Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS)

Abstract

The Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS), developed by Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley in 1999, is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to operationalize and measure interpersonal self-presentation behaviors within organizational settings. Built upon the foundational theoretical taxonomy established by Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman (1982), the IMS captures five distinct impression management (IM) strategies: Self-Promotion (proactively displaying competence and achievements), Ingratiation (eliciting social liking through flattery and favors), Exemplification (projecting high dedication and moral integrity by going beyond formal expectations), Intimidation (projecting power and potential danger to compel compliance), and Supplication (advertising personal limitations or neediness to elicit assistance or avoid responsibilities). Comprising 22 items evaluated on a 5-point frequency-based response continuum ranging from 1 (“never behave this way”) to 5 (“often behave this way”), the instrument exhibits robust psychometric stability. Confirmatory factor analyses across diverse occupational samples consistently confirm its distinct five-factor latent structure over rival single-factor and multidimensional models. Internal consistency reliability coefficients across the subscales are consistently high, ranging from α = .76 to α = .93 across published validation studies. The IMS has evolved into a cornerstone assessment tool in organizational psychology, organizational behavior, management studies, and human resource development, providing critical empirical insights into supervisor-subordinate dynamics, performance appraisal biases, career trajectory determinants, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB).

Keywords

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

Authors

The Impression Management Styles Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by scholars in organizational behavior and human resource management:

• 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. Dr. Bolino’s sustained research program investigates impression management, organizational citizenship behaviors, employee voice, organizational politics, and the personal costs associated with proactive workplace behaviors.
• William H. Turnley, Ph.D. — Professor of Management and Department Head at the College of Business Administration, Kansas State University. Dr. Turnley’s scholarship centers on psychological contract violations, employee recruitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace ethics, and interpersonal influence tactics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS) is to provide organizational researchers and industrial-organizational practitioners with a standardized, psychometrically rigorous measurement instrument to capture the behavioral repertoire employees utilize to control and manipulate how they are perceived by organizational constituents, including supervisors, peers, subordinates, and clients.

Historically, research on impression management (IM) in organizational contexts suffered from methodological fragmentation. Prior investigations frequently employed ad-hoc items, focused exclusively on a single behavioral style (most commonly ingratiation or upward influence), or conflated impression management tactics with generalized organizational politics or Machiavellian traits. Bolino and Turnley (1999) addressed this theoretical and empirical void by translating Jones and Pittman’s (1982) widely accepted social-psychological taxonomy into a standardized organizational self-report tool.

In applied and empirical contexts, the IMS fulfills several distinct research and diagnostic objectives:

• Clarifying Performance Evaluation Biases: The scale enables investigators to examine how employees strategically influence subjective supervisory ratings, disentangling actual job competence from the communicative illusion of competence generated through self-promotion and exemplification.
• Exploring Social Exchange Dynamics: It illuminates leader-member exchange (LMX) mechanisms, illustrating how tactics such as ingratiation foster interpersonal liking, while intimidation and supplication alter relational reciprocity and supervisor trust.
• Differentiating Prosocial Behavior from Political Motives: The scale helps researchers differentiate authentic organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) from calculated, image-enhancing actions (such as staying late purely to project dedication under the guise of exemplification).
• Examining Behavioral Profiles: Beyond evaluating individual tactics in isolation, the IMS facilitates latent profile and cluster analyses, allowing researchers to study how individuals configure mixed tactical repertoires (e.g., using both high ingratiation and high self-promotion) and how these multifaceted profiles correlate with career outcomes, burnout, and managerial effectiveness.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the IMS is workplace impression management, defined as the deliberate or subconscious process through which individuals attempt to shape, influence, and monitor the social images and attributions made about them by others in their work environment (American Psychological Association, 2020). The scale delineates this overarching construct into five distinct, conceptually independent behavioral dimensions:

1. Self-Promotion

Self-promotion entails deliberate behaviors designed to persuade observers that the actor is competent, capable, and instrumental to organizational success. Individuals employing self-promotion actively communicate their past successes, technical abilities, educational credentials, and workplace contributions. The primary attribution sought is competence. However, if overused or executed unskillfully, self-promotion carries the interpersonal risk of making the individual appear conceited, arrogant, or boastful.

2. Ingratiation

Ingratiation reflects strategic behaviors targeted at increasing the actor’s interpersonal attractiveness and likability in the eyes of others. Ingratiators utilize targeted praise, flattery, displays of interpersonal warmth, personal favors, and active interest in colleagues’ private lives to cultivate social affinity. The primary attribution sought is likability. The inherent attributional hazard of ingratiation is the risk of being unmasked as insincere, manipulative, or obsequious (i.e., a “sycophant”).

3. Exemplification

Exemplification consists of self-sacrificing behaviors executed publicly to convince others that the individual is exceptionally dedicated, committed, moral, and hardworking. Exemplifiers frequently arrive at the office early, stay conspicuously late, work during designated rest periods or weekends, and attempt to look perpetually absorbed in productive tasks. The primary attribution sought is dedication and moral worth. When perceived negatively by peers, exemplifiers risk being characterized as self-righteous hypocrites or manipulative opportunists who artificially inflate peer expectations.

4. Intimidation

Intimidation involves aggressive, forceful, or coercive behaviors aimed at projecting power, authority, and an uncompromising demeanor. Actors use intimidation to signal that crossing or obstructing them carries tangible interpersonal or professional costs. Tactics include confronting coworkers abrasively, reminding others of retaliatory capacity, and leveraging forceful language to command compliance. The primary attribution sought is social power or being viewed as dangerous and formidable. The associated social cost is interpersonal alienation, ostracism, peer resistance, and the generation of a toxic social climate.

5. Supplication

Supplication represents an exploit of strategic vulnerability, wherein individuals advertise their weaknesses, lack of knowledge, or personal deficiencies to elicit assistance, compassion, or developmental exemption from peers and supervisors. Actors feign incomprehension, helplessness, or acute distress to induce colleagues to complete arduous tasks on their behalf or to be excused from unpleasant assignments. The primary attribution sought is neediness or helplessness. The major professional hazard of supplication is being branded as fundamentally incompetent, lazy, or unreliable.

Theoretical Framework

The IMS is deeply anchored in sociological, social-psychological, and organizational communication paradigms, integrating three major theoretical traditions:

1. Goffman’s Dramaturgical Analysis

The philosophical foundation of impression management stems from Erving Goffman’s (1959) seminal sociological treatise, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman proposed that social life operates analogously to a theatrical production. Individuals adopt roles, navigate “front stage” spaces (where behavioral performances are carefully staged for audience evaluation) and “back stage” domains (where actors can abandon social scripts and drop their facade). Bolino and Turnley’s instrument captures these front-stage performances within the organizational arena, where employees continuously curate verbal and nonverbal displays to preserve face, maintain normative social order, and maximize social capital.

2. Jones and Pittman’s (1982) Attributional Taxonomy

While Goffman established the metaphor of social dramaturgy, Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman (1982) provided the structural and functional classification of strategic self-presentation. They postulated that individuals systematically seek specific social attributions from power holders. Every interpersonal impression management strategy serves a distinct functional utility, pursues a specific sought attribution, and carries an inherent social risk, as summarized in the following conceptual matrix:

• Self-Promotion: Sought attribution = Competence | Inherent risk = Arrogance / Conceit
• Ingratiation: Sought attribution = Likability | Inherent risk = Insincerity / Sycophancy
• Exemplification: Sought attribution = Dedication / Morality | Inherent risk = Hypocrisy / Resentment
• Intimidation: Sought attribution = Power / Formidability | Inherent risk = Revulsion / Malice
• Supplication: Sought attribution = Neediness / Dependency | Inherent risk = Incompetence / Indolence

3. Social Influence and Strategic Agency Theories

In addition to attribution theory, the IMS is informed by social influence theories (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Ferris et al., 2002), which assert that organizations are inherently political arenas characterized by ambiguous performance standards and asymmetric resource allocation. In such environments, individuals are not passive task performers; they act as strategic agents utilizing upward, downward, and lateral influence tactics to navigate administrative politics, secure scarce promotions, and deflect negative scrutiny.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Impression Management Styles Scale across diverse cultural, industrial, and demographic settings.

Construct and Structural Validity

During its initial validation, Bolino and Turnley (1999) administered the instrument across multiple undergraduate and full-time employee samples. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated that the theorized five-factor model yielded an excellent fit to empirical data, outperforming alternative nested models (such as single-factor models or three-factor models combining ingratiation and self-promotion). Subsequent independent evaluations (e.g., Kacmar, Harris, & Nagy, 2007) confirmed this structural invariance, demonstrating that the five subscales capture distinct empirical phenomena rather than a singular, generalized political disposition.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The IMS exhibits strong patterns of convergent and discriminant validity when evaluated alongside established individual-difference constructs:

• Self-Monitoring: Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale correlates positively and significantly with IMS self-promotion and ingratiation dimensions, confirming that individuals with high self-monitoring orientations possess both the motivation and capability to deploy image-curating behaviors.
• Machiavellianism: Research demonstrates moderate positive associations between the Mach-IV inventory and intimidation and supplication subscales, validating that manipulative personality styles align with coercive and exploitative self-presentation strategies.
• Big Five Personality Dimensions: Subscale patterns align with theoretical expectations: Ingratiation associates positively with Agreeableness and Extraversion; Exemplification links with Conscientiousness; Intimidation links negatively with Agreeableness; and Supplication relates positively with Neuroticism.
• Social Desirability Bias: When examined against the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, IMS subscales maintain distinct variance, demonstrating that self-report ratings reflect substantive self-presentation styles rather than pervasive social desirability distortions.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive validity of the IMS has been validated across a range of vital organizational outcomes:

• Performance Appraisals: Bolino and Turnley (2003) revealed that self-promotion frequently backfires in upward evaluations when perceived as transparent, whereas ingratiation consistently enhances supervisor-rated interpersonal performance.
• Organizational Citizenship and Deviance: Golparvar and Ghorayshi (2015) demonstrated that exemplification and ingratiation significantly predict organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), whereas intimidation and supplication function as strong positive predictors of workplace deviance and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
• Political Skill Moderation: Kacmar et al. (2007) established that the effectiveness of IMS behaviors is heavily moderated by employee political skill; politically astute actors reap career benefits from self-promotion, while less skilled individuals incur penalties.

Reliability

The Impression Management Styles Scale consistently demonstrates exceptional reliability across empirical studies. Internal consistency, assessed via Cronbach’s alpha (α), comfortably surpasses standard psychometric benchmarks (α ≥ .70 to .80):

• Self-Promotion: Alpha coefficients range consistently between .88 and .92 across employee and managerial cohorts, indicating high homogeneity among items reflecting competence-based self-disclosure.
• Ingratiation: Internal consistency estimates range from .80 to .91, reflecting reliable measurement of interpersonal flattery and social favor-doing.
• Exemplification: Coefficients range from .76 to .81, a stable range reflecting targeted behaviors of voluntary public dedication.
• Intimidation: Reliabilities range from .84 to .89, demonstrating that items measuring aggressive and coercive behaviors load cohesively on this latent construct.
• Supplication: Subscale reliability is exceptionally robust, with alpha values reaching .93, verifying high internal item covariance.

Furthermore, composite reliability (CR) indices derived from structural equation modeling consistently exceed .80 across all five dimensions, and average variance extracted (AVE) values typically surpass the recommended .50 threshold, confirming that variance captured by each latent factor exceeds variance attributable to measurement error.

Factor Analysis

The factorial integrity of the IMS was developed and validated using a combination of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Structure (EFA)

During scale genesis, Bolino and Turnley (1999) conducted exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal components and principal axis factoring with both varimax (orthogonal) and oblimin (oblique) rotations. Across analyses, eigenvalues and scree test plots unambiguously demonstrated a clean five-factor solution corresponding directly to the five Jones and Pittman dimensions. All retained items exhibited primary factor loadings exceeding .50 on their target factor, with minimal cross-loadings (all secondary loadings < .30), confirming clear factor purity.

Confirmatory Factor Structure (CFA)

Confirmatory factor modeling across independent field samples demonstrated superior fit indices for the baseline five-factor correlated model compared to rival structural configurations:

• Five-Factor Model Fit: In Bolino and Turnley’s (1999) validation studies, the five-factor model achieved robust fit statistics: the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) was .91, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was .92, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) fell between .05 and .06, indicating an optimal balance of parsimony and explanatory power.
• Model Comparisons: Chi-square difference tests (Δχ²) demonstrated that the five-factor structure provided a significantly better fit (p < .001) than a one-factor generalized IM model, a two-factor model dividing tactics into assertive versus defensive styles, or a four-factor model combining self-promotion and exemplification.
• Independent Replications: In a comprehensive replication and extension study involving 437 full-time employees, Kacmar, Harris, and Nagy (2007) confirmed the structural stability of the 22-item inventory (χ²/df = 2.14, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .051), verifying that the underlying latent dimensions are robust across industry sectors, organizational hierarchies, and occupational roles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics and administration parameters of the Impression Management Styles Scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS)
• Alternative Titles: Bolino & Turnley Impression Management Scale; Jones & Pittman Organizational IM Measure
• Authors / Developers: Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley (1999)
• Construct Assessed: Frequency of strategic workplace impression management behaviors
• Total Item Count: 22 items
• Subscale Structure (5 Dimensions):
  • Self-Promotion: 4 items (Items 1–4)
  • Ingratiation: 4 items (Items 5–8)
  • Exemplification: 4 items (Items 9–12)
  • Intimidation: 5 items (Items 13–17)
  • Supplication: 5 items (Items 18–22)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type frequency continuum:
  • 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
• Administration Format: Self-administered questionnaire (paper-and-pencil or computerized/online assessment platform)
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes
• Scoring Protocol: Dimensional subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or sum of the items corresponding to each of the five subscales. No items are reverse-coded. Researchers may analyze dimensions independently, examine interactive product terms (e.g., Self-Promotion × Ingratiation), or apply cluster analysis to identify tactical behavioral profiles (Bolino & Turnley, 2003).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS) was formally published in 1999 by Mark C. Bolino and William H. Turnley in the peer-reviewed journal Organizational Research Methods. The copyright for the original article belongs to SAGE Publications.

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and non-profit scholarly investigations, the scale items are accessible and may be used without royalty fees, provided full bibliographic attribution is granted to Bolino and Turnley (1999). Organizations or commercial consulting practitioners intending to implement the IMS within proprietary diagnostic tools, corporate leadership assessment platforms, or commercial talent-management solutions should seek formal permissions and licensing agreements from the copyright holder and 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
• Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday 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.17066
• 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). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00016-4
• Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31–58). JAI Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)