19
Use Power Effectively to Influence People
GARY YUKL
One of the most important determinants of managerial effectiveness is success in influencing people. Effective managers influence subordinates to perform the work effectively, they influence peers to provide support and assistance, and they influence superiors to provide resources and approval of necessary changes. The concept of “power” has been very useful for understanding how people are able to influence each other in organizations (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). Power is usually defined as the capacity to influence people and events (Yukl, 2006). It is a flexible concept that can be used in many different ways. For example, power has been used to explain the influence of groups on organization decisions, and the influence of one organization on another. In this chapter the focus is on the potential of one individual (called the “agent”) to influence the behavior and attitudes of other individuals (called “target persons”) in the same organization.
An agent will have more power over some people than over others and more influence for some types of issues than for others. Power is a dynamic variable that changes as conditions change. A person’s power can increase or decrease dramatically over a relatively short period of time. Moreover, there are different types of power, and an agent may have more of some types than of others. This chapter will identify different types of individual power and describe effective ways to exercise each type.
The manner in which power is enacted usually involves influence behavior by the agent. Specific types of influence behavior are called influence tactics. This chapter will examine several influence tactics commonly used in organizations. The relative effectiveness of the various influence tactics will be described and the conditions for their successful use will be identified.
Behavioral scientists usually differentiate between position power and personal power. Position power is potential influence derived from one’s position in the organization. This type of power is usually specified and limited by organizational policies, formal reward systems, legal constraints, and union contracts. Four specific types of position power are legitimate authority, reward power, coercive power, and information power (French and Raven, 1959; Yukl and Falbe, 1991). Personal power is potential influence derived from agent characteristics. Two specific types of personal power are expert power and referent power.
The research on power and influence is too limited to provide clear and unequivocal guidelines on the best way to exercise each type of power. Nevertheless, by drawing upon a diverse literature in the social sciences that includes research on power, leader behavior, motivation, communication, counseling, supervision, and conflict resolution, it is possible to develop some tentative guidelines. This section of the chapter will describe specific types of power and the conditions for exercising each type of power effectively.
Legitimate power
Legitimate power is derived from authority, which is the perceived right of the agent to influence specified aspects of the target person’s behavior. The underlying basis for legitimate power is the agreement by members of an organization to comply with rules and legitimate requests in return for the benefits of membership (March and Simon, 1958). The conditions for continued membership may be set forth in a formal, legal contract, but the agreement to comply with legitimate authority is usually an implicit mutual understanding. Legitimate power is strengthened by an internalized value among people that it is proper to obey authority figures, show respect for the law, and follow tradition.
The amount of legitimate power reflects the chain of command and is usually much stronger in relation to subordinates than in relation to peers, superiors, or outsiders. However, even when the agent has no direct authority over a target person (e.g. a peer), the agent may have the legitimate right to make requests for necessary information, supplies, support services, technical advice, and assistance in carrying out inter-related tasks. The scope of authority for a position occupant is often specified in writing by documents (e.g. the job description, the employment contract, organization bylaws), but even when such documentation exists, there usually remains considerable ambiguity about an individual’s scope of authority (Davis, 1968).
Authority is usually exercised by making a request or command orally or in writing. A polite request is more effective than an arrogant demand, because it does not emphasize a status gap or imply target dependence on the agent. Use of a polite request is especially important for people who are likely to be sensitive about status differentials and authority relationships, such as someone who is older than the agent or who is a peer rather than a direct subordinate.
Making a polite request does not imply that the agent should plead or appear apologetic about the request. To do so risks the impression that the request is not worthy or legitimate, and it may give the impression that compliance is not really expected (Sayles, 1979). A legitimate request should be made in a firm, confident manner. In an emergency situation, it is more important to be assertive than polite. A direct order by a leader in a command tone of voice is sometimes necessary to shock subordinates into immediate action in an emergency. In this type of situation, subordinates associate confident, firm direction with expertise as well as authority (Mulder, Ritsema van Eck, and de Jong, 1970). To express doubts or appear confused risks the loss of influence over subordinates.
Compliance with a request is more likely if it is perceived to be within the agent’s scope of authority. A request that appears to be illegitimate is likely to be ignored or otherwise resisted, especially if the requested activity is also tedious, dangerous, or unpleasant. The issue of legitimacy is likely to be raised for unusual requests and for requests made to people over whom the agent has no direct authority. If there is any doubt about the right to make a request, its legitimacy should be verified by the agent.
Reward power
Reward power involves control over desirable resources and rewards. This type of power is greatest when the target is highly dependent on the agent for attaining the reward and cannot get it any other way. Reward power stems in part from formal authority. The authority to allocate rewards to others varies greatly across organizations and from one type of position to another within the same organization. The higher a person’s position in the authority hierarchy of the organization, the more control over scarce resources the person is likely to have. Reward power over subordinates is usually much stronger than reward power over peers or superiors.
