Impression managementbehavior: effects of theorganizational system

Amos Drory and Nurit ZaidmanBen Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare patterns of impression management in twoorganizational systems, namely, organic and mechanistic.

Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative data were gathered from 23 employees by means ofin-depth, semi-structured interviews. In addition, questionnaires pertaining to the use of impressionmanagement strategies toward superiors and peers were given to 208 employees from military andR&D organizations.

Findings – The results suggest that employees in mechanistic systems engage more in impressionmanagement behavior and direct their efforts more often toward their superiors than toward their peers,most frequently by using the strategy of “Ingratiation”. On the other hand, employees in the organicsystem sample use impression management to a lesser extent, and they direct it more equally towardsuperiors and peers. Their predominant strategy is “Initiation.” These results are discussed in light of thedifferences in the norms and structural characteristics of the two organizational systems.

Research limitations/implications – The mechanistic system was represented by a militaryorganization and there is disproportionate representation of males in the survey sample.

Originality/value – The paper demonstrates the importance of the specific characteristics of anorganizational system in shaping employees’ impression management behavior.

Keywords Organizations, Organizational structures, Employee behaviour

Paper type Research paper

Impression management is the process by which people attempt to influence the imageothers have of them (Rosenfeld et al., 2002). Impression management is used when aperson wishes to create and maintain a specific identity. This goal is achieved byintentionally exhibiting certain behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, that will leadothers to view the actor as desired (Bozeman and Kacmar, 1997).

Existing research about impression management can be divided into two mainapproaches. The universal approach focuses on the individual actor. It includes studiesthat discuss impression management in a culture-free or context-free environment (e.g.Jones, 1964; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984;Vonk, 1999). The second approach includes studies that discuss impressionmanagement as constructed within several contexts, such as national culture (e.g.Pandey, 1986; Rosenfeld et al., 2002; Zaidman and Drory, 2001; Xin, 2004); groupsocioeconomic and demographic characteristics and specific circumstances (e.g.Barsness et al., 2005; Bachman and O’Malley, 1984; Gardner and Martinko, 1988;Pandey, 1986; Zaidman and Drory, 2001) and organizational characteristics such asorganizational roles and occupational status (e.g. Foley, 2005; Leary and Kowalski,1990; Rao et al., 1995).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP22,3

290

Received February 2006Revised October 2006Accepted October 2006

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 22 No. 3, 2007pp. 290-308q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940710733106

It has been argued that impression management is a dynamic process that occurscontinuously during interpersonal interactions. As individuals interact with oneanother, they often search for cues or signals that indicate how others perceive them(Leary and Kowalski, 1990; Roberts, 2005; Rosenfeld et al., 2002).

Symbolic interaction is a theoretical framework that follows this line of thinking.For example, Goffman (1959) places weight on the power of social rules or social scriptsin determining behavior. Gardner and Martinko (1988) suggest a conceptualframework of the impression management process. Their view of the environmentincludes a discussion of the organizational culture, which provides powerful cues forimpression management.

Research also shows that individuals are more likely to engage in impressionmanagement when the benefits they receive from pleasing others are greater. Forexample, people tend to be more motivated to engage in impression management wheninteracting with high-status, powerful people, given the chances of valued outcomesand resources from such people (Pandey, 1986; Roberts, 2005). People are more likely toingratiate themselves to these authority figures when they have greater power todispense valued outcomes (Stires and Jones, 1969), or when desired resources are scarce(Beck, 1983; Pandey and Rastagi, 1979).

Past research links impression management in the work organization in relation tointerviewing and job application (Ellis et al., 2002; Stevens and Kristof, 1995; Tsai et al.2004; Varma et al., 2006), performance appraisal (Wayne and Ferris, 1990), feedback(Ashford and Northcraft, 1992), competency demands (McFarland et al., 2005),promotion opportunities and career advancement at work (Feldman and Klich, 1991;Gilmore et al., 1999; Gould and Plenley, 1984; Judge and Bretz, 1994; Kacmar et al. 1992;Zivnuska et al., 2004). Yet, Rosenfeld et al. (2002) maintain that except for the abovespecific areas of organizational research, the role of impression management has oftenbeen overlooked. Further research in the organizational context can considerablyimprove our understanding of the role impression management plays in the wayemployees in organizations work and interact. Knowledge about normative impressionmanagement behavior in a specific type of organization can assist managers inimproving their evaluation of external candidates. This knowledge can also helpindividuals who are looking for a new job or who want to determine the right steps totake in advancing their career.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to further advance the study of impressionmanagement in the organizational context by exploring the relationship betweenorganizational characteristics and employees’ expressions of impression managementtactics.

There are three underlying assumptions to this study:

(1) In the context of their work environment, individuals choose their impressionmanagement strategies to maximize their personal gain, assuming that a morefavorable impression will eventually yield positive outcomes.

(2) Organizational systems differ in the way they utilize their human resources.Various approaches in this regard are associated with different sets of valuesand assumptions about human nature and with different expectations of theiremployees. The definition of desirable behavior, competence and excellenceconstitutes a part of these expectations; these expectations affect and determinewhat impressions are considered desirable.

Impressionmanagement

behavior

291

(3) Through an assessment and learning process, organization members adopt thefunctional and appropriate impression management tactics, which will bestserve their interests under the existing organizational system.

This study provides an empirical examination of the effect of some specificorganizational norms and structural characteristics on the choice of impressionmanagement strategies and patterns used.

We focus here on comparing two distinct organizational systems, namely, theorganic and mechanistic systems, as described by Burns and Stalker (1961).

