Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.63**
.57**
Note. The manufacturing employees did not complete the Mach IV
scale, and the working students did not complete either of the ingratia-
tion scales.
a
7V= 345.
b
7V= 52.
*/><. 01. **p<.001.
INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS 625
Need for power. People with a high need for power attempt
to achieve control over their work environment and try to influ-
ence other people. Such people can be expected to increase
influence attempts as a way of affecting important outcomes
(Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Therefore, a strong positive correla-
tion can be expected between MIBOS scores and the need for
power as measured by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire
(Steers & Braunstein, 1976). MIBOS and need for power scores
correlated .40 for the working student sample and .46 for the
manufacturing employee sample.
Locus of control. Rotter's (1966) theory of the locus of con-
trol holds that individuals differ in a systematic manner in their
beliefs about their personal successes and failures. Individuals
with an internal locus of control tend to believe that their out-
comes are the result of the ability and effort that they apply,
whereas individuals with an external locus of control believe
that their personal outcomes are the result of factors outside
their own control or luck. Therefore, individuals with internal
locus of control ought to be more inclined to try to affect the
outcomes they receive. In situations in which ingratiation is
likely (for example, situations involving supervisor-subordinate
dyads), internals ought to make greater efforts to secure desired
outcomes and obtain their personal objectives (Ralston, 1985).
Hence, persons with an internal locus of control can be ex-
pected to use ingratiatory tactics more often than persons with
an external locus of control. Scores on MIBOS correlated .35
(for the working student samples) and .29 (for the manufactur-
ing employee sample) with scores on the Work Locus of Control
scale (Spector, 1988).
Machiavellianism. People who score high on the Mach IV
Scale have been characterized as manipulators of other people.
High Machiavellians tend to initiate and control the structure
of interpersonal relations (Christie & Geis, 1970). Ralston
(1985) proposed that individuals who seek to control and manip-
ulate others tend to use manipulative tactics, such as ingratia-
tion, more often. There is also some experimental support for
this contention (Pandey & Rastogi, 1979). Thus, scores on the
Mach IV Scale can be expected to correlate reasonably highly
with scores on MIBOS. The correlation was .34.
Phase 3: Discriminant Validity
To establish discriminant validity, we administered MIBOS
to multiple and diverse samples. The first sample consisted of
52 employees (also used for convergent validation) working in
manufacturing industries in the mid-South.
The second sample (N= 216) consisted of a number of sub-
samples. Of the 216 employees in this sample, 57 employees
were working in government organizations, 88 employees were
in retailing, and 71 employees were in service organizations
(banking, insurance, real estate, etc.). These employees worked
in a variety of jobs (technical, clerical, administrative, etc.) and
were simultaneously enrolled in one of two major universities in
the South and Southwest.
Beginning with the landmark work of Kipnis et al. (1980), a
number of researchers have examined the interpersonal influ-
ence processes in organizations (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987;
Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez et al., 1986; Schriesheim & Hinkin,
1990). These researchers identified a number of interpersonal
influence tactics used in organizational settings. Important
among these are assertiveness, rationality, exchange of benefits,
upward appeal, blocking, and coalition.
As interpersonal influence tactics shown by subordinates in
organizations, ingratiatory behaviors ought to be related to
other types of interpersonal influence tactics shown by employ-
ees in organizations. However, if ingratiatory behavior is to be
explicated successfully and identified as a unique interpersonal
behavior, it must demonstrate acceptable levels of discriminant
validity when compared with other interpersonal influence tac-
tics.
In the past, researchers have used similar methods to estab-
lish the discriminant validity of new organizational behavior
constructs (Mowday & Steers, 1979). Accordingly, to investigate
the discriminant validity of MIBOS, we compared it with five
other interpersonal influence tactics: assertiveness, rationality,
exchange of benefits, upward appeal, and coalition. These influ-
ence tactics were measured with the refined and revised version
of Kipnis et al.'s (1980) scale (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).
Results are presented in Table 4.
