ASSIGNMENT M3-2

The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of Relative Leader–Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Olga Epitropaki a,b,⁎, Robin Martin b

a ALBA Graduate Business School at the American College of Greece, Athens, Greece b Aston Business School, Aston University, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: ALBA Graduate Business E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Epitrop

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. A http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.007

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 31 May 2011 Received in revised form 25 October 2012 Accepted 21 November 2012 Available online 27 December 2012

By utilizing the resource theory of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), we attempted to cast light on the dynamics of the relationship between transformational–transactional leadership and employees' upward influence tactics. Using data collected in two time points (N=200, 1 year apart), we found perceptions of transformational leadership (Time 1) to be positively related to the use of soft and rational upward influence tactics (Time 2) whereas transactional leadership (Time 1) was positively related to the use of soft and hard upward influence tactics (Time 2). We also found support for a 3-way interaction between transformational–transactional leadership, relative Leader Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS) on employees' upward influence tactics. Specifically, in resource-constrained conditions (low RLMX and low POS), employees were likely to use soft tactics to influence a manager they perceived as transformational to a greater extent than in resource-munificent conditions. They were also likely to employ higher levels of soft and hard tactics to influence a transactional manager in resource-constrained rather than in resource-munificent conditions.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Transformational leadership Upward influence LMX Perceived organizational support

1. Introduction

Interpersonal influence is a critical element of organizational life (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997). Effective use of social influence helps individuals obtain power and increases access to tangible and intangible resources. There has been a significant body of theoretical and empirical work on interpersonal influence that has articulated the nature of interpersonal influence tactics, their antecedents, consequences and boundary conditions. Special attention has been paid to downward influence and managers' influence tactics (e.g., Deluga, 1990; Farmer et al., 1997; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Kramer & Neale, 1998; Seifert & Yukl, 2010; Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).

However, relatively limited attention has been paid to subordinates' attempts to influence their supervisors, i.e. upward influence tactics. More importantly, very few prior studies have attempted to cast light on the transformational leadership- upward influence relation (e.g., Cable & Judge, 2003; Deluga, 1990). As organizations are facing the demands of highly uncertain environments and as tangible resources become scarce and increasingly competitive, employees have on one hand more opportunities and on the other, more reasons to influence their superiors. Thus, a better understanding of the dynamics of leadership and upward influence, as well as of the context within which influence takes place, can be highly beneficial for today's managers and organizations.

School at the American College of Greece, Athens, Greece. aki), [email protected] (R. Martin).

ll rights reserved.

300 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

The importance of context for understanding leadership and upward influence processes has been highlighted by prior research (e.g., Johns, 2006; Lowe & Gardner, 2000; Vecchio & Sussman, 1991). There is, however, a striking absence of studies that have examined the contextual determinants of the transformational leadership and upward influence relationship. In the present study, we utilize social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) and the “resource theory of social exchange” (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980) in order to understand the boundary conditions of the transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence relation.

By using social exchange theory which assumes that the reciprocation of positive behaviors fosters the strengthening and maintenance of interpersonal relationships, we attempt to examine employees' choice of upward influence tactics after being exposed to their manager's leadership style (transformational vs. transactional). We specifically suggest that when employees perceive their manager exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors, such as communicating a collective vision and engaging in developmental behaviors, they will be less likely to use abrasive forms of upward influence, such as assertiveness, coalition and upward appeal, that violate the norm of reciprocity. They will instead resort to tactics that adhere to the norm of reciprocity such as rationality, ingratiation and exchange. On the other hand, when they perceive their manager to exhibit mainly transactional behaviors, constraining their exchange within the boundaries of the formal contract, they will be less likely to feel a sense of obligation towards the leader and the desire to positively reciprocate. They will be thus more inclined to use the whole spectrum of influence tactics in order to secure rewards and resources that exceed the ones promised by the formal contract.

Furthermore, by utilizing Foa and Foa's (1974, 1980) resource theory perspective, we examine the impact of the manager's transformational and transactional leadership on employees' choice of upward influence tactics under resource-constrained and resource-munificent conditions. We focus on two situational variables that capture employees' relationship with both the manager and the organization and relate to their perceptions of availability of resources, i.e., the relative quality of Leader– Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). We argue that when both RLMX and POS are low, employees are likely to experience limited access to valuable resources, both tangible and intangible, and perceive their work environment as resource constrained. In conditions where both RLMX and POS are high, employees are more likely to view their environment as generous and resource-munificent. This difference in resource availability perceptions is likely to have important implications for their choice of upward influence behaviors.

We specifically argue that resource-constrained conditions (characterized by low RLMX and low POS) will generally amplify the prevalence of upward influence tactics and that the leadership style of the target of influence will determine the specific tactics used in the particular context. We propose that in such conditions, employees will use the full range of upward influence tactics (i.e., soft, rational and hard) to influence a transactional manager to a much greater extent than in resource-munificent conditions. They will also utilize higher levels of soft tactics with a manager they perceive as transformational. However, even in resource-constrained, employees will still be reluctant to use hard tactics to influence a transformational leader. Resorting to such tactics would place high strain on their relationship (that is already suboptimal due to their low RLMX status) and would limit their chances for improved interactions in the future with a leader they respect and admire.

There are a number of contributions of this research. First, this the first study to examine the moderating effects of two important situational variables (relative LMX and perceived organizational support) on the relationship between the manager's leadership behaviors and employees' upward influence behaviors. This research comes at a time when scholars are converging in their calls for addressing the context in which upward influence occurs and for research examining boundary and facilitating conditions (e.g., Farmer et al., 1997; Johns, 2006; Lowe & Gardner, 2000; Yukl, Seifert, & Chavez, 2008). Second, by using data collected at two-time points, the research provides a more rigorous test of the causal relationships between perceptions of transformational leadership and upward influence tactics that prior research (e.g., Cable & Judge, 2003; Krishnan, 2003) has reported.

2. Theoretical background and research model

2.1. Upward influence tactics

Upward influence has been defined as “attempts to influence someone higher in the formal hierarchy or authority in the organization” (Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1983, p. 409) and usually the majority of upward influence attempts are directed at immediate supervisors (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Such attempts are generally aimed at obtaining key benefits from supervisors such as assistance and resources (e.g., Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino, 2000; Yukl et al., 1995).

Kipnis et al. (1980) as well as Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) identified six upward influence tactics: rationality (i.e., the subordinate uses facts and data to support the development of a logical argument), ingratiation (i.e., the subordinate acts in a friendly manner using also flattery), exchange (i.e., bargaining based on an obligation to return favors and benefits), assertiveness (i.e., direct and forceful approach with expression of strong emotions), coalition (i.e., mobilization of co-workers to back up requests), and upward appeal (i.e., gaining the informal support of higher-ups). Kipnis (1984), as well as Deluga (1991) and Farmer et al. (1997), have suggested that upward influence tactics can be grouped into three higher-order categories: soft, hard and rational. Farmer et al. (1997) conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses and found a soft upward influence category to consist of ingratiation and exchange tactics, a hard upward influence category to include assertiveness, upward appeal and coalition tactics, and a rational upward influence category to include the rationality tactic.

In general, a soft tactic of upward influence involves less aggressive, more psychologically manipulating means. Its aim is to secure the superior's volitional compliance to an influence request by either making the subordinate more attractive in some way (ingratiation tactic) or by offering some future payback in return for the supervisor's present compliance (exchange tactic). Prior

301O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

research has generally shown that the use of soft tactics, such as ingratiation, can have a positive effect on manager's perceptions of subordinate interpersonal skills and manager's liking of the subordinate (e.g., Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994; Schriesheim et al., 2000; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). However, exchange is not always viewed in a positive light. For example, Wayne, Liden, Graf, and Ferris (1997) found exchange to be negatively associated to manager's perceptions of subordinate interpersonal skills. Managers may expect subordinates to carry out their requests without promising that there will be a future payback, and as a result could resent negotiated exchanges since a generalized form of reciprocation is anticipated.

