1

Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange

Gary Yukl & John W. Michel

University at Albany, State University of New York

In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 87-103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

2 Introduction An important determinant of managerial effectiveness is the ability to influence subordinates to carry out requests and implement decisions (Yukl, 2002). The success of an attempt made by the agent to influence the target person depends in part on the tactics used by the agent (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Since the early 1980s a number of studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of specific influence behaviors (see Yukl & Chavez, 2002). Influence tactics can be classified according to their primary purpose and time frame (Yukl, 2002). Proactive tactics are used in an attempt to influence someone to carry out an immediate request. Reactive tactics are used to resist unwanted influence attempts by other people, or to influence someone to modify a request so that it is more acceptable. Impression management tactics are used to create a favorable image and build closer relationships. Some types of influence tactics can be used for more than one purpose, but they may not be equally effective for different purposes. Early research by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) identified several distinct types of proactive influence tactics, and the researchers developed an agent self-report questionnaire called the Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS). Subsequent research by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) found evidence for the construct validity of six POIS tactics for upward influence attempts with a boss, i.e., rationality, assertiveness, exchange (or bargaining), ingratiation (or friendliness), coalition, and upward appeal. In a separate program of research that began in 1989, Yukl and colleagues identified 11 proactive tactics that can be used for influence attempts with subordinates, peers, and superiors (see Yukl & Chavez, 2002). These tactics are measured with a target questionnaire called the Influence Behavior Questionnaire

3 (IBQ). The IBQ measures five tactics that are similar to those in the POIS and six additional tactics. The 11 tactics are defined in Table 1. --------------------------------Insert Table 1 About Here --------------------------------Several studies on the relative effectiveness of different proactive tactics have been conducted using research methodologies such as surveys (e.g., Yukl & Tracy, 1992), critical incidents (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Falbe 1996), experiments (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999), and scenario studies (e.g., Fu & Yukl, 2000). These studies found that the proactive tactics most likely to elicit task commitment include rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, and inspirational appeals. The four tactics have subsequently been termed core tactics (Yukl, 2002). Another subject of research on influence behavior is the determinants of a managers choice of influence tactics. Yukl and Tracy (1992) proposed that agents will use tactics that are socially acceptable, feasible in terms of the agents position and personal power in relation to the target, not costly (in terms of time, effort, loss of resources, or alienation of the target), and likely to be effective for a particular objective given the anticipated level of resistance by the target. Support for most of these propositions was provided by several studies (e.g., Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). However, most of this research treats influence attempts as isolated episodes, rather than as reciprocal processes that occur in a continuing relationship between the agent and target. Although the authority relationship between agent and target has been included in some studies on determinants of tactic selection and effectiveness, the research seldom considers the interpersonal relationship and variables such as trust and mutual regard. In this chapter we will

4 consider how proactive influence tactics are related to the social exchange relationship between leaders and individual subordinates. Leader-Member Exchange Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the role making processes between a leader and each individual subordinate and the social exchange relationship that develops over time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The basic premise of the theory is that leaders develop a separate exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two parties mutually define the subordinates role. Graen and Cashman (1975) suggested that exchange relationships are formed on the basis of personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability. Because of limited time and energy, leaders with many subordinates develop a close working relationship with only a few trusted subordinates (Graen, 1976; Graen & Schiemann, 1978). The basis for establishing a high exchange relationship is the leaders control over outcomes that are desirable to a subordinate, such as better assignments, more responsibility, higher status, and tangible rewards such as a pay increase, special benefits (e.g., better work schedule, bigger office), and facilitation of the subordinates career (e.g., recommending a promotion, giving developmental assignments with high visibility). In return for these benefits, a high exchange subordinate has additional obligations and costs. The subordinate is expected to work harder, to be more committed to task objectives, to be loyal to the leader, and in some cases to share some of the leaders administrative duties. The development of high-exchange relationships occurs gradually over a period of time; through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again. Unless the cycle is broken, the

