Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 94, No. 3, 727–741 0021-9010/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015228

Wearing the Cloak: Antecedents and Consequences of Creating

Facades of Conformity

Patricia Faison Hewlin

Georgetown University

This study examines a select set of relationships proposed in P. F. Hewlin’s (2003) conceptual model of
antecedents and consequences of creating facades of conformity. Results from a survey study of 238
employees working in multiple industries indicate that perceived nonparticipative work environments,
minority status, self-monitoring, and collectivism are related to creating facades of conformity. Emo-
tional exhaustion serves as a mediator between creating facades of conformity and members’ intention
to leave the organization. Collectivism moderates the relationship between emotional exhaustion and
intention to leave.

Keywords: conformity, self-presentation, impression management

In my organization, the acceptable political viewpoint is conservative.
I feel that I can’t express my opinions at cocktail parties because I
hold very liberal values. I just pretend that I am conservative to fit in.
I hate it.
—Female sales manager
When organization members find themselves at odds with the
overriding values of the organization, they might choose to engage
in an interplay of self-presentation and conformity to gain accep-
tance at work. The opening quotation is an example of this inter-
play whereby self-presentation is an act of pretense, which is
feigning or acting in an inauthentic manner (DePaulo, LeMay, &
Epstein, 1991). As indicated in the quotation, the individual con-
forms to the perceived acceptable values of the organization not
only by suppressing her values but also by engaging in pretense,
expressing values that she does not hold. Hewlin (2003) termed
this strategy of withholding one’s views and pretending to embrace
organizational values as “creating facades of conformity.” Facades
of conformity are false representations employees create to appear
as if they embrace organizational values. Creating facades involves
the suppression of personal values in conjunction with the pretense
of expressing values that one does not hold. Theoretical research
has presented a definition of creating facades of conformity and
has differentiated the construct from existing theoretical constructs
such as the emotional labor and compliance (Hewlin, 2003). How-
ever, empirical tests are needed to examine the proposed anteced-
ents and consequences of the phenomenon. This present study of
creating facades of conformity therefore provides a contribution
I sincerely thank Elizabeth Morrison, Robert Bies, Jack Goncalo, Jay
Hewlin, Brooks Holtom, Frances Milliken, Quinetta Roberson, Batia
Wiesenfeld, Ian Williamson, and Amy Wrzesniewski for their helpful
advice and comments during various stages of this research. In memory of
James and Ethel P. Faison.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia
Faison Hewlin, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University,
3700 O Street NW, 406 Old North, Washington, DC 20057. E-mail:
pfh6@georgetown.edu
toward investigating the sustainability of the construct and pro-
posed relationships associated with it.
This study also seeks to build on theory by extending the
theoretical linkage between conformity and impression manage-
ment research, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive
understanding of self-presentation in the context of individuals
conforming in work organizations. Scholars have long noted the
theoretical bridge between self-presentation and conformity (for
reviews, see Baumeister, 1982; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) from
two broad perspectives. First, scholars have illustrated the ways
individuals use impression management tactics to influence others
to comply. Research has shown that ingratiatory expressions such
as remembering a person’s name or flattery are likely to enhance
the self-esteem of the target. As a result, the target feels an affinity
for the ingratiator, which leads to an increased likelihood of
compliance (Gordon, 1996; Howard, Gengler, & Jain, 1995). Sec-
ond, scholars have examined how self-presentational concerns
serve as primary motivators for engaging in conformity, which is
the interest of this present research. One’s concern about being
viewed as a deviant or nonconformist is likely to lead one to
conform under group pressure (Baumeister, 1982). Alternatively,
self-presentational concerns might cause individuals to defy group
pressure in fear that conformity might be perceived as cowardly,
thereby making a bad impression on their audience (Braver,
Linder, Corwin, & Cialdini, 1977; Cialdini, Braver, & Lewis,
1974). Whereas existing research has shown how self-
presentational concerns motivate conformity, very little empirical
work has been done to examine how individuals use pretense and
suppression to signal conformity to their targeted audience. In
response, this study on creating facades of conformity begins to
illustrate the experience of members seeking to gain acceptance by
withholding divergent views and pretending to embrace organiza-
tional values.
Understanding the dynamics associated with facades of confor-
mity is important with respect to organizational effectiveness and
employee well-being. Research suggests that acting inauthentically
at work can be emotionally demanding on members (Bell, 1990;
Meyerson, 2001; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Research suggests

