Gary Yukl
To be effective, a leader must influence people to carry out requests, support proposals, and implement decisions. In large organizations it is necessary to exert influence on superiors and peers as well as on subordinates. Influence in one direction tends to enhance influence in other directions.
The type of behavior used by one person (the “agent”) in an attempt to influence another person (the “target”) is called an influence tactic. Proactive tactics have an immediate task objective, such as influencing the target person to carry out a new task, provide assistance on a project, provide necessary resources, or approve a proposed change. Examples include rational persuasion (using facts and logic) and inspirational appeals (linking a request to target values and ideals). Proactive tactics can be distinguished from impression management tactics, which are used to influence someone to like you more or to evaluate your skills and performance more favorably.
This chapter describes eleven types of proactive influence tactics, explains what has been learned about their relative effectiveness, and provides guidelines on how to use them for leading people in organizations. The chapter also includes a brief description of how the proactive tactics can be used to resist unwanted influence attempts by others.
The effectiveness of a proactive tactic can be evaluated in terms of the immediate outcome of the influence attempt for which it is used. Three qualitatively distinct outcomes can be differentiated: commitment, compliance, and resistance. Commitment occurs when the person you are attempting to influence internally agrees with a request and makes a great effort to carry it out effectively. This is usually the most successful outcome for a complex, difficult task that requires enthusiasm and initiative from the individual being influenced. Influencing commitment is especially important when it is necessary for a leader to implement major change.
Compliance occurs when someone is willing to carry out a request but is apathetic rather than enthusiastic about it and will make only a minimal effort. The person is not convinced the decision or action is the best thing to do or even that it will be effective for accomplishing its purpose. Compliance is a less successful outcome, but for a simple, routine task it may be all that is necessary to accomplish the influence objective. For example, getting subordinates to wear safety glasses and follow standard procedures for avoiding accidents requires compliance but not commitment.
Resistance occurs when the target person is opposed to a request and tries to avoid doing it. The person may refuse to carry out the request, try to persuade the leader to withdraw or change the request, delay acting in the hope that the leader will forget about the request, ask higher authorities to overrule the request, or pretend to comply but try to sabotage the task. Resistance is usually regarded as an unsuccessful outcome, but it can be a favorable outcome if the net effect is to avoid making a serious mistake. For example, you develop a detailed plan for a new project, but subordinates will not implement it until you correct some serious flaws that you had overlooked.
The success of an influence attempt can also be evaluated in terms of how it affects the way people subsequently view the leader (for example, ethical, supportive, competent, trustworthy), and these perceptions will affect the success of subsequent influence attempts. For example, after making an innovative change that is highly successful, a leader’s reputation is enhanced and people are more willing to accept additional changes.
Research programs conducted during the 1980s and 1990s identified eleven distinct types of proactive influence tactics, and they are shown in Table 5.1.[1] This section of the chapter briefly explains each type of proactive tactic and clarifies differences among the tactics. Later in the chapter the most effective tactics are described in more detail and guidelines for their effective use are provided.
Table 5.1. Definitions of the Proactive Influence Tactics.
Rational Persuasion | The agent uses logical arguments and factual evidence to show that a request or proposal is feasible and relevant for important task objectives. |
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 person to suggest improvements or help plan a proposed activity or change for which the target person’s support is desired. |
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. |
Collaboration | The agent offers to provide assistance or necessary resources if the target will carry out a request or approve a proposed change. |
Apprising | The agent explains how carrying out a request or supporting a proposal will benefit the target personally or help to advance the target’s career. |
Ingratiation | The agent uses praise and flattery before or during an attempt 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. |
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. |
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. |
Copyright © 2001 by Gary Yukl. | |
Rational persuasion involves the use of explanations, logical arguments, and factual evidence to explain why a request or proposal will benefit the organization or help to achieve an important task objective. This tactic may also involve presentation of factual evidence that a project or change is likely to be successful. Rational persuasion is a flexible tactic that can be used in many situations. It is most appropriate when the target person shares the leader’s task objectives but does not recognize that the proposal is the best way to attain them. A strong form of rational persuasion, such as a detailed proposal with concrete evidence, is much more effective than a weak form of rational persuasion, such as a brief explanation or an assertion without supporting evidence. For example, in a presentation to superiors to get approval for a proposed change in work procedures, the leader explains how the change will reduce costs and provides evidence from a trial run that the change can be implemented without any problems.