Several lines of evidence emerge from these results, each dem-
onstrating the discriminant validity of MIBOS. All five influ-
ence tactics used for comparison involve upward influence
attempts to influence someone higher in formal authority in
the organization (Porter et al., 1981). First, the relationship be-
tween ingratiation and the exchange measure was the highest,
ranging from .23 to .35 across the four samples. In an upward
influence situation, ingratiation and exchange are both used to
gain the approbation of a superior who controls significant re-
wards. Because the behaviors are somewhat similar, a positive
correlation between the two would be expected. However, be-
cause ingratiation as a construct is distinct from other upward
influence tactics, such correlations should be only moderate.
The extent of correlation between the measures of ingratiation
and exchange is quite similar to that noted by Yukl and Falbe
(1990), who measured the use of these two behaviors with sin-
gle-item scales.
Second, correlations between MIBOS scores and scores on
the assertiveness and upward-influence measures were among
the lowest, ranging from .08 to .28. When compared with the
manipulative intent that is often associated with the use of in-
Table 4
Discriminant Validity of Measure of Ingratiating Behavior
in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
Employed students in
Manufacturing
Upward-influence
tactic
8
Assertiveness
Rationality
Exchange
Upward influence
Coalition
employees
(n = 52)
.13
.26*
.23*
.13
.11
Government
(n = 57)
.08
.16
.33**
.23*
.28*
Retailing
(n = 88)
.20
.11
.25*
.27*
.20
Service
(n = 71)
.28*
.09
.35**
.18*
.12
* Measured with Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) revision of Kipnis,
Schmidt, and Wilkinson's (1980) scale.
*p<.05. **/><. 01.
626 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
gratiation, both assertiveness and upward influence are more
direct, demanding, and somewhat less political influence tac-
tics. Thus, even though all these tactics are designed to secure
favorable outcomes from one's supervisor, they are different
constructs. The low correlations (mean correlations of .17) be-
tween ingratiation and these two other measures of upward
influence provide some indication of an acceptable level of
discriminant validity for MIBOS.
Ingratiation is a political strategy that is largely manipulative
in nature. As such, it should not be related to the direct persua-
sion tactic of rationality. Correlations ranged from .09 to .26.
The low relationship between rationality and MIBOS scores
provides further support for the distinctiveness of ingratiation
as an influence strategy.
Finally, across all four samples, correlations between MIBOS
and coalition scores ranged from .11 to .28. Coalition tactics
include persuasion and creating pressure by obtaining the sup-
port of others (Kipnis et al., 1980). Although such behaviors
may involve covert influence (Yukl & Falbe, 1990), the pro-
cesses and strategies involved in using them are quite different.
This fact is confirmed by the low correlation between the two
measures.
The percentage of common variance shared by MIBOS and
other measures of upward influence did not exceed 13% and
averaged less than 5%. The magnitudes of these relationships
are clearly low enough to demonstrate, rather conclusively, the
discriminant validity of MIBOS. This is particularly true be-
cause the magnitudes of the correlations of MIBOS with mea-
sures of other influence strategies are quite similar to those
reported recently by Yukl and Falbe (1990).
Discussion
This article presents the development and validation of
MIBOS, an instrument designed to assess ingratiatory behav-
iors of employees in organizations. Overall, the results of the
validity tests provide good evidence of convergent and discrimi-
nant validity. The tests conducted during the first phase of the
study confirmed the high internal consistency and stability of
the instrument. The test for internal consistency, conducted on
the responses of 346 employees, yielded a Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of .92, reconfirming the fact that MIBOS is ex-
tremely reliable. Phases 2 and 3 produced good evidence for the
construct validity of MIBOS in the form of content validity,
covergent validity, and discriminant validity. However, it is
never possible to address every relevant issue in any single study.
For further validation of the scale, it seems appropriate to assess
ingratiatory behaviors as seen from other perspectives (e.g., su-
pervisors, co-workers) and to examine correlations between
these different sources. Assessment of MIBOS from a criterion-
related perspectiveWhat outcomes can be expected to corre-
late with the scale?would also be useful.
