making an impression: the influence of self-esteem, locus ...orgleadership.org/norrisporter1.pdf ·...

The Journal of Organization, Management & Leadership, Volume1, Summer/Fall 2011 © JOML © Nyack College School of Business and Leadership 1 South Bld. Nyack, NY 10960

Making an Impression: The Influence of Self-Esteem, Locus of Control, Self-Monitoring and Narcissistic Personality on the Use of Impression Management Tactics

The Journal of Organization, Management & Leadership – Volume 1, Summer/Fall 2011

Sharon E. Norris Tracy H. Porter

Abstract

In today’s competitive work environment, people use impression management tactics to influence others and increase their perceived value to the organization. People also use impression management tactics to improve social image, gain approval or protect self-image, yet not all individuals use impression management tactics in the same way. With a sample of 132 undergraduate students, a positive relationship was reported between locus of control, self-monitoring, narcissistic personality and the use of impression tactics. Additionally, narcissistic personality and self-monitoring are the best predictors of impression management tactics. The findings of this study add another dimension to the long-standing debate between management and leadership by suggesting that future researchers explore the differences between impression management and leadership.

In work settings, people at all levels use impression management tactics to increase their perceived value to the organization (Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson & Bratton, 2004). Leaders use impression management tactics to influence customers, colleagues and employees (Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska & Shaw, 2007). Subordinates use impression management tactics to create favorable impressions in order to be liked, influence manager appraisals, appear competent or receive better job assignments (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Jones, Gergen, Gumpert & Thibaut, 1965; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Rao, Schmidt & Murray, 1995). Employees

use impression management tactics to avoid unpleasant tasks, excuse poor performance, look good, satisfy a need for power, strengthen leader-follower relationships or increase self-esteem and job involvement (Becker & Martin, 1995; Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008; Kacmar, Carlson & Bratton, 2004; Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995; Snyder & Copeland, 1989). By managing impressions effectively, employees can present themselves to their superiors as committed organizational citizens and obtain higher overall performance ratings, promotions and career success (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Bolino, Varela, Bande & Turnley, 2006; London, 2003).

Managers and leaders who understand how personal factors influence the use of impression management tactics will gain greater clarity when making hiring, placement or promotion decisions, assessing on-the-job performance or designing and developing human resource development intervention activities (Bolino et al, 2006. Being able to distinguish between impression management behaviors and high performance is an important element in the process of developing employees (Bolino et al., 2006).

Throughout the available literature,

personality traits such as self-esteem (Wells & Marwell, 1976), locus of control (Silvester, Anderson-Gough, Anderson & Mohamed, 2002), self-monitoring (Riordan, Gross & Maloney, 1994), and narcissistic personality (Raskin, Novacek & Hogan, 1991a, 1991b) have been shown to have a direct influence on impression management success. While previous researchers have devoted significant effort to understanding the factors that influence when people use various impression management behaviors (Boney-McCoy, Gibbons &

The Journal of Organization, Management & Leadership– Issue 1, Spring 2011

The Journal of Organization, Management & Leadership, Volume 1, Summer/Fall 2011 © JOML © Nyack College School of Business and Leadership 1 South Bld. Nyack, NY 10960

2

Gerrard, 1999), no research to date explores how personality traits may influence the extent to which individuals use impression management tactics. Individuals with certain personality traits are more likely to use impression management tactics than others (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Guion & Highhouse, 2006; Kristof-Brown, Barrick & Frank, 2002); therefore, not all individuals use impression management tactics for the same purposes, in the same way or with the same frequency (McFarland, Ryan & Kriska, 2003).

The type of people who use impression

management tactics represents the focus of this research. With a sample of business students from a large university in the Midwest, the personal factors that influence the use of impression management tactics are examined. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized relationships between self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring, narcissistic personality on the use of impression management tactics.

Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationship of self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissism on impression management.

Model Development

People take several kinds of information into account when they form intentions that guide action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Carver & Scheier, 2003). Intentions are formed by attitudes and subjective norms, and subjective norms develop from two social contingencies. People consider not only the expectations that relevant others hold, but they also

consider the extent to which they desire to do what other want them to do (Ajzen & Fishbein). By considering what others expect and desiring to make a good impression, some people will alter their self-presentation to fit the situation.

