Getting Ahead Through Flattery

Abstract

Research examining the career-related outcomes of ingratiation has produced fairly inconsistent findings. To move the literature forward, we draw on cognitive consistency theory and social influence theory to examine how the moderating roles of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) and political skill may affect ingratiation as a strategy to enhance an employee’s promotability. In Study 1 involving 92 independent matched subordinate–supervisor dyads from Thailand, we found support for the moderating effect of OBSE such that there was a positive relationship between supervisor-reported ingratiation and self-reported promotability among individuals with high as opposed to low OBSE. These results were replicated in Study 2 using 150 independent matched subordinate–peer–supervisor triads. Results revealed that the relationship between peer-reported ingratiation and supervisor-reported promotability became positive for those employees with high as opposed to low political skill.

Keywords

career attitudes career progression career promotability organization-based self-esteem political tactics Thailand

In today’s highly competitive business environments, employees may resort to the use of social influence tactics to manage their career prospects (Russell & Burgess, 1998). Indeed, considerable research attention has been given to the use and outcomes of ingratiation (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Vonk, 2002; Westphal & Stern, 2007), defined as a set of assertive tactics exercised by employees to gain the approval of supervisors who have the control to determine their career success (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Ingratiation involves three main tactics, such as other enhancement (i.e., saying positive things about the target person), opinion conformity (i.e., expressing opinions and attitudes that are consistent with those of the target person), and favor rendering (i.e., doing favors for or giving special treatment to the target person; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991). As such, employees may engage in ingratiation as a strategy to increase their interpersonal attraction with their supervisors who have a strong level of influence over their career progression. Accordingly, research has shown ingratiation to be related to a range of career-related outcomes such as positive performance evaluations (Gordon, 1996), hiring recommendations (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989), promotions (Thacker & Wayne, 1995), and board appointments for members of the corporate elite (Stern & Westphal, 2010). Similarly, individuals with high Machiavellianism (Pandey & Rastogi, 1981), self-monitoring (Bolino & Turnley, 2003), extraversion (Cable & Judge, 2003), need for power (Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991), internal locus of control (Harrison, Hochwarter, Perrewe, & Ralston, 1998), and low self-esteem (Kacmar, Carlson, & Bratton, 2004) are more likely to engage in ingratiation.

While considerable research has been carried out to examine outcomes of ingratiation, inconsistencies in findings remain (Aryee, Wyatt, & Stone, 1996; Rao, Schmidt, & Murray, 1995; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). For instance, whereas the relation between ingratiation and supervisor ratings of promotability has been found to be significant and positive in some studies (e.g., McFarland, Ryan, & Kriska, 2003), other studies have found the same association to be negative (e.g., Thacker & Wayne, 1995). These results implicitly suggest that it is not the frequency of ingratiation that contributes to positive outcomes but rather how individuals enact ingratiation in order to achieve positive outcomes. Thus, further research is warranted to examine relevant boundary conditions that may help explain why certain ingratiation attempts are more successful than others in enhancing promotability.

Central to the study of social influence process, individuals engage in social influence tactics, such as ingratiation, to influence how others form perceptions of them in an attempt to achieve personal objectives (Levy, Collins, & Nail, 1998). However, research suggests that not all individuals who engage in ingratiation will successfully achieve those outcomes as expected (Aryee et al., 1996; Rao et al., 1995; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). To help address these empirical inconsistencies, we draw upon cognitive consistency theory (Korman, 1970), which suggests that individuals will be motivated to behave in a manner or achieve outcomes that are consistent with their self-image. Thus, if employees believe they are highly competent, the self-efficacy they have toward their ability will also be reflected in the way they behave and subsequently lead to high performance (Bandura, 1997). Accordingly, we posit organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which reflects the degree to which individuals believe they are capable and competent as an organizational member (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989), as one of the boundary conditions that would enhance the effectiveness of ingratiation in achieving higher promotability. Although it is important to note that self-efficacy and self-esteem are not similar, they do share some degree of overlap, particularly in terms of “cognitive and affective self-evaluations” (Betz & Klein, 1996, p. 295). In this article, we propose that high OBSE has an enhancing effect on an employee’s ability to ingratiate which further translates into higher promotability ratings.

Furthermore, due to the empirical inconsistencies, researchers have also called for studies to take into account the ability of individuals to ingratiate (e.g., Higgins et al., 2003; Turnley & Bolino, 2001). This is consistent with social influence theory (Levy et al., 1998), which suggests that individual characteristics play an important role in contributing to the effectiveness of the social influence tactics in achieving personal objectives. It is argued that ingratiatory tactics alone are not sufficient to achieve positive career outcomes. Individuals also need to have the ability to ingratiate in a politically astute manner. This ability has been referred by Mintzberg (1983) as political skill. Thus, political skill has been incorporated as an additional boundary condition that would enhance the positive association between ingratiation and promotability.

