Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 22, No. 1 (2024)
Re-examining Familiar Work: Intentionality in Writing Center Online Impression Management
Carey Smitherman Clark
University of Central Arkansas
cclark@uca.edu
Erin George
University of Central Arkansas
geoering@gmail.com
Haydyn Hudnall
University of Central Arkansas
hhudnall@uca.edu
Madison Symonette
Vanderbilt University
madisonsymonette@gmail.com
Eliza Ball
University of Tennessee
elizaball25@gmail.com
Sarah Brackett
University of Central Arkansas
sbrackett1@uca.edu
Will McDonald
University of Central Arkansas
wmcdonald@cub.uca.edu
Abstract
In the pursuit of conveying their missions and services to a diverse audience, writing centers have long engaged in impression management (IM) strategies. This article presents a novel examination of how writing centers manage impressions, particularly in online contexts. Drawing from impression management theory (Jones and Pittman; Boz and Guan; Terrell and Kwok), this micro-study analyzes the intentional strategies employed by writing centers to shape perceptions among stakeholders. The research, conducted at the University of Central Arkansas, investigates the extent to which writing center staff set goals for managing external impressions, the predominant IM strategies utilized, and the level of audience engagement for each.
The findings suggest that audiences respond favorably to IM tactics that enhance perceptions of attractiveness and competence. Through survey analysis and examination of social media platforms, the study reveals prominent IM tactics employed by writing centers, with a focus on ingratiation and organizational promotion. Results also highlight the limited use of intimidation and supplication tactics, suggesting a predominant focus on positive reinforcement and community engagement.
Additionally, the study offers practical recommendations for writing centers to systematically assess and improve their impression management efforts, including conducting IM audits and developing action plans aligned with organizational goals. Overall, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how writing centers strategically navigate online impression management to effectively communicate their value and engage with stakeholders. It underscores the significance of intentional IM efforts in enhancing credibility, attracting new clients, and fostering positive relationships within the academic community.
Introduction
For more than half a century, writing center scholars, administrators, and staff have been concerned with the image we present to the constituents we serve and the stakeholders we depend upon: students, faculty, staff, administrators, and even community members. We spend countless hours brainstorming ways to communicate our mission, the ways in which we work, who we can help, and how we can help those outside our centers. From the many publications on these topics to campus presentations, student resource fairs, newsletters, bookmarks, websites, and social media, we iterate and reiterate (and reiterate…) our message in hopes of increasing understanding of the work we do and bringing new clients through our physical and virtual doors. Our goal is often two-fold: fulfilling our mission of helping clients while further grounding the value of the work we believe in. However, we aren’t always aware of the image others hold of our center; even when we are, it may not occur to us to manage these efforts with deeper goals in mind.
In "Coffee’s for Closers!: The Pressures of Marketing a New Writing Center," Bruce Bowles, Jr. draws an analogy between the high-pressure sales tactics depicted in the 1992 film Glengarry Glen Ross and the intense demands faced by writing center directors in promoting their services. Bowles reflects on the immense pressure that administrators—especially early-career directors—experience to attract students and demonstrate the writing center’s value. He also acknowledges that measuring up against these expectations can significantly influence the center’s funding and professional advancement (10). Drawing on previous research on both the importance of promoting writing centers and the labor involved in writing center marketing (Harris, 2010; Lerner, 1997; North, 1984; Ryan and Kane, 2015), Bowles advocates for effective marketing strategies, such as classroom presentations, which show that such interventions can notably increase student engagement (12). Despite the success of these strategies, Bowles underscores the need for more scholarly discourse on the intersection of marketing efforts and writing center efficacy. Further, he addresses the ongoing struggle to balance administrative demands with intellectual contributions in the field (15-16).
In this article, we offer one potential solution to Bowles’ call in the form of writing center impression management (IM). IM theory provides a lens through which we can reflect on our marketing efforts, giving us greater insight into our individual performance in this area in order to identify strategies that work best for our purposes. With this in mind, we introduce IM theory and share the results of an IRB-approved micro-study conducted at the University of Central Arkansas. We also aim to show how IM taxonomy can be used as a framework for a more intentional analysis of how we manage others’ impressions of our writing centers. We assert that using IM with integrity in marketing efforts can give us greater insight into the impact our impressions have on students and other stakeholders.
Impression Management (IM) Theory
In The Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Filip Lievens describes organizational image as “people’s global impressions of an organization [which are] defined as people’s loose structures of knowledge and beliefs about an organization” (2). Writing centers, like many establishments, not only have to be aware of our organizational image but also actively work to create/revise our image to accurately represent who we are. As a discipline with a long history of professionalizing itself, as well as moving away from closet-sized rooms, “fix-it shop” reputations, and feelings of misunderstanding à la Stephen North, we must continue to look towards the future. This involves growing and changing to best serve the needs of our clients. In doing this work, we must pay attention to the shaping of our image—that is, ethically and accurately managing the impression others have of us.
For both tutors and writing centers, self- and organizational-presentation are a vital component of successful writing center practices. Jones and Pittman describe these strategic presentation methods as “features of behavior affected by power augmentation motives designed to elicit or shape others’ attributions of the actor’s dispositions” (233). Drawing on the foundational work of Erving Goffman, who first introduced IM theory in 1959 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life as a dramaturgical model of social life, Boz and Guan argue that IM strategies can involve intentional or unintentional efforts to influence how others perceive one’s image (24). Every feature of daily life, including physical presentations and online appearances, impacts our IM whether we know it or not. IM theory evaluates how people and organizations implement strategies to shape public perceptions (Terrell and Kwok 3).
Theoretical and Conceptual Considerations
The motives for IM vary depending on the goal of the individual. In their chapter “Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self Presentation,” Jones and Pittman—both professors of psychology—organize self-presentation tactics into five fundamental categories: exemplification, self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication. Depending on the context of a situation, individuals and organizations might rely more heavily on one tactic than another. For example, employees may use exemplification in the workplace to demonstrate their willingness to do more than what is necessary in order to appear hardworking. Similarly, self-promotion is often used in a professional setting whereby a person might make their talents and qualifications known to others in an effort to solidify their value in the company. In a context where favorable impressions are desired, we might use ingratiation by offering compliments to create a stronger sense of pathos. Intimidation, a tactic which employs the use of aggressive language or behavior, might appear when setting boundaries or standing up for one’s self. Finally, supplication is the advertisement of one’s incompetency or weakness to gain the assistance of others (Jones and Pittman 238-248). Through the use of one or a combination of these tactics, the opinions of others are manipulated to the advantage of the person using IM.
With the rise of social media, IM has extended from predominantly face-to-face interactions to include online personas. Virtual platforms, such as websites, Facebook, and Instagram, have pioneered new possibilities for self- and organizational-presentation. As a substitute for in-person interactions, each platform also provides the opportunity to construct a virtual identity through the means of images and captions. The study of IM examines the implications behind each of these online presentations. With a rise in social networking via online platforms, studying IM in virtual spaces becomes more relevant for writing centers as well.
While we can manage the impressions we make as individuals, IM can also translate to organizations as a whole. Bolino et al. assert that, although much of the research in IM has paid more attention to the personal level, IM theory “can also be applied to the macro-organizational level to study how organizations manage their images and impressions” (qtd. in Terrell and Kwok 3). Organizations, whether conscious of it or not, project an image of themselves to their consumers and communities based upon how they interact, how they present themselves, and their aesthetics, among other things. Still, it is only in the last several decades that organizational impression management has become a topic of study (Bolino et al. 1081).
While traditional means of organizational IM mediums might include advertising, signage, events covered by media, and printed material such as annual reports (Mohamed et al. 109), organizational IM is increasingly valuable in the era of the internet and social media platforms, with impression data having a significantly further range than in the pre-Internet age. Within this newer age, Mohamed, Gardener, and Paolillo (1999) developed a modern taxonomy, partly building upon the original, individual-based one posited by Jones and Pittman in 1982. Under the Mohamed, Gardener, and Paolillo taxonomy, organizational IM behaviors are as follows: direct and assertive, direct and defensive, indirect and assertive, and indirect and defensive.
Direct and assertive organizational IM tactics are most commonly used by organizations whose goal is to target a specific audience by presenting and promoting “desirable” images to make their organization appear more attractive to the public (Mohamed et al.). Organizations use this behavior to actively uphold an image of competence, power, and success to draw in their target audiences. On the other hand, the authors also explain direct and defensive tactics as those which also promote information directly related to the target audience, but with the purpose of protecting the organization's image (Mohamed et al.). Direct and defensive tactics are likely used in times of organizational crises, or to prevent the effects of a potentially negative incident that could damage an organization's appearance. In other words, the assertive subtype focuses on building an impression while the defensive one aims to retroactively guard one.
