Exploring Differences and Similarities in Predictors and Use of Upward Influence Strategies in Two Countries

Abstract

Building on past research the current study compares the use of upward influence (UI) strategies within and between two countries (the United States and Colombia). Continuing with the shift to understand the predictors of UI strategy selection, this study explores perceptions of leader-member exchange (LMX) and power distance (PD) as predictors of UI strategy use in the United States and Colombia. Results suggest that participants from the United States and Colombia do not differ in their use of UI strategies, and predictors of UI strategy use work differently based on the type of strategy with no differences between countries. Implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords

upward influence strategy use interpersonal relationships

Influence refers to the formal and informal processes by which one person affects the behavior of another (Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1980). In workplace contexts, understanding influence processes is critical because of its impact on individual (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Porter et al., 1980; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) and organizational effectiveness (Ferris et al., 2002). Shifts of power distribution in organizations combined with an increasingly multicultural workforce have led organizational and intercultural researchers to pay more attention to influence behavior in organizations. Research focus has been on upward influence (UI) situations where an employee tries to influence someone in a hierarchically higher position. As organizations downsize and flatten their structure, lower level employees have more reasons and opportunities to influence their supervisors (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997). Similarly, due to a shift in organizational thinking from a national to a global focus, organizational effectiveness is more likely to be influenced by the quality of work relationships between employees and supervisors who may come from different cultures (Ralston, Terpstra, Cunniff, & Gustafson, 1995). Thus, in the past 20 years, researchers have become more interested in the role culture plays in UI interactions (Chacko, 1990; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Ralston, Hallinger, Egri, & Naothinsuhk, 2005; Ralston et al., 2001; Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002).

Researchers exploring the use of UI in different cultures suggest that influence attempts can be grouped into three broad strategies (Ralston et al., 2009). Soft strategies encompass influence attempts designed to secure compliance by either making the employee more attractive to the supervisor or by offering some attractive future payback from the employee in return for supervisor compliance (e.g., ingratiatory behaviors; Farmer et al., 1997). Hard strategies include influence attempts in which an employee expects to gain compliance by controlling a meaningful reinforcement for the supervisor (e.g., implied threats, manipulation, or verbal aggressiveness; Farmer et al., 1997). Finally, rational strategies describe influence attempts that use reasoning and logic as the primary basis for gaining supervisor compliance (Farmer et al., 1997).

In the last decade cross-cultural research in UI has focused on understanding (a) the extent to which measures and theories created in the United States apply to other cultures and (b) the use of UI in different countries (Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). Results of cross-cultural UI projects suggests that American theories and measures have some level of applicability in other cultures (Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002) and that culture makes a difference in strategy use (Ralston et al., 2005; Ralston et al., 2001; Xin & Tsui, 1996) and strategy effectiveness (Branzei, 2002; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Leong, Bond, & Fu, 2006, 2007). While these studies have created a basis for understanding intercultural UI, there are two major concerns regarding the universality of these results. First, a large portion of the research has been conducted in Asia (Branzei, 2002; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Leong et al., 2006, 2007), with less emphasis on other areas of the world (Ralston et al., 2001). This is an important issue because Asian cultures differ greatly from other cultures (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Hofstede, 1980). Second, previous research on cross-cultural UI has focused on examining the effects of culture on strategy use by comparing whether participants in two or more countries score differently on the likelihood to use a strategy (Ralston et al., 2005; Ralston et al., 2001) with less focus on exploring the predictors of UI strategy use and how they differ across countries. We believe that to advance our understanding of UI cross-culturally, we need to move beyond comparisons of strategy use and understand the predictors of strategy selection and use across countries. With this in mind, this project is an attempt to address these two concerns by collecting information about both the likelihood of UI strategy use and predictors of these strategies from a sample of professionals in the business, health, government, and education sectors in a Latin American country (Colombia) and in the United States.