Impression management

Impression management represents a

multidimensional construct and refers to the behaviors that individuals use to control the way other people perceive them (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Jones & Pittman; Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Jones and Pittman (1982) identify five impression management tactics that include ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication and intimidation. When employees use ingratiation tactics, they make flattering comments or do favors for others in an attempt to be viewed as likeable (Jones & Pittman). Self-promotion involves touting abilities and accomplishments (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Exemplification tactics are used to foster positive public images associated with moral virtues, honesty, integrity, generosity, conscientiousness, dedication and self-sacrifice (Leary, 1996). When employees describe themselves as people who work too hard and take the job home with them (Rooney, 2009), the are using self-promotion and exemplification tactics in combination (Rooney, 2009). Rooney explains that when employees throw themselves at the mercy of those in higher power, they are using supplication tactics. Out of self-presentational concern, similar to self-handicapping behaviors, people who use supplication tactics attempt to exempt themselves from personal responsibility or failure (Kolditz & Arkin, 1982).

Threatening or bullying behaviors represent

intimidation impression management tactics (Jones & Pittman, 1982). People who use intimidation tactics will attempt to appear dangerous and tough, and these people enjoy being feared (Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Manzur & Jogaratnam, 2006). Bolino and Turnley (1999) explain that intimidation may be more likely to be used by supervisors when groups are hierarchical. Neither supplication nor intimidation tactics are used frequently (Becker &

Making an Impression 4 !

1991b) have been shown to have a direct influence on impression management success. While previous

researchers have devoted significant effort to understanding the factors that influence when people use

various impression management behaviors (Boney-McCoy, Gibbons & Gerrard, 1999), no research to

date explores how personality traits may influence the extent to which individuals use impression

management tactics. Individuals with certain personality traits are more likely to use impression

management tactics than others (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Guion & Highhouse, 2006; Kristof-Brown,

Barrick & Frank, 2002); therefore, not all individuals use impression management tactics for the same

purposes, in the same way or with the same frequency (McFarland, Ryan & Kriska, 2003).

The type of people who use impression management tactics represents the focus of this research.

With a sample of business students from a large university in the Midwest, the personal factors that

influence the use of impression management tactics are examined. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized

relationships between self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring, narcissistic personality on the use of

impression management tactics.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationship of self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissism on impression management.

Self

Esteem

Locus of

Control Impression

Management Self

Monitoring

Narcissistic Personality



3

Martin, 1995; Bolino & Turnley), but people who utilize these impression management tactics are most effective when they use them in combination with the other impression management tactics.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem refers to how much people like or dislike themselves and the degree to which they believe they are worthy or unworthy as persons (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Rosenberg (1965) describes self-esteem as basic feelings of value or worth. Individuals with high self-esteem become more concerned with enhancing their self-presentation as social stakes increase; they tend to point out their good points, boast or emphasize their sterling qualities when attempting to influence others’ perceptions (Schlenker, Soraci & McCarthy, 1976; Borden & Horowitz, 1991).

A relationship between self-esteem and impression management has been established through previous research (Koydemir & Demir, 2008; Wells & Marwell, 1976). Based on this support in the literature, there is a hypothesized relationship between self-esteem and the use of impression management tactics. H1: There is a positive relationship between self-esteem and the use of impression management tactics.

Locus of Control

Locus of control determines the degree to which people believe their behaviors influence what happens to them (Ivancevich, Konopaske & Matteson, 2005). There are a number of studies which investigate the connection between locus of control and impression management tactics (e.g. Keenan, 1982; Cook, Vance & Spector, 2000). Fletcher (1990) explains that locus of control influences the use of impression management tactics during selection interviews, and internals are better at seeing themselves as masters of their own destiny. Interview candidates with an external locus of control use impression management tactics less effectively than internals according to Silvester et al. (2002). An extensive review of the literature provides conceptual and empirical support for the hypothesized positive relationship between locus of

control and the use of impression management tactics. H2: There is a positive relationship between locus of control and the use of impression management tactics.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring is defined as one’s ability to guide behavior out of concern for social appropriateness (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitors are aware of the impression that they are making on others (Bordens & Horowitz, 2001) and will modify their self-presentation based on social cues in order to influence others. Self-monitoring is considered one of the most widely researched personality traits related to impression management (Riordan et al., 1994). Turnley and Bolino (2001) conducted an empirical study to explore the role that self-monitoring plays in the use of impression management tactics. They report that high self-monitors are more likely to be perceived as likeable, competent and dedicated when using ingratiation, self-promotion and exemplification impression management tactics. Turnley and Bolino assert, “high self-monitors possess superior impression management skills” (p. 358). In another report, Bolino and Turnley (2003) state there is a positive relationship between high self-monitors and the use of impression management tactics.

