Social Influence and Politics in Organizational Research

Abstract

This special issue of the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies addresses the topic of “Social Influence and Politics in Organizational Research,” a topic which spans more than a century and represents one of the oldest areas of inquiry in the field. In this article, we first review the literature to extract what we seem to know about this area of the field, and then we shift to an identification of some areas about which we still need to know more. Nine articles were selected to be published in this special issue, and they reflect different aspects of some these “need to know more” areas of social influence and politics in organizations. We believe these articles represent solid contributions to new knowledge in this area, and we hope they stimulate further and renewed scholarly interest.

Keywords

social influence organizational politics political skill impression management influence tactics

Introduction

Social influence, or how others affect our behavior and attitudes, has been an important focus of investigation and concern for over a century. In fact, social influence represents the oldest experimental paradigm in the behavioral sciences, dating back to Triplett’s (1898) investigation of how cyclists perform differently in the presence of other cyclists than they do when riding alone. Then, about 80 years ago, the political scientist, Lasswell (1936), described politics as “who gets what, when, and how,” thus contributing another dimension to social influence, and developing a body of work that continues to be a vibrant area of scholarship to this day. Today, it appears to be a generally accepted fact that influence and politics are fundamental to all social phenomena, including work organizations, and the role of social influence processes in the organizational sciences has evolved in terms of the precision of our understanding over time.

Because of its role in the field, it is useful to periodically assess the status of theory and research on topics like influence and politics, highlighting what we know, and what we still need to know. Indeed, this special issue of the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies intends to do just that. Leadership is a basic social influence process, and obviously, a major focus of scholarship published in this journal since it began. Sometimes it is important, in special issues such as this, to take stock of where the field currently resides on topics, and thus, where we might need to go with future work (The Leadership Quarterly did that for the field of leadership in 2004 with a special issue on “Political Perspectives on Leadership,” Ammeter, Douglas, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Gardner, 2004).

In the first part of this article, we conduct a thorough review of the social influence and politics literature, with particular emphasis on underscoring what we know and understand about these phenomena. In so doing, we divide the scholarly literature into the three main areas of work noted by Ferris and Hochwarter (2011): Political/influence behavior, perceptions of organizational politics (POP), and political skill. In the latter part of the article, we suggest ideas on emerging and future directions in social influence and politics research, noting how the articles published in this special issue of the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies address some of these needed areas of investigation.

The social influence and politics scholarly literature is quite extensive in nature, and has been studied from many different disciplinary perspectives, thus making it impossible to comprehensively cover within the page limitations of this article. So, rather than advertise our article as being exhaustive in nature, we present it as a representative sampling of some important issues in the field and literature. We suggest this review be considered as supplementary to the several more comprehensive reviews published in the past of the social influence and politics literature (see Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002; Ferris, Harris, Russell, & Maher, in press; Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Lux, Ferris, Brouer, Laird, & Summers, 2008; Silvester, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2006).

What We Know About Social Influence and Politics

Political Influence Behavior

Influence Tactics

According to social influence theory, most interpersonal relationships involve some type of social influence; that is, people desire to influence others while at the same time they are being influenced by others (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Goffman (1959) suggested that social influence encompasses an “infinite cycle” of exchanges that prompts individuals to represent themselves in the most positive light so that it will induce positive reactions from the target of the influence. Social influence involves tactics utilized by individuals to increased positive outcomes and reduce potential negative consequences associated with a given interpersonal interaction (Ferris, Hochwarter et al., 2002).

There have been a variety of social influence tactics studied in the organizational sciences literature (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Tedeschi and Melburg (1984) developed a taxonomy to organize the different influence tactics. According to their taxonomy, influence tactics are classified along two dimensions: assertive–defensive and tactical–strategic. Assertive behavior are actor initiated in response to something, whereas defensive tactics are reactive and usually occur in response to a perceived threat. Tactical behavior encompass a short-term view perspective, whereas strategic behavior involves a long-term view that can have positive implications for the actor’s personal reputation. In this way, the tactical–defensive behavior includes actions such as excuses and justifications, and disclaimers. Tactical assertive behaviors include intimidation, self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification. Strategic defensive behavior includes alcoholism, learned helplessness, and substance abuse. Strategic assertive behavior include behaviors that are oriented toward creating positive personal reputational characteristics.

Employees often engage in upward influence tactics to the extent that they can affect a valued outcome (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994). The research in this domain suggests that ingratiation and self-promotion have most often investigated subordinate upward influence tactics. Both tactics appear to be distinct with different advantages and consequences. Subordinate influence tactics have largely been considered in the performance evaluation context (Dulebohn & Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris & King, 1991; Villanova & Bernardin, 1989). Ilgen and Feldman (1983) argued that subordinates should be treated as active participants in the performance evaluation context. As such, they should be engaged in the process to manage the impressions and information they convey.

Several studies demonstrate the impact of social influences tactics on subordinate performance ratings (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) conducted a study that investigated the impact of employees’ use of influence tactics on their evaluations of the fairness of the performance evaluation process. Specifically, they examined influence tactics as an informal mechanism of voice on justice reactions to the performance evaluation process. Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) found that the use of supervisor-focused influence tactics were related to positive procedural justice evaluations, whereas the use of job-focused influence tactics were related to negative evaluations. They also found that employees’ perceptions of decision control and opportunity for formal voice moderated the relationship between influence tactics and procedural justice. The findings of their study suggests that the impact of procedural justice evaluations depend on the relative type and use of influence tactics.

In a meta-analytic study examining the gendered nature of lateral and upward influence attempts, A. N. Smith et al. (2013) investigated the conditions under which the gender of the influencer affected the use and effectiveness of influence behaviors. They argued that gender has been neglected in this conversation, but instead has been considered mostly as a control variable in most studies on influence. A. N. Smith et al. (2013) suggested that gender is associated with prescriptive stereotypes. There are categorically specific norms of behaviors that are prescribed as appropriate and inappropriate for both men and women. They further explain that these prescribed gender-based behaviors also apply to the influence tactics context and have implications for the frequency of use and effectiveness based on gender. They found that men were more likely to use agentic influence tactics, and women were more likely to receive personal advancement outcomes when they used communal influence tactics. In short, A. N. Smith et al. (2013) highlight that influence tactics may in fact be gendered in nature.

Reputation

Reputation has important implications for assessing the value of an organization. Previous reviews of reputation were narrow in focus to the extent that they primarily examined organizational reputation. To answer the call for research on reputation Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, and Treadway (2003) provided an assessment of “personal reputation in organizations” which is an individual level analysis of the construct. In 2007, Zinko, Ferris, Blass, and Laird offered the following definition of personal reputation:

Reputation is a perceptual identity formed from the collective perceptions of others, which is reflective of the complex combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and intended images presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or reported from secondary sources, which reduces ambiguity about expected future behavior. (p. 215)

Several scholars in this area have suggested that although there may be different dimensions of reputation that vary by particular situation, that there are believed to be two higher order dimensions of reputation that serve to transcend particular situations. Those two dimensions are performance/results and character/integrity, and they have been identified and confirmed in several studies (Ferris et al., 2014; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Zinko et al., 2007).

