Description
Study on Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders: Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders
Study on Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders
cise influence for the sheer joy of changing other people's behavior. For the most part there are logical reasons underlying their attempts to influence people. Sometimes influence is used for such personal reasons as securing personal benefits or better work assignments. Most often, however, it is used in the course of performing organizational roles that require influencing others —for example, to encourage others to perform effectively, to promote new ideas, or to introduce new work procedures. Frequently a combination of personal and organizational reasons underlie the exercise of influence. In previous research we empirically identified seven influence strategies that managers use to get their way in their organizations. The purpose of this article is to describe the findings of a three-nation study of how managers use these seven influence strategies. First we will describe these influence strategies and the frequency with which they are used by managers to influence superiors and subordinates. Then we will examine the factors that determine the choice of influence strategies. This will give some insight into why managers choose certain strategies rather than others. Finally, we will describe how managers rely on different "mixes" of these seven strategies. Here a distinction is made between the "raging bull," a manager who uses all possible means of influence-and the "timid soul" who seemingly never tries to convince others. Basically we want to explain why managers use different influence strategies.
berg's classic analysis of managerial work describes the range of activities performed by managers but does not describe the influence tactics that managers use. Yet it is our belief that the "how" of managerial work—that is, how managers exercise influence and their choice of various influence strategies — is of profound importance to managers and to students of organizational behavior. We began our studies by reviewing management books and articles dealing with the subject of managerial power and influence. Generally, this material relies on scattered interviews, anecdotes, subjective im- • pressions, and armchair theorizing. A large body of work focuses on influencing one's subordinates. These "leadership" studies represent the best-documented materials on these subjects. Articles that describe the wellknown scale to measure a manager's use of consideration and initiating structure or the use of "management by objectives" are examples of researched approaches to the ways in which managers use influence with their subordinates. Less empirically based approaches to managerial influence stem from a particular theory of social power. For example, one finds frequent reference to the wellknown theory of John R.P. French, Jr. and Bertam Raven that proposes bases of power that include rewards, coercion, legitimate power, referent power, arnd expertise. The problem here, we have found, is that this theoretical approach does not help us identify all the strategies actually used by managers—that is, managers use strategies not mentioned by French and Raven - coalitions, for example. Furthermore, other writers describe a number of influence strategies that are based simply on their perception of effective management action. Such observations are not grounded in either theory or empirical research. The most confusing discussions
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF INFLUENCE
Despite the fact that the essence of managerial work is the exercise of influence, there is a paucity of systematic research on the ways in which managers attempt to change the behavior of others. For example, Henry Mintz-
59
consequences for organizations, for the individuals who are the targets of influence and, possibly, for the users themselves. It doesn't take much imagination to visualize the effect upon an organization of executives whose influence tactics consist of ingratiation, deceit, and avoidance of anything that might cause offense.
MEASURING MANAGERIAL USE OF INFLUENCE David Kipnis, professor of social psychology and chairman of the pyschology department at Temple University, received his Ph.D. in organizational and social psychology from New York University. Dr. Kipnis has published extensively in leading psychological journals, including the Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Joumal of Applied Psychology, and Human Relations. His major writings examine how people in organizations use power and influence, and his two most recent books are The Powerholders (University of Chicago Press, 1976) and Character Structure and Impulsiveness (Academic Press, 1971).
60
about influence are found in articles that deal with influencing superiors in an organization. Generally, this literature relies on books and anecdotes of writers ranging from Machiaveili to Michael Korda, many of which focus on impression management, manipulation, deceit, and various ploys and dirty tricks designed to overcome the resistance of others. Needless to say, there is little research to suggest that these upward influence strategies are effective. In general, the advice contained in writings on managerial influence is frequently contradictory—with some advocating assertiveness, others suggesting stealth, and still others advising the use of rationality to influence others. One wonders if they can all be right. Further, many of the tactics, if used consistently, could well have dysfunctional
With these thoughts in mind we decided to study managerial use of influence as it is actually practiced. Further, rather than rely on an intensive case-history approach in which the activities of only six or seven managers are studied, we decided to gather information from many managers. This approach allowed us to sample a greater range of managerial experiences. Our work began by asking managers to describe actual incidents in which they attempted to change the behavior of subordinates, peers, or superiors. These descriptions were then used to construct questionnaires that contained the many different influence tactics described by the managers. Next different groups of managers answered the questionnaire in terms of how frequently they used each tactic to influence others. On the basis of a series of factor analyses of this information we found that seven dimensions of influence represented the wide variety of tactics initially described by managers. The dimensions or strategies of influence that we identified are as follows: Reason. This strategy involves the use of facts and data to support the development of a logical argument. Friendliness. This strategy involves the use of impression management, flattery, and the creation of goodwill. Coalition. This strategy involves the mobilization of other people in the organization.
Bargaining. This strategy involves the use' of negotiation through the exchange of bene- fits or favors. Assertiveness. This strategy involves the use of a direct and forceful approach. Higher authority. This strategy involves gaining the support of higher levels in the organization to back up requests. Sanctions. This strategy involves the use of organizationally derived rewards and punishments. By describing the actual behavior that managers use in achieving their objectives and by defining what these influence strategies are, we gain a way to examine influence in more detail. Instead of simply getting answers from managers on how often they exercise influence as part of their work, we're able to consider the particular strategies they rely upon to influence others. For example, do they rely mainly on assertiveness, higher authority, reason, or perhaps a combination of strategies? From our research, we developed a new scale. The Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS), to measure the use of these seven influence strategies. One form of the POIS measures how frequently managers use each strategy to influence their superiors. A second form measures the use of influence directed toward co-workers, and a third toward subordinates.
