3#roles of Motivation, Power - JM

Journal of Management
Vol. 36 No. 6, November 2010 1432-1460

DOI: 10.1177/0149206309359810
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Are You Willing and Able? Roles of Motivation,

Power, and Politics in Career Growth
Yongmei Liu
University of Texas atArlington
Jun Liu
Renmin University of China
Longzeng Wu
Hong Kong Baptist University
A comprehensive model ofpolitical behavior and its influence on careergrowth was presented
and tested via a Chinese sample of 283 employee-supervisor dyads. Need for achievement and
needfor power were found to be positively related to political behavior, and perceptions of
organizationalpoliticsstrengthenedthe relationshipbetween these personal needs and political
behavior.Furthermore,for individuals high in political skill, increases in political behavior
were associated with greater career growth potential rated by supervisors, whereasfor indi-
viduals low in political skill, increases in political behaviorwere associated with lower ratings
of career growth potential. Personalpower mediated the moderated relationships among
politicalbehavior,politicalskill, and careergrowth potentialratings.Theoretical andpractical
implications of the results are discussed.
Keywords: political behavior; political skill; need for achievement; need for power; career
growth potential
It has long been recognized by scholars and practitioners that organizations are political
in nature (Ferris & Hochwarter, in press; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer,
1981). Most managers understand the necessity of political behavior in organizations and,
Acknowledgments: This work is supported by the NationalNatural Science Foundation of China (projectcode:
70802060). We would like to thank the editor,three anonymous reviewers, JerryFerris,Pam Perrewm, and Darren
Treadwayfor insightrulcomments on an earlierversion of this article.
Correspondingauthor: Jun Liu, School ofBusiness, Renmin University of China, Beying 100872, PR. China
E-mail:junliu@ruc.edu.cn
1432
Liu et al. / Politics and Career Growth 1433
indeed, practice it to get things done at work (Buchanan, 2008; Gandz & Murray, 1980). The
prevalence of political behavior in organizations makes it important to understand its ante-
cedents and consequences as well as factors that help explain its relative effectiveness in the
organizational context.
The purpose of this study is to propose and test a comprehensive model of political
behavior in organizations and its influence on career growth. Political behavior has tradition-
ally been viewed in a negative light (e.g., Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Porter, Allen, & Angle,
1981). However, earlier (e.g., Pfeffer, 1981), as well as more recent (e.g., Buchanan, 2008;
Lux, Ferris, Brouer, Laird, & Summers, 2008), conceptualizations of political behavior also
have recognized its potential to contribute to organizational goals and objectives. To date,
there is an emerging consensus among researchers that political behavior is neither inher-
ently constructive nor destructive (e.g., Ferris & Hochwarter, in press). Synthesizing prior
literature, we define political behavior as the exercise of tactical influence by individuals
intended to facilitate personal or organizational goals.
Over the past two decades, researchers of organizational politics have studied political
behavior primarily in the forms of specific influence tactics or the combination of such tac-
tics (e.g., Ferris et al., 2002; Jones, 1990; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983;
Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; see Higgins, Judge, & Ferris,
2003, for a meta-analytical review). Prior research has identified influence tactics and exam-
ined the effectiveness of these tactics in various contexts, with respect to a number ofjob- and
career-related outcomes, including supervisor performance ratings (e.g., Dulebohn, Murray, &
Ferris, 2004; Lam, Huang, & Snape, 2007; Wayne & Liden, 1995; Yukl & Tracey, 1992),
salary and promotions received (Aryee, Wyatt, & Stone, 1996), perceived competency
(Howard & Ferris, 1996), and career success (Judge & Bretz, 1994).
More recent, scholars have moved beyond specific influence tactics and have used more
general measures of political behavior reflecting an individual's selective usage of a combi-
nation of influence tactics at work targeting different audiences across work situations (e.g.,
Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Ferris, 2005). In this study, we adopt such an approach
to focus on political behavior at the individual, rather than tactic, level and propose a com-
prehensive model of political behavior that examines its antecedent, moderator, mediator,
and career outcome. We believe that research in the field has reached a stage where political
behavior can be examined in such a complex and nuanced manner.
The proposed model considers the joint influence of organizational politics (i.e., the
political climate of an organization), individual political motives, behavior, and skill on
supervisors' evaluations of the career growth potential of subordinate employees. The
model attempts to make several contributions to the organizational politics literature. First,
by investigating the roles of both context and individual differences in politics, the model
seeks to achieve a more informed understanding of the dynamics of individuals' political
involvement at work.
Second, in response to the appeal to examine the "how" (i.e., the style one uses for execu-
tion of interpersonal influence and interaction) of political behavior (Ferris et al., 2007), the
moderating role of political skill in the effectiveness of political behavior in maximizing
career potential is examined. Although prior research has linked political behavior and political
skill with stress and performance-related outcomes (e.g., Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw,
1434 Journal of Management / November 20 10
2007; Perrew6 et al., 2004; Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007), empirical
evidence concerning career outcomes as they relate to political dynamics remains quite lim-
ited (cf. Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).
Third, we attempt to address the "why" (i.e., the underlying mechanisms) of organiza-
tional politics by examining the mediating role of personal power in the relationships
among political behavior, political skill, and career growth potential. Furthermore, this
study seeks to constructively replicate prior findings on the relationship between political
motives and political behavior (e.g., Treadway et al., 2005). Finally, this study goes
beyond the effects of specific influence tactics to examine general political behavior
involving the selective use of various combinations of influence tactics targeting different
audiences, a topic that has been relatively underinvestigated (Ferris & Hochwarter, in
press; Ferris et al., 2007).
This study also contributes to the career literature. According to the sponsored-mobility
model of career success (Turner, 1960), early impressions of employee competency and poten-
tial are very important in career growth. Those employees who are able to create early favorable
impressions receive greater attention and career sponsorship, and more favorable treatment
from their superiors in the organization, which puts them on a fast track of career growth
leading to future career success (Cooper, Graham, & Dyke, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1984; Wayne,
Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997). The study examines whether political behavior is conducive to
the formation of such favorable impressions and, thereby, to beneficial career outcomes. In
a similar direction, this study also responds to the call by Ng et al. (2005), in their recent
meta-analysis of career success, for a systematic examination of factors that reflect the
political reality of career growth and promotion decisions.
Theory and Hypotheses
The model to be tested in this study is presented in Figure 1. As noted, the model poses
need for achievement and need for power as antecedents of political behavior, which are
moderated by perceptions of organizational politics (POPs). Subsequently, political behavior
and political skill interact to predict career growth potential, a relationship proposed to be
mediated by personal power. In the sections to follow, each of the variables in the model is
examined as hypotheses are formulated.
PoliticalBehaviorMotivations
Although theory has suggested both antecedents and consequences of political behavior
(e.g., Ferris & Judge, 1991; Porter et al., 1981), relatively little empirical effort has been
devoted to understanding the individual difference antecedents of political behavior (Ferris
et al., 2007). Recently, the motivational aspects of political behavior have received some schol-
arly attention, and several variables of individual difference in motivation have been proposed
as precursors to political behavior (e.g., Treadway et al., 2005).
Engaging in political behavior requires the expenditure of personal resources. As such,
individuals are motivated to engage in such behaviors only when they believe that doing so
Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Politics and Career Potential
Organizational Politics
a S ip
3•'3,
l b•
Need for
Ae h ee t Po litic al P l :
fers:ina C are e r G row th ]
Ae h ee t H a B e h avio r H3 P ýowe r I 3 4 P o te n tia l
1
Hbt1
Need for Power
et al.,
experience (Mintzberg, 1983; Treadway
helps them to achieve valued organizational goals
to expend energy in pursuit of political
2005). Mintzberg (1983) viewed motivation Such 111ti-
an essential precursor of political behavior.
(i.e., what he termedpolitical will) as
vation may be rooted in an individual's needs structure. Personal needs motivate behaviors
through the enactment of values and goals (Locke, 1991). Murray (1938) suggested that
engaging in behaviors that potentially fulfill individuals' needs is intrinsically motivating.
This study identifies two personal needs variables, need for achievement and need for
power, as potential antecedents motivating political behavior at work. Need for achievement
refers to the degree to which individuals are motivated to achieve success and excellence in
performing difficult and challenging tasks (McClelland, 1961/1976, 1962). Individuals high
in need for achievement seek excellence in performance, are competitive in work activities,
and enjoy seeking out solutions to difficulties and challenges. Because behaving politically
frequently helps to uncover valuable resources, to bring about new ways to solve issues, and
to enhance performance and career growth (Dutton &Ashford, 1993; Dutton, Ashford, Neill,
Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Ferris et al., 2007), a high need for achievement may propel indi-
viduals to engage in political behaviors. Indeed, Treadway et al. (2005) proposed, and found
evidence to support, a positive relationship between need for achievement and political
behavior.
Need for power refers to the desire to influence others, change people or events, and
make a difference in life (McClelland, 1975; McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Individuals
high in need for power enjoy influencing others, defeating an opponent or competitor, or
attaining a position of greater authority. They know their own strengths and weaknesses
and trust their own judgments. Thus, they are likely to be more self-confident in their abil-
ity to deliver political actions effectively. Many have proposed a conceptual association
between need for power and political behavior (e.g., Ferris et al., 2007; Porter et al., 1981),
which makes intuitive sense because political behavior is motivated primarily by the
desire to gain control over desirable resources (Mintzberg, 1983). Thus, the following is
hypothesized:
1436 Journal of Management / November 2010
Hypothesis la: Need for achievement is positively related to political behavior.

