This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 18 November 2014, At: 21:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Resources inHospitality & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

Employee Gender vs. Supervisor Gender:Gender Interaction Effects in Employees’Upward Influence Behavior in HotelsRan Zhang aa Faculty of Hotel Management , Stenden University of AppliedSciences , Leeuwarden , The NetherlandsPublished online: 07 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Ran Zhang (2013) Employee Gender vs. Supervisor Gender: Gender InteractionEffects in Employees’ Upward Influence Behavior in Hotels, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality& Tourism, 12:4, 355-375, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2013.790256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2013.790256

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 12:355–375, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-2845 print / 1533-2853 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15332845.2013.790256

Employee Gender vs. Supervisor Gender:Gender Interaction Effects in Employees’

Upward Influence Behavior in Hotels

RAN ZHANGFaculty of Hotel Management, Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden,

The Netherlands

This study examined gender interaction effects in employees’ useof upward influence tactics. Employee and supervisor genders werepaired up in a 2 × 2 design containing four cells. Data were col-lected from 108 employees in a Dutch hotel. Hypotheses were testedusing both the traditional ANOVAs and the more robust OrthogonalContrasts Approach. Results showed gender interaction effects ex-isted in hard influence tactics. Specifically, assertiveness was usedthe least by female employees on male supervisors, and coalitionwas used the most by male employees on female supervisors. Theo-retical and practical implications of the findings were discussed.

KEYWORDS upward influence tactics, gender, gender interac-tion, organizational psychology

INTRODUCTION

Employees engage in a variety of behaviors and tactics to influence theirsupervisors at work (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). Researchers have ex-amined the role of gender in employees’ choice of upward influence tacticsbut have found inconsistent results (Kline, 1994; O’Neil, 2004; Yukl & Falbe,1990). This study aimed to contribute to the ongoing debate and discussionregarding gender differences and upward influence behavior. Going beyondsimple comparisons between the two genders, this study examined an em-ployee’s use of upward influence tactics by pairing up an employee’s genderto that of the direct supervisor.

Address correspondence to Ran Zhang, Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Postbus1298, 8900 CG Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. E-mail: ran.w.zhang@stenden.com

355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

356 R. Zhang

Multiple studies have been conducted in the past regarding the effectof gender on upward influence tactics; however, none used the genderinteraction approach. Studies on related social psychological topics suggestgender-matching (or gender interaction) is important (Elias, 2004; Elias &Cropanzano, 2006). It can be argued that an employee’s choice of upwardinfluence tactics would depend not only on his or her own gender, butalso on the gender of the person whom he or she is trying to influence.Studies on social power have found such gender interaction effects indeedexist. Elias and Cropanzano (2006) found that male students perceived femaleinstructors to be less powerful compared to female students’ rating on femaleinstructions, male students’ rating on male instructors, and female students’rating on male instructors. While no overall gender difference existed, therewas a difference when genders of the students and instructors were matchedup. The present study examined hotel employees’ use of upward influencetactics using a similar approach.

Because of the gender pairing design of this study, data analysis is animportant consideration. In testing the hypotheses, the researcher analyzedthe data using both the traditional ANOVA and also the Orthogonal ContrastApproach. Studies have suggested (Strube & Bobko, 1989) and shown (Elias& Cropanzano, 2006) that ANOVA may result in Type I and Type II errorswhen detecting ordinal interactions (such as gender interactions). Throughanalyzing the data using both procedures, the researcher further empiricallydemonstrated how such Type I and Type II errors may occur.

Taken together, the purpose of this study was to advance the under-standing of the role gender plays in employees’ choice of upward influencetactics. Specific objectives of this study were:

1. To examine hotel employees’ use of upward influence tactics in fourgender-combinations: (1) female employee and male supervisor, (2) maleemployee and male supervisor, (3) female employee and female supervi-sor, and (4) male employee and female supervisor;

2. To identify differences across four gender combinations in hotel employ-ees’ use of specific upward influence tactics—assertiveness, upward ap-peal, and coalition;

3. To explore and demonstrate the potential Type I and Type II errors whichcan result from ANOVA when detecting ordinal interactions.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Upward Influence and the Hospitality Industry

Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) and Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990)developed a well-regarded taxonomy of upward influence tactics withsix categories: Assertiveness—using a forceful manner in order to gain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 357

compliance; Upward Appeal—appealing to higher authority and put pres-sure on the supervisor in order to gain compliance; Coalition—gainingsupport from coworkers in order to obtain compliance from the su-pervisor; Ingratiation—using a friendly and humble approach in orderto gain compliance; Exchange—offering to do something in return; andRationality—presenting logical arguments and information in order to ra-tionally persuade the supervisor.

Of the six upward influence tactics, assertiveness, upward appeal, andcoalition are considered hard tactics, while ingratiation, exchange, and ratio-nality are considered soft (Van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003). The distinc-tion between hard and soft influence tactics is based on how much roomthe influence agent leaves the target in complying (Tepper, Brown, & Hunt,1993). The hard tactics put more pressure on the target to comply, eitherdirectly through face-to-face confrontations, such as in the case of assertive-ness, or by appealing to higher authority, such as in the case of upwardappeal. The goal is clear—to make sure the target complies. Soft tactics, onthe other hand, put less pressure on the target. They aim to gain compliancebut do not force it as much as hard tactics (Tepper, Brown, & Hunt, 1993).

