IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTICS: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COLLEGIATE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/h8fzty48Keywords:
impression management tactics,, -interpersonal relationship, productive organizationAbstract
This paper ascertained the impression management tactics of deans in one university. It looked into the profile of the different college deans and related it to collegiate interpersonal relationship. It further investigated the various impression management employed by the deans and how these are assessed by both the deans and the faculty. Eventually, a comparison of the assessment was made. There were 365 respondents in this study who come from 42 colleges university-wide. The quantitative method was utilized in this study. It also employed the descriptive correlational method which is qualitative in nature. The study used the quantitative method of research. Specifically, it employed the descriptive correlational research method which is quantitative in nature. The descriptive method was used considering that the study ascertains the profile of the college deans, the impression management tactic used and the reasons of the college deans for using their impression management tactics. On the other hand, the correlational part involves the investigation of the significant difference in the impression management tactics of the College Deans as assessed by the teachers and College Deans themselves; the significant difference in the impression management tactics of the College Deans according to their profile variables. The results revealed that CSU College Deans utilize eclecticism in their impression management in the workplace. The utilization of this impression management tactic is primarily dependent on every situation that the deans find effective. In utilizing an eclectic approach, the deans have healthy interpersonal outcomes to be liked, to be perceived competent and to be perceived as good performers by their subordinates. Thus, it can be said that the college deans used their impression management tactic successfully.Finally, it can be said that the CSU College deans utilize good impression management tactic which is an essential competency for an effective and productive organization.
Downloads
References
1. Avery, D. & McKay, P. (2006). Target Practice: And Organizational Impression Management Approach. Blackwell Publishing, Inc. pp.157-187.
2. 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: 187-206
3. Fedor et al (2003). Reflections on the Looking Glass: A Review of Research on Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Organizations. Elsevier Inc., pp. 773-799.
4. Godfrey, D K., E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promoting is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106-115.
5. Gouldner, A. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 47, 73-80.
6. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (2002). Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation. In: J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self: Vol. 1, 231-262. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Kipnis, D. & Vanderveer, R. (2001). Ingratiation and the Use of Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 280-286.
8. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (2000). Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34-47.
9. Rosenfeld P., Giacalone R., and Riordan C. (2002). Impression Management: Building and Enhancing Reputations at Work (London: Thomson Learning)., p. 45.
10. Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The Strategic Control of Information: Impression Management and SelfPresentation in Daily Life. In A. Tesser, R. Felson, & J. Suls (Eds.), Perspectives on Self and Identity,Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 199-232.
11. Schneider, D. J. (2001). Tactical Self-Presentations: Toward a Broader Conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, New York: Academic Press,
pp. 23-40.
12. Snyder, M. (1994). Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, pp. 526-537.
13. Tedeschi, J. T., (2001). Identities, the Phenomenal Self, and Laboratory Research, In: J. T. Tedeschi. Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press
14. Zaidman, N., & Drory, A. (2007). Upward Impression Management in the Workplace. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, pp. 671-690.
15. (http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BUS208-4.3.6-Effective-Delegation- FINAL.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