Reputation is based on a collection of factors that include an individual’s past behavior, actions, as well as their human capital and their social skill and political skill (Zinko, Ferris, Humphrey, Meyer, & Aime, 2012). The information and observations of behaviors and actions are what allows form perceptions of individuals and their subsequent reputation. In a two-study investigation of the temporal development of personal reputation, Zinko et al. (2012) found that human capital, time, and social effectiveness influence the formation of reputation. They also found that career success, power, and autonomy are outcomes of personal reputation. Blickle, Schneider, Liu, and Ferris (2011) suggested that individuals who are politically skilled have a high level of social astuteness, which allows them to be malleable in their effort to engage in social influence. As a result, they are better positioned to create the socially desirable images which positively affects their individual reputation.

In an empirical study investigating reputation, Blickle, Schneider, Liu, & Ferris, (2011) found support for their assertion that reputation mediated the effects of political skill on career–success measures (i.e., position structure, income, career satisfaction). The findings of that study highlight the contribution of political skill in the formation of reputation, and thus provide evidence for the role it plays in creating a favorable image. Similarly, Laird, Zbjo, Martinez, and Ferris (2013) investigated and found support for role of work relationship quality and citizenship behavior as partial mediators of the political skill–personal reputation relationship. The findings of their study highlight the process mechanism through which political skill influences personal reputation. They suggest functions through the relationships employees develop with their colleagues and the perceptions and evaluations of personal reputation by these counterparts are salient.

In related study on the role of political skill in the creation of personal reputation, A. D. Smith, Plowman, Duchon, and Quinn (2009) conducted a qualitative study which employed in-depth interviews with high-reputation plan managers and their direct reports and observations of day-to-day plant operations to gain insight about characteristics of effective plant managers. After conducting field interviews and observations of over 10 manufacturing plants, they found that effective political skill was a proxy for plant managers to influence their subordinates to engage in behaviors that contributed to successful organizational outcomes.

In 2014, Ferris et al. conducted a multilevel review (i.e., individual, unit/team, and organization), and they offered some conclusions about the “level-specific” or “level-generic” bases for reputation construct. They suggested that reputation at all levels of analysis are practically the same. More specifically, the review conducted by Ferris et al. (2104) revealed that the antecedents and consequences of reputation are essentially the same across three levels of reputation (i.e., individual, unit, organizational). That is, common predictors across levels include behavior (i.e., political skill, general mental ability [GMA], department reputation, firm financial performance) and characteristics enacted over a prolonged time period, including such factors as context of the entity and stakeholder perceptions.

Regarding reputation at the unit level, Ferris et al. (2014) found that reputation was mostly influenced by third-party reports and stakeholder perceptions of teams based (M. V. Jones, Paull, & Erskine, 2002; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). They also reported that positive unit–level reputation is positively associated with financial performance (Hannon & Milkovich, 1996; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). At the organizational level, research reveals that reputation leads to increased power (Mahon, 2002), increased access to resources (Staw & Epstein, 2000), increased financial performance (Roberts & Dowling, 2002), and increased discretionary to affect institutional norms (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). Ferris et al. (2014) concluded that reputation is one construct that can be conceptualized across multiple levels of analysis, and in many ways considered an asset that can be used to gain access to additional valued resources.

Communication and Symbolic Behavior

In a study examining leader charismatic rhetoric and influence, Baur et al. (2016) argued that the manner in which leaders communicate their vision can be viewed as an important tool to influence follower support. Baur et al. (2016) suggested that rhetorical skills for leaders are essential for them to communicate a vision effectively and to influence followers to rally support. Thus, leaders are more likely to increased subordinate performance, commitment, and satisfaction (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Shamir and colleagues (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) conceptualized charismatic rhetoric along eight distinct dimensions: (a) collective focus, (b) temporal orientation, (c) follower worth, (d) similarity to followers, (e) values and moral justifications, (f) tangibility, (g) action, and (h) adversity. Baur et al. (2016) investigated whether leaders use different configurations of charismatic rhetoric when communicating a vision and attempting to influence followers to accept the vision. In their study on charismatic rhetoric, Baur et al. (2016) found evidence of the use of distinct rhetoric configurations, and their ability to predict influence success. More specifically, follower similarity, collective focus, and action orientation were all significant predictors of influence effectiveness.

Politics Perceptions

Antecedents and Consequences

Although the scientific study of political behavior within organizations can be traced back to the 1960s, Gandz and Murray’s (1980) assertion that the presence of politics is a subjective assessment rather than reality was the likely catalyst for the growing interest in perceptions of organizational politics as a focal area of study. Their argument supported Lewin’s (1936) earlier suggestion that individuals act on their perceptions of reality rather than objective reality, and it highlighted that the misinterpretation of actions was important in the study of political behavior. POP “involves an individual’s attribution of behaviors of self-serving intent and is defined as an individual’s subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by co-workers and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior” (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, & Dulebohn, 2000, p. 90).

In their seminal model, Ferris et al. (1989) proposed that three categories of antecedents drive POP: personal influences, job–work environment, and organizational influences. These categories stimulate POP by creating conditions that increase political behavior, such as competition for scarce resources, increased ambiguity, perceived instrumentality of political behavior, and the presence of constraints (Ferris et al., 1989, 2002; Kacmar & Baron, 1999). In turn, POP positively influence a variety of negative organizational outcomes including stress and turnover intention while lowering job satisfaction. Consequently, politics perceptions are often branded as an obstacle that decrease an individual’s self-efficacy in the achievement of professional goals (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009).

Within the antecedent model, there are two types of personal influences on POP: demographic variables and personality characteristics. In early theoretical models, demographic variables were the focus of research (Adams, Treadway, & Stepina, 2008). It was assumed that out-group members (i.e., women, racial minorities, older individuals) and those with longer tenure would be more likely to have higher levels of POP (Ferris et al., 1989; Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995) than individuals with higher education (Parker et al., 1995). However, meta-analytic studies have highlighted inconsistent findings for these demographic variables (Atinc, Darrat, Fuller, & Parker, 2010; Ferris et al., 2002). Accordingly, Ferris et al. (2002) decided to remove demographic variables from their antecedent models.

While demographic variables have been the focus of the majority of studies, personality characteristics have garnered far less attention (Adams et al., 2008). This is surprising given that personality traits are thought to influence the perception and interpretation of political behavior (Adams et al., 2008). Recent meta-analyses agree that Machiavellianism, positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA) have direct relationships with POP (Atinc et al., 2010; Ferris et al., 2002). For example, Machiavellianism is characterized by a ruthless drive to fulfill self-interests and skepticism about the motives of others (Christie & Geis, 1970); therefore, individuals high in Machiavellianism are likely to be attentive to and participate in organizational politics (O’Connor & Morrison, 2001; Valle & Perrewé, 2000).

Affect has also received attention in the POP literature. Higher levels of NA are strongly associated with dissatisfaction, anxiety, and distrust. These feelings make individuals more likely to interpret workplace events negatively (Adams et al., 2008); consequently, NA is positively related to POP (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009; Kiewitz, Restubog, Lloyd, Zagensczyk, & Hochwarter, 2009). Conversely, high levels of PA are associated with enthusiasm and optimism, which make individuals less likely to perceive events cynically or through a pessimistic lens. PA is negatively related to POP (Breaux et al., 2009; Kiewitz et al., 2009). External locus of control is also a significant predictor of POP (Atinc et al., 2010; Valle & Perrewé, 2000).