The preference for strategy use has been a primary focus in cross-cultural UI research (Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). Two findings are relevant in our discussion of the general use of UI strategies. First, when occupying lower power positions, employees are more likely to use rationality to generate compliance from their supervisors (Farmer et al., 1997; Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Second, when comparing soft and hard strategies, employees are more likely to use soft rather than hard strategies in UI situations (Ralston et al., 2001; Ralston et al., 2009; Yukl, Fu, & McDonald, 2003). These two behaviors are linked to the belief that, in organizations, supervisors often control the resources employees need to succeed in their job (Porter et al., 1980; Waldron, 1999). Therefore, in upward influence situations employees need to pay attention to what they say and how they say it to ensure that their future in the organization is not harmed. This makes the use of rationality the safest communication strategy for the employee, followed by soft and then hard strategies. Thus, similar to previous studies, we expect that within country, rationality will be the strategy employees will be more likely to use when engaging in UI followed by the use of soft and hard strategies (Hypothesis 1).

When comparing strategy use between participants of different countries, previous research has found that participants from the United States differ from those in other countries in how likely they are to use UI strategies (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Leong et al., 2006; Ralston et al., 2001; Yukl et al., 2003). The belief is that influence situations reflect cultural values and traditions from the country of origin (Yukl et al., 2003), which in turn affect acceptability and use of UI strategies (Egri, Ralston, Murray, & Nicholson, 2000; Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). Thus, the differences between the United States and other countries on UI strategy use may be a reflection of the communication norms that are associated with cultural values and traditions. In particular, past research has found that U.S. participants prefer the use of soft and rational strategies (Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991), while countries with similar cultural orientation as Colombia (i.e., low individualism and high power distance such as Hong-Kong) prefer the use of hard strategies (Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991). Given these findings, we expect that participants from the Colombia and the United States will differ in their UI strategy use (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, participants from the United States will be more likely to use rational and soft strategies, while participants from Colombia will be more likely to use hard strategies.

In recent years, studies in cross-cultural UI have begun to shift from understanding tactic use and effectiveness to understanding the factors that influence strategy selection (Ralston et al., 2009; Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). Building on this work, we explore the role of individual (i.e., Power Distance [PD]) and situational factors (i.e., leader-member exchange [LMX]) as predictors of UI strategy use and whether these two factors interact to predict strategy use.

PD refers to a cultural orientation that describes employee beliefs regarding the power supervisors hold over them (Hofstede, 1980). Researchers suggest that PD should be related to UI strategy use (Ralston et al., 2005; Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). The belief is that the levels of PD affect upward communication such that in high PD situations those in lower level positions need to be cautious when influencing a supervisor. In these situations, supervisors are believed to have higher power, more privileges, and what they say must be followed (Ralston et al., 2005). Thus, when subordinates perceive high PD, they will use UI strategies that are seen as safe when making requests to supervisors. On the other hand, in low PD situations power is perceived as decentralized, with management being more open to consultation, which makes UI less risky for employees. Therefore, in low PD situations employees will be more open to use different UI strategies when communicating with their supervisor. Although initially conceptualized at the societal level, recent work focuses on the variance of this cultural value within each culture (Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007). Thus, in the current project, we explored the relationship between individual perceptions of PD and UI strategy use in the United States and Colombia (Research Question 1).

LMX was the second predictor we explored. The LMX framework suggests that within work units the leader and each subordinate develop unique relationships which predict future outcomes for the employee (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Cashman, 1975). Those in high LMX relationships often have relationships with supervisors that go beyond what is specified in their employment contract, while those in low LMX relationships have relationships with their supervisors that are based primarily on contractual obligations. Although there have been few studies that examined LMX as an antecedent of UI strategy selection, findings indicate that perceptions of LMX do matter for selection of UI strategies (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Farmer et al., 1997; Krone, 1991). In particular, employees in high LMX relationships are less likely to use hard strategies in UI situations (Cable & Judge, 2003; Deluga & Perry, 1991; Farmer et al., 1997). One of the shortcomings of this research is that it has primarily been conducted in the United States. Thus, we wanted to explore perceptions of LMX as a predictor for strategy use in the United States and Colombia (Research Question 2).

Given that LMX describes the relationship with a supervisor and PD describes the amount of power a supervisor has over an individual, it is possible that PD and LMX would interact to predict use of UI strategies. Trait activation theory suggests that individual characteristics like PD can make a difference in some situations but not in others (Tett & Burnett, 2003). In our case, it may be that PD orientation will make a greater difference in communication behaviors of employees in UI situations. In situations in which LMX relationships are higher, employees with low PD may be more likely to use UI strategies that are seen as less acceptable (i.e., hard strategies) while employees with high PD will be even more unlikely to use these strategies. In contrast, when situations are characterized by low LMX relationships, employees believe that they must conform to contractual expectations, and thus, their personal traits will be less salient. Therefore, in low LMX situations, employees will communicate in ways that are consistent with contractual expectations (e.g., use of rationality and soft strategies) independent of their PD orientation. Given this possibility, we wanted to explore whether PD and LMX would interact to predict UI strategy use in the United States and Colombia (Research Question 3).

