The primary purpose of the current study was to extend previous research by examining actual leaders in a small group setting to empirically assess the efficacy of using leader impression management (LIM) as a predictor of group satisfaction. Specifically, the current study explored LIM as a predictor of group cohesion, consensus, and communication using a sample of 105 undergraduate business students from a midwestern university. Results indicated that the impression management (IM) tactic of exemplification was predictive of group cohesion, feelings regarding group member relationships and decision processes, and feelings regarding group decision outcomes. The IM tactic of ingratiation was positively related to group cohesion. Helplessness was negatively related to feelings regarding group member relationships and decision processes. No IM tactics were predictive of feelings regarding individual effectiveness. Implications for the research findings as they relate to management education and small group research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, C.M., & Martin, M.M. (1995). The effects of communication motives, interaction involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction: A model of small groups. Small Group Research, 26, 118-137.
2.
Anderson, C.M., & Martin, M.M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12, 1-31.
3.
Bartlett, M.S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3, 7-85.
4.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
5.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Black, S.A., & Porter, L.J. (1996). Identification of critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 1-21.
8.
Bormann, E. (1990). Small group communication: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Carron, A.V., & Brawley, L.R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.
10.
Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
11.
Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N., & Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
12.
Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.
13.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405.
14.
Comrey, A.L. (1973), A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
15.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
16.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger, R.N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 309-323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Cragan, J.F., & Wright, D.W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 45, 92-96.
18.
Cragan, J.F., & Wright, D.W. (1995). Communication in small groups (4th ed.). New York: West.
19.
DeStephen, R.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y., (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 19, 227-239.
20.
Evans, C.R., & Dion, K.L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
21.
Frey, L.R. (1999). Introduction. In L.R. Frey, D.S. Gouran, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. ix-xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Gardner, W.L., & Avolio, B.J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.
23.
Gardner, W.L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression management strategies associated with transformational leadership at the world-class level. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 3-42.
24.
Gardner, W.L., & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338.
25.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.
26.
Hare, A.P. (1980). Consensus versus majority vote: A laboratory experiment. Small Group Behavior, 11, 131-143.
27.
Hirokawa, R.Y., & Salazar, A.J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-making performance. In L.R. Frey, D.S. Gouran, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
29.
Jones, E.E., & Pittman, T.S. (1982). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Jurma, W.E. (1978). Leadership structuring style, task ambiguity, and group member satisfaction. Small Group Behavior, 9, 124-134.
31.
Kaiser, H.F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117.
32.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L.R. Frey, D.S. Gouran, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Langfred, C.W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance, Small Group Research, 29, 124-143.
34.
Leary, M.R. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leadership emergence and effectiveness. In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 343-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
McCall, M.W., & Lombardo, M. (1982). Using simulation for leadership and management research: Through the looking glass. Management Science, 28, 533-549.
36.
Megerian, L.E., & Sosik, J.J. (1996). An affair of the heart: Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 31-48.
37.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J.E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the group think hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189-204.
38.
Mulvey, P., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Klein, H. (1998). The effects of perceived loafing and defensive impression management on group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 29, 394-416.
39.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40.
Poole, M.S. (1999). Group communication theory. In L.R. Frey, D.S. Gouran, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Ralston, S.M., & Kirkwood, W.G. (1999). The trouble with applicant impression management. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 13, 190-208.
42.
Rosenfeld, L.B., & Gilbert, J.R. (1989). The measurement of cohesion and its relationship to dimensions of self-disclosure in classroom settings. Small Group Behavior, 20, 291-301.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
45.
Stewart, D.W. (1981). The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 51-62.
46.
Wayne, S.J., & Kacmer, K.M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70-88.
47.
Weinberg, S.B. (1979). Measurement of communication aspects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 8, 55-60.