Hypothesis ib: Need for power is positively related to political behavior.
ModeratingRole of Perceptions of OrganizationalPolitics
Whereas individual differences frequently materialize in consistent behavioral patterns,

such consistency is influenced by the characteristics of the situation (e.g., Pervin, 1989;
Schneider, 1983). As such, the degree to which needs for achievement and power influence
political behavior is likely influenced by situational variables. In this study, we consider the
potential moderating role of perceptions of organizational politics. POPs are an individual's
subjective evaluations about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by
coworkers and supervisors who demonstrate self-serving behavior (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, &
Dulebohn, 2000). POPs have been viewed as a work environment feature (e.g., Breaux,
Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009; Cropanzano & Li, 2006), reflecting the political climate
of an organization.
Derived from interactional psychology, trait activation theory (TAT; Haaland & Christiansen,
2002; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) appears to be a plausible theoretical
framework that can be used to explain how perceptions of POPs may moderate the extent to
which personal needs influence political behavior. TAT proposes that "the behavioral expres-
sion of a trait requires arousal of that trait by trait-relevant situational cues" (Tett & Guterman,
2000: 398). It suggests that individual difference's predictability of behavior differs when
situations are differentially trait relevant. TAT goes beyond the interactionist discussion of
the joint influence of person and situation in that it focuses specifically on the trait relevance
of a situation and the process through which individual differences are activated to influence
behaviors.
According to TAT, situations that are trait relevant provide cues from various sources
(e.g., job demands, others' expectations, or organizational norms) to indicate the usefulness
or necessity of trait-consistent behaviors in obtaining intrinsically or extrinsically desirable
rewards (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Thus, individual differences are more likely to be activated,
or expressed, in behaviors when the situation is trait relevant. Tett and Burnett (2003) sug-
gested that, because trait expression is intrinsically rewarding, people tend to be attentive to,
and actively seek, situational cues that enable trait expressions in behaviors.
Based on TAT, it can be argued that organizational contexts differ in the abundance of
cues that potentially enact the "expression" (i.e., political behavior) of personal needs related
to political motives. The political motives of people high in needs for achievement and power
are more likely to be revealed when they find that behaving politically serves as an effective
means to achieve their goals to attain competence and gain power. For example, highly
structured work environments, characterized by clear hierarchies and rigid rules, represent
situations that allow little room for personal gain through political behavior. In contrast, a
favorable context exists for political actors in organizations when people frequently and suc-
cessfully bend the rules or rely on their personal influence to fulfill job demands (i.e., when
POPs are high), motivating individuals to satisfy their needs for achievement and power
through now-legitimized political behavior. In such environments, people high in needs for
Liu et al, / Politics and Career Growth 1437
achievement and power are offered trait-expression opportunities, and they will capitalize on
such opportunities for the gain in performance and influence.
Indeed, despite potential favorable outcomes of political behavior, individuals assess ben-
efits and risks when deciding whether or not to engage in political activities (Dutton &Ashford,
1993; Dutton et al., 1997). Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, and Dutton (1998) found that indi-
viduals' propensity to engage in issue selling is influenced by the organizational context, such
as the degrees to which top managers are open to new ideas and the organizational norms sup-
port such employee initiatives. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of organizational politics moderate the relationship between need for
achievement and political behavior, such that the relationship is stronger when the level of per-
ceived organizational politics is high.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of organizational politics moderate the relationship between need for
power and political behavior, such that the relationship is stronger when the level of perceived
organizational politics is high.
PoliticalBehavior x PoliticalSkill Effect on Career Growth Mediated

by PersonalPower
The politicalfactorin careergrowth potential.Political behavior is directed toward obtain-

ing valued organizational resources and rewards (Mintzberg, 1983), and career growth oppor-
tunity is one of those prominent resources/rewards (Derr, 1988). Career growth is the process
through which individuals develop new skills and capabilities and take on new responsibilities
and enriched job roles to achieve future career goals and objectives. Career growth may take
the forms of obtaining opportunities for training and development or promotion or otherwise
making progress toward one's career goals and aspirations. We define an employee's career
growth potential as the supervisors' subjective evaluations of employees' probability of obtain-
ing such career growth opportunities and facilitating the realization of their career goals.
The availability of career growth opportunities to individuals is frequently a function of
supervisors' perceptions of their performance and potential. Because there is substantial sub-
jectivity in performance evaluations and other human resource decisions, ample room exists
for individuals to engage in political behavior to shape the perceptions that supervisors form
of them concerning their true effectiveness and potential (Ferris & Judge, 1991).
It is obvious that not all political behaviors are equally effective in obtaining desired out-
comes (Higgins et al., 2003). A political workplace is a risky environment (Cropanzano,
Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997), and individuals may put themselves in harm's way by using
political behaviors invariably across situations without actively assessing their context and
the characteristics of their targets (Jones, 1990; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983; Yukl & Tracey,
1992). Indeed, the effects of political behavior on career outcomes are contingent on how the
target perceives and reacts to such influence attempts as well as on individuals' abilities to
create desirable impressions without raising suspicions concerning their hidden motives
(e.g., Lam et al., 2007; Treadway et al., 2007).
Thus, central to the success of political behavior are individuals' abilities to skillfully select
and implement situationally appropriate political behavior and effectively deliver their intended
(and not unintended) political message, so that they "reach" the target on whatever interper-
sonal ground they desire. Theory and research suggest that political skill represents an inter-
personal style variable that differentiates individuals based on such skillfulness.
Political skill refers to "the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such
knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one's personal or organizational
objectives" (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005: 127). Research by Ferris and colleagues (e.g.,
Ferris et al., 2002; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) has described individuals possessing
political skill as those who are keenly aware of their social context and are able to accurately
interpret others' behaviors and motives. They suggest that these individuals are flexible and
adaptive in their approaches to social situations, have a convincing interpersonal style that
instills trust and goodwill, and are proactive and skillful at developing and using diverse sets
of social networks.
Ferris, Treadway, and colleagues (2005) suggest that politically skilled individuals, even
with an average performance record, may enjoy greater upward mobility. They state that
political skill gives individuals the ability to get along well with important others in the work
environment; more visibility, which makes them elites in the career tournament; and a vast
network to accumulate needed resources, factors all conducive to career success in the long
run. To date, empirical research has reported strong and consistent positive predictability of
political skill on job performance ratings (e.g., Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2007;
Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006). It is reasonable to expect that such beneficial outcomes
of political behavior carried out with political skill will extend to the career-related domain
through power acquisition.
The politicalfactor inpersonalpower.Political skill brings many benefits to individuals