Method

Procedure and Participants

Employees from different organizations were invited through electronic mail to participate in a study about presenting ideas to supervisors. The email message supplied participants with a link to the survey and explained that participation was both voluntary and anonymous. Professionals from different types of organizations in the United States (n = 123) and Colombia (n = 147) participated in this study. Descriptive statistics for the samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information for Samples and Variables

	United States			Colombia
Variables	M	SD	%	M	SD	%
Age	30.29	9.56		39.43	9.97
Tenure in organization	4.46	5.84		8.66	7.64
Tenure in position	2.62	3.10		6.52	6.20
Sex
Females			70			66
Industry
Government			2			4
Education			27			32
Manufacturing			14			11
Service			34			22
Communication			5			4
Health			6			14
Other			12			13
Organizational size
0 to 300			53			37
301 to 600			8			8
601 to 1,000			5			13
1,001 and more			34			42
Hard strategies	2.35	1.26		2.11	1.42
Soft strategies	4.56	1.50		4.34	1.58
Rational strategies	5.79	1.23		5.94	1.11
LMX	5.47	1.34		5.13	1.25
PD	2.63	1.36		2.52	1.51

LMX = leader-member exchange; PD = power distance.

Measures

We measured upward influence strategies with items from Schrieshein and Hinkin’s (1990) upward influence scale. After a factor analysis, three strategies were retained: hard (5 items, Columbia [COL] Cronbach’s α = .88, U.S. α = .89), soft (3 items, COL α = .67, U.S. α = .83), and rational (3 items, COL α = .54, U.S. α = .77). LMX was measured with six items from Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp’s (1982) LXM-7 scale (COL α = .83, U.S. α = .92). Finally, power distance was measured with three items from the Dorfman and Howell (1988) scale (COL α = .68, U.S. α = .87). The response scale for all items was based on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Design Issues Unique to Cross-Cultural Research

In cross-cultural research, there are at least three unique methodological issues that need to be considered: translation, cultural response bias, and cross-cultural equivalence of dimensions. Measures for this study were collected in English and Spanish. To assure translation equivalency, all English measures were translated to Spanish and then back translated into English by a second translator with translators resolving any differences. We evaluated cultural response bias and cross-culture equivalency based on the work of Van de Vijver and Leung (1997). In this process, we first conducted a factor analysis by country, followed by reliability equivalencies, item total correlations for each scale and country, and a conditional ANOVA for each item for the scales included in the study. Our tests suggested that there were five items that were biased (one from LMX, one from PD, one from rational strategies, and two from hard strategies); therefore, we removed these items. We conducted two different analyses. First, we analyzed the data with original scales. Second, we reanalyzed the data only including nonbiased items. There were differences between the analyses. In particular, Hypothesis 2 was supported with the original scales data set but not with the revised scales data set. Additionally, the revised scales dataset had lower reliabilities for scales when the items were removed (PD-COL = .47, Rational Strategies U.S. = .65 and COL = .39). We present results based on analyses with the data set with removed items.

Results

To test the differences in strategy use within and between countries, we conducted a mixed effect ANOVA. In support of Hypothesis 1, there was a main effect for strategy, F(2,522) = 558.25, p < .01, η² = .55. In our sample, there were significant differences in the use of UI strategies. As can be seen in Table 1, participants were more likely to use rational strategies than soft, COL: t(143) = 10.80, p < .01, r = .67; U.S.: t(119) = 8.65, p < .01, r = .62, and more likely to use soft than hard strategies, COL: t(143) = 14.01, p < .01, r = .76; U.S.: t(119) = 13.08, p < .01, r = .77. Hypothesis 2 suggested that there would be differences in strategy use based on country of origin. Results indicate no main effect of country, F(1,261) = .09, p > .05, η² = .00; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Finally, there was no interaction effect between country and strategy, F(2,522) = 1.94, p > .05, η² = .00.

