2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0693-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deceptive Impression Management: Does Deception Pay in Established Workplace Relationships?

Abstract: deception, impression management, leader–member exchange, promotability,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
(103 reference statements)
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, a long line of research in the broader psychological literature on IM indicates that individuals will often resort to negative behaviors as a way of maintaining a favorable impression (Carlson et al, 2011;Leary, 1995;Campion, 2006, 2007;Weiss and Feldman, 2006). 2 A key finding of this broader literature is that people are more likely to use deception when the stakes are high and being viewed positively is crucial to the outcome (Levashina and Campion, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, a long line of research in the broader psychological literature on IM indicates that individuals will often resort to negative behaviors as a way of maintaining a favorable impression (Carlson et al, 2011;Leary, 1995;Campion, 2006, 2007;Weiss and Feldman, 2006). 2 A key finding of this broader literature is that people are more likely to use deception when the stakes are high and being viewed positively is crucial to the outcome (Levashina and Campion, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, they found that assertiveness has a negative effect on performance assessments but has a positive effect on extrinsic success. In a recent study, Carlson and his colleagues () found that deceptive IM is negatively related to promotability ratings. On the contrary, Shaughnessy et al () did not find a positive association between IM tactics (i.e., ingratiation and assertiveness) and promotability ratings.…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Past research on IM tactics has generally used some variations of the scales developed by Kumar and Beyerlein (), Wayne and Ferris (), or Schriesheim and Hinkin (). For example, Carlson and his colleagues () used a six‐item scale adapted from Kumar and Beyerlein's () Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS) and Wayne and Ferris’ scale () of a subordinate's deceptive IM strategies. Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, Williams, and Brouer () used a three‐item scale adapted from Schriesheim and Hinkin ().…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individuals attempt to create impressions of their personal qualities, including their attitudes, moods, roles, status, interests and beliefs and thereby aim to portray themselves in a socially desirable manner as appearing competent, attractive, friendly and honest (Singh et al, 2002). Creating such impressions requires emotion-regulation (Reyers and Matusitz, 2012), behavioural modification (Ellis et al, 2002), self-monitoring (Turnley and Bolino, 2001) and even outright deception (Carlson et al, 2011). Impression-management is context dependent (i.e.…”
Section: Impression-managementmentioning
confidence: 99%