Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T05:50:00.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connecting Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory's Information-Processing Styles With Organisational-Influencing Tactics: Rational Thinkers are Rational Persuaders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2013

Guy J. Curtis  and
Mindy W.H. Lee
Guy J. Curtis*
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Mindy W.H. Lee
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Guy Curtis, School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Several recent studies have connected information-processing styles, as described by Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST), with important workplace behaviours, including leadership and conflict-handling styles. This article extends such research by examining the connection between CEST information-processing styles and organisational-influencing tactics. In Study 1 (N = 119), the CEST information-processing styles of behavioural coping and rational thinking were positively correlated with the use of rationality as an influencing tactic, as measured by the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies. In Study 2 (N = 142), a broader self-report measure of influencing tactics was used; behavioural coping and rational thinking were positively correlated with effective influencing tactics such as rational persuasion. Together, behavioural coping and rational thinking accounted for more than 31% of the variance in preference for rational persuasion as an influencing tactic. Additionally, the apprising tactic was positively correlated with both behavioural coping and rational thinking. These findings emphasise the importance of examining individual differences in information-processing preferences to understand key elements of organisational behaviour.

Keywords

influence tacticsinformation processingrationalityCEST
Type
Articles
Information
The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology , Volume 6 , 2013 , e2
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 336–355.Google Scholar
Atwater, L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1993). Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of military academic leadership. Human Relations, 46, 645–668.Google Scholar
Barbuto, J.E., Fritz, S., Matkin, B.A., & Marx, D. (2007). Effects of gender, education, and age upon leaders’ use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, 56, 71–83.Google Scholar
Barcikowski, R.S. (1981). Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6, 267–285.Google Scholar
Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries. American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.Google Scholar
Behfar, K.J., Peterson, R.S., Mannix, E.A., & Trochim, W.M.K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170–188.Google Scholar
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 197–214.Google Scholar
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J., & Colmar, S.H. (2008). Information processing and leadership styles: Constructive thinking and transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 60–73.Google Scholar
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J., & Colmar, S.H. (2010a). Executive coaching can enhance transformational leadership. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5, 81–85.Google Scholar
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J., & Colmar, S.H. (2010b). Increasing transformational leadership by developing leaders’ information-processing systems. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (3), 51–65.Google Scholar
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J., & Colmar, S.H. (2012). Cognitive-experiential self theory and conflict-handling styles: Rational and experiential systems are related to the integrating and compromising conflict-handling styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23, 362–381.Google Scholar
Cheng, J.L.C. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: An experimental study of the use of power tactics. Group Organization Management, 8, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonneau, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25, 565–576.Google Scholar
Conway, J.M., & Lance, C.E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common methods bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, G.J. (2013). Leadership: Power and influence. In Sarris, A. & Kirby, N. (Eds), Organisational psychology: Research and professional practice (pp. 289–316). Tilde University Press.Google Scholar
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L.F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–109.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., & Jolson, M.A. (1995). An examination of linkages between personal characteristics and dimensions of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 315–334.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1998a). Cognitive-experiential self theory: A dual-process personality theory with implications for diagnosis and psychotherapy. In Bornstein, R.F. & Masling, J.M. (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on the psychoanalytic unconscious (pp. 99–140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (1998b). Constructive thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (2001). Constructive Thinking Inventory: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332–350.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.Google Scholar
Falbe, C.M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.Google Scholar
Fu, P.P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251–266.Google Scholar
Furst, S.A., & Cable, D.M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 453–462.Google Scholar
Hendel, T., Fish, M., & Galon, V. (2005). Leadership style and choice of strategy in conflict management among Israeli nurse managers in general hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management, 13, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, J.H., & Zettel, M.C. (2002). Transformational leader self-perception and objective sales performance: The potential moderating effects of behavioral coping ability. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 1, 9–23.Google Scholar
Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.Google Scholar
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.Google Scholar
Mahoney, K.T., Buboltz, W., Levin, I.P., Doverspike, D., & Svyantek, D.J. (2011). Individual differences in a within-subjects risky-choice framing study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 248–257.Google Scholar
Norris, P., & Epstein, S. (2011). An experiential thinking style: Its facets and relations with objective and subjective criterion measures. Journal of Personality, 79, 1043–1080.Google Scholar
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles of personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–987.Google Scholar
Rao, A., Hashimoto, K., & Rao, A. (1997). Universal and culturally specific aspects of managerial influence: A study of Japanese managers. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 295–312.Google Scholar
Schriesheim, C.A., & Hinkin, T.R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246–257.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H.F. (2001). Effects of influence tactics and social contexts in conflict: An experiment in relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 239–258.Google Scholar
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309–317.Google Scholar
Yukl, G., Seifert, C.F., & Chavez, C. (2008). Validation of the extended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 609–621.Google Scholar
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J.B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.Google Scholar