THE EFFECTS OF LEADER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ...

10.1177/1046496402250431 ARTICLESMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2003Rozell, Gundersen / EFFECTS OF LIM

THE EFFECTS OF LEADERIMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

ON GROUP PERCEPTIONSOF COHESION, CONSENSUS,

AND COMMUNICATION

ELIZABETH J. ROZELLSouthwest Missouri State University

DAVID E. GUNDERSENStephen F. Austin State University

The primary purpose of the current study was to extend previous research by examiningactual leaders in a small group setting to empirically assess the efficacy of using leaderimpression management (LIM) as a predictor of group satisfaction. Specifically, the currentstudy explored LIM as a predictor of group cohesion, consensus, and communication using asample of 105 undergraduate business students from a midwestern university. Results indi-cated that the impression management (IM) tactic of exemplification was predictive of groupcohesion, feelings regarding group member relationships and decision processes, and feel-ings regarding group decision outcomes. The IM tactic of ingratiation was positively relatedto group cohesion. Helplessness was negatively related to feelings regarding group memberrelationships and decision processes. No IM tactics were predictive of feelings regardingindividual effectiveness. Implications for the research findings as they relate to managementeducation and small group research are discussed.

Keywords: leader impression management; group satisfaction

Traditional leadership theories contend that leaders must ratio-nally plan, organize, motivate, and control, whereas contemporarytheories assert that leaders must also emotionally engage followersto perform above expected standard levels (Bass & Avolio, 1994).Megerian and Sosik (1996) argued that the exhibition of emotionsby charismatic and transformational leaders can have important

197

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 34 No. 2, April 2003 197-222DOI: 10.1177/1046496402250431© 2003 Sage Publications

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

effects on follower motivation and other group outcomes. Althoughmanagement theorists make this contention, few empirical studiesexist that substantiate it. Indeed, Gardner and Avolio (1998) statedthat much work is needed to clarify the emotional attributes of char-ismatic leaders and the affective processes that produce attributionsof charisma.

Previous research (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998) has attemptedto study the effects of charismatic leadership and follower satisfac-tion using biographical sketches of world-class leaders. The pri-mary purpose of the current study was to extend previous researchby examining actual leaders in a small group setting to empiricallyassess the efficacy of using leader impression management (LIM)as a predictor of group satisfaction of undergraduate business stu-dents. Specifically, this study examined the effects of LIM tacticsand its effect on group perceptions of cohesion, consensus,and communication. To date, few studies on LIM exist and evenfewer relate this construct to outcome variables (Mulvey, Bowes-Sperry, & Klein, 1998; Wayne & Kacmer, 1991). Hence, this studyattempts to relate important variables that to date have not beenexamined in conjunction with one another. The relationship foundmay provide critical insights for small group researchers.

LEADER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

According to Schlenker (1980), impression management (IM) is“a conscious or unconscious attempt to control images projected inreal or imagined social interactions” (p. 44). IM can be likened to anadvertising campaign that individuals conduct on their own behalfby highlighting their virtues and minimizing their deficiencies(Ralston & Kirkwood, 1999). Performance appraisal settings are alikely context for impression-management use by lower-level indi-viduals who attempt to influence superiors.

Gardner and Martinko (1988) conceptualized IM as the behav-iors people directed toward others to create and maintain desiredperceptions of themselves. In an early article, Jones and Pittman(1982) contended that actors use the IM strategies of ingratiation,self-promotion, intimidation, exemplification, and supplication to

198 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2003



appear likable, competent, dangerous, morally worthy, and pitiful,respectively. Definitions and descriptions of these strategies can befound in Table 1. These strategies have been postulated as attributesdisplayed by charismatic leaders (Gardner & Avolio, 1998).

Indeed, leadership research over the last decade has been rejuve-nated by several new perspectives, including charismatic, trans-formational, and inspirational leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990; Con-ger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House, 1977; Shamir, House, &Arthur, 1993). The primary focus of these new approaches is thatleadership is a dynamic and interactive process whereby leadersinspire and energize followers to put forth heightened levels ofeffort in pursuit of a vision (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998). Eachnew approach recognizes the importance of LIM as part of the pro-cess as leaders create charismatic and inspirational images. Forexample, Bass (1985) contended that “charismatic leaders engagein IM techniques to bolster their image of competence, increasingsubordinate compliance and faith in practices to inspire followersin pursuit of the vision” (p. 40). Furthermore, Conger and Kanungo(1988) asserted that the use of IM was a fundamental element oftheir operational definition of charismatic leadership.

The past decade has viewed IM as an important variable in whichto study and understand a wide variety of organizational behaviortopics. Gardner and Avolio (1998) recently advanced a drama-turgical perspective of the leadership process whereby leaders and

Rozell, Gundersen / EFFECTS OF LIM 199

TABLE 1: Impression Management Strategies

Behavior Definition/Description

Ingratiation Behaviors that actors use to make themselves appear more attractiveand likable to others.

Self-Promotion Behavior that presents the actor as highly competent, with regards tocertain skills or abilities.

Exemplification Behavior that presents the actor as morally worthy; it may also bedesigned to elicit follower emulation.

Intimidation Behaviors that present the actor as a dangerous person who is ableand willing to inflict pain on the audience.

Supplication Behaviors that present the actor as helpless to solicit aid from others.

