Different strokes for different folks? Influence tactics by Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS? Influence Tactics by Asian-American and Caucasian-American Managers

Katherine University

R. Xin*

of Southern California

Anne S. Tsui Hong Kong University of Science and Technology University

of California,

and h-vine

This article reports an empirical study of Asian-American managers’ use of influence tactics with superiors and subordinates compared to a group of Caucasian-American managers. Comparisons also were made between self-reported and target-reported influence behaviors of these managers and the extent to which the managers used similar influence tactics with both superiors and subordinates, Interestingly, this study found only minor differences between influence behaviors of Asian-American managers and Caucasian-American managers. Second, this study found differences between self-reported influence tactics and those same tactics as seen by the targets. Finally, the managers studied here, both AsianAmerican and Caucasian-American, used different influence tactics with superiors as compared to subordinates. The minor differences, with less than 3% of the variance due to managers’ different ethnic backgrounds, suggest that differences found in cross-cultural studies may not be generalizable to different ethnic groups within one country.

INTRODUCTION Exercise of influence is an integral component of organizational life, and influence is often seen as a key to leadership. A commonly accepted definition of leadership holds that * Direct all correspondence to: Katherine R. Xin, Department of Management and Organization, Business Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.1421. e-muilc [email protected] Leadership Quarterly, 7(l), 1099132. Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048.9843

School of

110

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

“leadership is a relational concept implying two terms: the influence agent and the person influenced. Every act of influence on a matter of organizational relevance is in some degree an act of leadership” (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 301). Yukl’s definition of leadership also puts considerable importance on the role of influence: he sees leadership as including “influencing task objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and compliance in task behaviors to achieve these objectives, influencing group maintenance and identification, and influencing the culture of the organization” (1989, p. 253). Many argue that effective leaders and managers use influence tactics more skillfully than less effective managers and leaders (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl, 1989; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). As the workforce in the United States becomes increasingly diverse, the study of influence tactics used by managers and leaders from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds is important to both academics and management practitioners. To date, there has been limited examination of influence tactics used by managers and leaders from different ethnic backgrounds within the United States. Do U.S. leaders with different ethnic backgrounds use the same influence tactics to achieve their objectives? Are there differences in the tactics they use to influence different targets? Although cross-cultural research in influence tactics using managers from different nations indicates a main effect of culture in these managers’ use of influence tactics (e.g., Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Schermerhorn & Bond, 199 l), are these differences found in cross-cultural/cross-national research generalizable to managers with different ethnicity residing in the same country? The current study was intended to help fill this void by exploring influence tactics used by managers and leaders from different cultural/ethnic groups in the United States, in particular, managers with Asian heritage-that is, Asian-American managers-and managers from the majority group-that is, Caucasian-American managers. Since the emergence of comparative management research, cultural and ethnic backgrounds hve been frequently used as independent variables in examining differences in management practices and behaviors across nations and across different ethnic groups. Based on Hofstede’s work (1980) and supported by many others (e.g., Triandis, 1993; Erez & Earley, 1993), Eastern (Asian) cultures are seen as being more collectivistic, higher in power distance, and more social-relations oriented compared to individualistic, economicoriented Western (European) North American cultures. Individuals from Eastern cultures are typically expected to display considerable willingness to accept power and status differentials among people. Western cultures are low in recognition of power differences. Researchers also note that post-Confucian legacies in Eastern cultures encourage “face” and “harmony” in social relations displaying respect for work and maintaining (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Redding & Wong, 1986). Taken together, Eastern cultural values suggest that Asian managers, or Asian-American managers influenced by Eastern cultural values, may view obedience by subordinates as a prerogative of one’s organizational status or rank, therefore rendering downward influence not necessary. Managers following Western cultural values might not expect total compliance as a natural response from subordinates, thus increasing the importance of downward influence. Considering these cultural differences as well as findings in influence behavior using managers from different nations, one would expect people from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds to vary in their choice and frequency of use of influence tactics with different targets. In the increasingly diverse American workplace, for example, one might expect different patterns of influence behaviors, depending on cultural/ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved.

Influence Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

111

Accordingly, the first major purpose of the current study was to explore the use of influence tactics of Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers working for American companies in the United States. Specifically, do Asian-American managers, who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, influence others at work differently than do Caucasian-American managers? An additional purpose of the current study was to examine the generalizability of cross-cultural research to cross-ethnic group research. Are differences found in managers from different national cultural groups generalizable to managers with different ethnic backgrounds in the context of cultural diversity in the United States? Apart from the issue of cultur~ethnic backgrounds, there are two additional issues in the influence literature that deserve further research attention. First, many studies have relied on self-reported influence behavior. We do not know if these self-reports are similar to influence actions as perceived by the targets being influenced. Second, limited understanding is available on potential differences in the influence behaviors targeted in both downward and upward directions by the same leaders in a cross-cultural context. The current study was designed to provide further insight on the influence behaviors of leaders from two different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, using both self-reported and targetreported descriptions of the leaders’ upward and downward influence attempts and behaviors.

BACKGROUND Influence

Tactics and Influence

Targets

Influence tactics have been the focus of numerous investigations of social power used in organizational contexts (Aguinis et al., 1994; Erez, Rim, & Keider, 1986; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990, 1991; Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993). Initially, the focus in this line of research was on identifying individual and situational predictors of influence success (e.g., Walter, 1966; Franklin, 1975). A number of authors criticized earlier efforts on this topic, typically focusing on two main problem areas. First, earlier studies tended to focus on downward influence, neglecting lateral and upward influence attempts (Kipnis & Vanderveer, 197 1; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982). Second, the critics pointed out that early studies tended to be anecdotal and lacking systematic empirical data (Kipnis & Vanderveer, 197 1). These shortcomings have prompted researchers to develop more comprehensive instruments to categorize the influence tactics that organizational members employ while influencing different targets. A major contribution to more rigorous research on influence tactics was reported by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980). Using an inductive method, they developed a questionnaire containing 58 specific methods of interpersonal influence. They asked three groups of business graduate students (most were employed professionals) to report the tactics they used to influence others at work. One group focused on their superiors; another on peers, and a third on subordinates. Through factor analysis, eight influence tactics emerged: assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward appeals, blocking, and coahtions. Based on this study, Kipnis et al. (1980) concluded that managers used different tactics to achieve different objectives and to

112

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol.

