OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior

Reorganizing Organizational
Politics Research: A Review of
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

the Literature and Identification

of Future Research Directions
Gerald R. Ferris,1 B. Parker Ellen III,2
Charn P. McAllister,2 and Liam P. Maher3
1
College of Business, Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida 32306, USA
2
D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston,
Massachusetts 02115-5000, USA; email: [email protected]
3
Department of Management, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725, USA

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019. Keywords

6:299–323
organizational politics, political skill, political will, political behavior,
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at influence tactics, perceptions of organizational politics
orgpsych.annualreviews.org
Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
012218-015221 Organizational politics has been an oft-studied phenomenon for nearly four
Copyright  c 2019 by Annual Reviews. decades. Prior reviews have described research in this stream as aligning
All rights reserved with one of three categories: perceptions of organizational politics (POPs),
political behavior, or political skill. We suggest that because these categories
are at the construct level research on organizational politics has been arti-
ficially constrained. Thus, we suggest a new framework with higher-level
categories within which to classify organizational politics research: political
characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes. We then provide a
broad review of the literature applicable to these new categories and discuss
the possibilities for future research within each expanded category. Finally,
we close with a discussion of future directions for organizational politics
research across the categories.

299
 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS
Organizational politics long has been the subject of social observation and scientific inquiry.
The earliest reference we found to more contemporary conceptualizations was Lasswell (1936).
However, The Prince (Il Principe), which remains a pertinent treatise on power and politics in
organizational life, was written by Niccolò Machiavelli [1952 (1532)] 400 years earlier. Addition-
ally, because organizational politics tends to elicit the strongest of reactions in both positive and
negative directions, it has been the subject of systematic investigation that has touched a number
of topics in the organizational sciences. As a result, several reviews have been published on dif-
ferent areas of the organizational politics literature, as well as a few on the politics literature as a
whole. These reviews have noted that research within the broad organizational politics literature
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

generally can be classified as focusing on one of three areas: political skill, political behavior, or
perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) (Ferris & Treadway 2012b).
Although these are distinct areas of inquiry, we contend that these three topics are more related
than most previous investigations and reviews have indicated and should be discussed more as
connected parts of a greater whole. Further, we suggest that references to these three topics as the
primary areas of organizational politics inquiry has had the unintended effect of limiting research to
unnecessarily narrow conceptualizations. Consequently, organizational politics research likely has
been constrained by artificial boundaries that arose from efforts to differentiate between political
constructs, hindering valuable investigations that cut across these three domains as well as those
that incorporate other related domains.
Thus, with the current review, we hope to provide a more cohesive organizing framework
for organizational politics research that appropriately summarizes prior investigations and sparks
future inquiry that broadens its scope. We begin with a brief history and characterization of
the organizational politics construct domain before introducing our organizing framework for
the review. Then, we work through the sections of the framework, highlighting the current state
of the literature for each. Finally, we close with a discussion of suggested directions for future
research within and across the components of our framework.

HISTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION

Much of the organizational psychology and organizational behavior research on politics has ex-
amined it as a self-serving, deceptive, and negative construct (Ferris & Treadway 2012b). This
line of inquiry largely extends from the work of Mintzberg (1983, 1985), who perceived politics as
a fact of organizational life that needed to be navigated but took a fairly negative stance, referring
to organizational politics as typically divisive and illegitimate in nature (Mintzberg 1983). How-
ever, some of his contemporary organizational theorists (e.g., Bacharach & Lawler 1980, Pfeffer
1981) tended to view politics in a more neutral way, as something that was an inherent part of
organizations, often necessary for them to function effectively and, perhaps, even survive. More
recently, scholars have expanded the view of organizational politics to also include positive aspects
(e.g., Fedor et al. 2008, Hochwarter 2012), arguing that politics can be a mechanism for restoring
justice, providing for followers, and as a source of positive change (Ellen 2014, Ellen et al. 2013).
Our characterization of the organizational politics construct is neutral, and it draws from
work in organizational symbolism and politics (Bolman & Deal 1991, Smircich & Morgan 1982),
as well as from work in political science (Sederberg 1984). We see organizational politics as
the management of shared meaning, a definition and characterization developed nearly three
decades ago (Ferris & Judge 1991, Ferris et al. 1994). This perspective “focuses on the subjective
evaluations and interpretations of meaning, rather than the view that meanings are inherent,

300 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

objective properties of situations” (Ferris et al. 1994, p. 4). As such, individuals actively manage
the meaning of situations in ways that result in the elicitation of desired actions and outcomes.
Thus, we view organizational politics as inherently agentic in nature, and theories of human
agency acknowledge that individuals are active creators of their environments, not simply passive
reactors. As Bandura (2006, p. 167) noted: “People act on their environment. They create it,
preserve it, transform it, and even destroy it, rather than merely react to it as a given. These changes
involve a socially embedded interplay between the exercise of personal agency and environmental
influences.” Additionally, individuals adjust themselves to adapt to situational conditions.

TOWARD A NEW ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK

Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Historically, organizational politics research has been classified as addressing one of three main
categories: political behavior, POPs, and political skill (Ferris & Treadway 2012b). We view the
use of these categories as a valuable but also as a potentially limiting way to organize the poli-
tics literature. Thus, in efforts to encourage new research on organizational politics, we organize
our review around an expansion and articulation of the interrelated nature of these categories
and suggest that these categories capture the agentic characterization outlined above. That is, we
suggest that the categories should reflect agentic characteristics, agentic actions, and outcomes of
agency. To this end, we suggest that political skill, political behavior, and POPs are representa-
tive constructs of political characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes, respectively.
Expanding the categories of organizational politics research enables us to situate other related
constructs appropriately within the literature.
For example, discussing political characteristics enables the inclusion of political will
(Mintzberg 1983, Treadway 2012) alongside political skill, as well as other constructs (e.g., person-
ality traits) that influence the way individuals behave politically and interpret political outcomes.
Similarly, using the broader category label of political actions captures research on general politi-
cal behavior, as well as influence tactics, impression management, and constructs like voice, which
are meant to influence the management of shared meaning in organizations. Finally, classifying
POPs as one of several possible political outcomes enables the inclusion of other social influence
outcomes like reputation.
Figure 1 positions these categories in a way that integrates these previously parallel streams
of work. As depicted, we argue that political characteristics influence individuals’ political actions
and interpretation of political outcomes. Further, we argue that political actions work to manage
shared meaning in a manner that influences political outcomes. Finally, we suggest that political
outcomes also influence the ways in which individuals behave politically; as Ferris et al. (1989)
noted, politics generates effectiveness feedback, which affects decisions and whether and how
to engage in subsequent self-interested behavior. In the sections that follow, we review existing
research under each of the categories before outlining directions for future research within and
across the categories.

POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
This section on political characteristics examines theory and research on individual difference
variables related to people’s actions and understanding of politics. Most of the research in this
area has been conducted on political skill, but there is a growing body of research on political will.
Following a review of both these literature streams, we discuss other relevant research on individual
differences as it relates to organizational politics and suggest avenues for further investigation
within this broadened category.

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 301

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Political
characteristics
• Political skill
• Political will
• Machiavellianism
• Narcissism
• Proactive personality
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Political actions Political outcomes

• General political behavior • Politics perceptions
• Influence tactics • Reputation
• Citizenship • Social networks
• Voice • Power
• Issue selling

Figure 1
A visual reorganization of organizational politics research. Note: The constructs listed here do not constitute
an exhaustive list but are representative of the types of constructs that can be considered in each new,
expanded category of organizational politics research. Bold dark blue text denotes opportunities for future
research with the expanded conceptualizations.

Political Skill
Working independently in the early 1980s on the development of their political perspectives on
organizations, Pfeffer (1981) and Mintzberg (1983) each introduced the term political skill to refer
to essentially the same phenomenon. If organizations are political arenas, according to Mintzberg,
then it takes both political will (i.e., the motivation to engage in political behavior) and political
skill (i.e., the skill to be good at engaging successfully in political behavior) to be effective in
surviving and thriving in such environments. Pfeffer (1981) has contended that power is getting
what you want, influence tactics are the mechanisms or behaviors that get you what you want
(gain power), and political skill is the social effectiveness or style to effectively execute influence
mechanisms to gain power. Unfortunately, after their initial conceptualizations of organizations as
political environments, neither Pfeffer nor Mintzberg concerned themselves with further theory,
measurement, or research on political skill, so these concepts lay dormant for a couple of decades.
In the early part of the 2000s, Ferris et al. (2005) published their multidimensional measurement
of political skill called the Political Skill Inventory, which then began to stimulate increased
empirical research activity on political skill. That new scale along with the publication of their
social-political influence theory, positioning political skill as the core construct (Ferris et al. 2007),
further served to increase research in this area.
Indeed, recent literature reviews (Ferris et al. 2012, Kimura 2015) and meta-analyses (Bedi
& Skowronski 2014, Bing et al. 2011, Munyon et al. 2015) have reported on the effectiveness
of political skill as both a predictor of important work outcomes, as well as a moderator of key

302 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

relationships at work. Most recently, new theoretical work has characterized political skill as
reflecting opportunity recognition, opportunity evaluation, and opportunity capitalization to more
specifically delineate the underlying dimensions of the core construct (McAllister et al. 2018).
Thus, politically skilled individuals’ ability to recognize, evaluate, and capitalize on opportunities
better than those lacking political skill provides the theoretical justification of why political skill
predicts a multitude of workplace outcomes, such as pay, promotions, and job performance.

