Behavioural Flexibility: The Use of Upward Impression Management Tactics by Subordinates for Good Performance Rating from Leader and Impact of Organizational & Leader’s Machiavellianism

Abstract

In this changing organizational environment where people are more concerned about their image and growth, behavioural flexibility is not only common, but may be desirable as well. In order to meet their goals, people change their behaviour and this behavioural flexibility helps them to manage their image as per the demand of the situation. The use of impression management (IM) tactics is one form of behavioural flexibility. The present study explores the impact of the characteristics of the target and organizational culture on the use of different impression management tactics by subordinates for getting good performance rating (goal). This study specifically focuses on Machiavellian characteristics of a target (leader in this case) and Machiavellian organizational culture. This is a 2 × 2 experimental study where the target is the leader and the actor is subordinate, i.e., the subordinate tries to impress the leader. The independent variables in the study, as mentioned above, are high and low Machiavellian leader and organizational culture. The dependent variables are the use of different impression management tactics, like exemplification, intimidation, supplication, entitlements, self-enhancement, and blasting tactics. The experiment has been conducted on 102 graduate and postgraduate engineering students of a premier technology institute of India. The target Machiavellianism (Leader’s Mach) and organizational Machiavellianism (organizational Mach) were manipulated and performance rating was controlled through animation videos. We first checked for the internal validity of experimental manipulation through ANOVA, which provided strong support for the internal validity of this study. Two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the independent and joint effects of target and organizational Machiavellianism on the use of specific impression management tactics to check the subordinate’s flexible behaviour in particular situations. Results indicate that both organizational and target Machiavellianism have an impact on the use of different impression management tactics. This shows that organizational and target’s characteristics both stimulate an individual towards behaviour flexibility. Results are further discussed for their theoretical and practical implications.

Introduction

Over the years, people have become more image conscious in their workplace. They try to portray their image as per the demand of the situation (Christie and Geis 1970). This demand of situation stimulates them for behavioural flexibility to achieve their goals. Organizations comprise people who have assigned authority, status, and power according to their position in the hierarchy. Everyone thinks about his/her career advancement to get success or to achieve a particular goal. Sushil (1997) explained that in different situations, there are various connections associated with the concept of flexibility and openness in thinking, adaptiveness to the environment, responsiveness to change and versatility of action are some of them. Through adapting these connections, subordinates make some behavioural changes and they try to make their behaviour more flexible so that they can adjust to the situation very easily. This change in behaviour is not only to cope up with the organizational culture, but people also change their behaviour to manage impression in front of others’ to achieve their personal and professional goals. Behavioral flexibility has been operationalized by Paulhus and Martin (1987, 1988) in terms of capabilities. They explained Behavioral flexibility as capabilities refer to an individual who can perform a particular behavior when the situation requires. The more flexible individual is the one who is capable of showing a wider range of appropriate behavioral in responses to the situation.

In any organization, subordinates mange their behaviour by using many strategies; and impression management tactics is one of the most common strategy which people use in the workplace. As researchers (Sushil 1999, 2000; Sharma et at. 2010) have defined flexibility is not only to act as people like, but there is freedom-of-choice within a framework. Similarly during impression management employees have various options of IM tactics and they have freedom-of-choice. They use a particular IM behaviour according to the situation. Impression management is also defined as a behaviour which creates, maintain (Bolino et al. 2008) and protect the desired image (Gardner and Martinko 1988b). Most of the authors’ define impression management as a process by which people attempt to influence the image others have of them (Bolino 1999; Bolino and Turnley 1999; Leary and Kowalski 1990; Turnley and Bolino 2001; Harris et al. 2007). It is also described as a process that is strategic in nature (Gerstein et al. 1985). Jones (1964) defined that use of impression management has been more often where the actor is dependent on target and target has power and high status. It simply means that target wants to use impression management on those who are higher in the hierarchy, to achieve their goals (Gardner and Martinko 1988). When the subordinates try to manage their impression in front of the leader, it is known as upward impression management. In this study, we are focusing on the use of IM tactics which provides subordinates a broad range of behaviours which they can apply as per the need of the situation and goal. Porter et al. (1983, p. 409) defined upward impression management as ‘attempts to impression management someone higher in the formal hierarchy of authority in the organization’.