Another category of antecedents explores job–work environment variables. Early conceptualizations of job–work environment variables argued that several job design characteristics (i.e., skill variety, autonomy, feedback) were antecedents to POP, because these factors reduced uncertainty and, therefore, mitigated political perceptions (Ferris et al., 1989; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). For example, employees with lower levels skill variety and job autonomy must rely on others to direct work and have limited control in the workplace. And, without the benefit of constructive feedback, individuals are less aware of their performance status and may experience more anxiety and lower role clarity. Thus, it is assumed that skill variety, autonomy, and feedback are negatively related to POP (e.g., Atinc et al., 2010; Vigoda-Gadot, Vinarski-Peretz, & Ben-Zion, 2003).

Other characteristics of the job–work environment also influence political perceptions in the workplace. Employee perceived less politics when there were higher numbers of career development opportunities (Atinc et al., 2010; Ferris et al., 2002; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Parker et al., 1995) and when rewards were reflective of performance levels (Parker et al., 1995). Research has also found that opportunities for advancement have a negative relationship with POP (Atinc et al., 2010; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Valle & Perrewé, 2000). It is important to note that career development opportunities were found to have a stronger relationship to POP than advancement opportunities (Atinc et al., 2010).

Met expectations (e.g., Vigoda, 2001; Vigoda & Cohen, 2002, 2003) and employee participation in decision making (PDM; e.g., Ferris et al., 2002; Vigoda & Cohen, 2002) are two additional antecedents proposed to have significant negative influence on POP in the revised model of organizational politics. Met expectations, a feature of person–organization fit, reflect the congruence between the employee’s job expectations and the realities experienced while on the job. Incongruence in this area implies that a realistic job preview was not provided and/or the employee’s psychological contract was breached. A lack of employee PDM reflects limited control and greater ambiguity in the workplace, which makes POP more likely. Furthermore, relationships within the job–work environment have significant influence on politics perceptions. Specifically, leader–member exchange (LMX; Atinc et al., 2010; Kacmar, Zivnuska, & White, 2007; Poon, 2006), trust in coworkers (e.g., Atinc et al., 2010; Parker et al., 1995; Poon, 2006), and cooperation and collaboration across work units (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Atinc et al., 2010; Parker et al., 1995) have significant negative relationships with politics perceptions.

The last category of antecedents is organizational influences, which include centralization, formalization, procedural justice, span of control, and hierarchical level. Centralization refers to the concentration of power or control at the top management ranks. The assumption is that the concentration of power in the highest echelon will increase political behavior in the lower levels. Although one study (Parker et al., 1995) found a negative relationship, most studies have found a significant positive relationship between centralization and POP (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Valle & Perrewé, 2000). Formalization is the extent to which rules and procedures are explicitly communicated to employees. This factor is closely related to procedural justice, which is the perceived fairness of the procedures used to allocated resources.

High levels of formalization and procedural justice reduce ambiguity and perceptions that subjective criteria will be used in decision making; therefore, they reduce perceptions of politics. A negative relationship between formalization and POP (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Vigoda, 2001) and between procedural justice and POP (e.g., Aryee, Chen, & Budhwar, 2004; Atinc et al., 2010) is supported by several studies. Past research, however, did not find a significant relationship between span of control and POP (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Valle & Perrewé, 2000). In addition, empirical findings are mixed regarding the directional relationship between hierarchical level and POP (e.g., Miller & Nicols, 2008; Valle & Perrewé, 2000).

Among the antecedent model variables, job–work environment variables are more strongly related to POP than those within the personal and organizational influence categories (e.g., Atinc et al., 2010; Parker et al., 1995). In addition, meta-analytic research found the most influential antecedents to be leader–member relationship quality (LMX), PDM, met expectations, advancement opportunities, trust in coworkers, and career development opportunities (Atinc et al., 2010). These antecedents highlight the importance of human resource practices and procedures on employee POP (Atinc et al., 2010).

For example, providing applicants with realistic job previews during the interview process and having clear communication about job roles and responsibilities can increase met expectations. In addition, organizations can give special attention to communicating career and advancement opportunities to employees. Finally, organizations can implement programming and procedures that increase employee PDM. The creation of peer panels to address employee disputes and the implementation of quality circles to facilitate employee discussions about for process improvement opportunities are examples.

In nearly three decades since Ferris et al. (1989) published their model of organizational politics perceptions, there has been a wealth of research investigating the consequences of POP. The growing body of research has identified several outcomes of POP, including the following: increased stress (e.g., Ferris et al., 1996; Wiltshire, Bourdage, & Lee, 2014), reduced organizational commitment (e.g., Chang et al., 2009), increased turnover intention (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2009), lower perceptions of innovation (Parker et al., 1995), lower job satisfaction (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Rosen et al., 2009; Wiltshire et al., 2014), lower job performance (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Witt, 1998), increased counterproductive workplace behavior (Wiltshire et al., 2014; Zettler & Hilbig, 2010), higher levels of frustration (Rosen et al., 2009), and increased impression management behavior (e.g., Harrell-Cook, Ferris, & Dulebohn, 1999; Kacmar et al., 2007; Wiltshire et al., 2014; Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson, & Bratton, 2004).

Despite the seemingly intuitive logic that POP will lead to negative employee outcomes, many of the earlier studies produced equivocal results regarding the magnitude and direction of POP outcomes. Consequently, meta-analyses have been critical in determining whether past mixed results reflect statistical concerns or broader issues including the misidentification of relationships. Chang et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis added to the study of political perceptions by exploring both direct and indirect effects. Their study revealed that POP had an indirect effect on turnover intentions and job performance through psychological strain and morale. Other evidence in support of the indirect effect of POP include findings that NA (Albrecht, 2006) and frustration (Rosen et al., 2009) mediate the relationship between POP and individual-level outcomes.

Political Skill

Direct Effects and Relationships With Other Constructs

Organizational politics are typically associated with negative workplace behaviors. Yet Mintzberg (1985) described organizations as inherently political environments where individuals need political skill to be successful. Accordingly, political skill is considered a desirable social effectiveness competency that enhances individual and organizational objectives. Political skill is defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use this understanding to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris et al., 2005, p. 127). Individuals who possess these skills understand the social dynamics of interpersonal interactions and adjust their behavior to fit the situation in order to influence others while projecting trustworthiness and sincerity (Ferris et al., 2007).

Political skill is composed of four dimensions: social astuteness, networking ability, interpersonal influence, and apparent sincerity (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005). These dimensions reflect a skillset that enables an individual to “manage potentially divergent interests in a manner that inspires consistent, and positive, ratings of both task and contextual performance from multiple assessors” (Blickle, Ferris, et al., 2011, p. 450). Empirical research confirms this assumption and reveals that it has strong relationships with a variety of desired outcomes. Political skills is positively related to self-efficacy beliefs, personal reputation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work productivity, and job performance assessments (e.g., Munyon, Summers, Thompson, & Ferris, 2015). Political skill enables individuals to become adept at forming coalitions and relationships with others that result in personal status gains (i.e., relational centrality; Bolander, Satornino, Hughes, & Ferris, 2015).

Early work in social intelligence is foundational to several social effectiveness measures (e.g., self-monitoring, empathy, etc.), including political skill (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004). While there is inherent overlap among these constructs, empirical research has differentiated political skill from similar social effectiveness constructs. Specifically, Ferris et al. (2005) provided convergent validity support in distinguishing political skills from self-monitoring, political savvy, GMA, and emotional intelligence. Similarly, an earlier study contributed convergent validity support by reporting that political skill was only moderately related to positive affectivity (r = .36, p < .001), extraversion (r = .28, p < .01), empathy (r = .28, p < .01), conscientiousness (r = .25, p < .01), understanding of events (r = .39, p < .001), and delay of gratification (r = .32, p < .01). In addition, studies have found discriminate validity between political skill and GMA as their studies fail to find a significant relationship between the constructs (Ferris et al., 1999, 2005).