By testing these empirical linkages, we extend the empirical literature in several ways. First, an examination of boundary conditions represents a critical ingredient to middle range theorizing that helps explain the conflicting results evident in past research on ingratiation (see Whetten, 1989). Past research that has examined the career-related outcomes of ingratiation has produced inconsistent findings (Aryee et al., 1996; Rao et al., 1995; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). To address these inconsistent findings, this research postulates OBSE and political skill as two relevant boundary conditions. So far only political skill has been examined as a moderator (e.g., Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw, 2007; Kolodinsky, Treadway, & Ferris, 2007; Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007). This research attempts to replicate past studies by testing the moderating role of political skill. Indeed, recent research by Schmidt (2009) stresses the importance—and largely neglected—role of replication in the behavioral sciences. Furthermore, while past research has often associated low self-esteem individuals with the use of ingratiation (Kacmar et al., 2004), we propose that employees who see themselves as highly competent and capable organizational members (i.e., with high OBSE) may be more successful in using ingratiation to enhance their promotability.

Methodologically, we attempt to make two important contributions to the ingratiation literature. To date, studies on ingratiation have relied on self-reported data (e.g., Deluga & Perry, 1994; Harris et al., 2007) and the data used to assess these relations have been obtained predominantly in Western cultures (e.g., Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007; Westphal & Stern, 2007). We address these shortcomings by examining ingratiation in Thailand, which is characterized as a collectivist society. This is because ingratiation is a culture-specific tactic that is preferred in some cultures but not in others. In a highly collectivistic culture where people tend to identify themselves with group memberships (Hofstede, 1984), people are more likely to use ingratiation to maintain harmony at work (Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols, & Iwawaki, 1992) and to “give face” as well as to “save face” (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Along similar lines, we obtain data from multiple sources (e.g., supervisors and subordinates in Study 1; supervisors, peers/coworkers and subordinates in Study 2) in order to strengthen internal validity and enable a robust test of our proposed model. In the section that follows, we further explicate our research model, develop and formally test our predicted relationships, and discuss our key findings and note their theoretical implications.

Theory and Hypotheses

OBSE is an evaluative trait (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) that reflects one’s evaluation of personal adequacy (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). OBSE has been defined as “the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member” (Pierce & Gardner, 2004, p. 593). Thus, individuals with high OBSE tend to perceive themselves as competent and capable organizational members, whereas those with low OBSE view themselves as being organizationally incompetent. According to cognitive consistency theory, people are motivated to engage in behaviors and achieve outcomes that are consistent with their self-concept (Korman, 1971). Given that high OBSE employees evaluate and perceive themselves as competent and capable organizational members, they will engage in behaviors and display attitudes that are consistent with their self-concept. In line with this, past research has shown that engaging in high levels of performance is one way in which high OBSE employees can maintain consistency with their self-perceived competence (Gardner, Pierce, Van Dyne, & Cummings, 2000; Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993). Furthermore, high OBSE individuals are likely to have higher self-efficacy as opposed to those with low OBSE (Bandura, 1997), which “contributes to higher performance levels under almost all role conditions” (Pierce & Gardner, 2004, p. 608).

By incorporating cognitive consistency theory (Korman, 1970), we attempt to address the question why individuals are better able to exercise ingratiation effectively in order to achieve higher promotability ratings from their supervisors when they display high as opposed to low levels of OBSE. Specifically, we argue that employees with high OBSE are likely to have a higher level of self-perceived competence that has an enhancing effect on their ability to ingratiate which in turn translates into higher promotability ratings. As shown in Staehle-Moody’s (1998) study, the self-perceived competence that individuals with high OBSE have was found to positively influence their response to organizational change. Specifically, high OBSE individuals were found to be more proactive in their coping style in comparison to their low OBSE counterparts. Thus, given that high OBSE employees tend to perceive themselves as highly competent organizational members, their self-confidence will render their ingratiation attempts more successful as a means to increase their promotability. In contrast, given that low OBSE employees tend to evaluate themselves as incompetent organizational members, their lack of self-perceived competence is likely to diminish the extent to which ingratiatory tactics will increase their promotability. In support of the foregoing argument, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: OBSE moderates the relation between ingratiation and promotability. There will be a positive association between ingratiation and promotability under high as opposed to low OBSE.

It is further argued that ingratiatory tactics by themselves will not contribute to positive outcomes, but they have to be combined with the ability to exercise the tactics in a politically astute manner (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981). Accordingly, political skill, defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways than enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris, Treadway, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, Kacmar, Douglas, & Frink, 2005, p. 127), has been incorporated as another boundary condition. Politically skilled individuals are likely to be more successful than those with low political skill in consciously managing their own behavior to effectively influence others. Gentry and colleagues (2011) reported that employees with high political skill achieved higher promotability ratings from three different coworker perspectives, including bosses, direct reports, and peers.