According to previous researches, most of the upward impression management tactics are used for the immediate superiors (Kipnis et al. 1980). Schilit and Locke (1982) explained that the use of IM tactics depends on specific individual characteristics and situational factors. Selection of impression management tactics in upward impression management may be affected by the leader’s competence or skill and relation with subordinates (Judge and Ferris 1993; Wayne and Ferris 1990). Researchers suggest, and provide supporting evidence, that perceptions are formed based on a combination of externally observable target characteristics and traits (Hall et al. 1998). Personality is one of the most important factor that controls the use of impression management tactic by the actors. Christie and Geis (1970) explain that individuals with high Machiavellianism apply more impression management tactics to accomplish their goals, but there are very few studies available which focus on characteristics of targets. Turnly and Bolino (2001) in their study suggested that the researcher should also focus on the characteristics of the target to examine how it impacts impression management by the actors. There are many other aspects of an organization which have not yet been focused for example, organizational culture is one of the crucial factors which influences on the actors’ use of impression management tactics. The culture of any organization may encourage or discourage an individual to use manipulative behaviour to achieve their goals. According to Ralston and Elsass (1989) the presence of political environment leads to higher use of impression-management tactics to respond to the situations. In this study, we are trying to assess the impact of Machiavellian characteristic of the leader and Machiavellian organizational culture on the use of impression management tactics by the subordinates for good performance rating.

Performance Rating and Behavioural Flexibility: Impression Management

The most of the authors’ have defined of impression management as a process by which people attempt to influence others’ to attain the desired outcome (Bolino 1999; Bolino and Turnley 1999; Leary and Kowalski 1990; Turnley and Bolino 2001). IM can be used for fulfilment of some purpose and performance rating is one of the most important purposes (Tedeschi and Melburg 1984; Liden and Mitchell 1988). In organizations, it has been seen that subordinates use different types of IM tactics to impress their boss to achieve good performance rating. There is a wide range of IM tactics, but subordinate needs to select a specific tactic to impress the leader. This selection depends on the organizational culture as well as the characteristics of the leader.

Machiavellian Organizational Culture and Impression Management

Ferris et al. (1989) defined organizational politics as a strategy which is designed to maximize organizational interest. This organizational culture generally portrays a negative image of the organization to its members. In this study, we have taken Machiavellian characteristic of the organization as political organizational culture. Researchers (Ferris et al. 2000; Valle 1997) have proved that there is a positive relationship between individual perception of the organization and impression management. Kacmar and Ferris (1991) explained that rewards are not related to individuals’ performance when the organizational culture is highly political. In previous literature, some of the researchers (Harrell-Cook et al. 1999; Valle 1997; Valle and Perrewé 2000) have also emphasized that the use of impression management tactics have not been adequately explored in terms of political culture. Having reviewed the literature on the subject, we find that political culture has been studied in initial researches only. This proves that political organizational culture plays a role in deploying the use of impression management, but does not examine the impact of organizational Machiavellianism on subordinate’s flexible behaviour while using upward impression management. In the present study, we have focused on Machiavellian organizational culture as a situation and tried to explore which impression management tactics would be preferred by the subordinates in high and low organizational Mach situations to achieve good performance rating.

Machiavellian Characteristic of the Leader and Impression Management

It has been seen that Machiavellianism is one of the important predictors of impression management tactics. Christie and Geis (1970) defined that individuals who are manipulative and willing to formulate an impression of themselves are known as Machiavellian, or high Mach persons. High Machiavellian individuals are very less concerned about others’ emotions and wellbeing. They are very calculative and planned and therefore, are more prone to lie or cheat to achieve their goals (Christie and Geis 1970; Ralston 1985). Individuals with high Mach, have a high tendency to engage in impression management tactics skillfully to exploit the situation and achieve their personal goals, especially for getting positive feedback (Bolino and Turnley 2003, Ferris et al. 1990; Grams and Rogers 1990; Leary and Kowalski 1990). Literature shows that most of the researches have focused on the actors’ Machiavellian characteristics while the characteristic of the target is equally important to check its influence on selection of impression management tactic by the subordinates. Schlenker (1980) explored that individuals try to manage their impression more in front of high power, high status and attractive target than a low power and low status target. Turnly and Bolino (2001) in their study suggested that researchers should also focus on the characteristics of the target to examine its impact on the use of impression management tactics by the actors. Accordingly, we have taken Machiavellian characteristics of the leader to see its impact on subordinate’s impression management behaviour. Whether subordinates change their behaviour in front of high and the low Machiavellian leader or not, if yes then which impression management tactics they prefer to get positive performance rating.