5 relationship is likely to develop to a point in which there is a degree of mutual dependence, loyalty, and support. The benefits to the leader from a high exchange relationship are evident. Subordinate commitment is important when the leaders work unit has tasks that require considerable initiative and effort on the part of some members to be carried out successfully. The assistance of committed subordinates can be invaluable to a manager who lacks the time or energy to carry out all of the administrative duties for which he or she is responsible. However, the highexchange relationships create certain obligations and constraints on the leader. To maintain these relationships, the leader must provide attention to the subordinates, remain responsive to their needs and feelings, and rely more on time-consuming influence methods such as persuasion and consultation. The leader cannot resort to coercion or heavy-handed use of authority without endangering the special relationship. The exchange relationship established with the remaining subordinates is substantially different. In a low exchange relationship there is a relatively low level of mutual influence. To satisfy the terms of this outgroup relationship, subordinates need only comply with formal role requirements (e.g., duties, rules, standard procedures, and legitimate directions from the leader). As long as such compliance is forthcoming, the subordinate receives the standard benefits for the job (such as salary). Prior Research on LMX and Influence Tactics There are numerous studies on the antecedents and consequences of LMX, and this research has been reviewed by several scholars (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). However, few studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between LMX and the use of influence tactics by the leader and

6 subordinate. Leadership scholars (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino, 2002) have noted the need for such research. We found only four studies that examined this relationship, and they all involved upward influence attempts by subordinates. A field study by Deluga and Perry (1991), investigated how LMX is related to the use of six influence tactics by subordinates in their attempts to influence their boss. The researchers wanted to ascertain whether higher quality LMX relationships were related the use of bargaining, reasoning, and friendliness (i.e., hypothesis 1) and inversely related with assertiveness, higher authority, and coalition (i.e., hypothesis 2). Subordinates reported their use of influence tactics with the agent version of the POIS. The study found that LMX was correlated positively with rationality and negatively with exchange, pressure, and coalition tactics (including upward appeals). The second study, by Dockery and Steiner (1990), investigated how LMX was related to upward influence tactics used by subordinates during the early development of a new relationship with their boss. This study was conducted in a classroom setting using undergraduate student participants to investigate whether upward influence attempts by the subordinate toward to leader during the initial interaction would influence the leader to initiate a favorable LMX relationship. Subordinate use of three influence tactics in influence attempts with the boss was reported from both the perspective of the subordinate and the boss. Students who served as subordinates used the agent version of the POIS, and students who served as bosses used the target version of the POIS. For the data from subordinates, LMX was positively correlated with ingratiation and rationality and negatively correlated with assertiveness. For the data from bosses, LMX was correlated positively with ingratiation and rationality. However, there was not a significant correlation between LMX and assertiveness.

7 Two studies examined the relationship between LMX and a subordinates use of impression management tactics with the boss (Deluga & Perry, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Although impression management tactics have a different objective than proactive tactics, some of the specific tactics are the same. Both studies found that ingratiation was correlated positively with LMX. Although these four studies suggest a link between LMX and tactics, the researchers examined only a small number of tactics used in upward influence attempts with superiors. There has been no attempt to investigate how LMX is related to a leaders use of influence tactics with subordinates, or to examine a broader range of tactics. The purpose of our study was to investigate this research question. Hypotheses There is ample reason to expect a relationship between LMX and some tactics used by a leader to influence a subordinate, and the relationship may involve causality in either direction. That is, the quality of the existing exchange relationship affects the agents choice of tactics, and tactics used by the agent will affect the quality of the future exchange relationships. The following hypotheses do not specify the direction of causality, but instead consider the possibility that it may be in either direction. Hyp. 1: LMX is positively related to consultation. Prior research has found that LMX is correlated positively with subordinate participation in making work-related decisions (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986; Yukl & Fu, 1999). The influence tactic called consultation is a limited form of participative leadership. The target person is not allowed to select the objective but can participate in determining how it can be attained. Causality is likely in both directions, but it is probably stronger from LMX to

8 consultation than from consultation to LMX. To be effective, consultation requires shared objectives and mutual trust between agent and target. The target must trust that the agent is not being manipulative, and the agent must trust that the target is sincere about improving the proposal or plan rather than pursuing a personal agenda. Use of consultation may also improve an exchange relationship, but it is only one of many determinants of LMX and any effect is likely to be weak. Hyp. 2: LMX is positively related to collaboration. Collaboration includes aspects of supportive leadership such as offering to help the target person carry out a requested task or to provide adequate resources to do the task. Prior research has found that LMX is correlated positively with supportive leadership (Basu & Green, 1997). Therefore, it is likely that collaboration increases the positive affect of a subordinate toward the leader. Moreover, in a high LMX relationship the leader is more likely to ask a subordinate to perform nonroutine, difficult tasks for which it is appropriate to provide additional resources and assistance. Hyp. 3: LMX is positively related to inspirational appeals. Inspirational appeals involve attempts to link a proposed activity or change to values and ideals. One type of inspirational appeal is to communicate a vision of an exciting achievement or a better future. This type of tactic is often used by transformational and charismatic leaders to gain support for new initiatives and major changes (Yukl, 2002), and prior research finds a positive correlation between LMX and transformational leadership (Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). In a strong LMX relationship, the high level of trust may make subordinates more receptive to leader appeals that involve sacrifices and risk of failure.