Performance prediction. Ferris et al. (2007) argued that political skill should be an important
predictor of job performance; the implication was that this would emerge through political skill’s
effects on others because most performance evaluation systems rely upon supervisors’ subjective
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

ratings of subordinate performance as the predominant criteria. Pfeffer (2009, p. 68) added sup-
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

port to this hypothesis by suggesting the following about contemporary performance evaluation
systems: “Political skill should play a role in interpersonal interactions that take place through
formal human resources practices. He argued that political skill. . .helps individuals put a gloss
on their performance that ensures a higher rating.” Thus, political skill not only has been argued
to be a significant predictor of job performance, but sufficient empirical evidence now has been
compiled to support that assertion (e.g., Munyon et al. 2015).
A very important finding in performance prediction is not just that a construct can predict
significantly by itself but also that it can emerge as a strong (or even the strongest) predictor when
positioned competitively against other predictors. Several studies have now been published that
have conducted such competitive prediction of performance for political skill. The first was by
Semadar et al. (2006), and it demonstrated that political skill emerged as the strongest predictor
of managerial job performance when examined against emotional intelligence, self-monitoring,
and leadership self-efficacy. A second investigation by Blickle et al. (2011a) reported the results
of two studies designed to examine the predictive effectiveness of political skill when examined
competitively against general mental ability and personality characteristics as other predictors.
The results demonstrated that political skill explained a significant proportion of variance in job
performance beyond general mental ability and personality variables with both cross sectional
(Study 1) and time-separated (i.e., using a one-year timeframe as in Study 2) study designs.
Valle et al. (2015) investigated the extent to which political skill might influence manager
assessments of employee performance and promotability. Focusing on the political skill dimension
of apparent sincerity, this study found that when managers perceived insincerity on the part of
employees in their influence behavior, they tended to rate them lower on both job performance and
promotion potential. Gentry et al. (2012) also investigated promotability ratings and found political
skill to be a significant predictor of such evaluations. More specifically, political skill significantly
predicted promotability ratings from multiple rater sources. Furthermore, task-related leader
behavior was found to mediate the relationship between political skill and promotion ratings.
Sun & van Emmerik (2015) continued this line of inquiry by examining the moderating effect
of political skill on the relationship between proactive personality and supervisory ratings. They
found a proactive personality to be negatively related to supervisory evaluation when political skill
was low but neutral when political skill was high, suggesting that even behaviors often considered
beneficial to organizations oftentimes require individuals to employ political skill for their efforts
to be viewed positively (or at least not as negatively).

Recruitment. There has not been very much research to date on the role political skill plays
in the recruitment processes of organizations. However, some theoretical work has been done
(Ferris et al. 2002b), followed by an initial empirical investigation to test these conceptual notions
(Magnusen et al. 2017, Treadway et al. 2014a), indicating that recruiter political skill interacted

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 303

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

with organizational reputation to affect the quality and quantity of recruits obtained in the organi-
zational recruitment process. More specifically, utilizing a sample of Division 1 university football
coaches and their recruiting outcomes, Treadway et al. (2014a) found that recruiting effective-
ness is specifically impacted by the individual qualities of the coach and recruiters, in addition to
the past performance of the team under the current head coach. The results supported the hy-
pothesis, demonstrating that the interaction of coach and recruiter political skill and head coach
performance (winning percentage) explained significant variance in recruitment effectiveness (as
measured by number of blue-chip high school football recruits signed).

Leadership. Theory and research on political skill has argued that this construct is particularly
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

advantageous for leaders to possess or develop to increase both leader and follower effectiveness
(Ferris et al. 2007, Treadway et al. 2014b). A number of studies have been conducted and published
that have examined the different roles leaders’ political skill can play in explaining both attitudinal
and behavioral outcomes. Examining attitudinal outcomes, Treadway et al. (2004) tested and found
support for a model demonstrating that leaders’ political skill predicted follower organizational
commitment through the multiple mediating mechanisms of perceived organizational support,
trust in leader, cynicism, and job satisfaction. From a stress perspective, Bai et al. (2017) found
that leaders’ political skill can reduce subordinates’ psychological workplace strain by mitigating
the effects of value incongruence.
Several studies have sought to better understand the intermediate linkages between leaders’
political skill and leader and follower effectiveness. Ewen et al. (2013) tested and found support
for a model that positioned transformational and transactional (i.e., contingent reward) leader
behaviors as mediators of the relationship between leaders’ political skill and leaders’ effectiveness.
In another study, Ewen et al. (2014) found that leaders’ political skill and advancement motive
interacted to affect both perceived institutional effectiveness and follower satisfaction with leaders,
through follower reports of leaders initiating structure behavior.
Brouer et al. (2013) reported support for their hypotheses that the quality of the relationships
leaders form with their followers mediates the relationship between leaders’ political skill and
leader and followers’ effectiveness. They tested these hypotheses in Study 1 using leader effective-
ness as the outcome variable, and then constructively replicated the results in Study 2 on follower
effectiveness. In another area of work on leadership and political skill, some research has pro-
posed, and demonstrated, that the leader’s political skill relates to team performance (Ahearn et al.
2004).

Stress and strain. It has been suggested that political skill neutralizes the potentially dysfunctional
strain effects resulting from work’s environmental stressors (Ferris et al. 2007, 2012; Perrewé et al.
2000). This ability to mitigate workplace strain has been attributed to the sense of control and
personal security afforded to those individuals possessing political skill. Perrewé et al. (2004)
used that theoretical justification to explain their findings that political skill attenuated the effects
of role conflict. Of note, the authors found that political skill alleviated both psychological and
physiological outcomes (e.g., heart rate and blood pressure). Following this research, Perrewé
et al. (2005) demonstrated that the negative effects of role overload (e.g., job tension) could also
be buffered by political skill. A unique perspective on this line of inquiry was presented by Zellars
et al. (2008) who used individuals’ negative affectivity, as opposed to a work-specific stressor, as the
predictor of physiological strain at work. Their results demonstrated that the positive relationship
between negative affectivity and physiological strain was weaker for those with higher political
skill levels.

304 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Influence tactics. Social-political influence theory (Ferris et al. 2007) argued that political skill
should make influence tactics more effective in their execution and thus in securing desired work
outcomes, and several studies have been conducted that support these theoretical notions. In a
study using five different influence tactics, Harris et al. (2007) provided evidence supporting the
important effect of political skill when executing influence attempts. Their study found that the use
of influence tactics coupled with political skill led to higher supervisor ratings, but a lack of political
skill could make those same influence attempts be viewed as less than positive by supervisors.
Ingratiation and rationality are two popular influence tactics that have received attention within
the literature, and the results demonstrate that politically skilled influencers are more likely to
obtain their desired outcomes (e.g., higher performance ratings) than their less politically skilled
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

peers. Treadway et al. (2007), using supervisor-subordinate dyads, found that ingratiation attempts
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

performed by subordinates high in political skill were less likely to be seen as manipulative by
their supervisors, thus demonstrating the importance of political skill when executing influence
attempts. Similarly, Kolodinsky et al. (2007) demonstrated that the positive relationships between
rationality and supervisors’ liking of, and perceived similarity to, subordinates is moderated by
political skill such that higher levels of political skill strengthen the relationship. In tandem, these
results provide evidence supporting the importance of political skill in determining the effective
execution of influence attempts.

Political Will
Within Mintzberg’s (1983, 1985) political framework, political will represents organizational ac-
tors’ willingness to expend energy toward their objectives, whereas political skill represents their
acumen within political situations. Both are needed to survive within political arenas and affect
change in a way that is advantageous to their cause. Thus, political will’s importance in this frame-
work cannot be understated, as it is the prerequisite for continued participation in political games
in the face of sustained adversity. The results of political games determine who wields formal and
informal power within the organization. Despite its theoretical importance, political will has not
received a great deal of research within organizations. Thus, we draw from the political science and
organization science literatures to review the scant work on political will in hopes of establishing
conceptual clarity and stimulating future research in this area.
Within political science, political will is a common yet nebulous term that is often deployed
to express the willingness of a political collective to expend energy and resources toward some
measure of policy change or enactment (Post et al. 2010). Scholars in the field of political science
acknowledge the nebulous nature of the construct and have attempted to provide a definition
and conceptual clarity. Post and colleagues defined it as “the extent of committed support among
key decision makers for a particular policy solution to a particular problem” (p. 659). Other con-
ceptualizations have emphasized that political will is realized when individuals appraise a cause as
worthwhile, accept that political action inherently exposes resources to risk, and commit to a course
of action over time while encountering sustained adversity and resistance (Brinkerhoff 2000). Most
scholars in the field of political science have discussed political will as a collective construct, whereas
the scholarship applied in organizations has conceptualized it as an individual characteristic.
In the organization sciences, Treadway (2012) broke new ground by arguing that it was a
multidimensional construct composed of instrumental motivation, relational motivation, concern
for self, concern for others, and risk tolerance. This conceptualization posits that individuals
potentially can be motivated to act politically because of instrumental benefit or relational need
satisfaction, that the benefit of the political action could be for themselves or for others, and that
all political behavior inherently involves risk. This is in concert with critiques of the organizational

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 305

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

politics literature that suggests that political behavior is not an inherently selfish action and can
be used for prosocial means (Ellen et al. 2016, Hochwarter 2012). Political behaviors inherently
are associated with unsanctioned ends or means (Treadway et al. 2005b), and thus, any type of
political attempt involves exposing reputational and relational capital. Treadway (2012, p. 533)
defined political will as “the motivation to engage in strategic, goal-directed behavior that advances
the personal agenda and objectives of the actor that inherently involves the risk of relational or
reputational capital.”
Kapoutsis et al. (2017), who developed an eight-item measure of political will, employed this
conceptualization as a theoretical frame. Exploratory factor analysis yielded two parsimonious
dimensions, which they labeled self-serving and benevolent. Thus, the psychometric measure
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

development procedure performed by Kapoutsis et al. (2017) did not confirm the theoretical
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

underpinnings presented by Treadway (2012). However, the intent of the instrumental, relational,
others-serving, and self-serving dimensions was to posit that individuals have multifaceted reasons
for acting politically for their own benefit and the benefit of others. Hence, the psychometric
measure developed by Kapoutsis and colleagues does capture the overarching notion that political
will is a motivation that leads individuals to engage in political behavior for their own benefit
and/or the benefit of others.

Antecedents of political will. Doldor et al. (2013) uncovered qualitative evidence that supports
the notion that women are less likely to engage in political behavior than men. Political will was
evaluated based upon participant attitudes about the functional efficacy, ethicality, and emotion-
ality of engaging in political behavior. Study findings suggested that female managers recognized
both the functional advantages and disadvantages of political behavior, often viewed office politics
as entering a masculine world, and recognized that politics was frequently a way to achieve ethi-
cally justifiable win-win situations. However, politics was also described as an exercise in unethical
greed that has the capacity to harm others.

