|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01551 am a22001693u 4500 |
| 001 |
1988 |
| 042 |
|
|
|a dc
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Geertsjios, S
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Cooper-Thomas, H
|e author
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Morrison, R
|e author
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a How high and low performing employees seek to influence
|
| 260 |
|
|
|b AUT University,
|c 2011-09-06T00:18:29Z.
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Presentation at the New Zealand Psychological Society annual conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, pp. 56
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a High and low performing members of staff appear to use tactics differently. This paper presents the results of a survey of over 200 subordinates working in a range of roles in a variety of organisations. Respondents were asked to rate their own performance using a differentiated measure of performance that assessed task proficiency, proactivity and adaptivity and asked to assess the frequency with which they used rational argument, ingratiation and assertive tactics in an effort to influence. At a simplistic level it might be expected that as tactics, which are supposed to be used proactively to bring about change, should be associated more strongly with proactive performance levels than with either proficiency or adaptivity. This expectation was borne out for rational tactic use but not for ingratiation or assertiveness. The results are interpreted as reflecting that different tactics serve different purposes in subordinates' efforts to influence their superiors.
|
| 540 |
|
|
|a OpenAccess
|
| 655 |
7 |
|
|a Conference Contribution
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z Get fulltext
|u http://hdl.handle.net/10292/1988
|
