|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 ATTRIBUTIONS FOR IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR: CAN BEING AUTHENTIC AND TACTICAL BOTH BE GOOD? By DAVID M. LONG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE QUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 David M. Long
3 To Susie
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank Jason Colquitt for his guidance and advice durin g this process and over the past five years. There is no doubt that his mentorship has brought me to this point. I will always be grateful to him. I also thank committee members John Kammeyer Mueller, Amir Erez, and James Algina for generously donating the ir time and thoughtful counsel. Second, I thank my family for their patience, love, and support. In particular, I thank my wife Susie (P) for her unwavering support she is my rock. I also thank my two wonderful daughters Eva and Belle (K & F ) for always c oming through with an inspirational boost whenever I needed one I love my crew Period.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 Impression Management Defined ................................ ................................ ........... 15 Impression Management Literature ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Taxonomies of Impression Management ................................ .......................... 17 Impression Management Strategies ................................ ................................ 19 Ingratiation ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 Empirical Research on Ingratiation ................................ ............................ 25 Exemplification ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 Empirical Research of Exemplification ................................ ....................... 28 3 THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS ................................ ................................ ................ 30 Attribution Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 32 Tacticalness and Authenticit y ................................ ................................ ................. 39 Reactions to Tacticalness and Authenticity ................................ ............................. 41 Cognitive Reactions ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 Perceived Ability ................................ ................................ ............................... 41 Perceived Integrity ................................ ................................ ............................ 44 Affective Reactions ................................ ................................ ........................... 45 Evaluations of Effectiveness ................................ ................................ ............. 47 Desire for Authenticity ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 4 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 55 Sample and Procedure ................................ ................................ ........................... 55 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 5 7 Time 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 57 Time 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 60 Time 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 61 Control Variables ................................ ................................ .............................. 62 Factor Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ 63
6 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 66 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 66 Tests of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 Reactions to Tacticalness and Authenticity ................................ ...................... 68 Consequences of Tacticalness and Authenticity ................................ .............. 70 Desire for Authenticity as a Moderating Variable ................................ .............. 71 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 80 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 Outcomes of Tacticalness and Authenticity ................................ ...................... 81 Desire for Authenticity as a Moderator ................................ ............................. 86 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ .......................... 87 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .............................. 90 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 91 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 112
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5 1 Mean, standard deviations, and zero order correlations for hypothesis testing .. 74 5 2 Mean, standard deviations, and zero order correlations of faceted tacticalness, authenticity, and outcome variables ................................ ............... 75 5 3 Structural equation modeling results for perceived ability, integrity, positive and negative sentiment ................................ ................................ ...................... 76 5 4 Effect Decomposition Results for Mediation Tests ................................ ............. 76
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Model of hypothesized relationships. ................................ ................................ .. 54 5 1 Summary of the tested model. Moderator and control variable direct paths to outcomes not shown. ................................ ................................ .......................... 77 5 2 Interaction plot for Tacticalness Positive affect ................................ ................... 78 5 3 Interaction plot for Tacticalness Negative affect. ................................ ................ 78 5 4 I nteraction plot for Authenticity Positive affect. ................................ ................... 79
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requir ements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ATTRIBUTIONS FOR IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR : CAN BEING AUTHENTIC AND TACTICAL BOTH BE GOOD? By David M. Long May 2013 Chair: Jason A. Colquitt Major: Business Administration In this dissertation, I expl management process. Scholars agree that impression management is one of the most pervasive social influence processes (Leary, 2011), and ubiquitous in organizations (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Mos t of the research on impression outcomes of various impression management tactics. However, little is known about how targets view the impression management process. Contrar y to popular assumption, perhaps actors get more credit for managing impressions, and more blame for not. As such, I outline and test a model that incorporates this perspective. In particular, this model suggests that: (a) the target perceives specific beh aviors of an actor as either authentic or tactical (i.e., strategic, managed), (b) the combination of the behavior and ard the actor, (c) as well as an indirect impact on the perceived effectiveness of the actor. This model was tested on a sample of 103 supervisors at a large national retail organization over three time waves The
10 results suggested that authenticity evoke d positive cognitive and emotional reactions from supervisors, and ult imately led to supervisor s higher rating of associate s effectiveness. However, for tacticalness, the results were predominantly neutral in their impact on supervisor s cognitive and em otional reactions suggesting that taticalness, although not positively viewed by supervisors, is not negatively viewed either. Also, the results show that superv isor s preference, or desire for authenticity in others moderated the link between authentic it y and supervisory positive affect towards associate s
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION And all t he men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; Shakespeare (from As You Like It ) decisions that impact desired outcomes. For instance, how one presents oneself to a blind date will usually determine any likelihood of a second date opportunity. Sim ilarly, depicting the right image during a job interview could lead to a job offer, and portraying assignments, reward allocations, and ultimately, career success. Indeed, many of the best selli ng books on management and self help speak directly to the value of making the right impression (e.g., Carnegie, 1936). Impression management, or self presentation, is an attempt by actors to influence how a target perceives them, and is arg uably the most pervasive of all social influence processes (Leary, 2011). Scholars have noted that even when impression management is not at the forefront of interaction goals, people still act so as not to jeopardize the image that others currently hold o f them (Leary, 1995). In fact, scholars argue that interpersonal behavior is invariably linked to impression concerns, with the exception of uncontrollable emotion (e.g., anger, joy), flow due to task absorption, or tic self, as one might during therapy sessions
12 Concealed in the ubiquity of impres sion management lurks a puzzling attempting influence via self presentation is predominantly straightforward and non controversial. Actors view impression management as non duplicitous (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Rio rdan, 1995), and instinctively understand that successful self presentation involves maintaining a delicate b alance among self enhancement accuracy, and humility (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Actors focus their behavioral efforts on projecting a desired imag e, determined by what one wants to be, and not necessarily by what one is (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Marcus, 2009; Roberts, 2005). As some scholars have noted, actors must only appear consistent, and not feel consistent, when displaying a desired image (Lear y, 2011; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971). controversial, and for two overarching reasons. First, the general sentiment regarding impression management ranges from deplorable to encouraged (Fedlman & Klich, 1991) Whereas ethicists condemn impression management as something tainted or deceptive (Dubrin, 2011; Moberg, 1989), career strategists advocate it, acknowledging that it can help an employee get ahead (Feldman & Klich, 1991 ; Riordan, 1989). Second, target attributions of, and subsequent reactions to actors who display impression related behaviors can vary wildly. According to attribution scholars, indirectly to some underlying intent (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995; Jones, 1990). Therefore, targets who observe behavior that appears likeable (e.g., politeness ),
13 or dedicated (e.g., loyalty), can take that behavior at face value, and attribute those impression management motive. Targets are then left to process and reac t to these gone uncharted in research on attributions and impression manage ment (Pandey & Singh, 1987). good, and tacticalness is bad, it is plausible that reactions to these attributions might not be so straightforward. Tactical and managed behavior could arguably elicit positive reactions, as targets might give credit to actors who try hard to impress while at work (Wexler, 1986). Conversely, authentic behavior could be seen in a less positive light (Pandey, 1980), particularly if the target is not someone who has a strong preference for clearer understanding of the effects of actions o ften linked to impression management behavior. experimental studies (e.g, Gilbert & Jones, 1 986; Pandey & Singh, 1987, Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Wood & Mitchell, 1981), or studies that exclusively investigate reactions to citizenship (e.g., Eastman, 1994, Halbesleben, Bowler, Bolino, & Turnley, 2010; Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002) or pro social motives (e.g., Grant, Parker, &
14 Collins, 2009). Furthermore, these studies have yielded inconsistent effects among attributions and outcomes. impression management proces s, by investigating target reactions to attributions made behaviors associated with likeability (e.g., flattery), and dedication (e.g., working long hours), which are commonly u sed by an actor concerned with making a good impression, could be perceived as authentic, or as tactical as is usually implied in the impression management constructs of ingratiation and exemplification. Using attributional models (e.g., Jones, 1990; Kelle y, 1973; Weiner, 1995), I examine if target perceptions of and attributions to these behaviors influence the mediating effects of these reactions on perception of the act related effectiveness I also investigate if a target's desire, or preference for authenticity influences the relationship between attribution and reaction. In doing so, I will step beyond traditional models of impression management, an d pivot toward a clearer ermore, I will demonstrate that not all targets are created equal, and that a dispositional desire for authenticity can be influential to this process.
15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Impression Management Defined behavior, and the subsequent reaction to those perceptions must begin with a clear understanding of impression management. I define impressio n management (i.e., self presentation) as (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Rosenfeld et al., 1995. This definition is purposively broad, as the pervasiveness and variety of impression management requires that any definition have enough breadth to capture not only the array of impression management, but the idiosyncrasies and nuances of the tactics and behaviors associated with impression management (see Bolino et al., 2008). Several literatures in sociology, social psychology, and organizational psychology include separate yet related definitions of impression management. A common thread implicit in these definitions is that impression management is social, behavioral, involves power augmentatio n via influence, can be conscious or unconscious, and is strategic in an image that is self desired (Bolino & Turnley, 2003b; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary & Kowalksi, 1990; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Two subtle distinctions have formed, however, in how scholars define and interpret impression management. The first distinction surrounds the term self presentation. Some scholars suggest that self presentat ion is a closely related cousin to impression management, but different in that impressions can be managed by means (e.g., third party) other than the self, and self presentation can be used for goals (e.g.,
16 information seeking) other than shaping an impre ssion in others (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000; Schneider, 1981). Other scholars, however, suggest that impression management and self presentation are one in the same (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, & Tedeschi, 1999), as they both conc ern attempts to influence view that they are one in the same, because like perception, they involve attributions, as actors perform behaviors with the intent of earning specific attributions from their targets (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Similarly, a second distinction involves influence tactics, which have been defined as the ways in which individuals influence others to obtain personal benefits or to satisfy goals (Kipin is, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Some scholars have lumped influence tactics which include exchange, persuasion, and other tactics, together with impression management (e.g., Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), while others have attemp ted a finer distinction by suggesting that influence tactics are commonly part of the downward influence by leaders, while impression management is more universal among actors at all levels (Dubrin, 2011). Interestingly, scholars have predominantly allowed impression management and influence tactics to develop in separate literatures. This is likely due to differing objectives impression managers attempt to influence the attitudes and attributions of others, while influence tacticians attempt to influence behavioral outcomes controlled by others. My sentiment is that they are conceptually similar enough to be included together in reviews and summaries of interpersonal and social influence (e.g., Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, Blass, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2 002; Higgins et al., 2003), but they are theoretically distinct enough to be
17 kept separate when investigating outcomes of influence attempts. Therefore, for this present research, I focus on specific aspects of impression management. Impression Management Literature Long before Shakespeare penned his famous quote from As You Like It (see p. 11 of this manuscript), people were aware that projecting the necessary image to others made a difference to how they lived, and whether they survived. Eventually, acade micians began to pay attention to self presentation. First, drawing on symbolic presentation was not only functional for the individual but it was essential for smooth interactions (Goffman, 1959; Leary, 1995). In began to take notice of and focus effort on understanding impression management. Subsequentl y, E. E. Jones, while studying how people view one another (a term he called interpersonal perception), began to conduct research on flattery. This stream of Goffma seminal research, interest i n impression management spread to other disciplines, including organizational psychology (for a review, see Dubrin, 2011; Gardner & Martinko, 1988). The combined efforts have culminated in more than twenty five different types of impression management strategies (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008). Taxonomies of Impression Management Scholars have introduced several taxonomies of impression management. The taxonomy that has received the most research attention is from Jo (1982) influential chapter on self presentation. Their taxonomy identified five separate
18 classes (i.e., types) of impression management: ingratiation where an actor desires to be viewed as likeable by flattering, showing interest in, and doing favors for targets; exemplification which involves an actor seeking to be viewed as dedicated and going the extra mile by volunteering for extra assignments, staying late, and taking work home; supplication where actors want to be viewed as needy by showing weaknesses intimidation where actors hope to be viewed as threatening by bullying others; and s elf promotion where actors seek to be viewed as competent by touting personal abilities and accomplishments (D ubrin, 2011; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Other taxonomies were created in an effort to marshal some of the initial research on impression management, and to better conceptualize the impression management process. For instance, Arkin (1981) suggested that impr ession management tactics could be distinguished by their fundamental goal. Acquisitive tactics, such as ingratiation, have a collective aim of making the actor more attractive to others (Jones, 1990; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Protect ive tactics, on the other hand, involve steps taken to repair or prevent a spoiled identity. Making excuses, offering apologies or justifications, and accounts of an event are all part of repairing an image, while self handicapping and making performance d isclaimers are strategies an actor uses in anticipation of a spoiled image (Rosenfeld, et al., 1995). Additionally, Cialdini (1989) noted that impression opportunities existed by managing information about the people and things with which one is simply ass ociated, a term he called indirect tactics. He classified his indirect tactics as focused, was bringing attention to a personal link wit focused,
19 directing attention to the features and qualities of an other. As an example, name dropping is a prototypical connection focused tactic, as one attempts to impression manage by highlighting a positive link to someone notable (e.g., a famous celebrity, a company executive). Still other taxonomies were developed that offer a different way to classify impression management. Wayne and Ferris (1990) categorized impression management as either being job focused, self focused, or supervisor focused. These categories suggested that actors have three different approaches to building a desired image. Bolino et al. (2008) have criticized this taxonomy as having redundancy with other taxonomies. For example, supervisor focused tactics involve favor doing and other s ingratiation tactic. The measure developed for this taxonomy appears quite often in impression management research (Bolino et al., 2008), but the items included in the measure have apparent face validity concerns. As an example, items from the scales for job focused focused supervisor focus ed and also appear to be similar to ingratiation. Impression Management Strat egies In this study, I focus my research questions around the behaviors that are typically associated with ingratiation and exemplification, two impression management strategies from the Jones and Pittman (1982) taxonomy. Ingratiation involves an actor doi ng favors for, flattering, showing interest in, and enhancing a target, in an effort to elicit the attribution of being likeable (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Ingratiators are the ones who slap the boss on the back, and offer to pick up the boss from the airpor t. They also
20 s an actor arriving early to work, staying busy, volunteering for certain extra duties, staying late, and taking work home, in an effort to elicit the attribution of being dedicated (Gilbert & Jones, 1986; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). The behaviors associated with ingratiation and exemplification are of consequence for several reasons. First, scholars have noted that these are two of the more pervasive impression management tactics in organizations (Feldman & Klich, 1991). This asserti to organizational values (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Villanova & Bernardin, 1991). Second, of the five tact ics from the Jones and Pittman (1982) taxonomy, organizations have expectations about ho w employees should behave while at work or when representing the organization (Eddleston, Kidder, & Litzky, 2002), and employees will often act in response to these normative pressures (Jones, 1990). Many of those expectations relate to work ethic and posi tive social interaction. Unlike their ability or skill actors do have considerable control over their displayed attitudes and dispositions, so appearing dedicated to work (a valued attitude), and likeable (a valued disposition) can have a positive impact on how an actor is evaluated (Kacmar, Harris, & Nagy, 2007). In fact, there are numerous behaviors associated with ingratiation and
21 exemplification, such as kindness, and a devoted work ethic, respectively, which if displayed can have a positive impact for an actor. Third, of the Jones and Pittman (1982) tactics, these tactics are clearly the most positive, and research has shown that positive impression management tactics are more effective in organizations (Gordon, 1996), because they place the actor in a favorable light in the view of others. To this point, Bolino and Turnley (2003b) classified d more negative tactics. Furthermore, when considering other tactics, certain behaviors associated with supplication (whining), intimidation (threatening), and self promotion (bragging) can place the actor in a negative light, as they place attention on th e actor and are less valued in organizations (Kacmar et al., 2007). Ingratiation Of the two focal tactics in this dissertation, ingratiation, by far, has received the most individual attention, and is arguably the most basic and ubiquitous of all self pres entation strategies (Gordon, 1996; Jones, 1990; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Much of social behavior is attributed to the desire to be seen as attractive, friendly, humorous, kind, and respectful (Cooper, 2005; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1995). In organizat ions particularly, ingratiation has garnered extensive attention, and rightfully so. From passing compliments to the boss about his or her ideas, to a pat on the back for a distressed coworker, ingratiatory behaviors are everywhere. Once considered illici t (Jones, & Pittman, 1982; Jones & Wortman, 1973), researchers eventually began to destigmatize ingratiation, largely due to its frequency and effectiveness in organizational settings (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Ralston (1985)
22 implied that previous scholars had given ingratiation somewhat of a bad name, and noted that ingratiation should only be considered detrimental when used in excess. cohesive work groups in the absence o Gardner and Martinko (1998) asserted that ingratiation is only dysfunctional when it results in misallocation of rewards. One could even argue that that as long as malicious intent is not at its r oot, then ingratiatory behavior is desired and beneficial in organizations. Ingratiation, which is commonly used in an upward influence manner (Yukl & formally sanctioned (e.g., task performance) by the organization (Ralston, 1985). How are, or whether the ir target s perceive them as having an ulterior motive (Gordon, 1996; Jones, 1990). Ultimatel y, being liked and seen as attractive can be extremely beneficial, as it reduces the power differential between the actor and the target (Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991). Four strategies of ingratiation were originally identifi ed by Jones (1964): (1) opinion con formity, which involves agreeing with the opinions, and imitating the attitudes and behaviors of a target, in order to be seen as similar; (2) self enhancement, which includes hand picking information (e.g., characteristics) to make salient to a target to appear more coveted and attractive; (3) favor doing, which involves doing nice things in order to be seen as caring and consider ate; and (4) other enhancement, which involves positive target reinforcement through the use of flattery and compliments, in ord er to be
23 seen as perceptive and likeable. More recently, Copper (2005) has suggested that humor should be added to this list, although humor has not been incorporated into existing taxonomies or measures of ingratiation. According to Cooper, humor often op erates like other forms of ingratiation, and the effective use of humor influences targets to perceive actors as witty, fun, and likeable. A review of the more recent literature on ingratiation indicates that favor doing and other enhancement are evolving ahead of self enhancement and opinion conformity, as the more precise indicators of ingratiation, and the more popular among researchers. I argue that this trend is not so much a testament to the importance of favor doing and other enhancement, as it is due to the conceptual and empirical deficiencies associated with self enhancement and opinion conformity. Actors who self enhance focus on themselves, which is logically more consistent with self promotion (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Westphal & Stern, 2 007). Furthermore, behaviors not directed toward a target (i.e., self enhancement, humor) are often transparent to the target (Gordon, 1996), rendering them somewhat less effective as influencing mechanisms (Baumeister, 1982). In addition, opinion conformi ty, although target adopting the mannerisms and viewpoints held by the target (Baumeister, 1989; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). In fact, researchers, when developing one widely used ingratiation scale, only considered other enhancement, favor doing, and opinion conformity, ultimately dropping the latter after validation, leaving the former two to represent the underlying construct of ingratiation (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Thus, one of
24 the more recent and validated measures of ingratiation in the management literature only includes other enhancement and favor doing. Therefore, for this dissertation, I concentrate on the ingratiation behaviors involved with other enhancement (e.g., comp liments, kindness, praise, showing interest, flattery) and favor doing (e.g., personal favors, good deeds for another). These types of behaviors are direct, overt, conspicuous, and quite obvious to the target. Moreover, they ng them most pertinent for studying reactions to the attributed motives behind the behaviors. For clarity purposes, I group these behaviors into one term likeable that I will use throughout, because these behaviors naturally make a target more susceptib le to being well liked by a target. Other enhancement is noted to be ingratiation in its purest form (Deluga, 2004; Raslton & Elsass, 1989). Actors who adopt an other enhancement strategy increase esteem by gen erously handing out qualities, while minimizing the negative ones. Furthermore, they will positively affirm attributes about which the target is insecure, such as appear ance or presentation skills (Dubrin, 2011; Deluga, 2004). Many scholars have noted that individuals like those who like them (see Ralston & Elsass, 1989). In essence, other enhancing actors exploit the Favor doing, is based on the axiom that a good way to instill liking is by doing favors for others (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Actors engaging in favor doing will offer to buy and will look for ways to help them, all in an effort to be liked. Shifts of power are
25 fundamental to favor doing, as actors attempt to capitalize on reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) by receiving the attribution of likeability in return for their favors. As s uch, targets though gratitude and liking (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Empirical Research on Ingratiation Previous research indicates that several individual differences are related to the use of the behaviors associated with ingratiation (Bolino et al., 2008; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Most of these individual differences ingratiation and self presentation. For example, social awa reness concerns, such as self monitoring, self consciousness, and social anxiety are all significant predictors of these behaviors (Bolino et al., 2003b; Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Leary & Allen, 2011; Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Similarly, status concerns als o have been shown to be influential. Particularly, Machiavellianism, need for achievement, approval motivation, 2003b; Leary & Allen, 2011). Research also points to seve ral situational factors that influence the use of ingratiation. Particularly, perception of workplace politics, role ambiguity, and high accountability are key determinants (Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar, Carlson, & Bratton, 200 4; Yun, Takeuchi, & Liu, 2007). Also, employees are more likely to use ingratiation during job interviews (Stevens, 1997), as well as during performance evaluations (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007). Moreover, employees who work remotely w ere found to engage in higher levels of ingratiation and impression management, whereas those who were more centrally
26 located, or had smaller networks used lower levels (Barsness, Diekmann, & Seidel, 2005). Some researchers have been able to separate seve ral specific antecedents unique to the ingratiation subclasses of favor rendering and other enhancement. In one example, Kacmar et al. (2004) found these strategies to be positively related to self esteem, need for power, and job involvement, and that othe r enhancement was also related to leader member exchange. In another example, Bolino and Turnley (2003b) were able to show that high self monitors were more likely to engage in favor rendering and other enhancement as a way to shed positive ligh t on themse lves, and to avoid negative light by steering away from potential confrontation. Research in both the lab and field suggests that other enhancement can have a positive impact on many desired outcomes for an actor. In the lab, for example, successful other enhancement has been linked to higher ratings of actor performance (Kipinis & Vanderveer, 1971), competence (Pandey & Kakkar, 1982; Watt, 1993), as well as target affect (Pandey & Singh, 1987). In the field, other enhancement has been linked to promotions (Westphal & Stern, 2007), performance evaluations (Wayne & Liden, 1990), career success (Judge & Bretz, 1994), high quality leader member exchanges (Deluga & Perry, 1994), and job applicant evaluations and hiring recommendations (Varma, Toh, & Pichler, 20 06). Most of the research on favor doing exists in the literature on the influence tactic of exchange (for a review see Ferris et al., 2002). Similar to the other dimensions of ingratiation, favor doing can have a positive impact on many outcomes. For exa mple, doing personal favors for a target can influence performance evaluations (Rao, Schmidt,
27 & Murray, 1995), leader member exchanges (Deluga & Perry, 1994), and career success (Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitley, 1989). However, some research also points to the perils of ingratiation (Gardner & Martinko, 1998). When used in excess during job interviews, applicants received lower ratings, as interviewers are likely to consider evidence that the outcomes of ingratiation are often not in the best interest of the organization, as promotions, rewards, a nd job placement are often based on politics, and not on merit (see Gardner & Martinko, 1998). Exemplification Exemplification, as opposed to ingratiation, has largely escaped the attention of researchers. In fact, using a title only keyword search of pee r reviewed journals in Three likely reasons explain this paucity of attention. First, a validated measure of exemplification did not appear in the literature until 1 999, when two separate groups of scholars independently developed measures based on the Jones and Pittman (1982) taxonomy (see Bolino & Turnely, 1999; Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, Tedeschi, 1999). In contrast, measures of ingratiation had existed for nea rly twenty years prior (Kipinis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Second, some scholars have lumped exemplification into a broader category of self promotion (e.g., Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009). This seems problematic, as self promoters desire attributi ons of skill and mastery, while exemplifiers desire attributions of dedication and moral worthiness (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Third, on the surface, the behaviors associated with exemp lification share many
28 similarities to organizational citizenship behavior s (OCBs) Both exemplifiers and good organization. However, beneath the surface, these are separate phenomenon. As Bolino and Turnley (1999) argue, the key difference between OCB and exemplification is the underlying intent, as OCBs are guided by altruism, and exemplification is guided by self enhancement. In fact, scholars have noted that many of the behaviors that have been previously attributed to citizenship were likely ex emplification (Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Schnake, 1981). Exemplifiers desire to be seen as dedicated and model employees, and typically present themselves as honest, self sacrificing, and sanctimonious (Jones & Pittman, 1982). They arrive to work e arly, always look busy, willingly suffer to help coworkers, proclaim that they rarely take a break, leave late, and take work home on the weekend (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Exemplifiers proudly and publicly carry the badge of going for their organization, team, and boss. Successful exemplifiers are not only perceived as dedicated, but they also make others feel guilty, often priming them to emulate the behavior of, or offer rewards to the exemplifier (Feldman & Klich, 1991). To be successful, however, exemplifiers must skillfully walk a fine line, and not cross over into self righteousness (Jones & Pittman, attention to their behavior, exposing them to hypocrisy and speciousness. Empirical Research of Exemplification In addition to the antecedents common to all forms of impression management (e.g., Machiavellianism, self consciousness), some research does point to antecedents unique to exemplif ication. In one study, Lewis and Neighbors (2005) used a self
29 determination lens to predict self presentation. They found that a controlled orientation (i.e., extrinsic motivation) led to higher levels of exemplification. They also found that higher levels of self monitoring led to an increase in exemplification (see also Turnley & Bolino, 2001). In another study, Nagy, Kacmar, and Harris (2011) found that core self evaluations negatively influenced exemplification whereas frequency of interaction with one Research on exemplification though somewhat limited, has shown that exemplification is relevant to several important outcomes in organizational psychology. For example, establishing a virtuous image can inspire others to perform at higher levels (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). In one lab study, exemplifiers who were caught cheating seemed to catch a break, as participants rated them as less exploitive than morally adaptable pragmatists who were also caught che ating (Gilbert & Jones, 1986).
30 CHAPTER 3 THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS Given the pervasiveness of impression management in organizations, and the toward understanding the Specifically, I will investigate how targets react to the causal explanations they make for attributes these ac tacticalness or impression management, emotional and cognitive reactions to this attribution and how these reactions impact a those reactions. My work will make two important theoretical con tributions. First, I will fill cri tical void s in research on attributions, and impression management, by examining target on attributions, particularly in the impression management literature, focuses on the process of determining the self or other oriented motives of an actor (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998). Unfortunately, not much is known about how targets react once this initial attribution is made, limiting our understanding of the more complete, or ful l attribution process (Fein, 1996). Second, I will investigate the effects of a target's desire for authenticity from others, as a possible moderator of will argue that less value placed on authent icity will mitigate some of the negative
31 effects of impression management. In fact, essential to both impression management and attribution theory are certain target characteristics and mitigating circumstances that could impact how a target reacts to an a ctor's behavior (Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Thomson & Martinko, 2004; Weiner, 2004). Although some have called for more research on these characteristics and circumstances, they have largely been ignored in impression management research (Bolino et al., 200 8). In addition to the theoretical contributions highlighted above, this dissertation will make three significant strides toward a more precise test of theory. First, from a methodological standpoint, I introduce measures of target attributions to specifi c actor dedication, as well as other self presentation behaviors, can be either managed (i.e., tactical) or authentic (Leary, 1993). Allowing targets to attach causal explanatio n s for better understanding of attribution and impression management processes. Second, by using target reports instead of actor self reports of the behaviors linked to impression management, I will help to alleviate some of the common method issues that plague the impression management literature (Stone, 1989). Typically, actors are hesitant to willingly admit to impression management (Rosenfeld et al., 1995), which can weaken the construct validity of representative measures (Rosenthal to social desirability biases (Rosenfeld et al., 1995), allowing for a more accurate test of theory (G anster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983; Paulhus, 1991).
32 Third, from an overall impression management perspective, how successful an actor is at self presentation attempts is ultimately determined by the target of influence, and not the actor. Failing to accou picture of the impression management process, as actors are biased by a tendency to overestimate their performances (see Leary, 2007; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Therefore, tive, I will not only limit that bias, but I will be better These contributions are depicted in Figure 3 1. Using attribution theory as a guide, I developed a model that links attribution s directly to target cognitive and emotional reactions, and indirectly to target evaluations of an actor Specifically, my at impression management (i.e., tacticalness), will follow an attribution process in which they: (a) react to the attributions with positive or negative affect toward the actor; (b) cognitively evaluate the integrity and ability of the actor based on the effectiveness indirectly through the affective and cognitive reactions. To unpack this model, I first introduce attribution theory, and highlight how it has been used in organizational research to explain both ini tial attributions to, and subsequent reactions making the predictions from Figure 3 1. Attribution Theory At the midpoint of the twentieth century, the prominent ps ychologist Fritz Heider brought the importance of social perception and causality of behavior to the attention of theoreticians and researchers. His most influential contribution came from his notion of
33 how people understand and explain the causes of their a based on those observations. ribution, others built from his theory, in an effort to better understand attributions. In fact, three separate yet influential streams of attribution theory and research emerged. As several prominent attribution scholars have noted, there is no single att ribution theory (Kelley & Michela, 1980; Thomson & attribution models, which applies to a broad group of theories that are concerned with causal reasoning (Martinko & Thomson 1998; Thomson & Martinko, 2004). 1971), who developed a model to explain how people use informational cues to make attributions for the behavior and outcomes of others (Kelley, 19 73; see Martinko & attribution model, which is also known as components that covary with the observed behavior of a person un der consideration: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness (Kelley, 1973). Consensus, which is between person behavior, is information regarding the behavior of others in the same situation. Consistency and distinctiveness are within person behavior, a nd relate to respectively.
34 components can range from high to low. When combined, they lead obser vers to attribute the causes of the behavior to the either the person, the entity (e.g ., organization), or the situation (Kelley, 1973; Jones, 1990). As a clarifying example m orning and offers to pick up her dry cleaning after work, Tanya will look for that no other employees have asked to pick up the dry cleaning (low consensus), that Janet fr equently stops by in the morning to ask if there is anything she can do for Tanya (high consistency), and that Janet has been known to do little favors for Tanya during meetings, at office parties, and in other work related situations (low distinctiveness) internal self (e.g., she cares about me), and not to something external, like pressure from peers or the organization. Other researchers also developed models that were s model on other trying to make sense of what he or she had seen (Jone s, 1990). Jones and Davis behavior. They argue that behavior is informative to the extent that it is seen to involve freedom of choice among alternatives, and that infe disposition depends on the consequences of the chosen behavior on the environment.
35 face value, or as a straightforward extrapolati which can be a disposition, intention, or motive (Jones, 1990: 46). Alternatively, non corresponding inferences could also be d rawn, as the behavior could be indicative of something hidden. Using the previous exam up the dry cleaning to her kind disposition (a corresponding inference) because in offer to her flattery and intended seductio n (a non corresponding inference) because merely impress her. Although similar in many ways, the two previously discussed models can be model emphasizes behavioral choice among alternatives. These differences allow the models to be used in different contexts and research settings if needed. For example, Kell observer relationships, as multiple behavioral observations in various situations over time are likely. Jo nes and ould be more appropriate for research on first impressions, as ob servations over time are less relevant. In fact, Jones (1990) has argued that these theories complement each other in many ways, as they feature the same underlying logic, and their application would often lead to the same predictions. A second stream ori ginated from Weiner (1985), who developed an achievement outcomes of their own (i.e., self attributions) behavior (see Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). The main pr
36 attributions for their own successes and failures impact their affect, future expectancies, and subsequent behavior. This was the first of the attribution models to exclusively focus on self attributions, and t he consequences of those attributions (Martinko & Thomson, 1998). According to Weiner et al. (1971), as well as researchers who have expanded on his original model (e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), attributions vary along several dimensions, s uch as locus of causality, stability, and globality. Locus of causality, which can be internally or externally attributed, refers to the degree to which to whether or not the cause can change over time, is largely based on stable attributions refers to the degree to which the casual explanation for the outcome is generalizable acro when causality applies across settings. The interaction of these three dimensions lies at the heart of the theory, and explains how others make sense of their own out comes (Weiner, 1985). A third stream came from the work of Martinko and Thomson (1998). Based on their argument that other attribution models (e.g., Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1971) and self attribution models (e.g., Weiner et al., 1971) present differen t perspectives of the same process, they recommended a synthesis of the two perspectives into one combined attribution model. They argue that based on the dynamics and complexities of organizations, there is a need for theory that can explain both self and other attributions. As evidence for their argument, these scholars point out that organizational
37 researchers, when first using attributional lenses, used both self and other attribution models, without clearly specifying the reasons for doing so (Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko & Thomson, 1998). The combined perspective proposes a direct relation between the informational consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness ) model locus of causality, stability, and globality, respectively. According to Martinko and Thomson (1998), these dimensions can be paired allowing for their synthesis. For example, if a behavior in question is low in consensus, it is also internal, an d therefore attributable to the person (i.e., self or other). Furthermore, they suggest that their model can be used to synthesize previous research that used separate perspectives, and will allow a better understanding of the leader member attribution pro cess. Attributional research in management and organizations has predominantly Mitchell, 19 79), burnout (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004), aggression (Martinko & Moss, 2004) and leader behavior (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). However, there is still much to be done, particularly in impression management. As Martinko (2004) noted, ent is another area that would appear to benefit from the In this dissertation, I draw from the previously discussed attributional models to better understand specific target reactions to causal explanations f and dedicated behavior at work. In this context, using the combined perspective of self
38 and other attributions is paramount, as it allows for testing a more thorough and developed attribution process, which includes attributions for observed behavior. As others scholars have suggested, there is additional attributional processing to occur after attributions to an initial motive (Reeder & Brewer, 1979). Unlike casual observers rgets are at some level tied to their subordinate actors (Martinko & Gardner, 1987). Based on this entrenched evaluative reactions based on that attribution (Martinko & Thomson, 1998). Furthermore, this combined perspective is most appropriate for research on presentation is discretionary (Leary, 1 993), as are the specific impression forming behaviors an actor chooses to present. This freedom of choice creates a rich environment from which the target can draw inferences (Jones, 1990). Moreover, these choices are largely self determined. Not everyone will participate in impression management, and not everyone (Kelley, 1973; Weiner 1995), and leaves the target to cope with and process the fallout. : By using an attributional perspective, some management researchers have tried to better understand how targets make causal tive behaviors (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Bolino, 1999). Most of this research has been in the context of OCB, prosocial behaviors, and leadership (e.g., Dasoborough & Ashkansay, 2002; Grant et al., 2009; Johnson et al.,
39 2002), and has focused primarily on making attributions to underlying motives which are typically understood to be either impression management, or other self desired motives (e.g., proactive, prosocial, helping). This research has been instrumental by acknowledging that targets do make a Rioux & Penner, 2001), but it has assumed that motives are at the root of behavior, and overlooked the possibility that an a also be a cause. As such, researchers who have also studied reactions to attributions have predominantly looked at reactions to motives (e.g., Eastman, 1994). When pitting tactical impression management motives against helpful and a ltruistic motives, predicting the types of reactions becomes quite obvious impression motives will be seen as bad, and altruistic motives will be seen as good. However, the story becomes less clear when pitting tacticalness against authenticity, because both liked and natural disposition. Tacticalness and Authenticity According to Leary (1995), impression management involves controlling how one is perceived by other people. Alt hough not necessarily deceptive or deceitful, impression management is still managed and tactical by nature. Therefore, if target s perceive actor s as behaving in an attempt to manage the ir impressions or the impressions of others, the target s will likely a ttribute the cause of the behavior to the actor s being tactical (Jones, 1990). This attribution, which is referred to here as tacticalness impression management reasons (Bolino, 1999). If o ver time, or across situations, a
40 target perceives that an actor is engaging in impression management, this tacticalness label will strengthen (Kelley, 1973). On the other hand, being authentic (i.e., real) represents the other side of the attributional c does not appear to be managing impressions, then the observed behavior can be Authentic i ndividuals are in fact driven by a desire to behave with integrity, and are less susceptible to external pressures which often lead to impression management (Baumeister, 1989; Erickson, 1995). Several definitions of authenticity exist, but common to those (Harvey, Martinko, & Gardner, 2010; Swann, 2012). Authenticity has four basic dimensions: self awareness, unbiased processing of information, relationship transparency, and authentic behavior (Kernis, 2003). The first manifestation of these values in words and actions. It is this final dimension, authentic behavio r (Kernis, 2003) As part of the attributional process, targets will try to determine if the behavio rs associated with ingratiation (e.g., flattery, compliments, and personal favors), and exemplification (e.g., working overtime, taking work home, and looking busy) are behaviors are all positive, and the actors who perform them could be considered as contributing to smooth interpersonal interaction and organizational effectiveness.
41 However, targets will dig beneath the surface, and ultimately label actors as being either tactical or authentic (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2004; Ferris et al., 1995), and then react to those attributions accordingly. Reactions to Tacticalness and Authenticity Cognitive Reactions when making attributions, infer certain characteristics of the actor (Jones, 1990). In Figure 3 1, a thiness, defined as the characteristics or attributes of an actor that inspire trust (Mayer, Davis, Schoorman, 1995). According to Mayer et al. (1995), there are three dimensions of trustworthiness: ability, which is the knowledge and skills needed to do a specific job, along with the interpersonal skills and wisdom needed to succeed in an organization; integrity, defined as the extent to which an actor is believed to adhere to moral and ethical principles; and benevolence, or the extent to which an actor i s believed to want to do good for the target apart from any profit motives. The latter two dimensions, integrity and benevolence, are sometimes combined into one dimension labeled character (see Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). Following the lead of other trust scholars (e.g., Gabarro, 1978, 1987), in my model I only include the integrity dimension to represent the character aspect of trustworthiness. Perceived Ability actor sh ould behave, as expectations can play an instrumental role in the attribution process (Green & Mitchell, 1979; Jones, 1990; Weiner, 1995). When observing an
42 the situatio n and the specific actor. If the observed behavior meets or exceeds expectations, then favorable attributions are likely (Eddleston et al., 2002; Miller & Turnbull, 1986). Furthermore, if an actor consistently meets expectations, this indicates stable perf 1973; Martinko & Thomson, 1998). One expectation that targets have involves an actor showing effort at work and of effort at work are seen as possessing a good work ethic (Eddleston et al., 2002). Logically, targets who perceive actors to be high in tacticalness see them as showing effort and wanting to engage in more positive behaviors, which makes them seem more a ble. Moreover, targets signal to actors what they value and expect (Ralston, 1985). Actors who purposively acknowledge these signals and make effort to meet expectations are seen as having the ability to conduct themselves in a manner the target wishes, an d they are abilities (Leary, 1995). Targets can also carry biases that impact their attributions of actors. These biases often influence the initial attribution (i.e., tacticalness or authenticity), but some biases can also impact reactions to those attributions. The halo bias can occur when subsequent judgments are influenced by previous impressions (see Arkin, Cooper, Kolditz 1980; Leary, 2007). Therefore, if targets perceive an actor to be showing effort and trying to make a good impression, this perception could bleed over into judgments of their ability in other areas (Arkin et al., 1980). Similarly, a hedonic relevance bias can
43 occur, where actor behavior that bene fits the target results in favorable attributions (Martinko & Gardner, 1987). Actors showing effort, if perceived to be beneficial to the target, could elicit favorable attributions of their skills and ability. In fact, there is some research that support s a positive link between perceived tacticalness and ability. In one lab study, exemplifying actors who were seen as inauthentic were rated just a s highly in ability as those who were seen as authentic (Gilbert & Jones, 1986). In another lab study, partici pants perceived as ingratiators were rated the same on effort as participants who were seen as non manipulative (Pandey & Singh, 1987). In a final study, employees who were seen as having self focused motives were given higher evaluations, regardless of th eir underlying intent (Kipinis et al., 1981). Hypothesis 1: Target perceptions of tacticalness will be positively related to the perceived ability of the actor. Targets also expect actors to behave authentically (Schlenker & Leary, 1982), as is evident by the recent interest on the topic of authentic leadership (see Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Authentic leaders are not fake and self serving, and various attribution models have indicated that these types of attributions will results in positive evaluations (Bol ino, 1999). Research has supported this assertion, and shown that targets appreciate accuracy and a certain amount of humility in actors (Brickman & Seligman, 1974). In one study, when an actor showed authenticity by ensuring that claims of performance wer e congruent to his actual performance, targets rated the actor higher on competence (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Hypothesis 2 : Target perceptions of authenticity will be positively related to the perceived ability of the actor.
