Briefly define the four proactive core tacticsand deeply explain what they are and examples

- 0 w4 Proactive_Influence_Tactics_and_Leader_Member_Exch (1).pdf Close o Activity Chat Insert Table 1 About Here 200 () Teams Several studies on the relative effectiveness of different proactive tactics have been g conducted using research methodologies such as surveys (e.g., Yukl & Tracy, 1992), critical incidents (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Falbe 1996), experiments (e.g., Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999), and scenario studies (e.g., Fu & Yukl, 2000). These studies found that the proactive tactics most likely to elicit task commitment include rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, and % inspirational appeals. The four tactics have subsequently been termed core tactics (Yukl, 2002). Another subject of research on influence behavior is the determinants of a manager's B choice of influence tactics. Yukland Tracy (1992) proposed that agents will use tactics that are socially acceptable, feasible in terms of the agent's position and personal power in relation to the target, not costly (in terms of time, effort, loss of resources, or alienation of the target), and likely to be effective for a particular objective given the anticipated level of resistance by the target Support for most of these propositions was provided by several studies (e.g., Yukl, Falbe, & Apps Youn, 1993; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). However, most of this research treats influence attempts as isolated episodes, rather than as reciprocal processes that occur in a continuing relationship between the agent and target Although the authority relationship between agent and target has been included in some studies on determinants of tactic selection and effectiveness, the research seldom considers the interpersonal relationship and variables such as trust and mutual regard. In this chapter we will @ consider how proactive influence tactics are related to the social exchange relationship between Help leaders and individual subordinates. - 0 w4 Proactive_Influence_Tactics_and_Leader_Member_Exch (1).pdf Close o Activity Chat 200 (o)} Teams consider how proactive influence tactics are related to the social exchange relationship between g leaders and individual subordinates. Assignme. Leader-Member Exchange Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the role making processes between a leader and each individual subordinate and the social exchange relationship that develops over % time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The basic premise of the Calls theory is that leaders develop a separate exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two B parties mutually define the subordinate's role. Graen and Cashman (1975) suggested that Files exchange relationships are formed on the basis of personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability. Because of limited time and energy, leaders with many subordinates develop a close working relationship with only a few trusted subordinates (Graen, 1976; Graen & Schiemann, 1978). Apps The basis for establishing a high exchange relationship is the leader's control over outcomes that are desirable to a subordinate, such as better assignments, more responsibility, higher status, and tangible rewards such as a pay increase, special benefits (e.g., better work schedule, bigger office), and facilitation of the subordinate's career (e.g., recommending a promotion, giving developmental assignments with high visibility). In return for these benefits, a high exchange subordinate has additional obligations and costs. The subordinate is expected to work harder, to be more committed to task objectives, to be loyal to the leader, and in some cases to share some of the leader's administrative duties. The development of high-exchange relationships occurs gradually over a period of time; through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again. Unless the cycle is broken, the Help