7 No.

1 1996

influence different targets. Subsequently, many studies have used the influence tactics instrument developed by Kipnis et al. (1980) to examine a variety of research questions (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Erez & Rim, 1982). These influence tactics also have been used as the basis for developing a typology of managers-such as shotgun managers, tacticians, ingratiators, and bystanders4epending on the overall patterns of use of these influence tactics (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988). More recently, some researchers have focused directly on the process of influence (e.g., Yukl & Falbe, 1990, 1991) on situational determinants of tactical choice (e.g., Dillard & Burgoon, 1985; Schilit & Locke, 1982), and on consequences of particular tactics or a cluster of tactics (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Yukl & Falbe, 1991; Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993). Most of these studies focused on downward influence, although the number of studies on upward influence tactics has increased greatly in recent years (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Barry & Bateman, 1992; Case et al. 1988; Chacko, 1990; Deluga, 1988; Deluga & Perry, 1991; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; Tandon, Ansari, & Kapoor, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993). However, research including both upward and downward influence behavior of the same leader is still limited. Yukl and Tracy (1992) conducted one of the few studies, in which they asked three different target groups (superiors, subordinates, and peers) to describe the influence behavior of the same leader. However, they did not compare the target-described influence behavior with the selfdescriptions by the leaders. Sources of Data on Managers’

Influence

Behaviors

Most studies relied on the self-reports of the influence agents. Erez, Rim, and Keider (1986), Hinkin and Schriesheim ( 1990), and Yukl and associates ( 1990, 1992, 1993) were among the first to use the influence targets as reporters of influence behavior by agents. However, the descriptions by the targets in these studies were not matched with the descriptions of influence behavior by the leaders (i.e., the influence agents) themselves. Therefore, it is not possible to know, frotn these studies, whether the target’s perceptions or descriptions of the leader’s behavior were similar to the leader’s own description of his or her behavior. If attributions about individuals are made on the basis of perceived (and of) behavior, and since not “objective” descriptions, or the actors’ self-descriptions, attributions may differ considerably between agents (as actors) and targets (as perceivers) (DePaulo et al. 1987), we need to understand whether self-reported influence behaviors are indeed different from influence behaviors perceived by the targets. This is particularly important when investigating leader-member relationships, as the perceptions the leader has of his or her behavior may differ considerably from that of the members (Bass, 1990; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990). The perception may differ even more when leaders and followers are from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds. In general, studies suggest that “individuals tend to have inaccurate-specifically overinflated-views of their own behavior” (Mabe & West, 1982). This suggests that self-descriptions may deviate from perceivers’ descriptions. The Impact of Culture

The impact of culture on management practices is an impo~ant topic in management research (Adler, 1986; Ajiferuke & Boddewyn, 1970; Erez & Earley, 1993; Hofstede.

Influence

Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

113

1980; Leung & Bond, 1984; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Triandis, 1988). Many researchers have used nation to identify cultural groupings (Triandis, 1993). However, as Ronen and Shenkar (1988) observed, one nation may contain several cultures, and a similar culture may exist in a number of nations. Perhaps the most widely cited work on culture developed for the study of organizations is that of Geert Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1984). Hofstede (1980) categorized countries into country areas or clusters, with each cluster of countries scoring similarly on certain cultural dimensions. The differences within the clusters are minimal, while those between clusters are maximal. The idea of cultural area, or cluster, is defined as groups of countries with common or similar histories and cultural values. According to Hofstede, culture is “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from those of another. Culture, in this sense, includes systems of values; and values are among the building blocks of culture” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 25). According to Triandis (1993) and Erez and Earley (1993) the collective programming is shared among individuals who have a common time, place, and language. These mental programs may be learned by individuals through their cultural systems, particularly during childhood and early development. At the core of mental programs are values. Values are defined by Hofstede (1980, p. 18) as “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others.” Hofstede and others distinguish “core” and “peripheral” values. Core values are formed during childhood socialization, while peripheral values are formed in later life. Core values are very difficult to change and tend to be perpetuated through early socialization of the younger generations of the cultural groups. Later socialization by other groups or by employing organizations most likely can only change a person’s peripheral values (Triandis, 1993). According to Hofstede’s original study (1980), Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and India share similar core values. For example, these areas are large in power distance and low in individualism. People from these four countries, therefore, may be considered as part of a cultural cluster. Asian-American managers who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from these four countries belong to this cultural cluster and may be similar in terms of their beliefs in such concepts as individualism/collectivism or power distance. With this in mind, it could be assumed that various subcultural groups within any social setting would retain some of the cultural values dominant in their core value systems. Asian-Americans, who grew up in families with Asian values, might well exhibit cultural traits in the work place different from their Caucasian-American colleagues doing the same kind of work. Cultural values moderate the effectiveness of various managerial techniques. In particular, the values of collectivism/individualism and power distance have been found to be important determinants of the patterns of reward allocation, job design, participation in goal-setting, and group activity (Erez & Earley, 1993). In the present research, we make the assumption that power distance and individualism/ collectivism are core cultural values for individuals. Based on the work of Hofstede (1980) and others (Erez & Earley, 1993; Triandis, 1993), we further assume that individuals with Eastern cultural heritage are typically relatively higher in collectivism and relatively lower in individualism compared to those more commonly identified with European-based Anglo-Saxon culture. It has been noted that European-based Anglo-Saxon American cultures are typically low in recognition of power differences (Hofstede, 1980; Erez & Earley, 1993; Triandis, 1993). In Eastern cultures, on the other hand, those in positions of power expect to receive obedience without question and expect to be granted appropriate

114

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

respect for position. People with less power consider themselves quite apart from those in power. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, we assume that American managers of Asian descent generally are high in collectivism and power distance while American managers who are Caucasians are generally high in individualism and low in power distance. There is another cultural factor that may uniquely define the Asian culture: the principles emphasized in Confucian teaching. The first of the four key principles of Confucian teaching is that the stability of a society is based on unequal relationships between people (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). The idea of “wu lun” defines five basic relationships among people in a society. They are: ruler/subject, father/son, older brother/younger brother, husband/wife, and older friend/younger friend. In each of these relationships, the junior partner owes the senior respect and obedience, and the senior owes the junior protection and consideration. This principle of “wu lun” shapes the high power distance in the Eastern culture. The second principle is the idea of the “family” as the basic social unit in society. An individual is defined in terms of his or her membership in a family. This principle explains partly the lower individualism and the high collectivism in the Eastern culture. The third principle is respect for others. It is a virtue to treat others as one would like to be treated. The fourth and final principle is that of conscientiousness. It is a virtue to regard one’s task in life to consist of acquiring skills and education, to work hard, to not spend more than necessary, and to be patient. Using these four Confucian principles, Hofstede and Bond (1988) developed a Confucian Dynamism scale and compared responses from 50 nations. They found that Hong Kong ranked number 1, Taiwan ranked number 2, Japan ranked number 3, and India ranked number 6 in the sample. This finding further supports the idea that these Asian countries belong to the same cultural cluster. All of the Asian-American managers in this current study were either immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, from these countries. In sum, when leaders or managers attempt to influence their superiors and subordinates, power will come into play. Thus, we expect that managers with different cultural values about power distance would influence their superiors and subordinates differently. As leaders are also members of a small group, the relationships and interactions between the leader and the followers may be affected by whether the leader defines him or herself as an integral part of the group or as an individual apart from the group. We expect that managers with different cultural values about individualism or collectivism would influence their superiors and subordinates differently as well. Cross-cultural

Studies of Influence

Tactics

There are a few cross-cultural studies of influence tactics. In one study, Kipnis et al. “essentially no difference among countries in how managers exercised found influence” (1984, p. 61). However, their study included samples of Western managers (U.S., British, and Australian). Managers from these countries share a similar Western cultural heritage (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, the similarity observed is understandable. Hirokawa and Miyahara (1986) compared the influence strategies used by managers in U.S. and Japanese organizations. They found Japanese managers relied more on altruism or rationale-based strategies, while U.S. managers tend to rely more often on reward- or punishment-based strategies. The explanation is that Japanese and U.S.