inspired by higher career achievement goals, all of which are indicative of increased personal
power at work resulting from more effective political behavior. Personal power is defined as
the degree of discretion that individuals possess in deciding the allocation and usage of per-
sonal or organizational resources in their work (cf. Franz, 1998).1 Whereas the level of dis-
cretion in one's employment often is an inherent feature of the specific position, individuals
do negotiate and change task domains and relational boundaries to shape the content, mean-
ing, and associated work identities (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). These negotiations result
in considerable variability of informal, personal power across individuals beyond that indicated
by their formal position descriptions.
Key to the possession of power is the acquisition and control of resources (Pfeffer, 1992;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974), and political skill has an important resource acquisition and
protection function (Ferris et al., 2007). Individuals with political skill are more likely to
gather resources, and thereby power, through skillfully managing their task interdepen-
dence with others.
Most contemporary positions involve some level of task interdependence (Franz, 1998;
Thompson, 1967), which makes successful task completion contingent on individuals' abili-
ties to coordinate with others effectively. Because they are socially astute and highly flexible
in their execution of influence moves, politically skilled individuals are more likely to gain
interpersonal ground in various task-related issues (e.g., ensuring that others give priority to
work tasks on which they depend). Accordingly, they are not as constrained by others' timing
and tasks. Rather, they enjoy favorable arrangements in terms of coordination and allocation
of responsibilities and, as a consequence, obtain more power and control over job-related
resources.
Furthermore, politically skilled individuals demonstrate a calm self-confidence; they
appear to expect success and are comfortable about being in charge (Ferris, Treadway, et al.,
2005; Perrew6, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000), which persuades others that they are trust-
worthy and dependable (Smith, Plowman, Duchon, & Quinn, in press). Because of this sense
of trust and accountability, along with favorable personal reputations they build for them-
selves (Ferris et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2007), others are more likely to be receptive to their
ideas and proposals, to defer to their views about issues, and to grant them greater authority
in decision making. In this vein, Mumford, Antes, Caughron, and Friedrich (2008) suggest
that politically skilled individuals are more likely than others to emerge as leaders in groups.
We suggest that this occurs because of the tendency of individuals to grant power to those
who are politically skilled.
Finally, politically skilled individuals' personal power also is accumulated from their
active networking activities. Power has been argued to be a function of network position
(Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). Through effective networking, people who are politically skilled
become well connected and centrally located in their networks, which helps them to gain
quick and accurate access to critical information from various parts of the organization
(Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2008; Perrew6 et al., 2000). This ability helps politi-
cal actors develop a more informed understanding of their organizations, which can be used
to position and frame issues more effectively and in more compelling ways. As such, their
actions are more likely to be perceived as being politically appropriate and impactful. Because
power resides in social relations (Emerson, 1962), the acquisition of power depends on oth-
ers' receptiveness toward influence attempts. Politically skilled individuals can thus leverage
their social effectiveness to enhance personal power.
In contrast, individuals who are low in political skill are likely to be less effective in build-
ing such favorable interpersonal dynamics. Because of their relatively low perceptiveness
and interpersonal sensitivity, they may choose to exercise politically vulnerable actions
(cf. Ashford et al., 1998), which may erode their power base. Their delivery of influence
attempts also may be less effective and be interpreted in ways that raise target suspicion
concerning their intentions and hinder the building of interpersonal trust and acceptance. For
example, Treadway et al. (2007) found that individuals with low political skill are more likely
than their high-political-skill counterparts to have their demonstrated ingratiation behaviors
interpreted as being manipulative, which in turn hinders others' receptivity to their influence
attempts and their building of personal power.
Moreover, lacking the astuteness or savvy to pick up social cues, individuals low in poli-
tical skill may not effectively discern influential actors with whom to build their social net-
works or may fail to infill such network ties with strong trust and mutuality. Given the importance
of networks in gaining resources, people low in political skill are at a disadvantage in terms
of gaining power through effective network building.
Personalpower and careergrowth potential.Career advancement requires individuals to

take on proactive roles in influencing people and events (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrew6, 2005;
Wayne et al., 1997). Taking charge in their job roles to develop discretionary personal power
gives individuals a strong presence in the work environment, resulting in distinctly favorable
impressions by superiors. Such impressions, according to the sponsored-mobility model of
career success (Cooper et al., 1993; Turner, 1960), likely convince supervisors of the employ-
ees' elite status, resulting in their favorable ratings of career growth potential.
Furthermore, increased decision latitude and personal control over their work activities,
together with the greater interpersonal influence demonstrated by politically skilled individu-
als (i.e., reflecting their personal power), also should help them to more effectively complete
tasks and compete with others in the career tournament. According to the contest-mobility
model of career success (Turner, 1960), such track records will enhance individuals' ability
to facilitate career growth, which will be reflected in supervisors' ratings of such potential.
In addition, because politics and interpersonal influence become more relevant as job com-
plexity increases at higher organizational hierarchical levels (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrew6,
2005), supervisors are likely to consider the ability to gain power in jobs when evaluating
employees' career growth potential.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we argue that politically skilled employees enhance
their career growth potential through increased personal power, gained from active engage-
ment in political behavior. In contrast, the political behavior of people low in political skill is
not likely to bring about such career-related benefits. Rather, these individuals risk losing
personal power when they become active politically because of their lack of political skill and
resulting inappropriate execution of influence attempts. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3: Political behavior and political skill will interact to predict career growth potential,
such that, for individuals who are high in political skill, increases in political behavior will be
associated with increased career growth potential, and for individuals who are low in political
skill, increases in political behavior will be associated with decreased career growth potential.
Hypothesis 4: Personal power mediates the interactive effect of political behavior and political skill
on career growth potential.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Participants in this study were employees of six electronics companies located in a major
city in North China. We collected two waves of data with a 9-month temporal interval between
the two waves. In Wave 1, the subordinates provided information on their personal needs, POPs,
political behavior, political skill, and demographics. In Wave 2, the subordinates reported per-
sonal power, and their supervisors provided ratings of their career growth potential.
We obtained rosters of a total of 338 employees and their corresponding supervisors from
the participating companies. We assigned a unique code for each participant to match responses
in Wave 1 with those in Wave 2, as well as with supervisor ratings. No one but the research
team had access to the codes and individual responses. Participants were informed that the
goal of the survey was to examine human resource practices and that their participation was
completely voluntary. All participants were explained the purpose of the codes and were
assured of the confidentiality of their answers. Participants completed the questionnaires dur-
ing their work time. Each participant returned the completed survey in a sealed envelope to
a box placed in the corresponding company.
In Wave 1,306 complete subordinate questionnaires were returned (90.5% response rate).
Nine months later, separate questionnaires were administrated to the 306 subordinates and
their 117 supervisors. We received completed responses from 290 subordinates and 114
supervisors. After deleting unmatched and/or missing cases, the final sample in this study
consisted of 283 matched supervisor-subordinate dyads, including 283 subordinates (valid
response rate = 83.7%) and 112 supervisors (valid response rate = 95.7%). Each supervisor
provided evaluations on 2 to 5 subordinates.
Of the 283 subordinates, 67.1% were male; 27.9% were between the ages of 31 and 35 years
and 23.3% were between 36 and 40. The average organizational tenure was 7.71 years
(SD = 7.05). In terms of their levels in the management hierarchy, 57.2% were employees,
35.0% were frontline supervisors, and 7.8% were middle managers. The employees were
mainly technicians or support staff whose jobs involve reasonable levels of task interdepen-
dency as well as discretion in pacing and sequencing of their individual work tasks. As such,
the sample is composed of a group of relatively young employees holding lower or middle
level positions in the company, who in general have job discretion and have reasonable space
for future career growth. Furthermore, all the six companies have a corporate culture of
promotion within the companies. Thus, it appears that this sample is a relevant one on which
to test our theoretical model.
Measures
Except for the measures of personal needs, all the measures in the study were originally
constructed in English. We created Chinese versions for all measures following the commonly
used translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1980).
Needs for achievement andpower. The items were developed by the second author in
Chinese. A 7-point Likert-type response format was used, with strongly disagree (1) and
strongly agree (7) as the anchors. A sample item of need for achievement is, "I love to con-
front challenges of the job." A sample item of need for power is, "I love to lead and be in
charge." Detailed information about the measures is provided in the appendix. The Cronbach's
alpha reliability estimates for need for achievement and need for power in this study were .86
and .85, respectively.
Perceptions of organizationalpolitics. A 12-item scale developed by Kacmar and Ferris