A hard tactic, on the other hand, involves some form of challenge to the supervisor's legitimate authority (upward appeal and coalition tactics) as well as verbal aggressiveness or direct confrontation (assertiveness tactic). As Kipnis and Schmidt (1983) have noted, hard tactics of influence tend to be used when the influencer (in this case the subordinate) holds a power advantage. Hard tactics have been previously found to be negatively related to manager's perceptions of subordinate interpersonal skills, liking of the subordinate, performance ratings and manager's evaluations of subordinate promotability (e.g., Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Thacker & Wayne, 1995).

A rational tactic is the most straightforward and the least psychologically demanding of the three higher dimensions of upward influence. By using a rational influence tactic subordinates are likely to appear rational and competent to their superior and maintain their image at a high standard. This is likely to have further positive effects for the subordinate regarding both individual and organizational goals. Several studies have found positive relations between the use of reasoning and manager's evaluations of the subordinate interpersonal skills as well as between reasoning and manager's liking of the subordinate (e.g., Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Wayne et al., 1997; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). As a result, rational tactics are generally considered as effective tactics that are appropriate to use under most circumstances in organizations.

Three main streams of research on influence tactics can be identified. First, several studies have focused on identifying the most frequently used influence tactics and patterns of influence (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 1993). Second, researchers have examined the consequences of the use of various influence tactics, such as managerial performance, task commitment and career success (e.g., Brennan, Miller, & Seltzer, 1993; Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Third, a growing stream of research focuses on individual and situational determinants of the upward influence and outcomes relationship. Examples of individual variables include self-esteem and competence (e.g., Van Knippenberg, Van Eijbergen, & Wilke, 1999), Machiavellianism (e.g., Farmer et al., 1997; Vecchio & Sussman, 1991), gender (e.g., Lauterbach & Weiner, 1996; Tepper, Brown, & Hunt, 1993), and education (e.g., Farmer et al., 1997). Situational variables examined by prior research include the objectives of influence (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl et al., 1995), the influence agent's status (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al., 1995), expectations of future interactions (e.g., Van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003), the national culture (e.g., Fu & Yukl, 2000; Fu et al., 2004; Kennedy, Fu & Yukl, 2003; Xin & Tsui, 1996) as well as the leadership behaviors of the influence agent (e.g., Howell & Higgins, 1990).

Few prior studies have examined the leadership behaviors of the target of influence (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Cable & Judge, 2003) as an antecedent of upward influence. Most importantly none of the prior studies has examined situational moderators of the relationship between the influence target's leadership behaviors and the agent's upward influence behaviors. This is surprising given the scholarly convergence regarding the importance of context for an in-depth understanding of leadership and upward influence (e.g., Johns, 2006; Lowe & Gardner, 2000; Vecchio & Sussman, 1991). This is an important gap the present study aims to address.

2.2. Transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence

The leadership style of the target of employees' upward influence attempts, i.e. their direct manager, is of critical importance for understanding upward influence processes. As active social information processors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) employees will scan their social environment for cues that can help them adapt their attitudes and behaviors to the context in order to maximize gains and accessibility to critical resources. The manager, due to position power and network centrality, is a focal person that people will observe attentively in order to make sense of their environment. As Fiske (1993) has pointed out, “It is a simple principle: People pay attention to those who control their outcomes…Attention is directed up the hierarchy” (p. 624). We, thus, suggest that the manager's leadership behavior will constitute an important cue that will affect employees' choice of upward influence tactics.

There are few studies that have explored the relationship between the manager's leadership style and the subordinates' choice of upward influence strategies. Ansari and Kapoor (1987) found that regardless of the goals of influence attempt, leadership behavior made a difference in the use of upward influence tactics. Subordinates were likely to use more often tactics such as ingratiation and upward appeal to influence managers they perceived as authoritarian. On the other hand, rationality was more likely to be used when the manager was seen as participative or nurturant-task oriented. Deluga and Perry (1991) found that higher quality LMX had a negative effect on the use of assertiveness, upward appeal and coalition. Also contrary to their predictions, LMX did not have a positive effect on the use of rationality, ingratiation and exchange. Farmer et al. (1997) found no relation between LMX and upward influence tactics. Recently, Olufowote Miller and Wilson (2005) reported a positive relationship between LMX and rationality and no significant effects of LMX on ingratiation, exchange and coalition.

In the present study, we focus on the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership of the target of influence (i.e., the direct manager) and employees' subsequent choice of upward influence tactics. According to Bass (1985), transactional leaders are assumed to clarify for their employees the tasks that must be accomplished and their responsibilities, reward employees for achieving the specified performance levels and take corrective action when necessary. By contrast,

302 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

transformational leaders motivate employees to do more than what is implied in the employment contract and focus on employees' higher-order needs. They provide vision and a sense of mission, gain respect and trust, and act as role models. They foster a climate of trust and motivate employees to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organization. They articulate ambitious collective goals and encourage followers to accept them and strive to achieve them. Transformational and transactional leadership have been positively related to many individual and organizational outcomes such as effectiveness (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramanian, 1996), satisfaction, organizational commitment (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), and well-being (Arnold, Kelloway, McKee, Turner, & Barling, 2007; Martin & Epitropaki, 2001).

A fundamental proposition of transformational–transactional leadership is the augmentation hypothesis (Bass & Avolio, 1993) which stipulates that transformational leadership builds on transactional. Bass (1998) has, however, made clear that “transformational leadership does not substitute for transactional leadership” (p. 21). In their meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership, Judge and Piccolo (2004) investigated the augmentation hypothesis and assessed the unique value of each of the two constructs in predicting key outcomes such as performance, satisfaction and effectiveness. Their findings indicated that transformational leadership did explain variance beyond the effects of transactional leadership. The somewhat differential processes underlying the two constructs have been indicated by other studies. For example, Atwater and Yammarino (1996) found transactional leaders to rely more on positional power to exercise influence and transformational leaders to motivate followers mostly via referent and personal power. Lord, Brown, and Freiberg (1999) suggested that transactional leaders prime the individual level of followers' self-identity whereas transformational leaders make the collective level of identity more salient.

There have been three studies that have explicitly addressed the role of the target's transformational leadership behaviors on the influencer's choice of upward influence tactics. Only one study has additionally examined the role of transactional leadership. Specifically, Deluga (1990), in an experimental study of a student sample, found subordinates using more often soft and rational tactics with a transformational leader, rational and hard tactics with a transactional leader and hard tactics with a laissez faire leader. Krishnan (2003) using a managerial sample in India found transformational leadership to be positively related to friendliness and reasoning and negatively related to higher authority. Finally, Cable and Judge (2003) found that managers were more likely to use consultation and inspirational appeal tactics when their supervisor was a transformational leader, but more likely to use exchange, coalition, legitimization and pressure tactics when the supervisor displayed a laissez faire leadership style.

Based on the social exchange theory that emphasizes reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and the assumptions of Bass' (1985, 1998) theory that emphasizes the developmental, nurturant and active role of transformational leaders, we propose that employees will be more likely to use rational and soft tactics and less likely to use hard tactics to influence transformational managers. Hard tactics would violate the norm of reciprocity and could potentially damage the nurturant and mentoring relationship between the employee and his/her transformational manager, while use of rational tactics would help employees maintain a positive image with their manager and gain additional respect and rewards. Also, employees could potentially have more opportunity to use rational tactics under conditions of transformational leadership, as they are more likely to have greater participation in decision making in that context. Soft tactics could also be positively used with transformational managers. Although they are psychologically manipulating tactics, being less aggressive, they do not undermine the employee's image with their transformational manager and can be, therefore, used within a transformational leadership context.

Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership perceptions will be positively related to the use of soft and rational upward influence tactics, while negatively related to the use of hard tactics.

