Title: LESSONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DRAMATURGY: THE …



Title: LESSONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DRAMATURGY: THE ART OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ,  By: Gardner III, William L., Organizational Dynamics, 00902616, Summer92, Vol. 21, Issue 1

Database: Business Source Premier

| |

|LESSONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DRAMATURGY: THE ART OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT |

| |

|Contents |

| |

|ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE AS DRAMA |

| |

|PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER--PERFORMANCES IN SITU |

| |

|IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS |

| |

|SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY |

| |

|  |

|Ingratiation: The Case of Steve Jacobson |

| |

|  |

|Self-Promotion: The Case of Jane McDowell and Lance Adams |

| |

|  |

|Intimidation: The Case of George Matson |

| |

|  |

|Exemplification: The Case of Sally Powers |

| |

|  |

|Supplication: The Case of Wanda Jones |

| |

|  |

|Face-Saving:The Iran-Contra Scandal |

| |

|  |

|Guidelines for Organizational Audiences |

| |

|  |

|Guidelines for Organizational Actors |

| |

| |

| |

|Today's managers need to be skilled in the "stagecraft" of organizational life--to act their own roles effectively, and to be |

|discerning reviewers of the other performers. |

|You can't judge a book by its cover" is one of the most enduring maxims of our time. Although this may be sound advice in many |

|settings, it takes on special significance in the workplace. Here, as everyone knows, people are frequently judged by their |

|"covers"--sometimes to their benefit, at other times to their detriment. As cultural diversity becomes an increasingly common fact of |

|everyday worklife, the risks of placing an individual at disadvantage through an inappropriate judgment are well publicized. The new |

|workforce simply must stand above the negative influence of unfortunate stereotypes based on ethnic background, race, gender, age, and|

|other personal "externalities." |

|But what about the flip side of this coin? Is there any positive side to the human tendency to judge others by their covers? And, if |

|so, what do we need to know to use this phenomenon to best advantage in the workplace? |

|ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE AS DRAMA |

|All the world's a stage, |

|And all the men and women merely players; |

|They have their exits and their entrances, |

|And one man in his time plays many parts. |

|William Shakespeare |

|Perhaps the answer to these questions can be found in Shakespeare's concept of the world stage. Shakespeare recognized that our lives |

|are analogous to a drama--complete with the actors, audience, props, stage, and scripts for each performance, plus the reviews that |

|follow. For us, the stage of interest comprises the many settings encountered in day-to-day organizational life. The players are the |

|managers and other persons who give life to these settings. |

|Consider the typical employment interview. For both interviewer and interviewee, a major concern is to make a good impression on the |

|other person. Doing so involves a choice of attire, selection of language, the use of manners, body postures, and many other |

|considerations. Each participant is "on stage" and "acting" in ways specifically chosen to create the most favorable impression. The |

|same seems true of almost any organizational event--from the chance meeting between peers in the hallway, to the choice of language |

|and format for a memorandum. Scholars call this phenomenon impression management, the process through which individuals attempt to |

|influence the impressions other people form of them. Skill in this process--for both managing one's image and identifying the |

|impression management tactics of others--is becoming more significant for managers. This is especially true in settings where work |

|events create pressures for quick decisions and spontaneous action, forcing the players to form "impressions" that serve as the |

|foundation for later inferences. Indeed, skillful players in today's organizational dramas take great care in defining and playing |

|their roles, because they realize the importance of their performance. Players who fail to recognize this aspect of organizational |

|life run the danger of performing poorly, or unwittingly being relegated to lesser roles, such as extras or understudies. |

|Some people are oblivious to organizational dramaturgy. Their naivete may stem from a lack of experience in organizational settings, |

|as is often the case for new recruits. Others may be aware of the drama, but consider themselves to be above such petty matters. While|

|such naivete or aloofness may be understandable, it is not without cost. Rightly or wrongly, the success of both individuals and |

|organizations as a whole depends, to a degree, on the skill with which impressions are managed. |

|Importantly, there are some precedents for this viewpoint. The influential sociologist, Erving Goffman, made an eloquent argument for |

|the dramaturgical perspective in his classic, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. A concise summary of this approach |

|appeared in management literature as early as 1977 in Victor A. Thompson's classic essay titled "Dramaturgy." In recent years, many |

|management scholars have likewise come to recognize what researchers in social psychology have understood for years: Dramaturgy, or |

|impression management, explains much about behavior in organizational settings. Given the attention and value attached to this |

|concept, it is time for the basic notions that underlie this perspective to be made available to practitioners. Let's start with the |

|key performance elements. |

|THE ACTOR. As Shakespeare observed, we are all actors in our lives. Because we are all different, there are some parts (e.g., father, |

|manager) that we can legitimately claim, while other roles (e.g., astronaut, emperor) may be beyond our reach. The extent to which we |

|can lay claim to certain identities depends on our physical attributes such as gender, race, age, height, weight, and attractiveness, |

|our skills and abilities (e.g., athletic prowess, computer skills), and our psychological makeup, including our attitudes, values, |

|beliefs, and personality. Together, these attributes help to determine the kinds of images we desire, and those that we can |