44 Perceived Integrity I mpressio n management scholars have suggested that the success of impression management ultimately rests on whether the actor is suspected of an ulterior motive (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1995), as ulterior motives are perceived as manipulative and indicative o f someone untrustworthy (Gardner & Martinko, 1998). For example, those who are suspected as being exemplifiers run the risk of being seen as sanctimonious, exploitative, and hypocritical (Jones, 1990). If an ulterior motive is detected, a target might only give the actor tasks that require less trust (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Moreover, as some have contended, there is contempt for those who manage impressions (Moberg, 1989). This implies that for an actor being perceived as tactical could have a detrimenta From an attribution perspective, people have the choice to be either authentic or tactical in their behavior, and whichever they choose will likely covary with how targets perceive their integrity (Jones, 1990; Jones & Davis, 1965; Martinko & Thomson, 1998). Therefore, if actors decide to engage in positive impressions, then targets who make corresponding inferences will see them as immoral, or deceitful. In fact, one experiment showed that exemplifiers who were found to also be cheaters were seen as hypocritical and self deluding (Gilbert & Jones, 1986). superior attributed that behavior to an ulterior motive, which resulted in the actor being Conversely, targets who draw corresponding inferences from actors who choose to display authentic behavior will likely see those actors as being more honest and fair. In fact, research indicat es that politicians who did not take a self interest stand when
45 communicating a message were seen as having higher integrity than those who did (Combs & Keller, 2010). In another study, sales associates who were perceived by customers as having greater eth ical sales behavior were rated as higher in trust from those same customers (Roman & Ruiz, 2005). Hypothesis 3: Target perceptions of tacticalness will be negatively related to the perceived integrity of the actor. Hypothesis 4: Target perceptions of authe nticity will be positively related to the perceived integrity of the actor. Affective Reactions affective reaction. Using this lens, scholars have predicted that target affect ive reactions to attributions will covary with the valence of the attribution (Dasoborough & Ashkansay, 2004; Halbesleben et al., 2010). In this present research, I continue that line of ill be associated with a positive affective response, while attributions to tacticalness will be associated with a negative affective response Both types of affect can be defined as a condition of feeling (Watson & Clark, 1994), with positive a ffect representing changes in enthusiasm, pride, or cheerfulness, and negative affect reflective of changes in anger, anxiety, or guilt in response to an actor (Larsen & Diener, 1992; Russell, 1980; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). a guide, actors who display a negative behavior when they are in control of that behavior elicit negative affective responses from targets. Although the behaviors aligned with tacticalness are positive, the motive itself is negatively valenced. Therefore targets are likely to react negatively to those actors. This model is congruent with research on impression management that suggests that
46 targets react negatively toward actors suspected of having a hidden agenda (Gordon, 1995) model does not address positive affective reactions. However, other attributional models do point toward positive affect as a targets see actor behavior as volitio nal, and scholars argue that attributions of intentionality are closely linked to affect (Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1993). Affective reactions are impacted by the amount of cognitive processing required to havior (Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull, 1988). Behavior taken at face value (i.e., a corresponding inference) requires little to no cognitive processing which evokes positive affect, however, having to make a correction (i.e., non corresponding inference) requir es cognitive processing which causes negative affe ct (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). In this present research, positive behavior attributed to authenticity is a correspondent inference, and triggers positive affect. However, making an attribution of tacticalne ss is a non correspondent inference which would trigger negative affect. Extant research further supports the link between attribution and target affect. In the emotional labor literature, customers are shown as being happier with employees who are displa ying authentic as opposed to fake behavior (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005). Also, in a leadership study, Dasoborough and Ashkansay (2004) found when followers attributed manipulative intentions to leaders who were demonstrating transforma tional leadership behaviors, they had more negative and less positive emotions. Conversely, when leaders where perceived as having sincere
47 intentions, followers had more positive and less negative emotional reactions. In both cases, the authors controlled for mood. Hypothesis 5 and 6 : Target perceptions of tacticalness will be negatively related to state positive affect, and positively related to state negative affect. Hypothesis 7 and 8 : Target perceptions of authenticity will be positively related to sta te positive affect, and negatively related to state negative affect. Evaluations of Effectiveness In the context of work, there is reason to speculate that actors whose behaviors are attributed to authenticity or tacticalness will in both instances be per ceived as being effective organizational members. Unlike other dyadic contexts (e.g., parent child, observer actor), the supervisor subordinate dyad is unique in that the job behaviors performed by the actor can potentially have an areer (Arkin, 1981; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). Because the behaviors associated with ingratiation and exemplification are valued, they could help Based on attribution theory, the attribution process eventually results in some evaluative component that is based on the initial attribution and subsequent reactive process. The model in Figure 3 1 indicates that attributions are indirectly linked to a t originating from various literatures that discuss the effectiveness of different types of entities (e.g., organization, group, team), and common among them is both high performance and goal accomplishment of the entity (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Etzioni, 1964). Perceived effectiveness, in this context, therefore refers to a perception that the actor is a strong performing and valuable member of the organization, and that the actor is successfully working towards fulfilling personal career
48 goals (Lee, 1971; Medoff & Abraham, 1981). For the present study, I include perceived value to organization (i.e., actor is perceived as demonstra ting value to the organization), and perceived career opportunities (i.e., actor is perceived as effectively managing his or her career by creating career advancement opportunities) as constructs that represent the overall perceived effectiveness of the actor (Gould & Penle y, 1984; Lee, 1971; Medoff & Abraham, 1981; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). Guided by my prior prediction that tacticalness and authenticity are related to perceived ability and integrity I turn to the literature on ability and integrity to ground my downstream effectiveness predictions. First, there is a clear link between ability and job performance (e.g., Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992). Actors higher in ability perform their jobs better, and receive higher performance evaluations from targets. Second, there is also a clear connection between ability and success at work. Using a longitudinal analysis over 50 years, Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999) found that participants who were higher in their ability had higher levels of career success across mult iple facets (e.g., promotions, income). This study also found that individuals who were high in conscientiousness also experienced high levels of career success. Actors high in consciousness are ambitious, hardworking, and persevering (Saucier, 1994) all characteristics of someone high in both tacticalness and ability. There is also a connection between individuals with higher integrity and effective behaviors and evaluations. In one experiment, participants who scored higher on integrity also scored hig her on volunteering and helping behaviors, both valued extra role performance dimensions in many organizations (Schlenker, 2008). Additionally, there is meta analytic evidence that integrity is related to being an effective employee.
49 In one quantitative re view of the trustworthiness literature, Colquitt et al. (2007) showed a positive zero order correlation between integrity and two facets of job performance task performance and citizenship behaviors. There is also prior evidence from the literature on i nfluence tactics that points toward a link from both tacticalness and authenticity to effectiveness. Using a student sample, Thacker and Wayne (1995) found that subordinates were rated as being more promotable when supervisors were aware that they were usi ng reasoning as an influence tactic. Based on the empirical evidence addressed, I conclude the following: Hypothesis 9 There is a positive indirect effect of tacticalness on perceived effectiveness through perceived ability. Hypothesis 10 There is a posi tive indirect effect of authenticity on perceived effectiveness through perceived ability. Hypothesis 11 There is a negative indirect effect of tacticalness on perceived effectiveness through perceived integrity. Hypothesis 12 There is a positive indirec t effect of authenticity on perceived effectiveness through perceived integrity. elicits some punitive reaction from the target, and the link between target (e.g., evaluator) affect and subsequent performance evaluations are well established in the literature (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Even though actors are sanction ed norms and personal preferences of the target, target affective reactions to the attributed motives are ultimately what drives a positive or negative evaluation (Baumeister et al., 2001; Weiner, 1985). This point is supported by research showing that tho se who are perceived as behaving more genuinely are evaluated more positively, and those perceived as behaving less genuinely are evaluated less positively (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Eastman, 1994; Johnson et al., 2004).
50 Therefore, I take the perspective from attribution theory and research that links a (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2010; Weiner, 1995), and combine it with theory and research that directly links attributions toward others to subsequent evaluations (Jones, 1990; Jones & Davis, 1965). As such, I expect that affect will mediate the relationship between initial attribution and downstream evaluations of effectiveness. Hypothesis 13 There is a negative indirect e ffect of tacticalness on perceived effectiveness through state positive affect. Hypothesis 14 There is a positive indirect effect of authenticity on perceived effectiveness through state positive affect. Hypothesis 15 There is a negative indirect effect of tacticalness on perceived effectiveness through state negative affect. Hypothesis 16 There is a positive indirect effect of authenticity on perceived effectiveness through state negative affect. Desire for Authenticity One of the interesting ironies o f impression management exists in how the process itself is interpreted. On the one hand, it is difficult to argue that people who are concerned about how they look in the eyes of others is a bad thing. In fact, every aspect of organizational behavior, at some level, requires employees to manage impressions. From the job interview, to socialization, to customer and coworker interaction, and to performance appraisals, every facet requires that actors manage their impressions to the expectations of targets an d others. As Leary (1995) appropriately remarked: what others thought. Think how the
51 On the other hand, it is also hard to argue that actors who tactically manage their behavior instead of being fully genuine is completely a good thing. Just the labels alone that scho lars have used to define, or associa te impression management with ( e.g., tactical, strategic, controlling, calculated) invoke negativity. This paradox makes it hard to reconcile the positive aspects of impression management behaviors with the negative aspe cts of the labels associated with it. On way to approach this paradox is to focus on the interpreter (i.e., the target) to see if there is something unique about some targets that would make them more or less to attribution theory there are certain conditions that might play a role in how targets make attributions, and then react to those attributions. For example, Weiner (2004) suggests that there are mitigating circumstances that guide our attributions of ot hers. Moreover, attribution scholars also suggest that some people carry certain attributional styles that can influence their judgment (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Heider, 1958). For example, some people have a pessimistic style, and they attrib ute many unsuccessful events to their lack of skills or intelligence (Harvey & Martinko, 2010). Similarly, the impression management literature points to certain target needs which help to shape how targets process and interpret impression management. For example, Gardner and Martinko (1988) indicated that targets who possess a high need ingratiation to be out of context, because ingratiatory behaviors (i.e., complim ents) fil ls
52 Impression management scholars have also suggested that people differ in the degree to which they value honesty and authenticity (Leary & Allen, 2011). In the context of the present study, one potential target difference that could i nfluence need for behavior from others that is representative of their true self (Kernis, 2003). Based on one of the key tenets of authenticity transp arency (i.e., openness and I argue that at some level, targets desire actors to behave with authenticity. Higher levels of DFA would determine the extent to which they hold expectations that actors will behave a ccording t o their own core values, identit y, emotions, and goals (Luthans, Norman, & Hughes, 2006). I argue that targets with a strong DFA will see tactical behavior as unsettling, and will have stronger negative reactions to corresponding attributions. Co nversely, targets with a low DFA will have weaker negative reactions, as they are somewhat apathetic to tactical behavior. Hypothesis 17: The negative relationship between tacticalness and perceived enticity (DFA), such that the relationship will be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low. Hypothesis 18: The positive relationship between tacticalness and perceived y (DFA), such that the relationship will be less positive when DFA is high, and more positive when DFA is low. Hypothesis 19: The negative relationship between tacticalness and state positive affect DFA), such that the relationship will be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low. Hypothesis 20: The positive relationship between tacticalness and state negative affect ), such that the relationship will be more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low. Hypothesis 21: The positive relationship between authenticity and perceived ch that the relationship will be more positive when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low.
53 Hypothesis 22: The positive relationship between authenticity and perceived the relationship will be more positive when DFA is high, and more positive when DFA is low. Hypothesis 23: The positive relationship between authenticity and state positive affect e relationship will be more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low. Hypothesis 24: The negative relationship between authenticity and state negative affect that the r elationship will be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low.
54 Figure 3 1. Model of hypothesized relationships.
55 CHAPTER 4 METHODS Sample and Procedure Participants were recruited through The Home Depot, a Fortune 500 home im provement retail chain headquartered in Atlanta, GA. Specifically, participants came from eleven retail stores located in the vicinity of Norfolk, V A. The size of each store varied but the typical store had approximately 130 associates (i.e., employees), including 4 salaried managers, 16 department al supervisors, and 110 hourly associates. A retail store sample was well suited for this dissertation, due to the high frequency of workplace interaction between supervisors and associates. An overview meeting was set up with the district manager who oversees all eleven stores, as well as the eleven individual store general managers (GM s ), to go over the study details. During this meeting, it was explained to the managers that the surveys included in the study w ere designed to measure how supervisors react to certain frequent and positive workplace behaviors, and that it was necessary for the surveys to be administered over three separate time waves to help reduce method bias (Doty & Glick, 1987; Podsakoff, MacKe nzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The managers were assured that participant survey answers would be kept confidential, and once returned to me, would be stored in a secure location at the University of Florida. It was suggested and agreed upon that the surve bi weekly staff meeting. These meetings are held in a break room at the back of each store, offering a space for store personnel to meet away from customers and other potential distractions. The bi weekly meetin gs also provide an opportunity for supervisors and managers to meet in private away from other non supervisory
56 associa tes, creating an adequate environment for survey completion. All surveys were paper b ased, and once completed were placed in sealable env elopes to help ensure confidentiality of responses Survey envelopes were to be collected by the GM, and fund was made for participation. At Time 1, supervisors were ask ed to select an associate to serve as the focal lease choose an hourly associate at random, with the stipulation that the associate has worked for you for at least 1 month. Please do not just choose the associa te that you like the most, or the one that is the best performer. Choose one in some random fashion. Please write the name of the chosen associate below. The supervisors were then asked to complete measures of the authentic and tactical behaviors of the f ocal associate, and the measure of desire for authenticity that had been developed for this study. One hundred and fifty two supervisors completed the Time 1 survey. The supervisors were 59% male, on average were 42.5 years old ( SD = 10.63), and had been a department supervisor for 3.0 years (SD = 1.2). They had worked for Home Depot for an average of 5 years or more. The ethnicity of supervisors was 67% Caucasian, 19% African American, 8% Hispanic, and 8% of other heritage. The supervisors on average had 5 .8 direct report associates (SD = 3.97). Two weeks after completing the Time 1 survey, supervisors were given the Time 2 survey. This survey included the measures of perceived ability, perceived integrity, and positive and negative affect towards the assoc iate. Of the one hundred and fifty two supervisors who completed the first survey, 112 also competed the Time 2 survey, for a response rate of 73%. Finally, two weeks after completing the Time 2
57 survey, supervisors were given the Time 3 survey. This survey included measures of the perceived eff ectiveness ( perceived value career opportunities) of the associate. The Time 3 survey was completed by 103 supervisors for a completion rate of 67%. A comparison between Time 1 and Time 3 did not reveal any statical ly significant difference in participant demographic variables. Complete data, which includes surveys from all three time waves was available for 103 supervisors. Measures Time 1 Desire for a uthenticity The DFA scale used in this study was created follow ing creating items for potential inclusion in a survey measure, researchers should start with more items than will be used in the final measure and rely on participant asses sment of these items to make the inclusion determination (Hinkin, 1998; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999). Accordingly, twelve authenticity adjectives (i.e., items) were created to reflect the cting in a way could be evaluated against words that represent an actor appearing either likeable or dedicated. Therefore, I also created an additional twelve adjecti ves, six each for 1). Undergraduate students ( N = 212 ) were recruited from a large southeastern university to complete an online survey that contained the three definitions. Participants wer e randomly assigned to either the were asked to rate how well the
58 items matched the definition using the following scale: 1 (the adjective is a n extremely bad match to the definition provided above), 2 (the adjective is a very bad match to the definition provided above), 3 (the adjective i s a somewhat bad match to the definition provided above), 4 (the adjective is a n adequate match to the definition provided above), 5 (the adjective is a somewhat good match to the definition provided above) 6 (the adjective is a very good match to the def inition provided above) and 7 (the adjective is a n extremely good match to the definition provided above). By using 5.4 out of 7 as a natural break in the mean responses to the authentic items, and 5.7 out of 7 as the natural break for the likeable and de dicated items, the top six highest rated adjectives were retained for each of the three definitions, and used in the subsequent field study. One way ANOVA indicated that the means for the retained adjectives were different when compared to the adjective me ans from the alternate conditions (see Table 4 2). Further, an exploratory factor analysis revealed that the retained items loaded on three separate factors explaining 86.1% of the variance. The average factor loading was .91 (item level factor loadings ar e presented in Table 4 2). Additionally the retained adjectives for the authenticity, likeable, and dedicated definitions demonstrated good reliability (the coefficient alpha was .96, 97, and 97 respectively). For the field study, supervisors were asked t o read the following statement When you consider what you think of other people, do you care more about them twelve items that pitted an authenticity adjective against either a likeable or a dedicated adjective. Supervisor s were asked to distribute 10 points among each item based on their preference (i.e., de sire) for how other people act, with h igher scores indicated a stronger preference for the
59 representative behavior. A sample item for authenticity versus likeable was / For example, if a supervisor then that supervisor would have a stronger preference for authenticity (tr u e) over dedication (committed) for that item Similar techniques have been previously used to measure preference and degree (e.g., Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1985). However, only the scores for the authenticity adjectives were utilized, given concerns abo ut non independence in these types of measures (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). The coefficient alpha for this scale was .78. Authenticity Using a 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often) scale, supervisors were asked followin they are followed by items from the Bolino and Turnley (1999) ingratiation and exemplification impression management scales, modified to remove the motive component from the item For example, Bolino was changed in m The other three modified items were, The coefficient alpha was .80. Tacticalness Supervisors engage in each of the following behaviors to influence the image you have of them to
60 manage your impressions? followed by the same Bolino and Tur nley (1999) scale and modified items included in the authenticity measure. The coefficient alpha was 9 0. Time 2 Perceived a bility The perceived ability dimension of trustworthiness was measured using the 6 item scale developed by Mayer and Davis (1999). Using 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), supervisors associate, and circle the number that best describes how much you agree or disagree were ery ciate has specialized capabilities that associate is Perceived i ntegrity The perceived integrity dimension of trustworthiness was measured using the 6 item scale dev eloped by Mayer and Davis (1999). Using 1 associate, and circle the number that best describes how much you agree or disagree actions and behaviors are very consi The coefficient alpha was .88.
