JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL.

12,73-80 (1991)

Research Choice of influence tactics: Individual and

Note
organizational determinants
ROBERT P. VECCHIO
University of Notre Dame, U.S.A.
AND
MARIO SUSSMANN
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1J.S.A

Introduction
A significant portion of the research in the area of social influence has focused on understanding
the specific social tactics which are used by employees to get their way. Studies by Kipnis,
Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980) and Falbo (1977) have identified homogenous sets of goal-oriented
social actions (tactics) which individuals report using. Perhaps one of the most important features
of these findings is the lack of a clear overlap of these tactics with the classic views of social
power and influence suggested by (e.g.) French and Raven (1959). In the French and Raven
typology, social influence can be classified as reflecting any of five channels (referent, reward,
coercive, legitimate, and expert). Kipnis et al. did not identify a set of five corresponding factors
as underlying employees' social influence tactics, but instead uncovered eight distinct factors
(such as assertion, ingratiation, blocking, et al.). In a multidimensional scaling of reported
power tactics, Falbo (1977) reported 16 sets of influence-oriented actions (assertion, bargaining,
compromise, deceit, et al.). Perhaps Falbo identified a larger set of actions than Kipnis et
al. because she did not focus on employment settings per se in her research, as did Kipnis
et al., but instead sought to understand social interaction in a larger range of settings.'
The items which Kipnis et al. created in their research have recently been used as indices
of preferred influence tactics. In a study reported by Ansari and Kapoor (1987), the Kipnis
et al. measures of upward appeal, ingratiation, blocking, and rational persuasion were used
as measures of preferred influence tactics. Sixty-nine engineering undergraduates participated
as subordinates in a role-playing exercise wherein they were exposed to varying leadership
styles and differing goals. Ansari and Kapoor reported that subordinate efforts to influence
their superiors were associated with the goals sought from the superior and the superior's

Addressee for correspondence: Robert P. Vecchio, Department of Management, University of Notre Dame. Notre
Dame, IN46556, U.S.A.
' Intriguingly, the results of field studies based on the French and Raven typology contradict the findings of field
studies which examined the effects of supervisory reward and punishment behavior on subordinate satisfaction perform-
ance and other outcomes (cf: Podsakoff and Schriesheim, 1985). The latter stream of research indicates that leader
reward behavior is positively related with subordinate outcomes, while studies based on the French and Raven scheme
show no relation, or a negative relation, between supervisory reward behavior and subordinate outcomes.

0894-3796/9 1/010073-08$05.00 Received 20 Januriry 1989

0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Find Revision 2 October 1989
74 R. P. VECCHIO AND M. SUSSMANN

leadership style. Individuals under an authoritarian supervisor displayed a greater tendency

to use the tactics of blocking, upward appeal, and ingratiation. When a supervisor was participa-
tive or nurturant-task oriented in his style (cJ Sinha, 1983), the subordinate was more likely
to choose the strategy of rational persuasion. When the goal sought by subordinates was personal
in nature, they preferred ingratiation. However, when the goal was organizational in nature,
they preferred blocking, upward appeal, and rational persuasion.
The Ansari and Kapoor study focused on subordinate efforts to influence one’s superior.
The present study examined the tactics which superiors use to influence their subordinates.
The examination of downward influence is of perhaps greater importance because of evidence
of the primacy of downward over upward influence in organizations (Franklin, 1975). Of special
interest in the present study are the impact of organizational level and individual differences
on preferences for downward influence tactics.
An early study by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, and Snoek (1964) suggests that level in an organization
is related to the ability to use various means of social influence. Specifically, they asked managers
to report the extent to which they could use reward, coercive, expert, and legitimate power
to influence others in the organization. Top supervisors responded that they had greater latitude
to use various forms of influence than other supervisors. These results were strongest for legiti-
mate, reward, and coercive forms of influence. All respondents, regardless of level, responded
that they could equally use expertise to influence another. Kipnis (1976, p. 47) has suggested
that these results indicate that powers derived from membership in an organization are closely
linked to organizational level. In light of this reasoning, it can be hypothesized that the forms
of social influence identified by Kipnis et al. (1980) would be related with organizational level.
Specifically, we would predict that the forms of influence identified by Kipnis et al. (1980)
would be viewed as being more readily at a superior’s disposal at higher levels within an organiza-
tional hierarchy.
Alternatively, it can be hypothesized that there will be differences in preferences for specific
influence tactics across levels such that individuals in relatively low-level supervisory positions
will more likely endorse the use of influence tactics which rely on coercion rather than solicitation
of cooperation (i.e. blocking, assertiveness, sanctions, upward appeal, and coalitions, as opposed
to ingratiation, rationality, and exchange). This expectation is based on the supposition that
it may be socially more acceptable to be ‘heavy-handed’ with subordinates in relatively lower-level
positions within an organization. Subordinates in high-level positions (who are supervised by
upper-level management) may anticipate that their cooperation will be sought rather than forced.
Hence, supervisors may likely try to influence upper-level subordinates by using techniques
that are more socially approved (i.e. rationality, ingratiation and exchange, versus coercion).
In summary, there is reason to expect that level will be positively related with propensity
to use all forms of influence (i.e. Kahn et a/., 1964). At the same time, one can argue that
a relatively select set of influence tactics will be formed at different levels. To the extent differences
in preferences for social influence techniques vary by organizational level, we will have evidence
that corroborates the suggestion that distinctly different norms affect the selection of influence
attempts at different levels (Israeli, 1975; Sussmann and Vecchio, 1982).
Individual difference variables may also be associated with preferences for specific influence
tactics. One likely variable of importance is Machiavellianism. As proposed by Christie and
Geis (1970), Machiavellianism focuses on individual endorsement of value statements derived
from Nicolo Machiavelli’s writing. The scale is widely viewed as providing an indication of
predisposition to be socially manipulative. As noted by Kipnis (1976, p. 165), the description
of persons with a high need for power and the description of persons scoring high on Machiavel-
lianism appear to overlap considerably. Hence, it may be possible to extrapolate findings concern-
 CHOICE OF INFLUENCE TACTICS 75

ing high need for power individuals to highly Machiavellian individuals. In order to test this
notion in the present study, Machiavellianism was examined as a correlate of preference for
influence tactics. It was hypothesized that Machiavellianism will be most strongly correlated
with a preference for influence tactics that involve relatively more exploitive influence (i.e.
blocking).
Gender differences in preferences for influence tactics may also be expected. Schopler (1966)
has reported evidence from laboratory studies which indicates that females conform to the
norm of social responsibility when asked to yield to a powerless or dependent individual. In
contrast, males may place greater importance on retaining a relative status advantage over
a dependent other (Schopler, 1966; Schopler and Bateson, 1965; Schopler and Matthews, 1965).
The research of Schopler and his associates, which was conducted in the 1960’s, may be of
limited relevance for today’s workforce. Given the increased emphasis on female equality, it
is questionable as to whether these findings are still representative of female behavior. In addition,
Kipnis (1976, p. 124) has reported that female managers (relative to male managers) endorse
the greater use of coercion with male employees. A further study of sex differences in the
use of power (Ayers-Nachamkin, Cann, Reed, and Horne 1982) revealed that females, who
participated as managers in an industrial simulation study, attempted to influence subordinates
to a lesser degree than did males. However, Kipnis et al. (1980, p. 451) reported no significant
relations between sex and choice of influence tactics. The complexity of these findings suggests
the relationship of sex to the use of power is not fully understood. Given the diversity of
these findings, no specific prediction concerning sex can be firmly stated. Instead, a more purely
empirical approach to the issue is taken (i.e. all of the past findings were equally entertained
as hypotheses).
It is conceivable that gender may interact with organizational level in determining preference
for influence tactics. For example, males may display an aggregate preference for a particular
influence tactic. Yet the magnitude of this preference (relative to females) may be great at
higher levels of an organization, while no difference may exist between males and females at
a lower level. In order to examine these possible effects, tests for interactions were conducted
for the independent variables of gender and level.

Subjects
Ninety-five full-time MBA students enrolled in an organizational behavior course at a midwestern
university served as research subjects. The subjects’ average age was 25.6 years, with an average
number of 2.5 years of working experience. Seventy-three per cent of the participants were
male.

Procedures and measures

Each subject was required to complete a questionnaire which included a set of instruments
and a role-play exercise. The first instrument in the questionnaire was the 20-item version
of the Machiavellianism scale (Christie and Geis, 1970). For this instrument, half of the items
were reverse worded (sample items: ‘The best way to handle people is to tell them what they
want to hear’, and ‘Honesty is the best policy in all cases’ - reversed). Respondents indicated
their degree of agreement with each of the 20 items on 7-point Likert scales (1 - strongly
disagree, 2 - moderately disagree, 3 - somewhat disagree, 4 - neutral, 5 - somewhat agree,
76 R . P. VECCHIO A N D M. SUSSMANN

6 - moderately agree, 7 - strongly agree). Total scores were calculated for each subject by
summing the item values, following reversal where appropriate.
The next section of the questionnaire presented the role-playing exercise. Three versions
of the role-play were presented, representing three distinct organizational levels (low, middle,
and high). The role-play description was as follows.
Imagine the following situation:
XYZ Corporation is a manufacturer of small power tools with a nationwide market. As
the
maintenance foreman/
plant superintendent/
vice president of marketing,
you direct the activities of
five subordinates1
five foremen/
five product managers.
Each subordinate is responsible
for minor equipment repair and trash removal/
foreman oversees a group of employees who manufacture
and assemble various products/
product manager is responsible for developing new products, bringing them to market,
and managing the sales strategy for the product.
As indicated in the chart below, you report directly to the chief manufacturing engineer/
vice president of manufacturing/
president.
At this point, the subject was referred to the organizational chart of a power tool firm. After
examining the chart, each subject was asked to complete a rating scale which served as a manipu-
lation check for the dimension of organizational level.
Before proceeding, please rate Isourjob on the following scale:
Iama
first-level member of
supervisor : : : :-:-.-:-:-:-:-: top-level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 management
The narrative of the role-play then stated the following:
One of your subordinates/
foremen/
product managers,
who has been employed for the past three years is not performing at the expected level.
You desire to influence him to achieve a higher level of performance. On the following
pages are a series of possible influence strategies which you might employ to influence
him. Please read each item and indicate the extent to which you would employ each strategy.
Note that there are no right or wrong answers and that we are interested in your preferences
among these strategies.
On the pages that followed this section was a scale consisting of 51 of the Kipnis et al.
 CHOICE OF INFLUENCE TACTICS 77

(1980) influence questions (sample items: ‘Use logic to convince him or her’, and ‘Simply order
him or her to do what I ask’). Responses to the items were obtained on 9-point Likert scales
with the anchors of 9 - ‘I definitely would’ and 1 - ‘I definitely would not’. The final section
of the questionnaire consisted of a personal background data sheet. This sheet requested infor-
mation on the subject’s gender, age, and work experience. Subjects were subsequently debriefed
as to the purposes of the study.

Results and discussion

A check on the manipulation of organizational level revealed that the three levels were judged
to be distinct (means for low, middle, and high = 3.0, 4.7, and 7.0, respectively; F = 27.68,
p < 0.01). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach
a values), and intercorrelations among the scales, individual differences variables, and other
key variables. The intercorrelations among the influence tactic scales ranged from -0.05 to
0.62, with a median of 0.22 (suggesting relative independence among the influence scales).
Organizational level was inversely related with propensity to use an upward appeal influence
tactic (Y = -0.30, p < 0.01). This makes sense as supervisors at higher levels would likely feel
that they have enough authority to exercise influence, while supervisors lower down in an
organizational hierarchy may feel less confident about exercising influence without the backing
of higher authority. Also other influence tactic subscales were not significantly correlated with
organizational level. Because of the possibility that influence tactics may be nonlinearly related
to level, one-way analyses of variance were conducted for the subscales across the three organiza-
tional levels. Although non-linear hypotheses were not offered, it was observed that the endorse-
ment of the tactic of coalition formation differed significantly across organizational level such
that coalition formation was more strongly endorsed in the middle management scenario (means:
low = 16.7,middle = 17.5, high = 14.6; F = 3 . 0 6 , 0.05).
~ ~
As predicted, Machiavellianism was significantly correlated with blocking (Y = 0 . 2 8 , ~< 0.01),
but not significantly correlated with all other influence tactics. The individual differences variable
of gender was found to be significantly correlated with coalition formation ( r = 0.24, p < 0.05),
but uncorrelated with all other dependent measures.
A test for the interaction of gender and organizational level was conducted for each of the
influence tactic dependent measures. Hierarchical regression was employed by entering into
a regression equation the individual differences variable first, followed by level, and lastly a
multiplicative interaction term (Cohen and Cohen, 1975). The resulting increment in R‘ due
to adding the interaction term to the equation was tested for its statistical significance. The
results of these tests did not yield evidence of any significant interactions. In the interest of
completeness, hierarchical regression analyses were performed in order to test for significant
interactions of Machiavellianism and organizational level. The results of these tests also did
not yield evidence of any significant interactions.
The present findings, overall, did not provide support for the expectation that level would
be generally related to influence tactics. The single exception to this pattern was the finding
that supervisors in lower-level management were more inclined to rely on upward appeal tactics
than higher level supervisors. The finding that middle-level supervisors would be more inclined
toward coalition formation was unexpected. As such, it underscores a present lack of theoretical
specificity by which this result could have been more precisely predicted.
The individual difference variable of Machiavellianism yielded supportive results in that
Machiavellianism was correlated with propensity to engage in blocking. With the exception
 P
rc1
<
m
0
0
z
6
>
z
Table I . Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alphas, and intercorrelations U

Variable x Std I 3 3 4 5 6 7 3
8 9 10 11 v,

I . Org. Level 2.01 0.81 -

5
v,
2. Mach. 70.75 13.02 -07 71
3. Sex (1 =male )
5z
1.27 0.44 - 12 -06 - z
2 = female
4. Assert. 50.42 12.55 -03 II 02 78
5. Ingrat. 61.33 11.66 -01 01 -01 09 70
6. Ration. 46.27 6.95 05 -01 18 32* 42* 51
7. Sanction. 17.31 7.35 01 15 -02 46* -02 15 71
8. Exch. 17.41 6.35 -08 -01 -14 -05 43* 2lt 09 66
9. Up. appeal 16.47 5.81 -30* 04 14 31t 09 29* 35* 20-f 71
10. Block 10.16 4.48 -06 28* -11 20t 09 04 43* 32* 28* 62
I I . Coalit. 16.31 4.86 -17 -01 24t 31* 23* 43* 18 10 62 * 19 45
*p < O . O I .
i p <0.05.
Decimal points omitted. Cronbach alphas are listed on the primary diagonal.
 CHOICE OF INFLUENCE TACTICS 79

of coalition formation, gender was not related to influence tactics. As such, these results tend
to support the findings reported by Kipnis et al. (1980). The greater tendency of female respon-
dents to prefer outside support in the present study is suggestive of a variety of underlying
processes. Perhaps females feel that they need greater backing before confronting problematic
employees. Or perhaps they wish to have validation of their decisions by others in the setting.
Also, it may be that males are reluctant to discuss their problems and seek support from others
as it would admit to others a form of weakness or possible failure.
It is important to note that the present study examined a very important issue of general
concern to supervisors: enhancing the performance of a subordinate. However, the present
set of results may be highly specific to downward influence as it pertains to the singular goal
of influencing a subordinate’s performance. Other goals (e.g. dealing with a behavior that requires
disciplinary action) would possibly produce a different pattern of results.
Several important challenges remain for future research related to the study of influence
tactics in organizational settings. The construct validation of measures of preferred influence
tactics should continue to be a high priority. Situational testing of actual individual behavior
in settings that involve attempting to influence others would perhaps yield strong evidence
of the accuracy of instruments designed to measure preferred influence tactics (Cobb, 1984).
In addition, alternative measures of preferences for influence tactics which rely less on self-
reporting (e.g. pooling of peer votings, unobtrusive observational measures, or cognitive script-
ing) may prove useful (Drake and Moberg, 1986).

References
Ansari, M. A. and Kapoor, A. (1987). ‘Organizational context and upward influence tactics’, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Proceses, 4439-49.
Ayers-Nachamkin, B., Cann, C. H., Reed, R. and Horne, A. (1982). ‘Sex and ethnic differences in the
use of power’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,464471,
Christie, R. and Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, Academic Press, New York.
Cobb, A. J. (1984). ‘An episodic model of power: Toward an integration of theory and research’, Acndemy
of Management Review, 9,482493.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. ( I 975). Applied Multiple RegressiodCorrelation Analysis for the Behaviornl
Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Drake, B. H. and Moberg, D. J. (1986). ‘Communicating influence attempts in dyads: Linguistic sedatives
and palliatives’, Academy of Management Review, 11, 567-584.
Falbo, T. (1977). ‘Multidimensional scaling of power strategies’, Journal of Personality and Sociul Psy-
chology, 35,537-547.
Franklin, J. L. (1975). ‘Down the organization: Influence processes across levels of hierarchy’, Adminisfra-
tive Science Quarterly, 20, 153-164.
French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1959). ‘The bases of social power’. In: Cartwright, M. D. (Ed.)
Studies in Social Power, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Israeli, D. N. (1975). ‘The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: a case study’, Sloan
Management Review, Winter, 57-70.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P. and Snoek, J . D. (1964). Orgunizational Stress, Wiley, New
York.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The Powerholders, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, M. S. and Wilkinson, I. (1 980). ‘Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations
in getting one’s way’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,440452.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). ‘Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of power:
Critique, reanalysis and suggestions for future research’, Psychological Bulletin, 97, 3 8 7 4 11.
Schopler, J. (1 966). ‘Interpersonal power’. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Pq>-
chology, VoI. 2, Academic Press, New York.
80 R. P. VECCHIO AND M . SUSSMANN

Schopler, J. and Bateson, N. (1965). ‘The power of dependence’, Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chologj’,2,241-254.
Schopler. J. and Matthews, M. W. (1965). ’The influence of the perceived locus of partner’s dependence
on the use of interpersonal power’, Journal of Personalitj~andsocial Psychology, 2,609-612.
Sinha, J. B. P. (1983). ‘Further testing of a model of leadership effectiveness’, Indian Journal ofZndustrial
Relarrons. 19. 143-160.
Sussmann, M. and Vecchio, R . P. (1982). ‘A social influence interpretation ofworker motivation’, Academy
ofManagement Revreit. 7, 177-186.