Impression Management Styles Scale

Abstract

The Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS), developed by Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley in 1999, represents one of the most widely adopted psychometric instruments designed to assess deliberate interpersonal behaviors in organizational settings. Rooted conceptually in the seminal taxonomy of strategic self-presentation proposed by Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman (1982), the scale captures the degree to which employees deploy specific tactical behaviors to shape how they are perceived by organizational superiors, peers, and subordinates. The instrument comprises 22 self-report items distributed across five structurally validated dimensions: Self-Promotion (4 items), Ingratiation (4 items), Exemplification (4 items), Intimidation (5 items), and Supplication (5 items). Respondents rate the frequency of their tactical behaviors using a 5-point Likert-type frequency metric ranging from 1 (Never behave this way) to 5 (Often behave this way).

Extensive psychometric investigations have established strong structural validity, construct differentiation, and internal consistency reliability across diverse occupational, cultural, and organizational samples. Published studies consistently document Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding conventional psychometric thresholds: Self-Promotion (α = .88 to .92), Ingratiation (α = .80 to .91), Exemplification (α = .76 to .81), Intimidation (α = .84 to .89), and Supplication (α = .88 to .93). Confirmatory factor analyses confirm that the hypothesized five-factor oblique structure demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit indices relative to alternative unidimensional, two-factor, or hierarchical models. Criterion-related and predictive validity analyses link distinct impression management profiles to significant workplace criteria, including performance appraisal evaluations, supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs), career velocity, and perceived organizational politics. This article provides a comprehensive academic overview of the scale’s historical development, theoretical foundations, psychometric architecture, diagnostic applications, and administration standards.

Keywords

Impression Management Styles Scale, Bolino and Turnley, Impression Management, Organizational Politics, Self-Presentation, Ingratiation, Self-Promotion, Exemplification, Intimidation, Supplication, Organizational Behavior, Psychometrics

Authors

The Impression Management Styles Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by organizational behavior scholars Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley.

• Mark C. Bolino, Ph.D.: Michael F. Price Chair in International Business and Professor of Management at the Michael F. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States. Bolino has served as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Applied Psychology and Journal of Management. His research centers on organizational citizenship behavior, impression management, employee initiative, and organizational politics.
• William H. Turnley, Ph.D.: Professor of Management and Department Head in the College of Business Administration at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, United States. Turnley’s scholarship focuses on the psychological contract, employee social exchange processes, interpersonal influence tactics, and the social and evaluative dynamics of workplace behavior.

Purpose

In modern hierarchical organizations, employees frequently engage in intentional, goal-directed behaviors calculated to monitor, influence, and control the impressions formed of them by critical social referents, particularly direct supervisors, influential executives, and immediate coworkers. Prior to the psychometric work of Bolino and Turnley (1999), empirical organizational research on impression management (IM) was severely constrained by fragmented measurement methodologies. Existing instruments typically isolated single dimensions—most commonly ingratiation—or relied on broad influence tactics scales (such as Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson’s Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies) that confounded deliberate identity presentation with general political upward influence, coalition building, or bargaining behaviors.

The overarching purpose of the Impression Management Styles Scale is to operationalize an integrated, multidimensional measurement framework that directly reflects the full spectrum of strategic self-presentation styles identified in social psychological literature. By translating the conceptual schema formulated by Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman (1982) into an ecologically valid organizational instrument, the IMS enables researchers and behavioral analysts to systematically investigate both benign and coercive influence tactics within a standardized assessment tool.

The scale serves several critical empirical and applied functions:

• Differentiating Upward and Lateral Influence Tactics: It allows researchers to quantify the exact behavioral configuration an employee deploys, differentiating assertive competency signaling (Self-Promotion) from interpersonal liking strategies (Ingratiation) or moral duty displays (Exemplification).
• Analyzing Evaluative Paradoxes in Human Resource Decisions: In selection, promotion, and performance appraisal contexts, impression management tactics frequently distort objective performance data. The IMS provides human resource researchers with a diagnostic mechanism to detect tactical contamination of supervisory performance ratings and 360-degree feedback reviews.
• Investigating Employee Profiling and Cluster Configurations: Rather than evaluating tactics in isolation, the IMS enables researchers to perform person-centered analyses (such as latent profile analysis or cluster analysis) to identify behavioral archetypes, including “authentic performers,” “tactical manipulators,” or “passive specialists” (Bolino & Turnley, 2003).
• Mapping Toxic and Counterproductive Workplace Dynamics: Subscales such as Intimidation and Supplication provide insight into workplace bullying, power-dependency dynamics, passive-aggressive avoidance, learned helplessness, and psychological manipulation in toxic organizational climates.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the IMS is tactical interpersonal impression management within organizational environments. Defined within the behavioral sciences, impression management represents the process through which individuals consciously or unconsciously curate their self-relevant communication, emotional displays, body language, and workplace activities to project an identity consistent with their immediate social goals. In the Bolino and Turnley operationalization, this overarching construct is divided into five distinct behavioral subscales, each characterized by unique behavioral manifestations, desired social attributions, and psychological risks:

1. Self-Promotion

Self-promotion consists of verbal and behavioral communications specifically designed to highlight personal competence, capabilities, intellectual credentials, and past professional achievements. The focal actor’s core psychological objective is to be perceived by colleagues and leadership as highly competent, capable, and indispensable. Concrete behaviors include actively drawing attention to one’s work successes, emphasizing educational backgrounds, and claiming personal responsibility for favorable organizational outcomes. However, when deployed excessively or without tact, self-promotion risks triggering the attribution of arrogance, conceit, or competitive hostility among peers.

2. Ingratiation

Ingratiation involves tactical behaviors designed to elicit interpersonal attraction, interpersonal warmth, and subjective liking from targets. Based on social attraction and reciprocal liking paradigms, the focal actor engages in flattery, behavioral matching, opinion conformity, offering unsolicited favors, and exhibiting interest in the target’s personal well-being. The primary objective is to be perceived as likable, agreeable, and supportive. The corresponding psychological risk is that the target may detect the instrumental, calculated intent behind the praise, resulting in the actor being dismissed as a sycophant or manipulative flatterer.

3. Exemplification

Exemplification captures behavioral displays intended to project an image of extraordinary moral virtue, ideological commitment, self-sacrifice, and unyielding organizational dedication. Actors utilizing this style arrive at the workplace conspicuously early, remain demonstratively late, sacrifice personal time during weekends, and visibly endure professional hardships for the collective good. The desired attribution is to be recognized as exceptionally conscientious, ethically dedicated, and hardworking. The associated attributional pitfall is that observers may perceive the individual as self-righteous, sanctimonious, or engaging in performative martyrdom.

4. Intimidation

Intimidation involves forceful, coercive, and aggressive interpersonal displays aimed at projecting institutional power, interpersonal toughness, and potential danger. An employee employing intimidation threatens negative repercussions, displays emotional volatility, and forcefully challenges others to secure compliance or deter interference. The underlying attribution sought is not affection or virtue, but fear, formidable authority, and deference. The severe relational cost of this tactic is that it frequently generates resentment, interpersonal alienation, ostracism, and retaliatory counterproductive behaviors from peers and subordinates.

5. Supplication

Supplication is an impression management tactic characterized by strategic self-deprecation, feigned weakness, or the deliberate broadcast of personal limitations and vulnerability. Individuals using supplication project ignorance or helplessness regarding specific occupational tasks to illicit sympathy, social support, and direct instrumental assistance from coworkers or leaders. The desired attribution is being viewed as needy, humble, and deserving of aid. The prominent downside is that excessive supplication undermines professional credibility, leading colleagues to view the actor as genuinely incompetent, lazy, or unreliable.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Impression Management Styles Scale combines foundational sociometric perspectives from dramaturgical sociology, social cognitive theory, and strategic interpersonal attribution models.

Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model

The conceptual foundation of organizational impression management originates in Erving Goffman’s (1959) theatrical analysis of human social life in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman posited that social interaction is inherently performative. Human actors navigate complex socio-structural environments by engaging in “front-stage” performances, utilizing verbal scripts, expressive equipment, nonverbal gestures, and institutional settings to sustain a coherent, socially advantageous “face.” Bolino and Turnley’s instrument captures this front-stage conduct by measuring standardized, routinized performance routines deployed by organizational actors to safeguard their professional standing and project intentional social definitions of the workplace situation.

Jones and Pittman’s Taxonomy of Strategic Self-Presentation

While Goffman presented an ethnographic and structural overview of social performance, social psychologists Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman (1982) formulated the definitive taxonomic classification of strategic self-presentation styles. Jones and Pittman asserted that all interpersonal self-presentation strategies can be classified by the distinct power currencies they seek to amass through attributional management. In their framework, human actors systematically trade off different relational assets depending on situational constraints and personal capabilities:

• Power through Competence → Self-Promotion (attribution of competence)
• Power through Affection → Ingratiation (attribution of likability)
• Power through Moral Worth → Exemplification (attribution of integrity and dedication)
• Power through Fear → Intimidation (attribution of dangerousness and authority)
• Power through Pity → Supplication (attribution of helplessness and dependence)

Bolino and Turnley adapted this taxonomic model to organizational settings, recognizing that previous organizational measures failed to capture the simultaneous presence and interplay of these five discrete interpersonal influence modalities.

Signaling Theory and Social Influence Frameworks

Modern psychometric applications of the IMS increasingly incorporate Signaling Theory. In modern information-asymmetric work environments, decision-makers cannot directly observe an employee’s latent competence, underlying motives, or invisible moral commitment. Consequently, employees emit deliberate behavioral signals (such as long hours for exemplification, or explicit credential reminders for self-promotion) to reduce evaluator uncertainty. Evaluators, in turn, decode these observable behaviors to form cognitive appraisals that dictate critical organizational resources, salary raises, promotions, and developmental assignments.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Impression Management Styles Scale has undergone rigorous empirical examination across multiple cross-sectional, longitudinal, and multi-source research designs.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Bolino and Turnley (1999) evaluated the instrument’s construct validity using a sample of 268 working professionals enrolled in evening MBA programs and administrative staff across various industry sectors. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) utilizing oblique rotation confirmed that all 22 items cleanly converged onto five discrete latent factors corresponding exactly to the theoretical dimensions of Jones and Pittman (1982). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) subsequently demonstrated that the five-factor model yielded superior fit statistics compared to several plausible alternative structures:

• A single-factor general impression management model (χ²/df ratios exceeding 6.5, CFI < .65).
• A two-factor model separating assertive tactics (Self-Promotion, Intimidation) from defensive or relational tactics (Ingratiation, Exemplification, Supplication) (χ²/df > 4.8, CFI < .75).
• The hypothesized five-factor model, which exhibited excellent fit: χ²(199) = 368.22, CFI = .94, GFI = .91, and RMSEA = .056.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations, such as the validation study by Kacmar, Harris, and Nagy (2007) involving 384 employees, replicated this five-factor structure with robust fit indices (CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .058), confirming the instrument’s structural stability across differing organizational contexts.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses substantiate that the five subscales represent structurally independent behavioral strategies rather than collinear variations of a unified response set. Inter-scale correlations among the five dimensions are generally modest to moderate, typically ranging from r = .08 to r = .38. Ingratiation and self-promotion demonstrate low to moderate positive correlations (r ≈ .25 to .35), confirming that while an employee may utilize both tactics, they represent theoretically and operationally distinct influence modalities.

Convergent validity has been established through predictable associations with established personality, social, and political constructs:

• Self-Monitoring: As measured by Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale, high self-monitors display statistically significant, positive correlations with Ingratiation (r = .34, p < .01) and Self-Promotion (r = .41, p < .001), consistent with their tendency to actively manage expressive behavior (Bolino & Turnley, 2003).
• Machiavellianism: High scores on Machiavellianism (Mach-IV) correlate positively with Intimidation (r = .38, p < .001) and Supplication (r = .31, p < .01), demonstrating convergence with manipulative interpersonal orientations.
• Social Desirability Bias: Correlational analyses with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale indicate negligible to weak associations across subscales (ranging from r = -.12 to r = .09), showing that self-reported scores on the IMS are not artifacts of general social desirability responding.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The IMS exhibits strong predictive validity regarding substantive workplace outcomes. Multi-source studies matching employee IMS self-reports with supervisor ratings reveal divergent outcomes across subscales:

• Performance Appraisals: Bolino and Turnley (2003) observed that Ingratiation reliably correlates with positive supervisor ratings of overall performance (β = .24, p < .01), whereas Self-Promotion often exhibits a non-significant or even negative direct relationship with supervisory appraisals (β = -.16, p < .05), supporting the “self-promoter’s paradox” wherein explicit competence claims trigger skepticism.
• Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs): Exemplification positively predicts supervisor ratings of OCBs (Golparvar & Ghorayshi, 2015), though long-term tracking indicates that exemplification-driven citizenship is associated with higher levels of employee role overload, job stress, and burnout.
• Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Research by Kacmar et al. (2007) and Golparvar and Ghorayshi (2015) confirmed that high scores on Intimidation significantly predict higher levels of interpersonal deviance (r = .42, p < .001) and organizational cynicism.

Reliability

The Impression Management Styles Scale consistently demonstrates high internal consistency reliability across varied organizational samples and cultural translations. In the initial development study by Bolino and Turnley (1999), the internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for the five subscales were reported as follows:

• Self-Promotion: α = .88 to .92
• Ingratiation: α = .80 to .91
• Exemplification: α = .76 to .81
• Intimidation: α = .84 to .89
• Supplication: α = .88 to .93

Subsequent psychometric replication studies have reaffirmed these reliability standards. In Kacmar, Harris, and Nagy’s (2007) validation study across private sector enterprises, the estimated Cronbach’s alphas were .89 for Self-Promotion, .83 for Ingratiation, .79 for Exemplification, .86 for Intimidation, and .91 for Supplication. Composite reliability (CR) indices calculated via structural equation modeling regularly surpass the .80 mark for all five latent dimensions, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values typically exceed the recommended .50 threshold, establishing that the variance captured by each construct outweighs variance attributable to measurement error.