Its Role in Leadership

Leadership is “a social influence process, and as such, leaders are effective the extent to which they can influence followers” (Ahearn et al., 2004). This definition supports Mintzberg’s (1983) claim that individuals need to possess political skill in order to be successful in organizations and solidifies the relevance of political skill to leadership studies. Theories of political leadership has only gained traction in recent years (e.g., Ahearn et al., 2004; Brouer, Douglas, Treadway, & Ferris, 2013; Ellen, Ferris, & Buckley, 2013; Ewen et al., 2013; Ewen et al., 2014; Treadway et al., 2004).

Before Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, and Ferris (2002) proposed a political theory of leadership, earlier leadership studies highlighted the role of social adaptability (i.e., social astuteness), a dimension of political skill, in managerial effectiveness. For example, Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, and Mumford (1991) suggested that social intelligence is a key leadership competency. Their study found that leader emergence is linked to individuals’ ability to effectively choose among a variety of appropriate managerial behaviors. This finding supports Mainiero’s (1994) assertion that political skill is essential to “breaking glass ceiling” barriers to women’s career progression. In addition, Hooijberg (1996) found that managerial effectiveness was closely linked to a manager’s use of a wide range of behaviors. These characteristics are central to arguments that “successful social influence by the leader requires mastery of a range of skills and the ability to select and apply them to the appropriate situation” (Zaccaro, 2002, p. 45).

Leader political skill has a significant main effect on a variety of forms of outcomes. Political skill is a significant predictor of various measures of leader effectiveness (e.g., Ahearn et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2004). Furthermore, it is a stronger predictor of a manager’s job performance than self-monitoring, leadership self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence (Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006). It is positively linked with team performance such that teams with leaders high in political skill performed better than teams with leaders low in political skill (Ahearn et al., 2004). Leaders high in political skill also influence their subordinates’ perceptions of organizational support (Treadway et al., 2004) and increase the quality of their leader–follower relationship (i.e., LMX). These studies reinforce our understanding that high levels of leader political skill cultivate relationship quality and have the ability to influence the perceptions and attitudes of others.

Interactions With Influence Tactics

Organizations are inherently political in nature (Pfeffer, 1981). The ambiguous and subjective nature of organizational processes such as performance evaluations, and the rewards at stake such as pay and recognition (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007), provide motivation for workers to engage in influence attempts. People engage in influence tactics in an attempt to change the judgment of their target, to the extent that it leans more in their favor when their target makes decisions concerning them (Kolodinsky, Treadway, & Ferris, 2007). The judgment made by the target could either be positive or negative based on the style and skill used by the influencer during the influence attempt (Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).

After the case for the need of workers to engage in various influence behaviors in the workplace had been made, researchers (e.g., Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; E. E. Jones, 1990) called for more research that would investigate why and how influence tactics are effective. Since then, researchers have introduced political skill to the influence tactic literature in order to answer E. E. Jones’s (1990) question of the “why” and “how,” as well as to figure out moderating forces within the relationship of influence tactics and work outcomes, and which styles guarantee the successful delivery and execution of influence attempts.

Researchers such as Pfeffer (1981) encouraged further development of the political skill construct, after assessing that due to the inherently political nature of organizations, the use of political skill is necessary for successful social influence in organizations. Since then, the argument concerning the necessity of political skill and its use in influence has been made very strong. In fact, the use of influence to achieve favorable outcomes is part of the end goal that is spelled out in some definitions of political skill. Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005, p. 127) defined political skill as “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 and/or organizational objectives” and Mintzberg (1985) referred to political skill as the ability to effectively exercise influence during negotiation, persuasion, and manipulation.

Noteworthy is the presentation of political skill by researchers as the answer to the “why” and the “how” influence tactics are effective. Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and Shaw (2007) noted that why and how influence tactics work is a result of the personal characteristics of the influencers such as their political skill. Workers’ engagement in an influence attempt does not guarantee successful influence of their target; however, researchers such as Kolodinsky et al. (2007) have recognized political skill, as a construct that perfects the manner, presentation style, and execution of influence tactics to ensure the success of an influence attempt. They explained that the manner, presentation style, and execution of an influence tactic affected the perception of the influence attempt by the target, which in turn affects how the target reacts to the influence attempt and the influencer. If the influence attempt was executed with high political skill, the target favorably perceived the attempt and the end result was positive outcomes for the influencer.

Several instances have been cited of how political skill comes into play when people engage in influence tactics. Harris et al. (2007) highlighted the ability of politically adroit people to use social cues in order to understand the relationship dynamics between themselves and their target; and to use this knowledge to their advantage by tailoring and consciously managing their behavior in order to effectively influence their target. Harris et al. (2007) also mentioned other factors politically skilled people take into account when engaging in influence attempts such as the frequency of tactic usage and their choice of style for execution. Depending on the situation, there is a number of influence tactics that people could choose to engage in order to achieve their objectives. People could even decide to engage in a combination of two or more influence tactics, and because of the variety of available influence tactics, it is not unlikely to engage in an inappropriate influence tactic.

In comparison with people low in political skill, people high in political skill exercise more savvy when deciding on the choice of which influence tactic to employ in particular situations and change their behavior to be situationally appropriate in order to ensure the successful execution of the influence tactic (Kolodinsky et al., 2007). Treadway et al. (2007) noted that how the influence attempt is perceived and interpreted by the target is a function of the influencer’s political skill and it is a decisive factor of the success of the influence attempt. They gave the example of how ingratiation behaviors backfire when the target interprets the behavior as obvious and manipulative. Politically skilled people are perceived as more prosocial and their behaviors are interpreted as less neutral rather than political and self-serving. Ferris et al. (2005) best described the reasoning behind why the use of political skill is effective in social influence when they said “People high in political skill not only know what to do in different social situations at work, but how to do it in a manner that disguises any ulterior, self-serving motives, and appears to be sincere” (p. 128).

Interactions With Personality

The inconsistency in the use of personality traits to predict task performance has called for the examination of potential moderators in the relationship (Blickle, Meurs, Zettler, et al., 2008; Meurs, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2011). Political skill is one of the moderators that has been investigated and socioanalytic theory justifies its use as a social effectiveness competency that yields greater performance when combined with personality (Blickle et al., 2011; Meurs et al., 2011). The socioanalytic view of job performance posits that people are motivated to get along and get ahead (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). To do so, however, socioanalytic theory proposes that the personality of people be complemented with a social effectiveness competency for the effective achievement of influence (Blickle, Wendel, & Ferris, 2010; Hogan & Shelton, 1998).

Witt and Ferris (2003) defended the potency of the interaction between social effectiveness competencies and facets of personality, when they described the moderating role of social skill—a construct similar to political skill—in the conscientiousness and performance relationship. Witt and Ferris (2003) emphasized the learned ability of social skill that allows personality dispositions to demonstrate their positive effect. Similarly, political skill can be learned and developed (Ferris et al., 2005), and it facilitates the translation of a stable personality trait into action. The interaction between political skill and facets of personality results in an increase in job performance due to the complementary motivation they both provide for each other, and are each lacking on their own (Blickle et al., 2008; Blickle et al., 2010).

