The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence and frequency of particular impression management strategies used in opening and closing statements of

E-mail communications by employees of a major aerospace manufacturing facility. Hard copies were coded according to an adaptation of Jones and Pittman=s 1982 typology of self-presentation strategies. Self-promotion and ingratiation were used more often in opening statements. Ingratiation and supplication were used more often in closing statements.

Key words: E-mail, Impression management, Self-presentation strategies, Ingratiation, Intimidation, Self-promotion, Exemplification, Supplication, Polite petition

The explosive growth of computer technology and applications over the last two decades has transformed and redirected the way business gets done in America. Where memos and meetings were once the standard tools for directing human communication within a company, now electronic mail (E-mail) and other computer-mediated communications (CMC) are quickly becoming the norm. The proliferation of E-mail has especially flourished in traditional corporate climes where perceived media richness (Schmitz & Fulk, 1991) has had a positive impact on such use.

E-mail functions in the workplace to facilitate company communication. Unlike previously existing channels, though, electronic mail is a unique form of communication which presents a new type of naturally occurring social situation between participants. Employees regularly E-mail one another to ask questions, discuss issues, announce events (both business and personal), solicit support, tell jokes, and a myriad of other distinctively human behaviors all in virtual reality. Electronic discourse, then, presents a unique context for the study of human interaction (Jones, 1995) in the workplace.

About the same time computer use began its explosive growth in America, scholarly interest in a seemingly unrelated topic, impression management, began to mushroom as well. Impression management (also known as self-presentation strategies in most of the literature and used interchangeably here) has typically been defined as behaviors or actions geared toward the creation of a particular impression or impact on others. A series of authors (Arkin, 1981; Canary & Cody, 1994; Leathers, 1992) have put forth various conceptions of impression management, but an early definition offered by Tedeschi & Reiss (1981) subsumes the others with its greater overall utility: AImpression management consists of any behavior by a person that has the purpose of controlling or manipulating the attributions and impressions formed of that person by others@ (p. 3).

Impression management is a major component of one=s public image. And while an image may not necessarily reflect the real person, it certainly shapes our perceptions of whom or what that person is about. Additionally, it is our perception rather than reality that counts most when it comes down to how we judge or react to one another.

General interest in impression management is not new. An argument could be made that impression management is as old as Adam and Eve who donned fig leaves to cover their nakedness from God in the Garden of Eden. Fig leaves would not have provided warmth or protection (per se) to the wearer, so their function must have filled other, more complex needs, such as promoting an image of self.

Scientific interest in the study of impression management is generally attributed to sociologist Erving Goffman. His seminal 1959 work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, highlighted three functions of self-presentation: to define the individual=s place in social order; to set the tone or direction of an interaction; and to facilitate the performance of role-governed behavior. While Goffman pioneered the notion that people actively manage their impressions, it was psychologist E.E. Jones in his 1964 book, Ingratiation, who provided a systematic evaluation of the strategic behaviors used by people to enhance their attractiveness. These two events laid the foundational cornerstones for impression management research which led to the eventual connection between traditional research paradigms and impression management theory (Alexander & Knight, 1971; Tedeschi et al., 1971). From these early origins, self-presentation or impression management research has

sought and gradually gained respect from scholars in the disciplines of sociology, psychology and communication. What was originally considered a lowly stepchild among more respectable academic pursuits has finally earned veneration among scholars (Leary, 1995; Rosenfeld & Giacalone, 1991) who now embrace the exceptional explanatory power of impression management theory.

Since 1990, a growing body of empirical research has surfaced in the impression management literature, including the use of self-handicapping to manage impressions (Arkin & Sheppard, 1990); situation relevance in self-presentation (Rind & Benjamin, 1993; Witt, 1990); the effectiveness of impression management strategies used by candidates in employment interviews (Kacmar et al., 1992); impression management strategies used by organizations (Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Allison & Herlocker, 1994); sex and gender differences associated with impression management strategies (DuBrin, 1994; Leary et al., 1994); effects of impression management strategies on personality profiles (Paulhus et al., 1995); and even the management of poor impressions by employees (Becker & Martin, 1995).

All these studies on impression management share at least one common assumption, the notion that all entities (whether individual or collective) seek to manage and present some form of identity. As Schneider put it, Aimpression management is a universal and ubiquitous feature of social life@ (1981, p. 23). Social life is replete with behaviors, activities and choices made to facilitate our interaction with each other; and, when appropriately used, serve a healthy and adaptive function in society (Leary, 1995).

Even the most innocuous greeting statement such as Ahello, how are you?@ is self-revealing to the extent that it suggests the source has a knowledge of and concern for norms of politeness. Equally true are the implicit suggestions associated with one=s choice of words for saying goodbye. A story is told about a group of co-workers who passed around a get-well card for a colleague in the hospital. One co-worker wrote the message, signed it ALove,@ then passed it around for signatures from the rest of the group. However, one man refused to sign the card citing use of the word Alove@ as inappropriate. After much argument, they eventually signed the card, AWe=re thinking of you.@ This story highlights the subtle yet potent features that can be associated with greetings and closings (Knapp et al., 1973).

