It is concluded that impression management is unavoidable – in various social conditions – including the workplace; however, the causes or the effects of the impression management are not always easy to be identified or criticized – mostly because they are depended on the personal perceptions of the performer but also on the particular organizational conditions – referring to the literature examined in the context of this study where reference is made to the relationship between the impression management and the organizational environment.
Despite the fact that different approaches have been used in order to indicate the characteristics and the role of impression management, the scope of impression management is basically the following one: impression management is developed by imitate behavioural patterns in order to achieve specific goals; in the context of the impression management ‘people can take many roles attempted to please audiences to win their moral, social and financial support’ (Giacalone et al., 1989, p.2); Griffin et al (2009) describe impression management as follows: ‘impression management is a direct, intentional effort by someone to enhance his or her image in the eyes of others’ (Griffin et al., 2009, p.356). It is made clear that impression management has a specific scope; however, its role may be differentiated in accordance with the social events and perceptions to which it is related; this fact is made clear in the study of Greene et al. (2003); in the above study reference is made to a particular characteristic of impression management: its dual character. More specifically, Greene et al. (2003) support that impression management refers – simultaneously – to ‘how individuals present themselves and how they respond to the presentation of others’ (Greene et al., 2003, p.358). In both the above cases, the target is the