Influence

Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

115

managers share different assumptions regarding the most effective way to achieve influence in organizations, and they rely on different power bases to influence their employees. Cultural differences might have accounted for the different influence patterns observed. Schermerhom and Bond (1991) reported differences in the use of influence tactics by a sample of Hong Kong Chinese and a sample of Americans, using the categories of influence tactics developed by Kipnis et al. (1980). The findings indicate a main effect for culture. Hong Kong Chinese subjects were more likely than their U.S. counterparts to use the assertiveness tactic while the U.S. subjects were more likely to use ingratiation, rationality, and exchange. Schmidt and Yeh (1992) examined the structure of leader influence behavior toward subordinates among a sample of Australian, English, Japanese, and Taiwanese managers, also using the measures by Kipnis et al. (1980). All seven influence strategies (i.e., reason, bargaining, higher authority, sanctions, ingratiation, assertiveness, and coalition) were found in each country. The results of the Taiwanese and Japanese samples were more similar to each other than to what Schmidt and Yeh called the “Anglo-Saxon cluster” (p. 261). The specific tactics defining these leader influence strategies varied across nations according to factor analysis of the survey data from the four countries. Research Questions

The above studies were conducted in cross-national settings. Understanding of crosscultural differences among groups within the same national setting-as in the United States, where cultural and ethnic diversity is a defining characteristic of the workforce-seems to be a highly desirable research goal. Current literature seems to be silent on the generalizability of research obtained from cross-cultural research using people from different nations to people from different ethnic groups in the United States. Specifically, the extent of the influence of the inherited ethnic cultural values on the behaviors of people in the workplace remains to be seen. However, cross-cultural research and research on culture gives us a good starting point. Based on the differences between Asian and Western countries on the two cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance, we were interested in knowing whether Asian-American and Caucasian-American leaders differed in the influence behavior toward superiors (upward influence) and subordinates (downward influence), based on their self-reports and the perceptions of their influence targets. Thus, the current study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1. 2.

3.

Do managers with Asian and Caucasian cultural backgrounds differ in their influence behaviors? Do the influence behaviors exerted by either or both Asian-American managers and Caucasian-American managers toward their superiors differ from the influence behaviors exerted towards their subordinates? Are there differences in the descriptions of the influence behaviors of AsianAmerican and Caucasian-American managers by the influence agents themselves (i.e., self-reports) and by the targets (i.e., target reports)?

116

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Voi. 7 No. 1 1996

METHOD Research Design

The three research questions suggest a 2~2x2 factorial design. The first factor is culture: Asian-American versus Caucasian-American. The second factor is direction: upward versus downward. The third factor is the source of the description of the managerial influence behavior. We refer to this as the rater factor: self versus target. Question 2 refers to a possible interaction effect between the culture and the direction factors. Question 3 refers to a potential interaction effect between the culture and the rater factors. We used two independent samples of managers for the culture variable, the superiors and subordinates of these managers for the direction variable, and the manager versus the target samples for the rater variable. This research design suggests a total of 8 sets of influence data: (1) self-reports of upward influence behavior by Asian-American managers, (2) selfreports of downward influence behavior by Asian-American managers, (3) self-reports of upward influence behavior by Caucasian-American managers, (4) self-reports of downward influence behavior by Caucasian-American managers, (5) superior reports of influence behavior of Asian-American managers, (6) subordinate reports of influence behavior of Asian-American managers, (7) superior reports of influence behavior of Caucasian-American managers, and (8) subordinate reports of influence behavior of Caucasian-American managers. Sample The sample consisted of 141 Caucasian-Ame~can and 196 Asian-An~e~can managers, all working and living in Southern California. The majority of these Asian-American managers (about 50% Chinese, 45% Japanese, and 5% Indian) were immigrants and children of immigrants. The Caucasian-American managers were 89% male, had an average age of 44 years (SD = 5.4) an average educational level of 17.2 years (SD = 1.4). and an average company tenure of 13.7 (SD = 6.6). The Asian-American managers were 70% male, had an average age of 41 years (SD = 7.6), an average educational level of 18.2 years (SD = 2.6), and an average company tenure of 12 years (SD = 6.1). The AsianAmerican managers were younger (f = -3.96, p < .OOl), had shorter company tenure, (f = -2.32, p < .OOl), and higher formal education (t = 4.09, p < 0.001) and had more females fchi-square = 16.67, p < .OOl). The two groups of managers were participants in a oneweek executive education program which was offered several times over a two-year period. Data were collected over this two-year period. No significant differences were found among different groups of Asian-American managers and Caucasian-American managers who participated in the executive education program at different times. The sample also consisted of 270 superiors and 39X subordinates who described the influence behavior of the 141 Caucasian-American managers. There were 304 superiors and 384 subordinates who described the influence behavior of the 196 Asian-American managers. The demographic profiles (i.e., average age, company tenure, educational level, and proportion of females) of the superiors for the Asian-American and the CaucasianAmerican managers were slightly different. The pattern of difference is similar to that of the difference between the two groups of managers. The superiors of the CaucasianAmerican m~agers were slightly older and had slightly lower educational levels and

Notes:

*p < 0.05:

** p < 0.01;

Mean Standard Deviation

Tenure (Years)

Mean Standard Diviation

Age (Years)

Education (Years) Mean Standard Deviation

Race White Asian Other minority

Gender Men Women

Variables

Demographic

***

,I <

0.001

12.03 6.12

41.03 7.55

18.24 2.58

6.62

13.71

5.41

43.99

1.39

17.22

100%

11%

30%

100%

89%

196

American

(CAM) N = 141

Managers

Caucasian

70%

N=

(AAM)

Asian American

Managers

-2,32***

-3,96***

4,09***

x2 = 16.67***

Test

D@rence

Demographic

17.42 8.26

47.83 8.13

19.74 7.26

49.29 6.23

11.29 1.80

3.5%

7.4%

18.45 2.29

96% 0.5%

76.8% 15.8%

1%

12%

N=270

N = 304

99%

for CAM

,forAAM

88%

Superiors

Superiors

Table 1 Profile of the Sample

-3.51***

-2,43***

6.74***

x2 = 52.46**

x2= 24.45**”

Test

Diffrrence

11.41 7.4 1

40.18 9.15

12.21 7.63

44.32 1.93

16.90 2.71

6%

14%

16.82 2.31

92% 2%

19%

348

58% 28%

81%

N = 398

for CAM

Subordinates

66%

N = 384

,for AAM

Subordinates

-1.48

-6,75***

-0.44

x2 = 132.41***

x2 = 23.21***

Test

Difference

s 2

2 UC

i!

2.

E -. w 1

z. n E

u

2 3

h

2 2.

2: -. i?i

s

ci

2 2.

118

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

longer tenure than the superiors of the Asian-American managers. There is more similarity in the demographic profiles of the subordinates for the two groups of managers. They were similar in educational level and in company tenure. However, the subordinates for the Caucasian-American managers were slightly older than the subordinates for the AsianAmerican managers. The main difference is in the ethnic background of the subordinates. There was a higher proportion of Asian-American subordinates for the Asian-American managers than for the Caucasian-American managers (28% and 2%, respectively, chisquare = 132.4, p < ,001). The differences in the demographic profiles of the various groups were taken into consideration during data analyses. Table 1 summarizes the demographic information about the sample.