The organic and mechanistic systemsBurns and Stalker (1961) described organizations as bodies occupying distinctpositions along a mechanistic/organic continuum. The mechanistic system is typicallyhighly centralized. It is supported by a strong hierarchical structure with a high level offormalization in terms of job definition, authority and communication. The system isdesigned to strengthen the power position of management by centralizing information,control mechanisms and decision-making. Subordinates’ dependence on their superiorsis quite high. Jobs in the mechanistic system tend to be clearly defined, well-structuredand routine. Loyalty to the organization and obedience to superiors are consideredprerequisites to organizational membership. Employee innovation is not encouraged,and there is limited decision-making and empowerment compared with organicorganizations (Burns and Stalker, 1961).

Organic organizations emphasize lateral responsibilities rather than narrow jobdefinitions, and the exchange of information rather than the giving of directions (Burnsand Stalker, 1961). Organization of the workflow in organic firms requires frequentcontact across vertical levels (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Hage, 1988). Such constantinteraction, in and of itself, generates closer social bonds (Homans, 1950; Newcomb,1961). Thus, vertical relations in organic organizations tend to be characterized byclose “social distance” and low “power distance” (Morand, 1996).

Although organizations are usually neither strictly organic nor mechanistic, butrather fall along the continuum, we find the combination of the specific characteristicsof this classification as most relevant to the study of impression management.Choosing sample organizations, which represent relatively clear cases of both ends ofthe continuum, enables the examination of our general argument regarding employees’learning and reactions to specific organizational contexts.

In this study, the mechanistic system is represented by a sample taken from themilitary. The characteristics of the armed forces fit well with the definition ofmechanistic organizations. Altman and Baruch (1998) suggest that the main emphasisof any army is on structure, hierarchy and discipline, as well as rigidity – that is, theextent to which behavior is constrained by a normative role differentiation. Theorganic system in our study is represented by a sample of employees from researchand development units in high-tech organizations. Such units are typicallycharacterized by a flexible structure, teamwork and a low level of formal control.We believe that the differences between these two organizational systems will lead todifferences in the patterns of impression management behavior in several respects.

JMP22,3

292

Impression management strategiesMany researchers have identified and described various strategies of impressionmanagement (e.g. Jones and Pittman, 1982; Rosenfeld et al., 2002; Tedeschi andMelburg, 1984; Wayne and Ferris, 1990). Although impression management is oftenexpanded to include social influence and tactics such as bargaining and assertiveness(Kipnis et al., 1980; Rao et al., 1995), the most commonly accepted distinction is betweenassertive and defensive strategies. Assertive strategies are designed to establish agiven desirable identity. Among the assertive strategies, ingratiation has received themost attention in empirical research (Ralston, 1985; Wayne and Kacmar, 1991). Incontrast, defensive or protective strategies involve the use of excuses and justificationsto repair spoiled identities (Rosenfeld et al., 2002).

The following are a few impression management strategies that have beendiscussed by organizational researchers (e.g. Jones and Pittman, 1982; Tedeschi andRiess, 1981) and that are of relevance to our study. See also our later discussionconcerning measures.

. Ingratiation – The attempt to be liked. It includes, among others, flattery,opinion conformity and doing a favor for the target in order to increase his or herliking for you.

. Self-promotion – This involves drawing attention to one’s personalaccomplishments so as to appear competent.

. Exemplification – The exemplifier wants to be respected and admired for his orher integrity and moral rectitude. For example, an individual might alwaysarrive at work early or leave late in order to create the image of dedication to hisor her job.

In order to enrich the quality of the data in this study we chose to gather bothquantitative and qualitative data as a basis for this research. We believe that thisapproach will provide a more intensive insight into the dynamics of impressionmanagement behavior in the two organizational systems.

HypothesesIn the following paragraph we present the rationale for this study’s hypotheses.

The degree to which people are motivated to engage in impression managementbehavior has been recognized as being affected by their dependence on others forvalued outcomes. When the dependence is greater, the individual is more motivated touse some form of impression management (Leary and Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker,1980). People thus are more likely to be ingratiating toward their bosses or teachersthan toward their friends (Bohra and Pandey, 1984; Jones et al., 1965; Schlenker, 1980;Stires and Jones, 1969). As indicated earlier, the mechanistic system, by its basicnature, endows superiors with greater power over their employees’ success andopportunity for promotion (Gilmore et al., 1999; Kacmar et al., 1992; Schein, 1990). Thisgreater power creates a greater dependence on the part of subordinates. Hence, theimportance of establishing a favorable image in the eyes of one’s superior is expectedto be greater in the mechanistic system.

We therefore hypothesize that:. Employees in mechanistic systems will be engaged in impression management

behavior toward their superiors more frequently than employees in organic

Impressionmanagement

behavior

293

systems. We further suggest that the two organizational systems will differ interms of the frequency with which different impression management strategiesare used. Assuming that impressing one’s superiors implies the use of a strategythat will create a favorable impression on the superior with minimal risk, anemployee will tend to choose a strategy that is congruent with organizationalnorms and expectations. Stevens and Kristof (1995) suggest that, in contrast tocompetence, which may be interpreted as competitive, ingratiation focuses oneliciting fondness toward the employee on the part of the superior. Pandey (1986)argues that ingratiation can become rampant in a situation of inequality. Bohraand Pandey (1984) found higher ingratiating behavior toward ones’ boss thantowards a stranger or a friend. Their results are in accordance with the results ofother studies showing that individuals use more ingratiation with a high statusperson, and that it is to be expected that individuals in a hierarchical society willbehave in ingratiating ways toward a resourceful person (see Pandey, 1986). Inmechanistic systems, where the power of superiors is stressed, ingratiation is thenatural strategy of the subordinate to show his or her acceptance of andsubmission to the superior’s position of power. We therefore propose that:

