Reflection Essay #3

Industrial and Commercial Training Interpersonal influence in the workplace – part one: an introduction to concepts and a theoretical model Tony Manning Graham Pogson Zoë Morrison

Article information: To cite this document: Tony Manning Graham Pogson Zoë Morrison, (2008),"Interpersonal influence in the workplace – part one: an introduction to concepts and a theoretical model", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 40 Iss 2 pp. 87 - 94 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850810858929

Downloaded on: 07 December 2016, At: 13:24 (PT) References: this document contains references to 13 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2207 times since 2008*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2008),"Interpersonal influence in the workplace – part two: some research findings – influencing behaviour, personality and context", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 40 Iss 4 pp. 188-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850810876235 (2009),"Interpersonal influence in the workplace: influencing behaviour and 360-degree assessments", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41 Iss 5 pp. 258-269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850910974802

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:486520 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

Interpersonal influence in the workplace – part one: an introduction to concepts and a theoretical model

Tony Manning, Graham Pogson and Zoë Morrison

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to model the relationship between influencing behaviour,

personality traits, work roles and role orientation. It builds on previous research into team roles,

highlighting the relationship between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour.

Design/methodology/approach – Statistical analysis on questionnaire data from a mixed, work-based,

UK sample is used to assess relationships between influencing behaviour, role expectations, role

orientation and team role behaviour.

Findings – The paper argues that team roles access different types of power and influencing

behaviours depending on role and role orientation. Findings establish a link between influencing

behaviour and team role behaviour, as well as personality traits, developing the idea that there is a

significant social dimension to team roles.

Research limitations/implications – The research does not consider specific influence attempts, nor

does it present evidence regarding the effectiveness of patterns of influencing behaviour in particular

contexts.

Practical implications – The paper highlights the relationship between influencing behaviour and

personality and contextual variables. Considering ‘‘when’’ different strategies and styles are used may

offer guidelines for action. Findings reinforce the significance of the social dimension of team roles and

indicate a need for further research to consider the success of influencing behaviour in different contexts.

Originality/value – Previous research into influencing behaviour has focused on its relationship to either

situational variables or personality traits and, where personality variable have been studied, they have

been specific traits. This research considers both sets of variables simultaneously and covers the whole

personality domain. This is the first study of the relationship between team role behaviour and

influencing behaviour.

Keywords Influence, Personality, Team working, Psychological tests, Training, Management development

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

This article is the first of a three-part paper considering influencing behaviour in the

workplace, the ways in which people at work go about getting their way with others. It

presents a research-based model of influencing behaviour to facilitate understanding of the

strategies people use in their attempts to get others at work to do things they may otherwise

not do, as well as the ways in which they combine these strategies in the form of an overall

influence style. It specifically considers the relationship between an individual’s influencing

behaviour and personality and contextual variables that may impact on the use of such

behaviour.

The second part of the paper will present research findings that shine light on the nature of

the relationship between influencing behaviour and both personality and contextual

variables. The third part will present further findings that explore the relationship between

influencing behaviour and team role behaviour.

Tony Manning is an

Independent Consultant,

based at St Boswells,

Melrose, UK. Graham

Pogson is a Lecturer in

Business Policy, and

Zoë Morrison is a Lecturer

in Human Resource

Management, both based

at Heriot-Watt University,

Galashiels, UK.

DOI 10.1108/00197850810858929 VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008, pp. 87-94, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 87

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

This article is divided into two main sections. The first section provides a theoretical

introduction to the subject, proposing a definition of power and influence, and consideration

of their inter-relationship. The second section of the article provides an account of a model of

the process of interpersonal influence and a hierarchical model of influencing behaviour. The

process model of interpersonal influence identifies three major elements that impact on an

individual’s choice of influencing behaviour, namely, the person, their role and their

orientation to that role. These three elements are considered more fully, together with

descriptions of how they are measured in the second part of the paper.

Previous research into why people at work adopt particular patterns of influencing behaviour

has tended to look at either personality variables (e.g. Lee-Chai et al., 2001) or situational

variables (e.g. Kipnis et al., 1980) but not both. Moreover, when consideration has been

given to personality variables, the focus has tended to be on specific traits like communal

and exchange orientation (Clark et al., 1987) rather than the whole personality domain, as

described by the ‘‘Big five’’ factor model of personality (e.g. Costa and McCrae, 1992). This

paper combines an overall model of the process of interpersonal influence with a

hierarchical model of influencing behaviour.

