Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.7, 754-759
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.27115
Translation and Standardization of the Extended Influence
Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ-G) in a Greek Sample
Konstantina Tyrovola1, Vicky Papanikolaou1, Dimitrios Adamis2
1Department of Health Service Management, National School of Public Health, Athens, Greece;
2Research and Academic Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Received May 17th, 2011; revised July 12th, 2011; accepted August 24th, 2011.
The purpose of this study was to translate in Greek the IBQ-G and investigate the validity and reliability of the
Greek version. The Greek translation of IBQ-G has been given in a sample of employees in two public organiza-
tions at two different time points. A questionnaire which has been created for the purpose of this study also has
been administered to assess similar influences behaviors. The convergent validity of the Greek version of IBQ-G
was very good in both occasions. Similarly, examination of test-retest reliability with paired t-tests showed that
most, but not all of the IBQ-G scales were stable across the time (p > 0.05). The Greek translated IBQ-G is a
valid and reliable measurement. However, the stability over the time of all IBQ-G scales was not supported from
this study. The Greek version of IBQ-G can be used for managerial, research, audit, and to facilitate multina-
tional research.
Keywords: IBQ-G, IBQ-G Greek Translation, Influence Tactics, Validity, Reliability
Introduction
It has been recognized for more than three decades now that
influence is essential for effective performance by managers
(Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). A manager to be suc-
cessful needs to influence others to carry out requests, support
proposals, and implement decisions (Schriesheim & Hinkin,
1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). The success
of an attempt by one person (the “agent”) to influence another
person (“the target”) depends to a great extent on the influence
tactics used by the agent (Farrell & Schroder, 1996; Yukl, Falbe,
& Youn, 1993).
Influence tactics can be classified according to their primary
purpose and time frame (Yukl, Seifert, & Chavez, 2008) to: 1)
proactive tactics which are used in an attempt to influence
someone to carry out an immediate request that needs very
often the cooperation and assistance of other people inside and
outside the organization (Yukl, Chavez, & Seifert, 2005). They
are especially important in organizations that have moved away
from hierarchical forms of structure to more empowered forms,
or have cooperative arrangements with other organizations, so
in these situations the agent has little authority over target per-
sons (Yukl, et al., 2005). 2) Impression management tactics
which are used to create a favorable image and build a better
relationship (e.g. Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Kumar & Beyer-
lein, 1991; Wayne, Liden, Graef, & Ferris, 1997), and 3) po-
litical tactics which are used to influence policy decisions or the
allocation of scarce resources (Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Pfeffer,
1992). Some types of influence tactics can be used for more
than one purpose, but a tactic may not be equally effective for
different purposes (Yukl & Chavez, 2002).
The influence behavior of managers has been studied with
several research methods including coding of qualitative de-
scriptions of influence behavior (e.g., from critical incidents or
diaries), manipulation of influence tactics in laboratory experi-
ments (e.g., with actors, role play exercises, or scenarios), and
manipulation of influence behavior in field experiments, for
example with feedback and training (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Yukl,
Fu, & Mc Donald, 2003). The most often used method to study
proactive influence tactics was a descriptive list of influential
behaviors. (Yukl et al., 2003). However, since 1980 different
questionnaires started to be developed for survey research on
proactive influence tactics but two of them have been used
widely (Yukl et al., 2008).
The first questionnaire, the Profile of Organizational Influ-
ence Strategies (POIS) has been developed by Kipnis et al.,
(1980) which is an agent self-report questionnaire, and measure
eight influence tactics (rationality, exchange, ingratiation, as-
sertiveness, coalition, upward appeal, blocking and sanctions).
A revised version of the agent POIS, with six influence tactics,
(rationality, exchange, ingratiation, assertiveness, coalition,
upward and appeal) has been developed ten years later by
Schriesheim & Hinkin (1990). Both the original and revised
versions of the agent POIS have been used in many studies of
upward influence (e.g. Acquadro, Conway, Hareendran, &
Aaronson, 2008; Aydin & Pehlivan, 2010; Deluga, 1988, 1991;
Wayne et al., 1997).
The second questionnaire, the Influence Behavior Question-
naire (IBQ) has been developed by Yukl & Tracey, (1992) to be
used as a target questionnaire. It measures target perceptions of
an agent’s use of proactive tactics in attempts to influence the
target respondent (Seifert & Yukl, 2010; Yukl et al., 2008).
