2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2013.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does impression management really help? A multilevel testing of the mediation role of impression management between personality traits and leader–member exchange

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, impression management may lead towards various types and intensity of counterproductive work behavior that comprises making fun of someone at work to drastic obstructive behaviors (Klotz et al, 2018;Phipps et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2016). Secondly, impression management has mediated various previous relationships (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2010;Weng & Chang, 2015). In this study, impression management mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and counterproductive work behavior such that emotionally intelligent employees use selfpromotion, ingratiation, exemplification and intimidation that help them to involve in antisocial behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Moreover, impression management may lead towards various types and intensity of counterproductive work behavior that comprises making fun of someone at work to drastic obstructive behaviors (Klotz et al, 2018;Phipps et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2016). Secondly, impression management has mediated various previous relationships (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2010;Weng & Chang, 2015). In this study, impression management mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and counterproductive work behavior such that emotionally intelligent employees use selfpromotion, ingratiation, exemplification and intimidation that help them to involve in antisocial behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…It considers that a subordinate’s ingratiation behavior can cause a change in the supervisor’s attitude ( Goffman, 1959 ). LMX and career outcomes are the appropriate outcomes in the impression management theory framework because they reflect the results of continuous interpersonal interaction and assessment processes ( Weng and Chang, 2015 ). LMX relation is grounded in the social exchange theory ( Blau, 1964 ).…”
Section: Theory and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The subordinates who wish to benefit from their supervisors will adopt the ingratiation behavior and take the initiative to establish an exchange relationship with their supervisors ( Treadway et al, 2007 ). Although the establishment of this kind of relationship is the result of subordinates’ ingratiation behavior, positive emotional connection bonding will still be produced during this interaction ( Weng and Chang, 2015 ). When subordinates engage in ingratiation outside the workplace, their supervisors will perceive and respond to the subordinates’ ingratiation behavior ( Treadway et al, 2007 ; Liu et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Theory and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous research demonstrated that subordinates who engage in IM tactics receive overall more favorable performance ratings (Harris et al, 2007;Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). The use of IM during performance appraisal meetings has also been linked to concepts such as supervisor liking and perceived similarity, acting as mediators in the IM -performance appraisal relationship (Wayne & Ferris, 1990;Wayne & Liden, 1995;Weng & Chang, 2015). These studies highlighted the par-ticular effectiveness of supervisor-focused IM tactics, i.e.…”
Section: Impression Management Research In the Context Of Work And Camentioning
confidence: 99%