Upward influence tactics and their effects on job performance ratings and flexible working arrangements: The mediating roles of mutual recognition respect and mutual appraisal respect

• Author: Thomas Garavan,Nicholas Clarke,Najla Alshenalfi
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21967

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Upward influence tactics and their effects on job performance

ratings and flexible working arrangements: The mediating roles

of mutual recognition respect and mutual appraisal respect

Nicholas Clarke

1

| Najla Alshenalfi

2

| Thomas Garavan

3

1

Department of Strategy, Leadership and

People, EADA Business School, Barcelona,

Spain

2

Department of Management, King Saud

University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

3

Business School, Napier University,

Edinburgh, UK

Correspondence

Nicholas Clarke, Department of Strategy,

Leadership and People, EADA Business

School, Arago, 204, Barcelona, 08011, Spain.

Email: nclarke@eada.edu

Supervisor’s human resources (HR) decisions have a significant impact on the

employees they manage but have been found to be subject to bias. The upward influ-

ence tactics use by subordinates can play a role in this. We investigated the effects

of seven upward influence tactics on supervisor job-performance ratings and the

extent of subordinate flexible working arrangements (FWAs). Supervisors are often

responsible for determining whether employees are granted FWAs. We posit an

alternative theoretical mechanism by which upward influence tactics bring about

their effects, mediated through two distinct types of respect, mutual appraisal

respect and mutual recognition respect. We collected data from 389 matched

supervisor–subordinate dyads, and found that both mutual appraisal respect and

mutual recognition respect mediated relationships between several upward influence

tactics and both job-performance ratings and FWAs. Our findings show that upward

influence tactics affect the quality of the relationship between employees and their

supervisors, specifically, these two forms of mutual respect. Further, both mutual

appraisal respect and mutual recognition respect may explain why supervisors show

favoritism to some subordinates over others, in reaching HR decisions in these areas.

KEYWORDS

HR decisions, mutual appraisal and recognition respect, upward influence tactics

1|INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant transformations in the field of human

resource management (HRM) over the past few decades has been the

increasing responsibility that line managers now have in making

human resource (HR) decisions (Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, 2015;

Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Indeed, how line managers interpret HR

policies and enact decisions is seen as a critical factor explaining why

the results of HR strategies are often variable (Bowen & Ostroff,

2004; Clarke, 2006; P. Williams, McDonald, & Cathcart, 2017). Yet

employees can also play an active role in influencing key decisions in

which they perceive they have a greater personal stake. Chief among

these are decisions line managers make in relation to performance rat-

ings, promotion, career development, as well as salary increases. Since

Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson´s early work in 1980, a significant

body of literature has accumulated showing that employees´ use of

particular influence tactics (called upward influence tactics) is associ-

ated with line manager decisions in these areas (Lee, Hn, Cheong,

Kim, & Yun, 2017; Terpstra-Tong & Ralston, 2002). Upward influence

tactics have been defined as the behavior used to gain compliance or

obtain a desired goal from those at higher levels in the organization

(Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkin-

son, 1980). Research has shown that positive benefits can accrue to

employees as a result of their use of influence tactics. For example,

significant relationships have been found between a range of upward

influence tactics and job-performance ratings (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris,

2003; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), assessment of promotability (Thacker &

Wayne, 1995), salary increases (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988), and

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21967

Hum Resour Manage. 2019;58:397–416. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 397

enhanced trust from their managers (Su, 2010). There is now a major

body of research showing these influence tactics to differentially

affect a range of outcomes. For example, rational persuasion and

ingratiation have been found to be positively related to supervisor

job-performance ratings and promotability, whilst assertiveness and

coalition have generally been found to be negatively related (Higgins

et al., 2003; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Rao, Schmidt, & Murray, 1995;

Su, 2010; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris,

1997). Others have also pointed to the use of particular upward influ-

ence tactics as having wider organizational consequences. This has

included their effects on organizational culture, communication, and

decision-making processes, as well as the quality of workplace rela-

tionships more generally (Ansari, Aafaqi, & Zainal, 2007; Cable &

Judge, 2003; D. Ralston, Gustafson, Mainiero, & Umstot, 1993).

For the most part, research in the area of upward influence tactics

has focused on factors that affect the choice and effects of these tac-

tics on HR decisions. Consequently, a range of individual (both agent

and target) as well situational factors has been identified in the litera-

ture. Individual factors include belief systems, personality, and motiva-

tions (Rao et al., 1995) whilst situational factors include aspects such

as management style, relationship quality, and spatial distance

(Cable & Judge, 2003; Farmer et al., 1997; G. R. Ferris & Judge, 1991).

Other studies have examined how cultural differences affect both the

choice and effects of influence tactics (Fu et al., 2004; Qiadan,

Tziner, & Waismel-Manor, 2012; Wang & Baiyin, 2017). Whilst this

body of work has contributed to a better understanding of employee

preferences for particular upward influence tactics over others, far

less research has sought to explain how the use of upward influence

tactics affect supervisor HR decisions.

One of the chief explanations posited explaining these effects is

through social information processing (Hastie & Park, 1986; Lord &

Harvey, 2002). The use of these tactics by employees is thought to

influence supervisor attributions of their behavior. These are then

encoded into overall judgments as whether the employee is either

likeable/dislikeable or competent/incompetent. These then become

activated in future situations, including when making HR decisions

that affect the employee (Srull & Wyer, 1989; Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

Some tactics create goodwill, while others can create threat or pres-

sure that affects the recipient’s liking for the subordinate. Importantly,

liking has been found to be positively related to supervisor reward

behavior (G. Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994). Others

have also suggested that an employee’s use of influence tactics will

affect employee and supervisor appraisals of the quality of their rela-

tionship more broadly (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Schriesheim, Castro, &

Yammarino, 2000). This draws upon social exchange theory (Blau,

1964), in positing that supervisors will respond more favorably in their

HR decisions to those employees with whom they have relationships

they value. Consequently, relationship quality also has been posited

as a possible mediator between upward influence tactics and HR

decisions (Nahrgang & Seo, 2015). Specifically in relation to job-

performance ratings, this corresponds with the notion that social con-

text significantly influences the performance appraisal process (G. R.

Ferris, Munyon, Basik, & Buckley, 2008; Levy & Williams, 2004;

Pichler, 2012).

The first objective of our study is to build on this perspective in

positing mutual respect as a mediating mechanism, by which upward

influence tactics might affect supervisor HR decisions. We suggest

that employees’use of particular influence tactics will positively or

negatively affect the mutual respect they have for one another. Fur-

thermore, that higher levels of mutual respect will in turn, lead to

more positive HR decision outcomes. We extend our theorizing by

incorporating both mutual appraisal respect and mutual recognition

respect as two distinct forms of the respect construct. Mutual

appraisal respect is a form of respect that reflects an individual’s sta-

tus or standing. Mutual recognition respect (sometimes referred to as

equality-based respect) refers to the respect we are due based on

being treated fairly (Clarke, 2011). Our second objective is to investi-

gate the effects of upward influence tactics on employees’flexible

working arrangements (FWAs) in addition to job-performance ratings.

Our rationale for this is two-fold. First, FWAs are an increasingly

important HR practice associated with employee well-being, engage-

ment, and commitment (Grzywacz, Carlson, & Shulkin, 2008; Richman,

Civian, Shannon, Hill, & Brennan, 2008). Increasingly, research high-

lights the need to distinguish between formal and informal arrange-

ments that enable employees to access FWAs (De Menezes &

Kelliher, 2017). Furthermore, most FWAs are decided by the supervi-

sor (Troup & Rose, 2012). Supervisors have been found to act as

“gatekeepers”to FWAs and can decide to restrict access even when

formal FWA policies exist in an organization (Kossek, Lewis, & Ham-

mer, 2010). In the absence of formal FWA policies, supervisors also

use their discretion in determining whether to allow employees to

access FWA (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Consequently, there

are calls to gain a better understanding of factors that might affect a

supervisor’s decision-making in this area (Poelmans & Beham, 2008).

Investigating upward influence tactic effects can provide new insights

into this decision-making process. Second, studies have suggested

that the specific work outcome of interest (i.e., promotion, job-

performance ratings etc.) is likely to affect the relationship between

influence tactics and work outcomes (Lee et al., 2017). For example,

extrinsic success factors such as promotion and salary increases are

subject to a range of extraneous conditions outside the supervisor’s

control. Such conditions may therefore significantly limit the effects

of relational quality (mutual respect) as an explanatory mechanism for

upward influence tactic effects. However, both job-performance rat-

ings and granting FWAs fall more directly under the supervisor’s con-

trol. These outcomes are therefore more likely explained by relational

quality mechanisms. Testing the effects of mutual respect as a media-

tor between influence tactics on both these key work outcomes thus

offers an opportunity to gain stronger empirical support for our pos-

ited theoretical model. Our findings contribute to the HR literature in

furthering our understanding of individual (such as influence tactics)

and contextual (such as mutual respect) factors that affect supervi-

sor’s HR decision-making in areas that can have significant implica-

tions for the practice of HRM.

398 CLARKE ET AL.