A sample of 553 leader-target dyads was used to replicate the 2001 work of Barbuto, Scholl, Hickox, and Boulmetis. The study examined the correlation between leaders' anticipation of targets' resistance and influence tactics used by leaders to persuade targets. The original study reported mixed findings of various hard and soft tactics used by leaders based on the different zones of resistance anticipated. Present results show no relation between leaders' anticipation of targets' anticipated resistance and the influence tactics used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarbutoJ. E. (1997) Motivation and leadership: towards a predictive framework for understanding leader's behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer. of Michigan Press.
2.
BarbutoJ. E. (2000) Comparing leaders' ratings to targets' self-reported resistance to task assignments: an extension of Chester Barnard's zones of indifference. Psychological Reports, 86, 611–621.
3.
BarbutoJ. E.FritzS. M.MatkinG. S. (2001) Leaders' bases of social power and anticipation of targets' resistance as predictors of transactional and transformational leadership. Psychological Reports, 89, 663–666.
4.
BarbutoJ. E.SchollR. W.HickoxC. F.BoulmetisJ. (2001) A field study of the relation between leaders' anticipation of targets' resistance and targets' reports of influence tactics used by leaders in dyadic relationships. Psychological Reports88835–843.
5.
BarnardC. (1938) The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
6.
CohenJ. (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
7.
YuklG. (1998) Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
YuklG.FalbeC. M. (1990) Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.