. Employees in mechanistic organizations will use ingratiation more frequentlythan competence or initiation tactics. The organic work culture places emphasison individual responsibility and on attaining the goals of the organization. Asopposed to mechanistic organizations, empowerment is high and employees areexpected to go beyond the call of duty. Commitment is to the end result and isbeyond any technical definition. Obedience and control are much less valuedthan the dedication to solving problems and finding solutions. The definition ofjobs and tasks is flexible and depends on the changing situation (Burns andStalker, 1961; Courtright et al., 1989). Individuals are therefore expected to usetheir initiative as often as the situation calls for and to contribute to theattainment of the ultimate goals of the organization. It is expected that, in suchsystems, initiation will be the primary strategy used to impress others. In themechanistic culture the individual is primarily expected to focus on his or herrelatively well-defined job, and to excel in performing it. Initiative is notencouraged and loyalty and obedience to superiors are considered the desirableprerequisites in the performance of the job. Thus, our third hypothesis is:

. Members of organic organizations will use initiation more often than theingratiation or competence tactics of impression management. We also expectdifferences between mechanistic and organic systems in impressionmanagement directed toward peers. In the mechanistic system, the structureof control is hierarchical and obedience to the superior is a prerequisite (Burnsand Stalker, 1961; Courtright et al., 1989). Naturally, the employee highlydepends on the superior and can benefit from creating the right impression withhim or her. Relationships with peers are often characterized by competition andnon-support (Courtright et al., 1989). On the other hand, in the organic systemhorizontal relations among members of the group are of similar importance(Schein, 1990). The pattern of communication is lateral and teamwork is thecommon pattern of collaboration (Courtright et al., 1989). Thus, it is likely that anindividual in an organic organization might require the support of peers. Undersuch conditions it is just as important for the organic system member to be

JMP22,3

294

viewed favorably by team members as by superiors. The investment ofimpression management effort is expected to reflect this difference, as follows inour fourth hypothesis:

. Members of mechanistic organizations will engage in impression managementtoward their peers to a significantly lower extent than toward their superiors. Nosuch differences are expected among organic system employees.

MethodWe used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to study the effects ofthe organizational system on impression management behavior. There were twodifferent samples of respondents: employees who were interviewed and employeeswho answered a questionnaire.

Interview sampleWe conducted interviews with 11 employees from 11 different R&D organizations(seven men and four women) and with 12 employees from various corps of the armedforces (seven men and five women). We selected participants who at the time of theinterview had been working in their organization for at least one year. The participantsrepresented different levels of their organization. Participants’ ages ranged between 24and 50 years old. Subjects who were interviewed were not the same subjects who weresurveyed.

ProcedureIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with each subject ofthe interview sample (see Saunders et al., 2003). We asked four standard questions, andthen continued with follow-up questions, depending on the initial answers therespondents provided. In total, 19 interviews occurred face-to-face in the respondents’homes, after work hours. This setting provided an opportunity for the respondents totalk freely about a quite sensitive topic. Four interviews were conducted on the phone.Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. They were transcribed word-for-word.

The interviewThe purpose of the interview was to get an in-depth understanding of the commonimpression management behavior used in each organization. Participants were askedto describe the usual ways in which they, their peers, and their subordinates attemptedto impress their superiors. We also asked about what they considered as unacceptableways of impressing others. The response to these questions provided a way in which toexplore what was considered to be normative and non-normative behavior in theparticipant’s organization. The four main questions asked in the interview were thefollowing:

(1) Can you please describe the way that employees in your department try toimpress the people around them?

(2) Can you please describe all the different ways that you try to impress yoursuperiors?

(3) Can you please describe the ways in which your employees try to impress you?

Impressionmanagement

behavior

295

(4) Can you please describe the different impression management strategies used inyour organization: which ones are common in your department or organization;what is an example of strategies that are not acceptable in your department ororganization; what is an example that you can recall of inappropriateimpression management behavior in your organization?

A research assistant who was not familiar with our hypotheses conducted theinterviews, and the authors independently analyzed the data. The first step was togroup together similar responses indicating the use of impression managementstrategies separately for both types of organizations. The next step was to name andidentify the type of strategy in each category of similar responses. In the third step, weread the interviews again and searched for contextual information on the use ofdifferent strategies. Finally, we compared the responses to the different questions inorder to check for inconsistencies and to identify the dominant strategies.

Questionnaire survey sampleThis sample consisted of 107 high-tech employees from 20 different organizations (76males and 31 females) and 101 army officers in non-combat administrative units (85males and 16 females). All the participants were part-time MBA students. The meanage for the sample was 30; all had been employed for a period of at least three years intheir current jobs.

MeasuresThe present study assessed specific job-related behavioral strategies that employeesused to create a desirable impression. A search of existing measures of impressionmanagement did not yield a suitable scale based on specific behavioral job-relateditems. The typical scales of impression management behavior focus on the extent towhich individuals choose to engage in impression management and how skilled arethey at it (Snyder, 1974), and if they give overly positive statements about themselves(Paulhus, 1991), deny negative characteristics (Roth et al., 1986) or focus on ingratiationtactics (Kumar and Beyerlein, 1991).

