Abubakar Yinusa Mohammed, Abdullateef Raji, Lanre Abdul-Rasheed Sulaiman, Khalid Olatunji Raji, Fatima Omotayo Aliu


Ingratiation represents a mundane behavior in business life. It takes place in both public and private sectors. With traditional researches on the subject of influence within organizations often directed on that of management on the subordinates, it is therefore relevant to go in a different direction by examining the perceived influence of subordinates on the management in organizations. It becomes relevant to explore how ingratiation has led to reduced meritocracy.It is in line with this that this study sought to find out the basis on which ingratiation occurs most in organizations. The study was carried out via the lens of the social exchange theory. The data used in this study were obtained from 250 respondents selected with the use of multistage sampling technique. The collected data were analyzed with the use of the Pearson correlation method. The study revealed a strong relationship between the factors of religion, ethnicity, gender and ingratiation leading to low organizational performance. Based on this, the study recommends that organizations should employ the principle of meritocracy in a stringent manner in all issues relating to organizational behavior.


Ingratiation, Organization, Business life and Performance

Full Text:



Arshad, M.S., Hafiz, M.F.Z., Muhammad, Y.K.M, & Ramay, M.I., (2012). Impact of favoritism, nepotism and cronyism on job satisfaction: A study from public sector of Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(6).

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Eisenberger, R., Lynch P. & Aselage, J. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative rciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Georgopoulos, B.S., & Tannenbaum, A.S. (1957). A study of organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 22(5).

Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.

Jones, E.E, Thibaut, J.W, & Gumpert, P. (1965). Some conditions affecting the use of ingratiation to influence performance evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 613-625.

Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. (1980). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality Social Psychology.

Lazear, E. & Gibbs, M. (2014). Personnel economics in practice. New York: Wiley

Lebans, M. & Euske, K. (2006). A conceptual and operational delineation of performance. Business Performance Measurement, Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, M.S, Cropanzana, R.S., & Quisenberry, D.M. (2012). Social exchange theory, exchange Resources, and interpersonal Relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties.

Ralston, D.A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10, 477-87., accessed in 2017.

Wortman, C.B., & Linsenmeier, J.A.W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of

ingratiation in organizational settings. In Staw, B.W., & Salancik, G.R. (Eds.), New

directions in organizational behavior. St Clair, Chicago, 133-178.

Westphal, J. D. & Stern, I. (2006). The other pathway to the boardroom: interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments.

Yuchtman, E. & Seashore, S. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN (Print): 2276-8645


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.