Some elements of the model proposed build on a previous model (Manning et al., 2006)

exploring the determinants of an individual’s team role behaviour, i.e. their habitual way of

behaving in a particular team, including behavioural strengths and weaknesses. The original

model asserts that an individual’s team role behaviour is related to three sets of factors,

namely, their personality and two sets of contextual variables: the expectations of their work

role and their orientation to that role. The first and second parts of this paper extend this

theory, proposing that these three variables are likely to impact on an individual’s influencing

behaviour. The third part augments previous research by describing the relationship

between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour.

Key concepts: power and influence

In this article, we follow Dahl’s (1957), widely quoted definition of power: ‘‘A has power over B

to the extent that A can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do.’’ This definition

indicates that power is the ability to get someone to do something, even if it is against their

will. We accept Barry and Watson’s (1996) definition of influence as the use of deliberate

actions by an individual, the agent or influencer, with the expectation that those actions will

bring about a desired change in the cognitions or behaviours of the target person, or

influencee, that would not have occurred otherwise.

It is implicit in the above definitions that the concepts of power and influence are closely

inter-related. In simple terms, we can say that power is about being able to get to get

someone to do something, while influence is about actually getting them to do it. Thus power

is about potentiality, while influence is about actuality. Influence is about the exercise of

power.

In arguing that the concepts of power and influence are inter-related, we are not suggesting

that there is a simple and necessary causal relationship, nor are we asserting that the

necessary consequence of the exercise of power is successful influence. Indeed,

interpersonal influence is a complex social psychological process between agent and

target, within which the perceptions of both parties play a crucial role. In order to understand

‘‘ In simple terms, we can say that power is about being able to get to get someone to do something, while influence is about actually getting them to do it. ’’

PAGE 88j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

the nature of this social psychological process, it is useful to illustrate the main elements in diagrammatic form and then describe them in more detail.

A social psychological model of the process of interpersonal influence

Figure 1 identifies two parties involved in the influence process, the influencer (or agent) and influencee (or target). At the heart of the process is the behaviour of the influencer that leads to a response from the influence. Perceptions, in the form of expectancies, play an important part in both influencer behaviour and influencee response. Jones (1990) and Kelley (1971) define these expectancies as prior judgements, hunches and predictions about the behaviour of others, as well as the social contexts within which interaction occurs.

There are feedback loops between the behaviour of the influencer and the expectancies of the influencee and, similarly, the response of the influencee and the expectancies of the influencer. In other words, the responses of the influencee will impact on the judgments, predictions and hunches of the influencer. Similarly, the behaviour of the influencer will impact on the judgments, predictions and hunches of the influencee. These feedback loops serve to either confirm or refute the judgements, hunches and predictions about the other person. This is likely to result in either the confirmation or revision of expectancies and, in turn, is likely to result in behaviour being repeated or revised. Thus cognitive processes are seen to play a vital part in what might otherwise appear a deterministic process.

Three sets of factors impinge on the expectancies of both influencer and influencee, namely, the characteristics of the person, the nature of their work role and their orientation to that role. These three factors arise from the individuals, the organisational contexts in which they operate, and their orientations to such contexts. The impact of these three sets of factors on behaviour and responses is mediated through expectancies. Once again, this highlights the ways in which cognitive processes are seen to play a vital part in what might otherwise appear a deterministic process.

In order to understand this process more fully, it is useful to consider the nature of influencing behaviour and the three sets of factors that impinge on the expectancies of both the influencer and influence. The following two sections address these two sets of issues.

A hierarchical model of influencing behaviour

Figure 2 depicts influencing behaviour in the form of a hierarchical structure. This hierarchical structure is based on empirical research on the ways in which people seek to influence others and the observed relationships between such behaviours. At the most specific level there are the tactics, or behaviours, associated with particular influence attempts, e.g. the use of logic or threat of sanctions. Clusters of tactics are seen to combine to produce sets of strategies, e.g. reason and coercion. Finally, clusters of strategies are seen to combine to produce style dimensions that are characterised in terms of pairs of polar extremes.

The following account describes the various strategies that people use in their attempts to influence others, along with examples of specific tactics of which they are comprised, and the ways in which they combine to produce the dimensions of influencing style.

Figure 1 A social psychological model of the process of interpersonal influence

VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj PAGE 89

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

Influencing strategies

Manning and Robertson (2003) concluded that previous research into how people seek to

influence others at work has identified six broad sets of influencing strategies, namely:

1. Reason. Using reason, information and logic to justify a request.

2. Assertion. Making a direct request for what we want and expressing how we feel about

the situation, including persisting with requests.

3. Exchange. Working together for the best overall result, offering an exchange of benefits,

being prepared to compromise.