Prediction of political behaviors and strategies. Treadway and colleagues (2005b) became the
first within the organization sciences to empirically investigate the effects of political will. At the
time, no formal measure of political will had been developed so this investigation utilized needs-
based theories of motivation to justify using need for achievement and intrinsic motivation as prox-
ies for political will. They argued that political behavior is a result of intrinsic motivation because
these behaviors can help satisfy individuals’ needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence.
Similarly, Liu et al. (2010) operationalized political will as the need for achievement and need
for power, although they used the term political will sparsely. Using trait activation theory as
their theoretical foundations, they found that the associations between the needs-based proxies of
political will and political behavior were stronger for those individuals who also perceived a high
level of organizational politics. Both Treadway et al. (2005b) and Liu et al. (2010) found empirical
support that political behaviors are motivated by the fulfillment of psychological needs.
Bentley et al. (2015) explored the role of political will in expatriate acculturation within orga-
nizations. They argued that individuals joining a new organization select different acculturation
strategies based on their level of political skill and their dominant political will orientation (i.e.,
benevolent or self-serving political will). These profiles of political skill level and political will
type were proposed to predict strategies of marginalization, separation, assimilation, and integra-
tion. It was suggested that the different strategies led to differing consequences regarding political
articulation stress, as well as social and task performance.
Maher et al. (2018) found that political will and political skill predict the use of configurations
of impression management tactics identified by Bolino & Turnley (2003), i.e., passive, aggressive,

306 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

and positive approaches. Specifically, low levels of political will predict the passive configuration,
high levels of political will predict the aggressive configuration, and moderate levels of political
will, in conjunction with high levels of political skill, predict the positive configuration. Bolino
& Turnley (2003) found that individuals who employ the positive configuration of impression
management tactics are rated as the most likeable by peers. Thus, these findings suggest that
when evaluating impression management effectiveness, moderate amounts of political will are
optimal, whereas too much or too little is suboptimal.

Outcomes of political will. Harris et al. (2016) and Treadway (2012) argued that, although
political behavior can increase power and garner resources when properly executed (i.e., by those
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

with political skill), it also inherently involves exposing reputational and relational capital risks.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Thus, when political behaviors are properly executed, they can be beneficial but otherwise can be
problematic. For this reason, they argued that political skill moderates the nonlinear relationship
between political will and performance, such that political will has a positive effect on performance
when political skill is high, but a negative impact on performance when individuals do not possess
the high political skill to effectively deliver political behaviors.
Shaughnessy et al. (2017) investigated the relationship between political will and performance
as mediated by informal leadership status. Utilizing need for power as a proxy for political will, they
found that informal leadership mediated the relationship between political will and performance
under conditions of high political skill. In line with Mintzberg’s (1983, 1985) framework, their find-
ings supported the notion that politically willed individuals are perceived as informal leaders within
the organization and that, to be successful as an informal leader, individuals require political skill.

Possibilities with an Expanded Conceptualization of Political Characteristics

In addition to providing a context within which to consider political skill and political will together,
as Harris et al. (2016) advocated, expanding this category of organizational politics research to
include any relevant political characteristics has the potential to facilitate many future research di-
rections. For example, as some research on political will has demonstrated by using proxy measures
(e.g., need for power, need for achievement, and intrinsic motivation), there are a number of char-
acteristics useful in predicting political behavior (Liu et al. 2010, Shaughnessy et al. 2017, Treadway
et al. 2005b). Similarly, prior research has documented a relationship between Machiavellianism
and the use of influence tactics (Vecchio & Sussmann 1991). We argue that by conceptualizing
one area of organizational politics research as that focused on characteristics that relate to political
behavior and political outcomes, as well as the relationship between them, the field benefits from
a greater understanding of organizational politics through a broader range of investigation.
Beyond those mentioned above, future research might consider the effect of other charac-
teristics on the enactment of, and reaction to, organizational politics. For example, research has
indicated narcissists have egoistic motivations (Campbell et al. 2011), are prone to abuse power
(Sankowsky 1995), and lack remorse for harm done to others (Campbell et al. 2011). Thus, they
would seem to be prime candidates for engaging in self-interested behavior, and it would be in-
teresting to see whether narcissism is positively linked to political acts. Further, as narcissists can
be classified as either grandiose, i.e., those with an inflated sense of self (Rhodewalt & Peterson
2009), or vulnerable, i.e., those with self-esteem issues, convinced the world is out to get them
(Campbell et al. 2011), it would be interesting to see whether the different types tend to engage
in different political acts and react to politics in different ways. Similarly, because political acts
often are described as tactical or strategic goal-directed behavior, they are somewhat proactive in
nature. Thus, it would be interesting to examine the political tendencies of those high in personal

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 307

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

initiative (Frese & Fay 2001) or having a proactive personality (Bateman & Crant 1993) given the
association of these characteristics with related goal-directed actions.

POLITICAL ACTIONS
This section examines theory and research on variables that represent individuals’ enactment of
politics. Most research in this area has been conducted on political skill, influence tactics, and
impression management. Following a review of these domains, we discuss other research on
behaviors that could be considered political actions and suggest possibilities for future research
within this broadened category.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

General Political Behavior

The contemporary view of political behavior is born out of the work of organization theorists who
embraced the notion of individuals’ bounded rationality (Simon 1957), and as a result, organiza-
tions comprise multiple individuals and factions of individuals who hold multiple goals. Individuals
interact with their environment (Weick 1995) and in doing so consolidate resources and power
within the organization to achieve their objectives. Despite an ample foundation of theoretical
work within the political behavior literature, conceptualizations and operationalizations remain
scattered, and calls for unification remain unanswered. These definitions do share some common
themes while maintaining unique characteristics and caveats. Lepisto & Pratt (2012, p. 74) cor-
ralled the most widely cited definitions of political behavior and argued that organizational politics
represents “(1) an actor’s (individual) or actors’ (group) (2) self-interested, goal-directed (3) power
and social influence actions’ that are performed (4) in relation to two or more interdependent
social actors, (5) by means that are not officially sanctioned.”
Indeed, political behavior has been employed as a collective, e.g., coalitions, top-management
teams (Sharfman et al. 1988), or as an individual-level construct (Liu et al. 2010; Treadway et al.
2005b). Self-interest or goal-directed action refers to the strategic and planned intentionality of
the behavior to achieve goals that are important to the self, which can include outcomes that benefit
the collective (Hochwarter 2012) or just the individual (Liu et al. 2010). Power and influence have
been conceptualized within the politics literature as gaining compliance based on formal bases
of power granted to management positions (e.g., legitimate), or to more informal means (e.g.,
charisma, liking, referent power). Because power is based on interpersonal dependence (French &
Raven 1968), amassing or exercising power through political behavior inherently requires activity
that involves multiple individuals. Lastly, political behaviors are inherently not sanctioned by the
organization, meaning that they could be informally supported within the culture (e.g., the way the
game is played) or formally prohibited by the organization (e.g., bribes, withholding information,
blackmail).

Measurement. The lack of a unifying definition of political behavior has also left the field without
an agreed upon measure. Thus, scholars have employed multiple different approaches to measuring
the phenomenon. Some have employed scales of impression management (Bolino & Turnley 1999)
and influence tactics (Kipnis & Schmidt 1988), while others have developed measures of general
political behavior (e.g., Valle & Perrewé 2000, Zanzi et al. 1991). However, no one measure has
been subject to the necessary levels of rigorous testing that well-established measures normally
endure. Treadway and colleagues developed a six-item scale that has become the most commonly
used measure of individual political behavior (i.e., Liu et al. 2010, Sun & Chen 2017).

308 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Overview of research. Those measures that have been developed have provided evidence that
political behavior is an antecedent of various organizational outcomes. Under conditions of high
levels of perceived politics, political behavior has been shown to predict higher organizational com-
mitment and job satisfaction (Hochwarter 2003). Similarly, Hochwarter and colleagues found that,
under conditions of high individual reputation, political behavior predicted in-role performance,
as these acts have the capacity to engender favorable coworker and supervisor appraisals (Bolino
& Turnley 2003, Treadway et al. 2007). Liu and colleagues investigated political behavior under
conditions of high levels of political skill and provided evidence that these levels of interaction
predict personal power and career growth potential. Also, political behavior has been shown to
lead to higher levels of emotional labor (Hochschild 1979), except under conditions of high levels
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

of political skill (Treadway et al. 2005b).

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

As scholarship on political behavior suffers from a lack of agreement within the field about the
construct domain, and thus, no one consistent measure of political behavior has been used. As a
result, the field has a scattered literature that leaves us quite uninformed on the antecedents and
consequences of political behavior, despite the ubiquity of the phenomenon within organizations.
The field would benefit greatly from further conceptual and empirical development, which is no
small feat. Certainly, political behavior is a complex and nuanced construct, which likely comprises
multiple dimensions. In the following sections, we lightly suggest, and review the literature on,
some constructs that may serve as some of the dimensions of political behavior.

Influence Tactics
As organizational politics has been defined as acts of influence, research on the specific tactics
employed to get one’s way is a stream of literature relevant to organizational politics. Much of this
inquiry stems from the Kipnis et al. (1980) exploratory investigation of upward influence tactics in
organizations. In this study, the authors identified eight influence tactics, including assertiveness,
ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward appeals, blocking, and coalitions. Results
indicated that the frequency of use of each tactic depended upon the relative power of the
influencer and the target, the reason for influence attempt, the resistance of the target, the target’s
status within the organization, and the organization size (Kipnis et al. 1980). Yukl & Falbe (1990)
extended Kipnis and colleagues’ work by adding the consultation and inspirational appeal tactics.
Additionally, in contrast to prior results, Yukl & Falbe (1990) found that the direction of the
tactic use did not vary as much but rather the use of tactic did, with consultation and rational
persuasion as the most-used behaviors, regardless of direction.

Influence profiles. Subsequent research has used cluster analysis and identified profiles (i.e.,
shotgun, tactician, ingratiator, and bystander) of tactic use (Kipnis & Schmidt 1988). Shotgun in-
fluencers reported the highest use of influence tactics and relied heavily on assertiveness. Tactician
influencers used an average level of influence tactics, relying most heavily on rational persuasion.
Ingratiators relied more heavily on friendliness tactics. Finally, bystanders reported the lowest
use of all influence tactics. Furthermore, in this study, Kipnis & Schmidt (1988) found that males
using a shotgun approach were evaluated less favorably by supervisors, earned less, and reported
more job tension than their colleagues who adopted the tactician style.

Meta-analytic results. Interestingly, the literature concerning influence tactics has been frag-
mented in terms of measurement. Despite the widely accepted list of tactics put forth from the
above-referenced studies, at least nine measures of influence have been used in empirical research
(Higgins et al. 2003). Not surprisingly, this has led to a great deal of variability in results across

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 309

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

studies, which several meta-analyses have attempted to resolve. In their meta-analysis, Higgins
et al. (2003) found that ingratiation and rational persuasion had the greatest impact on work out-
comes, particularly performance assessments. In another meta-analysis, Lee et al. (2017) found
positive effects of rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, apprising, collaboration, ingratiation,
and consultation on both task- and relation-oriented outcomes but a negative relationship between
pressure and these outcomes. Additionally, Smith et al. (2013) found evidence that the influence
tactic outcomes might be dependent on gender and that gender might also dictate influence tactic
choice. Finally, Barbuto & Moss (2006) found evidence for Machiavellianism, self-monitoring,
external locus of control, and motivation as antecedents of influence tactic use.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Impression Management
Although similar, organizational politics, impression management, and ingratiation represent dis-
tinct constructs (Liden & Mitchell 1988). Thus, we include a brief discussion on impression
management as a form of political act designed “to manage the identities that others assign to
them” (Tedeschi & Melburg 1984, p. 31). Impression management research draws on sociologi-
cal perspectives (e.g., Goffman 1959) and has been argued to consist of several tactics, including
ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication ( Jones & Pittman
1982). Bolino et al. (2016) noted that each of these tactics is associated with an undesirable image.
Thus, impression management attempts can backfire and require skill to execute effectively (Ferris
et al. 2012).
Tedeschi & Melburg (1984) developed a framework of impression management in which they
classified approaches to crafting a desired image along two dimensions: tactical-strategic (i.e., for
clear and short-term purposes versus for long-term benefit) and assertive-defensive (i.e., initiated
proactively based on the actor’s goals versus initiated reactively due to situational factors). Al-
though this perspective suggests that impression management stems from an intentional decision
of the actor, it is possible that these actions are more habitual and reflexive than much research has
assumed (Bolino et al. 2016). Additionally, although most of the impression management research
has assumed an upward target (e.g., direct supervisor), recent research has begun to expand the per-
spective to include impression management tactics and strategies among peers (Long et al. 2015).

Possibilities with an Expanded Conceptualization of Political Actions

Although the three constructs discussed above (i.e., general political behavior, influence tactics,
and impression management) represent a wide range of possible political behavior, we argue that
organizational politics research can benefit from expanding this category to include a broader
spectrum of political actions. More specifically, as conceptualizations of politics recapture their
neutral roots (Ferris & Treadway 2012b), and even expand to include positive possibilities (Ellen
2014, Hochwarter 2012), the types of actions considered could expand to include several dif-
ferent constructs. To facilitate this, as the field (hopefully) works toward a unified definition of
political behavior, investigators should avoid some of the negatively charged terminology of prior
descriptions (e.g., illicit, unsanctioned, not officially sanctioned).
For example, with a more neutral definition, researchers can conceptualize other constructs as
potentially political, as Bolino (1999) has done with organizational citizenship behavior. Citizen-
ship certainly is not illicit, unsanctioned, or not officially sanctioned; however, as Bolino argued,
it definitely can be used in a political manner, whether to craft a certain impression or create a
sense of indebtedness to facilitate an exchange. Similarly, more subtle efforts have been made to
position neutral constructs as influence oriented and potentially political (McAllister et al. 2018)

310 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

with personal initiative (Wihler et al. 2017), and could expand with other proactive behaviors
such as voice—particularly challenging forms that demonstrate intent to alter the organization’s
current direction (Burris 2012). Additionally, researchers might consider the political nature of
other change-oriented constructs like issue selling (Dutton et al. 2001) and charismatic rhetoric
(Baur et al. 2016).

POLITICAL OUTCOMES
This section examines theory and research on outcomes that represent manifestations of political
characteristics and actions. The most-researched topic within this area is perceptions of organi-
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

zational politics. However, we suggest that many other constructs belong in this category. For
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

example, reputation can be classified as a political outcome because it is a result of political actions
like impression management. Following a review of these two areas of research, we suggest other
outcomes possible in subsequent investigations based on this expanded categorization.

Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Ferris et al. (1989) are largely credited with introducing POPs to the literature. Building on Lewin’s
(1936) arguments that individuals react to their subjective perceptions rather than objective reality,
as well as Gandz & Murray’s (1980) work on reactions to others’ self-serving behavior, Ferris et al.
(1989) developed a model of organizational politics perceptions that sparked three decades of
systematic research. This line of inquiry has solidified the construct as one with significant impact
on organizational behavior (Chang et al. 2009, Ferris et al. 2002a, Miller et al. 2008).
Like political behavior, the POPs construct also has encountered definitional issues. However,
instead of suffering from an abundance of definitions, political perceptions often have been equated
to political behavior or defined with the same terminology of the broader organizational politics
construct. Although there are similarities between the constructs, it is important to note that
politics perceptions clearly center on subjective assessments. Thus, perceptions of politics are best
described as “an individual’s subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment
is characterized by coworkers and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior” (Ferris
et al. 2000, p. 90). With this distinction, the actual acts of others become less important than an
individual’s interpretation of them (Lewin 1936, Porter 1976). Because of this, it is possible that
some political acts could be misconstrued as helpful, and some helpful acts misconstrued as self-
interested (Ferris et al. 1995).

Antecedents, consequences, and interactions. Despite Ferris and coworkers’ development of

a model that outlined antecedents, consequences, and interactions, POPs research largely has
focused on the latter two categories. Studies that have addressed drivers of POPs have noted that
politics perceptions are stronger at higher organizational levels (Gandz & Murray 1980, Madison
et al. 1980). Additionally, Rosen et al. (2006) found that higher instances of quality feedback
were negatively associated with employees’ perceptions of politics, which supports the notion that
ambiguity leads to POPs (Ferris et al. 1989), given that quality feedback should provide greater
clarity in the workplace.
Additionally, Porter et al. (1981) argued that all organizations have specific norms that form
the political environment and that, as a result, perceptions of politics are formed through social
learning from significant others in the organization. However, this notion has yet to be tested
directly. In a related study, Drory (1993) found that a negative relationship between employee
satisfaction with supervisors and coworkers and POPs, which supported the notion that significant

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 311

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

others impact POPs. However, this research did not address learning related to the political norms
of the organization. Finally, there is an intuitive connection between others’ political behavior and
POPs, given that the definition of POPs includes individuals’ attributions of others’ behavior as
self-serving (Ferris et al. 2000). In support of this perspective, in a recent experimental study
using video vignettes, Hill et al. (2016) provided evidence that observing political behavior leads
to perceptions of politics.
Much more research has been dedicated to examining the consequences of POPs, and this
line of inquiry overwhelmingly documents its potentially negative effects on many important
affective, cognitive, and behavioral work outcomes. For example, POPs have been associated with
decreased job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment (Chang et al. 2009, Rosen et al.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

2006), less work engagement (Kane-Frieder et al. 2014a,b), and lower levels of task and contextual
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

performance (Chang et al. 2009, Rosen et al. 2006), as well as with increased job distress (Vigoda
2002), frustration (Rosen et al. 2009), job tension (Hochwarter et al. 2010), depressed mood at
work (Byrne et al. 2005), and turnover intentions (Chang et al. 2009, Rosen et al. 2006). Decades
of research have based explanations for these negative effects on stress and exchange theories,
arguing that POPs represent strain-inducing stressors and undermine employees’ social exchange
relationships. However, Rosen et al. (2014) recently argued and provided evidence that these
effects were just artifacts of inhibited needs satisfaction, which mediated the negative effects of
POPs on performance, creativity, and proactive behavior.
Because of the negative possibilities associated with POPs, combined with the reality that
politics is a fact of organizational life (McAllister et al. 2015), research has understandably sought
to identify personal and organizational characteristics that accentuate or attenuate the potential
ill effects. For example, research has shown that high levels of need for achievement (Byrne et al.
2005), positive and negative affectivity (Hochwarter & Treadway 2003), age (Treadway et al.
2005a), faith in management (Byrne et al. 2005), and rumination (Rosen & Hochwarter 2014) all
exacerbate the negative effects of POPs on work outcomes. Conversely, high levels of supervisor
political support (Kane-Frieder et al. 2014a,b), perceived organizational support (Byrne et al.
2005), work drive (Hall et al. 2017), and perceived resources (Hochwarter et al. 2010) mitigate
the negative effects of POPs.

Perceptions of organizational politics as moderators. Researchers also have examined sev-

eral ways in which POPs affect the relationships between other constructs. For example, POPs
have been found to exacerbate the negative effects of felt accountability on job satisfaction due to
increased uncertainty (Breaux et al. 2009), as well the negative effects of psychological contract
breach on perceived organizational support as a result of POPs potential to undermine the relation-
ship between employees and the organization (Kiewitz et al. 2009). Additionally, POPs have been
found to negate the positive effect of leader-member exchange on work effort (Kacmar et al. 2007).
However, investigation of more complex models has provided evidence that these negative
moderating effects can be conditional. For instance, Hochwarter et al. (2014) found that job sat-
isfaction and performance were higher for employees who perceived high levels of accountability
and high levels of politics, provided they also perceived the opportunity for voice. Additionally,
Kacmar et al. (2011) found that the relationship between ethical leadership and employee citi-
zenship behavior was stronger for males who perceived high levels of politics but weakened for
females who reported high levels of organizational politics.