PROCEDURES

Data were collected from and about the managers (hereafter referred to as the focal managers) within a month prior to attendance in the executive education program. Each focal manager was asked to give a survey to each of five other people at work: two at a higher organizational level (superiors) and three at a lower organizational level (subordinates). All five targets were requested in the survey to describe the influence behavior of the focal manager. The focal managers reported, in two different sections of the survey, how they influenced their superiors and subordinates. Each respondent returned the completed survey directly to the researcher at the university. The respondents were assured that no one in their companies would see the completed surveys. Because the data were collected as part of the executive education program, we received excellent responses, with response rates ranging from 70% (subordinates of the Asian-American managers) to 96% (the Asian-American managers). Measures

The instrument by Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) was used to measure six influence tactics: coalition, ingratiation, rationality, assertiveness, exchange, and upward appeal. The downward influence instrument also includes a sanction tactic which we excluded because we wanted a comparable set of tactics for comparing upward and downward influence patterns. The number of items defining each tactic differed only slightly for the superior and the subordinate versions of the instrument. We used the original definitions (see Table 2). The number of items defining each tactic is provided in Table 3. Managers were asked to indicate how frequently they used each of these tactics to influence either their superiors or their subordinates, ranging from 5 anchoring “almost always” to 1 anchoring “never.” Each influence target was asked to indicate in the survey how often the focal manager generally used each tactic to influence him or her, using the same 5-point scale. Preliminary analyses showed that one item detracted from the internal reliability of the rationality tactic. This item was deleted. Table 3 shows the alpha coefficients for all the multiple-item scales, along with their means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for each of the eight sets of ratings. With the exception of three scales (which have alphas of 51 to .55), the alphas of all the scales ranged from 0.60 to 0.84, with a median alpha of 0.7 1, higher than the median alpha reported in the Kipnis et al. (1980) original study.

Influence Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

119

Managers

Table 2 Definition of Influence Tactics Coalition

:

Mobilize other people in the organization

to support requests

interest, goodwill, and esteem to create a favorable

Ingratiation:

Demonstrate

Rationality:

Rely on logical arguments and factual evidence to convince the targets that a request is practical and will result in positive outcomes

Assertiveness:

Use demands, threats, frequent checking,

Exchange:

Rely on negotiation and the exchange of benefits or favors, indicating cate at a later time, or promise a share of the benefits if assisted

UpwardAppeal:

Invoke the influence of higher levels in the organization

Sours:

Dcfinition~

impression

or persistent reminders to influence targets willingness

to recipro-

to back up requests

a~ adapted from Kipnis ct al. (19X0).

Analysis Yukl & Tracey, 1992), we first used the MANOVA procedure to assess the influence of culture, direction, and rater and their interaction terms on the use of the six influence tactics as a set. However, in our analyses, we controlled for differences in the demographic profiles of the subjects. The variables of gender, educational level, age, and company tenure were included as covariants in the MANOVA. Therefore, the MANCOVA procedure was used to estimate the net effects of the three main factors of culture, direction, and rater, and their interaction terms, after removing differences on these demographic factors. If the MANCOVA results were significant, the ANCOVA results on each of the influence tactics (which are provided in the MANCOVA output) were used to identify the specific tactics which accounted for the group differences observed. Additional Ttests also were used to further identify the specific direction of the differences between the various groups. Consistent

with

earlier

studies (Schermerhorn

& Bond,

1991;

RESULTS The MANCOVA results showed significant F values for each of the three main effects of culture, direction, and rater, as well as significant F values for all three two-way interaction terms. The three-way interaction is not significant. The MANCOVA and the ANCOVA results are summarized in Table 4. The largest effect was on the direction factor (MANCOVA F = 249.15, A= .56), suggesting that the managers’ choice and frequency of influence differed greatly in influencing their superiors compared to their subordinates. Direction explained 44% of the variance in the two sets of the ratings (l- A = .44). The rater factor also was significant (MANCOVA F = 22.23, A = .94), explaining 6% of the variance in the data. The culture factor was significant (MANCOVA F = 9.53, A = .97) but it explained only 3% of the variance in the data.

LEADERSHIP

120

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Injluence (Nurnhrr

Tactics

MPlUl

of ltww)

Asian-American Influencing

xl

x2

x3

x=f

X5

x6

Mrcm

SD

M

Manager

Superiors

Xl.

Coalition

.x3

.63

-

.24

.30

.20

.26

.32

2.88

.92

.hO

x2.

Ingratiation (6)

2.x

I

.6X

.70

.J2

-

.20

.37

.47

.20

1.59

.hS

.66

x3.

Rationality

4.19

.66

.6X

.?3

.I8

~

.os

02

.Ol

4.11

.69

.7s

x4.

Awaivencss

1.80

57

.70

.13

36

.I3

~

5.5 .61 1.80

.59

.7l

xS.

Exchange (5)

.80

33 53

.I4

.s2

~

.Sl

I .70

.64

.77

Upward appeal (4)

I .7-I I .77

.hS

x6.

.hl

.73

.41

37

.I4

.s4

.41

~

I.64

.61

.7l

.SS

Influencing

(2)

3.08

(3) (6)

Subordinates

xl.

Coalition (2)

2.64

.9S

.7l

.Sl

.36

.22

2.3x

.9x

Ingratiation

3.09

.7l

.7s

_ .?S .so ~

2s

x2.

.33

.22

.3s

.IX

1.7x

.6S

.60

X3.

Kationality

3.16

.63

.76

.17

~

.I5

.3

-.0-l

3.60

.x7

.72

(6) (3)

(7)

.30

xl.

Aswrtiveneu

2.62

.hl

.lS

IX

.73

.33

--

.49

.3x

7.34

.63

.72

x5.

Exchange (5)

7.13

.70

.76

.43

.49

26

.46

~

.47

I.71

.69

.74

x6.

Upward appeal (4)

I .5x

.63

.7 I

.27

.I6

.04

34

.36

-

I.22

.-I9

.72

Caucasian-American Influencing

Manager

Superiors

x I.

Coalition (2)

2.99

.X1

.S3

~

32

.2Y

.I6

.2l

,I I

3.09

.82

.62

x2.

Ingratiation (6)

I.56

.63

.73

.38

~

.23

.29

.4l

.26

2.38

.6S

.7l

x3.

Rationnliry (3)

1.29

.49

.63

.I3

.24

-

-.03

.w

p. I7

3.07

.6S

.7s

x4.

Aa\er-tivenc\a(6)

1.82

.39

.6S

.IX

.72

-.oo

~

.43

.40

I.81

.S4

.66

x5.

Exchange (5)

I .SJ

.S3

.7x

.22

37

.oo

.0x

~

.44

I.59

.60

.72

x0.

Upward appeal (4)

I .66

.so

.h3

.21

.22

.03

22

.4s

--

I .78

.64

.73

3 I

Influencing

Subordinates

h I.

Coalition (2)

7.49

.79

.66

~

32

.23

.I5

30

.I9

2.45

.x9

x2.

Ingratiation (6)

7.81

.hh

.7x

.32

~

.37

,117 .40

.06

2.54

.62

60

x3.

Rationality (3)

3.99

.6?

.71

.23

.2x

~

.02

.I3

-.22

3.58

.7s

.6S

X4.

A\wrtivencc

2.55

.47

.63

.I3

.77

-.Ol

~

31

37

2.35

.60

.68

X5.

Exchange (5)

I .90

.hl

.78

.33

.48

.07

A0

~

.3l

I.55

.S3

.6S

X6.

Upward appeal (4)

I .S7

.J9

.73

.20

.I?

-.os

.26

.29

~

I .27

.ss

.73

(7)

Influence

Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

121

Managers

Table 4 The Effect of Culture, Direction, and Rater on Managerial Influence Behavior

Coalition Ingratiation

0.00

ios.o5+

2.13

4.02**

4.76**

0.23

0.99

32.751

34.49+

39.271

2.34

1.42

5.00**

0.68

69.92+

56.35’

4.51**

0.04

12.35f

3.05

0.06

1.30

13.40+

2.48

0.60

1.71

43.53’

0.04

20.13’

12.of?

0.03

Rationality

1.61

Assertiveness

0.84

543.52t

23.201

Exchange Upward appeal

0.26

1X18+

9.53+ 0.97

30.47+

249.15: 0.56

9.91*** 29.2

1’

11fl2+

5.20**

22.23 + 0.94

effect on the interaction between culture and direction MANCOVA F = 2.19, A = .99), meaning that the patterns of upward and downward influence differed only slightly between the Asian-American and the Caucasian-American managers. There was also a significant interaction between culture and rater (MANOVA F= 3.85, A = .99), suggesting that superiors and subordinates provided different descriptions of the influence behaviors of the Asian-American and the CaucasianAmerican managers compared to their self-ratings. There was a significant interaction effect between direction and rater (MANOVA F = 10.90, A = .97). This means that the superiors’ and subordinates’ descriptions differed from the managers’ own descriptions of their upward and downw~d influence behaviors. Finally, the three-way interaction was not significant. The ANCOVA results in Table 4 indicate that the significant interaction between culture and direction was due to three of the six influence tactics: coalition, rationality, and upward appeal. The significant interaction between culture and rater was due to differences on the coalition and the upward appeal tactics. The significant interaction on the direction and rater factors was due to differences on five of the six influence tactics. Below are more detailed discussions of the three main effects and the three significant two-way interaction effects. Table 5 provides the cell means and the associated T-scores for the two groups for each of the three main effects. Table 6 provides the cell means and the associated T-scores for the four groups suggested by each of the three significant two-way interaction effects. There

was

a small

significant

Main Effects of Culture, Direction, and Rater A comparison of the mean ratings on the influence behavior of Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers in Table 5 (first column) suggests that the former used

LEADERSHIP

122

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

Table 5 Group Differences on Managerial Influence Behavior Due to the Main Effect of Culture, Direction, and Rater

ingratiation and exchange more often than the Caucasian-American managers. Table 5 also shows the mean ratings on the managers’ upward and downward influence behaviors (middle column). Managers tended to use coalition, rationality, and upward appeal more often when influencing superiors than when influencing subordinates. They tended to use ingratiation, assertiveness, and exchange more often when in~uencing subordinates than when influencing superiors. Table 5 shows further the mean ratings of influence behavior as reported by the managers themselves and by their targets (third column). Self-reported influence ratings are higher than target-reported influence behaviors on five of the six influence tactics. Managers appeared to perceive themselves as being more active in influencing others compared to perceptions by targets. Effect of the interaction

Between Culture, Direction, and Rater

The significant two-way interaction between culture and direction suggests that managers with Asian and Caucasian backgrounds seemed to differ slightly in their upward and downward influence patterns. The ANCOVA results in Table 4 suggest that the major differences are on the influence tactics of coalition, rationality, and upward appeal. The means of the ratings by the four groups are shown in the upper portion of Table 6. AsianAmerican managers used less coalition and upward appeal in influencing their superiors than Caucasian-American managers. The Asian-American managers used these two tactics slightly more in influencing subordinates than the Caucasian-American managers (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). The two groups of managers did not differ on the use of rationality with superiors, but the Asian-American managers tended to use rationality in influencing subordinates slightly more often than the CaucasianAmerican managers. However, neither of the T-scores were significant. Thus, only slight cultural differences in the upward and downward intluence patterns were observed.

The middle portion of Table 6 shows the mean ratings on the influence behaviors of the Asian-American and the Caucasian-American managers as reported by the managers themselves and the targets. As suggested in Table 4, the significant interaction was due to differences on the upward appeal and the coalition tactics. Table 6 shows that the AsianAmerican managers reported a more frequent use of upward appeal than the CaucasianAmerican managers (t = 3.95, p < .OOl). However, the targets reported the opposite. They reported slightly more frequent use of this tactic by the Caucasian-American than by the Asian-American managers (t = -2.09, p < .05). Perhaps the cultural value of high power distance held by the Asian-American managers may have led them to believe that using the hierarchy is appropriate in getting others to du things and this belief, in turn. caused them to report more frequent use of this tactic than reported by Caucasian-Ame~can managers. Targets who may be from different ethnic backgrounds might not hold this belief of power distance. Besides, they may be influenced by their stereotypical view of Asian managers. Invoking the influence of higher levels in the organization to back up one’s request is a more aggressive and assertive approach to get one’s way. Asian managers’ aggressive intluence behavior, such as upward appeal, may be shadowed or discounted by the stereotypical view of Asian managers as gentle and nonaggressive. This stereotyping might be held by the targets of these Asian-American managers, which may lead to the lower ratings of these Asian-American managers’ upward appeal. AsianAmerican managers also reported that they used the coalition tactic more often than the Cauc~ian-American managers (t = 2.03, p < B5). The high collectivism belief mighr explain the more frequent use of coalition. Using a group of people (i.e., coalition) may be perceived as an appropriate strategy for in~uencing others. However, the targets’ reports differed from the self-reports. They perceived the Caucasian-American managers as using the coalition tactic slightly more often than the Asian-American managers, but the difference did not reach significance. However, the more interesting difference suggested by these ratings is that the Asian-American managers’ self-ratings tended to be generally higher than the Caucasian-American managers’ self-ratings. From the targets’ perception, Asian-American managers are more active in using some tactics but less active in using other tactics than the Caucasian-American managers. In general, these interaction effects were small and could be due to chance errors. However, they might suggest some subtlety in perceptions of influence behavior that may have a potential effect on the effectiveness of the managers with different cu~~ral/ethnic back~ounds in their influence attempts. The lower portion of Table 6 shows the means for the four groups relating to the direction by rater interaction effect. This is the largest of the three interaction effects. The groups differed on five of the six influence tactics (suggested by the ANCOVA results reported in Table 4). The means in Table 6 suggest managers themselves reported more frequent use of the exchange tactic with subordinates than with superiors (t = -7.29, p < ,001). However, there was no difference in the use of the exchange tactics as perceived by superiors and subordinates (t = 57, ns.). Managers also reported slightly more frequent use of rationality with superiors than with subordinates (difference in the two means is .15, t = 3-17, p c .O1). However, the difference in the scores was much greater based on the targets’ reports. Subordinates reported that their managers used rationality much less often than the superiors of these managers reported {difference in the two means is .50,r = 11.94,p -c X%1). This finding is particularly interesting in terms of the specific tactic involved. Rationality refers to the use of logic, information, and reason in influencing others. Why

124

LEADERSHIP

Interaction

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

Table 6 Effect of Culture x Direction, Culture x Rater, and Direction x Rater on Influence Behavior Culture x Direction Dok~xwwru Mrcrn A skn Arnericcm

T-SUN? -1.71

Coalition

3.89.’