Stuart M. Schmidt, associate professor of industrial relations and organizational behavior in the School of Business, Temple University, received his Ph. D. in industrial relations from the University of Wisconsin. His major writings are in the areas of power, influence, and conflict, and he has published extensively in organizational and administrative journals, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Joumal of Applied Psychology, and Human Relations. He has also presented papers at various organizational development meeting and at meetings of the Academy of Management.
their respective countries. In total, 360 firstand second-line managers participated in the international comparison. Of these, 113 were from the United States, 126 were from Australia, and 121 were from England.
THREE-NATION STUDY OF MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE STYLES
WHAT ARE THE MOST POPULAR STRATEGIES?
Managers from many firms in England, Australia, and the United States were surveyed using the POIS to measure the ways in which they try to influence their superiors and their subordinates. In addition, all managers completed a supplemental questionnaire describing their work as well as their attitudes toward their work. These managers were attending developmental sessions in
We make no claims that the samples in this study are necessarily representative of managers in the three countries. However, we found essentially no difference among countries in how managers exercised influence. In all three countries, the frequency with which managers used the various influence strategies was virtually identical. When seeking to influence their superiors, man-
61
Figure 1 Chris Swaffin-Smilh B.Sc, M.Phil., is on the faculty of the Northeast London Polytechnic. He is director of studies for the M.B.A. program at the Anglian Regional Management Centre. His major interests are in the fields of employee relations and industrial training.
MOST-TO-LEAST POPULAR STRATEGIES USED IN ALL COUNTRIES
When Managers Influenced Superiors ' Most Popular to Least Popular Reason Coalition Friendliness Bargaining Assertiveness Higher Authority
When Managers Influenced Subordinates Reason Assertiveness Friendliness Coalition Bargaining Higher Authority Sanctions
Ian Wilkinson, Ph.D., is currently associate professor of marketing in the Faculty of Marketing, University of New South Wales, Australia. His interests focus on power relationships in marketing channels.
agers reported that they relied most often on reason, followed by coalitions, and then by friendliness. Going over the "boss's head" or resorting to higher authority was used least often to influence superiors. The rank order of preferred strategies was somewhat different when influencing subordinates. Once again managers reported that the most frequently used strategy was reason. Interestingly, however, the second most popular strategy was assertiveness. While perhaps not surprising, this finding confirms the common belief that managers can assert themselves aggressively when they demand compliance from their subordinates, but not when they are seeking compliance with their requests from their superiors. These findings appear in Figure 1.
* The strategy of sanctions is omitted in the scale that measures upward influence.
tional, personal, and situational factors might combine to determine a manager's influence style. We have already indicated that there were no differences in influence styles among managers in the three English-speaking countries. We found, however, that three variables did affect the selection of influence strategies; the manager's relative power, the manager's objectives for wanting to use influence, and the manager's expectation of the target person's willingness to comply. The Manager's Power Power enters into the selection of strategies in two ways. First, managers who control resources that are valued by others, or who are perceived to be in positions of dominance, use a greater variety of influence strategies than those with less power. Second, managers with power use assertiveness with greater frequency than those with less power. Variety of Influence Strategies Perhaps the most striking illustration of the variety of influence strategies used by man-
W H A T AFFECTS THE CHOICE OF TACTICS?
62
Having identified seven influence strategies and devised a way of measuring the frequency with which they are used, we considered whether there are any special circumstances that determine a manager's choiire of a particular strategy. As social scientists we doubted that the choices are simply random or based on managerial predilections. Rather, we expected that various organiza-
agers with power can be found by examining how they influence superiors and subordinates. In all countries, managers use the following four strategies more frequently to influence subordinates than superiors: assertiveness, friendliness, bargaining, and higher authority. Only reason was used more frequently to influence superiors. While this finding is perhaps not too surprising, it indicates that managers apply greater pressure on subordinates to comply because they potentially have a greater range of strategies available. Thus if one strategy fails, managers maintain steady pressure on subordinates through the use of an altemative strategy. Another example of this relationship between power and variety of influence strategies is found by comparing the approaches of managers who direct units of varying technological complexity. The sociologist Charles Perrow has pointed out that managers who supervise complex technology are relatively more powerful than those who supervise more routine activities, because other units depend on their expertise to solve important organizational problems. In comparison, managers who direct routine kinds of work are generally taken for granted because the contributions of their units tend to be of less consequence. Consistent with this reasoning, we found that managers who directed nonroutine technologies used a greater variety of strategies when trying to influence their superiors. In particular, they frequently used reason, assertiveness, and higher authority.
in general social relations. For example, assertiveness is reported in studies of primate colonies; children trying to influence younger children, peers, and adults; and the intemal operations of business organizations. In all instances, those with greater power (or resources) use more directive tactics to influence others. We speculate that there is an Iron Law of Power" that holds that the greater the discrepancy in power between the influencer and the target, the greater the probability that more directive influence strategies will be used. This does not necessarily mean that powerful managers use assertiveness as their first strategy. Given a choice, most managers initially seek to exert influence through the use of simple requests and reason. Assertiveness is used when the target of influence refuses or appears reluctant to comply with the request. When such resistance is encountered, managers with power tend to use more directive strategies. Typically they shift from using simple requests to insisting that their demands be met. In contrast, managers without power are more likely to stop trying to influence when they encounter resistance. This is because they feel the costs associated with assertiveness are unacceptable. They may be unwilling, for example, to provoke the ill-will of the target.
