Database: Business Source Premier
LESSONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL DRAMATURGY: THE ART OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
Contents
ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE AS DRAMA
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER--PERFORMANCES IN SITU
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ingratiation: The Case of Steve Jacobson
Self-Promotion: The Case of Jane McDowell and Lance Adams
Intimidation: The Case of George Matson
Exemplification: The Case of Sally Powers
Supplication: The Case of Wanda Jones
Face-Saving:The Iran-Contra Scandal
Guidelines for Organizational Audiences
Guidelines for Organizational Actors
Today's managers need to be skilled in the "stagecraft" of organizational life--to act their own roles effectively, and to be discerning reviewers of the other performers.
You can't judge a book by its cover" is one of the most enduring maxims of our time. Although this may be sound advice in many settings, it takes on special significance in the workplace. Here, as everyone knows, people are frequently judged by their "covers"--sometimes to their benefit, at other times to their detriment. As cultural diversity becomes an increasingly common fact of everyday worklife, the risks of placing an individual at disadvantage through an inappropriate judgment are well publicized. The new workforce simply must stand above the negative influence of unfortunate stereotypes based on ethnic background, race, gender, age, and other personal "externalities."
But what about the flip side of this coin? Is there any positive side to the human tendency to judge others by their covers? And, if so, what do we need to know to use this phenomenon to best advantage in the workplace?
ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE AS DRAMA
All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts.
William Shakespeare
Perhaps the answer to these questions can be found in Shakespeare's concept of the world stage. Shakespeare recognized that our lives are analogous to a drama--complete with the actors, audience, props, stage, and scripts for each performance, plus the reviews that follow. For us, the stage of interest comprises the many settings encountered in day-to-day organizational life. The players are the managers and other persons who give life to these settings.
Consider the typical employment interview. For both interviewer and interviewee, a major concern is to make a good impression on the other person. Doing so involves a choice of attire, selection of language, the use of manners, body postures, and many other considerations. Each participant is "on stage" and "acting" in ways specifically chosen to create the most favorable impression. The same seems true of almost any organizational event--from the chance meeting between peers in the hallway, to the choice of language and format for a memorandum. Scholars call this phenomenon impression management, the process through which individuals attempt to influence the impressions other people form of them. Skill in this process--for both managing one's image and identifying the impression management tactics of others--is becoming more significant for managers. This is especially true in settings where work events create pressures for quick decisions and spontaneous action, forcing the players to form "impressions" that serve as the foundation for later inferences. Indeed, skillful players in today's organizational dramas take great care in defining and playing their roles, because they realize the importance of their performance. Players who fail to recognize this aspect of organizational life run the danger of performing poorly, or unwittingly being relegated to lesser roles, such as extras or understudies.
Some people are oblivious to organizational dramaturgy. Their naivete may stem from a lack of experience in organizational settings, as is often the case for new recruits. Others may be aware of the drama, but consider themselves to be above such petty matters. While such naivete or aloofness may be understandable, it is not without cost. Rightly or wrongly, the success of both individuals and organizations as a whole depends, to a degree, on the skill with which impressions are managed.
Importantly, there are some precedents for this viewpoint. The influential sociologist, Erving Goffman, made an eloquent argument for the dramaturgical perspective in his classic, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. A concise summary of this approach appeared in management literature as early as 1977 in Victor A. Thompson's classic essay titled "Dramaturgy." In recent years, many management scholars have likewise come to recognize what researchers in social psychology have understood for years: Dramaturgy, or impression management, explains much about behavior in organizational settings. Given the attention and value attached to this concept, it is time for the basic notions that underlie this perspective to be made available to practitioners. Let's start with the key performance elements.
THE ACTOR. As Shakespeare observed, we are all actors in our lives. Because we are all different, there are some parts (e.g., father, manager) that we can legitimately claim, while other roles (e.g., astronaut, emperor) may be beyond our reach. The extent to which we can lay claim to certain identities depends on our physical attributes such as gender, race, age, height, weight, and attractiveness, our skills and abilities (e.g., athletic prowess, computer skills), and our psychological makeup, including our attitudes, values, beliefs, and personality. Together, these attributes help to determine the kinds of images we desire, and those that we can effectively claim.
THE AUDIENCE. Certain key characteristics of an audience, such as status, power, attractiveness, and familiarity, have a great impact on the ways in which people present themselves. All of us, for example, tend to have a heightened awareness of impressions we create when interacting with high-status audiences such as top executives or celebrities.
