Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

A synthesis of literature on organizational politics

Sami Ullah
Lecturer, Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore
sami.mgt@gmail.com
Dr. Abu Rashid Jafri
Institute of Administrative Sciences
University of the Punjab, Lahore
Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost
Hailey College of Commerce
University of the Punjab, Lahore
khyzer_bin_dost@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The interest of academicians and practitioners has grown substantially about the concept of
organizational politics since last decade. Articles and books are reviewed using conceptualization
of organizational politics as a criterion. The synthesis of literature is arranged with respect to
definition of organizational politics, political behavior, and political skills of employees. It was
found that qualitative research methodology is less frequently used as compared to quantitative
research methodology. Triangulation as the best suited research methodology is suggested at the
end. Also opportunities for future research in the field of organizational politics are discussed.
Keywords: Organizational Politics, Political Behavior, Political Skills, Triangulation,
Qualitative Research
Paper Type: Research Paper

INTRODUCATION
The concept of organizational politics started getting interest of academicians and practitioners in
the last decade. The body of literature on organizational politics is expanding but still the
research remains distorted with respect to theory and research methodologies adopted. Despite a
lot of empirical data conceptual vagueness still exist. Organizational politics is proved to be fact
of life (Vigoda-Gadot, 2001a). Regardless of the widespread acceptance of presence of
organizational politics proved by empirical research this aspect of life at workplace remained
polemic. Before 1970s organizational politics was considered as verboten in the field of
management.
Organizational politics started getting growing attention when the concept of organizational
rationality was challenged because of the emergence of concepts like person-organization misfit,
and incompatibility of personal and organizational goals. The concept of organizational

36

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

rationality was based on the idea that individuals decide their goals by keeping in view the
organizational goals and are expected to work for the achievement of their personal goals
according to the rules and regulations of the organization. But a realistic picture of life at
workplace showed the existence of conflicting goals within the organization. This existence of
conflicting goals in organization gave birth to the organizational politics because organizational
politics is considered as a mean to resolve the conflicts of people in organization.
Organizational politics has proved to be an important part of both public and private sector
organizations, therefore researchers argue for the need of further investigation of the issue (Drory
& Romm, 1990; DuBrin, 1988; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Mintzberg, 1983; Parker, Dipboye, &
Jackson, 1995; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). The literature on organizational politics was systematically
reviewed to discover how academicians and practitioners have defined and examined
organizational politics in existing literature. It is better to summarize at first how organizational
politics is defined by researchers in management, to achieve the objective of conceptual
synthesis.
DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS
The disagreement of researchers over the definition of politics in organizations has remained an
issue in the field of management. This lack of consensus is also an indication of ongoing debate
over the issue of organizational politics (Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2006). The interchangeable use
of identical terms like: political skill, influence tactics, impression management, political
behaviors, and political maneuvering etc. have made research in the field of organizational
politics fragmented. Therefore, some conceptual ambiguities are necessary to be removed before
starting report on literature reviewed.
Organizational Politics
Organizational politics is defined as the existence of multiple interests and incompatible goals,
beyond the goals of organization, and the influence techniques used to defend them.
Political Behavior
Political behavior means observable behaviors of individual while pursuing their goals. These
political behaviors are nominated in the field of management as political strategies, influence
tactics, political tactics, and political maneuvering. Some political behaviors are given specific
names like: impression management, blandishment, referencing etc.
According to Doldor (2007) the term Politics is about management and decision making
processes of social groups (Doldor, 2007). However, organizational politics means the influence
processes enacted to manage the multiple competing interests existing in the organizations.
Pfeffer (1981) defined organizational politics as: activities taken within organizations to
acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain ones preferred outcomes in a
situation in which there is uncertainty or dis-sensus about choices (Pfeffer, 1981). KurchnerHawkins and Miller (2006) considered organizational politics as an exercise of power and
influence that primarily occurs outside of formal organizational processes and procedures.
Political behaviors consist of influence tactics designed to further self and/or organizational
interests, and its basic aim is to reconcile and effectively manage such potentially competing
interests (Kurchner-Hawkins & Miller, 2006). Drory and Romm (1990) argued that power is an