The Manager's Objectives Our findings also show that managers vary their strategies in relation to their objectives. When managers seek benefits from a superior, they often rely on the use of soft words, impression management, and the promotion of pleasant relationships —that is, tactics encompassed by the strategy of friendliness. In comparison, managers attempting to persuade their superiors to accept new ideas, usually rely on the use of data, explanations, and logical arguments - that is, tactics encompassed by the strategy of rea-
Assertiveness In addition to using a greater variety of influence strategies, managers with power are more likely to invoke stronger influence strategies—for example, assertiveness. While this relationship makes sense, its pervasiveness requires comment. It is found with increasing regularity both in organizations and
63
son. In addition, such managers are Hkely to use assertiveness to gain organizational objectives, but not personal objectives. Similarly, this matching of strategies to objectives holds true when managers influence their subordinates. For example, they use reason to sell ideas to subordinates and friendliness to obtain favors. As a general rule, the more reasons managers have for exercising influence, the greater the variety of strategies they will use. Only the most inflexible of managers can be expected to rely rigidly on a single strategy, say assertiveness, to achieve both personal and organizational objectives. It may be appropriate to "insist" that one's boss pay more attention to cost overruns; it is less appropriate to "insist" on time off for a game of golf.
directive tactics with those who are different in these dimensions. A summary of how managers use the three popular influence strategies discussed above appears in the box on page 65.
PROFILES OF MANAGERS WHO USE DIFFERENT MIXES OF INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
The Manager's Expectations of Success Managers also vary strategies according to how successful they expect to be in influencing the target. When past experience indicates a high probability of success, managers use simple requests to gain compliance. In contrast, where success is less predictable, managers are more tempted to use assertiveness and sanctions to achieve objectives. Managers in comparable positions may differ with regard to their expectations for success in exercising influence. This difference in expectations may occur for many reasons. Thus, for example, social psychologists report that the more dissimilar people are in terms of attitudes, race, and sex, the less cooperative they will be with one another. Given these lowered expectations, it is not surprising that there are frequent complaints that managers use more directive tactics with minorities. This behavior may not be the result of malicious prejudice, but the mistaken notion that the target will not comply with simple requests. Hence, managers feel the need to use harsher and more
Do managers vary the mix of influence strategies that they typically use? That is, do some managers use only the same one or two strategies all of the time, while others use all seven? To answer this question, we used the statistical technique of cluster analysis on the POIS to determine pattems of managerial influence in each of the three countries. Ouster analysis is an analytical technique used to develop subgroups of individuals who are similar to each other. The findings revealed that managers in all three countries fall into three groupings, referred to as "shotgun" managers, "tactician" managers, and "bystander" managers.
Shotgun Managers Shotgun managers used all seven strategies from reason to sanctions with above-average frequency to influence others. Shotgun managers, then, attempt to get their way by using the full range of influence strategies. This seems to mean that they want a great deal from others, and as a result they must keep on trying out different strategies. To test this possibility, data from shotgun managers were further analyzed. Our analysis indicated that shotgun managers reported having many unfulfilled objectives in terms of being able to sell their ideas, obtaining personal benefits, or getting others to work more effectively. In addition, in each coimtry they were the ones with the least organizational experience. In summary.
64
USE OF INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
Assertiveness is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the organization. • Expectations for success are low. • Organizational power is high. Reason is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the organization. • Expectations for success are high. • Organizational power is high. Friendliness is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the person. • Expectations for success are low. • Organizational power is low.
and the work they managed required considerable plarming before it could be carried out. As we pointed out earlier, managers of "high-tech" units should have power in their organizations. Our study confirmed that this is so. Tacticians stated that they had considerable influence over such matters as setting budgets, influencing company policy, and dealing with personnel matters. In general, they expressed satisfaction with their ability to perform their work. In sum, our impression is that tacticians are flexible in their use of influence, find their organizational objectivesgenerally met, and rate themselves as effec- tive in carrying out their tasks. At the same time they occupy positions of power on the basis of their skills and knowledge, which allows them to influence others by relying mainly on the strategy of reason.
shotgun managers are inexperienced and probably ambitious, and they have great expectations. To this end, they openly attempt to obtain what they want through the indiscriminate use of influence strategies. Tactician Managers Tactician managers relied heavily on reason to influence others, but they had at least average scores on the other strategies. Tacticians, then, get their way by using facts and data in logical arguments. The image portrayed here is that of rational organizational managers, exercising influencing in a deliberate marmer. Statistical analysis revealed several organizational and personal characteristics that distinguish tacticians from other managers. Perhaps most important is that they have power in their organizations. This was shown in several ways. First, tacticians managed work units that did technologically complex work. Their employees were skilled.