Compared to hard upward influence tactics, soft tactics are better re-ceived by the target. For instance, ingratiation has been found to lead topositive performance ratings (Higgins et al., 2003; Su, 2010), enhance liking(Wayne & Ferris, 1990), and predict overall career success (Judge & Bretz,1994). Rationality has been found to be positively related to effectiveness(Yukl & Tracey, 1992), salary (Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitely, 1989), andpromotability (Thacker & Wayne, 1995). The same cannot be said abouthard tactics. Even though hard influence tactics can also be effective anduseful at times, they may cause negative effects at the same time. For in-stance, employees’ use of assertiveness in upward influence attempts canresult in supervisors’ decreased trust in the employee, low performance rat-ings from the supervisors on the employee (Su, 2010), and low assessmentof promotability (Thacker & Wayne, 1995).

The study of upward influence is especially relevant for hotel employ-ees and supervisors. The hospitality industry is known for its labor inten-siveness (Groschl & Barrows, 2003), which makes it highly interesting andrelevant for this study. In organizations where labor intensiveness is high andemployee–supervisor interactions are frequent, there is an increased chanceof work-related conflicts (Ross, 1995). As a result, interpersonal influenceattempts are needed to resolve such conflicts. Apart from resolving conflicts,hotel employees also use upward influence tactics for other purposes. For in-stance, upward influence tactics enable hotel employees to earn supervisors’trust and achieve better performance ratings (Su, 2010).

From a research standpoint, hotels are considered a desirable researchenvironment because of the similarities in managerial structure and workcontent across organizations and countries (Nyberg et al., 2011). For these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

358 R. Zhang

reasons, examining employees’ upward influence behavior in the hotel in-dustry has both practical and scientific relevance. Su’s (2010) study was theonly one investigating employees’ use of upward influence tactics in the hotelindustry and was conducted in Taiwan. Due to cultural differences, employ-ees’ use of such tactics may be different in various countries—highlightingthe importance of further examining employees’ upward influence behaviorin hotels elsewhere.

Gender Differences and the Hospitality Industry

In the hospitality industry, employee gender has been found to play vitalroles in employee performance and satisfaction. Stress, for instance, morestrongly predicted job satisfaction for female hotel employees (Kim, Mur-rmann, & Lee, 2009). Female employees tended to have better qualificationsthan their male counterparts working at the same position in the same hotel(Bird, Lynch, & Ingram, 2002). Female and male hotel workers were alsosignificantly different in their perception of how well their capabilities werebeing used and realized (Kara, Uysal, & Magnini, 2012). Previous researchfindings showed male and female hotel employees differ in key work-relatedbehavior and perceptions, which strongly suggests hospitality employees’upward influence behavior may also depend, to a great extent, on employeegender and gender interactions.

Research has not been conclusive in determining if gender differencestruly exist in the use of upward influence tactics (DuBrin, 1989; Grob, Meyers,& Schuh, 1997; O’Neil, 2004). Studies have produced diverse and conflictingfindings on this topic. Some have found empirical evidence that males andfemales tend to use different influence behaviors and strategies (Schlueter,Barge, & Blankenship, 1990), while others have discovered absolutely nodifference between the two genders (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).

In an effort to explain how this could be, two main theories arose—thegender-role theory and the structural model theory. The gender-role theory(Schlueter et al., 1990) claims each gender is expected to use the forms ofinfluence behaviors that are consistent with gender-based stereotypes andgender roles, and that these expectations based on gender will spill overto organizational settings (Aguinis & Adams, 1998); as a result, individualsof different genders will choose different influence behaviors. On the otherhand, the structural model offers a different explanation. It claims that in-dividual differences such as gender and personality are less important inpredicting influence behaviors compared to organizational status, role, andpower (Aguinis & Adams, 1998; Schlueter et al., 1990). In other words, thestructure model says that when females are found to use, for example, softerinfluence tactics, that it is not due to the female gender. Rather it is becausein most organizations, females occupied positions of lower power, and dueto their lower power status, they tend to exhibit softer influence behaviors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 359

While organizational factors play an important role, gender can alsobe a stable predictor for employees’ choice of upward influence tactics.The notion that males and females tend to naturally behave differently isbased not only on social and cultural reasons (Berkowitz, 1989), but also onbiological grounds (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). These differences are evenmore heightened when the gender combinations of both the employees andthe supervisors are taken into account. Gender combination has been thefocus of various investigations in the study of dyadic relationships (Elias,2004; Elias & Cropanzano, 2006; Elias & Loomis, 2004; Elias & Mace, 2005).

Gender Interaction and Upward Influence Tactics

Employees’ soft upward influence attempts are well received by the supervi-sors. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that ingratiation, exchange,and rationality generally lead to positive outcomes—promotion, liking, pos-itive performance appraisals, and so on (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Judge & Bretz,1994; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).Specific to hotel employees and supervisors, rationality positively contributedto supervisors’ impression of employee reasonableness. Employees’ use ofexchange led supervisors to believe these employees were open to engagein negotiations (Su, 2010). Given these positive effects, the use of soft tacticsis a rather politically correct and even pleasant affair, because these tacticsdo not pose major risks. They do not damage or jeopardize relationships,and they are generally expected to produce positive outcomes, so peoplefeel generally comfortable using them. Due to their politically correct nature,there is no reason why people of different genders need to have many majorconcerns when using them. For instance, there is no literature that suggestsany pressing reasons as to why males cannot use rationality as much as fe-males. At the same time, there does not appear to be any grounds why malesshould use more rationality on females than on males in a work-context. Sooverall, neither gender nor gender interaction seems to play much of a rolein the use of soft tactics. It is, therefore, logical to assume that soft upwardinfluence tactics should not exhibit any significant differences among thefour gender combinations. The following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference among the four gender combinationsin the use of soft upward influence tactics.

