Some tactics are more effective than others. Rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation tend to be the most effective, especially when the audience is highly interested in the outcomes of a decision process. The pressure tactic tends to backfire and is typically the least effective of the nine.14 You can increase your chance of success by using two or more tactics together or sequentially, as long as your choices are compatible.15 Using ingratiation and legitimacy together can lessen negative reactions, but only when the audience does not really care about the outcome of a decision process or the policy is routine.16

Let’s consider the most effective way of getting a raise. You can start with a rational approach—figure out how your pay compares to that of your organizational peers, land a competing job offer, gather data that testify to your performance, or use salary calculators like Salary.com to compare your pay with others in your occupation—then share your findings with your manager. The results can be impressive. Kitty Dunning, a vice president at Don Jagoda Associates, landed a 16 percent raise when she e-mailed her boss numbers showing she had increased sales.17

While rational persuasion may work in this situation, the effectiveness of some influence tactics depends on the direction of influence,18 and of course on the audience. As Exhibit 13-2 shows, rational persuasion is the only tactic effective across organizational levels. Inspirational appeals work best as a downward-influencing tactic with subordinates. When pressure works, it’s generally downward only. Personal appeals and coalitions are most effective as lateral influence. Other factors relating to the effectiveness of influence include the sequencing of tactics, a person’s skill in using the tactic, and the organizational culture.

In general, you’re more likely to be effective if you begin with “softer” tactics that rely on personal power, such as personal and inspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and consultation. If these fail, you can move to “harder” tactics, such as exchange, coalitions, and pressure, which emphasize formal power and incur greater costs and risks.19 A single soft tactic is more effective than a single hard tactic, and combining two soft tactics or a soft tactic and rational persuasion is more effective than any single tactic or combination of hard tactics.20

As we mentioned, the effectiveness of tactics depends on the audience.21 People especially likely to comply with soft power tactics tend to be more reflective and intrinsically motivated; they have high self-esteem and a greater desire for control. Those likely to comply with hard power tactics are more action-oriented and extrinsically motivated, and are more focused on getting along with others than on getting their own way.

Preference for power tactics varies across cultures.22 Those from individualistic countries tend to see power in personalized terms and as a legitimate means of advancing their personal ends, whereas those in collectivistic countries see power in social terms and as a legitimate means of helping others.23 Managers in the United States seem to prefer rational appeal, whereas Chinese managers may prefer coalition tactics.24 Reason-based tactics are consistent with the U.S. preference for direct confrontation, and rational persuasion to influence others and resolve differences, while coalition tactics align with the Chinese preference for meeting difficult or controversial requests with indirect approaches.

People differ in their political skill, or their ability to influence others to enhance their own objectives. The politically skilled are more effective users of all the influence tactics. Political skill is also more effective when the stakes are high, such as when the individual is accountable for important organizational outcomes. Finally, the politically skilled are able to exert their influence without others detecting it, a key element in effectiveness (it’s damaging to be labeled political).25 These individuals are able to use their political skills in environments with low levels of procedural and distributive justice. When an organization has fairly applied rules, free of favoritism or biases, political skill is actually negatively related to job performance ratings.26

Lastly, we know cultures within organizations differ markedly; some are warm, relaxed, and supportive; others are formal and conservative. Some encourage participation and consultation, some encourage reason, and still others rely on pressure. People who fit the culture of the organization tend to obtain more influence.27 Specifically, extraverts tend to be more influential in team-oriented organizations, and highly conscientious people are more influential in organizations that value working alone on technical tasks. People who fit the culture are influential because they can perform especially well in the domains deemed most important for success. Thus, the organization itself will influence which subset of power tactics is viewed as acceptable for use.