| Course | BU 302 Leadership and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Influence tactic comparison |
| Length | About 960 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 302 Unit 6
Borrowing a Skid Steer From a Peer: An Influence Tactic Comparison of Rational Persuasion and Exchange for a Landscaping Manager Without Authority
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 302: Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
April 1, 2026
Borrowing a Skid Steer From a Peer: An Influence Tactic Comparison of Rational Persuasion and Exchange for a Landscaping Manager Without Authority
Managers often need things from people they do not supervise. This paper takes one such situation at Greenline Grounds, the invented Atlanta-area landscaper used all term, and compares two influence tactics from the course reading. It sets out what the requester needs, from whom and with what authority, defines the tactics in the source's terms, compares them in a table on stated criteria, commits to one and explains what that choice costs and when the other would be better.
The Situation
Renee Castillo manages Greenline's maintenance division. Spring mulch season has fallen behind after two weeks of rain, and 38 properties are still waiting for mulch, several with client deadlines. She needs the installation division's skid steer loader and two of its crew members for three days, April 14 to 16, to move mulch faster on the largest sites. The skid steer and crew belong to the installation division, run by Dale Hutchins, her peer. Both report to the owner.
Renee has no authority over Dale or his equipment. She could ask the owner to order the loan, but that would involve the owner in a matter the two managers are expected to settle, and it would cost Renee standing with Dale for the rest of the season. Dale's interests are clear from past conversations. He is protective of his crew's schedule because installation jobs are bid at fixed prices and delays cost his division money. He has also complained that maintenance crews notice broken irrigation heads on their properties but rarely report them, which costs his division repair work it could bill.
The Two Tactics
Yukl and Falbe (1990) identified a set of influence tactics managers use in upward, downward and lateral attempts. Two apply naturally here. Rational persuasion is the use of logical arguments and factual evidence to show that a request is feasible and relevant to important objectives. Exchange is an explicit or implicit offer to provide something the target wants, or to return a favor later, in return for compliance. Robbins and Judge (2019) present both as common tactics, and note that effectiveness depends on the direction of influence and on the target's view of the request.
Evidence on effectiveness differs between the two. In a study of managers' influence attempts with subordinates, peers and bosses, Yukl and Tracey (1992) found rational persuasion among the tactics most consistently associated with task commitment across all three directions, while exchange was moderately effective with subordinates and peers. Cialdini (2001) explains exchange through the principle of reciprocity: people feel obligated to return favors, which makes an offer of something valued a strong prompt for agreement.
The Comparison
The table compares the two tactics for this situation on four criteria: how likely Dale is to agree, the cost to the relationship, how durable the result will be and how the tactic will look to the owner and other managers who hear about it.
| Criterion | Rational persuasion | Exchange |
|---|---|---|
| Likely compliance | Moderate to high if the data show his crew has slack April 14 to 16 | High if the offer matters to him |
| Cost to the relationship | Low; treats him as a colleague weighing evidence | Low now, but creates a debt he may call in at an awkward time |
| Durability of the result | Higher; agreement based on shared reasoning may carry into future requests | Lower; each future request may need a new trade |
| How it reads to onlookers | Looks like managers solving a company problem | Can look like trading favors between divisions |
The Argument
Rational persuasion is the better tactic here, for two reasons rooted in the situation. First, the evidence is available and favors the request. Installation's calendar shows two jobs on April 14 to 16, both small, and last April the division recorded six rain-delayed idle days. Renee can show that the skid steer and two crew members are likely to be underused those days, that the mulch backlog is producing client complaints and that three days of help would clear most of the priority sites. Her argument ties the request to an objective both managers share, keeping the company's largest clients satisfied before contract renewals.
Second, Dale's main concern is cost to his division, and rational persuasion addresses that concern directly rather than trying to outweigh it with a favor. If the data show slack capacity, the loan costs him little. Renee can also add a consultative element, asking Dale which days suit his crew best, which lets him shape the plan. The deciding condition is the calendar: rational persuasion works because the facts support it.
What the Choice Costs
Rational persuasion has costs. It takes preparation: Renee must pull the installation calendar, last year's idle days and the list of properties with deadlines before she speaks to Dale. It also depends on the facts holding. If Dale disputes the idle-day estimate, the argument weakens, and Renee cannot fall back on authority she does not have. There is a quieter cost too. By choosing not to offer anything, Renee passes up a chance to fix a real problem Dale has raised, the unreported irrigation damage.
When Exchange Would Be Better
Exchange would be the better tactic under different conditions. If installation's calendar showed full days in mid-April, the data would argue against the loan, and Renee would need to offer Dale something that outweighs the cost to his division. The obvious offer is a commitment that maintenance crew leads will report broken irrigation heads through the scheduling app, which would bring his division billable work. Exchange would also make sense if the need were likely to recur every spring, since a standing arrangement of equipment for referrals might suit both divisions. In practice, Renee can keep the irrigation offer in reserve and raise it later as good practice rather than as payment, which preserves the value of her argument while still building goodwill.
