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

Abstract

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.

Why people resort to coercion: the role of utility and legitimacy

“…The significant constant-effect on the ANOVA (M ¼ À3.28; F(1,86) ¼ 106.70, p < 0.0001, h 2 ¼ 0.55), indicated that soft tactics were indeed employed more often than strong ones. This finding is congruent with the results of other studies (Rule, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985;van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003;van Knippenberg, van Eijbergen et al, 1999;Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995). An ANOVA on the frequency of coercion variable revealed the expected main effects of Competence (M ¼ 2.09; F(1,86) ¼ 4.26, p < 0.05, h 2 ¼ 0.05) and Reward Structure (F(2,86) ¼ 6.13, p < 0.005, h 2 ¼ 0.13).…”

“…If this option was chosen the other person's initial answer would be replaced by the answer forced upon him or her by the participant. Thus, as in other studies on power and the use of hard versus soft tactics, participants could either force or advise the other person (Bruins et al, 1999;de Gilder & Wilke, 1994;van Knippenberg, van Eijbergen et al, 1999;van Knippenberg et al, 2001;van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003).…”

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

“…As such, hard tactics may occasionally enhance performance, but could also lead to demotivation and resistance (Van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003), which has been associated with negative organizational outcomes (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997).…”

“…Despite the traditional interest on the nature and consequences of different types of influence behavior (e.g., Van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003), very few studies have 27 differentiated between higher-order constructs of influence tactics, based on their relative position in the strength dimension (e.g., Sparrowe et al, 2006;Van Knippenberg et al, 1999a). Specifically, by examining the variation that soft and hard influence tactics exhibit on task performance we aim to broaden our understanding of the effectiveness of specific influence tactics.…”

Team dimension of relational competence of organisation – psychological perspective*

“…This behaviour is activated in a situation when a person of high DEI, having conducted a rational analysis, claims that the infl uence in a given situation is due to somebody else (an individual or group) and that their own infl uence is ineffective or unacceptable, or that the 'repertoire' of available infl uence tactics has been depleted. Van [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67], as a result of the conducted research, stated that if partners expect to stay in the interaction in the future, they employ less severe infl uence means and generally try to have less infl uence on each other. Therefore, we presuppose that persons of high DEI consider a long-term prospect for common and effective functioning, reducing their own infl uence in a team, whereas in case of assumed short-term relations, more severe infl uence means may be anticipated.…”