This early version of the IBQ measured ten influence tactics
(six were similar to ones in the POIS; rational persuasion, ex-
change, ingratiation, pressure, coalition, and upward appeals),
and four influence tactics based on leadership and power litera-
ture (consultation, inspirational appeals, personal appeals, and
legitimating). Further validation of this early version (Yukl,
Lepsinger, & Lucia, 1992) provided support for nine of the ten
tactics.Ten years later the IBQ was revised (IBQ-R) and ex-
tended to include two more tactics, apprising and collaboration
(Yukl & Seifert, 2002). More recently the 11 tactic scales have
been reordered and the last version has been named as IBQ-G
(Yukl et al., 2008). A number of studies has examined the con-
struct validity of the IBQ-G and the psychometric properties of

K. TYROVOLA ET AL. 755
the tool, and it has been reported that IBQ-G is a valid, reliable
and comprehensive measure of proactive influence tactics (e.g.
Charbonneau, 2004; Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl et al., 2003). The
objectives of the IBQ items are to measure attitudes that influ-
ence the target person to comply with an unspecified request, to
carry out a task, to provide assistance, to support or implement
a proposed change, or to do a personal favor for the agent. In
the IBQ-G a respondent rates how often a designated agent (e.g.
the boss) uses each of the 11 proactive tactics while attempting
to influence the respondent. Each tactic scale has 4 items. The
content of the items reflects findings in descriptive research on
common influence objectives and the tactics used for each type
of objective (Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano,
1995). Each item has five anchored response choices: “I can’t
remember him/ her ever using this tactic with me” = 1, “He/she
very seldom uses this tactic with me” = 2, “He/she occasionally
uses this tactic with me” = 3, “He/she uses this tactic moder-
ately often with me” = 4, “He/she uses this tactic very often
with me” = 5. The scale score for a tactic is the mean of the
item scores. IBQ-G is a simple and fast to administer tool and
can easily identify individual and organizational behaviors on
which the success of an organization partially depends. Exten-
sive use of the IBQ in feedback workshops for managers has
shown that respondents rarely leave any items unanswered
(Seifert & Yukl, 2010; Seifert, Yukl, & Mc Donald, 2003).
However, it has been suggested that if there are any missing
data the remedies include computing the mean item score using
only the available data for that tactic, or not including the re-
spondent in the analysis for a scale if there are missing data for
more than one item in the scale (Seifert & Yukl, 2010).
The IBQ has several advantages over the POIS. Only a few
studies (e.g., Erez & Rim, 1982; Kipnis et al., 1980) have used
the POIS to measure influence behavior directed at subordi-
nates or peers, but there is no systematic evidence or validation
studies for its use for downward influences (Kipnis & Schmidt,
1988). However, the POIS has been excessively validated for
assessing tactics used in upward influence attempts (Farmer &
Maslyn, 1999; Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997;
Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Furthermore, self-reports of
behavior are not always accurate for rating of a person’s be-
havior by other people (Seifert & Yukl, 2010). Unlike the POIS,
the IBQ is validated as a target instrument for studying down-
ward and lateral influence (Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl et al., 2008).
Finally, the IBQ includes a broader range of influence tactics to
be measured in contrast to POIS which includes less tactics,
and some of those tactics which are not included in POIS, per-
haps are more important for managers and professionals
(Charbonneau, 2004; Yukl et al., 2008).
Organizations’ effectiveness depends in part on the quality of
work relationships and the agent ought to use influence tactics
that may be crucial not only to his/her personal success, but
also may contribute to the effectiveness of the organization
(Egri, Ralston, Murray, & Nicholson, 2000). Evidences for the
effectiveness of influenced behaviors are limited in Greece.
One important reason is the lack of a valid instrument. The lack
of evidence creates difficulties for many agents to understand
the complex relationships among performance determinants and
to recognize the actions that can be taken to influence subordi-
nates in a beneficial way. Although some instruments are cul-
tural-bounded there are evidence that IBQ is a valid instrument
in different cultures (Fu et al., 2004; Kennedy, Fu, & Yukl,
2003).
Thus, the primary aim of this study is to translate and vali-
date the IBQ-G scale i n a Greek sample. We have hypothe sized
that there will be no differences between the Greek IBQ-G
version and a reference scale (see below) which measure simi-
lar influence tactics.
