mibos in the field

8/18/2019 MIBOS in the field

1/10

Journal of Applied Psychology

1991. Vol, 76 , No, 5 ,619 -627

Copy righi 1991 by Lhe Ame rican Psychological Asso cialion, Inc.

0021-9010/91/13 .00

Construction and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring

Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings

Kamalesh Kumar

Department of Market ing and Management

Arkansas State University

Michael Beyerlein

University of North Texas

A measure ofthe frequency of employees' use of ingratiatory behavior at work was tested with a

sample of employees { 716) working in a wide variety of organizations and jobs. Pilot testing

reduced a 65-item poo to a 24-item instru men t with four factors: Othe r Enha ncem ent. Opinion

Conformity, Self-Presentation, and Favor-Rendering. Internal consistency reliabihty

was

.92; test-

retest reliability over one month

was

.73, Evidence for content, convergent, and discriminant valid-

ity was substantial. The Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

should enable researchers to focus on the empirical study of ingratiatory behaviors in organ-

izations.

Power, influence, and political behavior are ubiquitous in

formal organizations. The concept of power and influence in

organizational settings can be broadly referred to as the general-

ized ability to change the actions of others in some intended

fashion (Mowday, 1978). Research o n in traorganiza tional influ-

ence has focused on both downward influence (the ways in

which supervisors influence subordinates) and upward influ-

ence (the ways in which subordinates influence their supervi-

sors; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Linkskold, 19 72).

Subordinates use a number of upward influence strategies to

obtain personal benefits or satisfy organizational goals (Allen,

Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkin-

son, 1980; Mowday, 1978). Such strategies include upward ap-

peal, assertiveness, blocking, coalition, exchange, rationality,

support building, and ingratiation (Kipnis et al. , 1980; Schrie-

sheim & Hin kin , 199 0). In this study, we concen trated solely on

ingratiation as an upwa rd influence techn ique directed at im-

med iate superiors. Although ingratiation is just one of the up-

ward influence strategies used in organizational settings, it is a

distinct con struct with its own set of causes and consequ ences

and therefore deserves to be studied separately from other up-

ward influence strategies (Liden & Mitchell, 1988).

I n g ra t i a t i o n : A S t r a t e g y o f U p w a rd In f l u e n c e

The definition of ingratiation that guided this study is based

on Tedeschi and Melburg's (1984) definition ofthe term. In an

organizational context, ingratiation refers to a set of assertive

This study

is

based on Kamalesh Kumar's doctoral dissertation. He

wishes to express

his

appreciation for the assistance from his disserta-

tion committee, especially Warren Watson, Chair, and Mary Thi-

bodeaux.

We

also thank three reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions

of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ka-

malesh Kumar. D epartment of Marketing and Management, College

of Business Administration, Arkansas State University, State Univer-

sity, A rkansas 72467.

tactics that are used by organizational members to gain the

approbation of superiors who control significant rewards for

them. These rewards are foreseeable and rather imminent. As

one of a large class of political influence processes that are

ongoing in orga nizations, ingratiation involves strategic behav-

iors designed to enhance one's interpersonal attractiveness. In-

gratiating actions are usually directed tow ard objectives that are

not m ade explicit by the par ties involved. Thus, although ingra-

tiators may behave as though the issue at hand were their only

concern, they may be doing so to enhance their images in the

target person's eyes or to achieve other personal goals of which

the target person is unaware (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).

In studies of upward influence in organizational settings,

ingratiatory tactics have been among the strategies most com-

monly used (Allen et al. , 1979; Kipnis et al. , 1980; Madison,

Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle,

1981). Ingratiation ap pea rs to be used in organizational settings

for the same reason it is used in general social settings—to

increase one's attractiveness in the eyes of a more powerful per-

son (Jones & Wortman, 1973). Enhanced attractiveness may

improve a subordinate's chances of positive rewards (such as a

raise, a promotion,

etc.

or reduce his or her chances of receiving

a negative outcome (such as an adverse assessment, a cut in

pay, etc.).

Ta c t i c a l V a r i a t i o n s o f I n g ra t i a t i o n

In the organizational c ontext, ingratiation can tak e all or any

oft he forms by which interpersonal a ttraction may be solicited.

