Subordinate perceptions of superior's communication competence and task attraction related to superior's use of compliance‐gaining tactics

Communication Competence, Leadership Behaviors, and Employee Outcomes in Supervisor-Employee Relationships

“…Communication competencies are believed to be among the most central qualifications in the workforce (Curtis, Winsor, & Stephens, 1989;Hawkins & Fillion, 1999) and competence has been linked with occupational success (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989). Communication competence can be especially important in situations with disagreements or differing goals (Canary & Cupach, 1988;Canary & Spitzberg, 1989), which are commonly found in the work environment G. M. Johnson (1992)…”

“…Communication competence can be especially important in situations with disagreements or differing goals (Canary & Cupach, 1988;Canary & Spitzberg, 1989), which are commonly found in the work environment. G. M. Johnson (1992) found that in the workplace, prosocial compliance gaining tactics used by a superior were rated as more competent than antisocial compliance gaining tactics. Furthermore, Berman and Hellweg (1989) found that perceived communication competence of a supervisor was related to the employee's satisfaction with the supervisor.…”

Teacher Machiavellianism and Social Influence in the College Classroom: Implications for Measurement

“…If Machiavellian teachers employ more anti-social influence in the classroom, students may view their manipulative intent as antagonistic toward their own self-interest, thereby perceiving those teachers to be less competent and knowledgeable. Previous research focusing on supervisor social influence behaviors in the workplace found that a supervisor using antisocial compliance gaining techniques was viewed as less competent than a supervisor who resorts to prosocial tactics to elicit compliance from subordinates (Johnson, 1992).…”

Compliance‐gaining strategies, communication satisfaction, and willingness to comply

“…In the past 15 years, dozens of studies have been focused on the taxonomies of strategic choices available to message sources as well as situational and personal factors impacting those choices (for reviews, see Burleson, Wilson, Waltman, Goering, Ely & Whaley, 1988;Dillard & Burgoon, 1985;Seibold, Cantrill & Meyers, 1985;Wheeless, Barraclough & Stewart, 1983). Despite the obvious values of examining message-generating behavior, consequential effects of persuasive strategies on receivers has obtained scant attention (Johnson, 1992;Wheeless, Barraclough & Stewart, 1983, p. 106). An examination of the effects of persuasive message strategies, specifically the impact of strategy type and interpersonal/ noninterpersonal situational demands on satisfaction with and willingness to comply with persuasive requests is the focus of this report.…”