Regarding the use of upward influence tactics when the manager is perceived to be transactional, we argue that employees are likely to use the whole spectrum of upward influence tactics in order to influence a transactional leader. Transactional leadership, although still an active form of leadership, is more limited than transformational leadership, in the sense that the manager–employee exchange is more constrained within the boundaries of the employment contract. Transactional managers make performance expectations clear, reward people accordingly and take corrective action when necessary. Thus, when the manager is perceived to be transactional, employees are more likely to feel that they are not getting anything more from the leader than what they are already entitled. As a result they will be less likely to feel any sense of indebtedness towards the leader. They will thus potentially engage in all forms of upward influence, i.e. use of logical arguments (rationality), bargaining or friendly behaviors (soft tactics) as well as assertiveness and upward appeals (hard tactics), in order to persuade the leader to grant them additional rewards and resources to those implied by the employment contract.

Hypothesis 2. Transactional leadership perceptions will be positively related to the use of soft, rational and hard upward influence tactics.

2.3. The moderating role of Relative LMX (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

As Johns (2006) has argued, the impact of context in organizational behavior has not been sufficiently recognized by researchers. He defined context as “situational opportunities or constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables” (p. 386). Lowe and Gardner (2000) also indicated that context in leadership research has been generally understudied. Furthermore, the importance of context for understanding upward influence processes in organizations has been highlighted by Vecchio and Sussman (1991) as well as Farmer et al. (1997). Upward influence is, without

303O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

doubt, an organizational phenomenon that takes place within a social setting with specific dimensions that affect individuals' choice of influence tactics.

In the present study we adopt a resources perspective (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980) to the social context. In their “resource theory of social exchange”, Foa and Foa proposed that resources exchanged in relationships can be classified into one of six basic categories, money, goods, services, status, information and love (affiliation/socio-emotional resources). They further distinguished two broad categories of resources: a resource can be concrete (e.g. goods and services) or abstract (e.g., status and information) and can also be particular (e.g., socio-emotional) or universal (e.g. money).

We specifically examine two situational variables as possible moderators of the relationships between transformational– transactional leadership and employees' upward influence tactics, i.e., the relative Leader–Member Exchanges (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Both variables reflect relational dimensions of the context as they capture aspects of the relation employees have with their manager (RLMX) and the organization (POS). Additionally, both variables have significant implications for employees' access to the critical resources identified by Foa and Foa (1974, 1980).

2.3.1. Relative LMX LMX theory is premised on notions of role making (Graen, 1976), social exchange, reciprocity and equity (Anand, Hu, Liden, &

Vidyarthi, 2011; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas, & Topakas, 2010). The LMX literature distinguishes between low-quality LMX relationships that are based upon principles of economic or transactional exchanges and high-quality LMX relationships that are driven by social exchange processes (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Followers in high LMX relationships interact frequently with their leaders and have the leaders' support, confidence, encouragement and consideration. They have also increased access to tangible and intangible resources controlled by the leader (such as bonuses, promotions and socio-emotional support). Low LMX relations, on the other hand, are characterized by low levels of trust and rely exclusively on the prescriptions of the formal employment contract (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997).

Wilson, Sin, and Conlon (2010) have recently integrated LMX theory with resources theory and argued that all six types of resources (money, goods, service, status, information, and affiliation) identified by Foa and Foa (1974, 1980) can be exchanged within the context of leader–member relationships. They further highlighted the role of the quality of the relationship as constraining (low LMX) or facilitating (high LMX) the exchange of resources.

Addressing the potential overlap of LMX theory with transformational leadership theory, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) noted that LMX is congruent with transformational leadership and argued that although some aspects of LMX are transactional due to its position as an exchange-based approach to leadership, LMX is not limited to transactional leadership. They further suggested that LMX is both transactional and transformational. There have been, however, researchers who argued that LMX is distinct from transformational leadership. Whereas transformational leaders persuade followers to suspend personal interests for the sake of the collective, LMX is more focused on individual outcomes such as personal growth and career development (Anand et al., 2011). Lord et al. (1999) also argued that LMX primes followers' personal and relational identities whereas transformational leadership primes their collective identity.

Other researchers provided a different interpretation of the relationship between LMX and transformational leadership, arguing that LMX can serve as a boundary condition for transformational leadership. Because high quality LMX relationships are characterized by trust, respect and mutual obligation, members with high LMX may be more willing to accept the influence of transformational leaders (Anand et al., 2011; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Four studies examined direct relationships between transformational leadership and LMX (Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1992) and further supported the mediating role of LMX in the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes such as performance and OCB (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Only one study (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006) examined LMX as a boundary condition and confirmed its moderating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes such as core job characteristics, task performance and OCB.

In the present study we argue that the dyadic leader–follower relationship is a critical boundary condition that can determine the relationship between transformational leadership and upward influence tactics. The role of LMX for upward influence tactics has been indicated by prior studies (e.g., Deluga & Perry, 1991; Olufowote et al., 2005) with mixed findings, as we have already discussed in previous sections. We here argue that it is of higher value to look at relative rather than absolute LMX. As Johns (2006) has indicated, it is important to consider ‘frog pond’ effects in which one's relative rather than absolute standing in a setting imbues meaning to exchanges and social interactions. Relative LMX (RLMX) represents the degree to which the focal individual's LMX differs from average leader–subordinate LMX in the work group (e.g., Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). It reflects a central premise of LMX theory that differentiated social exchange relationships within a work unit act as the motive behind employees' reciprocal behaviors. Applying the norm of reciprocity, researchers have argued that employees with relatively higher quality exchange relationships with their leaders feel obligated to respond with behaviors that are valued by leaders (e.g., Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Vidyarthi et al., 2010).

From a resources perspective (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980) we argue that when the majority of employees in a work group enjoy a high quality relationship with their manager (high LMX mean), a person with a low relative LMX will have a serious disadvantage over his/her work group members. Since the amount of resources in the leader's discretion is likely to be finite (especially in the case of tangible resources) there will be even fewer resources available for “out-group” members after their distribution to an already large “in-group”. On the other hand, a person with high relative LMX in a group with a low LMX mean - where only a few

304 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

people enjoy a high quality relationship with the leader - will most likely have preferential access to resources over low RLMX members.

In our study we thus examine relative LMX (RLMX) as a moderator in the relationship between transformational– transactional leadership and upward influence tactics. When employees have exchanges with their manager of relatively higher quality than their group members which is accompanied by increased access to resources, they will be less likely to use hard tactics to influence a manager they perceive as transformational. Their high relative LMX status in the group guarantees for them a resource-munificent environment which will make the need to resort to harsh forms of influence towards a leader they respect and identify with, unnecessary and even dangerous for their relationship. Although still likely to employ soft tactics with a transformational leadership, high RLMX employees are expected to utilize significantly lower levels of such tactics than low RLMX employees. When the leader is viewed as transactional, high RLMX employees will also be more likely to use soft tactics and less likely to use hard tactics. By taking advantage of their relatively good relation with the leader, high RLMX employees may employ tactics such as ingratiation and exchange in order to persuade the transactional leader to go beyond the call of duty and grant them access to extra rewards. They will, however, be more reluctant than low RLMX employees to use hard tactics that can potentially put at risk their high LMX standing. Finally, rational tactics as the most straightforward, least political and generally effective under most circumstances (e.g., Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) are expected to be equally utilized in both high RLMX and low RLMX conditions in order to influence both transformational and transactional leaders.

2.3.2. Perceived Organizational Support Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is another construct typically associated with social exchange theory and refers to

employees' perceptions about the extent to which the organization values their presence at work and cares about their well-being (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Eisenberg, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007). According to Eisenberger, Aselage, Sucharski, and Jones (2004) the organization serves as an important source of socio-emotional resources, such as respect, caring, affiliation, and tangible resources such as benefits and wages. POS signals an employer's commitment to employees whereby employees reciprocate with increased efforts to help the organization. High POS provides an indication that extra effort and performance will be noted and rewarded. Low POS, on the other hand, implies that employees are disadvantaged in their exchange relationship with the organization and they run the risk that their efforts and performance will fail to be adequately compensated.

Although an integration of the POS theory with the resource theory of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980) has not been attempted in prior conceptual and empirical work, we argue that the six types of resources identified by Foa and Foa and previously proposed to be exchanged within the LMX context (Wilson et al., 2010), will also be exchanged in the context of the employee-organization relation. On one hand, employees are likely to expect their organizational membership to grant them access to concrete (e.g., goods) and abstract (e.g., information) as well as particular (affiliation, socio-emotional support) and universal (e.g., money) resources. On the other hand, organizations will also expect similar resources to be reciprocated by employees, e.g., extra effort and citizenship (e.g., service), loyalty and commitment (e.g., affiliation), information, and individual performance that impacts organizational financial outcomes (e.g., money).

Employees' perceptions of high POS will, therefore, be accompanied by views of increased access to various resources. As a result, high POS will constitute a resource-munificent condition whereas low POS will be experienced as a resource-constrained condition. We argue that POS will be an important moderator in the relationship between transformational–transactional leadership and employees' choice of upward influence tactics. When POS is high, employees will trust the organization to provide them access to the valuable resources identified by Foa and Foa (1974, 1980) and will thus be less inclined to use manipulative and abrasive forms of influence that can potentially harm the organization. As a result, employees will be likely to use soft tactics to influence a manager they perceive as transformational to a lesser extent in high POS than in low POS conditions. They will also be likely to use significantly lower levels of both soft and hard tactics with a transactional manager in high POS rather than low POS conditions. We further argue that employees are likely to equally use rational tactics across both conditions of high and low POS, irrespectively of the leadership behaviors exhibited.

2.3.3. Interaction between relative LMX and perceived organisational support We further propose that integrating the two contextual variables described above leads to a predicted 3-way interaction

between transformational–transactional leadership, RLMX and POS on upward influence tactics and provides a more com- prehensive test of the above proposed relations among our focal variables. We argue that, in general, resource-constrained conditions (low RLMX/low POS) will intensify the prevalence of upward influence attempts. When employees view their manager and their work environment as unsupportive and resources as scarce, they will consider upward influence tactics as a critical tool that can help them maximize personal gains and benefits. Thus, the use of such tactics will significantly increase in a resource-constrained context. By contrast, in resource-munificent conditions (high RLMX/high POS), where employees enjoy a relatively higher quality of relationship with their manager than their work group members and perceive the organization as highly supportive, the need to engage in manipulative and abrasive forms of influence will significantly decrease. Since upward influence attempts are essentially motivated by employees' need for increased access to recourses and benefits (e.g., Schriesheim et al., 2000; Yukl et al., 1995), we can assume that when employees perceive such resources to be in abundance, the use of upward influence tactics will decline.

305O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

Finally, in conditions of moderate-resources (low RLMX/high POS or high RLMX/low POS), we generally expect higher utilization of upward influence tactics than in resource-munificent conditions (but lower use than in resource-constrained ones). Specifically, in the cases that employees have a suboptimal relationship with their manager but perceive a generally supportive organizational environment (low RLMX/high POS), employees will trust the organization to provide them access to valuable resources (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2004). As a result, perceived organizational support might act as a substitute for their suboptimal relation with their leader. On the other hand, when their relative standing in the leader's group is high but they perceive their organizational environment as unsupportive (high RLMX/low POS), employees are likely to show extra caution in their upward influence attempts towards the leader who is essentially their only source of resources. Employees will be, thus, reluctant to use abrasive and manipulative forms of influence towards both transformational and transactional leaders as the risk to alienate the leader and lose their only point of access to critical resources will be high.

Overall, we expect the use of upward influence tactics to be the highest in resource-constrained conditions. As resource availability increases (i.e., resource-moderate conditions), the use of upward influence tactics will decrease. Finally, in resource- munificent conditions, we expect the lowest utilization of such tactics.

2.3.3.1. Three-way interaction effects for transformational leadership and upward influence tactics. Let us now examine the specific 3-way interaction effects expected when the leader is perceived as transformational. On the basis of the aforementioned discussion, we suggest that resource-constrained conditions will amplify the use of slightly manipulative forms of influence (such as soft tactics) with a manager that is perceived to be transformational. In such conditions, employees will be inclined to use soft tactics (such as ingratiation and bargaining) to persuade their transformational leader to grant them access to valuable resources and rewards. They will, however, be less inclined to use hard forms of influence, such as assertiveness, coalition and upward appeal. Even in resource- constrained conditions, employees will be unlikely to resort to influence tactics that can potentially seriously damage their chances for improved exchanges with a leader they respect and admire.

In resource-moderate conditions (low RLMX/high POS or high RLMX/low POS) employees are likely to use soft and hard tactics to influence a transformational leader to a lower degree than in resource-constrained conditions. In resource-moderate conditions, perceived organizational support can act as a substitute for the suboptimal relationship with the leader and vice versa, and as a result the need to engage in upward influence towards a transformational leader is lower than in conditions where both the leader–employee relationship and the organization-employee relationship are deemed as unsupportive.

Finally, in resource-munificent conditions, the need to engage in upward influence significantly declines. As a result, employees will be less likely to use soft tactics to influence a transformational leader than in resource-constrained environments. They will also be highly unlikely to engage in hard forms of influence and as a result the expected negative relationship between transformational leadership and hard influence tactics is hypothesized to be significantly stronger under resource-munificent conditions.

Furthermore, rational tactics which are the most straightforward and the least psychologically demanding upward influence tactics, are expected to be utilized equally across all contexts (resource-constrained, resource-moderate or resource-munificent) in order to influence a transformational leader. We therefore hypothesize that the 3-way interaction of transformational leadership, RLMX and POS, on rational influence tactics will be non-significant.

Hypothesis 3a. The transformational leadership and soft tactics relationship is jointly moderated by Relative LMX (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Specifically, the positive relationship between transformational leadership and soft tactics will be stronger when RLMX is low rather than when RLMX is high, and this moderating effect of RLMX is more pronounced when POS is low rather than when POS is high.

Hypothesis 3b. The transformational leadership and hard tactics relationship is jointly moderated by Relative LMX (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Specifically, the negative relationship between transformational leadership and hard tactics will be stronger when RLMX is high rather than when RLMX is low, and this moderating effect is more pronounced when POS is high rather than when POS is low.

2.3.3.2. Three-way interaction effects for transactional leadership and upward influence tactics. In the cases where the leader is perceived as transactional, we expect employees to significantly increase the use of both manipulative and abrasive forms of influence under resource-constrained conditions (low RLMX/low POS). When employees perceive an environment of poor relationships with both their manager and the organization and the leader as transactional, they will potentially exhaust all means of upward influence at their disposal in order to secure valuable resources that exceed those guaranteed by their formal employment contract. They are likely to feel they have nothing to lose and care the least about maintaining their relationship with the manager and/or the organization. As a result they might be willing to take the risk of placing extra strain on an already suboptimal relationship by using harsher forms of influence.

In conditions of moderate resources (low RLMX/high POS or high RLMX/low POS), we expect employees to use soft tactics with a transactional leader to a lesser degree than in resource-constrained conditions. We also expect the use of hard tactics towards a transactional leader to be generally lower in resource-moderate than in resource-constrained condition. In the specific moderate-resources case where employees enjoy a relatively high quality of relationship with the leader but the overall perception of organizational support is low (high RLMX/low POS), we expect a very shrewd use of hard tactics with a transactional leader. Since employees cannot rely on the organization for valuable resources and the leader is their only point of

306 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

access, they will potentially avoid altogether using hard tactics towards a transactional leader as they will not want to jeopardize their good relationship with their manager and destroy their chances for desirable rewards. We, therefore, expect that in the specific moderate conditions of high RLMX and low POS, the relationship between transactional leadership and hard influence tactics will be negative.

Finally, in resource-munificent conditions (high RLMX/high POS) where access to resources is secure, employees will be likely to use significantly lower levels of both soft and hard tactics with a transactional manager than in resource-constrained conditions. In such conditions, employees enjoy a good relationship with both the leader and the organization and resources are generally perceived to be in abundance, so the need to engage in manipulative or abrasive forms of influence will be low. We still, however, expect the relationship between transactional leadership and hard tactics to be positive in resource-munificent conditions. As the leader is not their only point of access to resources and general organizational support is perceived to be strong, employees will feel empowered enough to exercise harsher forms of influence (if necessary) towards a transactional leader.

We further expect employees to use rational tactics without any hesitation across all contexts (resource-constrained, resource-moderate or resource-munificent) in order to influence a transactional leader. We therefore hypothesize that the 3-way interaction of transformational–transactional leadership, RLMX and POS, on rational influence tactics will be non-significant.

Hypothesis 4a. The transactional leadership and soft tactics relationship is jointly moderated by Relative LMX (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Specifically, the positive relationship between transactional leadership and soft tactics will be stronger when RLMX is low rather than when RLMX is high, and this moderating effect of RLMX is more pronounced when POS is low rather than when POS is high.

Hypothesis 4b. The transactional leadership and hard tactics relationship is jointly moderated by Relative LMX (RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Specifically, the positive relationship between transactional leadership and hard tactics will be stronger when RLMX is low rather than when RLMX is high, and this moderating effect of RLMX is more pronounced when POS is low rather than when POS is high.

Fig. 1 shows the expected pattern of relations among transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence tactics in resource-constrained (low RLMX/low POS), resource-moderate (high RLMX/low POS and low RLMX/high POS) and resource- munificent (high RLMX/high POS) conditions.

Fig. 1. Upward influence tactics in different resource conditions under different styles of leadership of the influence target.

307O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

3. Method

3.1. Sample and procedure

The sample consisted of members of seven (six manufacturing and one service) British companies. Data were collected as part of a multipronged study focused at leadership processes and the sample in this article is the same sample presented in Epitropaki and Martin (2005); however, the hypotheses, focal variables and data analytic techniques used here are distinct from this earlier article. Research was conducted at two stages. At a first stage, questionnaires and pre-paid return envelopes were mailed to 1500 employees. This survey measured employees' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership, LMX, POS and demographics. Four-hundred and thirty nine (439) people responded, representing a 30% response rate that is common for mailed surveys. The respondents belonged to 94 work groups. After elimination of work groups with fewer than 3 respondents, the final Time 1 sample included 394 employees who belonged to 61 work groups (range 3–23 employees per work group). One year later, we sent a second survey to each of the 394 employees who could be identified from the first wave of the survey. This questionnaire assessed respondents' use of upward influence tactics.

Two hundred and forty-eight (248) of the 394 employees that participated at Time 1, took part again in the study 1 year later (63% response rate). Forty eight (48) respondents had changed manager since the first survey and we eliminated these data, leaving a final usable sample of 200. Manufacturing employees accounted for 84% of the sample and 47.4% of the sample were shopfloor employees. Male respondents accounted for 78% of the sample. The average age was 42.2 years (SD=10.36 years), and the mean organizational tenure was 16.6 years (SD=11.4 years). Also, 23.5% had a managerial/supervisory job, 6.3% were professional staff, 25.5% were production and technical staff, 16.3% were classified as clerical, and 11.1% had a sales job. Chi-square analyses and independent t-tests indicated no significant differences between Time 2 respondents and non-respondents on key demographic variables (e.g., age, organizational position, job type) except for gender, χ2 (1, N=394)=8.95, pb .001, and industry type χ2 (1, N=394)=10.35, pb.001. Also, because we collected data from different organizations, we used Within and Between Analysis (WABA) to determine whether the study variables were better represented by variation within or between organizations. All E and F tests for main study variables were significant. In accordance with Avolio and Yammarino (1990), when both substantial within and between variance is found, suggesting equivocal or mixed effects, the appropriate level of analysis is the individual.

3.2. Time 1 measures

3.2.1. Transformational leadership The 20-item transformational leadership scale of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)-Short Form 5X (Avolio,

Bass, & Jung, 1999) was used to measure transformational leadership behaviors (α=.92). Transformational leadership includes five subscales, namely Idealized Influence (attributed and behavioral), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration. Sample items include: “[My manager] goes beyond self interest for the good of the group”, “Talks optimistically about the future”, etc. Respondents were asked to judge how frequently their direct manager engaged in the specific behaviors measured by MLQ-5X. Each behavior was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Frequently, if not always” (5).

3.2.2. Transactional leadership The 12-item transactional leadership scale of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)-Short Form 5X (Avolio et al.,

1999) was used to measure transactional leadership behaviors (α=.70). Transactional leadership encompasses three subscales, namely Contingent reward and Management by exception (active and passive). Sample items include: “Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets”, “Waits for things to go wrong before taking action”. Each behavior was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Frequently, if not always” (5).

3.2.3. Leader–Member Exchanges (LMX) In order to assess the quality of the leader–member relationship the LMX-7 was used (α=.91), as recommended by Graen and

Uhl-Bien (1995). It has seven items with responses obtained on a five-point scale. Sample items include “How well does your manager understand your job problems and needs?”, “How would you characterize your working relation with your manager?”

3.2.4. Relative LMX (RLMX) RLMX scores were derived from LMX scores and operationalized as individual-LMX minus the group mean for LMX (Henderson

et al., 2008). Group means for LMX per department were calculated using the full Time 1 data, i.e., N=394. Due to problems associated with the use of difference scores (e.g., Edwards, 1994), we also included the group mean for LMX (labeled GLMX) in our analyses, consistent with the recommendations of Edwards and colleagues (Vidyarthi et al., 2010).

3.2.5. Perceived Organizational Support (POS) Five items derived from Eisenberg et al. (1986) were used to measure employees' POS (α=.88). Prior research has shown high

levels of internal consistency and construct validity for both the original as well as shortened versions of the POS scale (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Responses were obtained on a five-point scale (from “Definitely false” to “Definitely true”) and a sample item is: “This company cares about its employees.”

308 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

3.3. Time 2 measures

3.3.1. Upward influence tactics The Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) 18-item scale based on Kipnis et al. (1980) was used to measure upward influence tactics.

The scale consists of six subscales namely: Assertiveness, Upward Appeal, Coalition, Ingratiation, Exchange and Rationality. Participants were asked to state how frequently they had used each influence tactic with their direct manager in the past six months. Responses were obtained on a 5-point scale from “Never use this tactic” (1) to “Usually use this tactic” (5). CFA analyses for the proposed 6-factor first-order model yielded a good fit: χ2(120)=246.88, pb .001, χ2/df=2.3, CFI=.94, NNFI=.93, RMSEA=.06. We further tested two second-order CFA models that have been previously proposed in the literature. We first tested Deluga's (1991) 3-factor second-order model in which assertiveness, coalition, and upward appeal loaded together on a higher-order hard factor, ingratiation alone represented a soft higher-order factor, and rationality and exchange loaded together on a higher-order rational factor. Results showed that this model did not fit the data very well: χ2(127)=314.35, pb.001, χ2/ df=2.5, CFI=.89, NNFI=.87, RMSEA=.07. We then tested the three-higher-order factor model suggested by Farmer et al. (1997) in which assertiveness, coalition and upward appeal were specified to load together on a hard second-order factor, ingratiation and exchange represented a soft factor, and rationality represented a free-standing rational tactic. Results showed that this model had a good fit to the data: χ2(127)=272.80, pb .001, χ2/df=2.1, CFI=.94, NNFI=.92, RMSEA=.06. Thus, in subsequent analyses we operationalized hard tactics as being comprised by assertiveness, coalition and upward appeal, soft tactics as being comprised by ingratiation and exchange and rationality by a free-standing rational tactic.

3.3.2. Control variables We also measured six demographic variables on the basis of prior literature that has highlighted their importance in the

upward influence context. We specifically measured the employee's gender and age (e.g., Thacker & Wayne, 1995; O'Neil, 2004), the manager's gender and age (e.g., O'Neil, 2004), the duration of the manager–employee relationship (in months) and the frequency of manager–employee contact (e.g., Farmer et al., 1997). The frequency of manager–employee contact was measured with a 5-point scale from “Not at all” to “Always.”

4. Results

Means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations and reliabilities of major study variables are presented in Table 1.

4.1. Measurement model

Following the procedure outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine that the data conform to the supposition that each of the study variables represents separate constructs. Results for the measurement model indicated that the model fit the data well, χ2 (29, N=209)=68.2, pb.001, χ2/df=2.3, CFI=.98, NNFI=.97, RMSEA=.04. Moreover, inspection of factor loadings and factor covariances showed that all factor loadings were significant (standardized loadings ranging from .74 to .91, with t-values ranging from 10.97 to 13.01, pb .001) providing support for convergent validity. Discriminant validity of the seven constructs was checked in multiple ways (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, the measurement (baseline) model was compared to a series of models that each had constrained the correlation of one pair of constructs to be 1.00. All chi-square differences were significant at the .01 level, indicating high discriminant validity among constructs (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005).

Two additional tests were used to determine the extent of common method variance in the current data. First, a Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) using CFA was conducted. This model yielded a poor fit to the data: χ2 (52, N= 200)=1955.27, pb.001, CFI=.58, NNFI=.57, RMSEA=.42. Second, the single-method-factor procedure recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) is suggested when one cannot identify the precise source of method bias. In this approach three models are compared: (a) the measurement (t-traits factors) model (Model 1), (b) the measurement model with

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and inter-correlations between major study variables (N=200).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time 1 variables 1. Transformational leadership 3.08 .75 (.92) 2. Transactional leadership 3.16 .65 .56** (.70) 3. RLMX 3.22 .67 .57** .42** 4. Perceived Organizational Support 3.65 .78 .36** .27** .22** (.88)

Time 2 variables 5. Soft upward influence tactics 1.89 .71 .09 −.10 −.03 −.14* (.73) 6. Rational upward influence tactics 3.81 1.02 .17** .12 .28** .13 .18* (.77) 7. Hard upward influence tactics 1.80 .67 −.14* .25** −.14* −.23** .40** .26** (.80)

*pb.01; **pb.001; RLMX=Relative Leader–Member Exchanges.

309O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

an additional method factor (Model 2) and (c) a null model (Model 3) (e.g., Elangovan & Xie, 1999). Results indicated that although Model 2 had a better fit than Model 1, the chi-square difference between the two was not significant Δχ2 (12)=18.06, ns. Further, the trait factor loadings were significant even after the method effects were partialled out and the method factor accounted for 18% of the total variance which is less than the 25% method variance observed by Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989). The results of all the above tests suggest that common method variance is not a pervasive problem in this study.

4.2. Moderated regression analyses

Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were used to test hypotheses according to the procedure delineated in Cohen and Cohen (1983). The significance of interaction effects was assessed after controlling for all main effects. In the models, employee gender, employee age, manager gender, manager age, the duration of the manager–employee relationship, the frequency of manager–employee contact and GLMX were entered first as control variables; transformational and transactional leadership predictor variables (Time 1) were entered in the second step; the moderator variables, i.e., RLMX, and POS, also measured at Time 1 were entered in the third step; and the interaction terms, in the fourth and the fifth steps. In order to avoid multicollinearity problems, we centered the predictor and moderator variables and the standardized scores were used in the regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991). When probing significant three-way interactions related to Hypotheses 3 and 4, we utilized techniques described by Dawson and Richter (2006) to test whether individual slopes differed from each other in ways we hypothesized, rather than test whether the simple slopes were significantly different from zero.

Results for the three-way moderated hierarchical regression analyses are presented in Table 2. First, regarding main effects (Hypotheses 1 and 2), results of Step 2 of the regression analyses suggest that transformational

leadership (Time 1) was positively and significantly related to the use of soft (b=.23, pb0.01) and rational influence tactics (b=.14, pb0.05) but not significantly related to the use of hard influence tactics (Time 2). Hypothesis 1 was, therefore, partially supported. Transactional leadership (Time 1) was positively and significantly related to the use soft (b=.22, pb0.01) and hard influence tactics (b=.23, pb0.01) at Time 2, but not significantly related to the use of rational tactics and thus, Hypothesis 2 was also partially supported.

In Hypotheses 3 and 4 we predicted that there will be a three-way interaction of relative LMX, POS and leadership perceptions in predicting upward influence tactics. We specifically hypothesized that there will be a significant 3-way interaction between RLMX, POS and transformational leadership on both soft (H3a) and hard (H3b) upward influence tactics. As seen in Table 2 (Step 5), Hypothesis 3a was supported (b=.21, pb0.05) whereas Hypothesis 3b was not supported (b=.10, ns). We also hypothesized a significant 3-way interaction between RLMX, POS and transactional leadership on both soft (H4a) and hard (H4b) upward influence tactics. As seen in Table 2 (Step 5), both H4a (b=.39, pb0.001) and H4b (b=.25, pb0.05) were supported. Thus, results provided partial support for Hypothesis 3 and full support for Hypothesis 4.

Although the results of the moderated regression provide an indication of the significance of the interaction terms, in order to better understand their form we plotted the interactions graphically, following Dawson and Richter (2006). For soft influence tactics, the three-way interaction involving relative LMX, POS and transformational leadership is depicted in Fig. 2. In support of Hypothesis 3a, the difference in the relationship between transformational leadership and soft influence tactics when relative

Table 2 Results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses involving RLMX and POS as moderators (N=200).

Soft influence tactics Rational influence tactics Hard influence tactics

Step and predictor 2 beta 3 beta 4 beta 5 beta 2 beta 3 beta 4 beta 5 beta 2 beta 3 beta 4 beta 5 beta

Step 1. Employee gender .07 .07 .08 .08 −.07 −.07 −.07 −.07 .02 .02 .02 .03 Employee age −.29** −.28* −.30** −.30** −.17† −.21* −.23* −.23* −.00 −.00 −.00 −.00 Manager gender Manager age

.17

.12 .16 .10

.16

.07 .13 .08

.06

.13 .06 .13

.07

.11 .05 .13

−.06 .01

−.07 −.01

−.07 −.02

−.08 .00

Duration of the manager–employee relationship

.02 .01 .01 .01 .10 .07 .08 .08 .02 .02 .03 .02

Frequency of manager–employee contact

−.01 −.04 −.02 −.03 .20* .12 .09 .07 .05 .07 .06 .04

GLMX −.04 −.03 −.04 −.03 .08 .05 .03 .05 −.05 −.06 −.10 −.08 Step 2. Transformational leadership Time 1 .23* .26* .32** .37** .14† .07 .12 .05 −.02 −.06 −.10 −.11

Transactional leadership Time 1 .22** .22* .25* .28** .08 .03 .04 .04 .23** .21** .23* .25* Step 3. RLMX Time 1 −.17 −.13 −.16 .33** .32** .30** −.06 −.12 −.13

POS Time 1 −.17† −.16† −.23* .08 .10 .07 −.18* −.16 −.30* Step 4. TRFL×RLMX .20* .06 .14 .11 .17 .20†

TRSL×RLMX −.22* −.10 −.01 .04 −.18† −.19† TRFL×POS −.03 −.03 .14 .12 −.02 −.04 TRSL×POS −.02 .01 .01 .05 .12 .16 RLMX×POS −.15 −.06 −.15 −.09 −.15 −.02

Step 5. TRFL×RLMX×POS .21† −.00 .10 TRSL×RLMX×POS .39** .16 .25† R2 .18** .20** .25** .30** .12* .18** .21** .22* .09* .10** .13* .17** ΔR2 .03** .02** .02** .05** .03** .06** .03** .01* .05** .01* .03** .04**

†pb0.05; *pb0.01; **pb0.001 GLMX=Group-Mean LMX; RLMX=Relative LMX; POS=Perceived Organizational Support.

Fig. 2. Interaction of RLMX, POS and transformational leadership on soft influence tactics.

310 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

LMX is low vs. high is more pronounced when POS is low (i.e., resource-constrained condition). Indeed, an analysis of simple slopes revealed that the interaction of transformational leadership and relative LMX is significant when POS is low (difference between Slopes 2 and 4; t(196)=−2.01; pb .05) but not when POS is high (difference between Slopes 1 and 3; t(196)=0.69, ns).

Also, for soft influence tactics, the three-way interaction involving relative LMX, POS and transactional leadership is depicted in Fig. 3. In support of Hypothesis 4a, the difference in the relationship between transactional leadership and soft influence tactics when relative LMX is low vs. high is more pronounced when POS is low. Indeed, an analysis of simple slopes revealed that the interaction of transactional leadership and relative LMX is significant when POS is low (difference between Slopes 2 and 4; t(196)=−3.19; pb.01) but not when POS is high (difference between Slopes 1 and 3; t(196)=1.82, ns).

For hard influence tactics, the three-way interaction involving relative LMX, POS and transactional leadership is depicted in Fig. 4. In support of Hypothesis 4b, the difference in the relationship between transactional leadership and hard influence tactics when relative LMX is low vs. high is more pronounced when POS is low. Indeed, an analysis of simple slopes revealed that the interaction of transactional leadership and relative LMX is significant when POS is low (difference between Slopes 2 and 4;

Fig. 3. Interaction of RLMX, POS and transactional leadership on soft influence tactics.

Fig. 4. Interaction of RLMX, POS and transactional leadership on hard influence tactics.

311O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

t(196)=−2.86; pb .01) but not when POS is high (difference between Slopes 1 and 3; t(196)=0.37, ns). Fig. 4 also reveals a negative relation between transactional leadership and hard influence tactics in conditions of high RLMX and low POS.

Overall, the data provided support for the moderating effects of relative LMX, and POS in the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership perceptions measured at Time 1 and employees' choice of soft and hard upward influence tactics at Time 2.

5. Discussion

By adopting the resource theory of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980) and using data collected in two time points, the present study attempted to cast light on the relation between leadership and upward influence in organizations. We specifically examined the role of employees' perceptions of their manager's transformational and transactional leadership on their subsequent choice of upward influence tactics. We further addressed the role of context and examined key boundary conditions of the transformational–transactional leadership and upward influence relation. We examined two situational variables, i.e., relative LMX and perceived organizational support as possible moderators of the relationship between leadership behaviors and upward influence tactics. We further argued that when both relative Leader–Member Exchanges (RLMX) and perceived organizational support (POS) are low, employees will view their work environment as resource-constrained whereas when both are high they will perceive it as resource-munificent. Our findings suggest that resource-constrained conditions (low RLMX/low POS) intensify the prevalence of upward influence attempts and that the leadership style of the target influence will determine the type of tactics used in the particular context. In such conditions, employees were likely to employ higher levels of soft tactics with a transformational manager and higher levels of both soft and hard tactics with a transactional manager than in resource- munificent conditions.

There are several contributions of the present research. First, our study added to the existing body of knowledge regarding the direct relation of transformational leadership with upward influence (e.g., Cable & Judge, 2003; Deluga, 1990; Krishnan, 2003). We specifically found perceptions of transformational leadership to be positively linked to the use of soft (i.e., ingratiation and exchange) and rational influence tactics while non-significantly related to the use of hard influence tactics (i.e., assertiveness, coalition and upward appeal). Also, perceptions of transactional leadership had a positive effect on the use of soft and hard influence tactics but no effect on the use of rational tactics. Our results demonstrate that when employees perceive their manager exhibiting transformational leadership, i.e., leadership that is inspirational, developmental, emphasizes a common vision, and challenges employees' way of thinking, they are more likely to reciprocate with more positive forms of influence, such as soft and rational tactics and less likely to use hard tactics that will potentially jeopardize their relation with the manager. On the other hand, when the manager is perceived to be transactional i.e., making performance expectations clear but failing to inspire employees to do more than what is implied by the employment contract, employees do not feel a sense of indebtedness towards their leader and a need to reciprocate. They are, thus, more inclined to use both soft tactics (such as ingratiation and exchange) and hard tactics (such as assertiveness, upward appeal and coalition).

Second, our findings confirmed hypotheses regarding the importance of context for an in depth understanding of the relationship between leadership and upward influence. We examined the joint effects of two boundary conditions, i.e., the employees' relative Leader–Member Exchanges and perceived organizational support and utilized resource-based theoretical

312 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

perspectives (e.g., Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980; Wilson et al., 2010) to interpret study findings. Our results indicated that in resource-constrained conditions (low RLMX/low POS) employees were significantly more likely to resort to both hard and soft tactics to influence a manager they perceived as transactional. In such conditions, employees might feel they have nothing to lose and be more willing to take the risk and pay the price of employing harsher forms of influence towards a manager who offers them limited resources ‘by the book’. However, when they perceive the manager to be transformational, even in conditions of constrained resources, they will be unlikely to use hard forms of influence that will potentially arouse negative emotions and place a high strain on their (suboptimal) relation with a manager they admire. When the leader is seen as transformational, employees have an important incentive to maintain the relationship with both the manager and the organization and further try to enhance the relationship. They will thus resort to least aggressive forms of influence such as ingratiation and exchange in order to secure increased access to valued resources.

We also revealed an interesting pattern of upward influence use in conditions of moderate resources, such as those indicated by low relative LMX and high perceived organizational support or high RLMX and low POS. In the first case (low RLMX/high POS), the employees trust the organization to provide them valuable resources and employ a similar range of upward influence tactics towards transformational and transactional leaders as in resource-munificent conditions (but to a much higher degree). Perceived organizational support thus compensates for their suboptimal relationship with the leader. In the second case (high RLMX/low POS), however, when employees belong to the leader's in-group but they view the organization as unsupportive, they become extra cautious with the tactics they use towards the leader. Their good relationship with the manager essentially represents their only chance for increased access to resources. In an environment where employees are disadvantaged in their exchange relationship with the organization, they will be reluctant to use abrasive forms of influence (such as hard tactics) with both transformational and transactional leaders, as they do not want to risk their high LMX standing and their only point of access to valuable resources and rewards.

In addition to its theoretical contributions, the present study has important practical implications. In difficult economic conditions, as access to critical resources becomes limited, employees will have more incentives to employ upward influence tactics directed to their immediate supervisor in order to secure a ‘bigger piece of the pie’ for themselves. Managers should thus be aware of the critical conditions that fuel the prevalence of such tactics as well as the role of their leadership style for minimizing it. As a result, the effectiveness of training programs aimed at developing transformational leadership skills (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996) can be enhanced by incorporating key insights on the dynamics of upward influence. Also, training in improving the quality of leader–member and organization-member relations is of paramount importance for transformational leaders. Leaders who are insensitive to the importance of follower's reciprocity expectations and resource availability inferences based on the quality of exchanges, are likely to be less effective than their counterparts who are sensitive to these contingencies.