To test the effects of LMX and PD on the use of UI strategies in the United States and Colombia, as explored in Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, we conducted a moderated regression similar to Fischer and Smith (2004). In Step 1, we entered the controls (i.e., individual differences and organizational characteristics); in Step 2, we entered the main effects of LMX and PD; in Step 3, we entered the two-way interaction and the interaction of each variable with country; and in Step 4, we entered the three-way interaction. We evaluated the significance of each step with change in F (ΔF) and interpreted betas with t values. We conducted a regression for each strategy.

As seen in Table 2, LMX and PD affected differently the likelihood of engaging in each UI strategy. When examining rational strategies, the addition of Step 2 was the only factor that significantly increased the variance explained. In general, LMX quality (β = -.20, p < .05) was negatively related to the use of rational strategies, and there were no effects for PD or country of origin. Therefore, results for Research Question 1 indicate no differences in the predictive value of PD between the United States and Colombia. Results for Research Question 2 indicate that there was a positive effect of LMX on the use of rational strategy, but this did not differ based on country. There was no interaction between LMX and PD to predict rational strategy use (i.e., Research Question 3).

Table 2.

Moderated Multiple Regression for Predictors of UI Strategy Use

Variable	Rational	Soft	Hard
Step 1
Demographics
ΔR²	.05	.10	.06
F change	1.61	3.90**	2.31*
Step 2
LMX	−.20*	−.11^†	.14*
PD	.01	−.23**	−.12^†
ΔR²	.04	.06	.03
F change	4.83**	8.10**	4.31*
Step 3
LMX × Country	.15	.01	.09
PD × Country	−.14	.06	−.01
LMX × PD	.03	.01	−.16*
ΔR²	.02	.02	.03
F change	1.42	.15	2.83*
Step 4
LMX × PD × Country	−.02	−.06	−.14
ΔR²	.00	.01	.01
F change	.04	.35	1.97

N = 270. LMX and PD were centered. UI = upward influence; LMX = leader-member exchange; PD = power distance.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

In the case of soft strategies, only the addition of Step 1 (ΔF= 3.90, p < .01) and Step 2 (ΔF= 8.10, p < .01) significantly increased the amount of variance explained in the use of soft strategies. From the demographic variables, age (β = -.24, p < .05) was negatively related to the use of soft strategies. Additionally, LMX (β = -.11, p < .07) and PD (β = -.23, p < .01) were also negatively related to the use of soft strategies; this did not differ based on country. Results for Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 indicate that although PD and LMX influence soft strategy use, there were no differences between countries, and there was no interaction between LMX and PD (Research Question 3).

Finally, when examining hard strategies, the addition of the first three steps significantly increased the variance explained in the use of hard strategies. From the demographic variables, supervisor sex (β = -.16, p < .05) was negatively related to hard strategy use; therefore, participants were more likely to use hard strategies when supervisors were men. Regarding our main variables, LMX (β = .14, p < .05), PD (β = -.19, p < .07), and the interaction between LMX and PD (β = -.16, p < .05) were all significantly related to the use of hard strategies. As seen in Figure 1, when PD was low LMX had a strong positive effect on the use of hard strategies, whereas when PD was high LMX had very little effect on the use of hard strategies. These results did not vary based on country, thus providing additional information for Research Questions 1, 2, and 3.

Figure 1.

LMX × PD Interaction

Discussion

The results of our study have important implications for understanding cross-cultural upward influence processes. Similar to past studies, our results support the idea that, independent of country, employees are more likely to use rational strategies, followed by soft and then hard strategies when influencing supervisors. Upward influence in organizations is inherently risky given the differences in power between supervisor and employee and the importance of the relationships between supervisors and employees for the employee’s future (Waldron, Hunt, & Dsilva, 1993). Therefore, it seems logical that in situations in which supervisors control the resources that employees receive, employees will be more likely to engage in influence behaviors such as rational strategies that will be less threatening for a supervisor and enable the employee to develop their rationale for their request. We believe that these results continue to provide some level of universality when understanding UI strategy use.

