of a manager's use of nine different influence tactics on target task com-
mitment and the manager's effectiveness. In their study the effects were stronger for most tactics when the criterion was target
task commitment rather than a rating of managerial effectiveness. As to the stronger effect on target task commitment, they assert
there is a high probability that a common method and source may intervene and strengthen the effect of the influence tactics. In
addition, Clarke and Ward (2006) suggest observed results may be somewhat inflated by the use of the same respondent to pro-
vide the information about safety climate, leader influence tactics, and safety participation. Thus, it is plausible that the indepen-
dence of data sources influences the magnitude of the primary correlation between influence tactics and work outcomes.
Therefore, we investigate whether the effectiveness of influence tactics is affected by the independence of data sources used in
the study.
Research Question 4: Will the independence of data sources (i.e., same source and difference source) moderate the relationships be-
tween influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented outcomes?
Study setting
The study setting of the primary studies also may influence the magnitude of the relationships between influence tactics and
task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Prior meta-analytic studies suggest study setting can be divided into two categories: pri-
vate and public (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Specifically, private indicates the study was conducted in for-profit or-
ganizations (e.g., business companies), whereas public indicates the study was conducted in not-for-profit organizations (e.g.,
government agencies, colleges, and military).
Previous research suggests validities of interest in each study could vary depending on the selected research setting (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Kolodinsky et al., 2007; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Wang et al., 2011). For example, Thacker and Wayne (1995) find
reasoning is significant and positive in its effect upon supervisors' assessments of subordinates' promotability. However, they as-
sert some of this effect could be artifactual because of the nature of the selected study setting (i.e., university), as policies and
programs within a public sector may be restricted and scrutinized by a state-enforced budget policy or action program.
The identification of study setting as a potential moderator is not limited to influence tactics research. In a meta-analytic test of
the relative validity between transformational and transactional leadership, Judge and Piccolo (2004) suggest across four study
settings (i.e., business, college, military, and public sector), contingent reward preferred best in business settings related to con-
tingent reward leadership being resource dependent. Thus, business leaders can better reward followers in exchange for their ef-
forts in these environments. Accordingly, we expect study settings (i.e., public and private) could potentially affect the
relationship between influence tactics and work outcomes. Therefore, we investigate whether the effectiveness of influence tactics
varied depending on the study settings.
Research Question 5: Will the study setting (i.e., public and private) moderate the relationships between influence tactics and task-
and relations-oriented outcomes?
Methods
Literature search
An extensive literature search was conducted for both published studies and unpublished studies, including doctoral disserta-
tions that examined the relationship between each influence tactic and its effectiveness. For the electronic search we searched
electronic databases such as EBSCO, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ABI/Inform, Dissertation Abstracts, and Google Scholar using the
keywords influence tactics, influence behaviors, influence strategies, and each of the 11 specific influence tactics (i.e., rational persua-
sion, exchange, inspirational appeal, legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, personal appeals, and co-
alition). In addition, we searched reference lists of prior meta-analyses on this theme and key articles in the Academy of
Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, and the Leadership Quarterly by manual searches. The searches by both
electronic and manual means resulted in the identification of 127 published studies and 74 unpublished doctoral dissertations.
Inclusion criteria
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met four criteria. First, studies had to investigate at least one of the 11 in-
fluence tactics defined by Yukl and Seifert (2002) (i.e., rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal, legitimating, apprising,
pressure, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, personal appeals, and coalition). Second, an investigation had to be an empirical
study analyzed at the individual level. Third, a study had to report at least one correlation coefficient between influence tactics
and task- or relations-oriented outcomes. Lastly, each study had to report the sample size to calculate the sample-size-weighted
effect size.
For studies that had constructs similar to Yukl and Seifert's 11 influence tactics but used different names (e.g., reasoning in-
stead of rational persuasion), three coauthors independently evaluated each study and made a final decision for the inclusion.
To determine the category of inclusion for analysis, each coauthor carefully reviewed the definitions, descriptions, and measure-
ment of the tactics in each study. No discrepancy was found between the decisions of the independent coauthors. As a result, 39
studies from 49 independent samples (N = 8987) met inclusion criteria and thus were included in the meta-analysis. Among the
39 studies, 7 studies were unpublished doctoral dissertations.
Coding of information
For the overall analysis, two coauthors independently coded 14 criteria: (1) the tactics employed; (2) the country of study; (3)
the sample type (e.g., MBA student, or employee); (4) the year of study; (5) tactic directions (e.g., upward, downward, and lat-
eral); (6) the organization type of sample (e.g., public or private); (7) whether the influence tactics and outcomes were obtained
from the same or different sources; (8) measures of the influence tactics (e.g., POIS or IBQ); (9) use of a singular tactic (versus a
combination of tactics); (10) tactic effectiveness; (11) sample size; (12) tactic reliabilities; (13) tactic effectiveness reliabilities;
and (14) correlations. The same two coauthors separately coded each of the 11 influence tactics as independent variables (Yukl
& Seifert, 2002) and classified the dependent variables (i.e., tactic effectiveness) into the two categories: task- and relations-ori-
ented outcomes. While task performance, performance evaluation, promotion, and other variables reflecting task effectiveness
were categorized as task-oriented outcomes, LMX, target commitment, level of trust, and other variables mirroring relationship
effectiveness were defined as relations-oriented outcomes (Bass, 2008; Sherwood & DePaolo, 2005). The average intercoder per-
centage of agreement across study variables was 97%. For all discrepancies, raters discussed each issue for the final coding until
agreement was reached. Finally, we analyzed 157 correlations between influence tactics and task-oriented outcomes from 41 in-
dependent samples (N = 7438), and 131 correlations between influence tactics and relations-oriented outcomes from 28 inde-
pendent samples (N = 5058). Among 49 samples analyzed, 20 samples had correlations for both task- and relations-oriented
outcomes.
Meta-analytic techniques
To estimate the weighted mean correlation, we used the Schmidt-Hunter random-effects meta-analysis method (Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2009). This method allows correction for observed correlations for measurement error
and sampling error. We performed reliability corrections using Cronbach's alpha coefficients for both independent (i.e., influence
tactics) and dependent variables (task- and relation- oriented outcomes). For studies that did not provide information on reliabil-
ities, we used mean reliabilities from other identified studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). To confirm effect sizes included in this
meta-analysis were statistically independent, for samples that provided multiple estimates of the correlation (i.e., multiple depen-
dent variables) we computed a composite correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). When the correlations between dependent var-
iables were not reported in the primary study, we used the average of estimates (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Also, we calculated
80% credibility intervals and constructed a 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around each estimated mean correlation to describe the
variability in effect-size estimates. We conducted a meta-analysis only when the number of primary studies reporting the hypoth-
esized relationship was at least three (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). The statistical significance of estimated effects was judged
using a 95% confidence intervals.
