Too Naïve to be Fair: Third-Party Perceptions of Ingratiation Recipients

Abstract

Flattery is one of the oldest and most commonly used social influence tactics. Existing research characterizes flattery as beneficial for both flatterers, who receive favorable treatment as a result of ingratiation, and recipients, who experience increases in positive affect and self-esteem. However, we suggest that flattery possesses unforeseen costs when observed by others. Across four studies (N=1,137), including a field experiment at an academic conference, we find that observers who witness managers granting favors in response to flattery perceive the managers as unaware and naïve. As a result of their perceived naivete, managers who reward flattery with favors are seen as less competent, fair, and worse overall. Observing favors granted in response to flattery also breeds cynicism from observers about the broader organizations that the managers represent. Finally, we explore the unique role that flattery plays in exacerbating the negative consequences of favor-granting, as well as the differential reputational costs experienced by low and high-power flattery targets. The discussion considers theoretical and practical implications for managers who are frequent targets of flattery and must weigh the costs and benefits of how to respond to ingratiation.