A Field Study of the Relation between Leaders' Anticipation of Targets' Resistance and Targets' Reports of Influence Tactics Used by Leaders in Dyadic Relations

Abstract

This research explored the relationship between targets' resistance and leaders' behaviors. Barbuto's concentric zones, Preference, Indifference, Legitimate, Influence, and Noninfluence, were used as the independent variables to predict leaders' use of influence tactics. Results from 83 leader-member dyads imply moderate relationships between perceptions of followers' resistance and influence tactics used by leaders. Directions for research are addressed.

A Framework Exploring the Effects of the Machiavellian Disposition on the Relationship Between Motivation and Influence Tactics

“…Earlier, Barbuto (2000) suggested that leaders/managers often misinterpret employee resistance to requested tasks and mistakenly underestimate a follower's willingness to perform tasks. Barbuto et al {2001 ) found that leaders use soft tactics when anticipating higher resistance from workers. They also found a correlation (r = .22) between leaders' use of soft tactics and the lowest level of anticipated resistance.…”

“…They also found a correlation (r = .22) between leaders' use of soft tactics and the lowest level of anticipated resistance. Anticipated resistance was positively related to leaders' use of ingratiating, consultative, and coalition influence tactics (Barbuto, et al, 2001). Barbuto and Scholl (1999) studied the relationships between leaders' motivation sources, their perceptions of their targets' motivation sources, and their choices of influence tactics.…”

Effects of Gender, Education, and Age upon Leaders’ Use of Influence Tactics and Full Range Leadership Behaviors

“…Yukl and others (Falbe & Yukl, 1992;Yukl & Falbe, 1990;Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993;Yukl & Tracey, 1992) identifi ed nine infl uence tactics: legitimizing, rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, consultation, exchange, personal appeals, ingratiation, pressure, and coalition. Barbuto, Scholl, Hickox and Boulmetis (2001) classifi ed Yukl's nine infl uence tactics as either "hard" or "soft" based on targets' levels of resistance in relation to leader behavior. Hard, or forceful tactics, include legitimizing, exchange, pressure, and coalition.…”

Influence tactics and “second-order” change in schools: case study research of principals' political behaviors and strategies

“…Soft tactics refer to the use of power-sharing, at times in a personal manner, which is less likely to elicit resentment (consultation, exchange, etc.) (Barbuto et al, 2001;Falbe and Yukl, 1992;Kapoutsis et al, 2019).…”