Dynamics of upward influence: How male and female managers get their way.

Abstract

This study examined whether there are differences in how male and female middle managers engage in the upward influence process. A five-stage model of the upward influence process was developed based on the work of Porter, Allen, and Angle (1981). Hypotheses about gender differences within each of the five stages were developed based on Nancy Chodorow's (1978) psychoanalytic theory. Hypotheses reflected the theme that female managers' influence process is more likely to exhibit concern for interconnectedness or interdependency, while male managers' influence process is more likely to exhibit concern for autonomy or independence. A sample of 21 managers in a Fortune 100 company was selected for study. The sample was matched on four criteria: managerial level, organizational tenure, functional area, and tenure with superior. Data on upward influence episodes were collected through interviews and surveys. ANCOVA and Chi-square analyses indicated that female managers engaged in influence opportunities out of organizational interest; considered others' feelings and viewpoints about the influence issue; planned with others; used an indirect, unilateral implementation strategy; and evaluated the successfulness of the influence attempt with both task- and person-oriented criteria. Conversely, male managers engaged in influence opportunities out of both self- and organizational interests; considered less the feelings and viewpoints of others; planned alone; used a direct, bilateral implementation strategy; and evaluated the successfulness of the influence attempt with a task-oriented criterion. These findings suggest that female managers' influence process does indeed reflect an other-oriented approach, while male managers' influence process reflects a self-oriented approach. Coding of interview data further indicated that male managers engaged in a more linear influence process, while female managers engaged in a more recursive or cyclical influence process. These findings suggest that the model of influence developed by Porter and associates (1981) requires modification to capture variations in the influence process. Limitations of the study are discussed, directions for future research are offered, and implications for both theory and management practice are suggested.