Researchers have found significant interactions between political skill and various dimensions of personality traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion (Blickle et al., 2008; Blickle et al., 2010), and one narrow personality trait, trait sincerity (Meurs et al., 2011), and their effect on increased performance. Research has also found that low or absent political skill is particularly detrimental to performance when people are high in certain personality traits such as agreeableness (Blickle et al., 2008; Blickle et al., 2010). These research findings have made significant contributions that clarify some of the inconsistencies in the use of personality to predict performance. What we know now in research ratifies the need for personality to be accompanied by high political skill in order to achieve better performance.

Interactions With Context

Researchers have found that political skill is a strong predictor of outcomes such as job performance. The relationship, however, is bound by contextual variables (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Political skill is a resource that is activated by context-driven changes in threat perceptions (Ferris et al., 2007; Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Nikolopoulos, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2011) and in accordance with the situationist perspective, such changes lead people to respond with a modification in their behavior (Andrews, Kacmar, & Harris, 2009; Kapoutsis et al., 2011). The context determines how political skill will be used; politically skilled people evaluate their situations and thereafter engage in context-specific behaviors that would help them attain their objectives (Ferris et al., 2007). Despite the emphasis on the importance of context in the use of political skill, there has not been a lot of research that accounts for social context when examining the relationship between political skill and performance (Kapoutsis et al., 2011).

Some of the findings relating to political skill’s interaction with context include Kapoutsis et al. (2011) who found that organizational politics perceptions contextually moderated the political skill and job performance relationship. High levels of political skill had more positive effects on job performance when political perceptions were low. The effects of political skill on job performance were not as strong when the political perceptions were high. Furthermore, Andrews et al. (2009) found that when procedural and distributive justice were both low, political skill was positively related to performance. Political skill’s interaction with context remains a fertile area for research based on its theorized importance and lack of extensive theoretical and empirical investigation. Future researchers should examine other contextual and situational variables that may affect the relationship of political skill and its related outcomes.

What We Need to Know About Social Influence and Politics

Our review of the social influence and politics literature indicates that much work has been conducted in this area. There remain some areas where more theory and research are needed, and we discuss some of these areas briefly in the next sections. This section also highlights the other articles that are published in this special issue and the gaps they fill in our understanding of social influence and politics.

Social Influence and Politics in Human Resources Systems

Anecdotal observation has shown that it is not always the case that the most qualified person gets the job offer or the promotion, and that performance ratings given to employees by their supervisors do not always reflect the employee’s actual work performance. This all would suggest that it is possible for influence and politics to weave their way into human resources practices and systems like personnel selection, performance evaluation, compensation, and so forth. Twenty-five years ago, Ferris and Judge (1991) presented a political perspective on human resources management practices and systems, suggesting that much more work needed to be done in this area. Although some efforts responded to this call (e.g., Ferris & Frink, 1997; Frink, Treadway, & Ferris, 2005), much remains to be learned in this area. In this special issue, Rosen, Kacmar, Harris, Gavin, and Hochwarter present their interesting findings regarding the politics of performance appraisal. In a very well-conceived and well-executed two-study, multilevel investigation, the authors demonstrated support and confirmation for the hypothesized three-way interaction of in-role behavior × extra-role behavior × politics perceptions on overall ratings of performance.

Social Influence and Politics in Image Making and Reputation

People have a fundamental need and concern with how they present themselves to others in ways that are self-serving and result in benefits (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Indeed, organizational life operates in a perceptual world where people experience their realities based on their perceptions and interpretations of the cues, images, and impressions that are presented to them. This basic understanding led Ferris, King, Judge, and Kacmar (1991) to characterize organizational politics as a fact of life, and as the management of shared meaning, where by individuals present their behavior in ways that are designed to fit in with the normally prescribed actions endorsed by the organization.

In the next article in this special issue, by Baskin, McKee, and Buckley, the authors present a new concept called time banditry. They suggest this involves the pursuit of non-task-related activities during work time. Because there is considerable ambiguity in most work environments, the authors argue that time bandits capitalize on the ambiguity in organizations to manage impressions that their time banditry behavior actually constitutes productive and not counterproductive work behavior. In this investigation, two studies were conducted to explore variables that can be used to classify time bandits into four different categories, determine which individual-level and job-level factors can be used to classify time bandits, and which situational and dispositional variables can be used to predict time bandit type.

Scholars have argued that reputation is more of a sociopolitical than a scientific construct, and that it plays an important role in the organizational sciences, but that we just do not understand enough about it yet at either the individual group/team or organization level of analysis (Ferris et al., 2003; Ferris et al., 2014; Tsui, 1984). Although there has not been much work done on the dimensions of reputation, some scholars have suggested that there are probably two basic higher order dimensions of individual or organization reputation: Performance/results and character/integrity (Ferris et al., 2014; Laird, Zbjo, & Ferris, 2012; Zinko et al., 2007). More research is needed in the future to examine the underlying dimensions of reputation at different levels of analysis.

In this special issue, Martinez, Russell, Maher, Brandon-Lai, and Ferris examine the interaction of organizations’ financial reputation × social reputation on firm financial performance, characterizing the financial reputation as similar in nature to the performance/results dimension and the social reputation as the character/integrity dimension. Specifically, argued that if firm managers attend to their financial and social reputations, they can optimize their financial performance. However, if managers fail to establish a sound financial reputation, then their financial performance suffers, especially if the firm has invested resources into maintaining a strong social reputation. Their results provided support for the hypotheses that financial performance is predicted by financial reputation, and that this relationship is moderated by social reputation.

Social Influence, Politics, and the Nature of Political Skill

From the literature review presented earlier in this article, it is apparent that the political skill construct has been around a while in concept, but only about 15 years as an empirically investigated area of work. Although quite a bit has been learned about political skill to date, there is still much to investigate. One area that needs investigation focuses on the underlying dimensions of political skill and how they operate. McAllister and his colleagues have begun work in this area, characterizing political skill as a process of opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization (McAllister, Ellen, & Ferris, 2016; McAllister, Ellen, Perrewé, Ferris, & Hirsch, 2015), and some recent empirical work adds some support for these notions (Wihler, Blickle, Ellen, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2014).

Political Skill and Other Social Constructs

Another area of inquiry where more research is needed concerns how political skill resonates with other important organizational science constructs. Early work in the development of the political skill construct needed to establish its construct validity, and did so by showing that political skill was correlated modestly with other social effectiveness constructs, and not correlated with GMA (Ferris et al., 2005; Ferris, Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012). Subsequent empirical research demonstrated that political skill was a significant predictor of job performance even when other potentially related constructs (i.e., GMA, personality, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, and emotional intelligence) were put in the prediction equation (Blickle, Kramer, et al., 2011; Semadar et al., 2006).

The next article in this special issue responds to this need. Frieder and Basik investigate political skill and behavioral integrity as predictors of important work outcomes, finding that political skill serves as a key input to behavioral integrity. Furthermore, they reported that behavioral integrity mediated the relationship between leader political skill and trust in leader, and work effort significantly predicted objective performance.

Politics and Political Skill in Leadership

Leadership is a social influence process whereby leaders engage in intentional behaviors to influence others (e.g., Ferris et al., 2007; Ferris & Hochwarter, 2011). Only relatively recently have scholars begun to acknowledge the potential importance of political perspectives on leadership (Ammeter et al., 2002; special issue on “Political Perspectives on Leadership,” Ammeter et al., 2004; Yammarino & Mumford, 2012), and called for more research in this area in the future (Ferris et al., 2012; Treadway, Bentley, Williams, & Wallace, 2014).

