Kissing up to the boss: what it is and what to do about it.

This article focuses on subordinate kissing up or ingratiatory behaviors. Within organizations, ingratiation is defined as illicit attempts by subordinates to increase their interpersonal attractiveness in the eyes of their manager. (1) In other words, the subordinate is trying to obtain the manager's approval. The end goal is to obtain valued career outcomes such as promotions, raises, and desirable assignments. (2)

A discussion of ingratiation has important implications for understanding workplace behavior for several reasons. First, the pervasive existence of ingratiation and its consequences are easily established by common experience. (3) That is, ingratiation can be observed during nearly all organizational activities from the boardroom to the bathroom. The behavior is a much talked and joked about phenomenon, frequently the topic of spirited hallway discussions. In addition, we have a plethora of denigrating terms describing a coworker's ingratiation from "sucking up" to "brown nosing," to "schmoozing." We even have the familiar smooching sound effect portraying a colleague's kissing up activity.

Addressing ingratiation also is important because of the potentially detrimental organizational consequences. Accordingly, the approach taken here is to review common ingratiating behaviors, identify potential causes, and discuss the dark side of ingratiation for managers and organizations. Several examples illustrating these concepts will be provided. The article concludes with recommendations on how managers can minimize ingratiation.

Common Ingratiation Behaviors

In their seminal work, Edward Jones, Camille Wortman, and Joan Linsenmeier identified four ingratiation strategies (Table One). (4) The effectiveness of the strategies is a function of subtlety and frequency of use as well as the attributions the manager makes regarding the ingratiator's manipulative motives. These strategies include other enhancement, opinion conformity, favor doing, and self-presentation. The goal of all four strategies is to secure the manager's favorable evaluation.

Other Enhancement

First, other enhancement or flattery is ingratiation in its purest form. Here, the subordinate engages in exaggerated admiration, compliments, praises, and generally "butters up the boss." The particularly astute flatterer will vocalize high positive regard for attributes about which the manager is insecure, e.g., physical appearance.

The target of the flattering behavior can be most anything. It could be the manager's own performance, clothes, interests, avocations, and family members. The subordinate can flatter just by taking an excessive, yet insincere interest in the manager. For example, the subordinate may encourage the manager to talk about personal concerns when, in fact, the subordinate has no interest. Other enhancement can reach the extent whereby nearly everything the manager does or is becomes shrouded in glory.

Of course, the subordinate's goal is to positively influence the manager's perception of the subordinate, i.e., to be liked. Perhaps even more importantly, flattery can and does work. Most of us like to feel good about ourselves. We want to be praised. Moreover, studies have suggested that flattery favorably impresses the manager even when the manager suspects the subordinate's hidden agenda.

Take the hypothetical case of Jim. Jim goes out of his way to find reasons to praise his manager Neal. He favorably compliments Neal's clothes, wears similar apparel, and mimics Neal's pet phrases. Jim acts intensely interested in nearly every comment uttered by Neal. Jim even goes as far as publicly commending Neal in front of Neal's own manager Linda. A particularly sneaky other enhancement strategy is when Jim says good things about Neal to Linda. No doubt Linda will mention Jim's favorable comments to Neal, much to Jim's advantage.

When former General Motors Corporation Chairman Roger Smith was elected as chair of the Business Council, a corporate leaders organization, General Motors President Robert Stempel sent Smith a congratulatory telegram stating, in part:

"Your election ... is a source of great

pride ... We see it as great recognition

by your peers, not only of your

leadership, but as an expression of

the American business

community's confidence in the continued

leadership of our corporation.

... For you to be so honored is ... a distinction

equivalent.. being elected

successively majority leader of the

Senate and speaker [sic] of the

House ..." Wall Street Journal (October

17, 1988).

Smith was expected to retire from General Motors in the summer of 1990. Stempel was widely seen as Smith's successor. Stempel got the job.

