Influencing supervisor ratings : three quasi-experiments

Abstract

In three experiments we investigated the relationship between a set of influence tactics and three work outcomes in organizations in which the supervisor rated his/her employees on; (a) competence assessment, (b) salary increase, and (c) job promotion. Results showed that rational persuasion produced better ratings than assertiveness with respect to all three work outcomes. However, using an external source for information produced the highest overall scores in two of the experiments. Further, our results indicated that there were significant differences between men and women when deciding whether to provide a positive competence assessment and job promotion for certain influence tactics. Implications and opportunities for future research were discussed. Keywords: influence tactic, work outcome, supervisor rating, source credibility, gender, quasi-experiment, vignette