Conclusion
For a lateral request supported by clear evidence and aimed at a shared goal, rational persuasion offers the best combination of compliance, low relationship cost and durable agreement. Renee should bring the data, invite Dale to choose the days and save the irrigation reporting for a separate conversation. Neither manager, nor the company, is real; both were built for this assignment.
References
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72-79.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.132
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525-535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525
What the BU 302 Unit 6 instructions ask for
For the influence unit, students compare influence tactics for a specific workplace situation, often one where the person asking lacks formal authority. Most versions want the situation described, two or more tactics defined from the reading, a comparison on stated criteria, a recommendation and an account of its costs. Common tactics include rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals, exchange, ingratiation and pressure. Instructors reward papers that commit to one tactic and explain the conditions behind the choice. Research on tactic effectiveness strengthens the argument. A short paper with a comparison table, cited in APA 7, is typical. Choosing a situation where the other person has clear interests of their own makes the comparison far more interesting.
How this BU 302 Unit 6 example is built
The sample opens with the situation: the need, the dates, the peer relationship, the lack of authority and the other manager's interests. It then defines the two tactics from the original research and summarizes evidence on how each works with peers. A four-row table compares them. The argument section commits to rational persuasion and gives two reasons drawn from the situation, including installation's light calendar in mid-April. A costs section admits the preparation required and the risk if the numbers are disputed. A final section describes the conditions under which exchange would be better and suggests keeping the irrigation offer for a separate conversation.
Reading the BU 302 Unit 6 rubric
The rubric for this comparison generally weighs the description of the situation, accurate definitions, the quality of the comparison, the strength of the recommendation and use of sources. Situation points depend on showing authority, needs and interests clearly. Definitions should come from the reading or research and stay in the source's terms. The comparison criterion rewards stated criteria applied to each tactic. The recommendation earns full points when it commits and names the deciding conditions, as the sample does with the calendar. Instructors also credit discussion of costs and alternatives. APA citations and a readable table complete the grade. Papers that tie the verdict to one or two facts in the situation, rather than to general preferences, usually score best.
BU 302 Unit 6 help before you submit
The most frequent Unit 6 mistake is describing every tactic in the chapter instead of comparing two for one situation. Another is ending without a recommendation, saying both tactics could work. Students often define tactics loosely, for example treating exchange as bribery. Some papers ignore the other party's interests, which decide whether a tactic will work. Others recommend going over the peer's head without considering the cost to the relationship. Finally, admit the costs of your choice; every tactic has a downside, and naming it makes the argument stronger. Influence works best when the other party can see a reason to agree that matters to them, so build the paper around their interests as much as your own. A table comparing the tactics on the same criteria keeps the argument honest.
Get a BU 302 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your BU 302 classroom, and name the tactics or the power bases your section reads. We write a custom example that fixes the situation first, defines both tactics from the source, names criteria before comparing and commits to one with its cost. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 302 papers and business management samples
- BU 302 Unit 1: Organizational setting profile
- BU 302 Unit 2: Individual differences memo
- BU 302 Unit 3: Motivation theory application
- BU 302 Unit 4: Team dynamics write-up
- BU 302 Unit 5: Communication breakdown analysis
- BU 302 Unit 7: Organizational culture read
- BU 302 Unit 8: Applied behavior case file
- BU 245 Unit 6: Proposal
- BU 380 Unit 6: Strategic commitment paper
- BU 106 Unit 6: Finance fundamentals exercise
- BU 217 Unit 6: Corporate responsibility paper
BU 302 Unit 6 questions, answered
Do I have to recommend a tactic I would not use?
Sometimes the argument lands there, and following it is worth more than comfort. This unit is about reading a situation rather than about the writer's preferences, and a paper reaching an awkward recommendation and then stating its cost honestly usually reads as the stronger one. Say plainly what you would find difficult about carrying it out.
How many tactics should the comparison hold?
Two argued closely beats five described briefly, unless the instructions set a number. With two, the criteria stay stable and the comparison can be genuinely close. Where more are required, keep the same criteria across all of them so the table remains readable, and reserve the argument for the pair that finish nearest each other.
Is influence the same as manipulation here?
The reading usually separates them, and saying where the line sits is often worth marks. A tactic that works by giving the other party accurate information and a real choice is not the same as one that works by hiding either. If your chosen tactic sits near that boundary, name it and say what keeps the tactic on the acceptable side.
Where can I find a free BU 302 Unit 6 sample paper?
The complete BU 302 Unit 6 comparison, with its table, argument and costs, can be read above for free. For your own influence situation, share the details and the prompt, and you will receive a free custom paper built on them, commonly within two days.
Is exchange the same as manipulation in BU 302 Unit 6?
No. In the research the sample cites, exchange is an open offer of something the other person values, and it can be entirely appropriate. The sample keeps exchange in reserve and explains when it would be the better choice.