Supervisors' Use of Influence Tactics for Extra-Role Tasks: Perceptions by Ingroup versus Outgroup Members in Organizations in Hong Kong

Abstract

With a survey sample of 208 full-time employees of organizations in Hong Kong, this study examined whether ingroup membership made a difference in superiors' use and subordinates' reactions to influence tactics. Results indicated that ingroup membership exerted impact predominantly on supervisors' use and subordinates' perceptions of soft and neutral tactics but not on hard, negative tactics. Ingroup members, compared to outgroup employees, generally perceived soft, neutral tactics (consistent with group interaction norms) as more appropriate and exhibited greater attitude-behavior consistency in complying with these influence attempts. Supervisors used hard, negative tactics more frequently on outgroup subordinates than on ingroup employees. Ingroup members disliked the antinormative, negative tactics as much as did the outgroup members. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Notes

Pearson's r significant at *.05 and **.01, two-tailed.