The next article in this special issue addresses this need to examine politics and political skill in leadership by focusing on the informal leadership status phenomenon. Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, and Perrewé examine the roles of political will and political skill in understanding the relationship between informal leadership status and individual performance. More specifically, they propose, and find support for, a mediated moderation model that positions political will (i.e., as operationalized as the need for power) as an input into informal leadership (as operationalized using social network analysis), which in turn predicts performance, as moderated by political skill.

Politics and Political Skill in Teams

Although social influence, politics, and political skill have been studied quite a bit among individuals in organizations, there has been an interesting gap in our knowledge regarding how political and influence dynamics play out in team contexts, despite the fact that team-based work structures have become increasingly prevalent. Political skill is just beginning to be considered in research on teams, and the dynamics that occur among team members, but very little research has been published to date on this topic. Ahearn et al. (2004) found leader political skill to be significantly and positively related to team performance, and Lvina, Johns, and Vandenberghe (2015) reported that team-level political skill affects team cohesion and team performance.

We included an article in this special issue by Lvina, Maher, and Harris that addresses the roles of team political skill in team process and outcomes. Addressing multiple calls on the need to study politics and political skill within groups/teams (e.g., Munyon et al., 2015; Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012), they build and test a model that represents an attempt to address this knowledge gap. Studying 525 students, organized into 115 teams, they demonstrate that political skill at the individual level shapes individual perceptions of team efficacy and trust in team, and both the composition and level of political skill within the team critical for these team emergent states, hopefully stimulating further interest in this topic.

Social Influence and Politics’ Effects on Well-Being

Historically, theory and research on organizational politics had tended to cast the construct in a pejorative light as reflecting something inherently bad (e.g., Ferris & Treadway, 2012). More recently, Hochwarter (2012) has proposed that this negative label for politics and influence processes is not a fair characterization, but that politics and influence can be both good and bad. Unfortunately, not much research has been focused on the positive aspects of politics for positive behaviors and attitudes. Earlier work on politics perceptions demonstrated in many studies that politics perceptions was associated with job dissatisfaction and some other attitudinal outcomes. Yet there appears to be boundary conditions that affect the relationships between politics perceptions and work outcomes.

In the next article in this special issue, Hall, Franczak, Ma, Herrera, and Hochwarter used sensemaking theory to hypothesize that those with high levels of work drive would experience fewer adverse consequences when coupled with heightened perceptions of politics relative to those reporting less work drive. The hypotheses were strongly supported across two independent samples, demonstrating that politics perceptions exhibited a significant, direct influence on job satisfaction, job tension, and emotional exhaustion for those with lower work drive in Sample 1, but showed only a minimal impact for those with higher levels of drive. Furthermore, these results were replicated in Sample 2.

The final article in this special issue by Johnson, Rogers, Stewart, David, and Witt focuses on the implications of organizational politics for positive organizational outcomes. Their study examines antecedents of job dedication (i.e., being loyal and cooperative), which are likely to offer value to managers. The authors examined the combined effects of organizational politics and emotional stability on the relationship between LMX and job dedication. Their results revealed that LMX quality yielded high levels of job dedication among all workers except the emotionally unstable in highly political climates. These results not only point to the limitations of leader influences on employee contextual performance but also reinforce the need to hire emotionally stable workers and keep organizational politics at low levels.

Conclusion

Social influence and politics in organizations continue to be a vibrant area of scientific inquiry in the organizational sciences, with a history that dates back over a century. However, it is useful to reenergize interest in topics over time, particularly when we see that needs arise relative to some gaps in our knowledge base. In this article, we reviewed the literature in this area to demonstrate what we already know about social influence and politics in organizations, then argued for some issues and topics about which we still need to know more. Then, we introduced new research that addresses some of these needs, and those articles formed the content of this special issue. We view the nine articles in this special issues as interesting and important contributions to new knowledge, and efforts to expand our knowledge base in this important area of the field. Furthermore, it is our hope that these articles individually, and this entire special issue collectively, serve to stimulate and reinvigorate scholarship on these and other important issues on social influence and politics in organizational research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Gerald R. Ferris is the Francis Eppes Professor of Management, professor of psychology, and professor of sport management at Florida State University. He received a PhD in business administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He has research interests in the areas of social influence processes in human resources systems. He is the author of numerous articles published in a number of top journals. He served as editor of the annual series, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, from its creation in 1981 until 2003. He has been the recipient of a number of distinctions and honors. In 2001, he was the recipient of the Heneman Career Achievement Award, and in 2010, he received the Thomas A. Mahoney Mentoring Award, both from the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management.

Pamela L. Perrewé is the Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of business administration, professor of sport management, and distinguished research professor at Florida State University. She has focused her research interests in the areas of job stress, coping, organizational politics, and social influence. She has Fellow status with the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and Southern Management Association. Furthermore, she is the creator and lead editor of an annual series titled, Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being published by Emerald Publishing.

Shanna R. Daniels is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business at Florida State University. She received a PhD in management from Tulane University. She has focused her research interests in the areas of social exchange processes, workplace aggression, and employment discrimination. Her work has been published in such journals and books as the Human Resource Management Review, Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Organizational Justice: International Perspectives and Conceptual Advances, and The Oxford University Press Handbook of Organizational Psychology.

Diane Lawong is a PhD student in management at Florida State University. She holds a master’s degree in labor relations and human resources and a BS degree in biology and health science both from Cleveland State University. She has research interests in the areas of social influence, political skill, workplace diversity, organizational culture, and organizational change.

Jeanne J. Holmes is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business at North Carolina A&T University. She received a PhD in management from the University of South Carolina. She earned her bachelor’s degree in management from Miami University and an MS in organizational communication from North Carolina State University. Her research interests are in identity, social influence, and human resource management systems. Her research has been published in outlets such as the Journal of Vocational Behavior and the Journal of Business Venturing.

References

Adams

G. L.

Treadway

D. C.

Stepina

L. P.

(2008). The role of dispositions in politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 545-563.

Ahearn

K. K.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Douglas

Ammeter

A. P.

(2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309-327.

Albrecht

(2006). Organizational politics: Affective reactions, cognitive assessments and their inﬂuence on organizational commitment and cynicism toward change. In Vigoda-Gadot

Drory

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics (pp. 230-252). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Ammeter

A. P.

Douglas

Gardner

W. L.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2002). Toward a political theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 751-796.

Ammeter

A. P.

Douglas

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

Gardner

W. L.

(2004). Introduction to: The Leadership Quarterly special issue on political perspectives on leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 433-435.

Andrews

M. C.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2001). Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347-366.

Andrews

M. C.

Kacmar

Harris

(2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1427-1437.

Aryee

Chen

Z. X.

Budhwar

P. S.

(2004). Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 1-14.

Atinc

Darrat

Fuller

Parker

B. W.

(2010). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of theoretical antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22, 494-513.

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.

11.

Baur

J. E.

Ellen

B. P.

III Buckley

M. R.

Ferris

G. R.

Allison

T. H.

McKenny

A. F.

Short

J. C.

(2016). More than one way to articulate a vision: A configurations approach to leader charismatic rhetoric and influence. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 156-171.

12.

Blickle

Ferris

G. R.

Munyon

T. P.

Momm

Zettler

Schneider

P. B.

Buckley

M. R.

(2011). A multi-source, multi-study investigation of job performance prediction by political skill. Applied Psychology, 60, 449-474.

13.

Blickle

Frohlich

Ehlert

Pirner

Dietl

Hanes

T. J.

Ferris

G. R.

(2011). Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and political skill in job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 136-148.

14.

Blickle

Kramer

Schneider

P. B.

Meurs

J. A.

Ferris

G. R.

Mierke

. . . Momm

(2011). Role of political skill in job performance prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 488-514.

15.

Blickle

Meurs

J. A.

Schneider

P. B.

Kramer

Zettler

Maschler

. . . Ferris

G. R.

(2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377-387.

16.

Blickle

Meurs

J. A.

Zettler

Solga

Noethen

Kramer

Ferris

G. R.

(2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377-387.

17.

Blickle

Schneider

P. B.

Liu

Ferris

G. R.

(2011). A predictive investigation of reputation as mediator of the political skill/career success relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 3026-3048.

18.

Blickle

Wendel

Ferris

G. R.

(2010). Political skill as moderator of personality-job performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 326-335.

19.

Bolander

Satornino

C. B.

Hughes

D. E.

Ferris

G. R.

(2015). Social networks within sales organizations: Their development and importance for salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 79(6), 1-16.

20.

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. Journal of Management, 35, 307-326.

21.

Brouer

R. L.

Douglas

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

(2013). Leader political skill, relationship quality, and leader effectiveness: A two-study model test and constructive replication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 185-198.

22.

Chang

C-H.

Rosen

C. C.

Levy

P. E.

(2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801.

23.

Christie

Geis

F. L.

(1970). Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

24.

Cialdini

R. B.

Trost

M. R.

(1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

25.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.

26.

Deephouse

D. L.

Carter

S. M.

(2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329-360.

27.

Dulebohn

J. H.

Ferris

G. R.

(1999). The role of influence tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations’ fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 288-303.

28.

Ellen

B. P.

III Ferris

G. R.

Buckley

M. R.

(2013). Leader political support: Reconsidering leader political behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 842-857.

29.

Ewen

Wihler

Blickle

Oerder

Ellen

B. P.

III Douglas

Ferris

G. R.

(2013). Further specification of the leader political skill-leadership effectiveness relationships: Transformational and transactional leader behavior as mediators. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 516-533.

30.

Ewen

Wihler

Kane-Frieder

R. E.

Blickle

Hogan

Ferris

G. R.

(2014). Leader advancement motive, political skill, leader behavior, and effectiveness: A moderated mediation extension of socioanalytic theory. Human Performance, 27, 373-392.

31.

Ferris

G. R.

Adams

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ammeter

A. P.

(2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In Yammarino

F. J.

Dansereau

(Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, Volume 1: The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). Oxford, England: JAI Press.

32.

Ferris

G. R.

Blass

Douglas

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Treadway

D. C.

(2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In Greenberg

(Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 211-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Ferris

G. R.

Brouer

R. L.

Laird

M. D.

Hochwarter

W. A.

(2005). The consequences of organizational politics perceptions as a workplace stressor. In Rossi

A. M.

Perrewé

P. M.

Sauter

S. L.

(Eds.), Stress and the quality of working life: Current perspectives in occupational health (pp. 155-165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

34.

Ferris

G. R.

Davidson

S. L.

Perrewé

P. L.

(2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.

35.

Ferris

G. R.

Frink

D. D.

(1997). Influence tactics in the performance evaluation process. In Peters

L. H.

Youngblood

S. A.

Greer

C. R.

(Eds.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource management (pp. 165-167). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

36.

Ferris

G. R.

Frink

D. D.

Galang

M. C.

Zhou

Kacmar

K. M.

Howard

J. L.

(1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266.

37.

Ferris

G. R.

Harrell-Cook

Dulebohn

J. H.

(2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 17, pp. 89-130). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

38.

Ferris

G. R.

Harris

J. N.

Russell

Z. A.

Ellen

B. P.

III Martinez

A. D.

Blass

F. R.

(2014). The role of reputation in the organizational sciences: A multi-level review, construct assessment, and research directions. In Buckley

M. R.

Wheeler

A. R.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 32, pp. 241-303). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

39.

Ferris

G. R.

Harris

J. N.

Russell

Z. A.

Maher

(in press). Politics in organizations. In Ones

D. S.

Anderson

N. R.

Sinangil

H. K.

Viswesvaran

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

(2011). Organizational politics. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 435-459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

41.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Douglas

Blass

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Treadway

D. C.

(2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In Ferris

G. R.

Martocchio

J. J.

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 65-127). Oxford, England: JAI Press.

42.

Ferris

G. R.

Judge

T. A.

(1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

43.

Ferris

G. R.

Judge

T. A.

Rowland

K. M.

Fitzgibbons

D. E.

(1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.

44.

Ferris

G. R.

Kacmar

K. M.

(1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.

45.

Ferris

G. R.

King

T. R.

(1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 20(2), 59-71.

46.

Ferris

G. R.

King

T. R.

Judge

T. A.

Kacmar

K. M.

(1991). The management of shared meaning in organizations: Opportunism in the reflection of attitudes, beliefs, and values. In Giacalone

R. A.

Rosenfeld

(Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 41-64). US: Sage Publications.

47.

Ferris

G. R.

Russ

G. S.

Fandt

P. M.

(1989). Politics in organizations. In Giacalone

R. A.

Rosenfeld

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

48.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

(Eds.). (2012). Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.

49.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Brouer

R. L.

Munyon

T. P.

(2012). Political skill in the organizational sciences. In Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

(Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 487-528, SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

C. J.

Douglas

Frink

D. D.

(2005). Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152.

51.

Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

Perrewé

P. L.

Brouer

R. L.

Douglas

Lux

(2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290-320.

52.

Frink

D. D.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

(2005). Social influence in the performance evaluation process. In Cartwright

(Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource management (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 346-349). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

53.

Gandz

Murray

V. V.

(1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237-251.

54.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

(1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

55.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

56.

Hannon

J. M.

Milkovich

G. T.

(1996). The effect of human resource reputation signals on share prices: An event study. Human Resource Management, 35, 405-424.

57.

Harrell-Cook

Ferris

Dulebohn

J. H.

(1999). Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics-work outcomes relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093-1105.

58.

Harris

K. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

Zivnuska

Shaw

J. D.

(2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278-285.

59.

Higgins

C. A.

Judge

T. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106.

60.

Hochwarter

W. A.

(2012). The positive side of organizational politics. In Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

(Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 27-66). New York, NY: Routledge.

61.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

Gavin

M. B.

Perrewé

P. L.

Hall

A. T.

Frink

D. D.

(2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability-job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226-239.

62.

Hogan

Shelton

(1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129-144.

63.

Hooijberg

(1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49, 917-946.

64.

Ilgen

D. R.

Feldman

J. M.

(1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

65.

Jones

E. E.

(1990). Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

66.

Jones

M. V.

Paull

G. C.

Erskine

(2002). The impact of a team’s aggressive reputation on the decisions of association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 991-1000.

67.

Kacmar

Baron

(1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In Ferris

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

68.

Kacmar

K. M.

Zivnuska

White

C. D.

(2007). Control and exchange: The impact of work environment on the work effort of low relationship quality employees. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 69-84.

69.

Kapoutsis

Papalexandris

Nikolopoulos

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2011). Politics perceptions as moderator of the political skill-job performance relationship: A two-study, cross-national, constructive replication. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 123-135.

70.

Kiewitz

Restubog

S. L. D.

Zagenczyk

Hochwarter

(2009). The interactive effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational support: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 806-834.

71.

Kipnis

Schmidt

S. M.

(1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 528-542.

72.

Kipnis

Schmidt

S. M.

Wilkinson

(1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

73.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

(2007). Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions of the expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human Relations, 60, 1747-1777.

74.

Laird

M. D.

Zbjo

J. J.

Ferris

G. R.

(2012). Partial mediation of the political skill-reputation relationship. Career Development International, 17, 557-582.

75.

Laird

M. D.

Zbjo

J. J.

Martinez

A. D.

Ferris

G. R.

(2013). Performance and political skill in personal reputation assessments. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 661-676.

76.

Lasswell

(1936). Who gets what, when, and how. New York, NY: Whittlesey House.

77.

Lewin

(1936). Principles of typological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hall.

78.

Lux

Ferris

G. R.

Brouer

R. L.

Laird

M. D.

Summers

J. K.

(2008). A multi-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In Cooper

C. L.

Barling

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 353-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

79.

Lvina

Johns

Vandenberghe

(2015). Team political skill composition as a determinant of team cohesiveness and performance. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206315598371

80.

Mahon

J. F.

(2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41, 415-445.

81.

Mainiero

L. A.

(1994). On breaking the glass ceiling: The political seasoning of powerful women executives. Organizational Dynamics, 22(4), 5-20.

82.

McAllister

C. P.

Ellen

B. P.

III Ferris

G. R.

(2016). Social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization: Increased theoretical specification through political skill’s dimensional dynamics. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206316633747

83.

McAllister

C. P.

Ellen

B. P.

III Perrewé

P. L.

Ferris

G. R.

Hirsch

D. J.

(2015). Checkmate: Using political skill to recognize and capitalize on opportunities in the “game” of organizational life. Business Horizons, 58(1), 25-34.

84.

Meurs

J. A.

Perrewé

P. L.

Ferris

G. R.

(2011). Political skill as moderator of the trait sincerity-task performance relationship: A socioanalytic, narrow trait perspective. Human Performance, 24, 119-124.

85.

Miller

B. K.

Nicols

K. M.

(2008). Politics and justice: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20, 214-237.

86.

Mintzberg

(1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

87.

Mintzberg

(1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133-154.

88.

Munyon

T. P.

Summers

J. K.

Thompson

K. W.

Ferris

G.R.

(2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68, 143-184.

89.

O’Connor

W. E.

Morrison

T. G.

(2001). A comparison of situational and dispositional predictors of perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Psychology, 135, 301-312.

90.

Parker

C. P.

Dipboye

R. L.

Jackson

S. L.

(1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.

91.

Pfeffer

(1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

92.

Poon

J. M.

(2006). Trust-in-supervisor and helping coworkers: Moderating effect of perceived politics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 518-532.

93.

Roberts

P. W.

Dowling

G. R.

(2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077-1093.

94.

Rosen

C. C.

Harris

K. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2009). The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 62, 27-57.

95.

Semadar

Robins

Ferris

G. R.

(2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 443-461.

96.

Shamir

Arthur

M. B.

House

R. J.

(1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25-42.

97.

Shamir

House

R. J.

Arthur

M. B.

(1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

98.

Silvester

(2008). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Politics and politicians at work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 23, 107-148.

99.

Smith

A. D.

Plowman

Duchon

Quinn

(2009). A qualitative study of high-reputation plant managers: Political skill and successful outcomes. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 428-443.

100.

Smith

A. N.

Watkins

M. B.

Burke

M. J.

Christian

M. S.

Smith

C. E.

Hall

Simms

(2013). Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. Journal of Management, 39, 1156-1183.

101.

Staw

B. M.

Epstein

L. D.

(2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523-556.

102.

Tedeschi

J. T.

Melburg

(1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 31-58.

103.

Treadway

D. C.

Bentley

J. R.

Williams

L. R.

Wallace

(2014). The skill to lead: The role of political skill in leadership dynamics. In Day

D. V.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 505-523). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

104.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

Douglas

Hochwarter

W. A.

Kacmar

C. J.

Ammeter

A. P.

Buckley

M. R.

(2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 493-513.

105.

Treadway

D. C.

Ferris

G. R.

Duke

A. B.

Adams

Thatcher

J. B.

(2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848-855.

106.

Triplett

(1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.

107.

Tsui

A. S.

(1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 64-96.

108.

Tyran

K. L.

Gibson

C. B.

(2008). Is what you see, what you get? The relationship among surface-and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation. Group & Organization Management, 33, 46-76.

109.

Valle

Perrewé

P. L.

(2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.

110.

Vigoda

(2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross-cultural examination in Israel and Britain. Human Relations, 54, 1483-1518.

111.

Vigoda

Cohen

(2002). Influence tactics and perceptions of organizational politics: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Research, 55, 311-324.

112.

Vigoda

Cohen

(2003). Work congruence and excellence in human resource management empirical evidence from the Israeli nonprofit sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23, 192-216.

113.

Vigoda-Gadot

Drory

(Eds.). (2006). Handbook of organizational politics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

114.

Vigoda-Gadot

Vashdi

D. R.

(2012). Politics in and around teams: Toward a team-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

(Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 287-322, SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.

115.

Vigoda-Gadot

Vinarski-Peretz

Ben-Zion

(2003). Politics and image in the organizational landscape: An empirical examination among public sector employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 764-787.

116.

Villanova

Bernardin

H. I.

(1989). Impression management in the context of performance appraisal. In Giacalone

R. A.

Rosenfeld

(Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 299-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

117.

Wayne

S. J.

Ferris

G. R.

(1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

118.

Wayne

S. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

(1991). The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70-88.

119.

Wayne

S. J.

Liden

R. C.

Graf

I. K.

Ferris

G. R.

(1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979-1006.

120.

Wihler

Blickle

Ellen

B. P.

III Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2014). Personal initiative and job performance evaluations: Role of political skill in opportunity recognition and capitalization. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206314552451

121.

Wiltshire

Bourdage

J. S.

Lee

(2014). Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 235-251.

122.

Witt

L. A.

(1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666-674.

123.

Witt

L. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent evidence across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809-820.

124.

Yammarino

F. J.

Mumford

M. D.

(2012). Leadership and organizational politics: A multilevel review and framework for pragmatic deals. In Ferris

G. R.

Treadway

D. C.

(Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 323-354, SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.

125.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2002, April). Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In Kravis-de Roulet Leadership Conference, 1999. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

126.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Gilbert

J. A.

Thor

K. K.

Mumford

M. D.

(1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perspectiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 317-342.

127.

Zettler

Hilbig

B. E.

(2010). Honesty–humility and a person–situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24, 569-582.

128.

Zinko

Ferris

G. R.

Blass

F. R.

Laird

M. D.

(2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In Martocchio

J. J.

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 26, pp. 169-209). Oxford, England: JAI Press.

129.

Zinko

Ferris

G. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

Meyer

C. J.

Aime

(2012). Personal reputation in organizations: Two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 156-180.

130.

Zivnuska

Kacmar

K. M.

Witt

L. A.

Carlson

D. S.

Bratton

V. K.

(2004). Interactive effects of impression management and organizational politics on job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 627-640.