THE STAGE (i.e., Situation). Obviously, some situations (e.g., performance reviews, presentations) elicit far different behaviors than others (e.g., parties, family outings). Some have well defined norms for expected behaviors (e.g., awards banquets, staff meetings); others, such as an initial meeting of a newly appointed task force, are more ambiguous. Still, because "all meetings are theater" (complete with costumes, audiences, and props), as George David Kieffer notes in The Strategy of Meetings, actors may be able to "set the stage" to suit their objectives. Long tables can be used to indicate status (e.g., the head of the table) while discouraging participation; circular tables suggest equality and encourage participation.
THE SCRIPT. As people experience interpersonal exchanges over time, they develop certain expectations about the sequence of events they anticipate will unfold in similar situations. Cognitive psychologists call these sets of expectations scripts. For many activities--such as eating at a restaurant, shopping at the supermarket, or answering routine inquiries from customers--people tend to overlearn the scripts and follow them mindlessly. Less familiar situations may require actors to create original plans to guide their behaviors. For instance, a college senior on a first job interview may try to visualize the interview and practice answering the anticipated questions.
Some organizations go so far as to provide members with carefully constructed scripts to help them create desired impressions with key audiences. At Disney World, all "cast members" are taught the Disney vocabulary in which customers are "guests," rides are "attractions," and uniforms are "costumes." In addition, the guides for many attractions are required to memorize a script, along with several approved variations, which they recite verbatim. Clearly, this carefully orchestrated performance is one of the most dramatic and purposeful examples of organizational dramaturgy.
THE PERFORMANCE. The total performance consists of a combination of verbal (e.g., speech), nonverbal (e.g., body position, tone of voice), and artifactual (e.g, dress, office decor) behaviors. The nature of the performance also depends on the actor's interaction motives. Social psychologists have identified many motives for impression management, including the desire to be seen as likable, competent, dangerous, morally worthy, or even pitiful.
THE "REVIEWS" (i.e., Audience Reactions). Success occurs when the actor creates the desired impression and secures the expected outcomes (e.g., a compliment, a friendship, a promotion). A performance that fails may lead to unwanted audience reactions (e.g., boredom, disgust, anger, or amusement at the actor's expense). By and large, performances that create favorable reviews are much more likely to lead to desirable organizational outcomes, such as a positive performance appraisal, a promotion, or a pay raise. In view of the stakes, most people are very concerned about the image their superiors, peers, and subordinates have of them.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER--PERFORMANCES IN SITU
Let's consider how combinations of these components interact to produce a particular performance. To do so, we draw on the work of two prominent social psychologists, Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman, to present scenarios and commentary on five distinct types of assertive impression management strategies: ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, exemplification, and supplication. In addition, we also call attention to several defensive or face-saving tactics that actors use to repair a damaged image.Ingratiation: The Case of Steve Jacobson
The Actor. Steve Jacobson is one of fifteen copywriters employed by Jarvis, Jenkins, Anderson, and Jones (J.J.A.J., Inc.), a respected industrial advertising agency. Though happy with his job, Steve would like a position with more pay and status. His dream is to one day be a partner in this firm.The Audience. Steve's immediate superior is Sandra Jones, a partner and the firm's executive creative director. Recently, Sandra announced that she would be selecting one of the copywriters to take the lead in developing a campaign proposal for Waltrips' Pharmaceuticals, a potential 8 million dollar account. Steve saw this campaign as an excellent career opportunity, one that could increase both his visibility and income. Along with three other copywriters, Steve volunteered to head up the project.
The Performance. In the weeks following Sandra's announcement, Steve's behavior at the office changed considerably. He purchased and wore several new business suits and began using an expensive cologne. Whenever he saw Sandra, he smiled broadly at her and sometimes complimented her on her outfit, her hair, or some other aspect of her appearance. In addition, he made many favorable comments on her work, saying things like "Nice job with the Bartels account, Sandra. You really came through for us!" and "You're so creative; you've got a really refreshing perspective!" Furthermore, whenever Sandra expressed her opinion, work-related or not, Steve was sure to agree with her. He also went out of his way to do little favors for her. For instance, Steve brought her a cake on her birthday and arranged to have an office birthday party. On another day, he offered to make a stack of photocopies for Sandra, even though this was not part of his job duties.
The Reviews. Sandra's impression of Steve improved considerably. She had always thought of him as a competent copywriter, but she recently noticed several other positive attributes, such as his professional dress, his friendly manner, and his willingness to help others. Sandra also discovered that his ideas about advertising seemed very consistent with her own. Given these qualities, Sandra decided that Steve would be the best candidate for the Waltrips' campaign.
Scenario Analysis. Motives to ingratiate are most common in situations such as the one depicted, where the actor is dependent on a higher status person for the allocation of valued rewards. Under these circumstances, employees, such as Steve, often attempt to make themselves more attractive or likable to the target audience. Interestingly, actors often ingratiate themselves with their superiors without being consciously aware of their behavior.
While popular books like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People have long recognized the power of ingratiation, researchers are just now beginning to chart the extent to which this tactic is used. For example, when R. W. Allen and Associates interviewed managers to identify the most common political tactics they encountered at work, 35 percent of the supervisors and 17 percent of the CEOs mentioned ingratiation. The supervisors used expressions such as "buttering up the boss" and "apple polishing" to describe these tactics.
In our scenario, Steve used a variety of verbal (e.g., flattery, opinion conformity, favors), nonverbal (e.g., smiles), and artifactual behaviors (e.g., wearing new business suits and cologne) to ingratiate himself with Sandra His success with this tactic is not unusual; research indicates that ingratiating subordinates are better liked and receive more pay raises, favorable performance appraisals, and promotions than do equally qualified, non-ingratiating co-workers.
Ingratiation, however, is not without its risks. Motives to ingratiate are sometimes so transparent that superiors see through the act. When this occurs, ingratiation may backfire. Furthermore, if the target discusses the actor's behavior with others, his or her reputation could be further tarnished. Finally, the target's disgust may be accompanied by other negative outcomes such as verbal abuse, a poor performance appraisal, or even a demotion or termination.
Given the risks involved, it is clear that Steve's ingratiating behavior represented a gamble that paid off. With another audience, however, his rather blatant efforts could have backfired and hurt his image. For Steve, the opportunity to head up this project was well worth the risk. In making this choice, he was exposed to one of the great ironies of ingratiation: The situations in which actors are most tempted to use it are also the ones in which it is most obvious. Social psychologists call this tradeoff "the ingratiator's dilemma." Because of this dilemma, socially skilled subordinates avoid using lavish agreement, blatant favors, and direct praise for marginal work, since these behaviors are too obvious and lack finesse. Subtle ingratiation tactics include complimenting the target on a job well done, agreeing on major issues while disagreeing on minor ones, and asking a third party to confide with the target the actor's positive opinion of him or her.
Self-Promotion: The Case of Jane McDowell and Lance Adams
The Actors. Jane McDowell and Lance Adams are both management students who will soon graduate from a large miswestern university. Both have interviewed for a management trainee position with J-Line Hardware Company, a large wholesale hardware distributorship. Jane, an outstanding student with a 3.9 GPA, will graduate near the top of her class. She has been active throughout her college career in a number of student organizations and served as an officer in several She has some supervisory experience working in her family's restaurant business. Lance, on the other hand, is a good, but not exceptional student. He has a 3.1 GPA, no managerial experience, and has not been involved in extracurricular activities.The Audience. Albert Wesley, 44, is the sales manager and part-time recruiter for J-Line who interviewed both Jane and Lance. After earning a degree in marketing from PennState, Albert joined J-Line as a management trainee. He was promoted to his current position about five years ago. Overall, Albert's background is similar to that of about half of J-Line's other department managers; most are young males placed directly into management positions through the company's management trainee program.
The Performances. During Jane's interview, she was modest about her accomplishments and background. Assuming that her resume would speak for itself, Jane downplayed her credentials to avoid appearing conceited. She felt that quiet confidence was the best way to present herself. In contrast, Lance was very assertive. He claimed that he was familiar with the hardware business because his neighbor owns a highly successful retail hardware outlet. He also brought a fifty-page business plan he had developed with his work group in a small business management course. While Lance's actual input into this project had not been exceptional, he implied that he was the group leader and the key contributor. He wrapped up the interview by suggesting that his interpersonal skills separated him from most of the students in his class.
The Reviews. Lance impressed Albert as a highly assertive, ambitious individual--a real go-getter. While his GPA was not as high as Jane's, Lance seemed to have the interpersonal skills the job required. His background and attitude also seemed consistent with those of the other junior managers at J-Line. While Jane had the grades, she didn't seem assertive enough for a managerial position. Albert invited Lance to travel to J-Line's headquarters for a second interview, where he extended a job offer. Lance accepted.