One form of reward power over subordinates is influence over their compensation, benefits, and career progress. Most managers are authorized to give pay increases, bonuses, or other economic incentives to deserving subordinates. Reward power is derived also from control over other tangible benefits such as a promotion, a better job, a better work schedule, a larger operating budget, a larger expense account, formal recognition (e.g. awards, commendations), and status symbols such as a larger office or a reserved parking space.
Reward power is also a source of influence over peers who depend on the agent for resources, funds, information, or assistance not otherwise provided by the formal authority system. Trading of favors needed to accomplish task objectives is a common form of influence among peers in organizations, and research indicates that it is important for the success of middle managers (Cohen and Bradford, 1989; Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1985). Access to a powerful person inside or outside the organization also provides an opportunity for an agent to seek favors for others who lack such access, thereby increasing the agent’s reward power.
Upward reward power of subordinates is very limited in most organizations. Subordinates seldom have any direct influence over the reputation and career of their boss, unless the organization relies on ratings by subordinates to evaluate its managers. Nevertheless, subordinates usually have some indirect influence. If they perform well and speak favorably about the boss, his or her reputation will be enhanced (Mechanic, 1962). Occasionally subordinates also have reward power based on their ability to acquire resources outside of the formal authority system of the organization. For example, a department chairperson in a state university was able to obtain discretionary funds from grants and contracts, and these funds were used as a basis for influencing the decisions made by the college dean, whose own discretionary funds were very limited.
Reward power is most commonly exercised with an explicit or implicit promise to give the target person something under the agent’s control for carrying out a request or performing a task. Compliance is most likely if the reward is something valued by the target person, and the agent is perceived as a credible source of the reward. Thus, it is essential to determine what rewards are valued by the people one wants to influence, and agent credibility should not be risked by making unrealistic promises or failing to deliver on a promise after compliance occurs.
Even when the conditions are favorable for using rewards, they are more likely to result in compliance rather than commitment. A promised reward is unlikely to motivate someone to put forth extra effort beyond what is required to complete the task. The target person may be tempted to neglect aspects of the task not included in the specification of performance criteria or aspects not easily monitored by the agent.
Rewards may result in resistance rather than compliance if used in a manipulative manner. The power to give or withhold rewards may cause resentment among people who dislike being dependent on the whims of a powerful authority figure, or who believe that the agent is manipulating them to his or her own advantage. Even when the reward is attractive, resistance may occur if the reward is seen as a bribe to get the target person to do something improper or unethical.
Coercive power
Another related source of power is control over punishments and the capacity to prevent someone from obtaining desired rewards. Compliance is motivated primarily by fear and is more likely if the agent is perceived as willing and able to punish the target person. The formal authority system of an organization usually specifies the legitimate use of punishment, which varies greatly across different types of organizations.
Coercive power is usually much greater in relation to subordinates than in relation to peers or superiors. Coercive power is derived from the authority of a manager to punish subordinates for violation of rules and policies, or failure to comply with legitimate orders and requests. Many different forms of punishment may be available, including dismissal, suspension, demotion, reassignment to a less desirable job, or a decrease in pay or benefits. However, the use of coercive power over subordinates is limited by the counterpower subordinates have over their leader. When leaders are tempted to use coercion on a large scale against followers, it undermines their authority and creates a hostile opposition seeking to restrict their power or remove them from office (Blau, 1956).
Opportunities for coercion of peers are usually very limited. A person can threaten to withhold future cooperation or complain to the superior of a peer who refuses to carry out legitimate requests. Sometimes a manager of one subunit has the authority to reject the products or plans of another subunit, and this authority also provides some coercive power. However, since mutual dependencies usually exist in lateral relations between managers of different subunits, coercion is likely to elicit retaliation and escalate into a conflict that benefits neither party.
Upward coercive power is also very limited in most organizations, but subordinates often have more of this type of counterpower than they realize. It is possible for them to damage the reputation of the boss by restricting production, sabotaging operations, initiating grievances, holding demonstrations, or making complaints to higher management (Mechanic, 1962). In organizations with elected leaders, if enough subordinates want to remove a leader from office, they usually have sufficient power to do so.
Coercive power is invoked by a threat or warning that the target person will suffer undesirable consequences for non-compliance with a request, rule, or policy. The threat may be explicit, or it may be only a hint that the person will be sorry for failing to do what the agent wants. The likelihood of compliance is greatest when the threat is perceived to be credible, and the target person strongly desires to avoid the threatened punishment. Sometimes it is necessary to establish credibility by demonstrating the ability to cause unpleasant consequences for the target person. However, even a credible threat may be unsuccessful if the target person refuses to be intimidated or believes that a way can be found to avoid compliance without being detected by the agent.
It is best to avoid using coercion except when absolutely necessary, because it is difficult to use and likely to result in undesirable side effects. Coercion often arouses anger or resentment, and it may result in retaliation. In work organizations, the most appropriate use of coercion is to deter behavior detrimental to the organization, such as illegal activities, theft, violation of safety rules, reckless acts that endanger others, and direct disobedience of legitimate requests. Coercion is not likely to result in commitment, but when used skillfully in an appropriate situation, there is a reasonably good chance that it will result in compliance.
Control over information
Access to information and control over its distribution provide another source of power in organizations. Some positions are strategically located in the communication network of an organization, and such positions can provide exclusive access to vital information and control over its distribution (Pfeffer, 1981).
Control over information makes it easier to interpret events for people in a way that serves the agent’s interests. It is easier to cover up mistakes and poor decisions, or to delay their discovery. The impression of agent expertise can be heightened by exaggerated reports of successful performance. People in leadership positions often have sufficient control over the distribution of information to keep subordinates dependent and make it difficult for them to challenge the leader’s decisions.
Control over the upward flow of information can be used to influence decisions made by superiors (Mechanic, 1962; Pettigrew, 1972). The agent supplies information that biases the target’s perception of the problem and evaluation of alternatives. For example, a manager was able to influence the selection of a computer by systematically providing the board of directors with information that favored one option and discredited others (Pettigrew, 1972).
Information power is also available in a boundary-role position in which a person has primary responsibility for dealing with outsiders who are important for the continued prosperity and survival of the organization. For example, when consumer preferences are changing rapidly, a person who has the contacts with key customers is likely to have considerable information power in the organization.
Expert power
Expert power is perceived expertise in solving problems and performing task activities (French and Raven, 1959). This type of power can be acquired by demonstrating competence, such as by making decisions or initiating changes that prove successful, or by giving advice or making predictions that prove to be correct. Expertise is a source of power only if others are dependent on the person for advice and assistance. The more important a problem is to the target person, the greater the power derived by the agent from possessing the necessary expertise to solve it. Dependency is increased when the target person cannot easily find another source of advice besides the agent (Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, and Pennings, 1971; Patchen, 1974).
Expert power depends to a large extent on the perception of others that the agent has unique expertise to solve important problems for them. Sometimes people overestimate the agent’s expertise, and the agent gains more power than is warranted. Sometimes expert power generalizes beyond the specific type of problem or task for which the person has special skills or knowledge. For example, a person who is skilled in conducting market surveys may also be considered an expert in designing new products, even though this person actually has little technical skill in product design. In the short run, perceived expertise is more important than real expertise, and some people are able to gain influence from pretending to have special expertise. However, over time, as the agent’s knowledge is put to the test, target perceptions of the agent’s expertise are likely to become more accurate.
When the agent has a lot of expert power and is trusted as a reliable source of information and advice, the target person may carry out a request without much explanation of the reasons for it. An example is an investor who purchases stocks recommended by a financial consultant without knowing much about the companies that issued the stocks. It is rare to possess this much expert power. In most cases, the agent must support a proposal or request by making logical arguments and presenting evidence that appears credible. Successful influence depends on the leader’s credibility and persuasive communication skills in addition to technical knowledge and analytical ability. Proposals or requests should be made in a clear, confident manner, and the agent should avoid making contradictory statements or vacillating between inconsistent positions.
Expert power is based on a knowledge differential between the agent and the target person, but the very existence of such a differential can cause problems if the agent is not careful about the way expert power is exercised. An agent who flaunts his or her expertise may elicit resistance, especially if the target person is a peer or superior in the organization. In the process of presenting rational arguments, some people lecture in an arrogant, condescending manner, thereby conveying the impression that the listener is ignorant. In their efforts to sell a proposal, some people fire a steady stream of arguments, rudely interrupting any attempted replies and dismissing any objections or concerns without serious consideration. Even when the agent is acknowledged to have more expertise, the target person usually has some relevant information, ideas, and concerns that should be considered.
Referent power
Referent power is derived from the desire of others to please an agent toward whom they have strong feelings of affection, admiration, and loyalty (French and Raven, 1959). People are usually willing to do special favors for a friend, and they are more likely to carry out requests made by someone they greatly admire. The strongest form of referent power involves the influence process called personal identification. A person who identifies with an agent is usually willing to make great sacrifices to gain and maintain the agent’s approval and acceptance. The target person is likely to do what the agent asks, imitate the agent’s behavior, and develop attitudes similar to those expressed by the agent.
Referent power is usually greater for someone who is friendly, attractive, charming, and trustworthy. This type of power is increased by showing concern for the needs and feelings of others, demonstrating trust and respect, and treating people fairly. However, to achieve and maintain strong referent power usually requires more than just flattery, favors, and charm. Referent power ultimately depends on the agent’s character and integrity. Over time, actions speak louder than words, and someone who tries to appear friendly but manipulates and exploits people will lose referent power. Integrity is demonstrated by being truthful, expressing a consistent set of values, acting in a way that is consistent with one’s espoused values, taking personal risks to promote and defend important values, and carrying out promises and agreements.
Referent power is an important source of influence over subordinates, peers, and superiors, but it has limitations. A request based solely on referent power should be commensurate with the extent of the target person’s loyalty and friendship toward the leader. Some things are simply too much to ask, given the nature of the relationship. When requests are extreme or made too frequently, the target person may feel exploited. The result of such behavior may be to undermine the relationship and reduce the agent’s referent power.
Strong referent power will tend to increase the agent’s influence over the target person even without any explicit effort by the agent to invoke this power. When there is a strong bond of love or friendship, it may be sufficient merely to ask the target person to do something. When referent power is not this strong, it may be necessary to invoke the salience of the relationship by making a personal appeal (an influence tactic described later in this chapter).
Another way to exercise referent power is through “role modeling.” A person who is well liked and admired can have considerable influence over others by setting an example of proper and desirable behavior for them to imitate. When identification is strong, imitation is likely to occur even without any conscious intention by the agent. Because people also imitate undesirable behavior in someone they admire, it is important to be aware of the examples one sets.
Research shows that power is related to leadership effectiveness in complex ways. Effective leaders develop a considerable amount of expert and referent power, and they rely more on this personal power than on position power to influence people (Yukl, 2006). Nevertheless, some position power is usually necessary to accomplish the work. Without sufficient authority to reward competent subordinates, make necessary changes, and punish chronic troublemakers, it is difficult to develop a high-performing group or organization.
How much position and personal power is necessary will depend in part on what one seeks to accomplish. More power is needed to implement major changes in an organization, especially when there is strong opposition to change. In this difficult situation, a leader needs sufficient personal power to convince people that change is desirable, and sufficient position power to overcome the opposition and buy time to demonstrate that the proposed changes are feasible and effective.
Although some position power is needed by leaders to carry out their responsibilities, a person who has a great deal of position power may be tempted to rely on it too much instead of making an effort to develop and use expert and referent power. The notion that power corrupts is especially relevant for position power. Leaders with strong position power are more likely to perceive subordinates as objects of manipulation, devalue their worth, maintain more social distance from them, use rewards and punishments more often, and attribute the cause of subordinate achievements to the leader’s power rather than to the intrinsic motivation and voluntary efforts of subordinates (Kipnis, 1974). Thus, a moderate amount of position power is probably optimal in most situations, rather than too much or too little (Yukl, 2006).
Extreme amounts of personal power can also corrupt a person. A leader with substantial expert and referent power may be tempted to act in ways that will eventually lead to failure (McClelland, 1975; Zaleznik, 1970). Surrounded by adoring supporters, a leader may begin to believe that he or she has a monopoly on wisdom and expertise. Thus, although it is desirable for a leader to develop strong personal power, it is also desirable for followers to retain some influence over key decisions. Effective leaders create relationships in which they have strong influence over subordinates but are also receptive to influence from them. These leaders consult with subordinates and encourage them to participate in making important decisions for the work unit.
Up to now the discussion has involved the different sources of power and how they are relevant for effective leadership. However, when describing the actual exercise of power, it is usually more meaningful to focus on specific influence attempts. The success of an influence attempt is a matter of degree, but it is helpful to differentiate among three levels of success. Commitment means the person is enthusiastic about the request and makes a maximum effort to do it effectively. Compliance means that the person is indifferent about the request and makes only a minimum effort. Resistance means the person is opposed to carrying out the request and tries to avoid doing it. Commitment is desirable for requests that require the person to take initiative in dealing with problems and to be persistent in the face of setbacks and difficulties. Compliance is often sufficient for a simple, routine type of request.
As noted earlier, a common form of influence behavior in organizations is to make a “simple request” based on legitimate power. This form of influence is most likely to be successful if the request is reasonable, it is clearly relevant for the mission of the agent’s work unit, it is something the target person knows how to do, and it does not jeopardize the target person’s own job performance. However, even when a simple request is perceived to be legitimate, it often results in subordinate compliance rather than commitment. When the request involves actions perceived by the target to be unpleasant, unnecessary, or detrimental, the reaction to a simple request is likely to be resistance.
Specific influence tactics are usually necessary to gain commitment for requests not initially considered by the target person to be important and feasible. Over the past quarter century, several researchers have attempted to identify distinct types of influence tactics used by individuals in organizations (e.g. Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson, 1980; Schilit and Locke, 1982; Yukl and Tracey, 1992). It is useful to differentiate among broad categories of influence tactics that have different objectives (Yukl, 2006).
