scale development - kumar & beyerlein

Journal of Applied Psychology1991, Vol. 76, No. 5, 619-627

Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021-9010/91/S3.00

Construction and Validation of an Instrument for MeasuringIngratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings

Kamalesh KumarDepartment of Marketing and Management

Arkansas State University

Michael BeyerleinUniversity of North Texas

A measure of the frequency of employees' use of ingratiatory behavior at work was tested with asample of employees (N= 116) working in a wide variety of organizations and jobs. Pilot testingreduced a 65-item pool to a 24-item instrument with four factors: Other Enhancement, OpinionConformity, Self-Presentation, and Favor-Rendering. Internal consistency reliability was .92; test-retest reliability over one month was .73. Evidence for content, convergent, and discriminant valid-ity was substantial. The Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)should enable researchers to focus on the empirical study of ingratiatory behaviors in organ-izations.

Power, influence, and political behavior are ubiquitous informal organizations. The concept of power and influence inorganizational settings can be broadly referred to as the general-ized ability to change the actions of others in some intendedfashion (Mowday, 1978). Research on intraorganizational influ-ence has focused on both downward influence (the ways inwhich supervisors influence subordinates) and upward influ-ence (the ways in which subordinates influence their supervi-sors; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Linkskold, 1972).

Subordinates use a number of upward influence strategies toobtain personal benefits or satisfy organizational goals (Allen,Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkin-son, 1980; Mowday, 1978). Such strategies include upward ap-peal, assertiveness, blocking, coalition, exchange, rationality,support building, and ingratiation (Kipnis et al., 1980; Schrie-sheim & Hinkin, 1990). In this study, we concentrated solely oningratiation as an upward influence technique directed at im-mediate superiors. Although ingratiation is just one of the up-ward influence strategies used in organizational settings, it is adistinct construct with its own set of causes and consequencesand therefore deserves to be studied separately from other up-ward influence strategies (Liden & Mitchell, 1988).

Ingratiation: A Strategy of Upward Influence

The definition of ingratiation that guided this study is basedon Tedeschi and Melburg's (1984) definition of the term. In anorganizational context, ingratiation refers to a set of assertive

This study is based on Kamalesh Kumar's doctoral dissertation. Hewishes to express his appreciation for the assistance from his disserta-tion committee, especially Warren Watson, Chair, and Mary Thi-bodeaux.

We also thank three reviewers for their feedback on earlier versionsof this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ka-malesh Kumar, Department of Marketing and Management, Collegeof Business Administration, Arkansas State University, State Univer-sity, Arkansas 72467.

tactics that are used by organizational members to gain theapprobation of superiors who control significant rewards forthem. These rewards are foreseeable and rather imminent. Asone of a large class of political influence processes that areongoing in organizations, ingratiation involves strategic behav-iors designed to enhance one's interpersonal attractiveness. In-gratiating actions are usually directed toward objectives that arenot made explicit by the parties involved. Thus, although ingra-tiators may behave as though the issue at hand were their onlyconcern, they may be doing so to enhance their images in thetarget person's eyes or to achieve other personal goals of whichthe target person is unaware (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

In studies of upward influence in organizational settings,ingratiatory tactics have been among the strategies most com-monly used (Allen et al, 1979; Kipnis et al., 1980; Madison,Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle,1981). Ingratiation appears to be used in organizational settingsfor the same reason it is used in general social settings—toincrease one's attractiveness in the eyes of a more powerful per-son (Jones & Wortman, 1973). Enhanced attractiveness mayimprove a subordinate's chances of positive rewards (such as araise, a promotion, etc.) or reduce his or her chances of receivinga negative outcome (such as an adverse assessment, a cut inpay, etc.).

Tactical Variations of Ingratiation

In the organizational context, ingratiation can take all or anyof the forms by which interpersonal attraction may be solicited.In their laboratory experiments, Jones and Wortman (1973;Jones, 1964) demonstrated the use of four major ingratiationtactics: other enhancement, opinion conformity, rendering fa-vors, and self-presentation. Because ingratiatory behaviors pri-marily involve power-enhancing or dependence-reducing strate-gies, the use of these tactics ought to be endemic in organiza-tional settings, which abound in relationships involvingdifferential power. Although overt manifestations of such be-haviors may at times be restricted, partially inhibited by legiti-macy considerations, and occasionally eschewed because of the

619

620 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN

risks involved, the tendency toward such behaviors is neverthe-less present in organizations.

The use of other enhancement as an ingratiation tactic in-volves communication of directly enhancing, evaluative state-ments. The ingratiator finds ways to express a positive evalua-tion of the target person and emphasizes various strengths andvirtues. While distorting and exaggerating the target person'sadmirable qualities to convey the impression that he or she ishighly thought of, the ingratiator calls little attention to or to-tally ignores negative attributes.

