the effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES 48, 70-88 (1991)

The Effects of Impression Management on the Performance Appraisal Process

SANDY J. WAYNE

Department of Management, The University of Illinois at Chicago

AND

K. MICHELE KACMAR

School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

A laboratory experiment was designed to test the influence of subordinate impression management on two aspects of the performance appraisal process: supervisor ratings of subordinate performance and supervisor verbal communication in a performance appraisal interview. It was hypothesized that subordinate impression management would inflate performance ratings and both impression management and objective performance would influence the supervisor’s style of verbal communication in the interview. Subjects consisted of % undergraduate students who performed a supervisory role in the study. Subjects interacted with a confederate subordinate who engaged in high or low levels of impression management and performed at a high, average, or low level. Results suggested support for the positive influence of subordinate impression management on performance ratings. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for human resource management practice. 0 1991 Aca-

demic Press. Inc.

Impression management consists of behaviors displayed by an individual with the purpose of controlling or manipulating the attributions and impressions formed of that person by others (Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). Although impression management (IM) has been examined in the field of social psychology (e.g., Jones, 1964; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980), few attempts have been made to apply this literature to understanding behavior in work organizations (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

Recently, however, IM has received increased theoretical and empirical attention by researchers examining individual behavior in organizational settings (e.g., Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985). The majority of these studies have attempted to identify the individual characteristics

Address requests for reprints to Dr. Sandy J. Wayne at the Department of Management (MC 240), University of Illinois, Box 4348, Chicago, IL 60680.

70 0749-597819 1 $3 .OO Copyright 0 1991 by Academic Press. Inc. AlI rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 71

and situational factors that enhance the likelihood of an individual engag- ing in IM (e.g., Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Ralston, 1985). Among the findings, studies have indicated that IM is a type of influence strategy often used by subordinates in their attempts to obtain desirable rewards from their supervisors (Bohra & Pandey, 1984; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1983). Given that subordinates often engage in IM, the subsequent issue of concern is the eflects of this form of influence on supervisors’ judgments and decisions. Do subordinate IM attempts result in biased supervisory decisions? Unfortunately, due to the paucity of research in this area (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), this question remains unanswered.

The purpose of this study is to extend our understanding of the effects of IM by focusing on the impact of subordinate IM on supervisor behavior during the performance appraisal process. Specifically, the influence of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor’s ratings of subordinate performance and verbal communication in a performance appraisal interview is examined.

Although numerous forms of IM have been identified and may be useful in understanding a variety of organizational phenomena, examining the influence of ingratiation on the performance appraisal process is particu- larly important for several reasons. First, studies have found that ingratiation in comparison to other IM tactics is often used by subordinates in their attempts to obtain personal benefits such as a raise or a promotion from their supervisors (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Cheng, 1983; Kipnis ef ai., 1980). Thus, because ingratiation is frequently used and potentially impacts important supervisory decisions, it is deserving of research attention. Another reason for focusing on this issue is due to research suggesting that supervisor ratings are often based on subjective information and thus may be highly susceptible to subordinate influence attempts (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977; Villanova & Bemardin, 1989). Unfortunately, because of inconsistent results among the limited number of empirical studies in this area, the relationship between ingratiation and performance appraisal is unclear. However, in- sights into the potential effects of ingratiation are provided in the performance ratings and interview literature.

Performance Ratings Literature

Research in social psychology identities several forms of ingratiation and suggests their potential effects on the performance appraisal process. Wortman and Linsenmeier (1977) identified self-enhancing communications, other-enhancing communications, opinion conformity, and favor- doing as ingratiation tactics. Self-enhancing communications consist of verbal statements intended to persuade a target of the speaker’s positive qualities, traits, motives, or intentions. Examples include showing your

72 WAYNE AND KACMAR

supervisor that you are really a kind, considerate person or stating that you are working diligently and for the good of the company. If the communication is persuasive, the target may experience an increase in liking for the source (Jones, 1964; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

Other-enhancing communications is a tactic where the source takes an interest in the target’s personal life or expresses a favorable evaluation of the target. An example is telling your supervisor that you enjoy working for him or her. The intent of this type of communication is for the target to believe that the source admires him or her. A number of studies have found that subjects increase their liking for a person who expresses ap- proval of them (e.g., Jones, Gergen, & Davis, 1962).

