Relational Considerations in the Use of Influence Tactics¹

Abstract

It is proposed that the existing relationship between the influencing agent and the target of influence plays a central role in the choice of using hard and soft influence tactics. In a field study, 3 key aspects of the relation between agent and target were examined, and the results generally supported our hypotheses. First, the more unfairly people felt they were treated, the more often they wielded influence, especially using harder influence tactics. Second, the better the influencing agent liked the target, the relatively less often he or she used hard tactics. Finally, the more the influencing agent felt dependent upon the target, the fewer influence tactics, both hard and soft, were used. The discussion focuses on both the practical and theoretical implications of these findings.

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

“…Nevertheless, an authoritarian management style, which usually involves the use of hard influence tactics, has been found to foster the development of organizational capabilities and can facilitate exploitation learning (Dixon, Meyer, & Day, 2007), while at the same time can help attain a minimum level of performance, which may not be possible through the use of soft tactics alone. Under certain conditions, relational considerations may require the use of harder tactics to ensure that the target of the influence behavior adequately completes the assigned duties, to communicate dissatisfaction, or to boost performance over a short period of time (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, Blaauw, & Vermunt, 1999b). For example, a tight project deadline may compel a manager to shift pressure to group members.…”

“…Capitalizing on these similarities, researchers highlighted the usefulness of further classifying proactive influence tactics into broader higher-order categories (Van Knippenberg et al, 1999b). Following the work of Kipnis and Schmidt (1988), van Knippenberg and her 8 colleagues (2003;1999a) advocated categorizing the proactive influence tactics into hard and soft.…”

“…Soft tactics involve polite and friendly behaviors that allow the target the option of whether or not to comply (Barry & Shapiro, 1992). On the opposite end of the strength dimension, hard tactics consist of actions that are relatively controlling, direct, and coercive, whose main objective is to ensure the target's compliance or communicate the agent's dissatisfaction (Van Knippenberg et al, 1999b). Specifically, a participatory management style that utilizes soft influence tactics can increase the target's positive feelings, arouse enthusiasm, and thereby enhance the likelihood of carrying out a specific request (Liden & Mitchell, 1988).…”

Future Interaction Expectation and the Use of Soft and Hard Influence Tactics

“…Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980;Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990;Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Other research has focused more on the effects of the use of the various influence tactics (Brennan, Miller, & Seltzer, 1993;Howard, 1995;Wayne & Ferris, 1990;Yukl & Tracey, 1992), and there also seems to be a growing interest in the determinants of the use of influence tactics (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997;Kipnis et al, 1980;van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Blaauw, & Vermunt, 1999;Vecchio & Sussmann, 1991;Yukl & Falbe, 1990;Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995). The vast majority of studies on influence tactics concern surveys that rely heavily on self-report measures.…”

Power Use in Cooperative and Competitive Settings

“…As a consequence, the powerholder's attempts to reach some desired state of affairs may have negative as well as positive consequences for the target, depending on whether the goals of the powerholder and the target are congruent. Thus, the social context in which the use of power takes place is an important aspect of the interaction between powerholder and target (Tjosvold, 1985(Tjosvold, , 1995van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Blaauw, & Vermunt, 1999). Even so, research on power use rarely explicitly takes the social context into consideration (for exceptions, see Tjosvold, 1981Tjosvold, , 1984Tjosvold, , 1985.…”