Influence Tactics Scale

Abstract

The Influence Tactics Scale (ITS), developed by Chester A. Schriesheim and Timothy R. Hinkin in 1990, is a widely recognized psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the proactive behavioral strategies that subordinates deploy to exercise upward influence over their immediate supervisors within organizational hierarchies. Originating from a systematic psychometric refinement of the earlier Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies (POIS) introduced by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980), the ITS addresses empirical limitations regarding item ambiguity, multidimensional confounding, and subscale instability identified in prior instruments. The scale comprises 18 self-report items evenly distributed across six empirically distinct dimensions of upward influence: Ingratiation, Exchange of Benefits, Rationality, Assertiveness, Upward Appeal, and Coalition. Respondents evaluate the frequency of their tactical behaviors directed toward their direct supervisor over a 6-month retrospective window using a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (never use this tactic to influence him/her) to 5 (usually use this tactic to influence him/her). Psychometric investigations across multiple independent organizational samples have demonstrated robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .73 to .87 across all six subscales. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate the six-factor orthogonal and oblique latent structures over competing unidimensional or aggregated conceptual models. The ITS has proven foundational in organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and leadership research, particularly in exploring the dynamics of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), employee proactive behaviors, impression management, and career progression.

Keywords

influence tactics, upward influence, organizational politics, impression management, leader-member exchange, social power, Schriesheim and Hinkin, psychometrics, assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality

Authors

The Influence Tactics Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by two prominent scholars in organizational behavior and psychometric methodology:

• Chester A. Schriesheim, Ph.D.: Distinguished Professor of Management and University Foundation Professor at the University of Miami, School of Business Administration. Dr. Schriesheim was a leading authority in organizational leadership, psychometric measurement, leadership measurement validity, and managerial power dynamics. His scholarly work extensively addressed measurement error, content validity, and the construct validity of leadership instruments across top-tier management and applied psychology journals.
• Timothy R. Hinkin, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Management and Human Resources at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration. Dr. Hinkin is internationally recognized for his seminal methodological scholarship on scale development practices in organizational research (e.g., Hinkin, 1995, 1998), as well as his substantive investigations into leadership behaviors, organizational influence, and supervisory power.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Influence Tactics Scale is to assess the discrete behavioral strategies that subordinates utilize when attempting to direct, alter, or negotiate the attitudes, decisions, and behaviors of their immediate supervisors. In organizational settings, influence is not merely a top-down phenomenon characterized by bureaucratic authority or legitimate managerial power; it operates as a multidirectional, dynamic social process. Subordinates frequently seek to secure critical organizational resources, obtain personal support, adjust performance expectations, advance project initiatives, and influence personnel decisions regarding promotions, compensations, and work assignments. The ITS provides researchers and applied practitioners with a methodologically sound, psychometrically vetted diagnostic tool to quantify these behavioral manifestations.

Before the development of the ITS, researchers predominantly relied on the original 58-item or truncated versions of the Profiles of Organizational Influence Strategies developed by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980). While groundbreaking, the POIS faced substantial methodological critiques, including unstable factor structures across varying managerial levels, ambiguous item wordings, cross-loadings, and poor internal consistency reliability in subsequent replication studies. Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) conducted a systematic theoretical and empirical refinement to eliminate item redundancy, discard psychometrically defective items, and generate a concise 18-item operationalization that retains strong content and construct validity.

In research contexts, the ITS is utilized to investigate the antecedents and consequences of upward influence. Common antecedents examined include individual personality traits (such as the Dark Triad, self-monitoring, and proactive personality), structural organizational conditions (such as organizational politics, centralized vs. decentralized decision-making, and resource scarcity), and relational variables (such as leader-member exchange quality and interpersonal trust). Consequent outcomes assessed through the ITS include subordinate performance appraisals, salary increases, promotability evaluations, occupational stress, and affective commitment.

In applied organizational development, human resource management, and executive coaching, the ITS serves as an assessment tool to diagnose upward communication dynamics. Understanding whether employees rely predominantly on rational persuasion or engage in non-constructive coercive tactics (e.g., assertiveness, unauthorized upward appeals) allows organizational consultants to cultivate psychological safety, improve cross-hierarchical dialogue, and train employees in high-efficacy, socially astute influence techniques.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ITS is upward organizational influence, defined as behavioral attempts executed by lower-status organizational members directed at higher-status targets to affect target perceptions, attitudes, or actions in alignment with the influencer’s goals. Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) operationalized this construct across six distinct behavioral dimensions:

1. Ingratiation

Ingratiation refers to behavioral strategies designed to heighten the influencer’s interpersonal attractiveness and elicit favorable affect from the supervisor prior to or during the presentation of a request. Grounded in social psychological models of impression management (Jones, 1964; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), ingratiation involves other-enhancement (flattery), opinion conformity, self-presentation of humility, and rendering oneself personally agreeable. In the ITS, ingratiation is captured by actions such as acting very humbly, projecting friendliness before making a request, and intentionally making the supervisor feel positive about the subordinate.

2. Exchange of Benefits

The exchange of benefits dimension is rooted in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and reciprocal transactional norms. This tactic involves explicit or implicit quid-pro-quo negotiations in which the subordinate offers concrete future favors, provides immediate assistance, or makes personal sacrifices (such as working late, working harder, or absorbing additional responsibilities) in exchange for the supervisor’s compliance with a request. It also includes reminding the supervisor of past favors provided by the subordinate, thereby activating normative pressures of reciprocal obligation.

3. Rationality

Rationality represents the reliance on cognitive persuasion, objective empirical evidence, logical argumentation, and structured explanations to substantiate a proposal or request. When using rationality, subordinates frame their objective within the overarching strategic interests of the organization or unit, presenting factual data, systematic reasons, and business justifications. It is widely considered the most professional, socially normative, and universally accepted influence tactic across hierarchical boundaries.

4. Assertiveness

Assertiveness encompasses coercive, demanding, confrontational, and forceful behavioral attempts to compel supervisory compliance. Unlike assertive communication in clinical frameworks (which emphasizes respectful, clear boundaries), assertiveness in the organizational influence literature denotes high-pressure, emotionally charged tactics. Subordinates employing this tactic set explicit deadlines, issue repeated persistent demands, verbalize anger, or initiate direct confrontational showdowns with the supervisor.

5. Upward Appeal

Upward appeal involves bypassing the immediate supervisor or invoking the authority of higher organizational echelons to exert pressure on the supervisor. Subordinates employing this tactic seek informal backing from organizational executives, rely on the formal hierarchical chain of command, or submit formal appeals to higher management who hold legitimate authority over the supervisor. Because it circumvents normative chain-of-command protocols, it is generally perceived as a high-risk, politically sensitive maneuver.

6. Coalition

Coalition formation entails mobilizing interpersonal support from peers, coworkers, and other organizational members to create collective pressure on the target supervisor. Rather than acting as an isolated agent, the influencer forms alliances, aggregates support across colleagues or subordinates, and presents the request as a collective consensus. This tactic exploits normative social proof and group pressure to make supervisory refusal more socially and politically challenging.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the Influence Tactics Scale draw from several converging paradigms across social psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior:

Social Power and Dependence Theories

The ITS is conceptually rooted in French and Raven’s (1959) taxonomy of social power (reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power) and Richard Emerson’s (1962) power-dependence theory. In classical organizational theory, power was predominantly viewed as an asymmetrical asset residing at the top of bureaucratic hierarchies. However, Emerson posited that power is an inherent property of a social relationship rather than a static individual attribute: the power of Actor A over Actor B is a function of Actor B’s dependence on Actor A for valued outcomes.

Consequently, even in rigid hierarchies, subordinates possess countervailing power stemming from expert knowledge, specialized task execution, and interpersonal relationships. Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) translated these abstract power bases into operational behavioral tactics, which Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) formalized psychometrically. When subordinates lack legitimate positional power, they enact specific behavioral tactics (rationality, ingratiation, coalition) to alter their supervisor’s perceived dependence or compliance calculations.

Social Exchange and Norm of Reciprocity

Peter Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory and Alvin Gouldner’s (1960) universal norm of reciprocity provide the theoretical framework for the Exchange of Benefits and Ingratiation subscales. Social relationships in organizations evolve across a continuum from purely economic exchanges to open-ended socio-emotional partnerships. Subordinates strategically initiate exchanges, offer discretionary sacrifices, or build social credit (idiosyncrasy credits; Hollander, 1958) to establish normative obligations, ensuring that supervisors feel socially compelled to reciprocate by granting requests, resources, or accommodations.

Impression Management and Interpersonal Attraction

The Ingratiation dimension is heavily informed by Edward E. Jones’s (1964) foundational work on ingratiation and tactical self-presentation. Jones classified ingratiating behaviors into other-enhancement, opinion conformity, self-presentation, and favor-doing. Within organizations, supervisors evaluate subordinates not only on objective task performance but also on subjective affective evaluations. By deliberately creating interpersonal liking and perceived similarity, subordinates reduce social distance and soften managerial scrutiny, facilitating smoother compliance with subsequent requests.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

The interactional model of leadership known as Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) provides an explanatory mechanism for why different subordinates select distinct influence tactics. In high-quality “in-group” LMX dyads characterized by mutual trust, respect, and loyalty, subordinates predominantly rely on open rationality and bilateral collaboration. Conversely, in low-quality “out-group” relationships defined strictly by contractual economic transactions, subordinates perceive lower relational psychological safety and are more likely to resort to formal upward appeals, coalition mobilization, or aggressive assertiveness to secure desired outcomes.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the 18-item Influence Tactics Scale has been thoroughly evaluated across multiple empirical investigations.

Construct and Structural Validity

In their original validation article, Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) subjected the 18 items to rigorous developmental testing across two large independent samples. Sample 1 comprised 252 employed business students, while Sample 2 consisted of 221 working professionals and managers across diverse industry sectors. The exploratory factor analyses (EFA) demonstrated clean, distinct six-factor solutions without significant cross-loadings. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrated that the theoretical six-factor model yielded superior fit indices compared to alternative conceptualizations, such as a single general influence factor, a two-factor model (soft vs. hard tactics), or a three-factor model (rational, personal, and political tactics).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity among the six ITS dimensions was established through low-to-moderate inter-subscale correlations. In Schriesheim and Hinkin’s (1990) data, correlations among the subscales rarely exceeded .40, confirming that while these behaviors coexist within the broader conceptual domain of upward influence, they represent non-redundant behavioral strategies. For example, the correlation between Rationality and Assertiveness was near-zero or slightly negative, demonstrating that logical presentation operates independently of confrontational pressure.

Convergent validity was documented through systematic associations with established measures of managerial style, interpersonal communication, and political skill. Ferris et al. (1999) and Wayne et al. (1997) observed that subordinates scoring high on political skill and social astuteness exhibited high scores on Rationality and Ingratiation, but low scores on coercive Assertiveness and disruptive Upward Appeal.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Extensive organizational research has linked ITS subscales to diverse objective and subjective workplace criteria:

• Performance Appraisals and Career Success: Meta-analytic evidence (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003) confirmed that tactical choices measured by the ITS significantly predict supervisor-rated performance and salary growth. Specifically, Rationality demonstrated a strong positive association with favorable supervisor ratings, while Assertiveness exhibited a negative relationship with subordinate performance evaluations and career mobility.
• Leader-Member Exchange Quality: Research by Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Deluga (1991) using refined Kipnis-Schriesheim frameworks demonstrated that subordinate ingratiation and rational persuasion positively predict supervisor-rated LMX, whereas frequent use of coalition formation and upward appeal correlates with strained, adversarial leader-member relationships.
• Employee Well-Being and Strain: Studies examining the strain outcomes of influence behaviors have established that frequent reliance on upward appeal and assertiveness correlates positively with employee job tension, role ambiguity, and turnover intentions, reflecting the stressful nature of adversarial influence attempts.

Reliability

The ITS has consistently exhibited solid internal consistency reliability across diverse organizational settings, industries, and cultural contexts. In the foundational validation studies conducted by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990), coefficient alpha values across the two independent empirical samples were documented as follows:

• Ingratiation: $\alpha = .73$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .84$ (Sample 2)
• Exchange of Benefits: $\alpha = .74$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .76$ (Sample 2)
• Rationality: $\alpha = .78$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .80$ (Sample 2)
• Assertiveness: $\alpha = .73$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .76$ (Sample 2)
• Upward Appeal: $\alpha = .73$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .82$ (Sample 2)
• Coalition: $\alpha = .83$ (Sample 1) and $\alpha = .87$ (Sample 2)

These values meet and exceed the standard psychometric threshold of .70 recommended by Nunnally (1978) for basic and applied research scales. Notably, these reliabilities were achieved using only three items per subscale, illustrating high internal coherence without unnecessary item redundancy.

Subsequent independent studies have reinforced these reliability findings. For example, Yukl and colleagues (1992, 1993) reported comparable internal consistencies in managerial assessment samples, with alphas routinely ranging between .72 and .85. Test-retest reliability across short administration windows (2 to 4 weeks) has shown temporal stability coefficients ranging from $r = .68$ to $r = .79$, indicating that while influence tactic usage fluctuates with changing situations, individual behavioral baselines remain relatively stable over time.

Factor Analysis

The structural refinement achieved by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) relied heavily on exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to address the psychometric flaws of the earlier Kipnis et al. (1980) POIS instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In Sample 1 ($N = 252$), Schriesheim and Hinkin conducted an initial principal components analysis followed by principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations on a broad candidate pool of items derived from Kipnis et al. Items were retained only if they demonstrated clear, unambiguous theoretical alignment, had factor loadings $ge .50$ on their primary latent construct, and cross-loadings $le .30$ on all other dimensions. This process reduced the scale to 18 highly focused items—exactly 3 items per dimension. The resulting six-factor solution accounted for approximately 62.4% of the total variance, with every item loading cleanly on its hypothesized factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In Sample 2 ($N = 221$), the researchers tested the definitive structural model using maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis via LISREL VI. Multiple competing nested structural models were evaluated to ascertain whether the six dimensions were truly empirically distinct:

• Model 1: One-Factor Model (all 18 items loading onto a single general influence factor). This model yielded an unacceptable fit: $\chi^2(135) = 1042.18, p < .001$, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) $= .61$, and Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) $= .142$.
• Model 2: Three-Factor Model (items aggregated into soft, hard, and rational clusters). This model showed marginally improved but still inadequate fit: $\chi^2(132) = 648.74, p < .001$, GFI $= .74$, RMSR $= .108$.
• Model 3: Hypothesized Six-Factor Model (each 3-item triad loading onto its designated latent tactic factor). This model demonstrated superior fit: $\chi^2(120) = 197.35, p < .001$, $\chi^2/df = 1.64$, GFI $= .92$, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) $= .89$, and RMSR $= .053$.

All standardized factor loadings in the six-factor model were statistically significant ($p < .001$) and ranged from .58 to .88. These findings demonstrated that upward influence cannot be reduced to a binary (hard vs. soft) or general unidimensional construct; rather, it operates as a distinct multidimensional behavioral system.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Self-report behavioral frequency rating inventory; multi-item psychometric assessment.
• Primary Target Population: Working adults, subordinates, professionals, and managers operating within formal organizational hierarchies.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, enterprise survey software, or digital online research forms. Available for both individual diagnostic and large-scale organizational survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes to complete all 18 items.
• Item Count: 18 items total, structured into six subscales of 3 items each:
• Ingratiation: Items 1, 2, 3
• Exchange of Benefits: Items 4, 5, 6
• Rationality: Items 7, 8, 9
• Assertiveness: Items 10, 11, 12
• Upward Appeal: Items 13, 14, 15
• Coalition: Items 16, 17, 18
• Temporal Frame: Respondents are explicitly instructed to reflect upon their behavioral interactions with their direct supervisor/boss over the preceding 6 months.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type frequency scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Never use this tactic to influence him/her
  • 2 = Seldom use this tactic to influence him/her
  • 3 = Occasionally use this tactic to influence him/her
  • 4 = Frequently use this tactic to influence him/her
  • 5 = Usually use this tactic to influence him/her
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale scores are calculated by computing the arithmetic mean (or sum) of the 3 items comprising each specific dimension.
  • Subscale scores range from 1.00 to 5.00 (or sum scores from 3 to 15), where higher scores indicate greater behavioral frequency in deploying that specific tactic.
  • Global Score Caution: Generating an overall composite or total influence score is psychometrically discouraged, as the subscales represent functionally distinct, non-fungible behavioral dimensions rather than facets of a singular underlying continuum.
  • Profile analysis or radar chart plotting across the six separate subscales is recommended to identify an individual’s predominant upward influence style (e.g., “Rational Persuader,” “Ingratiating Strategist,” or “Adversarial Campaigner”).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Influence Tactics Scale was published in 1990 by Chester A. Schriesheim and Timothy R. Hinkin in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 75, Issue 3, pages 246–257). The copyright for the original article and published items is held by the American Psychological Association (APA).

For non-commercial scholarly, educational, and academic research purposes, the items of the ITS may generally be used and reproduced in research studies under standard scholarly fair-use conventions, provided that proper bibliographic citation is given to Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) and the APA. For commercial applications, executive assessment platforms, leadership development toolkits, or inclusion within published diagnostic handbooks, explicit written permission and potential licensing agreements must be secured from the American Psychological Association’s Permissions Office.

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
• Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of upward-influencing behavior with subordinate-impression management and supervisor-subordinate exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(14), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00463.x
• Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716
• Ferris, G. R., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Gilmore, D. C., Buckley, M. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Witt, L. A. (1999). Development and initial validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1999(1), D1–D6. https://doi.org/10.5465/apbpp.1999.27628108
• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan Press.
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.181
• Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
• Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
• Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042501
• Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Schriesheim, 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 of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.246
• Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31–58). JAI Press.
• Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487
• Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.x
• Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132
• Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)