Two studies were conducted to replicate and extend previous exploratory research by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) on influence tactics and objectives in organizations. A new questionnaire was developed that included measures of important influence tactics and objectives omitted in the earlier research. Whereas the earlier research used only agent self-reports of influence behavior, the present research used both agent and target reports. Differences in downward, lateral, and upward influence attempts were replicated more for data from agents than for data from targets. Direction of influence had a stronger effect on influence objectives than on influence tactics. Despite some differences due to data source and direction of influence, the relative frequency of use for the 8 influence tactics was remarkably similar across conditions. Consultation and rational persuasion were the tactics used most frequently, regardless of the direction of influence.

The study involved analyses of incidents described from the perspective of the targets of influence attempts. We coded influence behavior in the incidents into nine tactics and classified outcomes as commitment, compliance, or resistance. Hypotheses were developed to explain the outcome of each tactic used alone and in combination. The findings supported most of the hypotheses. The most efFective tactics were inspirational appeals and consultation. The least effective were pressure, legitimating, and coalition tactics. Intermediate in effectiveness were rational persuasion, ingratiation, personal appeals, and exchange tactics. "Hard" tactics were generally less effective than "soft" tactics. The outcomes of tactic combinations depended mostly on the potency of the component tactics.

Influence incidents described either by agents or targets were coded for the presence of 9 influence tactics, and the outcome was coded in terms of commitment, compliance, or resistance. Agent power and content factors for an incident were measured with a short questionnaire. This study is the first to show that influence tactics, agent power, and content factors independently affect influence outcomes. Target commitment was more likely when the request was important and enjoyable to implement, and the agent had strong referent power, used consultation, inspirational appeals, or a strong form of rational persuasion, and did not use pressure.The ability to influence subordinates, peers, and superiors is a major determinant of a manager's effectiveness. The success of an influence attempt by a manager is likely to depend on a number of things, including the influence tactics used by the manager, intrinsic attributes of the request that motivate the target person to comply with it, and the manager's power.A survey study by Yukl and Tracey (1992) and a study of influence incidents by Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that some tactics were more effective than others for influencing target commitment. Most results from the two studies were consistent, but there was one major discrepancy. Rational persuasion was strongly related to target commitment in the survey study but not in the incident study.Regardless of what tactics are used, people are more easily influenced for some requests than for others. The outcome of an influence attempt depends in part on aspects of the agent's request that make it appealing to the target person. Examples of these "content factors" include the importance of the requested action for task objectives, the feasibility of the request, and the extent to which the request would be enjoyable for the target person to implement. There is little empirical evidence on the relationship of content factors to influence outcomes. In four studies of influence incidents, only a third of the

This study involved analysis of incidents describing influence attempts from the perspective of an agent or a target. Influence behavior in the incidents was coded into nine influence tactics. A conceptual framework was presented to explain the selection and sequencing of tactics, and the model was used to derive specific hypotheses for individual tactics. Analysis of tactic combinations revealed that some tactics were used together much more often than others. Consistent with the model, some tactics were used more in initial influence attempts, and other tactics were used more in follow-up influence attempts. Differences in the use of tactics with subordinates, peers, and superiors were also consistent with the model, and the results verified directional differences found in earlier research with questionnaires.