5.1. Potential limitations

Despite the interesting findings and the data collected in two time points, the present study is not without limitations. We used self-reported perceptual measures which are commonly identified as a potential source of common-method bias. Several analytical steps were taken to examine the extent of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) in the present data set and all tests showed that it did not seriously undermine the validity of the findings. It is also worth mentioning that common method variance is likely to result in increased correlations between the variables and not likely to result in statistical interactions, which are the main focus of our research (Aiken & West, 1991; Harvey, Kelloway, & Duncan-Leiper, 2003). However, future research assessing influence tactics from independent sources such as peers could offer additional significant insights. Also, although the 12-month time-lag between the measurement of leadership behavior and upward influence tactics builds a stronger case for the hypothesized causal direction of effects, still causality claims must be tempered (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). Studies measuring leadership behaviors and upward influence attempts in several time points (e.g., every three months) and employing latent growth modeling techniques could significantly deepen our understanding of the dynamics of the relationship.

5.2. Suggestions for future research

Future research can expand the existing framework by examining additional explanatory variables. Organizational justice (e.g., Colquitt, 2001), for example, can be another important boundary condition of the leadership-upward influence relation in the sense that in conditions of unfairness employees might feel justified to use harsher forms of influence (e.g., Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, Blaauw, & Vermunt, 1999). Also individual characteristics such as locus of control, Machiavellianism and self-monitoring (Farmer et al., 1997), empathy and emotional intelligence (e.g., Yukl et al., 2008) could add to our understanding of the relationship between leadership behaviors and upward influence.

Future research could examine the influence outcomes and the impact of employees' choice of influence tactics on transformational and transactional leaders, which was not addressed by our study.

This study gives important insights regarding the contingencies under which employees use specific influence tactics to influence their managers when they perceived them to be transformational and transactional but did not examine the extent to which the chosen upward influence tactics were indeed successful in the specific context. Providing feedback about influence behavior can have an important developmental effect on subsequent use of influence behaviors and on effectiveness ratings of the influence agent (Seifert & Yukl, 2010). Also, the history of use of upward influence tactics is another variable of interest that has not been addressed by the present study. Maslyn, Farmer, and Fedor (1996) have suggested, for example, that individuals often

313O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

begin influence attempts with safe or socially accepted tactics (such as rational tactics) and then escalate to harsher tactics if they meet resistance. Understanding how employees are likely to respond to failed influence attempts could offer additional insights. Furthermore, the study examined influence tactics from the influence agent's perspective but not from the target's perspective. Employees were asked to denote the upward influence tactics they had used to influence their manager. Future research could also ask managers to assess to what extent they perceived themselves to be targets of the specific influence behaviors. Congruence in manager–employee perceptions regarding the upward influence behaviors utilized could have important implications for the influence outcomes.

Overall, the present study has demonstrated that upward influence tactics constitute a fruitful and intriguing area of research and important insights can be gained by considering them in context and examining boundary conditions of their relations with leadership behaviors.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage. Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R., & Vidyarthi, P. (2011). Leader–Member Exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. In A. Bryman (Ed.), The SAGE

Handbook of Leadership. SAGE. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,

411–423. Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 39–49. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120. Arnold, K., Kelloway, K., McKee, M., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful

work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193–203. Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1996). Bases of power in relation to leader behavior: A field investigation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 3–22. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a level of analysis framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 193–208. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. Industry, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:

Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member

dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. NY: Wiley. Brennan, J. G., Miller, L. E., & Seltzer, J. (1993). Influence tactics and effectiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 747–748. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24, 197–214. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), 191–203. Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of upward-influencing behavior with subordinate impression management characteristics. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 21, 1145–1160. Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchanges with laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. R.

Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 237–247). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward influencing behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader–

member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239–252. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of Leader-Member Exchange:

Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management., 38, 1715–1759. Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in Organizational Behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 58, 51–100. Eisenberg, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Eisenberger, R., Aselage, J., Sucharski, I. L., & Jones, J. R. (2004). Perceived Organizational Support. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, S. Taylor, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The

employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives. Oxford University Press. Elangovan, A. R., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating role of subordinate characteristics.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 359–373. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of Implicit Leadership Theories, Leader–Member Exchanges and employee outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652. Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17–42. Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 1–34. Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & H. R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances

in theory and research. NY: Plenum Press. Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M., Peng, T., et al. (2004). The impact of societal values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of

managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 284–305. Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251–266. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

(pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

314 O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Harvey, S., Kelloway, E. K., & Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003). Trust in management as a buffer of the relationships between overload and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 306–315.

Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1208–1219.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance

on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694. Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990). Leadership behaviors, influence tactics and career experiences of champions of technological innovation. The Leadership Quarterly,

1, 249–264. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,

755–768. Kennedy, J. C., Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2003). Influence tactics across twelve cultures. In J. Osland (Ed.), Advances in Global Leadership (pp. 127–147). Emerald Group

Publishing Ltd. Kipnis, D. (1984). Technology, power and control. In S. B. Bacharach, & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 3. (pp. 125–156) Greenwich

CT: JAI Press. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1983). An influence perspective on bargaining within organizations. In M. H. Bazerman, & R. H. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in

organizations (pp. 308–319). Beverly Hill: Sage. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33,

528–542. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,

440–452. Kramer, R. M., & Neale, M. A. (Eds.). (1998). Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krishnan, V. (2003). Impact of transformational leadership on follower influence strategies. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 58–72. Lauterbach, K., & Weiner, B. (1996). Dynamics of upward influence: How male and female managers get their way. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 87–107. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–Member Exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 15, 47–119. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader–follower relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167–203. Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of the Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459–514. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramanian, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the

MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425. Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of organizational identification on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 247–262. Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Thomas, G., & Topakas, A. (2010). A review of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) research: Future prospects and directions. International

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 35–88. Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward influence attempts. Predicting the nature of subordinate persistence in pursuit of organizational

goals. Group & Organization Management, 21, 461–480. Olufowote, J. O., Miller, V. D., & Wilson, S. R. (2005). The interactive effects of role change goals and relational exchange on employee upward influence tactics.

Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 385–403. O'Neil, J. (2004). Effects of gender and power on PR managers' upward influence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 127–144. Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management

Journal, 49, 327–340. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee

satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, P., & Organ, S. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1983). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In R. W. Allen, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Organizational influence

processes (pp. 408–422). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness

on leader–member exchange using traditional and multivariate within and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659–677. 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, 246–257. Seifert, C., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A field experiment. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21, 856–866. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552. Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss: Effects of supervisors' upward exchange on employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 309–320. Tepper, B. J., Brown, S. J., & Hunt, M. D. (1993). Strength of subordinates' upward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,

1903–1919. Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of

Management, 21, 739–756. Van Knippenberg, B., & Steensma, H. (2003). Future interaction expectation and the use of soft and hard influence tactics. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 52, 55–67. Van Knippenberg, B., Van Eijbergen, R., & Wilke, H. (1999). The use of hard and soft influence tactics in cooperative task groups. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations, 2, 231–244. Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Blaauw, E., & Vermunt, R. (1999). Relational considerations in the use of influence tactics. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 29, 806–809. Vecchio, R. P., & Sussman, M. (1991). Choice of influence tactics: Individual and organizational determinants. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 73–80. Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of Leader–Member Exchange social comparison on

employee work behaviours. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849–861. Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R., Wang, D., & Chen, X. (2005). Leader–Member Exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and

followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499.

315O. Epitropaki, R. Martin / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 299–315

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979–1006. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 462–468. Wilson, K., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. (2010). What about the leader in Leader–Member Exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader.

Academy of Management Review, 35, 358–372. Xin, K., & Tsui, A. (1996). Different strokes for different folks? Influence tactics by Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers. The Leadership Quarterly, 7,

109–132. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upwards, downward and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140. Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18, 5–28. Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group and Organization

Management, 20, 272–296. Yukl, G., Seifert, C., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 609–621. Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.