Early on, Goffman recognized the importance of everyday behaviors that occur when people initiate openings or closings with others. He called for research to look more closely at those behaviors which Atraditionally have been treated by students of modern society as part of the dust of social activity, empty and trivial@ (1971, p. 64). Part of the justification for this call rested on his belief that we are apt to find many of the more revealing insights about social behavior when we study the Asurface appearances@ we create for one another. It is in these surface appearances that we find the substance of impression management. Substance which at times belies conventional wisdom about both the nature of everyday communication, and also about the kind of communicative behavior which is insightful and valuable to human interaction.

In response to Goffman=s call, a handful of scholars dedicated limited attention to the study of greetings and leave-taking (Albert & Kessler, 1978; Knapp et al., 1973; Krivonos & Knapp, 1975; Schiffrin, 1977). Primarily these studies focused on face-to- face interaction, and stressed the conviction that both greeting and leave-taking behaviors functioned to mark the transition between a period of either increased or inhibited accessibility. This access function is the critical element for smooth relations among humans. Accessibility, its presence or absence, and the tenor we accord it when we communicate our accessibility to others, is a key component in the nature of our relationships.

In organizational settings, accessibility functions in similar ways. People create and populate organizations, and just as people adjust and smooth out their interactions with others socially, they also adjust and smooth out their interactions with others in the workplace. This occurs everywhere, from boardroom to bathroom to the virtual corridors of E-mail. Anytime people make connections or disconnections, impressions ensue.

Therefore, given the growing importance and use of E-mail within organizations alongside the notion that people do actively manage impressions, a closer look at the openings and closings used by organizational members in E-mail may reveal the use of impression management strategies in several specific ways. To do this successfully, a brief look at the literature concerning electronic mail is required. Second, an in-depth examination of impression management functions, processes and strategies will be reviewed. Third, several hypotheses regarding the use of impression management strategies will be proposed.

E-mail

Electronic mail in the workplace has changed the patterns of communication between employees. O=Connell (1988) identified four new patterns. They are: traditional channel bypass, informal response, brief response, and speedy response. Traditional channel bypass involves new processes where employees linked together through computer-mediated communication no longer feel compelled to follow strict organizational hierarchies in order to send or receive information. Informal response involves a more casual style of communication as opposed to formal memos which were once the norm from upper management. Brief and speedy response patterns involve a new type of relationship characterized by briefer, quicker and more frequent accessability between parties (O=Connell, 1988). Employees can fire off an E-mail to one or many electronic Aposts@ within the company in a way unlike previous forms of organizational communication (O=Connell, 1988).

Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire (1984) suggest there are two social psychological characteristics of computer-mediated communication: 1) a paucity of social context information; and 2) few widely shared norms to govern its use. Together, these two characteristics seem to lead to a kind of flattening effect on users where less physiological arousal (anxiety) occurs for users and less interpersonal liking is attributed to the E-mail recipient (Kiesler et al., 1984). Besides these characteristics, there are important temporal considerations. E-mail is essentially asynchronistic. Accordingly, it is not Areal time@ communication. Participants have the opportunity to reflect, compose and rewrite thoughts before sending them if necessary (Baym, 1995). Additionally, messages may be constructed after-hours at the convenience of the sender who (suffering from late-night insomnia) decides to catch up on business from a home terminal. Messages exchanged can allow for relatively immediate feedback, if both users are on-line simultaneously. The notion of feedback in virtual reality is a slippery one, though. Feedback is limited to those cues gleaned from text and symbols (Baym, 1995; O=Connell 1988; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) and it does not always allow for the usual nonverbal inputs symptomatic of face-to-face human interaction.

What are the consequences of these limitations? Meaning is now restricted to fewer cues, and the interpretive moment is narrowed (O=Connell, 1988; Jones, 1995). The primary acts of E-mail are reading and writing, which limits the transmission of meaning to the limits of these particular processes. Walther and Burgoon (1992) analyzed differences between face-to-face (FtF) communicators and computer-mediated communicators (CMC) and found that over time CMC participants were more socially oriented within actual meetings than FtF participants. They speculated this could be due in part to the asynchronous environment of CMC, or it may reflect a stronger orientation by CMC participants to engage in uncertainty reduction due to the lack of nonverbal and contextual cues which were available to FtF participants. This adaptation by users to facilitate relations in the absence of normative cues suggests that a higher level of interaction occurs precisely because it takes place in virtual reality. In support of this, Walther and Burgoon suggest, Ait is plausible that uncertainty reduction needs combined with a convenient time and channel for expression allow selective self-presentation and relational behavior@ (1992, p. 79). In recent literature, Walther (1996) reinforces and extends this claim to assert that it is precisely the asynchronous nature of CMC which allows the sender to maximize his/her cognitive resources and then apply them more Aefficaciously@ to the type of message constructed. Self-presentation, then, links uncertainty needs with the notion that people are motivated to present and manage an identity in order to achieve particular goals.

Impression management

The ubiquitous nature of self-presentation, or impression management surfaces whenever people are together in social situations. Canary and Cody (1994) declare self-presentational goals to be relevant anytime one=s social identity is subject to evaluation by others. If this is so, self-presentational goals and behavior are salient every time another observes our identity in some manner. Even when physically absent, an individual can project a residual sense of identity through artifacts, transcripts or recordings left behind. This premise finds validity in the obvious (e.g., preening of one=s appearance to ensure a Agood@ photograph; accessories or clothing worn by an individual; and careful scrutiny of words on paper to leave a particular impression).

