9 -4 1 2 -1 1 4

REV: OCTOBER 28, 2014

JULIE BATTILANA

ANDRÁS TILCSIK

Self-Monitoring
What Is Self-Monitoring?
“He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his
chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby
assuming more violent changes than the chameleon.” It is with these words that Plutarch described
the ancient Athenian statesman and general, Alcibiades. 1 Based on this account, Alcibiades appears to
have been a very high self-monitor. The concept of self-monitoring captures the extent to which
individuals monitor and control their self-presentation and public appearance in social situations and
interpersonal relationships. Individuals who are high self-monitors2 construct and project images of
themselves in order to better fit a particular social situation. Such individuals have been described as
“social pragmatists who are chameleon-like in adjusting the public expression of their attitudes and
behavior to fit with the expectations of others.”3

Low self-monitors, by contrast, are more consistent in their behavior across social contexts and less
likely to present images that differ from their privately experienced self. For these individuals, inner
feelings and attitudes, rather than social cues, determine the appropriateness of behavior.
Consequently, low self-monitors are less responsive than high self-monitors to cues and expectations
in their social context, and less flexible in adjusting their behavior to elicit positive reactions from
others. (Exhibit 1 provides a list of behaviors and characteristics typically associated with high and
low self-monitoring.) Although people cannot be strictly classified as one or the other, most people
demonstrate a tendency to be either more of a high self-monitor or more of a low self-monitor. This
tendency may change over time and across situations for some people.

The Role of Self-Monitoring

Although the average level of job satisfaction does not seem to vary significantly between high
and low self-monitors,4 individuals’ level of self-monitoring has potential implications for their career
choices, their relationships at work, their evaluations of others at work, their work ethics, and their
career path.

Career choices Compared to high self-monitors, low self-monitors tend to report stronger
organizational commitment, broadly defined as a positive emotional attachment to the organization
and its goals. This is consistent with the more general finding that low self-monitors often report
higher levels of commitment and stronger bonds in their interpersonal relationships. A study that
tracked members of an MBA class for five years after graduation found that high self-monitors were

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Professor Julie Battilana and doctoral student András Tilcsik prepared this note as the basis for class discussion.

Copyright © 2012, 2014 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-
7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be
digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
412-114 Self-Monitoring

more likely than low self-monitors to change employers and to undertake major employment-related
geographic moves within that time frame. 5

Although there is little systematic research about the relative distribution of high and low self-
monitors across different types of careers and positions, experimental research is suggestive in this
regard. For example, a laboratory experiment with college students indicates that, when facing a
decision about what tasks and positions to pursue, low self-monitors tend to base their choices on
whether the requirements of a particular position match their personality traits. High self-monitors, by
contrast, give more weight to the amount of information available about the position, showing a
strong preference for clearly defined positions with detailed, unambiguous information about the
requirements. This finding is consistent with low self-monitors’ emphasis on inner feelings and
values and with high self-monitors’ attention to cues in the external environment. As low self-
monitors tend to make relatively fewer adjustments to their behavior, they prefer positions that allow
them to perform well while being true to themselves. High self-monitors, on the other hand, prefer
having detailed information about a position—or any social situation, for that matter—because such
information allows them to tailor their behavior appropriately.6

Relationships with others at work Research suggests that, relative to low self-monitors,
high self-monitors tend to get along better with others at work. High self-monitors were found more
likely than low self-monitors to help their colleagues and communicate with them in order to
improve individual and team performance. However, there appears to be no significant difference
between high and low self-monitors in the frequency of “organizational citizenship behaviors” that
are not specifically directed toward coworkers, such as promoting the organization’s image in public
or performing tasks above and beyond what is normally expected. 7

As a result of their ability to connect with others in the workplace, high self-monitors are more
likely to occupy a central position in organizational networks of relationships and to connect
otherwise disconnected others,8 therefore gaining social influence and access to diverse sources of
information within their organizations. 9