Opinion Conformity

Imitation is the highest form of flattery-Oscar Wilde

A second ingratiation strategy is opinion conformity. Simply put, the strategy is to agree with the manager on nearly everything including work and non-work related issues. This strategy is effective because as with most people, managers are attracted to those who agree with them. The subordinate's supporting opinions confirm the manager's own views and boosts self-confidence. Opinion conformity is seen when the "yes man" subordinate eagerly nods his/her head and warmly smiles at the manager's every comment or suggestion. Likewise, opinion conformity is apparent when a subordinate shares a manager's enthusiasm for an idea, when in actuality the subordinate does not support it. Opinion conformity also is illustrated when subordinates readily emit belly laughs at the manager's humor attempts--however lame or insulting. Opinion conformity can be hidden in the cohesive cloak of work teams where a given subordinate's disagreement may be interpreted as "not being a team player." Finally, a subtle form of opinion conformity is when a subordinate intentionally disagrees with the manager on relatively unimportant issues, only to gracefully yield to the manager's opinions at a later time. As a consequence, the manager feels good about his/her persuasive skills.

Imagine the case of Dotty. Dotty would not even think of questioning her manager Ann's decisions. If it's good enough for Ann, it's good enough for Dotty. In fact, when Ann questions her own thinking, all she has to do is ask Dotty and presto! her views are confirmed. Yet, Dotty's opinion conformity does not merely end with job related issues. Dotty eagerly agrees with Ann's views on everyday current events, sports figures, and political candidates.

Favor Doing

Favor doing is still another ingratiation strategy. With favor doing, the subordinate performs little and perhaps not so little "apple polishing" and "bootlicking" favors. The assistance may be with work and non-work related tasks. As always, the goal is to gain the manager's affection. Furthermore, favor doing capitalizes on the reciprocity norm which states that receiving a favor creates an obligation to repay the favor. Favor doing is effective because like most people, managers will respond positively when a subordinate does something nice for them. For example, favor doing occurs when a subordinate enthusiastically runs errands, offers to take meeting minutes, photocopies materials that the manager needs immediately, and presents gifts upon return from vacation. Similarly, the subordinate may cheerfully seize the opportunity to purchase the Girl Scout cookies available from the manager's daughter (all the time, of course, mentioning how cute and bright the daughter is). Another favor doing tactic is to volunteer to help the manager buy a new car or find a reputable day care center. In exchange, the manager will often feel required to return the favor, perhaps to the advantage of the subordinate's career.

Self-Presentation

Praise yourself daringly; something always sticks - Francis Bacon

Finally, self-presentation involves acting in a way or fabricating an image that is thought to be desired by the target manager. The idea is to cultivate the relationship such that the manager perceives the subordinate as the perfect employee. The subordinate identifies what type of employee characteristics the manager (organization) finds desirable and then presents him/herself as that kind of robotic subordinate. The self-aggrandizement goes beyond being a solid employee and may even reach the scale of greatly exaggerated, unfounded claims. Here, we are referring to those subordinates who talk a good story, but fail to back up their assertions with bottomline performance. Conversely, even false modesty and self-deprecation may work with some managers because they perceive the acknowledgement of a weakness as a union of trust.

For example, subordinates who toil in the office on weekends, arrive for work early, linger afterwards, and let everyone know it, are behaving in a manner believed to be preferred by the manager. To be sure, these may be highly desirable subordinate characteristics. However, what separates peak performing subordinates from the ingratiators emerges when the latter's puffy, self-promoting claims lack substance or the monster hour work weeks yield few tangible results.

Take the theoretical case of Shirley, referred to by her peers as the corporate robot. Shirley wears the "right" clothes, faithfully preaches the company gospel, and overly cheerfully attends company functions. Shirley is one of the better sales people going--and makes sure her manager and coworkers know it. However, Shirley's overdone, self-promoting hyperbole goes far beyond her actual level of performance and crosses over into the arena of groundless bragging.