We therefore constructed a new scale for the purpose of this study.Scale development: Preliminary interviews were conducted with 40 employees from

a wide range of organizations about practices of impression management.As a result of the interviews, 60 statements describing specific behaviors intended

to positively impress one’s superiors and peers were generated. The list of statementswas then presented to several panels made up of other employees, who were asked tojudge the validity and the prevalence of the behaviors described in the statements andto identify redundancies. As a result of this procedure some of the statements werecombined or eliminated; 34 statements remained in the list. These items were arrangedin the form of a questionnaire. The question for each item was “How often do youbehave as described in this item in an attempt to impress your superior or your peers?”.The answers were rated on a five-point scale ranging from (1) “almost never” to (5)“very often”. We administered the scale to a sample of 350 employees from a largenumber of organizations representing industry, commerce, service and public serviceorganizations. The individuals in the sample ranged from high school graduates touniversity graduates. The mean age was 33 for females and 34 for males.

JMP22,3

296

In an attempt to examine the factor structure, we subjected the 34 items to aprincipal factor analysis followed by a varimax rotation. Three rotated factors emergedfrom the analysis. Items were selected with a loading of 0.6 and higher and anEigenvalue higher than 1.

The first factor, accounting for 32 percent of the variance, consisted of seven items.We label this factor, which centered on attempts to be friendly, supportive andsociable, “Ingratiation”. Example items include “show respect”, “be friendly”, and“smile”. The Alpha internal consistency coefficient was 0.83.

The second factor, “Initiation”, accounted for 21 percent of the total variance. Itconsisted of six items that centered on attempts to demonstrate one’s dedication,initiative and extra efforts beyond the call of duty. Examples are “I voluntarily investin my work beyond what is required” and “I show initiative whenever I have a chance”.The Alpha internal consistency coefficient was 0.81.

The third factor consisted of five items and accounted for 17 percent of the variance.The items reflect attempts to be seen as competent and capable within the expected lineof duty. We labeled this factor “Competence”. Example items are “demonstrate myexperience” and “demonstrate my dependability”. The alpha internal consistencycoefficient was 0.78.

The final impression management scale consisted of the 18 items representing thethree factors described above. The Appendix presents the questionnaire items. Weasked the subjects to complete the scale in two versions, one in regard to their superiorsand a second in regard to their co-workers.

ProcedureThe study questionnaire consisting of the impression management scale wasadministered to the subjects in their classrooms. In addition, they were asked toindicate their place of employment as well as a few demographic details. Participationwas voluntary; no cases of refusal were recorded. All data were collected within twoweeks.

ResultsValidity checksIn order to validate the distinction between the two organizational systems, weadministered preliminary questionnaires to samples of 58 army officers and 70employees in high-tech product development units. The subjects were selected from thesame population of part-time MBA students from which the study sample wasselected. The questionnaire was adapted from the Rao et al. (1995) measure ofsituational circumstances; it included the variables “formalization” (eight items),“routinization” (one item), and “innovation” (four items). The variables were assessedon a five-point scale ranging from (1) “almost none” to (5) “a great deal”. We comparedthe two samples on each of the three measures. The results suggest that the armysample scored significantly higher on formalization (t ¼ 6:665df ¼ 126; p , 0:000)and routinization (t ¼ 6:35; df ¼ 126; p , 0:000), and lower on innovation(t ¼ 3:77; df ¼ 126; p , 0:000).

Our hypotheses were based on the premise that power distance is greater in themechanistic system than in the organic one. It was therefore important to ascertain thevalidity of this premise empirically. For this purpose we used the power distance scale

Impressionmanagement

behavior

297

developed by Hofstede (1980). It consists of a short description of four types ofsuperiors, representing four levels of participative management. The description isfollowed by three questions:

(1) Which manager do you prefer to work with?

(2) Which description most closely resembles your own superior?

(3) To what extent are people afraid to disagree with their superiors?

In an attempt to validate this premise, we administered this scale to the questionnairesurvey sample in this study, along with the other scales. The differences between thetwo organizational cultures, in terms of subjects’ perceptions of power distance, weretested by means of a one-way ANOVA for independent samples. The power distance inthe mechanistic culture was significantly higher (F ¼ 5:18; df ¼ 1; 190; p ¼ 0:024).

Interview analysisWe found that participants from both types of organizations described the use of avariety of impression management strategies. Employees from both organizationsmentioned strategies, yet for each system we could easily trace the dominant strategy– the one that was mentioned, discussed and considered to be important by themajority of the participants, and it was different for each system.

The mechanistic system. In general, interviewees readily acknowledged thatimpression management is a common practice in their organizations (although theyhad reservations about their own impression management behavior). Ingratiation wasthe dominant strategy, mentioned by most participants. Examples of behavior definedas ingratiating by the participants included the following: “offer him or her coffee orrefreshments”, “do what he or she wants”, and “get him or her new equipment”.

At certain periods of time in the organization, such as during performanceevaluations, ingratiation intensified. As one subject said:

A nice and friendly officer can get promoted while a professional and competent officer whois not as friendly will not. The superior officer makes the decision about that. So just beforethe performance appraisal form is distributed, people start to ingratiate themselves to theirsuperiors in order to make a good impressio.

Another officer, referring to the same situation, concurred:

A month before they distribute the questionnaires, people start to behave differently. Theyingratiate themselves a little and try to be nice and do favors for superiors.

Very few examples of competence strategies were mentioned. These dealt withattempts to let others know that the subject was doing a good job in general. Initiationwas rarely mentioned.

An exception to this pattern of responses was expressed by an officer who works inan R&D unit in the army. He said:

Employees try to impress others in our unit by initiating and investing in tasks beyond one’sjob. In our unit, they greatly appreciate initiation and taking responsibility. The way to benoticed is by volunteering beyond your job. Another way is by investing in social activitiessuch as in the “humor corner” that we have in our office.