Test-retest reliability evaluations over longitudinal intervals (ranging from four to eight weeks) yield stability coefficients between r = .71 and r = .83, indicating that while impression management tactics fluctuate dynamically in response to acute situational pressures and organizational stakes, individuals maintain stable baseline behavioral styles over time.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the IMS was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, Bolino and Turnley (1999) administered an initial pool of candidate items to working adult cohorts. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was selected to accommodate theoretical intercorrelations among influence tactics. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeded .85, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity attained statistical significance (p < .001), indicating the correlation matrix’s suitability for factor analysis.

The screen plot inspection and eigenvalues-greater-than-one criterion unambiguously supported a five-factor extraction, accounting for more than 62% of the total variance. Item selection was governed by stringent psychometric retention rules: an item had to display a primary factor loading of at least .50 on its target factor, with secondary cross-loadings remaining below .30 on all alternative factors. Items failing to achieve these criteria were systematically pruned, resulting in the final, psychometrically stable 22-item instrument.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent CFA investigations across diverse independent organizational samples have robustly tested the construct validity of the 22-item measurement model. Representative standardized factor loadings from Bolino and Turnley (1999) and Kacmar et al. (2007) are summarized below:

• Self-Promotion Items (1–4): Standardized loadings range from λ = .74 to λ = .86 (all p < .001).
• Ingratiation Items (5–8): Standardized loadings range from λ = .68 to λ = .84 (all p < .001).
• Exemplification Items (9–12): Standardized loadings range from λ = .62 to λ = .78 (all p < .001).
• Intimidation Items (13–17): Standardized loadings range from λ = .71 to λ = .85 (all p < .001).
• Supplication Items (18–22): Standardized loadings range from λ = .78 to λ = .89 (all p < .001).

Goodness-of-fit evaluations confirm the stability of this oblique five-factor model. Competing models—such as a 1-factor general method model, an uncorrelated orthogonal 5-factor model, and various 3-factor consolidated models—exhibit substantial decrements in comparative fit, with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) indices heavily favoring the baseline correlated 5-factor specification.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete psychometric attributes and administration details of the Impression Management Styles Scale are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Multidimensional psychometric self-report behavioral frequency inventory.
• Author Origin: Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley (1999).
• Target Population: Working adults, administrative personnel, managers, team members, and organizational research cohorts.
• Total Item Count: 22 items.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Self-Promotion: 4 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4)
  • Ingratiation: 4 items (Items 5, 6, 7, 8)
  • Exemplification: 4 items (Items 9, 10, 11, 12)
  • Intimidation: 5 items (Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
  • Supplication: 5 items (Items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type behavioral frequency rating scale:
  • 1 = Never behave this way
  • 2 = Very rarely behave this way
  • 3 = Occasionally behave this way
  • 4 = Sometimes behave this way
  • 5 = Often behave this way
• Scoring Protocol: There are no reverse-coded items. Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or the sum of the items assigned to each respective dimension. Independent subscale scores range from 1.0 to 5.0 (when using mean scores) or from 4 to 20 / 5 to 25 (when using sum scores). Generating a single composite score across all 22 items is strongly discouraged, as the five dimensions represent distinct tactical repertoires rather than a single unified continuum.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Impression Management Styles Scale was first published in 1999 in the peer-reviewed academic journal Organizational Research Methods by Sage Publications. The scale items, scoring rubrics, and underlying psychometric properties were placed in the scholarly public domain for empirical, non-commercial scientific research.

• Publication Year: 1999.
• Copyright & Permissions: The scale items and validation data are copyrighted by the authors (Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley) and Sage Publications. Academic researchers may utilize the scale without paying licensing fees for non-commercial educational, scholarly, and scientific investigations, provided full scholarly citation and bibliographic attribution are given to Bolino and Turnley (1999).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial deployments, proprietary executive coaching programs, and for-profit recruitment assessments require formal licensing permissions through Sage Publications or the primary authors.

References

• 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(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819922005
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900202
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
• Golparvar, M., & Ghorayshi, R. (2015). Prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant behaviors through impression management components. Quarterly Journal of Social Work, 4(1), 3–15.
• Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kacmar, K. M., Harris, K. J., & Nagy, B. G. (2007). Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley impression management scale. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.17028
• Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2015). Measures of concerns with public image and social evaluation. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 448–473). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00016-6

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)