In their laboratory experiments, Jones and Wortman (1973;

Jones, 1964) demonstrated the use of four major ingratiation

tactics: other enhancement, opinion conformity, rendering fa-

vors, and self-presentation. B ecause ingratiatory behaviors pri-

marily involve power-enhancing or dependence-reducingstrate-

gies, the use of these tactics ought to be endemic in organiza-

tional settings, which abound in relationships involving

differential power. Although overt manifestations of such be-

haviors may at times be restricted, partially inhibited by legiti-

macy considerations, and occasionally eschewed because ofthe

619


2/10

620

KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN

risks involved, the tendency toward such behaviors

is

neverthe-

less present in organizations.

The use of other enhancement as an ingratiation tactic iti-

volves commun ication of directly enhan cing, evaluative state-

ments. T he ingratiator find s ways to express a positive evalua-

tion of

the

target person and emphasizes various strengths and

virtues. While distorting and exaggerating the target person's

admirable qualities to convey the impression that he or she is

highly thought of, the ingratiator calls little attention to or to-

tally ignores negative attributes.

Another set of techniques used by the ingratiator involves

expressing opinion s or behaving in a ma nner tha t is consistent

with the opinions, judgm ents, or behaviors ofthe target person.

The tactics involved in opinion conformity can range from sim-

ple agreement with expressed opinions, through more elabo-

rate attempts at trying to articulate the position presumably

held by the target person, to extremely complex forms of imita-

tion and identification {Jones. 1964).

Favor doing is a logical ingratiation tactic because people

usually react in a positive manner when someone does some-

thing nice for them {Jones Wortman. 197.3). This behavior is

based on the reciprocity norm— doing a favor for another per-

son can induce an obligation to reciprocate (Gouldner. I960).

Favor doing can also help foster an identity as a helpful, friendly,

and conside rate person (Tedeschi Melburg. 1984).

Self-presentation as an ingratiation tactic consists of making

explicit verbal statements of one's own attributes to increase the

likelihood of being judged attractive by the target person.

Self

presentation has two related aspects: (a) providing explicit de-

scriptions about one's own characteristics and behaviors and {b)

behaving in ways that imply that o ne possesses certain charac-

teristics (Jones Wortman, 1973).

Ingratiation in Organizational Settings

In recent years there has been considerable interest in ingra-

tiatory tactics and consequences, but the topic has received

little empirical attention from organizationai researchers.

Much ofthe attention the topic has received is from social psy-

chologists {e.g.. Baumeister. 1982; Jones, 1964; Jones Wort-

man. 1973: Riggio Friedman. 1986. Tedeschi.

1981;

Tedeschi

Melburg. 1984). who made no attempt to generalize the fin d-

ings to organizational settings.

Study of ingratiation strategies within organizations has been

extremely sporadic. Porter et al. (1981) recently observed that

the subject of ingratiation has long been regarded as taboo be-

cause of its mildly disturbing, negative connotations, and that

researchers should try to develop a better understand ing ofth e

subject. However, in spite of occasional ex horta tions like Porter

et al.'s {Liden Mitchell.

1988;

Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi Mel-

burg. 1984). little has been done to improve the situation.

The study of ingratiation in organizational settings requires

identification of specific tactics and some m ethod of mea suring

the frequency with which such tactics are used. In this article,

we report the development and validation of an instrum ent that

can be used to gather organizational members' perceptions of

the use of such tactics. Such an in strume nt should help to bring

the topic of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings

within the realm of empirical research and to create interest in

a topic that remains under researched.

Previous Measurement Techniques

A review of the literature on ingratiatory behavior in organi

zational settings revealed that no instrument had been devel-

oped to specifically measure ingratiatory behaviors

in

organiz

tional settings. Previous researchers, most notably those in so

cial psychology, relied primarily on experimental designs to

measure this behavior or used items put together in an ad hoc

mann er {e.g., Pandey Bohra, 1984; Pandey Rastogi, 1979)

Examination of the scales used by these researchers yielded

very few items applicable to the study of ingratiatory behaviors

in organizational settings.

The only effort to construc t a scientifically validated scale to

measure ingratiation in organizational settings was made by

Kipnis et al. {1980). In the course of their research on intraor-

ganizational influence tactics, Kipnis et al. identified a large

number of influence tactics, which they later factor analyzed to

create a number of subscales. One of the subscales {with six

items) was labeled

ingratiation.

Although the influence-tact

typology developed by Kipnis et al. has been generally sup-

ported by other researchers

{e.g.,

Ansari Kapoor. 1987; Ere

Rim , Keider, 1986; Yukl Falbe, 1990), evidence regarding

the psychometric properties ofthe scale has been lacking. Re-

cently, Schriesheim and Hinkin {1990) extensively critiqued th

research of K ipnis et

al.

{1980). Schriesheim and Hinkin foun

that many of Kipnis et al.'s items do not have strong content

validity and that the factor structure found by Kipnis et al. does

not hold up particularly well.

After a number of studies {during which a num ber of items

were added and deleted), Schriesheim and Hink in (1990) con-

structed a refined 18-item instrument {six dimensions with 3

items each). However, by their own ad mission, their study dealt

with only a very limited subset of psychometric properties that

must be considered essential in a measuring instrument. Also,

the subscaie that measured ingratiation contained oniy 3 item

Clearly, the subscaie did not include the four types of ingratia-

tion tactics noted by previous researchers. Although Schrie-

sheim and Hinkin's subscaie may be useful for the study of

infiuence tactics in general, it is not comprehensive enough for

the specific study of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational

settings.

Instrument Development

The instrument developed and validated in this study is

called Measure

of

Ingratiatory ehaviors in Organizational

tings

{MIBOS). The scale was designed to measure the fre

quency with which ingratiatory tactics are used by subordinate

in superior-subordinate relationships.

Previous researchers have noted that the use of influence

tactics will vary depen ding on the relationship between individ-

uals (e.g., Falbo Peplau , 1980) and that combining different

perspectives (superior, peer, subordinate) can substantially alter

or distort the results relating to the use of influence tactics

(Schriesheim Hink in, 1990). Therefore, we deemed it impor


3/10

INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS

6

tant to ground the measure in the context of subordinates' di-

recting the tactics toward superiors.

Item Construction

On the basis of previous theory {Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-

man. 1973; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston. 1985; Tedeschi &

Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier. 1977) and research

related to upward influence behaviors in organizations (Kipnis

et al., 1980; Madison et al., 1980; Mowday. 1978; Porter et al..

1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982). we generated a pool of ingratia-

tory behaviors typically shown in organizational settings. Dis-

cussions with a number of employees, first-level supervisors,

and middle-level managers working in diverse environments

contributed further to the pool of items.

Sixty-five items were generated for the initial pool. Of these

65 items. 17 described opinion conformity, 18 were related to

other enhancement, and 15 items each were descriptions of

self-presentation and favor-render ing behaviors. These items

were analyzed

by

judges with different expertise (industrial psy-

chology, organizational behavior, strategic management, and

organizational communication). Each judge was an academic

with a doctoral degree and substantial industry and manage-

ment consulting experience. The judges reviewed the items for

clarity, appropriateness, and content validity There was a gen-

eral consensus among the judges about the items included in

the initial poo of items.

All ofthe items in the

poo

were also examined by a group of

employees and managers working in different environments.

On the basis ofthe reviews ofthe experts and the employees,

items that appeared to be ambiguous or subject to response bias

were either rewritten or omitted. This screening process re-

sulted in the elimination oflO items, leaving a pool of 55 items

in the initial test instrument.

Preiesting

The instrument with 55 items was first administered to a

sample of management students N = 78) who were full-time or

part-time employees attending evening classes. The subjects

were employed in a wide variety of organizations (retail, manu-

facturing, wholesale, service, government, etc.) and jobs (man-

ual,

clerical, first-line supervisor, middle-level manager, etc.).

The instrument required the subjects to indicate the extent to

which they actually used the behaviors described by the items

to influence their supervisors. Subjects were specifically cau-

tioned not to make any judgment about the desirability or un-

desirability of the behaviors described and to merely report the

frequency with which they showed each of these behaviors

when dealing with their supervisors. Responses were recorded

on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: never

do

it 1),

seldom do

il (2),

occasionally do

it (3), often do it 4), and

almost always do it (5). Because subjects were to report the

frequency of actual behaviors, high scores should indicate more

use of ingratiatory tactics.

