Upload
qwertyzaz1989
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
1/10
Journal of Applied Psychology
1991. Vol, 76 , No, 5 ,619 -627
Copy righi 1991 by Lhe Ame rican Psychological Asso cialion, Inc.
0021-9010/91/13 .00
Construction and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring
Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings
Kamalesh Kumar
Department of Market ing and Management
Arkansas State University
Michael Beyerlein
University of North Texas
A measure ofthe frequency of employees' use of ingratiatory behavior at work was tested with a
sample of employees { 716) working in a wide variety of organizations and jobs. Pilot testing
reduced a 65-item poo to a 24-item instru men t with four factors: Othe r Enha ncem ent. Opinion
Conformity, Self-Presentation, and Favor-Rendering. Internal consistency reliabihty
was
.92; test-
retest reliability over one month
was
.73, Evidence for content, convergent, and discriminant valid-
ity was substantial. The Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
should enable researchers to focus on the empirical study of ingratiatory behaviors in organ-
izations.
Power, influence, and political behavior are ubiquitous in
formal organizations. The concept of power and influence in
organizational settings can be broadly referred to as the general-
ized ability to change the actions of others in some intended
fashion (Mowday, 1978). Research o n in traorganiza tional influ-
ence has focused on both downward influence (the ways in
which supervisors influence subordinates) and upward influ-
ence (the ways in which subordinates influence their supervi-
sors; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Linkskold, 19 72).
Subordinates use a number of upward influence strategies to
obtain personal benefits or satisfy organizational goals (Allen,
Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkin-
son, 1980; Mowday, 1978). Such strategies include upward ap-
peal, assertiveness, blocking, coalition, exchange, rationality,
support building, and ingratiation (Kipnis et al. , 1980; Schrie-
sheim & Hin kin , 199 0). In this study, we concen trated solely on
ingratiation as an upwa rd influence techn ique directed at im-
med iate superiors. Although ingratiation is just one of the up-
ward influence strategies used in organizational settings, it is a
distinct con struct with its own set of causes and consequ ences
and therefore deserves to be studied separately from other up-
ward influence strategies (Liden & Mitchell, 1988).
I n g ra t i a t i o n : A S t r a t e g y o f U p w a rd In f l u e n c e
The definition of ingratiation that guided this study is based
on Tedeschi and Melburg's (1984) definition ofthe term. In an
organizational context, ingratiation refers to a set of assertive
This study
is
based on Kamalesh Kumar's doctoral dissertation. He
wishes to express
his
appreciation for the assistance from his disserta-
tion committee, especially Warren Watson, Chair, and Mary Thi-
bodeaux.
We
also thank three reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ka-
malesh Kumar. D epartment of Marketing and Management, College
of Business Administration, Arkansas State University, State Univer-
sity, A rkansas 72467.
tactics that are used by organizational members to gain the
approbation of superiors who control significant rewards for
them. These rewards are foreseeable and rather imminent. As
one of a large class of political influence processes that are
ongoing in orga nizations, ingratiation involves strategic behav-
iors designed to enhance one's interpersonal attractiveness. In-
gratiating actions are usually directed tow ard objectives that are
not m ade explicit by the par ties involved. Thus, although ingra-
tiators may behave as though the issue at hand were their only
concern, they may be doing so to enhance their images in the
target person's eyes or to achieve other personal goals of which
the target person is unaware (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).
In studies of upward influence in organizational settings,
ingratiatory tactics have been among the strategies most com-
monly used (Allen et al. , 1979; Kipnis et al. , 1980; Madison,
Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle,
1981). Ingratiation ap pea rs to be used in organizational settings
for the same reason it is used in general social settings—to
increase one's attractiveness in the eyes of a more powerful per-
son (Jones & Wortman, 1973). Enhanced attractiveness may
improve a subordinate's chances of positive rewards (such as a
raise, a promotion,
etc.
or reduce his or her chances of receiving
a negative outcome (such as an adverse assessment, a cut in
pay, etc.).
Ta c t i c a l V a r i a t i o n s o f I n g ra t i a t i o n
In the organizational c ontext, ingratiation can tak e all or any
oft he forms by which interpersonal a ttraction may be solicited.
In their laboratory experiments, Jones and Wortman (1973;
Jones, 1964) demonstrated the use of four major ingratiation
tactics: other enhancement, opinion conformity, rendering fa-
vors, and self-presentation. B ecause ingratiatory behaviors pri-
marily involve power-enhancing or dependence-reducingstrate-
gies, the use of these tactics ought to be endemic in organiza-
tional settings, which abound in relationships involving
differential power. Although overt manifestations of such be-
haviors may at times be restricted, partially inhibited by legiti-
macy considerations, and occasionally eschewed because ofthe
619
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
2/10
620
KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
risks involved, the tendency toward such behaviors
is
neverthe-
less present in organizations.
The use of other enhancement as an ingratiation tactic iti-
volves commun ication of directly enhan cing, evaluative state-
ments. T he ingratiator find s ways to express a positive evalua-
tion of
the
target person and emphasizes various strengths and
virtues. While distorting and exaggerating the target person's
admirable qualities to convey the impression that he or she is
highly thought of, the ingratiator calls little attention to or to-
tally ignores negative attributes.
Another set of techniques used by the ingratiator involves
expressing opinion s or behaving in a ma nner tha t is consistent
with the opinions, judgm ents, or behaviors ofthe target person.
The tactics involved in opinion conformity can range from sim-
ple agreement with expressed opinions, through more elabo-
rate attempts at trying to articulate the position presumably
held by the target person, to extremely complex forms of imita-
tion and identification {Jones. 1964).
Favor doing is a logical ingratiation tactic because people
usually react in a positive manner when someone does some-
thing nice for them {Jones Wortman. 197.3). This behavior is
based on the reciprocity norm— doing a favor for another per-
son can induce an obligation to reciprocate (Gouldner. I960).
Favor doing can also help foster an identity as a helpful, friendly,
and conside rate person (Tedeschi Melburg. 1984).
Self-presentation as an ingratiation tactic consists of making
explicit verbal statements of one's own attributes to increase the
likelihood of being judged attractive by the target person.
Self
presentation has two related aspects: (a) providing explicit de-
scriptions about one's own characteristics and behaviors and {b)
behaving in ways that imply that o ne possesses certain charac-
teristics (Jones Wortman, 1973).
Ingratiation in Organizational Settings
In recent years there has been considerable interest in ingra-
tiatory tactics and consequences, but the topic has received
little empirical attention from organizationai researchers.
Much ofthe attention the topic has received is from social psy-
chologists {e.g.. Baumeister. 1982; Jones, 1964; Jones Wort-
man. 1973: Riggio Friedman. 1986. Tedeschi.
1981;
Tedeschi
Melburg. 1984). who made no attempt to generalize the fin d-
ings to organizational settings.
Study of ingratiation strategies within organizations has been
extremely sporadic. Porter et al. (1981) recently observed that
the subject of ingratiation has long been regarded as taboo be-
cause of its mildly disturbing, negative connotations, and that
researchers should try to develop a better understand ing ofth e
subject. However, in spite of occasional ex horta tions like Porter
et al.'s {Liden Mitchell.
1988;
Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi Mel-
burg. 1984). little has been done to improve the situation.
The study of ingratiation in organizational settings requires
identification of specific tactics and some m ethod of mea suring
the frequency with which such tactics are used. In this article,
we report the development and validation of an instrum ent that
can be used to gather organizational members' perceptions of
the use of such tactics. Such an in strume nt should help to bring
the topic of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings
within the realm of empirical research and to create interest in
a topic that remains under researched.
Previous Measurement Techniques
A review of the literature on ingratiatory behavior in organi
zational settings revealed that no instrument had been devel-
oped to specifically measure ingratiatory behaviors
in
organiz
tional settings. Previous researchers, most notably those in so
cial psychology, relied primarily on experimental designs to
measure this behavior or used items put together in an ad hoc
mann er {e.g., Pandey Bohra, 1984; Pandey Rastogi, 1979)
Examination of the scales used by these researchers yielded
very few items applicable to the study of ingratiatory behaviors
in organizational settings.
The only effort to construc t a scientifically validated scale to
measure ingratiation in organizational settings was made by
Kipnis et al. {1980). In the course of their research on intraor-
ganizational influence tactics, Kipnis et al. identified a large
number of influence tactics, which they later factor analyzed to
create a number of subscales. One of the subscales {with six
items) was labeled
ingratiation.
Although the influence-tact
typology developed by Kipnis et al. has been generally sup-
ported by other researchers
{e.g.,
Ansari Kapoor. 1987; Ere
Rim , Keider, 1986; Yukl Falbe, 1990), evidence regarding
the psychometric properties ofthe scale has been lacking. Re-
cently, Schriesheim and Hinkin {1990) extensively critiqued th
research of K ipnis et
al.
{1980). Schriesheim and Hinkin foun
that many of Kipnis et al.'s items do not have strong content
validity and that the factor structure found by Kipnis et al. does
not hold up particularly well.
After a number of studies {during which a num ber of items
were added and deleted), Schriesheim and Hink in (1990) con-
structed a refined 18-item instrument {six dimensions with 3
items each). However, by their own ad mission, their study dealt
with only a very limited subset of psychometric properties that
must be considered essential in a measuring instrument. Also,
the subscaie that measured ingratiation contained oniy 3 item
Clearly, the subscaie did not include the four types of ingratia-
tion tactics noted by previous researchers. Although Schrie-
sheim and Hinkin's subscaie may be useful for the study of
infiuence tactics in general, it is not comprehensive enough for
the specific study of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational
settings.
Instrument Development
The instrument developed and validated in this study is
called Measure
of
Ingratiatory ehaviors in Organizational
tings
{MIBOS). The scale was designed to measure the fre
quency with which ingratiatory tactics are used by subordinate
in superior-subordinate relationships.
Previous researchers have noted that the use of influence
tactics will vary depen ding on the relationship between individ-
uals (e.g., Falbo Peplau , 1980) and that combining different
perspectives (superior, peer, subordinate) can substantially alter
or distort the results relating to the use of influence tactics
(Schriesheim Hink in, 1990). Therefore, we deemed it impor
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
3/10
INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS
6
tant to ground the measure in the context of subordinates' di-
recting the tactics toward superiors.
Item Construction
On the basis of previous theory {Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-
man. 1973; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston. 1985; Tedeschi &
Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier. 1977) and research
related to upward influence behaviors in organizations (Kipnis
et al., 1980; Madison et al., 1980; Mowday. 1978; Porter et al..
1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982). we generated a pool of ingratia-
tory behaviors typically shown in organizational settings. Dis-
cussions with a number of employees, first-level supervisors,
and middle-level managers working in diverse environments
contributed further to the pool of items.
Sixty-five items were generated for the initial pool. Of these
65 items. 17 described opinion conformity, 18 were related to
other enhancement, and 15 items each were descriptions of
self-presentation and favor-render ing behaviors. These items
were analyzed
by
judges with different expertise (industrial psy-
chology, organizational behavior, strategic management, and
organizational communication). Each judge was an academic
with a doctoral degree and substantial industry and manage-
ment consulting experience. The judges reviewed the items for
clarity, appropriateness, and content validity There was a gen-
eral consensus among the judges about the items included in
the initial poo of items.
All ofthe items in the
poo
were also examined by a group of
employees and managers working in different environments.
On the basis ofthe reviews ofthe experts and the employees,
items that appeared to be ambiguous or subject to response bias
were either rewritten or omitted. This screening process re-
sulted in the elimination oflO items, leaving a pool of 55 items
in the initial test instrument.
Preiesting
The instrument with 55 items was first administered to a
sample of management students N = 78) who were full-time or
part-time employees attending evening classes. The subjects
were employed in a wide variety of organizations (retail, manu-
facturing, wholesale, service, government, etc.) and jobs (man-
ual,
clerical, first-line supervisor, middle-level manager, etc.).
The instrument required the subjects to indicate the extent to
which they actually used the behaviors described by the items
to influence their supervisors. Subjects were specifically cau-
tioned not to make any judgment about the desirability or un-
desirability of the behaviors described and to merely report the
frequency with which they showed each of these behaviors
when dealing with their supervisors. Responses were recorded
on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: never
do
it 1),
seldom do
il (2),
occasionally do
it (3), often do it 4), and
almost always do it (5). Because subjects were to report the
frequency of actual behaviors, high scores should indicate more
use of ingratiatory tactics.
Item Selection
One ofthe objectives at this stage of scale construction was to
select those items that provided the most accurate and appro-
priate description of the behavior under investigation. Items
with higher item-total correlations were retained. To minimize
skewness and maximize variance, items with both larger means
(around 3.0) and larger variances were retained. These proce-
dures resulted in the elimination of 28 itetns, leaving the instru-
ment with 27 items. The item-total correlations of these 27
items ranged from .38 to
.69.
The scale was further reviewed for
clarity, and where necessary, minor changes in wording were
made.
Phase I: Item Selectioti
The scale with 27 items was administered to a new sample of
business students (A'= 148) who were employed either full time
or part time. Once again, the sample represented a wide variety
of jobs and organizations. Subjects were simultaneously admin-
istered the short version of Crown and Marlowe's Social Desir-
ability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to check if they were
responding to the various items on the scale in a socially desir-
able manner.
Item Review
Two criteria were used in item selection at this stage: item-to-
tal correlations and lack of significant correlation with the So-
cial Desirability Scale. On the basis of these criteria, 3 more
items were dropped from the scale, leaving a total of 24 items.
The item-total correlations for the remaining 24 items ranged
from .45 to .66. The total score on the ingratiation scale did not
correlate significantly with the total score on the Social Desir-
ability Scale r = .02). Correlations between each ingratiation
item and the total score on the Social Desirability Scale ranged
from .00 to .09 and were not statistically significant.
Of the final 24 items, 7 each represented the categories of
opinion conformity and other enhancement, 6 items repre-
sented the favor-render ing category, and 4 items represented the
self-presentation category The median score on the scale was
67.
the mean was 66.24, and the standard deviation was 14.65.
The means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations
for MIBOS are presented in Table 1.
Factor nalysis
Scores obtained on MIBOS were factor analyzed with the
principal components method and oblique factor rotation. Be-
cause the purpose of factor analysis at this stage was to obtain
theoretically meaningful dimensions, oblique factor rotation
was considered more desirable than orthogonal rotation (Hair,
Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Nineteen ofthe 24 items loaded
on two factors (eigenvalues 7,6 and 1.4), which accounted for
over 37% of the variance (A^ = 148). Five items loaded rather
weakly on more than one factor. Thus, the results ofthe factor
analysis at this stage were somewhat inconclusive.
Subsequently, a second factor analysis was conducted with
data from another and much larger group ofsubjects (Â 346).
Results of this second factor analysis yielded a four-factor solu-
tion, generally interpretable in terms of the four ingratiation
ditnensions that were identified from theory and past research.
These four factors accounted for
56.1
ofthe variance. How-
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
4/10
622
KAM ALES H KUM AR
A N D
MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
Table
I
Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlatiom for 24-Item Measure
of Ingratiating Behavior in Organtzational Settings MIBOS)
Hem
M S
Item-
total
r
t m
M
SD
I tem
total
r
1
Impress upon your supervisor that
only he/she can help you in a given
situation mainly t o make him/her
feel good about himself/herself.
2
Show him/her that you share his/
her enthusiasm about his/her
new
idea even when you may not
actually like
i t.
3 Try to let him/her know that yo u
have a reputation for being hked.
4 Try to make sure that he/she is
aware o f your successes.
5
Highlight
th e
achievements made
under his/her leadership in a
meeting not being attended by
him/her.
6. Give frequent smiles to express
enthusiasm/interest about
something he/she is interested in
even
if
yo u
do not
like
it .
7
Express work attitudes that ar e
similar to your supervisor's as a
way o f letting him/her know that
th e
two of
yo u
a re
alike.
8. Tell him/her that you can learn a
lot from his/her experience.
9. Exaggerate his/her admirable
qualities to convey th e impression
that you think highly o f him/her.
1 0
Disagree on trivial o r unimportant
issues bu t agree o n those issues
in which he/she expects support
from
you.
1 1 Try to imitate such work behaviors
of your supervisor
a s
working late
or occasionally working on
weekends.
1 2
Look
for
opportunities
to let the
supervisor know your virtues/
strengths.
2.89
3.34
3.51
2.77
0.89
0.88
1.23
1.13
.55
.4 5
.4 5
.51
3.25
1.13
3.10 1.03
3,01 .1O
3.11 1.20
3.57 1.02
3.44 0.93
3.34 1.09
2.58 1.04
.58
.57
.64
63
.65
.52
.52
.56
1.06
1,04
1.08
.5 6
.6 0
.6 5
1 3
Ask your supervisor for advice in
areas in which he/she thinks he/she
is smart to let him /her fee that
you admire his/her talent. 3.11 1.06 .66
1 4
Try to do things for your
supervisor that show your selfless
generosity. 3.16
1 5
Look
out for
opportunities
to
admire your supervisor. 3.36
1 6
Let your supervisor know th e
attitudes y ou share with him/her. 2.80
1 7
Compliment your supervisor on
his/her achievement, however
trivial it may actually be to you
personally.
3.22 1.07 .52
1 8
Laugh heartily
at
your supervisor's
jokes even when they are not really
funny 3.68
1 9
Go out of your way to run an
errand for your supervisor. 3.07
2 0
Offer to help your supervisor by
using your personal contacts. 3.23
2 1
Try to persuasively present your
own qualities when attempting
to
convince your supervisor about
your abilities. 2.95 1.09 .59
2 2
Volunteer to be of help to your
supervisor
in
matters like locating
a good apartment, finding a good
insurance agent, etc. 3.47 1.22 .53
2 3 Spend time listening to your
supervisor's personal problems
even
if
you have
no
interest
in
them. 3.11 1.23 .45
2 4
Volunteer
to
help your supervisor
in his/her work even if it means
extra work for you. 2.85 1.07 .63
Tot al 66 24 14 65
1.02
I . I 4
1.18
.51
.54
.60
N o t e .
N-
1 4 8 S c o r e s w e r e n e a r l y n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d R e s p o n s e s r a n g e d
ko m
n e v e r do
it
{\
to
a l m o s t a l w a y s
do it
{ 5 .
ever, four ofth e items continued to load (.30 or above on more
than one factor. Also, three of the items did not load oti the
specific ingratiation dimension that they were intended to as-
sess.
Table 2 lists the items intended to assess each of the four
ingratiation dimension s (e.g., other enh ancement, opinio n con -
formity, self-presentation, and favor rendering). Also presented
are the loadings o fthe items, eigenvalues ofthe four factors, and
the percentage of variance explained by each factor.
Analysis of interfactor relationships revealed that these fac-
tors were m oderately to highly correlated (between .22 and .65)
with each other. This find ing is somewhat in line with th e re-
sults of p revious researchers who have investigated the use of
ingratiation in laboratory settings. For example, both Jones
(1964) and Jones and Wortman (1973) found strong relation-
ships between different ingratiation tactics. In experimental re-
search in which subjects were asked to respond to items de-
scribing various types of ingratiation tactics. Pandey (1981)
noted that subjects did not discriminate much between differ-
ent tactics—they either behaved or did not behave in an ingra-
tiating manner.
Reliability
Two
appro aches w ere adopted for determ ining the reliability
oft he instrum ent: internal consistency (consistency of individ-
ual items with each other) and test-retest reliability (the stabil-
ity of scores over time). The internal consistency of M IBOS was
.92 (Cronbach's alpha; N = 148). This high alph a level sugg ests
that subjects responded to the individual items in a consistent
manner throughout the test. The split-half reliability test, a
method th at estimates the consistency of responses through the
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
5/10
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
6/10
624
KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
escence
is
better Interpreted
in
terms
of
a subject's reaction
to
the content ofthe items and that content-independent response
styles are not a major contaminant of questionnaire responses
(e.g., Rorer. 1965). However, it was still deemed important to
determine whether the scores on M IBOS were aiFected to any
significant extent
by
acquiescence response
set.
To determine
the
influence
of
acquiescence,
we
correlated
scores on MIBOS with scores on the Acquiescence Scale
(Couch & Keniston, I960). The Acquiescence Scale measures
the general tendency to agree or disagree with questionnaire
items, regardless of their content. Scores from the two scales
(A'
=
51) correlated .11. thereby confirming that the manner in
which
the
MIBOS items were worded
had
no significant etfect
on the responses given.
Phase 2: Cotitent and Convergent Validities
MIBOS was administered to various types of employees
working in different work environments. The first sample con-
sisted of 353 graduate business administration and senior un-
dergraduate students. All students were employed full-time or
part-time and had at least one year of full-time work experi-
ence. Seven students
were
dropped from
the analysis
because
of
missing data. Fifty-nine percent ofthe respondents were
men,
and 41 were women. Over 80% of the respondents had three
years or more of full-time work experience. The majority ofth e
respondents (82%) were in either nonmanagerial or first-line
supervisory positions; 17% were in middle-level management
positions; only 1% were in top-management positions. Such a
sample meant that m ore respondents had supervisors than had
subordinates. This
was
particularly suitable
for our
study
be-
cause MIBOS specifically measures ingratiatory behaviors ex-
hibited
by
subordinates
in
superior-subordinate relationships.
The second sample consisted of 52 employees working in
home electronics and household appliances manufacturing
companies in the mid-South. AH the employees in this sample
were
in
either nonmanageria
or
first-
o
middle-level positions .
They w ere working on a variety of technical and administrative
jobs.
Content Validity
A scale has content validity if the substance of the items
included
in the
instrument
tap the
construct
of
interest
to be
measured and if the items are representative ofthe content area.
We selected items for M IBOS after an extensive search of both
the theoretical
and
empirical research literature.
All
possible
tactical variations of ingratiatory behaviors were noted, and
each was given a fair representation in the scale. The contents of
the scale were also examined by employees and managers from
many different types
of
organizations
for the
appropriateness
ofthe behavior descriptions. The individual items on the scale
were further reviewed
by
experts from
the
field
of
industrial
psychology, organizational behavior, strategic management,
and organization the ory As such, the scale can be expected to
have both face validity and logical content validity
Convergent Validity
The classical view of convergent validity suggests that a new
measure
of
a construct like ingratiation ought
to
eovary with
other measures that purport to measure the same construct
Proceeding on this line, we compared MIBOS scores with
scores on the ingratiation subscaie of Kipnis et al. (1980) and
the refined three-item version
of
this subscaie recently
con
structed by Schriesheim and Hin kin (1990).
Convergent validity also refers to the association of
the
mea
sure being validated with measures
of
other theoretically rele
vant constructs. To test the convergent validity of MIBOS, w
administered
it
simultaneously with
the
following measures
Work Locus of Control Scale {Spector, 1988), Mach IV Scale
(Christie & Geis, 1970), Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974)
and the Need for Power scale from the Manifest Needs Ques
tionnaire (Steers
&
Braunstein, 1976). Each of
these
constructs
has been identified as a critical factor in the study of ingratia
tory behaviors in o rganizations (Liden
&
Mitchell,
1988;
Porte
et al., 1981; R alston, 1985), and as such, scores on MIBOS oug
to correlate significantly with scores on these scales. The ratio
nale
for
using these scales for convergent validation is discussed
below. The correlations are presented in Table 3.
Self-monitoring skill.
A
series
of
studies conducted
b
Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder, 1974) revealed that individ-
uals differ
in the
extent
to
which they are attentive
and
respon-
sive to situational cues as guides to appropriate b ehaviors. Peo
ple who score high on self-monitoring seek more information,
exhibit more accuracy in diagnosing social situations, and are
more able to pragmatically tailor their behavior to it he situa
tion. High self-monitors also seem
to be
more adept
at
impres-
sion management (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Self-monitoring
skill, therefore,
is an
important individual characteristic that
may help determine a person's propensity for political influ-
ence strategies like ingratiation. Scores obtained on MIBOS
eorreiated .46 for the working student sample and .37 for the
manufacturing employee sample with scores
on
the Self-Moni-
toring Scale.
Table 3
Correlations Between Measure of Ingratiating Behavior
in
Organizational Settings MIBOS)
a nd
Measures of Similar Constructs
Scale
Self-Monitoring Scale
(Snyder. 1974)
Need for Power
(Steers & Braunstein. 1976)
Work Locus of Control
(Spector,
1988)
Mach ]V Scale
(Christie & Geis, 1970)
Schriesheim & Hinkin's (1990)
ingratiation scale
Kipnis, Schmidt, Wilkinson's (1980)
ingratiation subscaie
Working
student
sample'
.46**
.40**
.35**
.34**
—
—
Manufacturing
employee
sample
.37*
.46**
.29*
.63**
.57**
Note. The manufacturing employees did not complete the Mach IV
scale, and the working students did not complete either ofthe ingratia-
tion scales.
^ = 3 4 5 . ^ - 5 2 .
*p< .01 .
p
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
7/10
I NGRATI ATORY BEHAVI ORS
625
Need for power People with a high need for power attem pt
to achieve control over their work environment and try to influ-
ence other people. Such people can be expected to increase
influence attempts as a way of affecting important outcomes
(Liden Mitchell, 1988). Therefore, a strong positive correla-
tion can be expected between MIBOS scores and the need for
power as measured by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire
(Steers Braunstein, 1976). M IBO Sand need for power scores
correlated .40 for the working student sample and .46 for the
manufacturing employee sample.
Locus of control.
Rotter's (1966) theory of the locus of con-
trol holds that individuals differ in a systematic man ner in tbeir
beliefs about their personal successes and failures. Individuals
with an internal locus of control tend to believe that their out-
comes are the result of the ability and effort that they apply,
whereas individuals with an external locus of control believe
that their personal outcomes are the result of factors outside
their own control or luck. Therefore, individuals with internal
locus of control ought to be more inclined to try to affect the
outcomes they receive. In situations in which ingratiation is
likely (for example, situations involving supervisor-subordinate
dyads), internals ought to make greater efforts to secure desired
outcomes and o btain tbeir personal objectives {Ralston, 1985).
Hence, persons with an internal locus of control can be ex-
pected to use ingratiatory tactics more often than persons witb
an external locus of control. Scores on MIBOS correlated .35
(for the working student samples) and .29 (for the manufactur-
ing employee sample) with scores on the Work Locus of Control
scale (Spector, 1988).
Machiavellianism. People who score high on the Mach IV
Scale bave been characterized as manipulators of other people.
High Machiavellians tend to initiate and control the structure
of interpersonal relations (Christie Geis, 1970). Ralston
(1985)
proposed that individuals
who seek
to control and m anip-
ulate others tend to use manipulative tactics, such as ingratia-
tion, m ore often. T bere is also some experimental sup port for
this contention (Pandey Rastogi. 1979). Thus, scores on the
Mach IV Scale can be expected to correlate reasonably highly
with scores on MIBOS. The correlation was .34.
Phase
3:
Discriminant Validity
To establish discrimina nt validity, we administered MIBOS
to multiple and diverse samples. The first sample consisted of
52 employees (also used for convergent validation) working in
manufacturing industries in the mid-South.
The second sample (A'
=
216) consisted of a number of sub-
samples. Of tbe 216 employees in this sample, 57 employees
were working in government organizations, 88 em ployees were
in retailing, and 71 employees were in service organizations
(banking , insurance, real estate,
etc.).
These employees w orked
in a variety of jobs (technical, clerical, administrative, etc.) and
were simultaneously enrolled in on e of two major universities in
the South and Southwest.
Beginning with the landma rk work of K ipnis et al. (1980), a
number of researchers have examined tbe interpersonal influ-
ence processes in organ izations (e.g., Ansa ri Kapoor, 1987;
Erez Rim, 1982; Erez et al., 1986; Schriesbeim Hink in.
1990). Tbese researchers identified a number of interpersonal
influence tactics used in organizational settings. Important
among these are assertiveness. rationality, exchange of benefits,
upward appeal, blocking, and coalition.
As interpersonal influence tactics shown by subordinates in
organizations, ingratiatory behaviors ought to be related to
other types of interpersonal influence tactics shown by employ-
ees in organizations. However, if ingratiatory behavior is to be
explicated successfully and identified as a unique interpersonal
behavior, it must dem onstrate acceptable
levels
of discriminant
validity wben compared with other interpersonal influence tac-
tics.
In tbe past, researchers have used similar methods to estab-
lish the discriminant validity of new organizational behavior
constru cts (Mowday
Steers, 1979), Accordingly, to investigate
the discriminant validity of
MIBOS,
we compared it witb five
other interpersonal influence tactics; assertiveness. rationality,
exchange of benefits, upward appeal, and coalition. These influ-
ence tac tics were measured witb the refined and revised version
of Kipn is et al.'s (1980) scale (Schriesheim Hinkin. 1990).
Results are p resented in Table 4.
Several Ii
nes
of evidence
emerge
from
these
results,
each
dem-
onstrating the discriminant validity of MIBOS. All five influ-
ence tactics used for comparison involve upward influence—
attempts to influence someone higher in formal authority in
the organization (Porter et
al.,
1981). First, the relationship be-
tween ingratiation and tbe exchange measure was the highest,
ranging from .23 to .35 across the four samples. In an upward
influence situation, ingratiation and exchange are both used to
gain the approbation ofa superior who controls significant re-
wards. Because the behaviors are somewhat similar, a positive
correlation between the two would be expected. However, be-
cause ingratiation as a construct is distinct from otber upward
influence tactics, such correlations should be only moderate.
The extent of correlation between tbe m easures of ingratiation
and exchange is quite similar to that noted by Yukl and Faibe
(1990), who measured the use of these two behaviors w ith sin-
gle-item scales.
Second, correlations between MIBOS scores and scores on
tbe assertiveness and upward-influence measures were among
the lowest, ranging from .08 to .28. When compared with the
manipulative intent that is often associated with the use of in-
Table 4
Discriminant Validity o f Measure of Ingratiating ehavior
in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
Upward-influence
t a c t i c '
Assertiveness
Rationality
Exchange
Upward influence
Coalit ion
Manufactur ing
employees
(tt = 52)
.13
,26*
.23*
.13
.11
Employed students in
Gove r nme n t
{n - 57 )
.08
.1 6
.33**
.23*
.28*
Retailing
(n = 88)
.20
.11
.25*
.27*
.20
Service
(« = 71)
.28*
.09
.35**
.18*
.12
Measured with Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) revision of Kipnis,
Schm idt, and Wilkinson's (1980) scale.
* p < . 0 5 .
* * / 3 < . O l .
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
8/10
KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
gratiation, both assertiveness and upward influenee are more
direct, demanding, and somewhat less political influence tac-
tics.
Thus, even though all these taaics are designed to secure
favorable outcomes from one's supervisor, they are different
construc ts. The low correlations (mean correlations of. 17) b e-
tween ingratiation and these two other measures of upward
influence provide some indication of an acceptable level of
discriminant validity for MIBOS.
Ingratiation
is
a political strategy that is largely manipulative
in nature.
As
such, it should not be related to the direct persua-
sion tactic of rationality. Correlations ranged from .09 to .26.
The low relationship between rationality and MIBOS scores
provides further suppo rt for the distinctiveness of ingratiation
as an influence strategy
Finally, across all four samples, correlations between MIBOS
and coalition scores ranged from .11 to .28. Coalition tactics
include persuasion and creating pressure by obtaining the sup-
port of others (Kipnis et al.. 1980). Although such behaviors
may involve covert influence (Yukl & Falbe, 1990), the pro-
cesses and strategies involved in using them are quite different.
This fact is confirmed by the low correlation between the two
measures.
The percentage of common variance shared by MIBOS and
other measures of upward influence did not exceed 13 and
averaged less than 5 . The magnitudes of these relationships
are clearly low enough to demonstrate, rather conclusively, the
discriminant validity of MIBOS. This is particularly true be-
cause the magn itudes of
the
correlations of M IBOS with mea-
sures of other influence strategies are quite similar to those
reported recently by Yukl and Faibe (1990).
Discussion
Tbis article presents the development and validation of
MIBOS, an instrument designed to assess ingratiatory behav-
iors of employees in organizations. Overall, the results of the
validity tes ts provide good evidence of convergent and dis crimi-
nant validity The tests conducted during the first phase ofthe
study confirmed the high internal consistency and stability of
the ins trume nt. T he test for internal consistency, conducted on
the responses of 346 employees, yielded a Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of .92. reconfirming the fact that MIBOS is ex-
tremely reliable. Phases 2 and 3 produced good evidence for the
construct validity of MIBOS in the form of content validity,
covergent validity, and discriminant validity However, it is
never possible to address
every
relevant issue in any
single
study.
For further validation ofthe scale,
it seems
ap propriate
to
assess
ingratiatory behaviors as seen from other perspectives {e.g.. su-
pervisors, co-workers) and to examine correlations between
these different
sources.
Assessment of MIBOS from a criterion-
related perspective^What outcomes can be expected to corre-
late with tbe scale?—would also be useful.
Although ingratiatory behaviors
have
been empirically inves-
tigated in laboratory studies for over
25 years
{Jones, 1964), an d
tbeir use as an upward influence strategy has been studied in
organizational settings for over
10
years {e.g., Allen etal., 1979;
Wortman & Linsenmeier. 1977). few empirical studies have
explored the use of ingratiation in organizations. Most recent
studies have been conceptual and theoretical (e.g., Liden
Mit-
chell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). These
studies have provided a n umbe r of testable propositions, but s
far the propositions have remained untested. Indeed, ingratia
tory behavior in organizational settings continues to remain
both an intriguing and highly underresearched topic in the
field of organizational behavior.
The absence ofa measuremen t instrum ent designed to focu
specifically on ingratiation seems to be one ofthe major rea-
sons for the absence of empirical investigation o fthese behav
iors. The development of a scientifically validated instrumen
for the measurement of ingratiation therefore constitutes the
first major step toward em pirical investigation. Only when ps
chologists are able to assess and m easure this phenom enon can
they begin to relate it to major social issues within organiza-
tions. The construction and validation of
MIBOS
should hel
to spur research interest in a topic that has long been ignored
and warrants much greater interest from organizational scien-
tists.
References
Allen,R. W Porter, D. L. Renwick
P.
A.,&M ayes,B.T(1979).Oi^an
zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors.
Califor
Management Review 22
77-83.
Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and up-
ward influence tactics.
Organizational Behavior and Human D e
sion Processes 40
39-40.
Baumelster, R. F (1982). A self-presentational view of social phen om
ena.
Psychological Bulteiin
91 . 3-26.
Christie. R., & Geis, E L. (1970).
Studies in M achiavellianism
Sa
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Couch, A., & Keniston. K. (1960). Yeasayer and naysayer.
Journalof
Abnormal and Social Psychology 60,151 -174.
Cronbach, L. (1986).
Essentials o f psychological testing
(3rd ed.). N
York: Macmillan.
