Although people believe using catering in first meetings will lead to successful outcomes, it creates undesirable feelings of instrumentality for the caterer, increases anxiety, & ultimately hinders performance

To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’ preferences hinders performance. Francesca Gino, Ovul Sezer, Laura Huang. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, January 31 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.003

Highlights
• We examine how catering to another person’s interests influences performance.
• We find that most people use catering in an attempt to make a good impression.
• We find that compared to behaving authentically, catering harms performance.
• Catering increases anxiety and feelings of instrumentality for the caterer.

Abstract: When approaching interpersonal first meetings (e.g., job interviews), people often cater to the target’s interests and expectations to make a good impression and secure a positive outcome such as being offered the job (pilot study). This strategy is distinct from other approaches identified in prior impression management research (Studies 1A, 1B and 1C), and does not produce the benefits people expect. In a field study in which entrepreneurs pitched their ideas to potential investors (Study 2), catering harmed investors’ evaluations, while being authentic improved them. People experience greater anxiety and instrumentality when they cater to another person’s preferences than when they behave authentically (Studies 3A and 3B). Compared to behaving authentically or to a control condition, catering harms performance because trying to anticipate and fulfill others’ preferences feels instrumental and increases anxiety (Studies 4 and 5). Taken together, these results suggest that although people believe using catering in interpersonal first meetings will lead to successful outcomes, the opposite is true: catering creates undesirable feelings of instrumentality for the caterer, increases anxiety, and ultimately hinders performance.

Keywords: AuthenticityCatering: HonestySelectionAnxietyImpression management

11. General discussion

In this paper, we examined how catering to another person’s interests and expectations in interpersonal first meetings (e.g., job interviews)—compared with expressing one’s authentic thoughts and feelings—influences outcomes (e.g., getting the job). We show that this strategy is distinct from other approaches previously identified in impression management research (Studies 1A, 1B, and 1C), and that it does not produce the benefits people expect. In a pilot study, we found that most people use catering to try to make a good impression on the target and that they believe this strategy will be effective by leading to positive outcomes. However, across different contexts, we demonstrate that these lay beliefs are wrong. In a field study in which entrepreneurs pitched their ideas to potential investors, we showed that catering harmed investors’ evaluations (e.g., the likelihood of getting funded), while being authentic improved them (Study 2). In two online studies (Studies 3A and 3B), we examined why this outcome difference may occur and found that people experienced greater anxiety and instrumentality when they cater to another person’s preferences than when they behave authentically (or compared to a control condition). Finally, in two laboratory studies (Studies 4 and 5), we replicated the detrimental effect of catering on the outcome of a job interview, and we further tested the psychological mechanisms explaining this effect. We found that catering, as compared to being oneself or as compared to a control condition, leads to worse evaluations because it increases anxiety (Studies 4 and 5) and feelings of instrumentality (Study 5). Taken together, these results suggest that although people believe using catering in interpersonal first meetings will lead to successful outcomes, the opposite is true: catering creates undesirable feelings of instrumentality for the caterer, increases anxiety, and ultimately hinders performance. 11.1. Theoretical and practical implications Our work makes several theoretical contributions that fundamentally advance existing research. First, we contribute to the management and organizational behavior literature by examining the role of two different practical approaches (e.g., catering vs. being oneself) during high-stakes interactions such as job interviews and entrepreneurial pitches. Across the world, people find themselves in professional interactions like these every day. They may follow the common advice of trying to make a good impression in an attempt to manage the target’s evaluation, advice that is generally interpreted as “pleasing the other side” by catering to their interests and expectations. However, past research on interviews has overlooked the fact that impression management tactics that are other-focused or involve some exaggeration or deception may cause anxiety and distress, which may lead to lower performance (Schmit & Ryan, 1992). In addition, the entrepreneurship literature has largely ignored the possibility that entrepreneurs who engage in impression management to interest financiers and resource holders may be concealing other important parts of their message as a result, impeding their ability to receive the types of resources they so critically need (Huang & Pearce, 2015; Zott & Huy, 2007). Second, by examining how catering influences people’s performance in interpersonal first meetings, we clarify the boundaries of flattery in interactions with others. Across a wide range of situations, flattery has been found to be a successful tactic to secure positive evaluations (Vonk, 2002; Westphal & Stern, 2007). Similarly, one may expect catering to flatter the target and thus result in favorable outcomes for the actor. Here, however, we provide evidence from both the laboratory and the field that catering to another person’s interests and expectations, while flattering to the target, can be less effective than just being yourself. Catering, in fact, makes the actor feel more anxious and inauthentic, with detrimental effects on the actor’s performance. Third, this research advances our understanding of the relevance of psychology to impression management. To date, impression management research has paid scant attention to people’s psychological experience as they manage others’ impressions. Our work shows that impression management tactics cannot be fully understood without carefully considering their emotional implications. We find that catering, rather than just being oneself, increases anxiety and feelings of instrumentality and thus hinders performance. Finally, our work contributes to research on authenticity. Although there previously has been no “coherent body of literature on authentic behavior” (Harter, 2002), interest in the concept of authenticity has revived over the past decade both in social psychology and with the emergence of the “positive psychology” movement (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006; Seligman, 2002). In our research, we draw upon this body of research to demonstrate the effectiveness of being one’s authentic self compared to catering, a more common approach in interpersonal interactions. We extend existing work by showing that authenticity has important implications not only for an actor’s psychological experience (e.g., his or her emotions) but also for performance in high-stakes interpersonal settings. 11.2. Directions for Future research Despite these contributions, our work has limitations that point to possible directions for future research. First, further studies could test the boundary conditions for the detrimental effects of catering on performance. For instance, having experience with this tactic or high ability in properly executing a catering approach may result in higher rather than lower performance. The success of any form of impression management depends on whether the target perceives the actor to be sincere and authentic (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Liden & Mitchell, 1988). People who are suspected of strategically managing impressions are more likely to be seen as selfish, cold, manipulative, and untrustworthy (Stern & Westphal, 2010). Thus, skill is critical to effective impression management. Consequently, impression management attempts by politically skilled individuals are more likely to be perceived as authentic than those by less politically skilled individuals (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007). Examining boundary conditions for the detrimental effects of catering on performance could also shed light on the differences between our findings and those of previous research on the positive effects of assertive/other-focused impression management tactics (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008). In addition to flattering the target, these tactics tend to be effective because they make candidates look more attractive in the eyes of those evaluating them. This is likely to occur only if candidates are actually comfortable (rather than anxious) in promoting themselves. Factors that reduce their anxiety, from individual differences such as their level of self-confidence to situational factors such as knowing that “everybody behaves inauthentically” in specific contexts or the availability of information about the target’s expectations, may lead to the type of positive effects of assertive/otherfocused impression management tactics found in prior work. Another possible boundary condition future research could explore is for the person relying on an authentic approach to be rather selffocused and preoccupied – so much so to miss important social clues. This is a case where the phenomenon we investigated may reverse. Future studies could also deepen our understanding of the emotional and cognitive consequences of catering as an impression management strategy by investigating its different forms. For example, in our studies, we focused on in-the-moment catering—that is, situations in which actors try to act like a different person in the moment, which makes them feel anxious. However, actors could also engage in a priori catering—namely, by taking actions to cater to the target before interacting with him or her (e.g., by cutting one’s hair before an interview to appear more professional to the interviewer). A priori catering may be more effective than in-the-moment catering, as it gives actors more time to prepare. Similarly, catering may involve both verbal and nonverbal inauthentic behaviors, which may affect actors differently. For instance, an actor may construe nonverbal catering attempts as more authentic than verbal ones, thus resulting in lower levels of anxiety and potentially better performance in interpersonal first meetings such as job interviews. Future research could further examine why catering hinders performance. We suggested that the greater anxiety and instrumentality catering produces are detrimental to the caterer’s cognitive resources, thus negatively affecting the caterer’s self-evaluation and self-presentation to the target. But it is also possible that the target of catering perceives anxiety and inauthenticity from the person relying on this tactic. People can tell when others are being inauthentic (Korb, With, & Niedenthal, 2014). In fact, they register that inauthenticity in their bodies, experiencing a rise in blood pressure (Butler, Egloff, & Wilhelm, 2003). This physiological response helps explain our discomfort around people who seem “fake.” Further examining whether the target of catering sees through this approach could advance our understanding of the link between catering and performance. Future research could also examine factors that may enhance authenticity. Rogers (1959) proposed that people are naturally authentic at an early age but that the constraints of social life erode this authenticity. Similarly, Harter, Stocker, and Robinson (1996) and Neff and Harter (2002) demonstrated that people are more authentic when they feel their true self is accepted by others. Though we investigated interpersonal first meetings, we suspect that catering is less common (and perhaps even more detrimental) in established relationships. Future work should focus on increasing our understanding of how and when individuals should aim for authenticity in professional settings. Future work could also investigate why people commonly view authenticity as an ineffective approach to interpersonal first meetings and professional interactions more generally. Authenticity has been correlated with an increase in self-esteem and life satisfaction (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008), relationship satisfaction (Brunell et al., 2010), psychological well-being (Ménard & Brunet, 2010; Pisarik & Larson, 2011), and mindfulness (Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, & Lance, 2008)—all outcomes that are beneficial to one’s engagement and productivity at work. Authenticity also correlates with a decrease in verbal defensiveness (Lakey et al., 2008), depressive symptoms (Ryan et al., 2005), anxiety, and stress (Ryan et al., 2005). Thus, one might ask why people view authenticity as problematic and do not behave authentically more often. In our initial pilot study, we found that most people believe catering to another person’s interests and expectations is a more promising strategy than being oneself for securing positive outcomes and would use this strategy in high-stakes interpersonal first meetings. Examining why these beliefs exist would improve our understanding of how to best help people use strategies that are effective in their interactions. Finally, in our work, we investigated contexts in which catering goals were likely to be at odds with authenticity goals—in interpersonal first meetings when individuals doubt that their true selves are what evaluators desire. Also, we manipulated this variable in our laboratory experiments to ensure independence between a catering condition and an authenticity condition. However, in life, catering motives may sometimes align with authentic, ideal-self motives. That is, who we think others want us to be and who we really are may overlap. We suspect that individuals are most at ease and least anxious in situations in which catering and authenticity motives align, and future work could explore this possibility. Relatedly, future research could explore the role of inauthenticity that catering engenders. We suggested that the greater the perceived overlap between the caterer’s set of interests and the target’s expectations, the less inauthentic catering may feel to the caterer, thus making the differences we find in our studies between catering and being authentic less pronounced. Future studies could examine the potential moderating role of the perceived overlap between the caterer’s interests and the target’s expectations.