727
728 FAISON HEWLIN
also that members suppressing values, beliefs, and ideas at work
can be detrimental to organizational learning, negatively affecting
the overall functioning of organizations (Argyris & Schon, 1978;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Studying when and why organiza-
tional members create facades of conformity can therefore provide
insight on the dynamics associated with suppression and inauthen-
tic behavior at work. This study proceeds with a description of the
conceptualization of creating facades of conformity. I continue
with a description of the theoretical framework and hypothesized
model, concluding with a description of results and directions for
future research.
Conceptualization and Theoretical Perspectives
Hewlin (2003) described creating facades of conformity as a
survival mechanism that some members choose when they believe
that they must suppress their personal values and pretend to
embrace organizational values. Creating facades can involve very
active behavior—publicly expressing values not held by the indi-
vidual, as illustrated in the opening quotation. Creating facades
may alternatively include implicit expressions of conformity such
as one’s physical attire or subtle expressions of agreement (e.g., a
nod of head) while suppressing divergent values (Hewlin, 2003).
Explicitly or implicitly, each behavior involves withholding one’s
values along with the pretense of agreeing with what one perceives
to be the values of the organization. Understanding the impact of
members’ perceptions of organizational values is important be-
cause those perceptions become evaluative standards members use
to determine the most acceptable behaviors to display at work
(Dose, 1997). Furthermore, the organizational value system as
perceived by its members provides a form of accountability in
which members evaluate not only themselves but also others (e.g.,
peers, superiors) on how well they conform (Enz, 1988; Frink &
Klimoski, 1998).
The notion of creating facades of conformity extensively draws
from conformity research. Conformity is a move from one’s po-
sition to a contradictory behavior or belief as a result of real or
imagined group pressure (Bass, 1961; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969).
Myriad studies have investigated how and why individuals re-
spond to social pressures to conform (Asch, 1952; Kelman, 1958;
Moscovici, 1985; Nail, MacDonald, & Levy, 2000). Compliance
(Kelman, 1958) is a form of conformity that has received signif-
icant scholarly attention (for a review, see Cialdini & Goldstein,
2004). Compliance refers to the changing of one’s beliefs and
opinions as a result of external pressures, without an accompany-
ing change in internal beliefs or values (Festinger, 1953; O’Reilly
& Chatman, 1986). Those who comply suppress personal beliefs
while publicly submitting to group norms, values, and decisions
(Brief, Buttram, Elliott, Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995; Kelman,
1958; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). A wealth of laboratory studies
illustrates compliant behavior by showing that individuals who
appear to conform will revert to behaviors consistent with their
internal beliefs when influential groups or surveillance mecha-
nisms are removed (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Moscovici, 1985). The
conformity literature offers a rich foundation for understanding
when and why individuals conform. The self-presentational liter-
ature complements this literature to illustrate how individuals
communicate conformity to others, an area that has received very
little empirical attention in the conformity research domain. I draw
from the self-presentational research to illustrate suppression and
pretense as strategies members use to build a proper image at
work.
The notion that individuals concern themselves with presenting
a proper image to others was set forth in early symbolic interac-
tionist research (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). This research sug-
gests that individuals imagine themselves as the audience of their
behavior and attempt to create impressions that are based on
anticipated responses of the audience. Goffman’s (1959) work in
particular presented a dramaturgical perspective of social interac-
tions whereby participants are performers endeavoring to shape the
impressions their audiences have of them. Scholars in this domain
of research have noted that this activity occurs in all interactions,
and it allows individuals to define one another’s roles, thereby
fostering smooth and effective interactions (Schlenker & Weigold,
1992). Research has also addressed the phenomenon of managing
multiple selves that surface in response to situational cues (James,
1892; Strycker, 1980). James’s (1892) seminal work on multiple
selves illustrated that individuals possess alternative “characters”
that require one to choose among these characters when they come
in conflict with one another. Strycker (1980) argued that a hierar-
chy of identities will dictate which “self” is most appropriate for a
given situation.
The impression management literature builds on the above
research and illustrates impression management as a means to
satisfy self-interested goals (Jones, 1964). Traditionally, organiza-
tional research on impression management has focused on how
individuals use impression management tactics such as opinion
conformity to influence individuals in power, such as interviewers
(R. A. Baron, 1989; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Fletcher, 1989; Gil-
more, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999; Rosenfeld, Giaca-
lone, & Riordan, 1995) and supervisors (Ashford, Rothbard,
Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Ferris & Judge, 1991). Impression man-
agement research has expanded its scope to make broader contri-
butions to organizational research and practice by addressing such
topics as the role of impression management in exit interviews
(Giacalone & Duhon, 1991; Giacalone & Knouse, 1989) and in
managing diverse organizations (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Rior-
dan, 1994). Recent research has included the analysis of how
members manage impressions with all individuals involved with
their daily interactions at work. For example, Ibarra’s (1999) work
on provisional selves suggested that the scope of the audience of
members experimenting with provisional selves is broad, including
the actor as well as colleagues, subordinates, and superiors.
An important component that is missing in self-presentational
research is empirical research on the psychological and emotional
effects of impression management on behavior in daily work
interactions. Existing empirical research has mostly illustrated the
effects of impression management behavior on career-related out-
comes such as gaining approval from superiors (Frink & Ferris,
1998) and successful role adaptation (Ibarra, 1999). We therefore
have limited understanding of the experience of individuals sup-
pressing personal values and pretending to embrace organizational
values. Although some research in psychology investigates the
impact of conflicts between the public and private self (Schlenker
& Weigold, 1992; Tesser & Moore, 1986) as well as pretense
(DePaulo, LeMay, & Epstein, 1991), it has mostly focused on brief
laboratory-based encounters. Moreover, very few studies address
these phenomena within organizational contexts. This present
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY
study extends self-presentation research by illustrating psycholog-
ical and emotional effects of suppression and pretense within the
context of work organizations (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1998).
Hypotheses
Antecedents
The theoretical framework for this study first draws from Hew-
lin’s (2003) premise that creating facades of conformity is a result
of multidimensional forces within three categories: the organiza-
tion, one’s status within the organization, and individual charac-
teristics. The framework relies on self-presentation and social
influence theories as theoretical foundations for selecting variables
from each category. The framework also incorporates theories that
complement and further support the assertions set forth in this
study, each relating to the collective role of the organization,
status, and individual characteristics. Indeed other variables not
included but relevant to this present analysis are likely to exist. In
light of this limitation, the purpose of this study is not to offer an
exhaustive analysis of variables and processes associated with
creating facades but rather to provide a parsimonious framework
upon which future empirical research can expand.
Nonparticipative work environment. Normative influence has
been widely noted as a leading predictor of conformity in both the
social influence and the impression management literature. Sem-
inal research in these two areas illustrates how social actors with
different values, beliefs, or opinions submit to or repel against
social norms in their environment (e.g., Asch, 1952; Goffman,
1959). Social norms are salient mechanisms that define these
interactions between actors and the environment. They are stan-
dards that are understood by members of a social group and that
constrain social behavior without force (Cialdini & Trost, 1998;
Sherif, 1936).
Given the importance of normative influence for understanding
self-presentation and conformity, it is therefore important to ex-
amine how it shapes individuals’ perceptions that suppression and
pretense are most acceptable behaviors in organizational settings.
This study illustrates the normative influence of organizational
practices with respect to members choosing to create facades of
conformity. In particular, members who perceive that they work in
organizations lacking tolerance for members expressing diverse
ideas, opinions, and values might be particularly likely to create
facades of conformity. Spreitzer (1996) described such organiza-
tions as nonparticipative, in which control, order, and predictabil-
ity are valued. In these contexts, management is likely to be less
approachable and receptive to the expression of diverse values. In
contrast, participative work environments are those that encourage
member participation and the expression of diverse values (Evered
& Selman, 1989). Such organizations empower members to feel
comfortable with expressing their opinions (Ashford et al., 1998;
Edmondson, 1999; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992).
As noted by House (1971), leaders who exercise participatory
leadership solicit consultation from organizational members before
decisions are made. In doing so, members are likely to feel safe
expressing values that are different from those of the organization
without fear of negative consequences. Hence, members will feel
more compelled to create facades of conformity when they per-
ceive their work environment to be nonparticipative.
729
Hypothesis 1: The degree of creating facades of conformity
will be positively associated with perceived nonparticipative
work environments.
Minority status. Perceived minority status is a status-oriented
variable related to members’ creating facades of conformity (Hew-
lin, 2003). In this article the term minority refers to members who
have salient individual features, such as race, sex, or age (Westphal
& Milton, 2000), as well as those who have less salient charac-
teristics, such as beliefs and values, that are different from more
than 50% of the organization (Ferris, Frink, & Galang, 1993).
Moscovici and Personnaz’s (1980) work on conversion and com-
pliance suggested that minorities faced with majority pressure are
likely to engage in compliance, publicly conforming while main-
taining their private views. This compliance is potentially the
result of minorities translating their status into a “liability of being
different” (Kramer, 1998) from a cognitive and social perspective
(Brewer, 1991; Kanter, 1977; Taylor, 1981; Tsui, Egan, &
O’Reilly, 1992). Socially, a high level of distinctiveness can leave
one vulnerable to isolation and stigmatization from majority group
members (Brewer, 1991; Kanter, 1977). From a cognitive perspec-
tive, distinctive social categories can lead to feelings of self-
consciousness whereby those in the minority feel that they are
different or stand out. Such feelings might even lead minorities to
overestimate the degree that they are under scrutiny by others
(Kramer, 1998). As a result, research suggests that individuals who
perceive that they are minorities in their organizations sometimes
find it important to manage carefully the extent to which they
express divergent points of view to avoid any negative publicity
that may be associated with expressing unacceptable values (Dry-
burgh, 1999; Meyerson, 2001).
Consequently, the second study hypothesis is that those who
consider themselves to be minorities are likely to use facades of
conformity to minimize the significance of what makes them
different from what is acceptable within the organization. Specif-
ically, the extent to which individuals consider themselves to be
minorities is likely to have a positive effect on the degree of facade
creation. For example, individuals who perceive that they are
minorities on multiple dimensions (e.g., sex, political values, and