When asked to describe his unit, his response was:

JMP22,3

298

We don’t really live in the army. We don’t have inspections, we have flexible working hours,little formality, and the hierarchy is not felt strongly.

The response above indicates that an R&D unit in a mechanistic organizationmaintains a structure and norms which are different from those of the entireorganization. These structure and norms (which are similar to those of the organicsystem) create the relevant context of impression management behavior (Gardner andMartinko, 1988).

Finally, when asked about examples of unacceptable behavior, one of ourrespondents described the case of a soldier who “tried to be nice” to his seniorcommander by providing information to him rather than providing the information tohis direct commander. The senior commander, instead of being flattered, was angry atthe soldier and condemned him for not being loyal to his direct commander. In thiscase, the soldier tried to ingratiate himself to one of his superiors, yet his impressionmanagement behavior lacked understanding of the norms associated with thehierarchy and loyalty in his workplace. As a consequence, instead of getting thedesired outcome (to be liked), he got the opposite result.

The organic system. In general, these interviewees provided considerably fewerexamples and stories relating to impression management. Many insisted thatimpression management was not common and that people were more interested indoing a good job than in impressing others.

A senior manager in a small high-tech company expressed a view common amongmembers of organic systems:

I don’t try to impress anyone, really. When I start working in a new organization I try to befriendly to everyone. Now, after two years in this job, I am trying to succeed in what I do(developing the product). Perhaps it has also to do with age and other things. The CEO of thecompany and myself have similar characteristics; he is a task-oriented person. If I were in adifferent company, perhaps I would have behaved differently.

For this manager, as for others, maintaining good relationships with everyone (or“being friendly”, in his words) is a common behavior goal, which can be explained inlight of the importance of frequent contact across vertical levels in organic systems(Burns and Stalker, 1961). At the same time, one should note the awareness that theinterviewee expressed regarding the adaptation to a different company.

The predominant strategy mentioned by employees working in organicorganizations was initiation; typical examples were the following: “investing timeand effort in voluntary group projects”, “initiating tasks beyond the officialrequirements of the job”, and “volunteering to do social projects”.

The following quotation from a subject in a high-tech company illustrates howemployees use these strategies:

People make sure that they are seen around in the late afternoon and evening. They try tocatch the eye of a superior and discuss solutions to critical issues for the project they areworking on. In this way they demonstrate to him or her how they go beyond the call of duty,both by staying late and by contributing to the project.

The subjects did not mention competence at all. However, ingratiation was mentionedas a method of impressing superiors – but only in three instances. The following is one

Impressionmanagement

behavior

299

example, taken from an interview with a woman in a high-tech firm who stronglyrejected ingratiation:

About a year ago my boss wanted to replace me. When I first felt that he was not satisfiedwith me I tried to make him like me. Then, I decided to try to do a good job and make himrealize that. Now I guess I try to do both.

This case indicates that in spite of her resentment of ingratiation, and the fact that sheis part of an organic system, the woman uses ingratiation. One can see, however, thatspecific circumstances initiated this behavior, namely, the fear that she would bereplaced. This case supports previous research that people are more likely to behave inan ingratiating manner toward their authorities when the authorities have greaterpower to dispense valued outcomes (Stires and Jones, 1969), or when desired resourcesare scarce (Beck, 1983; Pandey and Rastagi, 1979).

In summary, the interviews suggest that the two organizational systems differ bothin the intensity of impression management, and in the types of impressionmanagement strategies commonly employ. The specific differences support theproposed hypotheses. In addition, the data from the interviews show that althoughthere is a distinguishing pattern of impression management behavior in both organicand mechanistic organizations, impression management behavior in organizations canbe quite complex. Organizations can have subcultures in which impressionmanagement behavior may be different from the one generally considered mostcommon. Employees do not always fully conform to a specific pattern of impressionmanagement behavior. In one example, the soldier was not successful in “reading theclues” and in understanding what was expected of him. In the second example, theemployee had to deal with specific uncomfortable circumstances, and for that reasonchose a strategy, which was not common in her organization.

Questionnaire analysisTable I presents the means and standard deviations for the study variables for theentire sample. We tested the main hypotheses by means of a three-way ANOVA withthe following three factors:

(1) The organizational system (organic vs mechanistic).

(2) The target of impression management (superior vs peer).

(3) The strategy used (ingratiation, initiation and competence).

Variable Mean SD

SuperiorInitiation 3.92 0.82Ingratiation 3.89 0.98Competence 3.64 0.65PeerInitiation 3.55 0.99Ingratiation 3.41 0.99Self-promotion 3.33 0.76

Table I.Means and standarddeviations for the studyvariables

JMP22,3

300

Table II presents the results of this analysis. Table III presents the cell means for thevarious groups. All three factors and their interactions were statistically significant.We then tested the study hypotheses by means of contrast analysis of specific effects.

Hypothesis 1The hypothesis was supported. Respondents from mechanistic systems reported asignificantly higher level of impression management attempts toward their superiorsthan respondents from organic systems. The difference was significant with regard toeach of the three impression strategies: initiation: F ¼ 4883.27, df ¼ 1,206, p , 0.00,ingratiation: F ¼ 4458.30, df ¼ 1,206, p , 0.00, and competence: F ¼ 7571.769,df ¼ 1,206, p , 0.00.