|effectively claim. |

|THE AUDIENCE. Certain key characteristics of an audience, such as status, power, attractiveness, and familiarity, have a great impact |

|on the ways in which people present themselves. All of us, for example, tend to have a heightened awareness of impressions we create |

|when interacting with high-status audiences such as top executives or celebrities. |

|THE STAGE (i.e., Situation). Obviously, some situations (e.g., performance reviews, presentations) elicit far different behaviors than|

|others (e.g., parties, family outings). Some have well defined norms for expected behaviors (e.g., awards banquets, staff meetings); |

|others, such as an initial meeting of a newly appointed task force, are more ambiguous. Still, because "all meetings are theater" |

|(complete with costumes, audiences, and props), as George David Kieffer notes in The Strategy of Meetings, actors may be able to "set |

|the stage" to suit their objectives. Long tables can be used to indicate status (e.g., the head of the table) while discouraging |

|participation; circular tables suggest equality and encourage participation. |

|THE SCRIPT. As people experience interpersonal exchanges over time, they develop certain expectations about the sequence of events |

|they anticipate will unfold in similar situations. Cognitive psychologists call these sets of expectations scripts. For many |

|activities--such as eating at a restaurant, shopping at the supermarket, or answering routine inquiries from customers--people tend to|

|overlearn the scripts and follow them mindlessly. Less familiar situations may require actors to create original plans to guide their |

|behaviors. For instance, a college senior on a first job interview may try to visualize the interview and practice answering the |

|anticipated questions. |

|Some organizations go so far as to provide members with carefully constructed scripts to help them create desired impressions with key|

|audiences. At Disney World, all "cast members" are taught the Disney vocabulary in which customers are "guests," rides are |

|"attractions," and uniforms are "costumes." In addition, the guides for many attractions are required to memorize a script, along with|

|several approved variations, which they recite verbatim. Clearly, this carefully orchestrated performance is one of the most dramatic |

|and purposeful examples of organizational dramaturgy. |

|THE PERFORMANCE. The total performance consists of a combination of verbal (e.g., speech), nonverbal (e.g., body position, tone of |

|voice), and artifactual (e.g, dress, office decor) behaviors. The nature of the performance also depends on the actor's interaction |

|motives. Social psychologists have identified many motives for impression management, including the desire to be seen as likable, |

|competent, dangerous, morally worthy, or even pitiful. |

|THE "REVIEWS" (i.e., Audience Reactions). Success occurs when the actor creates the desired impression and secures the expected |

|outcomes (e.g., a compliment, a friendship, a promotion). A performance that fails may lead to unwanted audience reactions (e.g., |

|boredom, disgust, anger, or amusement at the actor's expense). By and large, performances that create favorable reviews are much more |

|likely to lead to desirable organizational outcomes, such as a positive performance appraisal, a promotion, or a pay raise. In view of|

|the stakes, most people are very concerned about the image their superiors, peers, and subordinates have of them. |

|PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER--PERFORMANCES IN SITU |

|Let's consider how combinations of these components interact to produce a particular performance. To do so, we draw on the work of two|

|prominent social psychologists, Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman, to present scenarios and commentary on five distinct types of |

|assertive impression management strategies: ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, exemplification, and supplication. In |

|addition, we also call attention to several defensive or face-saving tactics that actors use to repair a damaged image. |

|Ingratiation: The Case of Steve Jacobson |

|The Actor. Steve Jacobson is one of fifteen copywriters employed by Jarvis, Jenkins, Anderson, and Jones (J.J.A.J., Inc.), a respected|

|industrial advertising agency. Though happy with his job, Steve would like a position with more pay and status. His dream is to one |

|day be a partner in this firm. |

|The Audience. Steve's immediate superior is Sandra Jones, a partner and the firm's executive creative director. Recently, Sandra |

|announced that she would be selecting one of the copywriters to take the lead in developing a campaign proposal for Waltrips' |

|Pharmaceuticals, a potential 8 million dollar account. Steve saw this campaign as an excellent career opportunity, one that could |

|increase both his visibility and income. Along with three other copywriters, Steve volunteered to head up the project. |

|The Performance. In the weeks following Sandra's announcement, Steve's behavior at the office changed considerably. He purchased and |

|wore several new business suits and began using an expensive cologne. Whenever he saw Sandra, he smiled broadly at her and sometimes |

|complimented her on her outfit, her hair, or some other aspect of her appearance. In addition, he made many favorable comments on her |

|work, saying things like "Nice job with the Bartels account, Sandra. You really came through for us!" and "You're so creative; you've |

|got a really refreshing perspective!" Furthermore, whenever Sandra expressed her opinion, work-related or not, Steve was sure to agree|

|with her. He also went out of his way to do little favors for her. For instance, Steve brought her a cake on her birthday and arranged|

|to have an office birthday party. On another day, he offered to make a stack of photocopies for Sandra, even though this was not part |

|of his job duties. |

|The Reviews. Sandra's impression of Steve improved considerably. She had always thought of him as a competent copywriter, but she |

|recently noticed several other positive attributes, such as his professional dress, his friendly manner, and his willingness to help |

|others. Sandra also discovered that his ideas about advertising seemed very consistent with her own. Given these qualities, Sandra |

