assignment

Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics

Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021

Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics:

A Literature Based Exploratory Study

Abstract

In this study the extensive literature review of Organizational Power and Politics including its different dimensions, theories, factors, antecedents and its origin in different eras have been discussed. The number of the organizational researchers have discovered and explored the political environment of the organization. The pioneer of research on politics including (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Tushman, 1977) and other scholars like Mowday, Porter, and Steers (2013) and Madison et al. (1980) have tried to make find a soution for the negligence of power and politics within organization. For this purpose, it is important to discuss what are possible uses of political power and to, also, interpret the prior studies to know the general principles and analyze the literature of normative principles. By doing this, we can establish an ethical framework that can be implement in political need of power in organizations.

Keywords

Organizational Power, Organizational Politics, Exploratory Study.

Introduction

Organizational Power - Implicit Theories

This construct has wide abstract of nature. There are number of dimensions of power in which it is

hard to determine the one that is more significant in the process of organizational decision-making. Power

Refers to the ability to get the work done or ability of taking decision. Therefore, power is critically important for decision making in organizations and as well as in society. Deutsch (1975) argued the defined assumption of power is that the relation of power among people are inherently competitive;

“A. concern for more power and the less power is available for B”.

Parker (1984) has written about organizational life, and discussed variety of aspects of power.

Follett (1942) anticipated that even though power was usually visualized as power over others like

the power of A. over B. She proposed that power like this build up from both ways including

coactive and non-coercive power. Follett (1942) penned, “Our task is not to learn where to place

power; it is how to develop power . . . Coercive power is the curse of the universe; co-active

power, the enrichment and advancement of every human soul”. The different researches about

power at work place define important aspects of power and its workplace outcome. The other

theory consider power as a factor that can be produced by support of workers within

organization.

Consequently, managers may have different capabilities and may differ in their concepts and

ideas about organizational power therefore these differences may influence their decisions of

power share. The other basic aspect of relationships recognized by Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan

(1976), that is power distribution. According to Organ and Konovsky (1989) the beliefs and ideas

of people about equality and inequality like in what extend power is distributed within organization

for distribution of power between employee and management, men and women, minorities and

a majority have been recognized as a significant component of their perception of organizational

power. Other empirical findings by Strutton, Pelton, and Lumpkin (1995) suggesting that “power

relations tend to be joint, reciprocal, mutual, and ongoing, rather than one sided, unilateral or

independent” and according to Galbraith and Cummings (1967) power is often broadly

distributed throughout the middle level of management in organizations, mostly people including

Bateman and Organ (1983) believe that power lies generally at the top of the hierarchy in

organizations and that power is of a one-way (like top–down) in nature. Therefore, managers also

may vary in perception by which they consider that power is equally distributed, and the degree

to which they ideally prefer that power equally to be distributed in organizations.

Role Of Impression Management and Power Tactics

In several definitions of organizational politics including Bacharach and Lawler (1998) exclusively

focused on usage of power which affects the decision-making process in organizations and also

individual behavior that is generally self-serving. According to various researchers including Kipnis,

Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1997) the organizational politics can also be explored by influencing

tactics of employees, although other researchers have stressed on these tactics within

organizations like (DuBrin, 1978, 1988; French, Raven, & Cartwright, 1959; Izraeli, 1975; Schein, 1977).

The scholar Kipnis et al. (1997) expressed organizational politics as the ways by which individuals try

to manipulate their coworkers, subordinates and supervisors in order to attain their own benefits

or controversy to fulfill organizational goals.

According to the prior literature including (Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez, Rim, & Keider, 1986; Kipnis et al.,

1997; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) there are nine different power tactics have been identified. Those

influence tactics including “Legitimacy”, “Rational persuasion”, “Inspirational appeals”,

“Consultation”, “Exchange”, “Personal appeals”, “Ingratiation”, “Pressure” and “Coalitions”.

Impression management is also considering as a view of organizational politics as said by Ferris,

Russ, and Fandt (1989b) which has newly gained the extensive attention of researchers in

organizational behavior as stated by Bolino and Turnley (2003). The researchers including (Gardner

& Martinko, 1988; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980) define that Impression management is

refer to the process in which individuals attempt to manipulate the ideas and views. Moreover,

several researchers like Bozeman and Kacmar (1997) and Bolino and Turnley (2003) has been

identified most popular techniques or Behaviors of impression management including

“Conformity”, “Excuses”, “Apologies”, “Self-Promotion”, “Flattery”, “Favors”, “Association”.