9 However, this explanation is highly speculative, and other explanatory processes may be involved. Hyp. 4: LMX is positively related to rational persuasion. Rational persuasion involves an effort to explain why a request or proposed activity is important for attaining shared objectives and why it is feasible. The tactic often includes subjective opinions that cannot be verified, and the effectiveness of such information in influencing target attitudes requires agent credibility. If the target person perceives that the agent is exaggerating benefits or providing biased forecasts, then the influence attempt is unlikely to be effective. Thus, rational persuasion is easier to use and more likely to be effective when the target person trusts the agent. As noted earlier, two studies on upward influences (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Dockery & Steiner, 1990) found a positive correlation between LMX and rationality. Hyp. 5: LMX is positively related to apprising. Apprising involves providing information about positive benefits that may be obtained by carrying out a request or doing a task. The benefits for the target person are personal and may be relevant to career advancement. A leader is more likely to provide advice about career advancement to a subordinate who is highly competent and able to perform difficult, highly visible tasks. This type of advice also occurs in mentoring relationships, and prior research found a positive correlation between LMX and mentoring by leaders (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996). Apprising also involves providing relevant advice about reward contingencies, which is one type of contingent reward behavior; prior research has found a positive correlation between LMX and contingent reward behavior (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999).

10 Hyp. 6: LMX is negatively related to pressure tactics. Most pressure tactics are based on coercive power, and extensive use of such tactics can be expected to elicit resentment and negative affect in most people. This effect is a reason to expect a negative relationship with LMX. Because pressure tactics can undermine personal trust and positive affect, leaders may avoid using them to influence a subordinate for which there is a high LMX relationship. However, there are many types of pressure tactics, and some are softer than others (Yukl, 2002). A negative relation is more likely for hard forms of pressure (e.g., threatening to fire a subordinate) than for softer forms of pressure (e.g., persistently asking when a late assignment will be completed). In addition, when pressure is combined with some other tactics such as rational persuasion or exchange, the adverse side effects can be reduced. Finally, there is some evidence that in a favorable relationship with high mutual trust it is safer for the agent to use appropriate pressure tactics when necessary to resolve problems in the work (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). These factors suggest that only a weak negative relationship is likely between LMX and use of pressure tactics to influence subordinates. Hyp. 7: LMX is positively related to ingratiation. Ingratiation includes expressing respect for the target persons skills and praise for the targets achievements and contributions to the team or organization. Prior research has found that ingratiation is an effective tactic for improving relationships and increasing positive affect as long as it is perceived as sincere. The direction of causality is likely to be primarily from behavior to LMX. The rationale for an effect of LMX on the use of ingratiation is less clear. When the relationship is already strong, there is less need for relationship building tactics such as ingratiation. On the other hand, high LMX subordinates may get more explicit recognition because they are more competent and are given more important tasks to perform. These factors

11 suggest that there is a positive relationship between LMX and use of ingratiation tactics to influence subordinates. Other Tactics Most exchange tactics involve explicit offers to provide a reward if the target person does what the agent wants. Even though LMX involves a social exchange relationship, there are no obvious reasons to expect a significant correlation between LMX and the leaders use of proactive exchange tactics. In a good relationship there is little need for the leader to offer specific rewards when asking a subordinate to carry out a task. An explicit exchange agreement is more appropriate for dealing with a lateral peer or someone who is not a member of the same organization. In a high LMX relationship between leader and subordinate, the leader will be trusted to reward the efforts of the subordinate in a way that is appropriate and equitable. Legitimating tactics involve efforts to demonstrate that a request is legitimate and the agent has the authority to make it. In a high LMX relationship, the leader may be more trusted to make only legitimate requests, which would suggest a negative correlation. On the other hand, there is little need to use legitimating tactics in downward influence attempts, so no difference is likely to be found for this tactic. Coalition tactics involve getting the support of other parties to assist in influencing the target person. When the coalition partners pressure the target person to comply with a request it is viewed by the target person as a hard tactic. However, research finds that coalition tactics are seldom used with subordinates in the United States (Yukl & Fu, 1999), and the low frequency for this tactic is a constraint on finding any relationship with LMX. Personal appeals involve attempts by an agent to use the favorable relationship with the target person as the basis for getting a favor. Personal appeals are not feasible if the relationship