Hypothesis 2The hypothesis suggested that ingratiation would be the major strategy of impressionmanagement among mechanistic system employees. We tested the hypothesis usingcontrast analysis, comparing the use of ingratiation to the use of the two otherstrategies among members of the mechanistic system. The results fully supported thehypothesis. The use of ingratiation was significantly higher than the use of initiation:F ¼ 21:41; df ¼ 1; 206; p , 0:00. The use of ingratiation also was significantly higherthan the use of competence: F ¼ 55:84; df ¼ 1:206; p , 0:00.

Hypothesis 3H3 proposed that in the organic system, initiation would be used more often than theother impression management strategies. The results supported the hypothesis.Initiation was rated higher than competence (F ¼ 52.62, df ¼ 1,206, p , 0.00) as wellas ingratiation (F ¼ 25:64; df ¼ 1; 206; p , 0:00).

df MS df MS FVariable Effect Effect Error Error p p

1. System 1 9.65 206 2.40 4.02 0.052. Target 1 49.86 206 0.52 95.87 0.0003. Strategy 2 6.52 412 0.49 13.19 0.0001x2 1 48.07 206 0.52 92.42 0.0001x3 2 14.89 412 0.49 30.10 0.0002x3 2 0.89 412 0.13 6.81 0.0011x2x3 2 1.10 412 0.13 8.42 0.000

Table II.Analysis of variance –organizational system,

target of impression,impression strategy

Initiation Ingratiation Self-promotionSuperior Peer Superior Peer Superior Peer

Mechanistic 4.028 3.209 4.41 3.443 3.890 3.299Organic 3.817 3.864 3.400 3.380 3.398 3.359

Table III.Cell means for ANOVA

variables

Impressionmanagement

behavior

301

Hypothesis 4The hypothesis suggested that employees in mechanistic organizations would engagein impression management behavior to a greater extent toward their superiors thantoward their peers. To test this hypothesis, we performed contrast analyses separatelyfor each organizational system. In the mechanistic sample, there were significantdifferences in each category: initiation: F ¼ 113:9; df ¼ 1; 206; p , 0:00, ingratiation:F ¼ 164.56, df ¼ 1,206, p , 0.00, competence: F ¼ 89:78; df ¼ 1; 206; p , 0:00.

On the other hand, in the organic system we found no significant differencesbetween impression management toward superiors and toward peers: initiation:F ¼ 0.39, df ¼ 1,206, ingratiation: F ¼ 0.157, df ¼ 1,206, competence: f ¼ 0.42,df ¼ 1,206.

H4 was therefore supported.

DiscussionOur research demonstrates the importance of an organizational system’scharacteristics in shaping employees’ impression management behavior. We suggestthat organizational systems and norms affect the nature of impression motivation andconstruction. The findings thus support the theoretical perspective suggested by Learyand Kowalski (1990), Roberts (2005) and Rosenfeld et al. (2002) who pointed at thelearning and interactive nature of patterns of impression management behavior. Theresults further support Gardner and Martinko (1988), who refer to the importance oforganizational culture in this context.

Our results support all of our specific hypotheses. We find that individuals inmechanistic organizations engage in impression management more often, and thattheir most commonly used strategy is ingratiation directed toward superiors. Membersof organic organizations, on the other hand, engage less in impression managementbehavior; their primary strategy, initiation, is directed equally toward superiors andpeers.

The differences in the patterns of behavior can be related to the core characteristicsof the organizational systems. The mechanistic military organization is governed bymanagerial principles designed to enhance the structural hierarchy of adherence toroutine, predetermined roles and work procedures, as well as the power position ofmanagement. These principles create norms calling on the individual to showobedience and loyalty to the organization and to superiors, and to stay within theboundaries of the job description. The employee’s relatively strong dependence on hisor her superiors creates an orientation toward attempting to please the superior, bymeans of impression management. An accepted way of accomplishing this is throughingratiation.

The organic system has a different set of norms and expectations. The emphasis ison the initiative of the individual and dedication to the overall goals of theorganization. Loyalty and obedience are not necessarily high priorities. Devotion tooutcomes and displays of initiative are expected, particularly in the R&D sectors of thehigh-tech industry. The hierarchical structure of the organization is normallyde-emphasized. Under these circumstances, the employee’s dependence on his or hersuperior is far less pronounced, and peers assume a central role in the person’s career.The employee is therefore motivated to show initiative and personal dedication. Thereis a strong expectation for professional commitment, and for going beyond the formal

JMP22,3

302

job definition. These data suggest that the organic system encourages a differentpattern of impression management behavior. In order to create a positive and desirableimage, the employee has to stress the inclination to go beyond the call of duty, and heor she has to convey this message to both superiors and peers.

Differences in behavioral patterns between organic and mechanistic systems wererecently also found by Courtright et al. (1989) They suggest that relationships withpeers are often characterized by competition and non-support in the mechanisticsystem, while the common communication patterns in the organic system consist ofconversational elaborations. Their findings provide further support to the assertionthat the organic-mechanistic distinction is related to the individual behavioral patternsthat characterize each system.

