Search results

The paper aims to present and discuss research into the relationship between influencing behaviour and impact, including gender and seniority differences.

The paper builds on previous articles considering influencing behaviour in the workplace. These articles present a model of interpersonal influence and describe how individual influencing behaviour varies in different contexts. They identified the need for further investigation into the effectiveness of such behaviours in those contexts. This research utilises 360‐degree performance assessments as an indicator of the “effectiveness” or impact of workplace influencing behaviours.

The findings extend previous work supporting the idea that there are few, if any, influencing behaviours that apply to all situations and highlight the role of expectancies in work place assessments of influencing behaviours.

The research highlights ways in which the relationship between influencing behaviour and impact differ according to both the gender and seniority of those seeking to influence. This indicates that the “expectancies” of the influence or target affect perceptions of influencing behaviour and assessments of impact. This is consistent with the model of interpersonal influence previously developed, which includes explicit reference to feedback loops between behaviour, responses and expectancies. This raises further questions as to the impact of expectancies on 360‐degree assessment, and the nature and fairness of assessment within organisational performance management systems.

This paper challenges the idea that there are influencing strategies and styles that are effective, irrespective of context. It also highlights the role of expectancies within behavioural assessments in the workplace.

The purpose of this two‐part paper is to present and discuss research into gender and seniority differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours.

The paper builds on a previous article on influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments, which found a statistically significant positive relationship between these two sets of variables. However, the strength of this relationship was found to vary, depending on the seniority and gender of individuals. This article extends the previous one in two ways. First, it examines four hypotheses to explain the earlier findings. Second, it introduces data on two other types of behaviour – leadership and team behaviour – in relation to 360‐degree performance assessments. The first two hypotheses relate to seniority differences. The first is that influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments among middle managers because they have less power than senior managers and, in consequence, their style of influence is more important. The second hypothesis is that the behaviour of those at senior levels is symbolic and/or constrained and thus of little substantive importance. Gender differences are, therefore, explored more fully by considering two further hypotheses. The third is that male and female managers tend to be judged by different gender stereotypes. The fourth hypothesis is that male and female managers tend to do different jobs.

Support was found support for the first hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments are affected by seniority. Influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments of middle managers who tend to have less legitimate power. By contrast, influencing behaviour is less closely linked to 360‐degree assessments in senior managers who have more legitimate power, more influence over change and others and a more significant leadership role. Little support was found for the second hypothesis. 360‐degree assessments were strongly related to leadership and team behaviours in senior managers, as well as middle managers. These findings indicate that the behaviour of those at senior levels is of consequence and, can therefore, be expected to influence 360‐degree assessments. Clear evidence was found to support the third hypothesis that male and female managers were judged by different gender stereotypes. Male managers were judged more positively when they displayed a range of “leadership” behaviours. In contrast, female managers were judged more positively when they displayed “management” and “team” behaviours. Support was also found for the fourth hypothesis that male and female managers tended to do different jobs. Male managers were over‐represented at senior levels and were likely to have more influence over change at both middle and senior management levels.

The originality and value of this paper lies in its examination of the relationship between three different types of behaviour (i.e. influencing, leadership and team working) and 360‐degree assessments of performance, including seniority and gender differences.

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.

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.

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.

The research does not consider specific influence attempts, nor does it present evidence regarding the effectiveness of patterns of influencing behaviour in particular contexts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The paper argues that team roles access different types of power and influencing behaviours depending on role and role orientation. The 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.

The research does not consider specific influence attempts, nor does it present evidence regarding the effectiveness of patterns of influencing behaviour in particular contexts.

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. The 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.

Previous research into influencing behaviour has focused on its relationship to either situational variables or personality traits and, where personality variables 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.

The purpose of this paper is to present findings, and discuss the relevance of those findings, with regard to research undertaken about interpersonal influence in the workplace.

This paper is the second part 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. This part of the paper is divided into two main sections. The first section presents the research findings. The second section discusses the relevance of the findings. In particular, it considers how the observed relationships may provide guidelines for action, suggesting the circumstances in which particular influencing strategies and styles may be appropriate and inappropriate.

The findings support the idea that influencing behaviour is related to the characteristics of the person, their work role and their orientation to that work role.