NOTE: This table is based on Jones and Pittman’s (1982) taxonomy of self-presentationalstrategies.



followers jointly construct a charismatic relationship. The theoryposits that the leader’s IM behaviors combine with situational cuesand follower attributes to elicit attributions of leader charisma fromfollowers. Despite the importance of IM to the understanding ofleadership effectiveness, little empirical research has focused onsuch behaviors (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998).

GROUP COHESION, CONSENSUS, AND COMMUNICATION

There have been challenges to small group researchers to con-duct studies that explore interesting questions useful to managersof all types (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Frey, 1999; Poole, 1999).Of particular interest would be the impact of the leader’s impres-sions on the satisfaction of the followers. The variable of group sat-isfaction has often been captured in terms of group cohesion, con-sensus, and satisfaction with group communication (Anderson &Martin, 1995, 1999; Cragan & Wright, 1990).

One aspect of group satisfaction, group cohesion, has receivedconsiderable attention in small group research (Anderson & Mar-tin, 1995, 1999; Carron & Brawley, 2000). Mullen, Anthony, Salas,and Driskell (1994) described group cohesiveness as “one of themost interesting, and most elusive, constructs in the study of smallgroup behavior” (p. 189). Group cohesion has been defined innumerous ways. Early researchers defined the concept as thedegree of group cooperation toward a goal (Weinberg, 1979). Sub-sequent researchers defined cohesion as a trait variable (Bormann,1990), and others have likened it to group attraction (Cragan &Wright, 1995). Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1998) definedcohesion as “a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendencyfor a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of itsinstrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affec-tive needs” (p. 213). In addition, Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley(1985) have described cohesion as a multidimensional constructthat can be categorized into two major groups: (a) group integration(GI), “a member’s perceptions of the group as a totality”; and (b)individual attraction to the group (ATG), “a member’s personalattraction to the group” (p. 248). Furthermore, Carron and Brawley




(2000) asserted that GI and ATG could be concentrated on the taskor social aspects of the group. Indeed, Chang and Bordia (2001)found support for the multidimensionality of cohesion. The defini-tion of group cohesiveness for this study incorporates aspects fromboth task and social cohesion. Importantly, researchers have linkedgroup cohesion to heightened performance (Evans & Dion, 1991;Langfred, 1998) and effective group communication (Rosenfeld &Gilbert, 1989; Weinberg, 1979).

The concept of group satisfaction has also been conceptualizedas consensus. Researchers have repeatedly found that consensusresults in more advantageous outcomes than majority rule (Hare,1980). It is also thought to be more appropriate than compromise,as a group achieving consensus often experiences increased cohe-sion and commitment. Other researchers contend that for consen-sus to exist, members must be satisfied with the decision processused by the group (DeStephen & Hirokawa, 1988). Most academicresearch studies have supported the notion that greater cohesive-ness results from greater consensus. It has been theorized that whenteam members are given adequate time to discuss problem-solvingstrategies and solutions, a consensus approach usually results ingreater satisfaction with the group’s solution (Anderson & Martin,1999; Hare, 1980).

Group satisfaction has also been defined from a communicativeperspective. Similar to group cohesion, group communication hasalso been thought to be comprised of both task and social (rela-tional) components (Frey, 1999). Keyton (1999) has described rela-tional communication in groups as the “verbal and nonverbal mes-sages that create the social fabric of a group by promotingrelationships between and among group members” (p. 192). This isin contrast to the instrumental or task-oriented dimension of groupcommunication, which is largely focused on task-group communi-cation and group decision-making performance (Hirokawa &Salazar, 1999). Indeed, Anderson and Martin (1995) viewed satis-faction from a communication perspective in which members’group experiences result in the affective state of fulfillment. Theirresearch supports the notion that members who believe that theirinputs are valued feel more satisfied (Anderson & Martin, 1995).




Furthermore, Anderson and Martin (1999) contended that satisfac-tion with the communication among group members is a key ingre-dient for successful group interaction and has been defined as afunction of pride in membership (Cragan & Wright, 1995) and asan individual’s self-evaluation of rewards received (Jurma, 1978).The definition of group cohesiveness for this study incorporatesaspects from both task and social cohesion. This is in keeping withrecent literature supporting the notion that the task and socialdimensions of groups should not be in competition with oneanother (Frey, 1999).

In light of these varying ways in which group satisfaction hasbeen defined, we have incorporated perceptions of cohesion, con-sensus, and communication into our operational definition of theconstruct.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of this study was to contribute to a relatively smalland inconsistent body of literature pertaining to IM and group per-ceptions of cohesion, consensus, and communication. An overallassertion made by the authors is that certain IM tactics used bygroup leaders may heighten specific aspects of group satisfaction.Specifically, we posited that the IM tactic of exemplification wouldbe particularly predictive of the aforementioned components ofgroup satisfaction. Literature has noted that charismatic leadersattempt to portray themselves as morally worthy to gain followeracceptance. Likewise, ingratiation has been noted as affectinggroup leadership and follower perceptions (Gardner & Avolio,1998; Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998). That is, prior literature hasnoted that charismatic leaders attempt to portray a likable image byengaging in exemplification strategies. In the current study, weposit that ingratiation will also be predictive of group satisfaction.Furthermore, we predicted that supplication or helplessness wouldbe negatively related to follower satisfaction. Although previousresearch has found conflicting findings with regard to helplessness(Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998), based on the structure of the groupsin the current study, we predicted an inverse relationship. Finally,




based on previous literature, we expected the IM tactics of intimi-dation and self-promotion to be negatively related to measures ofgroup satisfaction. Both of these IM tactics have been associatedwith negative perceptions of leader behavior on the part of the fol-lower (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998).

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 105 undergraduate students enrolled in anupper-division management course at a large midwestern univer-sity. Of the 105 participants, 49 were male and 56 were female. Themedian age was just less than 22 years.

MEASURES

Leader impression management. The 29-item Leader Impres-sion Management Questionnaire developed by Gardner andCleavenger (1998) was used to measure LIM. The scale measuresthe frequency of IM tactics of the following: Ingratiation, Intimida-tion, Self-Promotion, Exemplification, and Supplication. The reli-ability of these subscales has been reported at .7 or higher, whichfalls within the acceptable range. Responses were recorded on a 5-point, Likert-type scale indicating the frequency of observation ofthe particular behavior (ranging from not at all to frequently). Aprincipal components analysis was conducted to identify underly-ing dimensions of impression behaviors across items. This proce-dure provides for data reduction and summarization, helping tosimplify further analyses (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Toassess the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis, severalkey statistics were examined. First, a review of the commonalitiesderived from the factor analysis was conducted. These were all rel-atively large, with none less than the .6 level, suggesting that thedata set is appropriate (Stewart, 1981). Next, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was computed. Based on Kai-




ser and Rice’s (1974) evaluative criteria, the result of .885 is consid-ered “meritorious.” Finally, the statistic for Bartlett’s (1950) sphe-ricity test was 2218.9 (p < .000), providing further evidence that thepopulation of variables are independent and appropriate for factoranalysis. Two items had low loadings across all factors, indicatinglack of fit with the established factors, and were systematicallyremoved according to a procedure prescribed by Comrey (1973).The resulting factor structure provided five factors of IM behavioras seen in Table 2.


TABLE 2: Factor Analysis of Impression Management Items Across All Leaders

Items Loadings Alpha

Factor 1: Exemplification .9006Willingness to make personal sacrifices to benefit others .853Is generous with time and energy in helping others .826Holds personal performance to high standards .760Behaves in ways that are consistent with others’ expectations .736Leads by example whenever possible .706Does personal favors for others .613Demonstrates a high level of personal injury .600Presents oneself as warm and charming to others .578Praises others’ ideas or work .566

Factor 2: Self-Promotion .9097Readily takes credit for past and current successes .829Boasts about achievements to others .819Points out accomplishments to others .803Takes advantage of opportunities to demonstrate skills/abilities .757Uses status symbols to communicate position and power .748

Factor 3: Ingratiation .8568Flatters others regarding appearance and conduct .797Makes non-work-related compliments to others .783Inquires about non-work life with subordinates .743Publicly expresses agreement while personally disagreeing .692

Factor 4: Helplessness .8332Stresses dependence on others for assistance .813Emphasizes personal shortcomings while appealing for help .791Downplays personal abilities to secure help from others .576“Plays dumb” to secure aid from others . 560

Factor 5: Coerciveness .8883Makes it clear that his or her decisions are to be followed .779Threatens severe sanctions for subordinates who defy directions .581Demands respect from subordinates .566Makes threats to persons who do not meet leader expectations .554Publicly ridicules persons who oppose him or her .534



The reliability of the factors was checked to support any mea-sures of validity that might be employed. All factors were checkedfor internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. According toNunnally (1978), the Cronbach alpha procedure is an estimate ofreliability based on the average correlations between items withineach factor where 0.6 is sufficient. No values of coefficient alphawere lower than 0.80 with two beyond the 0.90 level (see Table 2).

Several assessments were also made to determine the constructvalidity of the IM factors. An individual principle componentsanalysis was conducted on each factor to determine if its set of vari-ables would form a single factor independent of other variables(Nunnally, 1978). All five factors were shown to be unifactorial,suggesting that each was a valid construct. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was also used to pro-vide empirical evidence supporting the appropriateness of the datafor each unifactorial determination. The KMO values were accept-able, especially in relation to the “meritorious” KMO statistic (Kai-ser & Rice, 1974) for the original structure that derived five factors.Table 3 shows results from the unifactorial tests supporting con-struct validation of the IM factors.

Results indicate that established factors explain at least 60% ofthe total amount of variance of their respective data sets. A rela-tively small amount of variance is associated with other causes. Theunifactorial tests provide adequate support for the construct valid-ity of each factor (Black & Porter, 1996). Further construct valida-tion would require new data to confirm the existing factors (Cattell,1978) and can be the basis of future studies.


TABLE 3: Unifactorial Tests for Impression Management

Factor KMO Variance Explained (%)

Factor 1: Exemplification 0.917 60.348Factor 2: Self-Promotion 0.841 74.265Factor 3: Ingratiation 0.790 70.388Factor 4: Helplessness 0.779 67.096Factor 5: Coerciveness 0.865 72.766

NOTE: KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure.



Group cohesion, consensus, and communication. Rosenfeld andGilbert’s (1989) Classroom Cohesion Scale was used to measuregroup cohesion. It is a 10-item, Likert-type scale adapted fromexisting cohesion scales for use in classrooms. Participants wereasked to respond to items such as “I enjoyed interacting with thisgroup very much,” and “There was a feeling of unity and cohesionin the group.” Coefficient alpha has been reported at .96 (Rosenfeld& Gilbert, 1989). DeStephen and Hirokawa’s (1988) consensusand communication instrument was also used. This 21-item scaletaps feelings toward the (a) group decision, (b) decision process, (c)group member relationships, (d) individual effectiveness, and (e)opportunities to participate. Reliability estimates have beenreported to be .94 for the summed score (DeStephen & Hirokawa,1988). Responses were recorded on a 5-point, Likert-type scaleranging from disagreement to agreement with the statementsregarding group satisfaction. Participants were asked to respond toitems such as “This group used effective decision-making tech-niques,” and “Other members of the group really listened to what Ihad to say.”