Ingratiation

Cuuu.sirr,v Americtrn

2.53

2.46

I.19

2.87

7.61

6.66.:

Rationality

-0.04

3.77

3.69

Assertiveness

PO.25

2.43

2.47

1.x4

I .64

4.c)7+

I.33

I.29

I.30

3.43+

Exchange upward

appeal

-1.17

I .lY PI.21

Culture x Rater Ttrr,yrr

Srlf

MNIn

Muon

Asionhnrrkm

CmwrrsitrnA1wricun

7‘.SNIW

AshAmrric~crn

CurrcwsicrnAmerican

Coalition

2.88

2.74

2.03**

2.65

2.71

Ingratiation

2.94

2.60

4.74.;

2.70

2.51

Rationality

4.18

4.14

0.82

1.82

3.78

I.11

2.11

2.19

2,24**

-1.13

5.23t

Assertiveness

3. IX

2.18

0.1 I

Exchange

I .92

1.72

3.82’

I.71

157

3.12’

I .68

I.50

3.9s+

I.41

I .48

-2.09”*

Upward

appeal

Direction

x Rater Tuqrl

SPlf ._

Mecm

Mrtrn

UpWd

Downwwrd

Coalition

3.04

2.57

Ingratiation

2.71

2.97

Rationality

4.23

4.08

Assertiveness

I.81

2.59

Exchange

I.65

2.02

1.72

I .37

Upward lv<,rr\:

appeal **

,I

<

0.05: ***

,I

<

O.OI; +p < 0.001.

T-SWW

lJp”wd

Downwwr-11

2.98

2.47

10.20+

2.54

2.66

-3.29:

4.09

3.59

11.94+

-1X.26’

I.81

7.39

-7.29’

I .6S

I .63

0.57

I.71

I .25

14.67.’

7.02’ -4.76’ 3.17”**

5.56’

-17.97’

Influence

Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

125

would subordinates report a much less frequent use of this tactic by managers than the managers reported themselves? This discrepancy in perception may have implications for understanding between members of these vertical dyads and in terms of the managers’ success in influencing subordinates. DISCUSSION Based on existing work on cross-cultural management and the influence literature, we expected that managers from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds would vary in their choice and frequency of use of influence tactics with different targets. We further expected that there might be greater differences between self and target descriptions of the managers’ influence behavior among Asian-American managers than among CaucasianAmerican managers. We found group differences on all three main effects of culture, direction, and rater. We also found small significant effects from the interaction between culture and the other two factors. The upward and downward influence pattern as well as the self- and target-ratings seemed to differ somewhat depending on the cultural/ethnic backgrounds of the managers. These results were obtained even after controlling for other demographic differences such as age, educational level, gender, and company tenure. Effect of Cultural/Ethnic

Differences

The results on the main factor of culture and the interaction between culture and rater suggest that Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers differed most on the use of ingratiation, exchange, and upward appeal. These differences are discussed in detail below. Ingratiation

Given the hierarchical nature of the Eastern culture, stemming also from the “wu lun” idea that “the boss is the boss and I am the subordinate” described above (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede & Bond, 1988), we might expect that individuals from the Asian culture would be less likely to use ingratiation as an influence tactic, and that they would be more likely to use the assertiveness tactic. However, Asian-American managers and their respective superiors and subordinates report more use of ingratiation by the Asian-American managers than by Caucasian-American managers in general. There may be several different explanations for this finding. One possible reason is related indirectly to the social stereotype of Asian-Americans. Asians are frequently viewed as modest, polite, softspoken, and nonconfrontational (Hung, 1995). Observers may interpret the “Asian politeness” as more “friendly” and less “aggressive.” Also, the higher self-ratings by Asian-American managers on their use of ingratiation could be related to the high power distance expectation. These Asian-American managers, while holding a cultural belief of high power distance, also want to be successful in the American culture with American subordinates. They might feel a need to overcompensate this belief in a social setting where equality in power is emphasized. Not only do the Asian-American managers not display high power distance behavior, they turn more to the use of a very low power distance tactic, ingratiation. Also, because Asian-Americans believe that “the boss is the boss,” it would be logical for individuals from Asian cultural backgrounds to use whatever influence tactic

126

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

possible with the boss, including ingratiation or friendliness. Caucasian managers grounded in Western cultures are aware of stronger cultural sanctions against “brownCaucasiannosing” or “kissing up to the boss.” Thus, the more independent-minded American managers, on the other hand, may be more reluctant to use ingratiation with the boss as an influence tactic. The finding on ingratiation is inconsistent with that found by Schermerhom and Bond (1991) who found Hong Kong Chinese used ingratiation less often than the American subjects. One reason for the difference between our findings and those by Schermerhom and Bond may be in the nature of the targets. The targets of the Asian-American managers in our study were mostly non-Asians. The targets of the Hong Kong Chinese subjects in the Schermerhom and Bond study were mostly Hong Kong Chinese. The influence behavior of the managers may differ depending on the cultural/ethnic background of the target. Unfortunately, we were not able to design our study to examine the influence of the targets’ cultural backgrounds on the managers’ influence behaviors. Future research should include this as a possible determinant of managerial behavior. Exchange

Both self-reports and others’ reports portrayed a higher use of exchange by AsianAmerican managers, which is consistent with the value of collectivism and a strong norm of reciprocity deeply rooted in Eastern culture. Exchange of favors is a prevalent norm and a common way to get things done in both social and business settings (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Xin & Pearce, In press). Many articles on business, for example, discuss the importance of “guanxi,” or “interpersonal relationships” (Byrd & Lynn, 1990; Fox, 1987). “Guanxi” on the surface seems to relate to coalitions, but there is also a strong sense of reciprocity in the term. In Eastern cultures, the norm of reciprocity is a strong basis that governs social relations (Triandis, 1992). Exchange of favors is a very important method of getting things done. You do a favor for someone because you may later need a favor in return. In Anglo-American culture, exchange of favors in the workplace occurs, but it may be less frequent than in the Eastern cultures. Exchange of favors in the workplace is not a widely used practice in Western culture. This characteristic may explain different patterns of influence tactics as indicated in more frequent use of exchange by Asian-American managers in this study. Upward

Appeal

Asian-American managers reported using upward appeal less often than CaucasianAmerican managers in influencing their superiors. This behavior is consistent with the high power distance value in the Eastern culture. In a high power distance culture, authority is not challenged and power is respected. Therefore, Asians may consider it inappropriate to “go over the boss’s head” in influencing their bosses. Further, the Asian-American managers were perceived by their targets as using upward appeal less often than by the Caucasian-American managers, though Asian-American managers themselves reported more frequent use of this tactic. The higher self-rating may reflect a general tendency to rate oneself higher on influence tactics by the Asian-American managers. The reason for this is explained below. In general, based on culture by direction and culture by rater interactions, Asian-American managers appeared to use upward appeal less often than the

