The impact of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission: A social judgment theory perspective

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Upward ingratiation is a universal workplace phenomenon because leaders have more power and resources, which are closely related to the interests of subordinates. This phenomenon is especially common in Chinese culture due to the large power distance between superior and subordinate. Subordinate ingratiation appears to influence supervisors’ affective responses and punishment decisions.

OBJECTIVE:

The study’s purpose was to analyze the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission in China, as well as the mediating role of interpersonal affect and the moderating role of authentic leadership.

METHODS:

Data were collected from 389 supervisor-subordinate dyads in China. The reliability and validity of measurement scales were demonstrated. Multiple regression analyses and bootstrapping tests were used to examine the research model.

RESULTS:

Subordinate ingratiation is positively related to supervisor punishment omission. Interpersonal affect fully mediates the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission. Authentic leadership negatively moderates the relationships between both subordinate ingratiation and interpersonal affect and subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission. The moderating effect of authentic leadership between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission is partially mediated by interpersonal affect.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings contribute to the theory about the effect of ingratiation, with implications for practice and future research.

Keywords

Subordinate ingratiation punishment omission interpersonal affect authentic leadership social judgment theory

Hao Zhang is a Ph.D. scholar at the School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China. Meanwhile, he is a lecturer at the School of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan, China. His current research interest is Organizational Behavior.

Mingzhi Ding is currently working as an Associate Professor of Management at the School of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Science and Technology. She got a Ph.D. degree in Business School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. Her research interests include Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management.

Xiuli Sun, She is doing post-doctorate research at Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. She got a Ph.D. degree in Business School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. Her current research interests are Organizational Behavior and Innovation Management.

1 Introduction

Ingratiation is a kind of impression management activity whereby a person adopts certain interpersonal strategies, such as conforming to others’ opinions and caring for others, in order to generate a good impression [1]. It is a universal phenomenon for employees to ingratiate themselves with their supervisors (i.e., upward ingratiation), because supervisors have decision-making autonomy, access to valued extrinsic rewards, and control over the allocation of widely sought-after resources [2]. Upward ingratiation is particularly common in the Chinese context because of the large power distance between superior and subordinate. Subordinate ingratiation can get supervisor satisfaction [3], enhance leader-member exchange quality [4, 5], improve performance evaluation by supervisors [6, 7], and eventually get various forms of rewards from supervisors, such as flexible working arrangements [7], increasing monetary income, and promotion [5, 8]. Since subordinate ingratiation can affect the supervisor’s reward to the subordinate, can subordinate ingratiation affect the supervisor’s punishment of the subordinate? In other words, can subordinate ingratiation cause the supervisor to omit punishment that the subordinate deserves? Punishment omission is defined as leader non-reinforcement of subordinate poor performance, specifically, a failure to respond (for instance, through reprimand, fine, or demotion) to a subordinate’s bad performance [9]. In the asymmetric power relationship between supervisor and subordinate, supervisors not only have the power to reward subordinates, but also the power to punish subordinates. Correspondingly, subordinates rely on supervisors not only to obtain rewards but also to avoid punishment [10, 11]. Therefore, exploring the effect of subordinate ingratiation on leader punishment omission is a critical issue.

Another important question is: how and when does subordinate ingratiation influence supervisor punishment omission? Social judgment theory holds that people can evaluate others and infer their behaviors based on social perception and the resulting judgment will lead to affective and behavioral reactions [12]. Correspondingly, supervisors will evaluate and judge the subordinates’ ingratiatory behavior based on social perception, and then produce affective and behavioral responses. Interpersonal affect is defined as a “like-dislike” relationship and is considered the major “currency” in social intercourse [13]. Our model frames supervisors’ interpersonal affect as the proximal consequence of subordinate ingratiation, while interpersonal affect in turn further causes supervisors’ punishment omission behavior. Also, social judgment theory holds that the attitude or opinions of the perceiver will act as a reference point, thereby affecting the social perception and judgment [14, 15]. Authentic leadership is a central organizing principle in leadership studies and the “root” concept of many other types of positive leadership [16, 17], such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and leader humility [18 –20]. Authentic leaders are genuine leaders. They comply with intrinsic moral convictions, values, and beliefs [21 –23], and have a good mentality [24], which may be conducive to making objective judgments and reasonable punishment decisions when facing subordinate ingratiation.

Previous literature has focused on the reward-related outcomes of subordinate ingratiation because the reward is an important means to make employees content [25]. However, in addition to reward, punishment is also an essential means of management control. Therefore, this study explores the punishment-related outcomes of subordinate ingratiation, which extends our understanding of the consequences of ingratiation. Also, this study clarifies the mediating role of interpersonal affect and the moderating role of authentic leadership in the relation between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission, which further enhances the existing literature on the ingratiation effect.

The purpose of our study is threefold: (1) To examine the effect of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission; (2) to know how subordinate ingratiation can increase supervisor punishment omission through interpersonal affect, and (3) to assess the impact of authentic leadership as a moderator on the relation between subordinate ingratiation, interpersonal affect, and supervisor punishment omission. We present the theoretical framework of this study in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Theoretical framework.

This article is organized into five parts. In the second part, theoretical foundations and hypotheses development are offered. The third part presents the research methodology including sample, procedure, and measures. The fourth part presents the results and data analyses. The fifth and last part is the discussion and conclusion.