Proactive influence tactics include attempts to gain compliance or commitment to a request or proposal, and specific types of proactive tactics will be described in the next section of this chapter. Most proactive tactics are also useful to resist or modify influence attempts by others. Impression management tactics involve attempts to influence how the agent is perceived by the target, and the objective may be to increase the target person’s respect and appreciation of the agent. Examples include showing respect and deference, providing praise, agreeing with the target person, describing your talents and achievements, and acting in highly visible ways that indicate competence and dedication (e.g. working late, doing extra work). Finally, political tactics include attempts to influence strategic decisions about objectives, the distribution of scarce resources, and the selection of people to positions of high power and authority.
Research by Yukl and his colleagues (Yukl, 2006; Yukl, Seifert, and Chavez, 2008) identified 11 proactive influence tactics that are relevant for understanding effective influence in organizations. Each tactic will be explained briefly, and the conditions favoring its use will be described.
Rational persuasion.
Rational persuasion involves the use of logical arguments and factual evidence that a proposal or request is important and feasible. In the most common form of rational persuasion, the agent emphasizes the potential benefits for the organization, team, or mission. This form of rational persuasion is appropriate when the target person shares the same task objectives as the agent but does not recognize that the agent’s proposal is the best way to attain the objectives. On the other hand, if the agent and target person have incompatible objectives, this type of rational persuasion is unlikely to be successful for obtaining commitment or even compliance. Thus, it is useful to ensure that there are shared objectives before using this influence tactic.
An agent’s technical knowledge is the source of facts and arguments used to build a persuasive case. However, in addition to facts and evidence, a persuasive case usually includes some opinions or inferences that the agent asks others to accept at face value because there is insufficient evidence to verify them. Thus, influence derived from rational persuasion is greater when the agent is perceived to be credible and trustworthy. Expert power, information power, and referent power can all enhance the effectiveness of rational persuasion. Finally, an agent needs considerable skill in persuasive speaking to present a case in a way that will have the maximum possible influence.
Apprising.
Apprising is the use of information and logic to emphasize the benefits of a request or proposal for the target person as an individual. The agent may explain how a request will further the target person’s career, improve the person’s skills, or make the person’s job easier. Unlike rational persuasion, there is not necessarily a shared objective to use as the basis for an appeal. Unlike exchange, the agent is not offering to give the target something, but is only pointing out that a proposed course of action will help get the target person something he or she wants. For apprising to be effective, the agent must be a credible source of information about potential benefits not already known to the target person.
Inspirational appeals.
An inspirational appeal is an attempt to develop enthusiasm and commitment by arousing strong emotions and linking a request or proposal to the target person’s needs, values, hopes, and ideals. Some possible bases for appeal include the target person’s desire to be important, to feel useful, to accomplish something worthwhile, to make an important contribution, to perform an exceptional feat, to be a member of the best team, or to participate in an exciting effort to make things better. Some ideals that may be the basis for an inspirational appeal include patriotism, loyalty, liberty, freedom, self-fulfillment, justice, fairness, equality, love, tolerance, excellence, humanitarianism, and progress. For example, employees are asked to work extra hours on a special project because it may save many lives.
Inspirational appeals vary in complexity, from a brief explanation of the ideological justification for a proposed project or change, to a major speech that articulates an appealing vision of what the organization could accomplish or become. The complexity of an inspirational appeal depends in part on the size of the task to be undertaken, the amount of effort and risk involved, and the extent to which people are asked to deviate from established, traditional ways of doing things. To formulate an appropriate appeal, the agent must have insight into the values, hopes, and fears of the person or group to be influenced. The effectiveness of an inspirational appeal also depends on the agent’s communication skills, such as the ability to use vivid imagery and metaphors, manipulate symbols, and employ voice and gestures to generate enthusiasm and excitement.
Consultation.
Consultation is an attempt to increase the target person’s commitment to carry a request or support a proposal by involving the person in determining how it will be done. Consultation can take a variety of forms when used as an influence tactic. For example, the agent may present a detailed policy, plan, or procedure to a target person who will be involved in implementing it to see if the person has any doubts, concerns, or suggestions about it. In the discussion that follows, which is really a form of negotiation and joint problem solving, the agent tries to find ways to modify the request so that it takes into account the target person’s suggestions and concerns. In another variation of consultation, the agent presents a general strategy or objective to the target person rather than a detailed proposal and asks the person to help plan how to attain the objective or to suggest specific action steps for implementing the strategy. The suggested action steps are discussed until there is agreement by both parties. For consultation to be feasible, the target person must have at least moderate agreement with the objective that the agent wants to attain. The target person will not be very enthusiastic about suggesting ways to attain an objective that is undesirable.
Exchange tactics.
