Streamline Training & Documentation: Training to Improve Exercise of Upward Influence

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Training to Improve Exercise of Upward Influence

Research published by David Ralston and colleagues in 2001 reinforces the idea mentioned in an earlier post that broadly defined cultural features of different countries cannot get us very far in understanding the reasons behind similarities and differences in strategies of upward influence employees choose to try in various situations.

Ralston et al. looked at Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, and the US. The primary goal of their study was to

identify culturally inherent differences in subordinates' choices of influence tactics, which in turn may contribute to our understanding of the relationships between superiors and subordinates from different cultures.

The tool used was the Strategies of Upward Influence (SUI) instrument. Their findings, in brief:

In almost all cases there is agreement across the cultures on whether an upward influence tactic is viewed as a positive or negative type of behavior. However, there is divergence in the degree to which the various tactics are preferred across the six countries.

In the US and the Netherlands, there was consistent support for soft strategies (Good Soldier and Image Management) and a consistent rejection of hard strategies (Information Control and Strong-arm Coercion).¹

German and Indian managers were more balanced in their moderate use of all tactics than were managers in the other four countries.

Hong Kong and Mexican managers were more open to using the negatively perceived hard strategies and did not perceive the soft strategies to be as productive as did managers in the other four countries.

A more theoretically oriented study Ralston published with Jane Terpstra-Tong in 2002 offers further thoughts on the factors that determine preferences concerning upward influence tactics. After a review of the literature, Ralston and Terpstra-Tong put forward a "Cross-Cultural Model of Upward Influence Selection" adapted from pioneering work of Lyman Porter, Robert Allen, and Harold Angle.² The model postulates that a subordinate (the "agent") who has decided to try to influence a superior (the "target") will select a strategy based on five factors:

the target's characteristics, which are influcenced by the environment in which the target is operating. These characteristics include the target's power, his/her leadership style, and the cost involved in approaching the target.

the agent's own characteristics, which are influenced by the environment in which the agent is operating. These characteristics include the agent's personal and organizational goals, age, gender, need for power, need for achievement, propensity to take risks, etc.

the relationship that exists between the agent and the target, i.e., how much the target likes the agent, how much the target perceives similarity with the agent, how much the target and the agent trust each other, etc.

situational characteristics, including the organization's structure, the ambiguity of the situation, resource scarcity, and how big a personal stake the agent has in affecting the target's decision.

the agent's belief system, i.e., the agent's expected cost and benefit of the attempt at influence, and the perceived societal and organizational norms endorsing or discouraging various influence behaviors.

After the agent has made the attempt at upward influence, there are two feedback mechanisms — adjustment in the agent's:

willingness to undertake subsequent efforts at upward influence.

beliefs concerning what strategy best fits a particular constellation of the five factors listed above.

As indicated in several earlier posts, many businesspeople and trainers around the world have adopted practices and interventions that reflect an analysis implicitly, if not explicitly, akin to that embodied in the model outlined above. For example, trainers in multinational companies commonly teach employees to take their bosses' preferences into account in deciding how to present proposals, and teach managers to facilitate employee input in order to tap employees' knowledge and ideas.

In my view, the social psychologists whose research I've been reviewing would benefit by adding to their research agenda investigation of how subordinates and superiors respond to training directed at improving use of, and response to, upward influence strategies.

__________
¹ Good Soldier: Get ahead through hard work that benefits the organization. Image Management: Actively present oneself in a positive manner across the entire organization. Information Control: Control information that is restricted from others in order to benefit oneself. Strong-arm Coercion: Use illegal tactics, such as blackmail, to achieve personal goals.

² Lyman W. Porter, Robert W. Allen, and Harold L. Angle, "The Politics of Upward Influence in Organizations," in L.L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3 (Greenview CT: JAI Press, 1981), pp. 109-149.

###

Labels: Asia, Employee development, Evaluation of training, India, Organizational culture, Upward influence

<< Home