37

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

organizational resource which increases as a result of controlling the resources of organization

and politics is related to such power attainment.
Kakabadse and Parker (1984) stated that changing the balance of power is the basic intention
behind using organizational politics. In 1992, Pfeffer while discussing the association between
power and politics, defined power as the ability to influence behavior, to change the course of
events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do
(Pfeffer, 1992), whereas politics was defined as the processes, the actions, the behaviors
through which this potential power is utilized and realized (Pfeffer, 1992). According to
Buchanan and Badham (2007) power can be defined as the ability to get people to do what you
want them to do and politics means power into action, using a range of techniques and tactics.
In 1990, Drory and Romm found politics to be different from the exercise of authority or other
formally prescribed behaviors in organization. Thus politics is related to the behaviors beyond
the organizational policies and prescribed norms, either because of stimuli behind those
behaviors or because of strategies adopted to pursue them. Influence tactics like secrecy, subtle
maneuvering, obliging the persons at key positions, and ingratiation are constantly mentioned in
research as manners of exercising power (Buchanan, 1999; Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Harris,
James, & Boonthanom, 2005). Besides approving that political behaviors are informal in nature
and different from the formal job requirements in organization, Sussman, Adams, Kuzmits, and
Rocho (2002) found that different channels of communication are used by employees for sending
politically motivated and task related messages. Face to face communication was preferred for
conveying political messages, whereas written communication was used more frequently to
communicate work related messages. Therefore, at least two parties are necessary to exhibit
some political behavior by exercising influence tactics. Since the influence tactics are used to
achieve goals incompatible with organizational goals, therefore informal influence tactics are
considered as a major dimension of organizational politics (Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwich &
Mayes, 1979; Buchanan, 1999; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Ralston, Giacalone & Terpstra, 1994;
Sussman et al., 2002; Zanzi & O'Neill, 2001).
Back in the start of 1980s informal influence tactics were argued to be mostly directed upward in
hierarchy (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, & Mayes, 1981). However in the more recent
period, Zanzi and ONeill (2001) found that flat organizational structures have increased the
level of politics in organizations in two ways i.e. by reducing the chances to go upward in
hierarchy, and by increasing the role of collaboration of employees at the same level. Thus it is
not surprising that political behaviors are found more frequent in peer-to-peer collaborations than
in vertical interactions (Sussman et al., 2002). Therefore it is not necessary that political behavior
will be always directed hierarchically upward.
POLITICAL BEHAVIORS
Literature on political behaviors is reviewed keeping four main aspects in view: goals, means,
antecedents, and consequences. Goals of political behavior means; why political behaviors are
enacted by employees in an organization? Means of political behavior is related to how political
behaviors are performed? Antecedents of political behavior indicate what makes political
behaviors more likely? The consequences show the outcomes of political behaviors performed
by the individuals in organization.

