![]() ![]() This in-depth article reviews the literature on impression management and provides a summary of the various ways to measure impression management. “Impression Management in Organizations: Critical Questions, Answers, and Areas for Future Research.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3 (2016): 377–406.ĭOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337 This review covers individual and organizational levels of analyses lists and defines the extant impression management behaviors and provides a typology of impression management tactics based on goal and focus of each tactic.īolino, Mark, David Long, and William Turnley. “A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors.” Journal of Management 34.6 (2008): 1080–1109.Īn important and detailed two-decade review of the impression management literature. Results suggest that unstructured interviews are most susceptible to impression management tactics.īolino, Mark C., K. ![]() “What You See May Not Be What You Get: Relationships among Self-Presentation Tactics and Ratings of Interview and Job Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94.6 (2009): 1394–1411.Ī comprehensive meta-analysis of the links between impression management and job-interview performance. ![]() 2016 summarized the research on impression management in organizations, providing a three-decade overview and including a summary of the various ways impression management can be measured.īarrick, Murray R., Jonathan A. 2008 then reviewed the research on impression management since the Gardner and Martinko 1988 article, offering a twenty-year update and including a typology of “good” and “bad” impression management tactics focused on either the actor or the target. These authors reviewed the extant impression management research and offered a model explaining how the impression management process unfolds for both actors (e.g., employees) and targets (e.g., coworkers, supervisors). The first of these was put forward by Gardner and Martinko 1988. In addition to these quantitative reviews, there are several conceptual and qualitative reviews of impression management. 2013 meta-analytically examined the gendered nature of impression management. 2009 then meta-analyzed the impression management literature in the context of job interviews and performance ratings, with a focus on the relationship between ingratiation, non-verbal behaviors (e.g., appearance), and performance. Gordon 1996 offered a meta-analysis of the relationships between the tactic of ingratiation and various workplace outcomes, and Higgins and Judge 2004 expanded that effort by including the tactic of self-promotion. There are many quantitative and qualitative reviews on impression management in the workplace. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |