Influence Tactics Scale

Abstract

The Influence Tactics scale is an 18-item psychometric instrument developed by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1991), which serves as a refinement of the original measure proposed by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980). This measure is specifically designed to assess the frequency with which subordinates employ various behavioral strategies to influence their supervisors within an organizational setting. The scale delineates six empirically distinct categories of influence behaviors, providing a nuanced understanding of upward influence dynamics in organizational behavior.

The six core dimensions measured are Ingratiation (e.g., making a supervisor feel important), Exchange of Benefits (e.g., offering a personal sacrifice in return for compliance), Rationality (e.g., using logical arguments), Assertiveness (e.g., repeatedly reminding the supervisor of the request), Upward Appeal (e.g., making a formal appeal to higher organizational levels), and Coalition (e.g., obtaining support from co-workers to back up a request).

Keywords

Influence Tactics, Upward Influence, Organizational Behavior, Schriesheim and Hinkin, Subordinate Influence, Ingratiation, Assertiveness, Coalition, Exchange of Benefits, Rationality.

Authors

Chester A. Schriesheim, Timothy R. Hinkin, David Kipnis, Stuart M. Schmidt, Ian Wilkinson.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Influence Tactics scale is to provide a reliable and validated measure for quantifying the specific behavioral strategies used by employees (subordinates) when attempting to gain compliance or support from their immediate supervisors. By isolating six distinct tactics, the scale allows researchers and practitioners to analyze the frequency and effectiveness of different influence techniques in relation to organizational outcomes, leadership styles, and career success.

This refinement effort, undertaken by Schriesheim and Hinkin, aimed to improve the psychometric soundness and factor structure of earlier influence measures. The 18-item instrument ensures that the complexity of upward influence attempts in a contemporary workplace context is accurately captured, serving as a critical tool in leadership studies and research on organizational power dynamics.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Upward Influence Tactics, which refers to goal-directed behaviors used by individuals lower in the organizational hierarchy to modify the attitudes, behaviors, or decisions of those higher up (i.e., their supervisors). The six fundamental dimensions measured are:

• Ingratiation: The use of flattery, acting humbly, or making the target feel good to gain favor before making a request.
• Exchange of Benefits: Offering an explicit or implicit trade, or reminding the supervisor of past favors or potential personal sacrifices.
• Rationality: Relying on logic, empirical information, and detailed explanations to persuade the supervisor of the merits of the request.
• Assertiveness: Using direct, sometimes forceful methods such as demands, setting deadlines, or verbal expressions of strong emotion.
• Upward Appeal: Seeking intervention from higher levels of management or relying on the formal chain of command to exert pressure.
• Coalition: Mobilizing support from peers, subordinates, or other organizational members to back up a request, demonstrating widespread support.

Validity

The validity of the 18-item Influence Tactics scale was rigorously assessed using advanced statistical methods on two independent samples, as detailed by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990). Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were employed to examine the internal structure of the measure.

The results strongly supported the hypothesized six-factor structure. Items consistently loaded onto their intended dimensions as theoretically expected, confirming that the scale successfully discriminates between the six theoretical influence tactics. This empirical distinction demonstrates strong construct validity, affirming that the six dimensions are empirically separable and measure distinct behavioral constructs relevant to organizational behavior.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the Influence Tactics subscales was established using Coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha) across the samples studied by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990). The resulting alpha values demonstrated acceptable to strong reliability for all six subscales, indicating that the items within each dimension measure a consistent underlying factor.

• Ingratiation: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .73 to .84.
• Exchange of Benefits: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .74 to .76.
• Rationality: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .78 to .80.
• Assertiveness: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .73 to .76.
• Upward Appeal: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .73 to .82.
• Coalition: Coefficient alpha values ranged from .83 to .87.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the Influence Tactics scale was confirmed through comprehensive factor analysis procedures. Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) utilized both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on two independent samples to verify the dimensional structure. This dual approach ensured that the 18 items clustered correctly into the six proposed, distinct dimensions: Ingratiation, Exchange, Rationality, Assertiveness, Upward Appeal, and Coalition.

The successful outcome of the factor analysis provided robust evidence that the six dimensions are empirically separable and align precisely with the theoretical framework of influence tactics, confirming the measure’s utility in organizational research.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Organizational behavior assessment

Format: 18 items administered using a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original publication language)

Population Group: Employees (Subordinates)

Age Group: Adult (Working population)

Population Details: Individuals reporting on their self-initiated influence behaviors directed toward their direct supervisors (upward influence) over the past six months.

Test Methodology: Respondents recall and rate the frequency of use of each tactic. The scale anchors are 1 = never use this tactic to influence him/her and 5 = usually use this tactic to influence him/her.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Leadership, Management, Power Dynamics, Upward Influence, Likert Scale, Cronbach’s Alpha, Organizational Hierarchy.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Refined version published in 1991 (based on empirical work published in 1990).

Permissions: The original empirical analysis and item development (1990) are copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA). Researchers seeking to use the scale must typically obtain permission from the APA or the authors, as the items were reprinted with permission in the source material.

Fee: Fee information is not specified; standard academic use typically requires referencing the primary source.

Reference’s

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246-257.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Influence Tactics scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

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

Ingratiation items:

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

Exchange of benefits items:

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

Rationality items:

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

Assertiveness items:

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

Upward appeal items:

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

Coalition items:

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