How to Coach Yourself and Others Beware of Manipulation | Page 209

Even though lying to others about yourself may be almost as easy as lying to yourself, it is still
expected that subordinates will have a difficult time pulling off deceptive IM. The rationale for the
expectation is straightforward: Separately, both lying and IM are difficult to carry out successfully.
Combining the two and requiring that they be conducted successfully over a significant period of time
and under real-world conditions in which actual performance and contributions can be measured is, we
believe, a challenging task (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998).
Current study
The purpose of this study was to gauge the effects of these three different types of deceptive IM
conduct on the relationship with a supervisor, and the supervisor’s evaluation of the subordinate’s
behavior. More specifically, two key outcomes were measured: (1) leader-member exchange or
“LMX” (Graen & Scandura, 1987), which is the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and
the subordinate, and (2) the job performance of the subordinate as evaluated by the supervisor.
To study these deceptive IM practices in existing workplace relationships, supervisors in a division of a
southern-state tax-collection agency were surveyed. Although all 65 supervisors agreed to participate
and submitted surveys, only 59 could be matched to completed subordinate surveys. A total of 183
subordinates returned completed surveys usable for this study (for a response rate of 53%).
How common is it?
The first consideration was to examine the frequency of the 3 behaviours referred to above. The most
highly used form of deceptive IM was sycophancy, in that 86 percent of the respondents engaged in
this behavior. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents engaged in the practice of cover-up and 56 percent
in the practice of lying. Thus, while the respondents engaged in these behaviors at a relatively high
frequency, they were more likely to engage in sycophancy than lying.
Deceptive IM and outcomes
So, is it effective? The answer is “No.” We found that for the outcome of LMX, the relationship
between supervisor and subordinate, that lying was the only type of deceptive IM that played a
significant role. It had a negative impact, specifically leading to the deterioration of the supervisorsubordinate relationship (-.22, p<.00). However, when it comes to the supervisor’s evaluation of
performance, covering-up played the key role. It too played a key role: The more the subordinate
covered-up behavior, the less likely the supervisor was to evaluate performance highly (-.17, p<.00).
Interestingly, sycophancy, which was the most common form of deceptive IM, did not have any
significant effects on the relationship with the supervisor or the supervisor’s evaluation of the
performance of the subordinate.
Discussion
These findings support the idea that many employees are
actively engaged in three different types of deceptive
impression management. However, these are akin to
three roads, none of which leads to the planned
destination. Employees are most likely to engage in
sycophancy by providing deceptive information and
feedback to their supervisor in an attempt to flatter and
improve their supervisor’s impression. These results
suggest, however, that this behavior, while common,
doesn’t appear to affect either the relationship