Abstract
Uses of power and influence are ubiquitous phenomena in organizations, including educational systems. Principals use power and influence in fulfilling their daily job requirements. Several influence and power methods could be used by principals to direct influence attempts upward at their superiors, downward at their subordinates and laterally at their peers. This exploratory field investigation asked what influence tactics are used upward, downward, and laterally and how those methods compare, depending upon the direction of the influence attempt. Methodology. Using magnitude estimation analysis technique, a sample of 300 principals from Southern California were surveyed by questionnaires regarding their use of fourteen influence methods upward, downward, and laterally. The fourteen influence methods studied were providing information selectively, giving threat/warning, citing legitimate authority, giving persuasive argument, rewarding with promises or exchange of favors, manipulating (target not aware of influence attempt), using expertise, lying, referring to connections, using coercion or orders, activating personal commitments, blocking outcomes, negatively sanctioning, and ingratiating. Statistical treatments used were analysis of variance, chi square, Spearman rank-order rho, Kendall tau C, and magnitude estimation analysis procedures. Findings. This study concluded that principals use persuasion, expertise, and citing legitimate authority most as tactics of influence, whether they were influencing their superiors, subordinates, or colleagues. Coercion/orders, lying, blocking outcomes, and negatively sanctioning were little reported by principals as methods to influence others. The direction of the influence attempt was found to have little effect on the selection of an influence method. No outstanding differences were found in the use of influence methods upward, downward, or laterally. Conclusions and Implications. These findings were inconsistent with most laboratory studies of the use of influence and power. The literature suggested that powerholders would use difference influence tactics with difference influence targets. This was not found to be the case. The magnitude estimates of the likelihood of use of the fourteen influence methods were closely parallel whether for influencing superiors, subordinates, or peers. Further, persuasion, expertise, and citing legitimate authority were found to be the major influence methods used. Previous studies reported coercion/orders and negative sanctions as heavily used to influence others; in this study, these two had little perceived usage. Future studies or organizational politics are needed to answer questions such as "Who has the power? How powerholders use influence?