lifestyle) will be likely to create facades to a greater extent than
individuals who perceive they are minorities on fewer dimensions
or on no dimensions at all.
Hypothesis 2: The degree of creating facades of conformity
will be positively associated with the degree to which indi-
viduals perceive they hold a minority status in their organi-
zations.
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is an individual trait reflect-
ing the degree to which individuals differ in their responsiveness to
social cues. Specifically, the phenomenon of self-monitoring in-
volves the degree of concern individuals have for behaving appro-
priately in a given social setting. Low self-monitors tend to express
attitudes and emotions that genuinely reflect their true selves.
Alternatively, high self-monitors tend to rely on social and inter-
personal cues to direct their behavior (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000;
Snyder, 1974, 1979, 1987). Research on self-monitoring is vast,
encompassing a wide range of phenomena including (but not
limited to) the impact of self-monitoring on leadership behaviors
730 FAISON HEWLIN
(Anderson & Tolson, 1991; Ellis, 1988), managerial outcomes
(Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Fandt & Ferris, 1990), the ability to
recognize social cues accurately (Costanzo & Archer, 1989;
Funder & Harris, 1986), and the degree to which individuals are
influenced by the expectations of others (Harris, 1989; Lassiter,
Stone, & Weigold, 1987). Moreover, extensive research has shown
that self-monitors are highly likely to engage in self-presentational
activity (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). High self-monitors in particular
have been found to be adept at an array of impression management
tactics, such as ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification
(Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Given the importance of self-
monitoring toward understanding why individuals engage in self-
presentational behavior, it is therefore important to investigate its
impact on individuals suppressing personal values and pretending
to embrace organizational values. Consequently, the degree to
which individuals are self-monitors will positively influence fa-
cade creation.
Hypothesis 3: The extent to which one is a self-monitor will
be positively associated with the extent to which one creates
facades of conformity.
Collectivism. Collectivists are individuals who are likely to
view themselves as inseparable from others (Triandis, 1995; Tri-
andis, Bontempo, Vilareal, Masaaki, & Luca, 1988; Wagner &
Moch, 1986). As noted in Hewlin (2003), the assumption in this
study is that collectivist orientations differ not only across cultures
but also within cultures (Chen, Brockner, & Katz, 1998; Triandis
et al., 1988). Collectivists are inclined to share and promote the
interests of the collective at the expense of their own interests
(Wagner & Moch, 1986). Research has also shown that collectiv-
ists are likely to display high levels of conformity (Bond & Smith,
1996) and to withhold personal beliefs and values to maintain
group harmony (Triandis, 1989). Accordingly, the fourth study
hypothesis is that the degree to which one holds collectivist values
is likely to be related to the extent to which one engages in facade
creation. Those holding collectivist values will be inclined to
suppress personal values and pretend to embrace organizational
values to avoid any discord that might arise from sharing divergent
views.
Hypothesis 4: The extent to which one is a collectivist will be
positively related to the extent to which one creates facades of
conformity.
Outcomes: Emotional Exhaustion and Intentions to Leave
The outcome variables in this study center on the premise that
organization members experience emotional exhaustion as a
result of creating facades at work (Hewlin, 2003). This premise
suggests that one’s quest to obtain rewards by pretending to
align oneself with organizational values is not one without
hardship.
Emotional exhaustion is the depletion of emotional energy
needed to meet job demands (Maslach & Jackson, 1986; Moore,
2000). Originally developed as a subscale of job burnout (Maslach
& Jackson, 1981), emotional exhaustion has been isolated by
scholars in an array of empirical studies (Golembiewski, 1996;
Koeske & Koeske, 1989; Leiter & Durup, 1996; for a review, see
Moore, 2000), illustrating its sustainability for understanding or-
ganizational behavior. Antecedents to emotional exhaustion in-
clude interpersonal conflict (Leiter & Maslach, 1988), role conflict
and role ambiguity (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; Lee &
Ashforth, 1993), and role overload (Cordes, Dougherty, & Blum,
1997; Jackson et al., 1986; Leiter, 1991). In this study, I propose
that emotional exhaustion is a key outcome of creating facades of
conformity.
In addition to speaking to the distress associated with creating
facades in daily work interactions, the emotional exhaustion con-
struct captures the experience of creating facades as a behavior
members engage in to navigate work life effectively (Hewlin,
2003). Both psychological and organizational research support the
notion that acting in a manner inconsistent with one’s true feelings
is likely to lead to exhaustion. Research suggests that inauthentic
behavior can result in guilt, shame, and self-depreciation, all of
which over time are emotionally exhausting (see Bell, 1990; Bies
& Tripp, 1998; Higgins, 1989; Hochschild, 1983; Meglino &
Ravlin, 1998; Meyerson, 2001).
The negative experience of creating facades of conformity is
likely to adversely affect one’s desire to stay with the organization.
Existing research provides support for this argument through stud-
ies that have shown that individuals experiencing prolonged emo-
tional exhaustion will seek to resolve the discomfort (for a review,
see Moore, 2000). Numerous studies have shown that a primary
mechanism for coping with emotional exhaustion is voluntary
turnover or job withdrawal, which involves thoughts of leaving the
organization (e.g., Hanisch & Hulin, 1990, 1991; Lee & Ashforth,
1993; Moore, 2000). As noted by Hanisch and Hulin (1991), one’s
intention to leave is a cognition that often leads to voluntary
turnover. Given that leaving the organization is a coping strategy
for managing emotional exhaustion, I hypothesize that one’s in-
tention to leave is a likely result of the emotional exhaustion
associated with suppressing personal values and pretending to
agree with organizational values.
Hypothesis 5: There will be a positive relationship between
creating facades of conformity and the degree of one’s inten-
tion to leave the organization.
Hypothesis 6: Emotional exhaustion will mediate the relation-
ship between the degree of creating facades of conformity and
the strength of one’s intention to leave.
Lastly, all members may not experience the same degree of
emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave the organization
when there is a conflict between expressed and felt values
(Hewlin, 2003). In particular, the degree to which one is a
collectivist is likely to attenuate the relationship between cre-
ating facades of conformity and emotional exhaustion because
collectivists tend to readily suppress personal beliefs to main-
tain group harmony (Triandis, 1989). A high inclination to
withhold personal views is therefore likely not only to moderate
the relationship between creating facades and experiencing
emotional exhaustion but also to attenuate the degree to which
emotional exhaustion influences one’s intention to leave. Fur-
thermore, given that individuals with strong collectivist values
define themselves in the context of the group, I predict that the
degree to which one is a collectivist will attenuate the degree to
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY
which emotional exhaustion influences members to leave the
organization, even when they experience emotional exhaustion
as a result of creating facades.
Hypothesis 7a: Collectivism will moderate the relationship
between creating facades of conformity and emotional
exhaustion such that the relationship will be weaker when
collectivism is high than when collectivism is low.
Hypothesis 7b: Collectivism will moderate the relationship
between emotional exhaustion and intention to leave such
that the relationship will be weaker when collectivism is
high than when collectivism is low.
The degree to which one self-monitors is also likely to play
a role on the extent to which members experience negative
outcomes. As noted earlier, high self-monitors are concerned
about appearing socially acceptable and are inherently inclined
to engage in behaviors that they perceive will leave favorable
impressions with their audience (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Such
behaviors may involve suppressing personal values and pre-
tending to embrace the values of others (Hewlin, 2003; Turnley
& Bolino, 2001). Given the inclinations of self-monitors, I
predict that the degree to which one self-monitors will attenuate
the degree to which members experience emotional exhaustion
when they create facades. Accordingly, self-monitoring will
attenuate the impact of emotional exhaustion on members’
intention to leave. High self-monitors are likely to be more
concerned about fitting into the organization rather than leaving
it when they experience emotional exhaustion as a result of
creating facades of conformity. In view of the above:
Hypothesis 8a: Self-monitoring will moderate the relation-
ship between creating facades of conformity and emotional
exhaustion such that the relationship will be weaker when
self-monitoring is high than when self-monitoring is low.
Hypothesis 8b: Self-monitoring will moderate the relation-
ship between emotional exhaustion and intention to leave
such that the relationship will be weaker when self-
monitoring is high than when self-monitoring is low.
See Figure 1 for a model of the hypothesized relationships.
Non-Participative
Environment
Facades of
Minority Status Conformity
Self-Monitoring
Collectivism
Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationships.
731
Method
Exploratory Data Collection and Scale Development
In two phases, I gathered qualitative data to help develop the
facades of conformity measure, to gain a deeper understanding of
how employees view their organizational experiences of withhold-
ing values that might differ from those of the majority in the
organization and to capture variance in interpretations of what it
means to create facades of conformity. The total sample consisted
of 34 part-time master of business administration (MBA) students
from the Stern School of Business at New York University. In the
first phase, 23 of the participants completed a written survey. I
interviewed the 11 remaining respondents in the second phase of
qualitative data collection. At the time of the data collection, all the
students were working full-time in a diverse set of industries
including financial services, marketing, and the legal profession.
The average age of the students was 30 years (SD ⫽ 6.9), the
average organizational tenure was 8 years (SD ⫽ 6.12), and 33%
were women.
Phase 1. For the written survey data collection, a professor of
an evening management class administered the surveys during a
class session. Students were assured that participation or nonpar-
ticipation would have no effect on their class grade. All the
students who attended class for that particular session agreed to
complete the survey. In the survey I asked respondents to think
about their work experiences and to write a description of organi-
zational situations that are likely to trigger employees to act in a
manner that is inconsistent with their true feelings. I also asked
about their experiences of suppressing personal values and pre-
tending to embrace organizational values.
More than half the respondents (61%) provided at least two
situations, resulting in a total of 55 mentions. The average length
of each response was two sentences. I analyzed the data by
searching for categories that reflected similarities among the re-
sponses. Referring to relevant theory while simultaneously ana-
lyzing the data allowed me to sort the responses into two broad
categories relating to the organization and lack of power associated
with one’s position or status in the organization. I also created an
“other” category that included responses that did not fit into the
two broad categories and were not related to a significant number
of responses such that they would warrant the development of a
separate category. Subsequent to sorting the responses into cate-
gories, I searched the data for subthemes within the categories
Collectivism
Emotional Intention to Leave
Exhaustion
Self-Monitoring
732 FAISON HEWLIN
(Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Although no clear subthemes emerged
within the organization category, two subthemes emerged within
the lack-of-power-associated-with-one’s-position-or-status-in-the-
organization category: minority status and hierarchical level or
status associated with a subordinate position. To determine inter-
rater agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994), I provided the three
categories to an external coder who coded the responses accord-
ingly. The level of agreement for this content analysis was 90.16%