Bystander Managers This group had below-average scores on all seven influence strategies. They exercised little influence in their organizations, despite the fact that they occupy managerial roles. There are two possible explanations for their inactivity. One is that bystanders occupy such powerful positions in their organizations that others continually anticipate their needs; hence they do not have to exercise influence because they get their way without effort. The other possible explanation for their inactivity is that they lack power in their organizations, and therefore they feel it is futile to even try to irrfluence others. The results of our analysis support the second explanation. Bystanders are managers who direct units carrying out routine work. They also supervise the greatest number of subordinates-another indication of routinization. Given this kind of work, it is not surprising that they perceive themselves as having little organizational power
65
as signified by their inability to influence budget, personnel, and/or company policy. Further, in each country those in this group have been in the same job for the longest time. In sum, our impression is that bystanders are managers marking time in mundane jobs, who see themselves as helpless because they have little or no organizational impact. This interpretation is consistent with what social psychologists have described as 'leamed helplessness." This condition is produced by having little personal control over important life events. The result of this lack of control is that individuals stop wanting and stop trying. This was true of our bystander managers. They have stopped influencing others and, more important, they no longer try to influence others in their organizations, either to obtain personal benefits or to achieve organizational objectives. Not surprisingly, as a group, they express the least satisfaction with their abilities to do their work effectively. Figure 2 summarizes the three types of managers.
Figure 2
TYPES OF MANAGERS BY USE OF INFLUENCE
Type of Manager Shotgun Manager's Behavioral Mode High on all seven influence strategies. Unfulfilled on objectives. Inexperienced in job. High on the use of reason (average use of other strategies). Successful in achieving own objectives. High on organizational power. Satisfied. Low on all seven influence strategies. Low on organizational power. Seeking few organizational or personal objectives. Dissatisfied.
Tactician
Bystander
IMPLICATIONS
66
Several implications both for individual managers and for organizations arise from this research. As we said at the beginning of this article, the exercise of influence is a fundamental activity of managers. All managers say they influence others as part of their work. Yet our findings show that the kinds of influence managers use varies systematically with their objectives, their control of resources or power, and their expectations about the willingness of others to comply. Although climate, or culture, was not examined in our research, it seems likely that the choice of influence strategies will also vary with this aspect of the organization. Even a cursory reading of the management literature shows that some organizational
cultures encourage the use of friendliness and ingratiation, while others encourage reason, and still others rely on sanctions and assertiveness. Thus managers are frequently unable to select the most appropriate influence strategy because they are constrained by their lack of power, their objectives, and the organizational climate. However, managers also choose the wrong strategies because of habit, lack of forethought, or incorrect assessment of the target's willingness to comply. We are convinced that a manager's ability to choose the most appropriate influence strategy can be improved by training and self-examination. It is our experience that effective managers are flexible and are able to identify and use the most appropriate strategy in a given situation. The tactician profile best exemplifies this approach. Such managers use the whole spectrum of influence strategies to a moderate extent, but
they rely most on reason, a strategy that appears to have the greatest utility in organizational life. The question for managers to consider is how satisfied they are with the way influence is used in their organization. By influence, we mean not only strategies directed toward subordinates, but also those directed toward coworkers and superiors. In organizations whose culture does not encourage vigorous expression of ideas upward, mana- gers may become apathetic and lapse into a
bystander pattem. Such an organization may be easy to control; however, we suspect that pressure for innovation and change would also be at a minimum. In the past, such ques- tions have been ignored when organizations were evaluated. Our research has shown that now issues involving the exercise of influence in organizations can be rigorously addressed. One implication is that managers can leam a variety of influence strategies rather than rely on the traditional strategy of exercising power as a function of position.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A widely cited approach for understanding power is that of lohn R.P. French, Jr. and Bertam Raven in their article. T h e Bases of Social Power," in Studies in Social Power (University of Michigan Press, 1959). This influential article describes how people respond to influence attempts when they are based on such resources as the ability to reward or punish. Another view of power is provided in the book by David Kipnis, The Powerholders (Univereity of Chicago Press, 1976). This book examines the ways in which people use power both in organizational settings and in their personal lives. For the reader who would like to gain greater familiarity with the development of the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS), this information is provided in an article coauthored by the present writers, "Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's Way" Uoumal of Applied Psychology, Fall 1980). Copies of the POIS can be obtained from University Associates (8517 Production Avenue, P.O. Box 6240, San Diego, California 92126). A thought-provoking and intensive analysis of the day-to-day activities of managers is
given in Henry Mintzberg's book. The Nature of Managerial Work {Prentice-Hall, 1980). Here the reader is provided with rich descriptions of the activities of a small group of managers. In an earlier article entitled, "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations" {American Sociological Review, Spring 1967), Charles Perrow analyzed the effect of technology on the exercise of influence within organizations. Perrow argues that power in an organization is, in part, derived from a manager's ability to solve important organizational problems. Technology aids the manager in this regard by helping to reduce uncertainty. Perrow's approach to understanding organizations stresses the ways in which technology guides the development of social relations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Pat Insley for her invaluable technical assistance. We also wish to thank the Manufacturers' Association of Ddaware Valley for their assistance in gathering data. This research was supported in part by a small grant from Temple University.