Another set of techniques used by the ingratiator involvesexpressing opinions or behaving in a manner that is consistentwith the opinions, judgments, or behaviors of the target person.The tactics involved in opinion conformity can range from sim-ple agreement with expressed opinions, through more elabo-rate attempts at trying to articulate the position presumablyheld by the target person, to extremely complex forms of imita-tion and identification (Jones, 1964).

Favor doing is a logical ingratiation tactic because peopleusually react in a positive manner when someone does some-thing nice for them (Jones & Wortman, 1973). This behavior isbased on the reciprocity norm—doing a favor for another per-son can induce an obligation to reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960).Favor doing can also help foster an identity as a helpful, friendly,and considerate person (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984).

Self-presentation as an ingratiation tactic consists of makingexplicit verbal statements of one's own attributes to increase thelikelihood of being judged attractive by the target person. Self-presentation has two related aspects: (a) providing explicit de-scriptions about one's own characteristics and behaviors and (b)behaving in ways that imply that one possesses certain charac-teristics (Jones & Wortman, 1973).

Ingratiation in Organizational Settings

In recent years there has been considerable interest in ingra-tiatory tactics and consequences, but the topic has receivedlittle empirical attention from organizational researchers.Much of the attention the topic has received is from social psy-chologists (e.g., Baumeister, 1982; Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-man, 1973; Riggio & Friedman, 1986; Tedeschi, 1981; Tedeschi& Melburg, 1984), who made no attempt to generalize the find-ings to organizational settings.

Study of ingratiation strategies within organizations has beenextremely sporadic. Porter et al. (1981) recently observed thatthe subject of ingratiation has long been regarded as taboo be-cause of its mildly disturbing, negative connotations, and thatresearchers should try to develop a better understanding of thesubject. However, in spite of occasional exhortations like Porteret al.'s (Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Mel-burg, 1984), little has been done to improve the situation.

The study of ingratiation in organizational settings requiresidentification of specific tactics and some method of measuringthe frequency with which such tactics are used. In this article,we report the development and validation of an instrument thatcan be used to gather organizational members' perceptions ofthe use of such tactics. Such an instrument should help to bringthe topic of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings

within the realm of empirical research and to create interest ina topic that remains underresearched.

Previous Measurement Techniques

A review of the literature on ingratiatory behavior in organi-zational settings revealed that no instrument had been devel-oped to specifically measure ingratiatory behaviors in organiza-tional settings. Previous researchers, most notably those in so-cial psychology, relied primarily on experimental designs tomeasure this behavior or used items put together in an ad hocmanner (e.g., Pandey & Bohra, 1984; Pandey & Rastogi, 1979).Examination of the scales used by these researchers yieldedvery few items applicable to the study of ingratiatory behaviorsin organizational settings.

The only effort to construct a scientifically validated scale tomeasure ingratiation in organizational settings was made byKipnis et al. (1980). In the course of their research on intraor-ganizational influence tactics, Kipnis et al. identified a largenumber of influence tactics, which they later factor analyzed tocreate a number of subscales. One of the subscales (with sixitems) was labeled ingratiation. Although the influence-tacticstypology developed by Kipnis et al. has been generally sup-ported by other researchers (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Erez,Rim, & Keider, 1986; Yukl & Falbe, 1990), evidence regardingthe psychometric properties of the scale has been lacking. Re-cently, Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) extensively critiqued theresearch of Kipnis et al. (1980). Schriesheim and Hinkin foundthat many of Kipnis et al.'s items do not have strong contentvalidity and that the factor structure found by Kipnis et al. doesnot hold up particularly well.

After a number of studies (during which a number of itemswere added and deleted), Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) con-structed a refined 18-item instrument (six dimensions with 3items each). However, by their own admission, their study dealtwith only a very limited subset of psychometric properties thatmust be considered essential in a measuring instrument. Also,the subscale that measured ingratiation contained only 3 items.Clearly, the subscale did not include the four types of ingratia-tion tactics noted by previous researchers. Although Schrie-sheim and Hinkin's subscale may be useful for the study ofinfluence tactics in general, it is not comprehensive enough forthe specific study of ingratiatory behaviors in organizationalsettings.

Instrument Development

The instrument developed and validated in this study iscalled Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Set-tings (MIBOS). The scale was designed to measure the fre-quency with which ingratiatory tactics are used by subordinatesin superior-subordinate relationships.

Previous researchers have noted that the use of influencetactics will vary depending on the relationship between individ-uals (e.g., Falbo & Peplau, 1980) and that combining differentperspectives (superior, peer, subordinate) can substantially alteror distort the results relating to the use of influence tactics(Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Therefore, we deemed it impor-

INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS 621

tant to ground the measure in the context of subordinates' di-recting the tactics toward superiors.

Item Construction

On the basis of previous theory (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-man, 1973; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi &Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977) and researchrelated to upward influence behaviors in organizations (Kipniset al., 1980; Madison et al., 1980; Mowday, 1978; Porter et al,1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982), we generated a pool of ingratia-tory behaviors typically shown in organizational settings. Dis-cussions with a number of employees, first-level supervisors,and middle-level managers working in diverse environmentscontributed further to the pool of items.

