Reaching the Top? Profiles of Impression Management and Career Success

Debus, Maike E.; Ingold, Pia V.; Gross, Christian; Bolino, Mark C. Article — Published Version Reaching the Top? Profiles of Impression Management and Career Success Journal of Business and Psychology Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Debus, Maike E.; Ingold, Pia V.; Gross, Christian; Bolino, Mark C. (2024) : Reaching the Top? Profiles of Impression Management and Career Success, Journal of Business and Psychology, ISSN 1573-353X, Springer US, New York, NY, Vol. 39, Iss. 6, pp. 1283-1301, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09954-7 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/315315 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09954-7 ORIGINAL PAPER Reaching theTop? Profiles ofImpression Management andCareer Success MaikeE.Debus1 · PiaV.Ingold2 · ChristianGross1,3,4 · MarkC.Bolino5 Accepted: 1 May 2024 / Published online: 24 May 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Employees use impression management (IM) tactics to influence their image at work. Whereas findings regarding the effects of IM on interview outcomes and performance evaluations are extensive, our understanding of the career implications of IM is both limited and inconclusive. In this two-study paper, we used latent profile analysis to better understand the relationship between the use of five IM tactics in combination—ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication—and multiple indicators of objective career success (i.e., salary, promotions, and supervisor-rated reward recommendations) and subjective career success. Four different IM profiles were identified in a sample of 237 employees in Study 1 and which were replicated in Study 2 with 268 employees. In Study 1, we found that the highest levels of salaries and promotions (reflecting objective career success) were associated with a passive use of IM (i.e., employing all five IM strategies at low frequency), thereby running counter to our initial expectations. In contrast, the highest level of subjective career success was associated with a positive use of IM (i.e., a pattern employing the three positive strategies ingratiation, self-promotion and exemplification at higher levels). In Study 2, we found positive use of IM to be associated with the highest level of supervisor-rated reward recommendations as a further indicator of objective career success (followed by passives with the second highest reward recommendations). Our findings highlight the importance of viewing objective and subjective career success as qualitatively different constructs and suggest benefits of employing passive IM use for objective career success. Keywords Impression management· Latent profile analysis· Reward recommendation· Career success For the past 40years, there has been a growing interest in understanding how employees manage impressions in order to shape how they are seen by others at work (for a review, see Bolino etal., 2016). During this time, a number of studies have shown that impression management (IM) affects who is hired in organizations (Barrick etal., 2009; Peck & Levashina, 2017), how in-role and extra-role performance are evaluated (Bolino etal., 2006; Brouer etal., 2015; Wayne & Liden, 1995), and how IM affects employee resource depletion and deviance (Klotz etal., 2018a, 2018b). Studies have also shown that employees who experience job insecurity use IM to impress their supervisors (Huang etal., 2013), and that employees who experience shame use the IM tactic of exemplification to appear more dedicated and worthy (Bonner etal., 2017). In short, research provides ample evidence that IM plays a ubiquitous role in organizational life. Previous research has contributed to our understanding of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of IM, but this work has most often investigated the effects of ingratiation and self-promotion (two specific positive IM tactics) on interview decisions and performance evaluations (Peck & Levashina, 2017). Although these outcomes are important, communication professionals and executive coaches emphasize that managing impressions Maike E. Debus and Pia V. Ingold share first authorship for this article. * Maike E. Debus [email protected]h 1 Institute ofWork andOrganizational Psychology, University ofNeuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland 2 Department ofPsychology, University ofCopenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 3 Department ofPsychology, University ofZurich, Zurich, Switzerland 4 Big Data Research, Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany 5 Price College ofBusiness, University ofOklahoma, Norman, OK, USA 1284 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 is critical for career success (e.g., Kramer & Harris, 2020). Career success has been termed the “ultimate outcome of a career” (e.g., Spurk etal., 2019, p. 37) and describes the “accumulated positive work and psychological outcomes resulting from one’s work experiences” (Ng etal., 2005, p. 368). Despite the potential importance of IM to advance one’s career, there has been surprisingly little research exploring this topic. Judge and Bretz (1994) found that supervisor-focused ingratiation was positively related to career success, while job-focused self-promotion was negatively related to career success. However, there has been even less research dedicated to understanding the tactics of exemplification, intimidation, and supplication, whereby people seek to be seen as dedicated, threatening, and needy, respectively, and how these tactics may also affect career success, particularly when used in combination with ingratiation and self-promotion. In other words, although prior research indicates that people use various IM tactics to shape their image (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Bolino etal., 2008), most studies tend to focus on the individual use of certain tactics (see studies below for exceptions on IM on the job, and Moon etal., 2023, for IM in selection), rather than investigating their joint effects, despite evidence suggesting that there is considerable value in understanding how people use IM tactics in combination. Three different studies have examined the use of IM tactics at work in combination, and all have hinted towards similarities in identified profiles of IM use. In the first study, Bolino and Turnley (2003) used cluster analysis to identify three patterns of ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication used by students. They labeled those who tended to use only the positive IM tactics of ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification as the positives; those who used relatively high levels of all of the tactics as aggressives; and those who used relatively few of the tactics as passives. They also found that positives and passives were viewed as more desirable team members compared to the aggressives. Building on this research, Maher etal. (2018) used cluster analysis to replicate the IM profiles identified by Bolino and Turnley (2003). Results converged in three out of four different samples of respondents. More recently, Chawla etal. (2021) used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify profiles of IM. Across three studies, they again identified passive, aggressive, and positive profiles (as well as three additional profiles). Further, they found that profiles of IM were related to employees’ feelings of inauthenticity and coworker assessments of employee job performance, withdrawal, absenteeism, and sincerity. These studies demonstrate the insight gained from exploring how employees manage impressions using a “personcentered” perspective (e.g., Wang etal., 2013; Woo etal., 2024). Person-centered research (as opposed to variablecentered research) acknowledges the fact that there may be sub-groups of individuals who differ in their configurations or patterns of certain characteristics and behaviors, such as IM in the present case. Relatedly, such an approach also offers a new opportunity to shed light on the mixed metaanalytic effects of the use of single IM tactics on career outcomes (Higgins etal., 2003). For example, the 95% credibility interval for the relationship between self-promotion and objective career success (e.g., promotion and salary recommendation) ranges from negative to positive values. In fact, these varying results may be explained by the differential impact of distinct patterns of IM. Yet, person-centered IM research so far (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018) has not yet provided insights on the effects of a combinatory use of IM on career outcomes. Given that career success, as highlighted above, is a key outcome from both a theoretical and a practical perspective, this is a critical limitation. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to build upon previous IM research by using LPA to identify different patterns of IM use and to examine their impact on subjective and objective indicators of career success. In doing so, we contribute to the IM literature in three ways. First, we examine the relationship between IM profiles and multiple indicators of career success (e.g., Ng etal., 2005; Spurk etal., 2019): salaries, promotions, and reward recommendations as objective indicators of career success, and perceived career success (i.e., the degree to which employees feel their careers have been successful) as an indicator of subjective career success. As such, we provide knowledge on how effective different combinations of IM tactics are with a focus on employees’ career. This is especially relevant because IM aims at presenting oneself in a certain light, and different combinations of IM could exert a differential influence on employees’ careers and the perception of their career. We thereby extend prior research because, as previously noted, Maher etal. (2018) did not examine any outcomes of IM profiles, and Bolino and Turnley (2003) only looked at whether peers perceived students using certain IM profiles as more favorable group members. Further, whereas prior research has frequently investigated the effects of IM on interviewing decisions and performance appraisals (Bolino etal., 2016), few studies have examined the career implications of IM tactics (e.g., Judge & Bretz, 1994), and no study has investigated how the use of IM tactics in combination may affect employees’ career success. Second, we extend the career literature by offering a more nuanced understanding of IM effectiveness in the context of both objective and subjective career success. On the one hand, objective and subjective career success are moderately correlated. Yet, on the other hand, research also indicates that both types of career success are fundamentally different and often have different antecedents and implications (Ng & 1285Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 Feldman, 2014). Thus, it is important to distinguish effects for each outcome. Therefore, we examine differential effects of IM profiles on objective and subjective career success to allow for specific conclusions regarding each indicator. Notably, we do this in an exploratory manner for subjective career success. This is because, theoretically, opposing effects of how certain IM profiles may affect subjective career success are possible, and the lack of variable-centered research on this relationship means there is little empirical guidance for determining a direction. Altogether, studying effects on both objective and subjective career success provides a more comprehensive and complete understanding of how profiles of IM are related to career success. This can also lead to theory-driven research on IM and subjective career success. Third and finally, as noted earlier, Bolino and Turnley (2003) conducted their studies with two samples of undergraduate students. Maher etal. (2018) used multiple samples in their research, including full-time employees recruited by students in management courses (Samples 1 and 4); employees working for an automotive organization (Sample 2); and HR professionals, working for organizations in a variety of industries (Sample 3). Chawla etal. (2021) also used multiple samples of full-time employees, recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (Study 2) or undergraduate students (Study 1 and 3), with an additional sample of study participants’ coworkers (Study 3). Whereas the data collected by Maher etal. (2018) were all self-reported, Bolino and Turnley (2003) collected multi-source data from students, and Chawla etal. (2021) included multi-source data from employees and their coworkers (Study 3). We collect both employee self-report data as well as data from employeesupervisor dyads. In doing so, we extend prior research by avoiding same-source bias (Podsakoff etal., 2012), and acknowledge supervisors as one of the most important gatekeepers/decision-makers for career progression (e.g., King, 2004). Identifying IM Profiles The first aim of our research is to identify IM profiles using LPA. Following the idea of constructive replication (e.g., Köhler & Cortina, 2019), we expect to find profiles that differ both quantitatively (i.e., in their frequency, such as people demonstrating a high versus low amount of all five tactics) and qualitatively (i.e., in their shape, such as people demonstrating a high amount of only positive tactics versus a high amount of all five tactics; e.g., Gabriel etal., 2015; Marsh etal., 2009). Despite some inconsistencies in the number of profiles across studies (i.e., from three to five, Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018), in each previous study, across multiple samples, three profiles differed quantitatively and qualitatively: the positive profile, encompassing those employees who mainly use the positive IM tactics of ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification; the aggressive profile, including those employees who make use of all tactics at relatively high levels; and the passive profile, including employees who make less use of all IM tactics. Thus, in Study 1 we examine the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Using LPA, there will be qualitatively and quantitatively distinct profiles of IM in Study 1, including an aggressive, passive, and positive profile. Then, in Study 2, we aim to assess whether the profile structure of Study 1 could be replicated in a second sample. Hence, our second hypothesis predicts that we will find the same profiles as in Study 1. Hypothesis 2: In Study 2, the same profiles of IM identified in Study 1 will be found. IM Profiles andTheir Relation toObjective andSubjective Career Success The second aim of our research is to further contribute to our understanding of how IM profiles relate to career success. IM theory posits that people use IM to achieve desired outcomes (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980), and this has been an important area of organizational research for decades (Bolino etal., 2016). In the career context, this pertains to career success, which has been conceptualized as the “ultimate outcome of a career” (Spurk etal., 2019, p. 37). In support of such theorizing, research on individual positive IM tactics has illustrated that IM can influence career success. For instance, supervisor-focused ingratiation was found to relate positively to career success, while job-focused self-promotion negatively relates to career success (Judge & Bretz, 1994). While career success has been defined as the “positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences” (Seibert etal., 1999, p. 417; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), research has often included only one of two operationalizations of career success, that is, either objective career success or subjective career success (e.g., Ng etal., 2005). Objective career success can be directly observed by others and can be measured in a standardized way (e.g., salary or number of promotions, Spurk etal., 2019, see also Boudreau & Boswell, 2001; Judiesch & Lyness, 1999; Ng etal., 2005; Seibert etal., 2001). Subjective career success refers to “the focal actor’s evaluation and experience of achieving personally meaningful career outcomes” (Spurk etal., 2019, p. 36), and it can be measured as perceived 1286 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 career success (e.g., Abele & Spurk, 2009; Heslin, 2003; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Based on findings from variable-centered research, IM profiles may also predict career success, and LPA allows us to examine whether career success differs between