Identifying, categorising, and measuring influence

To my knowledge, there is only one notable review of the literature concerned with ‘influence’, which includes ‘tactics’ by Yukl and Seifert (2002). The earliest studies by Mowday (1978) and Kipnis et al. (1980) emphasise the significance of researching ‘informal power’, followed later by interest in interpersonal influence theory (Higgins et al., 2003). Mowday’s (1978) study focuses on managers’ upward influence in organisational decision making, categorising tactics as a ‘threat’, ‘appeals to legitimate authority’, ‘persuasive arguments’, ‘rewards or exchange of favours’, and ‘manipulation’. This study reveals highly rated influencers as characterised by high instrumental, intrinsic motivation and self-perceptions of power. As such, this study

103

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

surprisingly makes an association between high-level effectiveness with the use of manipulation as an influencing tactic. As research interest in influence and measurements of influence has grown, lists of tactics have developed (see Appendix 3) informing typologies (i.e. POIS, IBQ, and SUI). However, these are often thought of as highly contentious and generate much debate, prompting scholars to create, modify, or develop them (Alshenaifi and Clarke, 2014).

Kipnis et al. (1980) produce an early taxonomy of influence tactics by analysing the effectiveness of influence attempts at critical moments. They took 370 influence tactics and classified them into 14 categories to devise a self-report questionnaire, which is then used to test how frequently each tactic was applied. Their analysis produces eight dimensions of influence, which inform the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS) questionnaire:

104

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

Table 16: Eight dimensions of influence

Dimension of

Influence Description

Assertiveness Expressing anger verbally, reminding repeatedly, demanding _{and bugging} Ingratiation Showing a need for help, acting very humbly/friendly, praising _{and making others feel good/important} Sanctions Threatening loss of promotion or unsatisfactory performance _{evaluation or giving no salary increase} Rationality Writing a detailed plan as justification or using logic/reasons/full _{information to convince others} Exchange of Benefit Offering an exchange/help, reminders of past favours

Upward Appeal Obtaining the formal/informal support of superiors

Blocking Threatening to notify an outside agency, stop working, or ignore _them

Coalition Obtaining the support of co-workers and/or subordinates

Source: Adapted from Alshenaifi and Clarke, 2004, p.6-7

This POIS scale is most commonly applied to upward influence. Its popularity is credited to its originality and capacity to simultaneously measure three directions of influence (Kipnis et al., 1980, Kipnis and Schmidt, 1982, Alshenaifi and Clarke, 2014). Limitations of this instrument are its reliance on the use of self-perception of influence tactics and objectives, and bias towards expressions of socially desirable influence tactics (Alshenaifi and Clarke, 2014). Whilst several significant studies draw on POIS measures to capture organisational influence behaviours considering upward influence, only a handful focus on the perspective of the agent and target (Schilit and Locke, 1982, Erez et al., 1986, Yukl and Falbe, 1990, Tepper et al., 1993, Dockery and Steiner, 1990). What this suggests is that little is known about the correlation of perspectives of effectiveness in the context of influence in dyadic relationships. Schilit and Locke (1982) slightly adapt the original scale by including ‘adherence to rules’ and ‘manipulation’ while excluding ‘ingratiation’ and ‘blocking’. Around the same time,

105

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

Kipnis and Schmidt (1982) devise an alternative POIS for commercial use, condensing it into six upward influencing tactics (i.e. reasoning/rational persuasion, bargaining/exchange, assertiveness, higher authority, coalition and friendliness/ingratiation). Interestingly ‘sanctions’ and ‘blocking’ were omitted as infrequent and conceptually problematic (Kipnis et al., 1984).

This revised POIS scale informed future studies by Kipnis focusing on categorising managers by use of tactics (Kipnis et al., 1984), upward influence and categorisation of the goals behind exerting influence (Schmidt and Kipnis, 1984). Subsequently, Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) focus on upward influence styles, and cluster managers into four influence types based on their tactical use of a range of approaches:

Table 17: Manager categorisation of influence types

Category Description

Shotgun Those who always use all six tactics

Tacticians Use rational persuasion more than other tactics

Ingratiators Use more ingratiation in comparison to other tactics

Bystanders Score low in the use of all tactics

Source: Kipnis and Schmidt, 1988b, p530

Influence tactics can be categorised in various ways and into larger entities, termed ‘influence strategies’, emphasising the significance of influencer type or types of influence. Farmer et al. (1997) and Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) group tactics into three categories; hard tactics (i.e. assertiveness, upward appeal and coalition), soft tactics (i.e. friendliness or ingratiation and exchange or only ingratiation), or rational strategy (i.e.