Method
Translation
After having obtained the permission for translation from
professor Yukl, the original English version of IBQ-G instru-
ment has been translate to Greek language according to rec-
ommended procedures (Acquadro et al., 2008; Brislin, 1970).
The scale was translated into Greek and then back into English
independently by two translators. Any inconsistency was dis-
cussed with linguistic experts not related to the study. The final
version was administered to ten different, again not related with
the study, university students to test for linguistic adaptations,
grammatical, typing, spelling or other mistakes. Integration of
relevant corrections led to the final Greek language version that
was administered to the participants of the study.
Participants
Participants were all (50) employees in two public organiza-
tions located in the Athens Metropolitan area and they were
asked to rate the influence behavior of a designated agent (their
superior). There was not particular method or influences for the
selection of the organizations but given that there was not ran-
domization our sample can be characterized as a convenience
sample. No exclusion criteria were used.
Measurements
1) Demographics: data collected on age, gender, and in
which organization the participant was worked.
2) The translated Greek version of IBQ-G.
3) Reference questionnaire. As a reference questionnaire a
new scale was created the Influence Tactics Scale (ITS) based
on the eleven influence tactics that were similar to ones in the
IBQ-G (rational persuasion, exchange, inspirational appeal,
legitimating, apprising, pressure, collaboration, ingratiation,
consultation, personal appeals and coalition). Those influence
tactics have differed wording and different order from the
original IBQ-G. Besides, the four items of each one scale of the
original IBQ-G have been merged in one item. Each item of the
ITS was rate d on a Li kert sc ale from 1 to 5 (“Never” = 1, “Very
seldom” = 2, “Occasionally” = 3, “Moderately often” = 4,
“Very often” = 5).
Procedure
The two questionnaires (IBQ-G and ITS) were given to the
participants in two different occasions which were four weeks
apart (T1 and T2) in order to test the test-retest reliability of the
IBQ-G Greek version. The process involved in both occasions
was identical. The participants were asked to fill first the ITS
questionnaire, then they gave it back to the researcher and the
administration of the second questionnaire (IBQ-G) was fol-
lowed.
Ethics
As the project did not involve any harm or risk of the par-
ticipants, approval of Research Ethics Committee was not
sought. However, permission was obtained from the Head of
Human Resources Department of each organization. Anonym-

K. TYROVOLA ET AL. 756
ity has been ensured by using codes and removing the names
during the data entry for analyses.
Analysis of Dat a
All data were coded and entered into SPSS v17 for Windows.
Evidence of convergent validity was demonstrated by compar-
ing the IBQ-G scales for eleven tactics with the ITS scale for
similar tactics using correlations. The test-retest reliability was
investigated by comparing the initial IBQ-G and ITS scores
with the subsequent scores provided after the 4 weeks period by
using paired tests.
Results
From the 50 returning questionnaires, 10 had been excluded
as they were uncompleted. Thus, the participant rate was 80%.
From the remained (n = 40) participants, 22 were males and 18
were females. The mean age of the participants was 37 (SD
8.2).
Convergent Validity
The convergent validity was assessed by using Pearson cor-
relation (r). Each scale of the IBQ-G was assessed for correla-
tion with the relevant item of the ITS at T1 and T2 time points.
The results are shown in “Table 1” and “Table 2”.
It can be seen from the tables that the convergent validity of
the Greek version of IBQ-G is very good in both occasions.
Each scale of the IBQ-G is highly correlated with the ITS items
in a significant level (p < 0.001). For instance Rational Persua-
sion has high correlation in both times while Ingratiation has
the lowest but still significant.
Test-Retest Reliability
An indicator of reliability is the extent to which ratings re-
main stable over an interval of time in which the behavior is not
likely to change. Test-retest reliability for the tactic scales in
the IBQ-G was assessed by using paired t-test between the T1
point time and T2 for each scale of the IBQ-G measurement.
Paired t test for the tactics of collaboration (t = 0.006, df = 39, p
< 0.01), ingratiation (t = 0.001, df =39, p < 0.01), and consulta-
tion (t = 0.010, df = 39, p < 0.01) showed significant differ-
ences (thus they have changed during time). However, other
influence tactics like Rational Persuasion, Exchange, Inspira-
tional Appeal have been unchanged during the time (p > 0.05).
The results of paired t-test of IBQ-G are shown in “Table 3”.