(see Miles & Huberman, 1994, for the formula for interrater
agreement). All disagreements were resolved through discussion.
The organization category accounted for 47.27% of the re-
sponses. Descriptions included “business climates not friendly or
welcoming to different views,” “no means for resolving conflict,”
and “an environment which is very hierarchical and in which
people have been dismissed for disagreement.” The category re-
ferring to one’s status or position in the organization accounted for
33% (n ⫽ 18) of the responses. Within this category 61% (n ⫽ 11)
of the responses referred to the lack of power associated with one’s
hierarchical level or subordinate position. The following quota-
tions are examples of how holding a subordinate position under
certain types of managers could cause members to act in ways that
are inconsistent with personal values:
Ranting and raving bosses also trigger employees to act irrationally.
Depending upon the manager’s personality and propensity for vindic-
tiveness, you might feel that you can’t be yourself.
Minority status was also a salient issue, accounting for 39%
(n ⫽ 8) of the responses within the position or organizational
status category. An example is
When employee’s beliefs are in the minority, the employee will not
share true feelings and [will] behave like the majority.
Phase 2. As shown above, the responses in the exploratory
survey provided preliminary support that organizational and posi-
tional factors are likely to influence members to create facades of
conformity at work. These data were helpful in developing an
interview protocol for exploring how personal and organizational
value conflicts relate to facade creation. The following section
gives a summary of the findings that resulted from this exploration.
I conducted face-to-face interviews lasting 30 – 45 min, and they
were tape-recorded and transcribed. To obtain the interview sam-
ple, I visited an evening MBA class to solicit students to partici-
pate in the study. Out of 40 students in the class, 27.5% (n ⫽ 11)
agreed to participate. This participation rate was much lower than
that of Phase 1 (100%), probably owing to the time commitment
associated with scheduling and participating in an interview. The
following examples of quotations reflect behaviors of suppressing
personal values, pretending to embrace organizational values, and
generally acting in a manner that conforms to the organizational
environment in order to fit in:
People do what they are told without questions. You get punished
for doing things outside of the box . . . . It is about acceptance and
fitting in.
The people I wanted to work with left, and those who stayed are not
minority friendly. As a minority, I feel that they don’t want me there.
It is so obvious. The head partner doesn’t even speak to me. I try to
downplay my cultural differences and laugh at their stupid jokes. I
play the game and let them think I believe in the firm’s goals.
You got to stay awake and work on the weekend . . . and it seems like
you don’t really see anything but your work. . . . It is like you exist
and you don’t live . . . and that’s not really good. It means that you are
throwing out the whole week out of your life. It is very different in my
country. This is not normal for me. I feel like I have to act more
American to fit in. I have to say that it is okay to work 70 hours a
week.
Scale development. The two phases of qualitative data collec-
tion guided the development of preliminary items for the facades
of conformity scale. Whereas there are measures of conformity
(e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980), there are no estab-
lished scales that measure individuals suppressing personal values
and pretending to embrace organizational values. It was therefore
important to develop a scale that would effectively measure Hew-
lin’s (2003) conceptualization of facades of conformity.
As noted above, key behaviors that emerged from the interviews
were suppressing personal values, pretending to embrace organi-
zational values, and generally concealing aspects about oneself in
order to fit in or appear acceptable at work. I therefore developed
10 statements to best capture the general meaning of these behav-
iors. An independent group of five researchers assessed which
statements best reflected the domain of the construct. Inconsistent
assessments were resolved during discussions. As a result, I de-
veloped a list of eight items that I deemed best to reflect creating
facades of conformity. I employed a Likert-style frequency scale
(1 ⫽ never, 2 ⫽ not often, 3 ⫽ sometimes, 4 ⫽ often, 5 ⫽ always)
to measure the construct.
The eight preliminary items were pretested on a sample of 144
employed individuals enrolled in a part-time MBA program, in-
cluding executive MBA participants. Respondents in this sample
were obtained during class sessions (100% participation). On the
survey itself, respondents were asked to provide suggestions on
how the survey might be improved and whether the instructions
were clear. Respondents provided no specific feedback on the
survey with respect to modifying the presentation or wording of
the measure. In addition to verifying the clarity of the measure, I
conducted an exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation.
This analysis indicated that six of eight items loaded together onto
one factor. The remaining items loaded on a separate factor and
were therefore excluded from the scale. The two items were “Who
I am at work and outside of work are almost always the same” and
“I am always ‘true to myself’ at work.”
Using a separate sample of 226 employed students of a part-time
MBA program, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test
statistically for goodness of fit of the factor structure, thus provid-
ing a more definitive evaluation of the construct. I solicited par-
ticipation from 272 individuals through an e-mail distribution list
provided by the business school, which resulted in an 83% partic-
ipation rate. The parameter estimates for the items ranged from .42
to .69, with an average estimate of .56. The t values associated
with each item were greater than 1.96, indicating that the factor
loadings were all significant ( p ⬍ .05). To assess overall model fit,
I examined fit indices appropriate for sample sizes less than 250
(Hu & Bentler, 1999): the comparative fit index and the standard-
ized root-mean-square residual. Results from the confirmatory
factor analysis indicated a strong fit: The standardized root-mean-
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY
square was .04, the comparative fit index was .98, and the chi-
square value was 23.31 ( p ⬍ .01) with 9 degrees of freedom. The
alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of the facades of
conformity measure was .83. See Appendix A for the facades of
conformity scale.
Survey Data Collection and Analysis Sample
I collected survey data to test the hypotheses in this study. As
this is the first study of creating facades of conformity, I was
interested not only in testing the proposed model but also in
examining the extent to which individuals actually engage in the
behavior across a diverse set of organizations, hierarchical levels,
and demographic backgrounds. I therefore included employed
alumni and individuals enrolled in a part-time MBA program at
two large urban universities. These respondents worked in an array
of industries including financial services, marketing, and telecom-
munications (see Appendix B for list of industries).
To obtain this sample, which was separate from the pretest
samples, I solicited participation through e-mail lists provided by
the two business schools. I sent e-mail to approximately 500
students and alumni inviting them to participate in the study. This
e-mail included a link to the online survey. A total of 238 (48%)
completed the survey. The average age of the respondents was 34
years (SD ⫽ 8.0), and the average organizational tenure was 5
years (SD ⫽ 5.0). With respect to hierarchical level, 3.7% of
respondents reported that they held clerical or nonsupervisory
positions, 4.9% held entry-level management positions, 76.5%
held middle management positions and 3.7% were in senior-level
positions. Seventy-five percent of the employees were Caucasian,
and 53% were women.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, the measures consisted of 5-point,
Likert-style rating scales in which 1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 2 ⫽
disagree, 3 ⫽ neutral, 4 ⫽ agree, and 5 ⫽ strongly agree.
Perceived nonparticipative environment. I used the five-item
subscale from Spreitzer’s (1996) psychological empowerment
scale (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .90). The following is an example of a
scale item: “My organization promotes participation and open
discussion among all employees.”
Perceived minority status. I developed six categories that typ-
ically refer to minority status in organizations (Pfeffer, 1997;
Rosette & Thompson, 2005) to measure this construct: ethnicity,
age, sex, religion, lifestyle, and other. In the survey, I stated that
the term minority is often used to describe individuals based upon
characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, and age. Minorities may also
include individuals whose personal beliefs and values differ from
those of the majority. On the basis of this definition, respondents
were asked whether they believed they held a minority position in
their organizations. The survey provided a list of the six categories,
and respondents checked all categories that applied to them, filling
in an “other” category when applicable. I measured perceived
minority status by adding the number of categories in which each
respondent reported a minority position relative to others in the
organization. For example, I assigned the number 3 to respondents
who reported a minority position in three categories (e.g., religion,
lifestyle, and sex).
733
Self-monitoring. I used Snyder’s (1987) 18-item self-
monitoring scale (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .76) in the survey. Exam-
ples of items are “My behavior is usually an expression of my true
inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs” and “I’m not always the
person I appear to be.”
Collectivism. To assess collectivism, I used Wagner and
Moch’s (1986) eight-item individualism– collectivism scale (Cron-
bach’s alpha ⫽ .80). An example of an item in this measure is
“People in a group should realize they sometimes are going to have
to make sacrifices for the sake of the group as a whole.”
Emotional exhaustion. I used Maslach and Jackson’s (1981)
eight-item emotional exhaustion scale (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .92).
An example of an item is “My job has made me feel like I’m at the
end of my rope.”
Intention to leave. I measured intention to leave with all three
scale items from Colarelli (1984; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .81). The
following is an example of an item in this three-item scale: “If I
have my way, I will be working for the same organization two
years from now.” Authors of this scale used “one year” for this
item. This item was changed to include “two years” because many
of the respondents were MBA students who planned to stay with
their organizations (due to tuition coverage) until they graduated or
shortly thereafter. Maintaining “one year” would not have captured
this intention.
Common Method Variance Assessment and
Other Analyses
Collecting data from the same source caused the data to be
susceptible to common method bias, in particular, consistency bias
(Cook & Campbell, 1979). Consistency bias can occur when
respondents attempt to maintain consistency among attitudes, per-
ceptions, and attributions in their self-reported responses (Staw,
1975). For example, respondents could potentially alter their re-
sponses on the basis of their ability to associate the independent
variables with the dependent variable. To reduce and evaluate the
likelihood of this bias, I employed the following procedural and
statistical remedies.
Separating scale items. Separating scale items reduces the
likelihood of respondents guessing the relationship between pre-
dictor and criterion variables and consciously matching their re-
sponses to the two measures (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1977). In my questionnaire, I separated the facades of
conformity items from the independent and outcome variable
items by including additional items that were not relevant to the
variables in the study. These items were related to one’s choice to
pursue business. Examples include “I am happy that I chose
business as an area of study” and “I would recommend business as
an area of concentration.” As a result of including the additional
items, the facades of conformity items were two online pages away
from the items associated with the variables relevant to the study.
Additionally, to account for the hypothesized relationship between
emotional exhaustion and intention to leave (Hypothesis 6), I listed
the two constructs on separate screens, two pages away from each
other. Lastly, all items were not grouped by variables and were not
labeled on the basis of the reported constructs (e.g., emotional
exhaustion).
Partial correlation adjustment. If a variable can be identified
that is theoretically unrelated to at least one other variable in a
734 FAISON HEWLIN

