Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty: Business Administration Education: Business Administration Traject (evt.): Change Management
Student: Roos van den Berg Student number: 1423851
Title Thesis: Know the leader: do influencing tactics determine a leadership style?
Month and year: august 2011 Thesis number:
Thesis supervisor: Theo Lotgerink
Summary: Research into the relationship between influencing tactics and leadership styles. Is it possible to determine the leadership style used by leaders by looking at their influencing tactics?
Keyword: influencing tactics, transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, laissez-faire leadership
KNOW THE LEADER: DOES AN INFLUENCING TACTIC
DETERMINE A LEADERSHIP STYLE?
By
ROOS VAN DEN BERG
University of Groningen
Faculty Business Administration
Msc Business Administration (Change Management) Juli 2011
Herepoortenmolendrift 52 9711 DH Groningen 06-24720727
r.l.van.den.berg@student.rug.nl s1423851
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION 5
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 7
LEADERSHIP 7
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 9
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP 9
LAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP 10
INFLUENCING TACTICS 10
HARD INFLUENCING TACTICS 11
SOFT INFLUENCING TACTICS 11
RATIONAL TACTICS 12
LEADERSHIP STYLES LINKED TO INFLUENCING TACTICS 12
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES 12
METHOD 17
PROCEDURE 17
SAMPLE 18
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS 18
MEASURING INSTRUMENTS 18
DATA ANALYSIS 19
RESULTS 21
CORRELATION ANALYSES 21
REGRESSION ANALYSES 23
HYPOTHESES 25
DISCUSSION 26
GOAL AND EXPECTATIONS 26
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS 29
IMPLICATIONS 30
THEORETICAL IMPLICATION 30
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 31
REFERENCES 33
APPENDICES 40
SUMMARY
1 2
Background: Within an influencing process the leadership style as well as the 3
influencing tactic, are important for accomplishing organizational success.
4
Aim: Primary to examine if there is a relationship between specific influencing tactics 5
and three described leadership styles, and secondly if the influencing tactic(s) used by the 6
leader is determining the style of leadership perceived by the team member.
7
Method: We performed a questionnaire survey among 28 teams from different business 8
organizations spread all over the Netherlands. The participants (n=128), team members 9
(excluding leaders) were recruited by approaching personal contacts. They filled in two 10
different online questionnaires: The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the 11
Influence Behavior Questionnaire.
12
Results: The results of this study confirm significantly that consultation, ingratiation, 13
inspirational appeal and rational persuasion, are positive associated to the 14
‘transformational leadership style’. No confirmation was found for pressure, exchange 15
and apprising individually on perceived transactional leadership style, but there was a 16
confirmation that exchange and apprising together can determine to the transactional 17
leadership style. The results also showed that consultation and pressure contribute 18
significantly to the perceived to the perceived laissez-faire leadership style.
19
Conclusion: There is a significantly confirmation that there is a relationship between 20
influencing tactics and perceived leadership style. Using the influencing tactics 21
mentioned above demonstrated that the transformational, transactional or laissez-faire 22
leadership style is perceived by the team members.
23 24
Key Words: Influencing tactics, transformational leadership, 25
transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership 26
Research Subject: Influencing tactics 27
Thesis supervisor: Theo Lotgerink 28
INTRODUCTION
29 30
Organizations are functioning as a part of a bigger external environment. By 31
controlling the risks, to seize opportunities and by reaching goals, the organization can 32
perform in a way that they are successful in the external environment (Mullins, 2007). By 33
means of the management process, the input of the organization members will be 34
coordinated, controlled and made to fit in order to accomplish the organizational goals.
35
Leadership is an inherent part and fundamentally important for a successful impact of 36
organizations to live up to the expectations of the shareholders (Mullins, 2007; Deluga, 37
1990, van Eeden et al, 2001).
38
30 Years ago the essence of a leader was measured by his knowledge of the 39
technical aspect of the organizational process (House, 1971). He was a leader of teams 40
and departments (Mullins, 2007). Nowadays, the Human Resource-aspect of the job and 41
the way he behaves towards the members is more important than ever (Mullins, 2007;
42
Conger, 1989). One could see leadership as a combination of exemplary behavior, vision 43
and commitment. This has the effect that subordinates will have done things they would 44
not have done without the leader (Mullis, 2007).
45
For many years, a leader has searched for ways to improve their leadership or 46
influence they exert over their subordinates (Berson et al, 2007). As shown in the work 47
of Stoker and Kolk (2003) leadership influences the behavior of (a group of) people to 48
reach a certain goal. What to do, and how to do it in order to meet organizational, team 49
and individual performance expectations has been the subject of many researches (e.g.
50
French & Raven, 1959; Bennis 1993; Yukl et al, 2005). Various authors came up with 51
different influencing tactics. They mentioned that the requirements of the leader and the 52
target person and/or follower are important in choosing the right influencing tactic (e.g.
53
Yukl, 1981; Pol et al, 2002; Yukl, 2002; Furst & Cable, 2008). Principally, one can 54
assume that leadership concerns the relationship wherein the behavior of an individual or 55
the act of another person is guided (Mullins, 2007). Stated by Bass (1985), successful 56
leadership implies influencing the attitudes, abilities and behaviors of others in order to 57
reach goals and expected outcomes.
58
Within an influencing process, both the way in which the leader deals with the 59
different interests, defined as the leadership style (Jacobsen & House, 2001), as well as 60
the behavior one person uses to influence the attitudes or behavior of another person, 61
defined as the influencing tactic, are important for accomplishing organizational success 62
(Yukl et al, 2005). A leader, who systematically influences member behavior towards 63
attainment of group or organizational goals, can contribute to leadership effectiveness 64
(Yukl & Tracy, 1992). For a better understanding some studied the relationship between 65
these two aspects.
