Ihsan Sabh Thesis (1)

A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ON EMPLOYEE

PRODUCTIVITY OF AAJ TECHNOLOGIES LAHORE PAKISTAN

Submitted to

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

Submitted by

Ihsan ur Rehman

Roll No: P-564153

2006

ABSTRACT

Organizational politics is widely discussed around the globe in relation organizational

productivity. This study on the subject of organizational politics is an effort to empirically

test the factors that construct the concept “Organizational Politics” and its impact on the

organizational growth through the employee’s perceptions. Study also provides a deep

insight to the factors considered as symptoms of organizational politics. Several outcomes

of employee perception in engaging in politics are being explored and empirified; these

outcomes are reported to have an impact on organizational growth as well as on individual

growth, an extensive literature is reviewed for the development of concept.

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research was possible because of contribution of many individuals. Personal, academic

and moral support was provided by a very kind and calm personality Mr. Amir Rashid. I

would like to mention many names like Dr. Amos Drory, Dr. Gerald R. Ferris, Dr. Perrewé

Dr. Kacmar and Dr. Russell Cropanzano. These great researchers really made it possible

for me to continue my work and they provided me really helpful materials in the form of

published articles and books. Especially I would like to say Thanks to Dr. Eran Vigoda

who supported me all the time with fruitful discussions. Throughout the entire pursuit, my

parents provided emotional support and a shared passion of work. At last but not least my

friend Farooq Jawaid who helped me a lot in correction of text and it is only possible due to

his continuous reviews of the research. Thank you for making me a wise person and a

better researcher.

ii

DEDICATION

This study and the Masters of Business Administration degree which follows are dedicated

to my mother. My mother’s unbridled faith in me has always led me to higher grounds. In

all my busy days and nights she always reminds me to finish my work in time with a good

quality, always providing me motivation to accomplish my dreams. So, this is for you,

Mom. Thank you for believing in me with your unwavering faith. You have made all the

difference in my life. I will love you forever...

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 8

The Problem and Its Background 8

Introduction 8

Background Information of the Organization 10

Statement of the Problem 11

Theoretical Framework 11

Hypothesis 15

Significance of Study 15

Scope and Limitations of Research 15

Definition of Related Terms 17

Chapter 2 20

Review of the Related Literature 20

Chapter 3 60

Methods and Procedures 60

Research Method 60

Measures 60

Instrument and Technique Used 65

Statistical treatment of Data 66

Chapter 4 69

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of the Data 69

Chapter 5 112

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations 112

Findings 112

Conclusions 113

Recommendations 114

References 116

Glossary 146

Questionnaire 147

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1..................................................................................................................................50

Table 2.2..................................................................................................................................53

Table 2.3..................................................................................................................................58

Table 3.1..................................................................................................................................61

Table 3.2..................................................................................................................................62

Table 3.3..................................................................................................................................63

Table 3.4..................................................................................................................................64

Table 3.5..................................................................................................................................68

Table 4.1..................................................................................................................................69

Table 4.2..................................................................................................................................70

Table 4.3..................................................................................................................................71

Table 4.4..................................................................................................................................73

Table 4.5..................................................................................................................................74

Table 4.6..................................................................................................................................76

Table 4.7..................................................................................................................................77

Table 4.8..................................................................................................................................78

Table 4.9..................................................................................................................................81

Table 4.10................................................................................................................................82

Table 4.11................................................................................................................................83

Table 4.12................................................................................................................................85

Table 4.13................................................................................................................................86

Table 4.14................................................................................................................................87

Table 4.15................................................................................................................................88

Table 4.16................................................................................................................................90

Table 4.17................................................................................................................................92

Table 4.18................................................................................................................................93

Table 4.18................................................................................................................................94

Table 4.19................................................................................................................................95

5

Table 4.20................................................................................................................................97

Table 4.21................................................................................................................................98

Table 4.22................................................................................................................................99

Table 4.23..............................................................................................................................100

Table 4.24..............................................................................................................................101

Table 4.25..............................................................................................................................103

Table 4.26..............................................................................................................................104

Table 4.27..............................................................................................................................105

Table 4.28..............................................................................................................................106

Table 4.29..............................................................................................................................107

Table 4.30..............................................................................................................................108

Table 4.30..............................................................................................................................109

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 ................................................................................................................................14

Figure 3.1 ................................................................................................................................62

Figure 3.2 ................................................................................................................................63

Figure 3.4 ................................................................................................................................64

Figure 3.4 ................................................................................................................................65

Figure 4.1 ................................................................................................................................70

Figure 4.2 ................................................................................................................................71

Figure 4.3 ................................................................................................................................72

Figure 4.4 ................................................................................................................................74

Figure 4.5 ................................................................................................................................75

Figure 4.6 ................................................................................................................................76

Figure 4.7 ................................................................................................................................78

Figure 4.8 ................................................................................................................................80

Figure 4.9 ................................................................................................................................82

Figure 4.10 ..............................................................................................................................83

Figure 4.11 ..............................................................................................................................84

Figure 4.12 ..............................................................................................................................86

Figure 4.13 ..............................................................................................................................87

Figure 4.14 ..............................................................................................................................88

Figure 4.15 ..............................................................................................................................90

Figure 4.16 ..............................................................................................................................91

Figure 4.17 ..............................................................................................................................93

Figure 4.17 ..............................................................................................................................94

Figure 4.18 ..............................................................................................................................95

Figure 4.19 ..............................................................................................................................97

Figure 4.19 ..............................................................................................................................98

Figure 4.21 ..............................................................................................................................99

Figure 4.22 ............................................................................................................................100

7

Figure 4.23 ............................................................................................................................101

Figure 4.24 ............................................................................................................................102

Figure 4.25 ............................................................................................................................103

Figure 4.26 ............................................................................................................................104

Figure 4.27 ............................................................................................................................105

Figure 4.28 ............................................................................................................................107

Figure 4.29 ............................................................................................................................108

Figure 4.30 ............................................................................................................................109

Figure 4.30 ............................................................................................................................111

8

C H A P T E R 1

The Problem and Its Background

Introduction

Aristotle1 in his book emphasized on roots of politics as he said, politics stems from

diversity of interests, to fully understand the concept “politics in organizations”, it is

necessary to explore the processes by which people engage in politics. Consistent with

Aristotle's conceptualization, it is given that, while joining an organization everyone bring

their own interests, wants, desires, and needs to the workplace.

Regardless of the degree to which employees are made committed to the organization's

objectives, there can be little doubt that, at least occasionally, personal interests will be

incongruent with those of the organization. Organizational politics arise when people think

differently and want to act differently. The democratic organization seeks to resolve this

diversity of interests by asking: "How shall we do it?" By whatever means an organization

resolves this diversity, alternative approaches generally hinges on the power relations

between the actors involved.

For last couple of decades, Organization Politics is widely discussed in Management

literatures. The concepts and perceptions of Organizational Politics in the workplace

evolved during the 1990’s and are considered to be a primary component in business

management practices. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between

the performance of human resources and the environmental phenomenon of organizational

politics in contemporary business settings. The two are unavoidably linked through

common work place actors, settings, and scripts. The examination of the resulting impact

on human resources is the focus of this study. The significance of this study becomes

inevitable with rapid changes in global economies and business requirements.

Organizations are spreading in all horizons; concepts of boundaryless organizations are in

practice. International management has become an integral part of multinational

1 Aristotle (b. 384 - d. 322 BC). A Treatise on Government, Translated from the Greek By William Ellis (1912 reprinted

1919, 1923, 1928), London &.Toronto published by j m dent & sons ltd. &.in new york by e. P. Dutton &. Co. http://www.literaturepage.com/read/treatiseongovernment.html

9

organizations; people from different ethnic groups and/or educational institutes have strong

bindings to influence organizational decision-making. One of the biggest objectives of

senior management is to get optimum performance in efficient way from its human

resources. According to a survey the turnover rate of IT industry in Pakistan is almost 30%,

which means that a large number of people are trying to juggle with their jobs. One of the

major reasons for this level of turnover rate could be the politics.

This study aims to develop insight on the factors that contribute to employees’ inclination

towards the organizational politics which ultimately makes to suffer the employees’

productivity.

One of the possible major reasons of organizational politics is power; power can be a

positive force if an organization has empowered employees from top to bottom, who are

able to move collectively, with speed and purpose, towards achieving their short-, medium-

and long-term objectives. In contrast, employees are less willing to work for weak leaders

that lack genuine personal authority and credibility or those who tend to be bossy and

dictatorial. Power is the most impressive phenomenon. This phenomenon affects the

worksite by impacting over group of people or individuals. However, no one including

working line employees to middle manager till top management is unwilling to reveal this

mystery and uncover its secret. Organizational politics has many definitions but all of them

relate to the use of personal or aggregate power to influence others and better achieve goals

in the workplace2 (Vigoda, 2002).

Organizational politics as mentioned earlier has a significant relation with human resource

quality and productivity. It has also serious impacts on other variables related to human

resource. Different researches have been done to observe a close relation between

interpersonal trust, job satisfaction, job involvement (Ferris and Kacmar-1992),

organizational commitment3 (Drory-1993), employee attendance, general fatigue, burnout4,

2 Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths of workplace politics: The relationships among politics, job distress, and

aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 571-591.

3 Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14, 59-71.

10

and neglected5 behaviors (Cropanzano, 1997; Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Borman, C.

A., & Birjulin, A, 1999). None of the previous studies directly target the section of

employee productivity in relation with perception of organizational policies not the

political behaviors, although all these variables have significant impact on employee’s

productivity and motivation to work. The purpose of the case study is to define a logical

relation between perception of organizational politics and its impact on employee’s

productivity, motivation and long-term commitments with organizations. Motivation is

defined as force within a person that establishes the level, direction and persistence of effort

expended at work. Also we will try to find out physical and psychological health of

employees. As we know healthy minds and bodies can produce best results for any

organization.

