REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION

ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 11(5), SPRING, 2021

www.rigeo.org Research Article

Use and Influence of Organizational Power

and Politics: A Literature Based Exploratory
Study
Noor Un Nisa1 Sadaf Khan2
Bath Spa University, UAE Sindh Madressatul Islam University, Pakistan
Noor@bathspa.ae sadaf.khan@smiu.edu.pk

Jamshed Adil Halepota3

Sindh Madressatul Islam University, Pakistan
Jamshed@smiu.edu.pk

Corresponding author: Sindh Madressatul Islam University, Pakistan Email: Jamshed@smiu.edu.pk

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

Keywords
Organizational Power, Organizational Politics, Exploratory Study

To cite this article: Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and
Politics: A Literature Based Exploratory Study. Review of International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(5), 2874-2886.
doi: 10.48047/rigeo.11.05.183

Submitted: 05-10-2020 ● Revised: 07-12-2020 ● Accepted: 09-02-2021

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

Introduction
Organizational Power - Implicit Theories

This construct has vast abstract of nature. There are number of dimensions of power therefore it is
hard to interpret which one is more significant in process of organizational decision-making. Power
is the ability to get work done or ability of taking decision. Therefore, power is critically important
for decision making in organizations and as well as in society. Deutsch (1975) argued the defined
assumption of power is that the relation of power among people are inherently competitive; A
concern for more power and the less power is available for B.
Parker (1984) has written about organizational life, and discussed variety of aspects of power.
Follett (1942) anticipated that even though power was usually visualized as power over others like
the power of A over B. She proposed that power like this build up from both ways including
coactive and non-coercive power. Follett (1942) penned, “Our task is not to learn where to place
power; it is how to develop power . . . Coercive power is the curse of the universe; co-active
power, the enrichment and advancement of every human soul”. The different researches about
power at work place define important aspects of power and its workplace outcome. The other
theory consider power as a factor that can be produced by support of workers within
organization.
Consequently, managers may have different capabilities and may differ in their concepts and
ideas about organizational power therefore these differences may influence their decisions of
power share. The other basic aspect of relationships recognized by Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan
(1976), that is power distribution. According to Organ and Konovsky (1989) the beliefs and ideas
of people about equality and inequality like in what extend power is distributed within organization
for distribution of power between employee and management, men and women, minorities and
a majority have been recognized as a significant component of their perception of organizational
power. Other empirical findings by Strutton, Pelton, and Lumpkin (1995) suggesting that “power
relations tend to be joint, reciprocal, mutual, and ongoing, rather than one sided, unilateral or
independent” and according to Galbraith and Cummings (1967) power is often broadly
distributed throughout the middle level of management in organizations, mostly people including
Bateman and Organ (1983) believe that power lies generally at the top of the hierarchy in
organizations and that power is of a one-way (like top–down) in nature. Therefore, managers also
may vary in perception by which they consider that power is equally distributed, and the degree
to which they ideally prefer that power equally to be distributed in organizations.

Role Of Impression Management and Power Tactics

In several definitions of organizational politics including Bacharach and Lawler (1998) exclusively
focused on usage of power which affects the decision-making process in organizations and also
individual behavior that is generally self-serving. According to various researchers including Kipnis,
Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1997) the organizational politics can also be explored by influencing
tactics of employees, although other researchers have stressed on these tactics within
organizations like (DuBrin, 1978, 1988; French, Raven, & Cartwright, 1959; Izraeli, 1975; Schein, 1977).
The scholar Kipnis et al. (1997) expressed organizational politics as the ways by which individuals try
to manipulate their coworkers, subordinates and supervisors in order to attain their own benefits
or controversy to fulfill organizational goals.
According to the prior literature including (Erez & Rim, 1982; Erez, Rim, & Keider, 1986; Kipnis et al.,
1997; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) there are nine different power tactics have been identified. Those
influence tactics including “Legitimacy”, “Rational persuasion”, “Inspirational appeals”,
“Consultation”, “Exchange”, “Personal appeals”, “Ingratiation”, “Pressure” and “Coalitions”.
Impression management is also considering as a view of organizational politics as said by Ferris,
Russ, and Fandt (1989b) which has newly gained the extensive attention of researchers in
organizational behavior as stated by Bolino and Turnley (2003). The researchers including (Gardner
& Martinko, 1988; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980) define that Impression management is
refer to the process in which individuals attempt to manipulate the ideas and views. Moreover,
several researchers like Bozeman and Kacmar (1997) and Bolino and Turnley (2003) has been
2875
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
identified most popular techniques or Behaviors of impression management including
“Conformity”, “Excuses”, “Apologies”, “Self-Promotion”, “Flattery”, “Favors”, “Association”.