profiles. To obtain a better understanding of how IM profiles predict career success comprehensively, we examine the relationship of different IM profiles with important indicators of objective and subjective career success. For objective career success, we focus on salary, number of promotions, and reward recommendations. Reward recommendation is a more forward-looking indicator of career success and one that would be rated by the employee’s supervisor (Allen & Rush, 1998; Spurk etal., 2019). More precisely, reward recommendations capture the supervisor’s willingness to recommend their subordinates for salary increases, promotions, high profile projects, public recognition, and opportunities for professional development (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998). Reward recommendations can be categorized as an objective career success indicator because they are evaluated objectively by someone who has important influence over the employee’s career (i.e., immediate supervisors). Building on the notion that IM can influence career success, the differential effects of the combined use of IM (i.e., IM profiles) on the supervisor-rated outcome of reward recommendations, an indicator of the effectiveness of individuals’ IM use, may be especially relevant (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Supervisors are typically the ones who recommend their subordinates for rewards (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998), and there is empirical evidence that employees’ use of IM relates to the reward recommendations they receive (Deng etal., 2020). For subjective career success, we focus on perceived career success (Ng etal., 2005; Spurk etal., 2019), whereby employees subjectively evaluate how successful their career has been. Our approach to consider both objective and subjective career success indicators is especially relevant in light of a recent review highlighting the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to career success, including both objective and subjective indicators given that they represent nomologically-distinct facets of career success (Spurk etal., 2019). Predicting Objective Career Success An established tenet of IM theory as well as social influence theory is that IM is employed to maximize one’s rewardcost ratio when interacting with others (Ferris etal., 2002; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). In the work context, rewards typically include salaries, promotions, and reward recommendations. We assume that a clear emphasis on positive IM tactics such as self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification (consistent with the positive profile from prior research) would be beneficial for achieving these objective outcomes in comparison to a lower use of IM tactics (i.e., the passive profile that is characterized by a lower use of IM). The underlying mechanism is that the positive profile should better convey the image of a competent, dedicated, and likeable employee (Bolino & Turnley, 2003) who is to be rewarded in organizations. More specifically, selfpromotion and ingratiation aim to increase how employees are perceived on competence and likeability/warmth, which are recognized as the two key dimensions of person evaluations (Fiske etal., 2007). In addition, perceiving someone as dedicated, as intended through the use of exemplification, should result in seeing the employee as more committed and inclined to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors – a behavior that is highly valued by organizations because it contributes to organizational success (e.g., Podsakoff etal., 2009). Hypothesis 3: Employees with a positive IM profile will have (a) higher salaries, (b) higher promotions, and (c) higher reward recommendations than employees belonging to the passive profile. Second, we propose that a profile with an undifferentiated high use of IM (consistent with the aggressive profile from prior research, Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Maher etal., 2018) will be associated with less objective career success than a profile with a focus on positive tactics (consistent with the positive profile from prior research) or a profile characterized by low levels of IM usage (consistent with the passive profile from prior research). In particular, it has been argued in the IM literature that such a “shotgun” approach, in which relatively high levels of IM are used indiscriminately, may backfire for employees (Bolino etal., 2016), and that using too much IM increases the risk of being perceived as too obviously or transparently managing impressions or even manipulating others (Gordon, 1996; Jones, 1964). The mechanism underlying this career-undermining effect of the aggressive profile might relate to the images that can be elicited when employing negative tactics. Specifically, the use of supplication and intimidation can come at the high cost of appearing less dedicated and lazier (supplication), and of appearing more superior and bossier (intimidation) (see Turnley & Bolino, 2001, for this variable-centered research). Such images might result in unfavorable reactions from supervisors and colleagues, as they undermine the image of a likeable and dedicated employee, thereby reducing supervisors’ willingness to promote the employee’s career and colleagues’ willingness to cooperate with the employee, which may likewise undermine the employee’s career success (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). This effect might be particularly high for employees belonging to the aggressives profile who simultaneously use high levels of negative 1287Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 tactics, and high levels of positive tactics. This is because it might be perceived as more manipulative when used in combination (as described above) as they try to convey conflicting images (Chawla etal., 2021). In comparison, both positives and passives focus on positive tactics (albeit at different levels), and avoid displaying high levels of negative tactics. In support of this argument, in prior research, aggressives felt more inauthentic than passives and positives (Chawla etal., 2021, Study 1 and Study 2) and were less likely to be perceived favorably (Bolino & Turnley, 2003), in comparison to both passives and positives. Accordingly, we expect employees in the aggressive profile to exhibit the lowest career success. Hypothesis 4: Employees with an aggressive IM profile will have (a) lower salaries, (b) fewer promotions, and (c) lower reward recommendations than employees belonging to the positive1 and passive profiles. Exploring thePrediction ofSubjective Career Success With regard to subjective career success, we examine the direction of the relationship of the very active IM users (i.e., the positive and the aggressive profile) in comparison to the passive profile. We pose this as a research question (RQ) because theory suggests that opposing effects may come into play here, and it is difficult to determine the direction of effects a priori. On the one hand, it appears possible that these active IM users (positives and aggressives) employ IM in order to enhance their self-image, as self-enhancement is an important IM motive (Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1985). As such, when these individuals actively manage their careerrelated image by using IM, and they perceive their behaviors as effective, it could enhance the positivity of their careerrelated self-image, hence their subjective career perceptions. On the other hand, in light of ego-depletion theory (e.g., Baumeister etal., 1998), it is possible that a more active use of IM (i.e., the positive and the aggressive profile) and constant monitoring might consume resources that can lead to higher levels of exhaustion,subjective fatigue, andnegative affect (Baumeister etal., 1998; Hagger etal., 2010; Trougakos etal., 2015). This resource consumption, in turn, couldlower employees’ subjective perceptions of their career in comparison to passive IM users (i.e., the passive profile) who would have conserved the resources necessary to deploy this very active form of IM. Therefore, we examine the following RQ: Research Question 1: How does the subjective career success of employees with a very active use of IM (i.e., an aggressive or positive profile) compare