High and low self-monitors also differ in their approaches to handling conflict at work. Relative to
low self-monitors, high self-monitors show more preference for conciliatory modes of conflict
resolution—such as making compromises or cooperating with opponents—and less preference for
non-cooperative tactics, such as avoidance, which may be favored by low self-monitors.10

Evaluating others Given their sensitivity to social cues, high self-monitors might pay more
attention than low self-monitors to external appearance and social norms when making judgments
about others. An experimental study of hiring decisions has found that, relative to low self-monitors,
high self-monitors were more likely to base their judgment about job applicants on physical
appearance (“looking the part”) and less on personality factors (“being the part”) 11—a difference
between high and low self-monitors that has also been observed in the selection of potential romantic
partners.12 Compared to low self-monitors, high self-monitors are also more influenced by the sex of
job applicants when hiring people for sex-typed (that is, stereotypically male or stereotypically
female) jobs. In an experiment with business school students evaluating fictitious job candidates, high
self-monitors were less willing than low self-monitors to hire men as school social workers and
women as supervisors of a car dealership—even though these “applicants” were presented as having
achieved nearly identical scores on job-specific selection tests and interviews. 13

(Un)ethical behaviors Does self-monitoring have implications for ethics in organizations?

The answer seems to be “yes,” but scholars disagree over how exactly self-monitoring might matter.
Some researchers have suggested that, if high self-monitors are “ethically pragmatic” or overly

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
 Self-Monitoring 412-114

susceptible to pressures from others, they may be relatively less consistent and effective in dealing
with ambiguous ethical issues in organizations. For example, reflecting on the “pragmatism” of high
self-monitors and the more “principled” orientation of low self-monitors, management scholar
Arthur Bedeian noted how an “overabundance of pragmatism” and a lack of “principled dissent”
have contributed to recent corporate scandals. 14

Others have argued that the relationship between self-monitoring and ethics is more complex and
depends critically on the context. As psychologist David Day noted,

Something worth noting about self-monitoring and ethics is that the context matters. If a
high self-monitor is employed by an organization in which ethical behavior is
expected . . . then behavior will likely adhere to prevailing norms and values. The particular
risk is when there are no clear expectations or when the prevailing culture encourages results
at any cost. . . . But this does not mean that low self-monitors necessarily will be more ethical
organizational actors. It depends on their values. I am reminded of Gordon Gecko in the
movie Wall Street with his credo “greed is good.” We could debate whether or not he was a
high or low self-monitor but his greedy behavior did correspond closely to his fundamental
philosophy, which is a hallmark of a low self-monitor. . . . So I do not believe that low self-
monitors would automatically be ethical leaders because they follow an internal compass. It
depends on the underlying values that are guiding a leader’s behavior. Which direction does
the internal compass point?15

Finally, compared to high self-monitors, low self-monitors are more likely to speak up,
especially if they believe that they can exercise control over the events that affect them and if they
have high self-esteem, which may or may not lead to more ethical behavior, depending on the
principles of the individual. 16

Career progression Many of the differences between high and low self-monitors discussed
above may have implications for career success. High self-monitors tend to be relatively less attached
to their organization and colleagues, which may allow them to pursue a wider range of options. They
are also more likely to occupy social network positions that provide access to larger and more diverse
sets of information and opportunities. Furthermore, high self-monitors are more often perceived as
likable and generous—a reputation that can lead to higher status among peers, greater interpersonal
influence, and faster progression up the corporate ladder. 17

Consistent with these arguments, researchers have found that high self-monitoring MBA
graduates were more likely than their low self-monitoring peers to achieve internal or cross-company
promotions in the first five years after graduation. 18 Research also indicates that high self-monitors
tend to emerge as leaders within groups more frequently than do low self-monitors. Moreover,
numerous studies have found a positive relationship between high self-monitoring and job
performance when performance criteria include interpersonal factors—such as the amount of help
given to coworkers or the extent to which one is enjoyable to work with. 19

