Leader influence behavior from the target's perspective: a two-factor model

Influence Tactics;Hard tactics;Soft Tactics;leader-member exchange (LMX);Commitment;Compliance;Resistance;Two Stage Structural Equation Modeling

Mullaney, Kevin ; Newman ; Daniel A.

关键词: Influence Tactics;    Hard tactics;    Soft Tactics;    leader-member exchange (LMX);    Commitment;    Compliance;    Resistance;    Two Stage Structural Equation Modeling;   

Others  :  https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/29754/Mullaney_Kevin.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

美国|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

This thesis presents 3 studies that examine the factor structure underlying a target’s perception of downward influence. Drawing on meta-categorizations of influence tactics previously presented in the influence literature, Study 1 constructed a set of possible higher-order factor models and subjected them to competitive tests of model-data fit. The best fitting model was a two factor model of influence, consisting of: (a) a hard influence factor that includes legitimating, coalition, and pressure tactics, and (b) a soft influence factor that includes rational persuasion, consultation, ingratiating, inspirational appeals, exchange, and personal appeals. This factor structure supports the assertions of previous studies that hard tactics and soft tactics can be differentiated by the degree to which they either reinforce or threaten the target’s autonomy to choose to comply with the agent’s request. Study 2 analyzed the incremental validity of the hard factor versus the soft factor in predicting behavioral outcomes of influence (i.e., soft tactics predict commitment, hard tactics predict resistance), and further supported the existence of two distinct factors. Study 3 analyzed specific validity of the individual influence tactics in predicting outcome criteria when controlling for the higher-order factors. This analysis showed that the higher-order factors accounted for the lion’s share of the predictive validity for behavioral outcomes of influence. Areas for future modification of the two-factor (hard/autonomy-threatening vs. soft/autonomy-reinforcing) model of influence tactics are discussed.