Positive possibilities. Although most of the POPs research has provided evidence of its negative
effects, some of the conditional effects described in the section above indicate that positive effects
are possible, which is likely because of the perceptual nature of the construct. Thus, although those

312 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

who are adversely affected by what they perceive to be a political environment will have negative
reactions to it, those who benefit are likely to view politics as a useful tool and experience positive
reactions to POPs (Ferris & Kacmar 1992). To this end, Fedor et al. (2008) sought to provide a
perspective and measure that included both positively and negatively perceived politics, arguing
that they were distinct, and not polar, concepts. Finally, whereas some scholars have pointed
to the negative effects as reason to eradicate politics from organizations, others have suggested
that a lack of politics might be problematic. For example, Hochwarter et al. (2010) argued for
and provided evidence of a nonlinear effect of POPs on job satisfaction and job tension. Based
on activation theory, they suggested that environments devoid of politics might not provide the
necessary stimulation for employees.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Reputation
At this point, it should be clear that successfully engaging in organizational politics demands
that individuals use all available resources (e.g., social, cognitive, organizational) at their disposal.
One personal factor that can serve as both an antecedent to, and a consequence of, entering the
political arena is reputation. Ferris et al. (2003) defined reputation as a “complex combination
of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and intended
images presented over some period of time” (p. 213). Despite research demonstrating the effect
of reputation on important workplace outcomes, such as career success (e.g., Tsui 1984), this
area remains critically understudied. Fortunately, a surprisingly solid, if still thin, scaffolding of
research [e.g., psychometrically valid measure (Hochwarter et al. 2007) and extensive review and
consolidation of the literature (Ferris et al. 2014)] is available to help guide scholars interested in
developing and refining this line of inquiry.
As with all the other facets of organizational behavior, important workplace outcomes, including
job performance and career success, are related to personal reputation. Recognizing that reputation
is not always a strong enough factor to influence outcomes in isolation, much of the scholarly work
has placed personal reputation as a mediator between common workplace behaviors and outcomes
(e.g., Blickle et al. 2011b). Hall et al. (2009) examined a two-stage mediation model examining the
relationships between accountability, job performance, and job satisfaction with organizational
citizenship behaviors and personal reputation serving as mediators. The findings indicate that
accountability is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors, which in turn are related
to personal reputation and finally job performance. Intrinsic in these findings, and those of Blickle
et al. (2011b), is the notion that reputation can be actively created by individuals. Engaging in overt
behaviors in the workplace (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior) help individuals construct a
social reality and actively manage shared meaning.
Reputation can be developed passively as others observe and share information regarding the
target individual, thus socially constructing a collective perception (Blickle et al. 2011b). However,
considering the relationships shared between reputation and positive work outcomes such as job
performance, as well as the fragile nature of reputation, there is cause for individuals to actively
develop their reputations (Baumeister 1982). Blass & Ferris (2007) theorized that political skills
play critical roles in the development of leaders’ reputations and specifically suggested that each
dimension of political skill was well suited to developing and protecting previously cultivated
reputations. Empirical examinations testing the relationship between political skill and personal
reputation demonstrated what Blass & Ferris (2007) suggested. Laird et al. (2012) demonstrated
that political skill had both a direct, and indirect, effect on personal reputation in the workplace. In
a following study, Laird et al. (2013) provided evidence that the positive relationship between job
performance and personal reputation only existed for those high in political skill. These findings

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 313

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

indicate that reputation is not only malleable but that it almost requires some active maintenance
and care to fully manifest.
Reputation is considered a level-neutral term, meaning that its antecedents and consequences
are shared across individual, team, and organizational levels (Ferris et al. 2014). Thus, it is unsur-
prising to note that the research on reputation extends beyond just the individuals in the workplace.
Fombrun (1996) theorized that a firm’s image could directly add to (or subtract from) its overall
value, a seemingly simple idea that nonetheless helped make forward strides in the field of repu-
tation by better defining reputation at the organizational level. Recently, Martinez et al. (2017)
demonstrated how firms’ financial reputations are tied directly to their financial performance.
Of note, firms in this study were found to suffer additionally if they dedicated resources to the
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

maintenance of their social reputation but still possessed a negative financial reputation. Again,
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

the corollary between the levels is clear: Actively attempting to create a reputation that does not
jibe with others’ collective perception can be detrimental to actors, whether they are individuals,
teams, or organizations.
The field of reputation is perhaps one of the ripest areas for development within the orga-
nizational politics literature. As noted in the Ferris et al. (2014) review, the current measure by
Hochwarter et al. (2007) can be augmented with additional dimensions and refinements. Per-
haps even more pressing is the need for an overarching theoretical framework capable of placing
reputation in a finite space within the constellation of factors comprising organizational politics.
Grounding reputation theoretically is necessary to help create a cohesive body of empirical work
capable of incrementally increasing our knowledge of the construct. Finally, that same empirical
work needs to build upon the earlier work examining the relationship between political skill and
personal reputation. Specifically, research needs to examine not just how political skill can aid in
the development of reputation but also if and how reputation can be used to achieve desired goals.

Possibilities with an Expanded Conceptualization of Political Outcomes

In our reorganization, we have positioned political outcomes as those constructs impacted by po-
litical characteristics and political actions. Heightened perceptions of politics are intuitive mani-
festations of others’ political behavior (Hill et al. 2016), and reputation is a prime example of the
potential impact of impression management behavior. Consistent with our arguments in previ-
ous sections, we suggest that politics research can benefit from an expanded conceptualization of
political outcomes. More specifically, although reputation represents one possibility of expanding
this category of research, it still represents a perceptual outcome. Thus, it would be interesting
and valuable to explore nonperceptual political outcomes.
Another possible avenue would be additional exploration of the intersection of politics and
social networks, as these are structural indications of an individual’s potential influence within an
organization. To date, some research has examined the effect of political skill on the development
of social networks (e.g., Bolander et al. 2015); however, there is much more that could be done in
this area. For example, there are other forms of centrality beyond those studied by Bolander et al.
(i.e., relational and positional). Also, Brass & Krackhardt (2012) suggested political investigations
of other network aspects, including structural holes, tie strength, network closure, and ties to
powerful others. Given the power presumed by those with extensive networks (Brass & Krackhardt
2012), it would be interesting to examine the relationship between the various network properties
and the enactment and effectiveness of different types of political actions. For example, are those
with ties to powerful alters more likely to engage in upward appeal? Are those with expansive
networks more likely to attempt to form coalitions?

314 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Finally, despite Pfeffer’s (1981) description of power, politics, and influence as inherently in-
tertwined, little politics research has specifically examined power. Given that power has been
conceptualized as the ability to influence others (French & Raven 1968), it fits well as the possible
manifestation of both political characteristics and political actions. For example, future research
could examine whether and how political skill, political will, or Machiavellianism affects individ-
uals’ power within organizations. Similarly, it would be interesting to see how certain political
actions either enhance or erode one’s power. That is, because influence tactics have been argued to
require an appropriate base of power to be effective, use of a tactic that does or does not match the
source of power might have implications beyond just the effectiveness of the influence attempt—
perhaps damaging one’s reputation and stripping her power (i.e., the ability to influence others)
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

in subsequent interactions.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Beyond the opportunities for future research that we have argued are possible as the result of
our expanded conceptualization of organizational politics research, we also believe there are a
number of valuable and important avenues for investigation that span the three categories. More
specifically, we see several theoretical, methodological, and contextual possibilities for research.
Each is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

Theoretical Opportunities
There is a need for additional theoretical development across and within each of the organi-
zational politics categories. We expect theoretical advancement for organizational politics will
proceed through the development of good middle-range theories (Pinder & Moore 1980), which
characterize much of the theory development in the organizational sciences. This contrasts with
the development of a grand single theory of organizational politics, which seems challenging, if not
impossible, to create, especially given our expansion of the nomological network to include several
new construct domains. Still, we do believe there is value in developing a theory that integrates
the categories we have outlined, as well as the constructs within them. Perhaps a metatheoretical
perspective of organizational politics would be an appropriate first step, where the nature and
relationship between political characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes are delin-
eated, which could pave the way for the development of a more precise theory linking some of the
constructs within and across each category.
Additionally, although many of these constructs have been researched for decades, much of
the literature we have reviewed has suggested a need for more detailed theoretical development.
For example, theories on the antecedents of political skill and political will are noticeably absent
from the literature. Theory of political actions is highly fragmented to the point that there
is no consensus on the definition of what it means to behave politically. Even the nature of
what constitutes an act of influence is lacking, as is a theory that addresses more precisely how
and why individuals select influence tactics. Finally, the nature of political outcomes remains
undertheorized because we lack sufficient political explanations for the development of politics
perceptions, reputation, social networks, and power.
One specific way future research might provide a more detailed understanding of organizational
politics is by the development and testing of theory on the dimensional aspects of the constructs.
These are socially complex constructs, and future advancements within this stream of research will
require finer-grained analyses. Often, researchers have examined the effects of multidimensional

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 315

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

constructs solely at the composite level. However, with several decades of empirical research avail-
able to help inform understanding, it is necessary to begin considering these constructs on the
dimensional level (e.g., Kapoutsis et al. 2017, McAllister et al. 2018, Wihler et al. 2017). Focusing
research efforts on individual dimensions will provide researchers with insight into exactly why the
composite characteristic constructs are so effective at predicting workplace outcomes, as well as
which aspects of the outcomes are more affected (e.g., reputation for character versus reputation
for results). Further, dimensional-level research can inform the field on what specific character-
istic dimensions affect different individual political actions. Finally, dimensional aspects will help
practitioners understand what to teach and how to train employees in organizational politics.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Methodological Opportunities
As in all fields of scientific inquiry, the methodology and research design must appropriately
correspond with the research question. Many of the more fundamental research questions about
which we are ill informed will require different and more advanced methodologies than those
commonly used in the field to date. For example, politics research could benefit from the richness
and temporal perspective afforded by qualitative research. In fact, there may be no organizational
phenomenon more deserving of good qualitative research investigations than politics given its
nuanced and subtle nature. A few examples exist (i.e., Buchanan 2008, Doldor et al. 2013, Smith
et al. 2009), but many more are needed.
Additionally, the use of multilevel modeling will allow us to evaluate within- and between-level
variance. Currently, most of the research within the organizational sciences has evaluated the ef-
fects of political constructs at the individual level. The increased use of aggregation and multilevel
modeling will allow scholars to better evaluate the collective, dyadic, nested, and within-person
effects that have been sparse within the literature. For example, CEO or aggregated firm-level
political characteristics and actions could be measured to predict organizational-level outcomes
or used within a multilevel model to examine their effect on lower-level relationships. Dyadic or
nested models could be used to evaluate competitive situations (e.g., negotiations, recruitment,
promotion tournaments) or the effects of a leader’s political characteristics and actions on em-
ployee outcomes). Lastly, many individual-level political constructs likely vary within person, and
repeated measurement designs would allow scholars to investigate questions of within-person
variance, nonlinear effects, and longitudinal dynamics (e.g., situational responses, fluctuations in
political will, selection of different political strategies, and learning political will and skill over time).
The invisibility or covertness of many political constructs presents a unique challenge to schol-
ars, and to assess accurately the domain of political constructs, further measurement development
is needed. More specifically, political behavior lacks a widely accepted, psychometrically validated
measure that appropriately captures the more neutral aspects of the construct, as well as its multi-
ple dimensions. Additionally, research using the validated political will measure (Kapoutsis et al.
2017) is in its infancy and needs further testing and refinement (Blickle et al. 2018). Finally, al-
though the self-report measure of political skill (Ferris et al. 2005) has been remarkably effective
at predicting organizational phenomena (Munyon et al. 2015), many of its items do not reflect
aspects of skill that can be developed. Thus, to advance research on the training and development
of political skill, a refined measure, perhaps behavioral in nature, will likely be necessary.

Contextual Opportunities
The changing nature of work presents many opportunities for politics research to consider
new and different contexts. First, the global nature of work today dictates the consideration

316 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

of multicultural and cross-cultural implications for organizational politics. In addition to

understanding how politics manifests in different cultures, it is crucial to understand the nature of
politics in multicultural organizations as well as the ability for individuals to adapt to potentially
different political influence norms when working in new cultural contexts. Second, technological
advancements have had drastic impacts on the way work is conducted. Remote-work arrangements
and the assemblage of virtual work teams who might never meet in person has the potential to
alter much of what we know about building and leveraging influence at work. Research is needed
to understand in what ways politics exists and differs for employees in virtual settings.
Finally, the impact of the gig economy also has implications for politics research. As more
and more people work as independent contractors rather than as traditional employees, research
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

should consider whether and how organizational politics affects individuals with these evolving
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

work arrangements. Although tempting to consider these individuals as largely unaffected by

politics due to a lack of formal organizational membership, the informal networks still exist, and
in some ways, this in-organization versus out-organization distinction could serve to amplify the
political aspects of work.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
As organizational politics has the potential to hinder or advance goals, research within this field
has practical applications. Above all, it is important for employees to understand that experiencing
politics is inevitable. Thus, rather than attempt to ignore the political realities of organizations,
individuals should be prepared to engage. This is especially true if they aspire to ascend the
hierarchy within the organization, as politics often dictates who moves up and is more preva-
lent at higher organizational levels. Further, given that politics is the management of shared
meaning, organizational leaders often need to engage in political maneuvering to guide employ-
ees toward organizational goal attainment. Thus, individuals would be well served to develop the
skills that enable the effective recognition, evaluation, and capitalization of influence opportunities
(McAllister et al. 2018). This includes refining their social astuteness to accurately diagnose the
informal environment and facilitate network building with key organization members, as well
as developing the ability to select and execute influence behaviors appropriate to the time and
situation.

CONCLUSION
Politics in organizations has represented a substantial area of theory, research, and practical schol-
arship for decades. As such, over time, we have developed a more informed understanding of
organizational politics and the roles the constructs that comprise this stream of literature play
in the organizational sciences. Although several prior reviews of this literature exist, we have
attempted to contribute to the literature beyond what they have offered by reorganizing the lit-
erature into three broad categories. Politics is a reality of organizational life. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon organizational scholars to develop the most informed understanding possible
of these fascinating phenomena. Our hope is that our review and this new conceptualization will
spark additional research within and across the categories, as well as the integration of other related
research domains.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 317

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

LITERATURE CITED
Ahearn K, Ferris G, Hochwarter W, Douglas C, Ammeter A. 2004. Leader political skill and team performance.
J. Manag. 30:309–27
Bacharach S, Lawler E. 1980. Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bai Y, Dong Z, Liu H, Liu S. 2017. We may be different, but I can help you: the effects of leaders’ political
skills on leader-follower power distance value incongruence and withdrawal behavior. J. Leadsh. Organ.
Stud. 24(2):216–29
Bandura A. 2006. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1:164–80
Barbuto JE Jr., Moss JA. 2006. Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: a meta-analytic
review. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 12(3):30–48
Bateman TA, Crant JM. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

J. Organ. Behav. 14(2):103–18

Baumeister RF. 1982. A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychol. Bull. 91:3–26
Baur JE, Ellen BP III, Buckley MR, Ferris GR, Allison TH, et al. 2016. More than one way to articulate a
vision: a configurations approach to leader charismatic rhetoric and influence. Leadsh. Q. 27(1):156–71
Bedi A, Skowronski M. 2014. Political skill at work: Good or bad? Understanding its predictors and conse-
quences. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 79(2):39–47
Bentley JR, Breland JW, Xu N, Campion ED, Treadway DC. 2015. The political skill and will of expatriates
in acculturating to the politics of an organization in a new culture. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 49:343–53
Bing MN, Davidson HK, Minor I, Novicevic MM, Frink DD. 2011. The prediction of task and contextual
performance by political skill: a meta-analysis and moderator test. J. Vocat. Behav. 79:563–77
Blass FR, Ferris GR. 2007. Leader reputation: the role of mentoring, political skill, contextual learning, and
adaptation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 46(1):5–19
Blickle G, Kramer J, Schneider PB, Meurs JA, Ferris GR, et al. 2011a. Role of political skill in job performance
prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies. J. Appl.
Soc. Psychol. 41:488–514
Blickle G, Schneider PB, Liu Y, Ferris GR. 2011b. A predictive investigation of reputation as mediator of the
political skill/career success relationship. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41:3026–48
Blickle G, Schütte N, Whiler A. 2018. Political will, work values, and objective career success: a novel
approach—the trait-reputation-identity model. J. Vocat. Behav. 107:42–56
Bolander W, Satornino CB, Hughes DE, Ferris GR. 2015. Social networks within sales organizations: their
development and importance for salesperson performance. J. Mark. 79(6):1–16
Bolino MC. 1999. Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors? Acad. Manag. Rev.
24(1):82–98
Bolino MC, Turnley WH. 1999. Measuring impression management in organizations: a scale development
based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organ. Res. Methods 2(2):187–206
Bolino MC, Turnley WH. 2003. More than one way to make an impression: exploring profiles of impression
management. J. Manag. 29(2):141–60
Bolino M, Long D, Turnley W. 2016. Impression management in organizations: critical questions, answers,
and areas for future research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:377–406
Bolman LG, Deal TE. 1991. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass
Brass DJ, Krackhardt DM. 2012. Power, politics, and social networks in organizations. See Ferris & Treadway
2012a, pp. 355–75
Breaux DM, Munyon TP, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. 2009. Politics as a moderator of the accountability—job
satisfaction relationship: evidence across three studies. J. Manag. 35(2):307–26
Brinkerhoff DW. 2000. Assessing political will for anti-corruption efforts: an analytic framework. Public Adm.
Dev. 20(3):239–50
Brouer RL, Douglas C, Treadway DC, Ferris GR. 2013. Leader political skill, relationship quality, and leader
effectiveness: a two-study model test and constructive replication. J. Leadsh. Organ. Stud. 20(2):185–98
Buchanan DA. 2008. You stab my back, I’ll stab yours: management experience and perceptions of organization
political behaviour. Br. J. Manag. 19(1):49–64

318 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Burris ER. 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: managerial responses to employee voice. Acad. Manag.
J. 55(4):851–75
Byrne ZS, Kacmar C, Stoner J, Hochwarter WA. 2005. The relationship between perceptions of politics and
depressed mood at work: unique moderators across three levels. J. Occup. Health Pychol. 10(4):330–43
Campbell WK, Hoffman BJ, Campbell SM, Marchisio G. 2011. Narcissism in organizational contexts. Hum.
Resour. Manag. Rev. 21(4):268–84
Chang CH, Rosen CC, Levy PE. 2009. The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and
employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: a meta-analytic examination. Acad. Manag. J. 52(4):779–801
Doldor E, Anderson D, Vinnicombe S. 2013. Refining the concept of political will: a gender perspective. Br.
J. Manag. 24(3):414–27
Drory A. 1993. Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organ. Stud. 14(1):59–71
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