Beyond the specific differences found between the two organizational systems,this study points out some more fundamental aspects pertaining to human behaviorin organizations. Generations of work motivation theory and research have focusedon the way work behavior and task performance are a product of employees’ needs.Scholars in this field investigated ways to shape employees’ work behavior throughleadership, job design, organizational design and organizational culture. Apparently,motivation principles apply not only to task-related behavior but also to impressionmanagement behavior. Organization members realize that in order to attain theirpersonal goals they should not only focus on their work, as expected by the system,but also on creating a desirable impression. They seem very sensitive and tuned tothe clues provided by the norms of the organization and invest noticeable efforts,both in attempting to create the expected impressions and in specifically creatingthose impressions with the relevant and significant others. Organizational systemssuch as the two examined in this study create various mechanisms to maximizetheir employees’ effectiveness. They use the mechanisms of leadership, teamworkand career development to shape their members’ behavior in what they believe is amore effective way. The present results suggest that at the same time what ispromoted through these processes is impression behavior, which does notnecessarily reflect desirable intentions or actions. Such impression behavior isgeared specifically to the expectations of the organizational system and is efficientlymanaged to promote the individual’s interests, which are not necessarily in the bestinterest of the organization. This dilemma has been recognized in recent years byBolino (1999), who attempts to offer some guidelines as to how distinguish betweenorganizational citizenship behavior and impression management behavior. Bolinoet al. (2006) further examine the impact of impression management on superiors’perceptions of the employee.

It is the challenge of organizational theory, research and practice to further improvethe organization’s ability to differentiate between desirable behavior and impressionmanagement behavior, and consequently to find better ways to encourage one withoutpromoting the other, through the planning of organizational systems and leadership.

Our study combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the study ofimpression management behavior. The findings accumulated by the twomethodologies are mutually supportive, although the qualitative data point to thecomplexity of the phenomenon. This triangulation of methodologies adds confidence tothe findings, and is particularly relevant because our quantitative analysis is based ona new, tailor-made scale. The findings help to broaden our understanding of the ways

Impressionmanagement

behavior

303

in which organizational norms affect people’s behavior at work, suggesting thatemployees specifically attempt to impress their relevant reference groups and createimpressions that are consistent with organizational norms and expectations.

We would like to note that caution should be taken with regard to two samplingissues in this study.

(1) The mechanistic system was represented by a military organization. Thequestion is how applicable are the reported findings for non-military mechanisticorganizations. The answer depends on how different this particular sample isfrom typical non-military populations. In this study the military sample consistedof military career personnel holding administrative and technical jobs. Their liferoutine and responsibilities were very similar to their civilian peers. They workedin open installations located in a major city and lived at home with their families.Their daily activities were non-military in nature. Preliminary interviews withrepresentatives of this sample suggested that the major characteristics of theirorganization were associated with its mechanistic nature. We therefore believethat the nature of the present sample is not in itself a serious limitation, and itallows the findings to be applied to other samples. However, the fact that themechanistic sample is restricted to a single organization implies that the presentfindings should be treated with some caution, and that more research is needed toprovide further support to the existing findings.

(2) The disproportionate representation of males in the survey sample is anotherlimitation restricting the generalization of the findings. It points at the need forfurther research to expand our understanding of the role of gender inimpression management, by providing more gender-balanced samples.

Future research is needed to both further validate the present findings andsimultaneously examine the effects of individual differences, organizationalcharacteristics and cultural variables on impression management.

From a practical standpoint, managers and decision makers in organizations shouldbecome aware of their employees’ apparent inclination to adjust their impressionmanagement behavior to the specific norms promoted by the organizational system.The misleading impact of this inclination could be particularly undesirable whenindividuals are assessed for purposes of promotion or for other personnel-relateddecisions.

References

Altman, Y. and Baruch, Y. (1998), “Cultural theory and organizations: analytical method andcases”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 769-85.

Ashford, S.J. and Northcraft, G.B. (1992), “Conveying more (or less) than we realize: the role ofimpression management in feedback seeking”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 53, pp. 310-34.

Bachman, J.G. and O’Malley, P.M. (1984), “Yea-saying, nay-saying and going to extremes:black-white differences in response style”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 491-509.

Barsness, Z.I., Diekmann, K.A. and Seidel, M.D.L. (2005), “Motivation and opportunity: the role ofremote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impressionmanagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 401-30.

Beck, R.C. (1983), Motivation: Theories and Principles, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

JMP22,3

304

Bohra, K.A. and Pandey, J. (1984), “Ingratiation toward strangers, friends and bosses”, Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 122, pp. 217-22.

Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers and good actors?”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 82-98.

Bolino, M.C., Varela, J.A., Bande, B. and Turnley, W.H. (2006), “The impact ofimpression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenshipbehavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 281-97.

Bozeman, D. and Kacmar, K.M. (1997), “A cybernetic model of impression managementprocesses in organizations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, Vol. 69,pp. 9-30.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Institute, London.

Courtright, J.A., Fairhurst, G.T. and Rogers, E.L. (1989), “Interaction patterns in organic andmechanistic systems”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 773-802.

Ellis, A., West, P., Ryan, B. and DeShon, R.P. (2002), “The use of impression management tacticsin structured interviews: a function of question type?”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 87, p. 1200.

Feldman, D.C. and Klich, N. (1991), “Impression management and career strategies”,in Giacalone, R.A. and Rosenfeld, P. (Eds), Applied Impression Management:How Image-making Affects Managerial Decisions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 67-80.

Foley, L. (2005), “Midwives, marginality, and public identity work”, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 28,pp. 183-95.

Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1988), “Impression management in organization”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 14, pp. 321-38.

Gilmore, D.C., Stevens, C.K., Harrell-Cook, G. and Ferris, G.R. (1999), “Impression managementtactics”, in Eder, R.W. and Harris, M.M. (Eds), The Employment Interview Handbook, Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday Anchor, Garden City,NY.

Gould, S. and Plenley, L.E. (1984), “Career strategies and salary progression: a study of theirrelationship in a municipal bureaucracy”, Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, Vol. 34, pp. 244-65.

Hage, J. (1988), “The pathways of evolution in organizations”, in Hage, J. (Ed.), Futures ofOrganizations, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 44-65.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture Consequences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Homans, G.C. (1950), The Human Group, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY.

