The use of various influencing tactics, such as pressure tactics, rational persuasion,

coalition tactics, and apprising tactics, plays a crucial role in the success or failure of an

influencing attempt according to Yukl's framework.

In Yukl's framework, the Provost uses a combination of different influencing tactics.

One of the tactics used by the Provost is pressure tactics. This can be seen in the way the

Provost handles the situation with the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Provost

expresses his concerns about the Dean's budget and makes it clear that there will be

consequences if the budget is not brought under control. This creates a sense of urgency and a

feeling of pressure on the Dean to take action. Another tactic used by the Provost is rational

persuasion (Rodwell, 2021). The Provost uses facts and data to support his position and to

convince the Dean that his suggestions are the best course of action. This is evident in the

way the Provost provides data to the Dean about the budget, pointing out that the budget has

exceeded the approved amount and that cuts must be made. The Provost also uses logic and

reasoning to show the Dean how his suggestions will improve the situation. The Provost also

uses coalition tactics in his approach to the Dean. He works to build a coalition of support by

involving other administrators and faculty members in the discussion and seeking their

support for his suggestions. This creates a sense of agreement and unity among those

involved and makes it more likely that the Dean will take the Provost's suggestions seriously.

The Provost is able to build a coalition of support because he is well respected among the

administrators and faculty members and has a reputation for being fair and thoughtful in his

decision-making.
 The Provost in The Training Program scenario used several influencing tactics as

discussed in Yukl’s framework. Firstly, he used a rational argument in his approach to

convince the department heads to adopt the training program (Rodwell, 2021). By presenting

statistical data and research findings on the benefits of the training program, the Provost was

able to provide a convincing reason for the department heads to accept the program.

Additionally, the Provost also used an apprising tactic, by highlighting the department heads'

responsibility in ensuring that their employees receive adequate training to improve their job

performance. This was an effective way to bring the department heads’ attention to the

importance of the training program and encourage them to take action. Furthermore, the

Provost also used pressure tactics in his approach. This was evident in his use of deadlines

and expectations for the department heads to adopt the training program. The Provost made it

clear that he expected the program to be implemented within a certain timeframe and that he

expected the department heads to take responsibility for ensuring its success. This type of

pressure creates a sense of urgency and encourages the department heads to take action to

meet the expectations set by the Provost (Rodwell, 2021). Lastly, the Provost also utilized

coalition tactics by bringing in external experts to support the implementation of the training

program. By bringing in professionals from outside the organization to support the program,

the Provost was able to demonstrate the value of the program and create a sense of consensus

among the department heads. This type of tactic helps to build support for the program and

creates a sense of commitment among the department heads to make the program a success.
 The outcome of the influencing attempt is uncertain as there are multiple factors that

can affect the success or failure of the attempt. The most probable outcomes are resistance,

compliance, or a combination of both. The likelihood of each outcome depends on several

factors such as the relationship between the influencer and the target, the target's motivation,

the perceived value of the request, and the target's personal characteristics. Resistance is the

most likely outcome if the target perceives the request as unreasonable or lacks motivation to

comply (Rodwell, 2021). For example, if the target does not trust the influencer or does not

see any personal benefit from complying, they may resist the request. Additionally, if the

target has a strong personality and is confident in their own beliefs, they may resist the

request. Compliance is a probable outcome if the target perceives the request as reasonable

and has a motivation to comply. For example, if the target is already predisposed to support

the influencer's request or perceives that there is a personal benefit to complying, they are

more likely to comply. Additionally, if the influencer has a strong relationship with the target,

they may be more likely to comply. A combination of both resistance and compliance is also

possible. For example, the target may initially resist the request but eventually comply if the

influencer provides additional information or changes the request in a way that the target

finds more acceptable. The extent to which research enables us to make confident predictions

is limited. There are many variables that can affect the outcome of an influencing attempt,

and research can only provide general guidelines based on past experiences. However,

research can provide insights into the factors that affect the success or failure of influencing

attempts, such as the relationship between the influencer and the target, the target's

motivation, and the perceived value of the request.