Opinion conformity is a tactic whereby the source expresses opinions that agree with those of the target. Byrne (1969) suggested that agreement leads to attraction because it increases a person’s confidence that his or her beliefs are correct. Studies by Byrne and his colleagues (e.g., Byrne & Grifftt, 1966; Byrne & Rhamey, 1965) have found that individuals pre- fer people whose attitudes and values are similar to their own.

Finally, favor-doing also may enhance liking of the source by the target. This form of IM involves offering or actually doing a favor for the target. Favor-doing is similar to other-enhancing communications in that it con- veys to the target that the favor doer likes him or her. It also may convey that the source is a thoughtful person, thus, increasing the target’s liking for the source (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

In summary, social psychology research suggests that self-enhancing communications, other-enhancing communications, opinion conformity, and favor-doing may create a positive impression on the target and enhance the target’s liking toward the source (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). Extending these relationships to the performance appraisal context suggests that subordinate IM behaviors may positively influence supervisor’s affect toward the subordinate. In turn, supervisor liking of the subordinate may result in biased (i.e., inflated) performance ratings (Kingstrom & Mainstone, 1985; Tsui & Barry, 1986).

Two additional ways IM may influence performance ratings is through halo and similar-to-me errors. Halo error, rating an individual high or low on many factors because the rater perceives the individual to be high or low on one specific factor, may be influenced by an employee’s use of IM. If the employee is successful in using IM behaviors such as favor-doing or self-enhancing communications to appear “good” in the eyes of the supervisor (rater) and to increase liking, this judgment and affect may carry over to other ratings assigned by the supervisor (Tsui & Barry, 1986).

Similarly, subordinates may attempt to use the IM tactic of opinion conformity in an effort to appear similar to the supervisor (rater). Per- ceptual similarity has been found to be an important predictor of perfor-


mance ratings (F’ulakos & Wexley, 1983; Wexley, Alexander, Greena- Walt, & Couch, 1980). Furthermore, if perceived similarity increased affect, more lenient and higher ratings may occur (Kingstrom & Mainstone, 1985; Tsui 8z Barry, 1986).

Several empirical studies have explicitly examined the influence IM can have on performance ratings. Kipnis and Vanderveer (1971) conducted a study in which a subject supervised and appraised the work of four high school students whose level of performance and use of IM varied. Sub- jects received preprogrammed messages presumably written by their workers. Actually, the workers did not exist. Results suggested that the ingratiator received a larger share of the rewards than did the equally competent noningratiator under all conditions. Furthermore, evaluations of the ingratiator’s performance were highly positive and at the same level as those of the high performer.

In an attempt to extend the Kipnis and Vanderveer study, Fodor (1973a, 1973b) examined how student supervisors responded to ingratiation by a subordinate under circumstances of group stress. Again, all workers were fictitious and their communication and output were preprogrammed to vary performance and ingratiation attempts. Results indicated that the average ingratiator did not receive higher performance ratings relative to the average performing noningratiator. Furthermore, both average performers’ ratings were signiticantly lower than the high performer.

A later study by Fodor (1974) examined student supervisors’ reward behavior toward an ingratiating and noningratiating worker in a situation where another worker repeatedly disparaged the supervisor’s compe- tence. Similar to earlier studies, the workers were fictitious. Results indicated that in no instance did the ingratiator receive significantly higher performance ratings than the noningratiating compliant worker.

One common weakness of the studies discussed above is that the subjects (i.e., supervisors) never interacted with subordinates in a face- to-face manner. In addition, Fodor (1974) noted that the ingratiating messages used in his studies were substantially more blatant and thus, may have been viewed as more manipulative than those used by Kipnis and Vanderveer (1971), which may explain the inconsistent results.

Although there have been mixed results concerning the relationship between IM and supervisor performance ratings, the ingratiation literature supports a positive relationship. Hence:

HYPOTHESIS 1. Subordinate utilization of IM will positively affect the supervisor’s ratings of subordinate performance.

Performance Interview Literature

Supervisor rating of subordinate performance is only one aspect of the

74 WAYNE AND KACMAR

entire performance appraisal process. A second, important aspect is the performance appraisal interview, where the supervisor and employee discuss the ratings. A limited number of studies have examined this portion of the performance appraisal process (Gioia & Sims, 1986; Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980; Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen, 1981; Larson, 1986).

Gioia and Sims (1986) videotaped upper-middle managers enacting a simulated performance appraisal interaction under varying levels of work performance and work history. The conversational behaviors of both participants (i.e., managers and subordinates) were coded into verbal categories. Results suggested that in the performance failure condition there were more total verbal units, attributions, and punitive statements while in the successful performance condition there were fewer overall verbal units, but more positive remarks.

