Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2024
Impression Management Tactics in the Workplace:
Enhancing or Compromising the Employee Performance?
Fahrudin Js Pareke*
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Bengkulu
Bengkulu, Indonesia
Email: pareke@unib.ac.id
Gerry Suryosukmono
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Bengkulu
Bengkulu, Indonesia
Email: gerrysuryo@unib.ac.id
Ilsya Hayadi
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Bengkulu
Bengkulu, Indonesia
Email: ilsya.hayadi@unib.ac.id
Nasution Nasution
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Bengkulu
Bengkulu, Indonesia
Email: nasution@unib.ac.id
Abstract
Employees use impression tactics to create a specific self-image in the workplace, consciously or
unconsciously. Such tactics have been classified into positive and negative tactics, with the former
including self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification, and the latter including intimidation and
supplication. Positive tactics generally lead to favorable outcomes, for instance, high-performance
ratings, while negative tactics lead to the opposite. However, categorizing impression management
tactics into positive and negative may not be entirely accurate, and our research findings challenge this
traditional classification. An online self-report measure survey was implemented, involving 313
employees working in government and private organizations in Bengkulu, Indonesia. Hypothesis
testing using Hierarchical Regression Analysis revealed that impression management tactics strongly
affect contextual performance, followed by task and adaptive performance. In particular, our research
findings indicate that self-promotion tactics hurt adaptive performance, while ingratiation tactics
positively affect task, adaptive, and contextual performance. Exemplification tactics positively affect
task performance and contextual performance, while intimidation tactics negatively affect task,
adaptive, and contextual performance. Supplication tactics, on the other hand, negatively affect task
performance and contextual performance but positively impact adaptive performance.
Keywords: impression management, task performance, adaptive performance, contextual performance
Copyright: The Author(s) - This paper is published by the International Journal of Business Science
and Applied Management under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Our
journal is an open access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge.
Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the
articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher
or the author. For more information about this paper and our journal visit our website.
Submitted: 2023-07-11 / Accepted: 2024-03-27 / Published: 2024-04-03
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
60
1. INTRODUCTION
Employees contribute to improving organizational performance through their attitudes,
behaviours, and performance. Employee performance, both directly and indirectly, impacts the
performance and success of the organization as a whole (Anwar & Sarfraz, 2023; Diamantidis &
Chatzoglou, 2019; Phuong & Huy, 2022; Ingsih et al., 2022). Therefore, employee performance is the
primary concern for every organization. For employees, individual performance ratings are critical
because of their direct impact on careers and compensation. Consequently, employees engage in
impression management tactics to help them achieve a favourable performance rating (Bande et al.,
2023; Bolino et al., 2016). Impression management is essential to employee career success (Ni et al.,
2023) and promotion to higher positions (Cheng et al., 2013). Moreover, impression management
tactics allow employees to adapt their behaviour to the demands of the situation, leading to the
achievement of personal and professional goals at work (Jaiswal & Bhal, 2014).
Linking impression management tactics to employees' performance has long been a primary
concern for scholars and practitioners. Impression management refers to the efforts made by a person
(that is, strategies, tactics, actions) to build, enhance, or modify their self-image in the eyes of others,
which may benefit the actor (Edeh et al., 2023; Chawla et al., 2021). Employees are involved in
impression management, either intentionally or unintentionally, because the final results of their
performance are not entirely separated from the subjectivity of the appraiser in the performance
appraisal process, even though the performance appraisal process already uses objective measures
(Bande et al., 2017). Moreover, the performance ratings issued by supervisors are very likely to be
representative of employee impression management tactics (Koen et al., 2019). This situation
encourages an employee to engage outside his official core job role to find ways to be liked by raters.
Effective impression management can produce favourable results because the target will perceive
the actor as competent, powerful, acceptable, and the like. The impression created by employees leads
to supervisor satisfaction (Bande et al., 2023; Asadullah et al., 2016), trustworthiness (Long, 2021),
high performance levels (Bande et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2021; Klehe et al., 2014), promotion
opportunities (Nevicka & Sedikides, 2021), career (Sibunruang & Kawai, 2021), job creativity (Shin &
Hyun, 2019), coworker support (Edeh et al., 2023), self-esteem (Szcześniak et al., 2021). Therefore,
impression management tactics are an option for some employees to boost overall job performance
levels alongside technical efforts at work to improve actual or objective performance.
The most widely accepted and researched impression management tactics consist of five tactics:
self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication (Chawla et al., 2021;
Khizar et al., 2021; Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2018). Some tactics are classified as positive tactics,
i.e., self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification (Krieg et al., 2018; Lukacik & Bourdage, 2019;
Chawla et al., 2021), while intimidation and supplication tactics are classified as negative tactics
(Haber & Brouer, 2017; Lukacik & Bourdage, 2019). Although empirical research has confirmed that
positive tactics lead to positive consequences, while negative tactics will produce the opposite (Khizar
et al., 2021; Edeh et al., 2023), several other studies have provided different empirical conclusions (De
Cuyper et al., 2014). Impression management tactics can also have a "double-edged sword" effect on
employee performance. Impression management strategies can produce images desired or not desired
by the actor (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). According to Turnley & Bolino (2001), actors may expect that
the impression management tactics (ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and
intimidation) will produce the desired image (in the form of someone who is likable, competent,
dedicated, needy, and influential). Still, in the eyes of the target, these tactics produce the opposite
image (sycophant, conceited, feels superior, lazy, bossy). Several previous studies confirmed the dual
impact of impression management tactics (Reimann et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021; Crawford et al.,
2019). The literature showed that some impression management tactics can backfire on employees, for
example, intimidation tactics can induce fear, lower job satisfaction, and increase turnover intention
(Meisler, 2020). Using intimidation tactics also negatively affects performance assessed by supervisors
(Kimura et al., 2018).
Although empirical research on impression management strategies has succeeded in uncovering
their impact on job performance, most were limited to the general construct of job performance (Bande
et al., 2017; Cheng et al., 2013) and supervisor evaluations (Bande et al., 2023; Kimura et al., 2018;
Crawford et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2007). Several studies have examined the impact of impression
management on more specific dimensions, such as task performance (Shin & Hyun, 2019; Cheng et al.,
2014). There is a lack of research examining the effect of impression management tactics on specific
dimensions of individual employee performance, primarily contextual and adaptive performance. We
argue that more studies are needed to explore the impact of impression management tactics on all
dimensions of individual employee performance, including task, adaptive, and contextual performance.
The task performance dimension reflects the employee's ability to carry out core work tasks, adaptive
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
61
performance allows employees to develop their potential to face the challenges of an increasingly
changing environment, and contextual performance shows the employee's ability to maintain
harmonious and mutually beneficial relationships with co-workers.
Moreover, there is a gap in the literature about the overall impact of impression management
tactics on employee performance. Existing research in this area is focused on revealing the impact of
one or two types of impression management tactics (e.g., Asadullah et al., 2016; Bande et al., 2023;
Cheng et al., 2013; Crawford et al., 2019; Kimura et al., 2018). Positive impression management
tactics, such as ingratiation, exemplification, and self-promotion, were the most frequently researched
(Cheng et al., 2014; Khizar et al., 2021). We believe it is necessary to conduct research involving all
types of impression management tactics (self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation,
and solicitation) to compare the effectiveness of each tactic on the dimensions of employee
performance studied. Thus, this study attempts to fill the gaps in the literature in the area of impression
management and individual employee performance. In addition, this research also provides broader
generalizability by studying employees who work in both the public and the private sectors.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Impression Management
Impression management is the process of creating and maintaining a desired self-image in the eyes
of others, consciously or unconsciously (Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2018; Long, 2017). Employees
want to appear in a particular image in the eyes of others in their interactions at work. Employees may
try to build a positive image as competent, likable, or role model employees (Krieg et al., 2018).
Meanwhile, several other employees try to appear as someone in power or helpless and needing help
(Meisler, 2020). The image formed is believed to generate certain benefits for the actors, such as
acceptance, positive performance appraisal, and a high OCB rating (Krieg et al., 2018).
Impression management tactics are commonly classified as positive and negative (Bolino et al.,
2016). The impression management literature classifies self-promotion, ingratiation, and
exemplification as positive tactics (Harris et al., 2007; Haber & Brouer, 2017; Chawla et al., 2021).
Self-promotion attempts to create the impression of competence by highlighting achievements,
contributions, and successes at work (Den Hartog et al., 2020; Molleman, 2019). Ingratiation is an
attempt to increase personal attractiveness by pleasing the target through expressions of approval,
praise, gifts, and favours (Bande et al., 2019). Exemplification refers to efforts to impress others by
appearing as a role model, being dedicated, and showing more effort than necessary (Hart et al., 2020;
Long, 2017). Intimidation and supplication tactics are generally classified as negative tactics (Chawla
et al., 2021; Su et al., 2014). Intimidation tactics tend to make an unflattering impression on the target.
An intimidation tactic affects targets by creating self-identities as powerful, dangerous, and
intimidating (Kimura et al., 2018; Khan, 2015). Finally, supplication creates an image of the actor as
helpless and, therefore, needing help and sympathy from the target (Stanley et al., 2020).
2.2 Employee Performance
Employee performance in a formal organization has a broad spectrum. Employee performance is
reflected in the results and output produced by each employee, and is often interchanged with the term
productivity (Ali et al., 2022; Tarigan et al., 2020). Employee performance is often assessed based on
employees' efforts and actions to execute their tasks (Wassem et al., 2019). Employee performance also
refers to the employee's ability to fulfill the job role and function (Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2022). The
literature on employee performance in the last few decades has resulted in more precise
conceptualizations and empirical evidence about individual employee performance constructs: task
performance, adaptive, and contextual performance (Desta et al., 2022; Pradhan & Jena, 2017; Ashraf
et al., 2018).
It is crucial to research individual performance as a multidimensional construct because it impacts
organizational performance (Nyathi & Kekwaletswe, 2023) and its ability to achieve competitive
advantage (Ijigu et al., 2023). As a multidimensional construct, employee performance includes in- and
extra-role performance and the ability to adapt to organizational changes. Although task performance is
essential for organizational success, especially in the short term, forgetting other aspects, such as
employee adaptive and contextual performance, can be detrimental to long-term organizational
performance and effectiveness. Increasing work demands and pressure have forced employees to be
able to learn, think and act quickly and adapt to changes in roles and work environments (Choeni et al.,
2023). Additionally, contextual performance, such as OCB, has been proven to have a vital impact on
organizational effectiveness and competitive advantage (Farid et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2019). Apart
from that, a close relationship exists between one performance dimension and other dimensions. For
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
62
example, employees can achieve beneficial contextual performance if they are skilled in implementing
their job tasks (Al Balushi et al., 2022). Similarly, contextual performance supports task performance
by creating a conducive social and psychological environment (Wojtkowska et al., 2021).
2.3 Impression Management Tactics and Task Performance
Task performance is defined as the extent to which employees meet the expectations,
requirements, and demands of official job roles, as stated in the formal job description documents
(Sørlie et al., 2022). Task performance is a technical task formally requested by an organization,
generally in the form of work behaviour that contributes to producing goods or providing services
(Begall et al., 2022). Task performance is often called in-role behaviour because it relates to core
technical tasks (Cohen & Abedallah, 2020; Stirpe et al., 2022). Employees pursue an excellent task
performance rating since it becomes a basis for major organizational decisions, such as pay rises and
promotions (Harris et al., 2007), tempting them to engage in impression management practices
(Molleman, 2019).
The most frequently used impression management tactics were positive tactics such as self-
promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification (Segrest et al., 2020; Krieg et al., 2018). Self-promotion
tactics produce the actor's impression of competence, ingratiation makes a kind and friendlier person,
and exemplification creates a dedicated and hard-working person (Stanley et al., 2020). The impression
management literature suggests that self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification tactics can
improve performance ratings (Cheng et al., 2014). Nevertheless, several studies report mixed findings
regarding the impact of self-promotion (Gross et al., 2021) and exemplification tactics (Crawford et al.,
2019) on job performance. In contrast, most of the empirical evidence supports the notion of the
positive impact of ingratiation on employee performance levels (Haber & Brouer, 2017; Shin & Hyun,
2019).
On the other hand, intimidation and supplication tactics are considered harmful and have received
less attention through empirical research (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022; Bolino et al., 2016). Employees
who use intimidation tactics expect the target to think that actors are powerful and dangerous (Asawo
& George, 2018). Conversely, the supplication tactic will produce the belief that the actors are helpless
and need help (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022). Although intimidation tactics can create a target's fear,
empirical evidence suggests that their impact on task performance tends to be negative (Kimura et al.,
2018; Chawla et al., 2021). While the supplication tactic produced mixed effects on performance, both
were positive (Cheng et al., 2013) and negative (Chawla et al., 2021). Hence, we predict:
Hypothesis 1: Task performance is positively affected by a) self-promotion, b) ingratiation, and c)
exemplification tactics, and negatively by d) intimidation and e) supplication tactics.
2.4 Impression Management Tactics and Adaptive Performance
Adaptive performance refers to the ability of employees to learn and adapt work behaviour
flexibly to changes in core task roles and the work environment within the organization (Tan &
Antonio, 2022; Park & Park, 2021). Adaptive performance is in-role behaviour related to the
organization's changes, significantly contributing to organizational efficiency (Bataineh et al., 2022).
Adaptive performance describes the extent to which employees successfully adapt to their role and
work environment so that they can meet the demands of the changing role and work environment
(Vakola et al., 2021), while impression management tactics are efforts to adjust their self-image to the
image desired by the actor (Edeh et al., 2023). Adaptive performance requires employees to be more
flexible and creative. Creative employees tend to engage in impression management tactics because
they are concerned about creative reputation maintenance (Carnevale et al., 2021). Therefore, we can
assume that employees who engage in impression management tactics are likely to adapt to changes in
the work environment.
Positive impression management tactics (i.e., self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification) are
predicted to be closely related to employee adaptive performance. Effective self-promotion tactics will
produce the impression of competence (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022; Stanley et al., 2020). Competent
employees will gain access to visibility and networking and tend to have high levels of self-confidence.
Employees who engage in self-promotion tactics are also promotion-focused people. According to Kim
et al. (2021), employees who focus on promotion tend to be more flexible and adaptive, so they are
more open to receiving new knowledge from supervisors and coworkers. Empirically, self-promotion
can encourage employees to engage in taking charge behaviour (Liu et al., 2019), a form of change-
oriented behaviour.
The ingratiation tactic is effective in long-term interpersonal relationships (Shin & Hyun, 2019),
where actors freely disclose sensitive personal information, agree on opinions, and show personal
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
63
interest in targets (Stanley et al., 2020). Moreover, Shin & Hyun (2019) concluded that ingratiation can
encourage employee work creativity. The exemplification tactics show personal dedication and good
work morale, so actors exert more effort on a task (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022). On the other hand,
intimidation and supplication tactics tend to make the target react negatively to the actor (Bolino et al.,
2016). Intimidation tends to generate the fear of potential harm from the actor, which is more likely to
result in avoidance or attempts to create self-defense mechanisms than self-development. Finally,
supplication produces an image of the actor's weakness and powerlessness in facing work challenges,
tending to expect exceptions. Hence, we expect:
Hypothesis 2: Adaptive performance is positively affected by a) self-promotion, b) ingratiation,
and c) exemplification tactics, and negatively by d) intimidation and e) supplication tactics.
2.5 Impression Management Tactics and Contextual Performance
Contextual performance refers to work behaviour outside of formal job duties that is discretionary
and voluntary, which drives the effectiveness of achieving organizational goals by contributing to the
social and psychological environment in which the technical core has to function (Begall et al., 2022:
Sørlie et al., 2022). Contextual performance is called extra-role behaviour (Van Den Heuvel et al.,
2020; Stirpe et al., 2022; Frank & Kohn, 2023). Employees may exhibit extra-role behaviour because
they have certain motives to achieve their personal goals. For example, helping behaviour, a form of
OCB, can be driven by egoistic and altruistic motives (Cheung et al., 2018). Other studies conclude that
OCB, as a form of employee contextual performance, is driven by impression management motives
(Meng et al., 2024; Qiu et al., 2020).
Target-focused impression management tactics (ingratiation and exemplification) are assumed to
drive contextual performance automatically. Ingratiation tactics have a central role in long-term
interpersonal relationships, in which actors exhibit a variety of behaviours aimed at pleasing the target,
elevating others, or demeaning themselves, agreeing with the opinions of others (Klehe et al., 2014).
This behaviour is carried out repeatedly throughout the interaction with the target, eventually becoming
a habit carried out consciously without prioritizing specific interests. For example, employees who
assist coworkers may initially have a hidden agenda. However, it will still be carried out in the end
even though the given aid has not yet produced the desired results. The exemplification tactics force
actors to arrive at work early and leave later or limit days off (Long, 2017). These efforts ultimately
received a positive assessment from the target because actors were seen as role models in the
workplace. Effective self-promotion tactics can also significantly boost contextual performance when
actors demonstrate competence.
The intimidation tactics will lead the targets to react negatively to the actor (Bolino et al., 2016).
Empirical evidence concluded that intimidation tactics directly impact workload (Kimura et al., 2018).
In general, intimidation tactics can create an uncomfortable work environment, hinder cooperation, and
raise suspicion in the workplace. Likewise, effective supplication tactics can produce the image that the
actor is weak, unreliable, and dependent. This image slowly causes actors to need more trust in others
to carry out extra responsibilities at work. Chuang et al. (2018) found that supplication tactics
negatively affect supervisors' assessment of employee contextual performance. Therefore, we will test
this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Contextual performance is positively affected by a) self-promotion, b) ingratiation,
and c) exemplification tactics, and negatively by d) intimidation and e) supplication tactics.
3. METHODS
3.1 Participants
Three hundred and thirteen employees who work in various public and private organizations in
Bengkulu Province, Indonesia, voluntarily participated in this research. Data were collected using an
online survey. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants based on gender, age, tenure,
organization type, and job level. The most significant composition of respondents was male, aged 41 to
50 years, ranging from 16 to 25 years of tenure, working in public organizations and as staff or non-
managerial employees.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
64
Table 1. The characteristics of respondents
No.
Classification
Frequencies
Percentage
1.
Gender
Male
202
64.5
Female
111
35.5
2.
Age
Up to 30 years old
82
26.2
31 - 40 years old
74
23.6
41 - 50 years old
137
43.8
More than 50 years old
20
6.4
3.
Tenure
Up to 5 years
83
26.5
6 - 15 years
90
28.8
16 - 25 years
129
41.2
More than 25 years
11
3.5
4.
Organization Type
Public
218
69.6
Private
95
30.4
5.
Job Level
Staff/Non-managerial
234
74.8
Managerial Employees
79
25.2
3.2 Measures
To measure impression management tactics, we adopted 44 items developed by Bolino & Turnley
(1999): ten self-promotion items, eight ingratiation items, eight exemplification items, eight
intimidation items, and ten supplication items. Individual employee performance was measured by 23
items developed by Pradhan & Jena (2017), comprising six task performance items, seven adaptive
performance items, and ten contextual performance items. All measurement items were applied to the
semantic differential scale, which was 1 = never to 5 = always. Several items employed an inverse
score®, where 1 = always to 5 = never. Five control variables were also included in the analyses, i.e.,
gender, age, tenure, organization type, and job level. Gender, organization type, and job level were
measured using a dummy variable: 1 = male, civil servants, and managerial level; and 0 = women,
private sector employees, and non-managerial level employees. These five control variables were
included in the analyses since they potentially impact individual employee performance.
3.3 Analyses
The validity of each measurement item was evaluated using the loading factors resulting from
Factor Analysis. The loading factors' value was ≥ 0.4 and was not loaded on two factors considered
valid items. The reliability of each variable was evaluated based on the value of Cronbach's Alpha: α ≥
0.8 is regarded as good reliability. A two-step hierarchical regression analysis (HRA) approach was
applied to each dependent variable to test the research hypotheses. The control variables were regressed
on the dependent variable in the first step. This analysis aimed to neutralize the effects of control
variables that may exist on the dependent variable. By including control variables, we can ensure that
independent variables, not control variables, provide the explained data variance (reflected in the R
2
value). The controls and independent variables were simultaneously regressed on the dependent
variables in the next step. All data analyses were run using the SPSS 16.0 package.
4. RESULTS
Table 2 shows items of impression management tactics considered valid items. A total of ten items
were dropped because they had a factor loading below 0.4 or were loaded at two different factors. The
ten items dropped were one self-promotion item, two each for intimidation, supplication, and
exemplification, and three for ingratiation tactics. The total data variance explained by the five factors
was 55.771%.
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
65
Table 2. Validity of the items of impression management measurement
Item
Statements
Factor Loading
1
2
3
4
5
Self-promotion
Sp1
Trying to make people aware of my accomplishments.
.692
Sp2
Trying to make the positive events I'm responsible for seem better.
.664
Sp3
Taking responsibility for positive events, even if it's not my sole
responsibility.
.410
Sp4
Making the negative events I'm responsible for seem less severe.
.756
Sp5
Displaying the certificates and/or awards I've received.
.728
Sp6
Telling others that I am competent in particular areas.
.725
Sp7
Flaunting my talents or qualifications.
.776
Sp8
Declaring my opportunities outside of my current job.
.744
Sp10
Trying to distance myself from negative events that I was involved in.
.667
Intimidation
Inti3
Threatening the coworker or subordinates.
.780
Inti4
Making people aware I can control things that matter to them.
.777
Inti5
Punishing people when they don't behave the way I want them to.
.770
Inti6
Insulting or demeaning coworkers.
.805
Inti7
Trying to embarrass people in front of their peers or superiors.
.832
Inti8
Trying to appear as an unapproachable person
.781
Supplication
Su2
Advertising about my incompetence in a particular area.
.760
Su3
Pretending not to understand something I do understand.
.688
Su5
Asking for help that I don't really need
.718
Su6
Trying to appear helpless and needy
.623
Su7
Asking a lot of questions deliberately.
.728
Su8
Downplaying my achievements.
.752
Su9
Letting others win the argument with me.
.642
Su10
Trying to agree with others even when I might disagree.
.720
Exemplification
Exe1
Arrive at work early to appear dedicated.
.784
Exe2
Working late at the office so that others see me.
.742
Exe5
Pretending to be busy even though I am not.
.726
Exe6
Making sure I am never seen wasting time at work.
.697
Exe7
Arranging things on my desk to look like work is being done.
.764
Exe8
Letting people know how much overtime I work.
.702
Ingratiation
Ing3
Offering assistance for someone that I am not required to do.
.766
Ing4
Complimenting others on their clothes or appearance.
.779
Ing5
Agreeing with a person’s major ideas or beliefs.
.739
Ing6
Showing interest in the personal lives of coworkers and supervisors.
.655
Ing8
Listening to others' personal problems, even if I have little interest in
them
.766
Variance Explained (%)
14.80
11.49
11.45
9.964
8.055
The items of individual employee performance that meet the validity requirements are presented in
Table 3. Out of the 23 items asked of the respondents, the remaining 18 items meet the validity
requirements. Five items were dropped: two adaptive and three contextual performance items. All six
items of task performance measures meet the validity requirements. The total data variance explained
by task, adaptive, and contextual performance reached 57.589%.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
66
Table 3. Validity of the items of employee’s performance measurement
Item
Statements
Loading Factors
1
2
3
Contextual Performance
CP1
Assisting my coworkers when asked or needed.
.742
CP3
Extending sympathy and empathy to coworkers when they are in trouble.
.606
CP5
Praising coworkers for their good work.
.756
CP6
Feel great satisfaction from guiding others in the organization.
.733
CP8
Maintaining good coordination among fellow workers.
.643
CP9
Guiding new colleagues beyond my job purview.
.653
CP10
Communicating effectively with colleagues for problem-solving and
decision-making.
.611
Task Performance
TP1
Maintaining high work standards
.684
TP2
Capable of handling my assignments with little supervision.
.717
TP3
Very passionate about the job
.733
TP4
Able to handle multiple assignments to achieve organizational goals.
.719
TP5
Accustomed to completing assignments on time
.728
TP6
My colleagues consider me a high performer in my organization.
.772
Adaptive Performance
AP2
Able to manage change in my job very well whenever the situation demands.
.865
AP3
Able to handle work teams effectively in the face of change.
.832
AP4
Believing that mutual understanding can lead to a viable solution in the
organization.
.760
AP6
Very comfortable with work flexibility
.754
AP7
Successfully coping with organizational changes from time to time.
.877
Variance Explained (%)
20.625
19.078
17.886
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables are presented in Table 4.
Respondents reported their levels of exemplification and intimidation in the moderate range, while self-
promotion, ingratiation, supplication, task performance, adaptive, and contextual performance were in
the moderate-to-high range. The correlation among research variables met the expected direction,
although several independent variables were uncorrelated with the dependent variables. The correlation
between the controls and dependent variables was insignificant. All research variables have a good
level of reliability (Cronbach's Alpha value in parentheses) ranging from .830 to. 914.
Table 4. Mean, standard deviation, and zero-order correlation
No.
Variables
Mean
S.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
Gender
.650
.479
2.
Age
38.950
9.203
.162**
3.
Tenure
13.320
7.966
.143*
.950**
4.
Organization
Type
.700
.461
.077
.162**
.135*
5.
Job Level
.252
.435
.046
.199**
.215**
.048
6.
Self-
promotion
3.306
.853
.131*
.233**
.214**
.121*
-.003
(.907)
7.
Ingratiation
3.659
.714
-.053
-.051
-.050
-.004
-.011
.224**
(.830)
8.
Exemplificat
ion
2.739
.843
.016
.009
.002
.025
-.034
.165**
-.024
(.853)
9.
Intimidation
2.193
.806
.172**
.263**
.223**
.184**
-.037
.429**
-.192**
.208**
(.914)
10.
Supplication
3.142
.913
.123*
.172**
.167**
.179**
.009
.555**
-.005
-.142*
.354**
(.906)
11.
Task
Performance
3.869
.698
-.106
-.023
.004
-.007
.101
.038
.531**
.074
-.322**
-.188**
(.886)
12.
Adaptive
Performance
3.742
.804
.020
-.112*
-.091
-.021
.071
-.218**
.159**
-.043
-.350**
-.093
.310**
(.898)
13.
Contextual
Performance
3.900
.697
-.056
-.093
-.072
-.065
.059
.038
.580**
.090
-.343**
-.224**
.729**
.381**
(.889)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 5 presents the results of the two-step HRA for each dependent variable. No control variables
included in the analysis in the first step significantly affected the dependent variables. The relatively
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
67
small data variance was explained by the control variables for each task, adaptive, and contextual
performance (R
2
= .028, .025, and .021, respectively). In the second step, the regression results show
that self-promotion (β = .097 ρ = .125) did not affect task performance, so hypothesis 1a was
unsupported. Ingratiation (β = .464, ρ ≤ .001) and exemplification (β = .102, ρ ≤ .05) had a positive
effect on task performance, thus hypotheses 1b and 1c were supported. Intimidation (β = -.248 ρ ≤ .001)
and supplication (β = -.151 ρ ≤ .05) had a negative effect on task performance, providing support for
hypotheses 1d and 1e. This equation's F value (18,779) was significant at ρ ≤ .001, indicating that the
model was good and can be interpreted further. There was an increase in R
2
(∆R
2
= .355) from .028 in
step 1 to .383 in step 2.
Table 5. The results of hierarchical regression analysis (β)
Variables
Task Performance
Adaptive Performance
Contextual Performance
Step1
Step2
Step1
Step2
Step1
Step2
Control variables
Gender
-.105
-.049
.040
.091
-.039
.020
Age
-.240
-.141
-.264
-.087
-.221
-.125
Tenure
.223
.203
.134
.060
.133
.117
Organization type
.005
.049
-.004
.031
-.048
-.001
Job Level
.105
.086
.093
.061
.079
.060
Dependent variables
Self-promotion
-
.097
-
-.222**
-
.116
Ingratiation
-
.464***
-
.158**
-
.510***
Exemplification
-
.102*
-
.079
-
.111*
Intimidation
-
-.248***
-
-.299***
-
-.247***
Supplication
-
-.151*
-
.136*
-
-.184***
F
1.776
18.779***
1.562
6.271***
1.314
23.943***
R2
.028
.383
.025
.172
.021
.442
∆R2
-
.355
-
.147
-
.421
***. Regression is significant at the ρ ≤ .001.
**. Regression is significant at the ρ ≤ .01.
*. Regression is significant at the ρ ≤ .05.
Interestingly, hypotheses 2a and 2e were unsupported. We expected self-promotion would
positively affect adaptive performance; however, the result provided a negative effect (β = -.222 ρ ≤
.01). Conversely, we predicted that supplication would negatively impact adaptive performance;
however, our analyses resulted in a positive impact of supplication on adaptive performance (β = .136 ρ
≤ .05). Ingratiation positively affected adaptive performance (β = .158 ρ ≤ .01), hypothesis 2b received
support. Meanwhile, exemplification did not affect adaptive performance (β = .079, ρ = .164). Thus,
hypothesis 2c was not supported. Hypothesis 2d was supported; intimidation (β = -.299 ρ ≤ .001) had a
negative effect on adaptive performance. This equation's F value (6.271) is significant at ρ ≤ .001,
indicating that the model was good. There was an increase in R2 (∆R2 = .147) from .025 in step 1 to
.172 in step 2.
Self-promotion (β = .106 ρ = .055) did not affect contextual performance; hypothesis 3a was not
supported. Hypotheses 3b and 3c received support, ingratiation (β = .510 ρ ≤ .001) and exemplification
(β = .111; ρ ≤ .05) had a positive effect on contextual performance. Moreover, hypotheses 3d and 3e
also received support; intimidation (β = -.247; ρ ≤ .001) and supplication (β = -.184 ρ ≤ .001) had a
negative effect on contextual performance. This equation's F value (23.943) indicates that the model
was good, significant at ρ ≤ .001. There was an increase in R2 (∆R2 = .421) from .021 in step 1 to .442
in step 2.
Our findings lead to the conclusion that the impression management strategy significantly affected
employees’ performance. Impression management tactics consisting of self-promotion, ingratiation,
exemplification, intimidation, and supplication, respectively, were able to explain the data variance on
the contextual performance of 42.1% (∆R2= .355), task performance 35.5 % (∆R2= .355), and adaptive
performance 14.7% (∆R2= .147), after controlling for the control variables (gender, age, tenure,
organization type, and job level).
5. DISCUSSION
We found that self-promotion tactics do not significantly impact task and contextual performance.
Our study's results align with several previous studies (Chawla et al., 2021; Bande et al., 2017), which
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
68
conclude that, in general, self-promotion tactics do not significantly impact employee performance.