38

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

Goals
The papers and books reviewed to know the nature of political behavior mentioned personal
goals and goals of group to be the main objective behind the use of political behavior. Studies on
organizational politics have focused political behaviors and intentions of employees actively
using organizational politics in organization (Coopey & Burgoyne, 2000; Diefenbach, 2007;
Grossmann, 2006; Sussman et al., 2002; Peled, 2000). Frost and Hayes (1977), in one of the
most pioneer paper on organizational politics mentioned that political behavior is used by the
employees for their personal interest in the organizational processes. Political behavior of
employees in an organization is related to the struggle for being powerful and individual interests
beyond the organizational agenda (Schein, 1977; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2010). Allen et al.
(1979) defined organizational politics as intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the
self interest of individuals or groups. Even pursuing personal goals through political behavior is
considered as threat to others behavior in the organization (Porter, Allen, & Angel, 1981).
Nature of political behavior is thus attributed to the intention of the employee using
organizational politics (Davis & Gardner, 2004).
The issue of pursuing personal goals is not as simple (Buchanan, 1999; Drory & Romm, 1990) as
it is considerd. Firstly, it is not necessary that personal goals are always opposite to the
organizational goals; on contrary to this personal goals of employees might be helpful in
achievement of organizational goals. For example if a manager is using political behavior to
enhance his/her personal reputation, it will also increase leadership effectiveness. Managers use
political behavior to get the things done by others (Fedor & Maslyn, 2002). Secondly, working
for the achievement of personal goals is not completely synonymous with political behavior.
Therefore self interest alone is not the sufficient criterion to distinguish between political and
other organizational behaviors.
Ignoring or damaging the interest of other people, along with self interest, is another frequently
happening behavior in the organizations (Drory & Romm, 1988; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Porter,
Allen & Angle, 1981; Zahra, 1985). Mayes and Allen (1977) argued that either the consequences
of political behavior or the means used in political behavior are not sanctioned by the rules and
regulations of the organization. Although political behaviors are not always mentioned in formal
rules and regulations of organization but it does not mean that these are always antisocial. A
range of social and antisocial means are used by employees for engagement in organizational
politics. Therefore it is not only the personal goals of the employee that can make the use of
political behavior threatening for others, but also the means associated.
The effort of employees to gain resources of organization or to hold key position in organization
is also frequently associated with political behaviors in the organization. As a result of the
concept of bounded rationality, resources are not only distributed on the basis of prescribed rules
and regulations of the organization, but also on the basis of some hidden agendas. Gands and
Murray (1980) differentiated between the political behaviors that focus on using social influence
and authority for allocation of resources and those that focus on achieving personal goals by
threatening the goals of other employees in the organization. The managers interviewed by
Gands and Murray (1980) pointed out that competition for gaining organizational resources or
advantages is one of the most important issue about organizational politics. Since the upper

39

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

hierarchical level of the organization is usually responsible for allocation of resources, therefore
organizational politics is perceived to be more recurrent at higher levels (Zahra, 1985).
Means
Employees in organizations use various influence techniques to achieve their personal goals
through organizational politics. Studies have used influence tactics to better operationlize the
concept of organizational politics (Vigoda-Gadot, 2001b). Many political tactics used by
employees were found while reviewing papers having the term politics included in their title or
abstract.
According to the broader definition of organizational politics which considered both purpose and
context of behavior for deciding a behavior to be political or not, the influence tactics can be
labeled as political. Various nomenclatures of influence tactics are found in literature regarding
organizational politics.
Allen et al. (1979) found eight frequently mentioned categories of influence tactics in their study
about political behavior of the managers in organizations: attacking or blaming others, use of
information, impression management, support building for ideas, ingratiation, coalitions,
association with influential and creating obligations.
The study conducted by Kipnis, Schimidt, Swaffin-Smith, & Wilkinson (1980) is considered as
one of the pioneer study on organizational politics. The political tactics found by Kipnis et al.
(1980) are: Assertiveness, Ingratiation, Rationality, Sanctions, Exchange, Upward-Appeal,
Blocking, and Coalition. These tactics proved to be a landmark in defining the operative use of
politics in organizations.
The target on which political tactics are to be used is very important in the use of political tactics.
Wayne and Ferris (1990) found in their study that influence tactics can be categorized into three
types with respect to the target at which they are aimed: supervisor focused, job focused, and self
focused. The success in using organizational politics is related to the careful analysis of the
situation and then deciding target and target focused tactics carefully.
Kumar and Ghadially (1989) studied four types of influence tactics: ingratiation, structure
change, cooptation and threat, whilst Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984) found eleven influence
tactics: accumulate and control resources, bargain, form coalitions/informal teams, orchestrate
events, maintain personal flexibility, reduce dependence on others and instill dependence within
others, engage in conflict, anticipate and prepare for others actions and reactions, cultivate good
interpersonal relations, exploit others, and manage career.
The influence tactics found by Ferris and Kacmar (1992) using the Perceived Organizational
Politics Scale (POPS) are: favoritism, ingratiation, withholding or distorting information,
coalitions, impression management, voicing, exchanges and reciprocity. They used these tactics
for the conceptual analysis of organizational politics.
Judge and Bretz (1994) have identified ingratiation and self-promotion to be the frequently used
influence tactics by the employees. The influence tactics found by Ralston, Giacalone and
Terprsta (1994) are overlapping with the tactics found in previous studies: Good Soldier (hard