In a similar vein, Schneider (1981) differentiated two kinds of impressions: the calculated or purposive impression; and the secondary or inferential impression. These two kinds of impressions line up with the related concepts of intentionality and awareness. Intentionality is aligned with purposive action. Awareness is the realization that one is acting in a particular manner (also known as self-monitoring, Snyder, 1974). It has been postulated (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981) that people monitor their self-presentational goals at a preattentive or nonconscious state due to the automatic, habitual nature of such behavior (e.g., tuck in your shirt, straighten your tie, smooth your hair and smile before approaching the boss.) This preattentive state tends to draw its resources from over learned habits and scripts (Tetlock & Manstead, 1985) that are part of an individual=s implicit theory. Researchers, however, are divided on this issue. Some scholars are clearly aligned with intentionality as a prerequisite to impression management behavior (Arkin, 1981; Leathers, 1992). Others do not believe a behavior must be intentional or that awareness is prerequisite for impression management to occur (Canary & Cody, 1994; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). Since outcomes in organizational life (Higgins & Snider, 1989) are generally the standard by which particular behavior is judged as effective or valuable, it seems debatable whether a particular behavior must be judged as intentioned. If communication serves a strategic outcome function regardless of whether intentionality exists, this communication is no less a type of impression management than more calculated behaviors. So, in keeping with Schneider (1981) and Leary and Kowalski=s (1990) broader conception of impression management, all expressive communication (intentional or not) that serves a function of self-presentation will be considered impression management.

Selective self-presentation is well documented (Forsyth et al., 1985; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Goffman, 1959; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Individuals do not always put forth global self-presentations but instead select those aspects which seem most salient to the situation. By selecting or controlling the identity perceived by others, an actor may define the situation and thus establish expected norms or behaviors appropriate for the interaction (Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). The tactics selected to foster identities are generally chosen from associated characteristics which will improve the actor=s ability to influence another toward a particular goal. Why? The desire or need to influence others (i.e., power) is at the heart of understanding why people engage in impression management. Tedeschi and associates (1971) focused on a futuristic orientation where impression management strategies are used to achieve power resources in unplanned yet anticipated encounters with others. On the other hand, Jones and Pittman (1982) focused on a temporally current orientation where impression management strategies were used to gain power resources for immediate and preplanned outcomes. Both motives are plausible. Rather than seeing each motive as separate and inalienable from each other, though, it is reasonable to consider each motive coexisting as part of a singular bifurcated branch. One limb may be more prominent than the other with respect to the position of the individual=s situated needs in that moment, but both limbs are connected by a single, larger branch where present and future outcomes exert intermingled influence.

How much power an actor needs to engage in impression management depends on five factors (Leary & Kowalski, 1990): self-concept, desired/undesired identity image, role constraints, target=s values, and current or potential social images. These five factors are in turn correlated with the impression managers fulfillment of one or more of three goals: 1) the maximization of desired outcomes and the avoidance of undesired outcomes; 2) the enhancement of one=s self-esteem; and 3) the creation of an identity. When behaviors are relevant to the fulfillment of these goals, motivation to engage in impression management is high; conversely, when behaviors are not relevant to the fulfillment of these goals, motivation to engage in impression management is low.

Situational factors

With this in mind, what situational factors might be significant to the self-presentation goals of electronic mail users in an organization? Leary & Kowalski (1990) detailed a number of factors that can potentially impact the relevance of impression management. Since organizational members are likely to be impacted to some extent by each of these situational factors, discussing them is useful. There are five situational factors. They are: 1) Is the communication public or private? Rind and Benjamin (1993) examined the behaviors of male shoppers and found that concerns about public images were more salient in producing self-presentation strategies than concerns about personal images. With respect to E-mail, participants often view it as private material, though the courts have held it legal for employers to read e-mail in company systems (Samoriski, Huffman & Trauth, 1996). Therefore, this factor will vacillate with respect to the perceived public or private norms of E-mail within an organization. 2) Is there a dependency on the target for valued outcomes? Given the interdependency of employees on organizational hierarchy to facilitate outcomes and priorities, it follows that many E-mail communications would necessarily be target dependent for the achievement of valued outcomes. 3) Is there an anticipation of future contact? Generally, in organizations the answer to this question is Ayes@ which turns attention to questions of when and how often. 4) Is there a strong goal value in place? The greater the importance of the goal, the greater the motivation to manage impressions. 5) Is the discrepancy between the desired image and the believed image beyond the limits of acceptability?

Impression management strategies

Given the limitations of electronic mail alongside the significance of openings and closings for bridging transitions between people, what types of impression management strategies are more likely to be demonstrated by E-mail users in an organizational context? Numerous taxonomies exist, however, one presented by Jones & Pittman (1982) has demonstrated useful applications in previous research (Feldman & Klich, 1991; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Leary et al., 1994). They offer five fundamental strategies of self-presentation: ingratiation, intimidation, self-promotion, exemplification and supplication. Each of these strategies is in turn characterized by specific motivations, goals, and tactics deserving a closer look.

