Research on managerial influence tactics has focused on three areas: identifying tactics, quantifying their frequency, and linking tactics to outcomes. However, little attention has been paid to why employers respond with commitment or lack thereof when managers send particular influence messages. Research on employee motivation may help to answer this question by informing the association between particular influence tactics and employee commitment. Self-determination theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985a; 2000) emphasizes the importance of three basic needs---autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Central to the theory is that particular social contexts and social interactions offer different opportunities to satisfy these needs. The theory proposes a range of motivation from amotivation to extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Further, extrinsic motivation ranges in quality from externally regulated to internally regulated. This study tested whether SDT can explain why particular tactics are associated with commitment. In other words, do autonomy, competence, relatedness, and regulation mediate the relationship between influence tactics used by managers and subsequent levels of employee commitment?;To answer this question, the study focused on two particular influence tactics---inspirational appeals and pressure. The experimental model predicted that inspirational appeals would be associated with higher levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which would lead to identified regulation, which would be positively associated with commitment; conversely, pressure tactics would be associated with lower levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which would lead to external regulation, which would be negatively associated with commitment. To test this prediction, 300 participants were placed into one of three experimental conditions---inspirational appeals, pressure, or direct request/control. Participants were given an instruction embodying one of those tactics, completed a task, and evaluated their autonomy, competence, relatedness, regulation, and commitment in completing the task. Contrary to predictions, the results showed no significant difference among experimental conditions in levels of autonomy, competence, or relatedness. However, the data were consistent with the rest of the proposed model. These results suggest multiple avenues for further testing of the model. Though the data were not consistent with the proposed model, modifications offer interesting future possibilities for this line of research.
展开▼
