Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by springer. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Licence. The original is licensed under CC BY 4.0. This page adapts it: the summary and analysis are ours, not the authors’.
Editorial verdict
Methodologically rigorous but limited by small samples and cross-sectional design; the counterintuitive finding that passive impression management predicts higher objective career success than active tactics is the headline result — treat the directional claims cautiously until replicated at scale.
Executive summary
This paper addresses how employees use combinations of impression management (IM) tactics and how those combinations relate to both objective and subjective career success. The authors argue that prior research examining single IM tactics yields inconsistent career-outcome findings, and that a person-centered, profile-based approach better captures the combinatory dynamics at play. Using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) across two Swiss employee samples (n=237 and n=268, the latter involving employee-supervisor dyads), the study identifies four IM profiles — passive, positive, moderate, and aggressive — and tests their associations with salary, promotions, supervisor-rated reward recommendations, and perceived career success. Contrary to hypotheses, passive IM users (low on all tactics) consistently achieved the highest objective career success across both studies, while aggressive IM users (high on both constructive and negative tactics) fared worst. Positive IM users reported the highest subjective career satisfaction. A novel 'moderate' profile was identified, potentially reflecting Swiss cultural norms of modesty. Limitations include small samples, cross-sectional design precluding causal inference, and some measures with below-recommended reliability. The authors call for future research examining mediating mechanisms and cross-cultural replication.
Key insights
- 1Passive impression management — using very low levels of all IM tactics — was consistently associated with the highest objective career success (salary, promotions, supervisor reward recommendations) across both studies, contradicting assumptions that active self-presentation drives career advancement.
- 2Aggressive impression management — combining high levels of both constructive and negative tactics (intimidation, supplication) — was associated with the lowest objective career outcomes, suggesting that indiscriminate tactic use may be perceived as inauthentic and undermine supervisor trust.
- 3A dissociation exists between objective and subjective career success: positive IM users (high ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification) reported the greatest perceived career satisfaction, while passive users reported the lowest, indicating that the same behaviour pattern can simultaneously optimise one career dimension while depressing another.
- 4A novel 'moderate' IM profile was identified in both Swiss samples, potentially reflecting cultural norms of modesty and diplomacy, suggesting that IM profiles may not be fully universal and may carry cultural specificity.
- 5The person-centred (profile) analytical approach revealed combinatory effects invisible in variable-centred analyses, helping to explain why meta-analytic findings on individual IM tactics show inconsistent relationships with career outcomes.
Practical takeaways
- Organisations designing performance management or promotion processes may find value in examining whether supervisor assessments are inadvertently influenced by employees' IM behaviours, given the finding that aggressive IM negatively affected reward recommendations.
- Career development practitioners and coaches can draw on the objective-subjective career success dissociation to help individuals understand the potential trade-offs between IM strategies that boost perceived satisfaction and those associated with tangible advancement outcomes.
Frameworks mentioned
Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)
A person-centred statistical method used to identify distinct subgroups (profiles) within a population based on patterns across multiple continuous indicator variables; used here to classify employees into IM tactic profiles.
References
- Jones and Pittman (1982).Strategic self-presentation theory.
- Bolino and Turnley (2003).Impression management taxonomy and profiling research.
- Maher et al. (2018).Impression management profiling research.
- Chawla et al. (2021).Impression management profiling research.
- Leary and Kowalski (1990).Two-component impression management model.
- Ng et al. (2005).Meta-analysis on career success predictors.
- Wayne and Liden (1995).Impression management and supervisor ratings.
- Turnley and Bolino (2001).Impression management tactics.
- Turban and Dougherty (1994).Mentoring and career outcomes.
- Zacher (2015).Career adaptability.
Source & Provenance
springer
Maike E. Debus, Pia V. Ingold, Christian Gross, Mark C. Bolino
May 24, 2024
Research Study
Europe
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article