Item Selection

One ofthe objectives at this stage of scale construction was to

select those items that provided the most accurate and appro-

priate description of the behavior under investigation. Items

with higher item-total correlations were retained. To minimize

skewness and maximize variance, items with both larger means

(around 3.0) and larger variances were retained. These proce-

dures resulted in the elimination of 28 itetns, leaving the instru-

ment with 27 items. The item-total correlations of these 27

items ranged from .38 to

.69.

The scale was further reviewed for

clarity, and where necessary, minor changes in wording were

made.

Phase I: Item Selectioti

The scale with 27 items was administered to a new sample of

business students (A'= 148) who were employed either full time

or part time. Once again, the sample represented a wide variety

of jobs and organizations. Subjects were simultaneously admin-

istered the short version of Crown and Marlowe's Social Desir-

ability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to check if they were

responding to the various items on the scale in a socially desir-

able manner.

Item Review

Two criteria were used in item selection at this stage: item-to-

tal correlations and lack of significant correlation with the So-

cial Desirability Scale. On the basis of these criteria, 3 more

items were dropped from the scale, leaving a total of 24 items.

The item-total correlations for the remaining 24 items ranged

from .45 to .66. The total score on the ingratiation scale did not

correlate significantly with the total score on the Social Desir-

ability Scale r = .02). Correlations between each ingratiation

item and the total score on the Social Desirability Scale ranged

from .00 to .09 and were not statistically significant.

Of the final 24 items, 7 each represented the categories of

opinion conformity and other enhancement, 6 items repre-

sented the favor-render ing category, and 4 items represented the

self-presentation category The median score on the scale was

67.

the mean was 66.24, and the standard deviation was 14.65.

The means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations

for MIBOS are presented in Table 1.

Factor nalysis

Scores obtained on MIBOS were factor analyzed with the

principal components method and oblique factor rotation. Be-

cause the purpose of factor analysis at this stage was to obtain

theoretically meaningful dimensions, oblique factor rotation

was considered more desirable than orthogonal rotation (Hair,

Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Nineteen ofthe 24 items loaded

on two factors (eigenvalues 7,6 and 1.4), which accounted for

over 37% of the variance (A^ = 148). Five items loaded rather

weakly on more than one factor. Thus, the results ofthe factor

analysis at this stage were somewhat inconclusive.

Subsequently, a second factor analysis was conducted with

data from another and much larger group ofsubjects (Â 346).

Results of this second factor analysis yielded a four-factor solu-

tion, generally interpretable in terms of the four ingratiation

ditnensions that were identified from theory and past research.

These four factors accounted for

56.1

ofthe variance. How-


4/10

622

KAM ALES H KUM AR

A N D

MICHAEL BEYERLEIN

Table

I

Means. Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlatiom for 24-Item Measure

of Ingratiating Behavior in Organtzational Settings MIBOS)

Hem

M S

Item-

total

r

t m

M

SD

I tem

total

r

1

Impress upon your supervisor that

only he/she can help you in a given

situation mainly t o make him/her

feel good about himself/herself.

2

Show him/her that you share his/

her enthusiasm about his/her

new

idea even when you may not

actually like

i t.

3 Try to let him/her know that yo u

have a reputation for being hked.

4 Try to make sure that he/she is

aware o f your successes.

5

Highlight

th e

achievements made

under his/her leadership in a

meeting not being attended by

him/her.

6. Give frequent smiles to express

enthusiasm/interest about

something he/she is interested in

even

if

yo u

do not

like

it .

7

Express work attitudes that ar e

similar to your supervisor's as a

way o f letting him/her know that

th e

two of

yo u

a re

alike.

8. Tell him/her that you can learn a

lot from his/her experience.

9. Exaggerate his/her admirable

qualities to convey th e impression

that you think highly o f him/her.

1 0

Disagree on trivial o r unimportant

issues bu t agree o n those issues

in which he/she expects support

from

you.

1 1 Try to imitate such work behaviors

of your supervisor

a s

working late

or occasionally working on

weekends.

1 2

Look

for

opportunities

to let the

supervisor know your virtues/

strengths.

