A typology for assessing managerial roles was used to explore Thai managers’ self‐reported use of influence tactics with subordinates. In‐depth interviews were conducted with 16 Thai managers in the Siam Cement Group. Managers who viewed themselves as vision setters tended to use rational persuasion, consultation, and pressure most. Motivator managers used rationality and ingratiation. Analyzer managers used pressure. Task masters used rationality and pressure. However, all types of manager sometimes used other tactics besides the most common ones. Much of this behavior is similar to how managers in studies from the USA behaved. However, Thai managers showed some orientation toward “softer” methods, whether or not the managerial role is typically associated with “soft” or “hard” methods.
CitationDownload as .RIS
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 1998, MCB UP Limited