Causes of Ingratiation

The causes of ingratiation are a function of the relative power balance between managers and subordinates, personality factors, and the perception that ingratiation is effective. We will now address these causes and provide examples.

Power Imbalances (5)

By virtue of their positions, managers typically wield more organizational clout than subordinates. Managers can influence subordinates because they are the distributors of most of the valued organizational rewards, e.g., salary increases

and promotions. By contrast, subordinates have relatively fewer sources for persuading managers. Other than performance, subordinates often must rely on ingratiation as a primary source of influence. That is, because of the power balance inequities, subordinates resort to ingratiatory tactics as a means for obtaining managerial favor. Once again, the subordinate's goal is to acquire organizational rewards.

However, subordinates often face what is referred to as the ingratiator's dilemma. That is, the ingratiator is in a perilous position because managers realize the nature of the aforementioned dependency. Research shows that as dependency and the need for ingratiation increases, the likelihood that the ingratiator will be perceived as deceptive also increases, thereby decreasing the chances of successful manipulation. Consequently, ingratiating subordinates frequently have developed considerable skill in effectively disguising their manipulative intent.

Personality Correlates of Ingratiation

Let those flatter who fear--Thomas Jefferson

Manager and subordinate personality factors can affect the frequency of influencing activity. That is, autocratic and dominating managers may actually foster subordinate subservience because the behavior sustains strong narcissistic tendencies and solidifies the manager's power position. The ingratiating activity enhances the manager's self-esteem and directly plays upon the need for recognition as the person in charge. Consequently, managers respond favorably to the submissive subordinate's use of confidence building tactics. At the same time, subordinates may be afraid to act otherwise out of concern for their own career progress. To not grovel before the autocratic manager, may seriously jeopardize the subordinate's future.

Similarly, subordinate personality attributes contribute to obsequious activity. For instance, subordinates low in self-esteem, strong in the need to please, or high in Machiavellianism may be prone to ingratiation. (6) With respect to the latter trait, Machiavellianism refers to amoral interpersonally exploitative behavior designed to achieve personal goals. The "ends justify the means" as long as the behavior maximizes self-interests. Machiavellian subordinates possess a highly calculating attitude with few feelings of guilt or remorse. Neither sincerity nor morality is important. Machiavellian subordinates ingratiate as a politically motivated manipulative tactic for acquiring the manager's favorable evaluation. By any means necessary, the Machiavellian's game plan is to obtain the rewards distributed by the manager. We can all recall from our organizational experiences Machiavellian individuals who engage in deceptive and endlessly nauseating, yet seemingly effective ingratiation with managers.

An even more vexatious subordinate personality likely to engage in ingratiating activity is the antisocial or psychopathic individual. These subordinates are characterized by egocentrism, lack of conscience, and charisma. Interestingly, subordinates manifesting an antisocial personality can be quite superficially charming and they have remarkably accurate insight into the needs and weaknesses of others. In the workplace, these subordinates are highly skilled in strategic ingratiating activity targeted toward their manager and designed for their own personal advantage, regardless of the organizational and interpersonal consequences.

Ingratiation Can Be Effective

A final cause of ingratiation is news we would rather not hear--"say it ain't so." Nevertheless, it is so as prior research indicates that ingratiation can get results. Thankfully, performance is relatively more important. However, toadying targeted toward the manager may provide a make or break 5% edge in today's competitive workplace. With many highly qualified contenders vying for limited organizational resources and perks--promotions, desirable sales territories, corner offices, job security, and benefits packages--subordinates can distinguish themselves by means of strategically planted ingratiation. (7)

Why could ingratiation be an effective tool for influencing managers? One reason why ingratiation can influence others is nicely summarized by William James--"The deepest principle of Human Nature is the craving to be appreciated." In other words, the reason why flattery makes others feel good is because they think they deserve it.

A second explanation is based on the norm of reciprocity. (8) That is, much of human behavior is a function of exchange. In fact, cross cultural research indicates that the norm of reciprocity is a powerful and universal standard of behavior. A subordinate's eager, albeit insincere support for a manager's idea or request is transacted for something the subordinate desires and the manager has. In this quid pro quo, both parties obtain what they want--the manager has needed support and the subordinate receives the salary increase. However, these exchanges can occur at considerable cost to the individuals and the organization.

The Dark Side of Kissing Up

The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism--Norman Vincent Peale

Although kissing up can effectively promote careers, the activity is not without its price. There is an insidious dark side to ubiquitous ingratiation that can be deleterious to individuals and organizations. For example, subordinates who tactically laud managers (other enhancement), parrot the manager's ideas (opinion conformity), perform out of the ordinary services (favor doing), and/or excessively promote themselves as model subordinates (self-presentation) may gain the manager's high regard. In return, the subordinates are assigned desirable tasks and receive coveted promotions. However, because these rewards were inappropriately influenced by ingratiation rather than exclusively on merit, subordinates may become overwhelmed, perform poorly, and damage their careers as well as the corporation.

Worse yet, a pervasive dysfunctional culture can emerge whereby rampant ingratiation undermines organizational morale because "you can't get anywhere around here without sucking up to management." An atmosphere of insincerity can predominate as infighting subordinates act extraordinarily pleasant with managers, but treat each other as rivals. We all have familiar stories describing offensive coworkers and workplace environments. For instance, in some organizations, executive upward mobility is more of a function of ingratiating skill than what is best for the organization. (9)

Similarly, the destructive aspects of ingratiation emerge when subordinates uncritically agree with the manager's position on important issues (opinion conformity). That is, managers have difficulty determining the veracity of information received from organizational "yes men" and become insulated from scrutinizing, but needed advice. Under these conditions, important decisions may not be exposed to the required examination. Manager decision-making goes unchallenged and unchecked with the real risk of less than optimal results. The well-known groupthink and decision failure literature provides ample evidence describing the detrimental consequences of excessive opinion conformity.

As developed by Irving Janis, groupthink refers to the notion that excessive concurrence seeking in cohesive work groups obviates penetrating analysis of alternative courses of action. (10) It becomes vitally important that group members readily agree and get along rather than rocking the boat by pointedly questioning the group's deliberations. Consequently, the end result may be in considered decisions such as the Kennedy administration's Bay of Pigs fiasco, Ford Motor Company's Edsel lemon, and more recently, the space shuttle Challenger disaster and Iran-Contra debacle.

Guidelines for Identifying and Minimizing Ingratiation

How do managers determine whether subordinate flattery, complete agreement, and so on are manipulative or genuine? Perhaps the manager is an out standing leader or his/her decision actually does represent the best alternative! Maybe the subordinate is sincere. Here, we enter into the gray area of ingratiation. Unfortunately, it is often very difficult to detect if the subordinate's actions are honest appraisals, manipulative ingratiation or a combination of both.

One way managers can judge sincerity is to assess the subordinate's frequency of compliment giving, opinion conformity, favor doing, and self-presentation. That is, does the subordinate perpetually trumpet praise for the manager at every (manufactured) opportunity? Does the subordinate always support the manager's ideas? Is the subordinate continually volunteering to perform favors and pointing out his/her exaggerated accomplishments? A second related indicator of sincerity is the latitude of the subordinate's ingratiating activity. Does the subordinate compliment both work and personal aspects of the manager, e.g., car, favorite sports teams, etc.?

A third means managers can assess the candor of the subordinate's behavior is to observe how the subordinate inter acts with other organizational authority figures. Does the subordinate excessively schmooz with the manager's boss? Finally, a fourth way managers can determine sincerity is to ask a trusted peer for an evaluation of a given subordinate's behavior motives. "Is this subordinate flattering me?" If the answers to these questions are yes, then the more suspicious the manager should be. He/she should declare a kissing up alert.

Unfortunately, the ambiguous nature of ingratiation can be difficult to detect and easy to overlook because, like most people, managers find considerable comfort from fawning admiration and approval. The approbation verifies the worthiness of the manager's ideas and raises self-esteem. In short, ingratiation makes the manager feel good.

Once a kissing up alert is declared, what can managers do to prevent ingratiation, however alluring the behavior might be? A key approach to managing opinion conformity is to actively invite subordinate meticulous assessment. For instance, managers might require criticism of a proposed alternative, particularly when the alternative is the manager's preference. Here, the manager can insist on the identification of potential flaws, the articulation of worst case outcomes, and encourage the consideration of multiple options. In addition, the manager can reward constructive criticism by means of publicly approving scrutiny. For example, managers can extend their appreciation for a subordinate's sincere and thorough analysis as well as explain why these behaviors are necessary for organizational success.

Other enhancement, favor doing, and self-presentation can be minimized by directly challenging the subordinate's behavior. For instance, when the subordinate begins the "you are so wonderful" routine, the manager can respond by stating that insincere flattery is neither necessary nor acceptable. Managers then can inform subordinates that there are other ways that subordinates can impress and advance their careers, i.e., performance. Similarly, managers can eliminate favor doing by firmly declining the assistance.

Next, managers can create an organizational climate that minimizes the prevalence of ingratiating behavior. For example, managers must insure they do not role model obsequious actions with their supervisors. Subordinates do observe and will notice how their manager hob nobs with others. At the same time, managers can restrict groveling by employing subordinate peer pressure. Group norms will subsequently develop among subordinates such that ingratiating behavior is neither expected nor tolerated. In these ways, managers can foster a corporate atmosphere whereby organizational rewards are distributed chiefly by merit, rather than by rampant flattery.

Finally, managers can reduce damaging ingratiation by recognizing that due to their control of workplace resources, they are vulnerable targets of subordinate sycophantic efforts. We all like to have our egos rubbed. We want to be always right--it makes us feel good. However, managers must realize that a subordinate's enthusiastic approbation may be a phony pretense constructed for self-advancement.

Conclusion

Ingratiation is a familiar phenomenon whereby insincere, manipulative subordinate behavior influences organizational events. Ingratiation strategies include other enhancing flattery, opinion conformity, favor doing, and self-presentation. The ingratiator's goal is to capture the target manager's approval so that valued rewards are obtained. The effective ness of the strategies is determined by subtlety and frequency of use as well as the attributions the manager makes regarding the ingratiator's motives. In fact, it appears that managers have difficulty remaining neutral when a subordinate has flattered or agreed with them on an issue. Finally, the causes of ingratiation include manager-subordinate power imbalances, personality characteristics, and the notion that the behavior generates results.

However, ingratiation manifests a dark side where key decisions are disproportionately influenced by wheedling behavior. Here, the uncritical mimicking of the manager's position on important matters (opinion conformity) could lead to ineffective decision-making. In addition, the manager may become surrounded by "yes men" who, rather than questioning and challenging the manager, eagerly use ingratiating behaviors to gain coveted rewards. Similarly, managers may have trouble assessing the accuracy and, perhaps most importantly, the sincerity of information received from ingratiating subordinates, e.g., "Does this subordinate really agree with me? Or are their favorable comments primarily for their own gain?"

Managers can identify subordinate ingratiation by evaluating the frequency and range of the aforementioned behaviors, observing the subordinate's interactions with others, and soliciting feedback from trusted peers. Lastly, managers can minimize subordinate groveling by insisting on subordinate disagreement, directly challenging subordinate ingratiatory behavior, role modeling appropriate behaviors, using subordinate peer pressure, and recognizing their vulnerability as ingratiation targets. In these ways, managers can diminish the destructive aspects of organizational ingratiation. Table One Common Ingratiation Behaviors Category Description Workplace Terms Other Enhancement flattery, complimenting, kissing up, sucking up,

brown nosing Opinion Conformity consistent agreement yes men Favor Doing performing non-required apple polishing,

tasks and services bootlicking Self-Presentation claiming perfect puffies

subordinate status

(1) Edward E. Jones and Camille Wortman, "Ingratiation: An Attributional Approach," by General Learning Press, 1973.

(2) D. Byrne, The Attraction Paradigm Academic Press, 1971.

D. Byrne and W. Griffit, "A developmental investigation of the law of attraction." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4, 1966 pp. 699-702.

R. Cardy and G. Dobbins, "Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral dimension on evaluating performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, 1986, pp. 672-678.

G. Clore and D. Byrne, "A reinforcement affect model of attraction" In Perspectives in Interpersonal Attraction, L.T. Huston, editor, Academic Press. 1974, pp. 143-170.

R.C. Liden and T.R. Mitchell. "Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, 1988, pp. 572-587.

J. Pandey and S. Kakker, "Supervisor's affect: Attraction and positive evaluation as a function of enhancement of others," Psychological Reports, Vol. 15, 1982, pp. 470-486.

David Ralston, "Employee Ingratiation: The Role of Management," Academy of Management Review, Vol 10, 1985. pp. 477-487.

Anne Tsui and Bruce Barry, "Interpersonal affect and rating errors," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, 1989, pp. 586-599.

(3) Edward E. Jones. "Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis," Appleton-Century Crofts, 1964.

(4) op. cit., Jones and Wortman. Camille Wortman and Joan Linsenmeier, "Interpersonal Attraction and Techniques of Ingratiation in Organizational Settings," in New Directions in Organizational Behavior, B. Staw and G. Salancik. eds, St. Clair, 1977, pp. 133-178.

(5) John French and Bertram Raven, "The Bases of Social Power" In Studies in Social Power, Dorwin Cartwright. editor, 1962.

E. E. Jones, R.G. Jones, and K.J. Gergen, "Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a conformist," Journal of Personality, Vol. 31. 1963, pp. 270 288.

M. McCall, Power, Influence, and Authority: The Hazards of Carrying a Sword Technical Report Number 10, 1978, Greensboro, NC, Center for Creative Leadership.

(6) Bernard M. Bass, Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, pp. 134-137, Free Press. 1990.

R. Christie and E. Geis. Studies in Machiavellianism Academic Press, 1970.

F. Geis "Machiavellianism," in Dimensions of Personality (H. London and J. Exner, editors, Wiley, 1978, pp. 305-363.

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Bantam Books, 1966.

(7) Ronald Deluga and J.T. Perry, "The Role of Subordinate Performance and Ingratiation in Leader-Member Exchanges," Group & Organization Management, Vol. 19, 1994, pp. 67-86.

Terry Dockery and Dirk Steiner, "The Role of Initial Interaction in Leader Member Exchange," Group & Organization Management, Vol. 15, 1990, pp. 395-413.

Randall A. Gordon, "Impact of Ingratiation on Judgments and Evaluations: A Meta-Analytic Investigation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71, 1996, pp. 54-70.

Timothy Judge and Robert Bretz, Jr. "Political Influence Behavior and Career Success," Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 1994, pp. 43-65. op. cit., Ralston.

(8) A.W. Gouldner, "The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement," American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 161-178.

E.P. Hollander, Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships, Free Press. 1978.

E.P. Hollander, "Leadership and social exchange processes." Group Processes In K. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg. and R.H. Willis, eds. Winston Wiley, 1979, pp. 103-118.

M. Mauss, The Gift, (I. Cunnison. Trans.), W. Norton, 1967.

(9) J.P. Wright, On a Clear Day You Can See Forever, Avon, 1979.

(10) Irving Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies in Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

Glen Whyte, "Groupthink Reconsidered," The Academy of Management Review, Vol 14, 1989, pp. 40-56.

Glen Whyte, "Decision Failures: Why They Occur and How to Prevent Them," The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5(3), pp.23-31.

Ronald J. Deluga, Ph.D. (rdeluga@acad.bryant.edu) is the Chair of the Department of Applied Psychology at Bryant College in Smithfield, Rhode Island.