Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings

Abstract

The Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings (MIBOS) scale, developed by Kumar and Beyerlein in 1991, is a 24-item instrument designed to quantify the frequency with which employees utilize specific ingratiatory behaviors when interacting with their supervisors. These behaviors, which serve as forms of upward influence, are assessed across four distinct dimensions: opinion conformity, other enhancement, favor rendering, and self-presentation. The instrument can be scored either dimensionally or as a single, combined measure of organizational ingratiation, providing researchers with flexibility in assessing this critical social dynamic within the workplace.

Keywords

ingratiation, organizational behavior, upward influence, opinion conformity, other enhancement, self-presentation, favor rendering, MIBOS, superior-subordinate relationship, workplace politics.

Authors

Kumar, K., Beyerlein, M.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MIBOS scale is to assess the frequency and specific types of ingratiatory behaviors employed by subordinates toward their superiors within Organizational Settings. It provides a structured method for quantifying these subtle influence tactics used to gain favor or approval from those in positions of power.

Construct

The MIBOS scale measures Ingratiatory Behaviors, which are defined as intentional influence tactics designed to increase one’s attractiveness to another person. The scale operationalizes this construct through four distinct, yet positively correlated, sub-dimensions:

• Opinion Conformity: Behaviors involving agreeing with the supervisor’s opinions and judgments, and subtly mimicking the supervisor’s work behaviors or attitudes to signal similarity.
• Other Enhancement: The act of finding ways to communicate or emphasize the supervisor’s strengths, virtues, and positive qualities, often involving flattery or exaggeration, while deliberately ignoring negative attributes.
• Favor Rendering: Engaging in actions or providing services for a supervisor, often going outside of one’s normal duties, with the implicit goal of creating an obligation on the supervisor’s part to reciprocate.
• Self-Presentation: The use of explicit verbal statements or actions designed to highlight one’s own positive attributes, virtues, successes, and abilities to the supervisor.

Validity

Empirical evidence supports the construct validity of the MIBOS, though structural confirmation has been challenging. The four underlying dimensions—other enhancement, favor rendering, self-presentation, and opinion conformity—were found to be positively intercorrelated, suggesting they are related aspects of the broader ingratiation construct.

Specific behaviors within the scale demonstrated expected correlations with related constructs. Favor rendering behavior correlated positively with various influence tactics, including influential reasoning, bargaining skills, and assertiveness, as well as with interpersonal variables such as liking and perceived similarity with the manager (Harrison et al., 1998). Self-presentation behavior similarly correlated positively with influential reasoning, bargaining skills, and assertiveness (Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).

Furthermore, the combined MIBOS measure showed positive correlations with relevant personality traits, including self-monitoring, need for power, and internal locus of control, along with alternative measures of the use of upward influence in organizations (Harrison et al., 1998; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991). Notably, Kumar and Beyerlein (1991) reported that the combined MIBOS had only small positive correlations with rational persuasion tactics, empirically establishing ingratiation as a distinct concept separate from purely logical influence strategies.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the MIBOS scale has been assessed using Coefficient alpha across multiple studies. For the individual subscales, the reliability coefficients varied:

• Opinion Conformity: Ranged from .56 to .79.
• Other Enhancement: Ranged from .74 to .84.
• Favor Rendering: Ranged from .72 to .86.
• Self-Presentation: Ranged from .73 to .77.

While some subscales occasionally dipped below the conventionally accepted threshold of .70, the internal consistency for the overall combined measure of ingratiatory behaviors was consistently strong. Across various samples, the combined MIBOS measure yielded high Coefficient alpha values ranging from .86 to .93 (Harrison et al., 1998; Kacmar & Valle, 1997; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991).

Factor Analysis

Despite the theoretical framework supporting four distinct dimensions, empirical attempts to confirm the intended factor structure of the MIBOS have faced significant obstacles in subsequent research. Kacmar and Valle (1997) explicitly attempted but failed to replicate the original four-factor structure using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques.

Similarly, Harrison et al. (1998) were unable to achieve acceptable fit indices when testing both the hypothesized four-dimension model and an alternative one-dimension model using confirmatory factor analysis. These findings suggest that while the four dimensions are theoretically sound and empirically distinct regarding external correlations, the internal measurement structure of the scale may not consistently align with a clean four-factor model across diverse organizational samples.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Self-report Scale / Organizational Behavior Questionnaire

Format: 24 items, utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees (Subordinates)

Age Group: Adults (Working population)

Population Details: Individuals engaged in superior-subordinate relationships within organizational settings, assessing their frequency of ingratiatory influence attempts.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the frequency of engaging in each ingratiatory behavior using the following scale: 1 = never do it, 2 = seldom do it, 3 = occasionally do it, 4 = often do it, and 5 = almost always do it.

Keywords

psychological scale, organizational behavior, influence tactics, workplace dynamics, impression management, validity, reliability, social influence.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale items were originally published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (1991) and are copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA). Researchers should seek permission from the APA for use, as the items were reprinted with permission in the source material.

Test Year: 1991

Reference’s

• Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-627.
• Harrison, D. A., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Ralston, S. M. (1998). The MIBOS and organizational outcomes: A test of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577-586.
• Kacmar, K. M., & Valle, M. (1997). The MIBOS revisited: Further evidence on the factor structure of ingratiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 577-583.
• Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in mediating the effects of ingratiation on performance and promotion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 629-636.

Items of the Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = never do it, 2 = seldom do it, 3 = occasionally do it, 4 = often do it, and 5 = almost always do it.

Opinion conformity items:

1. Show him/her that you share his/her enthusiasm about his/her new idea even when you may not actually like it
2. Give frequent smiles to express enthusiasm/interest about something he/she is interested in even if you do not like it
3. 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
4. Disagree on trivial or unimportant issues but agree on those issues in which he/she expects support from you
5. Try to imitate such work behaviors of your supervisor as working late or occasionally working on weekends
6. Let your supervisor know the attitudes you share with him/her
7. Laugh heartily at your supervisor’s jokes even when they are not really funny

Other enhancement items:

1. Impress upon your supervisor that only he/she can help you in a given situation mainly to make him/her to feel good about himself/ herself
2. Highlight the achievements made under his/her leadership in a meeting not being attended by him/her
3. Tell him/her that you can learn a lot from his/her experience
4. Exaggerate his/her admirable qualities to convey the impression that you think highly of him/her
5. 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
6. Look out for opportunities to admire your supervisor
7. Compliment your supervisor on his/her achievement however trivial it may actually be to you personally

Favor rendering items:

1. Try to do things for your supervisor that show your selfless generosity
2. Go out of your way to run an errand for your supervisor
3. Offer to help your supervisor by offering to use your personal contacts
4. Volunteer to be of help to your supervisor in matters like locating a good apartment, finding a good insurance agent, and so on
5. Spend time listening to your supervisor’s personal problems even if you have no interest in them
6. Volunteer to help your supervisor in his/her work even if it means extra work for you

Self-preservation items:

1. Try to let him/her know that you have a reputation for being liked
2. Try to make sure that he/she is aware of your successes
3. Look for opportunities to let the supervisor know your virtues/ strengths
4. Try to persuasively present your own qualities when attempting to convince your supervisor about your abilities