According to social influence theory (Levy et al., 1998), social influence tactics, such as ingratiation, are enacted by individuals with the goal of achieving positive outcomes, and in order to achieve these positive outcomes “individuals strive to develop and preserve meaningful social interactions” (Todd, Harris, Harris, & Wheeler, 2009, p. 185). Thus, political skill should serve as a relevant boundary condition that enables one to exercise ingratiation successfully in an attempt to enhance their promotability. This can be attributed to four main abilities that make up political skill, including social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity (Ferris et al., 2005). For instance, due to their social astuteness (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewe, Brouer, & Douglas, 2007), employees can capitalize on their political skill to read situational requirements in organizations and accordingly alter their ingratiation style in ways that allow them to create positive impressions in the eyes of their supervisor. Due to their apparent sincerity (Ferris et al., 2007), employees are able to draw on their ability to communicate sincerity and genuineness in any of the social interactions they have with their supervisor. Furthermore, employees may draw on their political skill to develop a large social network with both of their supervisors and colleagues. This is due to their interpersonal influence and networking ability (Ferris et al., 2005, 2007), which are generally aimed toward a variety of people rather than toward specific individuals. In line with this, past research has associated political skill with positive career-related outcomes, such as total promotions and career satisfaction (Todd et al., 2009).

Several lines of reasoning point to the moderating role of political skill. Employees who are able to use ingratiatory tactics without being noticed by their supervisor as ingratiation, but rather as sincere interpersonal behavior, will be more successful in their use of ingratiation as a tactic to enhance their promotability. Indeed, previous studies have shown that employees with high political skill are better able to exercise social influence tactics, such as ingratiation, in an attempt to achieve positive performance evaluations from their supervisor (Harris et al., 2007; Treadway et al., 2007). Employees who display high levels of political skill are likely to be successful in using ingratiation to achieve higher promotability ratings. This is because politically skilled employees are better able to understand and influence their supervisor’s perceptions and accordingly to create positive outcomes (Harris et al., 2007). In contrast, employees who are not politically skilled will be less effective in using ingratiation to influence the perceptions of their supervisors to produce positive outcomes. In support of the foregoing argument, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: Political skill moderates the relation between ingratiation and promotability. There will be a positive association between ingratiation and promotability under high as opposed to low political skill.

We tested our hypotheses in two empirical studies among professional employees in a variety of business sectors in order to increase the external validity of the results. Multisource data were also obtained to minimize common method bias. In Study 1, using 92 independent matched subordinate–supervisor dyads, we examined Hypothesis 1. Study 2 builds on the first study by testing Hypothesis 2 and by replicating the results obtained from Study 1. Data for Study 2 were obtained from 150 matched subordinate–peer–supervisor triads. Figure 1 outlines the proposed theoretical model.

Figure 1.

Proposed theoretical model.

Study 1

Participants and Procedure

One hundred and twenty independent matched subordinate–supervisor dyads participated in our first study. Master of Business Administration (MBA) students, all of whom are full-time employees, were initially recruited from a large private university in Bangkok, Thailand. The MBA students who participated were then advised to facilitate collecting data from their immediate supervisors. The removal of mismatched dyads, cases with missing values and outliers (i.e., detected using Mahalanobis Distance), resulted in a final sample of 92 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads, representing a valid response rate of 76.67%. Among the student participants, the average tenure was approximately 3 years, 92.1% of them were young adults (i.e., in the range of ages between below 25 and 35), 69.7% of them were female, and 67.4% of them were nonsupervisory level employees. Among supervisor participants, the average tenure was approximately 10 years, 65.1% of them were in the range of ages between 36 and 65, 54% of them were females and 48.9% of them were middle-level managers.

Separate questionnaire surveys were developed for subordinates and supervisors. With the business school’s consent to proceed with the survey, professors were requested to pass on a survey kit, which included the student questionnaire and the supervisor questionnaire, to their students. The students were then requested to pass on the supervisor questionnaire, which was enclosed in a small envelope, to their immediate supervisors. The completed supervisor surveys were sealed in the envelope given and sent directly back to the designated subordinates. All completed surveys were returned to the designated professors in class.

Measures

Unless otherwise specified, the response format for the following scale items, excluding the control variables, was a 7-point Likert-type scale which was used with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) as endpoints. Given that English is not a native language of the Thai participants in this study, the back-translation procedure was adopted. Hence, the questionnaire surveys initially developed in English were first to be translated into Thai and then back translated into English (Brislin, 1970).

Ingratiation

We requested supervisors to rate the ingratiatory behaviors of their subordinates. Ingratiation was measured using the 19-item scale developed by Kumar and Beyerlein (1991). Sample items include “this employee exaggerates my admirable qualities to convey the impression that he/she thinks highly of me” (i.e., other enhancement), “This employee gives frequent smiles to express enthusiasm/interest about something I am interested in even if he/she does not like it” (i.e., opinion conformity), and “This employee tries to do things for me that shows his/her self-less generosity” (i.e., favor rendering). Kumar and Beyerlein (1991) reported a Cronbach’s α of .92. Ingratiation was also found to be moderately correlated with other social influence tactics, such as the exchange tactic (ranging from .23 to .35), assertiveness tactic (ranging from .08 to .28), rationality tactic (ranging from .09 to .26), and coalition tactic (ranging from .11 to .28; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was .93.

OBSE

OBSE was assessed by subordinates using the 10-item scale developed by Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989). Example items include “I count around here,” and “I am important.” The reliability estimate for the scale was .87 (Pierce et al., 1989). The scale also exhibited moderate concurrent validity estimates with managerial respect, which ranged from .30 to .52, and job complexity, which ranged from .39 to .44 (Pierce et al., 1989). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was .89.

Promotability

Promotability was assessed using the 4-item scale developed by Wayne, Liden, Graf, and Ferris (1997). Subordinates were asked to rate the extent to which they believe they will be promoted to a higher position level. Example items include “If my supervisor has to select a successor for his/her position, it would be me” and “I will probably be promoted to a higher-level position in this organization.” Prior work reported a reliability estimate of. 87 (Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997). Promotability was also found to correlate with measures of assertiveness, authority, liking, perceived similarity, performance, and salary progression with correlation coefficients ranging from .13 to .57 (Wayne et al., 1997). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was .83.

Control Variables

Demographic characteristics of individuals may have confounding effects on career-related outcomes. Past research has shown organizational tenure to be associated with promotions, and thus it has also been used as a control variable in studies of career advancement (Bowman, 1964). Whitely and colleagues (1991) also suggested future studies to take position levels into account when examining career-related outcomes. Empirical evidence has shown that females tend to receive fewer promotions than males (Olson & Becker, 1983). In addition, age may impact one’s likeliness to be promoted as it implicitly implies work experience (Thacker & Wayne, 1995). In this study, age and tenure were measured in years. Gender was coded either as 0 (i.e., female) or 1 (i.e., male). Educational levels were coded with numbers ranging from 1 to 6, representing high school diploma, college, associate degree, bachelor degree, graduate work, and postgraduate degree, respectively. Finally, position was coded with 1 (i.e., nonsupervisory level), 2 (i.e., supervisory level), 3 (i.e., middle management), or 4 (i.e., top management).

Results

The descriptive statistics (i.e., means and standard deviations [SDs]), intercorrelations and reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach’s α) are presented in Table 1. As shown in the table, all the variables examined in this study exhibited acceptable internal consistency reliabilities with their αs being above .70.

Table 1.

Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Zero-order Correlations Among the Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Age (subordinate)	1.96	.49
2. Gender (subordinate)	1.68	.47	−.21
3. Tenure (subordinate)	3.48	2.61	.53**	−.31**
4. Position level (subordinate)	1.42	.68	.32**	−.09	.20
5. Age (supervisor)	2.90	.89	.19	−.15	.01	−.08
6. Gender (supervisor)	1.54	.50	−.31	.37**	−.20	−.14	−.13
7. Tenure (supervisor)	10.36	7.12	.00	−.11	.02	−.10	.56**	−.07
8. Position level (supervisor)	2.87	.73	.17	−.22*	.01	.29**	.42**	−.23*	.27**
9. Ingratiation	4.20	.93	.05	−.18	.09	−.03	−.03	.07	.22*	.02	(.93)
10. Organization-based self-esteem	5.05	.66	.00	−.08	−.12	.05	.02	−.01	.14	.05	.05	(.89)
11. Promotability	4.88	1.04	.02	.01	−.09	.05	.20	−.11	.24**	.13	.17	.66**	(.83)

Note. N = 92; *p < .05; **p < .01.

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was then conducted to test the hypothesized relations and to determine the incremental explanatory power of variables in each block. As shown in Table 2, the entry of the interaction term explained additional variance in predicting promotability, ΔR ² = .59, F(1,91) = 10.54, over and above the main effects. It is also shown in Table 2 that the direct association between ingratiation and promotability became significant when it was moderated by OBSE (β = .41, p < .01). As shown in Figure 2, the ingratiation–promotability association became significant and positive only at high levels of OBSE (t(92) = 3.56, p < .01), but not at low levels of OBSE (t(92) = −0.88, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 2.

Study 1: Hierarchical Regression Results.

	Self-rated promotability
Study variables	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4
Control variables
Age (subordinate)	.10	.06	−.08	−.09
Gender (subordinate)	.12	.19	.37	.35
Tenure (subordinate)	−.06	−.06	.00	.01
Position (subordinate)	.14	.16	.09	.06
Age (supervisor)	.00	.04	.13	.12
Gender (supervisor)	−.22	−.27	−.31	−.22
Tenure (supervisor)	.05**	.04*	.03	.03
Position (supervisor)	−.01	−.02	.00	−.08
Independent variable
Ingratiation		.16	.16	.16
Moderator variable
OBSE			.99***	.95***
Two-way interactions
Ingratiation × OBSE				.41**
F	1.79	1.79	9.50***	10.54**
Adjusted R ²	.07	.07	.48***	.54**
ΔR ²	.15	.16	.54***	.59**

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Study 1: The interactive association between supervisor-rated ingratiation and self-rated organization-based self-esteem in predicting self-rated promotability.

