The study sought to determine the effect that impression management concerns would have on the perceptions of an intervention. Subjects were given the description of a reinforcement intervention and were asked to evaluate how employees involved might react. The description varied whether or not the reinforcing agent was the direct supervisor as well as whether the rei nforcement was delivered privately or publicly. Results showed that the means of delivering reinforcement affected how subjects perceived the intervention, regardless of the position of the reinforcing agent. The data were discussed in terms of their implication for organizational development specialists and human resource managers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrasik, F., Heimberg, J.S., & McNamara, J.R. (1981). Behavior modification of work and work-related problems. In M. Hersen , R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
3.
Christie, R., & Geis, F.L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Cummings, T.C., & Molloy, E.S. (1977). Improving productivity and the quality of work life. New York: Praeger.
5.
Fedor, D.B., & Ferris, G.R. (1981). Integrating OB Mod with cognitive approaches to motivation. Academy of Management Review, 6,115-125.
6.
Fletcher, C., & Spencer, A. (1984). Sex of candidate and sex of interviewer as determinants of self-presentation orientation in interviews: An experimental study. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 305-313.
7.
Giacalone, R.A. (1985). On slipping when you thought you had put your best foot forward: Self-promotion, self-destruction, and entitlements. Group and Organization Studies, 10, 61-80.
8.
Hendricks, M., & Brickman, P. (1974). Effects of status and knowledgeability of audience on self-presentation. Sociometry, 37, 440-449.
9.
Kopelman, R.E. (1984, August). The effects of objective feedback on work behavior and job performance: A comparison of results from field and laboratory experiments. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston.
10.
Kreitner, R. (1982). Controversy in OBM: Misconceptions, and ethics . In L. Fredericksen (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior modification. New York : John Wiley.
Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
13.
Parmerlee, M., & Schwenk, C. (1979). Radical behaviorism in organizations: Misconceptions in the Locke-Gray debate. Academy of Management Review, 4, 601-607.
14.
Pedalino, E., & Gamboa, V.U. (1974). Behavior modification and absenteeism: Intervention in one industrial setting. journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 694-698.
15.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1984). Cognitive dissonance and impression management explanations for effort justification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 394-401.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
19.
Tedeschi, J.T. (1981). Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press .
20.
Thompson, V. (1961). Modern organization. New York : Knopf.
21.
vonBaeyer, C.L., Sherk, D.L., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Impression management in the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
22.
Wood, R.E., & Mitchell, T.E. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 356-378.