Sixty-five items were generated for the initial pool. Of these65 items, 17 described opinion conformity, 18 were related toother enhancement, and 15 items each were descriptions ofself-presentation and favor-rendering behaviors. These itemswere analyzed by judges with different expertise (industrial psy-chology, organizational behavior, strategic management, andorganizational communication). Each judge was an academicwith a doctoral degree and substantial industry and manage-ment consulting experience. The judges reviewed the items forclarity, appropriateness, and content validity. There was a gen-eral consensus among the judges about the items included inthe initial pool of items.

All of the items in the pool were also examined by a group ofemployees and managers working in different environments.On the basis of the reviews of the experts and the employees,items that appeared to be ambiguous or subject to response biaswere either rewritten or omitted. This screening process re-sulted in the elimination of 10 items, leaving a pool of 55 itemsin the initial test instrument.

Pretesting

The instrument with 55 items was first administered to asample of management students (N= 78) who were full-time orpart-time employees attending evening classes. The subjectswere employed in a wide variety of organizations (retail, manu-facturing, wholesale, service, government, etc.) and jobs (man-ual, clerical, first-line supervisor, middle-level manager, etc.).

The instrument required the subjects to indicate the extent towhich they actually used the behaviors described by the itemsto influence their supervisors. Subjects were specifically cau-tioned not to make any judgment about the desirability or un-desirability of the behaviors described and to merely report thefrequency with which they showed each of these behaviorswhen dealing with their supervisors. Responses were recordedon a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: neverdo it (1), seldom do it (2), occasionally do it (3), often do it (4), andalmost always do it (5). Because subjects were to report thefrequency of actual behaviors, high scores should indicate moreuse of ingratiatory tactics.

Item Selection

One of the objectives at this stage of scale construction was toselect those items that provided the most accurate and appro-

priate description of the behavior under investigation. Itemswith higher item-total correlations were retained. To minimizeskewness and maximize variance, items with both larger means(around 3.0) and larger variances were retained. These proce-dures resulted in the elimination of 28 items, leaving the instru-ment with 27 items. The item-total correlations of these 27items ranged from .38 to .69. The scale was further reviewed forclarity, and where necessary, minor changes in wording weremade.

Phase 1: Item Selection

The scale with 27 items was administered to a new sample ofbusiness students (N= 148) who were employed either full timeor part time. Once again, the sample represented a wide varietyof jobs and organizations. Subjects were simultaneously admin-istered the short version of Crown and Marlowe's Social Desir-ability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to check if they wereresponding to the various items on the scale in a socially desir-able manner.

Item Review

Two criteria were used in item selection at this stage: item-to-tal correlations and lack of significant correlation with the So-cial Desirability Scale. On the basis of these criteria, 3 moreitems were dropped from the scale, leaving a total of 24 items.The item-total correlations for the remaining 24 items rangedfrom .45 to .66. The total score on the ingratiation scale did notcorrelate significantly with the total score on the Social Desir-ability Scale (r = .02). Correlations between each ingratiationitem and the total score on the Social Desirability Scale rangedfrom .00 to .09 and were not statistically significant.

Of the final 24 items, 7 each represented the categories ofopinion conformity and other enhancement, 6 items repre-sented the favor-rendering category, and 4 items represented theself-presentation category. The median score on the scale was67, the mean was 66.24, and the standard deviation was 14.65.The means, standard deviations, and item-total correlationsfor MIBOS are presented in Table 1.

Factor Analysis

Scores obtained on MIBOS were factor analyzed with theprincipal components method and oblique factor rotation. Be-cause the purpose of factor analysis at this stage was to obtaintheoretically meaningful dimensions, oblique factor rotationwas considered more desirable than orthogonal rotation (Hair,Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Nineteen of the 24 items loadedon two factors (eigenvalues 7.6 and 1.4), which accounted forover 37% of the variance (N = 148). Five items loaded ratherweakly on more than one factor. Thus, the results of the factoranalysis at this stage were somewhat inconclusive.

Subsequently, a second factor analysis was conducted withdata from another and much larger group of subjects (N= 346).Results of this second factor analysis yielded a four-factor solu-tion, generally interpretable in terms of the four ingratiationdimensions that were identified from theory and past research.These four factors accounted for 56.1% of the variance. How-


Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for 24-Item Measureof Ingratiating Behavior in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

Item M SD

Item-total

r Item M

Item-total

SD r

1. Impress upon your supervisor thatonly he/she can help you in a givensituation mainly to make him/herfeel good about himself/herself. 2.89 0.89 .55

2. Show him/her that you share his/her enthusiasm about his/her newidea even when you may notactually like it. 3.34 0.88 .45

3. Try to let him/her know that youhave a reputation for being liked. 3.51 1.23 .45

4. Try to make sure that he/she isaware of your successes. 2.77 1.13 .51

5. Highlight the achievements madeunder his/her leadership in ameeting not being attended byhim/her. 3.25 1.13 .58

6. Give frequent smiles to expressenthusiasm/interest aboutsomething he/she is interested ineven if you do not like it. 3.10 1.03 .57