There is clearly a need for further research. For example, the findings presented in this paper tell us nothing about whether patterns of influencing behaviour are actually effective in particular contexts. This raises further questions about how we might assess “effectiveness”. One possible approach is to look at the relationship between behaviour and assessments of effectiveness by other people, including 360 degree assessments. This approach has the merit of being consistent with the model of interpersonal influence described in the paper, that includes explicit reference to expectancies and has feedback loops between behaviour, responses and expectancies.

This paper is of value in presenting research findings that shine light on the nature of the relationship between influencing behaviour and both personality and contextual variables.

Jarring events, be they global crises such as COVID-19 or technological events such as the Cambridge Analytica data incident, have bullwhip effects on billions of people's daily lives. Such “shocks” vary in their characteristics. While some shocks cause, for example, widespread adoption of information systems (IS) as diverse as Netflix and Teams, others lead users to stop using IS, such as Facebook. To offer insights into the multifaceted ways shocks influence user behavior, this study aims to assess the status quo of shock-related literature in the IS discipline and develop a taxonomy that paves the path for future IS research on shocks.

This study conducted a literature review (N = 70) to assess the status quo of shock-related research in the IS discipline. Through a qualitative study based on users who experienced shocks (N = 39), it confirmed the findings of previous literature in an illustrative IS research context. Integrating the findings of the literature review and qualitative study, this study informs a taxonomy of shocks impacting IS use.

This study identifies different ways that shocks influence user behavior. The taxonomy reveals that IS research could profit from considering environmental, private and work shocks and shedding light on positive shocks. IS research could also benefit from examining the urgency of shocks, as there are indications that this influences how and when individuals react to a specific shock.

Findings complement previous rational explanations for user behavior by showing technology use can be influenced by shocks. This study offers a foundation for forward-looking research that connects jarring events to patterns of technology use.

The purpose of this paper is to discern whether upward influence behavior, with its antecedents such as organizational culture and leadership, can cultivate organizational trust, with particular reference to manufacturing companies in the plastics industry in Vietnam.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for the analysis of 418 responses returned from self‐administered structured questionnaires sent to 655 middle level managers.

From the findings emerged the linkage pattern of knowledge‐based trust or identity‐based trust and organizationally beneficial upward influence behavior. Ad hocracy, market, and clan cultures and transformational leadership were found to cultivate organizationally‐beneficial upward influence strategies, which in turn cultivate knowledge‐based or identity‐based trust.

The paper discerns the interplay between culture and leadership on the upward influence behaviors, which in turn influence organizational trust. The paper's findings provide insight into the interplay pattern of trust and its antecedents and underscore the magnitude of ad hocracy, market, and clan culture types, as well as transformational leadership style in the building of organizationally‐beneficial upward influence strategies in plastic manufacturing companies in the Vietnam business setting.

The purpose of this two‐part paper is to present and discuss research into gender and seniority differences in 360‐degree assessments of influencing, leadership and team behaviours.

The article builds on a previous article on influencing behaviour and 360‐degree assessments that found a statistically significant positive relationship between these two sets of variables. However, the strength of this relationship was found to vary, depending on the seniority and gender of individuals. This article extends the previous one in two ways. Firstly, it examines four hypotheses to explain the earlier findings. Secondly, it introduces data on two other types of behaviour – leadership and team behaviour – in relation to 360‐degree performance assessments.

The authors found support for the first hypothesis. The 360‐degree assessments are affected by seniority. Influencing behaviour is more closely linked to 360‐degree assessments of middle managers who tend to have less legitimate power. The authors found little support for the second hypothesis. The 360‐degree assessments were strongly related to leadership and team behaviours in senior managers, as well as middle managers. The authors found clear evidence to support the third hypothesis that male and female managers were judged by different gender stereotypes. The authors also found support for the fourth hypothesis that male and female managers tended to do different jobs.

The originality and value of this paper lies in its examination of the relationship between three different types of behaviour (i.e. influencing, leadership and team working) and 360‐degree assessments of performance, including seniority and gender differences. It combines theory and research as a basis for practice. It draws on relevant theory on influencing, team working and leadership, presents empirical evidence, examines possible interpretations, draws practical conclusions and discusses their implications. The findings have implications for the use of 360‐degree assessments, challenge universal prescriptions about leadership and management, provide guidelines about the development needs of managers as they move from middle to senior management levels, and highlight particular problems for female managers making the transition.