Balancing Act: Exploring the Dual Nature of Impression Management in Professional Environments
Have you ever known someone whose personality and presentation seem to be solely determined by the people they are surrounded by? Individuals who present themselves as charismatic, thoughtful, and easy-going when out with friends, but in closed door, one-on-one settings they are cold, impatient and overly critical? While on the surface, we are quick to assume these behaviors are negative aspects of someone’s personality, that they are fake or manipulative and those types of individuals should be avoided—that’s not always the case. As with most things, it depends.
All of us engage in some type of “impression management” behavior. It’s essential to forging effective human interactions. We modify, on varying levels, the pieces of our personalities that will aid us in building positive relationships with those around us. Imagine you are home for Thanksgiving, and you are sitting around the table with your entire family. Think of that one uncle (hopefully not you…) who fails to modify their approach and leads with their raw, genuine self for all to take in. All their political opinions, personal judgements and belief systems for the entire family to consume. This uncle doesn’t care how they are being perceived and equally doesn’t care who they may be offending in the process. I think it’s safe to say no one enjoys that type of individual. We not only benefit from people managing their impressions—we lean into those who have mastered the tactic.
Impression management is when we work to deliberately influence the evaluations and opinions formed by the people around us. Again—not always a bad thing. People who are keenly adept to those around them and adjust to not only save face, but also to be respectful of others’ opinions, belief systems and lifestyles, are often able to build stronger relationships and achieve higher levels of social success than our “Thanksgiving” uncle example. It’s not a far stretch to say that those who are skilled at navigating impression management also tend to be those who possess higher levels of emotional intelligence. They are perceptive to those around them and can communicate in ways that allow others to feel respected, understood, and comforted.
When does impression management shift from being a socially acceptable practice to something more problematic in nature? The change occurs when the goal of managing the image shifts from being respectful and considerate, towards one of creating a false persona. Let’s look at the example I mentioned at the beginning of the article—the individual who comes across as being charismatic, thoughtful, and easy-going, when in reality they are cold, impatient and overly critical. The job candidate who sells you on their ability to be a team player, who leads with their values and has an unmatched work ethic, but three months into the job stops showing up on-time, starts drama daily and rarely finishes projects they are assigned to complete. These “white lies” told during the hiring process to land the desired job can turn out to be toxic to the organization once the wrong candidate is extended the job offer. This becomes especially challenging when the candidate is being dishonest regarding their character—honesty, loyalty, selflessness, ambition, patience…etc.
Beyond the hiring process, an organization’s inability to detect employees’ projections of character-based impression management tactics can also cause them to be vulnerable in nearly every other area of the business. Most notably, in situations when relying on the employees’ character are of paramount importance, i.e. internal investigations. If you are interviewing employees regarding an internal theft case, sexual harassment investigation or a workplace violence incident—the employees’ goal will be to project a “version” of themselves that comes across as being honest, trustworthy, and reliable. Most of the time, we can hope this projected persona is genuine, however it is critical for the investigator to have insight into the situations when the employee is “faking” this behavior to appear in a positive light.
“Faking” behaviors are just that—behaviors that people engage in with the goal of manipulating how they are being perceived. Generally, this is done for the individual to come across in a more favorable manner, or to avoid negative attention. One of the most effective tactics for detecting faking behaviors is to monitor the consistency of the individuals’ responses to questions targeted around similar behavioral categories. Are their responses to questions regarding their attitudes, observations and activities involving topics like, “theft in the workplace,” “sexual harassment,” “adherence to policy and procedure,” and “sharing of confidential information,” consistent within each respective behavioral category? Accurately observing fluctuations in responses, and notating when and to what extent these “inconsistencies” were observed, are nearly impossible to accurately capture without the assistance of technology.
Identifying inconsistencies in responses doesn’t necessarily mean the individual is lying, however it does present cause for a follow-up discussion to dig deeper in the noted areas of concern. Obtaining and reviewing this information allows the hiring manager and/or investigator to strategize a follow-up conversation more effectively where they can work to develop context to the noted discrepancies. Ultimately, we want to know that the character of the person we hired is true to who they are—not who they pretended to be. We also want to ensure that when conducting an investigation, we are gathering the most accurate, reliable intelligence possible from all sources. Leveraging technology to assist in the detection of inconsistencies and removing the distraction of human bias in the early phases of the investigation can help ensure we are gathering the right information to better inform our decisions as we move throughout the investigative process.
How are you leveraging AI to better inform your hiring decisions and internal investigative processes? If you would like to learn more about how AI can bolster the efficiency and effectiveness of your internal decision-making calculus, reach out to schedule a call today.
Sources:
Leary, Mark R. (2019). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Routledge.
Scheff, T.J. (2005). Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist. Symbolic Interaction, 28: 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.2.147
Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the Presented Self Sincere? Goffman, Impression Management and the Postmodern Self. Theory, Culture & Society, 9(2), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327692009002006