7. Express work attitudes that aresimilar to your supervisor's as away of letting him/her know thatthe two of you are alike. 3.01 1.10 .64

8. Tell him/her that you can learn alot from his/her experience. 3.11 1.20 .63

9. Exaggerate his/her admirablequalities to convey the impressionthat you think highly of him/her. 3.57 1.02 .65

10. Disagree on trivial or unimportantissues but agree on those issuesin which he/she expects supportfrom you. 3.44 0.93 .52

11. Try to imitate such work behaviorsof your supervisor as working lateor occasionally working onweekends. 3.34 1.09 .52

12. Look for opportunities to let thesupervisor know your virtues/strengths. 2.58 1.04 .56

13. Ask your supervisor for advice inareas in which he/she thinks he/sheis smart to let him/her feel thatyou admire his/her talent. 3.11 1.06 .66

14. Try to do things for yoursupervisor that show your selflessgenerosity. 3.16 1.06 .56

15. Look out for opportunities toadmire your supervisor. 3.36 1.04 .60

16. Let your supervisor know theattitudes you share with him/her. 2.80 1.08 .65

17. Compliment your supervisor onhis/her achievement, howevertrivial it may actually be to youpersonally. 3.22 1.07 .52

18. Laugh heartily at your supervisor'sjokes even when they are not reallyfunny. 3.68 1.02 .51

19. Go out of your way to run anerrand for your supervisor. 3.07 1.14 .54

20. Offer to help your supervisor byusing your personal contacts. 3.23 1.18 .60

21. Try to persuasively present yourown qualities when attempting toconvince your supervisor aboutyour abilities. 2.95 1.09 .59

22. Volunteer to be of help to yoursupervisor in matters like locatinga good apartment, finding a goodinsurance agent, etc. 3.47 1.22 .53

23. Spend time listening to yoursupervisor's personal problemseven if you have no interest inthem. 3.11 1.23 .45

24. Volunteer to help your supervisorin his/her work even if it meansextra work for you. 2.85 1.07 .63

Total 66.24 14.65

Note. A^ 148. Scores were nearly normally distributed. Responses ranged from never do it (I) to almost always do it (5).

ever, four of the items continued to load (.30 or above) on morethan one factor. Also, three of the items did not load on thespecific ingratiation dimension that they were intended to as-sess.

Table 2 lists the items intended to assess each of the fouringratiation dimensions (e.g., other enhancement, opinion con-formity, self-presentation, and favor rendering). Also presentedare the loadings of the items, eigenvalues of the four factors, andthe percentage of variance explained by each factor.

Analysis of interfactor relationships revealed that these fac-tors were moderately to highly correlated (between .22 and .65)with each other. This finding is somewhat in line with the re-sults of previous researchers who have investigated the use ofingratiation in laboratory settings. For example, both Jones(1964) and Jones and Wortman (1973) found strong relation-ships between different ingratiation tactics. In experimental re-

search in which subjects were asked to respond to items de-scribing various types of ingratiation tactics, Pandey (1981)noted that subjects did not discriminate much between differ-ent tactics—they either behaved or did not behave in an ingra-tiating manner.

Reliability

Two approaches were adopted for determining the reliabilityof the instrument: internal consistency (consistency of individ-ual items with each other) and test-retest reliability (the stabil-ity of scores over time). The internal consistency of MIBOS was.92 (Cronbach's alpha; N= 148). This high alpha level suggeststhat subjects responded to the individual items in a consistentmanner throughout the test. The split-half reliability test, amethod that estimates the consistency of responses through the


Table 2Factor Analysis of Measure of Ingratiating Behavior in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

Item

1 . Impress upon your supervisor that only he/she can help youin a given situation mainly to make him/her feel good abouthimself/herself.

2. Show him/her that you share his/her enthusiasm about his/her new idea even when you may not actually like it.

3. Try to let him/her know that you have a reputation for beingliked.

4. Try to make sure that he/she is aware of your successes.5. Highlight the achievements made under his/her leadership

in a meeting not being attended by him/her.6. Give frequent smiles to express enthusiasm/interest about

something he/she is interested in even if you do not like it.7. Express work attitudes that are similar to your supervisor's

as a way of letting him/her know that the two of you are alike."8. Tell him/her that you can learn a lot from his/her experience.9. Exaggerate his/her admirable qualities to convey the

impression that you think highly of him/her.10. Disagree on trivial or unimportant issues but agree on those

issues in which he/she expects support from you.*1 1 . Try to imitate such work behaviors of your supervisor as

working late or occasionally working on weekends."12. Look for opportunities to let the supervisor know your

virtues/strengths.13. Ask your supervisor for advice in areas in which he/she

thinks he/she is smart to let him/her feel that you admirehis/her talent.