Similar paired t-test was used for each item of the ITS to as-
sess the pattern of the changes. Paired t test for the tactics of
ingratiation (t = 0.001, df = 39, p < 0.01) and coalition (t =
0.002, df = 39, p < 0.01) showed significant differences. The
results of paired t-test of ITS are shown in Table 4. Thus, the
tactics of ingratiation are changed in both scales during time.
Further we investigate the test-retest reliability as a correla-
tion of each scale at the two time points, using Pearson correla-
tions. The reliability of each scale respectively is: for Rational
Persuasion 98%, for Exchange 96%, for Inspirational Appeal
96%, Legitimating 99%, Apprising 97%, Pressure 94%, Col-
laboration 96% Ingratiation 94%, Consultation 95%, Personal
Appeals 96%, and for Coalition 96%. Thus, the test-retest reli-
ability for each scale was high.
Discussion
The results show that the Greek translation of IBQ-G is a valid
and reliable measurement. In this study, we examined the crite-
rion-related validity of IBQ-G, and specifically, the convergent
validity. Convergent validity is provided by the very good cor-
relation in both occasions of the administered tool, between the
eleven scales measuring similar tactics in the IBQ- G and the
second questionnaire which we created for the needs of the
project and used as a “gold standard”. Those results are com-
parable to the previous studies (e.g. Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl &
Seifert, 2002).
Reliability is one important psychometric property of a ques-
tionnaire because it demonstrates the value and functionality of
it. A number of studies have examined the reliability of the
IBQ-G (Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl & Seifert, 2002) and they found
Table 1.
Convergent validity for similar tactics in the target I BQ-G and the target ITS at T1 (N = 40).
Rational Persuasion
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.91
P < 0.001
Exchange
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.84
P < 0.001
Inspirational Appeal
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.85
P < 0.001
Legitimating
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.87
P < 0.001
Apprising
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.89
P < .001
Pressure
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.72
P < 0.001
Collaboration
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.69
P < 0.001
Ingratiation
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.058
P < 0.001
Consultation
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.84
P < 0.001
Personal Appeals
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.77
P < 0.001
Coalition
IBQ X ITS, R = 0.64
P < 0.001
Table 2.
Convergent validity for similar scales in the t a r ge t IBQ-G and the target ITS T2 ( N = 40).
Rational Persuasion
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.86
P < 0.001
Exchange
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.82
P < 0.001
Inspirational Appeal
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.77
P < 0.001
Legitimating
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.74
P < 0.001
Apprising
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.85
P < 0.001
Pressure
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.85
P < 0.001
Collaboration
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.65
P < 0.001
Ingratiation
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.69
P < 0.001
Consultation
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.80
P < 0.001
Personal Appeals
IBQ X ITS, r = 0.73
P < 0.001
Coalition
IBQ X ITS. r = 0.85
P < 0.001

K. TYROVOLA ET AL. 757
Table 3.
Test-retest reliability of IBQ-G (N = 40).
Influence Tactics Mean S.D S. E. M 95% CI Low Upper t df Sig.*
Rational Persua sion 0.006 0.230 0.036 –0.067 0.080 0.172 39 0.864
Exchange –0.043 0.277 0.044 –0.131 0.046 –0.970 39 0.338
Inspirational Appeal 0.001 0.283 0.045 –0.091 0.091 0.001 39 1.00
Legitimating –0.019 0.173 0.027 –0.074 0.037 –0.684 39 0.498
Apprising –0.069 0.320 0.051 –0.171 0.034 –1.35 39 0.182
Pressure 0.063 0.348 0.055 –0.049 0.174 1.14 39 0.263
Collaboration –0.133 0.283 0.045 –0.222 –0.041 –2.93 39 0.006
Ingratiation 0.469 0.354 0.056 0.355 0.582 8.37 39 <0.001
Consultation –0.119 0.277 0.044 –0.207 –0.030 –2.71 39 0.010
Personal Appeals –0.025 0.304 0.048 –0.122 0.072 –0.520 39 0.606
Coalition –0.081 0.274 0.043 –0.169 0.006 –1.88 39 0.068
Note: *in bold significant differences (P < 0.05).
Table 4.
Test-retest reliability of ITS (N = 40).