4. Courting favour. Bringing oneself into favour with the other person by being friendly to

them or positive about them.

5. Coercion. Threatening to use, or actually using, some kind of sanction, including being

unco-operative and doing as you wish.

6. Partnership. Getting the support of others at all levels both within and outside the

immediate situation.

Further research by Manning and Robertson (2003) looked at the relationships between the

ways in which individuals at work tend to use the six sets of influence strategies in

combination. It found that these combinations can be accounted for in terms of three

independent clusters or dimensions of influence. An individual’s position on these three

dimensions of influence describes their influencing style.

Influencing style

The three dimensions of influence are described briefly below.

1. Strategist-opportunist

This is about the extent to which an individual grasps opportunities as they arise. This is seen

to range from those who work to a strategy carefully planned in advance, known as

‘‘strategists’’, to those who react to the situation as it develops, described as ‘‘opportunists’’.

This dimension can thus be described as ‘‘strategist-opportunist’’.

Strategists tend to use reason, assertion and partnership to influence others, while avoiding

courting favour and exchange. In other words, they are likely to be clear about what they

want to achieve, to have thought about why they want it and to have identified who they need

to influence to get it. In this sense, they are behaving strategically.

Figure 2 A hierarchical model of influencing behaviour

PAGE 90j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

Opportunists tend to use courting favour and exchange to influence others, while avoiding

reason, assertion and partnership. In other words, they are likely to be less clear about who

they need to influence, about what and why, responding more opportunistically in the

face-to-face situation by bringing themselves into favour with the other party and offering an

exchange of benefits.

2. Collaborator-battler

This is about the extent to which an individual asserts and defends her or his own position.

This ranges from those who are willing to adapt their position to fit in with the wishes of others,

referred to as ‘‘collaborators’’, to those who concentrate on achieving their own preferred

position, who can be described as ‘‘battlers’’. Consequently, this dimension can be

described as ‘‘collaborator-battler’’.

Collaborators tend to use partnership, reason, exchange and courting favour to influence

others, while avoiding coercion and assertion. In other words, they engage collaboratively in

a rational partnership with others for the overall good.

Battlers tend to use coercion and assertion, while avoiding partnership, reason, exchange

and courting favour. In other words, they concentrate on getting across exactly what they

want to achieve and the sanctions they are prepared to use if they do not achieve it.

3. Bystander-shotgun

The third dimension identified is related to the overall frequency of influence attempts.

Individuals may vary from those who engage in relatively few influence attempts, referred to

as ‘‘bystanders’’, to those who engage in a relatively more influence attempts, referred to as

‘‘shotguns’’. This dimension is described as ‘‘bystander-shotgun’’.

Factors that impinge on an individual’s choice of influencing behaviour

This article presents a framework for exploring the ways in which influencing behaviour, the

strategies and styles described above, are related to the following three sets of variables:

1. Personality i.e. an individual’s enduring personal qualities or habitual ways of behaving.

2. Team role expectations i.e. the expectations associated with a particular position in a

team.

3. Team role orientation i.e. the autonomy in that position and the individual’s commitment to

it.

The above three sets of factors are illustrated in Figure 3. The second part of this paper

presents research findings on their observed relationship to influencing behaviour. These

findings confirm that these various sets of factors are inter-related and thus lend support to

the model itself, as well as to the usefulness of the various measures employed in the

research.

The input and output variables in Figure 3, as well as instruments for measuring, are

described more fully in Manning et al. (2006). It is, however, useful to briefly describe the

various concepts, in order to understand the research findings presented subsequently, in

the second part of this paper. Descriptions of the psychometric instruments used are listed

in the Appendix.

Personality

First of all, it is necessary to outline the approach used to describe individual differences in

personality. These are described using the ‘‘Big five’’ factor model. The five dimensions of

personality described by this model are:

1. Extroversion. This is about how comfortable people are in social relationships, how

socially inhibited they are; at the two polar extremes are the ‘‘introvert’’, who is

uncomfortable in social relationships and socially inhibited, and the ‘‘extrovert’’, who is

comfortable in social relationships and socially uninhibited.

VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj PAGE 91

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

2. Tender-mindedness (agreeableness). This is about people’s sensitivity and

responsiveness to others, including the extent to which they will defer to them; at the two

polar extremes are the ‘‘tough-minded’’ individual, who operates at a thinking level and is

reluctant to defer to others, and the ‘‘tender-minded’’ individual, who operates at an

emotional level and tends to defer to others.

3. Conscientiousness. This is about the number of goals an individual pursues and the

extent to which they pursue them in a focused and structured way; at the two polar

extremes are the ‘‘spontaneous’’ individual, who pursues many goals in an unfocused

and unstructured way, and the ‘‘conscientious’’ individual, who pursues few goals but

does so in a focused and structured manner.

