9 Workplace Behaviors Kethleen Pasterson, Fellow in the Regent University Conter for Leadership Statics, contributed to this chapter The Consiruet ‘The llty ofjob itisfaction and other men sures of employee atituds a5 a predictor of variables seh a urnover and en tions, As result, Hodson (1991) advorates examination of iheeffectsof the characteris- ‘ics of jobs and work env roars on em ployse werk benaviers. Employee bohavior At work generally can be characterized as cider conibuting wo organizational goals or Contributing to an empioyee’s occupational control. Employee behaviors can be do- sctbed as following pattems of “good V's gous av theie ew, are highly commited, and don't question organiza. ticnal decisions but tive to implement hese decisiors efficiently. Smooth operators give riorty to their own eceupational gols may indverestly advance onganiz- s. Seboteurs ao employees who goals nor goals. Thee fore, they undertake sick behaviors as passively resisting author 1 wo rules, or inte ‘beirboss oromgaa ons antong these catego- ‘work setually could be completed (Hodton, 189), ‘A gcod deal oFattention hasbeen devored to work behavior that is beyend the reach oftrudiicnal measures of joh performance because these organizational ctzenship be- ing these behavioss, The poses tha organizatr ir (OCB) and rational cone fof job performance are separate constets “Thus, OCB. is viewed as exarols bohavior thts separate fram in-ol job performance. This approach requires determining wal is insole ard what Is extarole, a that may vary aress obs, orznizations, and ‘Much of the thioretical and empiri ‘work on OCB vreaies the inpression that the boundary totween in-role and extaroleTaking the Measure of Work ypon and clearly defined same forall employees fe, psychological contracts ffereat peeves e constructions created whe es (and omployers) make sense rad behavioral exes. For exarpe, an joyce wino comes to work earlier than is defined at engaging in OCB bbchavior. In es difference whether an employee est0 bbeeatse he oF she spat of Hisorher Je, if an eanplosoe defines crsas anni beliavion he sonceptialize the behavior very than an extrarele behavior and ive a different set of incentives bochavior Taber & ‘approach toOCBis bared onthe wee of vic clizenshp. is iewed a8 including all evant behaviors of rm tis perspective, ienhip ean he conceptt- pt that ines ll iy relevant behaviors ‘crganizationalotediencereliets acceptance of the necessity and desirability Of rational rales and regulations governing eee ee stmaciur, job desctiptions, cies. Obedience ean be spoct for dance and tsk ip of organiza- Sefending conuite ‘operating pation is ‘quided by ideal by an individual's Keeping info expressed through full and ts (Sagie, 1998). ‘The Measures ‘Asexpected from he discussion above, mea- ‘rctont of work behaviors requires cons inof thoeonsatency with which erin required by the job oF nary sctons across dif and prosedies o ime €Om sms & Anderson, 199 fees might include voluntary 2c: tions Yelaviors, such as tuking charge (Morrison & Pheips, 1999). ‘Morrison (1994) fousd & high level oF agreement a5 to which behaviors fit inte basic categories of work-related behaviors such os conscientiousness, all ‘virtue, an sportsmenshi. There seems tobe agreement tat conselentiousness consist of behaviors that go well beyond minimum r= {quirements inthe areas of attendance obey res, aking ism consisis of behaviors directed ath atheremphye taking @ portion of a co-worke's overoad. Civic virtue consists of behaviors reect- ploying organization, Sportsmanship isthe willingness to olerateessthan ideal isu stances without complaining and from activities such as having pe ances (Taber & Aliger 1995), ‘Morrison 1994 also examined the extent towhich employoes and supervisors difered ‘in how broadly they define job responsi es. There Was considerable disagreem tween supervisors and employers. Sig centagreement betwee supervisers and em- ployee was found forenly [out of 20 work Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 247 ‘Workplace