Despite the full empirical support, Study 1 is not without its limitations. The main limitation lies in the measurement of promotability, which was reported by subordinates themselves. The self-reported responses may be contaminated by social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). In this regard, Study 2 was conducted which extended Study 1 in two important ways. First, it replicated Study 1 using a unique triadic data set (i.e., independent matched subordinate–peer–supervisor triads). Second, the study incorporated political skill as an additional boundary condition.

Study 2

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 600 full-time employees coming from nine different organizations in Thailand, and from various industries, such as banking, furniture, hospitality, and education. The total sample was allocated into 200 independent subordinate–peer–supervisor triads. Removing mismatched triads, cases with missing values, and outliers (i.e., detected using Mahalanobis Distance), resulted in a final sample of 150 matched subordinate–peer–supervisor triads, representing a valid response rate of 75%. Among the subordinates, the average tenure was approximately 6.5 years, the majority of them were young adults (55% constituting the range of ages between below 25 and 35), female participants (57.3%), and nonsupervisory level employees (68.7%). Among the peers, the average tenure was approximately 6 years, the majority of them were also young adults (69.3% constituting the range of ages between below 25 and 35), female participants (58%), and nonsupervisory level employees (77.3%). Among the supervisors, the average tenure was approximately 10 years, the majority of them were in the range of ages between 36 and 65, male participants (52.7%), and first-line managers (58.7%).

Similar to Study 1, separate questionnaire surveys were developed for supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Self-reported surveys were administered by the human resource (HR) department of each firm. HR people in charge were instructed to pass on a packet that consists of three surveys in it to participants who are at the supervisory level. Supervisors were also instructed to pass on a survey to their immediate subordinate and to advise him or her to nominate a peer with whom the subordinate had regular interactions at work. We used this procedure for ethical reasons, as it provided a high degree of control to supervisors and employees on whether they wanted to participate. Completed surveys were returned directly to the HR department.

Measures

Ingratiation

Ingratiation was rated by peers using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from not at all (1) to a very large extent (7) as endpoints, and using the 19-item ingratiation scale developed by Kumar and Beyerlein (1991). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .94.

OBSE

Consistent with Study 1, subordinates were asked to rate themselves on their levels of OBSE using the 10-item scale developed by Pierce and colleagues (1989). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .92.

Political Skill

Political skill was assessed using the 18-item scale developed by Ferris and colleagues, Perrewe (2005). Given the constraints imposed by the participating organizations, 11 of the 18 items were selected based on the highest factor loadings. Example items include “I spend a lot of time and effort at work working with others,” “It is important that people believe I am sincere in what I say and do,” “I always seem to instinctively know the right thing to say or do to influence others,” and “It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most people.” Ferris and colleagues (2005) reported a Cronbach’s α of .89. They also reported the measure to be moderately correlated with measures of self-monitoring, coalition, and political savvy with correlation coefficients ranging from .28 to .47 (Ferris et al., 2005). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was .86.

Promotability

As in Study 1, promotability was measured using the 4-item scale developed by Wayne and colleagues (1997). Supervisors were asked to rate their subordinates’ chances of getting advanced in their career. Sample items include “If I have to select a successor for my position, it would be this subordinate,” and “I believe that this subordinate has what it takes to be promoted to a higher-level position.” In this study, Cronbach’s α was .94.

Control Variables

Similar to Study 1, we controlled for certain demographic variables, notably age, gender, tenure, and position levels of all the participants involved in the study.

Results

Data were analyzed using the same methods described in Study 1. Means, SDs, zero-order correlations, and reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach’s α) for Study 2 are presented in Table 3. All major variables tested exhibit acceptable internal consistency reliabilities with their Cronbach’s αs being above .70. Zero-order correlations did not exceed 0.75 and thus multicollinearity was not a threat to the regression analyses. The regression results are shown in Table 4.

Table 3.

Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1. Age (subordinate)	.50	.74
2. Gender (subordinate)	1.57	.50	−.08
3. Tenure (subordinate)	6.54	5.83	.56**	.03
4. Position level (subordinate)	1.39	.65	.37**	−.24	.06
5. Age (peer)	2.25	.87	.33**	−.16	.38**	.11
6. Gender (peer)	1.58	.50	−.02	.58**	.00	−.17*	−.07
7. Tenure (peer)	6.12	5.83	.31**	.01	.52**	.08	.68**	−.06
8. Position level (peer)	1.27	.54	.30**	−.22**	.11	.65**	.26**	−.21*	.23**
9. Age (supervisor)	2.91	.73	.27**	.06	.26**	.05	.36**	.02	.4**	.15
10. Gender (supervisor)	1.47	.50	.08	.55**	.03	−.16*	−.02	.48**	.08	−.17**	.09
11. Tenure (supervisor)	9.64	6.74	.20*	.17*	.44**	−.12	.28**	.06	.44**	−.12	.53**	.20*
12. Position level (supervisor)	2.22	.68	.16	−.08	−.02	.47**	−.01	.02	.04	.39**	.18*	−.21*	−.11
13. Ingratiation	4.23	1.09	−.13	−.02	−.05	.03	.10	.04	.09	.00	.00	−.11	−.03	.07	(.94)
14. Organization-based self-esteem	5.02	.86	.08	−.12	−.12	.22**	.13	−.15	.53	.14	.18*	−.13	−.04	.11	.09	(.92)
15. Political skill	5.27	.73	−.04	−.11	−.15	.20*	−.11	−.15	−.09	.04	.01	−.16*	−.06	.14	.01	.67**	(.86)
16. Promotability	5.22	1.21	−.18	−.09	−.15	.03	−.05	−.11	−.04	−.05	−.02	−.12	−.09	.05	.14	.06	.11	(.94)

Note. N = 150; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 4.

Study 2: Hierarchical Regression Results.

	Supervisor-rated promotability
Study variables	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4	Step 5
Control variables
Age (subordinate)	−.30	−.26	−.27	−.20	−.24
Gender (subordinate)	−.07	−.07	−.07	−.01	−.02
Tenure (subordinate	−.01	−.01	−.01	−.01	−.01
Position (subordinate)	.25	.23	.21	.18	.19
Age (peer)	−.02	−.04	−.03	−.06	−.03
Gender (peer)	−.18	−.21	−.20	−.19	−.16
Tenure (peer)	.02	.02	.02	.02	.01
Position (peer)	−.36	−.34	−.33	−.29	−.28
Age (supervisor)	.13	.13	.14	.10	.09
Gender (supervisor)	−.11	−.07	−.06	−.08	−.08
Tenure (supervisor)	−.02	−.01	−.02	−.02	−.01
Position (supervisor)	.08	.07	.06	−.01	.03
Independent variable
Ingratiation		.12	.12	.15	.13
Moderator variable
OBSE			−.04	−.12	−.07
Political Skill			.11	.17	.18
Two-way interactions
Ingratiation × OBSE				.39**
Ingratiation × PS					.28*
F	.90	1.52	0.63	10.94**	4.39*
Adjusted R ²	−.01	.00	−.02	.05**	.01*
ΔR ²	.07	.08	.09	.16**	.12*

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Entry of the interaction between ingratiation and OBSE explained additional variance in predicting promotability term, ΔR ² = .16, F(1, 149) = 10.94, above the main effect relations. The results further revealed that the direct association between ingratiation and promotability became significant and positive only when it was moderated by OBSE (β = .39, p < .01). Figure 3 showed that ingratiation was significantly and positively associated with promotability at high levels of OBSE, t(150) = 3.36, p < .01, but not at low levels of OBSE, t(150) = −1.43, ns. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Figure 3.

Study 2: The interactive association between peer-rated ingratiation and self-rated organization-based self-esteem in predicting supervisor-rated promotability.

Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, entry of the interaction between ingratiation and political skill explained additional variance in predicting promotability, ΔR ² = .12, F(1, 149) = 4.39, above the main effect relations. The relation between ingratiation and promotability became significant and positive when it was moderated by political skill (β = .28, p < .05). Figure 4 showed that ingratiation was significantly and positively associated with promotability at high levels of political skill, t(150) = 2.39, p < .05, but not at low levels of political skill, t(150) = −1.76, ns. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Figure 4.

Study 2: The interactive association between peer-rated ingratiation and self-rated political skill in predicting supervisor-rated promotability.

General Discussion

Prior research examining the career-related outcomes of ingratiation has produced inconsistent results (Aryee et al., 1996; Rao et al., 1995; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). Such inconsistencies suggest that the extent to which ingratiation will enable one to achieve personal objectives may be contingent on relevant boundary conditions, such as the ingratiator’s individual characteristics (Levy et al., 1998). The boundary conditions of the ingratiation–promotability relation remain hitherto largely unexplored. To address this gap, two empirical studies were conducted to examine how individual characteristics, notably OBSE and political skill, may serve as moderators that enhance the positive relation between ingratiation and promotability.

Drawing on cognitive consistency theory (Korman, 1970), we postulated OBSE as a moderator in the relation between ingratiation and promotability. The high levels of self-perceived competence and ability that employees with high OBSE have will be reflected in their exercise of ingratiatory behaviors to enhance their promotability. Consistent with our prediction, ingratiation was found to be significantly and positively associated with promotability at high levels of OBSE (i.e., Hypothesis 1) in both Study 1 and Study 2.

By incorporating social influence theory (Levy et al., 1998), we further argued that politically skilled employees are better able to understand the social interactions they have with their supervisor and accordingly exercise ingratiation in order to enhance their chances of getting promoted. In this regard, the moderating impact of political skill was further tested using triadic data sources in Study 2. Consistent with our initial prediction, the relation between ingratiation and promotability was also found to be significant and positive at high levels of political skill (i.e., Hypothesis 2).