Influence Tactics Mean S. D S. E. M 95% CI Low Upper t df Sig.*
Rational Persua sion 0.050 0.450 0.071 –0.094 0.194 0.703 39 0.486
Exchange –0.100 0.591 0.093 –0.289 0.089 –1.07 39 0.291
Inspirational Appeal –0.075 0.350 0.055 –0.187 0.037 –1.36 39 0.183
Legitimating –0.025 0.531 0.083 –0.195 0.145 –0.298 39 0.767
Apprising 0.001 0.506 0.080 –0.162 0.162 0.001 39 1.00
Pressure –0.125 0.757 0.120 –0.367 0.117 –1.04 39 0.303
Collaboration 0.050 0.389 0.062 –0.074 0.174 0.813 39 0.421
Ingratiation 0.375 0.490 0.078 0.218 0.532 4.84 39 <0.001
Consultation –0.050 0.221 0.035 –0.121 0.021 –1.43 39 0.160
Personal Appeals –0.075 0.474 0.075 –0.227 0.077 –1.00 39 0.323
Coalition –0.400 0.778 0.123 –0.649 –0.151 –3.25 39 0.002
Note: *in bold significant differences (P < 0.05).
high inter-rater reliability. In this study, we examined another
indicator of reliability which indicates the extent to which rat-
ings remain stable over an interval of time. Test-retest reliabil-
ity of the tactic scales in the IBQ-G was assessed by scores’
comparison between the first and the second occasion (after 4
weeks). However, stability was not found adequate because 3
of 11 tactics, collaboration, ingratiation and consultation, ch-
anged after the 4 weeks period. Similarly, in the second ques-
tionnaire (ITS), ratings for tactics of ingratiation and coalition
also changed. Although this finding shows that the test-retest
reliability of the IBQ-G is good (as both questionnaires ch-
anged similarly to the same direction, and the correlations were
excellent) this result is contrary to those of previous findings
(Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl et al., 2008), who reported that the
stability of all 11 scales were satisfactory. In particular, (Yukl
et al., 2008), reported that almost all tactics remained un-
changed even after a ten week period (p > 0.7, no significant
statistical differences) except for the tactics of legitimating and

K. TYROVOLA ET AL. 758
coalition, whose levels of p were also above 0.6. Nevertheless,
it seems from our results that the IBQ-G is a reliable instrument
and given that test-retest reliability is influenced from the time
interval it is worth for future research, the stability of the eleven
tactics to be evaluated further in less and more longer time
intervals.
In addition our results showed that we have a rate response
of 80%. Although from our experience the IBQ-G is a fast and
easily administered tool we have missing data of one or more
scales in a rate of 20%. We avoid inputting missing values but
this finding is to some extend contradictory to the previous
finding by Seifert & Yukl, (2010), Seifert et al., (2003) who
reported that they rarely had unanswered items. However, a
possible explanation is that their sample was managers while
ours mixed of managers and lower degree employees. Thus
perhaps the response rate of IBQ-G dependent also in the hier-
archy in one organization.
Cross cultural studies in English speaking countries have al-
so found that IBQ-G is unaffected by culture for example New
Zealand, Thailand, India (Fu et al., 2004). In addition the
IBQ-G was translated in different languages e.g. in French by
Lacassagne, (Fu et al., 2004), Turkish by Pasa (2000), but has
not been validated. However, direct translation of an instrument
from one language to another does not guarantee content
equivalence of the translated scale (Cha, Kim, & Erlen, 2007).
Because of the later, our primary aim was not only to translate
but also to investigate the psychometric properties of the Greek
version of IBQ-G. The Greek version of IBQ-G apart of its
usefulness in Greek organizations, can also be used for others
purposes. Previous research found that the proactive tactics
were meaningful to managers in other countries, and there was
substantial agreement about the relative effectiveness of most
tactics for influencing subordinates, peers, and bosses (Ken-
nedy et al., 2003). Thus, because IBQ-G is an internationally
recognized and used scale, we think that the most important
benefit of this translation and standardization is that the Greek
version of IBQ-G can be used as a tool for multinational lead-
ership research and comparison with other countries.
Limitations of the study. This study is limited to that the
Greek version of IBQ-G has been evaluated in only two public
organizations. Because the IBQ was developed to measure
influence attempts between members of an organization, the
tactic scales perhaps are needed to be validated for influence
attempts in other different organization in Greece (e.g. Private
organizations).
Conclusion
From this work it seems that the Greek translated IBQ-G is a
valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of downward
influence tactics. In addition, the stability over the time of all
IBQ-G scales was not supported from this study. This finding
needs further investigation. Finally this work suggests that the
Greek version of IBQ-G can be used for managerial, research,
and audit purposes, and to be used in multinational research.