Jones, E.E. (1964), Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis, Appleton, New York, NY.

Jones, E.E. and Pittman, T.S. (1982), “Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation”,in Suls, J. (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives of the Self, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 231-62.

Jones, E.E., Gargen, K.J., Gumbert, P. and Thibaut, J.W. (1965), “Some conditions affecting the useof integration to influence performance evaluation”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 1, pp. 613-25.

Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. (1994), “Political influence behavior and career success”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 20, pp. 43-65.

Kacmar, K.M., Delery, J.E. and Ferris, G.R. (1992), “Differential effectiveness of applicantimpression management tactics on employment interview decisions”, Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 1250-72.

Impressionmanagement

behavior

305

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. and Wilkinson, I. (1980), “Intraorganizational influence tactics:explorations in getting one’s way”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 444-52.

Kumar, K. and Beyerlein, M. (1991), “Construction and validation of an instrument for measuringingratiatory behavior behaviors in organizational settings’”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 76, pp. 619-27.

Leary, M.R. and Kowalski, R.M. (1990), “Impression management: a literature review andtwo-component model”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp. 34-47.

McFarland, L.A., Yun, G., Harold, C.M., Viera, L. and Moore, L.G. (2005), “An examination ofimpression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: the roleof competency demands”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 949-81.

Morand, D.A. (1996), “What’s in a name? An exploration of the social dynamics of forms ofaddress in organizations”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 422-49.

Newcomb, T. (1961), The Acquaintance Process, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.

Pandey, J. (1986), “Sociological perspectives on ingratiation”, Progress in ExperimentalPersonality Research, Vol. 14, pp. 205-29.

Pandey, J. and Rastagi, R. (1979), “Machiavellianism and ingratiation”, The Journal of SocialPsychology, Vol. 108, pp. 221-5.

Paulhus, D.I. (1991), “Measurement and control of response bias”, in Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R.and Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds), Measurement of Personality and Social PsychologicalAttitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 17-59.

Ralston, D.A. (1985), “Employee ingratiation: the role of management”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 10, pp. 477-87.

Rao, A., Schmidt, S.M. and Murray, L.H. (1995), “Upward impression management: goals,influence strategies and consequences”, Human Relations, Vol. 48, pp. 147-67.

Roberts, L.M. (2005), “Changing faces: professional image construction in diverse organizationalsettings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 685-711.

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R.A. and Riordan, C.A. (2002), Impression Management: Building andEnhancing Reputations at Work, Thomson Learning, London.

Roth, D.L., Snyder, C.R. and Pace, L.M. (1986), “Dimensions of favorable self-presentations”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 867-959.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P.L. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for Business Students,Prentice Hall, London.

Schein, E.H. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45, pp. 109-19.

Schlenker, B.R. (1980), Impression Management, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.

Snyder, M. (1974), “Self-monitoring of expressive behavior”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 30, pp. 529-37.

Stevens, C.K. and Kristof, A.L. (1995), “Making the right impression: a field study of applicantimpression management during job interviews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80,pp. 587-606.

Stires, L.D. and Jones, E.E. (1969), “Modesty vs self-enhancement as alternative forms ofingratiation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 172-88.

Tedeschi, J.T. and Melburg, V. (1984), “Impression management and influence in organizations”,in Bacharach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 31-58.

JMP22,3

306

Tedeschi, J.T. and Riess, M. (1981), “Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research”,in Tedeschi, J.T. (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research,Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-22.

Tsai, W.C., Chen, C.C. and Chiu, S.F. (2004), “Exploring boundaries of the effects of applicantimpression management tactics in job interviews”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31,pp. 108-32.

Varma, A., Toh, S.M. and Pichler, S. (2006), “Ingratiation in job applications: impact on selectiondecisions”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, p. 200.

Vonk, R. (1999), “Impression formation and impression management: motives, traits, andlikeability inferred from self-promoting and self-deprecating behavior”, Social Cognition,Vol. 17, pp. 390-412.

Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), “Influence tactics, effect and exchange quality insupervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 487-99.

Wayne, S.J. and Kacmar, K.M. (1991), “The effects of impression management on theperformance appraisal process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 48, pp. 70-88.

Xin, K.R. (2004), “Asian American managers: an impression gap? An investigation of impressionmanagement and supervisor-subordinate relationships”, The Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, Vol. 40, pp. 160-82.

Zaidman, N. and Drory, A. (2001), “Upward impression management in the work place – crosscultural analysis”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 25, pp. 671-90.

Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K.M., Witt, L.A., Carlson, D.S. and Bratton, V.K. (2004), “Interactive effectsof impression management and organizational politics on job performance”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 627-41.

AppendixImpression management strategies questionnaire itemsIngratiation (seven items)

(1) Show respect.

(2) Be friendly.

(3) Express consent.

(4) Smile.

(5) Be polite.

(6) Be congenial.

(7) Listen patiently.

Initiation (six items)

(1) Voluntarily invest in my work beyond what is required.

(2) Show initiative whenever I have a chance.

(3) Initiate conversations on work-related issues.

(4) Actively participate in meetings.

(5) Say things like “I am making a special effort”.

(6) Volunteer for various missions and activities.

Impressionmanagement

behavior

307

Self-promotion (five items)

(1) Demonstrate my experience.

(2) Demonstrate my dependability.

(3) Demonstrate my expertise.

(4) Submit accurate reports.

(5) Demonstrate self-confidence.

Corresponding authorAmos Drory can be contacted at: e-mail:zeidman@bgu.ac.il

JMP22,3

308

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints