In today’s severe competitive business environment, the role of leaders has become more and more important. One of the most significant determinants of leadership effectiveness is the success of influencing subordinates. To be effective as a leader ...
In today’s severe competitive business environment, the role of leaders has become more and more important. One of the most significant determinants of leadership effectiveness is the success of influencing subordinates. To be effective as a leader in the organization, it is critical to influence his/her subordinates to meet desired organizational process and performance outcomes. The ways in which leaders affect their subordinates have been investigated in terms of influence tactics, which refers to the specific types of behaviors used to gain support for decisions, requests, and policies, and to motivate subordinates to implement them.
Based on the work of Kipnis and colleagues (1980), many researchers have examined on identifying specific influence behaviors, categorizing the most frequently used tactics, and founding the antecedents of the use of influence tactics. However, much of existing research in this area has focused on assessing upward influence tactics, with less attention given to the influence tactics used by leaders to influence their subordinates. Accordingly, eminent scholars have urged researchers to examine the use and effectiveness of leaders’ influence tactics using established conceptual frameworks of dyadic influences as a foundation. Therefore, this study focuses on leaders’ downward influence tactics.
Specifically, to advance the understanding of the dynamics of downward influence tactics in work settings, this study has three main purposes. First, this study investigates the relationship between leaders’ downward influence tactics and subordinates’ job performance (i.e., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors: OCB) by grouping influence tactics into three meta-categories: hard tactics, soft tactics, and rational tactics. Second, to examine a psychological process in this relationship, this study explores the mediating roles of intrinsic motivation, liking for the supervisor, and overall justice based on the three components of an attitude (i.e., cognitive, affective, and behavioral component). Third, recognizing the importance of situational factors in the leadership influence process, this study further investigates the moderating effects of subordinates’ core self-evaluation and role ambiguity in the relationships between leaders’ influence tactics and subordinates’ job performance. Thus, our study takes an important step toward developing a better understanding of how influence tactics in general, and leaders' downward influence tactics in particular, affect subordinates' job performance.
Data were collected from questionnaires distributed to subordinates and their direct supervisors in 6 major companies in South Korea. Most of the respondents were full-time focal employees in international electronic companies, international automobile companies, and nationwide telecom companies. After excluding missing data, I was able to match responses for a total of 241 pairs to constitute the final sample for this study. Prior to testing hypotheses, this study examined the construct validity of measures by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 19.0. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test all of the hypothesized relationships using SPSS 19.0.
The results of this study demonstrated the negative relationship between leaders’ hard tactics and subordinates’ task performance. Also, this study found that leaders’ soft influence tactics had significant positive relationships with subordinates’ task performance and OCBI. Unfortunately, all mediating hypotheses of this study were not supported. However, the confirmatory factor analysis provided support for the validity of a two-factor model with hard and soft tactics. This two-factor model provided a good fit for the data, and it was much better than the fit for a three-factor model with hard, soft, rational tactics. On the basis of these results, this study proceeded to test our hypotheses. The results demonstrated not only the negative relationship between leaders’ hard influence tactics and subordinates’ task performance but also the positive relationships between leaders’ soft influence tactics and subordinates’ all job performance (i.e., task performance, OCBI, and OCBO). In addition, subordinates’ liking for their supervisors mediated the relationships between leaders’ soft influence tactics and subordinates’ job performance. The results of moderated multiple regression analyses suggested that role ambiguity moderated the relationships between leaders’ hard influence tactics and subordinates’ task performance and OCBO. Specifically, the negative relationships between leaders’ hard influence tactics and task performance/OCBO became stronger when role ambiguity was low than when it was high.
The purpose of this study was to develop and test a comprehensive model of the relationship between leaders’ downward influence tactics and subordinates’ job performance. This study contributes to the literature on influence tactics in various aspects. First, using three meta-categories of influence tactics, this study empirically demonstrated the effects of leaders’ influence tactics on their subordinates’ job performance. Despite the obvious importance of this subject, there has little empirical research on the use and effectiveness of leaders’ influence tactics. Thus, this study advanced comprehensive understanding of influence tactics at workplace, particularly demonstrated importance of downward influence behaviors in the subordinate-supervisor linkages. Second, the results of this study found some of mechanisms underlying the effects of leaders’ influence tactics on subordinates’ job performance by verifying the mediating effects of liking for the supervisor on the relationship between soft influence tactics and job performance. Third, this study demonstrated that situation factors moderated the effects of leaders’ influence tactics on subordinates’ job performance. These findings suggest that individual and job characteristics can play an important role determining the effects of leaders’ downward influence tactics, in line with leadership contingency theories.
Despite these implications, this study has some limitations that should be noted. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents us from inferring any causality in this study. Second, the meta-categories of influence tactics in this study did not produce robust subscales for three categories (i.e., hard, soft, and rational tactics). Thus, further research is needed to explore the meta-categories of influence tactics. Third, this study included only limited numbers of variables that might influence the relationships between leaders’ influence tactics and subordinates’ job performance. Future research needs to include the other outcome variables (e.g., creativity, knowledge sharing, and social loafing) and other critical boundary factors (e.g., leaders’ social skill or power and subordinates’ emotional intelligence).
It is acknowledged that this study provides a limited test of the hypothesized model. However, the findings highlight that leaders’ influence tactics can have a significant effect on individual subordinate’s attitudes and behaviors in relation to organizational desired work outcomes. Additional future research in this area seems not only warranted but critical to advance our understanding of influence tactics at workplace.