Anticipatory Impression Management

Anticipatory impression management occurs when an organization or its spokesperson tries to positively influence stakeholder perceptions in an effort to enhance or preserve the organization’s social approval when that acceptance and approval face a defined threat. Anticipatory impression management differs from impression management in that the former occurs before the trigger becomes known to stakeholders whereas the latter takes place after the trigger becomes known. Thus, impression management by itself is reactive.

Organizational leaders have the opportunity to engage in anticipatory impression management when (a) they anticipate that a trigger will occur and may become known to stakeholders or (b) a trigger, as yet unknown to stakeholders, has already occurred and organizational leaders anticipate that it may become known to stakeholders. In such instances, the firm’s leaders may engage in tactics meant to influence the frame that will serve as a basis for subsequent stakeholder interpretation if and when the trigger becomes known. Once the trigger does become known to the stakeholders, some of their interpretations of it are apt to be unaffected by the organization’s attempts to frame the situation, but the intent of anticipatory impression management is that the organization’s frame will be a lens through which the stakeholders view and interpret the trigger, thus leading to reactions that are more favorable to the firm than they otherwise would have been. This entry describes the advantages of anticipatory impression management over reactive impression management and then discusses how the two may work together.

Advantages of Anticipatory Impression Management

Framing in the anticipatory stage has distinct advantages over reframing following a trigger becoming known (i.e., reactive impression management). First, because after a trigger becomes known any information released by the organization regarding the trigger may be viewed skeptically by stakeholders, an organization is in a stronger position to shape the frame before the trigger becomes known. Indeed, prior research suggests that once an information recipient suspects self-interested motivations on the part of the communicator, the recipient takes on a defensive mind-set and is subsequently more difficult to influence. Thus, after a trigger becomes known, stakeholders may perceive any sort of reframing attempts as self-serving, negatively affecting the credibility of the organization on the focal topic and rendering the organization less able to positively influence stakeholder perceptions.

Second, organizational leaders attempting to reframe a trigger must contend with the possible damage to social evaluations of the organization that the revealed trigger has already caused. When stakeholders perceive that organizational actions have violated their expectations, they may ascribe the cause of that behavior to an internal disposition of the organization. That perceived disposition of the organization can then serve as a cognitive anchor, biasing stakeholders as they make adjustments from the anchor to interpret the meaning of new organizational actions or organizational attempts to persuade and influence them.

Anticipatory Impression Management and Reactive Impression Management in Concert

Anticipatory and reactive impression management are rarely mutually exclusive and often work in concert. For example, using reactive impression management following anticipatory impression management may allow reactive impression management to appear as though it is simply reiterating or extending an ongoing frame or narrative rather than simply being a self-serving statement in response to a crisis. By remaining consistent between and across anticipatory impression management and reactive impression management practices related to the same trigger, an organization affirms and strengthens the frame it uses to control external attributions and perceptions related to that trigger. Furthermore, anticipatory impression management tactics may reduce the need for organizations to use reactive impression management strategies. For example, an anticipatory impression management strategy executed perfectly may negate the shareholders’ blaming of the organization and, as a result, their negative reaction toward the organization. It is in this nature that anticipatory impression management is not only complementary but also substitutable with reactive impression management.