Organizational Politics - General Idea

In recent years an extensive literature has been found about organizational politics and its
relationship with organizational Justice and other workplace attitudes. Theoretical evidences in
past recommend that politics often a hinder for regular organizational processes including
“decision making”, “promotion”, “production”, “rewards” and “damages productivity and
performance” of the individual as well as for organization as whole.
There are two definitions of organizational politics which are widely used. One definition defines
politics as a process of influence that is exercised in organizational settings. We can say politics is
absolutely general set of social behavior. It is very wide and effective social view. Possibly as a
result of this broad view, this definition allows that politics can be very beneficial and productive
or very harmful and counterproductive factor depending on the particular circumstances. Under
normal situations politics and administration are two sides of the same coin. Politics is about making
policies while the policies are implemented by the administrators (Laeeq et al., 2016). However,
according to Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989a) the general concept of politics defines politics
“narrowly”. Specifically politics define as “the term politics is limited to behavior which is
strategically designed to attain short-term or long-term self-interest”. Gandz and Murray (1980)
and Kacmar and Ferris (1991) have given some good examples of political behavior. Like a
political manager might use the performance evaluation system in order to provide self-promotion
or showing favoritism to a personal friend or relative. In this view number of scholars including (Ferris
& Judge, 1991; Ferris & King, 1991; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Gilmore et al., 1996) states generally
politics seen as counterproductive factor within organization. The both general and specific
approaches are useful.

Organizational Politics-Origin in Literature

The word politics derived from the Greek word “Politika” (affairs of cities), which passed down to
the English in the 15th century as “polettiques” which in short become politics in the Middle English.
But the simple definition of politics relates as the activities that relate to influence the action and
policy of government or to keep power in government.

Aristotle's Political Theory

Generally, Aristotle is considered as one of the most leading philosophers in different fields, and
also in political theory. During the time between BCE 323-335 he worked for some of major areas,
including the Politics. As from Greek methodology Aristotle (384-322 BC) describes that politics also
provide an investigation of the components of community that exits in time which live in
accordance with virtue and politics. He was famous work, about his work on “Politics,” he has
given theory about the rule of law. At that time, he introduced six types of constitutions which use
by the city-states of Greece depends on people whom involved in ruling and their center of
interest. Aristotle pair of these six kinds of social structure in three including Monarchy or a tyranny
means a state having only one ruler mean one head of state. Second is aristocracy or
an oligarchy which means a state having many rulers and third was polity or a democracy in
which all rule their state with common concern.

Machiavellian Politics (1469-1527)

There are many political aspects, Micaville being a realistic political philosopher; he believed that
the sole responsibility of the wellbeing of the state totally lies on the king. He argues that the
essence of the most political life is conspiracy. Keeping politics in mind, he gave dual morality
principle. In which he suggested that the anarchy is observed in the international system but as
per contra domestic system hierarchy should be made by the king, Machiavelli being a realist,
puts in his book “The Prince” in the action all men, specially princes (rulers) where there is no
recourse, to justice, the end is all that counts. He strongly emphasized that a prince never lacks
legitimate reasons to break his promises.