2 Theoretical foundations and hypotheses

2.1 Social judgment theory

Social judgment theory is originated from Brunswick’s psychology of probabilistic functionalism, which includes two themes: probabilism and functionalism. Probabilism is the basic assumption, which means that humans cannot know the environment with certainty; the environment can only be known probabilistically. More importantly, social judgment theory emphasizes the importance of functionalism, which means that we can arrive at an understanding of the social environment and make social judgments based on social perceptions integrated from a variety of the cues or sources of perceptual information from the environment [26, 27].

Social judgment theory has become a widely used, system-oriented perspective to understand human judgment and decision [27]. The influence of this theory has been extended to many judgment domains, such as educational decision [28], medical decision [29], and legitimacy of inequality [30]. More recently, social judgment theory has been applied in the field of inter-group relations [14], human communication [31], moral judgments [32], corporate reputation [33], and emotions at work [34]. Our research focuses on the context of social interaction between supervisor and subordinate. We infer that subordinate ingratiation can impact supervisors’ interpersonal perceptions and judgments about the subordinate, which may influence their affective reactions and punishment decisions.

2.2 Subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission

Ingratiation includes four major tactics [1]. The first is other enhancement, which involves the communication of enhancing, evaluative statements, such as expressing a positive evaluation of the target person, emphasizing his or her admirable qualities. The second is self-presentation, through which people aim to increase their chance of being judged attractive by the target person. This tactic is implemented by describing one’s own good characteristics and behaviors, or by implementing actual behaviors that display good characteristics. The third tactic is opinion conformity, whereby a person targets consistency with the opinions, judgments, or behaviors of the target person. The fourth is rendering favors to the target person, because a favor can induce in the recipient the obligation to reciprocate, which is based on the norm of reciprocity, a universal norm related to the whole scope of human interaction [35, 36].

Psychological studies of social cognition have established two fundamental dimensions of social perceptions: warmth and competence [12, 37]. The warmth dimension captures traits related to perceived intent for good or ill, such as friendliness, tolerance, sincerity, and trustworthiness. The competence dimension is related to perceived ability, including intelligence, skill, innovativeness, and efficiency. These two dimensions can explain 82 percent of the variance in perceptions of everyday social behaviors [38]. The combination of warmth and competence judgments forms the basis for overall impressions of others [37].

We infer that subordinate ingratiation can cause supervisors’ warmth and competence judgments. Specifically, other enhancement is reflected in complimenting the competences and virtues of supervisors. Rendering favors is reflected in helping the supervisor. Obviously, these two ingratiation tactics are more likely to be judged as warmth by the supervisor. Self-presentation is manifested in demonstrating personal virtues and abilities in front of the superior, which is more likely to be judged as competence. Opinion conformity may be judged as warmth due to identification with the opinions of the supervisor and may also be judged as competence due to conscientious implementation of tasks assigned by the supervisor.

In social intercourse, warmth judgment can motivate people to reciprocate. Reciprocity is not only a transactional norm of interdependent exchange, but also an ethical norm that requires people to help and to avoid injuring those who treat us kindly [35, 36]. Therefore, supervisors are grateful and will repay the subordinate who gives them warmth. According to reinforcement theory, punishment involves the systematic administration of undesirable stimuli (such as imposing a reprimand or fine) or removal of desirable stimuli (such as withdrawing privileges through demotion), which may hurt or injure those who are being punished [39]. Therefore, supervisors would not implement punishment so as not to hurt the subordinate judged to be warm.

On the other hand, competence judgment can lead to a halo effect, which is a pervasive cognitive bias in impression formation, and reflects a tendency of inappropriate generalizations from one aspect of a person’s performance to all aspects of the person’s performance, that is, each independent dimension of performance is judged consistently with the overall impression of the person being judged [40]. Competence judgment can give supervisors a good overall impression on the subordinate’s working ability and expected performance, which can produce a halo effect. Hence, the supervisor may ignore the subordinate’s poor performance in some aspects and not impose punishment. According to the above reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Subordinate ingratiation is positively related to supervisor punishment omission.

2.3 Mediating role of interpersonal affect

Interpersonal judgments involve three components: cognitive responses to a person (which represent what one thinks of a person), affective responses (which represent what one feels about a person), and behavioral responses (which represent what one does or intends to do with regard to a person) [41]. We have already demonstrated in the previous reasoning that subordinate ingratiation can lead to the supervisor’s warmth and competence judgments. These two basic judgments underlie the experience of affective reactions [37]. Interpersonal affect reflects how much one likes someone, and can take various forms, such as friendship, admiration, respect, attraction, and so on [42, 43]. It is not strange that warmth judgment can induce interpersonal affect because interpersonal liking is a reciprocal process. If we judge that someone is warm to us, we tend to instantly like him or her in return [41]. Competence judgment can also induce interpersonal affect, mainly in the form of admiration, respect, and attraction, but warmth judgment carries more weight in affective reaction [12, 38]. Overall, due to these two basic social judgments, subordinate ingratiation can promote the supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward the subordinate.

Interpersonal affect is an important source of bias in performance appraisal. Tsui and Barry [42] found that interpersonal affect could enhance the influence of leniency and the halo effect on the supervisor’s appraisal of a subordinate. Varma et al. [43] found that interpersonal affect had an impact on performance ratings because supervisors could not separate their liking for a subordinate from actual performance. Supervisors use affect consistency, rather than good or bad performance, as the criterion of performance evaluation, and tend to neglect or distort affect-inconsistent performance information [44]. As a result, supervisors who have interpersonal affect toward a subordinate may misinterpret his or her poor performance information as meaningless or an aberration, and therefore will not impose punishment. Consequently, we propose that subordinate ingratiation influences supervisor punishment omission via interpersonal affect:

Hypothesis 2: The supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward a subordinate mediates the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission.