(1991) was used to measure employees' politics perceptions. Response options ranged from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). A sample item is, "Favoritism rather than merit
determines who gets ahead in this organization." This scale's Cronbach's alpha reliability
estimate was .89.
Political behavior. A six-item scale developed by Treadway et al. (2005) was used to
measure employees' political behavior. Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (7). A sample items is, "I spend time at work politicking." The scale's
Cronbach's alpha reliability estimate was .84.
Politicalskill. Political skill was measured with the 18-item Political Skill Inventory
(PSI; iFerris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (7). Sample items include, "I spend a lot of time and effort networking with
others," "I pay close attention to people's facial expressions," "It is important that people
believe me to be sincere in what I say and do," and "I am able to communicate easily and
effectively with others." A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 18 items produced
good fit indices, )e(12 9) = 353.449,p < .01 (comparative fit index [CFI] =.92, Tucker-Lewis
index [TLI] =.91, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] =.079). Cronbach's
alpha for the complete scale was .90.
Personalpower. A three-item scale developed by Franz (1998) was used to measure

employee personal power. Participants were asked to rate their level of control over the fol-
lowing three decisions in their jobs: (a) establishment of new objects, (b) scheduling of the
work, and (c) allocation of resources. Response options ranged from 1 = Ido not participate
in decisions of this nature to 7 = I can make decisions of this nature without consulting
others. Cronbach's alpha reliability estimate for the complete scale was .81.
Careergrowth potential.Two items developed by Bedeian, Kemery, and Pizzolatto (1991)

were adapted to measure subordinates' career growth potential, rated by their direct supervi-
sors. Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items
were, "He/she will attain his/her career goals in this organization," and "He/she is likely to
gain growth and development in this organization." The Pearson correlation between the two
items was .75. The coefficient alpha of the scale calculated with the Spearman and Brown
formula (see Hulin et al., 2001) was .86. The scale had been used by Wei, Liu, Chen, and
Wu (in press) in the Chinese context. Wei and colleagues reported a correlation of.54 between
the two items.
Control variables. Age, gender, organizational tenure, and position level are likely to
influence individuals' experiences with their work environment and, thereby, their comfort
with political involvement. In addition, position level is also likely to influence personal power.
Thus, these variables were included as control variables in the data analyses. Furthermore,
individuals with positive affectivity are more effective in their influence attempts and more
likely to create for themselves a favorable work context supporting their performance and
career growth (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Individuals with negative affectivity, con-
versely, have a general negative outlook of the surroundings and other people (Watson &
Pennebaker, 1989). They tend to perceive their work environment as more political and enact
a negative interpersonal dynamic that hinders their acquisition of personal power and career
growth opportunities. Thus, positive affectivity and negative affectivity also were included as
control variables in the analyses. These two variables were measured by a 20-item scale
developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988). Cronbach's alphas for positive and nega-
tive affectivity were .91 and .95, respectively.
Data Analysis and Results
DiscriminantValidity
We began by conducting a series of CFAs using AMOS 4.0 to examine the distinctiveness
of the multi-item variables in our model. Given the small sample size relative to the mea-
surement items (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000), we created item-parcels prior to conducting
the analyses. Specifically, we reduced the number of items by creating three indicators for
each single-dimension construct with more than three items. On the basis of factor analysis
results, the items with the highest and lowest loadings for each construct were combined
first, followed by items with the next highest and lowest loadings, until all the items had
been assigned to one of the indicators. Scores for each indicator were then computed as the
mean of the scores on the items that constituted each indicator. For the four-dimension con-
struct, political skill, four indicators were created, one for each of the dimensions.
The distinctiveness of the nine suggested constructs was then tested by contrasting a nine-
factor model against alternative models, and Table 1 presents the CFA results. The overall
model's chi-square, the CFI (Bentler, 1990), the TLI (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the
RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) were used to assess model fit. As shown in the table, the
fit indexes revealed that the hypothesized nine-factor model fit the data well, )?(288) = 598.42,
p < .01 (CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .062), and considerably better than any of the alter-
native nested models. These provided primary evidence for construct distinctiveness.
We also followed Fornell and Larcker's (1981) method to further investigate construct
distinctiveness. Specifically, we calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) in each
latent factor and compared its correlations with other variables of interest to the square root
of AVE. The square roots of the AVEs are presented in Table 2. As seen in the table, for each
latent variable, the square root of AVE far exceeded its correlations with other variables of
interest, which again demonstrated discriminant validity.
Common Method Issues
Because affectivity, personal needs, POPs, political behavior, and political skill were col-
lected from the same source, common method variance (CMV) was a concern. Several pro-
cedural and statistical remedies suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff
(2003) were used to minimize potential CMV. First, anonymity and confidentiality of res-
ponses were promised to the participants to limit concerns such as participants' evaluation
apprehension and social desirability. Second, a psychological separation in the survey,
intended to reduce the participants' perception of any direct connection between these vari-
ables, was constructed by using different sets of instructions and putting a number of filler
items in between variables and placing them in different parts of the survey. Third, a 9-month
interval was created between the collection of data on personal power and the other variables.
Finally, we tested the potential influence of CMV statistically using Harman's one-factor
test. Principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed to determine whether a
single method factor explained a majority of variance. More than one factor with eigenvalues
Table 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Measures of the Variables Studied
Model )? df TLI CFI RMSEA
Nine-factor model' 598.42 288 .93 .94 .062

Eight-factor model 1: Negative and positive 1,334.40 296 .76 .79 .112
affectivity combined
Eight-factor model 2: Need for achievement and 903.20 296 .86 .88 .085
need for power combined
Eight-factor model 3: POPs and need for 1,032.40 296 .83 .85 .094
achievement combined
Eight-factor model 4: POPs and need for 996.73 296 .84 .86 .092
power combined
Eight-factor model 5: Political behavior and need 1,093.64 296 .81 .84 .098
for achievement combined
Eight-factor model 7: Political behavior and need 1,028.75 296 .83 .85 .094
for power combined
Eight-factor model 8: Political behavior and 1,166.23 296 .80 .83 .102
POPs combined
Eight-factor model 9: Political behavior and political 841.24 296 .87 .88 .081
skill combined
Eight-factor model 10: Political behavior and 1,073.40 296 .82 .85 .097
personal power combined
Eight-factor model 11: Political skill and personal 938.17 296 .85 .87 .088
power combined
Eight-factor model 12: Personal power and 805.55 296 .88 .90 .078
career growth potential combined
One-factor model 3,999.38 324 .21 .27 .201
Note: POPs = perceptions of organizational politics; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
a. Nine factors include (1) negative affectivity, (2) positive affectivity, (3) need for achievement, (4) need for power,
(5) perceptions of organizational politics, (6) political behavior, (7) political skill, (8) personal power, and (9) career
growth potential.
greater than 1 were reported, with the first factor accounting for 18% of the total variance
explained. Thus, CMV did not appear to be a pervasive problem in this study.
DescriptiveStatistics and Correlationsof Variables
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all key
variables. As shown in Table 2, need for achievement, need for power, and POPs were
positively correlated with political behavior (r = .14, .16, and .19, p < .05). In addition,
although political behavior did not correlate significantly with personal power and career
growth potential (r = .07 and .05, ns), political skill was positively correlated with personal
power and career growth potential (r = .21 and .21, p < .01). Finally, personal power was
positively related to career growth potential (r = .41, p < .01).
0
00
C~~~~C~ C CO
CC) - O II
m
0
C-' *
Cl
Soo -00
.11ý
CA
0
C-C* * Ca
0-
0ClC'
C)
N
cq0
0 'ON C)
CCC)00
CCCt N '00
o o 0 - 0
Cf
00 0i
0
eq 0 00
N- CD
00 SCl
C100
0 I
Q
c
r., ,zj- -
0
C\ ,I * C) Cl4 r 00m 0)
0 Cl C CD' It
Cl0 aj
I" I cq
-CCnC
-It 'o~ CCC)0- 0 0
C
0 0
CL,
mC j~ " 10 ýo 00 ~ 1-
0 00 000 o o I
m Ito4o 00
CC CD CDlC, C
0 - 0-C
C)~ 00 0 - 0 0 0ý 00~
ICli
0 1:-
b N 0. 5!4
to Co C- 0
r-
r 06C o6
cý -4 ri "i
1445
1446 Journal of Management /November 2010
Table 3
Regression Analyses of the Antecedents of Political Behavior
Political Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Control variables
Age .13* .16* .13* .10
Gender .02 .04 .03 .03
Organization tenure -. 03 -. 04 -. 03 -. 02
Position level .03 .03 .03 .02
Negative affectivity .l1t .10 .07 .03
Positive affectivity .01 -. 11 -. 09 -. 14*
Independent variables
Need for achievement .14* .19** .19**
.17** .18** .19"*
Need for power
Moderator
POPs .22** .19*
Interaction
Need for Achievement x POPs .121
Need for Power x POPs .16*
R2 .02 .07** .11***18*
F 1.11 2.79 4.03 5.04
AR2 .02 .05** .04** ý05**
AF 1.11 7.65 13.04 8.58
Note: POPs = perceptions of organizational politics.