2876
Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics: …

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

distance and believes that ends can justify means" (Robbins & Judge, 2008). The term given this
named after the Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous "The Prince" in the 16th century in which he
described different methods by which individual can manipulate other. Then this term was referring
to deceit and treachery (Christie & Geis, 1970).
Valle (1995) defined that the "Machiavellian Personality" is that type of personality who has ability
to control others for the sake of his/her own interest. Many studies including (Christie & Geis, 2013;
Farmar-Bowers, 1993; Grams & Rogers, 1990; Turner & Martinez, 1977) investigated that the
Machiavellians persons are cunning manipulator and typically use more influential means to get
their work done.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

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

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

San Tzu (544-496BC)

San Tzu was a military general and technician, his subject was military strategy san tzu’s work has
been précised and employed throughout East Asia. China has long been proud of San Tzu. In his
book “Art of War” he embodies the philosophy of war for managing conflicts and winning battles.

Politics In 19’S

The existing literature on organizational politics shows that that existence of organizational politics
found in early 1960’s. Burns (1961) suggested that politics occur when “others (individuals) are
made use of as resources in competitive situations". Likewise, organizational politics labeled in
content of books like in book of organizational behavior by (Robbins, 1983).
According to Cropanzano and Greenberg (1997) politics is a tool which is used to get self-interest.
This finding also supported by other researchers including (Allen & Meyer, 1990; G. Ferris et al.,
1989b; Gray & Ariss, 1985; Madison et al., 1980). As stated by Kacmar and Baron (1999)
Organizational politics have been defined as "actions by individuals are directed toward the goal
of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the well-being of others or their organization"
Extensive literature has revealed that a perception of politics is host of negative work-related
outcomes like concluded by Ferris and Judge (1991) and Kacmar and Baron (1999).

Organizational Power and Politics- The Relationship

The concept of power is not newly introduced we can found its evidences in 1950s when Dahl
(1957) mentioned that power is the capability to overcome resistance in attaining an anticipated
outcome. Rahim (1989) proposed that “power is the ability of one party to change or control the
behavior, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party”.
For the organizational scholars including (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998; Clawson & Kotter, 1985;
Kanter & Goldfried, 1979; Pfeffer, 1981; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) the origin of power in organizations
have center of concern from long time. Number of researcher are keen to identifying the
individual and organizational elements of power attainment and innovative outcomes as
mentioned by (Aiken, Bacharach, & French, 1980; Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1988; Downs & Mohr,
1976; Kanter & Goldfried, 1979; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981). Now organizational scholars have
added new literature by exploring in the domain organizational politics. Pioneers of recent work
which includes (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Pfeffer,
1981; Tushman, 1977) have tried to make remedy against the problem of ignorance of power and
politics. A hypothetical framework that had gained much consideration in studies of social power
was first introduced by (French et al., 1959). The five types of social power were identified, which
were (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent) that have been focused in plentiful
organizational studies.

2877
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
1. “Coercive power” describes the perceptions of subordinates they perceive if they will not get
along with boss then he has power to punish him like dismiss him or any other.
2. “Reward power” is the perception of subordinates, they perceive that a boss has legitimate
right or power to give them reward if they obey him or do as they desire.
3. “Legitimate power” describes on the perception of subordinates, they perceive a boss have
legal right to control their behavior and have right to prescribe them their desired behavior.
4. “Expert power” is based on perception of subordinates, the perceive that a boss they are
inferior because they are layman in this field as their boss has more experience regarding this
job and having special knowledge or expertise in particular field.
5. “Referent power” is about the desire of subordinates that he/she could be recognized by
their boss so that he/she can receive more favoritism, admiration from reference of his/her
boss.

For the management theory and practice Power is basic factor. According to (Dahl, 1957; Zald,
1970; Zalesnik, Dalton, & Barnes, 1970) the few perceptions are crucial to the study of
organizations, and organizational life has the universal and key existence known as power. The
basic aim of this study is to develop a framework by which we can differentiate the ethical
parameters to power at workplace.

Political Use of Power

In contemporary era the capability to organize resources, strength, and knowledge on the basis
of favoritism is the picture of power in organization (Tushman, 1977). Thus, (Drake, 1979; Pfeffer,
1981) stated that power is present to lie only when there are clashes over “means or ends”. More
basically, this prospect of power is established on two fundamental hypotheses:

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

individuals and groups that have conflicts over resources, strengths, knowledge, and effects”
2. According (Allen et al., 1979; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1974) “Individuals and groups come together
to preserve their interests through means that are self-effacing when compared to existing
controls, norms, and sanctions”.

These concepts have attracted various researchers to find out distinguish between political use of
power and (nonpolitical) use of power in organization (Gandz & Murray, 1980). Political use of
power is, when individuals and groups don’t want to oblige regulatory authority and want to
design new rules for self-interest. Even the in all organizations have their official systems that are
mainly established to control the use of power, the individual use political power to influence their
coworker at work place (Schein, 1977).
To understand the structure of organizations, we first have to consider them as political systems.
The political view of organization helps us to understand power relationships in usual organizational
Operation and Functions. If we believe that power associations or relationships exist in
organizations, and then we have to accept that politics is an essential part of organizational life.
As our study concerned, Vigoda (2002) conducted a study to promote understanding the
reactions of employees towards organizational politics. Their study examined a relationship
between perception of organizational politics, job attitudes, and some other work outcomes in
Israel. Gibson (2006) tested that, the political culture and subculture of an academic organization
emerged as an essential attribute of female faculty’s mentoring reports. Danish (2000) states
organizational Politics is an essential aspect of organizational life and relates to power, authority
and influence. Political behavior and the use of power affect almost every important decision in
organizations. Drory and Gadot (2010) provided a critical examination of the denotation of
organizational politics for human resource management. Yen, Chen, and Yen (2009) studied and
elaborated the “perceptions of organizational politics workplace friendship correlations and
investigated the effect of organizational level on perceptions of organizational politics and
workplace friendship with organizational level as an interfering variable”.
The political behavior is consisting of two dimensions; politics can have positive or negative
influence. As Ferris et al. (1995) said that usually politics exist at those organizations where the rules
and regulations are not clearly defined for existing behavior and process of decision making are
also not clear. Politics may also generate where there is scarcity of resources. According to
Andrews and Kacmar (2001) the nature of perception of politics either it is positive or negative

2878
Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics: …

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

Organizational Politics- Implication at Workplace

I t is w ell sai d b y va ri o u s r es ea rch er s incl u d ing (F e rri s & Kin g , 19 9 1 ; M int zbe rg , 1 98 3 ;
Pf ef fe r , 1 99 2 ; Zh o u & Fe rri s , 19 95 ) that i n every organization the internal politics is certain.
According to Drory (1993), organizational politics is naturally exist i n human and inherently occurs
in organizations. Stated by Koberg (1985) the competency is not more important than
organizational politics. It was declared that organizations are political entities in which process of
making of decisions and setting goals usually depend on bargaining processes (March, 1962). It
has been argued by Ferris et al. (1996) “organizational politics is simply a fact of life”. Those, who
ignore this factor within organization they must do that at their own risk. As said by Molm (1997)
truly it is not possible to have an organization which is politics free, because in organization people
work together and share resources, where there is lack of resources, conflicts arise, and people
adopt different tactics to get resources. Yet, very limited studies mainly including (Cropanzano &
Greenberg, 1997; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Wilkinson, 1980), have expressed the characteristics and
boundaries of politics.

Dimensions of Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Number of researchers tried to develop reliable scale for measurement of perceptions of
organizational politics. Initially Kacmar and Ferris (1989) designed 5-items un-dimensional scale.
After that Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed a 40-item scale having five dimensions including
“Coworkers”, “Pay and Promotion”, “Go Along to Get Ahead”, “General Political Behavior” and
“Self-Serving Behavior”.
Then they again introduced a multi-dimensionality scale having 12 items to measure the
perceptions of organizational politics under three dimensions including “General Political
Behavior”, “Going Along to Get Ahead” and “Pay and Promotion policies”. Then again (Kacmar
& Carlson, 1997) redesigned that 12-items scale in to 15-item scale. Although, that 15- item scale
also examine the same factor as 12-item which was successively used in many studies including
Hochwarter, Witt, and Kacmar (2000) and (Vigoda, 2000). These three dimensions of POPS scale
are concisely discussed below.

General Political Behavior

Non availability of rules
Decision making under Go Along To Get Ahead Pay and Promotion Policie
uncertainty
Scarcity of valued resource

Figure 1: Dimensions of Perceptions of Organizational Politics

General Political Behaviour

This includes the person’s actions for self- serving to get benefits. As mentioned by various
researchers including (Drory & Romm, 1988; Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris & King, 1991; Kacmar & Ferris,
1993; Madison et al., 1980; Tushman, 1977) that such conduct develops when no rules and
regulation are available or aren't really defined to govern actions, while decisions are taken
2879
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
underneath un-reality and while there's shortage of the valued assets.

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

Decision Making Under Uncertainty

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

Scarcity Of Valued Resources

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

Go Along to Get Ahead

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

Pay and Promotion Policies

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

2880
Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics: …

King (1991) that usually to those personnel’s who show flattery behavior, do favors, offer additional
help and take interest in private affairs of their bosses those employees receive higher rates
regarding performance.

Conclusion
Mayes and Allen (1977) have proposed that practicing managers play a crucial role in
management within organization, so they should learn more about the practices of politics. Poon
(2003) suggested that because of its significance at workplace; t h e organizational politics
should be investigated more expansively. The knowledge which is available in literature can help
managers to cope with problems which frequently occur due to politics within organization.
Different conceptual models have also been identified by (Bhatnagar, 1992; G. Ferris et al., 1989a;
Ferris et al., 2002; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984), in order to clarify the process of politics within
organizations.
However last 25 years of studies which were conducted by several researchers exposed that there
are two main approaches of organizational politics. The first approach refers to the political
behavior of individual that he/she show by their actions and tactics within organizations. The prior
research regarding this field stressed that there are different typologies of influence tactics used
by individuals within organization identified by (Brass, 1984; Burns, 1961; Cheng, 1983; Erez & Rim, 1982;
Izraeli, 1975; Izraeli, 1987). The second approach is more advanced that focus on intentions and
perceptions rather than their actions. Perceptions of organizational politics have got more
concentration from past two decades especially after theoretical model which was introduced
by Ferris et al. in 198. In this research that second approach was investigated.

References
Aiken, M., Bacharach, S. B., & French, J. L. (1980). Organizational Structure, Work Process, and
Proposal Making in Administrative Bureaucracies. Academy of management Journal,
23(4), 631-652. doi: 10.5465/255553
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology,
63(1), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organizational Politics:
Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors. California Management Review, 22(1), 77-83. doi:
10.2307/41164852
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and
support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 347-366. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.92
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations: Contextualization,
mobilization, and coordination. In R. M. Kramer, & Nedle, M.A. (Ed.), Power and influence
in organizations, (pp. 75-77): Sage.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship
Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of management Journal, 26(4),
587-595. doi: 10.5465/255908
Bhatnagar, D. (1992). Understanding political behaviour in organizations: A framework. Vikalpa,
17(2), 15-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0256090919920202
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More Than One Way to Make an Impression: Exploring Profiles
of Impression Management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141-160. doi:
10.1177/014920630302900202
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes
in organizations. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(1), 9-30. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2669
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an
organization. Administrative science quarterly, 518-539. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392937