Self-promotion tactics only boost task performance if they meet several conditions, including a self-
promotion climate (Gross et al., 2021), low job clarity (Molleman et al., 2011), self-monitoring (Bande
et al., 2017), political skill (Haber & Brouer, 2017; Harris et al., 2007), external support (O’Mara et al.,
2019), short-term relationships (Gross et al., 2021; Chiang & Chen, 2014), or high levels of target
narcissism (Den Hartog et al., 2020). Interestingly, our research concluded that self-promotion tactics
negatively affect employees' adaptive performance. This result challenges previous studies, which
concluded that self-promotion encouraged employees to engage in change-oriented behaviour, such as
taking charge (Liu et al., 2019). Our research tends to support Bande et al. (2019), who argue that self-
promoters experience a degree of emotional exhaustion and run out of the energy necessary to engage
in proactive behaviour.
Although self-promotion tactics have the potential to produce positive effects, such as self-
confidence, visibility, and networking, empirical evidence confirmed that self-promotion more often
has negative impacts in some conditions. Firstly, self-promotion can produce a negative assessment of
the environment if done repeatedly. Employee interpersonal relationships with coworkers occur in
long-term relationships as long as they work in the same organization. Interpersonal relationships in
work life over time lead to repeated self-promotion tactics. According to McGowan & Sekaja (2022),
self-promotion that is carried out with the same target may initially be liked, but this liking decreases
over time. Secondly, the effectiveness of self-promotion tactics is highly dependent on social and
political skills. More socially skilled individuals can earn higher performance ratings using self-
promotion tactics (Bolino et al., 2016). Thirdly, there is a gap between the image the actor expects and
the image the target perceives. As a self-focused tactic, self-promoters risk being seen as insincere and
overly self-aggrandizing (Crawford et al., 2019). Even accurate claims of self-promotion are, to some
extent, less likable than simple self-claims (O’Mara et al., 2019), because capable actors have higher
standards regarding how good and honest they are expected to be (Reimann et al., 2022). Adverse
reactions from the work environment cause actors to lose the opportunity to be involved in activities
and access crucial organizational information, thus diluting potential visibility and networking and
even reducing confidence. In many conditions, self-promoters have to allocate most of their time to
prove their competence claims, reducing self-development time.
Consistent with the previous findings, our research concluded that ingratiation tactics positively
impact all dimensions of individual employee performance. As a target-focused tactic, the ingratiation
tactic produces a perception of liking and satisfaction from the target (Crawford et al., 2019). Liking
and satisfaction can affect the actor's task performance ratings, especially if the ingratiation target is a
supervisor. Other studies concluded that ingratiation tactics significantly impact work creativity (Shin
& Hyun, 2019), facilitate career success (Sibunruang & Kawai, 2021), and reduce emotional
exhaustion (Bande et al., 2019). Work creativity is an essential aspect of adaptive performance. Career
success requires the ability of employees to adapt to various career levels and goals during their
working lives. However, employees free from emotional exhaustion have a better capacity for self-
development, including adaptability. Our conclusion also confirmed previous studies' findings on the
positive impact of ingratiation on helping behaviour (Asadullah et al., 2016), team cohesiveness
(Rozell & Gundersen, 2003), trust, and trustworthiness (Long, 2021). Helping behaviour is a form of
employee contextual performance; at the same time, group cohesion and trustworthiness can facilitate
employees supporting each other through citizenship behaviour, which is also an aspect of contextual
performance. These findings imply that effective ingratiation tactics can boost employee task, adaptive,
and contextual performance.
Our study concluded that exemplification tactics positively impact task and contextual
performance rather than adaptive performance. Employees use exemplification tactics to be rated as
dedicated and have high work morale by providing assistance, gifts, commitment, hard work,
discipline, and self-sacrifice (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022). Another term for the exemplification tactic is
self-sacrifice (Bande et al., 2023; Long, 2017) because actors sacrifice personal interests such as their
time, attention, and resources to benefit the target, work environment, and organization. Although
exemplification tactics are sometimes called manipulative or deceptive behaviour, the behaviour is
genuine when it appears consistently (Bolino et al., 2016). Effective exemplification tactics will
produce good performance evaluations for actors, especially contextual performance ratings, which are
not directly related to the implementation of the formal core duties of the job. According to Krieg et al.
(2018), successful impression management at work will increase positive performance evaluations and
higher organizational citizenship behaviour.
Even so, the positive effect of exemplification on individual employee performance still needs
broader empirical evidence, considering that several previous empirical studies have also concluded
that exemplification does not affect employee performance (Chawla et al., 2021; Bande et al., 2023).
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
69
Our research concluded that exemplification tactics do not significantly impact adaptive performance.
That is, employees who have invested a lot in work in the form of self-sacrifice cannot necessarily
adapt to changes that occur in job roles and work environments. The most acceptable explanation for
this finding is that the actor focuses more on efforts to impress others or get stuck in work routines. In
contrast, adaptive performance is about learning new things and being involved in self-development.
Another explanation is that health risk factors are potentially caused by exemplification tactics in the
form of emotional exhaustion, especially among workers who experience job insecurity (De Cuyper et
al., 2014).
Even though intimidation tactics are still found in the workplace, especially by supervisors or
managers, to improve the subordinates' performance, this tactic is not recommended. Our results fully
support the notion of the damaging nature of intimidation tactics. Our research concluded that
intimidation tactics lower employee task, adaptive, and contextual performance. Although still limited,
previous empirical research has also concluded that intimidation tactics reduce employee performance
assessed by supervisors (Kimura et al., 2018) and job performance (Chawla et al., 2021). However,
intimidation tactics can yield beneficial employee performance results if combined with ingratiation
tactics. According to Bolino et al. (2016), intimidation tactics can positively impact individual
employee performance by starting ingratiation tactics first to the target, followed by intimidation
tactics. Intimidation tactics in this context tend to be a form of closeness supervision, which impacts the
seriousness of employees executing their duties properly.
The intimidators believe that intimidation tactics will result in obedience (Stanley et al., 2020), so
they can motivate employees to complete their job tasks. Due to negative emotions felt by the target,
such as fear and anxiety, intimidation tactics will harm job satisfaction and increase turnover intention
(Meisler, 2020). Negative emotions can inhibit work creativity, which in turn hurts the adaptive
performance of employees. Anxiety and fear potentially trap employees in rigid work routines and
neglect aspects of self-development. Other empirical evidence found that intimidation tactics can create
bad relations with the targets (Chiang & Chen, 2014), for example, employees use intimidation tactics
to respond to abusive supervision (Lukacik & Bourdage, 2019). Poor interpersonal relationships
between actors and targets also erode mutual trust between them. Consequently, targets will be more
reluctant to convey new ideas for improvement and become more closed to being involved in
collaborations in the workplace.
The classification of supplication tactics as tactics that always have a negative impact is only
partly accurate. Our results provided interesting empirical evidence regarding the effect of supplication
tactics on employee performance. Supplication tactics were found to affect employee adaptive
performance positively but they negatively affect task and contextual performance. Limited empirical
studies of supplication have distorted our understanding of how these tactics impact employee
performance. The supplication tactic produces an image that an actor is a weak person who needs to be
assisted and protected (McGowan & Sekaja, 2022). However, supplication tactics only sometimes
reflect the actual quality of the actor. The literature has shown that impression management behaviour
by employees could be tactical or authentic (Long, 2021; Khizar et al., 2021). For example, a previous
study found that women entrepreneurs used the supplication tactic to minimize the negative impact of
their self-promotion by displaying their fears and weaknesses (Thompson-Whiteside et al., 2018). The
basic assumption is that effective supplication tactics will lower actor self-esteem instead of producing
higher individual performance levels (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). A willingness to learn and the ability
to adapt to changes in roles and the work environment differ from reduced self-esteem. In fact, under
certain conditions, negative evaluations that actors realize through feedback as weak and isolated
individuals can function as triggers for further self-development.
