See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265615930

Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
52 13,786

2 authors:

Gary Yukl John W. Michel

University at Albany, The State University of New York Loyola University Maryland
101 PUBLICATIONS 21,712 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 1,416 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leader Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Michel on 08 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Proactive Influence Tactics and Leader Member Exchange

Gary Yukl & John W. Michel

University at Albany, State University of New York

In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New

empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 87-103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
 2

Introduction

An important determinant of managerial effectiveness is the ability to influence

subordinates to carry out requests and implement decisions (Yukl, 2002). The success of an

attempt made by the agent to influence the target person depends in part on the tactics used by

the agent (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Since the early 1980’s a number of studies have been

conducted to determine the effectiveness of specific influence behaviors (see Yukl & Chavez,

2002). Influence tactics can be classified according to their primary purpose and time frame

(Yukl, 2002). Proactive tactics are used in an attempt to influence someone to carry out an

immediate request. Reactive tactics are used to resist unwanted influence attempts by other

people, or to influence someone to modify a request so that it is more acceptable. Impression

management tactics are used to create a favorable image and build closer relationships. Some

types of influence tactics can be used for more than one purpose, but they may not be equally

effective for different purposes.

Early research by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) identified several distinct types

of proactive influence tactics, and the researchers developed an agent self-report questionnaire

called the Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS). Subsequent research by

Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) found evidence for the construct validity of six POIS tactics for

upward influence attempts with a boss, i.e., rationality, assertiveness, exchange (or bargaining),

ingratiation (or friendliness), coalition, and upward appeal. In a separate program of research

that began in 1989, Yukl and colleagues identified 11 proactive tactics that can be used for

influence attempts with subordinates, peers, and superiors (see Yukl & Chavez, 2002). These

tactics are measured with a target questionnaire called the Influence Behavior Questionnaire
 3

(IBQ). The IBQ measures five tactics that are similar to those in the POIS and six additional

tactics. The 11 tactics are defined in Table 1.

---------------------------------

Insert Table 1 About Here

---------------------------------

Several studies on the relative effectiveness of different proactive tactics have been

conducted using research methodologies such as surveys (e.g., Yukl & Tracy, 1992), critical

incidents (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Falbe 1996), experiments (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999), and

scenario studies (e.g., Fu & Yukl, 2000). These studies found that the proactive tactics most

likely to elicit task commitment include rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, and

inspirational appeals. The four tactics have subsequently been termed core tactics (Yukl, 2002).

Another subject of research on influence behavior is the determinants of a manager’s

choice of influence tactics. Yukl and Tracy (1992) proposed that agents will use tactics that are

socially acceptable, feasible in terms of the agent’s position and personal power in relation to the

target, not costly (in terms of time, effort, loss of resources, or alienation of the target), and likely

to be effective for a particular objective given the anticipated level of resistance by the target.

Support for most of these propositions was provided by several studies (e.g., Yukl, Falbe, &

Youn, 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).

However, most of this research treats influence attempts as isolated episodes, rather than as

reciprocal processes that occur in a continuing relationship between the agent and target.

Although the authority relationship between agent and target has been included in some studies

on determinants of tactic selection and effectiveness, the research seldom considers the

interpersonal relationship and variables such as trust and mutual regard. In this chapter we will
 4

consider how proactive influence tactics are related to the social exchange relationship between

leaders and individual subordinates.

Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the role making processes between a

leader and each individual subordinate and the social exchange relationship that develops over

time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The basic premise of the

theory is that leaders develop a separate exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two

parties mutually define the subordinate’s role. Graen and Cashman (1975) suggested that

exchange relationships are formed on the basis of personal compatibility and subordinate

competence and dependability. Because of limited time and energy, leaders with many

subordinates develop a close working relationship with only a few trusted subordinates (Graen,

1976; Graen & Schiemann, 1978).

The basis for establishing a high exchange relationship is the leader’s control over

outcomes that are desirable to a subordinate, such as better assignments, more responsibility,

higher status, and tangible rewards such as a pay increase, special benefits (e.g., better work

schedule, bigger office), and facilitation of the subordinate’s career (e.g., recommending a

promotion, giving developmental assignments with high visibility). In return for these benefits, a

high exchange subordinate has additional obligations and costs. The subordinate is expected to

work harder, to be more committed to task objectives, to be loyal to the leader, and in some cases

to share some of the leader’s administrative duties. The development of high-exchange

relationships occurs gradually over a period of time; through reciprocal reinforcement of

behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again. Unless the cycle is broken, the
 5

relationship is likely to develop to a point in which there is a degree of mutual dependence,

loyalty, and support.

The benefits to the leader from a high exchange relationship are evident. Subordinate

commitment is important when the leader’s work unit has tasks that require considerable

initiative and effort on the part of some members to be carried out successfully. The assistance

of committed subordinates can be invaluable to a manager who lacks the time or energy to carry

out all of the administrative duties for which he or she is responsible. However, the high-

exchange relationships create certain obligations and constraints on the leader. To maintain

these relationships, the leader must provide attention to the subordinates, remain responsive to

their needs and feelings, and rely more on time-consuming influence methods such as persuasion

and consultation. The leader cannot resort to coercion or heavy-handed use of authority without

endangering the special relationship.

The exchange relationship established with the remaining subordinates is substantially

different. In a low exchange relationship there is a relatively low level of mutual influence. To

satisfy the terms of this “outgroup” relationship, subordinates need only comply with formal role

requirements (e.g., duties, rules, standard procedures, and legitimate directions from the leader).

As long as such compliance is forthcoming, the subordinate receives the standard benefits for the

job (such as salary).

Prior Research on LMX and Influence Tactics

There are numerous studies on the antecedents and consequences of LMX, and this

research has been reviewed by several scholars (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day,

1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). However, few studies have been conducted to

investigate the relationship between LMX and the use of influence tactics by the leader and
 6

subordinate. Leadership scholars (e.g., Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Schriesheim, Castro, &

Yammarino, 2002) have noted the need for such research. We found only four studies that

examined this relationship, and they all involved upward influence attempts by subordinates.

A field study by Deluga and Perry (1991), investigated how LMX is related to the use of

six influence tactics by subordinates in their attempts to influence their boss. The researchers

wanted to ascertain whether higher quality LMX relationships were related the use of bargaining,

reasoning, and friendliness (i.e., hypothesis 1) and inversely related with assertiveness, higher

authority, and coalition (i.e., hypothesis 2). Subordinates reported their use of influence tactics

with the agent version of the POIS. The study found that LMX was correlated positively with

rationality and negatively with exchange, pressure, and coalition tactics (including upward

appeals).

The second study, by Dockery and Steiner (1990), investigated how LMX was related to

upward influence tactics used by subordinates during the early development of a new

relationship with their boss. This study was conducted in a classroom setting using

undergraduate student participants to investigate whether upward influence attempts by the

subordinate toward to leader during the initial interaction would influence the leader to initiate a

favorable LMX relationship. Subordinate use of three influence tactics in influence attempts

with the boss was reported from both the perspective of the subordinate and the boss. Students

who served as subordinates used the agent version of the POIS, and students who served as

bosses used the target version of the POIS. For the data from subordinates, LMX was positively

correlated with ingratiation and rationality and negatively correlated with assertiveness. For the

data from bosses, LMX was correlated positively with ingratiation and rationality. However,

there was not a significant correlation between LMX and assertiveness.

 7

Two studies examined the relationship between LMX and a subordinate’s use of

impression management tactics with the boss (Deluga & Perry, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

Although impression management tactics have a different objective than proactive tactics, some

of the specific tactics are the same. Both studies found that ingratiation was correlated positively

with LMX.

Although these four studies suggest a link between LMX and tactics, the researchers

examined only a small number of tactics used in upward influence attempts with superiors.

There has been no attempt to investigate how LMX is related to a leader’s use of influence

tactics with subordinates, or to examine a broader range of tactics. The purpose of our study was

to investigate this research question.

Hypotheses

There is ample reason to expect a relationship between LMX and some tactics used by a

leader to influence a subordinate, and the relationship may involve causality in either direction.

That is, the quality of the existing exchange relationship affects the agent’s choice of tactics, and

tactics used by the agent will affect the quality of the future exchange relationships. The

following hypotheses do not specify the direction of causality, but instead consider the

possibility that it may be in either direction.

Hyp. 1: LMX is positively related to consultation.

Prior research has found that LMX is correlated positively with subordinate participation

in making work-related decisions (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986; Yukl & Fu, 1999). The

influence tactic called consultation is a limited form of participative leadership. The target

person is not allowed to select the objective but can participate in determining how it can be

attained. Causality is likely in both directions, but it is probably stronger from LMX to
 8

consultation than from consultation to LMX. To be effective, consultation requires shared

objectives and mutual trust between agent and target. The target must trust that the agent is not

being manipulative, and the agent must trust that the target is sincere about improving the

proposal or plan rather than pursuing a personal agenda. Use of consultation may also improve

an exchange relationship, but it is only one of many determinants of LMX and any effect is

likely to be weak.

Hyp. 2: LMX is positively related to collaboration.

Collaboration includes aspects of supportive leadership such as offering to help the target

person carry out a requested task or to provide adequate resources to do the task. Prior research

has found that LMX is correlated positively with supportive leadership (Basu & Green, 1997).

Therefore, it is likely that collaboration increases the positive affect of a subordinate toward the

leader. Moreover, in a high LMX relationship the leader is more likely to ask a subordinate to

perform nonroutine, difficult tasks for which it is appropriate to provide additional resources and

assistance.

Hyp. 3: LMX is positively related to inspirational appeals.

Inspirational appeals involve attempts to link a proposed activity or change to values and

ideals. One type of inspirational appeal is to communicate a vision of an exciting achievement

or a better future. This type of tactic is often used by transformational and charismatic leaders to

gain support for new initiatives and major changes (Yukl, 2002), and prior research finds a

positive correlation between LMX and transformational leadership (Deluga, 1992; Howell &

Hall-Merenda, 1999). In a strong LMX relationship, the high level of trust may make

subordinates more receptive to leader appeals that involve sacrifices and risk of failure.
 9

However, this explanation is highly speculative, and other explanatory processes may be

involved.

Hyp. 4: LMX is positively related to rational persuasion.

Rational persuasion involves an effort to explain why a request or proposed activity is

important for attaining shared objectives and why it is feasible. The tactic often includes

subjective opinions that cannot be verified, and the effectiveness of such information in

influencing target attitudes requires agent credibility. If the target person perceives that the agent

is exaggerating benefits or providing biased forecasts, then the influence attempt is unlikely to be

effective. Thus, rational persuasion is easier to use and more likely to be effective when the

target person trusts the agent. As noted earlier, two studies on upward influences (Deluga &

Perry, 1991; Dockery & Steiner, 1990) found a positive correlation between LMX and

rationality.

Hyp. 5: LMX is positively related to apprising.

Apprising involves providing information about positive benefits that may be obtained by

carrying out a request or doing a task. The benefits for the target person are personal and may be

relevant to career advancement. A leader is more likely to provide advice about career

advancement to a subordinate who is highly competent and able to perform difficult, highly

visible tasks. This type of advice also occurs in mentoring relationships, and prior research

found a positive correlation between LMX and mentoring by leaders (Scandura & Schriesheim,

1994; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996). Apprising also involves providing relevant advice about

reward contingencies, which is one type of contingent reward behavior; prior research has found

a positive correlation between LMX and contingent reward behavior (Howell & Hall-Merenda,

1999).
 10

Hyp. 6: LMX is negatively related to pressure tactics.

Most pressure tactics are based on coercive power, and extensive use of such tactics can

be expected to elicit resentment and negative affect in most people. This effect is a reason to

expect a negative relationship with LMX. Because pressure tactics can undermine personal trust

and positive affect, leaders may avoid using them to influence a subordinate for which there is a

high LMX relationship. However, there are many types of pressure tactics, and some are softer

than others (Yukl, 2002). A negative relation is more likely for hard forms of pressure (e.g.,

threatening to fire a subordinate) than for softer forms of pressure (e.g., persistently asking when

a late assignment will be completed). In addition, when pressure is combined with some other

tactics such as rational persuasion or exchange, the adverse side effects can be reduced. Finally,

there is some evidence that in a favorable relationship with high mutual trust it is safer for the

agent to use appropriate pressure tactics when necessary to resolve problems in the work

(Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). These factors suggest that only a weak negative

relationship is likely between LMX and use of pressure tactics to influence subordinates.

Hyp. 7: LMX is positively related to ingratiation.

Ingratiation includes expressing respect for the target person’s skills and praise for the

target’s achievements and contributions to the team or organization. Prior research has found

that ingratiation is an effective tactic for improving relationships and increasing positive affect as

long as it is perceived as sincere. The direction of causality is likely to be primarily from

behavior to LMX. The rationale for an effect of LMX on the use of ingratiation is less clear.

When the relationship is already strong, there is less need for relationship building tactics such as

ingratiation. On the other hand, high LMX subordinates may get more explicit recognition

because they are more competent and are given more important tasks to perform. These factors
 11

suggest that there is a positive relationship between LMX and use of ingratiation tactics to

influence subordinates.

Other Tactics

Most exchange tactics involve explicit offers to provide a reward if the target person does

what the agent wants. Even though LMX involves a social exchange relationship, there are no

obvious reasons to expect a significant correlation between LMX and the leader’s use of

proactive exchange tactics. In a good relationship there is little need for the leader to offer

specific rewards when asking a subordinate to carry out a task. An explicit exchange agreement

is more appropriate for dealing with a lateral peer or someone who is not a member of the same

organization. In a high LMX relationship between leader and subordinate, the leader will be

trusted to reward the efforts of the subordinate in a way that is appropriate and equitable.

Legitimating tactics involve efforts to demonstrate that a request is legitimate and the

agent has the authority to make it. In a high LMX relationship, the leader may be more trusted to

make only legitimate requests, which would suggest a negative correlation. On the other hand,

there is little need to use legitimating tactics in downward influence attempts, so no difference is

likely to be found for this tactic.

Coalition tactics involve getting the support of other parties to assist in influencing the

target person. When the coalition partners pressure the target person to comply with a request it

is viewed by the target person as a hard tactic. However, research finds that coalition tactics are

seldom used with subordinates in the United States (Yukl & Fu, 1999), and the low frequency for

this tactic is a constraint on finding any relationship with LMX.

Personal appeals involve attempts by an agent to use the favorable relationship with the

target person as the basis for getting a favor. Personal appeals are not feasible if the relationship
 12

is impersonal or hostile. On the other hand, a personal appeal is unnecessary when the

relationship is very good, and it may be viewed as manipulative. Thus, personal appeals may be

used most often in moderately good relationships. Finally, personal appeals are used most often

to attain personal objectives (rather than task objectives), and in a downward direction such

requests are usually inappropriate. The low frequency of personal appeals in downward

influence attempts, and the curvilinear relationship with LMX make it unlikely for researchers to

find any simple, linear correlation.

Method

A survey study was conducted during the period from 2004-2005 to examine the

relationship between LMX and proactive influence tactics for two samples of subordinates.

Measures

Influence Behavior Questionnaire. Proactive influence tactics were measured with scales

from the target version of the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) developed by Yukl and

colleagues. A sample for rational persuasion is the following: “Explains clearly why a request or

proposed change is necessary to achieve task objectives.” A sample item for inspirational appeal

is the following: “Makes an inspiring presentation to build enthusiasm for a proposed activity or

change.” A sample item for collaboration is the following: “Offers to provide any assistance or

resources you need to carry out a request.” A sample item for consultation is the following:

“Asks you to suggest things you can do to help him/her attain a task objective or resolve a

problem.” The version of IBQ used in these studies was composed of 11 tactic scales. Each

scale had three items with the following response choices:

5 He/she uses this tactic very often with me

4 He/she uses this tactic moderately often with me

 13

3 He/she occasionally uses this tactic with me

2 He/she very seldom uses this tactic with me

1 I can’t remember him/her ever using this tactic with me

Leader-Member Exchange-7. Member rated LMX was measured with the LMX-7 scale

(see Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984). LMX-7 measures the

quality of the exchange between supervisors and subordinates. Sample items for the LMX-7

scale includes the following: “Do you know where you stand with your boss…do you usually

know how satisfied your boss is with what you do?” “How well does your boss recognize your

potential?” “I have enough confidence in my boss that I would defend and justify his/her

decision if he/she were not present to do so?” Each of the seven LMX items was rated on a five-

point scale. A mean scale score for LMX (ranging from 1 to 5) was calculated for each

participant.

Sample 1

The sample included 70 MBA students at two medium-sized public universities

participating in a study designed to investigate the relationship between LMX and proactive

influence tactics. The mean age of respondents was 27 years, and the sample was about equally

composed of male and female students. As noted above, the target version of the IBQ was used

to rate the proactive influence tactics used by the boss for work-related requests. The LMX-7

was used to rate the leader-member exchange relationship with the current boss, and most of the

bosses were lower-level or middle level managers. Respondents filled out the IBQ two weeks

before they provided LMX scores. Introducing this time lag between the administration of the

IBQ and LMX reduces the probability of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003).
 14

Sample 2

The sample consisted of 87 employees in four organizations, including a financial

counseling services company, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, a dairy products

company, and a printing company. Respondents used the LMX-7 to describe the exchange

relationship with their boss and the target version of the IBQ to describe how the boss used

proactive influence tactics. Both questionnaires were the same as the ones used for the first

sample. The median age of the sample was 33 years, and the median tenure with their

employing organizations was 3 years. The sample was 74% male. Most of the bosses described

by the respondents were lower-level or middle-level managers. The respondents were

anonymous and they mailed back their questionnaires directly to the researchers.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha values for the LMX and influence

scales in both samples are shown in Table 2. Inspection of the values suggests that internal

consistency reliability was relatively strong for all measures, especially considering the size of

the sample and that each of the IBQ scales consisted of only three items. A multivariate analysis

of variance (MANOVA) was calculated to determine if leaders used different influence tactics

depending on whether the LMX relationship with a particular subordinate was high or low. High

and low LMX subgroups were created based on the frequency distribution of LMX scale scores.

Specifically, respondents with the lowest 40% of scores were identified as “Lower Quality LMX

Relationships” and respondents with the highest 40% of scores were identified as “Higher

Quality LMX Relationships.” In the first sample, the two subgroups were identical in size; there

were 28 respondents in each subgroup. In the second sample, the lower quality LMX group was

composed of 36 participants and the higher quality LMX group was composed of 40 participants.
 15

----------------------------------

Insert Table 2 About Here

----------------------------------

The data suggested that the assumptions for MANOVA were met for both samples.

Examination of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity indicated that a multivariate analysis of the data

was appropriate for both sample 1 (χ2 = 192.06, df = 65, p < .001) and sample 2 (χ2 = 258.46,

df = 65, p < .001). The MANOVA yielded significant results on Wilks’ Lambda test for both

samples; F (66, 8930) = 129.61, p < 0.01 for sample 1 and F (66, 17055) = 203.64, p < 0.01 for

sample 2.

The means, standard deviations, and univariate F tests for each sample are shown in

Tables 3 and 4. Significant differences were found for 5 of the 11 tactics in each sample. In

both samples, LMX was significantly related to consultation, collaboration, inspirational appeals,

and rational persuasion, providing support for hypotheses 1 through 4. Examination of the

means from both samples revealed that the four core tactics were used more frequently in higher

quality LMX relationships. Hypothesis 6 stated that LMX would be negatively related to

pressure. This hypothesis was supported in sample 1, but not in sample 2. Hypothesis 7 stated

that LMX would be positively related to ingratiation. This hypothesis was supported in sample

2, but not in sample 1. Hypothesis 5 stated that LMX would be positively related to apprising.

This hypothesis was not supported in either sample. As expected, LMX was not significantly

related to exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, or coalition in either sample.

--------------------------------------

Insert Table 3 & 4 About Here

--------------------------------------
 16

Because the results were mostly similar for the two samples, they were combined for a

subsequent analysis with greater power to detect small differences. The combined sample also

included the participants from the middle LMX groups, and the final sample size was 156

participants. The correlation of each influence tactic with the LMX is shown in Table 5.

Examination of the correlation coefficients provides support for all seven hypotheses.

----------------------------------

Insert Table 5 About Here

----------------------------------

Discussion

As noted above, this was the first study to investigate how LMX is related to a leader’s

use of proactive influence tactics with subordinates. Our study yielded results consistent with

the literature on influence tactics and leader behavior. The hypothesized relationships between

LMX and the proactive influence tactics were mostly supported.

In both samples, rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals, and

collaboration were used more frequently in high quality LMX relationships then in low quality

relationships. As noted earlier, consultation is a limited form of participative leadership, which

requires that the agent and target have shared objectives and mutual trust. Collaboration is a

supportive behavior that increases the positive affect of the subordinate toward the leader.

Inspirational appeals arouse emotions in others and helps build trust between the leader and

subordinate. Finally, rational persuasion is used to explain why a proposed activity is important

and feasible for achieving shared objectives.

Mixed results were obtained for ingratiation and pressure tactics, but the relatively small

samples made it difficult to detect weak relationships. The correlation analysis for the combined
 17

sample supported the hypothesized relationships of LMX to these tactics and apprising. Finally,

as expected, exchange, legitimating, personal appeals, and coalition were not significant in either

the MANOVA or the correlation analyses.

The findings provide some initial support that leaders use different proactive influence

tactics depending on the nature of the LMX relationship they share with their subordinates.

However, the study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, neither LMX nor

the influence tactics were manipulated, and the direction of causality cannot be determined from

this study. Because the data were gathered in a single time period using the results could have

been influenced by extraneous factors, reverse causality, or response biases and attributions.

Second, LMX was rated only from the subordinate’s perspective. Previous research has

suggested that LMX should be measured from both the leader and subordinate perspectives

(Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Future research needs to be conducted to better understand dynamic relationships

between leaders and followers as the exchange relationship develops over time. Researchers

should attempt to assess the extent to which reciprocal causality occurs between LMX and leader

use of influence tactics. Also, future research should be conducted to examine the influence

behavior by both members of a leader-subordinate dyad rather than only focusing on the leader’s

behavior. There may be symmetry in the use of the tactics by both parties. For example, if a

leader frequently uses hard tactics such as pressure and legitimating with a subordinate, the

subordinate may in turn, use similar tactics on the leader. Finally, researchers should measure

changes in explanatory variables (i.e., perceived trust, credibility) as exchange relationships

develop overtime. Clearly there is a need for longitudinal research with a broader perspective on

the exchange process.

 18

References

Basu, R. & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An

empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership

within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.

Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire,

transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. E. Clark, M.

B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of Leadership, (pp. 234-247). Greensboro,

NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing

behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member

exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239-252.

Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in

leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67-86.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A

critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 619-634.

Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member

exchange. Group and Organization Management, 15, 395-413.

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent

developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L.

 19

Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership, (pp. 65-114). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age.

Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and

China. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251-266.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Graen, G. & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A

development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp.

143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University.

Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange

and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

Graen, G. & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage

approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,63, 206-212.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member

exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting

follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:

Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

 20

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998, August). Hardball: The impact of trust,

distrust, and relationship quality on hard influence tactic use. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, California.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past

and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,

15, 47-119.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange

status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,

428-436.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide

autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.

Scandura, T. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career

mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 1588-1602.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An

examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-

member exchange using traditional and multivariate within-and-between-entities

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.

 21

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical

and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.

Thibodeaux, H. R., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and

mentoring: An investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 11, 97-114.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in

supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. L. Neider & C.

A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 139-165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers.

Group and Organization Management, 18, 5-28.

Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives

with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group and Organization Management, 20, 272-

297.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence

behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 137-

143.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.

 22

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers,

and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.

 23

Table 1

Definitions of Proactive Influence Tactics

Influence Tactics Definitions

Rational Persuasion The agent uses logical arguments and factual evidence to show that
request or proposal is feasible and relevant for important task objectives.

Apprising The agent explains how carrying out a request or supporting a proposal
will benefit the target personally or will help to advance the target’s
career.

Inspirational Appeals The agent appeals to the target’s values and ideals or seeks to arouse the
target person’s emotions to gain commitment for a request or proposal.

Consultation The agent asks the target to suggest improvements or help plan a
proposed activity or change for which the target person’s support is
desired.

Collaboration The agent offers to provide relevant resources or assistance if the target
will carry out a request or approve a proposed change.

Ingratiation The agent uses praise and flattery when attempting to influence the
target person to carry out a request or support a proposal.

Personal Appeals The agent asks the target to carry out a request or support a proposal out
of friendship, or asks for a personal favor before saying what it is.

Exchange The agent offers something the target person wants, or offers to
reciprocate at a later time, if the target will do what the agent requests.

Coalition Tactics The agent enlists the aid of others, or uses the support of others, as a
way to influence the target to do something.

Legitimating Tactics The agent seeks to establish the legitimacy of a request or to verify that
he/she has the authority to make it.

Pressure The agent uses demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistent

reminders to influence the target to do something.

Copyright © 2001 by Gary Yukl

 24

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency Reliability of LMX and the IBQ Scales

Sample 1 (N = 70) Sample 2 (N = 87)

Scale M SD α M SD α

Consultation 2.97 1.13 0.90 3.21 1.03 0.82

Collaboration 3.03 1.15 0.87 3.43 1.13 0.86

Inspirational Appeal 2.46 1.06 0.87 2.46 1.16 0.89

Rational Persuasion 3.43 1.03 0.84 3.55 1.01 0.84

Apprising 2.55 1.08 0.87 2.56 1.08 0.90

Pressure 1.90 0.97 0.82 1.65 0.72 0.69

Ingratiation 2.46 0.84 0.85 2.70 1.04 0.83

Exchange 1.73 0.78 0.83 1.92 1.05 0.89

Legitimating 2.82 1.19 0.84 2.92 1.06 0.75

Coalition 1.98 1.05 0.85 1.55 0.70 0.76

Personal Appeals 1.70 0.93 0.90 1.57 0.86 0.85

LMX 3.50 1.02 0.88 3.63 0.71 0.85

 25

Table 3

Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 1

Influence Tactic Low (N=28) High (N=28) F (1, 53) η2

Consultation 2.33 3.52 20.35** 0.28

(1.04) (0.91)

Collaboration 2.23 3.80 38.85** 0.42

(0.89) (0.97)

Inspirational Appeal 1.93 3.01 20.26** 0.28

(1.02) (0.75)

Rational Persuasion 2.81 3.94 21.26** 0.29

(0.88) (0.93)

Apprising 2.27 2.76 2.67 0.05

(1.03) (1.18)

Pressure 2.27 1.58 6.97* 0.12

(1.15) (0.75)

Ingratiation 2.32 2.71 2.95 0.05

(0.78) (0.91)

Exchange 1.75 1.85 0.18 0.00

(0.88) (0.74)

Legitimating 2.77 2.91 0.18 0.00

(1.24) (1.27)

Coalition 2.06 1.96 0.12 0.00

(1.09) (1.04)

Personal Appeals 1.59 1.79 0.54 0.01

(1.08) (0.87)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
 26

Table 4

Results for MANOVA Comparing High and Low LMX Dyads for Sample 2

Tactic Low (N=36) High (N=40) F (1, 74) η2

Consultation 2.80 3.63 13.48** 0.15

(0.99) (0.97)

Collaboration 2.79 4.03 32.89** 0.31

(0.89) (0.99)

Inspirational Appeal 1.98 2.89 13.29** 0.15

(0.89) (1.23)

Rational Persuasion 3.12 4.03 18.21** 0.20

(0.92) (0.93)

Apprising 2.28 2.76 3.88 0.05

(0.95) (1.15)

Pressure 1.71 1.55 1.01 0.01

(0.76) (0.66)

Ingratiation 2.44 3.04 6.78* 0.08

(0.96) (1.03)

Exchange 1.68 2.13 3.85 0.05

(0.77) (1.16)

Legitimating 2.96 2.93 0.03 0.00

(1.09) (0.97)

Coalition 1.57 1.55 0.02 0.00

(0.69) (0.69)

Personal Appeals 1.48 1.68 1.02 0.01

(0.74) (0.98)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
 27

Table 5

Correlations between LMX and Influence Tactics for the Total Sample

Influence Tactics N = 156

Consultation 0.47**

Collaboration 0.62**

Inspirational Appeal 0.44**

Rational Persuasion 0.51**

Apprising 0.25**

Pressure -0.26**

Ingratiation 0.31*

Exchange 0.15

Legitimating 0.00

Coalition -0.08

Personal Appeals 0.13

*p < .05.
**p < .01.

View publication stats