Self‐Monitoring at Work: A Motive‐Based Perspective

Abstract

It is argued that the recent study of personality in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is characterized by two limitations: (a) almost complete reliance on the Big Five to the exclusion of other personality variables (most notably, self-monitoring) and (b) insufficient theoretical attention paid to the criteria in work-related personality research. In an attempt to overcome both of these limitations, we review theoretical and empirical evidence for the relevance of self-monitoring in organizational life, with particular attention paid to the criteria grounded in socioanalytic theory of getting along, getting ahead, and making sense. Extant research indicates that high self-monitors are particularly good at getting along (e.g., meeting others' social expectations) and getting ahead (e.g., job performance and leadership emergence), but the evidence is more mixed with regard to making sense. We conclude with a discussion of practical concerns in considering the use of self-monitoring for managerial selection and a research agenda for the future to further elaborate a theory of self-monitoring at work.

Ethical Decision-Making: The Role of Self-Monitoring, Future Orientation, and Social Networks

“…The sample was composed of 69 high self-monitors and 60 low self-monitors. Usually populations present more low self-monitors, however the breakdown of self-monitors by hierarchical level in this sample is in line with that reported by Day and Schleicher (2006), as there is a greater tendency for high self-monitors at the top of organizations. In terms of gender, 54.28% of the males and 51.66% of the females were high self-monitors.…”

“…In contrast, low self-monitors are careful about their reputations of sincerity (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). They are more comfortable with ambiguity (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002), such as ethical dilemmas that are inherently ambiguous (Day & Schleicher, 2006), and suffer less from the pressures of others (Kilduff, 1992). Day and Schleicher (2006, p. 700) argued that "high self-monitors will look to others for clues regarding ethical dilemmas, but low self-monitors will rely on their internalized values".…”

“…Because they are concerned with social networks as a means to status enhancement, they can be more susceptible to unethical influences (Day & Schleicher, 2006) and a corrupt environment (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In contrast, low self-monitors are careful about their reputations of sincerity (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).…”

Network Churn: The Effects of Self-Monitoring Personality on Brokerage Dynamics

“…Low self-monitors seem "not only unwilling but also unable to carry off appearances"; they live as if "put-on images are falsehoods, as if only those public displays true to their privately experienced self are principled" (Gangestad and Snyder, 2000: 531). Although it has the benefi ts of providing self-validation, the principled approach to self-presentation characteristic of low self-monitors runs the risk of narrowing the set of conditions under which they will be seen as likable (Day and Schleicher, 2006), which may be refl ected in differences between low and high self-monitors in network churn-the volume, composition, and patterns of changes in their networks over time.…”

“…Evidence for the validity of the self-monitoring construct is extensive. Hundreds of studies have tested theoretically based hypotheses about the role of self-monitoring in the behavioral, cognitive, and interpersonal domains (for reviews and meta-analyses, see Snyder, 1987;Gangestad and Snyder, 2000;Day et al, 2002;Day and Schleicher, 2006). Self-monitoring appears to be stable across the lifespan (e.g., Gangestad and Snyder, 1985).…”