66
In the present literature numerous influencing tactics are mentioned (e.g. Furst &
67
Cable, 2008; Pol et al, 2002; Yukl, 2002; Yukl, 1981). One could also find various 68
descriptions of leadership styles (e.g. House, 1971; Burnes, 2004, Bass et al, 2003; Eeden 69
et al, 2001). Leaders will use influencing tactics that are feasible in terms of power and 70
position, tactics that are socially acceptable and effective for a particular objective, and 71
tactics which are not costly in terms of effort, alienation, time, or loss of resources (Yukl 72
& Tracy, 1992). It is conceivable that leaders with a certain leadership style (only) make 73
use of certain influencing tactics (Deluga, 1990; Yukl & Tracy, 1992; Yukl, 2002), but is 74
it also conceivable that the used or accepted tactics determine the leadership style that is 75
shown by the leader (Ross & Offerman, 1997; Eeden et al, 2001; Berson et al, 2007)?
76
In this research, the objective is to examine the possible relationship between 77
influencing tactics and leadership style. The starting-point for this analysis is the 78
observation that research on influencing tactics and leadership style did not confirm the 79
predictability between one and the other. There are researches which conclude that 80
leadership style and influencing tactics are associated with each other (Deluga, 1990, 81
Berson & Sosik, 2008), but this relationship has never been established.
82
The current pilot study aims to confirm that there is a relationship between these 83
two factors and aims to answer the question: do(es) the influencing tactic(s) used by the 84
leader, determine the style of leadership perceived by the team member?
85
Before presenting the theoretical framework for answering the question as 86
mentioned above, a general overview of the concepts leadership, influencing tactic and 87
leadership style will be provided. Also an elaboration on whether the existence of the 88
relationship between leadership style and influencing tactics will be provided.
89
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
90 91
Leadership 92
The organizational environment is characterized by group dynamics and change 93
(English, 2008; van Eeden et al, 2001). Group dynamics is concerned with how an 94
individual within a group develops and why and how the group is formed, is structured 95
and interacts (English, 2008). In understanding organizational behavior the study of 96
group dynamics is an important area. Within this area, change can occur in structures, 97
dimensions and processes as well within the internal and external environment. To 98
anticipate on change and to strengthen group dynamics, leadership may be essential to 99
influence the attitudes, motivation and satisfaction of the group members as well as the 100
productive outcomes of the group (Erkutlu, 2008; Curseu, 2011). The following sections 101
provide information related to leadership. Specifically, traditional leadership is first 102
considered. Then some major shifts in styles are discussed. Then the shift from classical 103
leadership to the modern leadership is examined.
104
Traditionally, classical leadership is defined as a top-down principle, which means 105
that within an organization or team, there is one leader who can influence the 106
organizational or team members (House, 1971). The position of power of the leader is 107
typical for this kind of leadership and is also called directive leadership (Bass et al., 108
1975). For that matter, House (1971) sees leadership more as a motivational function, i.e.
109
“increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for work-goal attainment, and making the 110
path to these pay-offs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, 111
and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route”. As most 112
organizational environments are uncertain and characterized by rapid change (Lawrence 113
& Lorsch, 1967) there has been a shift away from the motivational function to more 114
adaptive and flexible leadership (Burnes, 2004; Bass et al, 2003). Changes in leadership 115
are taking place in role definitions, structures and interactions (Krantz, 2001).
116
Nowadays, leadership is more central. The increased educational level of 117
followers is leading to more empowered employees who are more concerned, but have 118
also a more critical attitude towards the leader and their job (Stoker & de Koste, 2000).
119
The traditional power of the leader decreases, and leaders need to manage more by 120
deliberation, conviction, personality and motivation. Using the knowledge and abilities of 121
the team members is more important than ever (Bass, 1990). This participative kind of 122
leadership enables the team members to give information and input to complete goals 123
(Arnold et al., 2000).
124
The full range model of leadership provides a framework for exploring the role of 125
the leader in a changing work environment (van Eeden et al, 2001). Various definitions of 126
leadership have been proposed (Drucker, 2004; Boseman, 2008; Stoker & Kolk, 2003).
127
Common ground in these definitions are the leader; the follower; and the different 128
situations the leader and the follower find themselves in. Burnes (2004) stated:
129
“leadership is a process and is focusing on the interaction of leaders and followers, and 130
how leaders influence individuals and groups to pursue the achievement of a given goal”.
131
This theory concerns the relationship between leader and follower; how does the leader 132
effect the motivation and satisfaction of the followers (House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 133
1974)? The definition of Burnes (2004) relates the most with this study and therefore will 134
be used as a basis for this research.
135
This shift - from increasing personal payoffs to focusing on the interaction of 136
leaders and follower - has led to a subdivision of leadership styles, with a focus on the 137
way in which leaders deal with their own interests (Jacobsen & House, 2001). In this 138
perspective, Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) developed models that included three types of 139
leadership styles, other researches elaborated on these styles and their meanings (Bass &
140
Avolio, 1994, 1995; Avolio & Jung, 1999; Bass et al, 2003; Burnes, 2004; Eeden et al, 141
2008; Buelens et al, 2006; Hinkin et al, 2008):
142
(i) transformational leadership – leaders let go of their own interests to reach the interest 143
of organization and team;
144
(ii) transactional leadership – practitioners of this style meet their own interests and 145
(iii) laissez-faire leadership – the “hands-off” style 146
These three styles are regarded in this study as separate dimensions; but according to Van 147
Eeden et al (2008) better leaders display each of the three styles to some degree.
148
Transformational leadership 149
150
In the concept of transformational leadership, leaders are seen as visionary or 151
charismatic persons (Howell & Higgins, 1990). These leaders use the power of their 152
personality to encourage their followers to give up their own interests in favor of the 153
vision of the leader and the interest of the organization or team (Bass, 1999; Burnes, 154
2004; Erkutlu, 2008). Transformational leadership is comprised of five elements:
155
(I) idealized influence (attributed) – whether the leader is seen as confident and powerful;
156
(II) idealized influence (behavior) – whether the actions of the leader are based on values, 157
beliefs and a sense of mission;
158
(III) inspirational motivation – stimulating enthusiastic and optimistic feelings among 159
followers;
160
(IV) intellectual stimulation – leader values intellectual ability and encourages innovation 161
and develops creativity; and 162
(V) individualized consideration – leader considers ability of follower and their level of 163
maturity to determine and coach their need for further development.
164
Transactional leadership 165
In the concept of transactional leadership, the relationship between leader and 166
follower is based on a transaction (van Eeden, 2008; Bass & Avolio, 1994). In this form 167
of relationship leaders elucidate what followers need to do in order to receive a reward or 168
avoid a punishment, and therefore cater to their followers’ immediate self-interest (Bass, 169
1999). This transaction has two characteristics: (1) leaders use contingent rewards to 170
motivate employees; (2) leaders only exercise adjusting action when followers fail to 171
obtain performance goals (Buelens et al, 2006). Transactional leadership consists of three 172
elements:
173
(I) contingent reward – suitable positive response to desired performance;
174
(II) active management by exception – leader acts proactive by monitoring performance 175
and looking for mistakes, irregularities, exceptions and he takes corrective action before 176
or when they occur; and 177
(III) passive management by exception – a leader is reactive and waits to be informed 178
about errors and deviances before taking action.
179
Laissez-faire leadership 180
The concept of laissez-faire leadership is a type of non-leadership in which 181
avoidance or absence of leadership is implied (Bass, 1990; Deluga, 1990). The 182
subordinates are responsible for the work and the leader avoids clarifying expectations 183
and making decisions. He is also reluctant to express views on important or controversial 184
issues. Laissez-fair leadership, when combined with another style of leadership, gives the 185
followers space for empowerment and self-management (Sivasubramaniam et al, 2002).
186 187
Influencing tactics 188
189
The essence of leadership is to directly or indirectly influence followers (Yukl, 190
2002). “Good leaders make people feel that they are at the very heart of things and not at 191
the periphery” (Warren Bennis). Influence can be defined as the effect of one person or 192
group on another person or group (Fiske, 1993). The way in which a person influences 193
the other, the influencing tactic (Deluga, 1990) can be classified and divided. Numerous 194
tactics have been described by researchers (Furst & Cable, 2008; Pol et al, 2002; Yukl, 195
2002; Yukl, 1981). The main goal of a leader is to radiate potential influence (Furst &
196
Cable, 2008). Furthermore, the requirements of the leader and the targeted team member 197
are important in choosing the right influencing tactic (Yukl, 1981). Several behavioral 198
researchers have come up with a distinction between the different tactics (French &
199
Raven, 1959; Etzioni, 1975; Furst & Cable, 2008; Yukl, 1981). Combining their 200
propositions shows a typology that covers the rich spectrum of influencing. To make a 201
division between influencing tactics is important because their consequences may vary 202
per tactic (Yukl, 1981). Keeping these consequences in mind, leaders will use different 203
tactics that are achievable in terms of power and position, tactics that are socially 204
acceptable and effective for a particular aim, and tactics which are not costly in terms of 205
effort, alienation, time, or loss of resources (Yukl & Tracy, 1992).
206
This can be linked to a distinction made by Yukl et al (2008) about three types of 207
influencing tactics:
208
(i) hard tactics – feasible in terms of power and position;
209
(ii) soft tactics – socially acceptable and effective for a particular objective; and 210
(iii) rational tactics – are not costly in terms of effort, alienation, time, or loss of 211
resources.
212
Hard influencing tactics 213
(a) exchange - offer something that the follower wants in exchange for the 214
support;
215
(b) legitimating tactics - using the authority to make a request;
216
(c) pressure - use demands, threats, frequent checking or reminders to influence 217
the follower; and 218
(d) coalition tactics - using the support of others as a way to influence the 219
follower.
220 221
Soft influencing tactics 222
(a) inspirational appeals - appeal to the followers’ ideals or values to gain 223
commitment;
224
(b) consultation - asking the team member to suggests improvements or advice for 225
the task in which the team member’s assistance is desired;
226
(c) collaboration - offer assistance or resources when the follower will carry out a 227
request;
228
(d) ingratiation - using praise before or during influencing the team member; and 229
(e) personal appeals – asking for a personal favor or using your friendship to get 230
things done.
231
Rational tactics 232
(a) rational persuasion - using logical arguments and facts to show that the request 233
is important for the task; and 234
(b) apprising - mention that supporting a proposal will benefit the follower 235
personally and/or career wise.
236
Leadership styles linked to influencing tactics 237
As mentioned before, the essence of leadership is influencing individual team 238
members or a group of team members (Yukl, 2002). This systematically influencing of 239
the team member’s behavior toward attainment of group or organizational goals is seen as 240
leadership behavior. The person who displays this leadership behavior will be able to 241
reach the expected goals (Yukl & Tracy, 1992). The used influencing tactic and the used 242
leadership style also contribute to achieving these outcomes (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
243
Therefore, one may conclude that influencing tactics and leadership styles are correlated.
244
Conceptual background and hypotheses 245
In this study, the leader was excluded and only the team members were involved.
246
This study is to research actual behavior and not intended behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 247
1973). Team members are those who perceive the actual behavior of the leader and do 248
not know what the intended behavior was. This research addresses two linked main 249
issues; influencing tactics and the perceived leadership style.
250
According to Erkutlu (2008), different kind of leadership styles can result in 251
different performance outcomes, he even stated that “using the right kind of leadership 252
can result in performances that go well beyond what is expected”. This is supported by 253
the fact that some leaders focus on (only) task completions (Burnes, 2004), and other 254
leaders focus on the desired future (Bass & Avolio, 1994), which lay way beyond the 255
completed task. Using selected different influencing tactics at the right time for the right 256
team member will also results in the preferred different member or team performance 257
outcomes. Therefore in this study the focus is on the relationship between the perceived 258
leadership style by the team member and used influencing tactics. It is conceivable that 259
the used or accepted influencing tactics determine the leadership style shown by the 260
leader and perceived by the follower.
261
The following hypotheses describe the likely outcome for the relationship 262
between the eleven influencing tactics and the three leadership styles.
263
It is expected that only using certain soft (Berson et al, 2007) and certain rational 264
tactics will point towards transformational leadership whereas soft tactics are more likely 265
to result in commitment than in compliance or resistance (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Socially 266
accepted tactics make room for challenging future visions, especially articulated by 267
transformational leaders (Eisenbeiss et al 2008). A person who displays rational and 268
social behavior can be perceived as a role model within an organization for certain 269
persons. According to Howel & Higgins (1990) a transformational leader serve as a role 270
model by the element of transformational leadership, idealized influenced behavior 271
(Burnes, 2004).
272
An important aspect of the tactic inspirational appeal is sharing of values, goals 273
and beliefs. Additionally, sharing can help in the process of creating a positive feeling 274
amongst team members. This is an important aspect in order to achieve goals (Van 275
Rensburg & Crous, 2000, Yukl et al., 2008). Previous studies of transformational 276
leadership (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989) have found that leaders who motivate exceptional 277
effort by subordinates present a clear, inspiring vision, which is one form of inspirational 278
appeal (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Howel & Higgins, 1994; Eisenbeiss et al, 2008).
279
When leaders use the power of their personality to encourage their team members 280
to re-focus their own interest in favor of the vision, focus and interests of the organization 281
or team, this will most likely result in an increase of commitment and compliance of the 282
follower (Bass, 1999; Burnes, 2004; Erkutlu, 2008). According to Falbe & Yukl (1992), 283
consultation will also increase also commitment. It is imaginable that when a leader uses 284
the consultation influencing tactic, that this will also point towards the transformational 285
leadership style.
286
Increasing the feeling of positive regard towards the leader, increases commitment 287
(Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Using positive support and praise during the influencing process of 288
the team member will most likely lead to a positive state of mind. This is created by the 289
Transformational leadership use of the influencing tactic ingratiation. The transformational leader is characterized by 290
stimulating enthusiastic and optimistic feelings among team members (Burnes, 2004).
291
However, besides creating a motivational environment, intellectual capability is 292
also necessary. Indeed a leader has to under build and clarifies with logical arguments 293
why it is important to reach a team or organizational goal together, to create internal 294
motivation. Transformational leaders value intellectual ability, therefore the influencing 295
tactic rational persuasion is a sign of using the transformational leadership style.
296
Summarizing, the transformational leader envisions a desirable future, articulates 297
how it can be reached, sets an example to be followed, expects high standards of 298
performance, and shows determination and confidence (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Erkutlu, 299
2008, Horwitz et al., 2008). By using soft and rational influencing tactics and creating 300
above mentioned environment, one could argue that the leader uses the transformational 301
leadership style.
302 303
Hypothesis 1. The influencing tactics inspirational appeal, consultation, ingratiation, and 304
rational persuasion determine transformational leadership 305
306
307
308 309 310
Figure 1: Transformational leadership
311 312
Transactional leaders will use their position to elucidate what team members need 313
to do. They do this by explaining what a team member needs to do in order to receive a 314
reward or avoid punishment, and how and why certain actions can benefit the team 315
member. When a leader is using hard and rational influencing tactics, a transactional 316
leadership style is assumed. More specific, when a leader uses the exchange influencing 317
tactic, an exchange process can emerge (Eeden et al, 2001). In this exchange process the 318
leader often explains to the team member what he has to do in order to avoid punishment 319
Collaboration Rational Persuasion Inspirational Appeals Consultation
Ingratiation
Transactional leadership
and gain rewards. In a punishment/reward system a leader will look for mistakes and 320
irregularities. In order to complete his goal or mission he will use pressure to influence 321
his team members (Bass, 1999). This also suggests that the transactional leadership style 322
is perceived.
323
Using the apprising influencing tactic, the leader will explain to the team member 324
that supporting the leader’s proposal can help to advance the team member’s career 325
(Burnes, 2004). Both of these tactics and situations are characteristics of the transactional 326
leadership style, and indicate that this leader uses this type of style.
327
In the concept of transactional leadership, the relationship between leader and 328
team member is based on a transaction of praise or punishment (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
329
van Eeden, 2008). Using these hard and rational tactics will result in creating a type of 330
environment where praise or punishment is the standard. One can argue that the leader 331
uses the transactional leadership style.
332 333
Hypothesis 2. The influencing tactics exchange, pressure and apprising determine 334
transactional leadership.
335 336 337 338 339
Figure 2. Transactional leadership style
340 341
The laissez-faire leadership style concept can be seen in a situation where 342
leadership seems to be absent. Here the focus is on the motivational environment to 343
induce and encourage the development of a stimulating and motivating working 344
environment. To create such an environment, mostly soft influencing tactics will be 345
performed (Sivasubramanism et al, 2002). However, for a pressure free and motivational 346
environment, boundaries are necessary to keep team members focused. To ensure these 347
boundaries, hard influencing tactics are most likely also needed. Hard influencing tactics 348
can also be used as a control and pressure tool (Yukl, 1981).
349
Exchange Apprising Pressure
Laissez-faire leadership In this kind of situation, within a team can run a feeling that there is not a 350
‘recognizable’ person who gives them any kind of direction, and takes the responsibility 351
for the directions chosen. In an environment where there is no or partly leadership, there 352
is room for empowerment (Sivasubramaniam et al, 2002). Team members have to share 353
the same beliefs and goals in order to accomplish tasks together. Consultation will be the 354
key for a leader to manage these groups. The group will respond better when the leader 355
asks them for advice, suggestions and help, rather than to dictate them what to do 356
(Sivasubramaniam et al, 2002; Furst & Cable, 2008). Because of the shared qualities, 357
beliefs and the vision that is matured within such a team, it can be useful for a leader to 358
search for support(ers) of his ideas or suggestions and ask them to help him convincing 359
the others. Using this coalition tactic can also be helpful in this kind of groups.
360
In the concept of non-leadership or as the theory calls it, laissez-faire leadership 361
avoidance or absence of leadership is implied (Bass, 1990; Deluga, 1990). For these 362
teams it is important to create an environment where internal motivation and boundaries 363
are set. In order to achieve this, both soft and hard influencing tactics are most likely 364
used. One can argue that the leader who uses these kinds of influencing tactics will most 365
likely use the laissez-faire leadership style.
366 367
Hypothesis 3: The influencing tactics; consultation and coalition determine laissez-faire 368
leadership.
369 370
371
372
Figure 3. Laissez-faire leadership
373 374 375
Consultation Coalition
METHOD
376 377
Procedure 378
To uncover the nature of the link between the perceived leadership style and 379
influencing tactics, we performed a questionnaire survey among teams from different 380
business organizations spread all over the country, like employment agencies, colleges, 381
banks and administration offices. The participants, team members (excluding leaders), 382
were recruited by approaching contacts from my own network. They filled in two 383
different online questionnaires. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass &
384
Avolio, 1995) about the leadership style the team member perceived by his or her team 385
leader and the Influence Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ; Yukl et al., 2008), about the 386
influencing tactics used by the team leader. The MLQ en the IBQ are specifically chosen 387
because of their focus on the researched leadership styles transformational leadership, 388
transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership and the eleven influencing tactics 389
elaborated earlier in this research.
390
The questionnaires were provided separately (T0 and T1) per mail, with a waiting 391
time of 2 weeks, to avoid interpretation of the questionnaires by the participants 392
themselves and so be biased during answering the second questionnaire. In the 393
introduction letter participants were given to understand that confidentiality and 394
anonymity were assured. Immediately after completion of a questionnaire, the results 395
were automatically sent to a central database kept at an online storage place 396
(www.thesistools.com). The questionnaires resulted in scores for transformational, 397
transactional and laissez-faire leadership, including the eleven influencing tactics.
398
Other variables could influence the outcome of this research. Keeping these 399
variables consistent will minimize the effects. Sex and age can be of influence on the 400
perceived influencing tactic and leadership style (Barbuto et al, 2007). Also the number 401
of years a respondent has been working for his leader can be of influence. Therefore, sex, 402
age and number of years working for the leader serve as control variables.
403 404
Sample 405
Of the in total 32 invited teams, 28 teams, with an average size of 5 members, 406
consented to participate. All the participating team members, 128 respondents, 407
completed both questionnaires. These respondents were all team members. The reason for 408
asking team members is because there can be a difference between the behavior a leader 409
wants to project and the real perceived behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973). Of all 410
respondents 68.9% was female. Ages of the respondents ranged from 18 to 60 years 411
(Mode = 18-30 years). The most common educational level was university level. 62% of 412
the respondents had worked for their present leader over a period of 1 to 3 years.
413
Outcome measurements 414
1. The effect on the scores of perceived transformational leadership behavior of the 415
influencing tactics inspirational appeal, consultation, ingratiation and rational 416
persuasion, after adjusting for the control variables: age, sex and number of years 417
working for this leader.
418
2. The effect on the scores of perceived transactional leadership behavior of the 419
influencing tactics exchange, apprising and pressure, after adjusting for the 420
control variables: age, sex and number of years working for this leader.
421
3. The effect on the scores of perceived laissez-faire leadership behavior of the 422
influencing tactics consultation and coalition, after adjusting for the control 423
variables: age, sex and number of years working for this leader.
424
Measuring Instruments 425
The perceived leadership style was measured with Bass and Avolio’s (1995) 426
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ identifies three types of 427
leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. This 428
questionnaire was selected because this study aims to research actual behavior and not 429
intended behavior. The team members answered several questions from the MLQ about 430
the leadership styles of their leaders. The MLQ contains 36 items covering nine 431
subscales. These items are rated on a five-point scale with anchors labeled as 1=not at all, 432
2= once in a while, 3=sometimes, 4=fairly often, 5=frequently, if not always. The 433
Cronbachs α’s for respectively transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership 434
is 0.92, 0.85 and 0.86. Some examples: transformational leadership – my manager talks 435
optimistically about the future; transactional – my manager directs my attention towards 436
failures to meet standards; and laissez-faire – my manager avoids making decisions.
437
The influencing tactic was measured with Yukl’s (2008) Influence Behavior 438
Questionnaire (IBQ). The IBQ identifies eleven types of influencing tactics. It contains 439
41 items rated on a five-point scale with anchors labeled as 1=never, 2=hardly ever, 440
3=once in a while, 4=often, 5=very often. Ninety percent of the Cronbachs α’s for the 441
eleven influencing tactics were above 0.75, and no alpha was lower than 0.70.
442
Three variables, i.e. age, sex and number of years working for this leader, were 443
included in the questionnaire as control variables.
444
Data Analysis 445
A factor analysis using a varimax rotation method was conducted for the MLQ, to 446
identify the underlying factors. This analysis revealed three factors that together 447
accounted for 82.1 percent of the total variance for leadership scores. As shown in Table 448
I, factors 1, 2 and 3 explained respectively 40.1, 21.5 and 20.4 percent of the variance.
449
These factors were identified as transformational (1), transactional (2), and laissez-faire 450
leadership (3).
451
TABLE 1 452
Factor Analysis of the MLQ 453
Rotated Component Matrix
Factors 1 2 3
Intellectual Stimulation 0.89* -0.27 0.12
Individualized Consideration 0.78* 0.33 -0.30
Charisma 0.61* 0.54 -0.26
Contingent Reward 0.37 0.79* 0.09
Management by Exceptions Active 0.04 0.95* 0.02 Management by Exceptions Passive 0.01 -0.2 0.93*
Laissez-Faire -0.66 -0.03 0.62*
Eigen values 3.38 1.25 1.11
Percentage of Variance 40.14 21.51 20.42
Cumulative Percentage 40.14 61.65 82.07
454
A correlation and a regression analysis were conducted to measure relationships 455
between leadership styles and influencing tactics. The regression analysis was in two 456
steps. First the control variables and second the independent variables were entered.
457
RESULTS
458 459
Correlation analyses 460
The mean, standard deviations and Pearson-correlations for the variables are 461
shown in table 2. The following influencing tactics correlate with transformational 462
leadership at the significant level of 0.01: rational persuasion (r = 0.49, p < 0.03), 463
inspirational appeal (r = 0.68, p < 0,001), collaboration (r = 0.49, p < 0.03), ingratiation (r 464
= 0.60, p < 0.01) and consultation (r = 0.56, p < 0.01). Inspirational appeal, ingratiation 465
and consultation also correlate at a significant level of 0.05. A significant relationship 466
between the influencing tactics inspirational appeal, ingratiation, rational persuasion and 467
consultation and transformational leadership is confirmed. Besides that there is also a 468
significant relationship between collaboration and this leadership style.
469
The influencing tactics exchange (r = 0.52, p = 0.03) and apprising (r = 0.47, p <
470
0.03) correlate significantly with transactional leadership, the tactic legitimating also has 471
a significant relationship with transactional leadership (r = 0.51, p < 0.02).
472
The correlation analysis revealed that the influencing tactics rational persuasion (r 473
= -0.44, p < 0.05), pressure (r = 0.64, p < 0.001) and consultation (r = -0.48, p < 0.03) 474
have a significant relationship with the leadership style laissez-faire. There is a negative 475
relationship between the influencing tactics rational persuasion and consultation and the 476
laissez-faire leadership style.
477 478 479
TABLE 2 480
Unvaried Statistics and Pearson-Correlations of the Variables 481
482
N = 128
483
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
484
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
485 486
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Sex 1.64 0.45
2. Age 1.54 0.80 0.19
3. Number of years leader
1.77 0.78 0.24 0.33 4. Transformation
Leadership
3.24 0.53 -0.47* -0.26 -0.18 5. Transactional
Leadership
2.71 0.43 -0.25 -0.07 -0.10 0.64**
6. Laissez-Faire Leadership
1.88 0.73 0.35 0.17 0.02 -0.78** -0.16 7. Rational
Persuasion
3.40 0.62 -0.19 -0.31 -0.10 0.49* 0.24 -0.44*
8. Exchange 2.16 0.91 -0.77** -0.55** -0.23 0.42 0.52* -0.04 0.22 9. Inspirational
Appeal
2.87 0.76 -0.32 -0.30 0.50 0.68** 0.36 -0.37 0.48* 0.31
10. Legitimating 2.84 0.64 -0.53* -0.27 -0.26 0.00 0.51* 0.35 -0.21 0.66** 0.12 11. Apprising 2.68 0.78 -0.19 -0.36 -0.05 0.33 0.47* 0.10 0.03 0.54* 0.38 0.40
12. Pressure 1.75 0.62 0.08 0.23 -0.08 -0.37 0.20 0.64** -0.44* 0.15 -0.14 0.42 0.44*
13. Collaboration 3.28 0.56 0.04 -0.61** -0.21 0.49* 0.30 -0.43 0.56** 0.25 0.29 -0.10 0.26 -0.47*
14. Ingratiation 2.71 0.66 -0.10 -0.35 0.05 0.60** 0.23 -0.25 0.34 0.25 0.44 -0.11 0.64** 0.18 0.30 15. Personal
Appeal
1.63 0.52 -0.18 -0.18 0.18 0.09 0.32 0.04 -0.25 0.50* -0.17 0.31 0.62** 0.35 0.09 0.33
16. Consultation 2.92 0.75 -0.05 -0.46* -0.15 0.56** 0.33 -0.48* 0.53* 0.30 0.42 0.26 0.38 -0.23 0.84** 0.50* 0.24 17. Coalition 1.86 0.83 -0.29 -0.22 -0.01 0.35 0.16 -0.04 0.16 0.41 0.45* 0.66* 0.53* 0.21 0.17 0.34 0.30 0.45*
Regression analyses
Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis that was conducted to verify the linear relationship between the influencing tactics (rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, collaboration, ingratiation and consultation) and the transformational leadership style. In step 1 the control variables (sex, age and number of years working for this leader) were verified. The results in Table 3 shown that all the influencing tactics (rational persuasion, rational appeal, collaboration, ingratiation and consultation) can contribute to the determining of the transformational leadership style (R2 = 0.76, F = 3.94, p = < 0.03).
The presence of the influencing tactics rational persuasion, inspiration appeal, ingratiation and consultation shown significant determinants of the transformational leadership style (β = .040, p < 0.03; β = 0.48, p = < 0.02; β = 0.38, p < 0.03; β = 0.45, p = < 0.05).
TABLE 3
Hierarchical Regression of Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership
Step Variable R2 β Sig.
1. Control Variables
.87 Sex
Age
Numbers of years working for leader 2. Influencing
tactics
.76
Rational Persuasion .403 .029
Inspirational Appeal .477 .015
Collaboration .310 .203
Ingratiation .377 .027
Consultation .454 .043
Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis that was conducted to verify the linear relationship between the influencing tactics (exchange and apprising) and the transactional leadership style. In the 1 the control variables (sex, age and number of years working for this leader) were verified. The results of Table 4 shown that neither of the influencing tactics exchange and apprising individually can contribute to the determining of the transactional leadership style (R2 = 0.16, F = 0.58, p < 0.72).
TABLE 4
Hierarchical Regression of Transactional Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Step Variable R2 β Sig.
1. Control Variables
.13 Sex
Age
Numbers of years working for leader 2. Influencing
tactics
.16
Exchange .312 .485
Apprising .063 .706
Table 5 shows the results of the regression analysis that was conducted to verify the linear relationship between the influencing tactics (rational persuasion, pressure and consultation) and the laissez-faire leadership style. In step 1 the control variables (sex, age and number of years working for this leader) were verified. The results in Table 5 shown that all the influencing tactics (rational persuasion, pressure and consultation) can contribute to the determining of the transformational leadership style (R2 = 0.52, F = 2.76, p = < 0.05).
Looking at the influencing tactics individually, there is no prove that the influencing tactic rational persuasion contribute significantly to the determining of the laissez-faire leadership style (β = -0.40, p = < 0.20). On the other hand, the presence of the influencing tactic pressure shown significant determinant of the laissez-faire leadership style (β = 0.59, p < 0.01). Whereas the influencing tactic consultation has a significant negative contribution to the determining of the laissez-faire leadership style (β = -0.46, p = < 0.05), which means that it is less likely that the leadership laissez-faire is perceived when the leader uses the influencing tactic consultation.
TABLE 5
Hierarchical Regression of Laissez-Faire Leadership Laissez-Faire Leadership
Step Variable R2 β Sig.
1. Control Variables
.74 Sex
Age
Numbers of years working for leader 2. Influencing
tactics
.52
Rational Persuasion -.396 .104
Pressure .593 .009
Consultation -.461 .043
Hypotheses
1 After checking the control variables age, sex and number of years working for this leader in step 1, only the influencing tactics consultation, ingratiation, inspirational appeal and rational persuasion, appear to have a significant effect on the scores of perceived transformational leadership behavior (respectively, B = 0.45, p < 0.03; B = 0.38, p < 0.05; B 0.48, p < 0.02; B = 0.40, p < 0.03). Therefore, hypothesis one can not be confirmed.
2 Following the same procedure, the influencing tactics exchange and apprising have no significant effect on perceived transactional leadership behavior (respectively, B = 0.31, p < 0.50;
B = 0.06, p = 0.81). Interestingly, there is a positive significant correlation effect between these influencing tactics and transactional leadership (r = 0.52, p = 0.03; r = 0.47, p < 0.03). Hypothesis two needs more research.
3 There was a significant correlation effect between the influencing tactics rational persuasion, pressure and consultation and laissez-faire leadership (respectively, r = -0.44, p = <
0.01; r = 0,64, p < 0,05; r = -0,48, p < 0,05). Interestingly, there was no significant correlation between the influencing tactic coalition and laissez-faire leadership (r = - 0,04, p > 0,05).
Therefore hypothesis 3 should be rejected. In the second step (the regression analysis) the influencing tactic rational persuasion proved not to contribute significantly to the perceived
laissez-faire leadership (B = -0.396, p < 0.20). But the influencing tactics consultation and pressure proved to contribute significantly to the perceived laissez-faire leadership behavior
(respectively, B = -0.46, p < 0.08, B = 0.59, p < 0.01).
Transformational leadership
DISCUSSION
Goal and expectations
A key determinant of leadership success is the leader’s ability to influence team members (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). The present study aims to show that there is a relationship between influencing tactics and leadership style and had to answer the question: do(es) the influencing tactic(s) used by the leader determine the style of leadership shown by that same leader?
The basic assumption of this research was that certain influencing tactics indeed are related to the concept leadership style. The first hypothesis stated that five tactics – inspirational appeal, consultation, ingratiation, rational persuasion and collaboration – determine the transformational leadership style.
The results of this study confirm significantly this hypothesis and also show that these tactics are positive related to the ‘transformational leadership style’. In other words, using the tactics mentioned above demonstrated that the transformational leadership style is perceived by the team members. Earlier descriptive studies have found that leaders show more often transformational leadership when they operate in an environment of commitment and positive motivation (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989). When the leader is using the tactics inspirational appeal and consultation it creates an environment for the team members to operate in a more positive environment (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Also the team members’ need to feel empowered and being responsible can explain why consultation, used as an influencing tactic, can be a predictor for the transformational leadership style (Eeden et al, 2001). The significant results demonstrated the effect of these influencing tactics. Ingratiation showed a logical determent for transformational
Collaboration Rational Persuasion Inspirational Appeals Consultation
Ingratiation
X
Transactional leadership
leadership. As ingratiation creates an attachment between leader and follower, which is also the case with transformational leadership and the way in which leaders pay close attention to their followers (Castro et al, 2008). Articulating how on goals can be reached is a characteristic of transformational leadership (Horwitz, 2008). It is therefore not surprising that rational persuasion is a tactic that we found an effect on the perceived ‘transformational leadership style’.
The second hypothesis stated that the tactics pressure, exchange and apprising are positive determinants for the transactional leadership style.
Contrary to the expectations, we found no relationship between pressure and transactional leadership. There was no significant prove that these influencing tactics individual determine the transactional leadership style. As a possible explanation, the coefficients could be a coincidence, because the regression model is not significant. Another possible explanation may be that the leader displaying this style does not use pressure to get things done, but that the followers rather feel pressure, because their actions can result in punishment or reward. Transactional leadership clarifies expectations and offers recognitions when goals have been achieved (Bass et al, 2003), and not during the process of reaching these goals. Interestingly, there was found a positive significant correlation effect between influencing tactics exchange, legitimating and apprising and transactional leadership style. The tactics exchange and apprising together proved to have a determining value towards transactional leadership, but individually they did not. In other words, when a leader uses the influencing tactics combined together, this could be a sign that the leader also uses the transactional leadership style. The explanation may be found in the fact that the two tactics have much in common. Both contain aspects of benefits or harm for the follower (Yukl,
Exchange Apprising
Pressure
Exchange + Apprising
X X X
Laissez-faire leadership
2002). Thus, a leader displaying these tactics together might quite certainly be using the transactional style, but further research is required to confirm this assumption.
Finally, the third hypothesis stated that two tactics – consultation and coalition – are determinants for the laissez-faire leadership style.
Our results showed, however, that not consultation and coalition, but consultation and pressure have an effect on this style, albeit negative in the case of consultation. In conclusion, one could argue that only the influencing tactic pressure is a positive determent for this style. The reason why consultation has a negative effect can be found in the relationship built between follower and leader, especially when the leader asks for advice. In this leadership style, followers rather perceive non-leadership (Bass et al, 2003). The characteristics of laissez-faire leadership do not match with a leader who asks for suggestions or advice. This also is true for the influencing tactic coalition (Yukl, 2002, Bass et al, 2003). A possible reason why followers feel pressure when confronted with this style is the leader’s tendency to leave all responsibility to the followers (Eeden et al, 2001), in the expectation that they will deal with problems and complete tasks themselves.