12 is impersonal or hostile. On the other hand, a personal appeal is unnecessary when the relationship is very good, and it may be viewed as manipulative. Thus, personal appeals may be used most often in moderately good relationships. Finally, personal appeals are used most often to attain personal objectives (rather than task objectives), and in a downward direction such requests are usually inappropriate. The low frequency of personal appeals in downward influence attempts, and the curvilinear relationship with LMX make it unlikely for researchers to find any simple, linear correlation. Method A survey study was conducted during the period from 2004-2005 to examine the relationship between LMX and proactive influence tactics for two samples of subordinates. Measures Influence Behavior Questionnaire. Proactive influence tactics were measured with scales from the target version of the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) developed by Yukl and colleagues. A sample for rational persuasion is the following: Explains clearly why a request or proposed change is necessary to achieve task objectives. A sample item for inspirational appeal is the following: Makes an inspiring presentation to build enthusiasm for a proposed activity or change. A sample item for collaboration is the following: Offers to provide any assistance or resources you need to carry out a request. A sample item for consultation is the following: Asks you to suggest things you can do to help him/her attain a task objective or resolve a problem. The version of IBQ used in these studies was composed of 11 tactic scales. Each scale had three items with the following response choices: 5 He/she uses this tactic very often with me 4 He/she uses this tactic moderately often with me

13 3 He/she occasionally uses this tactic with me 2 He/she very seldom uses this tactic with me 1 I cant remember him/her ever using this tactic with me Leader-Member Exchange-7. Member rated LMX was measured with the LMX-7 scale (see Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984). LMX-7 measures the quality of the exchange between supervisors and subordinates. Sample items for the LMX-7 scale includes the following: Do you know where you stand with your bossdo you usually know how satisfied your boss is with what you do? How well does your boss recognize your potential? I have enough confidence in my boss that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so? Each of the seven LMX items was rated on a fivepoint scale. A mean scale score for LMX (ranging from 1 to 5) was calculated for each participant. Sample 1 The sample included 70 MBA students at two medium-sized public universities participating in a study designed to investigate the relationship between LMX and proactive influence tactics. The mean age of respondents was 27 years, and the sample was about equally composed of male and female students. As noted above, the target version of the IBQ was used to rate the proactive influence tactics used by the boss for work-related requests. The LMX-7 was used to rate the leader-member exchange relationship with the current boss, and most of the bosses were lower-level or middle level managers. Respondents filled out the IBQ two weeks before they provided LMX scores. Introducing this time lag between the administration of the IBQ and LMX reduces the probability of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

14 Sample 2 The sample consisted of 87 employees in four organizations, including a financial counseling services company, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, a dairy products company, and a printing company. Respondents used the LMX-7 to describe the exchange relationship with their boss and the target version of the IBQ to describe how the boss used proactive influence tactics. Both questionnaires were the same as the ones used for the first sample. The median age of the sample was 33 years, and the median tenure with their employing organizations was 3 years. The sample was 74% male. Most of the bosses described by the respondents were lower-level or middle-level managers. The respondents were anonymous and they mailed back their questionnaires directly to the researchers. Results The means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha values for the LMX and influence scales in both samples are shown in Table 2. Inspection of the values suggests that internal consistency reliability was relatively strong for all measures, especially considering the size of the sample and that each of the IBQ scales consisted of only three items. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was calculated to determine if leaders used different influence tactics depending on whether the LMX relationship with a particular subordinate was high or low. High and low LMX subgroups were created based on the frequency distribution of LMX scale scores. Specifically, respondents with the lowest 40% of scores were identified as Lower Quality LMX Relationships and respondents with the highest 40% of scores were identified as Higher Quality LMX Relationships. In the first sample, the two subgroups were identical in size; there were 28 respondents in each subgroup. In the second sample, the lower quality LMX group was composed of 36 participants and the higher quality LMX group was composed of 40 participants.

15 ---------------------------------Insert Table 2 About Here ---------------------------------The data suggested that the assumptions for MANOVA were met for both samples. Examination of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity indicated that a multivariate analysis of the data was appropriate for both sample 1 (2 = 192.06, df = 65, p < .001) and sample 2 (2 = 258.46, df = 65, p < .001). The MANOVA yielded significant results on Wilks Lambda test for both samples; F (66, 8930) = 129.61, p < 0.01 for sample 1 and F (66, 17055) = 203.64, p < 0.01 for sample 2. The means, standard deviations, and univariate F tests for each sample are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Significant differences were found for 5 of the 11 tactics in each sample. In both samples, LMX was significantly related to consultation, collaboration, inspirational appeals, and rational persuasion, providing support for hypotheses 1 through 4. Examination of the means from both samples revealed that the four core tactics were used more frequently in higher quality LMX relationships. Hypothesis 6 stated that LMX would be negatively related to pressure. This hypothesis was supported in sample 1, but not in sample 2. Hypothesis 7 stated that LMX would be positively related to ingratiation. This hypothesis was supported in sample 2, but not in sample 1. Hypothesis 5 stated that LMX would be positively related to apprising. This hypothesis was not supported in either sample. As expected, LMX was not significantly related to exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, or coalition in either sample. -------------------------------------Insert Table 3 & 4 About Here --------------------------------------

16 Because the results were mostly similar for the two samples, they were combined for a subsequent analysis with greater power to detect small differences. The combined sample also included the participants from the middle LMX groups, and the final sample size was 156 participants. The correlation of each influence tactic with the LMX is shown in Table 5. Examination of the correlation coefficients provides support for all seven hypotheses. ---------------------------------Insert Table 5 About Here ---------------------------------Discussion As noted above, this was the first study to investigate how LMX is related to a leaders use of proactive influence tactics with subordinates. Our study yielded results consistent with the literature on influence tactics and leader behavior. The hypothesized relationships between LMX and the proactive influence tactics were mostly supported. In both samples, rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals, and collaboration were used more frequently in high quality LMX relationships then in low quality relationships. As noted earlier, consultation is a limited form of participative leadership, which requires that the agent and target have shared objectives and mutual trust. Collaboration is a supportive behavior that increases the positive affect of the subordinate toward the leader. Inspirational appeals arouse emotions in others and helps build trust between the leader and subordinate. Finally, rational persuasion is used to explain why a proposed activity is important and feasible for achieving shared objectives. Mixed results were obtained for ingratiation and pressure tactics, but the relatively small samples made it difficult to detect weak relationships. The correlation analysis for the combined

17 sample supported the hypothesized relationships of LMX to these tactics and apprising. Finally, as expected, exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, and coalition were not significant in either the MANOVA or the correlation analyses. The findings provide some initial support that leaders use different proactive influence tactics depending on the nature of the LMX relationship they share with their subordinates. However, the study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, neither LMX nor the influence tactics were manipulated, and the direction of causality cannot be determined from this study. Because the data were gathered in a single time period using the results could have been influenced by extraneous factors, reverse causality, or response biases and attributions. Second, LMX was rated only from the subordinates perspective. Previous research has suggested that LMX should be measured from both the leader and subordinate perspectives (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Future research needs to be conducted to better understand dynamic relationships between leaders and followers as the exchange relationship develops over time. Researchers should attempt to assess the extent to which reciprocal causality occurs between LMX and leader use of influence tactics. Also, future research should be conducted to examine the influence behavior by both members of a leader-subordinate dyad rather than only focusing on the leaders behavior. There may be symmetry in the use of the tactics by both parties. For example, if a leader frequently uses hard tactics such as pressure and legitimating with a subordinate, the subordinate may in turn, use similar tactics on the leader. Finally, researchers should measure changes in explanatory variables (i.e., perceived trust, credibility) as exchange relationships develop overtime. Clearly there is a need for longitudinal research with a broader perspective on the exchange process.

18 References Basu, R. & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of Leadership, (pp. 234-247). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239-252. Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67-86. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 619-634. Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group and Organization Management, 15, 395-413. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L.

19 Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership, (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251-266. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844. Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G. & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University. Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Graen, G. & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,63, 206-212. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

20 Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998, August). Hardball: The impact of trust, distrust, and relationship quality on hard influence tactic use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, California. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15, 47-119. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436. Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584. Scandura, T. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588-1602. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leadermember exchange using traditional and multivariate within-and-between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.

21 Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257. Thibodeaux, H. R., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and mentoring: An investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 97-114. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 139-165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, 5-28. Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group and Organization Management, 20, 272297. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 137143. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.

22 Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.