Background Information of the Organization

AAJ technologies is one of the biggest IT company in Pakistan with annual turnover more

than 100 million US dollars. It has a central head office in Fort Lauderdale Florida and

country offices in Pakistan, UAE, Canada, Malaysia, with employees more than 1000 with

different ethnic groups and diverse personal objectives. Ethnic diversity varies from Native

Americans to Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese, French and Englishmen.

As a part of senior management of my company it is felt many times that some critical

decisions are taken by top management with biasness and sometimes people who are not

capable of handling great responsibilities are assigned with them just because of their high

influence in the company. This situation lead to the phenomenon where other employees

get frustrated and this frustrations result in stress related aftermath and eventually most of

the employees leave the company, which results in wastage of great investments done by

the company to train these valuable human resources. On many occasions very critical

clients’ deals are wasted because of these informal politics.

4 Randall1, M., I.., Russell Cropanzano, Carol a. Bormann and Andrej Birjulin (1999). Organizational politics and

organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior, 20, 159±175.

5 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159±180.

11

Similarly when we try to build a project based team structure employees performance

varies with different projects or team members, this situation arises questions in top

managements how to create project teams in which people present their best output or

productivity. Furthermore we have experience that some employee perform really well and

feel happy all the time with their managers but those employee really feel annoyed and

aggressive with other mangers. We have also come across some situation where people

became security hazards for other employees. Our organization is flat organization with

project based hierarchal structure, however people have their seniority based on their

experience, answers for such question as very important in such situation to get optimum

performance from organization members.

Statement of the Problem

This is closely observed that Human resources have a significant relationship with

organizational politics, if properly engaged: productivity and motivation of employees can

be improved otherwise it has significant effects on employees’ productivity, performance,

and turnover rate. This study intends to determine the impact of organizational politics on

employee productivity of AAJ technologies. Specifically it would seek answers to the

following questions.

1) Organizational objectives.

a) What factors constitutes the concept called perception of organizational politics.

b) What roles do each identified factor plays in the development of employee

productivity.

c) How largely these factors effect overall employee productivity.

Theoretical Framework

Employee productivity is a subjective term that can be measured on the basis of several

empirical variables like employee performance, commitment, attitude, efficiency, extra

efforts, more work intentions, low exit rates and good quality of work. Since there is no

direct mechanism so we need to evaluate our research on the grounds of these variables.

Extensive work is done so far to evaluate job performance, high efficient, and job

12

commitment in highly political environment6 (Cropanzano et al, 1997, 1999; Vigoda, 2000,

2002; Ferris et al, 1990,1996, 1997; Drory 1992,1990; Kacmar and Brymer, 1996). After

reviewing extensively about the literature a significant relationship is expected between

organizational politics and it influences on worker and workplaces. As discussed earlier

organizational politics just not have significant relationship with employees’ behavior but

also with the physical and psychological health of employees. So we can say that ailing

human and under par minds cannot perform at optimum level and the reason could be

organizational politics which is continuously damaging their body and brain. Employees

who are victim of highly political environment have greater chances of suffering with

physical and mental disorders.

In response to the organizational politics people have different responsive behaviors, high

stress working environment, greater aggressive attitudes in employees which can create

moral hazards and risks in work environment, another type of reaction which is expected

from employee is to exit from the political eco system. This exit intention is more powerful

in organizations where highly educated and technology equipped human resource is

involved, as many researchers have provided sufficient information that people who with

6 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support

to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159±180.

Vigoda (2000). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance. Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 pp 185-210

Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths of workplace politics: The relationships among politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 571-591.

Ferris, G. R., Brand, J. F., Brand, S., Rowland, K. M., Gilmore, D. C., King, T. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Burton, C. A. (1993). Politics and control in organizations. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, & K. Heime (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 83-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 17 (pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14, 59-71.

Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43, 1133-1154.

Bozeman, D., Perrewe, P., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, M., & Brymer, R. (1996). An examination of reactions to perceptions of organizational politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, New Orleans.

13

higher level of education have low rate of involvement in politics rather they prefer to exit

the politically charged environment. However the observable facts do have strong grounds

because the perception of organizational politics is also dependent on personality traits and

socio-economic conditions. One of the very deleterious outcomes of perception of

organizational politics which is more harmful for personal career growth in long term and

organization’s productivity in short terms is the negligent behaviors. Employee neglecting

their everyday responsibility and response casually to critical nature assignment can create

problem for both partakers. These negligent behaviors stimulate the employee to search a

new horizon always. In this state of mind employee feel very low for their self-respect, they

always consider about the worst in any critical situation, this mindset is a position where an

employee cannot produce much result for this marketplace.

The purpose of the study is to determine the perception of organization politics and it

impacts on employee. These effects can be directly mapped with broader definition of

productivity. The factors can be listed down as job commitment, work performance,

physical and psychological health (anxiety7, stress and fatigue8), high efficiency and

affectivity, soft skills like organization citizenship behavior, job attitude, and career

growth.

7 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support

to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational

8 Randall, M.., I., Russell Cropanzano, carol a. Bormann and andrej birjulin (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior

14

Figure 1.1

Theoretical Framework of Organizational Politics with Related Factor and Outcome

15

Hypothesis

H1 Organizational politics is positively related to employee’s productivity

Ho Organizational politics is negatively related to employee’s productivity

Significance of Study

The findings of the study are going to provide an organization with an insight to improve

on the organizational environment to improve productivity.

The study findings will serve as a baseline for all business organizations to improve the

general business environment considering employees the valuable assets.

The research is considered significant for researcher as it exposed to the researcher to the

understanding of the situation, which surly would guide the researchers in his professional

career. Once over the study will guide the new students to further investigate the new facts

of the same concept to continuously provide valuable findings to the local and international

business organizations.

Scope and Limitations of Research

Employee productivity is a somehow subjective term but it can be measured on the basis of

several empirically examined variables like performance, commitment, general fatigue,

organization support, job motivation9 and employee satisfaction of job, extra work

intentions, low exit rates and high quality of work. To measure productivity we need to

evaluate our research on the grounds of these variables. There could be number of other

factors that could be directly or indirectly involve in productivity of employees, one of

these could be the change rapid change in command, however we are considering such

factors in our research and our research basically targets the personal variables.

Extensive work is done so far to evaluate relationships among organizational politics, job

satisfaction, job performance, high efficiency and job commitment10 (Cropanzano, Vigoda,

9 Shore, L. M. and Shore, T. H. (1995). `Perceived organizational support and organizational justice'. In: Cropanzano, R.

and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.

10 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159±180.

16

Ferris, Drory, and Whitt). However research on these lines must be considered to provide

organizations a better view of these variable and suggestion to counter such situations.

Further studies should perform for analysis of these variables and their possible impacts.

Limitations of the study can be listed down as.

1. Data was collected for this research was only limited to a particular station of the

organization so the overall picture is hard to reveal.

2. Researcher was unable to factor-in all variables due to limitation of time.

3. Important variables like Job performance, Job satisfaction and Organizational

Citizenship behaviors are included in the validation of hypothesis.

4. Researcher role in the organization was also a limitation, respondents sometime felt

hesitate while answering properly to the questionnaires.

5. Research took more than usual time to complete because of high rate of turnover.

Researcher was unable to collect important like “exit interview feedback and reasons

for exit questionnaire” data to employees’ withdrawals.

6. The findings were based on cross sectional and self-report data, incurring the possibility

of source bias.

7. Study is unable to reflect any viewpoint from senior management, to counter the fact

and figures obtained from the survey.

8. There could be chances of biasness of researcher because he is not and independent

body but a part of the organization.

9. Scale adopted for the research was a five level ratio scale. Researcher believes that this

level could be further drilldown to ten level scales.

Vigoda (2000). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance. Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 pp 185-210

Ferris, G. R., Brand, J. F., Brand, S., Rowland, K. M., Gilmore, D. C., King, T. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Burton, C. A. (1993). Politics and control in organizations. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, & K. Heime (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 83-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14, 59-71.

Witt, L. A. (1995). Influences of supervisor behaviors on the levels and effects of workplace politics. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 37-53). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

17

Despite its limitation I believe that this study has probed a missing like between

organizational politics and employees’ productivity empirical finding will simulate further

efforts in this area.

Definition of Related Terms

Following are different definitions that researcher has found in literatures:

Organizational Politics

“Others (individuals) are made use of as resources in competitive situations”11 Burns, 1961,

p. 257).

“Behaviors by individuals, or, in collective terms, by subunits within an organization that

makes a claim against the resource-sharing systems of the organization”12 (Pettigrew,

1973, p. 169).

“The management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to

obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned influence means”13 (Mayes & Allen, 1977,

p. 675).

“The use of authority and power to effect definitions of goals, directions, and other major

parameters of the organization”14 (Tushman, 1977, p. 207).

“Intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the self-interest of individuals or

groups” 15 (Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick & Mayes, 1979, p. 77).

“Those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other

resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or

dissensus about choices”16 (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 7).

11 Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281

12 Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.

13 Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.

14 Tushman, M.L. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

15 Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). `The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1±18.

16 Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

18

Political Behaviors

“The activities of organizational members…when they use resources to enhance or protect

their share of an exchange…in ways that could be resisted, or ways in which the impact

would be resisted, if recognized by the other party(ies) to the exchange”17 ( Frost & Hayes,

1977).

Social Influences

“Social influence attempts that are discretionary, intended to promote or protect the self-

interests of individuals and groups, and threaten the self-interests of others”18 (Porter, Allen

& Angle, 1981, p. 359).

"Individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and

above all in a technical sense, illegitimate - sanctioned neither by formal authority,

accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (although it may exploit any one of those)"19

(Mintzberg, 1983, p. 172).

“A social influence process in which behavior is strategically designed to maximize short-

term or long-term self-interest, which is either consistent with or at the expense of others’

interests”20 (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989, p. 145).

“Social influence attempts directed at those who can provide rewards that will help

promote or protect the self-interest of the actor”21 (Cropanzano, Kacmar & Bozeman, 1995,

p. 7).

17 Frost, P.J., & Hayes, D.C. (1977). An exploration in two cultures of political behavior in organizations. Paper

presented at the Conference on Cross-Cultural Studies of Organizational Functioning, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

18 Porter, L., Allen, R.W. & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. Pp. 109149 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

20 Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. W., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfield (Eds.), Impression management in organizations (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21 Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M. and Bozeman, D. P. (1995). `The social setting of work organizations: Politics, justice, and support'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 1±18.

19

“The efforts of individuals or groups in organizations to mobilize support for or opposition

to organizational strategies, policies or practices in which they have a vested stake or

interest” (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998, p. 69) 22.

Political Tactics

“Actions by individuals that are directed toward the goal of furthering their own self-

interests without regard for the well-being of others within the organization” (Kacmar &

Baron, 1999, p. 4) 23.

“Involves an individual’s attribution to 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”24 (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, & Dulebohn, 2000, p. 90).

22 Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations: Contextualization, mobilization, and

coordination. In R.M. Kramer & M.A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 67-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

23 Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

24 Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 17 (pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

20

C H A P T E R 2

Review of the Related Literature

This chapter reviewed the related literature in-order to strengthen the concept presented in

the theoretical framework.

Organizational politics in its narrow definition could be termed as unsanctioned influence

attempts that seek to promote self-interest at the expense of organizational goals25.

Cropanzano and Grandey, in press; Drory and Romm, 1990; Ferris, Frink, Beehr and

Gilmore, 1995; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Ferris and Judge, 1991; Ferris, Russ and Fandt,

1989; Kacmar and Ferris, 1993).

Organizational politics is a subjective experience and state of mind which cannot be

measured exclusively on objective state26 (Gandz and Murray, 1980). Gerald R, Farris in

his research in (1992) mentioned that perception of organizational politics influenced by

organizational, environmental and personal factors27 in turn influences organizational

outcomes such as job involvement, job anxiety, job satisfaction and withdrawal from the

organization. The perception of politics also could be due to variability on job, age, sex

education as well as the hierarchal level in an organization resulting impacts in job

satisfaction, anxiety, employee promotions. In the same way other causes could be job

25 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support

to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43, 1133-1154.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The conceptual integration of divergent constructs. In R. Cropanzano & M. K. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 21-36). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.

26 Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237-251.

27 Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.

21

environment influences28 (Graen, Novak and Sommerkamp, 1982), wok group cohesion29

(Price and Muller, 1986), span of control30 (Ferris, 1990), Feedback and advancement

opportunities31 (Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al, 1996).

A. Factors of Perception of Organizational Politics

Employees with different education, income and hierarchal level respond to organizational

politics differently, so possibilities of personality traits and economical status have an effect

on situational decisions32 (Vigoda, 2000). Lower status employees perceive the

organizational policies as source of unjustified decisions and frustration and it simulates

negative attitudes. The reason is because they are unable to influence such decision33

(Vigoda, 2000). For higher status employees, the organizational politics works as a

centrifugal force which actually pushes them to withdraw and find a new place which they

perceive as less political termed as turnover intention. So we can infer that organizational

politics is strongly related to organizational commitment. Bozeman34 (1996) depicts that

this relationship could be negative.

Organizations make it easier for employees to engage in political behavior by providing

few rules and policies for guidance. In the absence of specific rules to prescribe how to act,

political activity will be more likely to occur. Circumstances in which few rules exist or the

rules have not been clearly communicated are ambiguous. Ambiguous circumstances allow

28 Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A. & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of a leader-member exchange and job design on

productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

29 Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986a. Handbook of Organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

30 Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor sub -ordinate interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487-499.

31 Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. (1996). Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of Management, 22, 23-44.

32 Vigoda, E. (2000b). Internal politics in public administration system: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185-210.

33 Vigoda, E. (2000a). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizen’s demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration, 78, 165-191.

34 Bozeman, D. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, K. M. and Brymer, R. A. (1996). Òpportunity or threat? An examination of differential reactions to perceptions of organizational politics'.

22

individuals to define a situation to fit their own needs and desires. This redefinition of the

situation is often considered political behavior35 (Kacmar, 1995).

Ferris et al (1989) and Fandt36, and Ferris37 (1990) identified their research found that

political behaviors are most likely to occur when a reasonably high degree of uncertainty

and or ambiguity exists in the work environment. As emphasized in the research outcome

by Ferris38 (1992) job Autonomy, job variety and feedback can reduce the uncertainty in

the environment. Job autonomy and low task variety leads to powerlessness (Daft, 1989),

which could be important factor in eliminating the political situation.

In a research conducted by Ferris et al39 (1989) it was mentioned that demographics; age,

gender, tenure and race could be another important aspect in perception of organizational

politics.

Formulization could be another important factor in organizational politics as discovered by

Mintzberg4041 (1983, 1985) in his researches. Highly formularized organizations have a

lower rate of political activity. The situation is also an outcome from the research by

Mintzberg42 (1979) which shows that political activity is lowest in highly formulized

organizations. Mintzberg43 (1979b) also represented that professional organizations are

more political than others. The same fact has been highlighted by Ferris that advancement

35 Kacmar, K. M. and Carlson, D. S. (1997). `Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple

sample investigation', Journal of Management. Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 627-658. Southern Management Association.

36 Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

37 Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.



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


42 Mintzberg. H. 1979a. Organizational power and goals: A skeletal theory.

43 Mintzberg, H. 1979b. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

23

opportunities44 (Smith et al, 1962) also have a negative relationship with organizational

politics; people maneuver others if they know they have lesser opportunities of

advancement in an organization. Besides this, promotion decisions could also be defined as

one of the most essential political dynamics in organizations4546 (Madison et al, 1980;

Ferris and Buckley, 1990). Personality traits like Machiavellianism47 have also an important

role in the perception of organizational politics. High Machs48 (representing high value of

Mach score) and highly self-monitored people are more involved in political maneuvering

than other people49 (Gerald Ferris, 1992).

B. Perception of Organizational politicos As Mediator of Physical and Mental Health

Cropanzano50 in 1997 explored that there could be many other traits that form the ground

of politics or carve a path that make the horizon of politics a distinct attribute of any

organization. In a political organization individuals think that their hard work will not be

rewarded consistently. Since power is a key to success and perception could be the more

powerful cabal you are affiliated the more you will be rewarded. Additionally settings are

unpredictable, unreliable and threatening51 (Cropanzano, 1997). People normally opt to quit

or withdraw in such situations and these withdraws could be psychological or physical. In

psychological withdraws52 people are mentally unable to present themselves at workplace

44 Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement nt. Chicago.

45 Madison, D.L., Allen, R.W., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A. & Mayes, B.T. (1980). Organization politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations, 33: 79-100.

46 Ferris, G.R., & Buckley, M.R. 1990. Performance evaluation in high technology firms: Process and politics. In L.R. Gomez-Mejia & M.W. Lawless (Eds.) Organizational issues in high technology management: 243-263. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

47 People who are more selfish and motivated only by personal gain (Management and organization, Col MBA. p, 32 )

48 Term Adopted from Management and Organization COLMBA. P,34), Christie and Geiss, Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970


50 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.


52 Term Adopted from Cropanzano et al The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress (1997)

24

and they spent a lot of time in daydreaming and nonproductive chats. Psychological

withdrawal53 seems to be positively related to organizational politics5455 (Ferris et al, 1993;

Randall et al, 1994) similarly as Ferris et al, 1993 found that organizational politics is

positively related to the turnover intentions. There could be a situation where employees

become more isolated to save themselves from political hazards.

Above situation is analogous to (Hirschman’s, 1970) exit, loyalty56 and voice respectively57

(Ferris, 1992). The domino effect of Ferris’s research was “The negative sign of most of

the relationships is largely consistent with prior research by Gandz and Murray58 (1980),

particularly with respect to job satisfaction5960 (Ferris et al., 1989; Kacmar & Ferris, 1992a,

1992b) along with skill variety6162 (Kacmar and Ferris, 1992; Valle & Perrewé, 2000), job

autonomy63 (Ferris et al, 1989), feedback, organization tenure, and opportunity for

promotion. Unlike prior work64, which found age (Parker et al, 1995) to be positively but

53 Term Adopted from Cropanzano et al The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors,

attitudes, and stress (1997)

54 Ferris, G. R., Brand, J. F., Brand, S., Rowland, K. M., Gilmore, D. C., King, T. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Burton, C. A. (1993). Politics and control in organizations. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, & K. Heime (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 83-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

55 Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A. and Birjulin, A. (1994). `The relationship of organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes and behavior'. Paper presented at the 1994 meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

56 Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.




60 Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.


62 Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Test of an implicit assumption and an expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.


64 Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891±912.

25

not significantly correlated with organizational politics, the present relationship is

significant and inverse”. Politics is not a thing which is always considered as negative;

sometime it plays a significant role in team moral and goal accomplishment,

Political behaviors or perception of organizational politics can be used for betterment of

organizations as Pfeffer65 (1981) has argued that politics are essential to the effective

functioning or organizations. Individual who become proficient at playing politics may

realize greater job and career related rewards66 (Wayne & Farris, 1990). Further Pfeffer67

(1989) suggested that a political focus might be an important, yet overlooked, perspective

in understanding career success68. Timothy expanded the initial work of Ferris and also

seconded the initial work done by Ferris that organizational politics have serious negative

relations with organizational politics. He also found that career interruptions are higher a

lower level employees.