While the results from this study seemed to suggest that more feedback was provided to employees in the failure condition than in the successful performance condition, other studies have found opposite results. One general conclusion that pervades the literature is that supervisors do not like to give feedback to poor performers (Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980; Lar- son, 1986). As a result, supervisors often inflate the feedback (Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980; Ilgen et at., 1981) or simply choose to not supply feedback to poor performers (Larson, 1986). In either case, previous results suggest :

HYPOTHESIS 2A. The objective performance of the subordinate will influence the verbal behaviors of the supervisor in the performance appraisal interview.

While no studies have directly examined the influence of IM on the performance appraisal interview, some research has been performed in a related area, IM in the selection interview (Baron, 1983; Gilmore & Fer- ris, 1989; Gilmore, Ferris, C!?Z Kacmar, 1988; von Baeyer, Sherk, & Zanna, 1981). While not identical, the interaction involved in both the performance appraisal and selection interviews are similar. Both require one party (i.e., rater or interviewer) to make judgments about the qualifica- tions of the other. Further, the results from both situations can be highly significant (i.e., being hired or receiving a raise).

Results from studies that have examined IM in the employment interview have found that applicants (i.e., employees) can and do manage the impressions others hold about them. Tactics used by applicants to influence the interviewer have included altering one’s dress or appearance in an attempt to appear similar to the interviewer’s ideal candidate (von Baeyer et al., 1981) or to favorably impress the interviewer (Baron, 1983). These actions also have been found to influence the interaction between


the applicant (i.e., employee) and the interviewer (i.e., rater) as well as how the applicant was judged.

An alternative explanation for the effects of IM in the performance appraisal interview is proposed by reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1953). This explanation suggests that individuals may attempt to control or influence the behavior of others by providing stimuli and reinforcement through their verbal behavior. Basically, the verbal behavior of one individual intluences the verbal responses of the other individual participating in the interaction. This idea was extended by Wilmot (1979). He suggested that the relationship between the participants evolves and is built upon the perceptions of one another and the meta-perspective of the self and other. That is, how one thinks the other sees him or her will influence his or her actions. Thus, communication of a person will vary as a function of the situation and the perceived nature of the other. Because IM tactics can be used by the applicant to manipulate how the rater sees him or her, it is suggested that:

HYPOTHESIS 2B. IM displayed by the subordinate will influence the supervisor’s verbal behavior in the performance appraisal interview.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

A total of 96 subjects from upper-level undergraduate classes in busi- ness and computer science took part in the experiment. Fifty-six of the participants were male (58%) and 40 were female (42%). Students who participated in the study received extra-credit points in their courses. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions, for a total of 16 subjects per cell.

Design

The basic design of the study was a 2 x 3 factorial experiment with two independent variables, IM and objective performance. IM consisted of two levels, high and low, while objective performance level was divided into three categories, high, average, and low. The dependent variables were supervisor’s performance ratings and verbal communication in the performance appraisal interview.

Procedure

A confederate, appearing to be a subject, and the actual subject arrived at a behavioral laboratory to participate in the session. After explaining that the students had been recruited from different classes, the experimenter left the room to get the task materials. During the experimenter’s

76 WAYNE AND KACMAR

absence, the confederate either performed a script containing IM (high IM conditions) or completely ignored the subject (low IM conditions).

When the experimenter returned, the participants were told that they would perform the roles of a supervisor and subordinate employed by a mail-order firm. To determine who would play each role, the confederate was asked to select between two cards which had numbers on the back side representing each role. Because the cards were held in a predeter- mined position, the confederate always selected the card representing the subordinate role. Thus, the subjects always performed the supervisory role.

Once the roles were established, the specific responsibilities of each were described by the experimenter. The supervisor’s (i.e., subject) role involved explaining the task to the subordinate and handling any problems that arose. The subordinate’s (i.e., confederate) role consisted of coding order information onto sheets and seeking the advice of the supervisor concerning any problems.

Next, the subordinate and supervisor were shown to their respective offices. After the experimenter described the task to the supervisor, the supervisor then entered the subordinate’s office and explained the task. Approximately 7 min later, the supervisor returned to his or her office to await the first interaction. After 3 min had elapsed, the supervisor returned to the subordinate’s office to answer any questions. Because numerous orders with problems had been imbedded in the set to be pro- cessed, the subordinate had many questions to discuss with the supervisor. On the average, the discussion tended to last for 10 min. After discussing the problems, the supervisor returned to his or her office. This process was repeated for two more interactions. Throughout the interactions, the subordinate performed a high- or low-IM script, depending on the condition. In all, the subordinate worked on the task for 45 min.