When exploring the differences in the use of strategies between the United States and Colombia, results indicate that our samples did not differ in the use of UI strategies. Our results differ from previous studies comparing the use of UI strategies between the United States and other countries. In particular, past research has found differences in the use of soft and hard UI strategies between the United States and other countries (Egri et al., 2000; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Ralston et al., 2001; Ralston et al., 2005; Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991). Therefore, this lack of differences may suggest that UI processes in different countries may work in ways that are more similar than different, indicating how globalization may also be affecting employee communication behaviors and perceptions about what supervisors find acceptable and nonacceptable communication behavior. Because of this, we highlight the need to further study UI in different cultural contexts to understand the universality of UI strategy use.

The main contribution of our study rests on the exploration of LMX, PD, and the interaction of these two factors as predictors of the use of the three strategies (hard, soft, and rational) in the United States and Colombia. For soft strategies, our results suggest that the higher the perceptions of LMX and PD, the lower the likelihood to use this strategy independent of the country of the sample. These results replicate previous work that has found that PD was negatively related to the use of soft strategies (Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002) and that LMX was negatively related to the use of soft strategies (Farmer et al., 1997; Krone, 1991). When exploring rational strategies, LMX was the only factor related to the use of these strategies. In particular, those who perceived lower LMX relationships with their supervisors were the most likely to use rational strategies. These results differ from those of Farmer et al. (1997), who did not find any relationship between LMX and rational strategies. Therefore, future research should continue to explore the role of LMX as a predictor of UI strategy use.

Hard strategies presented the most interesting results. In our sample, those who scored lower in PD were more likely to use hard strategies and those who perceived their relationships with the supervisor as low LMX were also less likely to use hard strategies. These results differ from previous projects that have used Hofstede’s PD classification for country to predict UI strategy use (Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). In particular, past research has supported a positive relationship between PD and the use of hard strategies. Although past research has not found a relationship between LMX and the use of hard strategies (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Farmer et al., 1997: Krone 1991), results from our study did find a significant positive relationship between these variables. When exploring the interaction effects we found that there was an interaction between LMX and PD in predicting the use of hard strategies. In our case, PD moderated the effect of LMX on the use of hard strategies. In particular, when PD was low, LMX had a stronger effect on the use of hard strategies. Therefore, when applicants were low in PD and high in LMX, they were most likely to use hard strategies. This suggests that they were willing to be more risky when communicating with supervisors. On the other hand, when PD was high, participants were very unlikely to use hard strategies independent of their LMX relationships. These results did not differ based on country. Thus, an important contribution of our study comes from understanding predictors of UI strategies and how they interact. In particular, it seems that the country where participants came from did not affect the predictors we explored.

As with every study, there are limitations that are important to note. The first limitation comes from the sample used. Because the data were collected via an online survey, those who do not have access to the Web were not included in this study. This might create problems with the generalizability of the findings. Thus, we suggest that future research try to recruit different types of samples to insure the generalizability of results. A second limitation may come from common method variance. Given that responses to all questions were obtained from the same participants, the relationships found might be higher than normal. Because of this, we encourage future research to collect data from different sources. A third limitation is based on reliabilities of some of the scales. Two issues are important to note regarding reliabilities. First, there were some scales that had low reliability. Although they are low, these reliabilities are comparable to other studies in upward influence research (Ralston et al., 2005). A second issue with the reliabilities is the differences in scale reliabilities between the two samples. In general, reliabilities in the United States were higher than in Colombia. Given these differences, we suggest continuing to conduct research to better understand how UI scales work in different cultures. As suggested by Ralston and Pearson (2010), conducting research in different cultures could help better understand how culture can affect measurement of constructs. In the case of UI, understanding how culture affects the measurement of UI concepts can help researchers assess how to measure these behaviors in different cultures and to explore how results observed in one culture can be different or similar to results in other cultural contexts.

In conclusion, findings from this study indicate that although country of origin does not affect UI strategy selection, individual perceptions of power distance and LMX quality does matter when predicting UI strategy use. This study contributes to the universality of understanding upward influence in organizations by exploring strategy use differences and predictors of strategy use in different countries. Future research would benefit from exploring UI processes in other countries and exploring other predictors for strategy use to better understand the process of upward influence across cultures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This article is based on the first author’s dissertation work. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Ronald Fischer and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful insights and invaluable additions to the project. The first author would also like to acknowledge Dr. Frank Boster for his help in the initial stages of this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Branzei

(2002). Cultural explanations of individual preferences for influence tactics in cross-cultural encounters. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(2), 203-218.

Cable

D. M.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Manager’s upward influence tactic strategies: The role of personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197-214.

Chacko

H. E.

(1990). Methods of upward influence, motivational needs, and administrators’ perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership styles. Group & Organization Studies, 15(3), 253-265.

Deluga

R. J.

Perry

J. T.

(1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behaviour, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3), 239-252.

Dorfman

P. W.

Howell

J. P.

(1988). Dimensions of national culture & effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In McGoun

E. G.

(Ed.), Advances in international comparative management (Vol. 3, pp. 127-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Egri

C. P.

Ralston

D. A.

Murray

C. S.

Nicholson

J. D.

(2000). Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal of International Management, 6, 149-171.

Farh

J.- L.

Hackett

R. D.

Liang

(2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationship in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715.

Farmer

S. M.

Maslyn

J. M.

Fedor

D. B.

Goodman

J. S.

(1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 17-42.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Douglas

Blass

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Treadway

D. C.

(2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In Ferris

G. R.

Martocchio

J. J.

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 65-127). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

10.

Fischer

Smith

P. B.

(2004). Values and organizational justice: Performance and seniority based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 669-688.

11.

P. P.

Yukl

(2000). Perceived effectiveness and use of influence tactics in the US and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 251-266.

12.

Gerstner

C. R.

Day

D. V.

(1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

13.

Graen

G. B.

Cashman

J. F.

(1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In Hunt

J. G.

Larson

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State Press.

14.

Graen

G. B.

Novak

M. A.

Sommerkamp

(1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.

15.

Higgins

C. A.

Judge

T. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 89-106.

16.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Kipnis

Schmidt

S. M.

Wilkinson

(1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.

18.

Krone

K. J.

(1991). Effects of leader member exchange on subordinates’ upward influence attempts. Communication Research Reports, 8, 9-18.

19.

Leong

J. L. T.

Bond

M. H.

P. P.

(2006). Perceived effectiveness of influence strategies in the United States and three Chinese societies. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(1), 101-120.

20.

Leong

J. L. T.

Bond

M. H.

P. P.

(2007). Perceived effectiveness of influence strategies among Hong Kong managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(1), 75.

21.

Porter

L. W.

Allen

R. W.

Angle

H. l.

(1980). The politics of upward influence in the organization. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

22.

Ralston

D. A.

Egri

C. P.

de la Garza Carranza

M. T.

Ramburuth

Terpstra-Tong

Pekerti

A. A.

. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1022-1045.

23.

Ralston

D. A.

Hallinger

Egri

C. P.

Naothinsuhk

(2005). The effects of culture and life stage on workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of World Business, 40(3), 321.

24.

Ralston

D. A.

Pearson

(2010). The cross-cultural evolution of the subordinate influence ethics measure. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 149-168.

25.

Ralston

D. A.

Terpstra

R. H.

Cunniff

M. K.

Gustafson

D. A.

(1995). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 714-727.

26.

Ralston

D. A.

Vollmer

G. R.

Srivasan

Nicholson

J. D.

Tang

Wan

(2001). Strategies of upward influence: A study of six cultures from Europe, Asia, and America. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(6), 728-735.

27.

Schermerhorn

J. R.

Bond

M. H.

(1991). Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong-Kong Chinese and Americans. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8, 147-158.

28.

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.

29.

Terpstra-Tong

Ralston

D. A.

(2002). Moving toward a global understanding of upward influence strategies: An Asian perspective with directions for cross-cultural research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2,3), 373-404.

30.

Tett

R. P.

Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500-517.

31.

Van de Vijver

Leung

(1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Waldron

V. R.

(1999). Communication practices of followers, members, and proteges: The cause of upward influence tactics. In Roloff

M. E.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 251-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

33.

Waldron

V. R.

Hunt

M. D.

Dsilva

(1993). Towards a threat management model of upward communication: A study of influence and maintenance tactics in leader-member dyad. Communication Studies, 44, 254-272.

34.

Xin

K. R.

Tsui

A. S.

(1996). Different strokes for different folks? Influence tactics by Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers. Leadership Quarterly Leadership and Diversity: I., 7(1), 109-132.

35.

Yukl

P. P.

McDonald

(2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 68-82.

36.

Yukl

Tracey

J. B.

(1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525-535.