Previous research illustrates that high self-

monitors are concerned with the impressions they make on others, and they possess the ability to tailor their behavior to fit the social situation (Snyder & Copeland, 1989). Various researchers report that high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to use impression management tactics effectively (e.g. Anderson, 1990; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Turnley & Bolino, 2001; Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). Given the previous research on self-monitoring and its influence on self-presentation, support exists in the literature for the hypothesized positive relationship between self-monitoring and the use of impression management tactics.



4

H3: There is a positive relationship between self-monitoring and the use of impression management tactics.

Narcissistic personality.

People with a narcissistic personality have a grandiose sense of self-importance, preoccupation with unlimited success, power and brilliance, and they possess a sense of entitlement (Raskin & Terry, 1988). O’Connor (2007) explains that narcissistic people seek impression management victories through their social interactions. Kets de Vries (2003) reports that many narcissistic people work in positions of leadership. McFarlin and Sweeney (2002) assert that narcissistic leaders engage in excessive impression management tactics. O’Connor notes that narcissistic people brag and exaggerate about their accomplishments in an attempt to received admiration, adulation and compliments from others. Narcissistic personality has been found to be associated with self-enhancement and self-esteem regulation (Raskin, Novacek & Hogan, 1991a). Empirical research reveals a strong, positive correlation between narcissism and grandiosity (Raskin, Novacek & Hogan, 1991b). As masters of impression management, people with a narcissistic personality behave as though they are a cut above the masses and craftily extract compliments from others as a result of their actions (O’Connor). There is extensive literature in the fields of organizational science and psychology that supports the hypothesized positive relationship between narcissistic personality and the use of impression management tactics. H4: There is a positive relationship between narcissistic personality and the use of impression management tactics.

Method

Sample and Participant Selection In order to examine the hypothesized relationships, undergraduate students of junior or senior standing (N = 179) enrolled in business management courses at a large university in the Midwest were invited to participate in the study. Access to these courses required the students to

be of junior or senior standing within the university. Participation was voluntary and responses were anonymous and confidential. The actual sample consisted of 132 students representing a 73.7 percent participation rate. The average age of the participants was approximately 25 years (SD = 6.82). The sample was made up of 49 percent females and 51 percent males. The majority of the students participating in the study were of junior academic ranking (63.2 percent).

Assessments and Measures

The self-administered questionnaire that was used for collecting data was constructed using five previously developed scales with high internal consistency, and the items selected were well-supported in the literature. The instrument was used to obtain measures of self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring, narcissistic personality and impression management. The item pool for the self-administered questionnaire consisted of 108 items. The item pool was created using Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem scale, MacDonald’s and Tseng’s (1971) 11-item locus of control scale, Snyder’s (1974) 25-item self-monitoring scale, Raskin and Terry’s (1988) 40-item narcissistic personality indicator scale, and Bolino and Turnley’s (1999) 22-item impression management scale. The independent variables for the study were self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissistic personality. The dependent variable was impression management. The control variables age and gender were self-reported by participants on the questionnaire.

Impression management tactics.

Impression management was measured using Bolino and Turnley’s (1999) 22-item scale. Responses were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale with 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). A sample item statement is “Make people aware of your accomplishments.” Using Bolino and Turnley’s impression management scale, Bolino et al. (2006) report the use of impression management (IM) tactics positively relates to positive supervisor ratings, likeability and job performance. Kacmar, Harris and Nagy (2007) report that Bolino and Turnley’s IM scale has strong



5

psychometric properties, is unrelated to organizational citizenship behaviors but correlates with perceptions of politics. The Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .79.

Self-esteem.

Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem scale. Responses were obtained on a 4-point Likert scale with 1 (strongly agree) and 4 (strongly disagree). The data were transformed according to Rosenberg’s instructions during data analysis to obtain measures of 0, 1, 2 or 3 with 0 (strongly disagree) and 3 (strongly agree). A sample item statement is “I feel I have a number of good qualities.” The Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale remains a widely used measure of self-esteem designed to assess the extent to which individuals consider themselves worthy, hold a positive attitude toward themselves, or alternatively feel useless (Koydemir & Demir, 2008). For the present study the Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Locus of control. Locus of control was measured using

MacDonald and Tseng’s (1971) 11-item locus of control scale. Responses were obtained on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). A sample item statement is “Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.” Cherry and Fraedrich (2000) tested the scale and reported that external locus of control was related to teleological and action-oriented reasoning, and people with internal locus of control placed greater emphasis on deontological reasoning and rule-based decision making. MacDonald and Tseng’s locus of control scale was recently used by Cherry (2006) in an empirical study that examined the influence of locus of control on attitudes, judgments and behavior intentions. For the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .71. Self-monitoring.