study, preferably the dependent variable, then it can be used as a Table 2

marker variable to control for common method variance (Lindell
& Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). In this study, I used area of concentration (e.g., general
business) as the marker variable because it is theoretically unre-
lated to the other variables in the study. Significant zero-order
correlations remained the same after the partial correlation adjust-
ment, which suggests that common method bias was not a serious
problem in the study (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).
Harman’s one-factor test. I conducted an unrotated principal-
component factor analysis on all the variables in this study. Results
from the analysis revealed 15 factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0. Items from the 18-item self-monitoring scale consisted of 8 of
the 15 factors. The 15 factors together accounted for 74% of the
total variance; also, the first (largest) factor did not account for a
majority of the variance (17.19%). Given that a single or general
factor did not account for most of the variance, the results indicate
that a substantial amount of common method bias does not exist
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Results
Table 1 contains means, standard deviations, correlations, and
alpha internal consistency reliability levels of the study variables.
I used ordinary least squares regressions to test the hypothesized
antecedents and outcomes to creating facades of conformity.
As shown in Table 2, perceived nonparticipative environments,
perceived minority status, self-monitoring, and collectivism had
significant relationships with facades of conformity, confirming
Hypotheses 1– 4. To examine the model of outcomes and mediated
relationships as predicted by Hypotheses 5 and 6, I employed
Shrout and Bolger’s (2002) approach to test mediation. According
to the authors, the relationship between the distal construct (fa-
cades of conformity) and outcome (intention to leave) must first be
supported theoretically. Second, the distal predictor (facades of
conformity) must have a significant relationship with the mediator
(emotional exhaustion). Third, the mediator (emotional exhaus-
tion) must have a significant relationship with the outcome (inten-
tion to leave) after controlling for the distal predictor (facades of
conformity). Lastly, if the relationship between the distal predictor
(facades of conformity) and the outcome (intention to leave) is not
significant in the presence of the mediator (emotional exhaustion),
the relationship is fully mediated. If both relationships are signif-
icant, then the relationship is partially mediated.
Regression Results for Predicted Antecedent Variables of
Facades of Conformity
Predictor ␤ SE
Nonparticipative environments .18ⴱⴱ .04
Minority status .23ⴱⴱⴱ .03
Self-monitoring .23ⴱⴱⴱ .07
Collectivism .17ⴱ .01
R2 .22
Adjusted R2 .21
F 15.27ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 238.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .001.
As shown in the correlation table (see Table 1), facades of
conformity and intention to leave are significantly correlated.
Additionally, emotional exhaustion and intention to leave are
significantly correlated. The regression results for testing media-
tion are reported in Table 3. The results show that emotional
exhaustion continued to have a significant relationship with inten-
tion to leave. The relationship between facades of conformity and
intention to leave, however, was not significant. The decrease of
variance explained by the facades of conformity measure suggests
that emotional exhaustion serves as a mediator in the model.
Results from a Sobel test of mediation effects (R. M. Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982) also provide support that emotional
exhaustion serves as a mediator between facades of conformity
and turnover. The Sobel test statistic for emotional exhaustion was
statistically significant (3.17, p ⬍ .01), thereby confirming Hy-
potheses 5 and 6.
Lastly, Hypotheses 7a– 8b predicted that collectivism and self-
monitoring would moderate the relationship between creating fa-
cades of conformity and the hypothesized outcomes, namely,
emotional exhaustion and intention to leave. I investigated these
hypothesized relationships using four models of hierarchical mul-
tiple regressions with mean-centered variables (Aiken & West,
1996). In the first model, the main effect terms (facades, collec-
tivism, and self-monitoring) were entered into the regression equa-
tion. The second model included the main effect and interaction
terms (Facades of Conformity ⫻ Collectivism and Facades of
Conformity ⫻ Self-Monitoring). In both models, the dependent
variable was emotional exhaustion. Table 4 shows that neither

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Facades 2.45 0.52 (.83)

2. Nonparticipative environments 3.30 0.98 .27ⴱⴱ (.90)
3. Minority status 1.76 1.06 .32ⴱⴱ .04
4. Self-monitoring 2.82 0.49 .22ⴱⴱ .04 .22ⴱⴱ (.76)
5. Collectivism 2.31 0.69 .23ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .15ⴱ .01 (.80)
6. Intention to leave 2.78 0.91 .24ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .01 .06 ⫺.18ⴱ (.81)
7. Emotional exhaustion 2.88 0.80 .40ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .08 .16ⴱ .08 .40ⴱⴱ (.92)