Dutton JE, Ashford SJ, O’Neill RM, Lawrence KA. 2001. Moves that matter: issue selling and organizational
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

change. Acad. Manag. J. 44(4):716–36

Ellen BP III. 2014. Considering the positive possibilities of leader political behavior. J. Organ. Behav.
35(6):892–96
Ellen BP III, Ferris GR, Buckley MR. 2013. Leader political support: reconsidering leader political behavior.
Leadsh. Q. 24(6):842–57
Ellen BP III, Ferris GR, Buckley MR. 2016. Political is the new prosocial: leaders’ support of followers through
political behavior. See Vigoda-Gadot & Drory 2016, pp. 95–112
Ewen C, Wihler A, Blickle G, Oerder K, Ellen BP III, et al. 2013. Further specification of the leader po-
litical skill—leadership effectiveness relationships: transformational and transactional leader behavior as
mediators. Leadsh. Q. 24(4):516–33
Ewen C, Wihler A, Frieder RE, Blickle G, Hogan R, Ferris GR. 2014. Leader advancement motive, political
skill, leader behavior, and effectiveness: a moderated mediation extension of socioanalytic theory. Hum.
Perform. 27(5):373–92
Fedor DB, Maslyn J, Farmer S, Bettenhausen K. 2008. The contribution of positive politics to the prediction
of employee reactions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38(1):76–96
Ferris GR, Adams G, Kolodinsky R, Hochwarter W, Ammeter A. 2002a. Perceptions of organizational politics:
theory and research directions. In Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 1: The Many Faces of Multi-Level Issues,
ed. F Yammarino, F Dansereau, pp. 179–254. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Ferris GR, Berkson HM, Harris MM. 2002b. The recruitment interview process: persuasion and organization
reputation promotion in competitive labor markets. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 12:359–75
Ferris GR, Bhawuk DPS, Fedor DF, Judge TA. 1995. Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions
of intentionality and construct definition. In Attribution theory: An Organizational Perspective, ed. MJ
Martinko, pp. 231–52. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie
Ferris GR, Blass R, Douglas C, Kolodinsky RW, Treadway DC. 2003. Personal reputation in organizations.
In Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, ed. J Greenberg, pp. 211–46. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2nd ed.
Ferris GR, Fedor DB, King TR. 1994. A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 4(1):1–34
Ferris GR, Harrell-Cook G, Dulebohn JH. 2000. Organizational politics: the nature of the relationship
between politics perceptions and political behavior. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, pp. 89–
130. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Ferris GR, Harris JN, Russell ZA, Ellen BP III, Martinez AD, Blass FR. 2014. The role of reputation in the
organizational sciences: a multi-level review, construct assessment, and research directions. In Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 32, ed. MR Buckley, AR Wheeler, JRB Halbesleben,
pp. 241–303. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Ferris GR, Judge TA. 1991. Personnel/human resources management: a political influence perspective.
J. Manag. 17:447–88
Ferris GR, Kacmar KM. 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. J. Manag. 18:93–116
Ferris GR, Russ GS, Fandt PM. 1989. Politics in organizations. In Impression Management in the Organization.
ed. RA Glacalone, P Rosenfeld, pp. 143–70. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 319

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Ferris GR, Treadway DC, eds. 2012a. Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Ferris GR, Treadway DC. 2012b. Politics in organizations: history, construct specification, and research
directions. See Ferris & Treadway 2012a, pp. 3–26
Ferris GR, Treadway DC, Brouer RL, Munyon TP. 2012. Political skill in the organizational sciences. See
Ferris & Treadway 2012a, pp. 487–528
Ferris GR, Treadway DC, Kolodinsky RW, Hochwarter WA, Kacmar CJ, et al. 2005. Development and
validation of the political skill inventory. J. Manag. 31:126–52
Ferris GR, Treadway DC, Perrewé PL, Brouer RL, Douglas C, Lux S. 2007. Political skill in organizations.
J. Manag. 33:290–320
Fombrun CJ. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harv. Bus. Sch. Press
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

French JRP, Raven BH. 1968. The bases of social power. In Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ed.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

D Cartwright, A Zander, pp. 259–69. New York: Harper & Row.

Frese M, Fay D. 2001. Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Res.
Organ. Behav. 23:133–87
Gandz J, Murray VV. 1980. The experience of workplace politics. Acad. Manag. J. 23(2):237–51
Gentry WA, Gilmore DC, Shuffler ML, Leslie JB. 2012. Political skill as an indicator of promotability among
multiple rater sources. J. Organ. Behav. 33:89–104
Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday
Hall AT, Franczak J, Ma S, Herrera D, Hochwarter WA. 2017. Driving away the bad guys: the interactive
effects of politics perceptions and work drive across two studies. J. Leadsh. Organ. Stud. 24(1):106–20
Hall AT, Zinko R, Perryman AA, Ferris GR. 2009. Organizational citizenship behavior and reputation:
mediators in the relationships between accountability and job performance and satisfaction. J. Leadsh.
Organ. Stud. 15:381–92
Harris JN, Maher LP, Ferris GR. 2016. The roles of political skill and political will in job performance
prediction: a moderated nonlinear perspective. See Vigoda-Gadot & Drory 2016, pp. 15–39
Harris KJ, Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, Shaw JD. 2007. The impact of political skill on impression management
effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:278–85
Higgins C, Judge TA, Ferris GR. 2003. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav.
24:89–106
Hill S, Thomas A, Meriac J. 2016. Political behaviors, politics perceptions and work outcomes: moving to an
experimental study. See Vigoda-Gadot & Drory 2016, pp. 369–400
Hochwarter WA. 2003. The interactive effects of pro-political behavior and politics perceptions on job satis-
faction and affective commitment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33(7):1360–78
Hochwarter WA. 2012. The positive side of politics. See Ferris & Treadway 2012a, pp. 27–65
Hochwarter WA, Ellen BP III, Ferris GR. 2014. Examining the interactive effects of accountability, politics,
and voice. Career Dev. Int. 19(4):358–80
Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR, Laird MD, Treadway DC, Gallagher VC. 2010. Nonlinear politics perceptions—
work outcomes relationships: a three-study, five-sample investigation. J. Manag. 36:740–63
Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR, Zinko R, Arnell B, James M. 2007. Reputation as a moderator of political
behavior–work outcomes relationships: a two-study investigation with convergent results. J. Appl. Psychol.
92:567–76
Hochwarter WA, Treadway DC. 2003. The interactive effects of negative and positive affect on the politics
perceptions–job satisfaction relationship. J. Manag. 29:551–67
Hochschild AR. 1979. Emotional work, feeling rules, and social structure. Am. J. Sociol. 85:551–75
Jones EE, Pittman TS. 1982. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychol. Perspect. on Self
1:231–62
Kacmar KM, Bachrach DG, Harris KJ, Zivnuska S. 2011. Fostering good citizenship through ethical leader-
ship: exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. J. Appl. Psychol. 96(3):633–42
Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, White CD. 2007. Control and exchange: the impact of work environment on the
work effort of low relationship quality employees. Leadsh. Q. 18(1):69–84
Kane-Frieder RE, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. 2014a. Terms of engagement: political boundaries of work
engagement–work outcomes relationships. Hum. Relat. 67(3):357–82

320 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Kane-Frieder RE, Hochwarter WA, Hampton HL, Ferris GR. 2014b. Supervisor political support as a buffer
to subordinates’ reactions to politics perceptions: a three-sample investigation. Career Dev. Int. 19(1):27–
48
Kapoutsis I, Papalexandris A, Treadway DC, Bentley J. 2017. Measuring political will in organizations theo-
retical construct development and empirical validation. J. Manag. 43(7):2252–80
Kiewitz C, Restubog SLD, Zagenczyk T, Hochwarter W. 2009. The interactive effects of psychological
contract breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational support: evidence from two lon-
gitudinal studies. J. Manag. Stud. 46(5):806–34
Kimura T. 2015. A review of political skill: current research trend and directions for future research. Int. J.
Manag. Rev. 17(3):312–32
Kipnis D, Schmidt SM. 1988. Upward-influence styles: relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

stress. Adm. Sci. Q. 33(4):528–42

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Kipnis D, Schmidt SM, Wilkinson I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one’s
way. J. Appl. Psychol. 65(4):440–52
Kolodinsky R, Treadway DC, Ferris GR. 2007. Political skill and influence effectiveness: testing portions of
an expanded Ferris and Judge 1991 model. Hum. Relat. 60:1747–77
Laird MD, Zboja JJ, Ferris GR. 2012. Partial mediation of the political skill–reputation relationship. Career
Dev. Int. 17(6):557–82
Laird MD, Zboja JJ, Martinez AD, Ferris GR. 2013. Performance and political skill in personal reputation
assessments. J. Manag. Psychol. 28(6):661–76
Lasswell H. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: Whittlesey
Lee S, Han S, Cheong M, Kim SL, Yun S. 2017. How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research
on influence tactics. Leadsh. Q. 28(1):210–28
Lepisto DA, Pratt MG. 2012. Politics in perspectives: on the theoretical challenges and opportunities in
studying organizational politics. See Ferris & Treadway 2012a, pp. 67–98
Lewin K. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill
Liden RC, Mitchell TR. 1988. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13(4):572–
87
Liu Y, Liu J, Wu L. 2010. Are you willing and able? Roles of motivation, power, and politics in career growth.
J. Manag. 36(6):1432–60
Long DM, Baer MD, Colquitt JA, Outlaw R, Dhensa-Kahlon RK. 2015. What will the boss think? The
impression management implications of supportive relationships with star and project peers. Pers. Psychol.
68(3):463–98
Machiavelli N. 1952 (1532). The Prince, transl. L Ricci, first published in 1903. New York: New Am. Libr.
Madison DL, Allen RW, Porter LW, Renwick PA, Mayes BT. 1980. Organizational politics: an exploration
of managers’ perceptions. Hum. Relat. 33(2):79–100
Magnusen MJ, McAllister CP, Kim JW, Perrewé PL, Ferris GR. 2017. The reputation playbook: exploring
how reputation can be leveraged to improve recruiting effectiveness in NCAA men’s basketball. J. Appl.
Sport Manag. 9(2):11–24
Maher LP, Gallagher VC, Rossi AM, Ferris GR, Perrewé PL. 2018. Political skill and will as predictors of
impression management frequency and style: a three-study investigation. J. Vocat. Behav. 107:276–94
Martinez AD, Russell ZA, Maher LP, Brandon-Lai SA, Ferris GR. 2017. The sociopolitical implications of
firm reputation: firm financial reputation × social reputation interaction on firm financial performance.
J. Leadsh. Organ. Stud. 24(1):55–64
McAllister CP, Ellen BP III, Ferris GR. 2018. Social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and
capitalization: increased theoretical specification through political skill’s dimensional dynamics. J. Manag.
44(5):1926–52
McAllister CP, Ellen BP III, Perrewé PL, Ferris GR, Hirsch DJ. 2015. Checkmate: using political skill to
recognize and capitalize on opportunities in the ‘game’ of organizational life. Bus. Horiz. 58(1):25–34
Miller B, Rutherford M, Kolodinsky R. 2008. Perceptions of organizational politics: a meta-analysis of out-
comes. J. Bus. Psychol. 22:209–22
Mintzberg H. 1983. Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 321

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Mintzberg H. 1985. The organization as political arena. J. Manag. Stud. 22(2):133–54

Munyon TP, Summers JK, Thompson KW, Ferris GR. 2015. Political skill and work outcomes: a theoretical
extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Pers. Psychol. 68(1):143–84
Perrewé PL, Ferris GR, Frink DD, Anthony WP. 2000. Political skill: an antidote for workplace stressors.
Acad. Manag. Exec. 14:115–23
Perrewé PL, Zellars KL, Ferris GR, Rossi AM, Kacmar CJ, et al. 2004. Neutralizing job stressors: political
skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Acad. Manag. J. 47:141–52
Perrewé PL, Zellars KL, Rossi AM, Ferris GR, Kacmar CJ, et al. 2005. Political skill: an antidote in the role
overload–strain relationship. J. Occup. Health Pychol. 10:239–50
Pfeffer J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Boston: Pitman
Pfeffer J. 2009. Low grades for performance reviews. Bloomberg Bus. Week, July 23. https://www.bloomberg.
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

com/news/articles/2009-07-23/low-grades-for-performance-reviews
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Pinder CC, Moore LF. 1980. The resurrection of taxonomy to aid the development of middle range theories
of organizational behavior. In Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations, ed. CC Pinder, LF
Moore, pp. 187–211. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
Porter LW. 1976. Organizations as political animals. Presidential address for Division of Industrial-
Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC
Porter LW, Allen RW, Angle HL. 1981. The politics of upward influence in organizations. In Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, ed. LL Cummings, BM Staw, pp. 109–49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Post LA, Raile AN, Raile ED. 2010. Defining political will. Polit. Policy 38(4):653–76
Rhodewalt F, Peterson B. 2009. Narcissism. In Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, ed. MR
Leary, RH Hoyle, pp. 547–61. New York: Guilford
Rosen CC, Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Chen Y, Yan M. 2014. Perceptions of organizational politics: a need
satisfaction paradigm. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1026–55
Rosen CC, Harris KJ, Kacmar KM. 2009. The emotional implications of organizational politics: a process
model. Hum. Relat. 62(1):27–57
Rosen CC, Hochwarter WA. 2014. Looking back and falling further behind: the moderating role of rumination
on the relationship between organizational politics and employee attitudes, well-being, and performance.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 124(2):177–89
Rosen CC, Levy P, Hall R. 2006. Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment,
employee attitudes, and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:211–20
Sankowsky D. 1995. The charismatic leader as narcissist: understanding the abuse of power. Organ. Dyn.
23(4):57–71
Sederberg PC. 1984. The Politics of Meaning: Power and Explanation in the Construction of Social Reality. Tucson,
AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press
Semadar A, Robins G, Ferris G. 2006. Comparing the effects of multiple social effectiveness constructs on
managerial performance. J. Organ. Behav. 27:443–61
Sharfman MP, Wolf G, Chase RB, Tansik DA. 1988. Antecedents of organizational slack. Acad. Manag. Rev.
13(4):601–14
Shaughnessy BA, Treadway DC, Breland JW, Perrewé PL. 2017. Informal leadership status and individual
performance: the roles of political skill and political will. J. Leadsh. Organ. Stud. 24(1):83–94
Simon HA. 1957. Models of Man. New York: Wiley
Smircich L, Morgan G. 1982. Leadership: the management of meaning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 18(3):257–73
Smith AD, Plowman DA, Duchon D, Quinn AM. 2009. A qualitative study of high-reputation plant managers:
political skill and successful outcomes. J. Oper. Manag. 27:428–43
Smith AN, Watkins MB, Burke MJ, Christian MS, Smith CE, et al. 2013. Gendered influence: a gender role
perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. J. Manag. 39(5):1156–83
Sun S, Chen H. 2017. Is political behavior a viable coping strategy to perceived organizational politics?
Unveiling the underlying resource dynamics. J. Appl. Psychol. 102(10):1471–82
Sun S, van Emmerik HI. 2015. Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator.
J. Appl. Psychol. 100:966–75

322 Ferris et al.

 OP06CH13_Ferris ARI 4 December 2018 10:24

Tedeschi JT, Melburg V. 1984. Impression management and influence in the organization. Res. Sociol. Organ.
3:31–58
Treadway DC. 2012. Political will in organizations. See Ferris & Treadway 2012a, pp. 531–66
Treadway DC, Adams G, Hanes TJ, Perrewé PL, Magnusen MJ, Ferris GR. 2014a. The roles of recruiter
political skill and performance resource leveraging in NCAA football recruitment effectiveness. J. Manag.
40(6):1607–26
Treadway DC, Bentley JR, Williams LM, Wallace AS. 2014b. The skill to lead: the role of political skill in
leadership dynamics. In The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, ed. DV Day, pp. 505–23.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Treadway DC, Ferris GR, Douglas C, Hochwarter WA, Kacmar C, et al. 2004. Leader political skill and
employee reactions. Leadsh. Q. 15:493–513
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.

Treadway DC, Ferris GR, Duke A, Adams G, Thatcher J. 2007. The moderating role of subordinate political
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of interpersonal facilitation.

J. Appl. Psychol. 92:848–55
Treadway DC, Ferris GR, Hochwarter WA, Perrewé PL, Witt LA, Goodman J. 2005a. The role of age in
the perceptions of politics–job performance relationship: a three-study constructive replication. J. Appl.
Psychol. 90:872–81
Treadway DC, Hochwarter WA, Kacmar CJ, Ferris GR. 2005b. Political will, political skill, and political
behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 26(3):229–45
Tsui AS. 1984. A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 34:64–96
Valle M, Kacmar KM, Andrews MC. 2015. Does perceived insincerity influence managerial ratings of per-
formance and promotability? J. Organ. Hum. Behav. 4(2):1–10
Valle M, Perrewé PL. 2000. Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assump-
tion and expanded model. Hum. Relat. 53(3):359–86
Vecchio RP, Sussmann M. 1991. Choice of influence tactics: individual and organizational determinants.
J. Organ. Behav. 12(1):73–80
Vigoda E. 2002. Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among politics, job distress,
and aggressive behavior in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 23:571–91
Vigoda-Gadot E, Drory A. 2016. Handbook of Organizational Politics: Looking Back and to the Future. Northamp-
ton, MA: Elgar. 2nd ed.
Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Wihler A, Blickle G, Ellen BP III, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. 2017. Personal initiative and job performance
evaluations: role of political skill in opportunity recognition and capitalization. J. Manag. 43:1388–420
Yukl G, Falbe CM. 1990. Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts.
J. Appl. Psychol. 75(2):132–40
Zanzi A, Arthur MB, Shamir B. 1991. The relationships between career concerns and political tactics in
organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 12(3):219–33
Zellars KL, Perrewé PL, Rossi AM, Tepper BJ, Ferris GR. 2008. Moderating effects of political skill, perceived
control, and self-efficacy on the relationship between negative affectivity and physiological strain. J. Organ.
Behav. 29:549–71

www.annualreviews.org • Organizational Politics 323

 OP06_TOC ARI 21 December 2018 18:2

Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior

Contents Volume 6, 2019

Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Perspectives of a Practitioner-Scientist on Organizational

Psychology/Organizational Behavior
Gary P. Latham p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Embracing Complexity: Reviewing the Past Decade of Team
Effectiveness Research
John E. Mathieu, Peter T. Gallagher, Monique A. Domingo,
and Elizabeth A. Klock p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
Self-Leadership: A Paradoxical Core of Organizational Behavior
Greg L. Stewart, Stephen H. Courtright, and Charles C. Manz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p47
Diversity in the Workplace: A Review, Synthesis, and Future
Research Agenda
Quinetta M. Roberson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p69
The Moment of Truth: A Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda for
the Customer Service Experience
Markus Groth, Yu Wu, Helena Nguyen, and Anya Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p89
Goal Orientation: A Review of the Miles Traveled and the Miles to Go
Don Vandewalle, Christina G.L. Nerstad, and Anders Dysvik p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
Psychological Contracts: Past, Present, and Future
Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro, Sandra Pereira Costa, Wiebke Doden,
and Chiachi Chang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145
Selection for Fit
Murray R. Barrick and Laura Parks-Leduc p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 171
The Changing Nature of Employee and Labor-Management
Relationships
Thomas A. Kochan, Christine A. Riordan, Alexander M. Kowalski,
Mahreen Khan, and Duanyi Yang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
When Is Proactivity Wise? A Review of Factors That Influence the
Individual Outcomes of Proactive Behavior
Sharon K. Parker, Ying Wang, and Jenny Liao p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
 OP06_TOC ARI 21 December 2018 18:2

The Evolution of Performance Management: Searching for Value

Elaine D. Pulakos, Rose Mueller-Hanson, and Sharon Arad p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 249
Employee Psychoactive Substance Involvement: Historical Context,
Key Findings, and Future Directions
Michael R. Frone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 273
Reorganizing Organizational Politics Research: A Review of the
Literature and Identification of Future Research Directions
Gerald R. Ferris, B. Parker Ellen III, Charn P. McAllister,
and Liam P. Maher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 299
Access provided by b-on: ISCTE-IUL - Instituto Universitario de Lisboa on 02/11/24. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019.6:299-323. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Team-Level Constructs
David Chan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 325
Toward a Better Understanding of Assessment Centers: A Conceptual
Review
Martin Kleinmann and Pia V. Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 349
Emotional Energy, Relational Energy, and Organizational Energy:
Toward a Multilevel Model
Wayne E. Baker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 373
Toward Reviving an Occupation with Occupations
Erich C. Dierdorff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Research on Work as a Calling. . . and How to Make It Matter
Jeffery A. Thompson and J. Stuart Bunderson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 421

Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/
orgpsych