This article offers two important empirical contributions to the literature on ingratiation. First, the identification of boundary conditions does indeed help contextualize prior work and also explain inconsistencies therein (Whetten, 1989). Despite prior research examining outcomes of ingratiation, these results obtained across studies have rather shown to be inconsistent at best (Aryee et al., 1996; Rao et al., 1995; Thacker & Wayne, 1995), which warrants further research to identify factors that moderate the relationship between ingratiation and career outcomes. In this regard, this article argues that it is not the frequency of the use of ingratiation that contributes to positive outcomes but rather how ingratiation is exercised by individuals, which is contingent on their individual characteristics, notably OBSE and political skill.

Limitations

This study is not without its limitations and thus the results reported should be interpreted with caution. First, both Study 1 and Study 2 were conducted using a cross-sectional design, whereby data were collected from a sample in a single moment in time. As a result, we cannot infer causality. Future research may consider adopting a longitudinal design in measuring independent variables, moderating variables, and dependent variables. Second, given that both studies were developed specifically in the cultural context of Thailand, we can only infer cross-cultural differences because a direct comparison between cross-cultural contexts cannot be made. It is important to take cultural contexts into consideration when examining ingratiation, as research has shown that ingratiation is a culture-specific tactic that is preferred in some cultures but not in others (Branzei, 2002). Finally, although both Study 1 and Study 2 attempted to address common method bias by using supervisor-rated ingratiation and peer-rated ingratiation, respectively, the major concern lies in how certain aspects of employees’ ingratiatory behaviors, such as “even if he/she does not like it,” may not be accurately detected by supervisors and peers. These aspects are rather personal to individuals who actually engaged in the behavior. To address differential interpretations of ingratiatory behaviors, future research may consider making a comparison among various sources (i.e., subordinates, peers, and supervisors) when predicting employees’ ingratiatory behaviors.

Future Research Directions

This study also suggests a number of avenues for future research. To provide a more in-depth understanding regarding the effectiveness of ingratiation in achieving career-related benefits, future research may consider how the conduciveness of a situational context where ingratiation is to be exercised may come into play. The success of the execution of ingratiation is partly determined by the level of risks associated in the situation (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). For example, in a highly political workplace, organizational policies tend to be relatively slack, which enables organizational members to get away with formal policies through political tactics, such as ingratiation. In this regard, future studies may examine how organizational politics (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997) can come into play to determine the effectiveness of ingratiation.

Furthermore, to provide a better understanding of how ingratiation may serve as a career influence tactic that enables employees to achieve career-related benefits, future research may consider examining a mediating mechanism that is placed in between ingratiation and outcomes. Given that ingratiation is primarily attempted by individuals to enhance their interpersonal attractiveness, future studies may examine how employees use their interpersonal attractiveness to enhance network benefits obtained from their superiors and to subsequently capitalize on these network benefits to further their career objectives. Seibert, Kraimer and Liden (2001) suggested three types of network benefits that can be positively related to objective career success, including access to information (Spreitzer, 1996), access to resources (Spreitzer, 1996), and career sponsorship (Dreher & Ash, 1990).

In conclusion, this research extends the literature on ingratiation by providing preliminary evidence that high levels of political skill and high levels of OBSE have an enhancing effect on the relationship between ingratiation and promotability. Accordingly, the extent to which ingratiation will enable individuals to enhance their promotability has been empirically shown to be contingent on their levels of OBSE and political skill. Such findings may help ameliorate some of the inconsistent findings reported in the extant literature regarding outcomes of ingratiation by taking into account the notion that it is not the frequency of the use of ingratiation that contributes to positive outcomes but rather the style of the use.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to George Chen, Christian Kiewitz and Tom Zagenczyk for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aryee

Wyatt

Stone

(1996). Early career outcomes of graduate employees: The effect of mentoring and ingratiation. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 95–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00800.x

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Betz

N. E.

Klein

K. L.

(1996). Relationships among measures of career self-efficacy, generalized self-efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 285–298. doi:10.1177/106907279600400304

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 237–250. doi:10.1002/job.185

Bowman

(1964). What helps or harms promotability? Harvard Business Review, 42, 184–196.

Branzei

(2002). Cultural explanations of individual preferences for influence tactics in cross cultural encounters. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 203–218. doi:10.1177/1470595802002002873

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301

Cable

D. M.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197–214. doi:10.1002/job.183

Crowne

Marlowe

. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.

10.

Deluga

R. J.

Perry

J. T.

(1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67–86. doi:10.1177/1059601194191004

11.

Dreher

G. F.

Ash

R. A.

(1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539

12.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

C. J.

Douglas

Frink

D. D.

(2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152. doi:10.1177/0149206304271386

13.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Perrewe

P. L.

Brouer

R. L.

Douglas

(2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320. doi:10.1177/0149206307300813

14.

Gardner

D. G.

Pierce

J. L.

Van Dyne

Cummings

L. L.

(2000). Relationships between pay level, employee stock ownership, self-esteem and performance. Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Proceedings, Sydney, Australia.

15.

Gentry

W.A.

Gilmore

D.C.

Shuffler

M.L.

Leslie

J.B.

(2012). Political skill as an indicator of promotability among multiple rater sources. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 89–04. doi: 10.1002/job.740

16.

Gilmore

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

(1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557–564. doi:10.1177/014920638901500405

17.

Gordon

R. A.

(1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54–70. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54

18.

Harris

K. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

Zivnuska

Shaw

J. D.

(2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278–285. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.278

19.

Harrison

A. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Perrewe

P. L.

Ralston

D. A.

(1998). The ingratiation construct: An assessment of the validity of the measure of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings (MIBOS). Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 932–943. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.932

20.

Harvey

Stoner

Hochwarter

Kacmar

. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S104898430700046X

21.

Higgins

C. A.

Judge

T. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106. doi:10.1002/job.181

22.

Hofstede

(1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

(1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

24.

Kacmar

K. M.

Carlson

D. S.

(1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627–658. doi:10.1177/014920639702300502

25.

Kacmar

K. M.

Carlson

D. S.

Bratton

V. K.

(2004). Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 309–331. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.09.002

26.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

(2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of an expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human Relations, 60, 1747–1777. doi:10.1177/0018726707084913

27.

Korman

A. K.

(1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1037/h0028656

28.

Korman

A. K.

(1971). Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions towards an integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 593–613. doi:10.1016/S0030-5073(71)80009-0

29.

Kumar

Beyerlein

(1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619–627. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619

30.

Leung

Y. F.

Fernandez-Dols

J. M.

Iwawaki

(1992). Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivist cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 195–209. doi:10.1080/00207599208246875

31.

Levy

D. A.

Collins

B. E.

Nail

P. R

. (1998). A new model of interpersonal influence characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 13, 715–735. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-13788-010

32.

Liden

R. C.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572–587. doi:10.5465/AMR.1988.4307430

33.

McFarland

L. A.

Ryan

A. M.

Kriska

S. D

. (2003). Impression management use and effectiveness across assessment methods. Journal of Management, 29, 641–661. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00030-8

34.

Mintzberg

(1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Olson

C. A.

Becker

B. E

. (1983). Sex discrimination in the promotion process. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 624–641. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2522934

36.

Pandey

Rastogi

. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organizational formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia, 24, 41–46. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1982-06634-001

37.

Pfeffer

(1981). Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.

38.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

(2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–622. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001

39.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Cummings

L. L.

Dunham

R. B.

(1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622–648. doi:10.2307/256437

40.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Dunham

R. B.

Cummings

L. L.

(1993). Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 271–288. doi:10.2307/256523

41.

Rao

Schmidt

S. M.

Murray

L. H.

(1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48, 147–167. doi:10.1177/001872679504800203

42.

Russell

J. E. A.

Burgess

J. R. D.

(1998). Success and women’s career adjustment. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 365–387. doi:10.1177/106907279800600401

43.

Schmidt

(2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100. doi:10.1037/a0015108

44.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237. doi:10.2307/3069452

45.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. doi:10.2307/256789

46.

Staehle-Moody

C. M.

(1998). Adaptation to organizational change: A study of middle managers' coping styles and their correlates. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(5-B), 2471.

47.

Stern

Westphal

J. D.

(2010). Stealthy footsteps to the boardroom: Executives' backgrounds, sophisticated interpersonal influence behavior, and board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 278–319. doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.278

48.

Tedeschi

J. T.

Melburg

(1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In Bacharach

S. B.

Lawler

E. J.

(Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 31–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

49.

Thacker

R. A.

Wayne

S. J.

(1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739–756. doi:10.1177/014920639502100408

50.

Ting-Toomey

Gao

Trubisky

Yang

Kim

H. S.

Lin

S. L.

Nishida

(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296. doi:10.1108/eb022702

51.

Todd

S. Y.

Harris

K. J.

Harris

R. B.

Wheeler

A. R.

(2009). Career success implications of political skill. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 179–204. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.3.279-304

52.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

Duke

A. B.

Adams

G. L.

Thatcher

J. B.

(2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848–855. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.848

53.

Turnley

W. H.

Bolino

M. C.

(2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351

54.

Vonk

(2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why ingratiation works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 515–526. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.515

55.

Wayne

S. J.

Liden

R. C.

Graf

I. K.

Ferris

G. R.

(1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.x

56.

Westphal

J. D.

Stern

(2007). Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 267–288. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634434

57.

Whetten

D. A.

(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.43083

58.

Whitely

Dougherty

T. W.

Dreher

G. F.

(1991). The relationship of career and mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers, and professionals, early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331–351. doi: 10.2307/256445