behaviors can sured by selfeports and dese vided hy others, such as pee visors, Ae might be exp: leader and otter reports of bel low. Somme ofthe different self seving biases of mode: derive rating fr the focal to usiag the mean, howev238 Taking the Measare of Work Description Valiaity Source ems This measare, developed by Monraan and Blakely (1965), uses 19 its to onal hep te behaviors, such a responding tothe esting wih job-related problems, Pet aderence o rules andinstractons, un formance of asks above and beyond th nefive items) detense of organizational ood reputation and general welfare re Toyal bonsterism 1985; Moorman, Blakely, & Nichoft, 1998 bscale (Moorman & Blakel Thompson & Werner, 1997), “The fourorganizatio behavice subscales correlated po With ene another A conrelatel po ‘ural juice, organizational conmitmen ajo sti blake! ferpersenal helpin Uative, and personal industry al correlated positively withthe acteptance ‘of collective noms and in-ole behavior (Mcormen & Blakely, 1995 expersom ively wilh working veluos (Moc helping, personal industry, and loyal ccrrelated positively wilh peiceived organizational support (Moorman et al, 1998). Confrmaiory fcr analysis showed thet the 19 late to the four dimensions as expected and thatthe exganizaional ship behavice dimensions vere empii na of Organizational Behavior, 15,12 p. 152. Copyright ©1995, Reprolucedby per Limited. Responses are obtained using e7 point Likectayge scale where 1 = strongly disagree and T=strongly agree. Chepter 9: Workplace Behaviors 230 ene a0 The items provided ae weeded for describing another exganizational mem: bet. Forel descriptions, Snterpersonat helping ims: 1, Goes out of hisher way to help co-workers with work-related problems 2. Voluntarily bel 4. Alwass goes out of the way to make never employees feel welenmie in te work grows 5. Shows genine concem and couesy towad co-workers, evea under the most uying bosiness or pe-sonal Indtvidual initiative tems: 6, Forissues that may have serious consequences, expresses opinions honestly even when others may otivates others to expr 9. Encourages hesitnt or quie! co-workers to Voice theiropinions when bey omerwise might not speak up 10. Frequently communicates 10 co-workers suggestions cn how the 100p can improve Personal industry tems: 11, Rarely misses werk even when he/ doing so 12. Performs hivher duties with ususualy few errors 13. Performs hisher job duties vith ects-specel care 14, Always meets er heats desdlines for completing work has legitimate reason for Loyal boosterism tens: Defends the organization wher o Encourages friends and fai ize the organization's products Defends the organization when outsiers criticize it Shows pride when representing the orgenication in puble ions prxlcis and services to , | nlTabing the Measure of Won (Chapter 9 Workplace Behaviors 241 etiaitity Organizational Citizenship Behaviors ses 21 (1991). sare ns developed by Uescrte tree ypes of organi fare behaviors directed at specific individuals (OCB an organization (OCBO), and employee i-role behaviors (IRB). Organica ership behavions directed at an individual are those of toaspecific person and ih inloyce.Orgenizatozalctizenship behaviors that focusprim ng adrauee the jabrequiremests, These include performance of du nged fron 1 €0.88 for organiza viduals, 70 0 5 for 1 organization, and ;pervisor who encourages puricipation. OCB (Funderbarg & Levy, 1997; port. The OCBO subscale also con ons (Fundecturg & Levy, 1997; Randall, 1993; Thompson & We ‘corelated pos Anderson, 1991). Source Items Funetbug and Levy (197) found that sl ratings and peo: poodle and pancipaory supervisory s Dyne and LePine (1988) found tha selt-raings 0 lated positively with pee ratings of m-role behaviors, Table 1p. 608, Copyright © 1991, Reproduced with permission Responses ate obtained using a S-pointLikertype scalewhere I= disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The measure can he ‘or self reports, ems for OCB Helps otters wh have been absent Helps others who have heavy work loads Assists supervisor wi “Takes time Goes cut of way i “Takes a persoal interest in other emproyees Passes along information o co-workers tems for OCRO: 3 advance ncice When unable 10 co “Takes undeserved work breaks (R) Grext deal of time spent with personal pore convers Complains about insignificant things at work (R) ‘Adhetes 0 informal rule devised (0 maintain onder tens for IRB: 1, Adequately completes assigned duties 2 jes spevified in job descriotion 3. Periorms tacks that are expected of hiner 4. Meets formal performance cequzornents of tho job 5. 