2881
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative science quarterly,
257-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2390703
Byrne, Z., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Understanding procedural and interactional justice: A multi-
foci approach to predicting organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, and job
performance. Unpublished manuscript, obtained from first author.
Cheng, J. L. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: An experimental study of the
use of power tactics. Group & Organization Studies, 8(3), 337-355. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105960118300800310
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). CHAPTER I-WHY MACHIAVELLI? Studies in Machiavellianism, 1-9. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10497-7
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (2013). Studies in machiavellianism: Academic Press.
Clawson, J. G., & Kotter, J. P. (1985). Self-assessment and career development: Prentice-Hall.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the
maze. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 317-372.
Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M., & Bozeman, D. P. (1995). Organizational politics, justice, and
support: Their differences and similarities. Organizational politics, justice, and support:
Managing the social climate of the workplace, 2-18.
Daft, R. L. (1978). A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation. Academy of management
Journal, 21(2), 193-210. doi: 10.5465/255754
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
Damanpour, F. (1988). Innovation Type, Radicalness, and the Adoption Process. Communication
Research, 15(5), 545-567. doi: 10.1177/009365088015005003
Danish, R. (2000). Differences in public and private sector in Organizational Politics Perception and
Work Performance Relationship: An empirical Evidence from Pakistan. COMSATS Institute
of Information Technology, Lahore.
Deutsch, D. (1975). The organization of short-term memory for a single acoustic attribute. Short-
term memory, 107-151. doi: http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/pdf/STM_Ch_1975.pdf
Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative
science quarterly, 21(4), 700-714. doi: 10.2307/2391725
Drake, B. H. (1979). Normative Constraints on Power Tactics within Organizations. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 1979(1), 176-180. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.1979.4975960
Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization studies, 14(1), 59-71.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F017084069301400105
Drory, A., & Gadot, E. V. (2010). Organizational politics and human resource management: A
typology and the Israeli experience. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3), 194-
202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.005
Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1988). Politics in organization and its perception within the organization.
Organization studies, 9(2), 165-179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F017084068800900202
Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human relations,
43(11), 1133-1154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679004301106
DuBrin, A. J. (1978). Winning at office politics. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
DuBrin, A. J. (1988). Career maturity, organizational rank, and political behavioral tendencies: A
correlational analysis of organizational politics and career experience. Psychological
Reports, 63(2), 531-537. doi: https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1988.63.2.531
Dyke, L. (1990). Self promotion in organizations Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queen
University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationships between goals, influence tactics, and personal and
organizational variables. Human relations, 35(10), 871-878. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872678203501004
Erez, M., Rim, Y., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence: Agent vs. target.
Journal of occupational psychology, 59(1), 25-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1986.tb00210.x
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When
employees behave opportunistically. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 45(1), 140-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90008-W
Farmar-Bowers, Q. (1993). Ecologically sustainable development: the way ahead for road
authorities and AUSTROADS. Paper presented at the Conference of Australian Institutes of
Transport Research (CAITR), 15th, 1993, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