The ingratiator is motivated by the need to be liked by others. The goal of the ingratiator is to arouse affection from others and possibly gain material forms of reinforcements. Tactics in the repertoire of the ingratiator include praises, compliments, favors, agreeing with others (opinion conformity), and an extensive number of affinity-seeking behaviors.

The intimidator is motivated by the need to have others fear him or her, particularly as a representative of company authority. The goal of the intimidator is to increase the probability a target will comply with a request and also to enhance the credibility of threats. Tactics in the repertoire of the intimidator include threats, anger, or authoritative posturing. The self-promoter is motivated to have others think he or she is competent. The goal of the self-promoter is to gain respect from others and to be perceived as capable in a specific area. Tactics in the repertoire of the self-promoter include performance claims (e.g., bragging and self-handicapping), performance accounts and the performance itself.

The exemplifier is motivated to have others think he/she worthy. The goal of the exemplifier is to show dedication, sacrificial behavior and commitment. Tactics of the exemplifier include self-denial and helping.

The supplicator is motivated to have others feel sorry for her or him. The goal of the supplicator is to be perceived as helpless or dependent on others in order to acquire some form of resource. Tactics of the supplicator include self-deprecation and requests for assistance.

These five strategic presentational strategies developed by Jones and Pittman (1982) provide a useful format for the examination of impression management tactics. Since people aim to accomplish goals (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992) and people are always monitoring their presentational goals (Canary & Cody, 1994) it makes intuitive sense that one potential way to accomplish this is through strategic statements used to open and close electronic mail communication.

In organizational settings, goals are salient because (1) organizational structure (e.g., job descriptions, performance evaluations) has prescribed them (Monge et al., 1988) and (2) Athe maintenance of images and the control of outcomes are important matters in the world of organizations@ (Higgins & Snyder, 1989). In organizations, it is assumed that people will attend to professional goals during everyday business. However, it is equally true that personal goals will influence one=s behavior at work, which in turn influences the way people use self-presentation strategies.

Of interest here is the question of whether such strategies are used by individuals when communicating through e-mail. Surely the use of these strategies in virtual space is no less strategic or valuable than self-presentation behaviors employed in face to face communication. In fact, Walther proclaims that Aself-presentations may indeed be conveyed more effectively via CMC than they can in FtF interaction@ (1996, p. 30).

This returns us to the five self-presentation strategies delineated by Jones and Pittman (1982). Given that most communications within the workplace are probably (1) of an informational nature, or, (2) reflect a request by the sender, then opening and closing statements should reflect culturally normative patterns of expression. For openings, these would be norms conducive to the use of politeness (a form of ingratiation) and also expressions of accomplishment (a form of self-promotion). For closings, it might be expected that with the significant number of messages focused on making a request of the target, the use of questions (a form of supplication) and the use of authoritative action (a form of intimidation) would be greater. The fifth strategy, exemplification, is a strategy best associated with actions as opposed to words. True exemplars are considered rare (Jones & Pittman, 1982) and the nature of this strategy finds its expressiveness through activity such as coming in for work early or staying late to finish the job. Nevertheless, while the use of exemplification in E-mail is possible, it is unlikely to occur with great frequency or that it would occur more frequently in either opening or closing messages.

Thus, the following hypotheses are offered:

H1 - Ingratiation and self-promotion strategies will occur more frequently in opening statements of E-mail communication.

H2 - Intimidation and supplication strategies will occur more frequently in closing statements of E-mail communication.

H3 - Exemplification will occur evenly in both opening and closing statements of E-mail communication.

Content analysis was conducted on hard copies of E-mail communications from employees at a major aerospace manufacturing facility in the Southern California area. Volunteers provided hard copies of E-mail communication sent and received for a period of at least two weeks. 479 messages were submitted. Of these 479 messages, 276 were considered unusable due to redundancy (duplicates of submitted messages), group communications (more than two receivers ), or insufficient data (one word messages). 203 useable messages (N=203) were separated and numerically tagged for identification in coding both opening and closing statements of the e-mail message. Coding of all data was performed by an independent coder and the author. Reliability check of the data using Cohen=s kappa (Cohen,1960) revealed 74% reliability between coders in coding opening statements, and 80% reliability in coding closing statements.

Coding methods:

Messages were coded for strategy use in both opening and closing statements.

Presence of standard greeting/closing protocol statements (use of hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, good day, goodbye, and other culturally prescribed forms of greeting or closing messages and their derivatives) were noted on the coding sheet (see Appendix A). If this was the only use of greeting or closing present, such statements were coded as ingratiation since culturally prescribed forms of greeting or closing are considered a derivative of politeness norms (Jones, 1964). If additional words and sentences were linked next to these statements, these additional words or sentences were considered the unit of analysis for coding. It can be argued that protocol statements such as Ahello@ or Agoodbye@ when linked with additional greeting messages serve merely as a form of phatic or meaningless communication (Coupland et al., 1992.) Additionally, since the use of behavioral norms (i.e., standardized greeting protocol) is one tactic of ingratiation, potential conflicts are possible in the event the adjacent statement under analysis reflects a differing type of tactic. Therefore, in these cases, the statement of analysis was the aggregate statement which followed a protocol statement. The presence of a standard greeting protocol, then, was recorded to account for the use of such protocol serving as either a tactic of ingratiation or as a phatic link to other tactics.

The unit of analysis for openings was defined as the message unit formed by the initial aggregate of adjacent words or sentences prior to the main body of the message. The unit of analysis for closings was defined as the message unit formed by the final aggregate of adjacent words or sentences which came after the main body of the message. Openings were coded for the primary use of one impression management tactic, and closings were coded for the primary use of one impression management tactic. In cases where the message consisted of one sentence, only one (same) tactic was assigned to both opening and closing categories. The context of the message was taken into account if necessary to determine strategy use and/or type.

Classification system: Content categories (Berelson, 1952) were adapted from the five impression management strategies developed initially by Jones and Pittman (1982). These strategies have been useful in previous research (Arkin & Shephard, 1990; Feldman & Klich, 1991) and provide a functional basis for impression management investigation. The five original strategies are ingratiation, intimidation, self-promotion, exemplification, and supplication. Each strategy was defined according to the desirable goal, image and/or emotion sought, potential tactical behaviors, and sample statements (see Appendix B). In addition to these specific categories, a category reflecting no use of strategy was included, along with a separate category called Aother@ for those messages that reflected some type of strategic use but did not fit any of the existing categories. After an initial review of the data, it was determined a unique hybrid strategy existed that fused both use of ingratiation plus supplication (most commonly expressed as AWould you please get back to me on this?@) and should be included for content coding. For ease in coding, this hybrid strategy was labeled Apolite petition@. After samples were coded, frequencies were tabulated to test each hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 was confirmed (see Table 1 for frequencies and percentages). Self-promotion was the primary tactic used in e-mail openings (32.5%), followed by ingratiation (17.2%) and supplication (15.3%) as secondary tactics. These were followed by a smaller cluster of tactics as follows: no tactical use of strategy (13.3%); intimidation (9.9%); and polite petition (7.9%).

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed in the area of supplication (see Table 1 for frequencies and percentages). Ingratiation was the primary tactic used in closing messages (31.5%) followed by supplication (22.2%.) Further below these primary tactics were a cluster of secondary tactics arrayed as follows: intimidation (12.3%); no tactical use of strategy (8.4%); self-promotion (11.8%); polite petition (10.3%).

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was confirmed, though the miniscule use of this strategy was even less than expected. Exemplification was noted in 3% of opening messages and in 2% of closing messages, reflecting an even though negligible presence.

Tabulation of the presence of standard greeting protocol along with the use of first name, last name or initials only in both openings and closings (see Table 2 for frequencies and percentages) was a secondary objective of this study. Opening statements contained only 8 (3.9%) standard greeting protocol statements and only 3 (1.4%) used the receiver=s last name. However, in more than 94 (46%) opening messages, receivers= first name was used.

In closing statements, standard closing protocol was present in just 6 (2.9%) messages, and only 3 (1.4%) used the sender=s last name. However, in 87 (42%) closing messages, the sender=s first name was present, in 17 (8.3%) both first and last names were present, and in 25 (12.2%) the sender used his or her initials as part of the closing.

A primary goal of this study was to investigate the frequency of impression management strategies used in the openings and closings of electronic mail. Since many impression management behaviors are Aoften sincere components of mainstream social behavior@ (Rosenfeld & Giacalone, p. 6, 1991) it stands to reason their ubiquitous presence would be realized even more so in everyday forms of communication. In particular, the workplace provides many such opportunities. As more companies turn to E-mail for the facilitation of internal company communication, the subtle nuances associated with this medium are a fertile field for exploration. Martinko (1991) observed in an essay on future directions for research in impression management that organizations provide many such opportunities for study given their propensity to record and preserve archival data with impression management value.

It appears that even when messages are executed in virtual space such as E-mail, impression management strategies guide to some extent the construction and delivery of such messages. Several key findings emerged as a result of this study. First was confirmation of self-promotion as the primary impression management strategy used to open up E-mail communications. Self-promoters sought to foster an image of accomplishment or competency with the target audience. The following examples are representative of self-promoting statements:

AI host a meeting every Wednesday at 9am with the division IRM reps.

During these meetings several issues have come up@ - Female to Male, Peer

AYes, I have been planning to write the memo from Pat Nohalty - - we would definitely like to have some software training.@ Female to Male, Peer

AThe enclosures are the revisions to the PCVP SOW and the revised MIP TDN. Both have been reviewed by George and blessed. I will present the changes

to the ATCS IRB for implementation.@ Male to Male, Peer

Self-promotion as the most prominent strategy for opening up e-mail messages reinforces a commonplace view that business communicators seek to regularly demonstrate their proficiency to other organizational members.

Ingratiation and supplication were also represented in opening remarks. Ingratiation which reflected politeness norms found expression through common remarks such as:

AThanks for the Excel log sheet@ Male to Male, Peer

Ingratiation also took a number of traditional (praise, compliments) designs in messages:

ASounds like you have a good fit for the card.@ Male Superior to Male

AThat=s cute!!! Just because I forgot to add your name doesn=t mean you can get out of the meeting that easily. I didn=t forget you. You have to give me partial credit (at least I sent you the note.)

Sorry, -Ven@ Female Subordinate to Male

Supplication, on the other hand, almost always expressed requests for assistance in the form of a question:

ADo I do individual names or use MSK - HB?@ Female Subordinate to Male

ADo you have any of your old material on Time Card Training?@ Male to Male, Peer

Likewise, in closing remarks, the primary strategy used was ingratiation (31.5%) followed by supplication (22.2%) as the secondary strategy used. The strong presence of these strategies in both openings and closings of organizational e-mail messages provides ample support for the notion that people do actively manage impressions in even the most innocuous settings.

Second, with respect to IM strategies used in openings, it is of more interest to consider the substantial use of ingratiation and supplication which follow the use of self-promotion. It was expected that self-promotion and ingratiation would appear in openings due to their alignment with normative cultural patterns. However, the appreciable use of supplication as an opening strategy is an unexpected result. This may, however, reflect the large presence of one sentence messages phrased as a question which were then coded as supplication in both opening and closing statements.

Third, with respect to IM strategies used in closings, the extremely strong use of ingratiation as a strategy may reflect a general recognition that ingratiation has the greatest potential to successfully influence the achievement of a particular outcome with the target. This can be seen in closings such as:

AWith all of the loose strings to tie up, maybe a meeting with you and

other HR leaders would be appropriate? I=ll be glad to assist where ever you need.@ Male to Female, Peer

The strong use of supplication in closings was expected since a primary use of organizational E-mail is to communicate requests or needs by the sender to the receiver of the message. Weaker than expected was the use of intimidation in closings. This could reflect either an egalitarianistic company culture; or more likely, the fact that a majority of the messages analyzed in this study were between peer members of the organization.

Fourth, the general disuse of exemplification as a strategy in either openings or closings is congruent with the difficulty in assessing a strategy that finds its power in action as opposed to words. E-mail is a textual material not easily translated to demonstrations of activity that would be consistent with notions of exemplification. Dedication was the most likely form of exemplification to emerge in most messages:

AI am concerned about the travel budget, which we are over on.@ Male Superior to Female

The emergence of the hybrid strategy ingratiation + supplication, subsequently labeled as the Apolite petition@ strategy, is probably indicative of longstanding cultural expectations which favor the use of politeness norms when broaching a request of the target. Examples common to the data include:

APlease provide a service contract user/buyer number to Steve@ Female to Male, Peer

AWhat can we schedule starting the 12th? We would like Word and Excel

traning (sic) most. Please advise.@ Female to Male, Peer

Brown and Levinson (1987) in their work on politeness discuss fusion between norms. The presence of politeness which falls under the rubric of ingratiation is a likely candidate for fusion with the strategy of supplication as a means toward an end, particularly in organizations where cooperation is an assumed standard of behavior between employees.

Alongside the tabulation of impression management strategies found in e-mail messages, the use of standard greeting protocol and presence of both sender and receiver names was also investigated. These frequencies are of some interest since the headings affiliated with E-mail communications are naturally inclusive of both sender and receiver=s name. Why, then, would an individual duplicate this information in the body of the text when it is already apparent in the heading? One reasonable explanation might be the use of first names tends to express a sense of warmth by the sender to the receiver, yet maintains proper business decorum between individuals. If one takes a not-so-difficult leap of logic that the use of first names is an aspect of ingratiation, then the totals tabulated for openings would significantly change toward ingratiation as the primary impression management tactic rather than self-promotion.

Likewise, if the use of first names in closings is an aspect of ingratiation, the totals tabulated would reflect an even larger use of ingratiation than was recorded. These results conflict with the predicted hypothesis for a greater use of intimidation and supplication in closings, and suggest further evidence of pro-social norms which favor positive over negative valenced communication in organizational settings. Nevertheless, the strong show of self-promotion in openings is somewhat indicative of a corporate norm which supports the notion that Atooting one=s own horn@ is both acceptable and encouraged as a practice between organizational members.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

Data obtained for this study contains high ecological validity as a strength and also as a weakness. On the one hand, data collected has strong natural field value. On the other hand, since participants were asked to self-censor sensitive E-mail communications, the data pool examined here may not reflect the fullest range or depth of strategies actually used by members of the organization.

As well, a larger and more diverse pool of participants would add stronger sample validity. Messages were evenly divided between male and female employees (M = 50.2%; F = 49.8%) but the majority of messages occurred between those with peer status to each other (peer = 69.5%; subordinate = 19.7%; superior = 10.8%).

Future directions

Interest in E-mail as well as the Internet has exploded across America. The microcomputer revolution, though less than two decades old, is fundamentally altering personal and professional lives in every sector of our nation. Within this rapidly evolving technology, human nature and human processes are inextricably bound. Impression management theory has provided a potent means for explaining a wide range of human processes, and is especially suited for understanding organizational life. E-mail is just one facet of the evolving face of organizational communication. With the assimilation of dynamic technological advancements into organizations, many other aspects of human communication still remain in search of exploration. Martinko (1991) exhorts a multi-disciplinary approach to researching impression management, and suggests a closer relationship between practitioners and theoreticians might yield a more fruitful understanding of the conceptual workings of processes as well as the effective practice of such processes. This is a worthy consideration for all of us as we enter into a new millennium where competitive markets will no doubt exert accelerated pressures that will influence the communication of both organizations and individuals.

Table 1

Use of impression management strategies in E-mail

Openings (n = 203)	f	%	Closings (n = 203)	f	%
Self-promotion	66	32.5	Ingratiation	64	31.5
Ingratiation	35	17.2	Supplication	45	22.2
Supplication	31	15.3	Intimidation	25	12.3
No tactic used	27	13.3	Self-promotion	24	11.8
			Polite petition	21	10.3
Intimidation	20	9.9
Polite petition	16	7.9	No tactic used	17	8.4
			Exemplification	4	2.0
Exemplificaiotn	6	3.0	Other(uncoded)	3	1.5
Other(uncoded)	2	1.0			100.0
		100.0

Table 2

Frequencies of standard greetings and use of names

Openings (n = 203)	totals	%	Closings (n = 203)	totals	%
Standard greeting present	8	3.9	Standard closing present	6	3.0
Receiver First name present	95	46.8	Sender First name present	88	43.3
Receiver Last name present	2	1.0	Sender Last name present	2	1.0
			Both first and last name	17	8.4
			Initials only	24	11.8

Albert, S., & Kessler, S. (1978). Ending social encounters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 541- 553.

Alexander, C.N., & Knight, G. (1971). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34, 65- 82.

Allen, M.W. & Caillouet, R.H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44- 62.

Allison, S.T., & Herlocker, C.E. (1994). Constructing impressions of demographically diverse organizational settings. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 637- 652.

Arkin, R.M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311- 334). New York: Academic Press.

Arkin, R.M. & Shepperd, J.A. (1990). Strategic self-presentation: an overview. In M.J. Cody and M.L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 175-193). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Baym, N.K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S.G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety (pp. 138-163.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Becker, T.E., & Martin, S.L. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for managing poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174-199.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communications research. New York: Free Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canary, D.J., & Cody, M.J. (1994). Interpersonal communication. New York: St. Martin=s.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 20, 37- 46.

Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J.D. (1992). AHow are you?@: Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society, 21, 207- 230.

DuBrin, A.J. (1994). Sex differences in the use and effectiveness of tactics in impression management. Psychological Reports, 74, 531-544.

Feldman, D.C., & Klich, N.R. (1991). Impression management and career strategies. In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied Impression Management, (pp. 67- 80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Forsyth, D.R., Schlenker, B.R., Leary, M.R., & McCown, N.E. (1985). Self-presentational determinants of sex differences in leadership. Small Group Behavior, 16, 197- 210.

Gialcone, R.A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an

organizational setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(3), 321- 326.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.

Higgins, R.L., & Snyder, C.R. (1989). The business of excuses. In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 73- 85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jones, E.E., & Pittman, T.S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. M. Suls (Ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, S.G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S.G. Jones (Ed.) , Cybersociety (pp. 10- 35.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J.E., Ferris, G.R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Knapp, M.L., Hart, R.P., Friedrich, G.W., & Shulman, G.M. (1973). The rhetoric of goodbye: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of human leave-taking. Speech Monographs, 40, 182-198.

Krivonos, P.D., & Knapp, M.L. (1975). Initiating communication: What do you say when you say hello? Central States Speech Journal, 26, 115-126.

Leary, M.R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Leary, M.R. & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34- 47.

Leary, M.R., Nezlek, J.B., Downs, D., Radford-Davenport, J., Martin, J., & McMullen, A. (1994). Self-presentation in everyday interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender composition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 664- 673.

Leathers, D. (1992). Successful nonverbal communication. New York: Macmillan.

Martinko, M.J. (1991). Future directions: Toward a model for applying impression

management strategies in the workplace. In R.A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management (pp. 259- 277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Monge, P.R., Bachman, S.G., Dillard, J.P., & Eisenberg, E.M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 505- 528). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

O=Connell, S.E. (1988). Human communication in the high tech office. In G.M. Goldhaber and G.A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 473-482). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Paulhus, D.L., Bruce, M.N. & Trapnell, P.D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108.

Rind, B., & Benjamin, D. (1993). Effects of public image concerns and self-image on compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 19- 25.

Rosenfeld, P., & Giacalone, R.A., (1991). From extreme to mainstream: applied impression management in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management (pp. 3-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Samoriski, J.H., Huffman, J.L., & Trauth, D.M. (1996). Electronic mail, privacy, and the electronic communications privacy act of 1986: Technology in search of law. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 60-76.

Schiffrin, D. (1977). Opening encounters. American Sociological Review, 42, 679-691.

Schmitz, J. & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail. Communication Research, 18, 487-523.

Schneider, D.J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: toward a broader conception. In J.T.Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 23- 40). New York: Academic Press.

Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B.R. & Weigold, M.F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. American Review Psychology, 43, 133-168.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123-135.

Tedeschi, J.T. & Riess, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 3- 22). New York: Academic Press.

Tedeschi, J.T., Schlenker, B.R. & Bonoma, T.V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist, 26, 685- 695.

Tetlock, P.E., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92, 59- 77.

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3- 43.

Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50- 88.

Witt, L.A. (1990). Person-situation effects of self-presentation on the telephone at work. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 213- 218.

Coder ID                                    Message ID                  

Status                                          (1 = superior, 2 = subordinate, 3 = peer)
Gender                                        (1 = M; 2 = F)

Standard greeting protocol present?                      (1 = Y; 2 = N)    
Receiver first name used in opening?                    (1 = Y; 2 = N)
Receiver last name used in opening?                     (1 = Y; 2 = N)

Statement for analysis                                                                                                                    Check one:
1) Ingratiation                                       7) Other                                2) Intimidation                                       8) None                          
3) Self-promotion                              
4) Exemplification                             
5) Supplication                                
6) Polite petition                             



Standard closing protocol present?                             (1 = Y; 2 = N) 
Sender first name used in closing?                               (1 = Y; 2 = N)
Sender last name used in closing?                               (1 = Y; 2 = N)
Both first and last name used in closing?                     (1 = Y; 2 = N)
Initial(s) only used in closing?                                      (1 = Y; 2 = N)

Statement for analysis                                                                                                                    Check one:
1) Ingratiation                              7) Other                         
2) Intimidation                              8) None                          
3) Self-promotion                             
4) Exemplification                            
5) Supplication                       
6) Polite petition                            

1) Ingratiation - seeking to be liked in order to arouse affection from another(s).

The ingratiator is motivated by the need to be liked by others. The goal of the ingratiator is to be liked, arouse affection from others, and possibly gain material forms of reinforcements. Tactics in the repertoire of the ingratiator include: praise or compliment others, favors, agree with others (opinion conformity) and an extensive number of affinity-seeking behaviors.

Ingratiation can entail:

A. Praise, flattery or complimenting each other

e.g., ATerrific job on the project, Jones, you really know your statistics.@

B. Do favors for the target

e.g., ALet me take care of telling the boss.@

C. Opinion conformity (agree with others)

e.g., AYou=re absolutely right about needing more help, Garcia.@

D. Affinity-seeking (use of Awe@ or Aus@ to show solidarity with the target).

e.g., AWe=ve got a great thing going here, let=s keep it up.@

E. Behavior conformity (use of politeness norms).

e.g., APlease@; AThank you@; AYour welcome@

2) Self-promotion - seeking to be perceived as competent in a skill area to gain respect.

The self-promoter is motivated to have others think he or she is competent. The goal of the self-promoter is to gain respect from others and to be perceived as capable in a specific area. Tactics in the repertoire of the self-promoter include performance claims (e.g., bragging and self-handicapping), and performance accounts.

Self-promotion can entail:

A. Performance claims (designed to inspire awe in the target)

e.g., ANo sweat, I can program anything you need in visual basic.@

B. Performance accounts (designed to inspire respect in the target)

e.g., ALast week I was able to push the budget proposal for approval.@

3) Intimidation - seeking to be feared or perceived as potent, powerful, or authoritative.

The intimidator is motivated by the need to have others fear him or her, particularly as a representative of company authority. The goal of the intimidator is to increase the probability that a target will comply with a request and also to enhance the credibility of threats. Tactics in the repertoire of the intimidator include: threats, anger, or authoritative posturing.

Intimidation can entail:

A. Threats (explicit - designed to instill fear in the target)

e.g., AIf you don=t take care of this problem, there will be hell to pay@

e.g., ADo it now.@ (Implying consequences will come if you don=t)

B. Anger (designed to cause concern/anxiety in the target)

e.g., AThis report is all wrong, and I expected it to be done right.@

C. Authoritative posturing (implicit - designed to solicit compliance based on target=s general respect for authority, or specifically, a particular person=s status)

e.g., AKeep me informed on...@; AAs manager, I cannot allow this to happen.@

D. Offering advice or instruction

e.g., AGive Bob a call and tell him...@; AHere=s the format, follow this@

4) Supplication - seeking to be perceived as dependent on other(s) for help and in need of help or obligation from others.

The supplicator is motivated to have others feel sorry for her or him. The goal of the supplicator is to be perceived as dependent on others for help or assistance. Tactics of the supplicator include self-deprecation and requests for help.

Tactics can entail:

A. Self-deprecation (designed to solicit nurturance from the target)

e.g., AI=m not good at writing proposals, and you are so much better, can you help

me out.@

B. Requests for help (designed to solicit obligation from the target)

e.g., AI lost my copy of the minutes from the meeting and I know you keep extras on file, can you give me another?@

5) Exemplification - seeking to be perceived as dedicated, self-sacrificing and committed.

The exemplifier is motivated to have others think he or she is worthy. The goal of the exemplifier is to be perceived as dedicated, self-sacrificing and committed. Tactics of the exemplifier include self-denial, helping, and dedication.

Tactics can entail:

A. Self-denial (designed to bring on guilt in the target)

e.g., AI haven=t had a raise myself in several years@

B. Helping or cooperation

e.g., AHere are the reports you asked for.@

C. Dedication (designed to solicit emulation from the target)

e.g., AWe all work pretty hard around here.@

6) Polite Petition

The process of seeking to be perceived as likeable but also in need of help from another. The polite petitioner is motivated to have others help him/her while retaining a congenial demeanor. The goal of the polite petitioner is to solicit help in a socially engaging way. Tactics of the polite petitioner combine the use of behavioral conformity together with a request for help.

Tactics entail:

A. Politeness norms (behavioral conformity) + a request for help

e.g., APlease get back to me as soon as possible with your answer.@

e.g., AThank you, I appreciate your attention to this matter.@