There are many aspects of an organization which need to be focused on in detail. For example, the organizational culture is one of the crucial factors that affect individuals and their use of impression-management tactics. The culture of any organization may encourage or discourage an individual to use manipulative behaviour to achieve their goals. According to Ralston and Elsass (1989), in the presence of a political environment, an individual uses more impression-management tactics to respond to a situation. In this study, we are trying to see the impact of target Machiavellian characteristics of the target and Machiavellian organizational culture on the selection of impression-management tactics by both leaders and subordinates. This study makes several contributions. First, it adds Machiavellian organizational culture as a situational factor that is linked to behavioural flexibility in terms of impression management tactics. Second, it examines the impact of the Machiavellian personality of a target on the actor’s selection of impression management behaviours. Finally, it explains the flexibility in the use of different impression management tactics in the presence of high and low organizational Mach and high and low leader’s Machiavellianism situations.

Impression Management Tactics and Development of Hypothesis

Jones and Pittman (1982) developed a taxonomy of impression management behaviour, in which they tried to include a broad range of impression management behaviours which include ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation. Jones (1964) identified that ingratiation includes four types of tactics and self-enhancement is one of them. Schlenker (1980) explained that the use of entitlements is a type of self-promotion and Rosenfeld et al. (1995) stated that self-promotion tactics might be related to ingratiation. Therefore, to avoid overlapping and confusion between these two, we regarded self-enhancement and entitlement tactics as independent, rather than using self-promotion and ingratiation tactics.

This present study is in the context of a political organizational culture and Cheng (1983) put forward that an individual working in a political organizational climate uses political tactics more frequently than rational tactics. Accordingly, we selected all the political IM tactics to match the context. We have developed the hypotheses based on the impression management tactics generally used by leaders and subordinates in an organizational setting. Here we attempt to check that high/low leader’s Mach and high/low organizational Mach situations will impact on the use of a particular IM tactic by subordinates.

Exemplification

In this, people manage their impressions through self-sacrifice and going beyond the call of duty in order to gain the quality of moral worthiness and dedication (Jones and Pittman 1982). To be more valuable in an organization, an individual must be an exemplifier through his hard work and dedication (Rosenfeld et al. 1995). Exemplifier is a person who comes early at work, stays up to late evening, and never takes leave. These types of people make others feel guilty because they are not working in the same manner. Bolino and Turnley (2001) in their research stated that people who use exemplification tactics most of the time pretend to be busy at work, more committed when others are looking at them and try to be seen very dedicated by their office members (boss and peer). An actor uses exemplification tactics when he/she wants to look committed or dedicated by the target (Bolino and Turnley 2003; Bolino 1999; Gardner 1992; Gardner and Martinko 1988). Kacmar and Carlson (1999) in their research found that exemplification tactics can be effective positively, but it can sometimes backfire also (Gilbert and Jones 1986). It has been reported that there is no relation between reward and performance in political organization (Kacmar and Ferris 1991), but Machiavellian person and Machiavellian organizations are only concerned about profit and looks for the high input from others to get maximum output. Accordingly, an actor would choose exemplification tactic for a high Machiavellian target and high organizational Mach to get good performance rating. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis

H1

Use of exemplification tactic by subordinate will be higher for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be low for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

Intimidation

This is a tactic of threading power or the potential to punish others, with the purpose of being seen as dangerous and terrifying to the target (Jones and Pittman 1982). People try to look as very strict at work while using this tactic. Yukl and Tracey (1992) stated that intimidation tactic might improve the subordinate’s ability to achieve the goals. In this condition, the supervisor gives a positive rating to the subordinate. These kinds of tactics are useful in non-voluntary relationships with dependent people, who are in a lower position in the hierarchy. This flow of impression management shows that intimidation is basically used in the downward impression management, between supervisors and subordinates (Rosenfeld et al. 1995). Most of the studies explain that intimidation is a form of pressure technique and has significant use in the downward direction, but not significant in upward impression management (Kipnis et al. 1980; Yukl and Falbe 1990). Previous researches focuses only on the direction and success of the intimidation tactic, but few of them describe about the organizational culture and target characteristics. To understand the impact of these situations on the use of intimidation tactics, we propose following hypothesis:

H2

Use of intimidation tactic by subordinate will be lowest for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be highest for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

Supplication

This impression management tactic intended to create a poor image by means of representing weakness and incompetence or failing (Jones and Pittman 1982). It is also known as a tactic of last resort and Bird with Broken Wing to attract other’s sympathy by presenting self as needy, weak and dependent. Researches indicate that individuals try to pretend dumb, needy or suffering from personal problems in order to avoid unwanted work and get positive outcome (Becker and Martin 1995; Leary and Kowalski 1990). Longenecker et al. (1987) stated that people who engage in supplication in some conditions receive a lower performance rating and in certain conditions receive higher performance ratings. It has been seen that supplication tactic has a positive relationship with performance ratings, but this relationship has not been explored in depth (Bolino and Turnley 2001). As supplication is accepted as one of the political tactic, but how actors use this tactic for Machiavellian target and in political culture has yet to be explored. To test the use of the supplication tactic by a subordinate in conditions with organizational Mach and leader’s Mach, where the goal is performance rating, we propose following hypothesis.

H3

Use of supplication tactic by subordinate will be highest for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be lowest for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

Entitlement

Entitlement is a kind of self- promotion tactic. In this tactic, individual claim credit and responsibility for any positive event, even if the credit is unfair (Schlenker 1980). For example, a marketing manager claims that his superior marketing skills lead to greater sales of his company. Particularly, an individual uses this tactic to acknowledge himself in the presence of target when responsibility is either confusing or not properly defined (Schlenker 1980). When a person attempts entitlement tactic to achieve the goal, then that person tries to put some personal stories, which help target understands (McFarland et al. 2003). The entitlement tactic is more possibly acceptable where target likes the actor (Tedeschi and Riess 1981). Limited studies have been conducted on the use of entitlement tactic specifically. The present study endeavours to check the impact of high-low organizational Mach and leader’s Mach on the use of entitlement tactic by subordinates for good performance rating. Accordingly, we propose following hypothesis;

H4

Use of entitlement tactic by subordinate will be highest for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be lowest for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

Self-Enhancement

Individual communicates value of successful event to the audience for which he or she was responsible. It is greater than what most people might think. Schlenker (1980) stated that individuals use self- enhancement directly to be seen more positively by the target. Self-enhancement is a tactic where actor looks for chance letting the target know about his qualities. Kacmar et al. (1992), in their research found that actor who uses high self-enhancement tactic get high ratings in the interview then actors who used other tactics. Ansari et al. (2008) in a study examined that subordinate generally self enhancement tactics subordinates for personal goals and in this study performance appraisal goal. This tactic has not been explored in depth in presence of political organizational culture and Machiavellian target. How subordinates will use this tactic in situation. The present study checks the impact of high-low organizational Mach and leader’s on use of entitlement tactic by subordinates in organization for good performance rating. Accordingly, we propose following hypothesis;

H5

Use of self-enhancement tactic by subordinate will be highest for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be lowest for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

Blasting

Blasting is also a political tactic, which people use very frequently at workplace to achieve their goals. In this tactic, an individual exaggerates the negative qualities of rival or competitor or one he/she does not like. Cialdini and Richardson (1980) first describe about this tactic. According to them, blasting is a behaviour where the individual intends to convey negative or unfavourable features of another individual or group of individuals with whom communicator (actor) is directly associated. An actor can apply this kind of IM tactic when the actor and the target have good relations. Blasting tactic has also not been explored in depth in terms of performance rating, political organizational culture and Machiavellian target. Christie and Geis (1970) in their conceptualization of Machiavellianism defined that a high Mach individual tries to maintain good relation with everyone. As Cheng (1983) stated that people use political tactics frequently in political organization rather than a rational organization. Hence, we propose following hypothesis:

H6

Use of blasting tactic by subordinate will be highest for high organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach, and will be lowest for low organizational Mach and low leader’s Mach.

We used animated video clips in an experimental setting to test our hypotheses. We have used within subject design to control individual differences in participants’ attitudes towards copying (Harsha and Knapp 1990; Greenwald 1976) and allow participants to respond to the study hypotheses. Because of this, the participants may give a response desired by the researcher. Consequently, we designed 2 between-subjects experiment studies to test hypotheses.