Note. N ⫽ 225. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear in parentheses along the main diagonal. Significant tests are two-tailed.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY 735

Table 3 linear model with a quadratic model for the relationship between
Mediation Test: Linking Facades of Conformity and Intention to facades of conformity and emotional exhaustion as well as inten-
Leave via Emotional Exhaustion tion to leave. The results from this analysis indicate that both the
linear (b ⫽ 0.45, p ⬍ .001) and quadratic models (b1 ⫽ 1.09, b2 ⫽
Intention to ⫺0.13, p ⬍ .05) were significant for the relationship between
Factor leave ␤ t(225) R2
facades of conformity and emotional exhaustion. The results were
Facades of conformity .11 1.69 also significant for the linear (b ⫽ 0.38, p ⬍ .01) and quadratic
Emotional exhaustion .41ⴱⴱⴱ 6.44 .20 (b1 ⫽ 0.51, b2 ⫽ ⫺0.03, p ⬍ .05) models associated with the
ⴱⴱⴱ
relationship between facades of conformity and intention to leave.
Note. p ⬍ .001.
Furthermore, the negative slopes for both quadratic models pro-
vide some indication that there may be a threshold whereby
emotional exhaustion and intention to leave decrease with higher
Facades of Conformity ⫻ Collectivism nor Facades of Confor- levels of creating facades. The results from these exploratory
mity ⫻ Self-Monitoring had a significant relationship with emo- analyses therefore provide fertile ground for future research on
tional exhaustion. Hypotheses 7a and 8a were therefore unsup- dynamics that underlay curvilinear relationships associated with
ported by the results. creating facades of conformity and outcomes.
In the third model, the main effect terms (collectivism, self-
monitoring, and emotional exhaustion) were entered into the re- Discussion
gression equation, followed by the fourth model that included the
interaction terms (Emotional Exhaustion ⫻ Collectivism and Emo- Contributions
tional Exhaustion ⫻ Self-Monitoring). As noted in Table 4, Emo- This present study highlights the sustainability of the facades
tional Exhaustion ⫻ Collectivism had a significant relationship construct as one that illustrates conformity of organizational values
with intention to leave. To specify the effects of greater collectiv- as a self-presentation tactic members use in work interactions. The
ism on intention to leave the organization, I calculated the contri- results support key premises offered in Hewlin (2003), thereby
bution of greater collectivism at both high and low levels of providing an initial base for future empirical and theoretical work
emotional exhaustion using the equation (Schoonhoven, 1981) y ⫽ on creating facades of conformity.
b1x1 ⫹ b3x1x2, where b1 ⫽ the unstandardized coefficient for The findings from this study generally illustrate that organiza-
emotional exhaustion, x1 ⫽ the emotional exhaustion score, b3 ⫽ tional, positional, and individual factors collectively are related to
the unstandardized coefficient of the interaction of emotional ex- creating facades of conformity. The notion that such factors work
haustion and collectivism, and x2 ⫽ the score for collectivism. I together in motivating members to create facades was a guiding
calculated the predicted intention to leave y score for the four premise in Hewlin (2003), shaping the approach toward under-
combinations of high and low collectivism and high and low standing the phenomena in this study. With respect to the organi-
emotional exhaustion. In Figure 2, predicted values of intention to zation, perceived nonparticipative work environment was signifi-
leave are exhibited at one standard deviation above and one cantly related to facades of conformity. This finding suggests that
standard deviation below the means for the independent variables.
As illustrated in Figure 2, an increase in emotional exhaustion
from low to high corresponds to a lesser positive effect on the Table 4
predicted intention to turnover when the person is high in collec- Moderated Regression Results of Creating Facades of
tivism. These results support Hypothesis 7b. Lastly, Emotional Conformity Outcomes (Hypotheses 7a– 8b)
Exhaustion ⫻ Self-Monitoring did not have a significant relation-
ship with intention to leave. Hypothesis 8b was therefore unsup- Emotional
exhaustion Intention to leave
ported by the results.
I conducted post hoc analyses to further explore the relationship Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
between creating facades of conformity and the hypothesized Variable and statistic ␤ ␤ ␤ ␤
outcomes. Although I examined linear, bivariate relationships be-
tween creating facades of conformity and the outcome variables, I Facades of conformity .32ⴱⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ
Collectivism ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.17ⴱ
was interested in investigating whether these relationships were Self-monitoring .08 ⫺.04 ⫺.06
curvilinear. Specifically, the question of whether there is a thresh- Emotional exhaustion .39ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ
old or “tipping point” for emotional exhaustion or one’s intention Facades ⫻ Collectivism (7a) ⫺.10
to leave was of particular interest. For example, the existence of a Facades ⫻ Self-Monitoring (8a) ⫺.11
Emotional Exhaustion ⫻
threshold or tipping point would have a pattern of results that Collectivism (7b) ⫺.42ⴱⴱⴱ
would likely show low levels of emotional exhaustion and inten- Emotional Exhaustion ⫻ Self-
tions to leave across lower levels of creating facades. Alterna- Monitoring (8b) ⫺.05
tively, a threshold might exist whereby individuals become accus- F 9.04ⴱⴱⴱ 7.42ⴱⴱⴱ 20.34ⴱⴱⴱ 7.90ⴱⴱ
tomed to creating facades such that the emotional exhaustion and R2 .11 .11 .16 .17
desires to leave the organization begin to subside. In this case, the Adjusted R2 .10 .10 .15 .18
⌬R2 .00 .03ⴱⴱ
pattern of results would then curve upward at a threshold of
creating facades and subsequently slope downward. To explore Note. N ⫽ 238, df ⫽ 223, for each model.
ⴱ
these assertions, I performed a curve fit analysis to compare a p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
736
3.00
2.50
Inteention to Leave
2.00
1.50
1 00
1.00
0.50
0.00
Emotional Exhaustion
Figure 2. The moderating effect of collectivism.
work environments that are perceived to be unreceptive to diverse
ideas and that discourage member participation in decision making
will cause members to suppress personal values and pretend to
embrace organizational values. With respect to one’s status or role
within the organization, the results indicated a strong relationship
between the number of dimensions along which members perceive
that they hold a minority position relative to others in the organi-
zation and the decision to create facades of conformity. Hence, the
degree of perceived minority status is likely to determine the
degree to which members will find ways to gain acceptance when
their values differ from those of the organization. In doing so, they
may choose to express organizational values and objectives that
conflict with personal values.
In addition to exploring organizational and positional factors,
the antecedent model explored the relationship of individual char-
acteristics and attitudes with creating facades of conformity. Self-
monitoring had a strong relationship with creating facades. This
finding suggests that the degree to which members tend to rely on
social cues to direct their behavior plays an important role on the
degree to which they create facades. Lastly, collectivism was
positively related to creating facades of conformity, and it nega-
tively moderated the relationship between emotional exhaustion
and intention to leave. This finding indicates that the propensity to
pursue and embrace interests that are shared by the collective is
likely to be a core characteristic held by individuals who choose to
create facades of conformity.
Another objective of this study was to examine outcomes asso-
ciated with creating facades of conformity. My approach toward
understanding the outcomes was based on the premise that orga-
nization members will experience negative tensions as a result of
creating facades. The findings in this current study support this
premise, showing a strong relationship between facades of confor-
mity and emotional exhaustion. Intention to leave, as predicted,
was a key outcome, mediated by emotional exhaustion. This result
supports person– organization fit and socialization models that
suggest that individuals whose values do not fit with those of the
organization will exit at a faster rate than individuals holding
values that fit with organizational values (O’Reilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991). The findings inform existing research by illus-
trating an alternative perspective to an implicit assumption that
FAISON HEWLIN
Low Collectivism
High Collectivism
internalization is the primary basis for members’ conforming to
organizational values. The results from this study suggest that
conformity to organizational values might not necessarily indicate
members’ internalization of such values. Conformity might actu-
ally be skin deep only, negatively affecting the well-being of those
erecting facades of conformity.
The results showed that collectivism and self-monitoring did not
serve as moderators between facades of conformity and emotional
exhaustion. This suggests that self-monitors and collectivists do
not have a unique experience with respect to the emotional ex-
haustion associated with creating facades. The results did, how-
ever, show that collectivism negatively moderated the relationship
between emotional exhaustion and intention to leave. This finding
suggests that even with high levels of emotional exhaustion, col-
lectivists will be more likely to stay with the organization when
others would more readily leave. Alternatively, self-monitoring
did not serve as a moderator between emotion exhaustion and
intention to leave. This result highlights the notion that self-
monitors are generally interested in protecting self-image and
therefore focus attention on displaying behaviors that help them fit
into a given environment. Accordingly, self-monitors are likely to
be more interested in social acceptance than staying with the
organization to preserve group harmony.
In addition to the results from the study, the overall conceptu-
alization of facades of conformity provides a contribution to re-
search by extending the theoretical bridge between impression
management and conformity research. Whereas most attention has
been placed on impression management tactics individuals use to
influence others to conform, investigating conformity through such
lenses has resulted in a limited understanding of the tactics mem-
bers use while conforming. Understanding the experience of indi-
viduals engaging in facade creation therefore provides another lens
for scholars to examine the interplay of conformity and self-
presentation in work organizations. This research also begins to
shed light on the organization’s potential influence on employees
hiding their true values and pretending to embrace organizational
values. As noted earlier, most research on impression management
has centered on self-presentational tactics in the context of dyadic
relationships, such as those between managers and subordinates.
This research broadens the scope of impression management re-
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY
search by investigating how the organizational environment can
influence members to act in ways that are inconsistent with their
personal values.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations should be considered in light of this study’s
findings. Firstly, the difficulty of observing individuals creating fa-
cades of conformity limits empirical analysis to self-reports. I made
efforts to reduce response biases associated with collecting self-