Perception of organizational politics and their impacts on general psychological health of

employees are important to understand. Many researchers explore relationships between

organizational politics and psychological conditions of employees. Higher level of

organizational politics generates stress69 (Valle & Perrewe, 2000) and strains to the

employees, which creates anxiety70 (Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, & Howard,

1996), general fatigue, job and somatic tension and burnouts71 (Cropanzano, 1997). These

motives influence work conflicts and overall productivity of employees. Similarly people



67 Pfeffer, J. (1989). A political perspective on careers: Interests, networks, and environments. Pp. 380-396 in M. G. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

68 Timothy A. Judge (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Walker, J. W. (1980). Human resources planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. JAI Press, Inc.2004 Gale Group.


70 Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266.


26

exposed to fatigue and burnouts have high rates of physical problems like headaches,

backaches, lingering colds, gastrointestinal, etc72 (Maslach and Jackson, 1981).

Correspondingly organizational politics has basic out come of work stress, work stress is a

subjective feeling which usually arises when an individual thinks that work demands are

higher than the capabilities and he or she is unable to cop with this situation (Folkman &

Lazarus, 1991; Edwards, 1992). Work stress has an obvious negative impact on the

individual and equally venomous effects on the organization and economy. The cost of

stress can be enormous due to lost, time, reduced production and accidents73747576 (Ganster

and Schaubroeck, 1991; Holley and Frye, 1989; Joure, Leon, Simpson, Holley and Frye,

1989; Minter, 1991; Murphy, 1988) together as predictors of work stress. If an employee

perceives the work environment to be political, he or she reports greater levels of anxiety

and tension, and lower levels of general health77 (Cropanzano, 1997).

Cropanzano in his latest book mentions that politics destabilize the formal decisions in

organizations, and they tend not to be transparent. Both these concepts involve weighting

the opportunity for gains against the potential for losses. These losses can creates stress

because some time people are unable to direct the decision as per their thoughts. Politics

and stress involve how people subjectively construe uncertain situations where an

appropriate action is necessary to avoid harm or to realize a gain78 (Cropanzano, R., & Li,

A. in press). Stress can be referred internal resisting force or as the perception that demands

72 Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2,

99-113.

73 Ganster, D. C. and Schaubroeck, J. (1991). `Work stress and employee health', Journal of Management, 17,235-271.

74 Joure, S. A., Leon, J. S., Simpson, D. B., Holley, C. H. and Frye, R. L. (1989, March). `Stress: The pressure cooker of work', The Personnel Administrator, 34, 92-95.

75 Minter, S. G. (1991). `Relieving workplace stress', Occupational Hazards, April, pp. 39-42.

76 Murphy, L. R. (1988). `Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention'. In: Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping, and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, London.

77 Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

78 Cropanzano, R., & Li, A. (in press). Organizational politics and workplace stress. In E. Vigoda-Gabot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward-Elgar.

27

exceeded capacity; some researcher describes that “politics as stress” 79 (Dipboye & Foster,

2002). Employee’s perceptions of resources relative to demand intervene between the

organizational politics and stress, then there should also be an opportunity for those with

savior-faire80 manage potentially contentious environment.

Kahn and Byosiere81 (1992) came up with research outcome suggesting that stress may

generate three categories of responses, including physiological, psychological, and

behavioral responses. Physiological responses to stress include, but are not limited to, such

outcomes as high blood pressure, high heart rates, and high cholesterol level82 (Fried,

Rowland, & Ferris, 1984). Psychological responses are related to such outcomes as anxiety,

burnout, confusion, depression, job dissatisfaction, health problems, and fatigue8384858687

(Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Cooper & Roden, 1985; Davidson & Cooper, 1986; Fisher,

1985; Kobasa, 1982). Finally, behavioral responses to stress entail a wide variety of

outcomes such as absence at work, counterproductive behavior88, job performance89,

79 Dipboye, R. L., & Foster, J. B. (2002). Multi-level theorizing about perceptions of organizational politics. In F. J.

Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 255-270). JAI: Amsterdam.

80 ability to behave appropriately

81 Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

82 Fried, Y., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1984). The physiological measurement of work stress: A critique. Personnel Psychology, 37, 583-615.

83 Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.

84 Cooper, C. L., & Roden, J. (1985). Mental health and satisfaction among tax officers. Social Science & Medicine, 21, 747-751.

85 Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1986). Executive women under pressure. Occupational and life stress and the family (Special issue). International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 301-326.

86 Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39-53.

87 Kobasa, S. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress among lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.

88 Blau, G. (1981). Organizational investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 279-302.

89 Mangione, B. L., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 114-116.

28

turnover90, and drug use on the job9192 (Blau, 1981; Mangione & Quinn, 1975). Baron and

Kenny93 in a research conducted in 1986 and publish in Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology (1986) and Holmbeck94 (2000) remind us, the relationship between actual

political behavior and stress responses should be larger when perceived politics is not used

as a predictor similar results were obtain by and Holmbeck in his research work(2000). The

relationship of actual political behavior with stress should be smaller, or perhaps

nonsignficant, when perceived politics is also used as a predictor.

C. Perception of Organizational Politics in Decision-making

With growth of technology it is impossible to continue with traditional decision-making

approach. Traditional approach of decision-making is creating disappointment in

employees that eventually leads towards more interest in organizational politics. In such

situations, the political model is a more interesting approach for the employees to attain

their self interest95 (Narayanan and Fahey, 1982).

Each political paradigm has a basic objective, which is, to get more resources and power in

legitimacy in organizations96 (Mintzberg; 1983). This situation leads to informal

organizational behavior which is designed to protect or enhance the self interest of

individuals and groups when it is conflicting with the interest of others97 (Porter, Allen, and

90 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:

Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

91 Tracy, M., and Siegall, M., Burnout and Expectancies About Alcohol Use: Drinking Behavior in a Sample of University Professors. http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/burnout.htm

92 Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87-96.

93 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

94 Holmbeck, G. N., Colder, C., Shapera, W., Westhoven, V., Kenealy, L., & Updegrove, A. (2000). Working with adolescents: Guides from developmental psychology. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures, (pp. 334-385). New York: Guilford Press

95 Narayanan, V. K., and L. Fahey. (1982) 'The micro-politics of strategy formulation'. Academy of Management Review 7/1: 25-34.


97 Porter, L. W., R. W. Allen, and H. L. Angle. (1983) 'The politics of upward influence in organizations' in Organizational influence processes. R. W. Allen and L. W. Porter (eds.), 408-422. Glenview, III. Scott, Foresman and Company.

29

Angle, 1983). Employees in supervisory roles normally enjoy greater authority and

autonomy. Formal power and greater opportunities have influence on higher organizational

level98 (Drory 1993). The prevalence and intensity of politics varies with organization

structure and hierarchy of command99 (Drory, 1992). Organizational politics is not guided

by commonly agreed upon organizational goals or any standard of fairness. It often

enhances the interest of selected individuals or groups regardless of any moral

consideration100 (Cavanagh, Moberg and Velasquez, 1981).

Drory unveils that perception of organizational politics becomes more important when

employees want to take more advantages than they deserve. Masses with such opinion may

not consider organizational politics as necessarily undesirable or detrimental to their own

interests. So we can valuate that the origin of organizational politics could be “satisfaction

with superior” 101 (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989) and “satisfaction with co-workers” (Drory,

1992) but a negative relation is perceived by these factors. These expectations in broader

terms can be called as organizational climate.

D. Perception of organizational politics in Organizational Climate

The concept of organizational climate may be applied directly to organizational politics, so

self serving decision and unjustified power games can be understood by the phenomenon

of organizational politics102 (Drory, 1992). A political organizational climate may suppress

unfair and unjust activities that are easily observed by employees. When an employee feels

deprived and unfairly treated because of political considerations, he/she will be inclined to

react initially by reducing voluntary obligation and attachment to the organization. These

spontaneous attitudes and reactions are not directly controlled by the organization and are



100 Cavanagh, G. F., D. J. Moberg, and M. Velasquez (1981) 'The ethics of organizational politics'. Academy of Management Review 6/3: 363-374.

101 Kozlowski, S. W. J., and M. Doherty. (1989) 'Integration of climate and leadership: examination of a neglected issue'. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 546-553.


30

expected to change more easily in response to disappointment with the workplace103

(Vigoda, 2000). This climate perception is one of the important steps which can be

explained that is primarily an individual process. It is also interactive and reciprocal.

Similar individuals are attracted to the same sort of settings, are socialized in similar ways,

exposed to similar features within context, and share their interpretation with each other in

the setting104 (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). Dissatisfaction with work place can cause

serious impacts on long term commitments with organizations. Hence organizational

commitment has also a strong relationship with organizational politics105 (Cropanzano et al;

1997).

People with high commitments strongly believe in acceptance of organizational goals and

objectives. They have a readiness to exert effort and a strong desire to remain a member of

the organization. Alternatively this phenomenon can be termed as Job disappointment. In

this situation people do not prove their optimum productivity with organization106 (Drory,

1992). Drory also suggest that more research is required in Organizational Politics to

understand if organization is tolerable or helpful and how to reduce the undesirable effects

of organizational politics.

E. Perception of Organizational Politics as Stress Factor

Perception of organization evolves the political behaviors in individuals. Political behavior

is usually an undercover/covert activity, which is also highly predominated by uncertainty.

Organizational politics seriously impact the employees of the organizations in terms of job

stress and absenteeism which ultimately leads towards lower productivity107 (Vigoda,

103 Vigoda, E. (2000b). Internal politics in public administration system: An empirical examination of its relationship with

job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185-210.




107 Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths of workplace politics: The relationships among politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 571-591.

31

2002). Organizational politics is a social-influence process in which behavior is

strategically designed to maximize short-term or long-term self-interest of resources108

(Chachere, 1989). So the outcome of organizational politics could be positive or negative.

In positive sense, it can support in career advancement, recognition and status, enhanced

control, quick decision-making and implementation of unwanted policies and rules.

Negative outcomes could be decreased strategic decision, unsuccessful objectives, low

credibility, negative perceptions about co-workers and feelings of guilt and imbalance

favoritisms109 (Vigoda, 2002). Lot of research works in needed in the area of Job

Performance and Employee Productivity that can branch out various prospective.

Researches have shown that influence behavior affects selection outcomes110111112113114

(Baron, 1989; Beehr & Gilmore, 1982; Dipboye & Wiley, 1977; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989;

Tullar, 1989), performance ratings issued by supervisors115116117118 (Ferris, Judge,

Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, in press; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne

108 Ferris, G.R., Fedor, D., Chachere, J.G. & Pondy, L. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational contexts. Group &

Organizational Studies, 14: 88-103.



111 Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.

112 Dipboye, R. L. & Wiley, J. W. (1977). Reactions of college recruiters to interviewee sex and self-presentation style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10: 1-12.

113 Gilmore, D. C. & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15: 557-564.

114 Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 971-977.

115 Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

116 Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M. & Fitzgibbons, D. E. in press. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

117 Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 528-542.


32

& Kacmar, 1991), and pay increases119120121 (Bartol & Martin, 1988, 1990; Dreher,

Dougherty, & Whitely, 1989; Freedman, 1978; Gould & Penley, 1984; Kipnis & Schmidt,

1988; Martin, 1987).

F. Perception of Organizational Politics and withdrawal Behaviors

Many researches explained a point that there are two possible reactions whenever there is a

strong existence of organizational politics. Either people flew away from the environment

to find another suitable horizon or they become a part of the political situation. By

becoming a member of the political activity they again have two options, they can flow

with the flood or can oppose the situation to normalize it for betterment122123 (Ferris, 1996,

Folger, Konovsky, & Cropanzano, 1992). People who chose to stay in the above mentioned

situation are exposed to more risk of stress and burnout due to their inability or

unwillingness to play the political game as directed by others and still be happy about it124

(Vigoda, 2002).

Each organization is a souk125 where people get benefits in return of their services,

Cropanzano indicate that organizational works like a marketplace where people come to

acquire more benefits towards achievement of their objective, this finding is aligned with

previous work126 (Thibault & Kelly, 1986) which concludes that a workplace involves

119 Bartol, K. M. & Martin, D. C. (1988). Influences on managerial pay allocations: A dependency perspective. Personnel

Psychology, 41: 361-378.

120 Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely, B. . (1989). Influence tactics and salary attainment: A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20: 535-550.

121 Gould, S. & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 244-265.


123 Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In L.L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


125 Marketplace

126 Thibault, J. and Kelly, H. H. (1986). The Social Psychology of Groups, Transaction, New Brunswick.

33

market place in which different individual and groups interact to exchange outcomes127

(Blau, 1964; Cropanzano, 1997). In some organizations people adopt self serving and

competitive styles. In order to fulfill their self serving instinct they form small groups

which are most of the time not aliened with organizational goal and could be destructive128

(Cropanzano, 1997). Politics can be termed as a broad social tool that can contribute to the

basic functioning of the organization129 (Pfeffer, 1980).

The strength of organizational politics lies in its potential consequences and effect on work

outcome. Organizational politics often influence the organizational processes. Hence it

causes an overall impact on performance and productivity on individual and organizational

level130 (Vigoda, 2000). Recent studies have also suggested that it enhances withdrawal and

turnover intentions131 (Bozeman et al, 1996). Politics generally disturbs the levels of

justice, equity and fairness which create complications in the minds of employees working

in an organization (Vigoda, 2000). Many researchers argue that perception of politics is

more important that actual existence of organizational politics and their point is that people

respond to their perceptions rather than the reality132 (Kurt Lewin, 1936). This perception

sometimes craft effects which are more intense than the political situation of organizations.

The most salient relationship of organizational politics is related with job attitude and

behavior. Organizational politics has an effect on employees’ behavioral intentions and

work productivity133 (Vigoda, 2000).

127 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.




131 Bozeman, D. P., Perrewe , P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, K. M. and Brymer, R. A. (1996). Òpportunity or threat? An examination of differential reactions to perceptions of organizational politics'.

132 Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.


34

G. Perception of organizational politics and self serving attitudes

Whenever the marketplace (Organization) become politics everyone will try to satisfy

his/her own personal goals, so their general attitude could be pushing or exerting powers to

drag the rewards of others. In order to exert extra power to made decision according to their

will people normally hook themselves to political cabal. The strong the cabal the more they

are affective134 (Cropanzano, 1997). When people are working in different groups which

are informal in nature it makes marketplace more volatile and less predictable. These

conditions create hesitation for individuals to put extra efforts to produce any beneficial

outcome. This lack of confidence makes it less likely to that individual will allocate

additional resources to the organization135 (Cropanzano, 1997). In political organizations

environment become more fractioning and threatening because several factions are

working actively to achieve their desired outcomes which could be harmful to others

(Cropanzano, 1997). Similarly politically oriented managers might use the performance

evaluation system for self-promotion or show favoritism to a personal friend136

(Cropanzano, 1997). Political behaviors are typically self serving and manipulative

activities that observers do not evaluate positively. Personal work attitudes and work

behaviors can also cause an organizational to be more political.

Workplace can be considered as a marketplace where people services to get returns of pays

as tangible and esteem, dignity and personal power as intangible. Holding a job is

analogous to making an investment (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey an Toth, 1997).

Workers provide their motivation in the hope of earning something in return. In such

conditions, people think it is reasonable to invest carefully otherwise they will face

negative experiences. With so much at stake individuals monitor their investments closely





35

and try to stick with bonus returns137 (Cropanzano et al,1999). So, we can say that, in this

market place everyone is pointing towards its own investment and growth. People prefer to

stick with those cabals who are more aligned with their personal interests. Alternatively, we

can say that in competitive environment of workplace people make alliance with those

groups who work as cooperators rather than competitors. Political environment creates a

risky environment that inclines resources to contribute completely. A mindset is generated

that these efforts will be not fruitful in getting better rewards and promotions. These

attributes map to a decline in performance and productivity.

Positive work behaviors have a significant correlation with organizational politics. Positive

work behaviors are volunteering for extra work, courtesy and timeliness. Individuals are

more likely to invest effort on behalf of an organization that meets their needs rather than

threatening them. Aggressive work behaviors could also be an outcome of organizational

behaviors. And these are positively related to organizational politics138139 (Cheng, 1983;

Randall, 1994). People evaluate their organizations positive evolution of an organization

when its goals are being met rather than when their aspirations are threatened140 (cf. Hulin,

1991).

Some researchers like Cropanzano have tried to figure out individual’s ability to control

politics and prevent harm. Political environments run the risk of violating social contract

between an individual and an employing organization. Other authors like Ferris have also

made similar observations. Stately somewhat loosely politics reason by jeopardizing

benefits and threatening individuals with harm. Similar to other research Cropanzano have

137 Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational

support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.

138 Cheng, J. L. (1983). Òrganizational context and upward influence: An experimental study in the use of power tactics', Group and Organizational Studies, 8, 337-355.


140 Hulin, C. L. (1991). Àdaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations'. In: Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn., Consulting Psychologistics Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 445-506.

36

also segregated the politics in two parts one perceived control over work environment other

understating of organizational politics. Furthermore he divides the factors of organizational

politics in two categories one as insiders and other outsides, whereas the insiders are the

factors related to an individual’s personality and outsiders are the overall organizational

factors.

H. Perception of Organizational Politics and Job Tension

Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris and Guercio141 in their examination in (1999) approached the

issue of organizational politics and job tension, Hochwater and his colleagues argued that

dispositional factors may also play a critical role; he mentioned this dispositional role as

organizational commitment. Valle and Perrewe142 (2000) predicted organizational politics

create much ill-effect to the employees who respond with reactive political behaviors, they

explained these reactive political behaviors are those that include “avoiding action”,

“avoiding blame” and “avoiding change”. In political environment people usually hesitate

to take risk due to high expectancy of failures. Consider the nature of perceived politics.

The same political machinations may be positive for one person and negative for another.

For example, beneficiaries are less apt to cry foul than are those who are harmed143 (cf.,

Fedor & Maslyn, 2002). This suggests that politics can be perceived as either positive or

negative. However, it seems to be the negative effects of politics that increase the level of

stress144145 (Vigoda, 2002, 2003). As an example, consider the aforementioned work of

Ferris and his colleagues. These authors show that politics is less harmful when individuals

141 Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Guercio, R. (1999). Commitment as an antidote to the tension and

turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 277-297.


143 Fedor, D. B., & Maslyn, J. M. (2002). Politics and political behavior: Where else do we go from here? In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 271-285). JAI: Amsterdam.


145 Vigoda, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics: How political dynamics affect employee performance in modern worksites. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

37

are in a position to cope with it146147148 (Ferris et al., 1994; Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, et al.,

1996; Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al., 1996).

I. Perception of Organizational Politics and Organizational Support

In some organizations working style is really supporting (organizational support). People

come across others in order to learn more and get quick resolutions of the everyday

problems, but where is a high perception of organizational politics people always trying to

avoid others and their interaction with others will be minimized. Where there is low

interaction higher will be the ambiguities because people will discuss the problem they are

facing with their peers. Supporting organizational help their employees to achieve better

their long term and short term goals, they are more predictable they are less threatening and

people are always sure that their efforts will be recognized and will bring better payoffs149

(Cropanzano, 1997).

Organizational politics and organizational support have very high and negative correlation

as examined by150 (Cropanzano, 1999). Supporting organization is an organization where

people acquire support for their achievements. Employees are rewarded better periodically

on their achievements and organization looks after their needs. Hence people invest more

in terms of supplementary eagerness towards work and task completion with quality. This

prevail helpful organizational behavior151152153 (George, Reed, Ballard, Colin and Fielding,

146 Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional

consequences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1204-1220.




150 Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.

151 George, J. M., Reed, T. F., Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993). `Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support', Academy of Management Journal, 36, 157-171.

152 Shore, L. M. and Shore, T. H. (1995). `Perceived organizational support and organizational justice'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.

38

1993; Shore and Shore, 1995; Fasolo, 1995). Higher the organizational politics lower will

be organizational support. The phenomenon of organizational support is based on multiple

factors like organizational commitment and job satisfaction. It is also important to know

how people think about their job, how they behave at work and this accumulates to their

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). There are two possible varieties of

organizational commitment. In the first one, employees try to present themselves very

“affective” and feel emotionally affiliated with their work place. Researches suggest that

this bond in stronger if there is low organizational politics and vice versa. The other type of

commitment is “continuance” or calculative (Cropanzano, 1999) which can be expressed as

the employee being a part of the organization otherwise he/she will face economical losses

or will not be able to get much anywhere else. So this affiliation with the organization will

be only for short socioeconomic advantages rather than long term commitment with the

organization. In such situations people feel low self respect, dignity and sense of

worthiness154 (Cropanzano et al, 1999). This leads in severe decline of employees moral

and is reflected in indolence and absenteeism.

Researches have also proved that in certain situations organizational politics is negatively

related to job satisfaction and it has a positive relation with turnover intentions. If the

employees fail to find any better opportunity they start developing negligent attitude in

work behavior155156157158159160161162163164165166 (Bozeman, Perrewe , Hochwater, Kacmar and

153 Fasolo, P. M. (1995). `Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hypothesized effects on job

performance'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 185-195.




157 Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43, 1133-1154.


39

Brymer, 1996; Cropanzano et al., 1997; Drory, 1990; Ferris, Brand, Brand, Rowland,

Gilmore, King, Kacmar and Burton; 1993; Ferris, Frink, Beehr and Gilmore, 1995; Ferris,

Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar and Howard, 1996; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Gandz and

Murray, 1980; Nye and Witt, 1993; Parker, Dipboye and Jackson, 1995, Ferris et al., 1993;

Eran Vigoda, 2000).

J. Political Behaviors and Work Attitudes

Political behaviors can be categorized in two major clauses; one is the actual political

behavior, tactics, strategies, and their consequence. Second category could be the

perception part of politics, as Ferris suggests that people react more towards their

perception rather than the reality. In perception of organizational politics we focus on how

employee perceive about the politics in work environment, the antecedents of such

perceptions and their consequences167 (Ferris, 2001-inpress).

Employee work attitudes are also affected by the perception of organizational politics and

these negative effects can impact employees in the long run168 (Drory, 1993; Vigoda,

2000). In job attitude the most significant factor is “neglect”. Which means employees will

159 Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The conceptual

integration of divergent constructs. In R. Cropanzano & M. K. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 21-36). Westport, CT: Quorum.




163 Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829.

164 Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.


166 Vigoda, E. (2000a). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizen’s demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration, 78, 165-191.

167 Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M. & Fitzgibbons, D. E. in press. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.


40

remain member of political cabals but will neglect his/her duties. This will be evident in

delays of assignments, less effort contributed in their work, no creativity and no initiative

and carelessness169 (Vigoda, 2000). In such situation employee spent a lot of their time in

job hunting, submitting resume and searching for alternatives. Furthermore, when the

situation prolongs it will create an overall aggressive attitude towards co-workers,

misbehaving, irresponsibility and sloppiness. Bottom-line could be that people misuse

organizational politics to achieve their self interest and try to violate the basic justice and

fairness170 (Vigoda, 2000).

Politics and political behaviors are like a promising field for theoretical inquiry (Vigoda,

2000). The purpose of such studies is to device tools for manager to handle political

situations. Some scholars even comment that “it is a necessary evil present at workplace”.

Organizational politics usually emerges when there is an imbalance in formal or informal

power another influence(Vigoda, 2000) it could also could be the power struggle and

influence tactics171. In the current research Vigoda continues to stress that organization

politics is negatively related to employees’ performance, his further emphasis was the

somehow positive relationship among phenomenon of organizational politics and person-

organizational fit.

K. POPS and Influential Groups

Ferris in his book “Politics in organizations” mentioned that there could be three groups

who can influence organizational politics. Firstly, general personal group based on

demographics and personality traits. Secondly, organizational influences consisting of

organizational hierarchy thirdly, work environment influence comprising of job autonomy,

job variety, feedback and advancement opportunities and person-organizational fit.





41

Person-organizational fit or job congruence is the “basic compatibility of an employee with

its workplace” (Vigoda, 2000).

Since we have already studied that we cannot remove organizational politics from

organizational (Ferris et al, 1990), but we can use it in positive manners so people could

take effective actions by having control over information, flexibility and statecraft172

(Vigoda, 2000). Similarly, if we are able to counter with negative organizational politics it

could be also supportive in normalizing “groupthink” and rationalize decision-making. In

normalization of organizational politics the role of supervisor or leader is very important. A

wise leader can create positive competition among employees to improve their

productivity. Conclusion could be that high satisfaction means high job effectiveness or

productivity. If an employee is satisfied and equally treated according to their performance

and fair priorities than intentions towards work increased (Vigoda, 2000). One study by

Farh and his contemporaries173 (Vigoda, 2000) et al, 1990; partially supports the notation

that higher level of justices and fairness encourages employees with higher levels of

organizational citizenship behavior.

Politics undermines formal decision structures and tends not to be transparent to all.

Perception of politics basically determines the state of mind of employees to decide for the

gain and loss. (Cropanzano, in press).The concept of politics creates stress and sense of ill-

ease which drives to gauge opportunities of gains and losses in organization. Politics and

stress involve how people subjectively construe uncertain situations where an appropriate

action is necessary to avoid harm or to realize a gameError! Bookmark not defined. (Cropanzano, in

press). “Stress referred to the internal resisting force. Strain or distortion was the resulting

change in the object.” 174 (Kahn & Buyosiere, 1992) Stress which could be an outcome of

organizational politics historically defined as an external force applied to change the shape

172 Vigoda, E. (2002). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems, An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship

With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 Summer 2000 185-210.

173 Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Oragan, D.W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241-253.

174 Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

42

of an objectError! Bookmark not defined. (Cropanzano, in press). Some individuals might

conceptualize “politics as stress.” This way of approaching politics would treat

politics/stress as a source of potentially harmful individual responses175 (Dipboye & Foster,

2002). As per suggestions of many researchers like Rizzo176 and his colleague and another

research by, House & Lirtzman (1970), Netemeyer, Johnson & Burtun177 (1990) stress has

a negative relationship with role conflict, role ambiguity and tension. Moreover

organizational politics has a positive relationship with stress.

L. POPS and Work Ethics

Bozeman178 and his colleagues elaborated a relationship between organizational politics

and its impact on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intentions to turnover and

job stress. However significant negative relationships were found between organizational

politics and self efficacy. Gandz and Murray179 in their initial work suggested that

organizational politics promotes an unhealthy and irrational behavior in employees which

could lead to lower job satisfaction for other employees.

Political environments run the risk of violating social contract between an individual and an

employing organization180181182. (Witt, Andrews and Kamar, 2002; Cropanzano Howes,

Grandey & Toth, 1997; Witt, 1998) Politics produces negative reactions by jeopardizing

175 Dipboye, R. L., & Foster, J. B. (2002). Multi-level theorizing about perceptions of organizational politics. In F. J.

Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 255-270). JAI: Amsterdam.

176 Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970), Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

177 Netemeyer, R. G., Joshnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148-157.



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


182 Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341-358.

43

benefits and threatening individuals with harm, lack of predictability produces adverse

psychological states183184185186. (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989; Randall,

Cropanzano, Bormann & Birjulin, 1999; Vigoda, 2003)

Workplace politics might engender a sense of injustice187188189 (Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky,

Hochwarter & Ammeter, 2002; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). Injustice

harms a worker’s sense of well-being190 and self esteem in employees (Cropanzano,

Goldman & Benson, 2005). Injustice might provide an additional mechanism by which

politics creates stress191 (Vigoda, 2002).

So far we can term it as the satisfied needs or expectations of any from his/her organization

the major factor in organizational politics. Vigoda comments that it is the “basic

compatibility of an employee with its workplace.” In broader term it can be defined as,

level of fulfilled aspirations and expectations. It is also expected that it has a negative

relationship with perception of organizational politics. Some researches depict that lower

perception of organizational politics lead to higher congruence. Hulin (1991) in his book

183 Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective.

Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.


185 Ferris, G. R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

186 Vigoda, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics: How political dynamics affect employee performance in modern worksites. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

187 Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). JAI: Amsterdam.

188 Kacmar, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (1991). `Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation', Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.


190 Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Benson, L., III. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Barling, K. Kelloway and M. Frone (Eds.) Handbook of work stress (pp. 63-87). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

191 Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and Implications for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior 57, 326-347

44

Handbook of “Industrial and Organizational Psychology” 192 revels in his research that

people positively evaluate an organization if their personal goals are met rather than being

threatened for good performances. So it is very important to understand the job congruence

or organizational fit. People who feel they are fit within the organization believe that

organization will provide them better chances to fulfill their aspirations (Vigoda, 2000). On

the other hand, if employees fail to develop such congruence with their organizations it

creates discomfort and they perceive the organization as negative. This feeling could create

an emotional and functional gap among employees193 (Vigoda, 2000). Theory of job

congruence is basically adopted by Vroom’s194 expectancy theory, which says that

expectations can significantly drift motivation and performance i.e. both formal (in-role)

and information (extra-role).

M. Workplace and Perception of Organizational Politics

Politics –source of stress; strain-possible outcome of stress195. (Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al,

1996). Politics and political behaviors seemed a promising field for theoretical inquiry

(Vigoda, 2000). The purpose of studies could be their practical implications and urge of

mangers to understand this relationship order to counter or improve it according to their

needs. Politics represent a creative approach to the understandings of organization

dynamics. Many scholars are agreed that organizational politics is a common phenomenon

in every organization (Vigoda, 2000). Some scholars even commented “it is the necessary

evil present at workplace”. Organizational politics usually emerges when there is

unprovoked legitimacy or imbalance formal or informal power (Vigoda, 2000) also could

be due to power struggles and influence tactics.

