首页> 外文期刊>The Leadership quarterly >How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics
【24h】

How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics

机译:我该怎么走?影响策略研究的元分析综述

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Despite considerable research investigating the role of influence tactics on work-related outcomes in organizations, consensus on the effectiveness of influence tactics has been elusive. Specifically, there is a lack of integration concerning the relationships between proactive influence tactics and their outcomes. We investigate the effectiveness of 11 influence tactics from a comprehensive perspective using meta-analytic techniques. In particular, the current study focuses on relationships between each of the 11 influence tactics (i.e., rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal, legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, personal appeals, and coalition) and task- and relations-oriented outcomes. In addition, we investigate the moderating effects of the direction of influence tactics, measurement of influence tactics, singular influence tactic (versus use of a combination of influence tactics), independence of data sources, and study setting involved in the study. Regardless of task- and relations-oriented outcomes, based on 49 independent samples (N = 8987), our results show positive relationships between outcomes and rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation, consultation, and a negative relationship between pressure and outcomes. Rational persuasion is the only tactic which held stable positive relationships with both categories of outcomes regardless of moderating factors. Implications and directions for future research in the area of influence tactics are discussed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译:尽管有大量研究调查了影响策略在组织中与工作相关的结果中的作用,但对于影响策略有效性的共识仍然难以捉摸。具体而言,缺乏关于主动影响策略与其结果之间关系的整合。我们使用荟萃分析技术从综合的角度调查了11种影响策略的有效性。尤其是,当前的研究着重于11种影响力策略中的每一种之间的关系(即理性说服,交流,鼓舞人心的呼吁,合法化,告知,压力,协作,敬畏,咨询,个人呼吁和联盟)与任务和关系导向的结果。此外,我们研究了影响策略的方向,影响策略的度量,奇异影响策略(相对于影响策略的组合使用),数据源的独立性以及研究涉及的研究环境的调节作用。不管以任务和关系为导向的结果如何,基于49个独立样本(N = 8987),我们的结果都显示出结果与理性说服,鼓舞人心的呼吁,咨询,协作,灌输,咨询之间存在正向关系,而压力与压力之间则存在负向关系。结果。理性的说服力是唯一与两类结果保持稳定积极关系的策略,而不受调节因素的影响。讨论了影响策略领域未来研究的意义和方向。 (C)2016 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号