In conclusion, the research question do(es) the influencing tactic(s) used by the leader, determine the style of leadership perceived by the team member, cannot be answered with an absolute yes. The relationship between influencing tactics and leadership is determined, but further research need to be done to give a conclusive answer if the certain leadership style is determined by the used influencing tactics. There are absolute strengths to this pilot study, but there are also limitations, which can be taken into account when conducting further research.
Pressure Consultation
Coalition X
Strengths and limitations
A positive aspect of this study is the way in which this research was conducted. There was a wide diversity of teams and businesses, as research groups, teams in a financial environment, educational environment and commercial environment, spread all over the Netherlands. The combination of two different questionnaires –– administered at different times – enabled to measure the different variables independently. These outcomes can therefore be used in future research. In this study a small part of a larger subject is tapped. The outcomes are not conclusive, but are a good start for further research.
A second positive aspect is the uniqueness of this study. Leadership styles and influencing tactics have been much studied. Even the relationship between the two was researched before.
But as far as known, there is no study that associates the influencing tactics to the leadership styles as done in this study. Also the correlation and predictability of the influencing tactics for a certain leadership style has never been researched before.
This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted among team members only. The team members had to pronounce on the leader’s leadership style on the basis of particular behavior perceived. Thus, there may have been some bias in the form of subjectivity. This bias might partially be minimized by letting the leaders also fill in a questionnaire on their leadership style, and could be done to confirm the assessed leadership style per team. Comparing the outcomes might give a more objective view of the real style used and therefore further research is recommended.
Second, this study is based on perceived behavior instead of objective measures of the variables. In further research this should be kept in mind. Also the interpersonal relationship between follower and leader, which also can have some influence on the perceived outcomes, was not regarded (Yukl & Tracy, 1992; Furst & Cable, 2008).
A third limitation can be found in the distinction made between three kinds of leadership styles on the grounds of a factor analysis. The analysis grouped together the variables that measure a certain style. It has been proposed that finer differences among items would result in more conservative outcomes (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). Future targeted research would have to confirm this.
Lastly, the control variables may not fully reflect the real business environment. There is a possibility that the follower’s sex influences the way they perceive influencing tactics or
leadership styles, and therefore it will have had an influence on the results of this research. Also the leader’s sex can be of influence on the results. According to Yukl (2002) leadership behavior of women, named female leadership, differs from that of men. Women are better in using interpersonal skills, and letting team members participate in the process. Therefore it can be expected that female leaders will show more transformational than transactional behavior. For this reason, it can be useful to enter the variable sex in any upcoming research.
Implications
Theoretical implication
The results of this research have implications on the theory about leadership. Most of the earlier studies on this subject relate leadership with influencing followers, but do not directly relate leadership with influencing tactics, nor mention the determination value of the influencing tactic. Therefore it was difficult to draw up a clear hypothesis on how influencing tactics would determine certain leadership styles. Some studies nevertheless found direct evidence of relationships between certain influencing tactic and some clear characteristics of one leadership style specifically (Berson & Sosik, 2007), but the other leadership styles are not mentioned in that research and therefore there was no combination of these types of leadership styles. The present research may serve as a basis to conduct further research about the determination value of influencing tactics on certain leadership styles and the predictive value of this phenomenon.
In this study mostly team members with a high level of education (university) were involved. It can be imagined that there is a difference in perception between team members with a high level of education and team members with a lower level of education (eg. MBO). Therefore, it could be interesting to conduct this research again involving team members with a lower level of education.
Also the relationship between the leader and the follower can be of influence on the outcomes of this research. One could imagine that when a team member designates the relationship between him and his leader as ‘good’, he can interpret the influencing tactic different than his colleague who designates the relationship between him and his leader as ‘bad’. Therefore it could be interesting to conduct research to this relationship and using the shown behavior of the follower and the influencing tactics as variables for this research.
Furthermore, leaders can strengthen their relationship with the team members in order to get a more efficient or meaningful outcome of the used influencing tactic. More research is necessary to establish the moderating influence of the type or quality of the relationship between the influencing tactic and the perceived leadership style.
Practical implications
Influence is important. Leaders need (some) influence on their subordinates to achieve a (organizational) goal or to convince them of their own ideas. ‘Developing influencing skills can help leaders achieve commitment from their peers, direct reports, and bosses’ (Baldwin, 2004).
Also leaders can learn to understand when to use which tactic. Using the right tactic under the right circumstances makes the team more effective (Higgins et al, 2003). Besides, this self- awareness had been identified as a core skill that organizational leaders need to practice and develop to enhance their effectiveness (Whetten & Quinn, 1994). This also involves influencing tactics. Being aware of the usefulness and impact of the tactic and showing the right behavior will motivate team members to achieve a certain (organizational) goal (Gardner & Avolio, 1998).
Also, previous research suggested that employees may use the quality of their relationship with leaders to interpret the meaning and intent of some influencing tactics (Yukl & Tracy, 1992;
Furst & Cable, 2008). This suggests that the leader could ‘use’ the relationship between him and the follower as a basis to determine which influencing tactic is appropriate at that moment in their organization. But also the other way around, one could review the relationship between the leader and the follower by looking at the shown behavior of the follower after the leader has used an influencing tactic.
Moreover, organizations aim to achieve their goals as effectively as possible. They will therefore want to have optimal functioning teams under excellent leadership. Being able to predict the result and outcome of a leader’s style on the team and organizations output would be a valuable asset. The findings from this study might have practical implications for the selection of a new leader for a team or organization (Ferris & Judge, 1991). The selection process for the potential candidate could include an assessment in which the influencing tactics used by this potential candidate can be exposed, for example in a role play or a questionnaire. The results of these added tests show his leadership style, or might verify if he really will be able to use the leadership style he proposed, or instead of just mentioning a certain style during his interview because he thought it was desired.
The findings of this study – and those of studies to come – make it possible to predict a preferred leadership style, and therefore learn the leader to make use of the different styles for different followers and teams. In this way, a leader can choose a leadership style or influencing tactics that will fits the most with the goals that need to be accomplished. Besides that, it enables to select the leader who fits in best in a certain team.
“If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must expect to employ methods never before attempted” (Sir Francis Bacon, 1561 – 1625)