Our finding is consistent with previous empirical evidence, which concluded that supplication
tactics negatively affect employee performance (Chawla et al., 2021). Our results also confirmed the
findings of Chuang et al. (2018), which concluded that supplication is closely related to low self-
efficacy, thereby impairing supervisors' evaluation of OCB. Employees who engage in supplication
tactics aim to gain sympathy and favour or avoid unwanted assignments (Stanley et al., 2020) by
appearing incompetent. Therefore, it makes sense that employees charged with complex duties will
appear weak and incompetent, thus deserving of low evaluations in the task and contextual
performance. When employees avoid specific assignments through supplication tactics, the jobs will be
carried out by other employees, voluntarily or not. That is, supplication behaviour is the antithesis of
task performance and contextual performance. An effective supplication tactic will result in employees
not having to do the tasks they should be doing or being relieved of other extra duties.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
70
5.1 Theoretical Implications
Our research contributes significantly to the literature in several ways. Firstly, our research
findings challenge categorizing impression management tactics as positive or negative. Impression
management literature viewed self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification as positive impression
tactics (Chawla et al., 2021; Lukacik & Bourdage, 2019; Chiang & Chen, 2014) that tend to have a
positive impact on individual employee performance (Bande et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2021). Conversely,
intimidation and supplication are considered negative tactics (Chawla et al., 2021; Lukacik & Bourdage,
2019), which hurt employee performance (Meisler, 2020). As an alternative, we propose that tactics of
self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication are on a continuum.
Ingratiation tactics are at one end of the continuum; this tactic can boost all aspects of individual
employee performance (i.e., task performance, adaptive, and contextual). Conversely, at the other end
of the continuum, intimidation tactics worsen all three aspects of individual performance. The
supplication tactic is between these two endpoints because it can have positive and negative impacts.
Exemplification tends to be positive, and self-promotion tends to be negative.
Secondly, our study has filled the gaps in the literature by studying the impact of self-promotion,
ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication tactics on employees' performance. In
contrast to the self-promotion and ingratiation tactics, which have attracted the attention of researchers,
the exemplification, intimidation, and supplication tactics should be more addressed. Our research also
enriches the literature by studying the impact of each of these tactics on the more specific aspects of
individual performance, i.e., task, adaptive, and contextual performance, study of which so far has been
limited (Cheng et al., 2013).
Finally, we involved respondents from various organizations in both the public and private sectors.
Apart from the potential weaknesses that may arise, such as the sampling method's rigidity and the
respondent's unclear role as an actor or target, our findings better reflected the actual conditions in the
workplace. In general, employees, as do their interpersonal interactions, work relatively long in an
organization. A person may be an actor who employs impression management tactics at certain times
but will be the target at other times. Even the role of actor/target can be played simultaneously, where
an employee becomes the target of an impression management tactic by his superior and becomes the
actor against his coworkers or subordinates or some other possible combination. Impression
management tactics can be used against superiors (Harris et al., 2007; Chuang et al., 2018),
subordinates (Meisler, 2020), or horizontally against coworkers or customers (Turnley & Bolino, 2001;
Bande et al., 2019), consciously or unconsciously (Bolino et al., 2016; Crawford et al., 2019).
5.2 Practical Implications
From the employee's perspective, using ingratiation and exemplification tactics in authentic
behaviour is, to a certain extent, still justifiable. Authentic behaviour is oriented towards mutually
beneficial long-term interpersonal relationships by showing genuine effort and dedication. Authentic
ingratiation and exemplification will result in genuinely likable and dedicated employees. Certain
limits refer to ethical behaviour that does not conflict with the norms of social interaction,
organizational values, and culture and is not carried out excessively. Excessive ingratiation and
exemplification behaviours can consume resources, time, and attention and produce emotional
exhaustion. Employees may be trapped in ingratiation and exemplification tactics, which are tactical at
first, which is humane. Still, slowly, they can renew motivation and sincerity through a feedback
system obtained from the attitudes and responses shown by the target. On the other hand, intimidation
and self-promotion tactics should be avoided. The lure of a favourable outcome resulting from adopting
these tactics has little empirical support. In fact, the potential dangers are very real, such as hostility,
jealousy, and mutual suspicion. Moreover, employees should also be cautious about adopting
supplication tactics due to their negative impact on task and contextual performance.
From the perspective of organizational interests, organizations have to consider all aspects of
individual performance to achieve superior organizational performance. An overly strict focus on
aspects of task performance, such as employee productivity, only partially contributes to short-term
organizational performance. Therefore, organizations ought to also pay attention to adaptive and
contextual performance that is more long-term oriented. Adaptive performance enables employees to
adapt to changes in their roles and work environment, while contextual performance contributes to the
efficiency of overall organizational functions. Organizations should create an organizational culture
oriented towards inclusiveness and diversity in the workplace, which can encourage employees to build
healthy interpersonal relationships with other members. Furthermore, organizations need to intervene
in employee impression management tactics through Human Resource Management (HRM) practices,
such as managing group/work team dynamics, employee training and development, performance
management, compensation, and career management. These HRM practices should be directed at
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
71
cultivating strong organizational identification among employees so that self-serving orientation
through impression management tactics can be suppressed. Organizations can also provide space for
authentic ingratiation and exemplification tactics that encourage employees to engage in healthy and
long-term oriented interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, organizations need to minimize the
opportunities for employees to engage in intimidation tactics and excessive self-promotion. This policy
will be more effective if it starts from the top of the organizational hierarchy with a top-down approach
through leadership style.
6. CONCLUSION
Our study concludes that impression management tactics such as self-promotion, ingratiation,
exemplification, intimidation, and supplication significantly impact employees' tasks and adaptive and
contextual performance. All five impression management tactics substantially affect contextual
performance, followed by task and adaptive performance. Employees' contextual performance will
increase when they adopt ingratiation and exemplification tactics but decrease if they engage in
intimidation and supplication tactics. Employees who engaged in ingratiation and exemplification
tactics achieved better task performance levels, while intimidation and supplication tactics hurt their
task performance. Employees get higher levels of adaptive performance if they engage in ingratiation
and supplication tactics; however, they will receive lower adaptive performance ratings if they employ
self-promotion and intimidation tactics. In addition, the self-promotion tactics adopted by employees
do not affect their contextual and task performance, while exemplification tactics have no impact on
employees’ adaptive performance.
6.1 Future Recommendations
We hope our findings can trigger more profound studies regarding the role of impression
management tactics that have yet to be addressed so far, such as exemplification, intimidation, and
supplication tactics. The effect of impression management tactics on employee individual performance
also needs further investigation, especially their impact on adaptive and contextual performance. The
adaptive aspect of employee performance is increasingly becoming relevant in dealing with and
anticipating changes in the work environment, which has become a constant phenomenon. Even though
the world has become increasingly globalized, cultural aspects still play a substantial role in workplace
interactions and employee communications. Therefore, research on impression management tactics
must also has to consider cultural factors, both on a broader level, such as national culture, and at a
lower level, such as organizational culture and work culture.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
72
REFERENCES
Al Balushi, A. K., Thumiki, V. R. R., Nawaz, N., Jurcic, A., & Gajenderan, V. (2022). Role of
organizational commitment in career growth and turnover intention in public sector of Oman. In
PLoS ONE (Vol. 17, Issue 5 May). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265535
Ali, I., Khan, M. M., Shakeel, S., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2022). Impact of psychological capital on
performance of public hospital nurses: The mediated role of job embeddedness. Public
Organization Review, 22(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00521-9
Anwar, J., & Sarfraz, M. (2023). The impact of psychological capital and subjective well-being on the
relationship of job insecurity and job performance. International Journal of Business Science and
Applied Management, 18(2), 35–52.
Asadullah, M. A., Haider, S., Heredero, C. D. P., & Musaddiq, M. (2016). Effect of ingratiation on
supervisor satisfaction through helping behavior: A moderated mediation model. Intangible
Capital, 12(5), 1157–1191. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.759
Asawo, S. P., & George, B. M. (2018). Leaders’ intimidation impression management and
subordinates’ affective job commitment in Nigeria. International Journal of Organization Theory
& Behavior, 21(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-002
Ashraf, M., Vveinhardt, J., Ahmed, R. R., Streimikiene, D., & Mangi, R. A. (2018). Exploring
intervening influence of interactional justice between procedural justice and job performance:
Evidence from South Asian countries. Www.Amfiteatrueconomic.Ro, 20(47), 169.
https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/47/169
Bande, B., Fernández-Ferrín, P., Otero-Neira, C., & Varela, J. (2017). Impression management tactics
and performance ratings: A moderated-mediation framework. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 24(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2016.1275817
Bande, B., Jaramillo, F., Fernández-Ferrín, P., & Varela, J. A. (2019). Salesperson coping with work-
family conflict: The joint effects of ingratiation and self-promotion. Journal of Business Research,
95(October 2018), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.015
Bande, B., Kimura, T., Fernández-Ferrín, P., Castro-González, S., & Goel, A. (2023). Are self-
sacrificing employees liked by their supervisor? Eurasian Business Review, 0123456789.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-023-00243-6
Bataineh, M. S. E., Zainal, S. R. M., Muthuveloo, R., Yasin, R., Wali, J. Al, & Mugableh, M. I. (2022).
Impact of inclusive leadership on adaptive performance: The role of innovative work behaviour.
International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 17(1), 28–43.
Begall, K., van Breeschoten, L., van der Lippe, T., & Poortman, A. R. (2022). Supplemental family
leave provision and employee performance: Disentangling availability and use. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(3), 393–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1737176
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale
development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2),
187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819922005
Bolino, M., Long, D., & Turnley, W. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical
questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-
062337
Carnevale, J. B., Huang, L., Vincent, L. C., Farmer, S., & Wang, L. (2021). Better to give than to
receive (or seek) help? The interpersonal dynamics of maintaining a reputation for creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167(September), 144–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.08.006
Chawla, N., Gabriel, A. S., Rosen, C. C., Evans, J. B., Koopman, J., Hochwarter, W. A., Palmer, J. C.,
& Jordan, S. L. (2021). A person‐centered view of impression management, inauthenticity, and
employee behavior. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 657–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12437
Cheng, J. W., Chiu, W. La, Chang, Y. Y., & Johnstone, S. (2014). Do you put your best foot forward?
interactive effects of task performance and impression management tactics on career outcomes.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148(6), 621–640.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.818929
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
73
Cheng, J. W., Chiu, W. La, & Tzeng, G. H. (2013). Do impression management tactics and/or
supervisor-subordinate guanxi matter? Knowledge-Based Systems, 40, 123–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.12.002
Cheung, F. Y. M., Peng, K., & Wong, C. S. (2018). Beyond exchange and prosocial motives, is
altruistic helping a valid motive for organizational citizenship behavior? Chinese Management
Studies, 12(1), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-08-2016-0165
Chiang, C. Y., & Chen, W. C. (2014). The impression management techniques of tour leaders in group
package tour service encounters. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 31(6), 747–762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.889641
Choeni, P., Babalola, S. S., & Nwanzu, C. L. (2023). The effect of leader’s emotional intelligence and
role-breadth self-efficacy on proactive behaviour at work. International Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management, 18(1), 63–75.
Chuang, S. S., Shih, C. T., Chen, H. Y., Lin, C. C. T., & Teng, Y. L. (2018). A moderated mediation
model of supplication tactics toward coworkers and leader–member exchange. Social Behavior
and Personality, 46(8), 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.2224/SBP.6976
Cohen, A., & Abedallah, M. (2021). Examining correlates of organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior in a collectivist culture: the case of Arab teachers in Israel.
Organization Management Journal, 18(3/4), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-01-2020-0863
Crawford, W. S., Kacmar, K. M. (Micki), & Harris, K. J. (2019). Do you see me as i see me? The
effects of impression management incongruence of actors and audiences. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 34(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9549-6
De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., Elst, T. Vander, Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2014). Exemplification and
perceived job insecurity: Associations with self-rated performance and emotional exhaustion.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(1 A), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000099
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Belschak, F. D. (2020). Toot your own horn? Leader
narcissism and the effectiveness of employee self-promotion. Journal of Management, 46(2), 261–
286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318785240
Desta, A. G., Tadesse, W. M., & Mulusew, W. B. (2022). Aspects of human capital management and
employee job performance: The mediation role of employee engagement. International Journal of
Business Science and Applied Management, 17(3), 31–48.
Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2019). Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical
approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(1), 171–193.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012
Edeh, F. O., Zayed, N. M., Darwish, S., Nitsenko, V., Hanechko, I., & Anwarul Islam, K. M. (2023).
Impression management and employee contextual performance in service organizations
(enterprises). Emerging Science Journal, 7(2), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2023-07-02-
05
Farid, T., Iqbal, S., Jawahar, I. M., Ma, J., & Khan, M. K. (2019). The interactive effects of justice
perceptions and Islamic work ethic in predicting citizenship behaviors and work engagement.
Asian Business and Management, 18(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018-00049-9
Frank, M., & Kohn, V. (2023). Understanding extra-role security behaviors: An integration of self-
determination theory and construal level theory. Computers and Security, 132, 103386.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103386
Gross, C., Debus, M. E., Ingold, P. V., & Kleinmann, M. (2021). Too much self-promotion! How self-
promotion climate relates to employees’ supervisor-focused self-promotion effectiveness and their
work group’s performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(8), 1042–1059.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2547
Guo, L., Mao, J. Y., Chiang, J. T. J., Wang, Z., & Chen, L. (2021). Working hard or hardly working?
How supervisor’s liking of employee affects interpretations of employee working overtime and
performance ratings. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(4), 1561–1586.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09715-z
Haber, J., & Brouer, R. (2017). Impressions of competency: Tactics and a conceptual model. Journal of
Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, 25(4), 28–54.
https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.206
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
74
Harris, K. J., Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on
impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278–285.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.278
Hart, W., Tortoriello, G. K., & Richardson, K. (2020). Profiling personality-disorder traits on self-
presentation tactic use. Personality and Individual Differences, 156(September 2019), 109793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109793
Ijigu, A. W., Alemu, A. E., & Kuhil, A. M. (2023). High-performance work system and employee work
performance: A moderated mediation model of ambidextrous leadership and employee
ambidexterity. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 18(1), 46–62.
Ingsih, K., Jamalia, F. D., & Suhana, S. (2022). Increasing OSH, work motivation, employee
performance and organizational commitment of hospital employees. Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(6), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2022-0161
Jaiswal, P., & Bhal, K. T. (2014). Behavioural flexibility: The use of upward impression management
tactics by subordinates for good performance rating from leader and impact of organizational &
leader’s machiavellianism. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(4), 313–326.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-014-0077-6
Kaltiainen, J., & Hakanen, J. (2022). Fostering task and adaptive performance through employee well-
being: The role of servant leadership. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 25(1), 28–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420981599
Khan, S. (2015). Abusive supervision and negative employee outcomes: The moderating effects of
intimidation and recognition. Journal of General Management, 41(1), 61–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030630701504100105
Khizar, H. M. U., Iqbal, M. J., Khalid, J., Rasheed, H. M. W., & Akhtar, K. (2021). Student impression
management and academic performance: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Public Affairs,
21(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2258
Kim, S. L., Cheong, M., Srivastava, A., Yoo, Y., & Yun, S. (2021). Knowledge sharing and creative
behavior: The interaction effects of knowledge sharing and regulatory focus on creative behavior.
Human Performance, 34(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1852240
Kimura, T., Bande, B., & Fernández-Ferrín, P. (2018). Work overload and intimidation: The
moderating role of resilience. European Management Journal, 36(6), 736–745.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.002
Klehe, U. C., Kleinmann, M., Nieß, C., & Grazi, J. (2014). Impression management behavior in
assessment centers: Artificial behavior or much ado about nothing? Human Performance, 27(1),
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.854365
Koen, J., Low, J. T. H., & Van Vianen, A. (2019). Job preservation efforts: when does job insecurity
prompt performance? Career Development International, 25(3), 287–305.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2018-0099
Krieg, A., Ma, L., & Robinson, P. (2018). Making a good impression at work: National differences in
employee impression management behaviors in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 152(2), 110–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1417817
Liu, F., Chow, I. H., & Huang, M. (2019). Increasing compulsory citizenship behavior and workload:
Does impression management matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 10(JULY), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01726
Liu, Y., Zhou, X., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Guo, Z. (2019). The influence of transactive memory system on
individual career resilience: The role of taking charge and self-promotion. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183390
Long, D. M. (2017). A method to the martyrdom. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 36–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616663816
Long, D. M. (2021). Tacticality, authenticity, or both? The ethical paradox of actor ingratiation and
target trust reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 847–860.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04251-3
Lukacik, E. R., & Bourdage, J. S. (2019). Exploring the influence of abusive and ethical leadership on
supervisor and coworker-targeted impression management. Journal of Business and Psychology,
34(6), 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9593-2
Fahrudin Js Pareke, Gerry Suryosukmono, Ilsya Hayadi and Nasution Nasution
75
McGowan, N. A., & Sekaja, L. (2022). A diary study of the impression management strategies utilised
by industrial and organisational psychology interns. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 48, 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1902
Meisler, G. (2020). Trying to motivate employees through intimidation? Think again. Personnel
Review, 50(6), 1445–1459. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2020-0160
Meng, L., Li, D., Ma, E., & Du, J. (2024). How family motivation affects Chinese hotel employees’
extra-role behaviors: A serial mediation model from an instrumental perspective. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 116(September 2023), 103625.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103625
Molleman, E. (2019). How a powerful audience and audience feedback moderate the relationship
between performance-approach orientation and exaggerated self-promotion. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 30(15), 2273–2292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1322123
Molleman, E., Emans, B., & Turusbekova, N. (2011). How to control self-promotion among
performance-oriented employees: The roles of task clarity and personalized responsibility.
Personnel Review, 41(1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211189965
Nevicka, B., & Sedikides, C. (2021). Employee narcissism and promotability prospects. Journal of
Personality, 89(4), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12619
Ni, H., Li, Y., Zeng, Y., & Duan, J. (2023). The double-edged sword effect of employee impression
management and counterproductive work behavior: From the perspective of self-control resource
theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(February), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1053784
Nyathi, M., & Kekwaletswe, R. (2023). Realizing employee and organizational performance gains
through electronic human resource management use in developing countries. African Journal of
Economic and Management Studies, 14(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-11-2021-
0489
O’Mara, E. M., Kunz, B. R., Receveur, A., & Corbin, S. (2019). Is self-promotion evaluated more
positively if it is accurate? Reexamining the role of accuracy and modesty on the perception of
self-promotion. Self and Identity, 18(4), 405–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1465846
Park, S., & Park, S. (2021). How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the adaptive performance
concepts. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), E1–E15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21411
Paul, H., Bamel, U., Ashta, A., & Stokes, P. (2019). Examining an integrative model of resilience,
subjective well-being and commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviours.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(5), 1274–1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-
08-2018-1514
Phuong, V. H., & Huy, H. T. (2022). Effects of teamwork on employee performance: a Case study of
the hotel sector in can tho city, Vietnam. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, 41(2), 472–476.
https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.41218-852
Pradhan, R. K., & Jena, L. K. (2017). Employee performance at workplace: Conceptual model and
empirical validation. Business Perspectives and Research, 5(1), 69–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533716671630
Qiu, Y., Lou, M., Zhang, L., & Wang, Y. (2020). Organizational citizenship behavior motives and
thriving at work: The mediating role of citizenship fatigue. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(6).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062231
Reimann, M., Huller, C., Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2022). Impression management attenuates the
effect of ability on trust in economic exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 119(30), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118548119
Rozell, E. J., & Gundersen, D. E. (2003). The effects of leader impression management on group
perceptions of cohesion, consensus, and communication. Small Group Research, 34(2), 197–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402250431
Segrest, S. L., Andrews, M. C., Geiger, S. W., Marlin, D., Martinez, P. G., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G.
R. (2020). Leapfrogging at work: Influencing higher levels in the chain of command. Personnel
Review, 49(8), 1769–1786. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2019-0382
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
76
Shin, L. R., & Hyun, S. S. (2019). Impact of managerial influence tactics on job creativity and
performance: A focus on Korean airline service employees. Sustainability, 11(16), 4429.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164429
Sibunruang, H., & Kawai, N. (2021). Promoting career growth potential: Political skill, the acquisition
of social resources and ingratiation. Journal of Management and Organization, 227–246.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.25
Sørlie, H. O., Hetland, J., Bakker, A. B., Espevik, R., & Olsen, O. K. (2022). Daily autonomy and job
performance: Does person-organization fit act as a key resource? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
133(December 2021), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103691
Stanley, J., Eris, O., & Lohani, M. (2020). Toward a Framework for Machine Self-Presentation : A
survey of self-presentation strategies in human-machine interaction studies. Proceedings - 2020
IEEE International Conference on Humanized Computing and Communication with Artificial
Intelligence, HCCAI 2020, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/HCCAI49649.2020.00007
Stirpe, L., Profili, S., & Sammarra, A. (2022). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee
performance: A moderated mediation model of engagement and health. European Management
Journal, 40(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.06.003
Su, C. J., Yang, J. H., Badaoui, K., & Cho, N. (2014). Tour leaders’ impression management and job
performance: Exploring the moderating role of tourists’ self-monitoring. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 19(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.749928
Szcześniak, M., Mazur, P., Rodzeń, W., & Szpunar, K. (2021). Influence of life satisfaction on self-
esteem among young adults: The mediating role of self-presentation. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, Volume 14, 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S322788
Tan, R., & Antonio, F. (2022). New insights on employee adaptive performance during the COVID-19
pandemic: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. In Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Innovation (Vol. 18, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.7341/20221826
Tarigan, J., Susanto, A. R. S., Hatane, S. E., Jie, F., & Foedjiawati, F. (2020). Corporate social
responsibility, job pursuit intention, quality of work life and employee performance: case study
from Indonesia controversial industry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 13(2),
141–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-09-2019-0189
Thompson-Whiteside, H., Turnbull, S., & Howe-Walsh, L. (2018). Developing an authentic personal
brand using impression management behaviours. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 21(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr-01-2017-0007
Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images:
Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(2), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351
Vakola, M., Petrou, P., & Katsaros, K. (2021). Work engagement and job crafting as conditions of
ambivalent employees’ adaptation to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 57(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320967173
Van Den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2020). How do
employees adapt to organizational change? The role of meaning-making and work engagement.
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2020.55
Wassem, M., Baig, S. A., Abrar, M., Hashim, M., Zia-Ur-Rehman, M., Awan, U., Amjad, F., &
Nawab, Y. (2019). Impact of capacity building and managerial support on employees’
performance: The moderating role of employees’ retention. SAGE Open, 9(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019859957
Wojtkowska, K., Stolarski, M., & Matthews, G. (2021). Time for work: Analyzing the role of time
perspectives in work attitudes and behaviors. Current Psychology, 40(12), 5972–5983.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00536-y