Exchange tactics involve an offer by the agent to reward the target person for doing what the agent requests. The essential condition for use of exchange tactics is control over rewards that are attractive to the person. In addition, the agent must be perceived as trustworthy enough to actually provide the promised rewards. Thus, exchange tactics are facilitated by the agent’s reward power and credibility. Use of an incentive is especially appropriate when the target person is indifferent or reluctant about complying with a request. In effect, the agent offers to make it worthwhile to comply by promising to provide a reward that is desired by the target person. The reward offered by the agent may take many forms, such as recommending a pay increase or promotion for the person, sharing scarce resources with the person, helping the person do another task, providing information, providing political support on some issue or proposal, putting in a good word to help advance the person’s career, and offering to share some of the benefits obtained from a project or activity. Sometimes the promise may be implicit rather than explicit. That is, the agent may suggest returning the favor in some unspecified way at a future time.
Collaboration.
Collaboration involves an offer by the agent to provide necessary resources or assistance if the target person will carry out a request or approve a proposal. Examples include offering to show the target person how to do a requested task, offering to provide the equipment or technical assistance needed to perform a requested task, and offering to help the target person deal with a problem that would be caused by carrying out the request. Whereas exchange usually involves an impersonal trade of unrelated benefits, collaboration usually involves a joint effort to accomplish the same task or objective. It is a way to communicate that the agent considers the request important, and it also shows consideration for the target person’s difficulties in carrying out the request. This tactic is most useful when the agent understands the obstacles faced by the target person in carrying out a request and also has sufficient expertise and resources to help the target overcome these obstacles.
Personal appeals.
A personal appeal involves asking someone to do a favor based on friendship or loyalty to the agent. This tactic is one way to enact referent power, although when referent power is very strong, a personal appeal may not be necessary. If considerable effort is required to comply with a request, the target person should understand that the request is indeed important to the agent. If a request is not perceived to be important to the agent, it may be ignored or carried out with only a minimal effort. Thus, whenever appropriate, the importance of the request to the agent should be explained to the target person.
Personal appeals can take several forms. One form is to ask the target person to carry out a request or support a proposal as a personal favor. Another form is to emphasize the close relationship between agent and target before asking for something. A third form is to say that you need to ask for a favor before saying what it is. If the target person agrees, then it will be awkward to say no when the request is explained. The risk with this form of personal appeal is that the target person may feel resentment if manipulated into doing something unpleasant.
Ingratiation tactics.
Ingratiation is behavior that makes a target person feel accepted and appreciated by the agent. Examples include giving compliments, showing respect, and acting especially friendly and helpful before making a request. Ingratiation can be used not only for an immediate influence attempt, but also as a longer-term strategy to improve relationships with people and gain more referent power (Liden and Mitchell, 1988; Wayne and Ferris, 1990). An especially effective form of ingratiation for a proactive influence attempt is to explain why the target person is uniquely qualified to carry out a difficult request. When ingratiation tactics are sincere, they can strengthen a friendship, increase referent power, and make a target person more willing to consider a request. However, if the target person perceives that the agent is being insincere and manipulative, then ingratiation will not increase compliance.
Legitimating tactics.
When authority is ambiguous or legitimacy is in doubt, an agent may use a legitimating tactic to establish the legitimacy of a request or command. Examples of legitimating tactics include providing evidence of prior precedent, showing consistency with organizational policies and rules, reminding the target that the request is consistent with a prior contract or agreement, and showing consistency with professional role expectations. Another legitimating tactic is to indicate that the request was approved by higher management or someone else with proper authority. Sometimes the legitimacy of a request or command can be verified by documentation such as written rules, policies, charters, contracts, plans, job descriptions, work orders, or memos from authority figures.
Pressure tactics.
Pressure tactics include threats, warnings, demands, repeated requests, and frequent checking to see if the person has complied with a request. This tactic can take many forms and can vary from being relatively hard (strongly worded threat about harsh punishment for non-compliance) to being relatively soft (a causal reminder that the deadline is approaching for a task the target person agreed to do). Sometimes when a request has been ignored, an angry complaint to the person is sufficient to invoke the possibility of unpleasant consequences and induce compliance, particularly if the person is just lazy or apathetic rather than strongly opposed to the action. Sometimes explicit warnings or threats are necessary to get compliance with legitimate requests or rules that are unpopular.
The hard pressure tactics require some coercive power over the target person, and they are more likely to result in compliance if the target person believes the agent is able and willing to carry out threats of punishment. A limitation of most pressure tactics is that they may have serious side effects. Threats and intimidation are likely to undermine working relationships and may lead to resistance, avoidance, or retaliation by the target person. For this reason, pressure tactics should not be used except as a last resort when other influence tactics have failed.
Coalition tactics.
Coalitions are an indirect type of influence tactic wherein the agent gets assistance from other people to influence the target person. The coalition partners may include peers, subordinates, superiors, or outsiders (e.g. clients and suppliers).
One form of coalition tactic is to have other people talk to the target person and express support for the agent’s request or proposal. Another form of coalition tactic is for the agent to bring to a meeting someone who will help to present a proposal to the target person. A third form of coalition tactic is to use the prior endorsement of coalition partners as a basis for making a stronger appeal to the target person. The appropriate form of coalition depends on the nature of the request, the agent-target relationship, and the amount of resistance expected or encountered.