After the work session was concluded, the supervisor was provided with a written statement of the subordinate’s impressions of the session. Consistent with the IM script, the written statements represented high or low levels of IM. In addition, the supervisor was told that the subordinate had completed a high, average, or low number of forms compared to other participants. Next, the supervisor completed a performance appraisal form.

At this point, the supervisor was informed of the appraisal interview. The supervisor was instructed to discuss the performance ratings with the subordinate. This portion of the experiment was tape-recorded so that the communication could be analyzed after the session was completed. A single verbal cue that reflected high or low IM was provided by the subordinate during the appraisal interaction. After the interview was concluded, both the supervisor and subordinate were asked to complete a


questionnaire and were then dismissed. Overall, the experiment lasted about 75 min.

The same two graduate students, one female and one male, performed the subordinate’s (i.e., confederate) role. Extensive practice sessions (4 h) were conducted so that the confederates could become comfortable and proficient at delivering the script.

Manipulations

IM. IM was manipulated by the subordinate’s (i.e., confederate) script and by the written description of the subordinate’s impressions of the session. The script and written description for the high-IM conditions included other-enhancing communications, self-enhancing communications, opinion conformity, and favor-doing whereas the low-IM conditions included opposing statements. Examples of statements used in the high-IM conditions include “What’s your major? When do you plan on graduating? How do you like the course so far?” (before the session began, other-enhancing communications); “Last summer I worked at Sears, processing catalog orders, so I should be able to do a good job” (interaction 1, self-enhancing communications); “Is there anything else I can help you with?” (interaction 4, favor-doing). Corresponding behavior and statements used in the low-IM conditions include no personal communication with the subject (before the session); “OK” (interaction 1); “OK” (interaction 4).

Objective performance. The level of objective performance was manipulated by the researcher providing the supervisor (i.e., subject) with bo- gus information regarding the subordinate’s performance level.

Measures

Performance appraisal. A three-item, five-point scale was used as the performance measure. The supervisor rated the subordinate on the fol- lowing aspects ofjob performance: quality of work, knowledge of the job, and dependability. A definition was provided for each performance di- mension. For example, quality of work was defined as “General excel- lence of output with consideration to accuracy, thoroughness, and dependability without close supervision.” The responses on the three items were summed to create the performance appraisal measure. The Cron- bath (Y reliability estimate was .74.

Manipulation check. The final questionnaire completed by the supervisor was a manipulation check. The objective performance manipulation check was a one-item, 3-point scale. The supervisor circled the actual quantity of output (i.e., high, average, or low) for the subordinate. A four-item, Spoint scale was used to assess the extent to which the subordinate engaged in four tactics of IM. Supervisors indicated the degree to

78 WAYNE AND KACMAR

which subordinates agreed with them on decisions, complimented them on their leadership abilities, offered to do them a favor, and enjoyed working for them. The Cronbach a reliability estimate was 90.

Statistical Analyses

Content analysis. The tape-recording of the interview was used to dis- cern the supervisor’s communication into sentences. Each sentence was placed in one of seven categories: internal attributions, external attributions, compliments, criticisms, recommendations, questions, and jokes. The categories were developed prior to running the experiment after examining relevant literature.

The first two categories, internal and external attributions, were suggested by several previous studies (Gioia & Sims, 1986; Ilgen et al., 1981; Kipnis, Schmidt, Price, 62 Stitt, 1981). Both Kipnis et al. (1981) and Gioia and Sims (1986) found that managerial evaluations of employees are in part a function of attributional processes. Specifically, poor performances were attributed to internal causes (i.e., ability and effort) while good performances were attributed to external causes (i.e., task difficulty and luck).

Gioia and Sims (1986) also provided a rationale for the categories compliments and criticisms. Their results suggested that high performers received significantly more positive communications from their supervisors while low performers received significantly more punitive communications. Additional support for these two categories was found by Herold and Greller (1977). These authors factor analyzed 50 examples of feedback responses and found five factors: negative feedback, positive feedback from above, positive feedback from others, internal criteria feedback, and work flow feedback. Because of the nature of the present study, only the first two factors were relevant and therefore used.