|decided that Steve would be the best candidate for the Waltrips' campaign. |

|Scenario Analysis. Motives to ingratiate are most common in situations such as the one depicted, where the actor is dependent on a |

|higher status person for the allocation of valued rewards. Under these circumstances, employees, such as Steve, often attempt to make |

|themselves more attractive or likable to the target audience. Interestingly, actors often ingratiate themselves with their superiors |

|without being consciously aware of their behavior. |

|While popular books like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People have long recognized the power of ingratiation, |

|researchers are just now beginning to chart the extent to which this tactic is used. For example, when R. W. Allen and Associates |

|interviewed managers to identify the most common political tactics they encountered at work, 35 percent of the supervisors and 17 |

|percent of the CEOs mentioned ingratiation. The supervisors used expressions such as "buttering up the boss" and "apple polishing" to |

|describe these tactics. |

|In our scenario, Steve used a variety of verbal (e.g., flattery, opinion conformity, favors), nonverbal (e.g., smiles), and |

|artifactual behaviors (e.g., wearing new business suits and cologne) to ingratiate himself with Sandra His success with this tactic is|

|not unusual; research indicates that ingratiating subordinates are better liked and receive more pay raises, favorable performance |

|appraisals, and promotions than do equally qualified, non-ingratiating co-workers. |

|Ingratiation, however, is not without its risks. Motives to ingratiate are sometimes so transparent that superiors see through the |

|act. When this occurs, ingratiation may backfire. Furthermore, if the target discusses the actor's behavior with others, his or her |

|reputation could be further tarnished. Finally, the target's disgust may be accompanied by other negative outcomes such as verbal |

|abuse, a poor performance appraisal, or even a demotion or termination. |

|Given the risks involved, it is clear that Steve's ingratiating behavior represented a gamble that paid off. With another audience, |

|however, his rather blatant efforts could have backfired and hurt his image. For Steve, the opportunity to head up this project was |

|well worth the risk. In making this choice, he was exposed to one of the great ironies of ingratiation: The situations in which actors|

|are most tempted to use it are also the ones in which it is most obvious. Social psychologists call this tradeoff "the ingratiator's |

|dilemma." Because of this dilemma, socially skilled subordinates avoid using lavish agreement, blatant favors, and direct praise for |

|marginal work, since these behaviors are too obvious and lack finesse. Subtle ingratiation tactics include complimenting the target on|

|a job well done, agreeing on major issues while disagreeing on minor ones, and asking a third party to confide with the target the |

|actor's positive opinion of him or her. |

|Self-Promotion: The Case of Jane McDowell and Lance Adams |

|The Actors. Jane McDowell and Lance Adams are both management students who will soon graduate from a large miswestern university. Both|

|have interviewed for a management trainee position with J-Line Hardware Company, a large wholesale hardware distributorship. Jane, an |

|outstanding student with a 3.9 GPA, will graduate near the top of her class. She has been active throughout her college career in a |

|number of student organizations and served as an officer in several She has some supervisory experience working in her family's |

|restaurant business. Lance, on the other hand, is a good, but not exceptional student. He has a 3.1 GPA, no managerial experience, and|

|has not been involved in extracurricular activities. |

|The Audience. Albert Wesley, 44, is the sales manager and part-time recruiter for J-Line who interviewed both Jane and Lance. After |

|earning a degree in marketing from Penn State, Albert joined J-Line as a management trainee. He was promoted to his current position |

|about five years ago. Overall, Albert's background is similar to that of about half of J-Line's other department managers; most are |

|young males placed directly into management positions through the company's management trainee program. |

|The Performances. During Jane's interview, she was modest about her accomplishments and background. Assuming that her resume would |

|speak for itself, Jane downplayed her credentials to avoid appearing conceited. She felt that quiet confidence was the best way to |

|present herself. In contrast, Lance was very assertive. He claimed that he was familiar with the hardware business because his |

|neighbor owns a highly successful retail hardware outlet. He also brought a fifty-page business plan he had developed with his work |

|group in a small business management course. While Lance's actual input into this project had not been exceptional, he implied that he|

|was the group leader and the key contributor. He wrapped up the interview by suggesting that his interpersonal skills separated him |

|from most of the students in his class. |

|The Reviews. Lance impressed Albert as a highly assertive, ambitious individual--a real go-getter. While his GPA was not as high as |

|Jane's, Lance seemed to have the interpersonal skills the job required. His background and attitude also seemed consistent with those |

|of the other junior managers at J-Line. While Jane had the grades, she didn't seem assertive enough for a managerial position. Albert |

|invited Lance to travel to J-Line's headquarters for a second interview, where he extended a job offer. Lance accepted. |

|Six months later, Albert chatted with Lance's boss, who stated that he was disappointed with the trainee's work: Lance didn't seem |

|familiar with the hardware industry and he lacked management skills. To Albert's surprise, the supervisor also said that Lance wasn't |

|putting much effort into his job. |

|Scenario Analysis. Why was Jane so modest during her interview, and Lance so positive? The answer can be found by examining the |

|characteristics of the situation, the actors, and the audience. |

|Lance used several self-promotional tactics including self-enhancement, entitlements, and "BIRGing." Self-enhancement involves efforts|

|to portray one's attributes in a highly positive way. Lance adopted this tactic when he described his interpersonal skills and |

|knowledge of the wholesale hardware industry. Entitlements are used to maximize the actor's apparent responsibility for positive |

|outcomes--as when Lance claimed that he was the informal leader of his student work group. "BIRGing" stands for "Basking in reflected |

|glory." It occurs when actors try to associate themselves with someone or something that is viewed positively by the audience. A good |

|example is Lance's efforts to fink himself with his neighbor, a successful retailer in the hardware industry. While Lance's efforts at|

|self-promotion appear transparent under scrutiny, they were effective in impressing Albert and landing him the job. |

|A recent experiment by David C. Gilmore and Gerald R. Ferris suggests that Albert's response would be shared by many other recruiters.|

|These researchers presented 62 experienced employment interviewers with videotaped interview segments in which an applicant exhibited |

|either high or low levels of impression management. The applicant's credentials were also varied by changing the information in her |

|resume to indicate that she was either highly or poorly qualified for the job. The recruiters felt that the candidate who exhibited |

|impression management behaviors performed better in the interview, and they were more inclined to hire this applicant. Incredibly, |

|this was true regardless of the candidate's credentials! In this setting, form clearly triumphed over substance. |

|Despite its usefulness, self-promotion has the same potential pitfalls as ingratiation. Indeed, there exists a "self-promoters |

|paradox" analogous to the "ingratiator's dilemma." The paradox is that the situations in which the incentives and potential benefits |

|of self-promotion are greatest are also the situations in which this tactic is most obvious. Thus, actors must take care so as not to |

|arouse suspicion about their professed assets. Otherwise, the audience may investigate their claims of competence (e.g., check |

|references), only to find they are exaggerated. |

|One of the ironies of self-promotion is that those who are in the best position to use it are often reluctant to do so. While Jane's |

|academic record and work experience were clearly superior to Lance's, she was reluctant to point these attributes out to Albert for |

|fear that he would think her a braggart. Instead, she mistakenly thought her qualifications would speak for themselves. Jane's modesty|

|is not unusual for a woman. Social-psychological research suggests that many women refrain from drawing attention to their |

|accomplishments. Labeled the "feminine modesty" effect, there is mounting evidence that this modesty costs many women important career|

|opportunities. |

|Albert's "reviews" of the candidates also deserve some attention. He may well have been comparing the candidates' remarks to the |

|"script" he expected a superior applicant to follow. In this script, the candidate points out that he or she possesses a high level of|

|work-related skills (e.g., interpersonal skills) and experience. Since Lance followed this script and Jane did not, Lance came closer |

|to the ideal candidate. |

|Albert also seemed to use an implicit leadership theory when selecting between candidates. Specifically, he associated leadership with|

|the assertive, perhaps masculine, behavior typical of many of J-Line's successful managers. Since Lance closely approximated his |

|prototypical image of a leader, he was selected. The positive attributes that Jane possessed, such as modesty, were undervalued |

|because they didn't fit the script. Unfortunately, these "scripting" problems are common with employment interviews; recruiters should|

|take heed. |

|Intimidation: The Case of George Matson |

|The Actor. George Matson is the owner of a small local diner, which he purchased five years ago. Previously, he had worked for |

|seventeen years in assorted lower level managerial positions for a prominent national restaurant chain. During this time he was |

|repeatedly passed over for promotions. |

|The Audience. At any given time, George usually employs two cooks, three to four waiters or waitresses, two bus boys, and a dish |

|washer. |

|The Performance. George feels his employees are lazy and deceitful and has little patience with them. Consequently, he orders them |

|around in a gruff, austere manner, warning them not to "mess up" or they'll have him to answer to. On those occasions when he catches |

|someone sitting idly, George reprimands the employee and assigns menial, sometimes physically exhausting work. He typically ends these|

|attacks by threatening to fire the offending party. |

|The employees live in perpetual fear that they will fall victim to one of George's tirades. To avoid his wrath, they take great pains |

|to complete their assigned tasks as promptly as possible. Their efforts do not always pay off, however. On more than one occasion, he |

|has lit into an employee for no apparent reason, sometimes reducing the person to tears. He also periodically makes good on his |

|threats by firing a worker for a slight provocation. |

|The Reviews. Not surprisingly, turnover at George's restaurant runs well above the industry. While poor working conditions and low pay|

|contribute to this turnover, George's harsh treatment appears to be the paramount factor. Unfortunately for George, the excessive |

|turnover has seriously cut into his profits. The more his profits suffer, however, the more severe he is with his employees. A vicious|

|cycle has developed. |

|Scenario Analysis. Intimidation occurs most often when: (1) relationships are of a nonvoluntary or contractual nature, such as those |

|that exist between employers and employees; (2) the intimidator has the capability of inflicting either physical, mental, economic, or|

|professional hardships on the target; (3) the target has weak retaliatory capabilities (no desire or ability to inflict pain on the |

|intimidator); and (4) the intimidator is willing to forgo any hope of being liked by the target. |

|Each of these conditions is apparent in our scenario. First, since the targets are George's employees, they are obligated to follow |

|his orders or suffer the consequences--up to a point. Second, George can inflict mental pain through verbal abuse, economic pain by |

|docking their pay or firing them, and physical pain by assigning physically demanding chores. Third, the workers are unable or |

|reluctant to retaliate against George. Finally, George is willing to forgo affection. In a nutshell, George would rather be feared |

|than loved. |

|The potential pitfalls of intimidation are clear. However, when organizational circumstances require immediate action and |

|unquestioning obedience to the leader, intimidation may be the most viable option. Thus it is not surprising that intimidation is an |

|accepted tactic in the military services, particularly during times of war. General George Patton, for example, periodically used |

|intimidation to make clear to his troops those behaviors that simply would not be tolerated. |

|A more recent example of an intimidator is Joe Clark, the principal of East Side High School in Patterson, New Jersey, whose story was|

|recently depicted in the Warner Brothers movie, Lean on Me. When Joe Clark took over as principal, the school was infested with crime,|

|drugs, and violence; only 38 percent of East Side's students were able to pass the state minimum competencies exam. Reasoning that |

|extreme conditions require extreme actions, Clark expelled 300 known drug dealers, users, and criminals. He started carrying a |

|Louisville Slugger and a bull horn to get the students' attention and enforce the rules. Joe rode hard on his teachers, assistant |

|principals, and students, and eventually succeeded in turning East Side into an overachieving inner city school. |

|Exemplification: The Case of Sally Powers |

|The Actor. Sally Powers is the chairperson of the sociology department at a large northwestern university. She is the focal person in |

|a twelve-member department known for its outstanding accomplishments in teaching and research. Sally has been the chair for the past |

|four years, during which time the department's reputation has improved dramatically. |

|The Audience. Many people take an interest in Sally's performance, including colleagues, students, support staff, and administrators. |

|The Performance. Sally arrives at her office around 6:15 A.M. every day except Sunday, when she comes in shortly after noon. She |

|usually works there until 7:30 every evening. When she leaves, she often takes a briefcase of papers home to be read before she |

|retires for the night. |

|Sally is known to her students as a highly dedicated and demanding instructor. She devotes a great deal of time to her lecture plans |

|and expects her students to be equally dedicated. She is never too busy to help a student who asks for assistance. With regard to |

|research, Sally is a leader in the field of smallgroup behavior. She is widely published and recognized as an exceptional scholar in |

|her discipline. She serves on many university committees and as an officer in several professional organizations. |

|The Reviews. Sally Powers is one of the most respected members of her profession. Students idolize her. Colleagues express their |

|utmost admiration. Many describe Sally as an inspirational leader who is able to lift others to higher performance levels. |

|Scenario Analysis. Sally's case illustrates an important point: Dramaturgy does not always involve efforts to manipulate or deceive |

|the audience. Although to some, the term impression management has negative connotations, it really should not. We all manage |

|impressions every day when we present ourselves to others. As social beings, we have to. In doing so, most of us--like Sally--present |

|ourselves in an honest and straightforward way. Sally, for instance, seems to be genuinely dedicated to her students, colleagues, and |

|profession. In this regard, Sally possesses two qualities which are found over and over again among our best leaders--integrity and |

|exemplary behavior. That is, Sally leads by example; she is a role model. Popular management books such as In Search of Excellence, as|

|well as many academic works, have repeatedly documented the importance of these attributes to effective leadership. |

|Of course, not all people who exhibit exemplification do so with the best interests of their audience at heart. Some are more |

|concerned with their personal glory or welfare. For instance, many of the now-discredited televangelists, such as Jim Bakker, appear |

|to have used exemplification to inspire followers to donate money to their causes for the sole purpose of increasing their own fame |

|and fortune. Still, there is nothing inherently deceptive about exemplification, or impression management in general. Some people are |

|simply more honest than others. |

|Supplication: The Case of Wanda Jones |

|The Actor. Wanda Jones, an attractive sales representative, has been working for a large pharmaceutical firm for a little over a |

|month. Her job responsibilities include using the company's mainframe computer to prepare a monthly market analysis and sales forecast|

|for her territory. Because Wanda has virtually no computer experience, she has no idea how to complete this report. It is due at the |

|end of next week. |

|The Audience. Senior sales representative Juan Diaz, who has extensive computer and market analysis experience, serves as the |

|audience. |

|The Performance. As the deadline for Wanda's first market report drew near, she became increasingly anxious. Instead of learning to |

|use the mainframe, she decided to describe her dilemma to Juan. Wanda gave him a sad look, batted her eyes, and confided that she had |

|no idea how to use the mainframe and was petrified to try. She begged him to help her. After twenty minutes of listening to her cries |

|for help, Juan agreed to complete her market analysis, but warned her that she'd have to do it herself next month. |

|A week before her second report was due, Wanda staged a repeat performance. Juan refused, but when Wanda burst into tears, he |

|consented. The third time Wanda asked, Juan steadfastly refused. Wanda was now back where she started--unable to perform a key part of|

|her job. |

|The Review. Not surprisingly, completing Wanda's reports plus his own for two straight months detracted from Juan's performance. His |

|sales declined and his boss noticed that his last report wasn't thorough. Juan is now bitter toward Wanda; he views her as incompetent|

|and manipulative. |

|Scenario Analysis. The objective of supplicants, like Wanda, is to have others pity them and help them with their troubles. This |

|strategy is most likely to be invoked when actors lack (or think they lack) a critical resource, ability, or attribute that they need |

|and that the audience possesses. The supplicant tries to exploit his or her own weakness or dependence to gain a desired outcome. |

|While this strategy can be effective, there are severe drawbacks. For one, it places the actor in a weak position vis-a-vis the |

|audience. Any time the supplicant falls into disfavor, the audience can remove its support. The supplicant will then typically suffer |

|dire consequences, as did Wanda in our scenario. She still lacks the computer skills required to do her job, and she has made an enemy|

|out of Juan. It will be much more embarrassing for her to own up to this deficiency now than had she done so at the outset. |

|Furthermore, her reputation could be irreparably damaged if she confesses to her boss that Juan completed her previous reports. |

|Despite these drawbacks. research suggests that a startling number of organizational members are willing to resort to supplication. |

|The results of a survey of 2,247 working adults conducted by psychologists Walter R. Gove, Michael Hughes, and Michael R. Geerken |

|revealed that 7 percent of the working women interviewed said that they sometimes "played dumb during interactions with their bosses, |

|and 9 percent reported doing so with co-workers. Contrary to sex-role stereotypes, which portray women as being more likely to adopt |

|the supplicant role, 13 percent of the male workers admitted playing dumb with their bosses; 14 percent did so with co-workers Younger|

|workers also reported using this tactic more often than older workers, presumably because supplication is more acceptable for persons |

|who occupy lower status roles. Regardless of the sex or age of the respondents, however, playing dumb was found to be related to poor |

|mental health, alienation, low self-esteem, and unhappiness. |

|Clearly, supplication is a risky impression management strategy, which is presumably only used as a last resort. Excessive reliance on|

|this strategy can easily damage the actor's self-esteem and inhibit his or her development in the deficient areas. So, while |

|supplicants may gain short-term benefits, they are too often big losers in the long run. |

|Face-Saving:The Iran-Contra Scandal |

|The Actor. President Ronald Reagan. |

|The Audience. The United States public, Congress, and the international community. |

|The Performance. During the Iran-contra affair, President Reagan responded to the allegations leveled against his administration by |

|denying that an arms-for-hostages deal had been made, claiming that he was unaware of the diversion of funds, and making it clear that|

|any actions taken were done so to free the hostages. Once the damaging Tower Report was issued and Reagan took "full responsibility" |

|for the mistakes that had been made, he still blamed others for "activities undertaken without my knowledge." |

|The Reviews. The favorable headlines (e.g., "President Takes Blame," "Makes No Excuses") indicate that Reagan accurately gauged his |

|public The adverse effects of the predicament were clearly lessened, since Reagan left the presidency with a high public approval |

|rating. |

|Scenario Analysis. When faced with a predicament, there are two major classes of face-saving tactics available: accounts and |

|apologies. Accounts are explanations of a predicament-creating event, designed to reduce the apparent severity of the predicament. |

|Scholars have identified three general types of accounts: defenses of innocence, excuses, and justifications. |

|The purpose of a defense of innocence is to disassociate the actor from the alleged event. This tactic was used by Reagan when he |

|steadfastly denied that an arms-for-hostages deal had been made. When actors are obviously responsible for a predicament, they often |

|make excuses for their behavior. With an excuse, actors admit that their actions in some way caused a negative event, but contend that|

|they are not really as responsible as it seems. Basically, they argue that the undesirable event was not intentional or that there |

|were extenuating circumstances. Alternatively, they may contend that the undesirable consequences of their behavior were not foreseen |

|(e.g., "I had no idea it would break"). Reagan made such an excuse when he claimed that he had no prior knowledge of the diversion of |

|funds. With justifications, the actor accepts responsibility for an event, but denies that it lead to adverse consequences, or claims |

|that the ends justified the means. Reagan tried to justify some of the actions that came under scrutiny by pointing out that they were|

|undertaken to free the hostages. |

|Apologies constitute the other general method of face-saving. An actor uses these to convince the audience that the undesirable event |

|is not a fair indication of what he or she is "really like" as a person. It is interesting to note that Reagan never apologized for |

|the mistakes he admitted making during the Iran-contra affair. While many people were angry, feeling that the nation deserved an |

|apology, Reagan, as a former professional actor, seems to have realized he would be seen as weak if he apologized. |

|It is also noteworthy that Oliver North, the designated scapegoat in this scandal, provided several accounts of his actions as well. |

|North denied many charges that were made against him, such as the illegal purchase of a home security system (defense of innocence), |

|said that he was only obeying the orders of his superiors (excuse), and argued that he had been motivated by patriotism to provide the|

|heroic contras with the Support Congress irresponsibly denied justification). He also offered up an apology, which is perfectly |

|consistent with his image as a scapegoat. As was the case for the President, North's face-saving efforts went a long way toward |

|repairing his image. Indeed, many citizens came to view North as a hero. |

|Because each of us is intuitively aware of the benefits that can accrue from accounts and apologies, we employ variations of these |

|tactics on a daily basis--often without even realizing it. What's more, research shows that these tactics can be used by poor |

|performing workers to persuade their bosses to attribute less responsibility to them, to be less personal in their responses, and to |

|be less punitive. Along with their benefits, however, face-saving strategies possess some serious limitations. The most obvious |

|drawback is that these tactics can soon wear thin. Repeated excuse-making, for example, quickly creates an image of incompetence. |

|IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS |

|Because impression management strategies are a commonplace part of everyday life, we tend to overlook their impact on an |

|organization's culture and performance. This is unfortunate; the dramas that permeate an organization go a long way toward shaping its|

|character. In light of this, it is critical that organizational members recognize various impression management tactics and the |

|motives behind them, thus becoming intelligent and discriminating actors and audiences in the daily drama. |

|The following guidelines are offered to help meet this objective. |

|Guidelines for Organizational Audiences |

|Be aware of your personal characteristics and the situational features that make certain types of impression management strategies |

|more likely. As noted earlier, the salient characteristics of an audience (such as status, power, and novelty) as well as features of |

|the situation greatly influence an actor's performance. |

|Given this fact, audiences should be on the lookout for high-probability strategies. For instance, recruiters should be careful to |

|separate pure self-promotion from legitimate claims of competence. Similarly, those who occupy positions of power or status should be |

|attuned to subordinates' efforts to ingratiate them. |

|Minimize personal, situational, and organizational features that foster undesirable performances. For instance, organizations in which|

|task performance is ambiguous and resources scarce tend to encounter relatively high levels of ingratiation. Subordinates recognize |

|that when clear standards for allocating limited resources are lacking, those who are most liked by superiors tend to be favored when |

|rewards are distributed. |

|To minimize ingratiation, the organization should take steps to reduce the incentives and opportunities to ingratiate. Clearly written|

|performance criteria and an effective appraisal system provide a good foundation. By carefully engineering the organizational |

|environment, managers can impact (and, to some extent, control) the types of dramaturgical performances their employees engage in. |

|Look for ulterior motives and avoid being overly influenced by dramaturgical behavior. Because impression management is an inevitable |

|element of organizational life, the ability to distinguish between honest and manipulative strategies is essential. Otherwise, the |

|dynamics of a relationship and its impact on one's behavior and that of others will not be realistically assessed. For instance, a |

|person who is aware of the supplication strategy and its pitfalls for both the actor and the audience is unlikely to be duped into |

|providing assistance to a supplicant. Similarly, a manager who is able to distinguish between pure self-promotion and true competence |

|is less likely to be biased by an invalid claim when appraising a staff member's performance. |

|Guidelines for Organizational Actors |

|Be aware of your impression management behavior and the image you project. Organizational actors too often use impression management |

|tactics without thinking about their consequences. Frequently, these tactics are part of a situational script that has been reinforced|

|in the past. As a result, the tactic may be elicited without conscious scrutiny. Because of the potential pitfalls of any performance,|

|however, organizational members need to think before acting to avoid creating unwanted impressions. |

|Size up your audience and the situation. The characteristics of the audience and the situation have a major impact on an actor's |

|performance. Unfortunately, many actors are not wholly aware of the impact of these factors on their behaviors. Because audiences, |

|however, often know all too well how these attributes affect people, they may easily see through a manipulative performance. For |

|instance, persons with power or high status tend to look out for ingratiation attempts, especially when the actor is in some way |

|dependent on them for resources or rewards. Therefore, it is critical for the actor to realize that the audience may be hypersensitive|

|to certain tactics. Under these circumstances, subtlety can yield many benefits. |

|Carefully choose a desired image and present yourself accordingly. Your professional reputation, financial success, career progress, |

|and self-esteem all depend, in part, on the image others have of you. Unfortunately, past experiences have conditioned many people to |

|project images that are counterproductive to success. To avoid this, take stock of your image; pay attention to the verbal and |

|nonverbal messages others give during your interactions. Or, ask a trusted colleague to honestly appraise you. Watch others and |

|incorporate their positive impression management strategies into your own. |

|Recognize the dangers of the strategy you have chosen. As the scenarios and discussion illustrated, all impression management tactics |

|have their drawbacks. Actors need to be aware of these shortcomings in order to avoid, or at least minimize, any unwanted |

|consequences. |

|Perform. The suggestions regarding impression management made above are in no way meant to imply that actors should substitute these |

|tactics for high performance. The surest way to make a good impression in an organization is to be a high performer. These |

|recommendations are merely meant to encourage you to examine your image and make sure it is one that you truly desire. |

|Be Yourself. This last guideline is the most important. It overrides all those that precede it. When selecting an image, never try to |

|be something you're not. People will see through the facade. In sum, make every effort to put your best foot forward--but never at the|

|cost of your identity or integrity! |

|SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY |

|The opening quotation is from William Shakespeare's play As You Like It. The dramaturgical perspective reflected in this quotation is |

|thoroughly developed in Erving Goffman's classic work, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life (Doubleday Anchor, 1959). For |

|excellent discussions of social-psychological research on impression management, see Barry M. Schlenker, Impression Management: The |

|Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations (Brookst/Cole, 1980); Barry M. Schlenker, ea., The Self and Social Life |