40

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

work), Rational Persuasion (earning consideration on the basis of abilities and

accomplishments), Ingratiation, Image Management, Personal Networking, Information Control
and Strong-Arm Coercion (illegal tactics such as blackmail).
Zanzi, Arthur and Shamir (1991) have identified a long list of influence tactics used by
employees in organizational politics: exchange of favors, cooptation, rituals and symbols,
manipulation, mentoring, organizational placements, persuasion, coping with uncertainty,
intimidation and innuendos, control of information, rule-oriented tactics, using surrogates, image
building, rule-evading tactics, networking, ingratiation, super-ordinate goals, providing
resources, use of expertise, piggybacking, blaming or attacking others, outside experts and
coalition building.
Zanzi and ONeill (2001) used social desirability as a parameter to differentiate between political
tactics. The more socially desirable influence tactics were found to be: use of expertise, superordinate goals, image building, networking, persuasion and coalition building. The influence
tactics disliked by the political actors were: intimidation, use of surrogates, blame or attack,
manipulation, organizational placement, cooptation and control of information.
A rich repertoire of political tactics was found by Buchanan and Badham (2007) in their study on
the political involvement of employees: selective information, favoritism, avoiding criticism,
using key players to support initiatives, stimulating debate, self-promotion, rewards, coercion,
threat, blaming others for mistakes, taking credit for the work of others, using others to deliver
bad news, highlighting other peoples errors, compromising now to win later, misinformation,
rumor spreading and blackmail. It seems that a wide range of influence tactics are used by the
employees but many of the tactics found in different studies are overlapping.
Determinants
The factors causing employees to exhibit political behavior in organization can be categorized
into individual and structural factors (Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2006). Structural factors
stimulating employees for political behavior refer to the context of organization. The individual
determinants denote the personality characteristics that prompt employees to involve in political
activities.
Structural Factors
The existence of open or subtle conflict within the workplace is considered as the most frequent
contextual factor leading to political behavior of employees. The reason of such overt or covert
conflict could be disagreement over the achievement of organizational goals or the strategies to
achieve them (Dill & Pearson, 1984; Farrell & Petersen, 1982; James & Arroba, 1988;
Velasquez, Moberg & Cavanagh, 1983; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984; Zahra, 1989).
The likelihood of exhibiting political behavior increases with the increase in role ambiguity, and
goal ambiguity (Drory & Romm, 1990; Novelli, Flynn, & Elloy, 1994; Pfeffer, 1981;
Vredenburg, & Maurer, 1984). Gandz and Murray (1980) found in their study that organizational
processes with few prescribed rules and regulations were perceived to be more political by the
managers. Ferris and Kacmar (1992) also found formal organizational processes to be negatively
related to perceived organizational politics. Moreover, scarce resources also encourage political

41

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

involvement of employees; on the other hand sufficient organizational resources make

achievement of disjointed goals a little easy. The political behaviors play significant role in the
organizational change process (Buchanan & Badham, 1999; Gray & Ariss, 1985). Structural
factors like; uncertainty and ambiguity, resource management, and redistribution of power, in the
process of change in organization stimulate employee involvement in organizational politics.
The spatial role of an employee or department also found to have a critical role in stimulating
politics in organization. This spatial role provides the ability to create resource dependence
(Pettigrew, 1973). Madison et al. (1980) found in their study on the perception of managers
about organizational politics that marketing and finance departments are considered to be more
politics oriented than other departments in the organization. Managerial levels are also proved by
empirical studies to be more political than non-managerial levels. The organization politics is
perceived to be more sever when any employee at managerial level loses power or authority in
organization (Drory, 1993; Novelli, Flynn & Elloy, 1994).
Individual Factors
Personality characteristics are found to be of utmost importance in the political involvement of
employees. The frequently mentioned personality characteristics in literature about
organizational politics are discussed below. The belief of employees about their ability to control
the events happening in organization is found to be related to their political involvement (Doldor,
2007). Employees were found to have two kinds of believes about their ability to control the
events happening in organization. One kind of belief named internal control included the
employees with belief to have high level of control over their personal outcomes. Second kind of
belief named external control included employees who consider that their life is controlled by
some external forces. Empirical studies have found that external control was positively
associated with desire for political engagement (Kirchymeyer, 1990; Zahra, 1989).
Status is found to be playing an important role in predicting political behavior (Doldor, 2007).
Status simply means the position of an employee in the hierarchy of an organization. Employees
at lower level in organizational hierarchy are usually negatively affected by organizational
politics (Drory, 1993); therefore they perceive organizational decision making processes to be
more politically dictated than their counterparts. This type of negative perception of
organizational politics creates job dissatisfaction (Drory, 1993; Novelli, Flynn, & Elloy, 1994) in
employees at low level. The use of influence tactics in organizational politics was also found
related to the status of political actors (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Sussman et al., 2002).
The employees with need for achievement were found to be more inclined towards using
organizational politics (Allen et al., 1979; Treadway et al., 2005; Zahra, 1989). Managers were
found by Porter, Allen, and Angel (1981) to be specifically hungry for the need for power. In his
study on role of gender in political involvement of employees, Kirchmeyer (1990) found that
need for the power plays major role in the women involvement in organizational politics.
Managers think that it is very difficult for them to avoid organizational politics (Ferris,
Treadway, et al., 2007) because of their role in organization. Therefore political involvement of
managers could be the result of either individual factors or structural factors or both.

42

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

The employees having inclination towards taking risks are likely to be more engaged in politics
because this type of employees are usually found violating the prescribed rules and regulations of
the organization (Darr & Johns, 2004; Porter et al., 1981). Successful users of organizational
politics were found by Allen et al. (1979) to be tricky and exploitive. Research on the women
involvement in organizational politics is scarce but it is found that women dislike politics in
organization.
Consequences
Studies conducted on organizational politics have mixed opinions about its consequences.
However, negative outcomes of organizational politics are more highlighted than positive
outcomes. Buchanan and Badham (2007) categorized both positive and negative outcomes of
organizational politics at individual and organizational level.
Career success, fulfillment of power needs, and status achievement are the main outcomes
attracting the individual employees for involvement in organizational politics (Mann, 1995;
Perrwe & Nelson, 2004). Involvement in organizational politics is found necessary for the good
performance of leaders (Bacharach, 2005; Hartley & Branick, 2006). Managers use
organizational politics to get the work done by others efficiently and effectively (Madison et al.,
1980). Engagement in organizational politics is positively related to the reputation of the
employees (Bacharach, 2005; Hochwater, Ferris, Zinko, Arnell, & James, 2007), but it can also
have negative impact on personal reputation (Buchanan & Badham, 2007). Positive perception
about the organizational politics was found to be related to the satisfaction with job, supervisor,
and work environment (Fedor, Maslyn, Farmer, & Betternhausen, 2008). Madison et al. (1979)
found loss of power, and key position to be the main dysfunctional effects at individual level
because of involvement in organizational politics. However stress, dissatisfaction, and anxiety
are the other dysfunctional consequences (Miller, Rutherford, & Kolodinsky, 2008) of
employees involvement in organizational politics.
At organizational level the impact of organizational politics is very critical in nature. Political
behaviors are found to have both functional and dysfunctional effects at organizational level as
well. Employee involvement in organizational politics affects organizational performance,
effectiveness, decision making, and change processes in organization (Buchanan & Badham,
2007). Studies with narrow definition of organizational politics found it negatively related to
performance of organization (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010). Madison et al. (1979) found
organizational performance to be positively related to the involvement of managers in
organizational politics. Managers highly involved in organizational politics were found to be
achieving goals of organization with the help of organizational politics. Therefore managerial
involvement in organizational politics was proposed to be necessary for the survival of the
organization (Madison et al., 1979). Organizational politics is also found to be negatively related
to the employee perception about the fairness and justice in the organizational processes
(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Aryee, Chen, & Budhwar, 2004; Beugre & Liverpool, 2006; Ferris
et al., 1995). These individual and organizational level consequences are very critical and play
very important role in the smooth functioning of organization and in achievement of
organizational goals. Therefore, the issue of organizational politics should be taken care of by the
management of every organization.

