The natural inclination, when thinking about influence in the workplace, is to wonder how managers should or do influence their staff, and there is wealth of research on this topic. In contrast, there is much less research into how subordinates influence and manage upwards. Yet this may be as, or even more, important in ensuring the smooth running of organisations.
There are number of factors that may encourage or discourage us from attempting to influence our superiors.
It may be that ability and confidence in particular situation would lead you to choose to influence or to defer to others. In familiar situation, perhaps considering problem that you have tackled several times, you might be more likely to seek to influence others than on task that you were unfamiliar with.
It may be that influencing is just one of multitude of ways in which we are, or are not, proactive at work. Modern firms do not just want employees who are skilled, they want ones who are problem oriented, flexible, and customer focused. Worker initiative is highly valued in today’s workplace and it is possible that influencing tactics are used more by some workers than others simply because they are disposed to be proactive in general sense.
It may also be that perceptions of the likely impact of any attempt to influence will determine whether or not any tactics are used at all. Employees are less likely to engage in influencing if they do not feel they will be listened to.
Another factor that may determine the level of influencing might be the levels of engagement an employee has. An employee who is committed to their role and the success of their organisation may well be driven to influence outcomes because they care, whereas an employee who is less engaged at work may be less likely to bother.
In short, the inclination of subordinate to engage in influencing may depend on number of personal and organisational conditions. Put simply, it would be reasonable to suppose that you would be unlikely to share your ideas or suggestions with your manager unless you can answer “yes” to most or all of the following: “Do I feel it is part of my role to intervene?”, “Have I got the know-how to be useful?”, “Will the consequence of intervening be favourable?” and, finally, “Do I care?” Employers who rely on their staff to share views, communicate effectively and to take part in decision making should perhaps take note. Their staff will not necessarily seek to influence outcomes if the organisational climate is unfavourable.
A moment’s reflection will reveal that influencing is not uni-dimensional activity; we use range of tactics in influencing our superiors at work. Thinking about our own behaviour and work situations little longer may even lead us to relating particular tactics to particular type of situation or even to particular types of bosses. We can probably also think of times when subordinates have used what we felt were appropriate methods to help us see things their way and we can probably all think of times when subordinates have used distinctly unsuccessful or inappropriate ways to try to influence us.
The differences in power between managers and subordinates are likely to constrain people in their choice of tactics. For example, ingratiation may well be tactic favoured by subordinates, whereas the use of ingratiation by manager may be less common.
There is good support for cluster of upward-influencing tactics made up of six tactics: ingratiation, rationality, exchange, coalitions, upward appeal and assertiveness. It is reasonable to expect that not all will be used with equal frequency or with equal success.
One might expect that presenting rational argument would stand good chance of success and be fairly low risk. Reasoning and logic are valued highly in our society and researchers have indeed found that managers who use reason more than other managers tend to be regarded as higher performing and are even better paid. Here is one subordinate describing using rationality successfully: “I used evidence and logical thinking, I did lot of research first and presented the options in an order of preference.”
Other tactics may be used selectively. Here is subordinate describing combination of coalition, assertiveness and upward appeal that has not as yet proved successful: “I voiced my opposition to XXX and spoke to other staff to create groundswell of opinion. This is still unresolved and seniors are not responding to my requests for an explanation.”
Political skill has been linked to differences in the use of tactics. Politically skilled individuals may use ingratiation more successfully than less skilled colleagues. Perhaps this is because ingratiation only works when managers fail to recognise it as tactic and assume it is genuine refection of positive feelings or admiration. Some studies suggest that politically skilled members of staff use rationality and logic more effectively than less politically skilled colleagues. Other research suggests that because of their superior networks they are more able and more likely to use upward appeal or coalitions.
The nature of the relationship between manager and subordinate may also determine the choice of tactic. Perhaps relationship of trust may engender more open information sharing and render other tactics less necessary.
Few studies have looked at tactics in the light of the complex interplay of dispositions, context and organisational factors outlined above. Research currently underway at the University of Auckland attempts to build our understanding of the use of tactics and to shed some light on the way we can best equip people for appropriate and effective influencing. Research is being conducted which, in addition to capturing picture of the employees’ attitudes and use of tactics, is measuring performance levels, manager and subordinate relationships and political skills. The research team will be investigating how these factors work together to determine influencing tactics. The Centre for Continuing Education will use the research to guide the development of its training programmes that are made available by the university to members of the public.
Influencing your boss: What tactics could you use?
Employees have at their disposal number of influencing strategies that they can call upon to influence their supervisors and staff in organisational settings. Six tactics are most commonly identified as being used by subordinates. They are ingratiation, rationality, exchange, coalitions, upward appeal and assertiveness.
Ingratiation is defined as an attempt by an individual to increase their attractiveness in the eyes of others. It includes enhancement, self-presentation and opinion conformity.
Rationality involves providing reasoned justification for recommended course of action. It is appropriate in broad range of situations.
Exchange involves trading favours or making concessions in order to achieve desired outcome.
Coalitions involve gathering support from other people to create social pressure.
Upward appeal includes gaining support from manager’s superiors in order to bring pressure to bear.
Assertiveness is termed pressure by some researchers and captures the forcefulness of the tactics including making desires very clear and using power, including threats and intimidation.
Susan Geertshuis, Helena Cooper-Thomas and Rachel Morrison