As suggested by Ilgen and Knowlton (1980), performance feedback should include information directed at the subordinate that can help him or her change or maintain his or her behavior. With this in mind, the category recommendation was included. Further justification for this category was found in the work of Green and Mitchell (1979). These authors suggested that supervisors believe it is easier for an individual to change to fit the task or situation than it is to change the environment. Thus, supervisors may provide suggestions or recommendations in the interview because they perceive that it is easy for the employee to change.

One of the major findings of Gioia and Sims (1986) led to the inclusion of the questions category. These authors found that managers tended to probe for the cause of failure by asking questions of the subordinates in an attempt to draw out subordinates’ attributions for their own performance.


Also, when dealing with high performers, managers asked opinion- seeking or behavior-confirming questions.

Because the task of providing performance feedback to subordinates may be uncomfortable for many, it was predicted that humor may be used to lessen the tension in the situation. Past research findings lend support for this contention. The fact that supervisors do not like to give negative feedback has been established (Ilgen et al., 1981; Jablin, 1979; Larson, 1986). Because the subjects in the present study were unaware at the time of the rating that they would be required to give verbal feedback to their subordinate, it was predicted that humor would be used to lighten the burden of having to report lower ratings.

Finally, as in most studies utilizing content analysis, a miscellaneous category was included for sentences that could not be placed in any of the seven categories described above. However, the miscellaneous category was not used in further statistical analyses.

The actual coding was performed independently by the two authors. The inter-rater reliability index was 86.3%. Categorization discrepancies were resolved by a doctoral student in management.

Analysis of variance. The intercorrelation matrix, shown in Table 1, indicates few significantly intercorrelated dependent variables. Thus, both hypotheses were tested utilizing analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the first hypothesis, a two-way ANOVA with IM and objective performance as the independent variables and performance rating as the dependent variable was performed.

TABLE 1 INTERCORRELATION MATRIX

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I. Impression management -

2. Objective performance .w

3. Internal attributions .12

4. External attributions .06

5. Compliments .45*** 6. Criticisms - .63*** 7. Recommen-

dations .22* 8. Questions - .02 9. Jokes .33**

10. Performance appraisal .42”***

-

-.15 -

- .26*’ .I3 - .24* - .07 - .07

-.06 -.20* -.18 -.G* -

- .03** .ll -.14 .25’ -.M - .30** -.lO .01 34 .08 -.12 - 34 .03 .26** .19* -.21* -.04 .06 -

.59”*** .02 -.OO .36*** - .42’** .02 39 .24* -

Note. n = 83. “n = 96.

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

*** p -=z ,001.

80 WAYNE AND KACMAR

The second hypothesis involving the appraisal interview was examined by conducting two-way ANOVAs for each verbal category. IM and objective performance were the independent variables and the verbal category served as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

The mean scores of the sum of the four 5-point IM items were 7.35 for subjects in the low-IM conditions and 16.06 for subjects in the high-IM conditions. The difference between these means is significant at t( 1,95) = 362.63, p < .OOl, W* = .79. The mean scores of the one 3-point objective performance level item were 1.00 for the low-performance conditions, 2.00 for the average-performance conditions, and 2.97 for the high- performance conditions. The difference among these means is significant at F(2,94) = 2898.00, p < .OOl, w* = .98. The Student-Newman-Keuls procedure was used as the post-test. All pairs of groups were significantly different at the p < .05 level. These results indicate that the IM and objective performance manipulations were effective.

Performance Appraisal Ratings

Hypothesis 1 predicted that IM would affect the performance appraisal rating. Specifically, subjects who were exposed to the high-IM conditions would rate the confederate higher on the performance appraisal rating than subjects who were exposed to the low-IM conditions. A two-way ANOVA with IM and objective performance as the independent variables and performance rating as the dependent variable indicated that IM had a significant impact on performance ratings (F( 190) = 34.48, p < .OOl). By reviewing the means for the high- and low-IM conditions (12.65 and 10.85, respectively), evidence can be found that indicates support for hypothesis 1. As shown in Table 2, the mean performance ratings for all high-IM

TABLE 2 PERFORMANCE RATING MEANS FOR EACH IM BY OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE COMBINATION

Independent variables IM:

Objective performance:

Dependent variable Performance rating

Low

9.19

Low High

Average High Low Average High

10.69 12.69 11.31 12.69 13.94

N= 16


conditions were higher than the mean performance ratings for each of the corresponding low conditions.