67
doc_117764149.docx
Study on Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders: Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders
Study on Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders
cise influence for the sheer joy of changing other people's behavior. For the most part there are logical reasons underlying their attempts to influence people. Sometimes influence is used for such personal reasons as securing personal benefits or better work assignments. Most often, however, it is used in the course of performing organizational roles that require influencing others —for example, to encourage others to perform effectively, to promote new ideas, or to introduce new work procedures. Frequently a combination of personal and organizational reasons underlie the exercise of influence. In previous research we empirically identified seven influence strategies that managers use to get their way in their organizations. The purpose of this article is to describe the findings of a three-nation study of how managers use these seven influence strategies. First we will describe these influence strategies and the frequency with which they are used by managers to influence superiors and subordinates. Then we will examine the factors that determine the choice of influence strategies. This will give some insight into why managers choose certain strategies rather than others. Finally, we will describe how managers rely on different "mixes" of these seven strategies. Here a distinction is made between the "raging bull," a manager who uses all possible means of influence-and the "timid soul" who seemingly never tries to convince others. Basically we want to explain why managers use different influence strategies.
berg's classic analysis of managerial work describes the range of activities performed by managers but does not describe the influence tactics that managers use. Yet it is our belief that the "how" of managerial work—that is, how managers exercise influence and their choice of various influence strategies — is of profound importance to managers and to students of organizational behavior. We began our studies by reviewing management books and articles dealing with the subject of managerial power and influence. Generally, this material relies on scattered interviews, anecdotes, subjective im- • pressions, and armchair theorizing. A large body of work focuses on influencing one's subordinates. These "leadership" studies represent the best-documented materials on these subjects. Articles that describe the wellknown scale to measure a manager's use of consideration and initiating structure or the use of "management by objectives" are examples of researched approaches to the ways in which managers use influence with their subordinates. Less empirically based approaches to managerial influence stem from a particular theory of social power. For example, one finds frequent reference to the wellknown theory of John R.P. French, Jr. and Bertam Raven that proposes bases of power that include rewards, coercion, legitimate power, referent power, arnd expertise. The problem here, we have found, is that this theoretical approach does not help us identify all the strategies actually used by managers—that is, managers use strategies not mentioned by French and Raven - coalitions, for example. Furthermore, other writers describe a number of influence strategies that are based simply on their perception of effective management action. Such observations are not grounded in either theory or empirical research. The most confusing discussions
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF INFLUENCE
Despite the fact that the essence of managerial work is the exercise of influence, there is a paucity of systematic research on the ways in which managers attempt to change the behavior of others. For example, Henry Mintz-
59
consequences for organizations, for the individuals who are the targets of influence and, possibly, for the users themselves. It doesn't take much imagination to visualize the effect upon an organization of executives whose influence tactics consist of ingratiation, deceit, and avoidance of anything that might cause offense.
MEASURING MANAGERIAL USE OF INFLUENCE David Kipnis, professor of social psychology and chairman of the pyschology department at Temple University, received his Ph.D. in organizational and social psychology from New York University. Dr. Kipnis has published extensively in leading psychological journals, including the Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Joumal of Applied Psychology, and Human Relations. His major writings examine how people in organizations use power and influence, and his two most recent books are The Powerholders (University of Chicago Press, 1976) and Character Structure and Impulsiveness (Academic Press, 1971).
60
about influence are found in articles that deal with influencing superiors in an organization. Generally, this literature relies on books and anecdotes of writers ranging from Machiaveili to Michael Korda, many of which focus on impression management, manipulation, deceit, and various ploys and dirty tricks designed to overcome the resistance of others. Needless to say, there is little research to suggest that these upward influence strategies are effective. In general, the advice contained in writings on managerial influence is frequently contradictory—with some advocating assertiveness, others suggesting stealth, and still others advising the use of rationality to influence others. One wonders if they can all be right. Further, many of the tactics, if used consistently, could well have dysfunctional
With these thoughts in mind we decided to study managerial use of influence as it is actually practiced. Further, rather than rely on an intensive case-history approach in which the activities of only six or seven managers are studied, we decided to gather information from many managers. This approach allowed us to sample a greater range of managerial experiences. Our work began by asking managers to describe actual incidents in which they attempted to change the behavior of subordinates, peers, or superiors. These descriptions were then used to construct questionnaires that contained the many different influence tactics described by the managers. Next different groups of managers answered the questionnaire in terms of how frequently they used each tactic to influence others. On the basis of a series of factor analyses of this information we found that seven dimensions of influence represented the wide variety of tactics initially described by managers. The dimensions or strategies of influence that we identified are as follows: Reason. This strategy involves the use of facts and data to support the development of a logical argument. Friendliness. This strategy involves the use of impression management, flattery, and the creation of goodwill. Coalition. This strategy involves the mobilization of other people in the organization.
Bargaining. This strategy involves the use' of negotiation through the exchange of bene- fits or favors. Assertiveness. This strategy involves the use of a direct and forceful approach. Higher authority. This strategy involves gaining the support of higher levels in the organization to back up requests. Sanctions. This strategy involves the use of organizationally derived rewards and punishments. By describing the actual behavior that managers use in achieving their objectives and by defining what these influence strategies are, we gain a way to examine influence in more detail. Instead of simply getting answers from managers on how often they exercise influence as part of their work, we're able to consider the particular strategies they rely upon to influence others. For example, do they rely mainly on assertiveness, higher authority, reason, or perhaps a combination of strategies? From our research, we developed a new scale. The Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS), to measure the use of these seven influence strategies. One form of the POIS measures how frequently managers use each strategy to influence their superiors. A second form measures the use of influence directed toward co-workers, and a third toward subordinates.
Stuart M. Schmidt, associate professor of industrial relations and organizational behavior in the School of Business, Temple University, received his Ph. D. in industrial relations from the University of Wisconsin. His major writings are in the areas of power, influence, and conflict, and he has published extensively in organizational and administrative journals, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Joumal of Applied Psychology, and Human Relations. He has also presented papers at various organizational development meeting and at meetings of the Academy of Management.
their respective countries. In total, 360 firstand second-line managers participated in the international comparison. Of these, 113 were from the United States, 126 were from Australia, and 121 were from England.
THREE-NATION STUDY OF MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE STYLES
WHAT ARE THE MOST POPULAR STRATEGIES?
Managers from many firms in England, Australia, and the United States were surveyed using the POIS to measure the ways in which they try to influence their superiors and their subordinates. In addition, all managers completed a supplemental questionnaire describing their work as well as their attitudes toward their work. These managers were attending developmental sessions in
We make no claims that the samples in this study are necessarily representative of managers in the three countries. However, we found essentially no difference among countries in how managers exercised influence. In all three countries, the frequency with which managers used the various influence strategies was virtually identical. When seeking to influence their superiors, man-
61
Figure 1 Chris Swaffin-Smilh B.Sc, M.Phil., is on the faculty of the Northeast London Polytechnic. He is director of studies for the M.B.A. program at the Anglian Regional Management Centre. His major interests are in the fields of employee relations and industrial training.
MOST-TO-LEAST POPULAR STRATEGIES USED IN ALL COUNTRIES
When Managers Influenced Superiors ' Most Popular to Least Popular Reason Coalition Friendliness Bargaining Assertiveness Higher Authority
When Managers Influenced Subordinates Reason Assertiveness Friendliness Coalition Bargaining Higher Authority Sanctions
Ian Wilkinson, Ph.D., is currently associate professor of marketing in the Faculty of Marketing, University of New South Wales, Australia. His interests focus on power relationships in marketing channels.
agers reported that they relied most often on reason, followed by coalitions, and then by friendliness. Going over the "boss's head" or resorting to higher authority was used least often to influence superiors. The rank order of preferred strategies was somewhat different when influencing subordinates. Once again managers reported that the most frequently used strategy was reason. Interestingly, however, the second most popular strategy was assertiveness. While perhaps not surprising, this finding confirms the common belief that managers can assert themselves aggressively when they demand compliance from their subordinates, but not when they are seeking compliance with their requests from their superiors. These findings appear in Figure 1.
* The strategy of sanctions is omitted in the scale that measures upward influence.
tional, personal, and situational factors might combine to determine a manager's influence style. We have already indicated that there were no differences in influence styles among managers in the three English-speaking countries. We found, however, that three variables did affect the selection of influence strategies; the manager's relative power, the manager's objectives for wanting to use influence, and the manager's expectation of the target person's willingness to comply. The Manager's Power Power enters into the selection of strategies in two ways. First, managers who control resources that are valued by others, or who are perceived to be in positions of dominance, use a greater variety of influence strategies than those with less power. Second, managers with power use assertiveness with greater frequency than those with less power. Variety of Influence Strategies Perhaps the most striking illustration of the variety of influence strategies used by man-
W H A T AFFECTS THE CHOICE OF TACTICS?
62
Having identified seven influence strategies and devised a way of measuring the frequency with which they are used, we considered whether there are any special circumstances that determine a manager's choiire of a particular strategy. As social scientists we doubted that the choices are simply random or based on managerial predilections. Rather, we expected that various organiza-
agers with power can be found by examining how they influence superiors and subordinates. In all countries, managers use the following four strategies more frequently to influence subordinates than superiors: assertiveness, friendliness, bargaining, and higher authority. Only reason was used more frequently to influence superiors. While this finding is perhaps not too surprising, it indicates that managers apply greater pressure on subordinates to comply because they potentially have a greater range of strategies available. Thus if one strategy fails, managers maintain steady pressure on subordinates through the use of an altemative strategy. Another example of this relationship between power and variety of influence strategies is found by comparing the approaches of managers who direct units of varying technological complexity. The sociologist Charles Perrow has pointed out that managers who supervise complex technology are relatively more powerful than those who supervise more routine activities, because other units depend on their expertise to solve important organizational problems. In comparison, managers who direct routine kinds of work are generally taken for granted because the contributions of their units tend to be of less consequence. Consistent with this reasoning, we found that managers who directed nonroutine technologies used a greater variety of strategies when trying to influence their superiors. In particular, they frequently used reason, assertiveness, and higher authority.
in general social relations. For example, assertiveness is reported in studies of primate colonies; children trying to influence younger children, peers, and adults; and the intemal operations of business organizations. In all instances, those with greater power (or resources) use more directive tactics to influence others. We speculate that there is an Iron Law of Power" that holds that the greater the discrepancy in power between the influencer and the target, the greater the probability that more directive influence strategies will be used. This does not necessarily mean that powerful managers use assertiveness as their first strategy. Given a choice, most managers initially seek to exert influence through the use of simple requests and reason. Assertiveness is used when the target of influence refuses or appears reluctant to comply with the request. When such resistance is encountered, managers with power tend to use more directive strategies. Typically they shift from using simple requests to insisting that their demands be met. In contrast, managers without power are more likely to stop trying to influence when they encounter resistance. This is because they feel the costs associated with assertiveness are unacceptable. They may be unwilling, for example, to provoke the ill-will of the target.
The Manager's Objectives Our findings also show that managers vary their strategies in relation to their objectives. When managers seek benefits from a superior, they often rely on the use of soft words, impression management, and the promotion of pleasant relationships —that is, tactics encompassed by the strategy of friendliness. In comparison, managers attempting to persuade their superiors to accept new ideas, usually rely on the use of data, explanations, and logical arguments - that is, tactics encompassed by the strategy of rea-
Assertiveness In addition to using a greater variety of influence strategies, managers with power are more likely to invoke stronger influence strategies—for example, assertiveness. While this relationship makes sense, its pervasiveness requires comment. It is found with increasing regularity both in organizations and
63
son. In addition, such managers are Hkely to use assertiveness to gain organizational objectives, but not personal objectives. Similarly, this matching of strategies to objectives holds true when managers influence their subordinates. For example, they use reason to sell ideas to subordinates and friendliness to obtain favors. As a general rule, the more reasons managers have for exercising influence, the greater the variety of strategies they will use. Only the most inflexible of managers can be expected to rely rigidly on a single strategy, say assertiveness, to achieve both personal and organizational objectives. It may be appropriate to "insist" that one's boss pay more attention to cost overruns; it is less appropriate to "insist" on time off for a game of golf.
directive tactics with those who are different in these dimensions. A summary of how managers use the three popular influence strategies discussed above appears in the box on page 65.
PROFILES OF MANAGERS WHO USE DIFFERENT MIXES OF INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
The Manager's Expectations of Success Managers also vary strategies according to how successful they expect to be in influencing the target. When past experience indicates a high probability of success, managers use simple requests to gain compliance. In contrast, where success is less predictable, managers are more tempted to use assertiveness and sanctions to achieve objectives. Managers in comparable positions may differ with regard to their expectations for success in exercising influence. This difference in expectations may occur for many reasons. Thus, for example, social psychologists report that the more dissimilar people are in terms of attitudes, race, and sex, the less cooperative they will be with one another. Given these lowered expectations, it is not surprising that there are frequent complaints that managers use more directive tactics with minorities. This behavior may not be the result of malicious prejudice, but the mistaken notion that the target will not comply with simple requests. Hence, managers feel the need to use harsher and more
Do managers vary the mix of influence strategies that they typically use? That is, do some managers use only the same one or two strategies all of the time, while others use all seven? To answer this question, we used the statistical technique of cluster analysis on the POIS to determine pattems of managerial influence in each of the three countries. Ouster analysis is an analytical technique used to develop subgroups of individuals who are similar to each other. The findings revealed that managers in all three countries fall into three groupings, referred to as "shotgun" managers, "tactician" managers, and "bystander" managers.
Shotgun Managers Shotgun managers used all seven strategies from reason to sanctions with above-average frequency to influence others. Shotgun managers, then, attempt to get their way by using the full range of influence strategies. This seems to mean that they want a great deal from others, and as a result they must keep on trying out different strategies. To test this possibility, data from shotgun managers were further analyzed. Our analysis indicated that shotgun managers reported having many unfulfilled objectives in terms of being able to sell their ideas, obtaining personal benefits, or getting others to work more effectively. In addition, in each coimtry they were the ones with the least organizational experience. In summary.
64
USE OF INFLUENCE STRATEGIES
Assertiveness is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the organization. • Expectations for success are low. • Organizational power is high. Reason is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the organization. • Expectations for success are high. • Organizational power is high. Friendliness is frequently used when: • Objectives are to benefit the person. • Expectations for success are low. • Organizational power is low.
and the work they managed required considerable plarming before it could be carried out. As we pointed out earlier, managers of "high-tech" units should have power in their organizations. Our study confirmed that this is so. Tacticians stated that they had considerable influence over such matters as setting budgets, influencing company policy, and dealing with personnel matters. In general, they expressed satisfaction with their ability to perform their work. In sum, our impression is that tacticians are flexible in their use of influence, find their organizational objectivesgenerally met, and rate themselves as effec- tive in carrying out their tasks. At the same time they occupy positions of power on the basis of their skills and knowledge, which allows them to influence others by relying mainly on the strategy of reason.
shotgun managers are inexperienced and probably ambitious, and they have great expectations. To this end, they openly attempt to obtain what they want through the indiscriminate use of influence strategies. Tactician Managers Tactician managers relied heavily on reason to influence others, but they had at least average scores on the other strategies. Tacticians, then, get their way by using facts and data in logical arguments. The image portrayed here is that of rational organizational managers, exercising influencing in a deliberate marmer. Statistical analysis revealed several organizational and personal characteristics that distinguish tacticians from other managers. Perhaps most important is that they have power in their organizations. This was shown in several ways. First, tacticians managed work units that did technologically complex work. Their employees were skilled.
Bystander Managers This group had below-average scores on all seven influence strategies. They exercised little influence in their organizations, despite the fact that they occupy managerial roles. There are two possible explanations for their inactivity. One is that bystanders occupy such powerful positions in their organizations that others continually anticipate their needs; hence they do not have to exercise influence because they get their way without effort. The other possible explanation for their inactivity is that they lack power in their organizations, and therefore they feel it is futile to even try to irrfluence others. The results of our analysis support the second explanation. Bystanders are managers who direct units carrying out routine work. They also supervise the greatest number of subordinates-another indication of routinization. Given this kind of work, it is not surprising that they perceive themselves as having little organizational power
65
as signified by their inability to influence budget, personnel, and/or company policy. Further, in each country those in this group have been in the same job for the longest time. In sum, our impression is that bystanders are managers marking time in mundane jobs, who see themselves as helpless because they have little or no organizational impact. This interpretation is consistent with what social psychologists have described as 'leamed helplessness." This condition is produced by having little personal control over important life events. The result of this lack of control is that individuals stop wanting and stop trying. This was true of our bystander managers. They have stopped influencing others and, more important, they no longer try to influence others in their organizations, either to obtain personal benefits or to achieve organizational objectives. Not surprisingly, as a group, they express the least satisfaction with their abilities to do their work effectively. Figure 2 summarizes the three types of managers.
Figure 2
TYPES OF MANAGERS BY USE OF INFLUENCE
Type of Manager Shotgun Manager's Behavioral Mode High on all seven influence strategies. Unfulfilled on objectives. Inexperienced in job. High on the use of reason (average use of other strategies). Successful in achieving own objectives. High on organizational power. Satisfied. Low on all seven influence strategies. Low on organizational power. Seeking few organizational or personal objectives. Dissatisfied.
Tactician
Bystander
IMPLICATIONS
66
Several implications both for individual managers and for organizations arise from this research. As we said at the beginning of this article, the exercise of influence is a fundamental activity of managers. All managers say they influence others as part of their work. Yet our findings show that the kinds of influence managers use varies systematically with their objectives, their control of resources or power, and their expectations about the willingness of others to comply. Although climate, or culture, was not examined in our research, it seems likely that the choice of influence strategies will also vary with this aspect of the organization. Even a cursory reading of the management literature shows that some organizational
cultures encourage the use of friendliness and ingratiation, while others encourage reason, and still others rely on sanctions and assertiveness. Thus managers are frequently unable to select the most appropriate influence strategy because they are constrained by their lack of power, their objectives, and the organizational climate. However, managers also choose the wrong strategies because of habit, lack of forethought, or incorrect assessment of the target's willingness to comply. We are convinced that a manager's ability to choose the most appropriate influence strategy can be improved by training and self-examination. It is our experience that effective managers are flexible and are able to identify and use the most appropriate strategy in a given situation. The tactician profile best exemplifies this approach. Such managers use the whole spectrum of influence strategies to a moderate extent, but
they rely most on reason, a strategy that appears to have the greatest utility in organizational life. The question for managers to consider is how satisfied they are with the way influence is used in their organization. By influence, we mean not only strategies directed toward subordinates, but also those directed toward coworkers and superiors. In organizations whose culture does not encourage vigorous expression of ideas upward, mana- gers may become apathetic and lapse into a
bystander pattem. Such an organization may be easy to control; however, we suspect that pressure for innovation and change would also be at a minimum. In the past, such ques- tions have been ignored when organizations were evaluated. Our research has shown that now issues involving the exercise of influence in organizations can be rigorously addressed. One implication is that managers can leam a variety of influence strategies rather than rely on the traditional strategy of exercising power as a function of position.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A widely cited approach for understanding power is that of lohn R.P. French, Jr. and Bertam Raven in their article. T h e Bases of Social Power," in Studies in Social Power (University of Michigan Press, 1959). This influential article describes how people respond to influence attempts when they are based on such resources as the ability to reward or punish. Another view of power is provided in the book by David Kipnis, The Powerholders (Univereity of Chicago Press, 1976). This book examines the ways in which people use power both in organizational settings and in their personal lives. For the reader who would like to gain greater familiarity with the development of the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS), this information is provided in an article coauthored by the present writers, "Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's Way" Uoumal of Applied Psychology, Fall 1980). Copies of the POIS can be obtained from University Associates (8517 Production Avenue, P.O. Box 6240, San Diego, California 92126). A thought-provoking and intensive analysis of the day-to-day activities of managers is
given in Henry Mintzberg's book. The Nature of Managerial Work {Prentice-Hall, 1980). Here the reader is provided with rich descriptions of the activities of a small group of managers. In an earlier article entitled, "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations" {American Sociological Review, Spring 1967), Charles Perrow analyzed the effect of technology on the exercise of influence within organizations. Perrow argues that power in an organization is, in part, derived from a manager's ability to solve important organizational problems. Technology aids the manager in this regard by helping to reduce uncertainty. Perrow's approach to understanding organizations stresses the ways in which technology guides the development of social relations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Pat Insley for her invaluable technical assistance. We also wish to thank the Manufacturers' Association of Ddaware Valley for their assistance in gathering data. This research was supported in part by a small grant from Temple University.
67
doc_117764149.docx