23 Table 1 Definitions of Proactive Influence Tactics Influence Tactics Rational Persuasion Apprising Definitions The agent uses logical arguments and factual evidence to show that request or proposal is feasible and relevant for important task objectives. The agent explains how carrying out a request or supporting a proposal will benefit the target personally or will help to advance the targets career. The agent appeals to the targets values and ideals or seeks to arouse the target persons emotions to gain commitment for a request or proposal. The agent asks the target to suggest improvements or help plan a proposed activity or change for which the target persons support is desired. The agent offers to provide relevant resources or assistance if the target will carry out a request or approve a proposed change. The agent uses praise and flattery when attempting to influence the target person to carry out a request or support a proposal. The agent asks the target to carry out a request or support a proposal out of friendship, or asks for a personal favor before saying what it is. The agent offers something the target person wants, or offers to reciprocate at a later time, if the target will do what the agent requests. The agent enlists the aid of others, or uses the support of others, as a way to influence the target to do something. The agent seeks to establish the legitimacy of a request or to verify that he/she has the authority to make it. The agent uses demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistent reminders to influence the target to do something.

Inspirational Appeals Consultation

Collaboration Ingratiation Personal Appeals Exchange Coalition Tactics Legitimating Tactics Pressure

Copyright 2001 by Gary Yukl

24 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Reliability of LMX and the IBQ Scales Sample 1 (N = 70) Scale M SD Sample 2 (N = 87)

SD

Consultation Collaboration Inspirational Appeal Rational Persuasion Apprising Pressure Ingratiation Exchange Legitimating Coalition Personal Appeals LMX

2.97 3.03 2.46 3.43 2.55 1.90 2.46 1.73 2.82 1.98 1.70 3.50

1.13 1.15 1.06 1.03 1.08 0.97 0.84 0.78 1.19 1.05 0.93 1.02

0.90 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.87 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.90 0.88

3.21 3.43 2.46 3.55 2.56 1.65 2.70 1.92 2.92 1.55 1.57 3.63

1.03 1.13 1.16 1.01 1.08 0.72 1.04 1.05 1.06 0.70 0.86 0.71

0.82 0.86 0.89 0.84 0.90 0.69 0.83 0.89 0.75 0.76 0.85 0.85

25 Table 3 Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 1 Influence Tactic Consultation Collaboration Inspirational Appeal Rational Persuasion Apprising Pressure Ingratiation Exchange Legitimating Coalition Personal Appeals Low (N=28) 2.33 (1.04) 2.23 (0.89) 1.93 (1.02) 2.81 (0.88) 2.27 (1.03) 2.27 (1.15) 2.32 (0.78) 1.75 (0.88) 2.77 (1.24) 2.06 (1.09) 1.59 (1.08) High (N=28) 3.52 (0.91) 3.80 (0.97) 3.01 (0.75) 3.94 (0.93) 2.76 (1.18) 1.58 (0.75) 2.71 (0.91) 1.85 (0.74) 2.91 (1.27) 1.96 (1.04) 1.79 (0.87) F (1, 53) 20.35** 38.85** 20.26** 21.26** 2.67 6.97* 2.95 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.54

2
0.28 0.42 0.28 0.29 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.

26 Table 4 Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 2 Tactic Consultation Collaboration Inspirational Appeal Rational Persuasion Apprising Pressure Ingratiation Exchange Legitimating Coalition Personal Appeals Low (N=36) 2.80 (0.99) 2.79 (0.89) 1.98 (0.89) 3.12 (0.92) 2.28 (0.95) 1.71 (0.76) 2.44 (0.96) 1.68 (0.77) 2.96 (1.09) 1.57 (0.69) 1.48 (0.74) High (N=40) 3.63 (0.97) 4.03 (0.99) 2.89 (1.23) 4.03 (0.93) 2.76 (1.15) 1.55 (0.66) 3.04 (1.03) 2.13 (1.16) 2.93 (0.97) 1.55 (0.69) 1.68 (0.98) F (1, 74) 13.48** 32.89** 13.29** 18.21** 3.88 1.01 6.78* 3.85 0.03 0.02 1.02

2
0.15 0.31 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.

27 Table 5 Correlations between LMX and Influence Tactics for the Total Sample Influence Tactics N = 156

Consultation Collaboration Inspirational Appeal Rational Persuasion Apprising Pressure Ingratiation Exchange Legitimating Coalition Personal Appeals

0.47** 0.62** 0.44** 0.51** 0.25** -0.26** 0.31* 0.15 0.00 -0.08 0.13

*p < .05. **p < .01.