to the subjective career success of the passive profile? We conducted two studies to investigate our hypotheses and RQ1. Study 1 sought to identify IM profiles that differ both quantitatively and qualitatively, thereby aiming to replicate IM profile solutions found in earlier research (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018) and testing Hypothesis 1. Moreover, Study 1 examined relationships between IM profiles and salaries and promotions as objective career success indicators (Hypotheses 3 a-b and 4 a-b), as well as explored relationships with subjective career success (RQ1). Hypotheses were tested among employees working in a diverse range of occupations and industries. Study 2 set out to replicate the profiles found in Study 1 (i.e., testing Hypothesis 2) and to examine the relationship between IM profiles and supervisor ratings of reward recommendations as a further, more forward-looking indicator of objective career success (i.e., Hypotheses 3c and 4c). To do so, Study 2 used data from employee-supervisor dyads who were again employed in various different occupations and industries. Study 1 In Study 1, we identify IM profiles (Hypothesis 1) and test Hypotheses 3 a-b and 4 a-b with regard to their relationship with objective career success (e.g., salary, promotions) and RQ1 with regard to subjective career success (i.e., perceived career success). Method Sample andProcedure We collected data from Swiss employees via an online survey with the help of a market research company2 (for a similar approach see Batinic etal., 2010; Debus etal., 2020). As part of the informed consent, we informed employees that they could withdraw from the study at any point without consequence and we also assured anonymity. Participants were compensated with bonus points worth 0.50 EUR, which they were later able to exchange for donations to a charitable organization, cash, or shopping vouchers. In total, 401 individuals agreed to participate. We excluded 142 participants who were not working for pay, were students, were self-employed, or did not complete the 1 Please note that we decided against including the comparison of the positive and aggressive profile in Hypothesis 3 to avoid an overlap with Hypothesis 4, which includes this comparison. 2 For more information see www. bilen di. de. 1288 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 survey. Moreover, we excluded 17 participants who provided nonsensical answers to questions about their salary or their job title, which suggests that these respondents were responding carelessly to the survey. Finally, we excluded five participants who demonstrated no variation when answering the impression management items. As such, our final sample included 237 participants (59.1% of the full sample). Of these, 51.9% were male, and mean age was 42.47years (SD = 11.13). On average, participants had been employed at their current company for 7.76years (SD = 7.75). A total of 63.7% of participants had vocational training, 22.8% had a bachelor’s degree or a degree from a university of applied sciences, 13% had a university or a doctoral degree, and 0.4% had no formal degree. The majority of participants worked full-time (64.1%) versus part-time. Participants worked in a variety of industries (e.g., health and social services, real estate/IT/research and development, construction, commerce, agriculture, credit and insurance, education, communications and information transmission) as well as in a variety of different occupations (e.g., teacher, flight attendant, process manager, cashiers, IT specialists, trucker, customer relations manager). Measures We administered all measures in German. For measures for which a German version of the scale was unavailable, we followed Brislin’s (1980) translation/back-translation procedure. Impression Management Tactics Impression management tactics were assessed using Bolino and Turnley’s (1999) measure, in which each of the five tactics is measured with four or five items. Sample items are “I talk proudly about my experience or education” (self-promotion), “I compliment my colleagues so they will see me as likeable” (ingratiation), “I stay at work late so people know I am hard working” (exemplification), “I am intimidating with coworkers when it will help me get my job done” (intimidation), and “I act like I know less than I do so people will help me out” (supplication). Respondents were asked to indicate how often they engage in each of these behaviors at work, ranging from 1 = never behave this way to 5 = often behave this way. Cronbach’s alphas were 0.83 for self-promotion, 0.86 for ingratiation, 0.68 for exemplification, 0.83 for intimidation, and 0.91 for supplication. We also followed the recommendation by Cheung etal. (2023) and examined the average variance extracted (AVE). AVE indicates the amount of variance that is captured by a construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error and serves as a criterion of convergent validity. The results show that AVEs were greater than the 0.50 threshold proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for self-promotion (0.60), ingratiation (0.61), intimidation (0.51), and supplication (0.69), yet that for exemplification it was below this threshold (0.36). Objective Career Success Objective career success was assessed via salary and number of promotions. Salary was assessed by asking respondents to report their monthly salary (in Swiss francs). To account for differences in respondents’ contractual workload, we calculated the full-time equivalent monthly salary for each respondent. Respondents’ mean salary was 6,925.54 CHF/month (SD = 2,897.91, range: 1,000 to 19,500 CHF). Number of promotions was assessed by asking respondents about the number of promotions that they had received during their entire career (mean number of promotions = 1.87, SD = 1.82, range: 0.00—12.00). Subjective Career Success Subjective career success was assessed as perceived career success using the four-item measure by Turban and Dougherty (1994), adapted to the statement format. A sample item was “My career has been successful.” Responses were given on a seven-point rating scale, ranging from 1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87 and AVE was 0.63. Controls We controlled for several variables that might influence career success outcomes, specifically age, tenure, workload, and whether individuals were in a leadership position (Ng & Feldman, 2014; Ng etal., 2005). Analytic Approach We tested our hypotheses using LPA in Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). As alluded to in the introduction, LPA is a relatively novel analytic strategy in the work and organizational behavior literature that allows us to identify groups of individuals (i.e., latent subpopulations or profiles) that share similar patterns of variables (here: profiles with regard to the use of the five IM tactics, e.g., Spurk etal., 2020; Wang etal., 2013). As compared to more traditional clustering methods (e.g., k-means clustering, hierarchical clustering) that are non-latent in nature, group membership is treated as an unobserved, categorical variable by LPA. The value of this variable indicates the degree of probability to which an individual belongs to a certain profile. Further advantages of LPA over traditional clustering methods are that variables within LPA may be continuous, categorical, counts, or a combination of these, and that further covariates can be used for profile description – which is what we will do when examining whether the identified profiles differentially relate to outcomes in the form of career success indicators in the present study (Spurk etal., 2020). Following best practices (e.g., Spurk etal., 2020; Wang etal., 2013), we started by identifying the optimal number of 1289Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 profiles in our sample; this provided an answer to Hypothesis 1. To do so, we followed the recommendations by Nylund etal. (2007) and first specified two latent profiles and then increased the number of profiles. In doing so, we assessed the increase in model fit and theoretical interpretability of the model in each step. We selected the best-fitting profile solution by relying on three types of statistical fit indicators (see Gabriel etal., 2015; Klotz etal., 2018a, 2018b; Nylund etal., 2007; Tofighi & Enders, 2007). First, we compared our models using four relative fit information criteria: log likelihood (LL), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and sample-size-adjusted BIC (SSA–BIC). There are no cutoff scores for LPA fit statistics, but lower LL, AIC, BIC, and SSA–BIC values in comparison to other profile solutions indicate better model fit. Second, we compared different likelihood ratio tests (i.e., the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test [LMR] and the bootstrap likelihood ratio test [BLRT]) “that quantify specific comparisons between the model of interest and a model with one fewer class” (Spurk etal., 2020, p. 10). Both the LMR (Lo etal., 2001) and the BLRT (Nylund etal., 2007) should be significant (p < .05). Third, we inspected entropy as an indicator of classification quality, which reflects the “confidence with which individuals have been classified as belonging to one group or another” (Spurk etal., 2020, p. 10). An entropy value should be above the recommended threshold level of 0.80, and larger entropy values compared to other profile solutions indicate better model fit (Clark & Muthén, 2009). In the next step, we examined whether the identified profiles relate differently to the two objective career success indicators (i.e., salary and number of promotions, as proposed in Hypotheses 3a-b and 4a-b) and subjective career success (i.e., perceived career success as proposed in RQ1). Statistically, this implies that we test mean differences across the different profiles in relation to the three aforementioned career success indicators. Further, to account for the influence of the control variables, we deployed McLarnon and O’Neill’s (2018) proposed manual 3-step approach of the DU3STEP procedure in Mplus 8. DU3STEP allows for unequal profile-specific variance and has been recommended to use for continuous outcome variables (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014), which is the case in our study (see also Hirschi etal., 2020; Zhu etal., 2017). Results Means, standard deviations, and correlations of Study 1 variables are shown in Table1. Table2 displays the fit statistics for possible latent profile structures. As shown here, the four-profile solution exhibited better fit compared to the twoand three-profile solutions because it had lower LL, AIC, BIC, SSA–BIC values, and significant LMR and BLRT values. Although the five-profile solution had slightly lower LL, AIC, and SSA–BIC statistics and a slightly higher entropy value in comparison to the four-profile solution, the LMR fit statistic was not significant for the five-profile solution. Given that both LMR and BLRT should be significant (Gabriel etal., 2015), we retained the four-profile structure (see Fig.1). Figure1 presents the estimated means of all five impression management strategies for each profile. In line with Bolino and Turnley (2003) and Maher etal. (2018), we found a “positive” profile, in which 85 individuals (i.e., 35.9%) reported using relatively high levels of those tactics that generally seek to elicit a positive impression (i.e., ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification) and relatively low levels of those tactics that tend to evoke an unfavorable impression (i.e., supplication and intimidation). The second profile comprised 69 respondents (i.e., 29.1%) who used relatively low levels of all five IM tactics. Following Bolino and Turnley (2003) and Maher etal. (2018), we labelled this profile the “passives.” The third profile was characterized by 20 individuals (i.e., 8.4%) who exhibited high levels of all five IM tactics. Following Bolino and Turnley (2003) and Maher etal. (2018), we labelled this profile the “aggressives.” Finally, the fourth profile, which has not been found in prior research, was characterized by 63 respondents (i.e., 26.6%) who showed Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of Study 1 variables Note.N = 237. Salary is indicated in Swiss francs/1000 * p < .05; ** p < .01 Variables M SD 123 45 67 1 Self-promotion 2.81 0.75 2 Ingratiation 2.84 0.86 .34** 3 Exemplification 2.17 0.72 .44** .53** 4 Intimidation 1.85 0.73 .36** .14* .37** 5 Supplication 1.55 0.70 .18** .28** .47** .55** 6 Salary 6.93 2.90 −.07 −.10 −.18** .04 −.14* 7 Promotions 1.87 1.82 −.01 −.12 −.15* −.09 −.15* .39** 8 Perceived career success 4.46 1.15 .18** .04 −.03 .01 −.09 .36** .36** 1290 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 moderate levels of all five IM tactics; we termed this profile the “moderates.” In sum, we identified different profiles that differed quantitatively and qualitatively and that included three profiles which were similar to earlier research (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018) – thus supporting Hypothesis 1. Table3 (see also Fig.2) displays results from the 3-step procedure used to test differences in outcomes among the Table 2 Fit statistics for profile structures for Study 1 and Study 2 Note.LLLog-likelihood; FPFree parameters; AICAkaike information criteria; BICBayesian information criteria; SSA–BICSample-size adjusted BIC; LMRLo, Mendell, and Rubin test; BLRTBootstrapped loglikelihood ratio test Number of profiles LL FP AIC BIC SSA-BIC LMR (p) BLRT (p) Entropy Study 1 2 −1235.364 16 2502.728 2558.217 2507.502 0.0072 0.0000 0.831 3 −1168.297 22 2380.595 2456.892 2387.160 0.0007 0.0000 0.954 4 −1116.343 28 2288.685 2385.791 2297.041 0.0000 0.0000 0.864 5 −1098.455 34 2264.909 2382.823 2275.055 0.1531 0.0000 0.883 6 −1079.700 40 2239.400 2378.122 2251.336 0.1404 0.0000 0.887 Study 2 2 −1356.242 16 2744.485 2801.941 2751.211 0.0010 0.0000 0.780 3 −1299.420 22 2642.841 2721.843 2652.089 0.0785 0.0000 0.971 4 −1231.037 28 2518.074 2618.621 2529.844 0.0307 0.0000 0.873 5 −1204.011 34 2476.022 2598.116 2490.315 0.2311 0.0000 0.908 6 −1179.909 40 2439.819 2583.458 2456.633 0.4342 0.0000 0.924 Fig. 1 Latent profiles for different IM tactics in Study 1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Ingratiation Self-Promotion ExemplificationSupplicationIntimidation Positive Passive Aggressive Moderate Table 3 Results with the manualDU3STEP approachfor outcomes of IM profiles (Study 1) Analyses were run utilizing the manual 3-step procedure by Asparouhov and Muthén (2013; see also McLarnon & O'Neill, 2018) in Mplus. Control variables included in the analyses were age, tenure, workload, and leadership position. Subscripts indicate profiles that are significantly different at p < .05 ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Outcomes Positive (A) Passive (B) Aggressive (C) Moderate (D) Chi square Salary −0.15B1.16ACD 0.02B−0.20B18.14** Promotions 0.01BD 2.27ACD −0.21B−0.33AB 86.69*** Perceived career success 0.29B−0.33A0.06 −0.31 5.89 1297Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 Third, similar to earlier research conducted in the U.S. and Brazil, we identified a positive, an aggressive, and a passive profile in the Swiss data (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018). Theoretically, one may conclude that the aggressive, positive, and passive profiles, which emerged in this and previous studies as well as ours, utilizing data from three different countries, are somewhat “culturally universal” profiles. Complementing this perspective, our finding of an additional moderate profile provides potential support for theorizing on how cultural contexts may influence the use of IM. Previously, against the backdrop of the individual-collective dimension of culture, Maher etal. (2018) discussed differences between the uses of exemplification in the profiles of respondents from U.S. samples in comparison to a sample of Brazilian employees. Specifically, they suggest that the lower use of exemplification in the Brazil sample as opposed to the higher use of it in the three U.S. samples, might be explained by a potentially more negative view of exemplification as a self-focused tactic in the more collectivistic culture of Brazil in comparison to the individualistic one of the USA. In our research, we identified a moderate profile, in which respondents used moderate levels of all five IM tactics. It might be the case that cultural differences have likewise contributed to the emergence of this moderate profile. More precisely, Switzerland and the U.S. differ in terms of the cultural characteristic of modesty, referring to “the underrepresentation of one’s positive traits, contributions, expectations or accomplishments” (Wosinska etal., 1996, p. 230). Whereas the Swiss culture places great importance on the values of modesty and diplomacy, Anglo countries, such as the U.S., highly value being unique, outstanding, and forceful (e.g., Schmid Mast etal., 2011). Thus, given their tendency to be more modest and diplomatic, it is understandable that Swiss respondents who use all five IM tactics would more clearly differentiate in using them at either moderate or truly aggressive levels. This, again, might have contributed to the fact that we identified both a moderate and an aggressive IM profile. The moderate profile might be representative of culturally-bound profiles, thereby suggesting that IM theory may have to acknowledge the role of culture to a greater extent. To facilitate a better understanding of how IM use is affected by culture, we call for systematic cross-cultural research on IM that investigates the use of IM and its perceived effectiveness across various countries with comparable samples concerning jobs and industries. Relatedly, it would be useful to further delve into the nature, meaning, and size of the moderate profile. In contrast to cultural values taxonomies in cross-cultural research (such as the taxonomy by Hofstede, 2001), modesty is a value that has received much less research attention and that can be indirectly inferred from cross-cultural research on honestyhumility [a trait defined by the adjectives of honest, sincere, fair, andmodest or their opposites (Ashton etal., 2014)]. Concerning honesty-humility, Swiss respondents appear to obtain descriptively higher scores on honesty-humility than U.S. respondents (García etal., 2022), supporting the notion that the Swiss culture may reinforce the importance of modesty and greed avoidance, thereby contributing to the appearance of a modest IM profile in comparison to cultures that place less value on modesty (e.g., the U.S.). Support for this assumption stems from variable-centered research on IM showing negative correlations between individuals’ honestyhumility scores and their IM scores (Bourdage etal., 2015). As such, it would be worthwhile to explore how levels of honesty-humility in a country influence the emergence of a moderate IM profile. Fourth, additional research is needed to more systematically consider how profiles and their effectiveness are impacted by industries, organizations and jobs. So far, prior studies with employees (Chawla etal., 2021; Maher etal., 2018), as well as our study, included samples that were very heterogeneous in terms of industries, organizations, and jobs. Importantly, we cannot determine to what extent these factors contribute to the variation and effectiveness of these profiles. For instance, IM might be more strongly associated with objective career success in competitive environments and/or jobs (e.g., in consultancy businesses) than in less competitive public organizations. Accordingly, we recommend surveying more homogeneous samples that include people working in similar jobs and organizations across different cultures (as described in the prior paragraph). By controlling for these factors, it would be easier to determine whether differences in profiles are due more to industry/ organization/job factors than to cultural factors. Relatedly, our profile similarity analysis demonstrated that the profile solutions across the two samples were configurally and structurally similar, meaning that the nature of the profiles (i.e., the number of profiles and the levels of the indicators) were generalizable. Morin etal. (2016) acknowledge that differences are more likely to emerge for dispersion and distribution similarity, which is reflected in our findings. Indeed, the authors highlight that “differences do not represent an inherent limitation in the data but rather indicate limits to the generalizability of profile solution that may deserve further exploration” (Morin etal., 2016, p. 235). We thus encourage future research to identify variables that may contribute to differences regarding the variability of IM tactics across profiles as well as differences in the relative size of the profiles across different samples. Fifth, to better understand the differential effects of IM profiles on career success, we recommend examining more proximal outcomes of IM profiles in the future, particularly the desired images associated with IM. Image outcomes, such as competence, dedication, and neediness, have not been investigated in profile-centered research (for one exception on the effects of likeability see Bolino & Turnley, 1298 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 2003). Further, given that IM profiles can convey a more comprehensive image (e.g., that of a competent, likeable and dedicated employee for the positive profile), the effects found using a person-centered approach might be more pronounced than those found using variable-centered research emphasizing the link between individual tactics and desired/ undesired images (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Indeed, such investigations may find that these broader images mediate the relationship between IM profiles and career success. Finally, our findings support the argument that career success is a complex construct. Although scholars generally differentiate between objective and subjective career success (e.g., Spurk etal., 2019), our nuanced findings regarding IM profiles and career success suggest that even within the category of objective career success, the typical indicators may capture something slightly different. In Study 1, for example, the correlation between salary and promotions was only 0.39, which was negligibly higher than the correlation between perceived career success and each objective career success indicator (e.g., Seibert etal., 2001). Therefore, we encourage future studies on career success to take a more indepth look at the multiple types of career success indicators as well as differential effects of predictors and potentially underlying mechanisms. Practical Implications As we note above, our research design prevents conclusions about causality. Nonetheless, the practical implications of our study are relevant for employees who seek to effectively manage their image in the workplace for career purposes, for career counsellors and executive coaches who support employees’ efforts to be successful at work, and for managers who decide upon promotions and other organizational rewards that thereby shape employees’ careers. In that regard, first, our findings suggest that employees should be aware that how they combine different IM tactics can have an impact on their career and that those effects may also differ in their implications for objective and subjective career success. Specifically, employees who want their supervisors to recommend them for promotions and other organizational rewards should restrict themselves to use relatively little IM (i.e., the passive profile) or to a combination of the positive IM tactics of ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification to shape their image at work (i.e., the positive profile). At the same time, however, our findings indicate that employees who also seek to view their career more positively should aim to use positive tactics rather than passive ones, given that the former increases chances of perceiving their career success more positively in comparison to the latter. Yet, given that the passive profile was most consistently related to the highest objective career outcomes, employees might have to consider a trade-off between being vs. feeling most successful. Second, career counsellors and executive coaches should warn those they advise that the aggressive use of IM tactics could also, to some degree, undermine their career success. Finally, from the perspective of the organization, managers may wish to reflect upon the extent that decisions that concern their subordinates are influenced by the subordinates’ combined use of IM tactics. This will help ensure that their subordinates’ careers are not adversely influenced by factors that are unrelated to job performance. Conclusion Using two studies and a person-centered approach, we identified different profiles of IM use and found that they are differentially related to indicators of career success. In particular, our findings suggest that when employees engage in passive IM use, it is consistently related to the highest levels of objective career success; in contrast, engaging in an aggressive and/or moderate use of IM is related to significantly lower levels of objective career success. Interestingly, we found a somewhat reversed pattern for subjective career success, whereby positives scored highest, and passives scored lowest – a finding that may be due to self-affirmation processes and/or different temporal dynamics. These results not only have important practical implications for employees who seek to get ahead in organizations, but they also increase our broader understanding of IM and how managing impressions at work can be a complicated and potentially risky endeavor. At the same time, our findings call for an even more fine-grained conceptualization of career success, above and beyond the objective-subjective career success distinction. Acknowledgements We thank Thomas Anderhalden for his help with data collection. Supplementary materials have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework and can be accessed athttps:// osf. io/ p3k4r/? view_ only= 68996 11002 4845a 2879c 81691 124a4 4b. Funding Open access funding provided by University of Neuchâtel The authors received no external funding for this research. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author. Declarations Conflicts of Interests/Competing Interests The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated 1299Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). How do objective and subjective career success interrelate over time? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 803–824. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 09631 7909x 470924 Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 83.2. 247 Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 139–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68314 523838 Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus. https:// statm odel. com/ examp les/ webno tes/ AuxMi xture_ submi tted_ cor re cted_ webno te. Accessed 5 Aug 2022 Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 329–341. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2014. 915181 Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1394–1411. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0016 532 Batinic, B., Selenko, E., Stiglbauer, B., & Paul, K. I. (2010). Are workers in high-status jobs healthier than others? Assessing Jahoda’s latent benefits of employment in two working populations. Work & Stress, 24(1), 73–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02678 37100 37038 59 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 74.5. 1252 Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06308 324325 Bolino, M. C., Long, D., & Turnley, W. H. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 377–406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evorgps ych041015062337 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman Taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28199 22005 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141–160. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 11 77/ 01492 06303 02900 202 Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 281–297. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 379 Bonner, J. M., Greenbaum, R. L., & Quade, M. J. (2017). Employee unethical behavior to shame as an indicator of self-image threat and exemplification as a form of self-image protection: The exacerbating role of supervisor bottom-line mentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1203–1221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00222 Boudreau, J. W., & Boswell, W. R. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 53–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jvbe. 2000. 1755 Bourdage, J. S., Wiltshire, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Personality and workplace impression management: Correlates and implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 537–546. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0037 942 Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ obhd. 1996. 2669 Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349–444). Allyn & Bacon. Brouer, R. L., Badaway, R. L., Gallagher, V. C., & Haber, J. A. (2015). Political skill dimensionality and impression management choice and effective use. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 217–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s108690149344-y Cable, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2012). Striving for self-verification during organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 360–380. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2010. 0397 Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage. Chawla, N., Gabriel, A. S., Rosen, C. C., Evans, J. B., Koopman, J., Hochwarter, W. A., Palmer, J. C., & Jordan, S. L. (2021). A person-centered view of impression management, inauthenticity, and employee behavior. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 657–691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ peps. 12437 Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1049002309871-y Clark, S. L., & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis [Unpublished manuscript]. Crant, J. M. (1996). Doing more harm than good: When is impression management likely to evoke a negative response? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1454–1471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15591816. 1996. tb000 80.x Crawford, W. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Harris, K. J. (2019). Do you see me as I see me? The effects of impression management incongruence of actors and audiences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 453–469. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s108690189549-6 Debus, M. E., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Winkler, S. (2020). Being tough versus tender: The impact of country-level and individual masculinity orientations as moderators of the relationship between job insecurity and job attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 69(3), 616–652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12189 Deng, H., Walter, F., & Guan, Y. J. (2020). Supervisor-directed emotional labor as upward influence: An emotions-as-social-information perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(4), 384–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2424 Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. 1300 Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 65–127). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S07427301(02) 21002-6 Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel human-resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447–488. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06391 01700 208 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2006. 11. 005 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 31513 12 Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2015). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863–879. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0037 408 García, L. F., Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Ostendorf, F., Glicksohn, J., Oumar, B., Bellaj, T., Ruch, W., Wang, W., Kövi, Z., Scigala, D., Cekrlija, D., Stivers, A. W., Di Blas, L., Valdivia, M., Ben Jemaa, S., Atitsogbe, K. A., & Hansenne, M. (2022). Exploring the stability of HEXACO-60 structure and the association of gender, age, and social position with personality traits across 18 countries. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 256–276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jopy. 12664 Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 321–338. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06388 01400 210 Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 71.1. 54 Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 486 Heslin, P. A. (2003). Selfand other-referent criteria of career success. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(3), 262–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10690 72703 254500 Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 181 Hirschi, A., Steiner, R., Burmeister, A., & Johnston, C. S. (2020). A whole-life perspective of sustainable careers: The nature and consequences of nonwork orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, Article 103319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2019. 103319 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Sage. Huang, G. H., Zhao, H. H., Niu, X. Y., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2013). Reducing job insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 852–862. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0033 151 Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Erlbaum. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of Management, 20(1), 43–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06394 02000 103 Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers’ career success. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 641–651. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256985 King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 112–133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S00018791(03) 00052-6 Klotz, A. C., Bolino, M. C., Song, H., & Stornelli, J. (2018a). Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 629–647. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2259 Klotz, A. C., He, W., Yam, K. C., Bolino, M. C., Wei, W., & Houston, L. (2018b). Good actors but bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1145–1154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00335 Köhler, T., & Cortina, J. M. (2019). Play it again, Sam! An analysis of constructive replication in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 74(2), 488–518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06319 843985 Kramer, A. S., & Harris, A. B. (2020). Why managing impressions is critical (and doesn’t make you inauthentic). https:// www. fastc ompany. com/ 90572 513/ whymanag ingimpre ssionsiscriti calanddoesntmakeyouinaut hentic. Accessed 15 Oct 2022 Krueger, A. B., & Summers, L. H. (1988). Efficiency wages and the inter-industry wage structure. Econometrica, 56(2), 259–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 19110 72 Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28105 284 Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Brown & Benchmark. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and 2-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00332909. 107.1. 34 Lo, Y. T., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ biomet/ 88.3. 767 Lubke, G., & Neale, M. C. (2006). Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous factors: Resolution by maximum likelihood? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(4), 499–532. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7906m br4104_4 Maher, L. P., Gallagher, V. C., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G. R., & Perrewé, P. L. (2018). Political skill and will as predictors of impression management frequency and style: A three-study investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 276–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2018. 05. 004 Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of personand variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 191–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51090 27510 10 McLarnon, M. J. W., & O’Neill, T. A. (2018). Extensions of auxiliary variable approaches for the investigation of mediation, moderation, and conditional effects in mixture models. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 955–982. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28118 770731 Moon, B., Daljeet, K. N., Bourdage, J. S., & Roulin, N. (2023). Impression management profiles in job interviews: Relations with applicant individual differences and interview outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1086902309918-3 Moore, C., Lee, S. Y., Kim, K., & Cable, D. M. (2017). The advantage of being oneself: The role of applicant self-verification in organizational hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1493–1513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00223 Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., & Bietry, F. (2016). Multiplegroup analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 231–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28115 621148 1301Journal of Business and Psychology (2024) 39:1283–1301 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17446570. 2005. 00515.x Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 169–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2014. 06. 001 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51070 15753 96 OECD. (2023). Gender wage gap (indicator). https:// dat a. oecd. org/ earnw age/ genderwagegap. htm. Accessed 20 Nov 2023 Peck, J. A., & Levashina, J. (2017). Impression management and interview and job performance ratings: A meta-analysis of research design with tactics in mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2017. 00201 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0013 079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych120710100452 Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Brooks/Coles. Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 15–99). McGraw-Hill. Schmid Mast, M., Frauendorfer, D., & Popovic, L. (2011). Self-promoting and modest job applicants in different cultures. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(2), 70–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 18665888/ a0000 34 Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 84.3. 416 Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jvbe. 2000. 1757 Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17446570. 2001. tb002 34.x Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., & Dries, N. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management, 45(1), 35–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06318 786563 Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, Article 103445. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2020. 103445 Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–383). Guilford Press. Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 392–401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 62.3. 392 Tofighi, D., & Enders, C. K. (2007). Identifying the correct number of classes in growth mixture models. In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 317–341). Information Age. Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227–236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0038 082 Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688–702. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256706 Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 86.2. 351 Wang, M., Sinclair, R. R., Zhou, L., & Sears, L. E. (2013). Personcentered analysis: Methods, applications, and implications for occupational health psychology. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology: Measurement, design, and data analysis (pp. 349–373). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256734 Woo, S. E., Hofmans, J., Wille, B., & Tay, L. (2024). Person-centered modeling: Techniques for studying associations between people rather than variables. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 1–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evorgps ych110721045646 Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(2), 229–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 4834b asp18 02_8 Zacher, H. (2015). Daily manifestations of career adaptability: Relationships with job and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 76–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2015. 09. 003 Zhu, Y. J., Steele, F., & Moustaki, I. (2017). A general 3-step maximum likelihood approach to estimate the effects of multiple latent categorical variables on a distal outcome. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 643–656. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2017. 13243 10 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Additional supplementary materials may be found here by searching on article title https:// osf. io/ colle ctions/ jbp/ disco ver.