Personality and workplace impression management: Correlates and implications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we investigated the role of personality in understanding impression management (IM) behaviors. We hypothesized that the HEXACO model of personality could provide an intricate understanding of the dispositional bases of IM behaviors, as well as coworkers' ability to accurately perceive the IM of those they work with. Using 2 samples (N = 176 and N = 366), we found that the common core underlying 5 IM behaviors possesses a strong negative relationship with the personality trait of Honesty-Humility, such that individuals low in this trait were more likely to report using all IM behaviors. Furthermore, we found that the unique variance associated with specific IM behaviors can be understood using other traits included in the HEXACO personality model, including Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. In a subset of the data (N = 100), we examined self-coworker convergence in IM and personality. We found that while coworkers are adequate at judging traditional personality traits, the self-coworker convergence for all 5 IM behaviors, as well as the personality trait of Honesty-Humility, were not significant. This adds to a growing body of evidence that coworkers may not be good at accurately perceiving IM or Honesty-Humility in the workplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".