| This study investigated the relation of personality variables ( temperaments, function pairs, and interaction styles) and cultural factors (hierarchical level and job type/work location) to power and influence tactics (reasoning, consulting, appealing, networking, bargaining, pressuring, and counteracting) in project planning situations. The study also examined the relationships between the personality variables and cultural factors.; Results indicated that one of the power and influence tactics, counteracting, showed a consistent connection to first-line supervision. The first-line supervisors were likely to use the counteracting tactic where higher-level managers (managers and senior managers) showed no connection to the counteracting tactic. Of the interaction styles ( chart-the-course, behind-the-scenes, get-things-going, and in-charge) those preferring chart-the-course were apt to employ reasoning as a power and influence tactic where behind-the-scenes and get-things-going styles were unlikely to use that tactic. Managers who possess the ST function pair were more inclined to practice reasoning as a tactic than those favoring NT or SF. The ST function pair is most apt to practice the pressuring tactic where NF shows no relation to that tactic. The managers who were employed at the corporate headquarters had a higher proportion of intuitive types, particularly NF than would be statistically expected. The SJ temperament was significantly more prevalent in field locations than at the headquarters.; Overall, the study revealed several significant differences between field and headquarters personnel, the most apparent difference being that field managers were mainly sensing while headquarters managers were more intuitive. The study also suggested some significant connections between personality preferences and power and influence tactics. These findings have a number of implications in the areas of human resource development, training, communication, and performance appraisal. |