Additionally, the results from the ANOVA (F(290) = 75.13, p < .OOl) indicated that objective performance had a significant impact on performance ratings. A post-hoc analysis utilizing the Duncan procedure indicated that each of the three means (low = 10.25, average = 11.69, high = 13.31) was significantly different (p < .05) from one another. Also, the increasing magnitude for each mean under the three conditions indicated that the higher the objective performance, the higher the performance appraisal rating.

Performance Appraisal Interview

Hypothesis 2 predicted that IM and objective performance would influence the supervisor’s communication in the interview. Results of the two-way ANOVAs, shown in Table 3, indicate two significant interactions .

First, there was a significant interaction between IM and objective performance on external attributions. The plot of this interaction, shown in Fig. 1, suggests that for high-objective performance conditions, more external attribution statements were made by the supervisor interacting with low-IM subordinates compared to those made when interacting with high-IM subordinates. However, in the average-objective performance conditions, the reverse was found. Supervisors made fewer external attributions for low-IM subordinates compared to those made for high-IM subordinates. In the low-objective performance conditions, supervisors made

TABLE 3 RESIJLTSFROMTHEPERFORMANCEINTERVIEW

Internal attributions

External attributions

Compliments Criticisms Recommendations Questions Jokes

Impression management (IM)

Objective performance (OP) IM x OP

F MS DF F MS DF F MS DF

1.318 2.997 1 1.345 2.972 2 .751 1.659 2

.319 422 1 3.099 3.448 2 4.754* 5.289 2 20.885*** 147.144 1 3.007 21.184 2 .543 3.823 2 58.331*** 89.601 1 2.523 3.875 2 3.270* 5.023 2 4.683* 4.506 1 3.164* 3.045 2 1 A43 1.388 2

.022 .051 1 4.752* 10.927 2 .851 1.956 2 9.776** 4.232 1 2.887 1.250 2 .937 .406 2

*p < .05. **p < .Ol.

*** p<.OOl.

WAYNE AND KACMAR

1.80

1.40

1.20 Of Eckennl

1.00 Attrikutions

.80

.60

.40

.20

CXajective Ekrfcimance Level

FIG. 1. Interaction between IM and objective performance on external attributions.

a similar number of external attributions for high- and low-IM subordinates.

The second significant interaction was between IM and objective performance on criticisms. As shown in Fig. 2, high-IM subordinates received fewer criticisms from the supervisors in comparison to low-IM subordinates. This finding was consistent across all objective performance conditions. Additionally, the most criticisms were communicated by the supervisor to low-IM subordinates who completed an average amount of work.

In addition to the significant interactions, the results in Table 3 indicate that IM did have a significant, positive relationship on the number of supervisory compliments, recommendations, and jokes. That is, subordinates who had engaged in IM during the work session received more compliments (j3 = 4.51 for high IM, X = 1.82 for low IM) and recommendations (X = .98 for high IM, f = .52 for low IM) from their supervisors, and the supervisors tended to joke more (E = .51 for high IM, Z = .05 for low IM) with high-IM subordinates. Furthermore, there was a significant negative relationship between IM and the number of criticisms from the supervisor (Z = .23 for high IM, X = 2.30 for low IM). Supervisors tended to criticize high-IM subordinates less often in comparison to low-IM subordinates.

Also shown in Table 3 are results concerning the influence of objective performance on supervisory communications in the feedback sessions. There was a significant relationship between objective performance and recommendations and questions. Specifically, more recommendations

IMPRESSION MANAGEMEN? 83

2.60 HiqhIM

2.40 A / \

of aiticism 2.20 / \ / \

2.00 / \ \

/ 1.80

\ / \

1.60 / \ .

‘. 1.40

2.80 -a-----

1.20

1.00

.60

.40

.20 ! ! I

0 I.04 Average Hm

cbjective Performanoe Level

FIG. 2. Interaction between IM and objective performance on number of criticisms.

were given to high and low performers in comparison to average performers (E = 90 for high performers, X = 1 .OO for low performers, Z = .39 for average performers). Furthermore, supervisors tended to ask more questions of high performers in comparison to average or low performers (Z = 2.34 for high performers, X = 1.36 for average performers, Z = 1.19 for low performers).