61 State a ffect Positive and Negative affect was measured using the 20 item PANAS X (Watson & Clark, 19 94). Using a 1 (Very slightly to Not at all) to 5 The coeffic ient alpha for positive affect was .94. The coefficient alpha for negative affect was .96. Time 3 effectiveness of the focal associate. Perceived effectiveness represents a high er order construct, composed of two separate subscales (perceived value and career opportunities ), both measuring a facet of perceived effectiveness. Perceived value to organization Perceived value to organization was measured using the 9 item scale fro m Long, Baer, and Colquitt (2013 ). Using 1 associate rate your level of agreement with the following items. This associate compa ny makes the company more effective helps the company achieve higher performance makes a strong contribution to the company is very useful to the company makes the company more collaborative is very important to the company gives us an advantage over other companies is held in high regard in the company The coefficient alpha was .96.
62 Perceived c areer opportunities The perceived career opportunities dimension of the Gould and Penley (19 84) effective career management scale w as measured using 6 items. Using 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), supervisors were clude d effectively keeps career options open effectively develops new skills which may be needed in future career positions effectively prepares for career opportunities which may materialize effectively obtains broadly based work experiences in this organization effectively assumes leadership in work areas where there appears to be no leadership effectively coefficient was .87. Control Variables Neuroticis m Although neuroticism was included as a control in the hypothesized model. Neuroticism reflects a research has suggested t behavior, and subsequent reactions to those attributions (Corr & Gray, 1996). Moreover, controlling for neuroticism is one statistical remedy for dispositional sources of common method bias (Podsak o f f et al., 2003). Neuroticism was measured using 7 items from scales developed by Donnelan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas (2006), and Goldberg (1999).
63 Factor Structure I assessed the factor structure of th e tacticalness, authenticity, and desire for authenticity measures using a confirmatory factor analyses in Mplus 6.11 ( Muthn & Muthn, 2010) All measures were treated as latent factors with item level indicators in which the four likeable tactical and t he four dedicated tactical items were allowed to lo ad on a latent tac t i calness variable ; the four likeable authentic and the four dedicated authentic items were allowed to load on a latent authenticity variable; and the twelve desire for authenticity item s were allowed to load on a latent desire for authenticity variable. Using this structure, the three factor model provided a good fit to the data : 2 ( df = 325 N = 103 ) = 522.36 p < .0 1 ; comparative fit index ( CFI ) = .91 ; root mean square error of approx imation ( RMSEA ) = .06; standardized root mean square residual ( SRMR ) = .07 Based on this fit, I analyze d all hypotheses at a two factor tacticalness and authenticity level of abstraction. The average factor loading was (.74) for tacticalness ; (.67) for au thenticity ; and (.50) for desire for authenticity. I also assessed the factor structure of the Time 2 and Time 3 dependent variables. With respect to Time 2, a four factor model including perceived ability, perceive d integrity, supervisor positive affect, and supervisor negative affect provided a good fit to the data: 2 ( df = 437 N = 103 ) = 879 .27, p < .0 1 ; CFI = .90 ; RMSEA = .08 ; SRMR = .07 With respect to Time 3, a two factor model including perceive d value and career opportunities provided a good fit to the data: 2 ( df = 95 N = 103 ) = 220 16, p < 01 ; CFI = .93 ; RMSEA = .10; SRMR = .06 Subsequently, I treated these two factors as scale level indicators of a latent, higher order perceived effectiveness factor (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). To illustrat e the internal consistency of those two scale scores,
64 the higher order composite formed from the two indicators would have a coefficient alpha of 95 at the item level, and .80 at the scale level
65 Table 4 1. Authentic, like able, and dedicated adjective s Authentic Likeable Dedicated Real Cooperative Committed Genuine Polite Loyal Sincere Nice Devoted Honest Friendly Hard working True Kind Motivated Authentic Likeable Dedicated Factual Appreciative Faithful Candid Favor doing Unselfish Legiti mate Flattering Conscientious Actual Sugary Steadfast Accurate Pleasant Unwavering Valid Giving Enthusiastic Table 4 2 Desire for authenticity items assessed for content validity Item Authentic condition Likeable condition Dedicated condition F tes t Factor Loading Real 6.07 4.90 4.13 19.04 .93 Genuine 6.31 5.26 4.34 19.46 .93 Sincere 5.40 5.30 4.25 8.43 .81 Honest 5.57 4.95 4.40 6.45 .87 True 5.87 4.60 4.22 12.95 .92 Authentic 6.59 4.84 4.24 6.48 .91 Cooperative 3.16 5.78 4.63 41 .36 .78 Polite 3.57 6.05 3.93 36.01 .92 Nice 3.51 6.19 3.84 42.67 .94 Friendly 3.51 6.33 3.88 45.92 .93 Kind 3.44 6.01 3.62 44.47 .92 Likeable 3.41 6.52 3.80 53.66 .92 Committed 3.91 5.16 6.09 30.16 .94 Loyal 4.06 5.51 5.79 17.63 .88 Devoted 3.90 5 .18 6.01 25.62 .92 Hard working 3.50 4.90 6.02 39.62 .93 Motivated 3.43 5.01 6.10 51.58 .89 Dedicated 3.87 5.13 6.41 41.34 .93 Note. n = 68 73 for each condition Only retained items are shown. Values listed are item means. All mean comparisons signifi cant at p < .05.
66 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics T he means, standard deviations, and zero order correlations of the variables used for hypotheses testing are presented in Table 5 1 Table 5 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero or der correlations of all variables at a facet level As shown in Table 5 1 the mean level of authenticity was higher than the mean level of tactical ness. This is of note because as pervasive as impression management concerns purportedly are in organizatio n s the supervisors in this sample perceive d their and dedicated behaviors as occurring more for authentic than for strategic or tactical reasons Mor eover, surprisingly the data here suggests that as a group, supervisors were somewha t neutral in their preference for authenticity from others, as indicated by the reported mean desire for authenticity score of 5.04 out of 10 (SD = .71). Table 5 1 also shows that tacticalness and authenticity are only moderate ly correlated ( r = .24), offe ring some evidence of dis c riminant validity between the two categorizations. Independently authenticity is positively related to perceived ability ( r = .19), perceived integrity ( r affect toward the associate ( r = .41 ). These correlations provide initial indication that the likeable and dedicated behaviors that are attributed to highly regarded by supervisors In contrast tacticalness was unrelated with many outcome variables showing o nly a weak positive correlation with the supervisor s positive affect towards the associate These results suggest that perhaps tacticalness, when compared to authenticity, is held in neither high nor low regard by supervisors. Moreover it is authenticity and not tacticalness, that has a significant relationship to a
67 perceived effectiveness of an associate ( r = .46 ) At a zero order level, this hints at the possible benefits for associates who are perceived as showing au thenticity at work T ests of Hypotheses The hypotheses in this study were tested using st ructural equation modeling in M plus version 6.11 ( Muthn & Muthn, 2010) Given the relatively small sample size, I tested the hypothesized relationships in Figure 3 1 using a partially la tent model in which scale scores were used as single indicators of latent variables with error variances set to (1 alpha)* the variance (Kline, 2011 ). In addition to the hypothesized paths, I allowed the residuals of the exogenous variables to covary in o rder to represent unmeasured common causes. Mediation hypotheses were tested in the structural model by using the product of coefficients approach advocated by M a cKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) From that approach, mediation can be show n if an independent variable has a significant indirect effect on a dependent variable when a direct effect is also modeled. Moderation hypotheses were also tested within structural equation modeling following past recommendations (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001; Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher, & Crandall, 2007; Mathi eu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). Independent variables were centered in order to reduce nonessential multicollinearity. Product terms were then created fro m these c entered variables, and set in M plus as single indicators of the latent variables. As with the other latent variables, the error variances were set to (1 alpha)*variance. The product term alphas were created using formula 14 from Cortina et al. (20 01): [(reliability X *reliability Z ) + r 2 XZ ]/(1 + r 2 XZ ), where X is the independent variable, Z is the moderator, and r XZ is the
68 correlation between these two latent variables. In order to accurately interpret these moderation effects, direct effects were add ed from the moderator to the respective dependent variable even though these paths are not formally hypothesized. Moderation is shown when the product term is significant, and plotted to interpret the resulting pattern. Specifically, a direct effect was mo deled from desire for authenticity to perceived ability, perceived integrity, supervisor positive affect and supervisor negative affect Finally hypotheses. To do this, paths were included from neuroticism to all endogenous variables in the model. A comprehensive model of the tested paths in depicted in Figure 5 1. Fit statistics for this model were as follows: 2 ( 17 N = 103 ) = 40 25 p < .0 1 ; 2 / df = 2.36 ; CFI = 93 ; SRMR = 07 ; RMSEA = .11 Figure 5 1 shows the unstandardized path coefficients from the default Mplus output. Reactions to Tac t i calness and Authenticity Hypotheses 1 and 2 made predictions about the impact of tacticalness and authenticity on the pe rceived ability of the associate (i.e., actor) The portion of the tested structural model relevant to these predictions is summarized in Table 5 3 The control variable, neuroticism, showed a non significant relationship with perceived ability. Hypothesis 1 predicted that attributions of tacticalness would be positively related to perceive d ability. The table shows that although positive in sign (b = .0 6) the effect s ize was non significant. Thus, H ypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted tha t attributions of authenticity would also be positively related to perceived ability. As seen in the table, authenticity was positively related to perceived ability (b = .24 thus lending support to H ypothesis 2.
69 Hypotheses 3 and 4 made predictions regard ing the impact of tacticalness and authenticity on the perceived integrity of the associate As was the case with ability, neuroticism was not related to perceiv ed integrity. Specifically, H ypothesis 3 predicted that tacticalness would be negatively relate d to the perceived integrity of an associ ate. Table 5 3 shows that the effect size is negative (b = .10) b ut non significant. Therefore, H ypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted that authenticity would be s perceived integrity. As seen in the table, this was the case (b = 44 ), lending support to H ypothesis 4. Hypotheses 5 through 8 made predictions for the impact of tacticalness and authenticity on affect toward s the associate As seen in Table 5 3 the control variable neuroticism was negatively related to positive affect (b = .31), and positively related to negative affect (b = .22). I had predicted that tacticalness wo uld be negatively related to positive affect (H ypothesis 5), and positively related to negative affect (H ypothesis 6). From the table, it is shown that tacticalness was not related to positive (b = .02) or negative affect (b = .04) As such, neither Hypothesis 5 nor 6 was supported. Hypothesis 7 predicted that authenticity would be positively related to a affect Table 5 3 indicates that there was a positive relationship between authenticity and posit ive affect (b = .39), lending support to H ypothesis 7 Hypothesis 8 had predicted a negative relationship between authenticity and a affect As shown in the table, the negative relationship was not significant (b = .12), failing to p rovide support for H ypothesis 8.
70 Consequences of Tacticalness and Authenticity Hypothes es 9 through 16 predict ed indirect effects of tacticalness and authenticity on the perceived effectiveness of associate. dec omposition is shown in Table 5 4 Neither tacticalness nor authenticity showed a significant direct effect on perceived effectiveness, so any significant indirect results (i.e., significant product term from predictor mediator and mediator outcome) would indicate full m ediation (Sobel, 1982) H ypotheses 9 and 10 predicted the indirect effects of tacticalness and authenticity on perceived effectiveness through perceived ability. Specifically, Hypothesis 9 predicted a positive indirect effect of tacticalness on effectiven ess through ability. As seen in Table 5 4 the indirect effect was not statistically significant for tacticalness (.06 36 = .02), failing to support H ypothesis 9. Hypothesis 10 predicted a positive indirect effect of authenticity on effectiveness throug h ability. In this case, the positive indirect effect was statistically significant (.24 .36 = .09 ), lending support to H ypothesis 10. H ypotheses 11 and 12 predicted the indirect effects of tact icalness and authenticity on perceived effectiveness through perceived integrity. Specifically, Hypothesis 11 predicted a negative indirect effect of tacticalness on effectiveness through integrity. The indirect effect in Table 5 4 was not significant ( .10 43 = .04 ), failing to support H ypothesis 11. Hypothesi s 12 predicted a positive indirect effect of authenticity on effectiveness through integrity. The positive indirect effect in the table was significant ( .44 .43 = 20 ), lending support to H ypothesis 12. Hypotheses 13 and 14 predicted the indirect effect s of tacticalness and authenticity affect towards
71 the associate Specifically, Hypothesis 13 predicted a negative indirect effect of tacticalness on effectiveness through positive affect. The ind irect effect in Table 5 4 was not sig nificant (.02 29 = .01), failing to support H ypothesis 13. Hypothesis 14 predicted a positive indirect effect of authenticity on effectiveness through positive affect. The positive indirect effect in the table was si gnifican t (. 3 9 29 = .12 ), lending support to H ypothesis 14. Hypotheses 15 and 16 predicted the indirect effects of tacticalness and authenticity affect towards the associate Specifically, Hyp othesis 15 predicted a negative indirect effect of tacticalness on effectiveness through negative affect. The indirect effect in Table 5 4 was not significant (.04 .14 = .01 ), failing to support Hypothesis 15. Hypothesis 16 predicted a positive indirec t effect of authenticity on effectiveness through negative affect. As shown in the table, the indirect effect was not significant ( .12 .14 = .02 ), failing to support Hypothesis 16. Desire for A uthe nticity as a Moderating V ariable Hypotheses 17 through 20 suggested that the relationships between tacticalness authe nticity (DFA). Specifically, Hypothesi s 17 predicted that DFA would moderate the negative relationship between tactic alness and integrity, such that the relationship would be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low. Table 5 2 indicates that the Tacticalness Desire for Authenticity product term wa s not statistically significant, thus failing to support Hypothesi s 17. Hypothesis 18 predicted that DFA would moderate the positive relationship between tacticalness and ability, such that the relationship would be less positive when DFA is high, and more positive
72 when DFA is low. The table shows that the Tacticalness Desire for Authenticity product term was not statistically significant, failing to support Hypothesis 18. Hypothesis 19 predicted that DFA would moderate the negative relationship between tacticalness and positive affect towards the act or, such that the relationship would be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low. Table 5 2 shows that the Tacticalness Desire for Authenticity product term was statistically significant (b = .26) However, as shown by the plot i n Figure 5 2, rather than being more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low, the pattern indicated that the relationship was more positive when DFA is high, and more negative when DFA is low. Based on this pattern, Hypothesis 19 was n ot supported. Hypothesis 20 predicted that DFA would moderate the positive relationship between tacticalness and negative affect towards the actor, such that the relationship would be more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low. Table 5 2 shows that the Tacticalness Desire for Authenticity product term was statistically significant (b = .22). However, as shown by the plot in Figure 5 3, rather than being more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low, the pattern indicated that the relationship was more negative when DFA is high, and more positive when DFA is low. Based on this pattern, Hypothesis 20 was not supported. Hypotheses 21 through 24 suggested that the relationships between authenticity and supervisory re authenti city. Specifically, Hypothesis 21 predicted that DFA would moderate the positive relationship between authenticity and integrity, such that the relationship would be more positive when DFA i s high, and less positive when DFA is low. Table 5 2 indicates that
73 the Authenticity Desire for Authenticity product term was not statistically significant, failing to support Hypothesis 21. Hypothesis 22 predicted that DFA would moderate the positive re lationship between authenticity and ability, such that the relationship would be more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low. The table shows that the Authenticity Desire for Authenticity product term was not statistically significa nt, failing to support Hypothesis 22. Hypothesis 23 predicted that DFA would moderate the positive relationship between authenticity and positive affect, such that the relationship would be more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low. Table 5 2 indicates that the Authenticty Desire for Authenticity product term was statistically significant (b = .33). Figure 5 4 indicates that as predicted, the relationship was more positive when DFA is high, and less positive when DFA is low, thus l ending support to Hypothesis 23. Hypothesis 24 predicted that DFA would moderate the negative relationship between authenticity and negative affect, such that the relationship would be more negative when DFA is high, and less negative when DFA is low. The table shows that the Authenticity Desire for Authenticity product term was not statistically significant, failing to support Hypothesis 24
74 Table 5 1 Mean, standard deviations, and zero order correlations for hypothesis testing Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Tacticalness 2.36 0.90 (. 90 ) 2. Authenticity 3.01 0.87 .24* (. 87 ) 3. Desire for authenticity 5.04 0.71 .24* .02 (. 78 ) 4. Associate perceived ability 4.23 0.66 .11 .19* .15 (. 92 ) 5. Associate p erceived integrity 4.01 0.68 .02 .43* .04 .40* (. 88 ) 6. Supervisor positive affect 3.56 0.78 .15 .41* .26* .28* .32* (.9 4) 7. Supervisor negative affect 1.38 0.65 .14 .07 .23* .23* .24* .23* (.96 ) 8. Perceived effectiveness 3. 50 0.3 2 0 9 .46 .11 52 56 .54* .25* (. 95 ) 9. Supervisor neuroticism 2.09 0.54 .04 .08 .06 .01 .03 .11 .21* .01 (. 82 ) Note. n = 103 152. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal. p < .05, p < .10 Desire for authenticity uses a 10 point sc ale. All other variables use a 5 point scale.
75 Table 5 2 Mean, standard deviations, and zero order correlations of faceted tacticalness, authenticity and outcome variables Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Tacticalness Lik eable 2.23 0.92 (. 86 ) 2. Tacticalness Dedicated 2.49 1.06 66 (. 87 ) 3. Authenticity Likeable 2.88 0. 99 .31* .07 (. 87 ) 4. Authenticity Dedicated 3.15 0.97 08 31* 57* (. 80 ) 5. Desire for authenticity 5.04 0.71 .22* .23 .06 .03 (. 78 ) 6. Associate perceived ability 4.23 0.66 .06 .13 .09 .24* .15 (. 92 ) 7. Associate perceived integrity 4.01 0.68 .03 .06 .39* .37 .04 .40* (. 88 ) 8. Supervisor positive affect 3.56 0.78 .13 .15 .33* .39* .26* .28* .32 (.9 4) 9 Supervisor negative affect 1.38 0.65 .14 .12 .03 .09 .23 .22 .24* .23* (.96 ) 10 Perceived value to org 3.90 0. 73 .02 06 30* 35 .03 .55 .58* .57 .36* (. 96 ) 11 Perceived career opp 3. 4 4 0.72 15 27* .18 28 .17 .49* .50* .44* .15 .67* (.87 ) Note. n = 103 152. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal. p < .05, p < .10 Desire for authenticity uses a 10 point scale. All other variables use a 5 point scale.
76 Table 5 3 Structural equation modeling re sults for perceived ability, integrity, positive and negative sentiment Variable Perceived ability Perceived integrity Supervisor positive affect Supervisor negative affect Supervisor neuroticism 08 01 31 22 Tacticalness 06 10 .02 0 4 Authenticity 24 .44 .39* .12 Desire for authenticity .14 .01 .37* .21 Tacticalness Desire for authenticity .0 8 02 .26 .22 Authenticity Desire for authenticity .01 .09 .33* .03 R 2 10 21 32 12 Note. n = 103. p < .05, p < .10. Table 5 4 Effect Decomposition Results for Mediation Tests Supervisor Attribution Mediators [Specific path] Perceived effectiveness of associate Indirect Effects Direct Effect Total Effect Tacticalness Perceived a b ility (H9) Perceived Integrity (H11) Positive affect (H13) Negative affect (H15) .0 2 04 01 .0 1 01 0 2 Authenticity Perceived a bility (H10) Perceived Integrity (H12) Positive affect (H14) Negative affect (H16) 09 .20 12 02 .0 5 36 Note. n = 103. p < .05, p < .10.
77 Figure 5 1. Summary of the tested model. Moderator and control variable direct paths to outcomes not shown.
78 Figure 5 2 Interaction plot for Tacticalness P ositive affect Figure 5 3 Interaction plo t for Tacticalness N egative affect 2.7 2.95 3.2 3.45 3.7 3.95 4.2 Low High Positive affect Tacticalness High DFA Low DFA 0.7 0.95 1.2 1.45 1.7 1.95 Low High Negative affect Tacticalness High DFA Low DFA
79 Figure 5 4 Interaction plot for Authenticity P ositive affect 2.1 2.35 2.6 2.85 3.1 3.35 3.6 3.85 4.1 Low High Positive affect Authenticity High DFA Low DFA
80 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION From the perspective, impression management is a straightforward process with two components mpressions, and the subsequent action (i.e., behavior) chosen as a means to try and elicit a certain desired attribution from a target (Leary & Kowalski 1990) Although straightforward, s cholars have argued that for an actor this process can be a tricky b usiness, because what one desires is not what o ne always realizes (Cialdini & De Nicholas, 1989). This trickiness exists to a large extent because actions must be received, interpreted, and reacted to by a n observing target before the action can be evaluated in terms of success of failure. As noted by one pair of scholars when describing the precariousness of image management he same behavior may be seen as friendly, warm, and cooperative, or as devious, manipulative, and ingratiating he perc eiver of a congenial, (Jones & Baumeister, 1976 ; p. 654). Despite the ubiquity of impression management in organizations, and t he momentum that has been gained by research in general on the topic, little is known targets react to different attribution s for the same behaviors. Therefore in this dissertation I sought to address two overarching q perspective of impression management. First, how does a target react to different attributions regarding the nature and intent of common positive workplace behavio rs by a direct report actor and additionally do those reactions ultimately impact how the actor is perceived in terms of overall effectiveness in the organization? Second what is the
81 impact of a preference, or desire for authenticity on initial reactions to both tactical and authentic attributions for these positive behaviors? In the following sections, I summarize the results that are relevant to these research questions, and then discuss the theoretical implications, practical implications, and limitations of this research. Summary of Results Outcomes of Ta c t i calness and Authenticity In the first section of this dissertation, I s ought to investigate the cognitive and affe ctive reactions that targets (i.e., supervisor s ) have to wards actors (i.e., associates) who display likeable and dedicated workplace behavi ors in either a tactical or authentic manner Most research on these behaviors has predominantly existed in the literature on impression management, and suggests that an individual who successfully create s an impression of someone who is likeable and dedic ated at work stand s to reap positive benefits for doing so ( Bolino et al., 2008; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989; Gordon, 1996; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). were contingent on the attribution for that behavior. Specifically, I suggested that when authenticity was the perceived origin for likeable and dedicated behaviors then the supervisor of that associa te would see such behavior as a positive indicator Additionally, I suggested that authenticity would invoke stronger positive and weaker negative affect from the supervisor towards the associate. Clearly, the results show that authenti city was positively related to a number of outcomes, and highly regarded by supervisors in the organization (Harvey et al., 2010). As expected, authenticity was positively linked to perceived integrity, perceived ability, and positive affect. Authenticity
82 was not related to negative affect. These results suggest that regardless of the actual the boss attributes these authenticity then the boss will likely have positiv e r eactions towards that employee (Allen & Rush, 1998; Dubrin, 2005; Eastman, 1994; Johnson et al., 2002). From a theoretical standpoint, these results suggest that when observers are able correspond positive behaviors to attributions for those behaviors t hat are also positive in nature or intent, then those observers are more likely to react favorably (Jones, 1990; Jones & Davis, 1965). These particular results are noteworthy because unlike many field studies that have relied on measures of behaviors that are laden with a self presentation al motive (e.g., Bol ino & Turnley, 1999; Lee et al., 1999; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) my results rely on a measure that excludes this potential artifact and are thus able tease out the effects of likeable and dedica ted behaviors attributed exclusively to authenticity. Also, I had speculated that the more proximal cognitive and affective reactions to authenticity would serve as a channel towards more distal evaluative outcomes. I predicted that authenticit effectiveness, indirectly through perceived integrity, perceived ability, and supervisor affect Building from leadership scholars who note that there is a premium placed on a behavior tha t is deemed authentic by followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2004; I lies Morgeson, Nahrgang 2005) particularly when compared to the inauthentic alternative (Dasborough & Ashkansay, 2004) I predicted similar implications for supervisors when assessing their as sociates. My results indicate that indeed there are indirect effect s of authenticity on perceived effectiveness through perceived ability, perceived integrity,
83 That is, associates who are perceived as authentic, or true to them selves when behaving in a likeable and dedicated manner are seen as better career managers, and more valuable to the organization (Allen & Rush, 1998) My results did not show a direct effect between authenticity and perceived effectiveness, so the results occur at least in part because of what the supervisor thinks about the associate s ability and integrity, a n d how positively the supervisor feels toward s the associate T he overall takeaway for likeable and dedicated workplace behaviors is that a n attribution of authenticity for these behaviors is well regarded and highly valued by supervisory target s in an organization However, perhaps the overall takeaway for these same behaviors being attributed to tacticalness is that an attribution of tactic alness is neither highly regarded and valued, nor is it poorly regarded and negatively valued by s upervisors in an organization. In fact, tacticalness appear s rather neutral when it comes to their cognitive and emotional reactions. I had speculated that s upervisors would cognitively react to tacticalness by rating associates as higher in ability, because tacticalness was a n associate s way of explicitly and purposefully demonstrating workplace behaviors (e.g., kindness, hard work) that are positive for bot h the supervisor and the organization However, I had also speculated that al though the behaviors were positive in nature, an associate having an impression management motive would still be interpreted as somewhat dishonest, and this would lead to lower ra tings of perceived integrity. Surprisingly, as indicated by the results, both perceived ability and perceived integrity were not impacted by an as overall the supervisors were ambivalent with their cognitive
84 reactions. This result was despite previous research that suggests that known impression managers are rated higher in effort and ability (Gilbert & Jones, 1986; Pandey & Singh, 1987) and are seen as seen as duplicitous and suspicious by many observers (Vonk, 1998). The aforem entioned findings on cognitive reactions are also in accord ance with the results on affective reactions that supervisors had I had predicted that attributions of tacticalness for likeable and dedicated behaviors would elicit more negative, and less positive affect from a supervisor Instead, tacticalness had no impact on the positive or negative affect towards the impression managing associate. Similar to their cognitive reactions, supervisors were benign in thei r affective responses to tacticalness These finding s stand in contrast to other theoretical arguments that have suggested that attributions of intentionality are followed by affective reactions (Weiner, 1995), and that affect will covary with the valence of the attribution (Halbesleben et al., 2010). The lack of any positive reaction (i.e., higher perceived ability) to tacticalness can potentially be explained by how attributions are made. When making attrib utions for behaviors, observers (e.g., targets) credit the person (e.g., actor) for any outcome that is connected with that behavior (Jones, 1990; Martinko & Thomspson, 1998) For example, if a basketball player misses a shot, an observing fan will attribute that miss to the player s lack of skill, and not the noise from the crowd. Therefore, if an associate is perceived as tactically doing a personal favor for the supervisor, or stays late to work overtime then the supervisor places this motive squarely on the shoulders of the associate, and not on some external cause, such as the
85 environment Therefore, it is conceivable that instead of detecting higher ability as predicted a super visor c ould see tacticalness as a signal of some unpredicted, and other innate characteristi c of the associate, such as basic effort, or trying at work. The lack of any negative reaction ( i.e. lower perceived integrity and positive affect higher negative affect ) can also be explained but for several different reasons. First, the likeable and dedicated behaviors included in this dissertation represent actions associated with the impression management concerns of ingratiation and exemplification respectively Neither of these concerns involves associates acting egoistically and self promotional but instead involves them behaving in a manner that deflects attention away from themselves and towards their supervisor and work duties By doing so, image management becomes seen as less selfish and duplicitous ( Mealy, Stephan, & Urrutia, 2007; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Second, it is possible that supervisors, who are the targets of impression management, are less sensitive to tacticalness than are non target bystanders and observers (Baumeister, 1982) who might easily see tacticalnes s as bootlicking or deceitful (Ferris, Kacmar, & Wayne, 1995) Moreover, s upervisory targets, in contrast to non targets, benefit directly from the positive behaviors included in this study. Therefore although done for image enhancing reasons, targets mig ht not react as adversely as non target s to these behaviors. Third there could be an offsetting effect between behaviors that are beneficial and expected (Eddleston et al., 2002; Pandey, 1980), and motives that are seen as surprising or even detrimental ( Baumeister, 1982; Buss & Briggs, 1984; Fein, 1980; Ham & Vonk, 2011). Any p ositive reactions to kindness and hard work, when combined with any negative reactions to image management as the main driver of those
86 behaviors, could create a net zero effect whe n it comes to measuring supervisor reactions. F inally some scholars have argued that impression management is not necessarily synonymous with inauthentic ity (see Leary & Allen, 2001). As such, instead of viewing tacticalness as lying and fakery, perhaps t he supervisors in this study see tacticalness as harmless attempts at drawing appropriate, and even accurate images of themselves at work, and thus react more neutrally to impression management. Desire for Authenticity as a Moderator In the se cond section of this dissertation, I sought to investigate how certain dispositions inherent to supervisors might influence how they react to attributions of tacticalness and authenticity. Specifically, I measured each supervisor s desire for authenticity in others to see if that preference would moderate the relationships between behavioral attribution and subsequent reaction. For authenticity, I had predicted that a higher DFA would amplify and the subsequen t supervisor ratings of perceived ability, integrity, positive affect, and negative affect. Unfortunately, as indicated in the results, DFA did not moderate the links to ability, integrity, or negative affect. However, as expected, DFA did moderate the lin k to positive affect. Supervisors who held a higher desire for authenticity in others also showed towards those associates. It is likely that for supervisors who are high in DFA, att ributions of authenticity for these actions are pleasing because not only is the associate meeting their expectations for what they consider appropriate workplace behavior but the supervisors ca n also claim credit for being good boss es (Miller & Turnbull, 1986).
87 For tacticalness, I had suggested that a higher DFA would weaken the positive connection between tacticalness and perceived ability, and amplify the negative connections to perceived integrity and positive affect, as well as amplify the positive c onnection to negative affect Unfortunately, as indicated by the results, I found no moderating effects on the links to perceived ability and integrity authenticity in others did not influence the connection between their initial r atings of an ir perceived ability and integrity. Somewhat surprising however, desire for authenticity did influence the links between tacticalness and affective reactions, but in a manne r that was unpredicted. For instance, although tacticalness had no main effect on supervisory affect, higher DFA did positively influence the link between tacticalness and positive affect, and negatively influence the link to negative affect. A possible ex planation for these findings comes from research suggesting that those who perceive themselves as having power and authority over others respond favorably to ingratiation ( Dubrin, 2005; Pandey & Singh, 1987) Perhaps supervisors who self report that they p refer authenticity in others also se e themselves as morally superior and holding a power advantage over others. Therefore, they respon d more favorably and less negatively to impression management, particularly when it is performed to win their favor. As s uch perhaps f or these high DFA supervisors impression management is possibly a stimulus that evokes positive affect (see Pandey & Kakk ar, 1982). Theoretical Implications This dissertation has several important theoretical implications. First, this disse rtation contributes to attribution theory by testing a fully developed model that includes the complete
88 evaluation of that same person Much of the re search on attributions in organizatio ns has focused on theory that explains how individuals search for and attach causes for behavior (see Martinko, Harvey, & Dasborough, 2011), leaving a relatively blank canvass about what happens once th os e causes have been determined. By separati ng likeable and dedicated behaviors into two different causal categories, I was able to leverage attribution theory to predict how targets react to attributions of tacticalness and authenticity therefore exploring a more developed and expansive attribution picture (Halbesleben et al., 2010) Furthermore, I answered calls for attribution research to include more key characteristics that might influence how individuals process attributions (Harvey et al., 2010) as it is likely that not all who make attributi ons are created the same and there is ground to gain by considering aspects other than the attribution itself Therefore, I created and included a measure of an desire for authenticity This measure has the potential to help explain how indiv iduals react to attributions in general, and could be instrumental when analyzing specific reactions to attributions made for image management and other egoistic behaviors Moreover, research using this measure could help shed light on wh y some individuals react more or less favorably to these types of actions (Nguyen et al., 2008; Turnley & Bolino, 2001) Second this dissertation contributes to research on impression management. Since much of what we know about impression management is from the impressio n perspective of impression management. This vantage is critical, as both the target and the actor are arguably of equal importance for evaluating the success of impression
89 management (Schlenker & Leary, 1982) Currently, impression evaluation has been (Leary & Allen, 2011). However, this paints an incomplete picture, and incorporating the the success or failure of efforts to impression manage Additionally, the results in this dissertation add to the established debate surrounding when impression management behaviors are seen as a cceptable or even desirable and when they are not ( Bolino, 1999; Crant, 1996; Nguyen, Seers, & Hartman, 2008 ; Turnley & Bolino, 2001 ) A body of research exists showing that impression management is common and fosters an environment that is socially appe aling to both actors and targets alike (Leary, 1995; Rosenfeld et al., 1 995). However, other research has shown that once targets become aware of the underlying motives behind impression management, their reactions sour (Moberg, 1989; Vonk, 1998) In this study, I showed that b oth camps have valid arguments. Clearly, the results show that behaviors are well regarded by targets when perceived as originating from authentic ity and that this positive regard basically disappear s when the behaviors are p erceived as originating from tactical ness However, the results in this dissertation do indicate that tacticalness is not as abhorred as some would suggest and that although not as well regarded as authenticity, it does not necessarily evoke negative reac tions from target others Third, and finally, this dissertation contributes to the growing literature on authenticity in organizations. Most of the current momentum in this literature focuses on leaders who are authentic (Harvey et al., 2006; Gardner et a l., 2011), and how those
90 who are associated with authentic leaders are influenced and impacted In this dissertation, I place the authenticity label on the associate (i.e., follower) and not on the supervisor (i.e., leader) By doing so, I establish that authenticity creates the potential of upward influence for employees towards their boss, as authentic associates were more likely to elicit positive reactions and evaluations from those who supervise them. Practical Implications This dissertation offer s a number of practical implications for both employees and organizations. For employees, p erhaps most glaring is the importance of drawing attributions of authenticity from influential others when performing likeable and dedicated behaviors at work. Employees should be apprised by mentors and leaders that being high in authenticity when demonstrating these behaviors is a functional approach to being successful at work, as doing so can not only lead to positive cognitive and emotional reactions from supervisors but it can impact how effective one is determined to be in an organization Ratings of effectiveness can ultimately impact other important workplace outcomes, such as performance ratings, pay and promotions. Moreover, employees should understand that sup ervisors who feel that they are benefiting directly from the authentic behaviors are more likely to repay those individuals who perform them with currencies (such as performance ratings, pay and promotions ) that are valuable or beneficial (Foa & Foa, 1980) Organizations could also benefit from this research as well. First, employee selection decisions could incorporate the likelihood that a potential employee will be const rued as authentic on the job. Second, managers when measuring job performance, should reflect on workplace behaviors, and consider
91 whether or not these behaviors are occurring authentically for tactical reasons, or both. Gain ing this perspective and insight can help managers better understand how and why they react in certain ways to some employees, and in different ways to others. Moreover, the goal of performance evaluation systems is to accurately identify and rate performa nce (Barsness et al., 2005), and considering both authenticity and impression management motives can potentially improve the accuracy and effectiveness of these systems Also, the research herein can be a useful tool for de velopmental purposes, as it can offer managers the opportunity to communicate to their employees that although they are demonstrating positive and valued workplace behaviors, it is the perceived cause or intent behind those behaviors that can impact how one is evaluated. Occasionally or ganizations will place a great deal of emphasis on the types of behaviors that are valued at work, through job descriptions and behavioral focused rating scales. This research suggests that focusing solely on behaviors is limited in scope, and that organiz ations should also consider the causes behind behaviors and incorporate way s to capture and articulate these causes Limitations As with any study, this dissertation was subject to several limitations that should be recognized and commented on. One limit ation is that I did not include self rating of likeable and dedicated behaviors, and instead relied on supervisor reports of these actions By doing so, I excluded a second source that could potentially reduce same source bias (Avo lio, Yamm arino, & Bass, 1991), and left open the possibility tha t what is recognized by a supervisor as authentic behavior could in fact be reported by an associate as tactical behavior or vice versa. In fact some research has suggested that
92 successful impression managers are very skilled politically, or are high self monitors able to leverage their abilities and the situation in creating and shaping desired images (Dubrin, 2011). However, paramount to this current research was the attribution made by a supervisor actually being tactical or authentic. Moreover, based on the relatively low correlation between tacticalness and authenticity, it did appear that supervisors were able to make a distinct ion between the two attributions, even though they were referred to the same likeable and dedicated behaviors. Second, the sample size is small for this research, particularly when considering the use of structural equation modeling and interaction tests The sample size was unfortunately limited by what was made available by the partici pating organization Home Depot. Also, as reported by several GMs, due to the somewhat sensitive nature of some of the questions regarding perceptions of associates, some su pervisors decided to withdraw form the study after the first time wave Third, the context is possibly a boundary condition for this study, and potentially poses a challenge for generalizing these results across other situations The data in this disserta tion were collected in a big box retail chain. Big box chains, like Home Depot, often only have a handful of associates assigned to work in each department, which for this study left onl y a few associates for supervisors to choose from. Although I encou r aged supervisors to be random in how they selected a focal associate, the reality is that many supervisors were left with a limited sample to choose from. Therefore, i t could be that supervisors were unable to be as objective about ratings as they would li ke to be. Also, supervisors completed their surveys while at work. As such, the location
93 could have created random error as the environment could have influenced survey responses
94 LIST OF REFERENCES Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. ( 1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87 49 74. Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309 327. Allen, T., & Rush, M. (1998). The effects of organiza tional citizenship behavior on performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 24 260. Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311 333). New York: Academic Press. Arkin, R. M., Cooper, H. M., & Kolditz, T. (1980). A st atistical review of literature concerning the self serving bias in interpersonal influence situations. Journal of Personality 48 435 448. Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadersh ip development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 16 315 338. Avolio, B. J., Yam marino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management 17 571 587. Baron, R. A. (1986). Self presentation in job interviews: too much of Journal of Applied Psychology 16 16 28. Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., DeGrassi, S. W. (2009) What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 1394 1411. Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. L. (2005). M otivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, an d social network centrality in impression management. Academy of Man agement Journal 48 401 419. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91 3 26. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5 323 370. Baumesiter, R. F. (1989). Motives and costs of self presen tation in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 57 72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
95 Bolino, M. C. (19 99). Citizenship and impression man agement: good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review 24 82 98. Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstra p, J. B. (2008). A multi level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management 34 1080 1109. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Meas uring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods 2 187 206. Bolino, M. C., & Turn ley, W. H. (2003a). Counterno rmative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of int imidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 237 250. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003b). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management 29 141 160. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004) The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citiz enship behavior. Human Resource Management Review 14 229 246. Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnle y, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression management tactics on superv isor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organiza tional Behavior 27 281 297. Brickman, P., & Seligman, C. (1974). Effects of publ ic and private expectancies on attributions of competence and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality 42 558 568. Buss, A., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the sel f in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 1310 1324. Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon e ffect: The percepti on behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 893 910. Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Indirect tactics of image manage ment: Beyond basking. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organiz ation (pp. 45 56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self presentation by association. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes 57 626 631.
96 Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., & Aiken L. S. (2003). Applied mult iple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavior al sciences (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996 ). A predictive model of self managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations 49 643 676. Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social exchange network : A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management 27 142 167. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Tru st, trustworthiness, and tr ust propensity: A meta analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 909 927. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a be havioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizatio nal settings. Academy of Management Review 12 637 647. Combs, D. J., & Keller, P. S. (2010). Politicians and trust worthiness: Acting contrary to self interest enhances trustworthiness. Basic and Applied Psychology 32 328 339. Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? E mployee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review 30 765 776. Corr, P. J., & Gray, J. A. (1996). Structure and validity of the Attributional Style Questionnaire: A cross sample comparison. The Journal of psychology 130 645 657. Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods 4 324 360. Crant, J. M. (1996). Doing more harm than good: When is impression management likely to evoke a negative response?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26 (16), 1454 1471. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribu tion of intentionality in leader member relationships. Leade rship Quarterly 13 615 634. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2004). F ollower attributions of leader manipulative and sincere intentionality: A labor atory test of determinants and affective covariates. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 203 224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Deluga, R. J. (2004). Kissing up to the boss: What it is and what to do about it. Business Forum Fall Winter 2004, 267 288.
97 De luga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinat e performance and ingratiation in leader member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19 67 86. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The indepe ndence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 1105 1117. Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitley, W. (1989) Influence tactics and salary attainment: A gender specific analysis. Sex Roles 20 535 550. Dubrin, A. J. (2011). Impression management in the wo r kplace: Research, theory, and practice New York, NY: Routledge. Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder : An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 37 1379 1391. Eddlesto ntending with competing expectations from customers and management. Academy of Management Executive 16 85 95. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation a nd mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods 12 1 22. Erickson, R. J. (1995). Our society, our selves: Becomi ng authentic in an inauthentic world. Advanced Development 6 27 39. Etzioni, A. (1964). Mo dern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management o f information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Org anizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45 140 158. Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinki ng and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 1164 1184. Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bia s. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (5), 753. Feldman, D. C., & Klich, N. R. (1991). Impression man agement and career strategies. In R. A. Giacalaone & P. Rosensfelds (Eds. ), Applied impression management: How image making affects organizat ions (pp. 67 80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality a nd construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attributi on theory : An organizational perspective (pp. 231 252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
98 Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blas s, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence proces ses in organizations and human reso urce systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 21 65 127. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S. & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Polit ics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143 170). H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Foa, E., & Foa, U. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange : Advances in theory and research New York: Plenum Press. Gabarro, J. J (1978). The development of trust, influence and expectations. In A. Athos and J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The development of working relationships. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), The handb ook of organizational behavior Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H., & Luthans, F. (1983) Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy Of Management Journal 26 321 331. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 22 1120 1145. Gardner, W., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management 14, 321 388. Gardner, W., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An organizational perspective of the e ffects of dysfunctional impression management, In R. W. Gri Kelly, & J.M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizati ons: Non violent dysfun ctional behavior (pp. 69 125). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1989). Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1991). Applied imp ression management: How image making affects managerial decisions Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Exemplification: The self presentation of moral c 5 haracter. Journal of Personality 54 593 615. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W. & Krull, D. S. (1988). On c ognitive business: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 733 740.
99 Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of a pplicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Managem ent 15 557 564. Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 106 115. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Goldbe rg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 141 165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingr atiation on judg ments and evaluations: A meta analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 54 70. Gould, S., & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureau cracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34 244 265. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm or reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 161 178. Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 96 38 55. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel th e prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 48 58. Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you fe el. Personnel Psychology 62 31 55. Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23 429 458. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Bowler, W. M., Bolino, M C., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Organizational concern, prosocial values, or impression management? How supervisors attribute motives to organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40 1450 1489. Halbesleben, J. R. B. & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Attributio n and burnout: Explicating the influence of individual factors in the consequence s of work exhaustion. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 203 224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
100 Ham, J., & Vonk, R. (2011). Impressions of impr ession management: Evidence of spontaneous suspicion of ulterior motivation. Journal of E xperimental Social Psychology 47 466 471. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zi vnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. ( 2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 278 285. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M.J. (2010). Attribution theory and motivation. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizationa l behavior in health care, 2nd edition (147 164). Boston: Jones and Bartlett. Harvey, P., Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2010). p romoting authentic behavior in organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership Studies 12 1 11. Heider F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations New York: John Wiley & Sons. Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence t actics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations. A field study. Journal of Appl ied Psychology 89 622 632. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influe nce tactics and work outcomes: A meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 89 106. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures f or use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1 104 121. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of va riance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods 2 175 186. Hu, L., & Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit i ndexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 1 55. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (198 5). Test equity for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills 61 1055 1064. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well being: Understanding leader follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 16 373 394. Joh nson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. ( 2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships bet Journal of Applied Psychology 87 808 8 15.
101 Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton Century Crofts Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception New York: Freeman. Jones, E. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (1976). The self m onitor looks at the ingratiator Journal of Personality 44 654 674. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Jones, E., & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231 262. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. B. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approa ch. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and care er success. Journal of Management 20 43 65. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Ac ademy of Management Journal 36 80 105. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). Th e big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52 621 652. Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23 627 658. Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Bratton, V. K. (2004). Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 309 331. Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment int erview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 1250 1272. Kacmar, K. M., Harris, K. J., & Nagy, B. G. (2007). Furthe r validation of the Bolino and Turnley Impression Management Scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Management 9 16 32. Katz, D ., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
102 Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192 23 8). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebrask a Press. Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. K elley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attrib ution: Perceiving the cause of behavior (pp. 1 26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist 28 107 128. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457 501. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavi oral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Optimal self esteem and authenticity: Separating fantasy from reality. Psychological Inquiry 14 83 89. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self esteem. Psychological I nquiry 14 1 26. Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multi component conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38 283 357. Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Ac ademy of Management Journal 18 769 783. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Price, K., & Stitt, C. (1981). Why do I like thee: Is it your performance or my orders? Journal of Applied Psychology 66 324 328 Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). In traorganiza tional influence tactics: Explorations in getting ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology 65 440 452. Kipinis, D., & Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 280 286. Kline, R B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kumar, K. & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and v alidation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Jo urnal of Applied Psychology 76 619 627.
103 Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises a nd problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 25 59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review 23 741 755. Leary, M. R. (1993). The interplay of private self processe s and interpersonal factors in self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 127 155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leary, M. R. (1995). Self presentation: Impressio n management and interpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and em otional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology 58 317 344. Leary, M. R. (2011). Does impression management have and image problem?, In R. M. Arkin (Ed.), Most underappreciated: 50 prominent social psychologists describe their most unloved work (pp. 96 100 ). New York, NY: Oxford. Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Personality and per sona: Personality processes in self presentation. Journal of Personality 79 1191 1218. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression manag ement: A literat ure review and two component model. Psychological Bulletin 107 34 47. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety New York: Guilford Press. Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of management Journ al 14 213 226. Lee, S., Quigley, B. M., Nesler, M. S., Corbett, A. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Development of a self presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences 26 701 722. Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 1349 1364. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta analysis. Journal of Appl ied Psychology 87 52. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2005). Self det ermination and the use of self presentation strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology 145 469 489. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behavior in organizational s ettings. Academy of Management Review 13 572 587.
104 L ittle, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N A. Card (Eds .), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 207 230 ) Mhwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Long, D. M., C olquitt, J. A., & Baer, M. (2013 ). management motivations and implications of pr oviding support to star and project peers Unpublished manuscript. Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, informat ional, information processing, and situational factors affecting attributional theories of organizational behavior. Academy of Mana gement Review 8 50 60. Luthans, F., Norman, S., & Hughes, L. (2006). Authentic leadership: A new approach to a new time. In R. Burke & C. Cooper (Eds.), Inspiring leaders (pp. 84 104). London: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7 83 104. elf presen tation in personnel selection settings. Inte rnational Journal of Selection and Assessment 17 417 430. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist 41 954 969. Martinko, M. J. (2004). Parting thoughts: Current issues and futu re directions. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizati onal sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 229 306). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Harvey, P. (2006). Attrib ution t heory in industrial and organizational psychology: A review. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 127 187). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution process. Academy of Management Review 12 235 249. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavio r 32 (1), 144 149. Martinko, M. J., & Moss, S. E. (2004). An exploratory study of workplace aggression. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical
105 and empirical contributions (pp. 133 150). Greenwich, CT: Inform ation Age Publishing. Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. (1998). A synthesis of the Kelley and Weiner attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 20 271 284. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992) Influences of individual and situ ational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 35 828 847. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the p erformance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi experiment. Journal of App lied Psychology 84 123 136. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 709 734. Mealy, M., Stephan, W., & Carolina Urrutia, I. (2007). The acceptability of lies: A comparison of Ecuadorians and Euro Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31 689 702. Medoff, J. L., & Abraham, K. G. (1981). Are those paid more freely more productive? The case of experience. Journal of Human Resources 16 186 2 19. Miller, D.T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and In terpersonal processes. In M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 233 256). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. Mitchell, T. R., & Wood, R. E. (1980). Su responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25 123 138. Moberg, D. J. (1989). The ethics of impression manag ement. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impress ion management in the organization (pp. 171 188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Molstad, C. (1988). Control strategies used by in dustrial brewery workers; Work avoidance, impression management and solidarity. Human Organization 47 354 360. Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. 2010. Mplus 6.11 Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. Nagy, B., Kacmar, M., & Harris, K. (2011). Dispositio nal and situational factors as predictors of impression management behaviors. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 12 22 9 245.
106 Nguyen, N. T., Seers, A., & Hartman, N. S. (2008). Putting a good face on impression management: Team citizenship and team satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 9 148 168. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (20 06). Orga nizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pandey, J. (1980). Ingratiation as expected and manipulative behavior in Indian society. Social Change 10 15 17. Pandey, J., & Kakkar, S. (1982) action and positive evaluation as a function of enhancement of others. Psychological Reports, 50 479 486. Pandey, J., & Singh, A. K. (1986). Effects of Machiavell ianism, other enhancement, and power position on affect, power fee ling, and evaluation of the ingratiator. Journal of Psychology 121 287 300. Pandey, J., & Singh, A. K. (1987). Attribution and eva luation of manipulative social behavior. Journal of Social Psychology 126 735 744. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of respon se bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measure ment of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17 59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakof f, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 879 903. Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of Management R eview 10 477 487. Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. (1989). Ingratiation an d impression management in the organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 235 250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. H. (1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48 147 167. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attri bution in interpersonal p erception. Psychological Review 86 61 79. Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawr ence, M. (2004). Dispositional attribution: multiple inferences about motive related traits. Journal of Personality
107 Riordan, C. A. (1989). Images of managerial success. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 87 104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001) The causes of organi zational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 1306 1314. Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Processional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management Rev iew 30 685 711. Roman, S., & Ruiz, S. (2005). Relationship outco mes of perceived ethical sales Journal of Business Research 58 439 445. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A, & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression manageme nt i n organizations: Theory, measurement, practice New York: Routledge. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of be havioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affe ct. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 1161 1178. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63 506 516. Schilit, W. K., & Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of u pward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 27 304 316. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self prese ntation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492 518). New York: Guilford Press. Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Cli nical Psychology 27 1078 1125. ctions to self enhancing, self denigrating, and accurate self presentations. Journal of experimental social psychology 18 89 104. Schlenker, B. R., & Pontari, B. A. (2000). The strategic control of information: Impression management and self presentation in daily life. In A. Tesser, R. Felson, and J. Suls (Eds.), Perspectives on self and identity (pp. 199 232). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
108 Schlenker, B. R., and Weingold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43 133 168. Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psyc hology, 43 627 670. Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations 44 735 759. Schneider, D. J. (1981) Tactical self presentations : Toward a broader conception. Impression management and in fluence in organizations. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 23 40). New York: Academic Press. Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. cognitions: A ttributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 916 929. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290 312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the righ t impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology 80 587 606. Stone, E. F. (1989). Self presentation biases in org anizational research. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 189 202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Swann, W. B., Jr. (2012). Self verifi cation theory. In P. V an Lang, A. Kruglanski, & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 23 42) Sage: London. Tedeschi, J., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impressi on management and influence in organizations. In S. Bacharach & E. J. Lawl er (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31 58). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Tedeschi, J. T., Riess, M. (1981). Identities, the p henomenal self, and laboratory research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impressio n management theory and social psy chological research (pp. 3 22). New York: Academic Press. Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist 26 685 695.
109 Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). A n examinati on of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management 21 739 756. Thomson N. F., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Social attributional style: A conceptual and empirical extension of attributi onal style. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 173 202). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 848 855. Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (20 01). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 351 360. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cre mer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leader ship, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 825 856. Varma, A., Toh, S. M., & Pichler, S. (2006). Ingratiation in job applications: Impact on selection decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 200 210. Vil lanova, P., & Bernardin, H. J. (1991). Performance appraisals: The means, motive, and opportunity to manage impressions. In R. A. Giacala one & P. Rosensfelds (Eds.), Applied impression manage ment: How image making affects organizations (pp. 81 96). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vonk, R. (1998). The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior towards superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 849 864. Vonk, R. (1999). Differential evaluations of likeable and dislikeable behaviours en acted towards superiors and subordinates. European Journal of Social Psychology 29 139 146. Vonk, R. (1999b). Impression formation and impressio n management: Motives, traits, and likeability inferred from self promoting and self deprecating behavior. Soci al Cognition 17 390 412. Vonk, R. (2001). Aversive self presentations. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 79 155). Washington, DC: APA. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative af fect schedule (expanded form) Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa.
11 0 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Devel opment and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Ps ychology 54 1063 1070. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin 98 219 235. Watt, J. D. (1993). The impact of frequency of i ngratiation on the performance evaluation of bank personnel. Journal of Psy chology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 127 171 177. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, a ffect, and exchange quality in supervisor subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology 7 5 487 499. Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects o f impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organization al Behavior and Human Decision Processes 48 70 88. Wayne, S. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1995). Coworker resp onses to others' ingratiation attempts. Journal of Managerial Issues 277 289. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on pe rformance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 232 260. Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievemen t motivation in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Review 38 1442 1465. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility New York: Guilford. Weiner, B. (2004). Social motiv ation and moral emotions: An attribution perspective. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory in the organi zational sciences: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 5 24). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure Morristown, N. J.: General Learning Press. Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2007). Flattery will get you eve rywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): H ow ingratiation, board room behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal 50 267 288. Wexler, M. N. (1986). Impression management and t he new competence: Conjectures for see kers. Et cetera 43 247 258.
111 Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1986). Ge tting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 356 361. Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1981). Manager behavior in social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28 356 378. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and o bjectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 132 140. Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee se lf enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moder ating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 745 756. Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Carlson, D S., & Bratton, V. K. (2004). Interactive effects of impression manageme nt and organizational politics on job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 627 640.
112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David M. Long was a doctoral student in the Department of Management at the nistration. He received a BS in business administration from Presbyterian College in May 1995. While serving in the US Navy, he went on to receive his MBA from the University of Florida in 2004. After spending four years at The Home Depot, he began the Ph. D. program in August 2008. After receiving his Ph.D. David joined the faculty at the College of William & Mary as an Assistant Professor in Management. His research interests include impression management, organizational justice, and employee motivation.