2.89

3.34

3.51

2.77

0.89

0.88

1.23

1.13

.55

.4 5

.4 5

.51

3.25

1.13

3.10 1.03

3,01 .1O

3.11 1.20

3.57 1.02

3.44 0.93

3.34 1.09

2.58 1.04

.58

.57

.64

63

.65

.52

.52

.56

1.06

1,04

1.08

.5 6

.6 0

.6 5

1 3

Ask your supervisor for advice in

areas in which he/she thinks he/she

is smart to let him /her fee that

you admire his/her talent. 3.11 1.06 .66

1 4

Try to do things for your

supervisor that show your selfless

generosity. 3.16

1 5

Look

out for

opportunities

to

admire your supervisor. 3.36

1 6

Let your supervisor know th e

attitudes y ou share with him/her. 2.80

1 7

Compliment your supervisor on

his/her achievement, however

trivial it may actually be to you

personally.

3.22 1.07 .52

1 8

Laugh heartily

at

your supervisor's

jokes even when they are not really

funny 3.68

1 9

Go out of your way to run an

errand for your supervisor. 3.07

2 0

Offer to help your supervisor by

using your personal contacts. 3.23

2 1

Try to persuasively present your

own qualities when attempting

to

convince your supervisor about

your abilities. 2.95 1.09 .59

2 2

Volunteer to be of help to your

supervisor

in

matters like locating

a good apartment, finding a good

insurance agent, etc. 3.47 1.22 .53

2 3 Spend time listening to your

supervisor's personal problems

even

if

you have

no

interest

in

them. 3.11 1.23 .45

2 4

Volunteer

to

help your supervisor

in his/her work even if it means

extra work for you. 2.85 1.07 .63

Tot al 66 24 14 65

1.02

I . I 4

1.18

.51

.54

.60

N o t e .

N-

1 4 8 S c o r e s w e r e n e a r l y n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d R e s p o n s e s r a n g e d

ko m

n e v e r do

it

{\

to

a l m o s t a l w a y s

do it

{ 5 .

ever, four ofth e items continued to load (.30 or above on more

than one factor. Also, three of the items did not load oti the

specific ingratiation dimension that they were intended to as-

sess.

Table 2 lists the items intended to assess each of the four

ingratiation dimension s (e.g., other enh ancement, opinio n con -

formity, self-presentation, and favor rendering). Also presented

are the loadings o fthe items, eigenvalues ofthe four factors, and

the percentage of variance explained by each factor.

Analysis of interfactor relationships revealed that these fac-

tors were m oderately to highly correlated (between .22 and .65)

with each other. This find ing is somewhat in line with th e re-

sults of p revious researchers who have investigated the use of

ingratiation in laboratory settings. For example, both Jones

(1964) and Jones and Wortman (1973) found strong relation-

ships between different ingratiation tactics. In experimental re-

search in which subjects were asked to respond to items de-

scribing various types of ingratiation tactics. Pandey (1981)

noted that subjects did not discriminate much between differ-

ent tactics—they either behaved or did not behave in an ingra-

tiating manner.

Reliability

Two

appro aches w ere adopted for determ ining the reliability

oft he instrum ent: internal consistency (consistency of individ-

ual items with each other) and test-retest reliability (the stabil-

ity of scores over time). The internal consistency of M IBOS was

.92 (Cronbach's alpha; N = 148). This high alph a level sugg ests

that subjects responded to the individual items in a consistent

manner throughout the test. The split-half reliability test, a

method th at estimates the consistency of responses through the


5/10


6/10

624


escence

is

better Interpreted

in

terms

of

a subject's reaction

to

the content ofthe items and that content-independent response

styles are not a major contaminant of questionnaire responses

(e.g., Rorer. 1965). However, it was still deemed important to

determine whether the scores on M IBOS were aiFected to any

significant extent

by

acquiescence response

set.

To determine

the

influence

of

acquiescence,

we

correlated

scores on MIBOS with scores on the Acquiescence Scale

(Couch & Keniston, I960). The Acquiescence Scale measures

the general tendency to agree or disagree with questionnaire

items, regardless of their content. Scores from the two scales

(A'

=

51) correlated .11. thereby confirming that the manner in

which

the

MIBOS items were worded

had

no significant etfect

on the responses given.