A principal components factor analysis was again used as a datareduction and summarization method (Hair et al., 1987). As donepreviously with the IM data, key statistics were analyzed. First, thecommonalities were analyzed and all were relatively large withnone lower than .7, showing that the data is appropriate for the anal-ysis (Stewart, 1981). Next, the KMO measure of sampling ade-quacy was computed. Based on Kaiser and Rice’s (1974) evaluativecriteria, the result of .915 is considered “meritorious to marvelous”(p. 115). Finally, the statistic for Bartlett’s (1950) sphericity testwas 3697.8 (p < .000), providing further evidence that the popula-tions of variables are independent and appropriate for factor analy-sis. The resulting factor analysis provided four factors comprisingthe group satisfaction items as seen in Table 4. These factors werenamed, as follows: Group Cohesion, Feelings Regarding GroupMember Relationships and Decision Processes, Feelings Regard-ing Group Decision Outcomes, and Feelings Regarding IndividualEffectiveness.




As done previously with the IM factor structure, the reliability ofthe group satisfaction factors was checked to support any measuresof validity that might be employed. All factors were checked forinternal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha, as discussed previ-ously. No values of coefficient alpha were lower than 0.85, with twobeyond the 0.90 level (see Table 4).


TABLE 4: Factor Analysis of Group Satisfaction Items

Items Loadings Alpha

Factor 1: Group Cohesion .9755I believe other group members liked me. .796I felt that I was a genuine member of the group. .778During group meetings, I got to participate whenever I wanted to. .767Other members of the group really listened to what I had to say. .720I liked the group I was in. .718I enjoyed interacting with this group very much. .708I wanted to remain a member of this group. .703I trusted group members. .700Many members of the group have ideal member qualities. .697I felt attracted to the group. .692The group was composed of people who fit together. .689There was a feeling of unity and cohesion in the group. .665I would like future group members with the same qualities. .657Compared to other groups, this group worked well together. .626

Factor 2: Feelings Regarding Group Member Relationships andDecision Processes .9367I would like to work with current members on a similar project. .830We were a closely knit group. .755I like the members of the group. .701Our group worked well together. .659This group used effective decision-making techniques. .621This group provided for comfortable expression for members. .620I believe we approached our task in an organized manner. .573This group accomplished what it set out to do. .509

Factor 3: Feelings Regarding Group Decision Outcomes .8883I believe our group’s decision/solution is appropriate. .855The group reached the right decision. .822I believe we selected the best alternative. .784I support the final group decision. .749I willingly give my best effort implementing the group decision. .619

Factor 4: Feelings Regarding Individual Effectiveness .8573I believe I contributed important ideas for the group decision. .865I believe I had a lot of influence on group decisions. .846I contributed important information during the decision process. .832



Assessments were also made to determine the construct validityof the group satisfaction factors. As done with IM, an individualprinciple components analysis was conducted on each factor todetermine whether its set of variables would form a single factorindependent of other variables (Nunnally, 1978). All four factorswere shown to be unifactorial, suggesting that each was a valid con-struct. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was also used toprovide empirical evidence supporting the appropriateness of thedata for each unifactorial determination. The KMO values wereacceptable, especially in relation to the “meritorious to marvelous”KMO statistic (Kaiser & Rice, 1974) for the original structure thatderived four factors.

Table 5 presents the unifactorial tests supporting construct vali-dation of the group satisfaction factors. Results indicate that estab-lished factors explain at least 70% of the total amount of variance oftheir respective data sets. A relatively small amount of variance isassociated with other causes. The unifactorial tests provide ade-quate support for the construct validity of each factor (Black & Por-ter, 1996). Further construct validation would require new data toconfirm the existing factors (Cattell, 1978) and can be the basis offuture studies.

PROCEDURE

Work groups. As part of the classroom structure, student groupswere formed. The work teams consisted of 4 to 6 members, includ-


TABLE 5: Unifactorial Tests for Group Satisfaction

Factor KMO Variance Explained (%)

Factor 1: Group Cohesion 0.952 76.584Factor 2: Feelings Regarding GroupMember Relationships and DecisionProcesses 0.888 71.592

Factor 3: Feelings Regarding GroupOutcomes 0.835 70.077

Factor 4: Feelings Regarding IndividualEffectiveness 0.728 77.907

NOTE: KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure.



ing team managers. Subordinate members of the team were respon-sible for completing all tasks assigned to them by their managers.Tasks assigned included reading relevant materials, completinggroup exercises, contributing and critiquing ideas, writing case sec-tions, preparing audiovisual aids, making presentations, typing,proofreading, and editing. Subordinate members were also respon-sible for providing written and numerical evaluations of their teammanager.

Managers. The managers were responsible for the performanceof their groups on all assigned cases, exercises, and projects. Assuch, the managers were provided with the authority to assign tasksto group members and direct the group toward task accomplish-ment. After the completion of each project, the manager wasrequired to provide a written and numerical evaluation of the con-tributions of individual group members.