Self-monitoring was measured using Snyder’s (1974) 25-item scale and true-false responses were obtained. A sample item statement is “I would probably make a good actor.” In a self-monitoring study, Snyder reported the internal

consistency of the scale was .70 with a test-retest reliability of .83. Oner (2002) reported the internal reliability of the scale was .82. The self-monitoring scale has been used for testing a wide variety of phenomena, including student integration in higher education (Zweigenhaft & Cody, 1993), materialism (Browne & Kaldenberg, 1997), fashion branding (Auty & Elliott, 1998), impression management (Montagliani & Giacalone, 1998) and leader flexibility across multiple group situations (Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). For the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha falls below the desired .70 level at .63. Narcissistic personality.

Narcissistic personality was measured using Raskin and Terry’s (1988) 40-item scale. Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 (not at all accurate) and 5 (completely accurate). A sample item statement is “I think I am a special person.”The validity of Raskin and Terry’s narcissistic personality scale has been established in empirical studies that report a positive relationship between narcissism and self-esteem (e.g. Emmons, 1984; & Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993) and positive illusions about the self (John & Robins, 1994). In an empirical study on narcissistic personality, Gabriel and Critelli (1994) reported the internal consistency of the scale was .86. For the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .92.

Results

Descriptive Statistics Responses from the self-administered surveys were entered into SPSS (Version 15.0) statistical software and used to compute descriptive statistics. The means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 1. Self-esteem was measured using a 4-point Likert scale. Self-esteem and locus of control were measured using a 7-point Likert scale. Self-monitoring was measured using true-false responses, and narcissistic personality and impression management were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.



6

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (N = 132)

Correlations

A correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the study variables. The results of the Pearson r correlation analysis and internal consistencies are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Correlations and Internal Consistencies (N = 132)

There is a positive and significant

relationship between locus of control and impression management (r = .20, p < .05), high self-monitoring and impression management (r = .26, p < .01), and narcissistic personality and impression management (r = .36, p < .01). No relationship was found between self-esteem and impression management (r = -.01, ns). Yet significant correlations were found between self-esteem and locus of control (r = -.22, p < .05) and self-esteem and narcissistic personality (r = .22, p < .05). Correlations were also found between gender and high self-monitoring (r = -.28, p < .01) and

gender and narcissistic personality (r = -.18, p < .05).

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissistic personality on the use of impression management tactics. The control variables gender and age were entered into the analysis to determine the influence of extraneous variables on impression management in Step 1. Self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissistic personality, the additional predictor variables, were added to the analysis in Step 2.

The combination of predictor variables in

Step 2 significantly predicted the used of impression management tactics, F (6, 125) = 5.30, p < .01; adjusted R2 = .16. The beta weights indicated that narcissistic personality was the largest contributor to the regression equation (β = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01), and the next significant contributor to the regression equation was self-monitoring (β = .18, t = 2.10, p < .05). The adjusted R2 for Step 2 was .16 indicating 16 percent of the variance in impression management was explained by the second model. The adjusted R2 values increased from less than 1 percent to 16 percent in model two thus indicating that model two provided a better explanation for the personality differences that were influential on the use of impression management tactics. The hierarchical regression analysis is displayed in Table 3.

Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Analysis – Impression Management (N = 132)


Narcissistic personality was measured using Raskin and Terry’s (1988) 40-item scale. Responses

were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 (not at all accurate) and 5 (completely accurate). A sample

item statement is “I think I am a special person.”The validity of Raskin and Terry’s narcissistic

personality scale has been established in empirical studies that report a positive relationship between

narcissism and self-esteem (e.g. Emmons, 1984; & Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993) and positive illusions about

the self (John & Robins, 1994). In an empirical study on narcissistic personality, Gabriel and Critelli

(1994) reported the internal consistency of the scale was .86. For the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha

was .92.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Responses from the self-administered surveys were entered into SPSS (Version 15.0) statistical

software and used to compute descriptive statistics. The means and standard deviations are displayed in

Table 1. Self-esteem was measured using a 4-point Likert scale. Self-esteem and locus of control were

measured using a 7-point Likert scale. Self-monitoring was measured using true-false responses, and

narcissistic personality and impression management were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (N = 132)!

Variable M SD

1. Gendera 1.51 .50

2. Age 25.02 6.82

3. Self-esteem 2.30 .42

5. Locus of control 3.36 1.03

6. Self-monitoring 13.81 2.87

7. Narcissistic personality 2.99 .67

8. Impression management 3.47 .66 Making an Impression 12

!

Correlations

A correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship among the study variables. The

results of the Pearson r correlation analysis and internal consistencies are shown in Table 2.!


Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gendera

2. Age .10 -

3. Self-esteem .09 .14 (.79)

4. Locus of control -.04 -.04 -.22* (.71)

5. Self-monitoringb -.28** -.12 -.07 .18* (.63)

6. Narcissistic personality -.18* -.13 .22* -.01 .18* (.92)

7. Impression management -.09 -.04 -.01 .20* .26** .36** (.79)

Note: a. gender was coded 1 for female and 2 for male

b. Self-monitoring was coded 1 for high and 0 for low

There is a positive and significant relationship between locus of control and impression

management (r = .20, p < .05), high self-monitoring and impression management (r = .26, p < .01), and

narcissistic personality and impression management (r = .36, p < .01). No relationship was found between

self-esteem and impression management (r = -.01, ns). Yet significant correlations were found between

self-esteem and locus of control (r = -.22, p < .05) and self-esteem and narcissistic personality (r = .22, p

< .05). Correlations were also found between gender and high self-monitoring (r = -.28, p < .01) and



a. gender was coded 1 for female and 2 for male


Correlations

A correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship among the study variables. The

results of the Pearson r correlation analysis and internal consistencies are shown in Table 2.!


Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gendera

2. Age .10 -

3. Self-esteem .09 .14 (.79)

4. Locus of control -.04 -.04 -.22* (.71)

5. Self-monitoringb -.28** -.12 -.07 .18* (.63)

6. Narcissistic personality -.18* -.13 .22* -.01 .18* (.92)

7. Impression management -.09 -.04 -.01 .20* .26** .36** (.79)

Note: a. gender was coded 1 for female and 2 for male

b. Self-monitoring was coded 1 for high and 0 for low

There is a positive and significant relationship between locus of control and impression

management (r = .20, p < .05), high self-monitoring and impression management (r = .26, p < .01), and

narcissistic personality and impression management (r = .36, p < .01). No relationship was found between

self-esteem and impression management (r = -.01, ns). Yet significant correlations were found between

self-esteem and locus of control (r = -.22, p < .05) and self-esteem and narcissistic personality (r = .22, p

< .05). Correlations were also found between gender and high self-monitoring (r = -.28, p < .01) and



a. gender was coded 1 for female and 2 for male


A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of self-esteem,

locus of control, self-monitoring and narcissistic personality on the use of impression management tactics.

The control variables gender and age were entered into the analysis to determine the influence of

extraneous variables on impression management in Step 1. Self-esteem, locus of control, self-monitoring

and narcissistic personality, the additional predictor variables, were added to the analysis in Step 2.

The combination of predictor variables in Step 2 significantly predicted the used of impression

management tactics, F (6, 125) = 5.30, p < .01; adjusted R2 = .16. The beta weights indicated that

narcissistic personality was the largest contributor to the regression equation (! = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01),

and the next significant contributor to the regression equation was self-monitoring (! = .18, t = 2.10, p <

.05). The adjusted R2 for Step 2 was .16 indicating 16 percent of the variance in impression management

was explained by the second model. The adjusted R2 values increased from less than 1 percent to 16

percent in model two thus indicating that model two provided a better explanation for the personality

differences that were influential on the use of impression management tactics. The hierarchical regression

analysis is displayed in Table 3.!

Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Analysis – Impression Management (N = 132)

Impression Management B SE B !

Model 1

Gender -.12 .12 -.09

Age -.01 .01 -.03

Model 2

Self-esteem -.08 .14 -.05

External locus of control .10 .05 .16

High self-monitoring .25 .12 .18* Making an Impression 14 !

Narcissistic personality .34 .08 .35**

Note: R2 = .01 for Step 1. Adjusted R2 = .16 for Step 2, *p < .05; **p < .01

Hypotheses Testing Results

No relationship was found between self-esteem and the use of impression management tactics (r

= -.01, ns); therefore, hypothesis one is not supported. Hypothesis two predicted a positive relationship

between locus of control and impression management, and the correlation analysis provides support for

hypothesis two (r = .20, p < .05). Hypothesis three predicted a positive relationship between self-

monitoring and impression management (r = .26, p >01), and the data provides support for hypothesis

three. Hypothesis four predicted a positive relationship between narcissistic personality and impression

management, and the correlation analysis supports this predicted relationship (r = .36, p < .01).

Hypothesis four is supported.

Through multiple regression analysis, the linear relationship between self-esteem, locus of control

self-monitoring and narcissistic personality on the use of impression management tactics were examined.

