We are all performers, consciously or unconsciously presenting ourselves to others in our daily interactions. In organizations, too, we define situations, project identities, and maintain social harmony by a specific performance.
When we meet someone, we instinctively gather cues from their conduct, appearance, and past interactions to form impressions. These impressions often rely on stereotypes but help us predict behavior and tailor our responses. People communicate both intentionally (words) and unintentionally (non-verbal cues). We tend to trust non-verbal cues more, as they seem less controllable and more revealing (Goffman, 2022).

In our daily performances, we play roles, and use appearance, setting, and manner to define situations for our audience. If we believe in the role, our performances can be sincere. Our performance can be cynical as well. Both require skillful execution.
- The front region is where we present our polished, public persona, and adhere to societal expectations.
- The back region is where we relax, drop the act, and prepare for the next performance. This is the domain of authenticity and preparation, but also where suppressed behaviors and truths reside. We often present idealized versions of ourselves to fit societal values and expectations, and conceal aspects that might disrupt the desired image.

In teams, members rely on one another to maintain the collective illusion and avoid exposing backstage realities. Mutual dependence and coordinated actions ensure the smooth execution of the act. From concealing mistakes to managing secrets, the art of maintaining a seamless front is both a personal and collective effort. This can get quite complex, when we deal with overlapping roles and mixed audiences, with different expectations!

Goffman stressed the structural aspects of our interactions: Maintaining shared definitions of reality is essential for societal functioning. This is important for safety management as well.

Some organizations use surveys to measure constructs like safety knowledge, climate, culture and compliance. This can quickly lead to inaccurate portrayals of workplace safety.  For instance, relationships between safety knowledge and compliance are very much influenced by impression management. Employees exaggerate compliance due to fear of repercussions, such as remedial training or management actions. It’s good to know that impression management is not always and everywhere present. It depends on the salience of (e.g. safety) issues and whether responses are anonymous (Keiser & Payne, 2019).

References:
- Goffman, E. (2022 [1956]), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin Books Ltd.
- Keiser, N.L., Payne, S.C. (2019), “Are employee surveys biased? Impression management as a response bias in workplace safety constructs”, in: Safety Science, Vol. 118, October 2019, pp. 453-465.
- Illustration: Everett Collection.