14. Try to do things for your supervisor that show your selflessgenerosity."

15. Look out for opportunities to admire your supervisor.16. Let your supervisor know the attitudes you share with him/

her.17. Compliment your supervisor on his/her achievement,

however trivial it may actually be to you personally.1 8. Laugh heartily at your supervisor's jokes even when they are

not really funny.19. Go out of your way to run an errand for your supervisor.20. Offer to help your supervisor by using your personal contacts.2 1 . Try to persuasively present your own qualities when

attempting to convince your supervisor about your abilities.22. Volunteer to be of help to your supervisor in matters like

locating a good apartment, finding a good insurance agent,etc.

23. Spend time listening to your supervisor's personal problemseven if you have no interest in them.

24. Volunteer to help your supervisor in his/her work even if itmeans extra work for you.

EigenvaluePercentage of variance explainedCumulative percentage of variance explained

Ingratiationdimension

Other enhancement

Opinion conformity

Self-presentationSelf-presentation

Other enhancement

Opinion conformity

Opinion conformityOther enhancement

Other enhancement

Opinion conformity

Opinion conformity

Self-presentation

Other enhancement

Favor renderingOther enhancement

Opinion conformity

Other enhancement

Opinion conformityFavor renderingFavor rendering

Self-presentation

Favor rendering

Favor rendering

Favor rendering

Factor

1

.33

.10

.19

.18

.47

.27

.42

.76

.65

.41

.31

.30

.62

.48

.62

.58

.56

.16,22.39

.21

.19

.11

.05

9.0837.837.8

2

.04

.11

.12

.10

.15

.09

.15

.07

.14

.14

.34

.20

.15

.46

.28

.30

.31

.31

.63

.67

.25

.74

.77

.73

1.907.9

45.8

3

.52

.80

.40

.23

.19

.74

.49

.08

.32

.24

.24

.08

.37

.26

.34

.01

.30

.71

.35

.03

.03

.07

.14

.10

1.456.0

51.8

4

.32

.19

.54

.81

.29

.04

.25

.15

.09

.29

.30

.72

.19

.14

.20

.24

.14

.05

.05

.19

.48

.21

.08

.12

1.024.3

56.1

" This item loaded on more than one factor.

correlation of one half of the items with the other half, yielded acoefficient of .86 (N= 148).

Reliability was also assessed in terms of the consistency ofscores from different administrations over a period of time.Correlations of .69 or better for a one-month period betweenadministrations have been considered reasonably stable (Cron-bach, 1986). MIBOS was administered twice at a one-monthinterval. The scores from the two administrations showed acorrelation of .73 (N = 148), confirming the stability of re-

sponses to the instrument and suggesting the stability of theingratiatory tendency.

Check for Acquiescence Response Set

Because all the items on MIBOS are positively worded,scores on the scale may be affected by the tendency to agree ordisagree regardless of the context. Some researchers have ar-gued that much of the evidence traditionally regarded as acqui-


escence is better interpreted in terms of a subject's reaction tothe content of the items and that content-independent responsestyles are not a major contaminant of questionnaire responses(e.g., Rorer, 1965). However, it was still deemed important todetermine whether the scores on MIBOS were affected to anysignificant extent by acquiescence response set.

To determine the influence of acquiescence, we correlatedscores on MIBOS with scores on the Acquiescence Scale(Couch & Keniston, 1960). The Acquiescence Scale measuresthe general tendency to agree or disagree with questionnaireitems, regardless of their content. Scores from the two scales(TV = 51) correlated .11, thereby confirming that the manner inwhich the MIBOS items were worded had no significant effecton the responses given.

Phase 2: Content and Convergent Validities

MIBOS was administered to various types of employeesworking in different work environments. The first sample con-sisted of 353 graduate business administration and senior un-dergraduate students. All students were employed full-time orpart-time and had at least one year of full-time work experi-ence. Seven students were dropped from the analysis because ofmissing data. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were men,and 41 % were women. Over 80% of the respondents had threeyears or more of full-time work experience. The majority of therespondents (82%) were in either nonmanagerial or first-linesupervisory positions; 17% were in middle-level managementpositions; only 1% were in top-management positions. Such asample meant that more respondents had supervisors than hadsubordinates. This was particularly suitable for our study be-cause MIBOS specifically measures ingratiatory behaviors ex-hibited by subordinates in superior-subordinate relationships.

The second sample consisted of 52 employees working inhome electronics and household appliances manufacturingcompanies in the mid-South. All the employees in this samplewere in either nonmanagerial or first- to middle-level positions.They were working on a variety of technical and administrativejobs.

Content Validity

A scale has content validity if the substance of the itemsincluded in the instrument tap the construct of interest to bemeasured and if the items are representative of the content area.We selected items for MIBOS after an extensive search of boththe theoretical and empirical research literature. All possibletactical variations of ingratiatory behaviors were noted, andeach was given a fair representation in the scale. The contents ofthe scale were also examined by employees and managers frommany different types of organizations for the appropriatenessof the behavior descriptions. The individual items on the scalewere further reviewed by experts from the field of industrialpsychology, organizational behavior, strategic management,and organization theory. As such, the scale can be expected tohave both face validity and logical content validity.