43

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

The main objective behind the reviewing literature about organizational politics was to know
how organizational politics is defined and examined in the existing studies. A range of terms
related to organizational politics, definition, and tools of measuring organizational politics found
in literature are very useful. Designing methodology very carefully is important in examining
organizational politics. Though still fragmented, this field of research has constantly grown since
the 1970s and fosters numerous research opportunities.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
A few research gaps are identified with the help of literature reviewed and findings of this study.
The literature on the role of personality characteristics and involvement of employees in
organizational politics is strikingly scarce. This research gap became obvious in the process of
literature review and personality characteristics proved to be very significant for employee
involvement in organizational politics in the data analysis process of this study. Therefore it is
necessary to conduct more studies to explore personality characteristics based behavioral
patterns with respect to organizational politics, so that this research gap could be abridged.
There is need to clearly differentiate between the attitude towards organizational politics and
belief about organizational politics to understand political and non-political behaviors of
employees. There is difference between not using organizational politics when you are not aware
of the impact of hidden rules and regulations and informal powers possessed by you, and when
you are aware of the impact and opportunities for involvement in organizational politics but you
avoid using organizational politics i.e. distaste for organizational politics. Future research is
needed to be conducted in this direction.
Finally neither qualitative studies nor quantitative studies have alone explained the determinants,
consequences, and process of organizational politics in a manner that it could be applicable in
different cultural settings. This is the main reason for the fragmentation of literature on
organizational politics. Therefore use of triangulation as a research methodology is suggested to
conduct research on organizational politics in future. Qualitative research should be conducted at
first to find the factors about organizational politics and then quantitative tools (questionnaire) be
used to have generalize-able results of organizational politics. However, well thought out plan of
research is necessary for using triangulation approach.
REFERENCES
Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979).
Organizational Politics-Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors. California
management review, 22 (1), 77-83.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, M. K. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice,
and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange Fairness and Employee
Performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics
and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
94(1), 114.
Bacharach, S. B. (2005). Get them on your side: Win support, convert skeptics, get results, La
Crosse, WI: Platinum Press.

44

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and Politics in Organizations, San Francisco:
JosseyBass.
Beugre, C. D., & Liverpool, P. R. (2006). Politics as Determinant of Fairness Perceptions in
Organizations, in Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Drory, A., (eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Politics (122-135), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Buchanan, D. A. (1999). The logic of political action: An experiment with the epistemology of
the particular. British Journal of Management, 10, 73-88.
Buchanan, D. A. (2008). You Stab My Back, Ill Stab Yours: Management Experience and
Perceptions of Organization Political Behaviour. British Journal of Management,
19, 4964.
Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (1999). Politics and Organizational Change: The Lived
Experience. Human Relations, 52 (5), 609-629.
Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational change: winning the
turf game, London: Sage Publications.
Coopey, J., & Burgoyne, J. (2000). Politics and Organizational Learning. Journal of
Management Studies, 37(6), 869-885.
Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2004). Political decision-making climates: Theoretical processes and
multi-level antecedents. Human Relations, 57, 169200.
Davis, W., & Gardner, W. (2004). Perceptions of Politics and Organizational Cynicism: An
Attributional and Leader-Member Exchange Perspective. Leadership Quarterly,
15, 439-465.
Diefenbach, T. (2007). The Managerialistic Ideology of Organizational Change Management.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), 126144.
Dill, D. D., & Pearson, A. W. (1984). The Effectiveness of Project Managers: Implications of a
Political Model of Influence. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
EM31 (3), 138-146.
Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14 (1), 5971.
Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The Definition of Organizational Politics: A Review. Human
Relations, 43 (11), 1133-1154.
Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1988). Politics in Organization and its Perception within the
Organization. Organization Studies, 9 (2), 165-179.
Dubrin, A. J. (1988) Human Relations: A Job Oriented Approach, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (1982). Patterns of Political Behavior in Organization. Academy of
Management Review, 7(3), 403-412.
Fedor, D., & Maslyn, J. (2002). Politics and political behavior: Where else do we go from here?.
In Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues, 1,
271-286. The many faces of multi-level issues. Oxford: JAI Press/Elsevier
Science.
Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer, S., & Bettenhausen, K. (2008). The contribution of positive
politics to the prediction of employee reactions. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38, 76-96.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of Organizational Politics. Journal of
Management, 18, 93-116.

45

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work.
Organizational dynamics, 28(4), 25-37.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2005). Development
and Validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31 (1),
126-152.
Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resource decisions: A walk on the dark
side. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 59-71.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political Fairness and Fair
Politics: The Conceptual Integration of Divergent Constructs, in Cropanzano, R.
S., & Kacmar, K. M. (eds.), Organizational Politics, Justice and Support.
Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace (21-36), Quorum, Wesport, CT.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Jing, Z., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996).
Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and
outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233 266.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kackmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an
antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a
stressor, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1204-1220.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007).
Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320.
Frost, P. I., & Hayes, D. C. (1977). An exploration in two cultures of political behavior in
organizations. Paper presented at the conference on cross cultural studies in
organizational functioning, Hawaii.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The Experience of Workplace Politics. Academy of
Management Journal, 23 (2), 237-251.
Gotsis, N. G., & Kortezi, Z. (2010). Ethical considerations in organizational politics: Expanding
the perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 497-517.
Gray, B., & Ariss, S. S. (1985). Politics and Strategic Change Across Organizational Life Cycle.
Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 707-723.
Grossmann, M. (2006). The Organization of Factions. Interest Mobilization and the Group
Theory of Politics. Public Organization Review, 6(2), 107124.
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the
perceptions of politics-strain relationship. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78, 337354.
Harris, K. J., James, M., & Boonthanom, R. (2005). Perception of Organization Politics and
Cooperation as Moderators of the Relationship Between Job Strain and Intent to
Turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17 (1), 2642.
Hartley, J., & Branick, L. (2006). Managing with Political Awareness A summary review of
the literature. Chartered Management Institute, London.
James, K., & Arroba, T. (1990). Politics and Management: The Effect of Stress on the Political
Sensitivity of Managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5 (3), 22-27.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz Jr., R. D. (1994). Political Influence Behavior and Career Success. Journal
of Management, 20, 43-65.
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational Politics: The State of the Field, Links to
Related Processes, and an Agenda for Future Research. In Ferris, G. R., (Eds),
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. (1-39), JAI Press.