This tactic involves an emotional or value-based appeal, in contrast to the logical arguments used in rational persuasion. An inspirational appeal is an attempt to develop enthusiasm and commitment by arousing strong emotions and linking a request or proposal to a person’s needs, values, hopes, and ideals. Some bases for appealing to most people include the desire to be important, to feel useful, to accomplish something worthwhile, to perform an exceptional feat, to be a member of the best team, or to participate in an exciting effort to make things better. Charismatic and transformational leaders use inspirational appeals to gain follower commitment to innovative changes and motivate them to accomplish things that initially may have seemed impossible.[2]
With consultation the leader invites an individual (or the members of a team) to participate in planning how to carry out a request or implement a proposed change. Consultation can take a variety of forms. One common form is for a leader to present a detailed proposal or plan and ask people if they have any doubts or concerns. After hearing these concerns, the leader can explain why the concerns are unwarranted or modify the proposal to reflect the person’s concerns. Another form of consultation is to present a general objective rather than a detailed proposal and ask people to suggest specific action steps for implementing it. Active involvement in planning can result in commitment if people begin to take ownership for the strategy or plans they helped to develop (it is “their plan” rather than “the leader’s plan”). The successful use of consultation requires at least moderate agreement that the objective is worthwhile; otherwise there will be no interest in developing an effective strategy or plan for attaining the objective.
Exchange involves the explicit or implicit offer to reward someone for carrying out a request. Use of this tactic is especially appropriate when the person is indifferent or reluctant about complying with a request because it offers no important benefits and would involve considerable effort and inconvenience. An exchange tactic makes compliance with a request more acceptable, because the person will receive something desirable, such as tangible rewards, scarce resources needed for another task, or help in attaining another objective that is important to the person. For example, the leader wants a peer to do a new task, and in exchange the leader offers to show the peer how to use some new software that is unrelated to the task. Sometimes the promise involved in an exchange tactic may be implicit rather than explicit. That is, the leader may suggest returning the favor in some unspecified way at a future time.
Collaboration involves an offer to provide necessary resources and assistance if someone will agree to carry out a request or approve a proposal. This influence tactic is useful when an individual or team initially believes that a proposed activity or change is too risky or difficult to justify their enthusiastic support. Collaboration may seem similar to exchange in that both tactics involve a conditional offer to do something for the target person. However, there are important differences in the underlying motivational processes and facilitating conditions. Exchange involves increasing the benefits to be obtained by carrying out a request, whereas collaboration involves reducing the difficulty and costs of carrying out a request. Exchange usually involves an impersonal trade of unrelated benefits, whereas collaboration usually involves a joint effort to accomplish the same task. In the example described earlier for exchange, collaboration might involve an offer to have one of the leader’s subordinates show the peer how to do the new task or to help in doing the extra work that would be required to complete the task.
Apprising involves an explanation of how a request or proposal is likely to benefit the target person as an individual. The benefits may involve the person’s career advancement, job satisfaction, or compensation. Apprising may involve the use of facts and logic, but unlike rational persuasion, the benefits described are for the individual, not for the organization. Unlike exchange tactics, the benefits are a by-product of carrying out the request, not something the leader will directly provide. For example, when asking a subordinate to carry out a task that is different from previous responsibilities, the leader explains how it will help increase skills the subordinate needs for promotion to a higher-level position.
Ingratiation can take many forms, and common examples include providing praise, acting deferential, and acting friendly before making a request. For example, when asking a subordinate to do a new task, the leader says that the subordinate is the most qualified person to do it. When ingratiation is perceived to be sincere, it tends to strengthen positive regard and make a target person more willing to consider a request. Ingratiation is more likely to be viewed as insincere when used just prior to a request, especially if it is not directly relevant to the request. For example, saying you like someone’s new hair style just before asking for a favor is not likely to be effective.
A personal appeal involves asking someone to do a favor based on friendship or loyalty. The stronger the friendship, the more one can ask of the target person. However, there is little need for a personal appeal if the relationship between an agent and target person is very strong. A personal appeal is most likely to be used for requesting assistance with a task or for obtaining a personal favor unrelated to the work. Leaders use personal appeals more often with peers than with bosses or subordinates.
Compliance with a request or command is more likely when it is viewed as legitimate and proper. Legitimating tactics involve an attempt to establish one’s authority or right to make a particular type of request. Legitimacy is more likely to be questioned when a request is unusual, when it clearly exceeds the agent’s authority, or when it is made by someone whose authority is not known to the target person. There are several different types of legitimating tactics, and most of them are mutually compatible. Examples include providing evidence that a request is consistent with a contract, formal agreement, legal precedent, organization bylaws, formal policies, rules and standard procedures, or written job descriptions that specify each person’s duties and authority.
Pressure tactics include threats, warnings, and assertive behavior such as repeated demands or frequent checking to see if the target person has complied with a request. Pressure is sometimes successful in inducing compliance, particularly if the target person is just lazy or apathetic rather than strongly opposed to the request. However, pressure is unlikely to result in commitment and may have serious side effects such as resentment and hostility. Hard forms of pressure such as threats, warnings, and demands are more likely to undermine working relationships than are softer forms of pressure, such as persistent requests or frequent checking.
Coalition tactics involve getting help from other people to influence the target person. This type of proactive tactic is useful to gain approval for an organizational change initiative. The coalition partners may be peers, subordinates, superiors, or outsiders. Common examples include mentioning the endorsement of other people, and bringing an ally to the meeting in which the leader will make the proposal. Another coalition tactic (which is sometimes called an upward appeal) is to seek assistance from a superior who has authority over the target person.
The effectiveness of each type of tactic depends in part on the context in which it is used.[3] A tactic is more likely to be effective if it is compatible with the leader’s power and authority in relation to the target person. For example, exchange is more effective when a leader has substantial control over rewards that are valued by the target person. Finally, a tactic is more likely to be effective if appropriate for the type of interpersonal relationship that exists between the agent and target. Rational persuasion, consultation, and collaboration are more effective when the agent and target have shared objectives and mutual trust. A personal appeal requires a moderate degree of friendship. Finally, a tactic is more likely to be effective if it is consistent with strong social values in the national culture and the organizational culture.[4] For example, consultation is more effective in a country with strong democratic traditions than in a country in which obedience to leaders is a strong cultural value.
Despite these situational factors, some proactive tactics are usually more effective than others for eliciting commitment to a request or proposal. Studies on the relative effectiveness of different proactive tactics found that the tactics most likely to elicit commitment were rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration.[5] These “core tactics” can be effective for influencing subordinates, peers, and bosses, although a particular tactic may be easier to use with one type of target than with another. Cross-cultural research has found that the core tactics are highly effective in many countries, despite some differences in how often each tactic is used and what form of the tactic is used.
Exchange and apprising are moderately effective but are more likely to result in compliance than in commitment. These tactics are more useful for influencing a subordinate or peer than for influencing a superior. Subordinates usually have little reward power in relation to their boss, and they are not likely to have more knowledge than the boss about opportunities for career advancement in the organization unless the boss was just recently hired from a different organization.
Ingratiation is moderately effective as a supplementary tactic for influencing a subordinate or peer. Ingratiation is less useful for an immediate influence attempt with a boss, because it is more likely to appear insincere in this context. However, when used over a period of time as an impression management tactic, ingratiation can help to build a good relationship with the boss.
A personal appeal is more likely to elicit compliance than commitment. The underlying basis for influence is the target person’s desire to maintain at least a minimal level of cooperation with the agent, but the target person will not be willing to invest much effort in carrying out the request. Leaders who want to make a request or proposal that is important for the organization or potentially beneficial to the target person should use other tactics, such as rational persuasion, exchange, or apprising, instead of a personal appeal.
Pressure and legitimating tactics are unlikely to result in commitment, because they do not improve the target person’s attitudes about the intrinsic merit of a request or proposal. However, the use of either tactic can result in target compliance, and as noted earlier, it is sometimes a sufficient outcome. For example, the leader may remind people who are reluctant to do a task that it is consistent with legal requirements or company policies, and failure to comply will result in disciplinary action.
A coalition can be effective for influencing a peer or superior to support a change or innovation, especially if coalition partners use the core tactics. However, asking others to help influence a target person only after encountering initial resistance is less effective, because in that situation it is likely to be seen as a pressure tactic.
This section of the chapter provides guidelines for using the four core tactics, which include rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration. The guidelines are suggestions rather than prescriptions, because it is always necessary to evaluate the situation and determine the appropriate way to use each tactic.
Rational appeals involve logical arguments and factual evidence about the importance and feasibility of a request or proposal. This flexible tactic can be used to influence a group of people as well as an individual.
Explain the reason that a request or proposal is important.
People are more likely to comply with a request if they understand the reason why it is necessary and important. When asked to do something unusual, people may wonder whether it is really necessary or just an impulsive whim. Explain how a proposed initiative or change would help to achieve an important objective such as improved quality, productivity, profits, or customer service. Explain why a request is essential for the success of an important project or activity, or how it will help to solve a serious problem for the team or organization.
Provide evidence that a request or proposal is feasible.
It is not enough for a request or proposal to be relevant; it must also be seen as practical and realistic to gain someone’s enthusiastic support and cooperation. If you expect the target person to have doubts about the feasibility of a request or proposal, provide supporting evidence for it. Explain the underlying theoretical rationale for assuming that a proposed plan of action will lead to the desired objective. Describe a specific sequence of action steps that could be used to overcome obstacles and accomplish the objective. Provide detailed information about costs and benefits for a proposed initiative or change. Cite supporting evidence from empirical research, such as a pilot study or survey showing a favorable response to a proposed new product or service. Describe how a similar approach was successful when used in the past by yourself or someone else. If appropriate, provide an actual demonstration for the person to observe (“Seeing is believing”).
Explain why a proposal is better than competing ones.
If a proposal is competing with others for the person’s support, explain why your proposal is better than any of the alternatives. Point out the advantages of your proposal. Possible advantages are that it is less costly, it is easier to implement, it is more likely to accomplish the objective, it is more likely to be approved, or it has less risk of undesirable side effects. Point out the weaknesses and problems with each competing proposal. If feasible, cite evidence from a test of the competing proposals to show that yours is better. Note that your comparison will be more credible if you also acknowledge some positive features of the competing proposals rather than ignoring them altogether, especially if the person is already aware of these features.
Inspirational appeals seek to develop enthusiasm and commitment by linking a request to the person’s values and arousing strong emotions. Like rational persuasion, this tactic can be used to influence a team as well as an individual.
Appeal to the ideals, values, and self-image of the target persons.
Values and ideals that may provide the basis for an inspirational appeal include patriotism, loyalty, liberty, freedom, justice, fairness, equality, tolerance, excellence, humanitarianism, and progress. A proposed activity or assignment may be linked to values that are central to the target person’s self-image. For example, most scientists have strong values about the discovery of new knowledge and its application to improve humanity. Most physicians and other health care professionals have strong values about healing people and keeping them healthy. A proposed change or activity may be described as something that will make a revolutionary breakthrough, set a new standard for excellence, or enable the team to perform an exceptional feat. For example, the task of developing a new type of software may be likened to the role of a missionary who is going to revolutionize the way computers are used.
Link the request to a clear and appealing vision.
Efforts to introduce major changes or innovations are more likely to be successful when they involve an appealing vision of what could be accomplished or how the future could look if the proposed activity or change is implemented successfully. The vision may be an existing one the target person is known to embrace, or one you created to help gain commitment to a new project or activity. The vision should emphasize ideological values rather than tangible economic benefits to the organization or the target person.
Use a dramatic, expressive style of speaking.
A dramatic, expressive style of speaking often increases the effectiveness of an emotional appeal. Conviction and intensity of feeling are communicated by one’s voice (including tone, inflection, and pauses), by facial expressions, by gestures, and by body movement. Use a strong, clear tone of voice, but vary the pace and intensity. Use pauses at appropriate times to emphasize key words, maintain interest, and arouse excitement. Maintain strong eye contact, use strong gestures, and move around to display energy and intensity of feeling.
Use positive, optimistic language.
Confidence and optimism about a project or change can be contagious. It is especially important to foster optimism when the task is very difficult and people lack self-confidence. State your personal belief in the project and your strong commitment to see it through to a successful conclusion. Use positive language to communicate confidence that a proposed project or change will be successful. For example, talk about the wonderful things that “will” happen after a change is made, rather than what “may” happen.
Consultation increases the target person’s motivation to carry out a request by allowing the person to participate in determining how it will be done.
State your objective and ask what the person or team can do to help attain it.
If you know that the person shares your task objective, state it clearly and ask what the person can do to help you attain it. The target person is likely to suggest some ways to be of assistance. In the process of discussing what is needed, other things the target person can do are likely to be identified.
Ask for suggestions on how to improve a tentative proposal.
More participation is likely if you present a proposal as tentative and ask for suggestions on how to improve it, rather than asking the target person to react to an elaborate plan that appears complete. People will be less inhibited about expressing concerns or suggestions for a proposal that is still in the developmental stage. Show appreciation for any suggestions. Jointly explore ways to incorporate promising suggestions, and make sure the target person understands the reasons why an impractical suggestion cannot be used.
Involve the person or team in planning action steps to attain an objective.
Present a general strategy or objective and ask the person or team to help develop specific action steps for implementing it. If the action plan will be detailed, it is best to schedule a meeting at a later time to review the plan and reach a mutual agreement about it. This consultation tactic is especially useful for assigning responsibilities to a subordinate or asking a peer to carry out supporting activities on a project. To be feasible, the target person should have at least moderate agreement with the strategy or objective.
Respond in a positive way to target person concerns.
Consultation is most effective when used as an initial influence tactic, but it can be a useful follow-up tactic if the target person expresses concerns about a request, either openly or in a less explicit way. Acknowledge these concerns and mutually discuss ways to deal with them. Explain how problems will be avoided or minimized. Ask the person for additional suggestions on how to deal with the concerns.
Collaboration involves an offer to reduce the difficulty and costs of carrying out a request. This tactic can be used in many situations, and it sends a message that you are supportive and willing to facilitate the person’s efforts to carry out a request.
Offer to provide necessary assistance or resources.
Sometimes the target person is reluctant to do a requested task because it is difficult or unpleasant. If the person lacks experience in doing the task, offer to provide advice and guidance. If the task is unpleasant, offer to help the person do it.
Sometimes a tedious task can be more enjoyable if performed by two people working together than by one person working alone. If the task requires additional resources, offer to provide them or to help the person get them.
Offer to help solve problems caused by a request.
A request is more likely to be resisted if it will cause new problems for the target person. For example, the request to do a new task may interfere with the target person’s other job responsibilities. The request to change the contents of a monthly report may make it necessary for the target person to get information from other people who are reluctant to provide it. The leader should try to anticipate such problems and be prepared to offer ways to avoid them or help deal with them. When the problems caused by a request are not obvious to the leader, some probing questions may be necessary to learn about them. One option is to ask what problems could delay completion of the task.
Offer to help implement a proposed change.
A major source of resistance to change to a proposed change is the extra work that would be required for the target person to implement it. To gain the person’s support and approval for a proposed change, offer to help implement it. A requirement for the use of this form of collaboration is the capability to actually provide assistance in implementing the proposed change.
Up to now each proactive tactic was considered singly, but most influence attempts involve the use of more than one of the tactics. The effectiveness of an influence attempt is partially dependent on which tactics are combined and how they are sequenced. The interpersonal relationship and the target’s perception of the agent’s motives also affect the success of an influence attempt.
Some studies have found that an influence attempt is more likely to be successful if two or more different tactics are combined. However, the outcome may depend on the potency of the component tactics and the extent to which they are compatible with each other. Compatible tactics are easy to use together and enhance each other’s effectiveness. The research on tactic combinations is very limited, but it suggests that some tactics are more easily combined than others.[6]
Rational persuasion is a very flexible tactic, and it is usually compatible with any of the other proactive tactics. The effectiveness of consultation can be enhanced by combining it with rational persuasion. For example, rational persuasion is used to clarify why a proposed change is important, and consultation is used to involve the target person in finding an acceptable way to implement the change. Rational persuasion can be combined with inspirational appeals when proposing a new initiative or major change. For example, in a speech to gain commitment from the members of a product development team, the leader emphasizes how success in developing a proposed new medical device can save many lives as well as increase company profits. Another useful combination is rational persuasion and apprising. For example, after explaining why a proposed change in marketing procedures will improve sales, the leader points out how much the target person’s annual bonus is likely to increase as a result of higher sales.
The effectiveness of consultation can be increased by combining it with collaboration. For example, when a discussion of how to achieve a shared task objective reveals concerns about obstacles, the leader can offer to help the target person deal with these obstacles. When a coalition partner helps a leader influence the target person, the process will automatically involve combining a coalition tactic with other tactics. For example, the agent and coalition partner may both use rational persuasion to influence the target person.
Some tactics are less compatible. A hard form of pressure is usually incompatible with personal appeals or ingratiation because it undermines the feelings of friendship and loyalty that are the basis for these tactics. Pressure can also undermine the trust necessary for the effectiveness of a tactic such as consultation. Nevertheless, when assistance is needed from a person who does not agree with the leader’s task objectives, substantial pressure may be necessary before consultation will be feasible. Threats or the use of an upward appeal to authority figures may help to convince the target person that cooperation with the leader is more beneficial than noncooperation. However, the benefits of using pressure in this way must be weighed against potential adverse side effects, such as lingering resentment and hostility. Combining pressure with consultation should be avoided except when absolutely necessary.
An influence attempt often involves a series of separate influence episodes that span a period of days or weeks. The limited research on this subject indicates that some tactics are used more in initial influence attempts and other tactics are used more in follow-up influence attempts.[7] It is prudent for a leader to initially select tactics that are likely to gain the desired outcome (compliance or commitment) with the least effort and cost. Initial influence attempts with subordinates or peers often involve either a simple request or a relatively weak form of rational persuasion, because these tactics are easy to use and entail little in the way of costs. If some resistance is anticipated, then the leader is likely to use a stronger form of rational persuasion, and “soft” tactics such as personal appeals, consultation, collaboration, apprising, and inspirational appeals. In the face of continued resistance by a target, the leader will either escalate to “harder” tactics or abandon the effort if the request does not justify the risks of escalation.
The sequencing of tactics can affect the target person’s perception of the agent’s motives. Ingratiation (for example, praising the person’s ability) is more credible when used early as part of the rationale for a request. Consultation may be viewed as more sincere if used initially rather than saving it until an influence attempt has already faltered.
Legitimating may be used either early or late, but it should be used early if the target person is expected to have doubts about the legitimacy of a request. Exchange can be costly when used to gain compliance with a request that would otherwise be resisted, because it usually requires expending a valuable resource. Thus, exchange should not be used early in an influence attempt unless it is clearly necessary. Pressure involves the risk of undesirable side effects such as target resentment, and hard forms of pressure should be used only as a last resort after other tactics have failed.
Coalitions are commonly used as a follow-up tactic but can be effective as an early tactic to help gain endorsements and supporters for a change that is likely to be costly and risky. To avoid eliciting initial target resistance that may be difficult to overcome, it is useful to show that a proposed change or new initiative has widespread support by people whom the target respects. Another form of coalition that can be used as an initial tactic is popular in countries such as China where people are very concerned about avoiding the loss of face. Instead of directly confronting the target person and risking a rejection that would be embarrassing to both parties, the agent asks a mutual friend to talk to the target person and determine if a favorable response is likely.[8]
As noted earlier, the effectiveness of an influence attempt depends in part on the interpersonal relationship between the agent and target. The tactics are usually more effective when the agent is trusted by the target and perceived to be ethical and competent. Moreover, in a cooperative, trusting relationship, there is less need to use the proactive tactics. Thus, it is beneficial for the agent to develop a good relationship with the target and to preserve a reputation for integrity and competence. Many of the behaviors described by theories of effective leadership are relevant for developing a favorable relationship and reputation.[9]
The credibility and integrity of leaders is very much affected by how they use their power and influence. Any tactic can be used in a way that is unethical. For example, rational persuasion and apprising may involve lies and distortion. Inspirational appeals based on emotions such as fear or envy may be used to influence people in destructive ways. Collaboration and exchange may be empty promises. Ingratiation may be insincere. The proactive tactics should be used in ethical ways to accomplish shared objectives, not to exploit others for the leader’s personal gain. Leaders should be careful to avoid using tactics in a way that is deceptive or manipulative. Some leaders believe that deception may be justified in the short term to achieve worthwhile objectives, but the long-term effects are usually negative for both the leader and the organization.
In proactive influence attempts, the agent initiates the interaction, but effective leaders must also be able to respond in appropriate ways to an unwanted influence attempt initiated by someone else, including a boss, peer, or client. Leaders must be able to deal effectively with a request that is irrelevant, impractical, or unethical. The choice of resistance tactics has important consequences not only for immediate outcome, but also for the future relationship with the person making the request.
Only a few studies have investigated how people resist influence attempts.[10] The initial findings suggest that most of the tactics used for proactive influence attempts can also be used for resistance, although the tactics may take a somewhat different form. Little is known about the best tactics for resisting unwanted influence, but it is likely that they include the core tactics. When used as a resistance tactic, rational persuasion may involve explaining why the agent’s proposed plan is unlikely to be successful. Consultation may be used to gain more insight about the agent’s reasons or underlying assumptions for a request or proposal. Collaboration may involve an offer to help accomplish the agent’s objective in a different way. Inspirational appeals may involve efforts to construe a request or proposal as contrary to core values and ideals in the organizational culture.
Legitimating can be an effective resistance tactic when the agent’s request is inconsistent with company rules or a formal contract. Apprising can be useful for resisting a request or proposal that could have serious unanticipated consequences for the agent, such as derailing the agent’s career. Pressure may be necessary when the target person is asked to do something unethical. An example is a subordinate who threatens to resign if the boss insists on making changes that are unethical or inconsistent with core values in the organization.
Research using several different methods has identified eleven distinct types of proactive tactics that can be used by leaders to influence subordinates, peers, and bosses. Some tactics are more difficult to use than others, and some are likely to be more effective than others. However, the best tactics do not always result in task commitment, and the worst tactics do not always result in resistance. The outcome of any particular influence attempt is strongly dependent on other factors in addition to the type of tactics that are used, including the power and authority of the agent, the influence objective, the agent-target relationship, and cultural norms about the use of the tactics. Any tactic can result in resistance if it is not used in a skilful manner, or if it is used for a request that is improper or unethical.
Success in influencing people requires skill in diagnosing the situation and determining what influence strategy is relevant. Effective leaders are flexible and adaptive as the situation changes.[11] The following general principles should be remembered when deciding how to influence others to gain their cooperation and support:
Understand the attitudes, values, and emotions of the persons you need to influence. This knowledge is important for understanding how difficult it will be to influence the target person and which tactics are most relevant for a request or proposal.
Select influence tactics that are appropriate for your relationship with the target person. For example, it is easier to use exchange and apprising with a subordinate or peer than with a boss. These two tactics are also very useful for influencing a target person who may not share your task objectives (for example, a customer or supplier).
Select influence tactics that are compatible with the nature of the requested task. For example, apprising is not appropriate for a task that does not involve the possibility of personal benefits for the target. An inspirational appeal is not appropriate for tasks that do not involve strong values.
Acquire the information and expertise needed to support the use of tactics that are likely to be relevant. For example, rational persuasion is more likely to be effective when the leader has extensive knowledge and information about the task. Apprising is more likely to be effective if the leader has more knowledge than the target person does about reward contingencies and career issues.
Maintain a good relationship with people on whom you are dependent for cooperation and assistance,. especially when you have little or no authority over them. It is easier to gain cooperation and commitment from people when there is a high level of mutual trust and respect.
Determine if the core tactics are relevant for an important influence attempt. Rational persuasion is usually relevant, but consider carefully whether one or more of the other core tactics is also relevant. Leaders in business organizations often fail to use consultation, collaboration, and inspirational appeals in situations where they are relevant.
Combine tactics that are compatible and complementary. For a very difficult influence attempt, multiple tactics increase the likelihood of success, but the potential benefits will not be achieved unless the tactics are compatible.
Sequence tactics in a way that will maximize the positive effects. Some tactics are equally effective when used early or late in an influence attempt, but the effectiveness of other tactics depends on when they are used. A tactic may appear insincere or manipulative if used with inappropriate timing.
Always maintain credibility and personal integrity. Lack of credibility will reduce the utility of the proactive tactics and is likely to derail the leader’s career. Effective leaders use their power in a subtle, nonthreatening way to achieve worthwhile objectives, and they do not attempt to deceive or manipulate people.
Leaders who understand how and when to use each proactive tactic are likely to be more effective in their efforts to influence subordinates, peers, and bosses. Knowing how to successfully combine different tactics requires considerable insight and skill. At least some of the relevant skills can be enhanced with feedback and training. For example, a recent study showed that a short feedback workshop was able to improve the use of core tactics by middle managers in regional savings banks.[12] Research on the use of influence tactics by leaders in business organizations is still in its infancy. As we continue to learn more about this important subject, it will be possible to develop additional guidelines on how to influence people whose cooperation is needed for success in leadership positions.