|(McGraw-Hill, 1985); and James T. Tedeschi, ed., Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (Academic Press, |

|1981). Works that specifically focus on impression management in organizational settings include: Victor A. Thompson's essay titled |

|"Dramaturgy," from his book, Modern Organization (The University of Alabama Press, 1977), reprinted in lay M. Shafritz and Philip H. |

|Whitehead, eds., Classics of Organization Theory (Moore Publishing, 1978); Robert A. Giacolone and Paul Rosenfeld, eds., Impression |

|Management in the Organization (Erlbaum, 1990); and William L. Gardner's and Mark J. Martinko's article, "Impression Management in |

|Organizations," Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 2,1988. A thought-provoking discussion of the role of cognitive scripts in |

|organizational settings can be found in an article by Dennis Gioia and Charles C. Manz titled, "Linking Cognition and Behavior: A |

|Script Processing Interpretation," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3,1985. Most recently, a practitioner-oriented book of |

|readings edited by Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld, entitled Applied Impression Management: How Image Making Affects Managerial|

|Decision Making (Sage, 1991), has been published to demonstrate the importance and applicability of impression management research in |

|work settings. |

|The taxonomy of five general strategies of assertive self-presentation, which serve as the basis for five of the six scenarios, was |

|first presented in a highly influential book chapter by Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman, titled "Toward a General Theory of |

|Strategic Self-Presentation," which appears in Jerry Suls, ea., Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Erlbaum, 1982). |

|The extent to which managers at various organizational levels use ingratiation as a political tactic was documented by R. W. Allen, D.|

|L. Madison, L. W. Porter, P. A. Renwick, and B. T. Mayes in "Organization Politics: Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors," |

|California Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1979. Some of the best academic discussions of ingratiation include: Edward E. Jones' |

|book Ingratiation (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964); a monograph by Edward E. Jones and Camille Wortman titled Ingratiation: An |

|Attributional Approach (General Learning Press, 1974); a chapter by Camille B. Wortman and Joan A. W. Linsenmeier titled |

|"Interpersonal Attraction and Ingratiation in Organizational Settings" in Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik, eds., New Directions |

|in Orgnizational Behavior (St. Clair Press, 1977); an article by David Ralston titled "Employee Ingratiation: The Role of Management,"|

|Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1985; and an article by Robert C. Liden and Terrence R. Mitchell titled "Ingratiatory |

|Behaviors in Organizational Settings," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988. |

|While the other strategies of impression management have received far less attention than ingratiation, some relevant empirical |

|literature is available. The experiment by David C. Gilmore and Gerald R. Ferris which clarified the impact of self-promotion and |

|ingratiation on recruiters' perceptions and hiring decisions is described in an article titled "The Effects of Applicant Impression |

|Management Tactics on Interviewer Judgments," Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1989. Similarly, an interesting experiment that |

|sheds light on the circumstances under which actors use self-promotion is described by Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld in |

|"Self-presentation and Self-promotion in an Organizational Setting," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 126, No. 3, 1986. Another |

|experiment that demonstrated the tendency of some women to avoid self-promotion is described in Robert J. Gould and Carolyn G. Slone's|

|article, "The Feminine Modesty Effect: A Self-Presentational Interpretation of Sex Differences in Causal Attributions," Personality |

|and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1982. Daniel T. Gilbert and Edward E. Jones summarize the results of an experiment |

|designed to document the risks involved with exemplification in their article, "Exemplification: The Self-presentation of Moral |

|Character," Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, No. 3, 1986. Insights into supplication can be gained from the survey results reported by|

|Walter R. Gove, Michael Hughes, and Michael R. Geerken in "Playing Dumb: A Form of Impression Management with Undesirable Side |

|Effects," Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1980. |

|Less technical but powerful discussions of many of these impression management strategies can also be found within the |

|practitioner-oriented literature. The utility of ingratiation and self-promotion are described in Dale Carnegie's classic book, How to|

|Win Friends and Influence People (Pocket Books, 1940). The benefits of exemplary behavior are also discussed extensively in books such|

|as In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies, by Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (Warner Books, |

|1982), and The IBM Way, by F. G. "Buck" Rodgers, with Robert L. Shook (Harper & Row, 1986). Robert J. Ringer provided specific |

|guidelines for using intimidation and self-promotion in Winning Through Intimidation (Harper & Row, 1976). |

|The taxonomy of face-saving tactics used in the current article first appeared in the nowclassic article by Marvin B. Scott and |

|Stanford M. Lyman, "Accounts," American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1968. An excellent discussion of excuses is also included|

|in C. R. Snyder, Raymond L. Higgins, and Rita J. Stucky's Excuses: Masquerades in Search of Grace (John Wiley & Sons, 1983). The |

|discussion of Ronald Reagan's accounting tactics was based in part on an analysis included in Raymond L. Higgins' and C. R. Snydefs |

|chapter titled "The Business of Excuses," from the edited book of readings by Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld mentioned above. |

|Finally, an experiment by Robert E. Wood and Terrence R. Mitchell demonstrating the potential benefits of accounts and apologies for |

|subordinates is summarized in "Managerial Behavior in a Social Context: The Impact of Impression Management on Attributions and |

|Disciplinary Actions," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1981. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download