46

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

Kakabadse, A., & Parker, C. (1984). Power, Politics, and Organizations: A Behavioural Science
View. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-Influence Styles: Relationship with Performance
Evaluations, Salary, and Stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (4), 528542.
Kipnis, D., Schimidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Patterns of managerial
influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and Bystanders. Organizational
Dynamics, 12 (3), 58-67
Kirchmeyer, C. (1990). A Profile of managers Active in Office Politics. Basic & Applied Social
Psychology, 11 (3), 339-356.
Kumar, P., & Ghadially, R. (1989). Organizational Politics and Its Effects on Members of
Organizations. Human Relations, 42 (4), 305-315.
Kurchner-Hawkins, R., & Miller, R. (2006). Organizational Politics. Building Positive Political
Strategies in Turbulent Times, in Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Drory, A., (eds.),
Handbook of Organizational Politics, (358-351), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980).
Organizational Politics: An Exploration of Managers' Perceptions. Human
Relations, 33 (2), 79-100.
Mann, S. (1995). Politics and power in organizations: Why women lose out. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 16 (2), 9-15.
Martha C., Andrews, & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among Organizational Politics,
Justice, and Support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (4), 347-366.
Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward A Definition of Organizational Politics. Academy
of Management Review, 2 (4), 672-678.
Miller, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of Organizational
Politics: A Meta- Analysis of Outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology,
22(3), 209222.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and Around Organizations. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Murray, V., & Gandz, J. (1980). Games Executives Play: Politics at Work. Business horizons, 23
(6), 11-23.
Novelli, L., Flynn, W. R., & Elloy, D. F. (1994). Perceptions of Organizational Policies in an
Autonomous Work Team Organization. International Journal of Management, 6
(3), 75-84.
Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of Organizational Politics. An
Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management, 21(5),
891912.
Peled, A. (2000). Politicking for Success: The Missing Skill. The Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 21(1), 2029.
Perrew, P. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2004). Gender and career success: the facilitative role of
organizational political skill. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 366-378
Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshall, VA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding Power in Organizations. California Management Review, 34
(2), 29-50.
Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angel, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 109149.

47

Far East Journal of Psychology and Business

Vol 3 No 3 June 2011

Ralston, D. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Terpstra, R. H. (1994). Ethical perceptions of organizational
politics: A comparative evaluation of American and Hong Kong managers.
Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (12), 989-999.
Rosen, C. C., Chang, C., Johnson, R. E., & Levy, P. E. (2005). Psychological contract as a
mediator of the relationships between politics, justice, and work attitudes. In
Ohlott, P. (Chair) Symposium, Re-Visioning Organizational Politics as part of the
annual Academy of Management Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Schein, V. E. (1977). Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations: an Inadequately
Explored Reality. Academy of Management Review, 2 (1), 64-72.
Sussman, L., Adams, A. J., Kuzmits, F. E., & Rocho, L. E. (2002). Organizational politics:
Tactics, channels, and hierarchical roles. Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (4), 313329.
Treadway, D. C., Witt, L. A., Ferris, G. R., Hochwater, W., Perrewe, P., & Goodman, J. (2005).
The role of Age in the Perceptions of Politics Job Performance Relationship: A
Three-Study Constructive Replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5),
872-881.
Velasquez, M., Moberg, D. J., & Cavanagh, G. F. (1983). Organizational Statesmanship and
Dirty Politics: Ethical Guidelines for the Organizational Politician.
Organizational dynamics, 12 (2), 65-80.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2001a). Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: The relationships
among politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23 (5), 571-591.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2001b). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross-cultural examination in
Israel and Britain. Human Relations, 54 (11), 1483-1518.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2003). Development in Organizational Politics, Cheltenham, UK: Edwards
Elgar.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. (2006). Handbook of Organizational Politics, Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Vigoda-Gdot, E. & Drory, A. (2010). Organizational politics and human resource management:
A typology and the Israeli experience. Human Resource Management Review, 20
(3), 194-202.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Meisler, G. (2010). Emotions in Management and the Management of
Emotions: The Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Politics on
Public Sector Employees. Public Administration Review, 70 (1), 72-86.
Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A Process Framework of Organizational Politics.
Human Relations, 37 (1), 47-66.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence Tactics, Affect, and Exchange Quality in
Supervisor-Subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Experiment and Field Study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.
Zahra, S. A. (1989). Executive Values And The Ethics Of Company Politics: Some P. Journal of
Business Ethics, 8 (1), 15-29.
Zahra, S. A. (1985). Background and Work Experience Correlates of the Ethics and Effect of
Organizational Politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 4 (5), 419-423.
Zanzi, A., Arthur, M. B., & Shamir, B. (1991). The Relationships Between Career Concerns and
Political Tactics in Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12 (3),
219-233.

48

Far East Research Centre

www.fareastjournals.com

Zanzi, A., & O'Neill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned Versus Non-sanctioned Political Tactics.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 13 (2), 245-262.

49