2882
Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics: …

Ferris, G., & Buckley, M. (1990). Performance evaluation in high technology firms: Process and
politics. Organization issues in high technology management, 243-263.
Ferris, G., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. (1989a). Politics in organizations, 143-170. E. Vigoda, Developments
in organizational politics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, USA.
Ferris, G., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. (1989b). Politics in organizations. In RA Giacalone & P. Rosenfield
(Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 143-170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions
of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2
Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., Chachere, J. G., & Pondy, L. R. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational
contexts. Group & Organization Studies, 14(1), 83-103. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105960118901400108
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The
conceptual integration of divergent constructs. Organizational politics, justice, and
support: Managing the social climate of the workplace, 21-36.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996). Perceptions
of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human
relations, 49(2), 233-266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679604900206
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence
perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447-488. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700208
Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side.
Organizational dynamics, 20(2), 59-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(91)90072-H
Follett, M. P. (1942). Dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett: Harper &
brothers.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of organization
theory, 7, 311-320.
Frost, P. J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W.
Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants
of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality—valence and
motivation—ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2(3), 237-257. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(67)90020-7
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The Experience of Workplace Politics. Academy of management
Journal, 23(2), 237-251. doi: 10.5465/255429
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression Management in Organizations. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 321-338. doi: 10.1177/014920638801400210
Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of Women Faculty: The Role of Organizational Politics and Culture.
Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 63-79. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7
Gilmore, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., & Harrell-Cook, G. (1996). Organizational Politics and
Employee Attendance. Group & Organization Management, 21(4), 481-494. doi:
10.1177/1059601196214007
Grams, W. C., & Rogers, R. W. (1990). Power and Personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, Need for
Approval, and Motivation on Use of Influence Tactics. The Journal of General Psychology,
117(1), 71-82. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1990.9917774
Gray, B., & Ariss, S. S. (1985). Politics and Strategic Change Across Organizational Life Cycles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 707-723. doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4279095
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A Strategic
Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power. Administrative science quarterly,
16(2), 216-229. doi: 10.2307/2391831
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics as a
moderator of the relationship between consciousness and job performance. Journal of
applied psychology, 85(3), 472-478. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.472
Izraeli, D. N. (1975). The middle manager and the tactics of power expansion: A case study. Sloan
Management Review (pre-1986), 16(2), 57-70. doi:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/967e8a7f863954cb87eccea63d4d345c/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=35193
2883
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
Izraeli, D. N. (1987). Sex Effects in the Evaluation of Influence Tactics. Journal of Occupational
Behaviour, 8(1), 79-86.
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related
processes, and an agenda for future research Research in human resources
management, Vol. 17. (pp. 1-39). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (pops):
A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627-658. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90019-2
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the age-
job satisfaction relationship. Journal of applied psychology, 74(2), 201-207. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1989-27943-001
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS):
Development and Construct Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
51(1), 193-205. doi: 10.1177/0013164491511019
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Politics at work: Sharpening the focus of political behavior in
organizations. Business horizons, 36(4), 70-75. doi:
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A13244139/AONE?u=anon~d7e30367&sid=googleSchol
ar&xid=05923f1b
Kanter, N. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1979). Relative effectiveness of rational restructuring and self-
control desensitization in the reduction of interpersonal anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 10(4),
472-490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80051-9
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual,
Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and
Administrative Innovations. Academy of management Journal, 24(4), 689-713. doi:
10.5465/256170
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1997). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in
getting one’s way. Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in
organizations, 124-143.
Koberg, C. S. (1985). Sex and situational influences on the use of power: A follow-up study. Sex
Roles, 13(11), 625-639. doi: 10.1007/BF00287299
Laeeq, H., Shahzad, A., Ramalu, S. S., & Fareed, M. (2016). Determinants of organizational
performance: a case of Punjab Police. Sukkur IBA Journal of Management and Business,
3(2), 50-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.30537/sijmb.v3i2.98
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee
Appraisal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(3), 183-193. doi:
10.5465/ame.1987.4275731
Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980). Organizational Politics:
An Exploration of Managers' Perceptions. Human relations, 33(2), 79-100. doi:
10.1177/001872678003300201
March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. The Journal of politics, 24(4), 662-678.
doi: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1017/S0022381600016169
Markham, W., Harlan, S., & Hackett, E. (1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: Causes and
consequences. In KM Rowland & GR Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management, 5: 223-287. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward A Definition of Organizational Politics. Academy of
Management Review, 2(4), 672-678. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4406753
Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro organizational behavior. Santa Monica. CA: Goodyear.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). The power game and the players. Classics of organization theory, 6, 334-341.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange: Cambridge University Press.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover: Academic press.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 157-164. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.74.1.157
Parker, L. D. (1984). Control in Organizational Life: The Contribution of Mary Parker Follett. Academy
of Management Review, 9(4), 736-745. doi: 10.5465/amr.1984.4277620