2.4 Moderating role of authentic leadership

Authentic leadership includes four characteristics: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective [21]. First, self-awareness involves gaining self-insight through exposure to others and demonstrating an understanding of one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and impact on others. Second, relational transparency refers to presenting one’s authentic (not fake) self to others by openly showing one’s true thoughts and feelings. Third, balanced processing entails objectively analyzing relevant information before making decisions, and extensively soliciting suggestions inconsistent with one’s own standpoint. Finally, the internalized moral perspective is a form of self-regulation guided by internal values and moral standards [21].

Employees’ upward ingratiation might manifest in different ways, such as other-enhancement, which involves verbal compliments to leaders; self-presentation, self-focused ingratiation that emphasizes one’s own positive qualities; opinion conformity, a tendency to agree with leaders; and favor rendering, or helping leaders voluntarily [1]. Each of these four sub-dimensions speaks to employees’ deliberate efforts to evoke favorable evaluations from leaders [45]. In particular, as the performance appraisal event draws closer, the motivation of achieving good evaluations also increases, leading to the increasing use of upward ingratiation [46]. Therefore, upward ingratiatory behaviors are tactics that employees use to impress organizational leaders and get positive assessments [45].

However, authentic leaders have clear self-awareness of their own strengths, weaknesses, and social impact on others [21], and are not swayed by subordinate ingratiation. This helps to keep calm and prudent thinking, and the ability to easily recognize the personal motivations behind a subordinate’s ingratiatory behaviors, to make rational punishment decisions.

Besides, authentic leaders can perform balanced processing when making decisions [21]. Therefore, they can objectively evaluate subordinates based on multidimensional performance information, thereby avoiding cognitive biases caused by incomplete information, such as the halo effect [40]. This can help supervisors to make fair punishment decisions based on comprehensive and objective performance information of subordinates.

Also, authentic leaders act according to internal values and moral standards, rather than succumbing to external pressures or meeting others’ expectations [47]. Hence, supervisors with a high degree of authenticity impose punishment based on consistent norms and standards, rather than changing punishment principles and standards according to subordinates’ ingratiatory behaviors. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Authentic leadership negatively moderates the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission, such that the relationship is weaker when the supervisor has a high degree of authenticity.

The purpose of subordinate ingratiation is to avoid the negative outcomes from leaders, create resource gains, and add to their status in the workplace [45], which indicates employees’ relative standing, in terms of prestige, respect, and prominence [48]. Authentic leaders have clear self-awareness [21], which enables them to treat subordinate ingratiation cautiously and rationally, so as to identify the selfish motivation behind the subordinate’s ingratiatory behaviors rather than regarding it as the pure intention of sincerity and goodness. As a result, the supervisor’s interpersonal affect to this subordinate will be weakened.

Furthermore, upward ingratiation can threaten self-esteem because it is a kind of submissive or obedient behavior that undermines the interpersonal autonomy, and implicitly admits to relying on the supervisor to obtain valuable outcomes [49]. The cognitive dissonance caused by ingratiation is often accompanied by the subordinate’s sarcasm, resentment, and social undermining against the supervisor [49]. Even if subordinates are dissatisfied with or resentful of their superiors, they still ostensibly show compliments and flattery, which is particularly prominent in Chinese companies due to the large power distance between superior and subordinate. Therefore, subordinate ingratiation has a certain degree of hypocrisy [49]. However, authentic leaders adhere to genuineness and prefer transparent interpersonal relationships without disguise or deception [21 –23]. Based on the similarity-attraction paradigm, similarity of cognition, such as beliefs or values, can lead to interpersonal attraction and liking, whereas dissimilarity of cognition can engender alienation and even repulsion [50]. Obviously, the hypocrisy reflected in subordinate ingratiation violates the authentic leader’s values of genuineness, which will decrease the supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward the subordinate. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Authentic leadership negatively moderates the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and the supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward the subordinate, such that the relationship is weaker when the supervisor has a high degree of authenticity.

Our theoretical framework also includes a mediated moderation model (i.e., moderation is mediated), which means that the interacting effect of the independent variable and the moderating variable on the dependent variable is mediated by the mediating variable [51]. Hypothesis 3 posits that the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission is weaker when the supervisor has a high degree of authenticity, which means that subordinate ingratiation and authentic leadership have an interacting effect on supervisor punishment omission. Also, Hypothesis 4 posits that subordinate ingratiation and authentic leadership have an interacting effect on interpersonal affect. Furthermore, according to the reasoning process of Hypothesis 2, interpersonal affect can further increase supervisor punishment omission. Taken together, subordinate ingratiation and authentic leadership have an interacting effect on interpersonal affect, and interpersonal affect in turn influences supervisor punishment omission, which means that the interacting effect of subordinate ingratiation and authentic leadership on supervisor punishment omission is mediated by interpersonal affect. This yields the last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: The moderating effect of authentic leadership between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission is mediated by the supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward the subordinate.

3 Research methodology

3.1 Sample and procedure

According to the contact information provided by our friends, we selected six manufacturing enterprises in the southern Jiangsu Province of China and contacted senior managers to get permission to collect research data. The six enterprises have 1,567 employees. We adopted hierarchical sampling and conducted random sampling in each department of these enterprises and the sampling ratio in each department was 30 percent. In total, 470 subordinates and 59 supervisors participated in our study. We obtained the consent of all participants and assured them of the confidentiality and anonymity of questionnaire responses, aiming to reduce social desirability bias. Assisted by the managers, we arranged for participants to complete questionnaires at work during breaks. It took us three months to collect the data in stages. At Time 1, the participants provided demographic information. Also, supervisors completed a survey that included a measure of subordinate ingratiation, whereas subordinates completed a measure of authentic leadership. At Time 2 (two months later), supervisors completed the measure of their interpersonal affect toward each subordinate. At Time 3 (one month later), subordinates completed a measure of supervisor punishment omission.

Overall, we obtained valid questionnaires for 389 supervisor-subordinate dyads, involving 54 supervisors. Each supervisor evaluated the ingratiatory behaviors of about 4–10 subordinates. The effective response rates of subordinates and supervisors were 82.77 percent and 91.53 percent, respectively. Among the subordinate participants: 72 percent were male; 57.2 percent were born from 1980 to 1990, 23.39 percent after 1990, and 19.41 percent before 1980; 24.31 percent had completed primary education, 40.13 percent had completed senior high or secondary education, 30.81 percent had a college degree, and 4.75 percent had a bachelor degree or above; 35.91 percent had an organizational tenure of 6 years or more, 41.07 percent had an organizational tenure of 2–5 years, 23.01 percent had an organizational tenure of less than 2 years. Among the supervisor participants: all were born from 1980 to 1990, with a college degree and an organizational tenure of 6 years or more, and 79.63 percent were male.

3.2 Measures

The scales for variables were originally constructed in Western literature. Following established best practices for survey translation, all survey items were translated by a scholar from English to Chinese and then translated back to English by another scholar. We revised the Chinese version repeatedly until there was no semantic inconsistency between the two English versions, to ensure the quality and validity of the Chinese questionnaire. We used five-point Likert scales, on which the response options ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Subordinate ingratiation: The four-item scale adapted from Bolino and Turnley [52] was used to measure subordinate ingratiation. A sample item is “praise me for my accomplishments or qualities.” This variable’s reliability coefficient was 0.849.

Punishment omission: The six-item scale developed by Hinkin and Schriesheim [9] was used. A sample item is “When I perform poorly in my job, I receive no criticism from my manager.” This variable’s reliability coefficient was 0.842.

Interpersonal affect: We measured interpersonal affect with the four-item scale used by Varma et al. [43], three items of which were originally developed by Tsui and Barry [42]. A sample item is “I think he (or she) could become a good friend of mine.” This variable’s reliability coefficient was 0.818.

Authentic leadership: The 14 items developed by Neider and Schriesheim [47] were employed to measure authentic leadership. A sample item is “My leader is guided in his/her actions by internal moral standards.” This variable’s reliability coefficient was 0.929.

Finally, we controlled subordinates’ gender (0 = male; 1 = female), age (1 = born after 1990; 2 = born from 1980 to 1990; 3 = born before 1980), tenure (1 = less than 2 years; 2 = 2–5 years; 3 = 6 years or more), education level (1 = primary; 2 = senior high or secondary; 3 = college; 4 = bachelor or above) because these variables might provide alternative explanations for the hypotheses in our theoretical framework. Analogously, we also controlled supervisor’s gender, but did not control supervisors’ age, tenure, and education level because these three variables have almost no variation in this study.

4 Results and data analyses

4.1 Common method variance and confirmatory factor analysis

To reduce common method variance (CMV), we obtained data from supervisors and subordinates through three collection stages. We tested CMV using Harman’s single-factor test. We performed an unrotated factor analysis on all measurement items of the four variables. The results indicated that the cumulative variation explained by factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 is 69.84 percent. The variation explained by the first principal component is 30.04 percent; since this is less than half of the total variation, CMV seems to be within the acceptable range. We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the variables’ discriminant validity. The CFA results indicated that the proposed four-factor model showed the best fit: χ2/df = 1.1, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.02, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.02, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.95, non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.96; by contrast, the one-factor model showed the worst fit: χ2/df = 5.96, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.12, GFI = 0.75, NNFI = 0.78. Hence, the four variables in this study possessed good discriminant validity.

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Table 1 reports the results of the descriptive statistical analysis, including the mean values, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the study variables. The correlation analysis results provided preliminary support for the hypothesized relationships. Specifically, subordinate ingratiation was positively related to interpersonal affect (r = 0.636, p < 0.01) and supervisor punishment omission (r = 0.289, p < 0.01). We also found a positive correlation between interpersonal affect and supervisor punishment omission (r = 0.327, p < 0.01).

Table 1
Descriptive statistics

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.280 0.447 1.000

2. Age 1.960 0.715 0.081 1.000

3. Edu 2.160 0.937 –0.135^* –0.016^* 1.000

4. Tenure 2.130 0.560 –0.193 0.127^* –0.316^* 1.000

5. Gender_sup 0.204 0.695 –0.130 0.082 –0.084 0.142 1.000

6. SI 3.030 0.865 –0.127^* –0.021 –0.152 0.101 0.018 1.000

7. IA 3.170 0.809 –0.091 –0.064 –0.162 0.082 0.052 0.636^ 1.000

8. AL 2.330 0.711 0.203 –0.073 0.111 –0.272 –0.049 –0.400^ –0.346 1.000

9. SPO 3.511 0.834 –0.139 0.125^* 0.193^* 0.255^* 0.018 0.289^ 0.327^ –0.268^** 1.000

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender	0.280	0.447	1.000
2. Age	1.960	0.715	0.081	1.000
3. Edu	2.160	0.937	–0.135^*	–0.016^*	1.000
4. Tenure	2.130	0.560	–0.193	0.127^*	–0.316^*	1.000
5. Gender_sup	0.204	0.695	–0.130	0.082	–0.084	0.142	1.000
6. SI	3.030	0.865	–0.127^*	–0.021	–0.152	0.101	0.018	1.000
7. IA	3.170	0.809	–0.091	–0.064	–0.162	0.082	0.052	0.636^**	1.000
8. AL	2.330	0.711	0.203	–0.073	0.111	–0.272	–0.049	–0.400^**	–0.346	1.000
9. SPO	3.511	0.834	–0.139	0.125^*	0.193^*	0.255^*	0.018	0.289^**	0.327^**	–0.268^**	1.000

Notes: ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Edu: Education; sup: supervisor; SI: Subordinate Ingratiation; IA: Interpersonal Affect; AL: Authentic Leadership; SPO: Supervisor Punishment Omission. N = 389. Supervisor’s age, education level and tenure were similar in this study.

4.3 Hypotheses tests

We used hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses. The results of the mediating effect test are reported in Table 2. Models 1 and 3 are baseline models including only control variables. In model 4, subordinate ingratiation was positively related to supervisor punishment omission (β= 0.253, p < 0.001). Therefore, H1 was supported. In model 2, subordinate ingratiation was also positively related to the supervisor’s interpersonal affect toward the subordinate (β= 0.678, p < 0.001). In model 5, interpersonal affect was significantly related to supervisor punishment omission (β= 0.242, p < 0.001), whereas the impact of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission was not significant. This indicates that interpersonal affect fully mediated the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission, thus supporting H2.

Table 2
Hierarchical regression analysis results for the mediating effect

Variables IA SPO

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Gender –0.077 0.006 0.002 0.033 0.031

Age –0.123 –0.095 0.012^* 0.014^* 0.021^*

Edu 0.060 0.035 0.016^* 0.025^* 0.034^*

Tenure 0.118 0.082 0.223^* 0.183^* 0.126^*

Gender_sup 0.040 0.045 –0.005 –0.003 –0.014

Independent variable

SI 0.678^* 0.253^* 0.089

Mediating variable

IA 0.242^*

R ² 0.041 0.550 0.068 0.135 0.160

Adjusted-R² 0.024 0.541 0.051 0.117 0.140

Δ R ² 0.509^* 0.067^** 0.025^*

F 2.330^* 58.150^* 3.981^* 7.400^* 7.991^*

Variables	IA	SPO
Gender	–0.077	0.006	0.002	0.033	0.031
Age	–0.123	–0.095	0.012^*	0.014^*	0.021^*
Edu	0.060	0.035	0.016^*	0.025^*	0.034^*
Tenure	0.118	0.082	0.223^*	0.183^*	0.126^*
Gender_sup	0.040	0.045	–0.005	–0.003	–0.014
Independent variable
SI		0.678^***		0.253^***	0.089
Mediating variable
IA					0.242^***
R ²	0.041	0.550	0.068	0.135	0.160
Adjusted-R²	0.024	0.541	0.051	0.117	0.140
Δ R ²		0.509^***		0.067^**	0.025^*
F	2.330^*	58.150^***	3.981^***	7.400^***	7.991^***

Notes: ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001. Edu: Education; sup: supervisor; SI: Subordinate Ingratiation; IA: Interpersonal Affect; SPO: Supervisor Punishment Omission. Supervisor’s age, education and tenure were not controlled because they were similar. N = 389.

We further employed a bootstrapping procedure proposed by Hayes to test the mediation effect [53]. Results showed that the 99 percent confidence interval did not include 0 in the indirect effect test: lower limit of confidence interval (LLCI) = 0.067, upper limit of confidence interval (ULCI) = 0.279. After controlling the mediating variable (interpersonal affect), the direct effect of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission was not significant, as the 99 percent confidence interval contains 0 (LLCI = –0.048, ULCI = 0.216). The bootstrap results confirmed the fully mediating role of interpersonal affect, as H2 predicted.

Table 3 reports the results of the moderating effect test. Models 6 and 8 are baseline models. The coefficients of the interaction effect in model 9 indicate that authentic leadership had a negative and significant moderating effect on the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission (β= –0.139, p < 0.01), thus supporting H3. The nature of the interaction is illustrated in Fig. 2. Consistent with H3, for a supervisor with high authenticity, the influence of subordinate ingratiation on punishment omission was weaker. Similarly, in model 7, authentic leadership negatively and significantly moderated the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and interpersonal affect (β=–0.115, p < 0.01), thus supporting H4. The nature of this interaction is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Table 3

Hierarchical regression analysis results for the mediated moderation effect

Variables	IA		SPO
	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9	Model 10
Gender	0.028	0.026	0.094	0.091	0.086
Age	–0.100	–0.086	0.014^*	0.010^*	0.027^*
Edu	–0.035	–0.033	0.026^*	0.030^*	0.037^*
Tenure	0.102	0.078	0.166^*	0.181^*	0.176^*
Gender_sup	0.045	0.049	–0.004	0.003	–0.007
Independent variable
SI	0.656^***	0.672^***	0.187^***	0.216^***	0.077
Moderating variable
AL	–0.072	–0.082	–0.209^***	–0.226^***	–0.209^***
Mediating variable
IA					0.299^***
Interaction effect
SI×AL		–0.115^**		–0.139^**	–0.126^**
R ²	0.550	0.560	0.160	0.174	0.192
Adjusted-R²	0.543	0.547	0.140	0.152	0.168
Δ R ²		0.010^*		0.014^*	0.018^*
F	52.230^***	47.821^***	8.030^***	7.970^***	8.130^***

Notes: ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001. Edu: Education; sup: supervisor; SI: Subordinate Ingratiation; IA: Interpersonal Affect; AL: Authentic Leadership; SPO: Supervisor Punishment Omission. Supervisor’s age, education and tenure were not controlled because they were similar. To reduce the collinearity caused by the independent variable–moderating variable interaction, the moderation regression model was preprocessed using the centralization method. N = 389.

Fig. 2

Moderating effect of authentic leadership on the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission.

Fig. 3

Moderating effect of authentic leadership on the relationship between subordinate ingratiation and interpersonal affect.

We tested the mediated moderation effect using the three-step method devised by Muller et al. [51]. The three steps correspond to models 7, 9, and 10 respectively. As mentioned earlier, the coefficients of the interaction effect in models 7 and 9 were both significant. Besides, the coefficient of the mediating variable in model 10 was also significant (β= 0.299, p < 0.01). The test results of the three steps thus indicate that the moderating effect of authentic leadership between subordinate ingratiation and supervisor punishment omission was mediated by interpersonal affect. Hence, H5 was supported. The coefficient of the interaction effect in model 10 was still significant (β= –0.126, p < 0.01), which indicates that the moderating effect of authentic leadership between subordinate ingratiation and punishment omission was partially mediated by interpersonal affect. Within the overall moderating effect, the value of the direct moderating effect was –0.126, and the value of the indirect moderating effect through the mediating variable was –0.034 (–0.115×0.299).

5 Discussion and conclusion

5.1 Discussion

Using social judgment theory, this study explored the impact of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission through interpersonal affect. Data analyses found that subordinate ingratiation is positively associated with supervisor punishment omission. This is in line with Clercq et al., who believe that an important purpose of subordinate ingratiation is to avoid negative outcomes from leaders [45]. Our research also shows that subordinates can benefit themselves by upward ingratiation, which is consistent with the previous studies’ views that upward ingratiation helps employees get favorable performance evaluation, flexible working arrangements, higher income, and promotion opportunities [5 –8].

Furthermore, we also found that interpersonal affect, as a mediating role, is the proximal consequence of subordinate ingratiation, which means that subordinate ingratiation can improve the quality of the relationship between superior and subordinate. This outcome supports the research of several scholars, who have found that, through upward ingratiation, subordinates can gain the satisfaction of the supervisor and improve the quality of leader-member exchange [3 –5].

Additionally, previous research has argued that authentic leaders pursue genuineness and adhere to inherent moral beliefs and values [21 –23]. Similarly, we found that authentic leadership can attenuate the impact of subordinate ingratiation on the supervisor’s interpersonal affect and punishment omission. This shows that even in the face of subordinate ingratiation, authentic leaders still act according to their internal true values, thus providing strong empirical support for previous research.

5.2 Conclusion

Our research has several theoretical implications. We found that subordinate ingratiation can influence punishment-related outcomes, which adds to the existing knowledge about the consequence of employee ingratiation and enhances the existing literature on the ingratiation effect. This study also confirmed the mediating role of interpersonal affect from a social judgment perspective, which clarifies the transmitting processes from subordinate ingratiation to supervisor punishment omission and provides a new theoretical perspective for revealing the mechanism of the ingratiation effect. Furthermore, our research extends the literature by confirming a boundary condition of authentic leadership that weakens the influence of subordinate ingratiation on supervisor punishment omission.

Our research also has practical implications. Organizations need to understand that subordinate ingratiation can influence the supervisor’s punishment decisions. At a very general level, reasonable punishment can suppress deviant behaviors, while punishment omission has strong negative effects [9 , 55]. If supervisors revel in subordinate ingratiation and indulge their bad performance, it will not only impede the correction of employees’ bad behavior, but also damage the organizational fairness, which will eventually hinder organizational performance [56].

To ensure fair punishment, organizations should improve the clarity of the work-role and establish an objective and reasonable performance appraisal system [57]. Furthermore, organizations should use leadership training programs to cultivate supervisory leaders with the qualities of authentic leadership, to resist the negative impact of subordinate ingratiation on supervisors’ punishment decisions. Although our practical implications are applicable to various types of companies with a hierarchical system, it should be noted that the negative consequences of punishment omission in manufacturing enterprises are more immediate and explicit, because punishment omission will make it impossible to correct the employees’ bad behavior in time, which can lead to product defects and may endanger the health and life of consumers, and even quickly damage corporate reputation and hinder business operations. Therefore, compared with other types of companies, such as service companies, manufacturing companies should pay special attention to leader punishment omission caused by subordinate ingratiation.

Our research has certain limitations. First, the data were collected from one district (southern Jiangsu Province of China) and one industry (manufacturing) only. The generalizability of our outcome might be limited, which calls for further studies across another district and industry. Second, although supervisor punishment omission was assessed from subordinates, subordinate ingratiation and interpersonal affect were assessed from the same source (supervisors). Therefore, we cannot entirely exclude common method bias, which calls for more sources of data collection such as evaluations from colleagues. However, Harman’s single-factor test gave us confidence that common method bias was within the acceptable range. Third, we did not directly examine the role of warmth judgments and competence judgments, although we used these two fundamental dimensions as the theoretical core in our study. The mediating role of these two social judgments can be further explored in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71802146), Humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Fund Project of the Ministry of Education of China (18YJA630021), Humanities and Social Sciences Research Youth Fund Project of the Ministry of Education of China (18YJC630156), and Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Anhui Province in China (AHSKY2016D19).

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: Hao Zhang

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: Hao Zhang and Mingzhi Ding

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: Hao Zhang and Mingzhi Ding

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELECTUAL CONTENT: Hao Zhang and Mingzhi Ding

SUPERVISION: Xiuli Sun

Appendix: Scale items

Punishment Omission (Reported by subordinate)

I seldom get criticized by my manager when I perform poorly.

My manager gives me no feedback when I perform poorly.

My poor performance often goes unacknowledged by my manager.

When I perform poorly in my job, I receive no criticism from my manager.

When I perform poorly, my manager does nothing.

My poor performance often gets no response from my manager.

Ingratiation (Reported by supervisor)

He (or she) praises me for my accomplishments or qualities.

He (or she) volunteers to do personal favors for me.

He (or she) lets me know his (or her) virtues or strengths.

He (or she) shows me that he (or she) shares my enthusiasm about my new idea.

Interpersonal affect (Reported by supervisor)

I like him (or her)

I admire him (or her)

I respect him (or her)

I think he (or she) could become a good friend of mine.

Authentic leadership (Reported by subordinate)

My leader clearly states what he/she means.

My leader shows consistency between his/her beliefs and actions.

My leader asks for ideas that challenge his/her core beliefs.

My leader describes accurately the way that others view his/her abilities.

My leader uses his/her core beliefs to make decisions.

My leader carefully listens to alternative perspectives before reaching a conclusion.

My leader shows that he/she understands his/her strengths and weaknesses.

My leader openly shares information with others.

My leader resists pressures on him/her to do things contrary to his/her beliefs.

My leader objectively analyzes relevant data before making a decision.

My leader is clearly aware of the impact he/she has on others.

My leader expresses his/her ideas and thoughts clearly to others.

My leader is guided in his/her actions by internal moral standards.

My leader encourages others to voice opposing points of view.

References

Kumar

, Beyerlein

. Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991;76(5):619–27.

Yukl

. Leadership in Organizations. 8th ed. Boston (MA): Pearson; 2013.

Asadullah

, Haider

, De Pablos Heredero

, Musaddiq

. Effect of ingratiation on supervisor satisfaction through helping behavior: A moderated mediation model. Intangible Capital. 2016;12(5):1157–91.

Colella

, Varma

. The Impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal. 2001;44(2):304–15.

Kim

, LePine

, Chun

. Stuck between a rock and a hard place: Contrasting upward and downward effects of leaders’ ingratiation. Personnel Psychology. 2018;71(4):495–518.

, Kwan

, Wei

, Liu

. Ingratiation in the workplace: The role of subordinate and supervisor political skill. Journal of Management Studies. 2013;50(6):991–1017.

Clarke

, Alshenalfi

, Garavan

. Upward influence tactics and their effects on job performance ratings and flexible working arrangements: The mediating roles of mutual recognition respect and mutual appraisal respect. Human Resource Management. 2019;58:397–416.

Judge

, Cable

, Boudreau

, Bretz

JR. RD

. An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology. 1995;48(3):485–519.

Hinkin

, Schriesheim

. An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(6):1234–48.

10.

Gürerk

, Lauer

, Scheuermann

. Leadership with individual rewards and punishments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2018;74:57–69.

11.

Vince

. What do HRD scholars and practitioners need to know about power, emotion, and HRD? Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2014;25(4):409–20.

12.

Fiske

, Cuddy

AJC

, Glick

. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007;11(2):77–83.

13.

Zajonc

. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist. 1980;35(2):151–75.

14.

Ledgerwood

, Chaiken

. Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;93(6):940–56.

15.

Salazar

. Changing resistant audience attitudes using social judgment theory’s “anchor” point perspectives. Communication Teacher. 2017;31(2):90–3.

16.

Avolio

, Gardner

. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 2005;16(3):315–38.

17.

Iszatt-White

, Kempster

. Authentic leadership: Getting back to the roots of the “root construct”? International Journal of Management. 2018;00:1–14.

18.

Kohan

, Safari

, Teimouri

. Friendship, transformational leadership and organizational climate. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(2):319–31.

19.

Zuhaira

, Ye-Zhuang

, Azeez

. Corporate commitment, identification, ethical leadership and social responsibility. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(2):345–52.

20.

Abbas

, Wu

. The moderating role of intrapreneurial personality in relation between leader humility and innovative behavior. Human Systems Management. 2018;38(4):329–37.

21.

Walumbwa

, Avolio

, Gardner

, Wernsing

, Peterson

. Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management. 2008;34(1):89–126.

22.

Gardner

, Cogliser

, Davis

, Dickens

. Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly. 2011;22(6):1120–45.

23.

Wei

, Li

, Zhang

, Liu

. The Interactive effect of authentic leadership and leader competency on followers’ job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018;153(3):763–73.

24.

Weiss

, Razinskas

, Backmann

, Hoegl

. Authentic leadership and leaders’ mental well-being: An experience sampling study. The Leadership Quarterly. 2018;29(2):309–21.

25.

Karikari

, Boadi

, Sai

. Rewarding employees for corporate performance improvements. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(2):311–7.

26.

Doherty

, Kurz

. Social judgement theory. Thinking and Reasoning. 1996;2(2/3):109–40.

27.

Cooksey

. The methodology of social judgement theory. Thinking and Reasoning. 1996;2(2/3):141–74.

28.

Heald

. Social judgment theory: Applications to educational decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly. 1991;27(3):343–57.

29.

Wigton

. Social judgement theory and medical judgement. Thinking and Reasoning. 1996;2(2/3):175–90.

30.

Haack

, Sieweke

. The legitimacy of inequality: Integrating the perspectives of system justification and social judgment. Journal of Management Studies. 2017;55(3):486–516.

31.

Park

, Levine

, Kingsley Westerman

, Orfgen

, Foregger

. The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research. 2007;33(1):81–102.

32.

Matthews

. Detecting the boundaries of disposition bias on moral judgments of media characters’ behaviors using social judgment theory. Journal of Communication. 2019;69(4):418–41.

33.

Oikonomou

, Brooks

, Pavelin

. The financial effects of uniform and mixed corporate social performance. Journal of Management Studies. 2014;51(6):898–925.

34.

Grandey

, Ferris

, Melloy

. A dual signal model of pride displays in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2018;38:153–68.

35.

Kjørstad

. Do your duty-demand your right: A theoretical discussion of the norm of reciprocity in social work. European Journal of Social Work. 2016;20(5):630–39.

36.

Cropanzano

, Mitchell

. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management. 2005;31(6):874–900.

37.

Cuddy

AJC

, Glick

, Beninger

. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in organizational behavior. 2011;31:73–98.

38.

Wojciszke

, Bazinska

, Jaworski

. On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24(12):1251–63.

39.

Kazadin

. Behavior modification in applied settings. 7th ed. Long Grove (IL): Waveland Press; 2012.

40.

Latham

, Wexley

. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. 2nd ed. Michigan: Addison-Wesley; 1994.

41.

Casciaro

, Lobo

. When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2008;53(4):655–84.

42.

Tsui

, Barry

. Research notes. Interpersonal affect and rating errors. Academy of Management Journal. 1986;29(3):586–99.

43.

Varma

, Pichler

, Srinivas

. The role of interpersonal affect in performance appraisal: Evidence from two samples –the US and India. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2005;16(11):2029–44.

44.

Robbins

, DeNisi

. A closer look at interpersonal affect as a distinct influence on cognitive processing in performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994;79(3):341–53.

45.

Clercq

, Fatima

, Jahanzeb

. Ingratiating with despotic leaders to gain status: The role of power distance orientation and self-enhancement motive. Journal of Business Ethics (published online). 11/. 2019;27:1–18.

46.

Schmitte

, Schreurs

, Segers

. Within-subject variability in ingratiation as a function of self-esteem and time. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 2019;18(4):216–26.

47.

Neider

, Schriesheim

. The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. Leadership Quarterly. 2011;22(6):1146–64.

48.

Djurdjevic

, Stoverink

, Klotz

, Koopman

, da Motta Veiga

, Yam

. Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;102:1124–47.

49.

Keeves

, Westphal

, McDonald

. Those closest wield the sharpest knife: How ingratiation leads to resentment and social undermining of the CEO. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2017;62(3):484–523.

50.

Byza

OAU

, Dörr

, Schuh

, Maier

. When leaders and followers match: The impact of objective value congruence, value extremity, and empowerment on employee commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;158(4):1097–112.

51.

Muller

, Judd

, Yzerbyt

. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;89(6):852–63.

52.

Bolino

, Turnley

. Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods. 1999;2(2):187–206.

53.

Hayes

. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.

54.

Komaki

. Leadership from an operant perspective. New York: Routledge; 1998.

55.

Hinkin

, Schriesheim

. Leader reinforcement, behavioral integrity, and subordinate outcomes: A social exchange approach. Leadership Quarterly. 2015;26(6):991–1004.

56.

Abbas

, Wu

. Employee innovativeness, fairness and organizational support: An empirical assessment. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(2):169–77.

57.

Naeem

, Dapeng

, Durrani

, Anjum

. High-performance work practices versus work-role ambiguity. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(2):141–48.

Variables	IA		SPO
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Gender	–0.077	0.006	0.002	0.033	0.031
Age	–0.123	–0.095	0.012^*	0.014^*	0.021^*
Edu	0.060	0.035	0.016^*	0.025^*	0.034^*
Tenure	0.118	0.082	0.223^*	0.183^*	0.126^*
Gender_sup	0.040	0.045	–0.005	–0.003	–0.014
Independent variable
SI		0.678^***		0.253^***	0.089
Mediating variable
IA					0.242^***
R ²	0.041	0.550	0.068	0.135	0.160
Adjusted-R²	0.024	0.541	0.051	0.117	0.140
Δ R ²		0.509^***		0.067^**	0.025^*
F	2.330^*	58.150^***	3.981^***	7.400^***	7.991^***