reported data by employing a series of procedural and statistical
remedies. Additionally, the pattern of a significant interaction term
suggests that results in this study are unlikely to have resulted from
consistency bias. Nevertheless, the data may be susceptible to the risk
that respondents may not have accurate perceptions of their own
behaviors. It should also be noted that the results of this study are
based on correlational data. The results should therefore be interpreted
with care in terms of drawing conclusions from the data about cau-
sality. A longitudinal survey design would be beneficial to investigate
the direction of causal relationships more fully.
Another limitation of the data may potentially result from the
general concern individuals have for giving the impression (to
themselves and to others) that their behaviors are inconsistent with
their internal feelings (Higgins, 1989). Whereas surveys allow
respondents to anonymously share the extent to which they create
facades of conformity, this bias toward self-consistency may still
be present in the data. Hence respondents may be inclined to report
lower levels of creating facades of conformity than what they
actually perform. Given this limitation, however, the results may
represent a conservative test aimed toward understanding the dy-
namics of creating facades of conformity, thereby strengthening
the conclusions of this study.
Given the infancy stage of facades of conformity research, it was
important to proceed with parsimony to address key variables pro-
posed in Hewlin (2003). A more extensive development of the con-
ceptual framework will be needed for this research to make a sub-
stantial contribution to existing literature. An important avenue for
exploration is an investigation of individuals who choose not to create
facades as well as factors that would motivate individuals to stop
creating facades. What organizational and individual factors drive
those whose values are in the minority to be authentic at work? Do
individuals who choose to create facades receive more positive career
outcomes than those who express divergent values? Do the positive
career outcomes resulting from creating facades outweigh the distress
associated with it? If so, in what careers is the ability to create facades
most beneficial? Addressing questions such as these will contribute
toward understanding the varied experiences associated with the
choice to create or not to create facades at work.
This study also provides a starting point for further analyses of
organizational environments and minority status. Specifically, it
would be important to explore what a participatory organization
actually looks like with respect to facade creation and how orga-
nizations and individuals navigate differences of thought in such
an organization. With respect to minority status, I tested for the
degree of minority status, whereby respondents selected categories
in which they perceived they are minorities in their workplace. A
logical next step is to explore specific categories of minority status
closely. For example, it would be important to explore the differ-
ing impact of sex, religion, race, and other categories that are
737
beyond physical and values-based characteristics such as full-time
versus part-time, contractual versus permanent work status, and
skill mix. For example, an individual who has a valued yet scarce
skill set in the organization is a minority with respect to his or
her skills but may be powerful enough to express personal values
that are divergent to the organization’s values. Hence personal
power could be an important variable that explains the process
between minority status and one’s decision to create facades.
Another direction for examining minority status is to investigate
whether positive or negative perceptions of one’s minority status
would influence facade creation.
Additionally, the sample in this study consists of many part-time
MBA students who must stay with their organizations for a time
because they receive tuition reimbursement. It will be important
therefore for future research to examine intentions to leave among
respondents who are not bound by this restriction. In so doing,
scholars will be equipped to uncover any differences in the rela-
tionship between facades of conformity and intention to leave that
may arise as a result of the type of respondents in the sample.
A direct investigation of the impact of fear of punishment would
also be a critical area for research. One’s perception of punishment
can be based on objective evidence (e.g., witnessing punishment)
as well as subjective evidence (e.g., an ambiguous facial expres-
sion). Taking a look at the impact of objective as well as subjective
cues for creating facades will help in understanding the potentially
varied ways fear of punishment motivates members to create
facades.
Finally, I encourage scholars to further examine potential cur-
vilinear relationships between facades of conformity and emo-
tional exhaustion as well as intention to leave. Specifically, schol-
ars should endeavor to uncover whether there exists a threshold
whereby some individuals experience a heightened or decreased
level of distress or job withdrawal as a result of creating facades.
The type of facades that individuals create might also have an
impact on the location of the threshold or tipping point. For
example, an individual who has suppressed his or her religious
values may have a lower threshold for distress than one who has
suppressed his or her socioeconomic background. Exploring these
issues will undoubtedly add richness to understanding the experi-
ence of members suppressing personal values and pretending to
embrace organizational values.
Applications
In addition to its theoretical contributions, research on facades
of conformity is important for managers, given today’s environ-
ment in which layoffs, consolidations, and takeovers are prevalent.
As a result of such organizational changes, many employees are
likely to feel insecure about the stability of their jobs. This inse-
curity may lead employees to conceal personal values that conflict
with those of the organization for fear of unfavorable career
outcomes. The findings in this study inform managerial practice by
enabling organizations to create environments in which employees
feel comfortable expressing true values and selves. Managers can
begin with developing an organizational environment for partici-
pation, whereby employees perceive that they can make meaning-
ful contributions to organizational decision making.
It will also be important for managers to acknowledge and
address the fact that members who see themselves as minorities
738 FAISON HEWLIN
on multiple dimensions are likely to have a unique challenge of
being authentic. Ely and Thomas (2001) suggested that organi-
zations adopt an “integration paradigm” that encourages the
inclusion of employee perspectives and open discussion of
cultural backgrounds and that eliminates any form of domi-
nance that may arise by hierarchy, function, race, or sex. New
social norms and organizational practices that embrace differ-
ence can help facilitate authenticity. Given the financial costs
associated with turnover, it would be critical for organizations
to institute such norms and practices to help manage member
attrition that is likely to occur as a result of creating facades of
conformity.
As research into the phenomenon of creating facades of confor-
mity develops, scholars and managers will be better equipped to
understand the daily experience of organization members who feel
that they cannot express divergent values at work. Moreover, we
will be in a better position to diagnose organizational, positional,
and individual mechanisms that work together to influence mem-
bers engaging in suppression and pretense.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1996). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, L. N., & Tolson, J. (1991). Leaders’ upward influence in the
organization: Replication and extension of the Pelz effect to include
group support and self-monitoring. Small Group Research, 22, 59 –75.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Double loop learning in organizations.
Harvard Business Review, 5, 115–129.
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out
on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling
gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23–57.
Baron, R. A. (1989). Impression management by applicants during em-
ployment interviews: The “too much of a good thing” effect. In R. W.
Elder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research
and practice (pp. 204 –215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategies, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
6, 1175–1182.
Bass, B. M. (1961). Conformity, deviation, and a general theory of inter-
personal behavior. In I. A. Berg & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and
deviation (pp. 38 –100). New York: Harper.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Bell, E. L. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career-oriented black
women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 459 – 477.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping
with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.),
Power and influence in organizations (pp. 203–219). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis
of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological
Bulletin, 119, 111–137.
Braver, S., Linder, D. E., Corwin, T. T., & Cialdini, R. B. (1977). Some
conditions that affect admissions of attitude change. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 13, 565–576.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In
M. B. Brewer & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social
sciences (pp. 345–360). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Elliott, J. D., Reizenstein, R. M., & McCline,
R. I. (1995). Releasing the beast: A study of compliance with orders to
use race as a selection criterion. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 177–193.
Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects
of choice and responsibility on impression management. Academy of
Management Journal, 25, 121–136.
Chen, Y., Brockner, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of
cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus
collective primacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1490 –1592.
Cialdini, R. B., Braver, S. L., & Lewis, S. K. (1974). Attributional bias and
the easily persuaded other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 30, 631– 637.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance
and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591– 621.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms,
conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating pro-
cesses in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
633– 642.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design
and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner.
Cordes, C. L., Dougherty, T. W., & Blum, M. (1997). Patterns of burnout
among managers and professionals: A comparison of models. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 685–701.
Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of
others: The interpersonal perception task. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 13, 225–245.
DePaulo, B. M., LeMay, C. S., & Epstein, J. A. (1991). Effects of
importance of success and expectations for success on effectiveness at
deceiving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 14 –24.
Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative
application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 219 –240.
Dryburgh, H. (1999). Work hard, play hard: Women and professionaliza-
tion in engineering: Adapting to the culture. Gender and Society, 5,
664 – 682.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383.
Ellis, R. J. (1988). Self-monitoring and leadership in groups. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 681– 693.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of
diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229 –274.
Enz, C. (1988). The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 284 –304.
Evered, R. D., & Selman, J. C. (1989). Coaching and the art of manage-
ment. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 16 –32.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and
impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 140 –158.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Galang, M. C. (1993). Diversity in the
workplace: The human resources management challenge. Human Re-
source Planning, 1, 41–51.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources manage-
ment: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17,
447– 488.
Festinger, L. A. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif &
M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232–256).
New York: Harper.
Fletcher, C. (1989). Impression management in the selection interview. In
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY
R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the
organization (pp. 269 –281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression manage-
ment, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human
Relations, 51, 1259 –1283.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability
in organizations and human resource management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 1–51).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Funder, D. C., & Harris, M. J. (1986). On the several facets of personality
assessment: The case of social acuity. Journal of Personality, 54, 528 –
550.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and
reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530 –555.
Giacalone, R. A., & Duhon, D. (1991). Assessing intended employee
behavior in exit interviews. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 125, 83–90.
Giacalone, R. A., & Knouse, S. B. (1989). Farewell to fruitless exit
interviews. Personnel, 66, 60 – 62.
Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999).
Impression management tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.),
The employment interview handbook (pp. 321–336). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1996). Burnout as global and strategic: Progress with
the phase model and its future. In M. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, &
C. C. Lundberg (Eds.), Current topics in management (Vol. 1, pp.
49 – 66). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations:
A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 71, 54 –70.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary with-
drawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60 –78.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 39, 110 –128.
Harris, M. J. (1989). Personality moderators of interpersonal expectancy
effects: Replication of Harris and Rosenthal. Journal of Research in
Personality, 23, 381–397.
Hewlin, P. F. (2003). And the award for best actor goes to . . . : Facades of
conformity in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review,
28, 633– 642.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-
beliefs cause people to suffer? Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 22, 93–136.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
House, R. J. (1971). A path– goal theory of leadership effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
Howard, S. J., Gengler, C. E., & Jain, A. (1995). What’s in a name? A
complimentary means of persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22,
200 –211.
Hu, L., & Benter, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 1, 1–55.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and iden-
tity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
764 –792.
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an
understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71, 630 – 640.
James, W. (1892). Psychology: Briefer course. New York: Holt.
739
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization:
Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2,
51– 60.
Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influ-
ence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 440 – 452.
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Construct validity of the MBI: A
critical review and reconceptualization. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 25, 131–144.
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and
acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 251–275.
Lassiter, G. D., Stone, J. I., & Weigold, M. F. (1987). Effect of leading
questions on the self-monitoring–memory correlation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 537–545.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A further examination of managerial
burnout: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 14, 3–20.
Leiter, M. P. (1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The function
of control and escapist coping. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12,
123–144.
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, J. M. (1996). Work, home, and in-between: A
longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
32, 29 – 47.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environ-
ment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 8, 297–308.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method
variance in cross-sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
114 –121.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced
burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99 –113.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations:
Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24,
351–389.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to
inspire change at work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the
politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 5, 585– 600.
Miles, M. B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, J. E. (2000). Why is this happening? A causal attribution approach
to work exhaustion consequences. Academy of Management Review, 25,
335–349.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier
to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 25, 706 –731.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 347–
412). New York: Random House.
Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence: V.
Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 270 –282.
740 FAISON HEWLIN
Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-
dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
454 – 470.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492–501.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 487–516.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and
prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
58, 879 –903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. (1994). Impression man-
agement theory and diversity: Lessons for organizational behavior.
American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 601– 604.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression
management in organizations: Theory, measurement, practice. New
York: Routledge.
Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). The camouflage effect: Separating
achieved status and unearned privilege in organizations. In M. Neale, E.
Mannix, & M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Research on managing teams and
groups (Vol. 7, pp. 259 –281). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis meth-
ods. In N. D. Lincoln (Ed.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 769 – 802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction
models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427– 456.
Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee
voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5,
241–259.
Schlenker, G. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes in-
volving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 43, 133–168.
Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing
assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349 –377.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445.
Appendix A
Facades of Conformity Measure
Directions: Can you be yourself at work? The following statements
reflect how people in organizations feel about sharing their personal
beliefs and values at work. Please answer as honestly as possible the
degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
1. I don’t share certain things about myself in order to fit in
at work.
2. I suppress personal values that are different from those of
the organization.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526 –537.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85–128). New
York: Academic Press.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/public realities: The psychology of
self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological method-
ology (pp. 290 –312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A new
alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414 – 432.
Strycker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version.
Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L.
Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup
behavior (pp. 83–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tesser, A., & Moore, J. (1986). On the convergence of public and private
aspects of self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp.
99 –116). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collec-
tivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 37.
Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 41–133). Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Vilareal, M. J., Masaaki, A., & Luca, N.
(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on
self-in group relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 54, 328 –338.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational
demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 549 –579.
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.
Wagner, J. A., III, & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism:
Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280 –304.
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties
affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366 –398.
3. I withhold personal values that conflict with organiza-
tional values.
4. I don’t “play politics” by pretending to embrace organi-
zational values.
5. I behave in a manner that reflects the organization’s value
system even though it is inconsistent with my personal values.
6. I say things that I don’t really believe at work.
 CREATING FACADES OF CONFORMITY 741

Appendix B

Industries Represented in Data Set

Industry NAISC code Frequency Percentage

Advertising 541810 13 5.68

Consulting 541611 21 9.17
Engineering 541330 9 3.93
Entertainment 71 8 3.49
Financial services 52 55 24.02
Government 921190 1 0.44
Health care 524114 10 4.37
Higher education 61 7 3.06
Hospitality 722110 1 0.44
Human resources 541612 6 2.62
Legal services 541110 10 4.37
Information technology 519190 12 5.24
Manufacturing 31 9 3.93
Marketing 541910 5 2.18
Pharmaceuticals 325411 5 2.18
Professional services 541910 46 20.09
Publishing 511 4 1.75
Retail 453 1 0.44
Telecommunications 517 5 2.18
Utilities 22 1 0.44

Note. NAICS ⫽ North American Industry Classification System.

Received April 20, 2007

Revision received October 17, 2008
Accepted October 21, 2008 䡲