192 Hulin, C. L. (1991). Àdaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations'. In: Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M.

(Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn., Consulting Psychologistics Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 445-506.


194 Management and Organization COL MBA pp,22


45

Literature today widely stresses that organizational politics have a negative relation with

employees’ performance and somewhat positive relation with organizational congruence.

The reason could be that employees respond their political environment both formally and

informally (Vigoda, 2000).

So far we have also observed that in reaction to organizational politics people have

different responsive behaviors. This responsiveness can be segregated as perceptions and

actual behaviors of politics.

N. Perception of Organizational Politics in Literature and Research

Perception of organization politics initially discuss almost three decades ago and since last

fifteen years significant research has been conducted to measure the reasons and factors of

this area. All studies in last fifteen years basically influenced by initial work done by

Ferris196, as john197 (1999) discusses about the self-serving behaviors, Cropanzano198 in

different studies199 shares his research about the outcome of organizational on personal life

of employees in terms of physical and mental health, whereas Kacmar200 and Baron201

provided a review of both political behaviors and perception of politics literature (Ferris at

el 2001-inperss). Initial studies like by Burns202 (1961) discusses about the importance of

“micropolitics”. Porter203 (1976) argued that perceptions of politics are important to

investigate even if they are misperceptions due human mind analogy.

196 Ferris, G. R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),

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

197 Johns, G. (1999). A multi-level theory of self-serving behavior in and by organizations. In R.I. Sutton & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 1-38). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.





202 Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.

203 Porter, L.W. (1976). Organizations as political animals. Presidential address, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual

46

Many researchers204205206207208209210 (Allen et al., 1979; Cropanzano et al., 1995; Ferris et

al., 1989; Mayes & Allen, 1981; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981; Porter et al., 1981;

Tushman, 1977) concluded organizational politics as zero-sum game by which influential

members benefit, often at the expense of the organization and its less influential or

politically inclined members. Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Dulebohn (2000) noted that

perceptions of organizational politics “involves an individual’s attribution to 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” 211 (p. 90).

Researches have also proved that proved that organizational politics is not unidimensional,

like Ferris has evaluated other dimensions in context of organizational politics like

coworkers; general political behaviors go along and get ahead, career advancement

opportunities, and Machiavellianism212. Kacmar213 also found almost 3 dimensions having

204 Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and

characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). `The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

205 Mayes, B., & Allen, R. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 4, 672-677.

206 Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M. and Bozeman, D. P. (1995). `The social setting of work organizations: Politics, justice, and support'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 1-18.



209 Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

210 Tushman, M.L. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

211 Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 17 (pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

212 Ferris, G. R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

213 Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.

47

significant relation with organizational politics these are, coworker and group behavior,

organization’s policies and practices and supervisory influence.

Research model developed for this research basically influence by model developed by

Ferris. Ferris discussed only three antecedent of perception of organizational factors

however in this model we have factored-in the local environment and exogenous and

indigenous factor which can have a significant relationship for developer of political

perceptions. This model discusses about the previous influencing factors by Ferris

identified in 1989 it also has the other factors like economic factor and extended

environmental factors. In our community economic factors can have also relationship with

political behaviors; it has been observed that high boom industries where people have more

opportunities lower will be political behaviors. We have also categorized outcomes in to

two categories one category deals with the outcome that have to be faced by an individual

moreover organizational can also suffer the high politically charged environment.

Many studies including the Parker214 (1995) suggested that minority-status could have a

strong relationship with organizational politics. Minorities would have been more likely to

be negatively impacted by personnel decisions regarding pay and promotions--and

therefore more likely to perceive politics. Farrell and Petersen (1982) further suggested that

organizational participants who have a high level of trust do not perceive a need for

political action and are consequently less likely to engage in politics than those with lower

levels of trust215. Moreover, when participants with high levels of trust engage in politics,

they are more likely to engage in legitimate, constructive political behavior than those with

low levels of trust (Parker, 1995).

Whether political behavior proves beneficial or harmful to the organization may depend

more on how that behavior is perceived rather than reality. For example, employees'

perceptions that organizational processes, such as pay and promotions, are political may

214 Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of

antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.

215 Farrell, D. & Petersen, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7:403-412.

48

violate implicit expectations that rewards and recognition are based on performance. Such

perceptions could lead to a decrease in organizational citizenship behaviors and a lack of

extra-role effort on the individual's part216. Researches have proved that manager involved

in high political activity are less open to their subordinates and vice versa.

Detailed studies in context of complete model of organizational politics are not performed

since the first model of perception of organizational politics in (1989), furthermore no

study to date discusses about all variable that have linkages with this model. Some

variables of the original model were tested by Ferris217 & Kacmar218, 1992; Parker et al.,

1995), Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) these variables are centralization, formalization,

hierarchical level, advancement opportunities, age and sex. Results also indicated a

significant inverse relationship between pops and four original model variables; that is,

centralization (operationalized as involvement in decision-making), formalization

(operationalized as clarity of roles and responsibilities), advancement opportunity

(operationalized as career development opportunities), and interactions with coworkers

(operationalized as inter-group cooperation). Other antecedents achieving significance and

representing possible extensions to the model included emphasis on affirmative action or

equal opportunity (posited as an organizational influence; a positive relationship), fairness

of rewards and recognition (-), and minority status (+). Five outcomes were explored:

senior management effectiveness, overall satisfaction, positive values, perceived

innovation, and loyalty. Among these outcomes, only perceived innovation (-) achieved

significance. In 1999 Kacmar et al219 performed a complete test for POPS model and he

found three significant outcomes for the POPS these outcomes are job satisfaction, physical

withdrawal and job anxiety. He also found a significant inverse relationship between

216 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.



219 Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An examination of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383-416.

49

POPS and supervisor interaction, peer interactions and feedback220 and development

opportunities. A greater span of control also has a positive relationship with POPS. The

relationship between advancement opportunities and pops has been examined in five

studies, all finding a negative relationship. In addition to the studies just mentioned

(Kacmar & Ferris, 1992221, inverse relationships found in both Study 1 and Study 2;

Kacmar et al., 1999; Valle & Perrewe, 2000), an inverse relationship was also reported by

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996). Similarly, "interactions with coworkers” had a negative

relationship with pops in three of the four studies in which it was examined. "Work group

cohesion"222 (Kacmar & Ferris, 1992), "inter-group cooperation" (Parker et al., 1995), and

"cooperation"223 among co-workers224 (Kacmar et al., 1999) were all significantly and

negatively related to pops. Finally, "coworker influence," in the Valle and Perrewe225

(2000) study, was not significantly associated with pops. Following Table shows a

complete details about the studies that have be conducted so far to evaluate the factors and

outcome of perception of organizational politics.

220 Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Test of an implicit assumption

and an expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.


222 Kacmar, K.M., Delery, J.E. and Ferris, G.R. (1992) Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.

223 Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.

224 Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

225 Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Test of an implicit assumption and an expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.

50

Table 2.1

Antecedents Of Organizational Politics Perceptions (POPS) 226

Pops Antecedents Study Finding

Organizational Influences

Fédor et al. (1998) Positive

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) Positive

Kacmar et al. (1999) Positive

Parker et al. (1995) Negative

* Centralization

Valle & Perrewe (2000) Positive

Fedor et al. (1998) Negative

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) Negative

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, study 2) not significant a

Parker et al. (1995) Negative b

* Formalization

Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) Positive

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, study 2) Positive

Parker et al. (1995) not significant

* Hierarchical level


Ferris & Kacmar (1992, study 1) not significant

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, study 2) not significant

* Span of control


Organizational size Fedor et al. (1998) mixed c

Percentage of unionization Fedor et al. (1998) not significant

AA / EO emphasis Parker et al. (1995) Positive

226 information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001-

inpress

51

Job / Work Influence* Job autonomy

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, study 1) Negative

Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant* Skill variety




* Feedback

Kacmar et al. (1999) Negative* Opportunity for promotion / Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant




Advancement

Kacmar et al. (1999) Negative

Valle & Perrewé (2000) Negative



* Interactions with coworkers




* Interactions with supervisors


Supervisor expectations Valle & Perrewé (2000) Negative

Time since last appraisal Kacmar et al. (1999) not significant

Time since last promotion Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) not significant

Fairness of rewards and

recognition

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) not significant

Senior management support Parker et al. (1995) Negative

Trust in coworkers Parker et al. (1995) not significant

52

Decision involvement Parker et al. (1995) not significant

Career development

opportunities

Kacmar et al. (1999) not significant


Person-organization fit Kacmar et al. (1999) Negative

Vigoda (2000b) NegativeLevel of met-expectations

Vigoda (2000b) Negative

Personal Influences


Kacmar & Ferris (1992, Study 1) not significant

Kacmar & Ferris (1992, Study 2) not significant

* Age



Fedor et al. (1998) not significant

Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, et al.