2884
Nisa, N, U.; Khan, S.; and Halepota, J, A. (2021) Use and Influence of Organizational Power and Politics: …

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

organizational paradigm. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations: Harvard Business
Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case
of a University Budget. Administrative science quarterly, 19(2), 135-151. doi:
10.2307/2393885
Poon, J. M. L. (2003). Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(2), 138-155. doi: 10.1108/02683940310465036
Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1983). The politics of upward influence in organizations.
Organizational influence processes, 408, 422.
Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of Leader Power to Compliance and Satisfaction with
Supervision: Evidence from a National Sample of Managers. Journal of Management,
15(4), 545-556. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500404
Riley, P. (1983). A Structurationist Account of Political Culture. Administrative science quarterly,
28(3), 414-437. doi: 10.2307/2392250
Robbins, S. (1983). Organizational behavior (pp. 449-464): Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Organizational behavior 15th edition. US: Prentice Hall.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and
Task Design. Administrative science quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. doi: 10.2307/2392563
Saoula, O., Fareed, M., Abd Hamid, R., Al-Rejal, H. M. E. A., & Ismail, S. A. (2019). The moderating
role of job embeddedness on the effect of organisational justice and organisational
learning culture on turnover intention: A conceptual review. Humanities & Social Sciences
Reviews, 7(2), 563-571.
Saoula, O., Fareed, M., Ismail, S. A., Husin, N. S., & Abd Hamid, R. (2019). A conceptualization of
the effect of organisational justice on turnover intention: The mediating role of
organisational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(5),
327-337. doi: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n5p327
Schein, V. E. (1977). Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations: An Inadequately
Explored Reality. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 64-72. doi:
10.5465/amr.1977.4409169
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222): Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L. E., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1995). Psychological climate in franchising system
channels and franchisor-franchisee solidarity. Journal of Business Research, 34(2), 81-91.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00053-H
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations. Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative.
Turner, C. F., & Martinez, D. C. (1977). Socioeconomic Achievement and the Machiavellian
Personality. Sociometry, 40(4), 325-336. doi: 10.2307/3033481
Tushman, M. L. (1977). A Political Approach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale. Academy
of Management Review, 2(2), 206-216. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4409042
Valle, M. (1995). Individual Determinants of organizational politics: Perceptions and Actions. (Ph.D
Thesis), Florida State University.
Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and
Implications for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326-347. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1742
Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among politics,
job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(5), 571-591. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.160
Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A Process Framework of Organizational Politics. Human
relations, 37(1), 47-65. doi: 10.1177/001872678403700103
Wilkinson, C. F. (1980). The public trust doctrine in public land law. Uc Davis L. Rev., 14, 269. doi:
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1081?utm_source=scholar.law.colorado.edu%2
Farticles%2F1081&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(4), 409. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.33.4.409
Yen, W.-W., Chen, S.-C., & Yen, S.-I. (2009). The impact of perceptions of organizational politics on
workplace friendship. African Journal of Business Management, 3(10), 548-554. doi:
2885
 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(5), Spring 2021
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM09.162
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers,
and the boss. Journal of applied psychology, 77(4), 525–535. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525
Zald, M. N. (1970). Organizational change: the political economy of the YMCA. Chicago u.a.:
University of Chicago Press.
Zalesnik, A., Dalton, G., & Barnes, L. (1970). Orientation and conflicts in careers. Boston: Division of
Research, Harvard Business School.
Zhou, J., & Ferris, G. R. (1995). The Dimensions and Consequences of Organizational Politics
Perceptions: A Confirmatory Analysis1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(19), 1747-
1764. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01816.x

2886