Influence Tactics scale

Description

This measure, (Influence Tactics) developed by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1991), resulted from a refinement of the measure of influence tactics originally developed by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980). The measure uses 18 items to describe six types of behaviors used by subordinates to influence their supervisors. The categories of tactics are ingratiation, such as making a supervisor feel important; exchange of  benefits,  such as offering  to make a personal sacrifice if the supervisor  would do a request; rationality, such as using logical arguments to convince a supervisor; assertiveness, such as repeatedly reminding the supervisor of what the subordinate wanted; up­ ward appeal, such as making a formal appeal about a supervisor to higher levels in the organization; and coalition, such as obtaining the support of co­ workers to back up a request.

Reliability

Coefficient alpha values ranged from.73 to .84 for ingratiation,.74 to. 76 for exchange of benefits, .78 to .80 for rationality, .73 to .76 for assertiveness, .73 to .82 for upward appeal, and .83 to .87 for coalition (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).

Validity

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the 18-item measure in two independent samples showed that items loaded on the dimensions as ex­pected and that the six dimensions were empirically distinct (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).

Source

Items

Respondents are asked to describe how frequently in the last 6 months they had used each influence tactic on their boss. Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where I = never use this tactic to influence him/her and 5 = usually use this tactic to influence him/her.

Ingratiation items:

1. Acted very humbly to him or her while making my request
2. Acted in a friendly manner prior to asking for what I wanted
3. Made him or her feel good about me before making my request

Exchange of benefits items:

1. Reminded him or her of past favors that I did for him or her
2. Offered an exchange (e.g., if you do this for me, I will do something for you)
3. Offered to make a personal sacrifice if he or she would do what I wanted (e.g., work late, work harder, do his or her share of the work, )

Rationality items:

1. Used logic to convince him or her
2. Explained the reasons for my request
3. Presented him or her with information in support of my point of view

Assertiveness items:

1. Had a showdown in which I confronted him or her face-to-face
2. Expressed my anger verbally
3. Used a forceful manner; I tried things such as demands, the setting of deadlines, and the expression of strong emotion

Upward appeal items:

1. Obtained the informal support of higher-ups
2. Made a formal appeal to higher levels to back up my request
3. Relied on the chain of command-on people higher up in the organization who have power over him or her

Coalition items:

1. Obtained the support of co-workers to back up my request
2. Obtained the support of my subordinates to back up my request
3. Mobilized other people in the organization to help me in influencing him or her