The study reported here focused on both the target and the agent of influence, and examined the differences in their perceptions of the reasons for and the tactics of influence. Following attribution theory, it was hypothesized that agents would give more reasons than targets signifying power over the targets' behaviour and exercise strong tactics to influence their targets. On the other hand, targets would minimize the strong tactics being exercised upon them and emphasize reasons signifying their self‐control and agents' dependence on their help. The differences between agents and targets were expected to be more significant for bosses as agents and subordinates as targets than for any other status‐perspective combination. A total of 206 middle‐level managers participated in the study; 125 of them responded as agents and 81 responded as targets. Kipnis et al .'s (1980) questionnaire, consisting of five reasons for influencing others and 58 tactics of influence, was used. Nine dimensions of influence were found by factor analyses. Results clearly supported the research hypotheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erez et al. (1986) studied this question.