DISCUSSION

The results of the present research indicated strong support for hypotheses 1 and 2. Specifically, subordinates who engaged in IM tended to receive higher performance ratings than subordinates who did not use IM. Furthermore, IM and objective performance influenced supervisor communication in the performance interview. Specifically, the subordinates who had engaged in IM tended to have more supportive, positive communications with their supervisors than subordinates who did not use IM. Additionally, supervisors asked more questions of high performers in comparison to low and average performers and offered more recommendations to high and low performers in comparison to average performers.

The results obtained concerning the positive effect of IM on performance ratings may be explained best by previous theory and research. IM

84 WAYNE AND KACMAR

literature suggests that ingratiating tactics may create a favorable impression on a target and enhance liking (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). In turn, liking has been consistently related to performance ratings and other forms of rating error such as the halo effect (Kingstrom & Mainstone, 1985; Pulakos & Wexley, 1983; Tsui & Barry, 1986). Consequently, the positive influence of IM on performance ratings may be indirect and operate through its influence on liking and other judgment errors.

The results concerning the verbal behavior recorded during the performance appraisal interview are not interpreted so easily. The present research found that as the level of IM increased, so did the number of compliments, recommendations, and jokes. On the other hand, this trend was reversed for criticisms. That is, as the level of IM increased, the number of criticisms decreased.

Because the communication between the subject and the confederate was more open and positive under the high-IM conditions, perhaps the subjects felt more comfortable in the interview and found it easier to joke, offer recommendations, and compliment their subordinates, but found it more difficult to criticize them. These findings note the often overlooked, yet positive aspects of IM as an influence tactic. IM enables the ingratiator to receive additional rewards and to develop a cooperative, friendly relationship with his or her supervisor. Further research is needed to corroborate the finding concerning the positive influence of IM on working relationships.

The present research also found that when the objective performance level was either high or low, more recommendations for ways to improve future performance were made. These results may be related to the need of the supervisor to justify the ratings given. During the feedback sessions, supervisors seemed compelled to offer a justification for an extremely high or extremely low score. Similar results were found by Ilgen et al. (1981). Recommendations for the confederate to improve his or her future performance normally followed the justifications.

Overall, results from the appraisal interview sessions seem to support the rationale derived from reinforcement theory and the meta-perspective ideas. Specifically, these ideas suggest that the way the supervisor thinks the subordinate views him or her influences his or her verbal communication. Subjects (supervisors) who were exposed to the high-IM condition had received compliments and positive statements from the subordinate. These subjects were more likely to provide the same type of positive communication to their subordinates than were the subjects who were exposed to the low-IM condition in which the supervisors’ authority and ability were questioned by the subordinate. Because the subjects (supervisors) in the high-IM condition were exposed to only positive statements


from their subordinates, they may have been more willing to compliment and offer recommendations than were subjects (supervisors) in the low- IM condition. That is, the way the subjects thought the subordinates saw them (i.e., in a positive light) influenced their verbal communication.

The present study has both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths include the fact that this study helps to eliminate the dearth of empirical research in the area of IM or performance interviews. Both of these topics are important areas for research that may help increase our understanding of the superior-subordinate relationship.

A second strength in the study is that face-to-face interactions between the subordinate and the supervisor were required. Previous research concerning both IM (Fodor, 1973a, 1973b, 1974; Kipnis & Vanderveer, 1971) and performance appraisal feedback (Larson, 1986) did not include verbal interaction. This extension of previous research was important to go be- yond measures of intended behaviors to measures of actual behaviors.

A weakness of the study stems from the setting. One might question whether a study on performance appraisal can be conducted in a laboratory setting. However, hundreds of studies on performance appraisal have utilized laboratory settings. In addition to the enhanced control, a major benefit of this design is that previous subordinate performance (i.e., history) and previous supervisor-subordinate interactions do not contam- inate the performance ratings. Further, this study utilized a realistic sim- ulation since supervisors interacted with actual employees rather than individuals described in scenarios.

The results of this study provide several implications for human resource management practice. Most importantly, IM may positively intlu- ence supervisor performance ratings and, consequently, is a form of bias that needs to be recognized and controlled. Training that informs managers of the types of IM that may influence appraisal ratings could be ben- eficial in reducing the bias problem. Focusing on the subordinate, it is unrealistic to try to eliminate IM. Rather, it should be noted that high-IM subordinates tend to develop more open, interactive exchanges with their supervisors in comparison to low-IM subordinates. Thus, IM can serve an important purpose-the building of positive work relationships. Again, perhaps subordinates and supervisors would benefit from training focusing on IM behaviors that facilitate the development of a good working relationship. For example, subordinates who sometimes compliment their supervisors in a genuine manner may not only be “scoring points” but also building a cooperative, supportive relationship. As long as these behaviors are not biasing ratings, perhaps they should be encouraged. Finally, this research indicates a need for managerial training on the problems associated with performance interviews such as the reluctance to

86 WAYNE AND KACMAR

ask fewer questions of low and average performers in comparison to high performers.