Group interactions. Groups were generally composed ofbetween 4 and 6 members and met during and outside of class. Thedays and number of meetings varied. The groups remained thesame and worked together over the 16-week semester, spending anaverage of 2.53 hours per week outside of the classroom. Thegroups had complete discretion over the division of labor and coor-dination of effort over group tasks. The first group task requiredgroup members to research an organizational behavior concept andwrite a report reviewing and critiquing three organizational exam-ples that used the concept. The second group project required mem-bers to analyze their own group’s development over the course ofthe semester. Both projects necessitated team interdependence,and, because of the peer evaluation system, active participation wasmore likely to occur. These same groups also engaged in in-classassignments frequently throughout the semester.

At the time of team formation, each student group was asked toidentify a “secret number” sequence that was used on all question-naires and was only known by immediate team members. This pro-cedure was used to insure anonymity for the students. LIM data wascollected near the end of the semester after all projects and in-class




assignments were completed. Each team member rated his or herrespective team leader on the frequency of IM tactics used. Follow-ing this evaluation, all team members were asked to rate theirdegree of satisfaction with their team experience. At the end of thesemester, students were debriefed about the study. Participantsreceived extra points over and above individual and group grades.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

IM factors were used to predict the factors representing groupsatisfaction using stepwise regression analyses. The p valuerequired for entry into the stepwise regression was set at .05, withvariables not meeting this criterion being excluded from furtherconsideration. The results of this analysis in the subsequent table(see Table 6) show only statistics from the last step in the stepwiseregressions. Reference to Table 2 and Table 4 provides itemdescriptions for factor analyses representing IM and group satisfac-tion respectively.

INGRATIATION, EXEMPLIFICATION, AND GROUP COHESION

Results support the notions that the emotional attributes ofIngratiation, b = .285, t = 3.087, p < .01, and Exemplification, b =


TABLE 6: Regression Results for Group Satisfaction (GS) Factors Predicted byImpression Management (IM)

IM Factors GS Factors Adj. R2 F b t

Factor 1 .112 7.591***Factor 3: Ingratiation .285 3.087**Factor 1: Exemplification .220 2.378**

Factor 2 .266 19.797***Factor 1: Exemplification .453 5.394***Factor 4: Helplessness –.272 –3.240**

Factor 3 .137 17.455***Factor 1: Exemplification .381 4.178***

Factor 4No significance

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.



.220, t = 2.378, p < .01, are predictors of Group Cohesion, R2 = 11%,F = 7.591, p < .001. Presenting oneself as complementing, agree-ing, showing personal interest in other members, and generallybeing likeable were items that were incorporated in the factor rep-resenting Ingratiation (see Table 2). The factor of Exemplificationincluded items such as a willingness to make personal sacrifices,generosity in helping others, praising the work of others, and hav-ing high personal performance standards (see Table 2). Groupcohesion incorporated items including, but not limited to, membersfeeling attracted to the group, trusting other group members, enjoy-ment in interacting with the group, and generally liking the group(see Table 4). Behavioral items associated with Ingratiation andExemplification when exhibited by leaders supports the establish-ment of Group Cohesion.

This finding empirically supports the notion that Group Cohe-sion can be influenced by leaders exhibiting the appropriate emo-tional attributes. Ingratiation and Exemplification, as analyzed andpresented in this study, provides leaders with a list of specificbehavioral actions that build Group Cohesion. Member percep-tions of leader likability and perceptions that the leader is a hard-working teammate bring everyone closer together, helping to fosteran interrelated and organized unit.

These findings are consistent with the study by Gardner andCleavenger (1998) showing Exemplification as a construct influ-encing Group Cohesion. That study found the IM tactic of Ingratia-tion to be associated with transformational leadership, perceivedleader effectiveness, and follower satisfaction. In the current study,it was found that Ingratiation was predictive of Group Cohesion,another component of group satisfaction. Our research appears tocorroborate similar findings that Ingratiation, if used successfully,is viewed favorably by followers. Researchers have speculated thatcharismatic leaders use the tactic of Ingratiation to make followerslike them (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998; Leary, 1989). Gardner andCleavenger contended that these behaviors are indicative of socialskills that are perhaps required of charismatic leaders. It is throughthis IM strategy that leaders create a transformational image to theirfollowers.




EXEMPLIFICATION, HELPLESSNESS, AND FEELINGS REGARDINGGROUP MEMBER RELATIONSHIPS AND DECISION PROCESSES

Results also emerged showing that Feelings Regarding GroupMember Relationships and Decision Processes, R2 = 27%, F =19.797, p < .001, was predicted by the IM tactic of Exemplification,b = .453, t = 5.394, p < .001, and had an inverse relationship withHelplessness, b = –.272, t = –3.240, p < .01. The factor described asFeelings Regarding Group Member Relationships and DecisionProcesses included items such as member perceptions of a close-knit group, providing for comfortable expression for members,feeling that tasks were approached in an organized manner, andaccomplishing group tasks (see Table 4). The emotional attribute ofExemplification displayed by leaders was previously discussed andcan be seen in Table 2. The factor described as Helplessnessincluded items such as dependence on others for assistance,emphasizing personal shortcomings while appealing for help,downplaying personal abilities to secure help from others, and just“playing dumb” (see Table 2).

Our study supports the notion that when the group leader pres-ents himself as a hard worker, this will enhance the leader’s imagewithin the group and therefore create positive feelings about grouprelationships and build confidence about the decision process usedby the group.

The findings of the current study are consistent with that of otherresearch (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998).In the Gardner and Cleavenger (1998) study, the IM tactic of Exem-plification was found to be frequently cited as a characteristic oftransformational leadership and positively related to perceivedleader effectiveness, as stated earlier. The authors concluded thatExemplification appeared to be significantly related to perceptionsthat a leader is transformational, effective, and capable of creatingfollower satisfaction. Likewise, findings from the current study areconsistent in that Exemplification was also a predictive componentof group satisfaction by means of Feelings Regarding Group Mem-ber Relationships and Decision Processes.

To the contrary, Helplessness in the current study had an inverserelationship with Feelings Regarding Group Member Relation-




ships and Decision Processes. When leaders portrayed behaviorsassociated with Helplessness, Feelings Regarding Group MemberRelationships and Decision Processes were less favorable. Thefinding that Supplication or Helplessness was negatively related tofollower satisfaction was consistent with expectations for thisstudy. It was expected that when leaders display such behavior asemphasizing personal shortcomings while appealing for help, theconfidence of group members in the quality of group member rela-tionships and decision processes would be undercut. Leader vul-nerability would likely destroy confidence in both the leader and inthe decision processes used.

Results of the current study are inconsistent with the findingsfrom Gardner and Cleavenger (1998). That study found that theIM tactic of Helplessness correlated positively with intellectualstimulation, individualized consideration, contingent rewards, andmanagement-by-exception. The researchers posited that certainleaders use helplessness to reward followers who fill in gaps in theleader’s abilities. Perhaps contextual variables provide theexplanation for these conflicting findings. This inconsistency pro-vides an opportunity for further research and explanation to addressthese differences.

EXEMPLIFICATION AND FEELINGSREGARDING GROUP DECISION OUTCOMES

Results also indicated that Exemplification, b = .381, t = 4.178,p < .001, significantly influenced Feelings Regarding Group Deci-sion Outcomes, R2 = 14%, F = 17.455, p < .001. The factordescribed as Feelings Regarding Group Decision Outcomesincluded items such as the appropriateness of the solution, reachingthe right decisions, and support for the final group decision (seeTable 4). The IM tactic of Exemplification was previouslydescribed and can be found in Table 2. It was found that when theleader portrayed morally worthy behavior, positive feelings aboutthe decision outcome of the group were enhanced.

Consistent with previous findings in this study, leader Exempli-fication appears to positively influence group member perceptions




of many group dynamics. In short, perceptions of group decisionoutcomes are enhanced when leaders display behaviors that areclassified as Exemplification. As previously presented, the Gardnerand Cleavenger (1998) study supported the notion that Exemplifi-cation behaviors displayed by leaders were associated with trans-formational leadership in which leader qualities of improved capa-bility are enhanced. It seems consistent that group outcomes shouldalso benefit when Exemplification in leader behavior is evident.

GROUP-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF GROUP SATISFACTION FACTORS

Group satisfaction factors from Table 4 were analyzed at thegroup level to assess differences between groups using one-wayANOVAs. Results from this analysis can be seen in Table 7. Signifi-cant group differences were found for Factor 1, labeled GroupCohesion, F = 1.781, p < .05; Factor 2, labeled Feelings RegardingGroup Member Relationships and Decision Processes, F = 3.518,p < .001; and Factor 3, labeled Feelings Regarding Group DecisionOutcomes, F = 1.685, p < .05. Results for Factor 4, labeled FeelingsRegarding Individual Effectiveness, indicated that group differ-ences did not exist for this factor.

An interpretation of these analyses gives indications that percep-tual differences in Group Cohesion among group members variedat the group level. Some groups were perceived to be more cohesivethan others. Items assessing cohesion (see Factor 1 items in Table 4for a complete list) included trust of others, attraction to other groupmembers, and a feeling of unity in the group, to name a few. In addi-tion, group member relationships and their perceptions on howdecisions were made also varied by group. Some items for this fac-tor (see Factor 2 items in Table 4) included working well together,using effective decision-making techniques, and using an orga-nized approach on the task. Also, perceived group decision out-comes differed between groups. Items such as reaching the rightdecision, selecting the best decision, and support for the final groupdecision were included for this factor (see Factor 3 items inTable 4). The factor labeled Feelings Regarding Individual Effec-




tiveness did not vary at the group level. The internal assessment thatindividuals used to value their own performance in the group wasnot influenced by the group to which they were assigned. See Fac-tor 4 in Table 4 for a complete list of items.

GROUP-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF IM FACTORS

IM factors from Table 2 were analyzed at the group level toassess differences between groups using one-way ANOVAs.Results from these analyses can be seen in Table 8. Differences inIM at the group level show that communication types and stylesused by group leaders vary when comparing groups. Two IM fac-tors were shown to be significant between groups. Group differ-ences were found for Factor 1, labeled Exemplification, F = 2.306,p < .01, and for Factor 3, labeled Ingratiation, F = 2.477, p < .01.Other IM factors did not show differences at the group level.