To test moderating effects we grouped studies into sub-categories and computed a weighted average reliability-corrected cor-
relation for each moderator subset. Hunter and Schmidt (2004) assert this subgroup analysis has higher statistical power to detect
the presence of moderator effect compared with other methods (p. 423–424). Finally, we identified moderation based on the sig-
nificance of the difference between the two effect sizes and their confidence intervals.
Results
Test of main effects of influence tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes
Hypothesis 1 suggests rational persuasion is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes. As shown in Tables 1
and 2, rational persuasion had positive effects on both task-oriented (ρ = 0.35) and relations-oriented outcomes (ρ = 0.23),
thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 suggests exchange is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.
Although the correlation between exchange and task-oriented outcomes was positive (ρ = 0.13, CI: −0.01, 0.28), the 95% CI in-
cluded zero. Similarly, the 95% CI for the relationship between exchange and relations-oriented outcome also included zero (ρ =
0.06, CI: −0.05, 0.16). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Hypothesis 3 proposes a positive association between inspira-
tional appeal and task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Inspirational appeal was positively related to both task-oriented (ρ =
0.35) and relations-oriented outcomes (ρ = 0.53) and the 95% CI for both relations did not include zero, thereby supporting
Hypothesis 4.
Table 1
Meta-analysis results for main effects of influence tactics on task-oriented outcomes.
Variable k N r SDr b
ρ SDρ 80% CV 95% CI
1. Rational persuasion 23 4354 0.27 0.17 0.35 0.19 [0.11, 0.59] [0.26, 0.43]
2. Exchange 13 2873 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.26 [−0.20, 0.46] [−0.01, 0.28]
3. Inspirational appeal 17 3124 0.30 0.24 0.35 0.27 [0.01, 0.70] [0.22, 0.49]
4. Apprising 3 510 0.31 11 0.34 0.08 [0.24, 0.44] [0.22, 0.46]
5. Collaboration 4 648 0.36 0.13 0.40 0.11 [0.27, 0.54] [0.28, 0.53]
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
7. Consultation 15 3027 0.34 0.16 0.40 0.19 [0.16, 0.63] [0.30, 0.50]
8. Personal appeals 9 2067 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.14 [−0.08, 0.27] [0.00, 0.20]
9. Legitimating 11 2410 −0.09 0.13 −0.11 0.14 [−0.29, 0.07] [−0.20, −0.01]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
11. Pressure 13 2723 −0.15 0.11 −0.19 0.10 [−0.31, −0.06] [−0.25, −0.12]
Note. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r = sample-size weighted mean observed validity; SDr = standard deviation of the observed va-
b = estimated mean operational (true) validity; SDρ = estimated standard deviation of the operational validities; 80% CV = lower and upper bounds of
lidity; ρ
the 80% credibility interval for the validity distribution; 95% CI = lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean operational
validity.
Hypothesis 4 suggests apprising is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes. As shown in Tables 1 and 2,
there were positive relationships between apprising and task-oriented (ρ = 0.34) and relations-oriented outcomes (ρ = 0.40).
Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. However, caution in interpretation should be noted because of the limited number of studies;
k = 3 for task-oriented outcomes and k = 6 for relations-oriented outcomes. Hypothesis 5 suggests a positive relationship be-
tween collaboration and task- and relations-oriented outcomes. The results show a substantial positive relationship between col-
laboration and both task-oriented (ρ = 0.40) and relations-oriented (ρ = 0.61) outcomes, supporting Hypothesis 6.
Hypothesis 6 proposes a positive association of ingratiation with task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Results indicated ingratiation
was positively related to both task-oriented (ρ = 0.19) and relations-oriented (ρ = 0.27) outcomes, supporting Hypothesis 6. Similarly,
consultation had positive relationships with task-oriented (ρ = 0.40) and relations-oriented (ρ = 0.54) outcomes. Thus, Hypothesis 7
was supported. Hypothesis 8 suggests personal appeal is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Although correla-
tions between personal appeals and task-oriented (ρ = 0.10) and relations-oriented outcomes (ρ = 0.04) were slightly positive, the
95% CI for both relationships included zero. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 was not supported.
Hypothesis 9 states legitimating is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Results indicated the negative
relationship between legitimating and task-oriented outcomes (ρ = −0.11), but the 95% CI for this relationship included zero.
The relationship between legitimating and relations-oriented outcomes was not significant because the 95% CI for this relationship
included zero (ρ = 0.08; CI = −0.09, 0.25). Thus, Hypothesis 9 was not supported. Hypothesis 10 suggests a negative relation-
ship between coalition and task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Coalition did not have significant negative relationships with
either task-oriented (ρ = − 0.05; CI = − 0.12, 0.01) or relations-oriented (ρ = − 0.08; CI = − 0.19, 0.03) outcomes. Thus,
Hypothesis 10 was not supported. Lastly, as we expected in Hypothesis 11, pressure had negative effects both on task-oriented
(ρ = −0.19) and relations-oriented (ρ = −0.34) outcomes. Therefore, Hypothesis 11 was supported.
Tests of moderators
Table 3 indicates whether direction of influence tactics moderated the relationship between influence tactics and task-oriented
outcomes. Due to insufficient sample size for subgroups, we could test only five tactics: rational persuasion, exchange,
Table 2
Meta-analysis results for main effects of influence tactics on relations-oriented outcomes.
2. Exchange 14 2746 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.19 [−0.18, 0.30] [−0.05,0.16]
4. Apprising 6 1254 0.36 0.08 0.40 0.02 [0.38, 0.42] [0.35, 0.45]
5. Collaboration 6 1254 0.54 0.05 0.61 0.02 [0.59, 0.64] [0.57, 0.65]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
7. Consultation 11 2097 0.48 0.13 0.54 0.14 [0.36, 0.73] [0.45, 0.63]
8. Personal appeals 8 1552 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.09 [−0.07, 0.15] [−0.04, 0.11]
9. Legitimating 10 1895 0.07 0.24 0.08 0.27 [−0.26, 0.42] [−0.09, 0.25]
10. Coalition 15 2891 −0.07 0.18 −0.08 0.21 [−0.35, 0.19] [−0.19, 0.03]
11. Pressure 10 1931 −0.28 0.23 −0.34 0.25 [−0.66, −0.02] [−0.50, −0.18]
lidity; ρ
validity.
Table 3
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of direction of influence tactics in predicting task-oriented outcomes.
Upward 13 2084 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.10 [0.04, 0.29] [0.10, 0.24]
Downward 8 1599 0.39 0.13 0.47 0.12 [0.32, 0.62] [0.38, 0.56]
2. Exchange 13 2873 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.26 [−0.20, 0.46] [−0.01, 0.28]
Upward 4 639 −0.03 0.10 −0.04 0.06 [−0.12, 0.04] [−0.12, 0.06]
Downward 7 1563 0.11 0.26 0.15 0.31 [−0.25, 0.55] [−0.08, 0.38]
Upward 5 475 0.09 0.27 0.10 0.27 [−0.25, 0.44] [−0.15, 0.35]
Downward 10 1978 0.30 0.21 0.37 0.23 [0.07, 0.67] [0.22, 0.52]
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
Upward 24 3695 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.20 [−0.14, 0.37] [0.02, 0.20]
Downward 7 1544 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.21 [0.04, 0.57] [0.14, 0.47]
Lateral 3 810 0.27 0.08 0.36 0.11 [0.22, 0.50] [0.22, 0.50]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
Upward 8 1268 −0.04 0.10 −0.06 0.08 [−0.16, 0.05] [−0.13, 0.02]
Downward 6 1267 −0.03 0.15 −0.04 0.17 [−0.25, 0.18] [−0.18, 0.11]
lidity; ρ
validity.
inspirational appeal, ingratiation, and coalition. For rational persuasion, the estimate for downward direction (ρ = 0.47) was
stronger than that for upward direction (ρ = 0.17; Z = 4.39, p b 0.01). Similarly, ingratiation was more effective for task-oriented
outcomes when the direction of tactics was downward (ρ = 0.31) or lateral (ρ = 0.36) than upward (ρ = 0.11; Z = 2.12 and
3.34 respectively, p b 0.01). The relationship between inspirational appeal and task-oriented outcomes was positive when the di-
rection was downward (ρ = 0.37), but when the direction was upward, the relationship was not significant (ρ = 0.10). However,
caution is needed interpreting the moderating effect here, because the difference between the two effect sizes was marginally sig-
nificant (Z = 1.72, p b 0.10). Exchange and coalition were not significantly related to task-oriented outcomes for either down-
ward or upward direction.
The results of the moderating effect of direction of influence tactics on relationship between influence tactics and relations-ori-
ented outcomes are shown in Table 4. Similar to task-oriented outcomes, due to the small number of studies included in sub-
groups this analysis was conducted only for four tactics: rational persuasion, exchange, ingratiation, and coalition. A positive
relationship between rational persuasion and relations-oriented outcomes was stronger when the tactic was implemented down-
ward direction (ρ = 0.55) rather than upward direction (ρ = 0.14; Z = 6.36, p b 0.01). The link between exchange and relations-
outcomes was not significant for upward direction (ρ = 0.08, CI: −0.01, 0.18), and the relationship was positive when the direc-
tion of exchange tactic was downward (ρ = 0.09, CI: 0.02, 0.16). However, the difference between two effect size was not signif-
icant (Z = 0.12, ns). Ingratiation was more effective for relations-oriented outcomes when the direction of tactic was downward
(ρ = 0.45) than when it was upward (ρ = 0.08; Z = 4.20, p b 0.01). Lastly, the negative effect of coalition on the relations-ori-
ented outcomes was not significant for either direction of tactics.
Table 5 indicates whether measurement instrument for influence tactics moderated the relationship between influence tactics and
task-oriented outcomes. The effectiveness of rational persuasion was more positive when the IBQ measure was used (ρ = 0.45) than
Table 4
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of direction of influence tactics in predicting relations-oriented outcomes.
Upward 12 2373 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 [−0.03, 0.32] [0.06, 0.23]
Downward 5 1210 0.49 0.10 0.55 0.11 [0.41, 0.68] [0.45, 0.65]
2. Exchange 14 2746 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.19 [−0.18, 0.30] [−0.05,0.16]
Upward 5 896 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 [−0.01, 0.18] [−0.01, 0.18]
Downward 7 1592 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 [0.01, 0.18] [0.02, 0.16]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
Upward 15 2130 0.06 0.21 0.08 0.25 [−0.25, 0.40] [−0.06, 0.21]
Downward 6 1376 0.40 0.11 0.45 0.10 [0.33, 0.58] [0.37, 0.54]
10. Coalition 15 2891 −0.07 0.18 −0.08 0.21 [−0.35, 0.19] [−0.19, 0.03]
Upward 8 1423 −0.02 0.19 −0.02 0.23 [−0.31, 0.27] [−0.19, 0.14]
Downward 5 1210 −0.11 0.18 −0.12 0.20 [−0.37, 0.14] [−0.30, 0.07]
lidity; ρ
validity.
Table 5
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of measurement of influence tactics in predicting task-oriented outcomes.
POIS 11 1872 0.13 0.06 0.17 0.00 [0.17, 0.17] [0.13, 0.22]
IBQ 12 2482 0.37 0.16 0.45 0.17 [0.23, 0.67] [0.35, 0.56]
2. Exchange 13 2873 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.26 [−0.20, 0.46] [−0.01, 0.28]
POIS 3 511 −0.02 0.11 −0.03 0.08 [−0.14, 0.08] [−0.16, 0.10]
IBQ 10 2362 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.27 [−0.18, 0.51] [0.00, 0.34]
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
POIS 12 1924 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.08 [−0.05, 0.16] [−0.01, 0.12]
IBQ 14 2690 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.23 [−0.06, 0.54] [0.12, 0.37]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
POIS 6 1056 −0.02 0.09 −0.02 0.07 [−0.10, 0.07] [−0.10,0.06]
IBQ 10 2150 −0.06 0.12 −0.07 0.14 [−0.24, 0.10] [−0.16, 0.02]
lidity; ρ
validity.
when the POIS measure was used (ρ = 0.17, Z = 4.59, p b 0.01). Similarly, the effectiveness of ingratiation was more positive for stud-
ies using the IBQ measure (ρ = 0.24) than for those using the POIS measure (ρ = 0.06, Z = 2.57, p b 0.01). For exchange and coalition,
the differences of effect sizes were not significant (Z = 1.49 for exchange and Z = 0.87 for coalition).
Table 6 displays results of the moderating effect for measurement on the relationship between tactics and relations-oriented
outcomes. The effectiveness of rational persuasion was more positive when the IBQ measure was used (ρ = 0.55) than when
the POIS measure was used (ρ = 0.13, Z = 7.85, p b 0.01). The effectiveness of ingratiation was significantly positive for the sub-
group using the IBQ measure (ρ = 0.46), but it was not significant for the subgroup using the POIS measure (ρ = −0.02, Z =
4.81, p b 0.01). For exchange and coalition, the differences of effect sizes were not significant (Z = 0.27 for exchange and Z = 0.35
for coalition).
We tested the moderating effect of whether tactics were employed as a single tactic or a combination of tactics within studies.
Studies that uniquely examined each tactic (e.g., rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal) were categorized into “Indi-
vidual Tactic Group”, and studies that tested a combination of several tactics (e.g., soft tactic and hard tactic) were categorized
into “Combination of Tactics Group.” Table 7 displays the subgroup analyses results for task-oriented outcomes. For rational per-
suasion and ingratiation, although the effect-size estimates were higher for studies examining individual tactics than those exam-
ining a combination of tactics, the differences of effect sizes were not significant (Z = 0.86 for rational persuasion and Z = 1.6 for
ingratiation). For inspirational appeal, effectiveness was more positive when studies tested individual tactics (ρ = 0.39) than
when studies tested a combination of tactics (ρ = 0.10, Z = 2.21, p b 0.05). Similarly, the effectiveness of consultation was
more positive when individual tactics were used (ρ = 0.44) than when a combination of tactics was used (ρ = 0.09, Z =
3.09, p b 0.01). For coalition and pressure, although the effect-size estimates were more negative when studies tested a combina-
tion of tactics than when studies tested individual tactics, the differences of effect sizes were not significant (Z = 0.84 for coalition
and Z = 0.77 for pressure).
Table 6
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of measurement of influence tactics in predicting relations-oriented outcomes.
POIS 11 2289 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 [−0.02, 0.28] [0.05, 0.21]
IBQ 8 1552 0.48 0.09 0.55 0.09 [0.44, 0.66] [0.48, 0.62]
2. Exchange 14 2746 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.19 [−0.18, 0.30] [−0.05,0.16]
POIS 5 896 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 [−0.01, 0.18] [−0.01, 0.18]
IBQ 9 1850 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.21 [−0.22, 0.32] [−0.10, 0.19]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
POIS 11 1785 −0.01 0.15 −0.02 0.16 [−0.23, 0.19] [−0.13, 0.09]
IBQ 9 1718 0.40 0.11 0.46 0.09 [0.34, 0.58] [0.39, 0.54]
10. Coalition 15 2891 −0.07 0.18 −0.08 0.21 [−0.35, 0.19] [−0.19, 0.03]
POIS 7 1339 −0.05 0.14 −0.06 0.16 [−0.26, 0.14] [−0.19, 0.07]
IBQ 8 1552 −0.08 0.21 −0.10 0.24 [−0.40, 0.21] [−0.27, 0.08]
lidity; ρ
validity.
Table 7
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of use of a singular influence tactic (versus a combination of influence tactics) in predicting task-oriented outcomes.
Individual tactic 20 3955 0.28 0.18 0.35 0.19 [0.11, 0.60] [0.26, 0.44]
Combination of tactics 3 399 0.20 0.10 0.27 0.07 [0.18, 0.36] [0.15, 0.39]
Combination of tactics 3 381 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.18 [−0.12, 0.33] [−0.12, 0.32]
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
Individual tactic 31 5238 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 [−0.08, 0.48] [0.12, 0.29]
7. Consultation 15 3027 0.34 0.16 0.40 0.19 [0.16, 0.63] [0.30, 0.50]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
Individual tactic 12 2723 −0.03 0.08 −0.04 0.06 [−0.11, 0.04] [−0.09, 0.01]
Combination of tactics 4 483 −0.12 0.21 −0.16 0.26 [−0.49, 0.18] [−0.43, 0.12]
11. Pressure 13 2723 −0.15 0.11 −0.19 0.10 [−0.31, −0.06] [−0.25, −0.12]
Individual tactic 10 2342 −0.14 0.11 −0.18 0.10 [−0.30, −0.05] [−0.25, −0.10]
Combination of tactics 3 381 −0.20 0.11 −0.25 0.07 [−0.34, −0.16] [−0.37, −0.12]
lidity; ρ
validity.
For relationship-oriented outcomes, we could test seven tactics that met our criteria for subgroup analysis: rational persuasion,
exchange, ingratiation, consultation, legitimating, coalition, and pressure (see Table 8). However, none of tactics showed signifi-
cantly different effect sizes between studies using individual tactics and those using a combination of tactics.
Table 9 presents results for the moderating effect of independence of data sources (i.e., same source vs. different source) on
the link between influence tactics and task-oriented outcomes. Studies where a tactic and its outcome were measured by the
same participant were categorized into the sub-group of “same source”, whereas studies in which a tactic and its outcome
were measured by different participants were categorized into the sub-group of “different source.” We could test nine tactics
that met the criteria for subgroup analysis: rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal, ingratiation, consultation, personal
appeals, legitimating, coalition, and pressure. Subgroup analysis revealed the same source sample showed significantly higher ef-
fect size than the different source sample for four tactics: rational persuasion (ρ = 0.42 for same source sample vs. ρ = 0.19 for
different source sample; Z = 3.00, p b 0.01), exchange (ρ = 0.27 for same source sample vs. ρ = −0.07 for different source
Table 8
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of use of a singular influence tactic (versus a combination of influence tactics) in predicting relations-oriented outcomes.
2. Exchange 14 2746 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.19 [−0.18, 0.30] [−0.05,0.16]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
7. Consultation 11 2097 0.48 0.13 0.54 0.14 [0.36, 0.73] [0.45, 0.63]
9. Legitimating 10 1895 0.07 0.24 0.08 0.27 [−0.26, 0.42] [−0.09, 0.25]
Individual tactic 7 985 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.11 [−0.10, 0.17] [−0.06, 0.14]
10. Coalition 15 2891 −0.07 0.18 −0.08 0.21 [−0.35, 0.19] [−0.19, 0.03]
Individual tactic 10 1596 −0.06 0.13 −0.07 0.13 [−0.23, 0.09] [−0.16, 0.02]
Combination of tactics 5 1295 −0.08 0.23 −0.09 0.28 [−0.44, 0.26] [−0.34, 0.16]
11. Pressure 10 1931 −0.28 0.23 −0.34 0.25 [−0.66, −0.02] [−0.50, −0.18]
Individual tactic 7 1021 −0.29 0.21 −0.36 0.23 [−0.66, −0.07] [−0.55, −0.18]
Combination of tactics 3 910 −0.26 0.25 −0.32 0.27 [−0.66, 0.02] [−0.63, −0.01]
lidity; ρ
validity.
Table 9
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of independence of data sources in predicting task-oriented outcomes.
Same source 16 2998 0.32 0.17 0.42 0.17 [0.20, 0.65] [0.33, 0.51]
Different source 7 1356 0.15 0.11 0.19 0.09 [0.07, 0.31] [0.10, 0.27]
2. Exchange 13 2873 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.26 [−0.20, 0.46] [−0.01, 0.28]
Same source 7 1746 0.21 0.20 0.27 0.23 [−0.02, 0.57] [0.10, 0.45]
Different source 6 1127 −0.06 0.12 −0.07 0.11 [−0.22, 0.07] [−0.18, 0.03]
Same source 9 2012 0.43 0.16 0.51 0.20 [0.26, 0.76] [0.38, 0.64]
Different source 8 1112 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.16 [−0.11, 0.30] [−0.03, 0.22]
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
Same source 16 3477 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.22 [−0.03, 0.55] [0.15, 0.38]
Different source 18 2572 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.19 [−0.12, 0.38] [0.03, 0.23]
7. Consultation 15 3027 0.34 0.16 0.40 0.19 [0.16, 0.63] [0.30, 0.50]
Same source 9 2012 0.39 0.16 0.46 0.18 [0.23, 0.69] [0.34, 0.58]
8. Personal appeals 9 2067 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.14 [−0.08, 0.27] [0.00, 0.20]
Same source 6 1597 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.16 [−0.11, 0.31] [−0.04, 0.24]
Different source 3 470 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.00 [0.08, 0.08] [−0.01, 0.17]
9. Legitimating 11 2410 −0.09 0.13 −0.11 0.14 [−0.29, 0.07] [−0.20, −0.01]
Same source 6 1597 −0.07 0.14 −0.07 0.16 [−0.27, 0.13] [−0.21, 0.06]
Different source 5 813 −0.14 0.10 −0.17 0.08 [−0.27, 0.07] [−0.26, −0.07]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
Same source 12 2458 −0.03 0.11 −0.04 0.12 [−0.19, 0.11] [−0.12, 0.03]
Different source 4 748 −0.07 0.13 −0.08 0.13 [−0.24, 0.08] [−0.22, 0.06]
11. Pressure 13 2723 −0.15 0.11 −0.19 0.10 [−0.31, −0.06] [−0.25, −0.12]
Same source 9 2076 −0.15 0.11 −0.19 0.10 [−0.32, −0.07] [−0.27, −0.12]
Different source 4 647 −0.14 0.12 −0.16 0.10 [−0.30, −0.03] [−0.29, −0.04]
lidity; ρ
validity.
sample; Z = 3.02, p b 0.01), inspirational appeal (ρ = 0.51 for same source sample vs. ρ = 0.09 for different source sample; Z =
4.21, p b 0.01), and consultation (ρ = 0.46 for same source sample vs. ρ = 0.26 for different source sample; Z = 2.47, p b 0.01).
For the remaining tactics (i.e., ingratiation, personal appeals, legitimating, coalition, and pressure) the differences of weighted av-
erage correlations between the same source sample and different source sample were not significant (Z = 1.63 for ingratiation,
Z = 0.30 for personal appeals, Z = 1.27 for legitimating, Z = 0.47 for coalition, and Z = 0.36 for pressure).
The moderating effect of the independence of data sources on relationships between influence tactics and relations-oriented
outcomes are presented in Table 10. Due to the insufficient number of studies for subgroups, the subgroup analysis was conduct-
ed for only two tactics: rational persuasion and ingratiation. Results indicated the same source sample showed significantly higher
effect size than the different source sample for both rational persuasion (ρ = 0.42 for same source sample vs. ρ = 0.11 for dif-
ferent source sample; Z = 3.86, p b 0.01) and ingratiation (ρ = 0.34 for same source sample vs. ρ = 0.10 for different source
sample; Z = 1.92, p b 0.10).
Table 11 and Table 12 display the results for the moderating effect of study setting. Based on criterion satisfaction, for task-
oriented outcomes subgroup analysis was conducted only for ingratiation and coalition. Results for ingratiation tactic indicated
that the difference of weighted average correlations between the public organization sample (ρ = 0.10) and private organization
sample (ρ = 0.20) was not significant (Z = 1.10, ns). The effect of coalition on task-oriented outcomes was more negative for
public organization sample (ρ = −0.21) than private organization sample (ρ = −0.03), but the difference of two effect sizes
Table 10
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of independence of data sources in predicting relations-oriented outcomes.
Same source 13 2546 0.35 0.20 0.42 0.22 [0.14, 0.70] [0.29, 0.54]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
Same source 14 2564 0.26 0.23 0.34 0.23 [0.04, 0.63] [0.21, 0.46]
Different source 9 1200 0.08 0.23 0.10 0.27 [−0.25, 0.45] [−0.09, 0.29]
lidity; ρ
validity.
Table 11
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of study setting in predicting task-oriented outcomes.
6. Ingratiation 34 6049 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.22 [−0.09, 0.48] [0.12, 0.27]
Public 9 1212 0.08 0.18 0.10 0.20 [−0.16, 0.36] [−0.04, 0.25]
Private 21 3924 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.23 [−0.09, 0.50] [0.10, 0.31]
10. Coalition 16 3206 −0.04 0.11 −0.05 0.12 [−0.21, 0.10] [−0.12, 0.01]
Public 3 695 −0.13 0.09 −0.21 0.06 [−0.29, −0.13] [−0.31, −0.11]
Private 12 2444 −0.02 0.11 −0.03 0.11 [−0.15, 0.11] [−0.10, 0.05]
lidity; ρ
validity.
were only marginally significant (Z = 1.87, p b 0.10). For relations-oriented outcomes, among four tactics that met criteria subgroup
analysis, two tactics showed a significant moderating effect of the type or organization. The positive effect of rational persuasion on
relations-oriented outcomes was stronger for private organization samples (ρ = 0.46) than public organization samples (ρ = 0.15,
Z = 3.02, p b 0.01). Contrary to the result for rational persuasion, the negative effect of coalition on relations-oriented outcomes was
stronger for public organization samples (ρ = −0.22) than private organization samples (ρ = −0.01, Z = 2.02, p b 0.01). The effec-
tiveness of exchange was higher and positive for private samples (ρ = 0.12) compared to public sample (ρ = −0.17), but the differ-
ence of effect sizes were marginally significant (Z = 1.71, ns). Similarly, the effectiveness of ingratiation was higher for private sample
(ρ = 0.32) than public sample (ρ = 0.13), but the difference of two effect sizes was not significant (Z = 1.40, ns).
Discussion
Despite several studies in various influence tactics in work settings, the literature has not successfully answered one of the
most fundamental questions: “which influence tactics are effective for getting one's way?” Our main objectives were to provide
an integrative framework for the effectiveness of 11 proactive influence tactics and empirically test their relations with task-
and relations-oriented outcomes through meta-analysis. Regardless of task- or relations-oriented outcomes, our results showed
that the most effective tactics were rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation, and consulta-
tion, whereas the least effective tactic was pressure.
In the current study, supporting the previous comprehensive study by Yukl and Tracey (1992), we provide a meta-analytic es-
timate of the relationships between different proactive influence tactics and their effectiveness. More specifically, our results for
main effects of different influence tactics on task- and relations-oriented work outcomes are generally consistent with the findings
from prior research using meta-categories to examine the effectiveness of influence tactics, which suggested that soft and rational
influence tactics are most effective in engaging targets' commitment to a request while hard influence tactics are least effective
(Clarke & Ward, 2006; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Tepper et al., 1998; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). As already noted, six in-
fluence tactics (i.e., rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation, and consultation) among 11 in-
fluence tactics have a significant and positive relationship with both task- and relations-oriented outcomes. Although there are
some differences in the classification of meta-categories for prior study, these six influence tactics of the current study were gen-
erally grouped into soft and rational influence tactics (Berson & Sosik, 2007; Clarke & Ward, 2006; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Steensma &
van Milligen, 2003).
Table 12
Meta-analysis results for moderating effect of study setting in predicting relations-oriented outcomes.
Public 7 1532 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.18 [−0.08, 0.37] [0.01, 0.29]
Private 11 2242 0.36 0.18 0.46 0.18 [0.22, 0.69] [0.34, 0.57]
2. Exchange 14 2746 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.19 [−0.18, 0.30] [−0.05,0.16]
Public 4 574 −0.13 0.25 −0.17 0.28 [−0.52, 0.19] [−0.45,0.11]
Private 10 2172 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.09 [0.01, 0.23] [0.05,0.18]
6. Ingratiation 23 3764 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 [−0.08, 0.61] [0.15, 0.38]
Public 7 905 0.11 0.24 0.13 0.26 [−0.20, 0.47] [−0.07, 0.34]
Private 15 2792 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.25 [−0.01, 0.64] [0.18, 0.45]
10. Coalition 15 2891 −0.07 0.18 −0.08 0.21 [−0.35, 0.19] [−0.19, 0.03]
Public 5 950 −0.18 0.16 −0.22 0.17 [−0.44, −0.01] [−0.38, −0.06]
Private 9 1874 −0.01 0.17 −0.01 0.19 [−0.26, 0.24] [−0.14, 0.12]
lidity; ρ
validity.
On the contrary, our results found that pressure is negatively related with both task- and relations-oriented outcomes and le-
gitimating has a negative relationship with task-oriented outcomes. Likewise, these tactics (i.e., pressure, legitimating) were gen-
erally grouped into hard influence tactics in previous research (Berson & Sosik, 2007; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Steensma & van
Milligen, 2003; Tepper et al., 1998). As a result, our meta-analytic results provide consistent findings of previous research
adopting meta-categories.
With regard to exchange, the results showed that this tactic has no significant positive correlation with both work outcomes
(ρ = 0.13, CI: −0.01, 0.28 for task-oriented outcomes, ρ = 0.06, CI: −0.05, 0.16 for relations-oriented outcomes). Similar to the
current result, Sparrowe et al. (2006) pointed out this “moderately positive (Yukl & Tracey, 1992) or mixed (Falbe & Yukl, 1992)
relationships between exchange tactic and member commitment in previous research have led researchers to conclude that ex-
change tactic are less effective than other tactics—or possibly even ineffective, because of their instrumental motivation (p. 1206).”
These inconsistent or nonsignificant results might be related to different meta-categories of exchange tactic used in prior study.
Specifically, some studies classified exchange as a part of hard strategies (Berson & Sosik, 2007; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Tepper et
al., 1998) while other studies regarded exchange as a part of rational strategies (Barry & Shapiro, 1992; Clarke & Ward, 2006).
In addition, Farmer et al. (1997) argued that exchange tactic can be hard tactics, especially when used in manipulative fashion
from a power-dependence perspective; and, exchange also can be rational tactic when used in an integrative perspective. Prior
inconsistent classification of exchange tactic could lead to its nonsignificant effects on work outcomes in the current study.
Overall, our efforts to cumulate the results of recent research on influence tactics and to provide a consistent description of
these results contribute to deepening the understanding of each influence tactic and its effectiveness. Furthermore, this study ex-
amined differential effects of each influence tactic on task- and relations-oriented work outcomes. Although prior research has fo-
cused on the use of task- and relations-oriented behaviors for measuring individual and organizational effectiveness (Bass, 2008;
Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954), little attention has been paid to how each influence tactic may influence these two different categories of
outcomes. Thus, our attempts offer meta-analytic evidence for the uniqueness of the two forms of work outcomes, contributing to
the general literature on influence tactics and work outcomes.
While the results generally support the effects of the agents' proactive influence tactics on task- and relations-oriented out-
comes, further examination on the differential relationships between the specific influence tactic and task- and relations-oriented
outcomes may be warranted. For example, legitimating tactics had moderately negative relationships with task-oriented outcomes
(ρ = − 0.11; CI = − 0.20, − 0.01) but displayed mean zero relationship with relations-oriented outcomes (ρ = 0.08; CI =
−0.09, 0.25). One might generally presume that influence tactics would act on both of these work outcomes in the same way
(i.e., either positively or negatively). However, the results of this study suggest this is not always true. That is, our result may
imply that the effectiveness of each influence tactic could be different depending on the categories of outcomes examined.
Thus, further research needs to investigate the relationship between influence tactics and various types of work outcomes in
greater detail.
Our exploratory moderator analyses contributed to clarifying further the features of the influence tactics–work outcomes rela-
tionship. First, regarding the direction of influence tactics, the results of this study suggest rational persuasion is more effective for
both task- and relations-oriented outcomes when it is used in a downward direction than in an upward direction; and, ingratia-
tion tactics were more effective for both work outcomes in a lateral and downward direction rather than in an upward direction.
Additionally, results show exchange tactic is more effective for relations-oriented outcomes, while inspirational appeal is more ef-
fective for task-oriented outcomes when the direction of the tactic was downward rather than upward.
Because the differential effect between the directions of influence tactics has continuously been questioned (Higgins et al.,
2003; Yukl et al., 2008), this study makes an important contribution to the literature on influence tactics. Specifically, these results
demonstrated downward influence tactics used by leaders can be linked to a certain leadership style (e.g., Clarke & Ward, 2006;
Sparrowe et al., 2006; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). For example, Sparrowe et al. (2006) assert “inspiration has been linked to transforma-
tional leadership (Cable & Judge, 2003), consultation to participative leadership (Falbe & Yukl, 1992), exchange to the LMX per-
spective (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997), legitimating to authoritarian leadership (Vroom & Jago, 1988), and pressure to
abusive (Tepper, 2000) or tyrannical (Bies & Tripp, 1998) leadership (p. 1196).” Our results of moderator analyses regarding
the direction of influence tactics verified these prior assertions. It suggests the use of certain downward influence tactics by
leaders could have a substantially significant effect of increasing employees' work outcomes. Thus, organizations need to pay par-
ticular attention to leadership intervention programs that enhance their leaders' skillful use of certain influence tactics.
Second, regarding measurement of influence tactics, our results suggest rational persuasion and ingratiation were more posi-
tively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes for the IBQ than for the POIS. Unlike the IBQ, the POIS was developed only
for assessing upward influence attempts as a self-report questionnaire (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Prior research indicated a
more accurate and comprehensive measure was needed for studying on interpersonal influence behaviors in organizations due
to limitations within the POIS (Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl et al., 2008). Moderator analyses results regarding measurement of in-
fluence tactics provide a comparison of the relationships of influence tactics with work outcomes.
Third, regarding independence of data sources between influence tactics and criteria, our findings suggested same source data
resulted in more effective work outcomes when employed rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal, ingratiation, and
consultation. These findings were consistent with the results of the previous meta-analytic research (e.g., Cerasoli, Nicklin, &
Ford, 2014; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). For example, Judge and Piccolo (2004) suggest transformational leadership has a higher valid-
ity when both leadership and criteria were measured by the same, rather than different, sources. In addition, a number of empir-
ical studies indicated the observed significant relationships between predictors and criterion could be inflated somewhat by a
common method and source bias (e.g., Clarke & Ward, 2006; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Thus, our results also provide support for
the previous assertion regarding common method. Still, although a great deal of research has used same source for the predictors
and the criterion, it is necessary to pay attention to interpret the observed results due to the potential influence of common meth-
od bias on results.
Overall, understanding the relative effectiveness of different influence tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes can
guide individuals to select and use appropriate tactics to achieve their work place goals. Our meta-analytic results indicate certain
influence tactics could be more effective than others. That is, our results showed the positive relationships between outcomes and
rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation, and consultation. However, it should be noticed that
the effective tactics do not always guarantee desirable outcomes (Yukl, 2006). As many researchers have pointed out, situational
factors in which the influence tactics are used are likely to have a significant impact on their effectiveness (Sparrowe et al., 2006;
Yukl et al., 2008). Accordingly, individuals may need to pay attention to the situational factors when they decide to use certain
influence tactics.
Despite the above noted contributions of this study, several potential limitations should be noted. First, we only included 11
influence tactics (i.e., rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal, legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratia-
tion, consultation, personal appeals, and coalition) in our analysis. Although these 11 influence tactics are some of the most re-
nowned influence behaviors, it would be meaningful to study various influence tactics that are not particularly mainstream.
However, adding to the complexity of including less popular influence tactics, these influence tactics may be measured using in-
struments other than traditionally employed survey.
Another limitation concerns are outcome variables. Although employing parsimonious framework of task- and relations-ori-
ented outcomes is meaningful in organizations that produce goods and services, our classification of outcomes may not represent
all types of outcomes relevant to individual effectiveness such as compliance or resistance. Thus, it would be beneficial to expand
the range of outcomes considered in future research.
Rosenthal and DiMatteo (2001) mentioned that “every meta-analysis has some inherent bias by virtue of the inclusion/exclu-
sion criteria and the methods chosen to review the literature (p. 66).” Furthermore, it is impossible to identify and include every
paper or article in any given meta-analysis. To the extent that more heterogeneous and/or typical studies were not involved in the
analysis, the external validity of the present study may be compromised. An examination based on a sample comprised mostly of
published studies in this meta-analysis could be seen as a potential threat to the validity of the results. It can be defined as “the
file drawer problem”, which means that “journals are filled with the 5% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file
drawers are filled with the 95% of the studies that show nonsignificant results (Rosenthal, 1979, p. 638).” Due to this issue related
to publication bias, the true mean effect size within the published studies can be overestimated, which threatens the validity of
the results of a meta-analytic review (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2006). Therefore, the findings of this study are needed
to be interpreted with due caution.
Additionally, some studies on influence tactics (e.g., Farmer et al., 1997) adopted broad meta-categories (e.g., hard, soft, and
rational) for analyses rather than individual tactics. Although broad meta-categories can be an intuitively useful classification, it
is hard to divide the 11 tactics into two or three meta-categories (Yukl et al., 2008). In future research, it would be meaningful
to examine how combinations of tactics such as hard, soft, and rational tactics are related to various outcomes in different
ways using meta-analytic techniques.
Lastly, our research may have a potential issue of reversal causality since the majority of the studies employed a cross-sectional
design. Moreover, there are cases where independent and dependent variables were rated by same sources. Thus, there remains a
potential threat to validity regarding our results.
In summary, we provide a meta-analytic estimate of the relationships between 11 influence tactics and task- and relations-ori-
ented outcomes, and also provide support for various moderating effects. In doing so, we contribute to literature on influence tac-
tics by presenting the first population estimate for the general influence tactic on task- and relations-oriented work outcomes
based on a comprehensive meta-analysis. Furthermore, results supporting differential effects of each influence attempt on out-
comes depending on direction, measurement, and the use of a singular influence tactic (versus a combinations of influence tac-
tics), independence of data sources, and study setting. Notably, it offers meta-analytic evidence for the impact of various
potential moderators on the relationships between influence tactics and task- and relations-oriented work outcomes. Finally,
we hope that our results, suggestions, and discussion will inspire interesting and necessary future research endeavors in the
field of influence tactics.
References1
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?
Personnel Psychology, 45, 141–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.x.
Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (1992). Influence tactics in combination: The interactive effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22, 1429–1441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00958.x.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Berson, Y., & Sosik, J. J. (2007). The relationship between self-other rating agreement and influence tactics and organizational processes. Group & Organization
Management, 32, 675–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601106288068.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny. In R. M. Kramer, & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations
(pp. 203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behav-
ior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.379.
*Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A., & Daniels, D. (2014). The impact of impression management over time. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 266–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/JMP-10-2012-0290.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 197–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.183.
*Carter, J. J. (2013). Follower perception of leader influence tactics: A comparative examination of New Jersey law enforcement agencies. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion) Northcentral University.
Case, T., Dosier, L., Murkison, G., & Keys, B. (1988). How managers influence superiors: A study of upward influence tactics. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 9, 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053641.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035661.
*Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (2010). Closed influence tactics: Do smugglers win in the long run? Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 30,
23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134300102.
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.66.1.7.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082.
*Clarke, S., & Ward, K. (2006). The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging employees' safety participation. Risk Analysis: an International Journal,
26, 1175–1185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.
*Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of upward-influencing behavior with subordinate-impression management characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
21, 1145–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00463.
*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, 239–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1991.tb00557.
*Dulebohn, J. H., Murray, B., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). The vicious and virtuous cycles of influence tactics use and performance evaluation outcomes. Organizational
Analysis, 12, 53–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028986.
*Dulebohn, J. H., Shore, L. M., Kunze, M., & Dookeran, D. (2005). The differential impact of OCBs and influence tactics on leader reward behavior and performance rat-
ings over time. Organizational Analysis, 13, 73–90.
Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 1200–1208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200.
Enns, H. G., & McFarlin, D. B. (2005). When executives successfully influence peers: The role of target assessment, preparation, and tactics. Human Resource
Management, 44, 257–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20070.
*Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of relative leader–member exchanges (RLMX) and per-
ceived organizational support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 299–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.007.
Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence: Agent vs. target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
2044-8325.1986.tb00210.
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256490.
*Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17–42. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701)18:1b17::AID-JOB785N3.0.CO;2-9.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/014920639101700208.
*Furst, S. A. (2004). An expectancy-based model of managerial influence tactics and employee commitment to organizational change. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
University of North Carolina.
*Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 453–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453.
Gattiker, T. F., & Carter, C. R. (2010). Understanding project champions' ability to gain intra-organizational commitment for environmental projects. Journal of
Operations Management, 28, 72–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.09.001.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interactions. Psychiatry, 22, 225–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/00332747.1955.
11023008.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700307.
*Higgins, C. A. (2000). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Iowa.
*Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 622–632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.622.
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.181.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jensen, J. L. (2007). Getting one's way in policy debates: Influence tactics used in group decision-making settings. Public Administration Review, 67, 216–227. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00708.x.
*Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of Management, 20, 43–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639402000103.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.
*Karam, E. P. (2012). An examination of dependence, leader influence, and political skill from a multi-stakeholder perspective. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Mich-
igan State University.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1985). The language of persuasion. Psychology Today, 4, 40–46.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440.
*Kolodinsky, R. W., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of an expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model.
Human Relations, 60, 1747–1777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707084913.
*Laird, M. D. (2008). The effects of strategically developed work relationships on personal reputation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Florida State University.
*Lam, M., O'Donnell, M., & Robertson, D. (2015). Achieving employee commitment for continuous improvement initiatives. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 35, 201–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2013-0134.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management. Vol. 15. (pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
*Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Xu, J., Weitz, B. A., & Perrewé, P. L. (2014). When ingratiation backfires: The role of political skill in the ingratiation–internship performance re-
lationship. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 569–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0399.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392437.
*Olufowote, J. O., Miller, V. D., & Wilson, S. R. (2005). The interactive effects of role change goals andrelational exchanges on employee upward influence tactics.
Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 385–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318904270743.
*Plouffe, C. R., Bolander, W., & Cote, J. A. (2014). Which influence tactics lead to sales performance? It is a matter of style. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
34, 141–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.890901.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920638601200408.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013079.
*Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. H. (1995). Upper impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48, 147–167. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800203.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., & Bond, M. H. (1991). Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Amer-
icans. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8, 147–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01731937.
Schilit, W. K., & Locke, E. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392305.
Schmidt, S. M., & Kipnis, D. (1984). Managers' pursuit of individual and organizational goals. Human Relations, 37, 781–794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001872678403701001.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Hayes, T. L. (2009). Fixed-versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in
results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000711007X255327.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wil-
kinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.246.
*Shaughnessy, B. A., Treadway, D. C., Breland, J. A., Williams, L. V., & Brouer, R. L. (2011). Influence and promotability: The importance of female political skill. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 26, 584–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111164490.
Sherwood, A. L., & DePaolo, C. A. (2005). Task and relationship-oriented trust in leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 65–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/107179190501200206.
*Soetjipto, B. W. (2002). Downward influence in leader-member relationships. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Cleveland State University.
*Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders' influence tactics relate to members' helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relation-
ship. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1194–1208. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478645.
*Steensma, H., & van Milligen, F. (2003). Bases of power, procedural justice and outcomes of mergers: The push and pull factors of influence tactics. Journal of Collective
Negotiations in the Public Sector, 30, 113–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/TBQ7-KJ12-LB05-F9CD.
*Sterling, P. J. (2008). The impact of influence behaviors utilized by managers on subordinates' degree of organizational commitment. (Unpublished master thesis) Nyack
College.
*Su, C. -J. (2010). An examination of the usage and impact of upward influence tactics by workers in the hospitality sector of Taiwan: Expanding the framework of Rao,
Schmidt, and Murray (1995). Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27, 306–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjas.181.
*Tang, J., Khan, S. A., & Zhu, R. (2012). Entrepreneurs' ethically suspect behaviors and effective information acquisition: The moderating effects of impression manage-
ment. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 17, 1250019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1084946712500197.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375.
*Tepper, B. J., Eisenbach, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Potter, P. W. (1998). Test of justice-based model of subordinates' resistance to downward influence attempts. Group &
Organization Management, 23, 144–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601198232004.
*Thacker, R. A. (1995). Gender, influence tactics, and job characteristics preferences: New insights into salary determination. Sex Roles, 32, 617–638. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF01544215.
*Thacker, R. A. (1999). Perceptions of trust, upward influence tactics, and performance ratings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1059–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pms.1999.88.3c.1059.
*Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management,
21, 739–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100408.
*Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of sub-
ordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.
848.
Vecchio, R. P., & Sussmann, M. (1991). Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 73–80. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120107.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years
of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232–260.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256734.
*Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979–1006. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.x.
*Wu, L. Z., Kwan, H. K., Wei, L. Q., & Liu, J. (2013). Ingratiation in the workplace: The role of subordinate and supervisor political skill. Journal of Management Studies, 50,
991–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12033.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper-Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132.
Yukl, G., & Seifert, C. F. (2002). Preliminary validation of an extended version of the influence behavior questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the So-
ciety for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
*Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18, 5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1059601193181002.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.309.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. (2005). Assessing the construct validity and utility f two new influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 705–725. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.335.
*Yukl, G., Seifert, C. F., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended influence behavior questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 609–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.006.
Zanzi, A., & O'Neill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned versus non-sanctioned political tactics. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 245–262.

Tacticas de Influencia Lee2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tacticas de Influencia Lee2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEAQUA-01166; No of Pages 19

The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on

Direct effects: inﬂuence tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes

Hypothesis 1. Rational persuasion is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 2. Exchange is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 3. Inspirational appeal is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 4. Apprising is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 5. Collaboration is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 6. Ingratiation is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 7. Consultation is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 8. Personal appeal is positively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 9. Legitimating is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Hypothesis 11. Pressure is negatively related to task- and relations-oriented outcomes.

Direction of inﬂuence tactics

Measurement of inﬂuence tactics

Use of a singular inﬂuence tactic (versus a combination of inﬂuence tactics)

Independence of data sources

Test of main effects of inﬂuence tactics on task- and relations-oriented outcomes

You might also like