Getting One’s Way in Policy Debates: Influence Tactics Used in Group Decision‐Making Settings

Abstract

This study moves beyond traditional approaches to public administration and public policy decision making to consider how interpersonal influence tactics affect policy decisions in group decision‐making settings. Decision makers reported their own use of interpersonal influence tactics to achieve policy objectives, as well as those used against them. Responses were compared to individual decisions made over the course of policy‐formulation meetings. The results indicate that the most popular techniques were inspirational appeals and rational persuasion. The most effective techniques for influencing participants varied according to the type of decision to be made: During the visioning process, coalition tactics and inspirational appeals proved most effective; for more concrete decisions about current issues, rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation influenced decisions.

Examining the relationship between personality, organizational political skill and perceived team performance in a multinational military staff exercise context

“…As Jensen (2007) points out, there is a dialectic relationship between the individual and the team in group decision-making. On the one hand, it is rather individualistic because individuals behave according to personal motives and, on the other hand, you have interpersonal aspects of group cohesion and collective decision-making.…”

“…However, Lvina et al (2015) argue that politically skilled individuals are talented at achieving beneficial individualistic outcomes, but that it may be detrimental to collective goals. As previously highlighted, there is a fine balance of the dyadic relationships of influence and compromise in group dynamics (Jensen 2007).Therefore, examination of an individual's political skills and team performance is an interesting topic for investigation in varying contexts.…”

“…A new interest has arisen in the concept of social effectiveness in team dynamics (Ahearn et al 2004;Lvina et al 2015) due to the dyadic relationship of influence and compromise (Jensen 2007). However, Lvina et al (2015) argue that politically skilled individuals are talented at achieving beneficial individualistic outcomes, but that it may be detrimental to collective goals.…”

FEMA versus local governments: influence and reliance in disaster preparedness

“…In this study, influence is the use of persuasive power to change the behavior of others (Carlson et al 2000;Levi 2007). Social psychologists have examined the concept of social influence in great detail, but the topic of influence has not received much attention from natural hazards scholars despite its relevance to decision-making (Jensen 2007;Magee and Frasier 2014). 3 This study contributes to the body of literature on public agency influence in the context of disaster preparedness by examining a first research question: Is FEMA an influential source of disaster information?…”

An Assessment of Factors Important to Legislators in Budget Decisions; How Much Impact Can Agencies Have?

“…When agents attempt to influence principals, they are attempting to exercise power in order to get their own way. Jensen () considered influence tactics used in structured policy decision groups, which have a link to appropriations committees. Rational persuasion and charisma were the most effective techniques used out of those studied.…”