Ingratiating Behavior Provides Alternative Path to the Boardroom
Skip to content
Podcast | Insight Unpacked Season 1: Extraordinary Brands and How to Build Them
Leadership Organizations Apr 1, 2008

Ingratiating Behavior Provides Alternative Path to the Boardroom

Talent and credentials are not all that matters

Based on the research of

James D. Westphal

Ithai Stern

Corporate managers who express opinions that differ from those of their CEO may spoil their chances of being appointed to outside boards, according to recently published research. Ithai Stern (Assistant Professor of Management & Organizations at the Kellogg School of Management) and Kellogg graduate James Westphal (Professor of Business Administration and Strategy at the University of Michigan) have found that managers who engage in ingratiating behavior when interacting with their CEO are most likely to be recommended for seats on outside boards on which the CEO serves.

Populating a corporate board in this manner may result in a group unlikely to challenge upper management. Westphal and Stern explain that according to previous research, the culture of deferral to management has been a factor in corporate decisions that have resulted in many negative outcomes for shareholders, including poor corporate performance, accounting scandals, and white-collar crime. In spite of considerable pressure from institutional investors wanting boards to exercise more oversight, this culture has persisted because of the tendency for boards to consist of a circle of “insiders.” These insiders are typically privileged white men who have similar attitudes and ideas based on their shared experiences, such as education at elite institutions, membership in exclusive social clubs, and upper-class backgrounds. According to Westphal and Stern, this system perpetuates itself because of the widespread practice of appointing new board members on the recommendation of current board members.

In response to demands from external stakeholders, more people without the insider credentials of white race, male gender, and privilege have been appointed to corporate boards in recent years. Stakeholders expect diversity to encourage a greater range of ideas and increase the likelihood that board members will be able to exercise control over internal management to the benefit of shareholders. However, as Westphal and Stern explain, evidence now suggests that as more women and men of diverse racial, ethnic, and social backgrounds gain entry to the boardroom, the norms of social conformity are actually persisting. The researchers set out to find explanations for this counterintuitive result.

Their study involved 350 companies selected at random from the Forbes 500 index of large and mid-sized U.S. industrial and service firms. By surveying more than one thousand managers of these companies, Westphal and Stern measured the three components of ingratiating behavior described in social influence literature: other-enhancement, opinion conformity, and favor rendering. They sent similar surveys to the CEOs of companies in the sample, asking about each top manager’s behavior toward the CEO. To measure elite social and educational credentials of the managers, the researchers obtained demographic and biographical data on top managers from a variety of sources that have been used extensively in similar research, including Dun and Bradstreet’s Reference Book of Corporate Management, Standard and Poor’s Register, the Social Register, Marquis Who’s Who, corporate proxy statements, and annual company reports.

Two years after the initial survey, Westphal and Stern sent a questionnaire to directors who serve on nominating committees of companies in the sample. They asked the directors whether one or more CEOs who serve on the board had suggested that someone be nominated for an outside director appointment during the prior two years and, if so, who had made the recommendation and who was recommended.

The researchers found that ingratiating behavior was the strongest single predictive factor for obtaining board appointments. According to Stern, in a twelve-month period, challenging the CEO’s opinion on a strategic issue one fewer time, complimenting the CEO on his insight two more times, and doing one personal favor increased by 64 percent the likelihood of an appointment to a board where the CEO was already a director. Stern notes, “We were surprised by the sheer magnitude of the effect.”

Ingratiation provides a path to the boardroom for white men who lack elite educational credentials or upper-class social backgrounds. However, the importance of ingratiation in recommendations for future board appointments is even greater for managers who are female or ethnic minorities (Figure 1); they must engage in a particularly high level of ingratiating behavior to gain board appointments. According to Westphal and Stern, this is direct evidence of a subtle form of social discrimination faced by managers who are not both white and male. Their findings suggest that “while ethnic minorities and women who seek access to the highest level of the corporation do not come up against a ‘glass ceiling’ per se, they also do not receive equal treatment or consideration in the director selection process.”

Figure 1: Interaction between ingratiation and elite undergraduate degree
Graph depicting relationship between ingratiating behavior & board appointment

Westphal and Stern conclude that the current convention, by which many board members receive appointments on the recommendation of current board members, must change. Otherwise, corporate boards will not provide the kind of oversight that could enable them to be effective watchdogs for shareholders.

Featured Faculty

Member of the Department of Management & Organizations faculty until 2015

About the Writer
Beverly A. Caley, JD, is a freelance science writer based in Corvallis, Oregon.
About the Research

Westphal, James D. and Ithai Stern (2006). “The Other Pathway to the Boardroom: Interpersonal Influence Behavior as a Substitute for Elite Credentials and Majority Status in Obtaining Board Appointments.” Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 51(2):169-204.

Read the original

Most Popular This Week
  1. What Went Wrong with FTX—and What’s Next for Crypto?
    One key issue will be introducing regulation without strangling innovation, a fintech expert explains.
    stock trader surrounded by computer monitors
  2. How Experts Make Complex Decisions
    By studying 200 million chess moves, researchers shed light on what gives players an advantage—and what trips them up.
    two people playing chess
  3. What Donors Need to Hear to Open the Checkbook
    Insights from marketing on how charities can grow by appealing to different kinds of donors.
  4. The Complicated Logic Behind Donating to a Food Pantry Rather than Giving a Hungry Person Cash
    If we were in need, we’d likely want money. So what accounts for that difference?
    Donating food is paternalistic aid
  5. To Improve Fundraising, Give Donors a Local Connection
    Research offers concrete strategies for appealing to donors who want to make an impact.
    Charity appeals that frame the message around local connection tend to be more successful as a result of the proximity effect
  6. Podcast: What the FTX Meltdown Means for the Future of Crypto
    The implosion of the crypto exchange has sent the industry reeling. We dig into what happened and whether cryptocurrency, as a concept, can weather the storm.
  7. Which Form of Government Is Best?
    Democracies may not outlast dictatorships, but they adapt better.
    Is democracy the best form of government?
  8. How You Can Make a More Positive Social Impact
    A 3-step guide to becoming a more thoughtful consumer and donor.
    person with money deciding which box to put it in.
  9. What Went Wrong at AIG?
    Unpacking the insurance giant's collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.
    What went wrong during the AIG financial crisis?
  10. Why Well-Meaning NGOs Sometimes Do More Harm than Good
    Studies of aid groups in Ghana and Uganda show why it’s so important to coordinate with local governments and institutions.
    To succeed, foreign aid and health programs need buy-in and coordination with local partners.
  11. How Are Black–White Biracial People Perceived in Terms of Race?
    Understanding the answer—and why black and white Americans may percieve biracial people differently—is increasingly important in a multiracial society.
    How are biracial people perceived in terms of race
  12. How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?
    Tone is key, according to new research, which found that a change in TV ad strategy could have altered the results of the 2000 presidential election.
    Political advertisements on television next to polling place
  13. Immigrants to the U.S. Create More Jobs than They Take
    A new study finds that immigrants are far more likely to found companies—both large and small—than native-born Americans.
    Immigrant CEO welcomes new hires
  14. Take 5: The Upside of Failure
    A look at the surprising benefits of striking out, and how to make the most of your mistakes.
    Scientists who experienced an early-career setback succeeded more in the long run, new research shows.
  15. How Has Marketing Changed over the Past Half-Century?
    Phil Kotler’s groundbreaking textbook came out 55 years ago. Sixteen editions later, he and coauthor Alexander Chernev discuss how big data, social media, and purpose-driven branding are moving the field forward.
    people in 1967 and 2022 react to advertising
  16. To Get Employees Back to the Office, Address These 4 Frictions
    An innovation expert explains how to meet resistance head-on.
    employees encounter obstacles in front of their office
More in Leadership