Convergent Validity

The classical view of convergent validity suggests that a newmeasure of a construct like ingratiation ought to covary with

other measures that purport to measure the same construct.Proceeding on this line, we compared MIBOS scores withscores on the ingratiation subscale of Kipnis et al. (1980) andthe refined three-item version of this subscale recently con-structed by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990).

Convergent validity also refers to the association of the mea-sure being validated with measures of other theoretically rele-vant constructs. To test the convergent validity of MIBOS, weadministered it simultaneously with the following measures:Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1988), Mach IV Scale(Christie & Geis, 1970), Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974),and the Need for Power scale from the Manifest Needs Ques-tionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Each of these constructshas been identified as a critical factor in the study of ingratia-tory behaviors in organizations (Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Porteret al., 1981; Ralston, 1985), and as such, scores on MIBOS oughtto correlate significantly with scores on these scales. The ratio-nale for using these scales for convergent validation is discussedbelow. The correlations are presented in Table 3.

Self-monitoring skill. A series of studies conducted bySnyder and his colleagues (Snyder, 1974) revealed that individ-uals differ in the extent to which they are attentive and respon-sive to situational cues as guides to appropriate behaviors. Peo-ple who score high on self-monitoring seek more information,exhibit more accuracy in diagnosing social situations, and aremore able to pragmatically tailor their behavior to fit the situa-tion. High self-monitors also seem to be more adept at impres-sion management (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Self-monitoringskill, therefore, is an important individual characteristic thatmay help determine a person's propensity for political influ-ence strategies like ingratiation. Scores obtained on MIBOScorrelated .46 for the working student sample and .37 for themanufacturing employee sample with scores on the Self-Moni-toring Scale.

Table 3Correlations Between Measure of Ingratiating Behaviorin Organizational Settings (MIBOS) andMeasures of Similar Constructs

Working Manufacturingstudent employee

Scale sample3 sampleb

Self-Monitoring Scale(Snyder, 1974) .46**

Need for Power(Steers & Braunstein, 1976) .40**

Work Locus of Control(Spector, 1988) .35**

Mach IV Scale(Christie & Geis, 1970) .34**

Schriesheim & Hinkin's (1990)ingratiation scale —

Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson's (1980)ingratiation subscale —

.37*

.46**

.29*

—

.63**

.57**

Note. The manufacturing employees did not complete the Mach IVscale, and the working students did not complete either of the ingratia-tion scales.a7V=345. b 7V=52.*/><.01. **p<.001.


Need for power. People with a high need for power attemptto achieve control over their work environment and try to influ-ence other people. Such people can be expected to increaseinfluence attempts as a way of affecting important outcomes(Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Therefore, a strong positive correla-tion can be expected between MIBOS scores and the need forpower as measured by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire(Steers & Braunstein, 1976). MIBOS and need for power scorescorrelated .40 for the working student sample and .46 for themanufacturing employee sample.

Locus of control. Rotter's (1966) theory of the locus of con-trol holds that individuals differ in a systematic manner in theirbeliefs about their personal successes and failures. Individualswith an internal locus of control tend to believe that their out-comes are the result of the ability and effort that they apply,whereas individuals with an external locus of control believethat their personal outcomes are the result of factors outsidetheir own control or luck. Therefore, individuals with internallocus of control ought to be more inclined to try to affect theoutcomes they receive. In situations in which ingratiation islikely (for example, situations involving supervisor-subordinatedyads), internals ought to make greater efforts to secure desiredoutcomes and obtain their personal objectives (Ralston, 1985).Hence, persons with an internal locus of control can be ex-pected to use ingratiatory tactics more often than persons withan external locus of control. Scores on MIBOS correlated .35(for the working student samples) and .29 (for the manufactur-ing employee sample) with scores on the Work Locus of Controlscale (Spector, 1988).

Machiavellianism. People who score high on the Mach IVScale have been characterized as manipulators of other people.High Machiavellians tend to initiate and control the structureof interpersonal relations (Christie & Geis, 1970). Ralston(1985) proposed that individuals who seek to control and manip-ulate others tend to use manipulative tactics, such as ingratia-tion, more often. There is also some experimental support forthis contention (Pandey & Rastogi, 1979). Thus, scores on theMach IV Scale can be expected to correlate reasonably highlywith scores on MIBOS. The correlation was .34.

Phase 3: Discriminant Validity

To establish discriminant validity, we administered MIBOSto multiple and diverse samples. The first sample consisted of52 employees (also used for convergent validation) working inmanufacturing industries in the mid-South.

The second sample (N= 216) consisted of a number of sub-samples. Of the 216 employees in this sample, 57 employeeswere working in government organizations, 88 employees werein retailing, and 71 employees were in service organizations(banking, insurance, real estate, etc.). These employees workedin a variety of jobs (technical, clerical, administrative, etc.) andwere simultaneously enrolled in one of two major universities inthe South and Southwest.

