Influence Triggers: A Framework for Understanding Follower Compliance

Original article by John E. Barbuto, Jr. in Leadership Quarterly
Synopsis by Barbara Ascher, MA

INTRODUCTION

John E. Barbuto has developed a thoughtful framework based on the cumulative knowledge in the area of the psychology of influence. Because Barbuto's article is a synthesis of many concepts and theories of influence, this synopsis notes the authors of these contributions, as well as Barbuto's additions to the body of knowledge.

In contrast to most studies of leadership, which address the traits, skills, abilities, and actions of the leader, this article focuses on the follower's perspective. How will a follower react to a leader's attempts at influence? Under what conditions will a follower comply with the leader's requirements? Leaders who understand the roots of follower compliance will be more successful in achieving their desired outcomes.

Barbuto has devised a framework for understanding follower compliance that incorporates:

• Influence triggers intentionally or unintentionally delivered by the leader
• The follower (or target)'s outcome (compliance or non-compliance)

These are mediated by:

• The target's motivation
• The target's resistance to requests
• The leader's bases of power

INFLUENCE TRIGGERS

Building on a definition of "influence triggers" (House, et al., 1996) as the follower's immediate reaction to the leader's influence attempt, Barbuto posits three types of influence triggers. These include power-derived, relations-derived and values-derived triggers.

Power-derived triggers center around exchange (as in commission-based industries), manipulation (as in fear of retribution through budget cuts or loss of job), role legitimacy (as in organizational structure and job description), expertise (specialists are assumed to be superior), and identification as a leader through the force of charisma, loyalty, or approval rating.

Relations-derived triggers are represented by "external attribution" triggers [as when targets work on highly visible projects they think will gain them recognition (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998; Shamir, 1991)], or social identification [i.e., targets comply with tasks to achieve social benefits and admiration from peers and supervisors (Ashford & Mael, 1989; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989)].

Values-derived triggers occur through the target's value base [i.e., targets comply because they see the directives as compatible with their own value systems (Bass, 1985; Katz & Kahn, 1978)], internal attribution (i.e., desire to prove oneself and reinforce one's own self-concept), or through goal identification (i.e., charitable organizations in which targets comply because they share the vision).

INTERVENING VARIABLES

As mentioned above, Barbuto outlines important variables that intervene in the model and affect interactions. Starting with the influence trigger and ending with the outcome of target compliance or non-compliance, the situation is always influenced by the target's sources of motivation, level of resistance to behavioral directives, and what the target understands as the leader's basis of social power.

Baruto presents five sources of motivation (Leonard, 1999; Barbuto & Sholl, 1998; Barbuto & Scholl, 1999):

1. Intrinsic process, in which the target is motivated by enjoyment of the work itself
2. Instrumental rewards, in which the target is motivated by the expectation of tangible rewards
3. Self-concept external motivation, in which the target is motivated by eliciting positive social feedback
4. Self-concept internal motivation, in which the target is motivated by the need for positive self-regard
5. Goal internalization motivation, in which the target is motivated by belief in a cause, and not by any self-interest

Barbuto goes on to define the level of the target's resistance to the leader's directives as a series of concentric rings. Resistance increases as behaviors or goals fall farther from the center. The center is the target's preference zone. The target will be most likely to comply with a leader's directive if it lies within the preference zone, because goals or tasks in the preference zone constitute things that the target had planned to do anyway. Therefore, real inducements are not required to obtain compliance. The second concentric ring is the indifference zone. Minor inducements will suffice to get target compliance because the target is willing to do this task, even though it had not been his or her original intention to do so. The third concentric ring or level of resistance is the legitimate zone. The target will find this directive to be reasonable. The fourth is the influence zone. This would include tasks that the target would consider unreasonable and the leader would have to offer greater inducements to elicit follower performance beyond expectation (i.e., working weekends). Regarding the fifth concentric circle, Barbuto contends that no amount of inducement will lead to compliance in the target's non-influence zone, because the target believes these tasks to be completely off-limits.

The last intervening variable in the model concerns the five bases of the leader's power to elicit target/follower compliance. Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) described these as reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expert power. That is,

1.The perception that the leader has the power to reward the target. The leader may or may not actually have that power, but the target believes that to be the case.
2. The perception that the leader can administer punishments, such as demotion, layoff, hostile work environment (French and Raven, 1959).
3. Mandated job responsibilities, rank, or title serve to legitimize the leader's directives.
4. The target's desire to gain acceptance or approval gives the leader referent power (see Conger & Kanungo, 1987, on charismatic influences and Ashforth & Mael, 1989, on social identity theory).
5. The perception of expertise, superior knowledge, or access to information in combination with trust and mutual goals endows the leader with expert power.

CONCLUSION

Having laid out the specific framework, Barbuto discusses the interacting effects of the intervening variables in ways that invite researchers to begin sophisticated analysis. He offers numerous propositions for empirical testing in future research. For example, Proposition 1 is that "the likelihood of compliance with the leader's directives will be greater when requested behaviors fall within a follower's preference, indifference, or legitimate zones than when requests fall into a follower's influence or non-influence zones" and Proposition 2a states that, "as the target's resistance level increases, the likelihood that exchange triggers will lead to compliance decreases."

John Barbuto has designed an analytic framework to stimulate vigorous research on influence triggers based on the follower's perspective in the leader-follower exchange.

For further reading see:

1. Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Motivation and leadership: Towards a predictive model of leader influence behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
2. Bass, B. M. (1985). Performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
3. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203-224.