Methodology

The design of the experiment was a 2 (Organizational Machiavellianism: Low; High) X 2 (Leader’s Machiavellianism: Low; High) factorial where the actor was subordinate. We crossed two levels of organizational Mach (high/low) with two levels of leader’s Mach(high/low). For this study, we created four versions of video clips based on the situation. Each of the video clips was representing a specific experimental treatment. We conducted this experiment in computer lab setting. Data were collected in the fall of 2012 and spring 2013 in a lab setting.

Collection of Data

This experimental study was conducted on undergraduate and postgraduate students of the top technological institution in India. We put posters on the gates of hostels and institute to attract participants for the study. We distributed food coupons as compensation to attract the participant. We also mentioned the complete schedule, when and where they were to report. We conducted this experiment in computer lab setting, having four computers with headphones, with the setting of four different controlled experimental treatments. So, only four participants were asked to enter in the lab at a time. The participants were randomly given one different controlled experimental treatment out of four to respond, where we asked participants to fill online demographic details first, then to watch video clip. As they finished watching the video, we again asked them to give their rating on different impression management tactics (dependent measures) which was available on the online form. Before starting the experiment, we briefed them about the complete experimental process and instructed them to watch the video clips carefully because they will have to give responses based on the video clip.

Participants

The participants, for the study were undergraduate and postgraduate students from premier technological institutions in India. The emphasis was put on the selection of students. Only 3rd and 4th year undergraduate and postgraduate students were selected for this study in order to ensure a minimum level of organizational understanding of the participants. Total 135 students participated in this experimental study in four different treatments. Only 102 out of 135 responses were considered to be appropriate for the study and which were correct with manipulation check items. There were 27 respondents in high organizational Mach and high Leader’s Mach situation, 31 in high organizational Mach and low Leader’s Mach, 22 in low organizational Mach and high Leader’s Mach, and 22 in low organizational Mach and low Leader’s Mach situation. There were 61 (59.80 %) male and 41 (40.20 %) female and the average age of the participant was 22.39 years (SD = 2.09); age ranged from 19 to 26.

Experimental Manipulation

The manipulation of experiments was done through 5 min animated video clips which were based on scenarios. These scenarios were converted into scripts through the office event and characters to give the feel of real situations. Then animation, video clips were developed based on the scripts. All the development procedures were validated on each step through pilot testing with manipulation check items.

Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach both were based on Christie and Geis (1970) conceptualization of Machiavellianism consisting of 20 items. The scenario for Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach were as follows (phrase in parenthesis indicates low Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach):

You are working in ABC Company as a subordinate. Your organization has (not made) made many false promises to subordinates and it breaks (never breaks) promises of increment and bonus for organizational benefits. For its benefit, this organization follows any action and justifies it as the last option. Your organization takes action first and gives the justification later on (Your organization identifies a rationale and logic before taking any action.). Your company does not give (always explains) the real reason for any action until (whether) it is profitable for the organization (or not). This company does not look (always looks) at what is right, and what is wrong and compromises (make a decision accordingly). Company (never) exploits people for its own benefits.

In this organization, you are working under boss X. Your boss is a person who breaks (never breaks) promises for his/her advantages. You often (never) find your boss lies to you and other office members. Your boss very rarely (easily) trusts others because X does not (bother about the problem) want to be in any problem. X rarely gives recommendation for any one because X fears that it might backfire (X always gives recommendation to everyone). For his benefit, X can choose any option. X does not like (likes) to take any risk. X always (never) tries to flatter important people around for own benefits and handles people by saying what they want to hear. Your boss maintains good relationship with everyone (in general) for his/her advantage. X does friendship with those people who are beneficial for him/her (X does not bother about his/her interest while making friends). X never looks (always looks) at what is right and what is wrong and makes a decision (accordingly.), which suits him/her.

Based on the above scenarios, we develop the scripts by using imaginary character and real life events. At the end of it, we added one event where we showed that performance appraisal is very near and as an individual, you need growth so, how you will impress this kind of boss in this kind of organizational culture to get good performance rating.

To check the validity of the video clips and experimental manipulations, we added a scale of organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach. Both organizational and leader’s Mach was assessed though 5-5 items of Christie and Geis (1970) Machiavellianism scale. For Organizational Mach items (Christie and Geis 1970) Machiavellianism scale were worded in terms of organization. The items worded into organization were as follows: this organization breaks promises for its advantages; this organization believes that the best way to settle an argument is for people to forget their differences of opinion as to what is right and wrong, and compromise on the facts; this organization believes that, any action can be justified after it is done; this organization believes that organization never tells the real reason it did something, unless it is useful for the organization to do so; this organization believes that organization exploits people for its own benefits. These items were measured on a five point scale (Where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). For leader’s Mach the items were worded as follows: The boss lies frequently to get his way; he breaks his promises for his advantages; he flatters important people; the boss handles people by telling them what they want to hear; If there is any chance that recommendation might backfire; the boss is very cautious in recommending anyone. These items were also measured on a five point scale (Where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree).

Control Variables

Several variables were used as control variables in the analyses: type of institution (technical), the education background of the students (only B. Tech and M. Tech) was controlled because students from different background may have a slightly different thought process of working condition.

Dependent Measure

Impression Management Tactics

We have taken 14 single-statement items from Bolino and Turnley (1999) to check respondents’ use of intimidation, exemplification, and supplication tactics. The original scale is based on Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management taxonomy, measured by Bolino and Turnley’s (1999) impression management scale, containing 22-items. This scale measures individuals’ ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation behaviour in the work setting. Jones (1964) identified that ingratiation includes four types of tactics and self-enhancement one of them. Use of entitlements is a type of self-promotion and Rosenfeld et al. (1995) stated that self-promotion tactics may be related to ingratiation. So, to avoid the overlapping and confusion between these two, we took a self-enhancements and entitlement tactics independently rather than taking self-promotion and ingratiation tactics. We also added blasting tactics, which people generally use to fulfil their goals in the organization. As Cialdini and Richardson (1980) discusses that people blast the opponent in order to boost their image in front of others, we took 15-items from Lee et al. (1999) self-presentation scale to assess entitlement (5-items), self-enhancements (5-items), and blasting (5-items) tactics. We asked participants to respond on a 5 point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree) which reflect the level on which they would agree with the behaviour indicated by the items to impress the boss (as shown in the video clip) to get good performance rating.

Scale validation

Scale validation has been done through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using AMOS 20. The CFA indicated that some items had shared residual variance, low factor loading and poor fit indices. Accordingly, some items were dropped in order to get unidimensionality and good fit indices in CFA results. It is common that items are dropped during a CFA to check unidimensionality of a variable and CFA showed that all the remaining items were highly loaded on their assigned variable with good fit indices. That is why we have dropped one item each from intimidation and entitlements tactics having factor loading INT1 (FL) = 0.47 and ENT2, FL = 0.34 respectively due to low factor loading and poor fit indices. We also dropped two more items one item from Self Enhancement and another from Blasting tactics having factor loading, S.ENH4 FL = 0. 64. BLS5, FL = 0.70 respectively. The indices were not as per the recommended values so; we deleted these items from the scale to obtain acceptable fit indices. The results are shown in the Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics: factor loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted and cronbach alpha of the study variables

Table 2 Fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis for each impression management tactics

Test of Normality

To test the normality of the data, the One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test was used. This normality test examines whether the data met the normality assumptions underlying the maximum-likelihood procedure used to test the hypothesis in the present study. The results of the One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test in Table 3 indicated that the data were normal and it is not significantly different from the normal distribution curve.

Table 3 Test of normality:one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test

Check on Experimental Manipulation

As we had described each script was followed by a set of twenty items of the Machiavellianism scale (Christie and Geis 1970) for organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach. The Five items for each variable has been taken to check the validity of experimental manipulations. Both the organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach scales showed high reliability coefficients of 0.92 and 0.94 respectively.

We examined the internal validity of the experimental manipulation by means of a one-way ANOVA. In each analysis, the two experimental variables were treated as independent variables and manipulation check items as dependent variables. The analysis readily indicated that regardless of Leader’s Mach, the strong main effect of organizational Mach condition was apparent (p > 0.000) for the organizational Mach manipulation check items: organizational Mach [F (1, 101) = 272.917]. Participants who were in high organizational Mach condition reported organization highly practical approached oriented in terms of perceived contribution (M = 3.92; SD = 0.75) compared to those with low organizational Mach, (M = 1.86; SD = .37). The results indicated that the experimental manipulation of organizational Mach was successful. Next, we tested the effect of Leader’s Mach. The analysis readily indicated that regardless organizational Mach, the strong main effect of Leader’s Mach condition was apparent (p > 0.000) for the of Leader’s Mach condition manipulation check items [F (1, 101) = 395.802]. Participants in of individual Leader’s Mach condition reported a highly practical approach of the Leader’s Mach (M = 4.41; SD = 0.68) than those in the low Leader’s Mach condition, (M = 1.83; SD = 0.48). The results indicated that the experimental manipulations of both organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach condition were successful, thereby providing strong support for the internal validity of this experiment.

Hypothesis Testing

We proceeded to test our hypothesis, by conducting univariate ANOVA for hypotheses. To test our H1hypothesis we included organizational Mach and leader’s Mach as independent variable and exemplification tactic as the dependent variable. The two-way ANOVA analysis results indicated that there was no any significant effect of organizational Mach, [F (1,101) = .677, p > .05] and leader’s Mach [F (1,101) = .700, p > .05] on use of exemplification tactic by the subordinate. The combine effect of organizational Mach and leader’s Mach was also not significant [F (1,101) = .103, p > .05]. Similarly, in hypothesis H2 where the dependent variable was intimidation, the results show that there was no any significant effect of organizational Mach, [F (1,101) = .197, p > .05] and leader’s Mach [F (1,101) = .2.478, p > .05] on use of intimidation tactic by the subordinate. The combine effect of organizational Mach and leader’s Mach was also not significant [F (1,101) = 2.268, p > .05]. Thus, H1 and H2 hypotheses have been rejected as per the results. Results show that organizational Mach and leader’s Mach do not have impact on the subordinate’s use of exemplification and intimidation (pressure) tactic for their leaders to get good performance rating.

To test our H3hypothesis, we included organizational Mach and leader’s Mach as independent variable and supplication as dependent variable. Table 4 reports ANOVA results.

Table 4 ANOVA result: effect of organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach on supplication tactic

Table 4 shows that only the main effect of the organizational Mach is significant on supplication tactic and leader’s Mach is not significant, but the interaction between these two significantly predicts the supplication tactic. The interaction and situational effect are analyzed graphically in Fig. 1. The plot in Figs. 1 and 2 show that subordinates use supplication tactics in a situation where organizational Mach is high and leader’s Mach is low. It is supporting our H3 hypothesis.

Fig. 1

Estimated marginal mean for Supplication tactic (Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach as Independent variables)

Fig. 2

Mean of Supplication tactic in different Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach situation

To test our H4 hypothesis, we included organizational Mach and leader’s Mach as independent variable and entitlement tactic as the dependent variable. Table 5 reports ANOVA results.

Table 5 ANOVA result: effect of organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach on Entitlement tactic

Table 5 shows that only the main effect of the organizational Mach is significant on entitlement tactic and leader’s Mach is not significant, but the interaction between these two significantly predicts the entitlement tactic. The interaction and situational effect are analysed graphically in Figs. 3 and 4. The Plots in Figs. 3 and 4 show that subordinates use entitlement tactic highest in a situation where organizational Mach is high and leader’s Mach is low. It is supporting our H4 hypothesis.

Fig. 3

Estimated marginal mean for Entitlement (Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach as Independent variables)

Fig. 4

Mean of Entitlement in different Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach situation

For testing hypothesis H5 we included organizational Mach and leader’s Mach as independent variable and self-enhancement tactic as the dependent variable. Through two-way ANOVA analysis, we found that there was a significant effect of organizational Mach [F (1,101) = 1.0313, p < .01] on self-enhancement tactic, but there was no any significant effect of leader’s Mach [F (1,101) = 2.596, p > .05] on use self-enhancement tactic by the subordinate. The Joint effect of organizational Mach and leader’s Mach was also not significant [F (1,101) = 3.408, p > .05]. The above results reject H5 hypothesis.

To test our H6 hypothesis, we included organizational Mach and leader’s Mach as independent variable and blasting tactics as the dependent variable. Table 6 reports ANOVA results.

Table 6 ANOVA result: effect of organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach on blasting tactic

Table 6 Shows that the main effect of the organizational Mach is not significant for blasting tactic, but leader’s Mach is significant. The combined interaction between these two significantly predicts the blasting tactic. The interaction effect is analyzed graphically. The plot in Fig. 5 and 6 shows that subordinates use blasting tactic highest in a situation where organizational Mach is low and leader’s Mach is high. It is supporting our H6 hypothesis.