However, high self-monitors may not be as effective at creative tasks because their desire to fit the
requirements of social situations may prevent them from breaking with local norms. This in turn may
reduce their level of innovativeness. In their experiments, Arne de Vet and Carsten de Dreu20 show
that high self-monitors perform badly in creative tasks when other people are present. Thus, their
performance in key creative exercises, such as brainstorming, may not be as high as that of low self-
monitors. On the other hand, high self-monitors, because they interact with a lot of different people,
are more likely to identify innovators. However, low self-monitors are more successful at charting
new courses, because they stick to their guns and go where most do not.

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
412-114 Self-Monitoring

In addition to being at a slight disadvantage in creative tasks, high self-monitors are also likely to
experience more emotional conflict. First, high self-monitors may experience conflicts due to the
distinct expectations of the various audiences with which they interact. When this is the case, high
self-monitors may be at a loss as to how to behave. 21 Moreover, high self-monitors’ ability to adjust to
social situations and to endorse multiple roles exposes them to the risk of role conflict at the
workplace, a problem that low self-monitors are less likely to face.22 Switching between multiple
roles may take a toll in terms of dissonance and competing demands to imitate and adopt others’
styles. One might wonder what the long-term impact of such behavior is on one’s personal integrity.
In maintaining a façade across environments, to what extent can high self-monitors preserve their
personal integrity?

In addition to potentially compromising their integrity, high self-monitors may run the risk of not
being perceived as genuine by others. Several authors have shown that high self-monitors tend to
practice surface acting,23 while there is no evidence that they express genuine emotions.24 Also, in the
case of affective events, research has showed that leaders that are high self-monitors will be less likely
to exhibit genuine emotions.25 Consequently, an awareness of such tendencies impacts the way in
which others relate to high self-monitoring “chameleons.” In response, it is important for high self-
monitors to attempt to convey genuine emotions, rather than merely acting, and to develop
relationships of trust based on these genuine emotions.

Measuring Self-Monitoring
The personality measure most commonly used to capture self-monitoring is the Self-Monitoring
Scale, originally developed by psychologist Mark Snyder in the 1970s. One version of this scale
consists of 18 true–false items. (See Exhibit 2 for the items included in the scale.) This scale purports
to capture several interrelated aspects of self-monitoring:

 Concern with social appropriateness

 Attention to social cues to appropriate self-presentation

 Ability to tailor one’s self-presentation, and the use of this ability in specific situations

 The extent to which one’s self-presentation varies across situations

What scores correspond to low, average, or high self-monitoring on this scale? Naturally, the
average self-monitoring score varies across populations to some extent. For example, using the
above-described scale, researchers have found that the mean self-monitoring score of 139 second-year
MBA students at a U.S. business school was around 9.9 (with a standard deviation of 3.7). 26 On the
same scale, the mean score of 92 employees at a small high-technology company in the U.S. was 7.1
(with a standard deviation of 3.9).27 Across a number of studies, women’s self-monitoring score was,
on average, slightly lower than men’s. 28 While there is relatively little research on cross-cultural
differences in self-monitoring, one study compared university students in Japan, Korea, and the U.S.
and found that the average self-monitoring score among American students (mean = 10.8) was
statistically significantly higher than among their Japanese (mean = 7.9) and Korean (mean = 8.1)
counterparts.29

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
 Self-Monitoring 412-114

Concluding Note
Is it better to be a low or high self-monitor? There is no definite answer to this question. Self-
monitoring behaviors may be beneficial or harmful, depending on the organizational setting.
Although no one is strictly of one invariant type, it is important for individuals to understand the
concept of self-monitoring and whether or not they, and those around them, tend to act like high or
low self-monitors. This knowledge helps one navigate the social relationships that make up
organizations.

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
412-114 Self-Monitoring

Exhibit 1 Typical Behaviors Associated with High and Low Self-Monitoring

High Self-Monitors

 Are highly sensitive to the requirements of particular social situations

 Flexibly tailor their self-presentational style and behavior to fit particular social contexts

 Rely more on verbal and non-verbal social cues, than on internal feelings and attitudes, to
determine the appropriateness of their behavior

 Closely attend to the behaviors and expectations of others

 Strategically cultivate public appearances to elicit positive reactions

 Are especially attuned to role expectations

 Possess a large repertoire of self-presentational skills and images

Low Self-Monitors

 Are guided more by internal feelings and attitudes than by situational cues

 Are less reactive to social circumstances

 Exhibit consistent self-presentational styles and behaviors across differences social contexts
and situations

 Rely on salient inner dispositions and attitudes to determine the appropriateness of their
behavior

 Behave according to own internal states rather than the expectations of others

 Exhibit consistent behaviors that reflect what they perceive to be their true selves, even if that
conflicts with social expectations

 Possess a relatively narrower repertoire of self-presentational skills and images

Source: D. V. Day and D. J. Schleicher, “Self-Monitoring at work: a motive based perspective,” Journal of Personality (2006).

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
 Self-Monitoring 412-114

Exhibit 2 Self-Monitoring Scale

Items

1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.

2. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like.
3. I can argue only for ideas that I already believe.
4. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information.
5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others
6. I would probably make a good actor.
7. In a group of people, I am rarely the center of attention
8. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons.
9. I am not particularly good at making other people like me.
10. I’m not always the person I appear to be.
11. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone or win his or her favor.
12. I have considered being an entertainer.
13. I have never been good at games such as charades and improvisational acting.
14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations.
15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.
16. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not come across quite as well as I should.
17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for the right end).
18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.

Answer Key

Give 1 point for each item if the answer matches the key’s answer. Otherwise, give no points for that
item. Add up the points for all 18 items.

1. False
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. True
6. True
7. False
8. True
9. False
10. True
11. False
12. True
13. False
14. False
15. False
16. False
17. True
18. True

Source: P. T. Fuglestad and M. Snyder, “Self-Monitoring,” pp. 574-591 in Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior,
ed. M. R. and R. H. Hoyle (New York: Guilford, 2009).

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
412-114 Self-Monitoring

Endnotes

1 Plutarch, “Alcibiades and Coriolanus,” in Lives (Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library).
2 Note there is little correlation between self-monitoring and Machiavellianism, the tendency to utilize

amoral manipulative tactics and to distrust and seek control over others. While Machiavellianism implies
manipulating others in order to change their behavior and further one’s own goals, high self-monitoring implies
adjusting one’s own behavior in order to elicit approval from others in a variety of social contexts. For more
information, see (1) P. T. Fuglestad and M. Snyder, “Self-Monitoring,” p. 574-591 in Handbook of Individual
Differences in Social Behavior, ed. M. R. and R. H. Hoyle (New York: Guilford, 2009), p. 575; (2) J. J. Dahling, B. G.
Whitaker, and P. E. Levy, “The development and validation of a new measure of Machiavellianism,” Journal of
Management (2009): 219–257; and (3) W. Ickes, S. Reidhead, and M. Patterson, “Machiavellianism and self-
monitoring: As different as ‘Me’ and ‘You’,” Social Cognition 4 (1986): 58–74.
3D. V. Day and D. J. Schleicher, “Self-Monitoring at work: a motive based perspective,” Journal of Personality
(2006): 688.
4D. V. Day, D. J. Schleicher, A. L. Unckless, and N. J. Hiller, “Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-
analytic investigation of construct validity,” Journal of Applied Psychology (2002): 390–401.
5 M. Kilduff and D. V. Day, “Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial
careers,” Academy of Management Journal (1994): 1047–1060.
6 M. Snyder and S. Gangestad, “Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self-monitoring processes,”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1982): 123–135.

7 G. L. Blakely, M. C. Andrews, and J. Fuller, “Are chameleons good citizens? A longitudinal study of the

relationship between self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior,” Journal of Business and Psychology
(Winter 2003): 131–144.
8(1) A. Mehra, M. Kilduff, and D. J. Brass, “The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications
for workplace performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly (2001): 121–146; and (2) Z. Sasovova, A. Mehra, S. P.
Borgatti, and M. C. Schippers, “Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage
dynamics,” Administrative Science Quarterly (December 2010): 639–670.
9 (1) D. J. Brass, “Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization,”

Administrative Science Quarterly (1984): 518–539; and (2) R. Burt, Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).
10 R. A. Baron, “Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and self-

monitoring,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes (1989): 281–296.

11 M. Snyder, E. Berscheid, and A. Matwychuk, “Orientations toward personnel selection: Differential

reliance on appearance and personality,” Journal of Personality ‘and Social Psychology (June 1988): 972–979.
12 Fuglestad and Snyder, “Self-Monitoring.”
13 I. M. Jawahar and J. Mattsson, “Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of self-monitoring

level of decision maker,” Journal of Applied Psychology (2005): 563–573.

14 A. G. Bedeian and D. V. Day, “Can chameleons lead?,” Leadership Quarterly (2004): 689.
15 Bedeian and Day, “Can chameleons lead?,” p. 704.
16S. F. Premeaux and A. G. Bedeian, “Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in
predicting speaking up in the workplace,” Journal of Management Studies (September 2003): 1537–1562.
17(1) F. Flynn, R. Reagans, E. Amanatullah, and D. Ames, “Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors
achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2006): 1123–1137; and (2) R. Hogan, G. Curphy, and J. Hogan, “What we know about leadership: Effectiveness
and personality,” American Psychologist (1994): 493–504.

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.
 Self-Monitoring 412-114

18 Kilduff and Day, “Do chameleons get ahead?”

19 Day et al., “Self-monitoring personality at work.”
20 Arne J. de Vet and Carsten K. W. de Dreu, “The Influence of Articulation, Self-Monitoring Ability, and

Sensitivity to Others on Creativity,” European Journal of Social Psychology 37 (2007): 747–760.

21 Christopher Leone and Victoria Corte, “Concern for Self-Presentation and Self-Conguence: Self-

Monitoring, Machiavellianism, and Social Conflicts,” Social Behavior and Personality 22, no. 4 (1994): 305–312.
22 Ajay Mehra and Mark T. Schenkel, “The Price Chameleons Pay: Self-Monitoring, Boundary Spanning and

Role Conflict in the Workplace,” British Journal of Management 19 (2008): 138–144.

(1) C. M. Brotheridge and R. T. Lee, “Development and Validation of the Emotional Labour Scale,” Journal
23

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76 (2003): 365−379; and (2) M. Diefendorff, M. H. Croyle, and R. H.
Gosserand, “The Dimensionality and Antecedents of Emotional Labor Strategies,” Journal of Vocational Behavior
66 (2005): 339−359.
24 Diefendorff et al., “The Dimensionality and Antecedents of Emotional Labor Strategies.”
25 William L. Gardener, Dawn Fischer, and James Hunt, “Emotional Labor and Leadership: A Threat to

Authenticity?” Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009): 466–482.

26 Kilduff and Day, “Do chameleons get ahead?”
27 Mehra et al., “The social networks of high and low self-monitors.”
28 Day et al., “Self-monitoring personality at work.”
29 W. B. Gudykunst, S. M. Yang, and T. Nishida, “Cultural differences in self-consciousness and self-

monitoring,” Communication Research (1987): 7–36.

This document is authorized for use only in Sanaz Talaifar's Leadership (BUSI70053) - 23/24 at Imperial College London from Mar 2024 to Sep 2024.