Influence Tactics by Asian-American and Caucasian-American

Managers

127

Caucasian-American managers. This finding is quite consistent with the higher power distance cultural value found about the Asian countries by previous researchers. Effect of Direction

of Influence

Attempt

Results from this study suggest both Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers used slightly different tactics in influencing their superiors and subordinates. The general findings that managers influence superiors and subordinates differently is consistent with all earlier studies using different samples and different research designs (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980; Kipnis et al., 1984; Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993). For example, Yukl and Tracey (1992) reported similar findings, but they used only target reports of managers’ influence behaviors. The current study extends these findings by adding a cultural and a rater dimension. In general, both managerial samples used coalition, rationality, and upward appeal more frequently in influencing superiors. They use ingratiation, assertiveness, and exchange more frequently to influence subordinates than superiors. The pattern is somewhat modified by the cultural/ethnic background of the managers. We said “somewhat” because only 1% of the variance was accounted for by this cultural moderation. In general, the cultural influence was slight, and it was mostly on the upward appeal tactic, as discussed above. Effect of Rater on Use of Influence

Tactics

An interesting pattern emerged in examining the effect of rater on the use of influence tactics. Asian-American managers reported more frequent use of almost all the influence tactics than Caucasian-American managers. The targets, however, reported more frequent use of some tactics and less frequent use of other tactics by Asian-American managers than by Caucasian-American managers. The perceptual differences between managers’ selfratings and targets’ ratings may be a result of attributional bias associated with respondents’ implicit theories of the relationship between managers and their respective target groups. Implicit theories of leadership can be regarded as a cognitive framework. People have preconceptions about what constitutes the appropriate behavior of leaders (Eden and Leviatan, 1975). Subordinates have expectations regarding the kind and amount of leadership behavior that is proper for given situations, as do the leaders themselves (Yukl, 1971; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Subordinates will use various tactics to try to influence their managers, according to the subordinates’ beliefs about the likely effects on the leaders of reasoning, ingratiation, bargaining, and coalition, as well as the implications for the subordinate’s self-image involving their integrity and self-esteem. The extent to which managers or leaders will modify their reactions to the good and poor performance of subordinates depends on whether they attribute the performance to the subordinates’ competence, motivation or external environment (Bass, 1990). According to the implicit theories of leadership described by Bass (1990), both the leaders and the led are affected in their exchange relationship by the implicit theories of leadership they carry around in their heads. The implicit theories an individual holds about leadership and its antecedents and consequences join with his or her explicit expressed attitudes, beliefs, values, and ideologies about leadership to strongly color his or her judgment of specific leaders.

128

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

Implicit theories not only enable a person to process his or her observations of a leader’s behavior but also enable him or her to add missing details not observed in the actual behavior. The more ambiguous the leader’s behavior, the more implicit theories will affect how we describe or evaluate the behavior. Implicit conceptions people use in attributing what they observe can seriously alter their attributions (Staw & Ross, 1980). People from different cultural backgrounds have different preconceptions of leadership (Bass, 1990; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992) and different preconceptions of relationships between managers and their respective constituent groups. Smith et al. (1989) point out that a manager from an individualistic culture, such as the European-American culture, might show consideration by granting autonomy to subordinates. A manager from a collectivist culture, such as an Eastern culture, might show consideration by closer interaction and less autonomy. In this study, managers might attribute different use of influence tactics to different targets according to their accepted concept of relationships between managers and targets. The targets might attribute different use of influence tactics by the managers according to their accepted concept of leadership and relationships between the managers and them, especially when the managers’ behavior is ambiguous. Thus, the differences that appeared in the targets’ ratings might be due to these attributions or stereotypic expectations. Further research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptual differences between focal managers’ self-descriptions and targets’ reports. Limitations

and Future Research

The generalizability of these findings may be limited due to the nature of the sample used. About half of the sample of Asian-American managers were Chinese and the other half were Japanese. We assumed that Chinese and Japanese had similar cultural values, but there might be distinct differences between these two national groups (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Triandis, 1988, 1989, and 1993). In addition, there may be distinct differences between Asian-Americans managers and Asian managers in Asia. AsianAmerican managers used in this sample may have been successfully integrated into U.S. society. As a result, their values may now be similar to those in the mainstream U.S. culture. The assumption that Asian-Americans and Asians in Asia would share similar cultural values remains to be examined. Further, we did not control for the cultural/ethnic background of the targets. It would be important to find out if managers of different cultural backgrounds engage in different influence behaviors with targets of different cultural/ethnic origins. It would be interesting to examine the influence behaviors of ethnic homogeneous dyads versus heterogeneous dyads. When both members of the dyads share similar values-for example, when both are from high power distance cultural/ethnic backgrounds-will the influence agents and influence targets share similar perceptions of the influence behavior exerted by the intluence agent? The inconsistent findings between this study and that by Schermerhorn and Bond (1991), for example, may result from the lack of control of intluence targets’ ethnic backgrounds. The Hong Kong Chinese sample used in their study consists primarily of homogeneous dyads, whereas this study consisted mostly of heterogeneous dyads. Laboratory design would be desirable to tease out these complex cross-cultural/ethnic effects. Similarly, we need to examine the generational effect here as well. Some respondents were born in the United States to immigrant parents.

influence

Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

129

Others were born in Asia. In the future research, a possible generational effect should be controlled for. For the purpose of comparison and building upon existing cross-cultural influence tactics research, we used Kipnis et al’s (1980) questionnaire. However, expanded influence tactics instruments (e.g., Yukl & Tracey, 1992) should also be used for future cross-cultural/ethnic research. The added influence tactics dimension of consultation and inspirational appeal (Yukl & Tracey, 1992) might be relevant to examining the influence of certain cultural values. CONCLUSION We began this research with the idea that managers of different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, even when they live in the same sociocultural context, may demonstrate different leadership behaviors. Our idea was influenced by cross-cultural researchers, who believed that cultural values are core and that they influence later adult behavior in work settings, as well as supported by findings in cross-cultural research on influence tactics. We found only weak support for this general idea using a group of Asian-American managers and a group of Caucasian-American managers working and living in California. The Asian-American managers appeared to differ slightly from the Caucasian-American managers on two of the six influence tactics measured. Further, the cultural background of these managers also appears to have some effect on their upward and downward influence as well as the targets’ perceptions of these managers’ behaviors. The findings suggest that there may be more commonality than differences in the behaviors of leaders or managers from different cultural groups in the United States. This conclusion applies to the managers in the Asian-American cultural group but not necessarily to the African-American or the Hispanic-American cultural groups. The similarity found in this study may be a result of years of acculturation and socialization as part of the social development of these Asian-American managers in the United States. As a process of culturation, people learn about their social behavior and social roles (Lewis, 1990). Often, Asians either were told directly or learned indirectly to behave like Caucasian-Americans if they hoped to succeed in the United States. The relative age and experience of these Asian-American managers (average tenure of 12.03 years in large U.S. corporations) might have exposed them to the “prevalent” norms of leadership practices, including approaches to influencing other people at work. A senior manager involved in this study made a point. This Caucasian-American executive became quite agitated when told that his (Asian-American) managers were to be analyzed based on their demographic differences. This executive told the researcher (indirect quote): “Why are you telling them they are Orientals or Hispanics? It makes no difference here. They are employees in this organization, and until you came along, nobody cared what ethnic or cultural group they belonged to. Just leave them alone!” After many studies pointing out differences in managerial style across cultures, it is reasonable to expect that cultural differences should exist in the leadership behavior of culturally different managers in the U.S. setting as well. But this executive’s comments provide food for thought: by emphasizing diversity within the U.S. workforce, are we minimizing the advantages and value of commonality? Based on this study, there might be

130

more similarities

LEADERSHIP

than differences

managers. What, then, are the contributions three points. First, by emphasizing

among Asian-American

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

and the Caucasian-American

of this study? We believe that our findings suggest differences in diversity research, are we missing the

bigger picture? In the diversified U.S. workforce, maybe similarity should be emphasized, valued, and promoted rather than making constant reminders of differences. Second, this study suggests that differences found in cross-cultural research may not be generalizable to ethnic groups within a nation. We should not automatically assume that managers from different ethnic groups will behave differently because of their different cultural/ethnic backgrounds. Finally, self-reported use of influence tactics differed from target-reported use of influence tactics. Given that most research on influence tactics has relied on selfreports or unmatched target reports, this is significant and has important implications for future research. Both the Asian-American and Caucasian-American managers in this study appear to use different tactics for subordinates than they use for superiors. Thus, the leaders studied here do appear to use “different strokes for different folks,” as suggested in the title, but the “different folks” are superiors versus subordinates, not Asian-Americans versus Caucasian-Americans. REFERENCES Adler, N.J. (1986). International dimensions @organizational behavior. Boston, MA.: Kent. Aguinis, H., Nesler, M.S., Hosoda, M.. & Tedeschi, J.T. (1994). The use of influence tactics in persuasion. Joarnal of Social Psychology, 134(4), 429-438. Ajiferuke, M.. & Boddewyn, J. (1970). “Culture” and other explanatory variables in comparative management studies. Academy ofManagement Journal, (June), 153-163. Ansari, M.A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 39-49. Barry. B., & Bateman, T.S. (1992). Perceptions of influence in managerial dyads: The Role of hierarchy, media, and tactics. Human Relations, 45(6), 555-574. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook qf leadership. New York: The Free Press: Bond, M.H., & Hwang, K.K. (1986). The social psychology of the Chinese people, In M.H. Bond (Ed.), Thepsychology ofthe Chinesepeople. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Case, T., Dosier, L., Murkison, G., & Keys, B. (1988). How managers influence superiors: A study of upward influence tactics. Leadership and Organization Development Journal (UK). Y(4), 25-31. Chacko, H.E. (1990). Methods of upward influence, motivational needs, and administrators’ perceptions of their supervisors’ leadership styles. Group and Organization Studies, /5(3), 253-265. Deluga, R.J. (1988). The politics of leadership: The relationship between task-people leadership and subordinate influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(4), 359-366. Deluga, R.J., & Perry J.T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward intluencing behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 239-252. DePaulo, B.M., Kenny, D.A., Hoover, C.W., Webb, W., & Oliver, P.V. ( 1987). Accuracy of perception: Do people know what kind of impressions they convey? Journal of Personulity and Social Psychology, 52, 303-3 15.

Influence Tactics by Asian-American

and Caucasian-American

Managers

131

Dillard, J.P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52,289-304. Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structuring underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,736741. Erez, M., & Earley, P.C. (1993). Culture, self-identity and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence: Agent vs. target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,25-39. Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence tactics, and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations, 35, 877-878. Fox, M. (1987). In China, “guanxi is everything.” Advertising Age, (November 2), S-12, S-14. Franklin, J.L. (1975). Down the organization: Influence processes across levels of hierarchy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 153-164. Hinkin, T.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43(3), 221-237. Hirokawa, R.Y., & Miyahara, A (1986) A Comparison of influence strategies utilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations. Communication Quarterly, 34,250-265 Hofstede, G., & Bond, M.H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, (Spring), 4-21. Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14,75-89. Hofstede G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9, 389-398. Hofstede, G., (1980) Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hung, Y. (1995). Cultural diversity, self-efficacy, and affirmative action: Toward an understanding of Asian-American career outcomes in the American workplace. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The socialpsychology oforganizations. New York: Wiley. 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.W., Swaffin-Smith, C., &Wilkins, I. (1984). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter), 58-67. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, L. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,440-452 Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. (197 1). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 280-286. Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 791-804. Lewis, M. (1990). Self-knowledge and social development in early life. In L.A. Pervin (Ed). Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and Research (pp. 277-300). New York: Guilford Press. Mabe, P.A., & West, S.G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review of meter analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296. Porter, L.W., Allen, R.W., & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Redding, S.G., & Wong, G.Y.Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational behavior. In M.H. Bond (Ed.). The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 267-295). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

132

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 7 No. 1 1996

Ronen, S.. & Shenkar, 0. (1988). Clustering variables: The application of nonmetric multivariate analysis techniques in comparative management research. International Studies qf Management and Organizations, 18(3), 72-87. Schermerhorn, J.R., Jr., & Bond, M.H. (1991). Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks: A comparative study of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans. Asia Pucifc Journal of Management, 8(2), 147-158. Schilit, W.K., & Locke, E. (1982) A study of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27. 304-3 16. Schmidt, S.M., & Yeh, R. (1992). The structure of leader influence: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Cross-Culturul Psychology, 23(2), 25 I-264. Schrieshcim, 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 ofApplied Psychology, 75(S), 246-257. Smith, P.B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M., Peterson, M., & Bond. M. (1989). On the generality of leadership style measures across cultures. Journul of Occupational Psychology, 62,97-109. Staw, B.M., & Ross. J. (lY80). Commitment in an experimenting society: A study of the attribution of leadership from administrative scenarios. Journal qf Applied Psychology, 645, 249-260. Tandon, K., Ansari, M.A., & Kapoor, A. (1990). Attributing upward influence attempts in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 12_5(I), 59-63. Triandis, H.C. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In G.K. Verma & C. Bailey (Eds.), Cross cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 60-95). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Triandis. H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, Y6. 506-520. Triandis, H.C. (1993). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4., pp. 10% 172), 2nd edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Walter, B. ( 1966). Internal control relations in administrative hierarchies. Administrative Science Quarter-lx, Il. 179-206. Xin, K.R., & Pearce, J. (In press). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for structural support. Academy of Munugement Journal. Yukl. G. ( 197 I). Toward a behavior theory of leadership. Organizutionul BehalGor und Human Pcr$ormunce, SO,4 14-440. Yukl, G. ( 1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal qf Munagement, 15(2), 25 l-289. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journul of Applied Psychology, 7.5(2), 132-140. Yukl, G.. & Falbe, C.M. ( 1991). The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Pqchology, 76.416-423. Yukl, G., Falbe. C., & Youn, J.Y. (199.7). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and Orgunizrtion Management, 18, S-24. Yukl, Cr., & Tracey, J.B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77(4). 525-535. Yukl, G.. & Van Fleet. D.D., ( 1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook qf industrial and organi:ational psychology (Vol. 3. pp. 147.lY8), 2nd edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.