For example, a private sector organization (economic sector that is free from state control) will show frequent use of ingratiatory tactics than will a public sector organization (organization where there is state ownership of means and production, distribution, and exchange).
The scale differs from the earlier scales (Pandey & Bohra, 1984; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991) in two major ways: (i) it includes some more ingratiatory tactics available in the literature, and (ii) tactics of ingratiation are factorially independent.
Ingratiatory behaviours in organizational settings.
Organizational context and ingratiatory behaviour in organizations.
(1995) recently expanded the studies performed by Jones and his colleagues by using "live" student interactions and more subtle and varied ingratiatory tactics.
Hypothesis 1: Co-worker responses in environments in which subordinate ingratiatory behavior directed at the supervisor appears to be rewarded will be more negative than co-worker responses in environments in which no ingratiation is present or in which ingratiation does not appear to be rewarded.
The question of which particular factors cause ingratiatory behaviors to be perceived as a threat to the co-worker's well-being remains unanswered.
Conversely, individuals low in self-efficacy may perceive little control over their inputs, regardless of whether the inputs are specifically task-related or not, and therefore exhibit little reaction to ingratiatory behavior of a co-worker.
Hypothesis 2: Co-workers higher in self efficacy who are exposed to ingratiation attempts will perceive more favoritism and react more negatively to the work session, supervisor, and ingratiatory co-worker than co-workers with lower self efficacy.
Hypothesis 3: Co-workers with a stronger PWE who are exposed to ingratiation attempts will perceive more favoritism and react more negatively to the work session, supervisor, and ingratiatory co-worker than coworkers with a less strong PWE.
Specifically, ingratiatory behavior may provide observing coworkers with cues about the work environment and the ingratiator.
Thus, ingratiatory behavior, in comparison to other influence tactics such as entitlements, may be more likely to result in positive reactions because it may be more difficult to detect the ingratiator's ulterior motive.
Hypothesis 1: Subordinate ingratiatory behaviors directed at the supervisor will result in more positive coworker reactions to the workplace in terms of supervisor and coworker satisfaction and perceptions of fairness than when no ingratiatory behaviors are observed.
Two important situational factors that may influence coworkers' responses to subordinate ingratiatory behaviors directed at the supervisor are the coworkers' objective level of performance in comparison to that of the ingratiator and whether or not the ingratiator actually receives desirable rewards following the ingratiation attempt.
Hypothesis 2: Coworker responses to ingratiatory behaviors directed at the supervisor will be influenced by objective performance level and supervisor reward decisions.