What Will the Boss Think? The Impression Management Implications of Supportive Relationships With Star and Project Peers

Abstract

Although impression management scholars have identified a number of tactics for influencing supervisor evaluations, most of those tactics represent supervisor-targeted behaviors. This study examines the degree to which employees form supportive relationships with peers for impression management purposes. In so doing, we explore this intriguing question: Will employees gain more from forming supportive relationships with "stars" (i.e., top performers who are "on the fast track" in the organization) or "projects" (i.e., "works in progress" who need help and refinement to perform well)? We examined this question in 2 field studies. Study 1 included 4 sources and 2 time periods; Study 2 included 2 sources and 3 time periods. The results showed that supportive relationships with both stars and projects seemed to represent impression management opportunities, insofar as they predicted supervisor positive affect and perceptions of employee promotability. Impression management motives only predicted supportive relationships with stars, however, not projects. Relationships with projects were driven by prosocial motives not concerns about managing images. We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of our results for the managing of impressions and peer relationships.

How fair versus how long: An integrative theory‐based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness

“…The mean definitional correspondence level for the resulting three‐item procedural timeliness scale was 5.63. This value matches or exceeds other uses of this technique (Colquitt, Baer, Long, & Halvorsen‐Ganepola, ; Gardner, ; Hinkin & Tracey, ; Long, Baer, Colquitt, Outlaw, & Dhensa‐Kahlon, ; Rodell, ).…”

“…Repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the items had statistically significantly stronger correspondences with the procedural timeliness definition than with the procedural justice definition ( t = 12.14, p < 0.001). Moreover, the correspondence with the timeliness definition was again at acceptable levels, relative to past results (Colquitt et al., ; Gardner, ; Hinkin & Tracey, ; Long et al., ; Rodell, ). Taken together, these results illustrate that the three timeliness items are more content‐valid indicators of procedural timeliness than procedural justice.…”

Trusting the “Look and Feel”: Situational Normality, Situational Aesthetics, and the Perceived Trustworthiness of Organizations

“…Students rated the correspondence between the items and the definition of situational aesthetics, resulting in a mean of 5.23 out of 7.00. This result also compares favorably to other uses of the procedure (Colquitt et al, 2014;Gardner, 2005;Hinkin & Tracey, 1999;Long et al, 2015;Rodell, 2013).…”

“…Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the items matched the definition of situational normality using a seven-point scale: 1 = Item is an extremely bad match to the definition to 7 = Item is an extremely good match to the definition. The mean level of definitional correspondence was 5.72 out of 7.00-a level that compares favorably to other uses of this procedure (Colquitt et al, 2014;Gardner, 2005;Hinkin & Tracey, 1999;Long, Baer, Colquitt, Outlaw, & Dhensa-Kahlon, 2015;Rodell, 2013). Newcomers were asked to consider the setting in which their work occurs, including the physical appearance of places and things.…”

Why we need theory in the organization sciences

“…This piece has (at the time of writing) been cited no less than 287 times, many of which report empirical studies. For the purpose of the current essay, I focus on the recent article by Long, Baer, Colquitt, Outlaw, and Dhensa‐Kahlon (), where the authors tested the idea that “employees form supportive relationships with peers for impression management purposes” (p. 463). Notably, Long and his colleagues state that their work “builds and tests theory about the impression management implications of employee relationships with peers” (p. 464).…”