Coalition tactics are always used in combination with one or more of the direct influence tactics. For example, the agent and a coalition partner may both use rational persuasion to influence the target person. The tactics used by coalition partners are not always the same one used by the agent. For example, in a version of the “good cop-bad cop” strategy, the agent uses ingratiation and rational persuasion, and the coalition partner uses pressure.
When the agent gets assistance from a superior of the target (who may or may not also be the agent’s boss), this coalition tactic is sometimes called an “upward appeal.” Upward appeals are used primarily as a last resort when repeated attempts to influence the target person with other tactics are unsuccessful. The target person for an upward appeal is usually a peer, but sometimes this tactic is used to influence a subordinate or the boss. It is risky to use an upward appeal to influence the boss, because it is likely to elicit resentment. Even when used with a peer, an upward appeal may cause resentment if it is viewed as an attempt to force the peer to do what the agent wants. The resentment may undermine agent-target relations, and it can lead to covert forms of resistance by the target person.
Research comparing influence tactics indicates that some are usually more effective than others (Falbe and Yukl, 1992; Yukl, Kim, and Falbe, 1996; Yukl and Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al., 2008). Consultation and inspirational appeals are two of the most effective tactics for influencing target commitment to carry out a request or support a proposal. Collaboration is very effective when the target person perceives that the agent’s request is important but not feasible without additional resources and assistance. Rational persuasion can be very effective depending on how it is used. A strong form of rational persuasion (e.g. a detailed proposal, elaborate documentation, a convincing reply to concerns raised by the target person) is often effective, whereas a weak form of rational persuasion (e.g. a brief explanation, an assertion without supporting evidence) is much less likely to be effective.
Apprising can be effective when the request or proposal actually offers personal benefits to the target person that are sufficient to justify the time and effort to carry out the request. Exchange and ingratiation are moderately effective for influencing subordinates and peers, but these tactics are difficult to use for influencing superiors. Subordinates do not have much to exchange with bosses, and offers of exchange are unlikely to be viewed as appropriate. Compliments made to the boss just before asking for something are likely to appear insincere and manipulative. Ingratiation is more effective when used as part of a long-term strategy for improving relations with superiors rather than as a tactic for an immediate influence attempt with a superior.
Personal appeals are moderately effective for influencing a peer with whom the agent has a friendly relationship. However, this tactic is only appropriate for a limited range of requests (e.g. get assistance, get a personal favor, change a scheduled meeting or deadline), and the outcome is likely to be compliance rather than commitment. Personal appeals are seldom necessary for influencing subordinates, and they are difficult to use with bosses.
The least effective tactics for influencing target commitment are pressure and legitimating tactics. These tactics seldom result in target commitment, but they sometimes result in compliance. Nevertheless, compliance is all that is needed for some types of influence attempts (e.g. wear proper safety gear, provide requested information, turn in routine reports on time).
Coalition tactics can be effective for influencing a peer or superior to support a change or innovation. However, they are seldom effective for influencing someone to carry out an assignment or improve performance, especially when viewed as an attempt to “gang up” on the target person. Most coalition tactics are not appropriate or necessary for influencing subordinates except in special cases (e.g. asking a subordinate to move to a different position in the organization, to pursue a promotion opportunity).
The effectiveness of an attempt can be increased by using more than one type of tactic at the same time or sequentially (Falbe and Yukl, 1992; Yukl, 2006). When using tactics together in the same influence attempt, the agent should select tactics that are compatible with each other. In other words, select tactics that enhance each other’s effectiveness and are easy to use together. Rational persuasion is a very flexible tactic that is usually compatible with any of the other tactics. Strong pressure tactics are not compatible with ingratiation because they weaken target feelings of friendship and loyalty, which ingratiation is intended to strengthen. When tactics are used sequentially, some types (e.g. ingratiation, consultation) are more suitable for an initial influence attempt, whereas other types (e.g. exchange, pressure) are more appropriate for a follow-up influence attempt (Yukl, Falbe, and Youn, 1993).
Even though some tactics are generally more useful than others, success is not guaranteed for any individual tactic or combination of tactics. The outcome of an influence attempt depends on other things in addition to the influence tactics that are used, including the agent’s skill in using the tactics, the type of agent-target relationship, the type of the request (e.g. task related, personal), and how the request is perceived by the target person (e.g. legitimate, important, enjoyable). A tactic is more likely to be successful if the target perceives it to be a socially acceptable form of influence behavior, if the agent has sufficient position and personal power to use the tactic, if the tactic can affect target attitudes about the desirability of the request, if it is used in a skillful way, if it is used for a request that is legitimate, and if it is consistent with the target person’s values and needs (Yukl and Tracey, 1992).