Erez, M.., & Rim, T. (1982). The re latio nship between goals, influence
tactics and personal and organizational variables.
Human Relations
J5 ,
871-878.
Erez, M., Rim, Y. Keider, I. (1986). The two sides ofthe tactics of
influence: Agent vs. target.
Journal of Occupational
Psychotogy.
25-39.
Ealbo, T,
Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intim ate relation-
ships.
Journal of Personality and Sociat Psychology 38
618-628
Gouldner. A. (1960). The norms of reciprocity.
American Sociologi
Review. 25
161-178.
Hair, X, Anderson, R. O., Tatham, R. (1987).
Multidimensional da
analysis
(pp. 244-2 75). New York: M acmillan.
Jones,
E. E. (1964).
Ingratiation.
New York: Appleton.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman. C. (1973).
Ingratiation: An attributional a
proach.
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kipnis, D. Schmidt, S. M., Wilkinson,
J.
(1980). Intraorganization
influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way.
Journat of Ap-
plied
Psychology
65
440-452.
Liden, R. C, Mitchell, T R. (1988). Ingratiatory beh aviors in organi-
zational settings.
Academy o f Management Review
13 572-587.
Madison, D. L., Allen. R. W, Porter. L. W, Renwick. R. M.. Mayes
B. T (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of manager'
perception.
Human Relations 33
79-100.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organiza-
tions.
Administralive Science
Quarterly.
23 . 137-156.
Mowday, R. T , Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-
tional commitment.
Journat o f Vocational
Behavior
14
224-247
Pandey, J. (1981). Effectsof Machiavellianism and degree of org aniza-
tional formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia
24
41-46.
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
9/10
INGRATiATORY BEHAVIORS
7
Pandey,
1. Bohra, K.
A.
(1984). Ingratiation a sa function of organiza-
tional characteristics and supervisory styles.
International Reviewof
Applied Psychotogy. 33,
381-394.
Pandey. J., Rastogi, R. (1979). M achiavellianism and ingratiation.
Journal of Social Psychology. 108,
221-225.
Porter. L. W, Allen. R. W. Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of up-
ward influence in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behav-
ior.
3,
109-149.
Ralston,
D.
A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The roleof managem ent.
Academy of Management Review, 10.
477-487.
Riggio,
R. E..
Friedman,
H.
S. (1986). Impression formation:
The
TohofexprtssivebthavioT. Journ al ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
ogy. 50,421-^21.
Rorer, L. G. {1965). The great response style myth.
Psychological Bulle-
tin, 63, \29-\S6.
Rotter,
J. B.
(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-
nal locus of control.
Psychological Monographs. 80.
1-28.
Schilit, W
K.,
Locke, E. A. (1982). A study
of
upward influence
in
organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,
304-316.
Schlenker.
B.
R., Leary, M. R . (1982). Social anxiety and self-presen-
tation: A conceptualization and model.
Psychological Bulletin.
92.
641-669.
Schriesheim, C. A.. Hin kin. T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by
subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of
the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales.
Journal of Applied
Psychology,
75 , 246-257.
Snyder. M . (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4,
526-537.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61.
335-340.
Steers, R. M., Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based mea-
sure of manifest needs in a work setting.
Journal of Vocational Behav
ior 9.
251-266
Strahan , R., Gerb asi. K. C. (1972). Shor t, homogeneous version of
Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale.
Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology , 28. \9\-\9i.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981).
Impression
management:
Theory and social psy
chological research.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tedeschi,
J. T,
Melburg,
V
(1984). Impression management
and
influence
in the
organization.
Research in Sociology of Organiza-
tions, 3. 31-5 .
Tedesc hi, J. X. Schlenker,
B.
T ,
Linkskold. S. (1972). The exercise of
power and influence. In J. T Tedeschi (Ed.),
The social influence
process (pp.
287 -345). Chicago: Aldine.
Wortman, C.
B.,
Linsenmeier. J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction
and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M.
Staw G. R.Salanik(Eds.).
N ew directions in organizational behavio
(pp. 133-178). New York: St. Claire Press.
Yukl,
G.,
Falbe,
C.
(1990). Influence tactics
and
objectives
in up-
ward, downward, and lateral influence attempts.
Journatof Applied
Psychology.
75, B2~14Q.
Received February
8,1990
Revision received March 8,1991
Accepted March 8,1991 •
Call for Nom inat ions for JEP: Human Perception
and
Performance
The Publications and Communications (P C) Board has opened nominations for the editor-
ship ofthe Journal of Experimental Psyehology: Human Pereeption and Performance for a 6-year
term starting January 1994. James E. Cutting is the incumbent editor.
Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts
early in 1993 to prepare for issues published in 1994. Please note that the P C Board encour-
ages more participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication process
and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statement
of one pj^e or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations to
Howard E. Egeth, Chair, Search Committee, JEP: HPP
Department of Psychology
Johns Hopkins University
Charles 34th Streets
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Other members ofthe search committee are Lynn A. Cooper, Robert G. Crowder, and David E.
Meyer. First review of nominations will begin January 15,1992.
8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field
10/10