Mohamed, Gardener, and Paolillo use a definition posed by the American psychologist Cialdini to describe indirect tactics as techniques organizations use to enhance or protect their image by managing information that the organization is, or could be, merely associated with (125). These establishments are concerned with avoiding association with groups/ideas that target audiences find negative or unfavorable (the assertive subtype). Conversely, they also prioritize coupling with groups/ideas that the public enjoys (the defensive subtype). Indirect and assertive tactics therefore focus on manipulating the audience's perception of something that the organization is already associated with to protect or repair their image, whereas indirect and defensive behaviors aim to create a linkage between the organization and another desirable entity in order to boost their image (Mohamed et al. 125).
While individual and organizational IM strategies have increasingly been applied to global professional organizations over time, few studies have been done to analyze how writing centers have utilized IM strategies (Lala-Sonora 3-5), especially those that consider the writing center as an organization. Therefore, in this study, we examine (a) the extent to which writing center staff members set goals for the impressions others have of their organizations, (b) what organizational IM strategies are used most frequently to craft centers’ identities in order to reach their goals, and (c) the intended audience’s level of engagement based on various strategies.
We chose to utilize the direct and assertive part of the taxonomy to analyze writing center online social media because these tactics align closely with the proactive nature of writing centers in promoting their services and establishing a positive public image. By employing assertive strategies, writing centers can effectively communicate their strengths and successes, thereby attracting a targeted audience of students and faculty. This approach not only facilitates the construction of a compelling organizational identity but also fosters engagement and collaboration within the academic community. In a field where visibility and perception significantly impact service utilization, the emphasis on direct and assertive tactics positions writing centers to project competence and relevance in a competitive educational landscape.
Methods
In accordance with the University of Central Arkansas Institutional Review Board guidelines, we created and distributed a survey via the WCenter listserv to writing centers spanning the globe and received twenty-nine responses. These respondents represented a wide variety of institutional type and location, as well as facility size. Both public and private institutions were represented, as well as two- and four-year institutions. All of the respondents were writing centers located in the United States. The survey questions inquired about the centers’ demographics, goals for creating impressions of their centers, and strategies employed to manage external perceptions. Specifically, some of the questions the survey posed include the following:
How critically would you say you and your staff think about the overall impression others have of your writing center?
What impressions do you try to give the intended audience through your social media accounts (Instagram, Twitter, etc.)?
What impressions do you try to give the intended audience through your writing center website?
What impressions do you try to give the intended audience through your online newsletter (if you have one)?
What impressions do you try to give the intended audience through additional online communication not listed above?
What overall impression are you hoping to project to students, faculty, and administration about your writing center?
How well do you think you are managing the impressions others have of your writing center? (Scale 1-5)
Is there anything else you would like to say about your efforts to manage the impression others have of your writing center?
The survey’s prompts were intended to investigate the manner in which writing centers actively shape and manage the perceptions of various stakeholders—including students, faculty, administrators, and community members. By inquiring about the historical impressions held by these groups, as well as what writing centers most want others to know about them, we sought to uncover the alignment (or misalignment) between intended and perceived identities. Additionally, questions regarding the use of online platforms and strategies allowed us to examine the role of digital presence in influencing these perceptions and whether centers found success in increasing engagement and correcting false impressions. This insight is crucial for identifying effective communication practices and helping writing centers refine their outreach and image management efforts. In determining effective strategies for building a positive image, writing centers can potentially expand their client base, increase appointments, secure additional funding, and enhance their overall visibility and influence. From the responses, we hoped to gain insight into our participants’ efforts to control outside perceptions of their facilities, as well as the success of these endeavors.
To further understand IM tactics and correlated success, we also provided optional survey prompts requesting the centers’ social media handles (any platform), information on how to access their newsletter if they had one established, and the URL of their writing center website. From the survey respondents who provided the optional platform and link information, we analyzed these media for further research. Specifically, we analyzed five centers’ general Instagram pages, dating back to their last fifty posts. We chose Instagram as the platform for our study for two reasons: first, we found that most of these respondents used Instagram as a platform for communicating via social media, and second, a majority of the respondents’ Instagram accounts were connected to other social media, where they replicated their posts on these other platforms. And as explained above, we chose to focus on the “direct and assertive” taxonomy as outlined by Mohamed et al. This framework mirrors Jones and Pittman’s categories of self-presentational tactics (exemplification, self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication) while translating them to apply to organizations as a whole (see table 1).
In order to determine the types of organizational IM that the respondents were using in their Instagram posts, we coded the data using these five direct and assertive categories. In the process of coding, we also realized that we needed to add a sixth category that allowed for cross-coded posts, or those that exhibited a combination of more than one of the original five categories (see table 1). Each of the last fifty posts from the five Instagram accounts was assigned one of these six codes. Additionally, we analyzed and codified the IM found in each Instagram post to obtain a percentage of each form (e.g. “50% of their posts had examples of promotion”). Finally, we analyzed the level of engagement received on each post within the categories, measured as likes and comments. To further assess engagement as a dependent variable, we looked at the distribution for each writing center individually. We based these levels on the number of likes on each post as a fraction of total likes on that organization’s entire account.
Results
Ingratiation
As a result of this study, we found that these writing centers primarily used ingratiation on their social media platforms. Specifically, 50% of the posts were categorized as such (see fig. 1). This is partially because several posts had dual identification under one of the other four methods of IM and ingratiation (as explained in the “Cross-Coded” section later on). Appearing competent, successful, socially responsible, and active within the community all make organizations like writing centers appealing to prospective patrons. Thus, this finding came as little surprise.
However, we also noticed several writing center specific subcategories. Perhaps the most frequent of these was that involving the center’s tutors. These posts included spotlights of each employee, taking the form of a photo and a brief biography. Often, the description included information about the tutor’s field(s) of study at the institution, hobbies, or fun-fact-style interests. These posts were coded as ingratiation because they instill familiarity between the writing center and the audience, making the prospect of receiving tutoring services less daunting. Stated another way, increasing comfortability with the center is another form of making it appear more attractive for a student’s writing and presentation needs.
We also observed ingratiation posts promoting the writing centers’ availability. These often took the form of engaging, colorful graphics tailored to the time of year. For instance, some centers posted Christmas-themed visuals announcing their altered hours of operation for the holiday season. Being transparent about availability in this way shows that the organization cares about giving its audience the most up-to-date information. This is a way of connecting with clientele on a more personal level—a hallmark of ingratiation. In addition, we saw many encouragement posts aimed towards the university’s students. One example was a graphic wishing them luck with finals. Encouraging posts like these inspire feelings of academic validation, and they also appeal to students’ emotional desire to be valued by their university. Therefore, posts of encouragement are a way in which writing centers connect with students as a university resource.
Some of the more entertaining examples of ingratiation we observed were memes, references to social media trends, and giveaways. These tended to be visual- rather than caption-based, so it is difficult to linguistically describe an example. However, many posts where one is using a meme or duplicating a popular trend online can be considered forms of ingratiation. These types of media particularly appeal to younger generations; this makes them a useful approach for writing centers, which often serve college students. We were also surprised to see several instances where a writing center hosted social media games in which their followers could compete. One form this took was a Valentine's Day poetry contest, where students could submit their poems to the center and receive an online shoutout and physical prize if they won. These types of posts appeared to be conscious efforts made by writing centers to increase their audience’s engagement with the center’s social media. The prizes given out provided further incentive for the audience to participate and, in turn, to view the center in a positive light. Additionally, the winner of such a contest is attracted to the center in a literal sense too, bridging the gap between digital and physical interaction through claiming the reward.
Organizational Promotion
The results of our study revealed that 27.6% of writing center posts were categorized as organizational promotion (see fig. 1). This encompasses behaviors that present the organization “as being highly competent, effective, or successful” (Mohamed et al. 115). A primary example we observed were posts about writing and communication tips. Specifically, this looked like videos with advice for public speaking and writing professional emails, as well as educational posts about how to format papers in different citation styles. These posts present the writing center as competent because they place it in the role of an informed teacher. Like ingratiation, we also noted several examples of tutor spotlights. The difference with these, however, was that they emphasized how successful the tutor was in a given field of study rather than sharing personable traits. For example, these posts mentioned how many degrees each tutor had, how effective they were at helping students, and accomplishments they had made during their studies.
Organizational promotion also appeared as posts displaying a center’s campus involvement. This is a direct form of promotion because it makes the facility more visible to the university as a whole. Posts like these advocated for use of the writing center’s services and demonstrated how ready and well-equipped the center was to meet students’ needs. Along these lines, another example of promotion we saw was disclosure of the organization’s accreditation. This is a favorable form of IM because it speaks to the standards the writing center has met, as well as how a third party sees value in what it provides. Like certificates and awards of any kind, accreditation makes the facility appear more competent to its followers.
A more inspirational form of this kind of IM was encouragement posts. In these, the center at hand dedicated energy towards uplifting students in their writing pursuits. These posts often ended with a reminder that the center was there should an individual need its help. Again, the center is placed in the role of a competent entity—it is not only able to assuage students’ fears with encouraging statements, but also, it is equipped for providing hands-on assistance with students’ projects. We also observed a few instances of writing centers sharing persuasive information with their followers, such as how many sessions they had per semester and a list of reasons why students should visit the facility. These kinds of posts fit under the category of organizational promotion because they showcase the centers’ success and capability.
Exemplification
Out of all Instagram posts analyzed, 16% were categorized as utilizing exemplification, or “behaviors used to project images of integrity, social responsibility, and moral worthiness” (see table 1 and fig. 1). These included the kinds of posts made by professional social media accounts in general. Specifically, exemplification appeared in our data as graphics or captions featuring the following topics: occupational advice, philanthropy, religion, public health, and national holidays. It can be gathered from this list alone that the types of exemplification our participating writing centers utilized spanned a wide array of topics and target demographics.
In the example of podcast advertisements, larger writing centers teamed up with professionals or public figures in distinct academic fields. They used these episodes to interview guests about their experiences, how they arrived at their chosen career, and advice they could provide for students with similar interests or goals. Some specific figures mentioned included a businessman working abroad, a mortician, and a state representative. These podcasts exemplify the writing center’s integrity by associating it with respected professionals. Further, they exhibit social responsibility, in that the center shows active interest in and care for students’ academic pursuits. This is notable because the podcast episodes often did not focus on topics explicitly related to writing or presentation. Thus, the centers who utilized IM like this went beyond the scope of their own specialty, looking after the general needs of the university in which they were housed.
Exemplification also appeared in our data as posts involving community engagement, public health, national holidays, and religion. Specifically, community engagement looked like displays of writing centers’ philanthropic contributions and celebrations of major university milestones (e.g., the university’s first female president). Posts related to public health, more typically dated back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, an example of this was centers letting their followers know that they were housing face masks, making them available for the public. Both social responsibility and public health relate back to exemplification in that they illustrate a center’s integrity within and concern for the community at large.
Similarly, posts about holidays demonstrate that the writing center is aware of its followers' connections with communities outside of the university. Some specific examples of holiday-related posts were well-wishes for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, background information on Veteran’s Day, and hopes for a happy Thanksgiving. It was initially difficult to determine which form of IM these posts fell into, but we felt exemplification best encapsulated them. These kinds of engagement speak to the writing centers’ social responsibility as a community-aimed resource. In other words, acknowledging events that are important to different groups of students and clients shows that the center both recognizes and values its diverse demographic. For instance, posting about MLK Day can signify a belief in racial equity, thereby welcoming Black clients and other students of color. Infographics on Veteran’s Day could be especially meaningful to clients who are, themselves, in the armed forces, or to veterans who are now benefitting from the writing center as non-traditional students. Holiday-focused posts like these are therefore a subtle means of both relaying a center’s specific values and welcoming clients who have an array of experiences and backgrounds.
Posts relating to religion likely serve the same purpose in the context of IM. In our study, these primarily appeared as Bible scriptures. This could speak to the common conflation of religiosity with morality, since demonstrating “moral worthiness” is a component of exemplification (Mohamed et al. 115). However, posts with Christian signifiers could also be more akin to exemplification’s social responsibility aspect. Especially within the context of the Bible Belt—where many of the centers we studied are located—content like this can be a way of acknowledging the regional culture, thereby drawing in more local clients and a wider population of students. This resembles the tactics of ingratiation, but a key difference is that the center’s social media behavior is using the specific strategies that fall under exemplification. Although it may result in being more attractive as an organization, the surface goal of these posts is to demonstrate the center’s values and concern for the public which it aims to serve.
It is important, though, to note that religious media—as with other forms of exemplification—is likely sometimes shared more so as a reflection of the center itself (or even just the staff member who runs its media account), rather than as a conscious outreach towards the organization’s audience. The post can serve to endear or alienate, depending on the specific entity or individual who is consuming it and the particular values and background they hold. In other words, exemplification is both wide in scope and specific in context; it can take many categorical shapes, but its intended impact can be narrow given how it’s aimed at communities with often diverse viewpoints and principles. This form of IM perhaps even occurred so much in our data due to this wide variety. However, when measuring engagement (explained soon below), posts falling under exemplification received increased likes at centers with more followers compared to those with fewer ones (see fig. 3). This was a trend not observed with the other forms of IM we studied, which may further illustrate the tactic’s complications when applied to a smaller audience.
Intimidation and Supplication
Intimidation, or the portrayal of the organization as “powerful or dangerous,” only accounted for 0.4% of all posts we assessed (see table 1 and fig. 1). The way in which this was observed was in the presence of one post alone—a joking threat that the director at one writing center would leave selfies on any unattended phone. However, we may have seen more instances of this form of IM if we had also observed online media like scheduling systems or websites. Platforms like these sometimes include things like notices that a student will be unable to make an appointment after a certain number of uncommunicated no-shows, or codes of conduct that may not be posted to social media accounts. Even so, the single post of intimidation appeared to receive a level of social media engagement proportional to the percentage of our data that it accounted for (see figs. 2 and 3.3). That is to say, it received a number of likes comparable to a single post falling under even the more popular types of IM.
Supplication, or behaviors that exemplify dependence and vulnerability in order to gain assistance, also only accounted for 0.4% of all posts (see table 1 and fig. 1). Again, this was in the form of one post only—this time as a job listing. This is an example of supplication because the center is making it known that they need help in the form of more employees. The assistance they are soliciting, then, refers to job applications. As with intimidation, different forms of media may have yielded a higher percentage of supplication within our study. Namely, websites may demonstrate more instances of job postings, since they are more convenient for housing links and providing detailed application information. Different Instagram accounts also may have had posts pleading with students to make appointments, like with a past post from our own Instagram account for the UCA Center for Writing & Communication. We assume instances of this specific example are more rare on social media platforms, though, unless they take the form of comedic appeal.
Cross-Coded
Finally, we found a few instances of cross-coded posts, or those that represented more than one category in the taxonomy. These comprised a modest 5.6% of all posts analyzed (see fig. 1). They also specifically appeared as a mix between ingratiation and organizational promotion. For example, we noted tutor introductions that fell into this category. These focused on the tutor’s hobbies and interests, as well as their academic achievements and qualifications as a tutor. This features ingratiation by attempting to make the tutor more relatable to the audience; however, it also falls under organizational promotion, since the tutor’s accomplishments reflect positively on the organization in which they are employed. Another form of cross coding we observed were posts that incorporated jokes or modern references along with educational information. A specific example of this was a post in which the writing center played an April Fools joke on its followers while also distinguishing between the different usages of “there,” “their,” and “they’re.” Like with the previous example of tutor introductions, this post falls under the umbrellas of ingratiation and organizational promotion.
Engagement
Our findings Indicate that the posts receiving the most engagement for each writing center were those involving ingratiation of some sort. In fact, when combining the number of likes for each writing center included in our study, posts coded as “ingratiation” accounted for 60% of total engagement (see fig. 2). This was followed by organizational promotion (24%) and exemplification (15.8%), with a tie between supplication and intimidation (each accounting for only 0.1%). Even when taking the engagement levels of most of the writing centers on their own though, the same trend follows: ingratiation resulted in the most number of likes (see figs. 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4). This holds true for all but one out of the five writing centers we studied. For the one outlier, posts coded as exemplification (25.1%) accounted for almost twice as much of the page’s overall engagement as organizational promotion did (12.7%) (see fig. 3.2).
Again, we coded “engagement” as the proportion of likes each category of post received compared to how many total likes the Instagram page itself had accumulated overall. We also, however, evaluated these findings against how large of a following the writing centers had compared to one another. In other words, we organized the data in decreasing order of follower count so that we could take that into consideration when discussing the implications behind our findings (see fig. 3). These numbers ranged from over 1,500 followers to fewer than 200.
This variable yielded some more observations of note. For example, the writing center with the highest follower count gained an almost equal amount of engagement with ingratiation as it did with organizational promotion. Both the center with the most followers and the one with the least had the best response with organizational promotion. The two centers with the most followers received noticeably more engagement with exemplification-coded posts than the other organizations did. Finally, the three centers with the most relatively moderate follower counts received a higher level of engagement with ingratiation-coded posts than the two centers at either end of the scale did (see figs. 3.2-3.4).
Discussion
Overall, the IM strategy the writing centers in our study used on their Instagram accounts was ingratiation, or efforts to appear more attractive as an entity (see table 1). Organizational promotion—endeavors that portray the center as competent and capable—was also largely employed. Supplication (portrayals of social responsibility) was utilized a fair amount, but not extensively, by most centers. Posts blending ingratiation and organizational promotion were also utilized fairly often on the centers’ accounts. However, ingratiation and supplication—efforts involving threats or solicitation—were rarely used across the board, if at all (see table 1). These findings align with our observation that the centers gained the most engagement when using ingratiation, followed by organizational promotion. In other words, the writing centers had the most engagement with the types of IM they employed the most often (see figs. 1 and 2).
It does remain unclear, however, whether organizations post more content with these IM tactics because they know it is what people respond most favorably to or if the favorable engagement is due to the heightened prevalence of these kinds of posts. There are a few different interpretations that can be made of this uncertainty. For one, perhaps audiences respond best to what they are already used to seeing on the writing center’s page. Or stated another way, they return consistency with consistency of their own—a steady online presence may be key, signaling an integrity that those engaging with the center can appreciate. Another interpretation is that the public may simply respond more favorably to IM tactics that make the organization appear more attractive or capable of meeting their needs. This makes sense in the context of a resource meant to help students and/or the local public—clients may feel more confident when engaging with tutors and staff who they feel are likable and will be able to help them in the way they need.
However, both interpretations are reminiscent of the marketing strategies Bowles explains writing centers may be pushed to use (10). Whether audiences are motivating a demonstration of attractiveness and competency, or centers are naturally motivated to do so, the end result seems to be favorable based on the potential rewards of increased funding and awareness that the center exists and is eager to help. When coding our data, we likened follower count to a center’s size, if only in the sense that when discussing online impression management, followers stand for people who are invested in the center and would like to keep up with its events and news. More social media followers could therefore represent a more prominent online presence. Looking at the engagement data through this lens, our observations may also relate to the different expectations placed on a center with a larger follower count versus those with a smaller one.
For example, the writing center with the most online presence (number of followers) having almost equal levels of engagement with ingratiation as with organizational promotion strengthens the idea that these two forms of IM may provide writing centers the best results (see fig. 3). The finding that the writing centers at either extreme of the follower-count scale had the most engagement with organizational promotion as compared to the other centers can also be extrapolated upon. For instance, this could indicate that both writing centers facing a considerable amount of pressure to maintain a favorable online presence and those facing a low amount of this same pressure have a similarity: a need to illustrate their competence. For the former, this could be due to the need to uphold an already-established reputation. For the latter, it could contrastingly relate to still having to build up their regard. The finding that the two centers with the largest following had the most exemplification-related engagement may point to an expectation that greater online recognition comes with greater social responsibility. Further, ingratiation yielding the most engagement for the centers with moderate follower counts may correlate to likability arising when a center is considered neither too prominent nor too unobtrusive (see table 3).
It is important to note, however, that ours was a micro-study. This means our findings were limited by a small sample size. Thus, while our research may point to wider trends regarding writing center IM, this ultimately still remains to be seen. To gain a better understanding of how writing centers currently manage their social images, the field at large must notice the IM it already employs and imagine the approaches that could help it grow. This begins with individual centers. As our study hopefully helps illustrate, each organization is using a form of IM whether consciously or not. The key to expanding public knowledge of what writing centers do and can provide may lie in mindful IM strategies.
While some may be initially reluctant to embrace IM due to a fear of manipulation, we argue for an alternative outlook. Namely, IM is the means by which organizations like ours can express their assets (ingratiation), desires for future improvement (supplication), qualifications (organizational promotion), educational beliefs (exemplification), and even humor (intimidation). Doing so consciously and ethically allows the organization to grow more attuned to its audience, and therefore, its client base. Not only that, but mindful IM could facilitate a center’s confidence in what it is already excelling in and help clarify what it would like to highlight to other interested parties.
As a result of this study, we believe that writing centers should consider organizational impression management initiatives because the ways we present ourselves to the public and other stakeholders can have a significant impact on our success and reputation. As the study implies, IM can inform a range of our activities if we apply the taxonomy to the work we’re already doing. Initiatives such as developing and maintaining a professional website, creating and disseminating marketing materials, conducting outreach to students and faculty, and providing excellent service to our clients can continue with a more focused perspective on the impact we’re making. By actively managing our organizational impression in an ethical way, we can enhance our credibility, attract new students and faculty, and build positive relationships across our campuses.
With these ideas in mind, we would like to offer suggestions for how IM taxonomy can be used as a framework for systematically analyzing and improving the public efforts of writing centers. These include the following:
Identifying dimensions of IM that are relevant to the writing center at hand. These include aspects such as physical environment, communication and marketing strategies, and the quality of services provided. By identifying these dimensions, writing centers can focus their efforts on areas that are most important for managing their specific impressions. In other words, it is helpful to evaluate what the center values most about its tutors, directors, tutoring approach, etc. so that it knows which IM tactics already align with its character. Not only this, but the center should also take note of its location in the wider university, its relative size, and the demographics of students and clients it aims to serve. This kind of assessment allows IM to integrate a facility’s style with its audience.
Conducting an audit of IM efforts using taxonomies like the ones we’ve shared above as a guide. This involves systematically reviewing each dimension of IM currently being used and assessing how well the center is performing within them. Additionally, the center may want to note which IM strategies it is not presently using and explore why. This could help clarify things the staff may not have noticed about their existing communication style, as well as what approaches they may be interested in trying versus which ones they do not feel to be applicable. Audits like these can help identify areas for improvement and guide a center in developing a plan to enhance overall IM efforts.
Developing an action plan to improve our IM efforts based on the results of the audit. This may involve implementing new strategies, improving existing processes, or enhancing the quality of services provided. Our action plans should be ethical, specific, measurable, and aligned with our overall goals and objectives. This step aligns with a center’s ultimate goal of intentionally expressing its aims and character, as well as its desire to connect with students and expand public knowledge/use of its services.
Monitoring progress once an action plan has been implemented. It will be important for each of us to monitor our progress and to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes we make. We can use IM taxonomy to track our progress over time and to identify any areas where further improvements are needed. After all, students’ needs, pedagogical methods, and the writing center field at large are frequently evolving. With this in mind, we as centers can continuously adapt and develop, using IM as an aid in doing so.
By investing time and resources in IM activities, writing centers can improve our effectiveness and impact in supporting students’ writing needs. Moreover, by using organizational IM taxonomy, we can develop a more systematic and strategic approach to managing the impressions of our centers. The above tips serve as a foundation for writing centers to engage in continuous reflection and growth. By systematically applying an impression management framework, centers can not only enhance their visibility and reputation but also foster stronger connections with their communities. This proactive approach encourages centers to adapt to changing student needs, promote our unique offerings, and ultimately create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all users. Embracing these strategies will enable writing centers to not only articulate their value but also to embody it, ensuring that their impression aligns with their mission.
Works Cited
Bolino, Mark C., et al. “A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors.” Journal of Management, vol. 34, no. 6, 1 Dec. 2008, pp. 1080-1109, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325.
Bowles, Bruce, Jr. “Coffee’s for Closers!: The Pressures of Marketing a New Writing Center.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol 43, no. 7-8, 2019, pp. 10-17. DOI: 10.37514/WLN-J.2019.43.7.03
Boz, Nevfel and Guan, Shu-Sha Angie. "“Your profile is so Rad”: Self-Presentation Strategies in Turkish Adolescents" Communications, vol. 42, no. 1, 2017, pp. 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0003
Glengarry Glen Ross. Directed by James Foley, performances by Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin. New Line Cinema, 1992.
Harris, Muriel. “Making Our Institutional Discourse Sticky: Suggestions for Effective Rhetoric.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, 2010, pp. 47-71.
Jones, Edward E., and Thane S. Pittman. “Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation.” Psychological Perspectives on the Self , edited by Jerry Suls, vol. 1, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982, pp. 231-262.
Lala-Sonora, Autumn Marie. Surveying the Field: How Do (And Should) Writing Centers Market and Design. 2020. University of Dayton, Master’s Thesis.
Lerner, Neal. “Counting Beans and Making Beans Count.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 22, no. 1, 1997, pp. 1-4.
Mohamed, A. Amin, et al. “A Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics.” Advances in Competitiveness Research, vol. 7, no. 1, 1999, pp. 108-130. ProQuest, https://ucark.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/taxonomy-organizational-impression-management/docview/211366068/se-2.
North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English, vol. 46, no. 5, 1984, pp. 433-46.
Rogelberg, Steven G., and Filip Lievens. “Organizational Image.” Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017, pp. 1116-1118.
Ryan, Holly, and Danielle Kane. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Writing Center Classroom Visits: An Evidence-Based Approach.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015, pp. 145-72.
Spear, Sara. “Impression Management Activity in Vision, Mission, and Values Statements: A Comparison of Commercial and Charitable Organizations.” International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 47, 3 Mar. 2017, pp. 159-175, https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1256165.