TABLE 7: Group Level Analysis of Group Satisfaction Factors

Sum of MeanFactor Squares df Square F Significance

Factor 1: Group CohesionBetween groups 34.918 23 1.518 1.781 .041*Within groups 69.082 81 0.852Total 104.00

Factor 2: Feelings RegardingGroup Member Relationshipsand Decision ProcessesBetween groups 51.973 23 2.260 3.518 .000**Within groups 52.027 81 0.642Total 104.00

Factor 3: Feelings RegardingGroup Decision OutcomesBetween groups 33.658 23 1.463 1.685 .046*Within groups 70.342 81 0.868Total 104.00

Factor 4: Feelings RegardingIndividual EffectivenessBetween groups 16.805 23 0.731 0.679 .853Within groups 87.195 81 1.076Total 104.00

*p < .05. **p < .001.



An interpretation of these analyses indicates that perceptual dif-ferences by group members regarding the group leader’s communi-cation varied in terms of Exemplification at the group level. Someleaders were perceived to exhibit more communicative behaviorthat showed a willingness to make personal sacrifices to benefitothers, do personal favors for others, and be more willing with theirtime and energy in helping others, to name a few items for this fac-tor. See Factor 1 in Table 2 for a complete list of the items. Groupleaders also varied in their communicative style, as perceived bymembers in terms of Ingratiation. At the group level, some groupleaders displayed more flattery regarding group members’ appear-ance and conduct, used more compliments toward group members,and inquired more about non-work-life issues with group mem-bers. See Factor 3 in Table 2 for a complete list of items that madethe Ingratiation factor.


TABLE 8: Group Level Analysis of Impression Management Factors

Sum of MeanFactor Squares df Square F Significance

Factor 1: ExemplificationBetween groups 41.148 23 1.789 2.306 .003**Within groups 62.852 81 0.776Total 104.00

Factor 2: Self-PromotionBetween groups 24.423 23 1.062 1.081 .384Within groups 79.557 81 0.982Total 104.00

Factor 3: IngratiationBetween groups 42.945 23 1.867 2.477 .002**Within groups 61.055 81 0.754Total 104.00

Factor 4: HelplessnessBetween groups 20.605 23 0.896 0.870 .635Within groups 83.395 81 1.030Total 104.00

Factor 5: CoercivenessBetween groups 28.109 23 1.222 1.304 .192Within groups 75.891 81 0.937Total 104.00

**p < .01.



Self-Promotion (Factor 2), Helplessness (Factor 4), and Coer-civeness (Factor 5) did not vary at the group level. According to theindividual results shown in Table 6, leaders did display helpless-ness as comprised by the items for that factor (Factor 4 in Table 2).These displays, however, did not vary at the group level. Individualleaders used these behaviors, but no specific leader used them pre-dominantly more or less than other leaders. Self-Promotion andCoerciveness were not picked up as influential at either the individ-ual or the group level.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Our study provides insight into the long-researched issues ofgroup cohesion, consensus, and communication. The findings ofthe current research confirmed many of the contentions posited atthe outset of the study. Certain IM tactics used by team leaders mayheighten specific aspects of group satisfaction. In particular, the IMtactic of Exemplification appeared to be predictive of several of thecomponents of group satisfaction.

With regard to Group Cohesion, it was found that Ingratiationand Exemplification increased feelings of cohesiveness within thegroup. Attempting to present oneself as likable would help teammembers be attracted to one another, thereby increasing cohesion.Likewise, trying to appear morally worthy by working extra hoursand attaining referent power might increase the attractiveness of theteam and bring members closer together. Exemplification mightincrease trust within the group, which is an important aspect ofGroup Cohesion. The IM tactic of Ingratiation would enhancelikability of the group leader and would positively affect groupinteractions, which would also increase attractiveness among groupmembers.

The current study found that Exemplification resulted in posi-tively increasing Feelings Regarding Group Member Relationshipsand Decision Processes. Perceptions of leader Helplessness werefound to be negatively related to Feelings Regarding Group Mem-




ber Relationships and Decision Processes. Helplessness appears toundermine member confidence in not just the leader but also ingroup member relationships and decision processes. The IM tacticof Exemplification was also found to be predictive of perceptionsregarding the group decision outcomes. Again, presenting oneselfas a hard worker might increase confidence in the group’s percep-tion that the appropriate decision was reached. This confidencecould also solicit increased team member support for the finaldecision.

The fact that no IM tactics emerged as significant in predictingFeelings Regarding Individual Effectiveness is worth noting. IM isused to shape impressions in others and, based on the results of thisstudy, had no significant effect on individual self-perception. In ret-rospect, this finding is not surprising because feelings with respectto individual effectiveness is internal to oneself and would notencourage the use of IM tactics to change or modify perceptions ofgroup members. Feedback on individual effectiveness could, how-ever, provide insight on the success of IM tactics used to shapegroup member perceptions of group cohesion, group member rela-tionships, and group decision outcomes.

Although we predicted that Intimidation and Self-Promotionwould be negatively related to perceptions of group satisfaction,our study showed no significant relationship with regard to thesevariables. This is in direct contrast with the findings of Gardner andCleavenger (1998), who found that both of these IM strategies wereindicative of charismatic leadership, leader effectiveness, and aform of follower satisfaction. We posit that contextual variablesmight be the explanation for this difference in research findings.

The results of the current study confirm previous research sug-gesting that Exemplification and Ingratiation are associated withperceptions of effective leadership and follower satisfaction. A keystrength of the current research is that data was collected on actualleader behavior and perceptions. This research extends previouswork of Gardner and Cleavenger (1998), in which biographicalsketches of world-class leaders were evaluated to determine theeffects of charismatic leadership and follower satisfaction. In addi-




tion, the current study used a real group setting that included mem-bers who had a stake in the group project and member interactions.