References
Acquadro, C., Conway, K., Hareendran, A., & Aaronson, N. (2008).
Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life
questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value in Health,
11, 509-521. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x
Aydin, I., & Pehlivan, Z. (2010). Strategies and personality types used
by primary school principals in Turkey to influence teachers (Ankara
case). Procedia Social and Behavioral S ci en c es , 2, 3652-3659.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.568
Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psycholo gy , 1, 185-216.
doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
Cha, E.-S., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in
cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 58, 386-395. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x
Charbonneau, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transfor-
mational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 25, 565-576. doi:10.1108/01437730410561459
Deluga, R. J. (1988). Relationship of transformational and transactional
leadership with employee influencing strategies. Group & Organiza-
tion Studies, 13, 456-467. doi:10.1177/105960118801300404
Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of upward-influencing behavior
with subordinate impression management characteristics. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1145-1160.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00463.x
Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Murray, C. S., & Nicholson, J. D. (2000).
Managers in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison of
attitudes toward upward influence strategies. Journal of International
Management, 6, 149-171. doi:10.1016/S1075-4253(00)00016-8
Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence
tactics, and personnel and organizational variables. Human Relations,
35, 871-878. doi:10.1177/001872678203501004
Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. (1999). Why are styles of upward influ-
ence neglected? Making the case for a configurational approach to
influences. Journal of M anage ment, 25, 653-682.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500503
Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997).
Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 18, 17-42.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701)18:1<17::AID-JOB785>3.0.C
O;2-9
Farrell, M. A., & Schroder, B. (1996). Influence strategies in organiza-
tional buying decisions. Industrial Marketing Management, 25,
293-303. doi:10.1016/0019-8501(95)00131-X
Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Peng, T.-K., &
Cheosakul, A. (2004). The impact of societal cultural values and in-
dividual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial
influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Busi-
ness Studies, 35, 284-305. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400090
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tac-
tics in the united states and china. The Leadership Quarterly, 11,
251-266. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00039-4
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in
organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338.
doi:10.1177/014920638801400210
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The
state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future
research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
17, 1-39.
Kennedy, J., Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2003). Influence tactics across
twelve cultures. In W. Mobley, & P. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in
global leadership (Vol. 3, pp. 127-148). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: Rela-
tionship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 33, 528-542. doi:10.2307/2392642
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational
influence tactics: Exploration in getting one’s way. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 65, 440- 452. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an
instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational
settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-627.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619
Pasa, S. F. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and
collectivist culture. Leadership and Organization Development Jour-
nal, 21, 414-426. doi:10.1108/01437730010379258
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in or-
ganizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Pr e s s.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by
subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of

K. TYROVOLA ET AL. 759
the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 246-257. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.246
Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2010). Effects of repeated multi-source
feedback on the influence behavior and effectiveness of managers: A
field experiment. T h e L e a de r sh i p Q u arterly, 21, 856-866 .
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.012
Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G., & Mc Donald, R. (2003). Effects of multi-
source feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior
of managers towards subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 561-569. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.561
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R., Graef, I., & Ferris, G. (1997). The role of up-
ward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psy-
chology, 50, 979-1006. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.x
Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effective-
ness. In L. Neider, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Research in
management (Vol. 2, pp. 139-165). Charlotte: Information Age Pub-
lishing.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. (2005). Assessing the construct
validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organ-
izational Behavior, 26, 705-725. doi:10.1002/job.335
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics in upward, down-
ward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 132-140. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence
behavior for managers. Group and Organization Management, 18,
5-28. doi:10.1177/1059601193181002
Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & Mc Donald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences
in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resist-
ing change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 68-82.
doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00124
Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used
for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors.
Group and Organization Management , 20, 272-296.
doi:10.1177/1059601195203003
Yukl, G., Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. (1992). Preliminary report on
development and validation of the influence behavior questionnaire.
In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leader-
ship (pp. 417-427). Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
Yukl, G., & Seifert, C. (2002). Preliminary validation of an extended
version of the Influence Behavior Questionnaire. The Society for In-
dustrial Organization al Psychology Meetings, Toronto, April 2002.
Yukl, G., Seifert, C. F., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the ex-
tended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,
19, 609-621. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.006
Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used
with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 525-535. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525