Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1991, Vol. 76, No. 5, 619-627 0021-9010/91/S3.00

Construction and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring

Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings
Kamalesh Kumar Michael Beyerlein
Department of Marketing and Management University of North Texas
Arkansas State University

A measure of the frequency of employees' use of ingratiatory behavior at work was tested with a
sample of employees (N= 116) working in a wide variety of organizations and jobs. Pilot testing
reduced a 65-item pool to a 24-item instrument with four factors: Other Enhancement, Opinion
Conformity, Self-Presentation, and Favor-Rendering. Internal consistency reliability was .92; test-
retest reliability over one month was .73. Evidence for content, convergent, and discriminant valid-
ity was substantial. The Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
should enable researchers to focus on the empirical study of ingratiatory behaviors in organ-
izations.

Power, influence, and political behavior are ubiquitous in
formal organizations. The concept of power and influence in
organizational settings can be broadly referred to as the general-
ized ability to change the actions of others in some intended
fashion (Mowday, 1978). Research on intraorganizational influ-
ence has focused on both downward influence (the ways in
which supervisors influence subordinates) and upward influ-
ence (the ways in which subordinates influence their supervi-
sors; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Linkskold, 1972).
Subordinates use a number of upward influence strategies to
obtain personal benefits or satisfy organizational goals (Allen,
Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkin-
son, 1980; Mowday, 1978). Such strategies include upward ap-
peal, assertiveness, blocking, coalition, exchange, rationality,
support building, and ingratiation (Kipnis et al., 1980; Schrie-
sheim & Hinkin, 1990). In this study, we concentrated solely on
ingratiation as an upward influence technique directed at im-
mediate superiors. Although ingratiation is just one of the up-
ward influence strategies used in organizational settings, it is a
distinct construct with its own set of causes and consequences
and therefore deserves to be studied separately from other up-
ward influence strategies (Liden & Mitchell, 1988).
Ingratiation: A Strategy of Upward Influence
tactics that are used by organizational members to gain the
approbation of superiors who control significant rewards for
them. These rewards are foreseeable and rather imminent. As
one of a large class of political influence processes that are
ongoing in organizations, ingratiation involves strategic behav-
iors designed to enhance one's interpersonal attractiveness. In-
gratiating actions are usually directed toward objectives that are
not made explicit by the parties involved. Thus, although ingra-
tiators may behave as though the issue at hand were their only
concern, they may be doing so to enhance their images in the
target person's eyes or to achieve other personal goals of which
the target person is unaware (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977).
In studies of upward influence in organizational settings,
ingratiatory tactics have been among the strategies most com-
monly used (Allen et al, 1979; Kipnis et al., 1980; Madison,
Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle,
1981). Ingratiation appears to be used in organizational settings
for the same reason it is used in general social settings—to
increase one's attractiveness in the eyes of a more powerful per-
son (Jones & Wortman, 1973). Enhanced attractiveness may
improve a subordinate's chances of positive rewards (such as a
raise, a promotion, etc.) or reduce his or her chances of receiving
a negative outcome (such as an adverse assessment, a cut in
pay, etc.).

The definition of ingratiation that guided this study is based

on Tedeschi and Melburg's (1984) definition of the term. In an
organizational context, ingratiation refers to a set of assertive
This study is based on Kamalesh Kumar's doctoral dissertation. He
wishes to express his appreciation for the assistance from his disserta-
tion committee, especially Warren Watson, Chair, and Mary Thi-
bodeaux.
We also thank three reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ka-
malesh Kumar, Department of Marketing and Management, College
of Business Administration, Arkansas State University, State Univer-
sity, Arkansas 72467.
619
Tactical Variations of Ingratiation
In the organizational context, ingratiation can take all or any
of the forms by which interpersonal attraction may be solicited.
In their laboratory experiments, Jones and Wortman (1973;
Jones, 1964) demonstrated the use of four major ingratiation
tactics: other enhancement, opinion conformity, rendering fa-
vors, and self-presentation. Because ingratiatory behaviors pri-
marily involve power-enhancing or dependence-reducing strate-
gies, the use of these tactics ought to be endemic in organiza-
tional settings, which abound in relationships involving
differential power. Although overt manifestations of such be-
haviors may at times be restricted, partially inhibited by legiti-
macy considerations, and occasionally eschewed because of the
620 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN

risks involved, the tendency toward such behaviors is neverthe- within the realm of empirical research and to create interest in
less present in organizations. a topic that remains underresearched.
The use of other enhancement as an ingratiation tactic in-
volves communication of directly enhancing, evaluative state-
ments. The ingratiator finds ways to express a positive evalua- Previous Measurement Techniques
tion of the target person and emphasizes various strengths and
A review of the literature on ingratiatory behavior in organi-
virtues. While distorting and exaggerating the target person's
zational settings revealed that no instrument had been devel-
admirable qualities to convey the impression that he or she is
oped to specifically measure ingratiatory behaviors in organiza-
highly thought of, the ingratiator calls little attention to or to- tional settings. Previous researchers, most notably those in so-
tally ignores negative attributes.
cial psychology, relied primarily on experimental designs to
Another set of techniques used by the ingratiator involves
measure this behavior or used items put together in an ad hoc
expressing opinions or behaving in a manner that is consistent
manner (e.g., Pandey & Bohra, 1984; Pandey & Rastogi, 1979).
with the opinions, judgments, or behaviors of the target person.
Examination of the scales used by these researchers yielded
The tactics involved in opinion conformity can range from sim-
very few items applicable to the study of ingratiatory behaviors
ple agreement with expressed opinions, through more elabo-
in organizational settings.
rate attempts at trying to articulate the position presumably
The only effort to construct a scientifically validated scale to
held by the target person, to extremely complex forms of imita-
measure ingratiation in organizational settings was made by
tion and identification (Jones, 1964).
Kipnis et al. (1980). In the course of their research on intraor-
Favor doing is a logical ingratiation tactic because people
ganizational influence tactics, Kipnis et al. identified a large
usually react in a positive manner when someone does some-
number of influence tactics, which they later factor analyzed to
thing nice for them (Jones & Wortman, 1973). This behavior is
create a number of subscales. One of the subscales (with six
based on the reciprocity norm—doing a favor for another per-
items) was labeled ingratiation. Although the influence-tactics
son can induce an obligation to reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960).
typology developed by Kipnis et al. has been generally sup-
Favor doing can also help foster an identity as a helpful, friendly,
ported by other researchers (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Erez,
and considerate person (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984).
Rim, & Keider, 1986; Yukl & Falbe, 1990), evidence regarding
Self-presentation as an ingratiation tactic consists of making
the psychometric properties of the scale has been lacking. Re-
explicit verbal statements of one's own attributes to increase the
cently, Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) extensively critiqued the
likelihood of being judged attractive by the target person. Self-
research of Kipnis et al. (1980). Schriesheim and Hinkin found
presentation has two related aspects: (a) providing explicit de-
that many of Kipnis et al.'s items do not have strong content
scriptions about one's own characteristics and behaviors and (b)
validity and that the factor structure found by Kipnis et al. does
behaving in ways that imply that one possesses certain charac-
not hold up particularly well.
teristics (Jones & Wortman, 1973).
After a number of studies (during which a number of items
were added and deleted), Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) con-
structed a refined 18-item instrument (six dimensions with 3
Ingratiation in Organizational Settings items each). However, by their own admission, their study dealt
with only a very limited subset of psychometric properties that
In recent years there has been considerable interest in ingra-
must be considered essential in a measuring instrument. Also,
tiatory tactics and consequences, but the topic has received
the subscale that measured ingratiation contained only 3 items.
little empirical attention from organizational researchers.
Clearly, the subscale did not include the four types of ingratia-
Much of the attention the topic has received is from social psy-
tion tactics noted by previous researchers. Although Schrie-
chologists (e.g., Baumeister, 1982; Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-
sheim and Hinkin's subscale may be useful for the study of
man, 1973; Riggio & Friedman, 1986; Tedeschi, 1981; Tedeschi
influence tactics in general, it is not comprehensive enough for
& Melburg, 1984), who made no attempt to generalize the find-
the specific study of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational
ings to organizational settings.
settings.
Study of ingratiation strategies within organizations has been
extremely sporadic. Porter et al. (1981) recently observed that
the subject of ingratiation has long been regarded as taboo be- Instrument Development
cause of its mildly disturbing, negative connotations, and that
researchers should try to develop a better understanding of the The instrument developed and validated in this study is
subject. However, in spite of occasional exhortations like Porter called Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Set-
et al.'s (Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Mel- tings (MIBOS). The scale was designed to measure the fre-
burg, 1984), little has been done to improve the situation. quency with which ingratiatory tactics are used by subordinates
The study of ingratiation in organizational settings requires in superior-subordinate relationships.
identification of specific tactics and some method of measuring Previous researchers have noted that the use of influence
the frequency with which such tactics are used. In this article, tactics will vary depending on the relationship between individ-
we report the development and validation of an instrument that uals (e.g., Falbo & Peplau, 1980) and that combining different
can be used to gather organizational members' perceptions of perspectives (superior, peer, subordinate) can substantially alter
the use of such tactics. Such an instrument should help to bring or distort the results relating to the use of influence tactics
the topic of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). Therefore, we deemed it impor-
 INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS
tant to ground the measure in the context of subordinates' di-
recting the tactics toward superiors.
Item Construction
On the basis of previous theory (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wort-
man, 1973; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi &
Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977) and research
related to upward influence behaviors in organizations (Kipnis
et al., 1980; Madison et al., 1980; Mowday, 1978; Porter et al,
1981; Schilit & Locke, 1982), we generated a pool of ingratia-
tory behaviors typically shown in organizational settings. Dis-
cussions with a number of employees, first-level supervisors,
and middle-level managers working in diverse environments
contributed further to the pool of items.
Sixty-five items were generated for the initial pool. Of these
65 items, 17 described opinion conformity, 18 were related to
other enhancement, and 15 items each were descriptions of
self-presentation and favor-rendering behaviors. These items
were analyzed by judges with different expertise (industrial psy-
chology, organizational behavior, strategic management, and
organizational communication). Each judge was an academic
with a doctoral degree and substantial industry and manage-
ment consulting experience. The judges reviewed the items for
clarity, appropriateness, and content validity. There was a gen-
eral consensus among the judges about the items included in
the initial pool of items.
All of the items in the pool were also examined by a group of
employees and managers working in different environments.
On the basis of the reviews of the experts and the employees,
items that appeared to be ambiguous or subject to response bias
were either rewritten or omitted. This screening process re-
sulted in the elimination of 10 items, leaving a pool of 55 items
in the initial test instrument.
Pretesting
The instrument with 55 items was first administered to a
sample of management students (N= 78) who were full-time or
part-time employees attending evening classes. The subjects
were employed in a wide variety of organizations (retail, manu-
facturing, wholesale, service, government, etc.) and jobs (man-
ual, clerical, first-line supervisor, middle-level manager, etc.).
The instrument required the subjects to indicate the extent to
which they actually used the behaviors described by the items
to influence their supervisors. Subjects were specifically cau-
tioned not to make any judgment about the desirability or un-
desirability of the behaviors described and to merely report the
frequency with which they showed each of these behaviors
when dealing with their supervisors. Responses were recorded
on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: never
do it (1), seldom do it (2), occasionally do it (3), often do it (4), and
almost always do it (5). Because subjects were to report the
frequency of actual behaviors, high scores should indicate more
use of ingratiatory tactics.
Item Selection
One of the objectives at this stage of scale construction was to
select those items that provided the most accurate and appro-
621
priate description of the behavior under investigation. Items
with higher item-total correlations were retained. To minimize
skewness and maximize variance, items with both larger means
(around 3.0) and larger variances were retained. These proce-
dures resulted in the elimination of 28 items, leaving the instru-
ment with 27 items. The item-total correlations of these 27
items ranged from .38 to .69. The scale was further reviewed for
clarity, and where necessary, minor changes in wording were
made.
Phase 1: Item Selection
The scale with 27 items was administered to a new sample of
business students (N= 148) who were employed either full time
or part time. Once again, the sample represented a wide variety
of jobs and organizations. Subjects were simultaneously admin-
istered the short version of Crown and Marlowe's Social Desir-
ability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to check if they were
responding to the various items on the scale in a socially desir-
able manner.
Item Review
Two criteria were used in item selection at this stage: item-to-
tal correlations and lack of significant correlation with the So-
cial Desirability Scale. On the basis of these criteria, 3 more
items were dropped from the scale, leaving a total of 24 items.
The item-total correlations for the remaining 24 items ranged
from .45 to .66. The total score on the ingratiation scale did not
correlate significantly with the total score on the Social Desir-
ability Scale (r = .02). Correlations between each ingratiation
item and the total score on the Social Desirability Scale ranged
from .00 to .09 and were not statistically significant.
Of the final 24 items, 7 each represented the categories of
opinion conformity and other enhancement, 6 items repre-
sented the favor-rendering category, and 4 items represented the
self-presentation category. The median score on the scale was
67, the mean was 66.24, and the standard deviation was 14.65.
The means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations
for MIBOS are presented in Table 1.
Factor Analysis
Scores obtained on MIBOS were factor analyzed with the
principal components method and oblique factor rotation. Be-
cause the purpose of factor analysis at this stage was to obtain
theoretically meaningful dimensions, oblique factor rotation
was considered more desirable than orthogonal rotation (Hair,
Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Nineteen of the 24 items loaded
on two factors (eigenvalues 7.6 and 1.4), which accounted for
over 37% of the variance (N = 148). Five items loaded rather
weakly on more than one factor. Thus, the results of the factor
analysis at this stage were somewhat inconclusive.
Subsequently, a second factor analysis was conducted with
data from another and much larger group of subjects (N= 346).
Results of this second factor analysis yielded a four-factor solu-
tion, generally interpretable in terms of the four ingratiation
dimensions that were identified from theory and past research.
These four factors accounted for 56.1% of the variance. How-
622 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations for 24-Item Measure
of Ingratiating Behavior in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
Item- Item-
total total
Item M SD r Item M SD r
1. Impress upon your supervisor that 13. Ask your supervisor for advice in
only he/she can help you in a given areas in which he/she thinks he/she
situation mainly to make him/her is smart to let him/her feel that
feel good about himself/herself. 2.89 0.89 .55 you admire his/her talent. 3.11 1.06 .66
2. Show him/her that you share his/ 14. Try to do things for your
her enthusiasm about his/her new supervisor that show your selfless
idea even when you may not generosity. 3.16 1.06 .56
actually like it. 3.34 0.88 .45 15. Look out for opportunities to
3. Try to let him/her know that you admire your supervisor. 3.36 1.04 .60
have a reputation for being liked. 3.51 1.23 .45 16. Let your supervisor know the
4. Try to make sure that he/she is attitudes you share with him/her. 2.80 1.08 .65
aware of your successes. 2.77 1.13 .51 17. Compliment your supervisor on
5. Highlight the achievements made his/her achievement, however
under his/her leadership in a trivial it may actually be to you
meeting not being attended by personally. 3.22 1.07 .52
him/her. 3.25 1.13 .58 18. Laugh heartily at your supervisor's
6. Give frequent smiles to express jokes even when they are not really
enthusiasm/interest about funny. 3.68 1.02 .51
something he/she is interested in 19. Go out of your way to run an
even if you do not like it. 3.10 1.03 .57 errand for your supervisor. 3.07 1.14 .54
7. Express work attitudes that are 20. Offer to help your supervisor by
similar to your supervisor's as a using your personal contacts. 3.23 1.18 .60
way of letting him/her know that 21. Try to persuasively present your
the two of you are alike. 3.01 1.10 .64 own qualities when attempting to
8. Tell him/her that you can learn a convince your supervisor about
lot from his/her experience. 3.11 1.20 .63 your abilities. 2.95 1.09 .59
9. Exaggerate his/her admirable 22. Volunteer to be of help to your
qualities to convey the impression supervisor in matters like locating
that you think highly of him/her. 3.57 1.02 .65 a good apartment, finding a good
10. Disagree on trivial or unimportant insurance agent, etc. 3.47 1.22 .53
issues but agree on those issues 23. Spend time listening to your
in which he/she expects support supervisor's personal problems
from you. 3.44 0.93 .52 even if you have no interest in
11. Try to imitate such work behaviors them. 3.11 1.23 .45
of your supervisor as working late 24. Volunteer to help your supervisor
or occasionally working on in his/her work even if it means
weekends. 3.34 1.09 .52 extra work for you. 2.85 1.07 .63
12. Look for opportunities to let the
supervisor know your virtues/ Total 66.24 14.65
strengths. 2.58 1.04 .56
Note. A^ 148. Scores were nearly normally distributed. Responses ranged from never do it (I) to almost always do it (5).

ever, four of the items continued to load (.30 or above) on more
than one factor. Also, three of the items did not load on the
specific ingratiation dimension that they were intended to as-
sess.
Table 2 lists the items intended to assess each of the four
ingratiation dimensions (e.g., other enhancement, opinion con-
formity, self-presentation, and favor rendering). Also presented
are the loadings of the items, eigenvalues of the four factors, and
the percentage of variance explained by each factor.
Analysis of interfactor relationships revealed that these fac-
tors were moderately to highly correlated (between .22 and .65)
with each other. This finding is somewhat in line with the re-
sults of previous researchers who have investigated the use of
ingratiation in laboratory settings. For example, both Jones
(1964) and Jones and Wortman (1973) found strong relation-
ships between different ingratiation tactics. In experimental re-
search in which subjects were asked to respond to items de-
scribing various types of ingratiation tactics, Pandey (1981)
noted that subjects did not discriminate much between differ-
ent tactics—they either behaved or did not behave in an ingra-
tiating manner.
Reliability
Two approaches were adopted for determining the reliability
of the instrument: internal consistency (consistency of individ-
ual items with each other) and test-retest reliability (the stabil-
ity of scores over time). The internal consistency of MIBOS was
.92 (Cronbach's alpha; N= 148). This high alpha level suggests
that subjects responded to the individual items in a consistent
manner throughout the test. The split-half reliability test, a
method that estimates the consistency of responses through the
 INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS 623

Table 2
Factor Analysis of Measure of Ingratiating Behavior in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)

Factor
Ingratiation
Item dimension 1 2 3 4
1 . Impress upon your supervisor that only he/she can help you
in a given situation mainly to make him/her feel good about
himself/herself. Other enhancement .33 .04 .52 .32
2. Show him/her that you share his/her enthusiasm about his/
her new idea even when you may not actually like it. Opinion conformity .10 .11 .80 .19
3. Try to let him/her know that you have a reputation for being
liked. Self-presentation .19 .12 .40 .54
4. Try to make sure that he/she is aware of your successes. Self-presentation .18 .10 .23 .81
5. Highlight the achievements made under his/her leadership
in a meeting not being attended by him/her. Other enhancement .47 .15 .19 .29
6. Give frequent smiles to express enthusiasm/interest about
something he/she is interested in even if you do not like it. Opinion conformity .27 .09 .74 .04
7. Express work attitudes that are similar to your supervisor's
as a way of letting him/her know that the two of you are alike." Opinion conformity .42 .15 .49 .25
8. Tell him/her that you can learn a lot from his/her experience. Other enhancement .76 .07 .08 .15
9. Exaggerate his/her admirable qualities to convey the
impression that you think highly of him/her. Other enhancement .65 .14 .32 .09
10. Disagree on trivial or unimportant issues but agree on those
issues in which he/she expects support from you.* Opinion conformity .41 .14 .24 .29
1 1 . Try to imitate such work behaviors of your supervisor as
working late or occasionally working on weekends." Opinion conformity .31 .34 .24 .30
12. Look for opportunities to let the supervisor know your
virtues/strengths. Self-presentation .30 .20 .08 .72
13. Ask your supervisor for advice in areas in which he/she
thinks he/she is smart to let him/her feel that you admire
his/her talent. Other enhancement .62 .15 .37 .19
14. Try to do things for your supervisor that show your selfless
generosity." Favor rendering .48 .46 .26 .14
15. Look out for opportunities to admire your supervisor. Other enhancement .62 .28 .34 .20
16. Let your supervisor know the attitudes you share with him/
her. Opinion conformity .58 .30 .01 .24
17. Compliment your supervisor on his/her achievement,
however trivial it may actually be to you personally. Other enhancement .56 .31 .30 .14
1 8. Laugh heartily at your supervisor's jokes even when they are
not really funny. Opinion conformity .16 .31 .71 .05
19. Go out of your way to run an errand for your supervisor. Favor rendering ,22 .63 .35 .05
20. Offer to help your supervisor by using your personal contacts. Favor rendering .39 .67 .03 .19
2 1 . Try to persuasively present your own qualities when
attempting to convince your supervisor about your abilities. Self-presentation .21 .25 .03 .48
22. Volunteer to be of help to your supervisor in matters like
locating a good apartment, finding a good insurance agent,
etc. Favor rendering .19 .74 .07 .21
23. Spend time listening to your supervisor's personal problems
even if you have no interest in them. Favor rendering .11 .77 .14 .08
24. Volunteer to help your supervisor in his/her work even if it
means extra work for you. Favor rendering .05 .73 .10 .12
Eigenvalue 9.08 1.90 1.45 1.02
Percentage of variance explained 37.8 7.9 6.0 4.3
Cumulative percentage of variance explained 37.8 45.8 51.8 56.1

" This item loaded on more than one factor.

correlation of one half of the items with the other half, yielded a
coefficient of .86 (N= 148).
Reliability was also assessed in terms of the consistency of
scores from different administrations over a period of time.
Correlations of .69 or better for a one-month period between
administrations have been considered reasonably stable (Cron-
bach, 1986). MIBOS was administered twice at a one-month
interval. The scores from the two administrations showed a
correlation of .73 (N = 148), confirming the stability of re-
sponses to the instrument and suggesting the stability of the
ingratiatory tendency.
Check for Acquiescence Response Set
Because all the items on MIBOS are positively worded,
scores on the scale may be affected by the tendency to agree or
disagree regardless of the context. Some researchers have ar-
gued that much of the evidence traditionally regarded as acqui-
624 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
escence is better interpreted in terms of a subject's reaction to
the content of the items and that content-independent response
styles are not a major contaminant of questionnaire responses
(e.g., Rorer, 1965). However, it was still deemed important to
determine whether the scores on MIBOS were affected to any
significant extent by acquiescence response set.
To determine the influence of acquiescence, we correlated
scores on MIBOS with scores on the Acquiescence Scale
(Couch & Keniston, 1960). The Acquiescence Scale measures
the general tendency to agree or disagree with questionnaire
items, regardless of their content. Scores from the two scales
(TV = 51) correlated .11, thereby confirming that the manner in
which the MIBOS items were worded had no significant effect
on the responses given.
Phase 2: Content and Convergent Validities
MIBOS was administered to various types of employees
working in different work environments. The first sample con-
sisted of 353 graduate business administration and senior un-
dergraduate students. All students were employed full-time or
part-time and had at least one year of full-time work experi-
ence. Seven students were dropped from the analysis because of
missing data. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were men,
and 41 % were women. Over 80% of the respondents had three
years or more of full-time work experience. The majority of the
respondents (82%) were in either nonmanagerial or first-line
supervisory positions; 17% were in middle-level management
positions; only 1% were in top-management positions. Such a
sample meant that more respondents had supervisors than had
subordinates. This was particularly suitable for our study be-
cause MIBOS specifically measures ingratiatory behaviors ex-
hibited by subordinates in superior-subordinate relationships.
The second sample consisted of 52 employees working in
home electronics and household appliances manufacturing
companies in the mid-South. All the employees in this sample
were in either nonmanagerial or first- to middle-level positions.
They were working on a variety of technical and administrative
jobs.
Content Validity
A scale has content validity if the substance of the items
included in the instrument tap the construct of interest to be
measured and if the items are representative of the content area.
We selected items for MIBOS after an extensive search of both
the theoretical and empirical research literature. All possible
tactical variations of ingratiatory behaviors were noted, and
each was given a fair representation in the scale. The contents of
the scale were also examined by employees and managers from
many different types of organizations for the appropriateness
of the behavior descriptions. The individual items on the scale
were further reviewed by experts from the field of industrial
psychology, organizational behavior, strategic management,
and organization theory. As such, the scale can be expected to
have both face validity and logical content validity.
Convergent Validity
The classical view of convergent validity suggests that a new
measure of a construct like ingratiation ought to covary with
other measures that purport to measure the same construct.
Proceeding on this line, we compared MIBOS scores with
scores on the ingratiation subscale of Kipnis et al. (1980) and
the refined three-item version of this subscale recently con-
structed by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990).
Convergent validity also refers to the association of the mea-
sure being validated with measures of other theoretically rele-
vant constructs. To test the convergent validity of MIBOS, we
administered it simultaneously with the following measures:
Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1988), Mach IV Scale
(Christie & Geis, 1970), Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974),
and the Need for Power scale from the Manifest Needs Ques-
tionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Each of these constructs
has been identified as a critical factor in the study of ingratia-
tory behaviors in organizations (Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Porter
et al., 1981; Ralston, 1985), and as such, scores on MIBOS ought
to correlate significantly with scores on these scales. The ratio-
nale for using these scales for convergent validation is discussed
below. The correlations are presented in Table 3.
Self-monitoring skill. A series of studies conducted by
Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder, 1974) revealed that individ-
uals differ in the extent to which they are attentive and respon-
sive to situational cues as guides to appropriate behaviors. Peo-
ple who score high on self-monitoring seek more information,
exhibit more accuracy in diagnosing social situations, and are
more able to pragmatically tailor their behavior to fit the situa-
tion. High self-monitors also seem to be more adept at impres-
sion management (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Self-monitoring
skill, therefore, is an important individual characteristic that
may help determine a person's propensity for political influ-
ence strategies like ingratiation. Scores obtained on MIBOS
correlated .46 for the working student sample and .37 for the
manufacturing employee sample with scores on the Self-Moni-
toring Scale.
Table 3
Correlations Between Measure of Ingratiating Behavior
in Organizational Settings (MIBOS) and
Measures of Similar Constructs
Working Manufacturing
student employee
Scale sample3 sampleb
Self-Monitoring Scale
(Snyder, 1974) .46** .37*
Need for Power
(Steers & Braunstein, 1976) .40** .46**
Work Locus of Control
(Spector, 1988) .35** .29*
Mach IV Scale
(Christie & Geis, 1970) .34** —
Schriesheim & Hinkin's (1990)
ingratiation scale — .63**
Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson's (1980)
ingratiation subscale — .57**
Note. The manufacturing employees did not complete the Mach IV
scale, and the working students did not complete either of the ingratia-
tion scales.
a
7V=345. b 7V=52.
*/><.01. **p<.001.
 INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS
Need for power. People with a high need for power attempt
to achieve control over their work environment and try to influ-
ence other people. Such people can be expected to increase
influence attempts as a way of affecting important outcomes
(Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Therefore, a strong positive correla-
tion can be expected between MIBOS scores and the need for
power as measured by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire
(Steers & Braunstein, 1976). MIBOS and need for power scores
correlated .40 for the working student sample and .46 for the
manufacturing employee sample.
Locus of control. Rotter's (1966) theory of the locus of con-
trol holds that individuals differ in a systematic manner in their
beliefs about their personal successes and failures. Individuals
with an internal locus of control tend to believe that their out-
comes are the result of the ability and effort that they apply,
whereas individuals with an external locus of control believe
that their personal outcomes are the result of factors outside
their own control or luck. Therefore, individuals with internal
locus of control ought to be more inclined to try to affect the
outcomes they receive. In situations in which ingratiation is
likely (for example, situations involving supervisor-subordinate
dyads), internals ought to make greater efforts to secure desired
outcomes and obtain their personal objectives (Ralston, 1985).
Hence, persons with an internal locus of control can be ex-
pected to use ingratiatory tactics more often than persons with
an external locus of control. Scores on MIBOS correlated .35
(for the working student samples) and .29 (for the manufactur-
ing employee sample) with scores on the Work Locus of Control
scale (Spector, 1988).
Machiavellianism. People who score high on the Mach IV
Scale have been characterized as manipulators of other people.
High Machiavellians tend to initiate and control the structure
of interpersonal relations (Christie & Geis, 1970). Ralston
(1985) proposed that individuals who seek to control and manip-
ulate others tend to use manipulative tactics, such as ingratia-
tion, more often. There is also some experimental support for
this contention (Pandey & Rastogi, 1979). Thus, scores on the
Mach IV Scale can be expected to correlate reasonably highly
with scores on MIBOS. The correlation was .34.
Phase 3: Discriminant Validity
To establish discriminant validity, we administered MIBOS
to multiple and diverse samples. The first sample consisted of
52 employees (also used for convergent validation) working in
manufacturing industries in the mid-South.
The second sample (N= 216) consisted of a number of sub-
samples. Of the 216 employees in this sample, 57 employees
were working in government organizations, 88 employees were
in retailing, and 71 employees were in service organizations
(banking, insurance, real estate, etc.). These employees worked
in a variety of jobs (technical, clerical, administrative, etc.) and
were simultaneously enrolled in one of two major universities in
the South and Southwest.
Beginning with the landmark work of Kipnis et al. (1980), a
number of researchers have examined the interpersonal influ-
ence processes in organizations (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987;
Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez et al., 1986; Schriesheim & Hinkin,
1990). These researchers identified a number of interpersonal
625
influence tactics used in organizational settings. Important
among these are assertiveness, rationality, exchange of benefits,
upward appeal, blocking, and coalition.
As interpersonal influence tactics shown by subordinates in
organizations, ingratiatory behaviors ought to be related to
other types of interpersonal influence tactics shown by employ-
ees in organizations. However, if ingratiatory behavior is to be
explicated successfully and identified as a unique interpersonal
behavior, it must demonstrate acceptable levels of discriminant
validity when compared with other interpersonal influence tac-
tics.
In the past, researchers have used similar methods to estab-
lish the discriminant validity of new organizational behavior
constructs (Mowday & Steers, 1979). Accordingly, to investigate
the discriminant validity of MIBOS, we compared it with five
other interpersonal influence tactics: assertiveness, rationality,
exchange of benefits, upward appeal, and coalition. These influ-
ence tactics were measured with the refined and revised version
of Kipnis et al.'s (1980) scale (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).
Results are presented in Table 4.
Several lines of evidence emerge from these results, each dem-
onstrating the discriminant validity of MIBOS. All five influ-
ence tactics used for comparison involve upward influence—
attempts to influence someone higher in formal authority in
the organization (Porter et al., 1981). First, the relationship be-
tween ingratiation and the exchange measure was the highest,
ranging from .23 to .35 across the four samples. In an upward
influence situation, ingratiation and exchange are both used to
gain the approbation of a superior who controls significant re-
wards. Because the behaviors are somewhat similar, a positive
correlation between the two would be expected. However, be-
cause ingratiation as a construct is distinct from other upward
influence tactics, such correlations should be only moderate.
The extent of correlation between the measures of ingratiation
and exchange is quite similar to that noted by Yukl and Falbe
(1990), who measured the use of these two behaviors with sin-
gle-item scales.
Second, correlations between MIBOS scores and scores on
the assertiveness and upward-influence measures were among
the lowest, ranging from .08 to .28. When compared with the
manipulative intent that is often associated with the use of in-
Table 4
Discriminant Validity of Measure of Ingratiating Behavior
in Organizational Settings (MIBOS)
Employed students in
Manufacturing
Upward-influence employees Government Retailing Service
tactic8 (n = 52) (n = 57) (n = 88) (n = 71)
Assertiveness .13 .08 .20 .28*
Rationality .26* .16 .11 .09
Exchange .23* .33** .25* .35**
Upward influence .13 .23* .27* .18*
Coalition .11 .28* .20 .12
* Measured with Schriesheim and Hinkin's (1990) revision of Kipnis,
Schmidt, and Wilkinson's (1980) scale.
*p<.05. **/><.01.
626 KAMALESH KUMAR AND MICHAEL BEYERLEIN
gratiation, both assertiveness and upward influence are more
direct, demanding, and somewhat less political influence tac-
tics. Thus, even though all these tactics are designed to secure
favorable outcomes from one's supervisor, they are different
constructs. The low correlations (mean correlations of .17) be-
tween ingratiation and these two other measures of upward
influence provide some indication of an acceptable level of
discriminant validity for MIBOS.
Ingratiation is a political strategy that is largely manipulative
in nature. As such, it should not be related to the direct persua-
sion tactic of rationality. Correlations ranged from .09 to .26.
The low relationship between rationality and MIBOS scores
provides further support for the distinctiveness of ingratiation
as an influence strategy.
Finally, across all four samples, correlations between MIBOS
and coalition scores ranged from .11 to .28. Coalition tactics
include persuasion and creating pressure by obtaining the sup-
port of others (Kipnis et al., 1980). Although such behaviors
may involve covert influence (Yukl & Falbe, 1990), the pro-
cesses and strategies involved in using them are quite different.
This fact is confirmed by the low correlation between the two
measures.
The percentage of common variance shared by MIBOS and
other measures of upward influence did not exceed 13% and
averaged less than 5%. The magnitudes of these relationships
are clearly low enough to demonstrate, rather conclusively, the
discriminant validity of MIBOS. This is particularly true be-
cause the magnitudes of the correlations of MIBOS with mea-
sures of other influence strategies are quite similar to those
reported recently by Yukl and Falbe (1990).
Discussion
This article presents the development and validation of
MIBOS, an instrument designed to assess ingratiatory behav-
iors of employees in organizations. Overall, the results of the
validity tests provide good evidence of convergent and discrimi-
nant validity. The tests conducted during the first phase of the
study confirmed the high internal consistency and stability of
the instrument. The test for internal consistency, conducted on
the responses of 346 employees, yielded a Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of .92, reconfirming the fact that MIBOS is ex-
tremely reliable. Phases 2 and 3 produced good evidence for the
construct validity of MIBOS in the form of content validity,
covergent validity, and discriminant validity. However, it is
never possible to address every relevant issue in any single study.
For further validation of the scale, it seems appropriate to assess
ingratiatory behaviors as seen from other perspectives (e.g., su-
pervisors, co-workers) and to examine correlations between
these different sources. Assessment of MIBOS from a criterion-
related perspective—What outcomes can be expected to corre-
late with the scale?—would also be useful.
Although ingratiatory behaviors have been empirically inves-
tigated in laboratory studies for over 25 years (Jones, 1964), and
their use as an upward influence strategy has been studied in
organizational settings for over 10 years (e.g., Allen et al., 1979;
Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977), few empirical studies have
explored the use of ingratiation in organizations. Most recent
studies have been conceptual and theoretical (e.g., Liden & Mit-
chell, 1988; Ralston, 1985; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). These
studies have provided a number of testable propositions, but so
far the propositions have remained untested. Indeed, ingratia-
tory behavior in organizational settings continues to remain
both an intriguing and highly underresearched topic in the
field of organizational behavior.
The absence of a measurement instrument designed to focus
specifically on ingratiation seems to be one of the major rea-
sons for the absence of empirical investigation of these behav-
iors. The development of a scientifically validated instrument
for the measurement of ingratiation therefore constitutes the
first major step toward empirical investigation. Only when psy-
chologists are able to assess and measure this phenomenon can
they begin to relate it to major social issues within organiza-
tions. The construction and validation of MIBOS should help
to spur research interest in a topic that has long been ignored
and warrants much greater interest from organizational scien-
tists.
References
Allen, R. W, Porter, D. L., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organi-
zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California
Management Review, 22, 77-83.
Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and up-
ward influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 40, 39-40.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenom-
ena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1960). Yfeasayer and naysayer. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60,151-174.
Cronbach, L. (1986). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New
\ork: Macmillan.
Erez, M., & Rim, T. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence
tactics and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations,
35, 871-878.
Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of
influence: Agent vs. target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,
25-39.
Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norms of reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Hair, J., Anderson, R. O., & Tatham, R. (1987). Multidimensional data
analysis (pp. 244-275). New York: Macmillan.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New \brk: Appleton.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional ap-
proach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kipnis, D, Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, J. (1980). Intraorganizational
influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology,^ 5, 440-452.
Liden, R. C, & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organi-
zational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-587.
Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W, Porter, L. W, Renwick, R. M., & Mayes,
B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of manager's
perception. Human Relations, 33, 79-100.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organiza-
tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23,137-156.
Mowday, R. X, & Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-
tional commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Pandey, J. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organiza-
tional formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia, 24, 41-46.
 INGRATIATORY BEHAVIORS 627

Pandey, J., & Bohra, K. A. (1984). Ingratiation as a function of organiza-
tional characteristics and supervisory styles. International Review of
Applied Psychology, 33, 381-394.
Pandey, J., & Rastogi, R. (1979). Machiavellianism and ingratiation.
Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 221-225.
Porter, L. W, Allen, R. W, & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of up-
ward influence in organizations. Research in Organizational Behav-
ior, 3,109-149.
Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 477-487.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1986). Impression formation: The
roleof expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 50, 42\-421.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 63,129-156.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus exter-
nal locus of control. Psychological Monographs, 80,1-28.
Schilit, W K., & Locke, E. A. (1982). A study of upward influence in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presen-
tation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
641-669.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by
subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of
the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 246-257.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 526-537.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based mea-
sure of manifest needs in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 9, 251-266.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous version of
Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 28,191-193.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management: Theory and social psy-
chological research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J. X, & Melburg, V (1984). Impression management and
influence in the organization. Research in Sociology of Organiza-
tions, 3, 31-58.
Tedeschi, J. X, Schlenker, B. T., & Linkskold, S. (1972). The exercise of
power and influence. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence
process (pp. 287-345). Chicago: Aldine.
Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction
and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M.
Staw & G. R. Salanik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior
(pp. 133-178). New York: St. Claire Press.
Yukl, G, & Falbe, C. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in up-
ward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 132-140.
Received February 8,1990
Revision received March 8,1991
Accepted March 8,1991 •

Call for Nominations for JEP: Human Perception and Performance

The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board has opened nominations for the editor-
ship of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance for a 6-year
term starting January 1994. James E. Cutting is the incumbent editor.

Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts
early in 1993 to prepare for issues published in 1994. Please note that the P&C Board encour-
ages more participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication process
and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statement
of one page or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations to

Howard E. Egeth, Chair, Search Committee, JEP: HPP

Department of Psychology
Johns Hopkins University
Charles & 34th Streets
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Other members of the search committee are Lynn A. Cooper, Robert G. Crowder, and David E.
Meyer. First review of nominations will begin January 15,1992.