Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants

Vecchio, Robert P.; Sussmann, Mario

doi:10.1002/job.4030120107

Cited by 71 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Raven, 1992), for individuals having high or low status (Stahelski & Paynton, 1995), for high or low competent individuals (van Knippenberg, van Eijbergen, & Wilke, 1999), for people high or low on Machiavellianism (Farmer et al, 1997;Falbo, 1977;Grams & Rogers, 1990;Vecchio & Sussmann, 1991), for transactional and transformational leadership styles (Deluga & Souza, 1991), for different levels of education (Farmer et al, 1997), for people influencing a group or an individual (Guerin, 1995), and for ingroup versus outgroup targets (Bruins, 1997). Indeed, the relative frequency with which hard and soft tactics are used appears to be influenced by many determinants.…”

Section: Hard and Soft Influence Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Knippenberg

Steensma

2003

Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Les stratégies d'influence varient en fonction du contrôle qu'elles exercent sur la situation et la cible. Les stratégies "douces" laissent plus que les stratégies "dures" la possibilitié pour la cible d'accepter ou de rejeter la tentative d'influence. La solution "dure" engendre donc généralement une plus grande tension dans la relation entre la cible et l'agent d'influence. Cette recherche est centrée sur la conséquence que la représentation de l'interaction à venir peut avoir sur le choix d l'une ou l'autre stratégie. Les résultats d'une expérience indiquent que l'expectation d'une interaction diminue l'appel à l'influence en général et aux stratégies d'influence dure en particulier. On peur supposer que la perspective d'une interaction prolongée rend moins attractif le choix d'un comportement qui pourrait mettre la relation en danger. Les résultants ont aussi montré que les stratégies douces étaient plus employées que les dures et que les homes faisaient plus appel à l'influence que les femmes.The influence tactics that people use may vary in the extent to which they take control over the situation and the target. Soft tactics allow the target of influence more latitude in deciding whether or not to accept the employed influence than hard tactics. As a consequence hard influence tactics usually place more strain on the relationship between influencing agent and target. This study focused on the effect that the expectation of future interaction may have on the use of hard and soft influence tactics. The results of an experiment indicated that the expectation of a future interaction diminished the use of influence in general and of hard influence tactics in particular. Presumably, the expectancy of prolonged interaction made the display of behavior that might endanger the relationship less attractive. Furthermore, results showed that soft tactics were used more often than hard ones and that men employed more influence than women.

show abstract

Section: Hard and Soft Influence Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Knippenberg

Steensma

2003

Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Machiavellianism, characterised by emotional detachment, distrust, and a willingness to exploit others (Christie & Geis, 1970;Vecchio & Sussman, 1991), has been shown to influence the attraction of a romantic partner, relationship quality, and relationship maintenance. For example, those with high levels of Machiavellianism display low levels of relationship commitment, increased infidelity, and higher levels of sexual deception (Ali, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010;Brewer & Abell, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Machiavellianism and romantic relationship dissolution

Brewer

Abell

2017

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…So far, a substantial number of the studies on influence tactics were concerned mainly with the description and classification of the tactics used. Although some research aimed at identifying antecedents of influence tactic use has been undertaken, mainly focusing on personal features and specific task objectives (Grams & Rogers, 1990;Raven, 1992;Tepper et al, 1993;Veccio & Sussmann, 1991;Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995), we still know relatively little about the determinants of the use of influence tactics, and with this study we hope to have added some knowledge about the factors that influence the use of hard and soft tactics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational Considerations in the Use of Influence Tactics¹

Knippenberg

Blaauw

et al. 1999

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants

Cited by 71 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Machiavellianism and romantic relationship dissolution

Relational Considerations in the Use of Influence Tactics¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants

Cited by 71 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Machiavellianism and romantic relationship dissolution

Relational Considerations in the Use of Influence Tactics1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Relational Considerations in the Use of Influence Tactics¹