tp <,10. *p <.05. **p <.01.
Tests of Hypotheses
To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we conducted a four-step hierarchically moderated multiple

regression analysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The control variables were
entered into the regression equation first, followed by need for achievement and need for
power in the second step. Moderating variables (i.e., POPs) were entered in the third step,
and two-way interaction terms were entered in the fourth step. Variables used in the interac-
tion term were centered so as to reduce multicollinearity problems (Aiken & West, 1991).
Table 3 presents results of the hierarchical moderated regression analysis. As shown in
the table, need for achievement (3 =. 14, p < .05, Model 2) and need for power (13=. 17, p < .01,
Model 2) were positively related to political behavior, supporting Hypothesis 1. Furthermore,
the results showed that POPs moderated both the relationship between need for achievement
and political behavior (PI= .12, p < .10, Model 4) and the relationship between need for
power and political behavior (13= .16, p < .05, Model 4). These interaction terms accounted
2 8
for 5% of the explained variance in political behavior (AR = .05, AF= .58,p < .01).
The nature of the significant interactions was examined by plotting values plus and minus
one standard deviation from the means of need for power, need for achievement, and POPs.
Figures 2 and 3 provide clear illustrations of the influence patterns (Cohen et al., 2003). As
Figure 2
Interactive Effect of Need for Achievement and Perceptions of Organizational
Politics (POPs) on Political Behavior
4.0
High POPs
Q
"C3.5
-- Low POPs
' 3.0
at.
2.5
low high
Need for Achievement
Figure 3
Interactive Effect of Need for Power and Perceptions of Organizational
Politics (POPs) on Political Behavior
4.0
Hig POPs
0
g5
-3.5
'2 3.0 . . . . .
-Low POPs
"6
2.5 ,
low
high
Need for Power
shown in Figure 2, the positive relationship between need for achievement and political behavior
was stronger when POPs were high. Figure 3 indicated that need for power was more positively
related to political behavior when POPs were high. Thus, the results supported Hypothesis 2.
To test Hypotheses 3 and 4, which involved both moderating and mediating effects, we
adopted the Moderated Causal Steps Approach of regression analysis (Muller, Judd, &
Yzerbyt, 2005), which was derived from the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure. Five
hierarchical steps were examined: the control variable (Step 1) was first entered, followed
by the direct effects of political behavior (Step 2) and political skill (Step 3), then the Political
Table 4
Regression Analyses of the Consequences of Political Behavior
Personal Power Career Growth Potential
Model5 Model 6 Model7 Model 8 Model9 Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 Model 13
Control
variables
Age .07 .06 .06 .07 .12 .11 .Al .11 .09
-. 00 -_00 .01 .08 .08 .08 .09 .09
Gender -. 00
-. 04 .00 .01 -. 05 -. 05 -. 01 -. 00 -. 01
Organization -. 04
tenure
Position level .14* .14* .13* .lit .04 .03 .03 .01 -. 03
Negative -. 145 -. 15* -. 150 -. 15 - .12t -. 13* -. 129 -. 13* -. 08
affectivity .07
.05 .05 .02 .01 .12t A12* .09 .07
Positive
affectivity
Independent
variable
Political .07 .00 .00 .05 -. 03 -. 03 -. 03
behavior
Moderator
.19** .18"* .20** .20** .13*
Political
skill
Interaction
.13* .07
Political
Behavior x
Political
Skill
Mediation
.35**
Personal
power
R2 .06** 07" '0"* .12"* ,07** .07* .10"* .12** .23**
4.11 3.19 2.85 3.81 3.97 7.73
F 2 2.94 2.75 3.60
.06** .03** .02** .07** .00 .03** .02* .11**
AR .01
2194 7.48 3.19 .75 9.90 4.81 36.92
AF 1.55 9.03
tp <.10. *p <.05. **p <.01.
Behavior x Political Skill interaction (Step 4), and last, the mediating effect of personal
power (Step 5). Multicollinearity problems were investigated in all the above-mentioned
regression analyses. No threats from the issue were found.
Table 4 presents results of the hierarchical regression analysis. As shown in the table,
political behavior was correlated with neither personal power (PI= .07, ns, Model 6) nor
career growth potential (03= .05, ns, Model 10). However, the results demonstrated that there
were interactive effects of political behavior and political skill on personal power (.3=.16,
p < .01, Model 8) and on career growth potential (PI= .13,p < .05, Model 12).
After entering personal power, the interaction effects of political behavior and political
skill on career growth potential disappeared, whereas personal power was found to be posi-
tively related to career growth potential (3 = .35, p < .01, Model 13). According to the
mediated-moderation method proposed by Muller et al. (2005), it was determined that the
Political Behavior x Political Skill interaction effect on career growth potential was medi-
ated by personal power. Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were both supported.
Edwards and Lambert (2007) critiqued the Moderated Causal Steps Approach by arguing
that it does not reveal how a mediating variable specifically influences the moderation. They
suggested using a General Path Analytic Framework to combine moderation and mediation.
This framework decomposes a moderated-mediation or a mediated-moderation model into
two specific moderated stage effects and a moderated direct effect. The moderated first-stage
effect evaluates whether the relationship between the independent variable (IV) and the
mediating variable (Me) varies across levels of the moderating variable (Mo). The moder-
ated second-stage effect evaluates whether the Me-dependent variable (DV) relationship
varies across levels of Mo. The moderated first-stage and second-stage effects constitute the
moderated indirect effect. The moderated direct effect evaluates whether the JV-DV rela-
tionship (with the presence of Me) varies as a function of Mo.
Following the analytic procedure of Edwards and Lambert (2007), we calculated and
present, in Table 5, the first-stage, second-stage, direct, indirect, and total effects (i.e., com-
bination of direct and indirect effects) in the low- and high-political-skill subordinate groups.
As shown in the table, the total effect of political behavior on outcome variable career growth
potential varied significantly across low- and high-political-skill groups (path difference =.16,
p < .05). This again supported Hypothesis 3. Table 5 also demonstrates that the indirect
effect of political behavior on career growth through personal power was significant in both
low- and high-political-skill groups (path =::E.04, p < .05). In addition, because the first-stage
and second-stage effects jointly decide the indirect effect, and we found that only the first-
stage effect varied across low- and high-political-skill groups (path difference = .28,p < .01)
and the second-stage did not (path difference =-.07, ns), we could conclude, following Edwards
and Lambert's (2007) methodology, that the Political Behavior x Political Skill interaction on
subordinate career growth potential was mediated by personal power.
To graphically illustrate significant moderation effects, we used the procedure similar to
the one recommended by Stone and Hollenbeck (1989), plotting two slopes, one at one stan-
dard deviation below the mean and one at one standard deviation above the mean. Figures 4
and 5 demonstrate the influence pattern of Political Behavior x Political Skill interactions on
personal power and career growth potential, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, political
behavior was positively related to personal power when political skill was high and negatively
related to personal power when political skill was low. On the other hand, Figure 5 indicates
that political behavior, "in total" (Panel A of Figure 5), was positively related to career growth
potential when political skill was high and negatively related to career growth potential when
political skill was low. We also decomposed the total moderating effect into the direct (Panel
B) and the indirect (Panel C) moderating effects. As shown in the figures, both direct and
indirect effects manifested the same influence pattern of the Political Behavior x Political
Skill interaction on the outcome variable, although the magnitudes of the moderations were
smaller than the total effect, which was due to the mediation effect of personal power.
Discussion
Political perspectives on organizations have suggested that to achieve success in jobs and
careers, individuals need to rely not only on their professional skills and expertise but also
1450 Journal of Management I November 2010
Table 5
Results of the Simple Effect Analysis
Low-Political- High-Political-
Skill Subordinates Skill Subordinates Difference
1. First stage (political behavior's effect -. 13* .15* .28**

on personal power)
2. Second stage (personal power's effect .34** .27** -. 07
on career growth potential)
3. Direct effect (political behavior's direct effect -. 03 .05 .08
4. Indirect effect (political behavior's effect on -. 04* .04* .08*
career growth potential via personal power)
5. Total effect (political behavior's total effect -. 07 .09 .16*
Note: 1,000 bootstrap samples were used to generate estimates; unstandardized path coefficients are reported in
the table.
*p <.05. **p <.01.
Figure 4
Interactive Effect of Political Behavior and Political Skill on Personal Power
5.1
High Political Skill
o4.6
0-
0 4.1- Low Political Skill
a)
a.
3.6
low high
Political Behavior
on their ability to skillfully navigate social and political contexts (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer,
1981). In their daily work, employees frequently engage in political behaviors to secure
resources needed for effective performance and to manage favorable impressions in the eyes
of decision makers. Recent theory (Ferris et al., 2007; Ferris & Judge, 1991) and research
have suggested that individual political activities at work (e.g., Judge & Bretz, 1994; Wayne
et al., 1997), and the skill with which such activities are carried out (e.g., Wei et al., in press),
strongly influence performance ratings and career-related evaluations and decisions. This study
extends this line of research by examining the interplay among motivation, power, and politics
in career growth.
The results of this study indicate that individuals are more likely to engage in political
behavior in organizations when they are motivated by strong personal needs for achievement
Figure 5
Interactive Effect of Political Behavior and Political Skill on Career Growth Potential
5A: "Total" Moderating Effect

4.2

S3.7-
3.. 2
Low Political Skill

3.2
low high
Political Behavior
5B: "Direct" Moderating Effect

4.2-

•3.7-
0 3 Low Political Skill

C.)
3.2-
low high
Political Behavior
5C: "Indirect/Mediated" Moderating Effect via Personal Power
4.2 -
C 3.7
o.
o 0 Low Political Skill
3.2
low high
Political Behavior
Note: Statistically the direct moderating effect is not significant.
and/or power. Furthermore, a work environment perceived to be political appears to enhance

the behavioral expression of these needs, such that the needs-behavior relationship becomes
even stronger when organizational politics are perceived to be high.
We found that political behavior is associated with enhanced career growth potential through
increased personal power, but only when individuals are politically skilled. Specifically,
individuals high in political skill appear to accrue personal power, and enhance their likelihood
of realizing future career growth, through their political acts. In contrast, individuals who par-
ticipate in organizational politics, but lack political skill, tend to reduce their personal power
and jeopardize their future career potential.
Contributionsof the Study
This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, echoing prior theory and
research that has examined career growth and success from a political perspective, this study
indicates that evaluators' perceptions about employees' career growth potential are critically
influenced by the levels of political behavior, political skill, and personal power they acquire
on the job. These findings add supporting evidence to the political view of organizations and
provide new insights to the tournament theory of career success by focusing on factors influ-
encing the identification of potential stars for career sponsorship.
Second, this study serves as a comprehensive model that depicts key antecedents and
outcomes of political behavior with consideration of potential moderators and mediators. In
particular, a model was depicted in which both the role of context (i.e., political climate of
an organization as reflected in POPs) and individual differences in political motives of political
behavior are explored. By taking an interactional approach to political behavior, we demon-
strated that individuals' active political involvement at work is a function of both personal
needs and political necessity created by the situation. This finding provides rich insights for
the intervention of political behavior at work.
Furthermore, despite the recent burgeoning of research in the area of organizational politics,
political behavior scholarship seldom has gone beyond the examination of the effects of spe-
cific influence tactics in various situations, leaving the overall effect of actor political activities
(i.e., most likely involving selective usage of various combinations of influence tactics target-
ing different audiences) relatively underinvestigated (Ferris et al., 2007; Ferris & Hochwarter,
in press). This study, together with others that have used more general political behavior mea-
sures (e.g., Treadway et al., 2005), helps illustrate the relationships between political behavior
and its correlates in ways that better reflect their actual practice in the workplace.
Moreover, organizational politics research is informed through these results by providing
additional information concerning the "how" and "why" of political behavior (cf. Ferris &
Hochwarter, in press). Ferris and colleagues (2007) have suggested that it is not enough to
study the "what" (i.e., political behavior or influence tactics) of social influence, but what is criti-
cally needed is the examination of factors that explain "how and why influence attempts are
executed successfully, are perceived positively, and result in favorable outcomes" (Treadway
et al., 2007: 848).
With regard to the "how" question, the current research is the first to explore the moder-
ating role of political skill in the relationships between political behavior and career growth
potential. The results indicate that employee political skill serves as one of the boundary condi-
tions for political behavior to achieve its desired goals. Only when individuals are equipped
with political skill are they able to navigate the political environment at work, gain resources
and power, execute influence, and obtain personal goals of career growth effectively. It appears
that when political skill is lacking, individuals' political behavior is not executed in effective
ways, which is potentially detrimental to career growth.
This research also explored the "why" question of political behavior by examining the
mediating role of personal power in the political behavior-outcome relationship. Although
potential power gain has been assumed to be an inherent feature of political behavior (e.g.,
Mintzberg, 1985; Pfeffer, 1992), virtually absent in the literature has been any empirical
demonstration of the relationship between political behavior and personal power. Finally,
prior research findings on the role of political motives as antecedents of political behavior
have been constructively replicated in this study. This relationship has been examined only
infrequently (e.g., Porter et al., 1981; Treadway et al., 2005). Thus, the findings of this study
bring new insights and additional information to the ongoing scholarly conversation on the
topic of organizational politics.
Strengths and Limitations
The study has several strengths. Data were collected from matched pairs of employees and
their supervisors, with a 9-month interval between the data collection on independent variables
and dependent variables. The collection of data at two distinct points in time lends support to
the causal nature of the model with regard to the outcomes of political behavior. The use of
data collected from different sources helps limit potential problems associated with CMV.
Despite the strengths, this study also has some limitations that point to the need for fur-
ther research. For example, personal power was assessed by self-report measure. Furthermore,
the measure reflects more of the structural, and not social, dimensions of personal power
(cf Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Gioia & Sims, 1983). Further research may consider using a
third source for one or both of the dependent variables (e.g., asking peers of the focal person to
report personal power measures). Finally, the measure of career growth potential is rather
general, although it demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Further research may
seek to use multidimensional measures to assess career growth potential. Also, objectively
measured variables for career progression and success (e.g., number of promotions) could be
examined, in addition to perceptions of career growth potential, in future studies.
Directionsfor FurtherResearch
We offer a number of suggestions for further research. First, the current model of political
behavior can be enriched by incorporating a broader set of outcomes of political behavior.
Ferris et al. (2007) suggest that organizational politics is a multilevel phenomenon. To date,
as in this study, most research has focused on individual outcomes. Group- and organization-
level implications of organizational political behavior only rarely have been examined (e.g.,
Dutton et al., 1997; Smith et al., in press).
In addition, as suggested by Ferris and Hochwarter (in press), the "why" of political behav-
ior needs further examination. This study indicates that the accruement of personal power
serves as an underlying mechanism that helps explain why the political behavior of politi-
cally skilled individuals helps them to obtain valuable resources. Future research may further
explore other mediating variables, such as acquisition of organizational resources, network
positions, and personal reputation. Plouffe and Barclay (2007) reason that salespersons who
engage in political behavior will be more effective performers because they are more likely
than others to secure the sales resources they need, ensure product inventory availability, be
assigned to territory that has good sales potential, and have rules and policies bend to suit
their sales needs. If further research can establish links between political behavior and such
tangible and intangible resources that employees are able to gather at work, an enriched
understanding of the "why" of political behavior could be developed.
Finally, there is a need for a more balanced measure of political behavior. Political behav-
ior in organizations was viewed in the past as manipulative actions that serve primarily self-
serving purposes (e.g., Ferris et al., 1989; Porter et al., 1981). However, more recent
conceptualizations of political behavior have begun to recognize that these types of social
influence behavior may be motivated by benevolent goals, be well received by targets, and
have the potential of benefiting both individuals' career prospects and organizational effec-
tiveness (e.g., Dutton &Ashford, 1993; Dutton et al., 1997; Ferris et al., 2007; Lux et al., 2008;
Smith et al., in press). In a recent study, Fedor, Maslyn, Fanner, and Bettenhausen (2008)
discussed positive versus negative forms of political behaviors, and they demonstrated that
perceptions of negative and positive politics represent separate dimensions of political
behavior, which also lead to distinctive outcomes. Thus, a measure of political behavior that
echoes this new conceptual and empirical development is in order.
PracticalImplications
The results of this study offer several implications for practice. First, consistent with prior
theory and research, it is clear from the results of this study that political behavior is a result
of both individual traits (i.e., personal needs structure) and situational factors (i.e., POPs).
Because employees react to organizational politics based on their perceptions, organizations
may benefit from actively monitoring perceptions of employees with regard to the political
nature of their work environment. This involves designing an organizational structure that
encourages information flow, open communication, and community building, through which
resources may become more readily available to those in need.
Such efforts should discourage negative political behaviors induced by competition over
resource use and, at the same time, nurture "healthy," constructive political behavior that uses
connections and slack resources to make things happen in organizations. Although the domi-
nant view has characterized political behavior as manipulative and self-serving (e.g., Ferris et al.,
1989; Porter et al., 1981), more recent conceptualizations recognize that political behavior may
be pro-organization in nature (e.g., Lux et al., 2008). As demonstrated elsewhere, individuals
may indeed use their political resources and skills to benefit the organization (Dutton et al.,
1997; Smith et al., in press). Because no organization is likely to function perfectly or ideally,
managers and employees must often bend the rules to circumvent existing institutional poli-
cies. When political behavior is carried out for the purposes beyond immediate self-interest, it
becomes a potentially powerful force within the organization for constructive change.
Employees should also foster a positive outlook concerning the political nature of orga-
nizations and be able to bring themselves up to speed in the political dimension of work.
Individuals pursuing career success must understand the role of political behavior in career
growth, which prevents them from forming inaccurate or even naive impressions about what
it takes to achieve career success. Because it is not realistic, or necessarily beneficial, to
eliminate politics entirely from organizations (Pfeffer, 1992), it may behoove employees to
enhance their political skill so that they can more effectively navigate their work environ-
ment, build relationships, and advance their careers.
Despite accrued knowledge in the field of organizational politics, many exciting new research
questions are still in need of exploration. Based on such questions and issues, practical advice
could be offered to managers and employees who spend their days at work trying to better their
own performance and career progress, as well as the performance and well-being of their orga-
nizations. This study provides a first step in understanding the complex interplay among political
motives, perceptions, behavior, skill, and power as it contributes to a more informed understand-
ing of career growth. We found that it takes both political motivation and skill to be an effective
political actor at work. It is hoped that this research will generate more scholarly interest in the
study of political behavior and in the dynamics of the political work environment.
Appendix
Development of the Personal Needs Measures
The measures of need for achievement and need for power were developed in Chinese based on
McClelland's conceptualization of personal needs and the second author's qualitative study on leader
motives. The original item pool consists of 13 items. Three management professors evaluated the
wording, contents, and face validities of the items, based on which 3 items were removed to increase
conceptual clarity of the items. Among the 10 items remaining, 5 items stood for one type of needs.
After the item reduction, the rest of the items were submitted to a sample of 618 managers and employ-
ees working for telecom firms in China, from whom survey data were collected.
Exploratory factor analyses on the needs items using principal component and Varimax rotation
methods result in two clean factors. The table below presents the final version of the scales. Four items
were retained for each of the needs. The alpha values for need for achievement and need for power in
the study were .80 and .74, respectively.
Factor Loadings of the Personal Needs Items