The following case illustrates how important it is to develop an adequate power base and select an appropriate influence strategy. The provost in a large university asked each academic department with a graduate program to provide several students to participate in a new fundraising campaign. The students would telephone department alumni, describe the department’s current activities and accomplishments, and then ask for donations to help support the department. Assigning students to help with fundraising does not fall within the scope of legitimate authority for department chairs, so it is necessary to ask for volunteers. These students were overloaded with academic work, and they were reluctant to perform extra tasks not directly related to this work.
Department X
The chairperson of Department X had strong referent power with the students who specialized in the graduate program associated with his department. He was a supportive, considerate teacher who interacted with students outside of the classroom and showed strong concern for them as individuals. When he met with the students, he explained why the fundraising was important to the university and how it would benefit the masters program and future students. His strong rational appeals were supplemented with inspirational appeals based on student loyalty to the program. Most of the students volunteered to participate in the fundraising effort, and they were very effective in getting donations from program alumni who had not previously contributed funds to the university.
Department Y
The chairperson of Department Y had little referent power with students who specialized in the graduate program associated with his department. He was arrogant and conceited in the classroom, he spent little time interacting with the students outside of class, and he did not develop close supportive relationships with them. At a meeting with the students to talk about the fundraising campaign, he said that the university needed more donations from alumni but did not explain how the department or the program would benefit. This weak rational persuasion was combined with pressure tactics. He demanded that the students participate and told them that they did not have any choice in the matter. The chairperson was able to pressure some of the students to agree to help with the fundraising, but discussions among the students after the meeting revealed that they resented this coercion. Several students decided to complain to the provost. As a result, the provost decided not use any of the graduate students from Department Y for the fundraising. Instead, she hired some undergraduate students and paid them an hourly wage to telephone department alumni. These undergraduate students were much less effective in getting donations from alumni.
CONCLUSION
Knowledge about power and influence tactics is useful for people who must gain cooperation and support from others to perform their job effectively. To influence people, it is essential to develop and maintain a substantial amount of expert and referent power. In addition, it is desirable to have sufficient position power to back up personal power. Position power should be exerted in a subtle, careful fashion that minimizes status differentials and avoids threats to the target person’s self-esteem. People who exercise power in an arrogant and manipulative manner are likely to engender resentment and resistance.
The outcome of an influence attempt depends on what tactics are used, how skillfully they are used, and the context in which they are used. Some of the tactics require a specific type of power to be effective. For example, exchange requires reward power, hard forms of pressure require coercive power, rational persuasion requires expert power, and a personal appeal requires some referent power. Combining tactics is usually more effective for a difficult request than using a single tactic. In general, the four “core tactics” that are most useful for eliciting commitment are consultation, inspirational appeals, collaboration, and strong forms of rational persuasion. Apprising, ingratiation, or exchange can be useful supplementary tactics when combined with one or more of the core tactics. Before making an influence attempt that involves an important objective, it is essential to diagnose the situation carefully and select tactics that are mutually compatible and appropriate for the situation.
Blau, P. K. (1956). Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House.
Cohen, A. R., and Bradford, D. L. (1991). Influence without Authority. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Davis, K. (1968). Attitudes toward the legitimacy of management efforts to influence employees. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 153-162.
Falbe, C. M., and Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638-653.
French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies of Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. S., and Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies theory of intra-organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-229.
Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager’s network of relationships. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 37-52.
Kipnis, D. (1974). The Powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., and Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority. New York: Free Press.
Liden, R. C., and Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-587.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mulder, M., Ritsema van Eck, J. R., and de Jong, R. D. (1970). An organization in crisis and noncrisis conditions. Human Relations, 24, 19-41.
Patchen, M. (1974). The locus and basis of influence on organizational decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 195-221.
Pettigrew, A. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sayles, L. R. (1979). What Effective Managers Really Do and How They Do It. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schilit, W. K., and Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.
Wayne, S. J., and Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., and Falbe, C. M. (1991). The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., and Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, 5-28.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., and Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.
Yukl, G., Seifert, C., and Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly.
Yukl, G., and Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics when used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.
Zaleznik, A. (1970). Power and politics in organizational life. Harvard Business Review, 48, 47-60.
1. Describe a successful influence attempt made by a boss or co-worker with you during the past few months, and identify the specific influence tactics used by the person. Then describe an unsuccessful attempt by the same person or someone else in the organization to influence you, and identify the tactics used by the person. Analyze the reasons for the success or failure of the two influence attempts. Consider the agent’s position and personal power, the relevance of the tactics for the situation, and your initial attitudes about the objective of the influence attempt.
2. Think about an influence attempt that you need to make or would like to make in the near future. Plan an appropriate influence strategy, taking into account your power bases, the agent-target relationship, the target’s attitudes about the influence objective, and your knowledge and influence skills. Select some specific influence tactics that would be appropriate for this influence attempt and consider the best way to sequence them (e.g. initial tactics and what you would do if the initial effort is unsuccessful).