Hard upward influence tactics differ from the soft in the sense that theyleave little room for the receiver to choose to comply or not (Tepper et al.,1993). They can be considered aggressive, risky, and even uncomfortable.They can be perceived to be pushy and rude. Hard influence tactics can alsolead to negative and undesirable outcomes. For instance, hotel employees’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

360 R. Zhang

use of assertiveness in upward influence has been found to lead to poorperformance rating and low supervisor trust (Su, 2010). In term of genderdifferences, studies found that females tend to use more relational influencebehaviors and males use more aggressive behaviors (Aguinis & Adams, 1998;Carli, 1999). There is support for the assumption that males would use hardtactics more than females. Moreover, culturally and socially, males would bemore likely to direct their aggressive influence attempts at other males morethan females (Burgoon, Dillard, & Doran, 1983). This would seem to indicatethat hard tactics are subject to gender interactions because employees ofdifferent genders are indeed likely to behave differently when it comes tousing hard tactics. Furthermore, they would also be aware of the gender ofthe supervisors on whom they are using such hard tactics. It is, therefore,reasonable to assume that hard tactics will exhibit significant differencesamong the four gender combinations. The following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference among the four gendercombinations in the use of hard upward influence tactics.

When it comes to the specific upward influence tactics, there can besignificant differences among the four gender combinations. Assertivenessis an obvious one. Being a hard tactic, assertiveness refers to the use ofconfrontations, the display of anger, or any other forceful manners to tryto coerce compliance (Higgins et al., 2003; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).Studies have found that men tend to engage in more direct and aggres-sive behaviors in their influence attempts more than women (Bettencourt &Miller, 1996). It was further found that these directive and assertive behav-iors were in fact received generally positively (Giacalone & Riordan, 1990),especially if they were exhibited by males rather than females (Wosinska,Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, & Cialdini, 1996). There is also empirical evidenceto suggest that men are more likely to be assertive with other men, insteadof with women. Burgoon et al. (1983) found that subjects, especially males,were more likely to be influenced by men who used a direct and aggressiveinfluence strategy than by a woman using such a strategy, meaning when aman uses an assertive strategy to influence another man, the attempt is likelyto be successful. Such positive outcomes, in turn, are likely to reinforce men’stendency to use such strategies on other men (Michael, 2004). Female hotelemployees are known to be more sensitive to stressors at work (Kim et al.,2009), which could be perceived as another reason why male employeeswould be careful to not pressure female supervisors much. Otherwise, theirinfluence attempt might lead to stress and cause further negative outcomes.Previous research findings point to the likelihood that assertiveness shouldbe used the most by male employees on male supervisors. The followinghypothesis is proposed:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 361

Hypothesis 3: Assertiveness is used most frequently by male employees onmale supervisors.

Females have been found to use assertive and directive behaviors muchless than males. For those women who do sometimes appear to be assertive,their assertiveness can cause negative responses. Carli (1999) described howwomen, who were assertive and interested in influencing others, could beconsidered by others as violating expectations about proper behavior forwomen. Female employees working in the hospitality industry were foundto care a great deal about morals and norms (Chan, Jamilah, & Rusinah,2012). As a result, they would be highly likely to adhere to social expecta-tions regarding “proper” female behaviors. In other words, female hospitalityemployees may avoid exhibiting much assertiveness as a result of conform-ing to social norms and expectations. Rudman (1998) also found that womenwho overtly displayed confidence and competence could result in rejection.Rudman further pointed out such rejection and negative reactions to assertivewomen were especially exhibited by males, who could perceive their own le-gitimate power to be threatened by assertive women. Research further showsthat males react particularly negatively to assertive females. Carli (1991, ascited in Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995) found men reported lower liking andtrusting of women who appeared assertive and confident than when thesewomen were acting tentatively. Based on previous research findings, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Assertiveness is used least frequently by female employees onmale supervisors.

The same line of reasoning that females are least likely to engage indirective and aggressive behavior in their influence attempts on male targetsshould also apply in the two other hard upward influence tactics—coalitionand upward appeal. Admittedly, there are some differences between thesetwo upward influence tactics and assertiveness. What matters most in thiscase, however, is their similarity. All three tactics are considered hard tactics(Van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003) in that they aim to leave little room forthe target to decide whether to comply or not. All three tactics put pressureon the target: in the case of assertiveness, the pressure is generated byconfrontations and displays of anger; in the case of coalition, the involvementof and support from other coworkers generate pressure; and in the case ofupward appeal, the pressure comes from the involvement of and the supportfrom higher authorities. Even though the sources of the pressure may differ,the essence of the three tactics are very similar, in that each tactic is is a harshand pushy manner of gaining compliance. As a result, females would notuse them, and they would particularly not use them on males, for exactly thesame reasons outlined above. The following two hypotheses are proposed:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

362 R. Zhang

Hypothesis 5: Coalition is used least frequently by female employees onmale supervisors.Hypothesis 6: Upward appeal is used least frequently by female employeeson male supervisors.

The difference, however, between assertiveness on the one hand andcoalition and upward appeal on the other is that the latter two tactics doinvolve other individuals in the organization. Coalition involves coworkers,while upward appeal uses the support from higher management. It is this keydifference that explains why a male employee would tend to use coalitionand upward appeal on his female supervisor. A male directing assertivenessat a female is perceived as socially inappropriate, and this perception isparticularly strong from women (Eisler, Hersen, Miller, & Blanchard, 1975;Wilson & Gallois, 1985). As argued above, male employees’ direct assertivebehavior may cause stress to female supervisors, to which female hospitalityworkers were sensitive (Kim et al., 2009). In addition, it has been shownthat assertiveness generally does not lead to very positive reactions fromthe supervisor in the hotel industry (Su, 2010). It is, therefore, more likelythat male employees would engage in coalition and upward appeal (insteadof assertiveness) when they feel the need to engage in any harsh upwardinfluence attempts on their female supervisors. The involvement of eithercoworkers or higher authority acts to lessen and dilute the sense of harshnessof these tactics, which, in turn, allows male employees to more freely engagein coalition and upward appeal. As hypothesized earlier, female employeesin general are not likely to engage in harsh upward influence tactics, malesare more likely to do so. As it has been established now (Hypothesis 1),males tend to use assertiveness on males and they are likely to use coalitionand upward appeal on female supervisors—hence, the final two hypothesesare proposed:

Hypothesis 7: Coalition is used most frequently by male employees onfemale supervisors.Hypothesis 8: Upward appeal is used most frequently by male employeeson female supervisors.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from a four-star hotel in the north of the Netherlands.Employees of all major operational departments participated in the survey.The hotel was linked to an educational institution, and the majority of theemployees at the hotel were students in training. The researcher distributedthe surveys to department managers during morning and evening briefings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 363

Department managers asked employees to complete the survey which cap-tured employees’ self reports on the use of upward influence tactics. Thesurvey took about five minutes to fill out. The completed questionnaireswere returned to the researcher by department managers. Participation wasvoluntary, and confidentiality was assured because no names were placedon surveys.

A total of 126 employees were approached by the department managers.After excluding 18 incomplete surveys, 108 useable questionnaires wereobtained, giving a response rate of 85.71%. The sample-size-to-observed-variable ratio of this study was 18 (108/6), higher than the suggestedbenchmark of 15 (Stevens, 1996). Of the 108 employees, 66 were females(61.1%) and 42 were males (38.9%); the average age of the participants was21.86 years (SD = 5.72 years); and 67 were Dutch nationals, 18 Germans, 18Chinese, and 5 participants were of other nationalities.

Instrument and Measures

Data were collected using a questionnaire based survey. The survey con-tained two main sections: (1) a demographic section in which employees’age, gender, nationality, and other demographic and organizational variableswere measured, and (2) an upward influence section in which employees’use of six tactics were measured.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES

Gender of each employee was identified by asking respondents their sexin the demographic section of the survey. Respondents were also asked toindicate the gender of the direct supervisor with whom they worked in theteam. Employees’ and supervisors’ genders were then combined to createthe four cells shown in Figure 1. Employees’ age, nationality, professionalexperience, team size, and position (operational employee, supervisor, man-ager) were also measured. These variables could serve as control variables,as previous research suggested that such factors may impact employees’influence behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Schlueter et al., 1990).

UPWARD INFLUENCE TACTICS

Schriesheim and Hinkin’s (1990) scale was employed to measure partici-pants’ use of six upward influence tactics (rationality, exchange, ingratia-tion, coalition, assertiveness, and upward appeal). Each tactic was rated bythree items in this scale, and employees were asked to indicate to whatdegree they agreed or disagreed with the items. Sample items are “I have a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

364 R. Zhang

Male Supervisor Female Employee

Cell 1

Male SupervisorMale Employee

Cell 2

Female SupervisorFemale Employee

Cell 3

Female SupervisorMale Employee

Cell 4

FIGURE 1 The 2 × 2 design of employee–supervisor genders.

face-to-face confrontation with my supervisor in which I forcefully state whatI want” (assertiveness); “I mobilize other people in the organization to helpme in influencing my supervisor” (upward appeal); “I obtain the support ofmy co-workers in persuading my supervisor to act on my request” (coali-tion); “I act very humble and polite while making my request” (ingratiation);“I offer to make a personal sacrifice such as giving up my free time if mysupervisor will do what I want” (exchange); and “I present facts, figures, andother information to my supervisor in support of my position” (rationality).Response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Analytical Approach

The 2 × 2 design contained four gender-combination cells (see Figure 1).To test most of the hypotheses and compare the group means of the fourcells, ANOVAs were performed. To discover if ANOVA would indeed resultin Type I and Type II errors in detecting ordinal interactions, the Orthogo-nal Contrast Approach was followed to re-test the hypotheses, so that thehypothesis-testing results from the two different procedures could be com-pared.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-cients, and the correlations among the study variables. Most of the upwardinfluence tactics are shown to be positively related to each other. Genderis significantly related to coalition and assertiveness, suggesting males weremore likely to use these two tactics. With the exception of ingratiation (0.58),the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.62 to 0.66, which, although

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 365

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 21.86 5.722. Employee

gender1.61 0.49 –0.01

3. Supervisorgender

1.52 0.50 0.07 –0.05

4. Exchange 3.61 1.27 –0.17 –0.13 –0.04 (0.65)5. Rationality 5.48 0.96 0.07 –0.05 0.20∗ –0.02 (0.62)6. Ingratiation 4.76 1.13 –0.15 0.18 0.02 0.53∗∗ 0.03 (0.58)7. Coalition 4.09 1.11 –0.05 –0.24∗ 0.14 0.45∗∗ 0.23∗ 0.40∗∗ (0.64)8. Assertiveness 3.51 1.23 0.02 –0.22∗ 0.06 0.20∗ 0.16 0.08 0.28∗∗ (0.62)9. Upward

appeal3.40 1.19 0.03 –0.13 0.07 0.59∗∗ –0.02 0.40∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.45∗∗ (0.66)

Notes. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are on the diagonal in parentheses; Gender was code 1 = male, 2 =female; N = 108; ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01.

not excellent, is acceptable (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1988; Peterson, 1994).Table 2 presents the cell means and standard deviations for the six upwardinfluence tactics.

Hypotheses Testing with ANOVA

Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be no differences in the use ofsoft upward influence tactics among the four gender combinations. To testthis prediction, the three upward influence tactics of rationality, ingratia-tion, and exchange were collapsed into one new variable to represent em-ployees’ overall use of soft upward influence tactics, and then an ANOVAwas performed on this new variable. Employees’ use of soft tactics was in-deed found to have no significant difference across the four gender cells,

TABLE 2 Cell Means and Standard Deviations Per Gender-Combination

Male Supervisor Female Supervisor

FemaleEmployee

MaleEmployee

FemaleEmployee

MaleEmployee

UIT M SD M SD M SD M SDSoft 4.49 0.88 4.67 0.57 4.72 0.74 4.58 0.80

Rationality 5.23 1.11 5.35 0.83 5.64 0.94 5.70 0.82Exchange 3.46 1.41 4.00 1.02 3.48 1.04 3.67 1.52Ingratiation 4.78 1.00 4.65 1.09 5.05 1.04 4.39 1.39

Hard 3.38 0.88 3.87 0.65 3.59 1.02 4.01 0.87Assertiveness 3.12 1.06 3.98 1.20 3.46 1.29 3.72 1.28Coalition 3.80 1.17 4.12 0.83 3.96 1.13 4.62 1.05Upward appeal 3.21 1.26 3.47 1.11 3.33 1.19 3.70 1.17

Overall influence 3.93 0.79 4.27 0.52 4.15 0.78 4.30 0.73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

366 R. Zhang

F(3, 104) = 0.54, p = 0.66. As a result of the analysis, Hypothesis 1 wasfound to be supported by the data.

Hypothesis 2 predicted there would be a significant difference in theuse of hard upward influence tactics among the four gender combinations.To test this hypothesis, the three hard tactics of assertiveness, coalition, andupward appeal were collapsed into a new variable to represent employees’use of hard upward influence tactics. The ANOVA results show there wasindeed a significant difference across the four gender combinations in theuse of hard upward influence tactics, F(3, 104) = 2.77, p < 0.05, providingsupport for Hypothesis 2. Specifically, the cell “female employees vs. malesupervisors” showed the lowest rating in hard tactics (mean = 3.38, SD =0.88, n = 33), followed by “female employees vs. female supervisors” (mean= 3.59, SD = 1.02, n = 33), and “male employees vs. male supervisors”(mean = 3.87, SD = 0.65, n = 19); the cell “male employees vs. femalesupervisors” showed the highest mean of 4.01 (SD = 0.87, n = 23). Thedifferences among the four cell means were significant. As a result of theanalysis, Hypothesis 2 was found to be supported by the data.

Next, the hypotheses on the use of specific hard upward influencetactics were tested. Hypothesis 3 predicted assertiveness was used the mostfrequently by male employees on male supervisors. Hypothesis 4 predictedassertiveness was used the least frequently by female employees on malesupervisors. To test these two hypothesis, an ANOVA was performed onassertiveness. The descriptive statistics show the cell of “male employee vs.male supervisor” indeed had the highest score (mean = 3.98, SD = 1.29,n = 19; see Table 2) while the cell of “female employee vs. male supervisor”had the lowest (mean = 3.12, SD = 1.06, n = 33; see Table 2). However, thedifferences across the four gender combinations were not significant, F(3,104) = 2.38, p = 0.07. As a result, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported.

Hypothesis 5 predicted coalition was used least by female employeeson male supervisors and Hypothesis 7 predicted coalition was used mostby male employees on female supervisors. To test these two hypotheses,an ANOVA was performed on this upward influence tactic. The descriptivestatistics show the cell of “male employee vs. female supervisor” indeed hadthe highest score (mean = 4.62, SD = 1.05, n = 23; see Table 2) while thecell of “female employee vs. male supervisor” had the lowest (mean = 3.80,SD = 1.17, n = 33; see Table 2). Furthermore, the differences were foundto be significant F(3, 104) = 2.87, p < 0.05. Thus, Hypotheses 5 and 7 weresupported.

Regarding the use of upward appeal, Hypothesis 6 predicted it wasused the least by female employees on male supervisors, and Hypothesis 8predicted it was used the most by male employees on female supervisors.An ANOVA was used to test these two hypotheses. The descriptive statisticsshow the cell of “male employee vs. female supervisor” indeed had thehighest score (mean = 3.70, SD = 1.17, n = 23; see Table 1), while the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 367

cell of “female employee vs. male supervisor” had the lowest (mean = 3.21,SD = 1.26, n = 33; see Table 1). However, the differences across the fourgender combinations were not significant, F(3, 104) = .80, p = 0.50, soHypotheses 6 and 8 were not supported.

Hypotheses Testing with Orthogonal Contrasts

Recent gender studies (Elias, 2004; Elias & Cropanzano, 2006) have foundANOVA, although very commonly used for this type of analysis, may failto correctly detect ordinal interactions (Strube & Bobko, 1989) and resultin Type I and Type II errors (for an illustration of such errors, see Eliasand Cropanzano, 2006). To avoid such errors, Orthogonal Contrasts havebeen found to be a more accurate method of analysis (Elias, 2004; Elias &Cropanzano, 2006). For this reason, Hypotheses 3 to 8 were retested usingthe Orthogonal Contrast approach. The procedure for Orthogonal Contrastsis to compare the cell means for the first two cells; when no significantdifference is detected, these cell means are pooled and compared to thethird. Again, when no significant difference is found, these means are pooledto be compared with the final cell. This last comparison is the crucial test,because it (and only it) should be significant.

The results of the Orthogonal Contrasts were consistent with theANOVAs on Hypotheses 3, 6, 7, and 8. For Hypotheses 4 and 5, however,the results were different. Hypothesis 4, which predicted assertiveness wouldbe used the least frequently by female employees on male supervisors, wassupported. The first, t(40) = 0.67, p = 0.51, and second, t(73) = 1.28, p =0.20, comparisons were non-significant, while the critical final comparisonwas significant, t(106) = 2.29, p < 0.05, providing support for the predictionthat assertiveness was used the least frequently by female employees onmale supervisors, which countered the result of the ANOVA and revealeda Type II error. Hypothesis 5, supported by the results of ANOVA, was nolonger significant when tested with orthogonal contrasts. The first, t(40) =–1.57, p = 0.12, second, t(73) = 1.86, p = 0.07, and the final, t(106) = 1.82,p = 0.07, comparisons were all non-significant, countering the ANOVA resultand revealing a Type I error. Table 3 presents the hypotheses testing resultsfrom both the ANOVA and the Orthogonal Contrast procedures as well aswhere the Type I and Type II errors occurred.

DISCUSSION

This study has found empirical support for gender interaction effects in em-ployees’ use of upward influence tactics on their direct supervisors. Thisillustrates the importance that studies investigating gender differences in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

368 R. Zhang

TABLE 3 Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses and predictions ANOVAOrthogonalcontrasts Error

H1 No difference among the four gendercombinations in the use of softUITs.

Supported N/A

H2 Significant difference among the fourgender combinations in hard UITs.

Supported N/A

H3 Assertiveness used most by maleemployees on male supervisors.

Not supported Not supported

H4 Assertiveness used least by femaleemployees on male supervisors.

Not supported Supported Type II

H5 Coalition used least by femaleemployees on male supervisors.

Supported Not supported Type I

H6 Upward appeal used least by femaleemployees on male supervisors.

Not supported Not supported

H7 Coalition used most by maleemployees on female supervisors.

Supported Supported

H8 Upward appeal used most by maleemployees on female supervisors.

Not supported Not supported

upward influence should incorporate gender interactions between employ-ees and supervisors. Numerous solid attempts were made in the past toreveal the role of gender in an individual’s use of upward influence tactics(DuBrin, 1989; Grob et al., 1997; O’Neil, 2004) but produced inconclusiveand sometimes conflicting results (O’Neil, 2004; Schlueter et al., 1990; Yukl& Falbe, 1990). A possible reason for that may be that, as the findings of thisstudy suggest, an employee’s choice of upward influence tactics dependsnot only on the gender of the employee himself (or herself), but also onthe gender of the person he (or she) is trying to influence. This may verywell explain why previous researchers found gender differences in the useof upward influence tactics in some occasions but not in others. The genderinteraction effect is meaningful, as it advances understanding of the mech-anisms that drive an individual’s choice of specific upward influence tacticswhen dealing with supervisors and managers at work.

Another valuable finding of this study concerns the difference betweensoft and hard tactics. For all three soft tactics (ingratiation, exchange, andrationality), the researcher found neither gender differences nor gender in-teraction effects. Both genders and all four gender combinations used thethree soft tactics equally. However, gender interaction effects were found inhard tactics. One way to interpret this finding is that soft tactics are pleasantto use, because they tend to produce no negative effects (Fu & Yukl, 2000;Judge & Bretz, 1994; Kipnis & Vanderveer, 1971; Wayne & Ferris, 1990)and are generally well received by the supervisors (Dreher, Dougherty, &Whitely, 1989; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). As a re-sult, employees of both genders are able to comfortably use them on their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 369

supervisors. Gender does not have any bearing on these soft tactics. How-ever, there is another way to look at this finding, which is more in line withprevious studies that argued females were “softer” in their upward influencebehaviors (e.g., Offermann & Kearney, 1988). According to the results ofthis study, it is not so much that females tend to use more soft tactics, butrather that males tend to use more hard tactics and females tend to use lesshard tactics. Even though none of the hypotheses were about the differencesin the use of upward influence tactics between the two genders, t-tests doreveal that males used significantly more assertiveness t(106) = 2.31, p <

0.05, coalition t(106) = 2.50, p < 0.05, and hard tactics overall t(106) = 2.68,p < 0.05, than female employees. Therefore, based on the findings of thisstudy, one can say that males are indeed harder, but it would not be trueto say females are softer, because what is empirically shown by the data isthat males and females used soft tactics equally—it is just that males usedhard tactics more than females. In addition, the difference may very well beexplained with gender interaction effects. That is, males were indeed morelikely to use assertiveness than female employees, but that is only because,as the data show, male employees were the most assertive towards theirmale supervisors, and female employees were the least assertive towardstheir male supervisors (see Table 2).

Finally, looking specifically at hard influence tactics and gender inter-actions, an important implication of the findings is that a male employeeis likely to be firm, direct, and assertive towards his male supervisor, whilea female employee is unlikely to be firm and assertive towards her malesupervisor in upward influence attempts. It is this general tendency that ex-plains why Hypotheses 4 and 7 were both supported (see Tables 2 and 3).The ANOVAs found male employees to be the most assertive towards malesupervisors (Hypothesis 3) while the orthogonal contrasts found females tobe the least assertive towards male supervisors (Hypothesis 4). At the sametime, coalition was used most by male employees on female supervisors(Hypothesis 7), which can be interpreted as evidence that a male individ-ual is not comfortable being firm, direct, and assertive towards his femalesupervisor, and that is why male employees would need to form coalitionsand engage in upward influence towards female supervisors collectively.Using and extending this general tendency, one can make reasonable pre-dictions regarding employees’ use of upward influence tactics in differentemployee-supervisor gender combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that employees’ upward influence behavior can bepredicted, to a certain extent, on the basis of gender interaction. Hard influ-ence tactics exhibited gender interaction effects. Assertiveness was used least

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

370 R. Zhang

by female employees on male supervisors, while coalition was used mostby male employees on female supervisors. Soft tactics did not exhibit such agender interaction effect and were used equally by employees of both gen-ders on their supervisors of both genders. This study further demonstratedthe traditional ANOVA, when used to test ordinal interactions, can result inboth Type I and Type II errors and lead to misleading conclusions.

Practical Implications

This study has meaningful practical implications for employees and supervi-sors in the hospitality field. The industry can use the findings of this study tobetter prepare supervisors in receiving and dealing with employees’ upwardinfluence attempts. This is important, because when employees’ upwardinfluence behaviors (requests, voice behavior, influence attempts) are nothandled properly, employee satisfaction and motivation may suffer (Landau,2009). If for no other reason, this illustrates the importance for supervisorsand managers in the field to better receive, assess, and react to employees’upward influence attempts. This can be achieved by implementing trainingsessions, seminars, or more structured career development programs. Manysuch training programs in the hotel industry focus primarily on how man-agers and supervisors can most effectively lead and manager their employees(Hayes, 2007; Riggs & Hughey, 2011).

Many theories and models on managerial skills and leadership styles aimto help supervisors have a better influence on the behavior of employees—downward influence. It is time to incorporate upward influence in thesetrainings, as well in the hospitality industry. From the standpoint of super-visors, training programs can make practical use of the main findings ofthis study. That is, a female supervisor should be particularly prepared formale employees forming coalitions in order to influence her. A male super-visor should be made aware that his female employees are unlikely to directassertive upward influence attempts his way.

As a specific example, mechanisms such as workplace simulation orclassroom role-plays can be employed to allow (especially female) supervi-sors to learn and practice dealing with male employees’ coalition behaviors.On the one hand, it is vital that the supervisors do not view such attemptsas threats. As can be seen from this study, male employees’ use of coali-tion on female supervisors is the likely result of gender interaction effectsand not an intentional personal threat. The message and content of the up-ward influence behavior matters more than the tactic itself. The supervisorshould be taught the importance of understanding what the male employ-ees desire—looking beyond the behavioral aspect of their upward influ-ence attempt and discover the real meaning and intention behind it. Shouldthe message and request behind the coalition behavior be genuine and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 371

beneficial to work performance or work outcomes, the supervisors oughtto help or comply. On the other hand, should the request be unreason-able and counterproductive, the supervisor should react professionally andcorrectly. There is an array of counter-tactics the female supervisor can usein reaction. All six upward influence tactics can also be employed in adownward direction. In addition, research has found other influence tac-tics that are traditionally used in downward influence, such as InspirationalAppeal—using enthusiasm and emotion to appeal to values and ideals in or-der to gain compliance, and Consultation—seeking advice and participationin decision-making to gain support for the decision (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).

In addition to training programs, the hotel industry can also implementpractices of supervisor–employee pairings in order to achieve optimal gen-der interaction at work. As a specific example, a male supervisor knownto be uncomfortable with or inefficient at dealing with assertive employeebehaviors should be assigned to lead teams of mainly female employees, asfemale employees are the least likely to engage in assertive behavior towardstheir male supervisor. One may argue, of course, that this is only a temporarysolution. For the long run, it is better supervisors are trained so that they areable to effectively handle any upward influence tactics that employees mayelect to use.

Upward influence tactics can be used by the employees for personalgains as well as for organizational improvements. When supervisors andmanagers are better able to react to these upward influence behaviors, notonly will employee satisfaction improve, but organizational functioning mayalso improve in the long term.

Potential Limitations and Future Research

The findings of this study need to be considered in view of a few potentiallimitations. Firstly, the use of upward influence tactics were measured byemployees’ self-report data. Even though this is rather common practice inthis type of studies and is consistent with research on the topic of upward in-fluence (O’Neil, 2004; Ringer & Boss, 2000), future studies may benefit fromhaving the supervisors rate employees’ use of upward influence tactics to re-duce social desirability bias associated with self-reported data. Secondly, datawere collected from hotel management students working in the same hotel.As a result, caution is recommended when generalizing the findings of thisstudy to other hotels or contexts. Future researchers may wish to retest em-ployees’ use of upward influence tactics in hotels of other sizes and in othercultures. Finally, as a continuation of the previous point, empirical studies onemployees’ upward influence behaviors are lacking in the hospitality field.While downward influence studies are plenty—such as leadership or man-agement styles (Brown & Arendt, 2011; Ispas, 2012) and motivation theories

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

372 R. Zhang

(Cetinkaya, 2011; Kim & Jogaratnam, 2010), research in upward influence inhospitality is truly scarce. Including this current study, there are only twothat examined hotel employees’ use of upward influence tactics (the otherbeing Su’s [2010] study). This leaves much room for future researchers tofurther explore the topic in the hospitality industry. Understanding upwardinfluence is important, and it will help move hospitality research forwardand contribute to research in Organizational Psychology as well as HumanResources Management.

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., & Adams, S. R. (1998). Social-role versus structural models of genderand influence use in organizations: A strong inferences approach. Group &Organization Management, 23(4), 414–446.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformu-lation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73.

Bettencourt, B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a functionof provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 422–447.

Bird, E., Lynch, P. A., & Ingram, A. (2002). Gender and employment flexibility withinhotel front offices. Service Industries Journal, 22(3), 99–116.

Brown, E. A., & Arendt, S. W. (2011). Perceptions of transformational leadershipbehaviors and subordinates’ performance in hotels. Journal of Human Resourcesin Hospitality & Tourism, 10(1), 45–59.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persua-sion: The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. HumanCommunication Research, 10(2), 283–294.

Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal ofSocial Issues, 55(1), 81–99.

Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, andinfluence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030–1041.

Cetinkaya, A. (2011). The impact of employee motivation on emotional commitment:Research undertaken in a five-star hotel. Journal of Transnational Management,16(3), 149–156.

Chan, L. M., Jamilah, O., & Rusinah, J. (2012). Gender differences of human resourcespractitioners in their ethical decision making. International Journal of AcademicResearch, 4(4), 38–44.

Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely, W. (1989). Influence tactics and salaryattainment: A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20(9), 565–550.

DuBrin, A. J. (1989). Sex differences in endorsement of influence tactics and politicalbehavior tendencies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(1), 3–14.

Eisler, R. M., Hersen, M., Miller, P. M., & Blanchard, E. B. (1975). Situationaldeterminants of assertive behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 43(3), 330–340.

Elias, S. M. (2004). Means of assessing ordinal interactions in social psychology:The case of sexism in judgments of social power. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 34(9), 1857–1877.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 373

Elias, S., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Gender discrimination may be worse than youthink: Testing ordinal interactions in power research. Journal of General Psy-chology, 133(2), 117–130.

Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2004). The effect of instructor gender and race/ethnicityon gaining compliance in the classroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,34(5), 937–958.

Elias, S. M., & Mace, B. L. (2005). Social power in the classroom: Student attributionsfor compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1738–1754.

Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in theUnited States of America. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 251–266.

Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptionsand recognition in an organization. Journal of Psychology, 124(1), 25.

Grob, L. M., Meyers, R. A., & Schuh, R. (1997). Powerful/powerless language use ingroup interactions: Sex differences or similarities? Communication Quarterly,45(3), 282–303.

Groschl, S., & Barrows, C. W. (2003) A cross-cultural comparison of French andBritish managers: An examination of the influence of higher education on man-agement style. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 228–246.

Hayes, J. (2007). Evaluating a leadership development program. Organization De-velopment Journal, 25(4), 89–94.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and workoutcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106.

Ispas, A. (2012). The perceived leadership style and employee performance in hotelindustry—A dual approach. Review of International Comparative Management,13(2), 294–304.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success.Journal of Management, 20(1), 43–65.

Kara, D., Uysal, M., & Magnini, V. P. (2012). Gender differences on job satisfactionof the five-star hotel employees: The case of the Turkish hotel industry. Inter-national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 1047–1065.

Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2010). Effects of individual and organizational factors onjob satisfaction and intent to stay in the hotel and restaurant industry. Journalof Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9(3), 318–339.

Kim, B., Murrmann, S. K., & Lee, G. (2009). Moderating effects of gender and organi-zational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 612–619.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influencetactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4),440–452.

Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 280–286.

Kline, S. L. (1994). Gender differences in persuasive message practices. Women’sStudies in Communication, 17(2), 68–88.

Landau, J. (2009). When employee voice is met by deaf ears. SAM Advanced Man-agement Journal, 74(1), 4–12.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853–868.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

374 R. Zhang

Michael, J. (2004). Positive and negative reinforcement, A distinction that is no longernecessary; Or a better way to talk about bad things. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 24(1), 207–222.

Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles andapplications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nyberg, A., Holmberg, I., Bernin, P., Alderling, M., Akerblom, S., Widerszal-Bazyl,M., . . . Theorell, T. (2011). Destructive managerial leadership and psychologi-cal well-being among employees in Swedish, Polish, and Italian hotels. Work:Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 39(3), 267–281.

Offermann, L. R., & Kearney, C. T. (1988). Supervisor sex and subordinate influencestrategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 360–367.

O’Neil, J. (2004). Effects of gender and power on pr managers’ upward influence.Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1), 127–144.

Peterson, R. A. (1994). A Meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal ofConsumer Research, 21(2), 381–391.

Riggs, M., & Hughey, A. (2011). Competing values in the culinary arts and hospitalityindustry: Leadership roles and managerial competencies. Industry & HigherEducation, 25(2), 109–118.

Ringer, R. C., & Boss, R. (2000). Hospital professionals’ use of upward influencetactics. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(1), 92–108.

Ross, G. F. (1995). Interpersonal stress reactions and service quality responses amonghospitality industry employees. The Service Industries Journal, 15(3), 314–331.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs andbenefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.

Schlueter, D. W., Barge, J., & Blankenship, D. (1990). A comparative analysis ofinfluence strategies used by upper and lower-level male and female managers.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54(1), 42–65.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates:A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, andWilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246–257.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Strube, M. J., & Bobko, P. (1989). Testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions:Simulations and further comments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 247–252.

Su, C. J. (2010). An examination of the usage and impact of upward influence tacticsby workers in the hospitality sector of Taiwan: Expanding the framework ofRao, Schmidt, and Murray (1995). Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,27(4), 306–319.

Tepper, B. J., Brown, S. J., & Hunt, M. D. (1993). Strength of subordinates’ up-ward influence tactics and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 23(22), 1903–1919.

Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship betweenupward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Manage-ment, 21(4), 739–756.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Interaction in Upward Influence 375

Van Knippenberg, B. B., & Steensma, H. H. (2003). Future interaction expectationand the use of soft and hard influence tactics. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 52(1), 55–67.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange qualityin supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487–499.

Wilson, L., & Gallois, C. (1985). Perceptions of assertive behavior: Sex combination,role appropriateness, and message type. Sex Roles, 12(1/2), 125–141.

Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefitsof modesty. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18(2), 229–242.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, down-ward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2),132–140.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subor-dinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

1:11

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14