Although ingratiatory behaviors have been empirically inves-
tigated in laboratory studies for over 25 years (Jones, 1964), and
their use as an upward influence strategy has been studied in
organizational settings for over 10 years (e.g., Allen et al., 1979;
Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977), few empirical studies have
explored the use of ingratiation in organizations. Most recent
studies have been conceptual and theoretical (e.g., Liden & Mit-
chell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). These
studies have provided a number of testable propositions, but so
far the propositions have remained untested. Indeed, ingratia-
tory behavior in organizational settings continues to remain
both an intriguing and highly underresearched topic in the
field of organizational behavior.
The absence of a measurement instrument designed to focus
specifically on ingratiation seems to be one of the major rea-
sons for the absence of empirical investigation of these behav-
iors. The development of a scientifically validated instrument
for the measurement of ingratiation therefore constitutes the
first major step toward empirical investigation. Only when psy-
chologists are able to assess and measure this phenomenon can
they begin to relate it to major social issues within organiza-
tions. The construction and validation of MIBOS should help
to spur research interest in a topic that has long been ignored
and warrants much greater interest from organizational scien-
tists.
References
Allen, R. W, Porter, D. L., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organi-
zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California
Management Review, 22, 77-83.
Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and up-
ward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 40, 39-40.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenom-
ena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1960). Yfeasayer and naysayer. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60,151-174.
Cronbach, L. (1986). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New
\ork: Macmillan.
Erez, M., & Rim, T. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence
tactics and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations,
35, 871-878.
Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of
influence: Agent vs. target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,
25-39.
Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norms of reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Hair, J., Anderson, R. O., & Tatham, R. (1987). Multidimensional data
analysis (pp. 244-275). New York: Macmillan.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New \brk: Appleton.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional ap-
proach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kipnis, D, Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, J. (1980). Intraorganizational
influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology,^ 5, 440-452.
Liden, R. C, & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organi-
zational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-587.
Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W, Porter, L. W, Renwick, R. M., & Mayes,
B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of manager's
perception. Human Relations, 33, 79-100.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organiza-
tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23,137-156.
Mowday, R. X, & Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-
tional commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Pandey, J. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organiza-
tional formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia, 24, 41-46.
INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS 627
Pandey, J., & Bohra, K. A. (1984). Ingratiation as a function of organiza-
tional characteristics and supervisory styles. International Review of
Applied Psychology, 33, 381-394.
Pandey, J., & Rastogi, R. (1979). Machiavellianism and ingratiation.
Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 221-225.
Porter, L. W, Allen, R. W, & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of up-
ward influence in organizations. Research in Organizational Behav-
ior, 3,109-149.
Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 477-487.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: The
roleof expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 50, 42\-421.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 63,129-156.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-
nal locus of control. Psychological Monographs, 80,1-28.
Schilit, W K., & Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of upward influence in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presen-
tation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
641-669.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by
subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of
the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 246-257.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 526-537.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based mea-
sure of manifest needs in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 9, 251-266.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous version of
Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 28,191-193.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management: Theory and social psy-
chological research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J. X, & Melburg, V (1984). Impression management and
influence in the organization. Research in Sociology of Organiza-
tions, 3, 31-58.
Tedeschi, J. X, Schlenker, B. T., & Linkskold, S. (1972). The exercise of
power and influence. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence
process (pp. 287-345). Chicago: Aldine.
Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction
and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M.
Staw & G. R. Salanik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior
(pp. 133-178). New York: St. Claire Press.
Yukl, G, & Falbe, C. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in up-
ward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 132-140.
Received February 8,1990
Revision received March 8,1991
Accepted March 8,1991
Call for Nominations for JEP: Human Perception and Performance
The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board has opened nominations for the editor-
ship of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance for a 6-year
term starting January 1994. James E. Cutting is the incumbent editor.
Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts
early in 1993 to prepare for issues published in 1994. Please note that the P&C Board encour-
ages more participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication process
and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statement
of one page or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations to
Howard E. Egeth, Chair, Search Committee, JEP: HPP
Department of Psychology
Johns Hopkins University
Charles & 34th Streets
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Other members of the search committee are Lynn A. Cooper, Robert G. Crowder, and David E.
Meyer. First review of nominations will begin January 15,1992.