6. 1 Engages in [Neglestsaspers of the job heshe is Fails to perform essential dates (R) Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored,242 Taking the Measure of Work Description Organizational Citizenship Behavior This or odsakotf, Gousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic vie cor: ly with one another (Lam etal, 1999; Mo aml depersonalic (Klein & Verbeke 1999), Organizational citizenship behevior deserved by alte items combined ino a single measure correlated positively with dis- tnbutive justice, procedu CCivie vue alse correlated and ps smanship and courtesy cor & Verbeke 1999; Lametal, 1 2 3 8 5 Sportsmanship tens: 1 2 x 4 5 Chapter 9 Workplace. contingent rew ively with perceived o pation in decision making. Sportsmanship a with percsived organizational suppoet, partici Helps others who have heavy workloads ways ready to lend a elping hand to those arou 18 who have been absent Willinely Helps of etowsness ites: 1s one of my most coascieatious employees Belews in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay Attendance & work is above the norm Does tot ake exira breaks ‘bys company ruls and regulations even when no one is w Is the classe “squeaky whe Consumes lt of time com Always fuses ‘Always fins fuing the Mewsuce of Work Chepter 9: Workplace B Cowrtesy items: {Is mindful of how hiser behavior affects eer people's Jods, ive wire items: 1, Keeps absovst of changes in the orgonizaton 2. Attends meetings that are not mandatary, but are important 3. Allendsfunetions that are not required, 44 Reads and keeps up with organiza dered help she company image ynaouncerens, memes, and Noms denoted with (R) are revere sored. Description Vatiity Source This meas ‘The two dimensions are Cooffcient alpha valves for. eralized corapliance was 91 ‘Wayae, Shore, & Lider, 1997) ‘experiences, promotions, superviso: organizational ssppert leader member oxchangs tment, and empioyee performance ratogs. ‘with inencions to quit (Croganzano et a, 1997; Wayne, Shore, 8 Lie, 1997), Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) found through factor distinct from employee performance bbehavicr: Its nature and amtecede (653-663, Items were taken from abl Altruism items: Helps others who have been absent \Votunteers fer things that see not aquired COrients new people even though itis not eequieed Helps others who have heavy workloads 3 With his OF her work ‘Makes innovative suggestions to improve department ‘And fun pany image26 ‘aking the Measure of We Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 247 |. Attendance a1 work is above the nore Coasts toward the end ofthe day (@) 12, Gives advance notice if unable o come vo work 15, Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversation (R) 14, Doesnot take unnecessary time off work 15. Does nor take entra breeks 16. Does not spend ins in ile conversation ems denoted with (R) are reverse scored. Relay Valiaity Soureo tens Chinese Organizational Citizenship Seale the context the ‘company, to colleagues, consciemtoasress, interpersonal hae mony, and protecting company resources. den otelp other employers seWveprob. Fem and cover work assignments, Conseientiousness includes employee willingness to go beyend organizational expectations in such areas a alten itd work. Interpersonal harmony describes of personal power snd gain. Pro teciing company resources covers employce willingness to avoid sd doe courage negativebehaviors such as abusing company polices and resources for personal we. Coeffisient alphe