Because this research is exploratory in nature, future research should be performed. Concerns that need to be addressed include longer and perhaps more work sessions to provide an opportunity for the interpersonal relationship between the supervisor and subordinate to develop. Also, making the supervisor’s reward contingent upon the performance of their subordinates is important. Both of these conditions could be included in a study examining the effects of IM on goal setting. The inclusion of the goal-setting episode would allow more interaction between the supervisor and the subordinate, thus allowing more opportunity for the interpersonal relationship to develop as well as more opportunity for the IM behaviors to be exhibited. Further, because the supervisors’ reinforcements are tied to the goals, they may become more involved in the session. While several studies have already addressed IM and goal setting (Ferris & Porac, 1984; Huber, Latham, & Locke, 1989; Larson, 1986), none has included a verbal performance appraisal feedback session as was done in the present study. A systematic replication of the present study including these extensions would be a logical next step.

REFERENCES

Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 39-49.

Baron, R. A. (1983). “Sweet smells of success?” The impact of pleasant artificial scents on evaluations of job applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 709-713.

Bohra, K. A., & Pandey, J. (1984). Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 217-222.

Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 4, pp, 35-90). New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D., & Grifftt, W. (1%6). A developmental investigation of the law of attraction.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 699-702. Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. (1965). Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a

determinant of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 884-889. Cheng, J. L. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: An experimental study of

the use of power tactics. Group & Organization Studies, 8, 337-355. Ferris, G. R., & Porac, J. F. (1984). Goal setting as impression management. The Journal of

Psychology, 117, 33-36. Fodor, E. M. (1973a). Disparagement by a subordinate, ingratiation, and the use of power.

Journal of Psychology, 84, 181-186. Fodor, E. M. (1973b). Group stress, ingratiation, and the use of power. Journal of Social

Psychology, 91, 345-346. Fodor, E. M. (1974). Disparagement by a subordinate as an influence on the use of power.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 652-655. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management: An observational

study linking audience characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy ofMan- agement Journal, 31, 42-65.


Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The politics of the employment interview. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, andpractice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gilmore, D. C., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1988). The nature of employment interview decisions. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Human resources management: Perspectives and issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Cognition-behavior connections: Attribution and verbal behavior in leader-subordinate interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human De- cision Processes, 31, 197-229.

Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.

Herold, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1977). Feedback: The definition of a construct. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 142-147.

Huber, V. L., Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1989). The management of impressions through goal setting. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from supervisors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.

Ilgen, D. C., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 31 l-330.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222.

Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., &Davis, K. E. (1962). Some determinants of reactions to being approved or disapproved as a person. Psychological Monographs, 76 (whole no. 521).

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self- presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kingstrom, P. O., & Mainstone, L. E. (1985). An investigation of the rater-ratee acquain- tance and rater bias. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 641-663.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., Price, K., & Stitt, C. (1981). Why do I like thee: Is it your performance of my orders? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 324-328.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Exploration of getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Kipnis, D., 8r Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 17, 28&286.

Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisor performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 391-408.

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

Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1983). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In R. W. Allen and L. W. Porter (Eds.), Organizational influence processes (pp. 408-422). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 129-139.

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

88 WAYNE AND KACMAR

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the orga-

nization. In S. B. Bacharach and E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of

organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal tactics of impression management. In C. Antaki

(Ed.), Ordinary explanations of social behavior (pp. 271-326). New York/London: Academic Press.

Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. (1986). Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy ofMan-

agement Journal, 29, 586-599. Villanova, P., 62 Bernardin, H. J. (1989). Impression management in the context of

performance appraisal. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression manage-

ment in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Von Baeyer, C. L., Sherk, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Impression management in thejob

interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, I, 45-51. Wexley, K. N., Alexander, R. A., Greenawalt, J. P., & Couch, M. A. (1980). Attitude

congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager- subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 320-330.

Wilmot, W. W. (1979). Dyadic communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques

of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. W. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 133-178). Chicago: St. Clair.

RECEIVED: April 25, 1988

the effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process

Documents