4. Anxiety. This is about the ways in which individuals respond to the stresses and pressures

of life; at the two polar extremes are the ‘‘stable’’ individual, who is emotionally resilient,

and the ‘‘anxious’’ individual, who is emotionally reactive.

5. Openness. This is about an individual’s openness to new experiences; at the two polar

extremes are the ‘‘conventional’’ individual, who is relatively closed to new experiences,

and the ‘‘inquiring’’ individual, who is relatively open to such experiences.

Team role expectations

Four dimensions of team role expectations are identified as follows:

1. Overall responsibility. This is related to the overall level of responsibility associated with a

given job, particularly the responsibility for managing or leading others, and is indicative

of an individual’s position in their organisational hierarchy. This ranges from positions with

relatively low levels of overall responsibility or ‘‘follower’’ roles, to those with relatively high

levels of responsibility or ‘‘leader’’ roles. This is linked to what French and Raven (1968)

refer to as ‘‘legitimate’’ power, which they see as being based on the individual’s position

within a formal hierarchy.

2. Generalist versus specialist. This appears to relate to the extent to which an individual is

either a ‘‘generalist’’, and achieves results through interpersonal relationships at all levels,

or is a ‘‘specialist’’, and achieves results through the use of specialist or technical

knowledge and skills, including skills in problem solving. Low scores on this dimension

seem to be linked to what French and Raven (1968) call ‘‘personal’’ power, which is based

Figure 3 A model of influencing behaviour

PAGE 92j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

on the personal qualities of the individual, while high scores appear to be linked to what

they call ‘‘expert’’ power, which is based on special knowledge or expertise.

3. Completer versus creative problem solver. This appears to relate to the extent to which an

individual’s role is that of a ‘‘completer’’, with the focus on completing practical details, or

that of a ‘‘creative problem solver’’, with the focus on analysing problems and coming up

with well thought out, imaginative solutions.

4. Implementer versus technical investigator. This appears to be related to whether an

individual’s role is that of an ‘‘implementer’’, with the emphasis on organising and

implementing tasks, or that of a ‘‘technical investigator’’, with the emphasis on

investigating technical or specialist developments externally.

It should be noted that the labels used to describe the high scores on the third and fourth

dimensions have been changed from those that appeared in the earlier article by Manning

et al. (2006) that also used this framework. This follows reflection on the original research in

the light of findings from this research study. It should be emphasised however, that the

measures have not been changed, only the labels used to describe them.

Team role orientation

The relationship between influencing behaviour and team role orientation was also explored.

Two aspects of team role orientation were considered, namely, the ‘‘autonomy’’ in a

particular position, and the individual’s ‘‘commitment’’ to that position.

References

Barry, B. and Watson, M.R. (1996), ‘‘Communication aspects of dyadic social influence in organizations:

the interactive effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange’’, Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 1429-41.

Clark, M.S., Oulette, R., Powell, M. and Milberg, S. (1987), ‘‘Recipients’ mood relationship type, and

helping’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 94-103.

Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), ‘‘Four ways five factors are basic’’, Personality and Individual

Differences, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 653-65.

Dahl, R. (1957), ‘‘The concept of power’’, Behavioural Science, Vol. 2, July, pp. 201-15.

French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1968), ‘‘The bases of social power’’, in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (Eds),

Group Dynamics, 3rd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Jones, E.E. (1990), Interpersonal Perception, W.H. Freeman, San Franciso, CA.

Kelley, H.H. (1971), ‘‘Attribution in social interaction’’, in Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D., Kelley, H.H.,

Nesbitt, R.E., Valins, S. and Weiner, B. (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour, General

Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 1-26.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M. and Wilkinson, I. (1980), ‘‘Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in

getting one’s way’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 440-52.

Lee-Chai, A.Y., Chen, S. and Chartrand, T.L. (2001), ‘‘From Moses to Marcos: individual differences in

the use and abuse of power’’, in Lee-Chai, A.Y. and Bargh, J.A. (Eds), The Use and Abuse of Power:

Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Psychology Press, Hove.

Manning, T., Parker, R. and Pogson, G. (2006), ‘‘A revised model of team roles and some research

findings’’, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 287-96.

Manning, T. and Robertson, B. (2003), ‘‘Influencing and negotiating skills: some research and reflections

– Part I: influencing strategies and styles’’, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 11-15.

Further reading

Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why they Succeed or Fail, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Stoneham, MA.

Belbin, R.M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA.

VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj PAGE 93

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

Appendix. The research instruments

1. The influencing strategies and styles profile

Influencing behaviour was self-assessed using a 42-item inventory, derived from previous research, that describes the behaviours that people at work use in their attempts to influence others. These 42 items are grouped into six different categories, each consisting of seven items, representing six different influencing strategies. All items were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale according to the frequency with which the individual engaged in these various behaviours, ranging from ‘‘always or practically always’’ to ‘‘never or just about never’’.

2. 100-adjective checklist – big five personality factors

Personality was self-assessed using a 100 adjective checklist derived from previous research. This provided measures of the ‘‘Big five’’ personality factors. Twenty adjectives were chosen to assess each of the five dimensions of personality. Individuals were asked to rate the accuracy of each term on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘extremely inaccurate’’ to ‘‘extremely accurate’’.

3. Work orientation questionnaire

This is a self-assessment questionnaire that looked at three sets of factors, apart from the individual’s personal qualities, that might affect their influencing behaviour, namely:

1. Expectations i.e. what others, particularly their line manager, expected of them in their job. There were ten scales, corresponding to the ten team roles mentioned above, with each scale made up of the three items used in the Team Role questionnaire to characterise the contribution associated with the specific role, rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘extremely important’’ to extremely unimportant’’.

2. Autonomy i.e. the extent to which the individual is in a position to choose how they set about their job or is constrained by rules, procedures and the like. This consisted of 12 statements rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with six statements scored in one direction and six in the opposite direction.

3. Commitment i.e. the extent to which the individual identifies with the aims and practices of their job, the team and organisation, and displays a positive or negative orientation to it. This also consisted of 12 statements rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with six statements scored in one direction and the other six in the opposite direction.

4. Team role questionnaires

Team role behaviour was self-assessed using a 110-item questionnaire. This measured an individual’s behaviour on ten scales covering the nine team roles identified by Belbin, along with and additional Team Player role. Each scale consisted of 11 items, three concerned with the individual’s typical contribution to their team, four with the associated behavioural strengths and four with the associated behavioural weaknesses. All items were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale according to the frequency with which the individual engaged in these various behaviours, ranging from ‘‘always or practically always’’ to ‘‘never or just about never’’.

Corresponding author

Tony Manning can be contacted at: [email protected]

PAGE 94j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 40 NO. 2 2008

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )

This article has been cited by:

1. ManningTony Tony Manning Tony Manning is an Independent Scholar, Selkirk, UK RobertsonBob Bob Robertson Bob Robertson is an Independent Consultant and an Independent Scholar, Melrose, UK Selkirk, UK Melrose, UK . 2016. A three factor model of followership, part 2: research on the three factor model and its application to team roles. Industrial and Commercial Training 48:7, 354-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Christine Aicardi. 2016. Francis Crick, cross-worlds influencer: A narrative model to historicize big bioscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 55, 83-95. [CrossRef]

3. Mohsen Moghaddam, Shimon Y. Nof. 2015. Best-matching with interdependent preferences—implications for capacitated cluster formation and evolution. Decision Support Systems 79, 125-137. [CrossRef]

4. Tony ManningIndependent Management Training and Development Consultant based in Selkirk, UK. 2012. The art of successful persuasion: seven skills you need to get your point across effectively. Industrial and Commercial Training 44:3, 150-158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Anthea Sutton, Andrew Booth. 2012. What type of leader am I?: a training needs analysis of health library and information managers. Health Information & Libraries Journal 29:1, 39-46. [CrossRef]

6. Tony ManningIndependent Management Training and Development Consultant, based in Selkirk, UK. 2012. The art of successful influence: matching influence strategies and styles to the context. Industrial and Commercial Training 44:1, 26-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Tony ManningManagement Training and Development Consultant at AC Manning, Selkirk, UK Bob RobertsonIndependent Consultant based in Melrose, UK. 2010. Seniority and gender differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours. Part 1: Introduction and seniority differences. Industrial and Commercial Training 42:3, 139-146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Roisin GwyerThe University Library, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. 2009. Theory, research, and practice in library management 7. Library Management 30:6/7, 479-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Tony ManningIndependent management training and development consultant based in Selkirk, UK Graham PogsonLecturer in management studies, Heriot Watt University, UK Zoe MorrisonLecturer in human resource management, Heriot Watt University, UK. 2009. Interpersonal influence in the workplace: influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments. Industrial and Commercial Training 41:5, 258-269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

D ow

nl oa

de d

by N

ov a

S ou

th ea

st er

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 13

:2 4

07 D

ec em

be r

20 16

( P

T )