One obvious implication of the current study is to provide ade-quate training for leaders. That is, leaders who already possess ordisplay the IM tactics of Exemplification and Ingratiation shouldbe made aware of the impact that these strategies can have on fol-lowers. Those leaders lacking the ability to display these behaviorsshould be trained in effectively using these behaviors. The use ofmodeling has been suggested as one means of training for IM tac-tics (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998). Others have suggested the useof leader simulations to teach these behaviors (McCall &Lombardo, 1982). The organizational structure should provideadequate rewards for the successful display of IM strategies.

The current study has highlighted the impact that LIM has onmember satisfaction. Based on our findings, we would suggest thatselection is an important consideration in choosing a group leader.Proper selection could greatly enhance satisfaction and subsequentperformance. Several researchers have noted that the interview pro-cess is laden with IM behaviors. It is through this process that theinterviewer could determine the extent of LIM behaviors. How-ever, it should be cautioned that attributions of IM behaviors can besomewhat subjective and based on the perceptions of the individ-ual. Therefore, this appraisal of IM tactics should not be left to asingle individual. The effectiveness of IM tactics undoubtedlydepends somewhat on contextual variables. The extent of the suc-cess of IM must be considered based on many situational issues.Furthermore, leaders should be apprised of the fact that, in any indi-vidual situation, the effectiveness of a single IM tactic can vary.Indeed, leaders should be well trained in the knowledge of contex-tual variables when using IM strategies.

Training programs should also emphasize the finding that Sup-plication or Helplessness is negatively related to group satisfaction.That is, leaders should be given heightened awareness about notportraying themselves as helpless. Leaders should be cautionedagainst seeking advice or sharing shortcomings with their follow-ers. Again, the effectiveness of any IM strategy must be consideredin conjunction with the current situation.




REFERENCES

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). The effects of communication motives, interac-tion involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction: A model of small groups. Small GroupResearch, 26, 118-137.

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbalaggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. CommunicationReports, 12, 1-31.

Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of StatisticalPsychology, 3, 7-85.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and mana-gerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness throughtransformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Black, S. A., & Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of critical factors of TQM. Decision Sci-ences, 27(1), 1-21.

Bormann, E. (1990). Small group communication: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York:Harper & Row.

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesivenessin sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measure-ment (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrumentto assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal ofSport Psychology, 7, 244-266.

Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences.New York: Plenum.

Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-groupperformance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405.

Comrey, A. L. (1973), A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leader-

ship in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership.

In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elu-sive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 309-323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980s: Asynthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 45, 92-96.

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1995). Communication in small groups (4th ed.). New York:West.

DeStephen, R. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y., (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group sup-port of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 19,227-239.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis.Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.




Frey, L. R. (1999). Introduction. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The hand-book of group communication theory and research (pp. ix-xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical per-spective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression management strategies associatedwith transformational leadership at the world-class level. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 12, 3-42.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journalof Management, 14, 321-338.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis. New York:Macmillan.

Hare, A. P. (1980). Consensus versus majority vote: A laboratory experiment. Small GroupBehavior, 11, 131-143.

Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-makingperformance. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of groupcommunication theory and research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Uni-versity Press.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Jurma, W. E. (1978). Leadership structuring style, task ambiguity, and group member satis-faction. Small Group Behavior, 9, 124-134.

Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Mea-surement, 34, 111-117.

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S.Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation ofthe effects of cohesiveness on performance, Small Group Research, 29, 124-143.

Leary, M. R. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leadership emergence and effective-ness. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organiza-tion (pp. 343-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. (1982). Using simulation for leadership and managementresearch: Through the looking glass. Management Science, 28, 533-549.

Megerian, L. E., & Sosik, J. J. (1996). An affair of the heart: Emotional intelligence andtransformational leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 31-48.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and qualityof decision making: An integration of tests of the group think hypothesis. Small GroupResearch, 25, 189-204.

Mulvey, P., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Klein, H. (1998). The effects of perceived loafing anddefensive impression management on group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 29,394-416.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.




Poole, M. S. (1999). Group communication theory. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S.Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37-70).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ralston, S. M., & Kirkwood, W. G. (1999). The trouble with applicant impression manage-ment. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 13, 190-208.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Gilbert, J. R. (1989). The measurement of cohesion and its relationshipto dimensions of self-disclosure in classroom settings. Small Group Behavior, 20, 291-301.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.Stewart, D. W. (1981). The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing

research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 51-62.Wayne, S. J., & Kacmer, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the perfor-

mance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48,70-88.

Weinberg, S. B. (1979). Measurement of communication aspects of group cohesion. Journalof Applied Communication Research, 8, 55-60.

Elizabeth J. Rozell is a professor of management at Southwest Missouri State Uni-versity. She received her Ph.D. in business administration (management) from theUniversity of Mississippi and her M.B.A. and B.S. from Southwest Missouri StateUniversity. Her primary research interests include intrapersonal determinants ofcomputer-related performance, attribution theory, learned helplessness, and emo-tional intelligence.

David E. Gundersen is a professor of management at Stephen F. Austin State Univer-sity. He received his Ph.D. in business administration (management) from the Uni-versity of Mississippi and his M.B.A. and B.S. from Illinois State University. His pri-mary research interests are human resource management topics includingemployment and labor law, compensation, and information systems inorganizations.




THE EFFECTS OF LEADER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ...

Documents

Transcript of THE EFFECTS OF LEADER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT ...