Leapfrogging at work: influencing higher levels in the chain of command

Abstract

PurposeActs of interpersonal influence are observed throughout organizations, and most typically, in direct supervisor–subordinate relationships. However, researchers have focused less on subordinates bypassing the chain of command and targeting their supervisor's supervisor with influence attempts. We conceptualize a new term, “leapfrogging,” as subordinates' attempts to influence and manage the impressions of their supervisor's supervisor. Here we focus on influencing the target's perception of likability (the focus of ingratiation) and competence (the focus of self-promotion). This study focuses on its personal and situational antecedents.Design/methodology/approachGiven the central role of social exchange and psychological processes within this phenomenon, we build on a social exchange and a social cognition approach. Using a sample of 131 university support personnel service employees, hierarchical regression is used to test the hypotheses.FindingsThe following antecedents of leapfrogging are hypothesized and tested: the subordinate personal characteristics of Machiavellianism, need for achievement, and fear of negative evaluation, and the situational/relational characteristic of leader–member exchange (LMX). Of these potential antecedents, subordinate Machiavellianism and LMX were the strongest predictors, and subordinates' need for achievement and fear of negative evaluation were moderate predictors.Practical implicationsLeapfrogging occurs when actors are frustrated with their current situation and desire change. However, influence tactics aimed at a subordinate's supervisor's supervisor may further strain a low-quality leader–subordinate relationship. As actors become increasingly dissatisfied and leave, this may result in increased organizational costs related to the loss of experienced employees and the hiring and training of new ones.Originality/valueMost upward influence research has largely ignored subordinate influence attempts that go outside of the normal chain of command and target their boss's boss. The present study addresses this gap in the literature by examining leapfrog behaviors. Although acknowledged in a limited manner as a legitimate organizational behavior, this topic has received virtually no empirical attention.

Ingratiating with bosses for favourable performance ratings: a serial mediation mechanism

“…Organizational scholars have been investigating social influence tactics for a long time (Segrest et al. , 2020).…”

“…, 2006; Asadullah et al. , 2016), organizational scholars have called for further research on vertical influence behaviours (Segrest et al. , 2020) to explain how, why and when different social influence tactics succeed.…”

“…Organizational scholars have been investigating social influence tactics for a long time (Segrest et al, 2020). Despite a plethora of existing research on the topic (e.g.…”

“…Despite a plethora of existing research on the topic (e.g. Ferris et al, 1994;Bolino et al, 2006;Asadullah et al, 2016), organizational scholars have called for further research on vertical influence behaviours (Segrest et al, 2020) to explain how, why and when different social influence tactics succeed. Among social influence tactics, ingratiation is the vertical influence tactic [i.e.…”

“…Among social influence tactics, ingratiation is the vertical influence tactic [i.e. a tactic aimed at immediate supervisors as well as the supervisors of immediate supervisors (Wu et al, 2012)] that has received significant recent attention from organizational scholars (Segrest et al, 2020).…”