2.4 Influence tactics

Influence tactics are essential tools in organizational dynamics, shaping how individuals persuade and motivate others. These strategies vary based on the direction of influence and the influencer's goals, impacting both the effectiveness of the attempt and the quality of interpersonal relationships.

Understanding different influence tactics is crucial for navigating power dynamics in organizations. From rational persuasion to coalition-building, each approach has its strengths and limitations. The choice of tactic depends on factors like organizational culture, individual differences, and the nature of the request.

Types of influence tactics

• Influence tactics are strategies used by individuals to persuade, motivate, or change the behavior of others in organizational settings
• Different influence tactics are employed depending on the direction of influence (upward, downward, or lateral) and the specific goals of the influencer
• The choice of influence tactic can have significant implications for the effectiveness of the influence attempt and the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the influencer and the target

Upward influence tactics

Rational persuasion

Top images from around the web for Rational persuasion

• 

  Data-Driven Decision-Making: A Strategic Shift for Business Transformation - IABAC View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rational Decision Making vs. Other Types of Decision Making | Principles of Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  12.2 Making Decisions in Different Organizations – Organizational Behavior View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Data-Driven Decision-Making: A Strategic Shift for Business Transformation - IABAC View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rational Decision Making vs. Other Types of Decision Making | Principles of Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Rational persuasion

• 

  Data-Driven Decision-Making: A Strategic Shift for Business Transformation - IABAC View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rational Decision Making vs. Other Types of Decision Making | Principles of Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  12.2 Making Decisions in Different Organizations – Organizational Behavior View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Data-Driven Decision-Making: A Strategic Shift for Business Transformation - IABAC View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Rational Decision Making vs. Other Types of Decision Making | Principles of Management View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Involves using logical arguments, facts, and evidence to convince a superior to support a proposal or idea
• Relies on the presentation of objective information to demonstrate the merits of a particular course of action
• Effective when the superior values data-driven decision making and when the influencer has a strong grasp of the relevant facts and figures

Inspirational appeals

• Seeks to tap into a superior's values, ideals, and aspirations to gain support for a proposal or idea
• Involves framing the request in terms of the superior's vision for the organization or the larger purpose that the request serves
• Can be effective when the superior is motivated by a sense of mission or higher purpose and when the influencer can articulate a compelling vision

Consultation

• Involves seeking the superior's input and advice on a decision or course of action
• Demonstrates respect for the superior's expertise and experience and can help to build buy-in and commitment to the influencer's proposal
• Effective when the superior values collaboration and shared decision making and when the influencer is open to incorporating the superior's feedback

Ingratiation

• Involves flattery, praise, and other efforts to create a positive impression and build rapport with the superior
• Can include complimenting the superior's achievements, agreeing with their opinions, or doing favors to curry favor
• Can be effective in the short term but may backfire if perceived as insincere or manipulative

Personal appeals

• Involves appealing to the superior's feelings of loyalty, friendship, or empathy to gain support for a request
• May involve sharing personal information or emphasizing the influencer's own needs or challenges
• Can be effective when the influencer has a strong personal relationship with the superior but may be seen as inappropriate in more formal or hierarchical settings

Exchange

• Involves offering something of value in return for the superior's support or approval
• May include promises of future favors, reciprocal support, or tangible rewards (bonuses, promotions)
• Can be effective in the short term but may create expectations of ongoing exchange and undermine trust in the relationship

Pressure

• Involves using demands, threats, or persistent reminders to force the superior to comply with a request
• May include emphasizing deadlines, highlighting negative consequences of non-compliance, or engaging in intimidation tactics
• Generally less effective and more risky than other tactics, as it can damage the relationship and lead to resentment or retaliation

Coalitions

• Involves enlisting the support of other individuals or groups to influence the superior's decision
• May include forming alliances with the superior's peers, subordinates, or external stakeholders who can advocate for the influencer's proposal
• Can be effective when the influencer lacks direct authority or credibility but may also be seen as a threat or challenge to the superior's power

Legitimating tactics

• Involves appealing to rules, policies, or higher authorities to justify a request or proposal
• May include citing legal requirements, industry standards, or organizational precedents that support the influencer's position
• Can be effective when the request aligns with established norms or expectations but may be less persuasive for novel or unconventional proposals

Downward influence tactics

Rational persuasion

• Involves using logical arguments, data, and evidence to convince subordinates to accept a decision or take a particular course of action
• Relies on the manager's expertise and credibility to demonstrate the merits of the proposed approach
• Effective when subordinates value reasoned decision making and when the manager can clearly articulate the rationale behind the request

Inspirational appeals

• Seeks to tap into subordinates' values, aspirations, and sense of purpose to motivate them to pursue a particular goal or vision
• Involves framing the request in terms of the subordinates' professional growth, the team's mission, or the organization's larger impact
• Can be effective when subordinates are motivated by a sense of meaning or contribution and when the manager can articulate a compelling vision

Consultation

• Involves seeking subordinates' input, ideas, and feedback on a decision or course of action
• Demonstrates respect for subordinates' knowledge and experience and can help to build buy-in and ownership of the final decision
• Effective when subordinates value participation and collaboration and when the manager is open to incorporating their perspectives

Ingratiation

• Involves praising, flattering, or doing favors for subordinates to build positive relationships and encourage compliance with requests
• May include recognizing subordinates' achievements, showing interest in their personal lives, or providing opportunities for visibility or advancement
• Can be effective in building rapport and loyalty but may be seen as manipulative or insincere if overused

Exchange

• Involves offering rewards, incentives, or benefits to subordinates in exchange for their cooperation or performance
• May include promises of bonuses, promotions, desirable assignments, or other perks (flexible scheduling)
• Can be effective in the short term but may create a transactional culture and undermine intrinsic motivation

Pressure

• Involves using demands, threats, or coercive tactics to force subordinates to comply with a request or decision
• May include emphasizing consequences of non-compliance, withholding resources or support, or engaging in intimidation or bullying behaviors
• Generally less effective and more damaging to morale and trust than other tactics, as it can create a climate of fear and resentment

Legitimating tactics

• Involves appealing to rules, policies, or higher authorities to justify a request or decision
• May include citing job descriptions, performance standards, or directives from upper management to reinforce the manager's authority and expectations
• Can be effective in clarifying roles and responsibilities but may be less persuasive for discretionary or innovative behaviors

Lateral influence tactics

Rational persuasion

• Involves using logical arguments, facts, and data to convince peers to support an idea or collaborate on a project
• Relies on the influencer's expertise and credibility to demonstrate the merits of the proposed approach
• Effective when peers value evidence-based decision making and when the influencer can clearly articulate the benefits of the proposal

Inspirational appeals

• Seeks to tap into peers' values, aspirations, and shared goals to motivate them to pursue a particular course of action
• Involves framing the request in terms of the team's mission, the organization's purpose, or the larger impact of the work
• Can be effective when peers are motivated by a sense of meaning or contribution and when the influencer can articulate a compelling vision

Consultation

• Involves seeking peers' input, ideas, and feedback on a decision or project
• Demonstrates respect for peers' knowledge and experience and can help to build buy-in and collaboration
• Effective when peers value teamwork and mutual support and when the influencer is open to incorporating their perspectives

Ingratiation

• Involves praising, flattering, or doing favors for peers to build positive relationships and encourage cooperation
• May include recognizing peers' achievements, showing interest in their work, or providing assistance or resources
• Can be effective in building rapport and goodwill but may be seen as insincere or manipulative if overused

Personal appeals

• Involves appealing to peers' feelings of friendship, loyalty, or reciprocity to gain support for a request or project
• May involve sharing personal information, emphasizing shared experiences, or calling in past favors
• Can be effective when the influencer has strong personal relationships with peers but may be seen as inappropriate or unprofessional in some contexts

Exchange

• Involves offering resources, assistance, or benefits to peers in exchange for their cooperation or support
• May include promises of reciprocal favors (covering a shift), shared credit, or access to information or networks
• Can be effective in the short term but may create a transactional culture and undermine trust and collaboration

Pressure

• Involves using demands, ultimatums, or persistent reminders to force peers to comply with a request or support a position
• May include emphasizing deadlines, highlighting negative consequences of non-cooperation, or engaging in intimidation tactics
• Generally less effective and more damaging to relationships than other tactics, as it can create resentment, conflict, and a lack of psychological safety

Coalitions

• Involves enlisting the support of other individuals or groups to influence peers' decisions or behaviors
• May include forming alliances with other teams, departments, or external stakeholders who can advocate for the influencer's proposal or provide additional resources
• Can be effective when the influencer lacks direct authority or credibility but may also be seen as a manipulation or challenge to the autonomy of the peer group

Legitimating tactics

• Involves appealing to rules, policies, or higher authorities to justify a request or persuade peers to support a position
• May include citing industry standards, best practices, or directives from leadership to reinforce the legitimacy of the influencer's approach
• Can be effective when the request aligns with established norms or expectations but may be less persuasive for novel or unconventional proposals

Effectiveness of influence tactics

Rational persuasion effectiveness

• Rational persuasion is often one of the most effective influence tactics, particularly when the target values logic, data, and evidence-based decision making
• The effectiveness of rational persuasion depends on the influencer's credibility, expertise, and ability to present a clear and compelling argument
• Rational persuasion may be less effective when the target is more motivated by emotions, relationships, or values than by facts and figures

Inspirational appeals effectiveness

• Inspirational appeals can be highly effective when the target is motivated by a sense of purpose, mission, or vision
• The effectiveness of inspirational appeals depends on the influencer's ability to articulate a compelling vision and link the request to the target's values and aspirations
• Inspirational appeals may be less effective when the target is more pragmatic or skeptical, or when the vision feels disconnected from the day-to-day realities of the work

Consultation effectiveness

• Consultation can be an effective tactic for building buy-in, trust, and collaboration, particularly when the target values participation and shared decision making
• The effectiveness of consultation depends on the influencer's genuine openness to input and willingness to incorporate feedback into the final decision or plan
• Consultation may be less effective when the influencer has already made up their mind or when the target perceives the consultation as insincere or manipulative

Ingratiation effectiveness

• Ingratiation can be effective in building positive relationships and encouraging compliance, particularly when used in moderation and with sincerity
• The effectiveness of ingratiation depends on the influencer's social skills, emotional intelligence, and ability to build rapport with the target
• Ingratiation may backfire if it is perceived as insincere, manipulative, or excessive, leading to a loss of trust and credibility

Personal appeals effectiveness

• Personal appeals can be effective when the influencer has a strong personal relationship with the target and when the request feels authentic and appropriate given the nature of the relationship
• The effectiveness of personal appeals depends on the strength of the relationship, the influencer's emotional intelligence, and the target's willingness to prioritize personal loyalty over other considerations
• Personal appeals may be less effective or appropriate in more formal or hierarchical settings, or when the request feels like an abuse of the relationship

Exchange effectiveness

• Exchange tactics can be effective in the short term for securing compliance or cooperation, particularly when the target values the rewards or benefits being offered
• The effectiveness of exchange tactics depends on the perceived value of the exchange and the influencer's ability to follow through on their promises
• Exchange tactics may be less effective in the long term, as they can create a transactional culture and undermine intrinsic motivation, trust, and collaboration

Pressure effectiveness

• Pressure tactics are generally less effective and more risky than other influence tactics, as they can damage relationships, undermine morale, and create a climate of fear or resentment
• The effectiveness of pressure tactics may depend on the influencer's formal authority, the target's personality and resilience, and the broader organizational culture
• Pressure tactics may be more effective in crisis situations or when compliance is absolutely necessary, but should be used sparingly and with caution

Coalitions effectiveness

• Coalition tactics can be effective when the influencer lacks direct authority or credibility, or when the target is more likely to be swayed by social proof or the opinions of others
• The effectiveness of coalition tactics depends on the influencer's ability to build alliances, communicate a united front, and leverage the collective influence of the group
• Coalition tactics may be less effective when the target perceives them as a threat or challenge to their autonomy, or when the coalition is seen as self-serving or politically motivated

Legitimating tactics effectiveness

• Legitimating tactics can be effective when the request or proposal aligns with established rules, norms, or expectations, and when the target values consistency and predictability
• The effectiveness of legitimating tactics depends on the influencer's ability to cite relevant authorities or precedents and to demonstrate the legitimacy of their position
• Legitimating tactics may be less effective when the request or proposal is novel, unconventional, or challenges the status quo, or when the target questions the validity or applicability of the authorities being cited

Factors affecting influence tactic choice

Individual differences

• Personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness) can affect an individual's preferred influence tactics and their comfort with using different approaches
• Personal values (achievement, affiliation, power) can shape an individual's goals and motivations when seeking to influence others
• Cognitive styles (analytical, intuitive) can affect an individual's approach to problem-solving and decision-making, which in turn can influence their choice of tactics

Nature of request

• The importance and urgency of the request can affect the choice of influence tactics, with more critical or time-sensitive requests often requiring more assertive or forceful approaches
• The complexity and novelty of the request can affect the choice of influence tactics, with more straightforward or familiar requests often relying on rational persuasion or legitimating tactics, while more innovative or unconventional requests may require inspirational appeals or coalition-building
• The perceived risks and benefits of the request can affect the choice of influence tactics, with requests that are seen as high-risk or low-benefit often requiring more persuasive or incentivizing approaches

Interpersonal relationship

• The nature of the relationship between the influencer and the target (close vs. distant, trusting vs. skeptical) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with closer or more trusting relationships often allowing for more personal or collaborative approaches
• The power dynamics of the relationship (equal vs. hierarchical, dependent vs. independent) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with more powerful or independent targets often requiring more subtle or indirect approaches
• The history of the relationship (positive vs. negative, successful vs. unsuccessful) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with prior experiences and patterns of interaction shaping expectations and receptivity to different approaches

Organizational culture

• The values and norms of the organization (competitive vs. collaborative, hierarchical vs. egalitarian) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with different approaches being seen as more or less acceptable or effective in different cultural contexts
• The reward systems and incentives of the organization (individual vs. team-based, short-term vs. long-term) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with different approaches being more or less aligned with the behaviors and outcomes that are encouraged and recognized
• The leadership styles and role models of the organization (authoritative vs. participative, transactional vs. transformational) can affect the choice of influence tactics, with individuals often modeling their approaches on the behaviors and expectations of influential figures in the organization

Ethical considerations of influence tactics

Manipulation vs influence

• Manipulation involves using deception, coercion, or exploitation to control or mislead others for one's own benefit, while influence involves using persuasion, motivation, or collaboration to shape others' behaviors or decisions in a way that aligns with their values and interests
• The line between manipulation and influence can be blurry, and depends on factors such as the influencer's intent, the target's awareness and consent, and the outcomes of the influence attempt
• Ethical influence requires transparency, respect for the target's autonomy and wellbeing, and a commitment to creating value for all stakeholders, not just the influencer

Deception in influence attempts

• Deception involves using false or misleading information, withholding relevant facts, or creating false impressions to influence others' behaviors or decisions
• Deception can take many forms in influence attempts, such as exaggerating benefits, minimizing risks, making false promises, or misrepresenting one's qualifications or expertise
• Deception is generally considered unethical in influence attempts, as it violates principles of honesty, trust, and informed consent, and can lead to harmful or suboptimal outcomes for the target and the organization

Coercion vs persuasion

• Coercion involves using force, threats, or intimidation to compel others to comply with one's demands or requests, while persuasion involves using logic, evidence, or appeals to motivate others to agree or cooperate voluntarily
• The line between coercion and persuasion can be blurry, particularly when there are power imbalances or high-stakes consequences involved, and when the target feels pressure to comply even in the absence of explicit threats
• Ethical influence relies on persuasion rather than coercion, and respects the target's right to make an informed and autonomous decision, even if it differs from the influencer's preferred outcome

Respecting autonomy of others

• Autonomy refers to an individual's right to make their own choices and decisions based on their own values, goals, and preferences, free from undue pressure or interference from others
• Respecting autonomy in influence attempts involves providing the target with relevant information, allowing them to ask questions and express concerns, and ultimately respecting their right to make their own decision, even if it differs from the influencer