Fig. 5

Estimated marginal mean for Blasting (Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach as Independent variable)

Fig. 6

Mean of Blasting in different Organizational Mach and Leader’s Mach situation

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to examine the behavioural flexibility of subordinates through using impression management tactics and the impact of Machiavellian organization and Machiavellian leader. Overall, the results of experimental study support some of our hypotheses and reject some of them. However, some interesting key findings need some discussion (please refer Table 7 for summary of results).

Table 7 Summary of the results

We start from the organizational Mach effect on the use of IM tactics. Results show that when subordinates look for positive rating from their boss in a high Mach organization use supplication, entitlement, and self-enhancement tactics. It shows that high Mach (political) organization motivates subordinates to use these tactics. The organizational Mach does not affect exemplification, intimidation, and blasting tactics. It shows that subordinate emphasizes on the organizational culture before using any type of IM tactics. This result supports that organizational culture is one of the factor which stimulates subordinate’s to change their behaviour as the organizational condition changes. This study explains that subordinates working in high Machiavellian organization opt only those IM tactics, which directly define their positive or negative qualities, to get a positive rating from their leaders. When we checked the effect of leader’s Mach on the use of IM tactics, the findings suggest leader’s Mach only affect blasting tactic. It shows that when subordinates are looking for positive rating from a high Mach leader they only use blasting tactics. As Christie and Geis (1970) defined that high Mach individuals maintain good relations with everyone and because of the good relation of a high Mach leader, subordinate can easily communicate negative qualities of his rivals with his leader through using blasting tactics. When we examined the combined effect of organizational Mach and leader’s Mach, we found that subordinates use supplication and entitlement tactics more where organizational Mach was high and leader’s Mach was low, and choose blasting tactics in condition with low organizational Mach and high leader’s Mach. Above results explain that in any situation subordinates do not use intimidation tactic for leaders, because it is one of the pressure tactics and it may backfire to subordinates (Kipnis et al. 1980; Yukl and Falbe 1990). In this study, we found that subordinates are changing their impression management tactics as per the organizational and leaders characteristics. This study clearly explains that flexible behaviour helps individuals in dealing different situations to obtain various goals. Overall, this study shows that employees exhibit behavioural flexibility according to the situation using different IM tactics in order to achieve positive rating.

Practical Implication

Organizational perspective subordinates use high amount IM tactics in the high Mach organization, which may influence the decision-making of leader. This kind of error in decision-making may be the cause of employee dissatisfaction, employee turnover, and low productivity. Therefore, organizations should minimize Machiavellian image to avoid this type of mistake in decision making to maintain organizational efficiency. Mostly, subordinates are influenced by organizational Mach and target’s Mach when there is a difference between organizational Mach and target’s Mach on. Therefore, leaders should try to match their Mach with the organizational Mach so that the subordinates would not get the chance to use a high amount of IM tactics. This would help in right decision-making without any influence.

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

The findings of the present study need to be interpreted in the light of inherent limitations in experimental studies. The first potential limitation of this study is the use of undergraduate and postgraduate students as subjects. However, college students do have limited experience about performance rating during their corporate training period. Secondly, this study has been conducted on a small set of population therefore; it is difficult to generalize these findings on larger population. Future research need to cover larger population to generalize the findings. Next, we have taken engineers as a participant; the result may vary with another set of professional qualification participants. This study needs to be checked by some other methods also rather than experimental studies. The use of videotape method may have its own limitation so it should be crosschecked by other methods because the artificial situations shown on videotape are somewhat away from the richness of real world situation. In this study, we only examined the impact of organizational Mach and leader’s Mach on the use of different IM tactics in a given situation, but do not explore the outcome. The future research should explore whether the use of these tactics or behaviour flexibility are helpful to attain the require goal or not. The future research should explore with the other goals like for interview, organizational goals, and group goals. The impact of other characteristics of the leaders should be explored like need and emotion. In this study, we have taken organization in general, but future research should examine these variables on some specific organizations and compare the difference. Future research should also examine different forms of behavioural flexibility other than IM tactics.

Key Questions

• i. What is the impact of organizational culture on the use of impression management (flexible behavior) tactics by the employees for good performance rating?

• ii. What is the impact of Machiavellian characteristics of the leaders on the use of impression management (flexible behavior) tactics by the employees for good performance rating?