The results revealed that self-esteem (! = -.05, t = -.56, ns) and locus of control (! = .16, t = 1.92, p =

0.57) did not significantly contribute to the regression equation, but self-monitoring (! = .18, t = 2.01, p <

.05) and narcissistic personality (! = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01) did significantly contribute to the prediction of

the use of impression management tactics.

Discussion

The people who were the most likely to use impression management tactics in this study sample

were narcissistic high self-monitors. Individuals with a narcissistic personality attempt to make a good

impression on other people in order to bolster their image through self-enhancement (Raskin & Terry,

1988). High self-monitors modify their self-presentations based on clues from others and tailor their

behavior to fit the situation (Borden & Horowitz, 2001; Snyder & Copeland, 1989). In the study sample,

narcissistic personality (! = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01) and high self-monitoring (! = .18, t = 2.10, p < .05)



7

Hypotheses Testing Results

No relationship was found between self-esteem and the use of impression management tactics (r = -.01, ns); therefore, hypothesis one is not supported. Hypothesis two predicted a positive relationship between locus of control and impression management, and the correlation analysis provides support for hypothesis two (r = .20, p < .05). Hypothesis three predicted a positive relationship between self-monitoring and impression management (r = .26, p >01), and the data provides support for hypothesis three. Hypothesis four predicted a positive relationship between narcissistic personality and impression management, and the correlation analysis supports this predicted relationship (r = .36, p < .01). Hypothesis four is supported.

Through multiple regression analysis, the

linear relationship between self-esteem, locus of control self-monitoring and narcissistic personality on the use of impression management tactics were examined. The results revealed that self-esteem (β = -.05, t = -.56, ns) and locus of control (β = .16, t = 1.92, p = 0.57) did not significantly contribute to the regression equation, but self-monitoring (β = .18, t = 2.01, p < .05) and narcissistic personality (β = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01) did significantly contribute to the prediction of the use of impression management tactics.

Discussion

The people who were the most likely to use

impression management tactics in this study sample were narcissistic high self-monitors. Individuals with a narcissistic personality attempt to make a good impression on other people in order to bolster their image through self-enhancement (Raskin & Terry, 1988). High self-monitors modify their self-presentations based on clues from others and tailor their behavior to fit the situation (Borden & Horowitz, 2001; Snyder & Copeland, 1989). In the study sample, narcissistic personality (β = .35, t = 4.13, p < .01) and high self-monitoring (β = .18, t = 2.10, p < .05) were the most significant predictors of the use of impression management tactics in the linear regression equation.

Future researchers interested in expanding on this study may find it helpful to examine the tendency for people to differentiated self and how self-differentiation influences self-monitoring tendencies and the use of impression management tactics. Bandura (1997) states “the differentiation of oneself from others is the product of a more general process of the construction of the self” (p. 167). Self-differentiation refers to an individual’s ability to differentiate self-from others. Bar-Tal (2000) explains “whereas individuals with low self-differentiation define and describe themselves in terms of the group in which they are members, individuals with high self-differentiation view themselves as unique and thus define and describe themselves in differential terms from their group” (p. 13). Bar-Tal also indicates that social desirability, high self-monitoring and low self-differentiation are related constructs. Based on this line of reasoning, it seems plausible that a relationship exists among high self-monitoring and low self-differentiation on the use of impression management tactics and presents an avenue for future research on impression management.

Conclusion

In the field of economics, it is reported that the “rich get richer” because they have the capital to invest, but the “poor get poorer” because they do not have investment capital (Garland, 2001). In business and academics, recognition and rewards often go to the people who have established a reputation; therefore, making a good impression at the start of the employment relationship or career may have long-term advantages. Likewise, people who do not establish a reputation through the use of impression management tactics may find that disproportionate credit accrues to the most visible rather than to those making the greatest contribution (Creamer, 2001). The psychosocial process associated with the use of impression management tactics shapes both the private and public images of an individual based on “communally validated testimony of significant others” (Merton, 1968, p. 56).

High monitoring and narcissistic people who work in an organizational context may be skilled as using impression management. Such findings raise



8

an important question regarding the different people skilled at using impression management tactics and people who possess leadership abilities. In leadership studies, scholars debate the difference between management and leadership. The results of this study introduce another potential argument into the debate between managers and leaders between impression management and leadership. Kets de Vries (2003) asserts that many narcissistic people work in positions of leadership. He states “their sense of drama, their ability to manipulate others, their knack for establishing quick superficial relationships serves them well in organizational life” (p. 23).