Beginning with the landmark work of Kipnis et al. (1980), anumber of researchers have examined the interpersonal influ-ence processes in organizations (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987;Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez et al., 1986; Schriesheim & Hinkin,1990). These researchers identified a number of interpersonal

influence tactics used in organizational settings. Importantamong these are assertiveness, rationality, exchange of benefits,upward appeal, blocking, and coalition.

As interpersonal influence tactics shown by subordinates inorganizations, ingratiatory behaviors ought to be related toother types of interpersonal influence tactics shown by employ-ees in organizations. However, if ingratiatory behavior is to beexplicated successfully and identified as a unique interpersonalbehavior, it must demonstrate acceptable levels of discriminantvalidity when compared with other interpersonal influence tac-tics.

In the past, researchers have used similar methods to estab-lish the discriminant validity of new organizational behaviorconstructs (Mowday & Steers, 1979). Accordingly, to investigatethe discriminant validity of MIBOS, we compared it with fiveother interpersonal influence tactics: assertiveness, rationality,exchange of benefits, upward appeal, and coalition. These influ-ence tactics were measured with the refined and revised versionof Kipnis et al.'s (1980) scale (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).Results are presented in Table 4.

Several lines of evidence emerge from these results, each dem-onstrating the discriminant validity of MIBOS. All five influ-ence tactics used for comparison involve upward influence—attempts to influence someone higher in formal authority inthe organization (Porter et al., 1981). First, the relationship be-tween ingratiation and the exchange measure was the highest,ranging from .23 to .35 across the four samples. In an upwardinfluence situation, ingratiation and exchange are both used togain the approbation of a superior who controls significant re-wards. Because the behaviors are somewhat similar, a positivecorrelation between the two would be expected. However, be-cause ingratiation as a construct is distinct from other upwardinfluence tactics, such correlations should be only moderate.The extent of correlation between the measures of ingratiationand exchange is quite similar to that noted by Yukl and Falbe(1990), who measured the use of these two behaviors with sin-gle-item scales.

Second, correlations between MIBOS scores and scores onthe assertiveness and upward-influence measures were amongthe lowest, ranging from .08 to .28. When compared with themanipulative intent that is often associated with the use of in-

Table 4Discriminant Validity of Measure of Ingratiating Behaviorin Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

Employed students inManufacturing

Upward-influencetactic8

AssertivenessRationalityExchangeUpward influenceCoalition

employees(n = 52)

.13

.26*

.23*

.13

.11

Government(n = 57)

.08

.16

.33**

.23*

.28*

Retailing(n = 88)

.20

.11

.25*

.27*

.20

Service(n = 71)

.28*

.09

.35**

.18*

.12

* Measured with Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) revision of Kipnis,Schmidt, and Wilkinson's (1980) scale.*p<.05. **/><.01.


gratiation, both assertiveness and upward influence are moredirect, demanding, and somewhat less political influence tac-tics. Thus, even though all these tactics are designed to securefavorable outcomes from one's supervisor, they are differentconstructs. The low correlations (mean correlations of .17) be-tween ingratiation and these two other measures of upwardinfluence provide some indication of an acceptable level ofdiscriminant validity for MIBOS.

Ingratiation is a political strategy that is largely manipulativein nature. As such, it should not be related to the direct persua-sion tactic of rationality. Correlations ranged from .09 to .26.The low relationship between rationality and MIBOS scoresprovides further support for the distinctiveness of ingratiationas an influence strategy.

Finally, across all four samples, correlations between MIBOSand coalition scores ranged from .11 to .28. Coalition tacticsinclude persuasion and creating pressure by obtaining the sup-port of others (Kipnis et al., 1980). Although such behaviorsmay involve covert influence (Yukl & Falbe, 1990), the pro-cesses and strategies involved in using them are quite different.This fact is confirmed by the low correlation between the twomeasures.

The percentage of common variance shared by MIBOS andother measures of upward influence did not exceed 13% andaveraged less than 5%. The magnitudes of these relationshipsare clearly low enough to demonstrate, rather conclusively, thediscriminant validity of MIBOS. This is particularly true be-cause the magnitudes of the correlations of MIBOS with mea-sures of other influence strategies are quite similar to thosereported recently by Yukl and Falbe (1990).

Discussion

This article presents the development and validation ofMIBOS, an instrument designed to assess ingratiatory behav-iors of employees in organizations. Overall, the results of thevalidity tests provide good evidence of convergent and discrimi-nant validity. The tests conducted during the first phase of thestudy confirmed the high internal consistency and stability ofthe instrument. The test for internal consistency, conducted onthe responses of 346 employees, yielded a Cronbach's alphacoefficient of .92, reconfirming the fact that MIBOS is ex-tremely reliable. Phases 2 and 3 produced good evidence for theconstruct validity of MIBOS in the form of content validity,covergent validity, and discriminant validity. However, it isnever possible to address every relevant issue in any single study.For further validation of the scale, it seems appropriate to assessingratiatory behaviors as seen from other perspectives (e.g., su-pervisors, co-workers) and to examine correlations betweenthese different sources. Assessment of MIBOS from a criterion-related perspective—What outcomes can be expected to corre-late with the scale?—would also be useful.

