Summary of: Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta-
analysis
1. Recent research has focused on influence tactics and their impact on work-related outcomes,
with meta-analytic techniques revealing that ingratiation and rationality have positive effects on
work outcomes.
2. The study highlights the influence tactics that individuals use in different situations and the
specific outcomes they hope to achieve, such as obtaining a job offer, promotion, or pay raise.
3. Contextual factors and individual differences determine which influence tactics individuals
choose to use, under what circumstances, and how effective the tactic of choice will be.
4. Using a single soft tactic (e.g., ingratiation) was found to be more effective than a single hard
tactic (e.g., self-promotion), and combining two soft tactics or a soft tactic and rationality was more
effective than any single tactic or a combination of hard tactics.
5. Previous research on influence tactics has lacked consistency in research findings, making it
difficult to determine the true nature of the relationship between influence tactics and work
outcomes.
6. The study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effects of influence tactics on
work outcomes using a broader set of influence tactics, a comprehensive framework of work-
oriented outcomes, and appropriate meta-analytic techniques.
7. Ingratiation and rationality were found to have a stronger effect on performance assessments
than on measures of extrinsic success (e.g., salaries and promotions).
8. In the employment interview context, self-promotion was found to have a strong, positive effect
on interview ratings but resulted in a strong, negative effect on supervisor performance
assessments.
9. The study concludes that individuals can benefit from knowing which influence tactics are
effective in influencing others, especially ingratiation and rationality, and these tactics' differential
analysis
1. Recent research has focused on influence tactics and their impact on work-related outcomes,
with meta-analytic techniques revealing that ingratiation and rationality have positive effects on
work outcomes.
2. The study highlights the influence tactics that individuals use in different situations and the
specific outcomes they hope to achieve, such as obtaining a job offer, promotion, or pay raise.
3. Contextual factors and individual differences determine which influence tactics individuals
choose to use, under what circumstances, and how effective the tactic of choice will be.
4. Using a single soft tactic (e.g., ingratiation) was found to be more effective than a single hard
tactic (e.g., self-promotion), and combining two soft tactics or a soft tactic and rationality was more
effective than any single tactic or a combination of hard tactics.
5. Previous research on influence tactics has lacked consistency in research findings, making it
difficult to determine the true nature of the relationship between influence tactics and work
outcomes.
6. The study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effects of influence tactics on
work outcomes using a broader set of influence tactics, a comprehensive framework of work-
oriented outcomes, and appropriate meta-analytic techniques.
7. Ingratiation and rationality were found to have a stronger effect on performance assessments
than on measures of extrinsic success (e.g., salaries and promotions).
8. In the employment interview context, self-promotion was found to have a strong, positive effect
on interview ratings but resulted in a strong, negative effect on supervisor performance
assessments.
9. The study concludes that individuals can benefit from knowing which influence tactics are
effective in influencing others, especially ingratiation and rationality, and these tactics' differential