106

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

rationality, bargaining and some forms of exchange or only rationality). Porter et al. (1981) classify tactics as ‘positive’ and ‘negative sanctions’ and ‘informational’ comprising ‘persuasion’, ‘manipulation’ and ‘manipulative persuasion’. Jones and Pittman (1982) categorise tactics concerned with self-presentation distinguishing the tactic of ‘self-promotion’ (i.e. creating an appearance of competence) from ‘ingratiation’ (i.e. becoming more likeable) (Higgins et al., 2003). Krone (1991) presents three clusters based on previously identified influence methods (i.e. open persuasion, strategic persuasion, and manipulation). Finally, Fu et al. (2004) clusters influence into types of approach:

Table 18: Grouping of influence types

Category

Persuasive Making use of rational persuasion, inspirational appeal and _consultation

Assertive Using persistence, pressure and upward appeal

Relationship Based Those who give gifts, have informal engagement, personal _{appeal, socialise and exchange} Source: Fu et al. (2004) p.286

Yukl and Falbe (1990) and latterly Yukl and Tracey (1992) devise the first Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ). This instrument is used to elicit a rating of influence tactics in use by agents aimed at a target (Yukl and Falbe, 1990, Yukl and Tracey, 1992). Their first attempt builds on Kipnis et al. (1980) findings with a different methodology, measuring the six POIS tactics and adding two further types of influence behaviour and objectives (i.e. inspirational appeal and consultation tactics). They measured the frequency of influence tactics and objectives based on the views of agents and targets. Then Yukl and Tracey (1992) using the IBQ focused on targets only but excluded ‘upward appeal’. Such evolutionary phases in measuring influence suggest that there is

107

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

some value in attempting to understand and evaluate the flow of influence from multiple perspectives (i.e. the source and target of influence).

Literature concerning leadership and power stimulated Yukl and Tracey (1992) to include four new tactics (i.e. inspirational appeal, consultation tactics, personal appeal, and legitimising tactics). This later study validated their earlier work, affirming nine of the ten tactics, which inform further IBQ studies. It took a further ten years before Yukl and Seifert (2002) revised and extended the IBQ scale to include two more tactics (i.e. collaboration and apprising), later validated as distinct from the other nine influence tactics (Yukl et al., 2005). The most commonly utilised IBQ instrument consists of eleven influence tactics and four items for each (Yukl et al., 2008). The IBQ’s reliance on participants responding about others influence behaviours helps to overcome self- reporting criticisms (Yukl et al., 2005, Ralston et al., 2005). Critically, the dilemma of relying on ‘subjective views’ of self and others, and how such ‘evaluations’ inform categorisations of influence tactics by their use are deemed inescapable.

A distinctive focus on upward influence emanates from Schriesheim and Hinkin’s (1990) criticism of the work of Kipnis et al. (1980). Subsequently, their criticism prompts them to produce what they argue is a more reliable, valid, and distinct 18 item instrument to measure only upward influence. Moreover, Ralston et al. (1993) developed the Strategies of Upward Influence (SUI) instrument to measure cross- cultural upward influence tactics, in response to the limitations of the POIS or IBQ instruments. From this work, a set of influence typologies is produced that differs from the POIS taxonomy, with the only common dimensions being ‘ingratiation’ and ‘rational persuasion’. The other tactics were unique (i.e. good soldier, image

108

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

management, personal networking, information control, and strong-arm coercion). Subsequently, their adaptations to power classifications draw on previous research in that field to add three dimensions (i.e. organisationally sanctioned behaviour, destructive legal behaviour, and destructive illegal behaviour). Additional work on the relative acceptability of four types of upward influencing tactics by Egri et al. (2000) further develops the SUI instrument:

Table 19: Acceptability of upward influencing tactics

Upward Influencing Tactic Description

Organisationally sanctioned behaviour

Behaviours directly beneficial to the organisation such as self-enhancement and ingratiation, volunteering for high-profile projects, helping subordinates, and maintaining good working relationships with rational persuasion, showing expertise and the exchange of benefits.

Non-destructive/legal behaviours

The ‘me first’ approach, sees self-interest above the interests of others, but are behaviours still not harmful such as impression management, ingratiation, upward appeal, personalised help, showing dependency, and diplomacy.

Destructive/legal behaviours

The ‘get out of my way or get trampled’ approach as behaviours which are legal but often hurt others consisting of tactics such as information control, blocking and manipulative tactics (e.g. withholding information) and putting false information on a formal document.

Destructive/illegal behaviours Illegal and harmful to others encompassing coercive tactics such as corruption, theft of corporate documents, and harassment.

Source: Egri et al., 2000, p.159

It is these three notable instruments of measurement of influence that provide a foundation to acknowledge the existence of various types of influencer, and an array of influencing approaches/tools. These empirically based works contribute significantly to

109

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019

a movement away from the assumption that influence invariably flows top down. Here we begin to see progress towards a greater acknowledgement and appreciation of the upward flow of influence in an organisational context.

110

Darren Cunningham PhD Dissertation – July 2019