values were 87 for identification wit the company, 87 {oraltruism, 2 for conscientionsness, 86 for intespersonal banony, aad ly with pay ‘employee educationlovel Conicionionseess alsocertla ve justice. Interperso Justice, presence of appeal mechanisms, nd pay sti factor analysis stowed that the five dime with the items loading as expected a 421-444. thems were iy, 423), from Table 1, p. 428. Copyright © 1997. Reproduced with permission Responses are obtained using a7-point Likert-type seals where 1 = srongly Aisogree and 7 ~ strongly agree, This tease can be used 19 describe arotier focal employee or for selF reporting“Taking the Measure of Work Chapter 9: Workplace Be demification with the company tems: Lowi ratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings 2. Bag ‘outsiders good news abo i misunderstandings Deseription Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors 3. Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation 0 developed by Kumar and Beyericin company ‘quency with which employees use four types of ingratatory behavior i 4, Aeiively atords compasy meotings iperior- subordinate relationships. The are opicion conformity, Altres ems: present ‘he supervisor's epinions ard ju 1 sist nw colleagues adjust to the work envizonment benaviors. Other enhancement 2 18 to help colleagues solve work-related problems 3. over work asignmvent for colleagues when needed 4 1g to.conedinate aed commsiste with colleagues ‘uparvisorto create the obi makingexplisieverba sttemon's of cae's ova Comeientiousness tens. 1 Complies with company tules and procedures even when nobody watches and no evidence can ke traced Reliability ‘Takes one's job seriously and rarely makes miscakos ind taking on new or challenging assignments (Harison eta 4 Ofer speaksllofthe supervisor o tiveness (Wayne, Liden, Gra, & Ferris, 1997) The combined Protecting company resources items: related positively with self-monitoring, need for power, contra, and slremative measares of the us of upd in zations (Barsison et 1991), Kumar and shopping, going 2, Uses company resources to do personal busings (.2.,compary ‘phones, copy machines, computes, and cars) (R) 3. Viewssick leave as benefitand mates excuse or taking sickleave (R) Hers denoted with (R) ae everseseore. Ako could not abisin sccepiabe fit with dimension confirmatory fectorsnalysis modes Source Kumar, K, & Beyerlein, M, (1991). Construction and val instrument for measuring ingratatory behaviors in oganizational settings. Jourralof Applied Paychology, 76, 619-527. ems were taken from Teble2,250 Taking the Measues of Wore 628. Copyright © 1991 by the American Psyctological Association, Reprinted with permission, Items 3. Express work attudes that are simile to your supervisor's asa way af etting binwher know thatthe two of you ave alike isagree on trivial or unimportant issues hut agrac on those iesues in ‘hich he/she expecte support fom you ‘5. Try toimiute such work behaviors of your supervisor as working late or occasionally working on weekends (6. Letyour supervisor know the atitudes you skare vith hiner 7. Laugh heartily a your supervisor's jokes even when they are not Other enhancement itens: 1. Impress upon your supervisor that oaly he/sie.can help you in & ly to make him/acr te feel good about himself) ly of hier 3. Ask your supervisor for adviee in areas in which hefse thinks be/she 6. Look out for oppor 7. Complinne you sy itreay actually be to you personally > aror rendering items: 1. Try to do things for ervisor that shaw your selfless 2. Go outof your way to run en errand for your supervisor 3. Offer help our supervisor by oflering wo use your persons 4. Volunteer to be of holp to 004 soarteren, finding 3 Chapier 9: Workplace Behaviors 251 extra work for you Sufpreservation items: Try to Jet hievhor know that you have a tepatation ‘ry to make sure that he/she is aware of your successes [Look for opportnities Ie the supervisor know your virtues! strengths ‘Try to persansvely present your own qualities when at corvince your superviser about yoSERRE RR RRS