Phase 2: Cotitent and Convergent Validities

MIBOS was administered to various types of employees

working in different work environments. The first sample con-

sisted of 353 graduate business administration and senior un-

dergraduate students. All students were employed full-time or

part-time and had at least one year of full-time work experi-

ence. Seven students

were

dropped from

the analysis

because

of

missing data. Fifty-nine percent ofthe respondents were

men,

and 41 were women. Over 80% of the respondents had three

years or more of full-time work experience. The majority ofth e

respondents (82%) were in either nonmanagerial or first-line

supervisory positions; 17% were in middle-level management

positions; only 1% were in top-management positions. Such a

sample meant that m ore respondents had supervisors than had

subordinates. This

was

particularly suitable

for our

study

be-

cause MIBOS specifically measures ingratiatory behaviors ex-

hibited

by

subordinates

in

superior-subordinate relationships.

The second sample consisted of 52 employees working in

home electronics and household appliances manufacturing

companies in the mid-South. AH the employees in this sample

were

in

either nonmanageria

or

first-

o

middle-level positions .

They w ere working on a variety of technical and administrative

jobs.

Content Validity

A scale has content validity if the substance of the items

included

in the

instrument

tap the

construct

of

interest

to be

measured and if the items are representative ofthe content area.

We selected items for M IBOS after an extensive search of both

the theoretical

and

empirical research literature.

All

possible

tactical variations of ingratiatory behaviors were noted, and

each was given a fair representation in the scale. The contents of

the scale were also examined by employees and managers from

many different types

of

organizations

for the

appropriateness

ofthe behavior descriptions. The individual items on the scale

were further reviewed

by

experts from

the

field

of

industrial

psychology, organizational behavior, strategic management,

and organization the ory As such, the scale can be expected to

have both face validity and logical content validity

Convergent Validity

The classical view of convergent validity suggests that a new

measure

of

a construct like ingratiation ought

to

eovary with

other measures that purport to measure the same construct

Proceeding on this line, we compared MIBOS scores with

scores on the ingratiation subscaie of Kipnis et al. (1980) and

the refined three-item version

of

this subscaie recently

con

structed by Schriesheim and Hin kin (1990).

Convergent validity also refers to the association of

the

mea

sure being validated with measures

of

other theoretically rele

vant constructs. To test the convergent validity of MIBOS, w

administered

it

simultaneously with

the

following measures

Work Locus of Control Scale {Spector, 1988), Mach IV Scale

(Christie & Geis, 1970), Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974)

and the Need for Power scale from the Manifest Needs Ques

tionnaire (Steers

&

Braunstein, 1976). Each of

these

constructs

has been identified as a critical factor in the study of ingratia

tory behaviors in o rganizations (Liden

&

Mitchell,

1988;

Porte

et al., 1981; R alston, 1985), and as such, scores on MIBOS oug

to correlate significantly with scores on these scales. The ratio

nale

for

using these scales for convergent validation is discussed

below. The correlations are presented in Table 3.

Self-monitoring skill.

A

series

of

studies conducted

b

Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder, 1974) revealed that individ-

uals differ

in the

extent

to

which they are attentive

and

respon-

sive to situational cues as guides to appropriate b ehaviors. Peo

ple who score high on self-monitoring seek more information,

exhibit more accuracy in diagnosing social situations, and are

more able to pragmatically tailor their behavior to it he situa

tion. High self-monitors also seem

to be

more adept

at

impres-

sion management (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Self-monitoring

skill, therefore,

is an

important individual characteristic that

may help determine a person's propensity for political influ-

ence strategies like ingratiation. Scores obtained on MIBOS

eorreiated .46 for the working student sample and .37 for the

manufacturing employee sample with scores

on

the Self-Moni-

toring Scale.

Table 3

Correlations Between Measure of Ingratiating Behavior

in

Organizational Settings MIBOS)

a nd

Measures of Similar Constructs

Scale

Self-Monitoring Scale

(Snyder. 1974)

Need for Power

(Steers & Braunstein. 1976)

Work Locus of Control

(Spector,

1988)

Mach ]V Scale

(Christie & Geis, 1970)

Schriesheim & Hinkin's (1990)

ingratiation scale

Kipnis, Schmidt, Wilkinson's (1980)

ingratiation subscaie

Working

student

sample'

.46**

.40**

.35**

.34**

—

—

Manufacturing

employee

sample

.37*

.46**

.29*

.63**

.57**

Note. The manufacturing employees did not complete the Mach IV

scale, and the working students did not complete either ofthe ingratia-

tion scales.

^ = 3 4 5 . ^ - 5 2 .

*p< .01 .

p


7/10

I NGRATI ATORY BEHAVI ORS

625

Need for power People with a high need for power attem pt

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). M IBO Sand 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 man ner in tbeir

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 o btain tbeir personal objectives {Ralston, 1985).

Hence, persons with an internal locus of control can be ex-

pected to use ingratiatory tactics more often than persons witb

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 bave 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 m anip-

ulate others tend to use manipulative tactics, such as ingratia-

tion, m ore often. T bere is also some experimental sup port 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 discrimina nt 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 (A'

=

216) consisted of a number of sub-

samples. Of tbe 216 employees in this sample, 57 employees

were working in government organizations, 88 em ployees were

in retailing, and 71 employees were in service organizations

(banking , insurance, real estate,

etc.).

These employees w orked

in a variety of jobs (technical, clerical, administrative, etc.) and

were simultaneously enrolled in on e of two major universities in

the South and Southwest.

Beginning with the landma rk work of K ipnis et al. (1980), a

number of researchers have examined tbe interpersonal influ-

ence processes in organ izations (e.g., Ansa ri Kapoor, 1987;

Erez Rim, 1982; Erez et al., 1986; Schriesbeim Hink in.

1990). Tbese 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 dem onstrate acceptable

levels

of discriminant

validity wben compared with other interpersonal influence tac-

tics.

In tbe past, researchers have used similar methods to estab-

lish the discriminant validity of new organizational behavior

constru cts (Mowday

Steers, 1979), Accordingly, to investigate

the discriminant validity of

MIBOS,

we compared it witb five

other interpersonal influence tactics; assertiveness. rationality,

exchange of benefits, upward appeal, and coalition. These influ-

ence tac tics were measured witb the refined and revised version

of Kipn is et al.'s (1980) scale (Schriesheim Hinkin. 1990).

Results are p resented in Table 4.

Several Ii

nes

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 tbe 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 ofa 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 otber upward

influence tactics, such correlations should be only moderate.

The extent of correlation between tbe m easures of ingratiation

and exchange is quite similar to that noted by Yukl and Faibe

(1990), who measured the use of these two behaviors w ith sin-

gle-item scales.

Second, correlations between MIBOS scores and scores on

tbe 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 o f Measure of Ingratiating ehavior

in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

Upward-influence

t a c t i c '

Assertiveness

Rationality

Exchange

Upward influence

Coalit ion

Manufactur ing

employees

(tt = 52)

.13

,26*

.23*

.13

.11

Employed students in

Gove r nme n t

{n - 57 )

.08

.1 6

.33**

.23*

.28*

Retailing

(n = 88)

.20

.11

.25*

.27*

.20

Service

(« = 71)

.28*

.09

.35**

.18*

.12

Measured with Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) revision of Kipnis,

Schm idt, and Wilkinson's (1980) scale.

* p < . 0 5 .

* * / 3 < . O l .


8/10


gratiation, both assertiveness and upward influenee are more

direct, demanding, and somewhat less political influence tac-

tics.

Thus, even though all these taaics are designed to secure

favorable outcomes from one's supervisor, they are different

construc ts. The low correlations (mean correlations of. 17) b e-

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 suppo rt 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 magn itudes of

the

correlations of M IBOS with mea-

sures of other influence strategies are quite similar to those

reported recently by Yukl and Faibe (1990).

Discussion

Tbis 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 tes ts provide good evidence of convergent and dis crimi-

nant validity The tests conducted during the first phase ofthe

study confirmed the high internal consistency and stability of

the ins trume nt. T he 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 ofthe scale,

it seems

ap propriate

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 perspective^What outcomes can be expected to corre-

late with tbe scale?—would also be useful.

Although ingratiatory behaviors

have

been empirically inves-

tigated in laboratory studies for over

25 years

{Jones, 1964), an d

tbeir use as an upward influence strategy has been studied in

organizational settings for over

10

years {e.g., Allen etal., 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 n umbe r of testable propositions, but s

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 ofa measuremen t instrum ent designed to focu

specifically on ingratiation seems to be one ofthe major rea-

sons for the absence of empirical investigation o fthese behav

iors. The development of a scientifically validated instrumen

for the measurement of ingratiation therefore constitutes the

first major step toward em pirical investigation. Only when ps

chologists are able to assess and m easure this phenom enon can

they begin to relate it to major social issues within organiza-

tions. The construction and validation of

MIBOS

should hel

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.,&M ayes,B.T(1979).Oi^an

zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors.

Califor

Management Review 22

77-83.

Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and up-

ward influence tactics.

Organizational Behavior and Human D e

sion Processes 40

39-40.

Baumelster, R. F (1982). A self-presentational view of social phen om

ena.

Psychological Bulteiin

91 . 3-26.

Christie. R., & Geis, E L. (1970).

Studies in M achiavellianism

Sa

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Couch, A., & Keniston. K. (1960). Yeasayer and naysayer.

Journalof

Abnormal and Social Psychology 60,151 -174.

Cronbach, L. (1986).

Essentials o f psychological testing

(3rd ed.). N

York: Macmillan.

Erez, M.., & Rim, T. (1982). The re latio nship between goals, influence

tactics and personal and organizational variables.

Human Relations

J5 ,

871-878.

Erez, M., Rim, Y. Keider, I. (1986). The two sides ofthe tactics of

influence: Agent vs. target.

Journal of Occupational

Psychotogy.

25-39.

Ealbo, T,

Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intim ate relation-

ships.

Journal of Personality and Sociat Psychology 38

618-628

Gouldner. A. (1960). The norms of reciprocity.

American Sociologi

Review. 25

161-178.

Hair, X, Anderson, R. O., Tatham, R. (1987).

Multidimensional da

analysis

(pp. 244-2 75). New York: M acmillan.

Jones,

E. E. (1964).

Ingratiation.

New York: Appleton.

Jones, E. E., & Wortman. C. (1973).

Ingratiation: An attributional a

proach.

Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kipnis, D. Schmidt, S. M., Wilkinson,

J.

(1980). Intraorganization

influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way.

Journat of Ap-

plied

Psychology

65

440-452.

Liden, R. C, Mitchell, T R. (1988). Ingratiatory beh aviors in organi-

zational settings.

Academy o f 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'

perception.

Human Relations 33

79-100.

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organiza-

tions.

Administralive Science

Quarterly.

23 . 137-156.

Mowday, R. T , Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-

tional commitment.

Journat o f Vocational

Behavior

14

224-247

Pandey, J. (1981). Effectsof Machiavellianism and degree of org aniza-

tional formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia

24

41-46.


9/10

INGRATiATORY BEHAVIORS

7

Pandey,

1. Bohra, K.

A.

(1984). Ingratiation a sa function of organiza-

tional characteristics and supervisory styles.

International Reviewof

Applied Psychotogy. 33,

381-394.

Pandey. J., Rastogi, R. (1979). M achiavellianism 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 roleof managem ent.

Academy of Management Review, 10.

477-487.

Riggio,

R. E..

Friedman,

H.

S. (1986). Impression formation:

The

TohofexprtssivebthavioT. Journ al ofPersonality and Social Psychol-

ogy. 50,421-^21.

Rorer, L. G. {1965). The great response style myth.

Psychological Bulle-

tin, 63, \29-\S6.

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.. Hin kin. 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., Gerb asi. K. C. (1972). Shor t, homogeneous version of

Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale.

Journal of Clinical Psy-

chology , 28. \9\-\9i.

Tedeschi, J. T. (1981).

Impression

management:

Theory and social psy

chological research.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tedeschi,

J. T,

Melburg,

V

(1984). Impression management

and

influence

in the

organization.

Research in Sociology of Organiza-

tions, 3. 31-5 .

Tedesc hi, 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.).

N ew directions in organizational behavio

(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.

Journatof Applied

Psychology.

75, B2~14Q.

Received February

8,1990

Revision received March 8,1991

Accepted March 8,1991 •

Call for Nom inat ions for JEP: Human Perception

and

Performance

The Publications and Communications (P C) Board has opened nominations for the editor-

ship ofthe Journal of Experimental Psyehology: Human Pereeption 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 pj^e 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 ofthe search committee are Lynn A. Cooper, Robert G. Crowder, and David E.

Meyer. First review of nominations will begin January 15,1992.


10/10

mibos in the field

Documents