Although ingratiatory behaviors have been empirically inves-tigated in laboratory studies for over 25 years (Jones, 1964), andtheir use as an upward influence strategy has been studied inorganizational settings for over 10 years (e.g., Allen et al., 1979;Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977), few empirical studies haveexplored the use of ingratiation in organizations. Most recentstudies have been conceptual and theoretical (e.g., Liden & Mit-

chell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Thesestudies have provided a number of testable propositions, but sofar the propositions have remained untested. Indeed, ingratia-tory behavior in organizational settings continues to remainboth an intriguing and highly underresearched topic in thefield of organizational behavior.

The absence of a measurement instrument designed to focusspecifically on ingratiation seems to be one of the major rea-sons for the absence of empirical investigation of these behav-iors. The development of a scientifically validated instrumentfor the measurement of ingratiation therefore constitutes thefirst major step toward empirical investigation. Only when psy-chologists are able to assess and measure this phenomenon canthey begin to relate it to major social issues within organiza-tions. The construction and validation of MIBOS should helpto spur research interest in a topic that has long been ignoredand warrants much greater interest from organizational scien-tists.

ReferencesAllen, R. W, Porter, D. L., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organi-

zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. CaliforniaManagement Review, 22, 77-83.

Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and up-ward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 40, 39-40.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenom-ena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1960). Yfeasayer and naysayer. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 60,151-174.

Cronbach, L. (1986). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New\ork: Macmillan.

Erez, M., & Rim, T. (1982). The relationship between goals, influencetactics and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations,35, 871-878.

Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics ofinfluence: Agent vs. target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,25-39.

Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relation-ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norms of reciprocity. American SociologicalReview, 25, 161-178.

Hair, J., Anderson, R. O., & Tatham, R. (1987). Multidimensional dataanalysis (pp. 244-275). New York: Macmillan.

Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New \brk: Appleton.Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional ap-

proach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Kipnis, D, Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, J. (1980). Intraorganizational

influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology,^ 5, 440-452.

Liden, R. C, & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organi-zational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-587.

Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W, Porter, L. W, Renwick, R. M., & Mayes,B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of manager'sperception. Human Relations, 33, 79-100.

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organiza-tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23,137-156.

Mowday, R. X, & Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-tional commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Pandey, J. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organiza-tional formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia, 24, 41-46.


Pandey, J., & Bohra, K. A. (1984). Ingratiation as a function of organiza-tional characteristics and supervisory styles. International Review ofApplied Psychology, 33, 381-394.

Pandey, J., & Rastogi, R. (1979). Machiavellianism and ingratiation.Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 221-225.

Porter, L. W, Allen, R. W, & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of up-ward influence in organizations. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 3,109-149.

Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management.Academy of Management Review, 10, 477-487.

Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: Theroleof expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 50, 42\-421.

Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological Bulle-tin, 63,129-156.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-nal locus of control. Psychological Monographs, 80,1-28.

Schilit, W K., & Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of upward influence inorganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presen-tation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92,641-669.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used bysubordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement ofthe Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 75, 246-257.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 4, 526-537.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.

Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based mea-sure of manifest needs in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behav-ior, 9, 251-266.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous version ofCrowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 28,191-193.

Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management: Theory and social psy-chological research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tedeschi, J. X, & Melburg, V (1984). Impression management andinfluence in the organization. Research in Sociology of Organiza-tions, 3, 31-58.

Tedeschi, J. X, Schlenker, B. T., & Linkskold, S. (1972). The exercise ofpower and influence. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influenceprocess (pp. 287-345). Chicago: Aldine.

Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attractionand techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M.Staw & G. R. Salanik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior(pp. 133-178). New York: St. Claire Press.

Yukl, G, & Falbe, C. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in up-ward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 75, 132-140.

Received February 8,1990Revision received March 8,1991

Accepted March 8,1991 •

Call for Nominations for JEP: Human Perception and Performance

The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board has opened nominations for the editor-ship of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance for a 6-yearterm starting January 1994. James E. Cutting is the incumbent editor.

Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscriptsearly in 1993 to prepare for issues published in 1994. Please note that the P&C Board encour-ages more participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication processand would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statementof one page or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations to

Howard E. Egeth, Chair, Search Committee, JEP: HPPDepartment of PsychologyJohns Hopkins UniversityCharles & 34th StreetsBaltimore, Maryland 21218

Other members of the search committee are Lynn A. Cooper, Robert G. Crowder, and David E.Meyer. First review of nominations will begin January 15,1992.

scale development - kumar & beyerlein

Documents