E EE ES 252 Taking the Measure of Work Description Reliability Vatiaity Source Items ‘Taking Charge inkerenly change oriented, simed organization, The itoms i ‘workers to deserbe a focal enployec. Coettcientalpha values ranged from 9310.95. Exploratory factor a shaved that the 1Ditems loaded on single factor: Inche cases where there ‘were multiple c-workers' rings of an eniploves, the median intraclass comelation of these ralngs was 36 (Mostison & Phelps, 1999) “Thing chargcou managementoperness, general sel-eiMieacy, fel esponsi slocatory factor analysisshowed that taking charge was empirical ‘om a-role behaviors, civic virtue, and ali sm (Morison. Phelps, 1999). rsitively ty, expen power, and organizational level Ex- Mectisoa, E,W. & Phelps, .C. (1909), Taking charge a work: Bi fort te nitate workplace change. Academy of Manage 403-419, © 1999 by Academy of Management lems were ken |, p. 410. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in ihe format textbook vis Copyright Clearance Center. Responses are chisined using a 5-point Likertype scale where 1 = very infrequently s08'5~ very frequently 1, This person often tes to adopt improved p For doing bis or her job 2. This person often tnes to change how hs or her job isexeeated in cider to te more effective 4. This person often tres to bring aboat improved procedures forthe ‘work unit or depertmest 44. This porsonofien ties to natitute now work methods cht are more ange organizational rules or policies tnt of counterproductve 8, Thisparsonoften ties eliminatesedundantor umecessary procedures 9. This person often testo implement solutions to pressing iatonal problems is person often ties to intreduce new sractares, technolonies, 07 approaches toimprove efficiency Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 283 Description Validity Source Heras Helping and Voice Bohaviors ‘Thismeasure, y 998}, uses 13 tems 10 Gescrite two job behavior called heipingand voice. These two work betae- iorsare viewedasextrarole behaviors in that they areactionsthat emgl rmay undertake at their own disc role. Helping is defined as pros consideration. It can be characerzed a8 sooper sizes harmony and builds working relationships, active behavior tat emptusizes expressions of challenge tote status qu ‘order to improve organizational performance. Braplayees exercising voice vill ted to make imovatve suggestions for charge even when ethers dis agres (Van Dyne & [ePire, 1998} Coefficient alpha valucs for helping Schaviors rated by self, pects supervisors ranged from 85 to .95. Alpha values for vce rated by self, ‘ets, ani supervisors range fom.82 1096, Tesi-retest reliability was $1 for helping behaviors and 78 for voice behuviors. Where there were 1tul- le peer ratings of the same employee, within-group comeation ofthe ratingsaverazed 85 and ssnged fom. 7710.89 (Van Dyne & LePine, 1908) ‘Self, por, and supervisor ratings of helping behaviors and voice behavior performance, Sllstaed yoic correlated pos job level. Peerrated helping and voice bth cor level being male, and ob level: oth also cone job evel; both correlated n Supervisr-rated Responics aro obtsinedusing a 7-point Likert-type scale where! = atengly dlagree ad 7 = strongly agree. The siems proved are worded for peer reporting, For supervisor reponts, the items are revorded 10 replace co: worker with suhordinae, For self-eposting, each item begs with254 Taking the Measure of Work Se Telping tems the work group. is gfoup with tke work worker assis other it 3 the work group coworker gels involved to henefit his werk group larco-worker helps others in this group learn about eho lr co-worker helps oihers in this group w Their work larco.workor develops and males recemmtendations ‘work group 2. This panticular co-werker speaks up and encourages others inthis stcup to get involved in issues that affect iis group 3. This paticnler co-wrker comm issues fo other in this group even others in this group disagree with 4. This panicolar co-worker Loops well informed about issues where hater opinion might be wef. this work group 5. This parcutar co-worker gets involved with issues that affect the quality of le herein this group (6, This paricntar co-worker speaks up inthis group wit Projects or changes in procedares Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 258 On-the-Job Behaviors Description This measure was developed by Lehman and Simpson (1992) Ieuses 22 ‘tems to deseribe on-the job behaviors falling into Four ostegorcs. Theeate otis are postive work behaviors, psyckological i gossiping, Coeffcientalphs values range from 6810 70 fer positive work behaviors, 70to. 84 for psycholegial withézawal beheviors, ad istic behaviors. Cosfcient alpha was .58 Tor the physical Dehavior subscale (Cropanzano a, 1997) ‘work behaviors correlated positively with ob satisfaction, oreari- Zational commitment, job involvement, job t general fatigue “Antagonistic behaviors carrlaed positively with paychologiea withdeawal bbahaviors, organi jo tension, gencral fatigue, and barnout \rawvalbehaviots also eoreated pesitvely With org wer intetions, general fatigue, and burnout, Psycho logical witkdiaval behavior comelated negaively with perceived orga- izetonal suppor, job sitisficton, organizaonal commitment, and jeb invalvement (Cropanzano et al, 1997) Lehman, W.B.K, & Simpson, D. D, (1992). Employee substenes we and ‘of-the;job behaviors. Journal of Applied Paychotogy, 77, 309:321. tems were taken froin Table 1, p.313, Copyright © 1992 by the American Psy ‘ological Associaton, Reprinted with permission Responses are obiined using & 7-poit Likert-type seale whew | = never and 7 = very often. Tem are inteoduced with the stalersent “Inthe past Inelve months, how offen have you, .2" Pasttve work behaviors: Done more work thaa required Voluntesre to work overtime Made atempts to cha Negotiated with supervisors ‘Tiled Lo think of ways26 “Tuking the Measure of Wodk Chapter 9; Workplace Behaviors — 257 Paychologicel vithdrawal beheviors: ‘on personal matters cothe job than should have ving eurent job Let others do your work Physical vlthdrawal behaviors: Left work L without permission 2. Taken longerlunch ot rest break than allowed 3. Taken sapplies or equipment without periission 4, Fallon seleepat work Antagoniste work tebaviors: Reported others for breaking rales or policies Filed formal complaints Argued with co-workers Disobeyes supervises Spread ramos org Vaaley Source ity Antisocial Behaviors “This measure was developed by Robinson and O'Leary: describes negative behaviors by employees that have the potenti ‘antler te organization, Antisocial behaviors include brea fuing other workers, about a supervisor cr ge, jb tenure, and the in lated positively with sinilar social behaviors correlated ‘ehavioss come! Journal, 4, 658-672. © 1988 by Aca Managemeat. tems were take fram text, p, 663, Reproduced with jon of Acxdemiy of Management in the format textbook via Clearance Centr. Reaponses are cbtsined usin infrequent how frequently «fecal personhad engaged 1 3 4 5. Deliberately hent o: broke rule 6, Criticized people at work 7. Did something that harmed my employer or boss 8. someone at work 9. supervisor or org Stated an argamen: wit Sad rade things about258 Source tems Taking the Moasure of Work Behavior in the Workplace developed by Aquino, Grover, Bradfield ms to describe victimization ni uses eight sive behavior The measure 60 and dirt vi i inflict harm withoat being detected, suc pleyce's work, Direst ‘ictimization wes 76. Exploratory facie analysis showed ‘on the two dimensions (Aquino, Grover et ‘eaton also correlsted posi with employee self dee crs were empirically ,K., Grover, S.L Bradfield N., & Allen, .G, (1999), The elects guile aflectvty,hirarchal sits, and slf-determination on wore plac: viecimization, Academy of Manapenient Journal, 1213), 260.273 ty of Ma é . 