Political Skill,Trust,and Efficacy in Teams

Abstract

Political skill, frequently understood as a social skill at work, is argued to be a valuable resource not only at the individual level but also for the teams. Using hierarchical linear modeling and data from 525 students, organized into 115 teams, we demonstrate that political skill at the individual level shapes individual perceptions of team efficacy and trust in team. Both the level and the composition of political skill within the team are found to be critical for these team emergent states, albeit they play out differently for team members who are high versus low in political skill.

Keywords

political skill teams team efficacy trust

Introduction

A great deal of research has focused on the interpersonal processes that make teams more effective in the organizational context (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). Although interpersonal processes have been abundantly examined in the teams’ literature (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), few studies have ever examined the effects of team members’ political skill on team emergent states and outcomes. This void is unfortunate given that political skill is a well-established social effectiveness construct (Banister & Meriac, 2015; Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006) that has demonstrated effects on a variety of personal and organizational outcomes (Munyon, Summers, Thompson, & Ferris, 2015). Only a couple of studies have investigated political skill in a team context.

Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, and Ammeter (2004) found a significant positive relationship between leader political skill and team performance, and Lvina, Johns, and Vandenberghe (2015) demonstrated that team-level political skill affects team cohesion and team performance, but to date, we do not know whether and how political skill of individual team members affects team proximal outcomes or team emergent states. Considering that political skill of team members may be either a valuable resource or a serious barrier in achieving team goals, it is timely and critical to explore the role of political skill in teams. Addressing multiple calls on the need to study politics and political skill within groups/teams (e.g., Kimura, 2015; Munyon et al., 2015; Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012), we build and test a model that represents an attempt to address this knowledge gap.

Our theoretical model is based on a widely accepted framework of team Input–Process–Outcome (IPO) that recently incorporated the differentiation between team processes and emergent states (e.g., Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). DeRue and Hollenbeck (2007) posited that “team emergent states, which refer to the collective affective and emotional experiences of team members that develop over time, are [also] important mediators of the input to outcome process implied by IPO models” (p. 266). We propose to take a closer look at the contextual, within-team effect (Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012), of the team political skill composition (its level and uniformity) in the relationship between individual political skill and team trust, and team efficacy—the two variables consistently demonstrated to be important predictors of team effectiveness (e.g., Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).

As we demonstrate, the focal emergent states can be theoretically linked to political skill due to their core interpersonal properties. These focal emergent states are also of particular interest because, intuitively, some relationships may appear more straightforward than do others. It is easy to see how politically skilled individuals, who are consistently reported to perceive themselves as being in control of their work environment (e.g., Perrewé et al., 2004), can also experience higher team efficacy, and particularly so when their team members are also politically skilled.

The relationship between political skill and team trust may be more divergent. Similar to the findings of a curvilinear relationship of group extraversion and task focus and group performance (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998), it is theoretically feasible to hypothesize either a positive or negative relationship between a high concentration of individual political skill and team trust. Hence, the use of both more and less proximal variables in our proposed model is of particular research interest.

Individuals’ political skill is a product of intrapsychic processes that lead to situational assessments and attitude formation (Munyon et al., 2015). The magnitude and direction of these assessments and attitudes are dependent appraisals of others through interpersonal interactions with others. Thus, when evaluating political skill within a team context, it is important to evaluate not only the political skill of the individual but the attributes of others in the team. This study contributes to the teams’ literature by simultaneously examining the effects of political skill of the individual team members, and the homogeneity of political skill distributed throughout the team, on team efficacy and trust. The findings demonstrate that, on multiple levels, political skill contributes to team emergent states, and lays the groundwork for further exploration of political skill as an important team input to team outcomes.

Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development

Team Emergent States and the IPO Model

In this study, we apply the IPO theoretical framework (Mathieu et al., 2008) to the team context, and explore how the interaction between individual and team inputs forms team emergent states. The framework acknowledges the importance of team interpreted as team activities, and emergent states, interpreted as attitudes, motivations, or team cognitions (e.g., Hackman, 1987; Marks et al., 2001), maintaining that team effectiveness is a result of interaction processes and emergent states (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Although the relationship between process, emergent states, and outcomes largely has been established in the literature (e.g., LePine et al., 2008), this study contributes to our understanding of the role of inputs functioning at multiple levels, and their interaction, in predicting emergent states.

This focus on the inputs, or antecedents, is warranted as it represents a shift in our understanding and management of group effectiveness. As Hackman (2012) argued, enabling the right conditions, rather than fixing problems, should become a priority for managers; hence, analyzing these conditions should become of a particular interest to researchers. In addition, this study attends to the psychological determinants of team effectiveness, thus supporting the call to move from technical preconditions (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). Given the critical role of soft skills in team contexts, particularly within the team IPO theoretical model (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2008), it is warranted to further examine the antecedents of successful interpersonal interactions, and the context enabling and shaping the conditions for those. We propose that political skill of the team members sets an important context for individual levels of trust in team and team efficacy beliefs.

Political Skill and Political Influence Theory

Political skill is a social effectiveness construct defined 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” (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005, p. 127). Political skill allows individuals in organizations to accurately and effectively analyze, and operate in, social and political situations at work. These individuals are capable of leveraging these skills such that they are able to successfully navigate the political arenas (Mintzberg, 1985) of work, developing valuable networks of relationships and accurately employing influence tactics in order to attain their personal, or organizational, goals (Ferris, Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012; Munyon et al., 2015).

Political skill consists of four dimensions: social astuteness, networking ability, interpersonal influence, and apparent sincerity. Used in conjunction, these dimensions allow for politically skilled people to successfully navigate the uncertain, risky, and ambiguous political situations, which are a reality of work, in an effective, collected, and confident way (Ferris et al., 2007). All four of these dimensions are important for individuals’ social and political effectiveness at work. Politically skilled individuals are able to accurately assess a situation or interaction (i.e., social astuteness), and this information is then used to employ the most appropriate social influence tactics for the given situation (i.e., interpersonal influence). Those with political skill also work to build and maintain valuable networks of relationships (i.e., networking ability) in such a way that does not come across as politically motivated or self-serving (i.e., apparent sincerity). Used effectively, political skill has considerable positive implications for those who have it. In a recent meta-analysis of political skill, Munyon et al. (2015) illustrate the positive effects of political skill on valuable work outcomes such as task and contextual performance.

The theory of political influence derives from the description of political skill at work presented by Ferris et al. (2007) in their seminal work on the topic. The characteristics of political skill, its operation in organizations, and the relationships it has demonstrated with other constructs have been consistently scrutinized and tested in subsequent research since its inception (Ferris et al., 2012; Munyon et al., 2015). Furthermore, political skill’s definition and characterization, understanding, and roles at work have stood up to this rigorous inspection. Although still in its relative infancy, as understanding of political skill and its role in shaping behavior and outcomes in organizations grows, the role of political influence theory as an appropriate and valuable foundation for understanding those behaviors and outcomes witnessed or experienced at work grows as well.

In this study, we also use political influence theory as a component of the foundation used to hypothesize and examine the perceptions of team members and the emergent states of teams relative to the political skill composition of each team. How politically skilled an individual is relative to how politically skilled the other members of the team are can affect how individuals view their team and the members of that team, thus influencing their perceptions of team trust and team efficacy.

Trust in Team

Although the trust literature is fraught with various definitions (Dietz & Hartog, 2006), perhaps the most commonly cited definition of trust is

the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712)

This psychological state is the result of both cognitive and affective appraisal processes (Costa, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995). It is also a function of both intrapsychic processes and the outward trustworthiness of the referent person or group. These processes have been conceptualized through the lenses of social intelligence (Yamagishi, 2001) and emotional intelligence (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010). These perspectives have suggested that individuals who are better able to recognize interpersonal and emotional cues will be able to more confidently and competently make trust appraisals regarding the likelihood of others performing opportunistic and goal-thwarting behavior.

From a diagnostic perspective, politically skilled individuals have superior social astuteness, and thus can accurately identify and interpret social cues from the environment (Ferris et al., 2007). Because of their ability to evaluate the organizational landscape, and locate themselves in advantageous positions within their social network (Fang, Chi, Chen, & Baron, 2015), politically skilled individuals are able to obtain novel and useful information about others. Thus, politically skilled individuals should have an advantage with respect to accurately and confidently assessing the trustworthiness of others, as their social intelligence allows them to recognize opportunities for positive interdependence (McAllister, Ellen, & Ferris, 2016; McAllister, Ellen, Perrewé, Ferris, & Hirsch, 2015; Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997) and mutually beneficial outcomes.

Political skill is a resource that individuals draw on to display trustworthy qualities to others. Mayer et al. (1995) identified three attributes that individuals appraise when determining the trustworthiness of another individual or group (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity), which suggests that individuals who are able to embody these qualities will be evaluated as more trustworthy by others. Individuals who are politically skilled display a calm confidence, which signals ability to others (Benabou & Tirole, 2002). According to political influence theory, politically skilled individuals are able to find common ground with others (Ferris et al., 1999), and appear to be sincere in their interpersonal interactions, and thus appear to operate with benevolence and integrity.

Through social interaction, politically skilled individuals will recognize the social abilities of other members of the team, and this likely creates favorable cognitive and affective trust appraisals. Consistent with previous findings on political skill and political influence theory (Munyon et al., 2015), those with high levels of political skill should be able to properly diagnose the abilities of others. They should demonstrate higher levels of trust when the other members of the team are also politically skilled and share high levels of similarity. Individuals who are lower in political skill must navigate their environments with suboptimal social diagnostic capabilities. They will have a difficult time properly reading the social cues that politically skilled individuals send to signal trustworthiness. Individuals who have low political skill have a hard time distinguishing between those who demonstrate trustworthy and untrustworthy characteristics, which likely leads to lower and less variant levels of trust in their team.

Hypothesis 1a: For individuals high in personal political skill, team political skill and team political skill standard deviation will moderate the relationship between personal political skill and team trust such that individuals in teams with high team political skill and low team political skill standard deviation have higher trust in their team than those individuals in teams with low team political skill and low team political skill standard deviation.

Hypothesis 1b: For individuals low in personal political skill, team political skill and team political skill standard deviation will not affect trust in team.

Team Efficacy

A team’s efficacy, the “perceptions of task-specific team capability” (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002, p. 819), is related to the team’s performance and effectiveness. It is a key component in understanding the functions of the team. Whether the members of a team perceive the team as capable of accomplishing the tasks and goals set for them is critical to that team’s performance and continued successful operation (e.g., Gibson, 1999). How much effort team members exert, choices of behavior, and team longevity are all influenced by the team members’ perception of their collective efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1997). This is not a simple additive process, combining the self-efficacies of the individuals in the team (Bandura, 2000). Rather, team efficacy involves team members asking themselves if they, collectively, can accomplish a task (Mischel & Northcraft, 1997).

For decades, researchers have argued that domain-specific team efficacy is an important predictor of team performance (Gist, 1987; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Mischel & Northcraft, 1997). Efficacy can be either defined at the individual or collective level, and refers to that entity’s self-belief regarding capability (M. L. Chen & Lin, 2013). In the collective or team context, efficacy represents a confidence that can be an important resource that members can draw on in times of adversity (Gully et al., 2002). Team efficacy has been linked to team-level effectiveness (Gully et al., 2002). Research on cross-level efficacy perceptions suggests that both individual and collective efficacy have similar antecedents, although there are some processes that provide disparate impact on this construct at different levels of analysis (G. Chen & Bliese, 2002).

Political skill has long been hypothesized to be associated with self-efficacy. Politically skilled individuals are, by nature, able to adapt and thrive in a variety of social environments. Their ability to appropriately read social environment and enact control over personal outcomes gives individuals a sense of self-confidence (Ferris et al., 2007; Perrewé et al., 2004). Many studies (e.g., Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2008; Perrewé et al., 2004) have demonstrated that there is a strong bivariate relationship between political skill and self-efficacy at the individual level. Indeed, the evidence suggests that politically skilled individuals feel they have the resources and capabilities to achieve their work-related goals.

Fernández-Ballesteros, Dıez-Nicolás, Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Bandura (2002) argued, and found support, that individual perceptions of collective efficacy oftentimes are a function of individuals’ personal efficacy, or the ability to affect their own personal goals, and individual social efficacy, the ability to create change within their environment. Because politically skilled people are fundamentally adept at extracting cues from their environment and using information to affect their circumstances in the workplace, we argue that politically skilled individuals possess both personal and individual social efficacy. Thus, regardless of their circumstances, they will feel in control, and able to affect their environment, as social cognitive theory would suggest (Bandura, 2001). As a result, their perceptions of collective efficacy will be affected less by assessments of team members’ capabilities.

This does not suggest that those who do not have political skill will seldom feel collectively efficacious to achieve their team goals, but the source of collective efficacy for less politically skilled individuals will come from an external source. Team attitudes form within the embedded informal social structure, and the feelings of the lower status members often reflect the feelings of the high status members (Earley, 1999). Political influence theory would suggest that politically skilled individuals likely will affect team attitude consensus by actively influencing team norms and emergent states (Munyon et al., 2015). Thus, personal judgments of collective efficacy by low political skill team members will be largely a function of whether other team members have political skill, and thus collective efficacy. We expect to see team members with low political skill report higher team efficacy when the mean level of political skill within the team is high, or when a few individuals have high political skill, as represented by high political skill variance. Furthermore, we expect team efficacy perceptions to be lower when the team has low political skill and low variance, as no politically skilled, and thus socially efficacious, team member assumes an informal leadership role. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: For individuals high in personal political skill, team political skill and team political skill standard deviation will not affect perceptions of team efficacy.

Hypothesis 2b: For individuals low in personal political skill, team political skill and team political skill standard deviation will each moderate the relationship between personal political skill and perceptions of team efficacy such that individuals in teams with high team political skill and high team political skill standard deviation have higher perceptions of team efficacy than those in teams with low team political skill and low team political skill standard deviation.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data were collected from 189 teams in a large Canadian university business school. Student teams of between three to six members worked together over a span of 6 to 10 weeks to analyze a business case and submit a coauthored written report, which was to be given a group grade. Data were collected in two waves throughout the semester, and participation in each wave was rewarded with the opportunity to win a gift card and class credit, respectively. During the first wave of data collection, the Political Skill Inventory (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) was distributed to students in class via a paper and pencil survey. This occurred three quarters of the way into the semester so that students had a chance to interact with their team members and establish the emergent processes that would define their team (Gersick, 1988).

The second wave of data collection occurred 3 to 4 weeks later, and was administered as a Qualtrics survey that contained the remaining study variables. The temporal separation of the survey administration and the differing modalities of the surveys were designed to guard against common method effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Because of missing data, some teams were eliminated from the analyses, which occurred when fewer than two team members reported their political skill. These teams were dropped because a team-level standard deviation score could not be computed. The final sample included 281 individuals in 115 teams.

Measures

Political Skill

Political skill was measured using the 18-item Political Skill Inventory (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) which utilized a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Items were adapted by shifting the point of reference from work and other individuals at work to the team setting and other team members. Sample items include “It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most people in my team” and “It is important that my team members believe I am sincere in what I say and do.” The Level 1 alpha (α) coefficient was .91.

Team Political Skill Standard Deviation

Team political skill standard deviation was evaluated by calculating the standard deviations of team political skill scores within the team. Thus, a smaller value indicates that the team members shared a similar level of political skill, while a large value suggests a greater disparity between team member political skill levels.

Trust

Trust was measured using a three-item scale adapted from Gillespie (2003), and Mayer and Davis (1999). This scale utilized a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “I would be comfortable giving this team a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor its actions,” “I am willing to rely on the team to represent my work accurately to others,” and “I am willing to depend on the team to back me up in difficult situations.” The Level 1 alpha (α) coefficient was .72.

Team Efficacy

Efficacy was measured using an adapted five-item scale (Jex & Bliese, 1999) which utilized a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “I think my team would do a better job at this task than most teams” and “If I had to work again with this team tomorrow, I would feel good about working with my team.” The Level 1 alpha (α) coefficient was .89.

Control Variables

A review of the teams literature indicated that team size is related to important team outcomes (Stewart, 2006), and that work experience is related to team efficacy (G. Chen & Bliese, 2002). These two variables were included as control variables at the team level. Additionally, general mental ability was controlled for in this study as suggested by Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005), and was operationalized using the student’s grade point average (GPA) at the individual level.

Last, to conduct a more conservative test of efficacy, trust was included as a control variable given its association with team outcomes (Costa, 2003), specifically, efficacy (Gully et al., 2002). The trust that individuals develop and place in those around them, their teams (Bandura, 1997), and leaders (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011) has been consistently demonstrated to be a significant predictor of, and highly related to, team efficacy. Trust was controlled for when testing the relationship between team political skill and team efficacy to better isolate the particular impact that team political skill has on perceptions of team efficacy above and beyond the effects of trust.

Data Analysis

Because we are examining the individual perceptions of team members, as a function of both their individual-level differences and team-level compositional variables, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was employed to conduct our analyses. Specifically, models predicting individual-level team efficacy and trust in team perceptions were created using political skill and GPA (and trust in team for the team efficacy model) as individual-level predictors, as well as team size, team work experience, team political skill mean, and team political skill standard deviation as team-level predictors. Interactions between individual-level political skill and team political skill mean, as well as individual-level political skill and team political skill standard deviation were created, and variables were grand centered.

Once these models were created, random effects were added for all variables one step at a time, and these alternative models were compared with the base model by performing chi-square difference tests to evaluate whether the added explanatory power outweighed the loss in parsimony. Our process eliminated models that included unnecessary random effects, until the best model for each focal outcome remained. The results provided in the next section are for these two superior models, and the equations used to derive our results are provided below in Equations (1) and (2).

Equation 1: Team trust model

\begin{array}{l} TRUS T_{i j} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} * T P S S D_{j} + \\ γ_{02} * T P S_{j} + γ_{03} * T E A M S I Z E_{j} + \\ γ_{04} * W O R K E X P E R I E N C E_{j} + \\ γ_{10} * G P A_{i j} + γ_{20} * P S_{i j} + \\ γ_{21} * T P S S D_{j} * P S_{i j} + \\ γ_{22} * T P S_{j} * P S_{i j} + u_{0 j} + r_{i j} \end{array}

Equation 2: Equation for team efficacy model

\begin{array}{l} E F F I C A C Y_{i j} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} * T P S S D_{j} + \\ γ_{02} * T P S_{j} + γ_{03} * S I Z E_{j} + \\ γ_{04} * W O R K E X P_{j} + γ_{10} * G P A_{i j} + \\ γ_{20} * T R U S T_{i j} + γ_{30} * P S_{i j} + \\ γ_{31} * T P S S D_{j} * P S_{i j} + γ_{32} * T P S_{j} * P S_{i j} + \\ u_{0 j} + u_{2 j} * T R U S T_{i j} + r_{i j} \end{array}

Results

The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of study variables are provided in Table 1. These variables are calculated at the individual level of analysis.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations.

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1	GPA	3.03	0.50	—
2	Trust	4.50	1.28	−.06	—
3	Political skill	5.33	0.78	.18**	.24**	—
4	Team efficacy	3.68	0.89	−.07	.59**	.27**	—

Note. GPA = grade point average.

p < .05. **p < .01.

HLM software was used to conduct the multilevel analyses used to evaluate the hypotheses. A series of chi-square difference tests were performed to determine whether the use of random effects was appropriate within the model. For efficacy, this series of tests demonstrated that the employment of a random effect for trust (u_2j) provided significantly better predictive utility within the model. When the other random effects (u_1j, u_3j, and u_4j) were added to the model, the chi-square difference test indicated that their inclusion was not necessary. This suggests that there is a group effect of trust, but not one for individual-level trust, GPA, or the interaction term.

For the team trust model, the direct effects of political skill, team political skill, and team political skill standard deviation were not significant (political skill γ₂₀ = .15, p = .206, team political skill γ₀₂ = −.15, p = .54, team political skill standard deviation γ₀₁ = −.02, p = .94). However, the interaction term of political skill × team political skill (γ₂₁ = .68, p < .05) was significant, as was the interaction term for political skill × team political skill standard deviation (γ₂₂ = .52, p < .01). This provides support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b, although the form of the interaction did not conform to our expectations in Hypothesis 1a (see Figures 1 -4).

Figure 1.

Individual political skill (PS)—Team trust moderated by team political skill (TPS).

Figure 2.

Individual political skill (PS)—Team trust moderated by team political skill (TPS) standard deviation.

Figure 3.

Personal political skill (PS)—Team efficacy moderated by team political skill (TPS).

Figure 4.

Personal political skill (PS)—Team efficacy moderated by team political skill (TPS) standard deviation.

For the team efficacy model, the direct effects of political skill were significant (political skill γ₃₀ = .15, p < .05), but the direct effects of team political skill, and team political skill standard deviation were not significant (team political skill γ₀₂ = −.11, p = .40, team political skill standard deviation γ₀₁ = .14, p = .42). The interaction term between political skill and team political skill standard deviation (γ₃₁ = −.47, p < .001) was significant, as was the interaction term between political skill and team political skill (γ₃₂ = −.26, p < .01). This provides support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

HLM Results for Team Trust.

Fixed effect	Coefficient	SE	t-Ratio	df	p
Intercept	5.36	0.74	7.28	110	<.001
Team political skill standard deviation	−0.02	0.28	−0.07	110	.943
Political skill	0.15	0.25	0.62	110	.539
Team size	−0.15	0.12	−1.27	110	.206
Work experience	0.77	0.60	1.29	110	.199
GPA	−0.32	0.12	−2.64	166	.009
Team political skill	0.15	0.14	1.10	166	.273
Team political skill standard deviation × Political skill	0.68	0.30	2.25	166	.026
Team political skill × Political skill	0.52	0.16	3.24	166	.001

Note. SE = standard error; df = degrees of freedom; GPA = grade point average; HLM = hierarchical linear modeling.

Table 3.

HLM Results for Team Efficacy.

Fixed effect	Coefficient	SE	t-Ratio	df	p
Intercept	2.77	0.56	4.91	110	<.001
Team political skill standard deviation	0.14	0.16	0.84	110	.403
Political skill	0.11	0.14	0.80	110	.424
Team size	−0.13	0.05	−2.42	110	.017
Work experience	0.19	0.36	0.51	110	.61
GPA	−0.10	0.08	−1.23	51	.224
Team trust	0.37	0.03	11.55	114	<.001
Team political skill	0.21	0.08	2.65	51	.011
Team political skill standard deviation × Political skill	−0.47	0.13	−3.76	51	<.001
Team political skill × Political skill	−0.26	0.08	−3.17	51	.003

Note. SE = standard error; df = degrees of freedom; GPA = grade point average; HLM = hierarchical linear modeling.

Last, to determine whether common method bias was a problematic issue in our analyses, the Cote and Buckley (1987) method was employed, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). The results of this test suggest that common method bias was not a substantial problem in our data analyses.

Discussion

Contributions to Theory and Research

This investigation makes a few notable contributions to the teams, organizational politics, and political influence theory literatures, expanding our theoretical (e.g., Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012) and empirical (e.g., Lvina et al., 2015) understandings of the function of political skill in teams. First, whereas much of the literature has focused on describing how political skill benefits the focal individual, this is among the first (Ahearn et al., 2004; Lvina et al., 2015) studies to show the positive effects of political skill in a team setting. Specifically, individuals with political skill are shown to develop greater team trust and team efficacy than those who lack political skill. These data support previous theoretical work which suggests a positive relationship between political skill and trust and collective efficacy (Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012). We propose that this process occurs because those who are politically skilled have the diagnostic and social resources to leverage instances of positive interdependence. They are then able to find common ground with teammates and realign differences. The end result is a team with more homogenous expectations and understanding, which are indicative of high levels of trust and collective efficacy.

Second, we provide evidence that the critical team outcomes are not simply shaped by the political skill of the focal team member, but also built on the composition of political skill within the whole team. Our findings reaffirm that having political skill in a team is a good thing. Political skill long has been associated with building trust (Ferris et al., 2007). Our results demonstrate that individuals who are high in political skill are able to better assess the political skill of others in their teams, and report higher team trust when there is higher mean political skill present within the team. However, counter to our hypothesis, politically skilled individuals tend to collectively trust the team where there is dispersion in political skill among team members.

An individual with high political skill working among a team comprising individuals with highly dispersed political skill would suggest that this focal person is the most, or is among the most, politically skilled members on the team. As teams form, informal and formal roles emerges, and theory would suggest that the most politically active and skilled individuals would attempt to maneuver themselves into the more powerful and advantageous roles (Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012). Perhaps politically skilled individuals are most trusting when they are the most socially dominant member of the team, and they can use their role derived power and political skill to get their way without having to compete with as many others in the team.

It may be the case that political skill is a double-edged sword with regard to trust; as politically skilled individuals exude an air of capability, but that their benevolence and integrity may be called into question, because they are able to properly hide ulterior motives. Other politically skilled individuals may recognize this paradox, and may be less trusting of a team that has a lot of other potentially agentic and opportunistic members, as opposed to just a few. Thus, politically skilled individuals seem to be most trusting of the team when they are the, or among the most, politically skilled individual, and have others on the team who are somewhat socially subordinate, but still collectively demonstrate a high mean level of political skill.

Our results further demonstrate that politically skilled individuals have higher levels of collective efficacy regardless of the political skill of other team members. Individuals who have low political skill will become more collectively efficacious if the team is collectively politically skilled or if there is high dispersion in political skill (which would be indicative of at least one member with high political skill). Thus, the outward expression and behaviors of politically skilled individuals seem to promote efficacy within those who otherwise would not have it. These behaviors likely include recognizing opportunities for collective team gain (McAllister et al., 2015; McAllister et al., 2016), finding common ground with team members, and aligning goals. For those individuals with political skill, they believe so strongly in their own capabilities, that their confidence in team capabilities does not seem to be swayed by the political skill of others on the team.

Strengths and Limitations

This investigation reflects a few notable strengths and also some limitations. First, in concordance with the recommendations provided by Podsakoff et al. (2003), the data collection procedure employed temporal separation during the collection of independent and dependent variables. Second, the survey included proximal separation of construct items. Third, data from a large number of teams were procured, and constructs demonstrated strong internal reliability. Last, we were able to control for team size, work experience, and general mental ability, which provides a more conservative test of our study hypotheses.

A potential limitation of the study is that although the data were collected on independent and dependent variables at different points, variables were collected via a same-source self-report method. Additionally, many cases were dropped from the original data set because of the presence of missing data from the second wave of data collection. However, a test for method bias suggested that this was not a problematic artifact of our research design.

Directions for Future Research

Whereas most research on political skill has focused on individual actions and competencies, this investigation is among the few that have examined how political skills interact to produce outcomes in teams. There are innumerable areas for future research in this area, a few of which we highlight here. First, although this investigation examined intrateam evaluations and attitudes, future research should evaluate how other political constructs affect both intrateam and team-spanning behavior. For example, whereas political skill is a potentially dormant interpersonal effectiveness construct, political will measures the level of political motivation and activity, which is critical to measure how team members jockey for position and resources both within and outside of the team. This also has a likely effect on how perceptions of team member politics affect team outcomes, as political will and political behaviors likely have the ability to harm interpersonal functioning within the team, but also to bring in important resources from outside the team (Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012).

Second, to further evaluate how political skill operates in team settings, future research should examine how team outcomes are affected when members have political skill in various team roles. For example, Humphrey, Morgeson, and Mannor (2009) theorized and found support for the theory of the strategic core of teams, which suggested that competencies and resources within the strategic core of teams promote greater team performance. Given the results of this investigation, it stands to reason that a team may benefit from having their most politically skilled individuals fill roles that are strategically vital to the team’s success.

Third, political skill is conceptualized as a stable individual resource, but some scholars suggest that some aspects of it can be learned (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005; Ferris et al., 2007). The development of political skill in individuals would be of great interest to academics and practitioners alike, as the benefits of political skill in organizations have been well documented (Ferris et al., 2012; Munyon et al., 2015). Scholars should take a longitudinal approach to political skill to determine whether it is indeed a malleable construct, and how observing others (e.g., teammates or leaders) might facilitate this process.

Last, political skill has been traditionally examined and evaluated focusing on a single particular individual, or as the mean political skill score of a team or group. In many ways, this fails to account for the fact that individuals do not operate in a social vacuum, and that the individuals around them also possess some level of political skill. Future research should examine political skill within the context of other politically skilled individuals in interaction. Given the importance of political skill for an individual’s social effectiveness, and the value that this skill can bring to both individuals and organizations, understanding how political skill operates in relation to others who may or may not also be politically skilled is becoming increasingly needed. One context in which this may be studied is in a competitive environment. For example, a study of negotiators or salespeople could be conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of politically skilled individuals when negotiating with other individuals with varying levels of political skill.

Practical Implications

The results of this study also have a range of practical implications. Practitioners benefit from a greater understanding of how team efficacy is formed, as team efficacy has a strong relationship with team performance (Gully et al., 2002). In this study, we demonstrated that politically skilled individuals are more collectively efficacious, and are better able to assess whether the team should be trusted. Surrounding individuals who do not have political skill with others who are politically skilled has positive implications for both trust and efficacy. Practitioners should keep this in mind when selecting employees for team assignments. Furthermore, political skill is thought to be a malleable personal resource that can be enhanced through training (Ferris et al., 2012). Thus, providing training and coaching that improves the political skill of employees who regularly perform interdependent tasks would yield dividends in the form of greater team trust and efficacy.

Conclusion

The findings of this study represent an early step in evaluating the role of political skill in teams. Specifically, we argue and find that politically skilled individuals are able to properly assess the political skill of others, and make trust judgments based on these evaluations. Furthermore, politically skilled individuals are more collectively efficacious, and can to serve raise the collective efficacy of those who are not politically skilled. We hope that this investigation inspires further examination of the role of political skill in team settings, thus acting on the appeals for such research recently by scholars in the field (e.g., Kimura, 2015; Lvina et al., 2015; Munyon et al., 2015; Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi, 2012).

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

Elena Lvina is an assistant professor of management at the Haub School Business, Saint Joseph’s University. She holds her PhD from Concordia University. She conducts research in strategy, leadership, and political skill, with a particular interest in higher levels of analysis which ranges from teams to national cultures.

Liam P. Maher is a PhD candidate in management at Florida State University. He holds an MBA from Seattle University, and a BS degree in business administration from Western Washington University. He has research interests in the areas of reputation in organizations and political will and political skill in organizations.

John N. Harris is a PhD candidate in management at Florida State University. He holds a BS in psychology from the University of Alabama. His research interests include leadership, political skill, work relationships, and organizational politics.

References

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.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth.

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Banister

C. M.

Meriac

J. P.

(2015). Political skill and work attitudes: A comparison of multiple social effectiveness constructs. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 149, 775-795.

Barczak

Lassk

Mulki

(2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 332-345.

Barrick

M. R.

Stewart

G. L.

Neubert

M. J.

Mount

M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Benabou

Tirole

(2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 871-915.

10.

Chen

Bliese

P. D.

(2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556.

11.

Chen

M. L.

Lin

C. P.

(2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team knowledge sharing from a socio-cognitive perspective. Human Resource Management, 52, 675-695.

12.

Chiocchio

Essiembre

(2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382-420.

13.

Costa

A. C.

(2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32, 605-622.

14.

Cote

J. A.

Buckley

(1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315-318.

15.

De Dreu

C. K.

Weingart

L. R.

(2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.

16.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

(2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32-53.

17.

DeRue

D. S.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

(2007). The search for internal and external fit in teams. In Ostroff

Judge

T. A.

(Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 259-285). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

18.

Dietz

Hartog

D. N. D.

(2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35, 557-588.

19.

Earley

P. C.

(1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192-212.

20.

Fang

Chi

Chen

Baron

R. A.

(2015). Bringing political skill into social networks: Findings from a field study of entrepreneurs. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 175-212.

21.

Fernández-Ballesteros

Dıez-Nicolás

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Bandura

(2002). Structural relation of perceived personal efficacy to perceived collective efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 107-125.

22.

Ferris

G. R.

Berkson

H. M.

Kaplan

D. M.

Gilmore

D. C.

Buckley

M. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Witt

L. A.

(1999, August). Development and initial validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, 59th Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

23.

Ferris

G. R.

Davidson

S. L.

Perrewé

P. L.

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

24.

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. 487-529). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

25.

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, 126-152.

26.

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.

27.

Gersick

C. J.

(1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.

28.

Gibson

C. B.

(1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138-152.

29.

Gillespie

(2003, August). Measuring trust in working relationships: The Behavioral Trust Inventory. Paper presented at Academy of Management, 63rd Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.

30.

Gist

M. E.

(1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

31.

Gully

S. M.

Incalcaterra

K. A.

Joshi

Beaubien

J. M.

(2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

32.

Guzzo

R. A.

Yost

P. R.

Campbell

R. J.

Shea

G. P.

(1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.

33.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

J. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

34.

Hackman

J. R.

(2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 428-444.

35.

Humphrey

S. E.

Morgeson

F. P.

Mannor

M. J.

(2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48-61.

36.

Ilgen

D. R.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Johnson

Jundt

(2005). Teams in organizations: From the input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.

37.

Jawahar

I. M.

Meurs

J. A.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

(2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication. Human Performance, 21, 138-157.

38.

Jex

S. M.

Bliese

P. D.

(1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349-361.

39.

Kimura

(2015). A review of political skill: Current research trend and directions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 312-332.

40.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.

41.

LePine

J. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Jackson

C. L.

Mathieu

J. E.

Saul

J. R.

(2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.

42.

Lindsley

D. H.

Brass

D. J.

Thomas

J. B.

(1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.

43.

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

44.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.

45.

Mathieu

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.

46.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.

47.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

48.

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

49.

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, 25-34.

50.

Mintzberg

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

51.

Mischel

L. J.

Northcraft

G. B.

(1997). “I think we can, I think we can . . . ”: The role of efficacy beliefs in group and team effectiveness. In Advances in group processes (Vol. 14, pp. 177-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

52.

Munyon

T. P.

Summers

J. K.

Thompson

K. M.

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.

53.

Perrewé

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. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152.

54.

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.

55.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

Rusbult

C. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

(1997). Interdependence theory. In Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 221-250). Chichester, England: Wiley.

57.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S. K.

Peng

A. C.

(2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863-871.

58.

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.

59.

Stewart

G. L.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-55.

60.

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 (SIOP Frontier Series vol., pp. 287-322). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

61.

Yamagishi

(2001). Trust as a form of social intelligence. In Cook

(Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 121-148). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.