1 2
Need for achievement
I love to confront challenges of the job. .86 .06
In order to fulfill tasks, I would like to take risks. .77 .17
I am willing to set and achieve realistic goals. .76 .16
I would like to seek satisfaction from accomplishing a difficult task.. .74 .19
Need for power
I want other people to act in my way. .11 .82
I love to lead and be in charge. .19 .76
I love to compete and win. .15 .73
I will argue with someone if I disagree with him/her. .10 .65
Total variance explained (%) 31.46 28.53
Cronbach's alpha .80 .74
Note:N= 618.
Extraction method: Principal components analysis.
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
(continued)
Appendix (continued)
Because this was a newly developed measure, we took steps to further cross-validate it. Specifically,
we administered a survey to a new sample of 167 employees from an auto-manufacturing firm located
in Guangzhou, China. The survey contains our own needs measures and the need for power and need
for achievement measures from the Manifested Needs Questionnaire (MNQ; Steers & Braunstein,
1976), one of the most widely used measures of personal needs.
The results indicate that our measure of need for power was highly correlated with that of the MNQ
(r =.70, p < .01). Similarly, our measure of need for achievement was also highly correlated with that
of the MNQ (r= .68,p < .01). These correlations compared favorably with correlations among existing
self-report needs scales. According to a recent review of motivational measures by Mayer, Faber, and
Xu (2007), such correlations range from .73 to .74 for need for power, and from .25 to .55 for need for
achievement.
Moreover, the observed correlations between need for power and need for achievement of our mea-
sures, r = .38 (p < .01) in the main study and r = .39 (p < .01) in the cross-validation, were also compa-
rable with those reported by prior research on the MNQ (e.g., Parker & Chusmir, 1991, reported a
correlation ofr = .39, p < .01). Finally, the reliabilities of both needs measures were above .80 in both
the main study and the cross-validation. Given this evidence, we believe that our measures of need for
power and need for achievement have sound psychometric quality comparable with existing measures.
Note
1. We acknowledge that there is noticeable conceptual similarity between our conceptualization of personal
power and that of autonomy in the work design literature. Hackman and Oldham defined autonomy as "the degree
to which thejob provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work
and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out" (1975: 162). More recent theoretical and empirical
research has distinguished three dimensions of autonomy, that is, autonomy in work scheduling, work methods, and
decision making (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Despite the similarity
consid-
between these two constructs, they are very different in terms of what they intend to capture. Autonomy is
ered a designed feature of a job and is measured by the degree to which the job allows individuals to exercise
control over their work. Personal power, in contrast, focuses on the degree of control one obtains through idiosyn-
cratic efforts, oftentimes beyond what the job characteristics prescribe. Given that our model is embedded in the
political context of work, we consider it more appropriate to discuss the construct using the term personalpower.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpretinginteractions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Stone, R. 1996. Early career outcomes of graduate employees: The effect of mentoring and
ingratiation. JournalofManagement Studies, 33: 95-118.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impres-
sion management in selling gender-equity issues. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 43: 23-57.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,51: 1173-1182.
Bedeian, A. G., Kemery, E. R., & Pizzolatto, A. B. 1991. Career commitment and expected utility of present job as
predictors of turnover intentions and turnover behavior. Journalof VocationalBehavior, 39: 331-343.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107: 238-246.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. 1993. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior.
Academy ofiManagement Journal,36: 441-470.
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. 2009. Politics as a moderator of the accountability-
job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journalof Management, 35: 307-326.
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis &J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Handbook ofcross-culturalpsychology,Vol. 2: 389-444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models: 136-162. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buchanan, D. A. 2008. You stab my back, I'll stab yours: Management experience and perceptions of organizational
political behavior. British Journalof Management, 19: 49-64.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysisfor the
behavioralsciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L. S. 1993. Tournament players. In G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research inperson-
nel and human resources management, Vol. 11: 83-132. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cropaunzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. 1997. The relationship of organizational politics and sup-
port to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journalof OrganizationalBehavior, 18: 159-180.
Cropanzano, R., & Li, A. 2006. Organizational politics and workplace stress. In E. Vigoda-Gadot &A. Drory (Eds.),
Handbook of organizationalpolitics: 139-160. Cheltenham, UK- Edward Elgar.
DeiT, C. B. 1988. Managing the new careerists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dulebohn, J. H., Murray, B., & Ferris, G. R. 2004. The vicious and virtuous cycles of influence tactic use and
performance evaluation outcomes. OrganizationalAnalysis, 12: 53-74.
Dutton, J., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management.Academy ofManagementReview, 18: 397-428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Neill, R-M.O., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle man-
agers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. StrategicManagementJournal,18: 407-423.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical
framework using moderated path analysis. PsychologicalMethods, 12: 1-22.
Emerson, R. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American SociologicalReview, 27: 31-41.
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., Davidson, S. L., & Perrew6, P. L. 2005, Politicalskill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain
View, CA: Davies-Black.
Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. 2000. Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship
between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the
sociology of organizations,Vol. 17: 89-130. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. in press. Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck (Eds.), Handbook of industrial!
organizationalpsychology, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. 2002. Social influ-
ence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research
in personneland human resourcesmanagement, Vol. 21: 65-127. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. 1991. Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective.
Journal ofManagement, 17: 447-488.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. 1989. Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfield (Eds.),
Impression management in the organization:143-170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D.
2005. Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal ofManagement, 31: 124-152.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrew&, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C,, & Lux, S. 2007. Political skill in organi-
zations. Journalof Management, 33: 290-320.
Fomell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal ofMarketingResearch, 28: 39-50.
Franz, R. S. 1998. Task interdependence and personal power in teams. Small Group Research, 29: 226-253.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. 1980. The experiences of workplace politics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 23:
237-251.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. 1983. Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and
reputation. Journal ofManagement, 9: 7-26.
Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. 2002. Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the construct validity
of assessment center ratings. PersonnelPsychology, 55: 137-164.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal ofApplied Psychology,
60: 159-170.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. 2007. The impact of political skill on impression manage-
ment effectiveness. JournalofApplied Psychology, 92: 278-285.
Higgins, C., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. 2003. Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof
OrganizationalBehavior, 24: 89-106.
Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. 1996. The employment interview context: Social and situational influences on inter-
viewer decisions. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 26: 112-136.
Huhn, C., Cudeck, R., Netemeyer, R., Dillon, W. R., McDonald, R., & Bearden, W. 2001. Measurement. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 10: 55-69.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journalof
Applied Psychology, 92: 1332-1356.
Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J.A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. 2008. Self-efficacy and political skill as compara-
tive predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human Performance,
21: 1-20.
Jones, E. E. 1990. Interpersonalperception.New York: W. H. Freeman.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. 1994. Political influence behavior and career success. JournalofManagement, 20:
43-65.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. 1991. Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and con-
struct validation. Educationaland PsychologicalMeasurement, 51: 193-205.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. 1983. An influence perspective on bargaining within organizations. In M. H. Bazerman &
R. H. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations:303-319. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intra-organizational influence tactics: Exploration of getting one's
way. JournalofApplied Psychology, 65: 440-452.
Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. 2007. Feedback seeking behavior and leader member exchange: Do supervisor
attributions matter? Academy of Management Journal,50: 348-363.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. 2000. A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in
structural equation models. OrganizationalResearchMethods, 3: 186-207.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. 1988. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 13: 572-587.
Liu, Y., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Perrew6, P. L., Weitz, B. A., &Xu, J. 2007. Dispositional antecedents and outcomes
of political skill in organizations: A four-study investigation with convergence. Journalof VocationalBehavior,
71: 146-165.
Locke, E. A. 1991. The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. OrganizationalBehavior
and Human Decision Processes,50: 288-299.
Lux, S., Ferris, G. R., Brouer, R. L., Laird, M. D., & Summers, J. 2008. Organizational politics. In J. Barling &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizationalbehavior: 353-371. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, J. D., Faber, M. A., & Xu, X. 2007. Seventy-five years of motivation measures (1930-2005): A descriptive
analysis. Motivation & Emotion, 31: 83-103.
McClelland, D. C. 1961/1976. The achievingsociety. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. 1962. Business drives and national achievement. HarvardBusiness Review, 40: 99-112.
McClelland, D. C. 1975. Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. 1976. Power is the great motivator. HarvardBusiness Review, 54: 100-110.
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and aroundorganizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. 1985. The organization as a political arena. JournalofManagement Studies, 22: 133-154.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a com-
prehensive measure for assessingjob design and the nature of work. Journalof-Applied Psychology, 91: 1321-1339.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. 2005. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal
ofPersonalityand Social Psychology, 89: 852-863.
Mumford, M., Antes, A., Caughron, J., & Friedrich, T. 2008. Charismatic, ideological, and practical leadership:
Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. LeadershipQuarterly, 19: 144-160.
Murray, H. 1938. Explorationsin personality.New York: Oxford University.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career
success: A meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 58: 367-408.
Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. H. 1991. Motivations needs and their relationship to life success. Human Relations, 44:
1301-1312.
Perrew6, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. 2000. Political skill: An antidote for workplace stress-
ors. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 14:115-123.
Perrew6, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. 2004. Neutralizing job
stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict stressors. Academy of
ManagementJournal,47: 141-152.
Pervin, L. A. 1989. Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical
models. Academy of Management Review, 14:350-360.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations.Boston: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 1992. Managing with power: Politicsand influence in organizations.Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Plouffe, C. R, & Barclay, D. W. 2007. Salesperson navigation: The intraorganizational dimension of the sales role.
IndustrialMarketingManagement,36: 528-539.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y, & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:
879-903.
Porter, L. W, Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. 1981. The politics of upward influence in organizations. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior,Vol. 3: 109-149. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rosenbaum, J. E. 1984. Careermobility in a corporatehierarchy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1974. The bases and use of power in organizational decision making. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 19: 453-473.
Schneider, B. 1983. Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizationalbehavior, Vol. 5: 1-31. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. 2006. Comparing the effects of multiple social effectiveness constructs on
managerial performance. Journalof OrganizationalBehavior, 27: 443-461.
Smith, A. D., Plowman, D. A., Duchon, D., & Quinn, A. in press. A qualitative study of high-reputation plant man-
agers: Political skill and successful outcomes. Journalof OperationsManagement.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. R., & Pelled, L. H. 1994. Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the work-
place. OrganizationScience, 5: 51-71.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. 1976. A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 9: 251-266.
Stone, E. F, & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1989. Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for
detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74:3-10.
Tett, R. P., & Bumett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 500-517.
Tett, K- P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency:
Testing a principle of trait-activation. Journal ofResearch in Personality,34: 397-423.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G., & Thatcher, J. B. 2007. The moderating role of subordinate
political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate integration and ratings of interpersonal facilitation.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 848-855.
Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Ferris, G. R. 2005. Political will, political skill, and political
behavior. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 26: 229-245.
Tucker, L. K, & Lewis, C.A. 1973. Areliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,
38: 1-10.
Turner, R. 1. 1960. Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. American SociologicalReviev, 25: 855-867.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scale. Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology, 54: 1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, I. W. 1989. Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative
affectivity. PsychologicalReview, 96: 234-254.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. 1995. A longitudinal study on the effects of impression management on performance
ratings. Academy of Management Journal,38: 232-260.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. Kt,& Ferris, G. R. 1997. The role of upward influence tactics in human resource
decisions. PersonnelPsychology, 50: 979-1006.
Wei, L. Q., Liu, J., Chen, Y., & Wu, L. Z. in press. Political skill, supervisor-subordinate guanxi and career devel-
opment of subordinates: Evidence from Chinese firms. Journalof Management Studies.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Craffing a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
Academy ofManagement Review, 26: 179-201.
Yuld, G., & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.
JournalofApplied Psychology, 77: 525-535.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Author: Liu, Yongmei; Liu, Jun; Wu, Longzeng

Title: Are You Willing and Able? Roles of Motivation, Power, and Politics in
Career Growth
Source: J Manage 36 no6 N 2010 p. 1432-60

ISSN: 0149-2063
DOI:10.1177/0149206309359810
Publisher: Sage Publications, Ltd.
1 Olivers Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced
with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is
prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.elsevier.com/
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-
licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

3#roles of Motivation, Power - JM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3#roles of Motivation, Power - JM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Vol. 36 No. 6, November 2010 1432-1460

Are You Willing and Able? Roles of Motivation,

Theory and Hypotheses

Hypothesis la: Need for achievement is positively related to political behavior.

ModeratingRole of Perceptions of OrganizationalPolitics

Whereas individual differences frequently materialize in consistent behavioral patterns,

PoliticalBehavior x PoliticalSkill Effect on Career Growth Mediated

The politicalfactorin careergrowth potential.Political behavior is directed toward obtain-

The politicalfactor inpersonalpower.Political skill brings many benefits to individuals

Personalpower and careergrowth potential.Career advancement requires individuals to

Sample and Procedures

Perceptions of organizationalpolitics. A 12-item scale developed by Kacmar and Ferris

Personalpower. A three-item scale developed by Franz (1998) was used to measure

Careergrowth potential.Two items developed by Bedeian, Kemery, and Pizzolatto (1991)

Data Analysis and Results

Common Method Issues

Nine-factor model' 598.42 288 .93 .94 .062

DescriptiveStatistics and Correlationsof Variables

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Note: POPs = perceptions of organizational politics.

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we conducted a four-step hierarchically moderated multiple

Model5 Model 6 Model7 Model 8 Model9 Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 Model 13

tp <.10. *p <.05. **p <.01.

1. First stage (political behavior's effect -. 13* .15* .28**

High Political Skill

5A: "Total" Moderating Effect

High Political Skill

Low Political Skill

5B: "Direct" Moderating Effect

High Political Skill

0 3 Low Political Skill

Note: Statistically the direct moderating effect is not significant.

and/or power. Furthermore, a work environment perceived to be political appears to enhance

Contributionsof the Study

Strengths and Limitations

Factor Loadings of the Personal Needs Items

Author: Liu, Yongmei; Liu, Jun; Wu, Longzeng

Source: J Manage 36 no6 N 2010 p. 1432-60

You might also like