The results of this study confirm that personality differences indeed influence the extent to which people use impression management tactics. Impression management tactics are utilized by people who want to create desired impressions on others. Impression management tactics can help people improve their social image as well as gain approval, affirmation, adulation and applause. Making a good impression may afford opportunities for career advancement, advanced learning and development (Snow, 1994). Those affordances, or opportunities for action (Hicks & Nair, 2009), may provide further opportunities for people to create desired impressions on others through the use of impression management tactics and additional opportunities for promotion or career advancement.

About the Authors Sharon E. Norris: Sharon E. Norris: Sharon is an Assistant Professor of Business and Director of Graduate studies, MBA Programs with the Gainey School of Business at Spring Arbor University, Spring Arbor, Michigan. Sharon studied and was commissioned as a spiritual director through the Manresa Jesuit Retreat House in Bloomfield, Michigan, after a two-year internship in spiritual formation. Sharon is a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Leadership with a concentration in Human Resource Development. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to [email protected]

Tracy H. Porter: Tracy is currently a term instructor with the Management and Labor Relations Department at Cleveland State University. She has spent 12 years in higher education and has extensive experience in health care administration and management consulting. In addition she is a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Leadership with a concentration in Human Resource Development. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to [email protected]

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Albas, D., & Albas, C. (1988). Aces and bombers: The post-exam impression management strategy of students. Symbolic Interaction, 11(2), 289-302.

Arceneaux, A.D. (2006). It doesn’t make any sense: Self and strategies among college students with learning disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.

Anderson, L.R. (1990). Toward a two-track model of leadership training: Suggestions from self-monitoring theory. Small Group Research, 21, 147-167.

Auty, S., & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self monitoring and the meaning of brands. The Journal of Project and Brand Management, 7(2), 109-123.

Babbie, E.R. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Becker, T.E., & Martin, S.L. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for managing poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174-199.

Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H., & Gilstrap, J.E. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and



9

behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080-1109.

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman Taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187-206.

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141-160.

Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 81-297.

Boney-McCoy, S, Gibbons, F., & Gerrard, M. (1999). Self-esteem, compensatory self-enhancement and the consideration of health risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 954.

Bordens, K.S., & Horowitz, I.A. (2001). Social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bozeman, D.P., & Kacmar, K.M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9-30.

Browne, B., & Kaldenberg, D. (1997). Conceptualizing self monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31-44.

Caldwell, D.F., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124-127.

Capel, S. (1997). Learning to teach physical education in the secondary school: A companion to school experience. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2003). Optimism. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231-243). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cherry, J. (2006). The impact of normative influence and locus of control on ethical judgments and intentions: A cross-cultural

comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 113-132.

Cherry, J., & Fraedrich, J. (2000). An empirical investigation of locus of control and the structure of moral reasoning: Examining the ethical decision-making process of sales managers. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20 (3), 173.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, K.W., Vance, C.A., & Spector, P.E. (2000). The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 867-885.

Creamer, E.G. (2001). Working equal. New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell, J., (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300.

Ferris, G.R., & Judge, T.A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447.

Fletcher, C. (1990). The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation strategies and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. Human Relations, 43, 739-749.

Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Friedrich, T. L., Byrne, C.L., & Mumford, M.D. (2009). Methodological and theoretical considerations in survey research. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 57-50.

Gabriel, M.T., & Critelli, J.W. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluation of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 143-155.

Garland, D.E. (2001). Reading Matthew. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

Giacalone, R., & Rosenfeld, P. (1989). Impression management in the organization, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



10

Giacalone, R., & Rosenfeld, P. (1991). Applied impression management, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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 and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Goffman, E., (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Green, J.O., & Burleson, B.R. (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guion, R.M., & Highhouse, S. (2006). Essentials of assessment and selection. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J.D. (2007). The impact of political skill on effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278-285.

Hicks, J., & Nair, P. (2009). If you cannot solve the problem, change it! Techniques for effective problem design. Journal of Practical Consulting, 3(2), 14-21.

.Hochwarter, W.A. (2004). Social influences and job stress: Direct, intervening, and non-linear effects. In P.L. Perrewe & D.C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp. 165-204). Boston, MA: Emerald Publishing Group.

Ivancevich, J.M., Matteson, M.T., & Konopaske, R. (2005). Organizational behavior and management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

John, O.P., & Robins, R.W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perceptions: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.

Jones, E.E., Gergen, K.J., Gumpert, P., & Thibaut, J.W. (1965). Some conditions affecting the use of integration of influence performance

evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 613-625.

Jones, E.E., & Pittman, T.S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls & Greenwald, A.G. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., & Bratton, V.K. (2004). Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 309-331.

Kacmar, K.M., Harris, K.J., & Nagy, B.G. (2007). Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley Impression Management Scale. Institute of Behavior and Applied Management, 9, 16-32.

Keenan, A. (1982). Candidate personality and performance in the selection interview. Personnel Review, 11, 22-25.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2003). Essays on the psychology of leadership: Leaders, fools and imposters. New York, NY: iUniverse Inc.

Kolditz, T.A., & Arkin, R.M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 492-502.

Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M.R., & Frank, M. (2002). Applicant impression management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28(1), 27-46.

Koydemir, S., & Demir, A. (2008). Shyness and cognitions: An examination of Turkish university students. The Journal of Psychology, 142 (6), p. 633-644.

Leary, M.AR. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Liden, R.C., & Mitchell, T.R. (1988). Ingratiating behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 572-587.



11

London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminate validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 161-628.

MacDonald, A.P., & Tseng, M. (1971). Dimensions of internal versus external control revisited: Toward the development of a measure of generalized expectancy. Unpublished paper, cited in Robinson and Shaver (1973), Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.

Manzur, L., & Jogaratnam, G. (2006). Impression management and the hospitality service encounter: Cross-cultural differences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 20(3/4), 21-32.

McFarlin, D.B., & Sweeney, P. (2002). Where egos dare: The untold truth about narcissistic leaders and how to survive them. London: Kogan Page.

McFarland, L.A., Ryan, A.M., & Kriska, S.D. (2003). Impression management use and effectiveness across assessment methods. Journal of Management, 29(5), 641-661.

Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.

Montagliani, A., & Giacalone, R.A. (1998). Impression management and cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(5), 598-608.

Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.

Murphy, N.A. (2007). Appearing smart: The impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy and behavior in social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 325-339.

O’Connor, B.P. (2007). Other personality disorders. In M. Hersen & J. Rosqvist (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment, case conceptualizations and treatment (pp. 438-462). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Oner, B. (2002). Self-monitoring and future time orientation in romantic relationships. Journal of Psychology, 136(4), 420-424.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Preves, S., & Stephenson, D. (2009). The classroom as stage: Impression management in collaborative teaching. Teaching Sociology, 37(3), 245-256.

Ralston, D.A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 477-487.

Rao, A., Schmidt, S.M., & Murray, L.H. (1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48(2), 147-167.

Raskin R., & Terry, H., (1988). A principle components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991a). Narcissism, self-esteem and defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19-38.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J. & Hogan, R. (1991b). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 911-918.

Riordan, C.A., Gross, T., & Maloney, C.C. (1994). Self-monitoring, gender and the personal consequences of impression management, American Behavioral Scientist, 37(3),

715-725. Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational

behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rooney, R.H. (2009). Strategies for working with involuntary clients. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



12

Rosenfeld, P.R., Giacalone, R.A., & Riordan, C.A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1989). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

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

Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F.M., Anderson, N.R., & Mohamed, A.R. (2002). Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 59-76.

Smurda, J., Wittig, M., & Gokalp, G. (2006). Effects of threat to a valued social identity on implicitly self-esteem and discrimination. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 9(2), 181-197.

Snow, R.E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In R.J. Sternberg & R.K. Wagner (1994). Mind in context: Integrationists perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 3-37). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526 – 537.

Snyder, M., & Copeland, J. (1989). Self-monitoring processing in organizational settings, In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 7-20), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spector, P.E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392.

Tedeschi, J., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in organizations. In S.B. Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 31-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tetlock, P.E., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1985). Impression management versus intra-psychic explanations in social psychology: A

useful dichotomy. Psychological Review, 92(1), 59-77.

Turnley, W.H., & Bolino, M.C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351-360.

Wragg, T. (1995). Teachers’ fist encounters with their classes. In B. Moon & A. Shelton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in secondary school. London: The Open University.

Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

Wayne, S.J., & Liden, R.C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232-260.

Wells, L.E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Yetim, U., (2003). The impacts of individualism/collectivism, self-esteem, and feeling of mastery on life satisfaction among the Turkish university students and academicians. Social Indicators Research, 61, (3), 297-317.

Zaccaro, S.J., Foti, R.J., & Kenny, D.A. (1991). Self monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308-315.

Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K.M., Witt, L.A., Carlson, D.S., & Bratton, V.K. (2004). Interactive effects on impression management and organizational politics on job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 627-640.

Zweigenhaft, R.L., & Cody, M.L. (1993). The self monitoring of black students on a predominantly white campus. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 5-10.

making an impression: the influence of self-esteem, locus ...orgleadership.org/norrisporter1.pdf ·...

Documents