Organizational Politics - General Idea

In recent years an extensive literature has been found about organizational politics and its

relationship with organizational Justice and other workplace attitudes. Theoretical evidences in

past recommend that politics often a hinder for regular organizational processes including

“Decision Making”, “promotion”, “production”, “rewards” and “damages productivity and

performance” of the individual as well as for organization as whole.

There are two definitions of organizational politics which are widely used. One definition defines

politics as a process of influence that is exercised in organizational settings. We can say politics is

absolutely general set of social behavior. It is very wide and effective social view. Possibly as a

result of this broad view, this definition allows that politics can be very beneficial and productive

or very harmful and counterproductive factor depending on the particular circumstances. Under

normal situations politics and administration are two sides of the same coin. Politics is about making

policies while the policies are implemented by the administrators (Laeeq et al., 2016). However,

according to Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989a) the general concept of politics defines politics

“narrowly”. Specifically, politics define as “the term politics is limited to behavior which is

strategically designed to attain short-term or long-term self-interest”. Gandz and Murray (1980)

and Kacmar and Ferris (1991) have given some good examples of political behavior. Like a

political manager might use the performance evaluation system in order to provide self-promotion

or showing favoritism to a personal friend or relative. In this view number of scholars including (Ferris

& Judge, 1991; Ferris & King, 1991; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Gilmore et al., 1996) states generally

politics seen as counterproductive factor within organization. The both general and specific

approaches are useful.

Organizational Politics-Origin in Literature

The word politics derived from the Greek word “Politika” (affairs of cities), which passed down to

the English in the 15th century as “polettiques” which in short become politics in the Middle English.

But the simple definition of politics relates as the activities that relate to influence the action and

policy of government or to keep power in government.

Aristotle's Political Theory

Generally, Aristotle is considered as one of the most leading philosophers in different fields, and

Also, in political theory. During the time between BCE 323-335 he worked for some of major areas,

including the Politics. As from Greek methodology Aristotle (384-322 BC) describes that politics also

provide an investigation of the components of community that exits in time which live in

accordance with virtue and politics. He was famous work, about his work on “Politics,” he has

given theory about the rule of law. At that time, he introduced six types of constitutions which use

by the city-states of Greece depends on people whom involved in ruling and their center of

interest. Aristotle pair of these six kinds of social structure in three including Monarchy or a tyranny

means a state having only one ruler mean one head of state. Second is aristocracy or

an oligarchy which means a state having many rulers and third was polity or a democracy in

which all rule their state with common concern.

Machiavellian Politics (1469-1527)

There are many political aspects, Micaville being a realistic political philosopher; he believed that

the sole responsibility of the wellbeing of the state totally lies on the king. He argues that the

essence of the most political life is conspiracy. Keeping politics in mind, he gave dual morality

principle. In which he suggested that the anarchy is observed in the international system but as

per contra domestic system hierarchy should be made by the king, Machiavelli being a realist,

puts in his book “The Prince” in the action all men, specially, princes (rulers) where there is no

recourse, to justice, the end is all that counts. He strongly emphasized that a prince never lacks

legitimate reasons to break his promises.

Machiavellianism refers to "the degree to which an individual is pragmatic, maintains emotional

distance and believes that ends can justify means" (Robbins & Judge, 2008). The term given this

named after Machiavelli wrote his famous "The Prince" in the 16th century in which he

described different methods by which individual can manipulate other. Then this term was referring

to deceit and treachery (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Valle (1995) defined that the "Machiavellian Personality" is that type of personality who has ability

to control others for the sake of his/her own interest. Many studies including (Christie & Geis, 2013;

Farmar-Bowers, 1993; Grams & Rogers, 1990; Turner & Martinez, 1977) investigated that the

Machiavellian persons are cunning manipulator and typically use more influential means to get

their work done.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

He was a philosopher and revolutionary socialist of German. He became interested in the

philosophical ideas of the Young-Hegelians. Marx theories were wrapped up in economics and

social conditions.

San Tzu (544-496BC)

San Tzu was a military general and technician, his subject was military strategy San Tzu’s work has

been précised and employed throughout East Asia. China has long been proud of San Tzu. In his

book “Art of War” he embodies the philosophy of war for managing conflicts and winning battles.

Politics In 19’S

The existing literature on organizational politics shows that that existence of organizational politics

found in early 1960’s. Burns (1961) suggested that politics occur when “others (individuals) are

made use of as resources in competitive situations". Likewise, organizational politics labeled in

content of books like in book of organizational behavior by (Robbins, 1983). According to Cropanzano and Greenberg (1997) politics is a tool which is used to get self-interest.

This finding also supported by other researchers including (Allen & Meyer, 1990; G. Ferris et al.,

1989b; Gray & Ariss, 1985; Madison et al., 1980). As stated by Kacmar and Baron (1999.)

Organizational politics have been defined as "actions by individuals are directed toward the goal

of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the well-being of others or their organization"

Extensive literature has revealed that a perception of politics is host of negative work-related

outcomes like concluded by Ferris and Judge (1991) and Kacmar and Baron (1999).

Organizational Power and Politics- The Relationship

The concept of power is not newly introduced we can find its evidences in 1950s when Dahl

(1957) mentioned that power is the capability to overcome resistance in attaining an anticipated

outcome. Rahim (1989) proposed that “power is the ability of one party to change or control the

behavior, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party”.

For the organizational scholars including (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998; Clawson & Kotter, 1985;

Kanter & Goldfried, 1979; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) the origin of power in organizations

have center of concern from long time. Number of research are keen to identifying the

individual and organizational elements of power attainment and innovative outcomes as

mentioned by (Aiken, Bacharach, & French, 1980; Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1988; Downs & Mohr,

1976; Kanter & Goldfried, 1979; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981). Now organizational scholars have

added new literature by exploring in the domain organizational politics. Pioneers of recent work

which includes (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Pfeffer,

1981; Tushman, 1977) have tried to make remedy against the problem of ignorance of power and

politics. A hypothetical framework that had gained much consideration in studies of social power

was first introduced by (French et al., 1959). The five types of social power were identified, which

were (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent) that have been focused in plentiful

organizational studies.

1. “Coercive power” describes the perceptions of subordinates they perceive if they will not get

along with boss then he has power to punish him like dismiss him or any other.

2. “Reward power” is the perception of subordinates, they perceive that a boss has legitimate

right or power to give them reward if they obey him or do as they desire.

3. “Legitimate power” describes the perception of subordinates: they perceive a boss have

legal right to control their behavior and have right to prescribe them their desired behavior.

4. “Expert power” is based on perception of subordinates, the perceive that a boss they are

inferior because they are layman in this field as their boss has more experience regarding this

job and having special knowledge or expertise in particular field.

5. “Referent power” is about the desire of subordinates that he/she could be recognized by

their boss so that he/she can receive more favoritism, admiration from reference of his/her

boss.

For the management theory and practice Power is basic factor. According to (Dahl, 1957; Zald,

1970; Zalesnik, Dalton, & Barnes, 1970) the few perceptions are crucial to the study of

organizations, and organizational life has the universal and key existence known as power. The

basic aim of this study is to develop a framework by which we can differentiate the ethical

parameters to power at workplace.

Political Use of Power

In contemporary era the capability to organize resources, strength, and knowledge on the basis

of favoritism is the picture of power in organization (Tushman, 1977). Thus, (Drake, 1979; Pfeffer,

1981) stated that power is present to lie only when there are clashes over “means or ends”. More

basically, this prospect of power is established on two fundamental hypotheses:

1. According to (Hickson et al., 1971; Thompson, 1967) “Organizations are composed of

individuals and groups that have conflicts over resources, strengths, knowledge, and effects”.

2. According (Allen et al., 1979; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1974) “Individuals and groups come together

to preserve their interests through means that are self-effacing when compared to existing

controls, norms, and sanctions”.

These concepts have attracted various researchers to find out distinguish between political use of

power and (nonpolitical) use of power in organization (Gandz & Murray, 1980). Political use of

power is, when individuals and groups don’t want to oblige regulatory authority and want to

design new rules for self-interest. Even the in all organizations have their official systems that are

mainly established to control the use of power, the individual use political power to influence the

coworker at work place (Schein, 1977).

To understand the structure of organizations, we first have to consider them as political systems.

The political view of organization helps us to understand power relationships in usual organizational

Operation and Functions. If we believe that power associations or relationships exist in

organizations, and then we have to accept that politics is an essential part of organizational life.

As our study concerned, Vigoda (2002) conducted a study to promote understanding the

reactions of employees towards organizational politics. Their study examined a relationship

between perception of organizational politics, job attitudes, and some other work outcomes in

Israel. Gibson (2006) tested that, the political culture and subculture of an academic organization

emerged as an essential attribute of female faculty’s mentoring reports. Danish (2000) states

organizational Politics is an essential aspect of organizational life and relates to power, authority

and influence. Political behavior and the use of power affect almost every important decision in

organizations. Drory and Gadot (2010) provided a critical examination of the denotation of

organizational politics for human resource management. Yen, Chen, and Yen (2009) studied and

elaborated the “perceptions of organizational politics workplace friendship correlations and

investigated the effect of organizational level on perceptions of organizational politics and

workplace friendship with organizational level as an interfering variable”.

The political behavior is consisting of two dimensions; politics can have positive or negative

influence. As Ferris et al. (1995) said that usually politics exist at those organizations where the rules

and regulations are not clearly defined for existing behavior and process of decision making are

also, not clear. Politics may also generate where there is scarcity of resources. According to

Andrews and Kacmar (2001) the nature of perception of politics either it is positive or negative

usually depends upon the perception of perceiver about existing of politics within organization.

This study, also, stay side by side with prior literature and will also focus on the perception of political behavior (Byrne & Cropanzano, 1999) and these all perceptions which influence the employees and also organization in a negative way (Gandz & Murray, 1980). Mainly this study will examine that how to minimize all these negative influences of organizational politics by means of organizational justice. Generally organizational justice indicates the level of respect and appreciation towards employees (Saoula, Fareed, Ismail, et al., 2019). The term "Organizational Justice" is used to define a set of social psychological and sociological theories that defined perceptions of fairness by illustrating how the organizational justice could be applied to organizations effectively (Saoula, Fareed, Abd Hamid, et al., 2019).

Organizational Politics- Implication at Workplace

It is well said by various researchers including (Ferris & King, 1991; Mintzberg, 1983;

Pfeffer, 1992; Zhou & Ferris, 1995) that in every organization the internal politics is certain.

According to Drory (1993), organizational politics naturally exists in human and inherently occurs

in organizations. Stated by Koberg (1985) the competency is not more important than

organizational politics. It was declared that organizations are political entities in which process of

making of decisions and setting goals usually depend on bargaining processes (March, 1962). It

has been argued by Ferris et al. (1996) “organizational politics is simply a fact of life”. Those, who

ignore this factor within organization they must do that at their own risk. As said by Molm (1997)

truly it is not possible to have an organization which is politics free, because in organization people

work together and share resources, where there is lack of resources, conflicts arise, and people

adopt different tactics to get resources. Yet, very limited studies mainly including (Cropanzano &

Greenberg, 1997; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Wilkinson, 1980), have expressed the characteristics and

boundaries of politics.

Dimensions of Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Number of researchers tried to develop reliable scale for measurement of perceptions of

organizational politics. Initially Kacmar and Ferris (1989) designed 5-items un-dimensional scale.

After that Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed a 40-item scale having five dimensions including

“Coworkers”, “Pay and Promotion”, “Go Along to Get Ahead”, “General Political Behavior” and

“Self-Serving Behavior”. Then they, again, introduced a multi-dimensionality scale having 12 items to measure the perceptions of organizational politics under three dimensions including “General Political

Behavior”, “Going Along to Get Ahead” and “Pay and Promotion policies”. Then again (Kacmar

& Carlson, 1997) redesigned that 12-items scale in to 15-item scale. Although, that 15- item scale

also examine the same factor as 12-item which was successively used in many studies including

Hochwarter, Witt, and Kacmar (2000) and (Vigoda, 2000), these three dimensions of POPS scale are concisely discussed below:

Figure 1: Dimensions of Perceptions of Organizational Politics

General Political Behavior Go Along To Get Ahead Pay and Promotion Policies

Non availability of rules

Decision making under

uncertainty

Scarcity of valued resource

General Political Behavior : This includes the person’s actions for self- serving to get benefits. As mentioned by various researchers including (Drory & Romm, 1988; Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris & King, 1991; Kacmar & Ferris, 1993; Madison et al., 1980; Tushman, 1977) that such conduct develops when no rules and regulation are available or aren't really defined to govern actions, while decisions are taken underneath un-reality and while there's shortage of the valued assets.

Non-Availability of Regulations: According to Kacmar and Carlson (1997) that when rules are imposed on others and there is no clear regulations, policies and rules are be made in order to guide the people regarding perfect conduct then under such situation, individuals normally generate their own rules that serve their personal self-interests and give advantage only to thumb maker.

Decision Making Under Uncertainty : The studies like Drory and Romm (1988) have suggested that after decisions are made beneath uncertainty, the ones may perceive those decisions as political. As stated by Cropanzano, Kacmar, and Bozeman (1995) that it is perceived that if the required information is not clearly available to decision maker regarding decision, then he/she must use his/her analysis to make decision. Due to this that decision is not considered much effective and there is likelihood that those individuals who are not directly involved in decision making process can perceive those decisions to be political. Similarly, the Miles (1980) said that political behavior reveal decision making process as non-rational.

Scarcity Of Valued Resources: Molm (1997) said that businesses are social entities where employees always engage to get valued resources due to this reason they usually involve in conflicts and use many influential strategies to attain profits and personal desires. As said by Drory and Romm (1988) therefore, directly or indirectly these things push them to participate in political activities. It is clear that where there is shortage of assets or resources people engage in politics and spread political environment in organization. However, it was recommending by Drory (1993) that “decision making, and actions are determined via process of conflict, power struggles and compromise making”. It was said by Tushman (1977). Therefore, with uncertainty organizational politics will become complex.

Go Along to Get Ahead: According to Kacmar and Carlson (1997) go along to get ahead” is employee’s behavior that described as no action like become silent to acquire valued sources. As supported by many researchers includes (Drory & Romm, 1988, 1990; Frost, 1987; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mintzberg, 1983; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1983; Tushman, 1977), that in organizational research, politics and conflict are interlinked. Political behavior is perceived as self-serving, it is like threaten other’s interest and in results it creates conflict as pointed by Porter et al. (1983). However, it is suggested by Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984) that organizational politics generate when employees engage in conflicts. But there is also some type of political behavior in which people who remain silent but remain active politically and adopt tactics for getting self-interest by using final silent and inactiveness. Correspondingly, According to Kacmar and Carlson (1997) that "lack of action, or going along to get ahead, can be a reasonable and profitable approach to take in order to advance one's own self-interests when working in a political environment".

Pay and Promotion Policies: refer to what extend organizations behave politically by implementation of policy and decision-making process. According to (G. R. Ferris et al., 1989; Ferris & King, 1991; Kacmar & Ferris, 1993) hat the degree on which organization’s reward-based merit. Usually, the pay and promotion policies are all about the process of performance evaluation in organizations. Numerous studies by (Dyke, 1990; Ferris & Buckley, 1990; G. Ferris et al., 1989a; Longenecker, Sims, & Gioia, 1987; Markham, Harlan, & Hackett, 1987; Riley, 1983) concluded that performance evaluation and promotion process frequently engage in politics. Therefore, according to Ferris and King (1991) the process of performance evaluation and decision making can be influence by employees through political behaviors. Even though the employees also use the impression management tactics for example self-praise, flattery, nepotisms, etc. As observed by Ferris and King (1991) that usually to those personnel’s who show flattery behavior, do favors, offer additional

help and take interest in private affairs of their bosses those employees receive higher rates

regarding performance.

Conclusion

Mayes and Allen (1977) have proposed that practicing managers play a crucial role in management within organization, thus they should learn more about the practices of politics. Poon (2003) suggested that because of its significance at workplace; the organizational politics should be investigated more expansively. The knowledge which is available in literature can help managers to cope with problems which frequently occur due to politics within organization.

Different conceptual models have also been identified by (Bhatnagar, 1992; G. Ferris et al., 1989a;

Ferris et al., 2002; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984), in order to clarify the process of politics within

organizations.

However, the last studies conducted by several research during the previous 25 years have exposed

two main approaches of organizational politics. The first approach refers to the political behavior of individual that a person shows by actions and tactics within organizations. The prior stressed that there are different typologies of influence tactics used by individuals within organization identified by (Brass, 1984; Burns, 1961; Cheng, 1983; Erez & Rim, 1982; Izraeli, 1975; Izraeli, 1987).

The second approach is more advanced as it focuses on intentions and perceptions rather than their actions. Perceptions of organizational politics have got more concentration from past two decades especially after theoretical model which was introduced by Ferris et al. in 198.

In this research that second approach was investigated.

References

Aiken, M., Bacharach, S. B., & French, J. L. (1980). Organizational Structure, Work Process, and Proposal Making in Administrative Bureaucracies. Academy of management Journal, 23(4), 631-652. doi: 10.5465/255553

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organizational Politics: Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors. California Management Review, 22(1), 77-83. doi: 10.2307/41164852

Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 347-366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.92

Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations: Contextualization, mobilization, and coordination. In R. M. Kramer, & Nedle, M.A. (Ed.), Power and influence

in organizations, (pp. 75-77): Sage.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of management Journal, 26(4),

587-595. doi: 10.5465/255908

Bhatnagar, D. (1992). Understanding political behaviour in organizations: A framework. Vikalpa,

17(2), 15-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0256090919920202

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More Than One Way to Make an Impression: Exploring Profiles

of Impression Management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141-160. doi:

10.1177/014920630302900202

Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes

in organizations. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(1), 9-30. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2669

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an

organization. Administrative science quarterly, 518-539. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392937.

Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative science quarterly,

257-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2390703

Byrne, Z., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Understanding procedural and interactional justice: A multifoci approach to predicting organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, and job

performance. Unpublished manuscript, obtained from first author.

Cheng, J. L. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: An experimental study of the

use of power tactics. Group & Organization Studies, 8(3), 337-355. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105960118300800310

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). CHAPTER I-WHY MACHIAVELLI? Studies in Machiavellianism, 1-9. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-7

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (2013). Studies in machiavellianism: Academic Press.

Clawson, J. G., & Kotter, J. P. (1985). Self-assessment and career development: Prentice-Hall.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the

maze. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 317-372.

Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M., & Bozeman, D. P. (1995). Organizational politics, justice, and

support: Their differences and similarities. Organizational politics, justice, and support:

Managing the social climate of the workplace, 2-18.

Daft, R. L. (1978). A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation. Academy of management

Journal, 21(2), 193-210. doi: 10.5465/255754

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303

Damanpour, F. (1988). Innovation Type, Radicalness, and the Adoption Process. Communication

Research, 15(5), 545-567. doi: 10.1177/009365088015005003

Danish, R. (2000). Differences in public and private sector in Organizational Politics Perception and

Work Performance Relationship: An empirical Evidence from Pakistan. COMSATS Institute

of Information Technology, Lahore.

Deutsch, D. (1975). The organization of short-term memory for a single acoustic attribute. Shortterm memory, 107-151. doi: http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/pdf/STM_Ch_1975.pdf

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative

science quarterly, 21(4), 700-714. doi: 10.2307/2391725

Drake, B. H. (1979). Normative Constraints on Power Tactics within Organizations. Academy of

Management Proceedings, 1979(1), 176-180. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.1979.4975960

Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization studies, 14(1), 59-71.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F017084069301400105

Drory, A., & Gadot, E. V. (2010). Organizational politics and human resource management: A

typology and the Israeli experience. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3), 194-

202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.005

Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1988). Politics in organization and its perception within the organization.

Organization studies, 9(2), 165-179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F017084068800900202

Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human relations,

43(11), 1133-1154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679004301106

DuBrin, A. J. (1978). Winning at office politics. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

DuBrin, A. J. (1988). Career maturity, organizational rank, and political behavioral tendencies: A

correlational analysis of organizational politics and career experience. Psychological

Reports, 63(2), 531-537. doi: https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1988.63.2.531

Dyke, L. (1990). Self-promotion in organizations Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queen

University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationships between goals, influence tactics, and personal and

organizational variables. Human relations, 35(10), 871-878. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872678203501004

Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence: Agent vs. target.

Journal of occupational psychology, 59(1), 25-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00210.x

Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When

employees behave opportunistically. Organizational behavior and human decision

processes, 45(1), 140-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90008-W

Farmar-Bowers, Q. (1993). Ecologically sustainable development: the way ahead for road

authorities and AUSTROADS. Paper presented at the Conference of Australian Institutes of

Transport Research (CAITR), 15th, 1993, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Ferris, G., & Buckley, M. (1990). Performance evaluation in high technology firms: Process and

politics. Organization issues in high technology management, 243-263.

Ferris, G., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. (1989a). Politics in organizations, 143-170. E. Vigoda, Developments

in organizational politics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, USA.

Ferris, G., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. (1989b). Politics in organizations. In RA Giacalone & P. Rosenfield

(Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 143-170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions

of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. doi:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., Chachere, J. G., & Pondy, L. R. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational

contexts. Group & Organization Studies, 14(1), 83-103. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105960118901400108

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The

conceptual integration of divergent constructs. Organizational politics, justice, and

support: Managing the social climate of the workplace, 21-36.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996). Perceptions

of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human

relations, 49(2), 233-266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679604900206

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence

perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447-488. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700208

Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side.

Organizational dynamics, 20(2), 59-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(91)90072-H

Follett, M. P. (1942). Dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett: Harper &

brothers.

French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of organization

theory, 7, 311-320.

Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W.

Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications. Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants

of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality—valence and

motivation—ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2(3), 237-257. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(67)90020-7

Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The Experience of Workplace Politics. Academy of management

Journal, 23(2), 237-251. doi: 10.5465/255429

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression Management in Organizations. Journal of

Management, 14(2), 321-338. doi: 10.1177/014920638801400210

Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of Women Faculty: The Role of Organizational Politics and Culture.

Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 63-79. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7

Gilmore, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., & Harrell-Cook, G. (1996). Organizational Politics and

Employee Attendance. Group & Organization Management, 21(4), 481-494. doi:

10.1177/1059601196214007

Grams, W. C., & Rogers, R. W. (1990). Power and Personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, Need for

Approval, and Motivation on Use of Influence Tactics. The Journal of General Psychology,

117(1), 71-82. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1990.9917774

Gray, B., & Ariss, S. S. (1985). Politics and Strategic Change Across Organizational Life Cycles.

Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 707-723. doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4279095

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A Strategic

Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power. Administrative science quarterly,

16(2), 216-229. doi: 10.2307/2391831

Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics as a

moderator of the relationship between consciousness and job performance. Journal of

applied psychology, 85(3), 472-478. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.472

Izraeli, D. N. (1975). The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: A case study. Sloan

Management Review (pre-1986), 16(2), 57-70. doi:

https://www.proquest.com/openview/967e8a7f863954cb87eccea63d4d345c/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=35193

zraeli, D. N. (1987). Sex Effects in the Evaluation of Influence Tactics. Journal of Occupational

Behaviour, 8(1), 79-86.

Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related

processes, and an agenda for future research Research in human resources

management, Vol. 17. (pp. 1-39). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (pops):

A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627-658. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90019-2

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the agejob satisfaction relationship. Journal of applied psychology, 74(2), 201-207. doi:

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1989-27943-001

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS):

Development and Construct Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

51(1), 193-205. doi: 10.1177/0013164491511019

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Politics at work: Sharpening the focus of political behavior in

organizations. Business horizons, 36(4), 70-75. doi:

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A13244139/AONE?u=anon~d7e30367&sid=googleSchol

ar&xid=05923f1b

Kanter, N. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1979). Relative effectiveness of rational restructuring and selfcontrol desensitization in the reduction of interpersonal anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 10(4),

472-490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80051-9

Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual,

Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and

Administrative Innovations. Academy of management Journal, 24(4), 689-713. doi:

10.5465/256170

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1997). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in

getting one’s way. Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in

organizations, 124-143.

Koberg, C. S. (1985). Sex and situational influences on the use of power: A follow-up study. Sex

Roles, 13(11), 625-639. doi: 10.1007/BF00287299

Laeeq, H., Shahzad, A., Ramalu, S. S., & Fareed, M. (2016). Determinants of organizational

performance: a case of Punjab Police. Sukkur IBA Journal of Management and Business,

3(2), 50-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.30537/sijmb.v3i2.98

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34

Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee

Appraisal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(3), 183-193. doi:

10.5465/ame.1987.4275731

Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980). Organizational Politics:

An Exploration of Managers' Perceptions. Human relations, 33(2), 79-100. doi:

10.1177/001872678003300201

March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. The Journal of politics, 24(4), 662-678.

doi: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1017/S0022381600016169

Markham, W., Harlan, S., & Hackett, E. (1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: Causes and

consequences. In KM Rowland & GR Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human

resources management, 5: 223-287. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward A Definition of Organizational Politics. Academy of

Management Review, 2(4), 672-678. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4406753

Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica. CA: Goodyear.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). The power game and the players. Classics of organization theory, 6, 334-341.

Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange: Cambridge University Press.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover: Academic press.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 157-164. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.74.1.157

Parker, L. D. (1984). Control in Organizational Life: The Contribution of Mary Parker Follett. Academy

of Management Review, 9(4), 736-745. doi: 10.5465/amr.1984.4277620

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of

organizational paradigm. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations: Harvard Business

Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case

of a University Budget. Administrative science quarterly, 19(2), 135-151. doi:

10.2307/2393885

Poon, J. M. L. (2003). Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(2), 138-155. doi: 10.1108/02683940310465036

Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1983). The politics of upward influence in organizations.

Organizational influence processes, 408, 422.

Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of Leader Power to Compliance and Satisfaction with

Supervision: Evidence from a National Sample of Managers. Journal of Management,

15(4), 545-556. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500404

Riley, P. (1983). A Structurationist Account of Political Culture. Administrative science quarterly,

28(3), 414-437. doi: 10.2307/2392250

Robbins, S. (1983). Organizational behavior (pp. 449-464): Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Organizational behavior 15th edition. US: Prentice Hall.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and

Task Design. Administrative science quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. doi: 10.2307/2392563

Saoula, O., Fareed, M., Abd Hamid, R., Al-Rejal, H. M. E. A., & Ismail, S. A. (2019). The moderating

role of job embeddedness on the effect of organisational justice and organisational

learning culture on turnover intention: A conceptual review. Humanities & Social Sciences

Reviews, 7(2), 563-571.

Saoula, O., Fareed, M., Ismail, S. A., Husin, N. S., & Abd Hamid, R. (2019). A conceptualization of

the effect of organisational justice on turnover intention: The mediating role of

organisational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(5),

327-337. doi: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n5p327

Schein, V. E. (1977). Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations: An Inadequately

Explored Reality. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 64-72. doi:

10.5465/amr.1977.4409169

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222): Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Strutton, D., Pelton, L. E., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1995). Psychological climate in franchising system

channels and franchisor-franchisee solidarity. Journal of Business Research, 34(2), 81-91.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00053-H

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations. Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative.

Turner, C. F., & Martinez, D. C. (1977). Socioeconomic Achievement and the Machiavellian

Personality. Sociometry, 40(4), 325-336. doi: 10.2307/3033481

Tushman, M. L. (1977). A Political Approach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale. Academy

of Management Review, 2(2), 206-216. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4409042

Valle, M. (1995). Individual Determinants of organizational politics: Perceptions and Actions. (Ph.D

Thesis), Florida State University.

Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and

Implications for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326-347. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1742

Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among politics,

job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23(5), 571-591. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.160

Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A Process Framework of Organizational Politics. Human

relations, 37(1), 47-65. doi: 10.1177/001872678403700103

Wilkinson, C. F. (1980). The public trust doctrine in public land law. Uc Davis L. Rev., 14, 269. doi:

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1081?utm_source=scholar.law.colorado.edu%2

Farticles%2F1081&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(4), 409. doi:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.33.4.409

Yen, W.-W., Chen, S.-C., & Yen, S.-I. (2009). The impact of perceptions of organizational politics on

workplace friendship. African Journal of Business Management, 3(10), 548-554. doi:http://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM09.162

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers,

and the boss. Journal of applied psychology, 77(4), 525–535. doi:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525

Zald, M. N. (1970). Organizational change: the political economy of the YMCA. Chicago u.a.:

University of Chicago Press.

Zalesnik, A., Dalton, G., & Barnes, L. (1970). Orientation and conflicts in careers. Boston: Division of

Research, Harvard Business School.

Zhou, J., & Ferris, G. R. (1995). The Dimensions and Consequences of Organizational Politics

Perceptions: A Confirmatory Analysis1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(19), 1747-

1764. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01816.

2