265.Reproduced with permissionof Academy of Menagementin the fn, ‘mat texthook via Copycight Clearance Center, le =f and rethanten tines. Respondents areinstractedoanasser based the of times they personally have witnessed a co-worker dee Aesctibed bebasiors toward themselves within te las year ‘indireevitimization behaviors: {Said tad things about you to youreo-worksrs 2 Sabotaged your work 3, Did semething to make you look bad 4. Lied to got you in trouble Direct vietinicaton behaviors: 1. Mace in ethnic, racial, religious. cr offensive slur toward you 2. Made an obscene comment or geste in rent of you 3. Threatened you with physical harm A. Cored at you Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 259 Deviant Behaviors Pescription This measure, developed by Aquine, Lewis, and Bi ms 10 deserbe two ealeyor (1999), uses 1 Of deviant employee behaviors. The two nce aad organizational deviance. lntempox inflict ann upon otherindividal actions as making an elie or lutea co-worker. Onganizati Includes be ‘organization ise ots systems, such 2 ing about the number of hours worked, Posey igcoring a supervisors insirutions, iclen alpha vale for intepersenal deviance wes 73, Ai tal deviance was 75 (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 19% Interpersonal deviance comisted positively with orgarizationel deviance ‘nd employee negative uffect. Interpersonal deviance corel Organizational deviance correlated ‘neg (Acuino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999) Confirm thatthe two dimensions were empiialy, tine fom distributive, interactive, and po Bradiele, 1999), Source Levis, MU, & Bradfield, M. (1969) Jus tive afectiviy, and employee deviance: A preposed test Jeurnal af Or fiom Table p. 1052. Copyrighi © 1999, Reproduced by permet ot John Wiley & Sons ems Responses are abtined using 5-point Likea-ype scale where 1 = never? = one to thre ties, 3=four io tentines,4= eleven torvensytines emcar Imore than en times. Iniersersonat deviance item: ‘Made an etinic racial, or teligious slur against a co-worker Sworeata co-verker fase 0 talk 10 aco-worker Gossiped about my supervisor Made sn obscene comment or gesture al a co-worker ‘Teaseda co-worker in ron of other employees) Taking the Measurs of Work Organizational deviance tems: property ly without permission abou! the sumber of boars I worked on a personal ater on te jb instead of working Chapter 9: Workplace Behaviors 261 Deseription Reliability Yaticity Source toms Influence Tactics ‘This messure, developediby Schriesheim and Hiakin (1991 refinement of the measure of influence tactics orizinally supervisors. The categories of tactics are ing supervisor feel important; exchange of ben ‘personal sarilice ifthe supervisor would do a eque: Jevelsinthe organic ‘workers to back up a request CCoeflcien alpha valuesranged from 73to.84 fr in exchange of berefis,-78 to 80 fort 179 to 82 for upward appeal and 8 Hinkin, 1990). Exploratory and conirmatory factor at independent samples stowed that items Io pected andthat thesix dimensions were empiti Hinkin, 1990) Seam ad Won ks, oe! of pl 230, ad Aah © 1990by lhe American Psychologie Association. Rep permission. Respondests are asked inson (1980). The measure uses 18 items by 1, Acted very homily to him orher while making my request 2. Actedina friendly manzer prior to asking for wha! I wanted 3. Madehim or her fel good about me before making my requestoqo un yjur ut 90 oy or wonrzauedie 9 2pdoad BYLO POLLO “E pas Ad 3oee 0 saieuIpLogNS Au! JO WOdMAS 24: PUTER ‘sonbas Cw da 3909 61 si9q20m-09 Jo noddns atp PaUIEIG “| ‘sua wor909 soy 0 uy s0n0 somo ane omen Wore S14 dood wO—puLUWE: Jo URED 2 WE PIE -E fu dn 20g oF Spa] SUSY OF LOGE YEA PON Sdn-soydiy jo woddas eaungut 21 PUREED. “T sun ode paoada oyu Buon o uortsardeo agp pue ‘Seuypesp so css op 'speeurap se pas Sp pau fIHUUEW 49930) ¥ pO ‘pequaa 295uF Au possande 1120 ty poyuosfUOD | TpIWAR UF UAOD MOUS EPH “man seauaapnssy natn yo sod fu Jo nods woreaoguT M.D 40 MAY pase tsonbes (hoy suoseas tp poured -Z ot 20 WHY 99U1AU0D 012190] Pass) —“T swan moun 29 pos fo aztys 3 0 yop “s9PINY POM “Ie] OR “32 pou | Js 0p pinto ays 30 a4 1 3LINS uosHd w IRI PSIOIO € ena 20) FuMDUOS 9) afumine9 me paIAIO cop nae 269 sa Op NOK say 50 Jo} pap | 8H Sone} APE Jo 294 30 wry pepUIUDy ssuop sufoung fo 9Burqort suo 70 sey aun ure,