(1996)

Negative


Ferris & Kacmar (1992, Study 1) not significant

* Gender / sex

Parker et al. (1995) not significant* Machiavellianism Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant* Self-monitoring Valle & Perrewé (2000) Positive

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, Study 2) not significant

Organizational tenure Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant

Fedor et al. (1998) Negative


(1996)

Positive

Occupational Group Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) not significant

53

Ferris & Kacmar (1992) Negative


(1996)

Positive

Race / minority status

Parker et al. (1995) Positive

Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significantEducational level


Need for power Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant

External locus of control Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant

Valle & Perrewé (2000) NegativeInternal locus of control


*Denotes variables in the original Ferris, Russ, & Fandt (1989) model conceptualizationa Not significant on full POPS dimension; negative on coworkers and cliques behavior sub

dimensionsb Negative on clarity of roles / responsibilities (i.e., ambiguity); not significant on formal

communication effectiveness. Parker et al. (1995, p. 895) called these "perceptual

measures of formalization." c Positive for the key others POPS subdimension; negative correlations with the rewards

and clarity subdimensions

Table 2.2

Outcomes Of Organizational Politics Perceptions (POPS) 227

Pops Outcomes Study Finding

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) positive

Ferris et al. (1993, Study 1) negative

* Job anxiety / tension / stress

Ferris et al. (1994) positive

227 information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001

54

Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, et al. (1996) positive

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) positive

Hochwarter, Perrewé, et al. (1999, 1) not significant a

Hochwarter, Perrewé, et al. (1999, 2) positive

Kacmar et al. (1999) positive

Valle & Perrewé (2000) positive

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1) negative

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) not significant* Job involvement

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, Study 1) positive

Satisfaction:

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1) not significant k

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) Negative

Ferris et al. (1993, Study 2) negative

Ferris et al. (2000) negative

Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, et al. (1996) negative

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) negative

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, Study 1) negative

Ferris & Kacmar (1992, Study 2) negative

Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) negative

Hochwarter, Kiewitz, et al. (2000) negative b

Kacmar et al. (1999) negative

Nye & Witt (1993) negative l

Parker et al. (1995) negative l

Randall et al. (1999) not significant k

Valle & Perrewé (2000) negative

Valle & Witt (in press) negative

* Job satisfaction

Witt et al. (2000) negative

55

Witt, Hilton, & Hochwarter (in press) negative

Kacmar et al. (1999) negativeOrganizational satisfaction


Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al. (1996) negative

Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) negative

Satisfaction with supervision

Zhou & Ferris (1995) negative c

Satisfaction with pay Zhou & Ferris (1995) negative c

Promotion satisfaction Zhou & Ferris (1995) negative c

Coworker satisfaction Zhou & Ferris (1995) negative c

Satisfaction with service Vigoda (2000a) Negative

Satisfaction with operation Vigoda (2000a) Negative

Organizational Withdrawal

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1) Positive

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) not significant

Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) not significant

Hochwarter, Perrewé, et al. (1999, 1) not significant a

Hochwarter, Perrewé, et al. (1999, 2) Positive

Kacmar et al. (1999) Positive

Maslyn & Fedor (1998) positive d

Randall et al. (1999) not significant e

* Intent to turnover

Valle & Perrewé (2000) Positive

Actual turnover Witt (1999) Positive* Absenteeism / punctuality Ferris et al. (1993) not significant

Gilmore et al. (1996) not significant

Psychological withdrawal Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) not significant

Negative eval. of decision to Ferris et al. (1993) Positive

56

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1) Positive

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) not significant k

Maslyn & Fedor (1998) negative f

Nye & Witt (1993) negative l

Randall et al. (1999 - affective) not significant k

Randall et al. (1999 - continuance) not significant

Witt (1998) Negative

Witt, Hilton, & Hochwarter (in press) Negative

take job Commitment

Witt, Patti, & Farmer (in press) Negative

Supervisor / management

effectiveness Kacmar et al. (1999) Negative


Self-appraisal (of performance) Kacmar et al. (1999) Negative

Hochwarter et al. (2000) not significant hSupervisor ratings of

performance. Witt (1998) Negative

Randall et al. (1999) not significant


In-role performance

Witt, Hall, et al. (2001) Negative

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1 -

altruism OCB) not significant

Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 1-

compliance OCB) not significant

Maslyn & Fedor (1998) positive i

Randall et al. (1999 - individual) not significant

Randall et al. (1999 - organization) negative j

Org'l citizenship behavior

(OCB)


Loyalty Parker et al. (1995) not significant

Perceived innovation Parker et al. (1995) Negative

57

Positive values Parker et al. (1995) not significant

Antagonistic work behaviors Cropanzano et al. (1997, Study 2) not significant

General responsiveness Vigoda (2000a) Negative

Political behaviors

Proactive Valle (1997) Positive

Reactive Valle (1997) Positive

Self-promotion Ferris et al. (2000) Positive

* Denotes variables in the original Ferris, Russ, & Fandt (1989) model conceptualizationa Not significant for POPS as a main effect but significant in interaction between POPS and

commitment.b Significant for just the pay and promotion politics variable; not significant for the

variables general political behavior or for go along to get along. c Significant for both the supervisor and subordinate samples. d Significant for organization-focused politics perceptions, but not for group-focused

politics perceptions. e Regression results were not significant; however, significant positive correlation with

POPS. f Significant for both organization-focused and for group-focused politics perceptions.h Not significant as a main effect, but significant in interaction with conscientiousness. i Significant for group-focused politics perceptions, but not for organization-focused

politics perceptions. j Significant for the OCB variable that benefited the organization; not significant for the

OCB variable

benefiting a specific individual.k Regression results were not significant; however, significant negative correlation with

POPS. l Significant correlation with POPS. No regression analyses attempted.

58

Table 2.3

Moderators Of Politics Perceptions (POPS) – Outcomes Relationships228

Variables Study Finding

POPS Moderators

Ferris et al. (1993, Study 1) Significant

Ferris et al. (1993, Study 2) Significant

* Perceived control

Witt et al. (2000) Significant

Ferris et al. (1994) Significant


(1996)

Significant

Ferris, Frink, Galang, et al.

(1996)

Significant

Gilmore et al. (1996) Significant

Kacmar et al. (1999) Significant

* Understanding

Witt, Hall, et al. (2001) Significant

Political behavior:

Self-promotion Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) Significant

Ingratiation Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) not significant

Proactive Political behavior Valle & Perrewé (2000) not significant

Reactive Political behavior Valle & Perrewé (2000) Significant

Organizational commitment Hochwarter, Perrewé, et al.

(1999)

Significant

Socialization / tenure Ferris et al. (2000) Significant

Positive affectivity Hochwarter, Kiewitz, et al.

(2000)

not significant a

228 information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001

59

Self-Efficacy Bozeman et al., (2000) Significant

Collective efficacy Hochwarter, Kiewitz, et al.

(2000)

not significant b

Goal congruence Witt (1998) Significant

Witt, Hilton, & Hochwarter

(in press)

Significant

Teamwork perceptions Valle & Witt (in press) Significant

Work identity Witt, Patti, & Farmer (in

press)

Significant

POPS as a moderator Witt, Burke, & Kacmar

(2001)

Significant

Witt et al. (2000) Significant

* Denotes variables in the original Ferris, Russ, & Fandt (1989) model conceptualizationa While correlations were significantly and negatively related to the General Politics and

Go Along to Get Ahead POPS subdimensions, none of the two-way interaction terms with

positive affectivity and POPS dimensions were significantb While correlations were significantly and negatively related to each of the three POPS

subdimensions, none of the two-way interaction with collective efficacy and POPS

dimension was significant.

60

C H A P T E R 3

Methods and Procedures

This chapter presents the methods used in this research. The respondents of the research

and sampling techniques, instruments and methods adopted, the data gathering procedures,

and statistical methods implemented on data.

Research Method

Researcher initially adopted the unstructured interviews to identify the best strata in the

population. Population was segregated in to different groups and unstructured interviews

were conducted randomly to identify the most critical stratum of the population that can be

used for the next phase of questionnaires. The research then used the descriptive method to

obtain information using the questionnaire as the source of information. The researcher

believes that the descriptive method is more appropriate for this research because it goes

beyond the simple data gathering and tabulation. It involves the elements of interpretation

of meaning and significance of what is described. On this basis, the researcher would able

to access and describe the prevailing conditions as could learned from the opinions of the

respondents through the survey with the subjects.

Respondents of the study

Since our target population is flat project based organization with minimum levels of

hierarchy so the sample can be classified in to two different classes. These are (1) Project

Mangers and (2) technical staff (software engineers and Sr. software engineers). The

employees had not taken part in any other studies since last one year. Participation in the

research was voluntary and employees were assured of confidentiality in the data analysis.

To ensure this process emails sent to respondents and their response was collected by the

researcher after they have complete. Overall 140 questionnaires were distributed and

researcher was able to retrieve 132 questionnaires.

Measures

The data collected for POPS (perception of organizational politics) is through a seven items

of POPS scale. The scale is influenced by Ferris and Kacmar 1992 original version of 40

Items POPS scale. The measurement of dependent variables like Employee withdrawal

61

behaviors, General fatigue, Organizational Support, Job Motivation (in-role extra role),

Organizational Commitment were analyzed through custom measurement scale developed

after extensive literature review.

Physical and mental health indicators were developed with consideration of previous

research conducted by Cropanzano et al 1997, 1999; Vigoda 1999, 2001; Ferris et al, 1993;

factors of researches.

Organizational support widely discussed in literature of organizational politics and it is

expected that it can another major factor in empirical classification of organizational

politics. The phenomenon was portrayed in several articles by Cropanzano229, et al 1997,

1999; Amos Drory230 1992; George, Reed, Ballard, Vigoda231, Colin and Fielding 1993;

shore and Shore 1995; Thomas and Ganster 1995.

Job motivation which is expected to have relationship with organizational politics is

measure though a three item scale influenced by previous researches.

Organizational commitment three items scale was developed after study of related material

Eisenberger, Shore and many others. Organizational commitment extensively discussed in

chapter 2 of literature review.

Table 3.1

Distribution and Retrieval of Questionnaire by Position Level

Position level Distribution Percentage of

distribution

Retrieval Percentage of

retrieval

Project Managers 34 24.29 29 20.71

Technical staff 106 75.71 103 73.57

Total 140 132 94.29





62

Table 3.1 shows the distribution and retrieval of questionnaire from the respondents by

position level. One hundred and forty questionnaires were distributed to the respondents.

The questionnaires were distributed to the randomly selected people in different offices of

the target offices. Out of 140 distributed questionnaires 132 were retrieved, which is 94.29

percent of the questionnaire distributed. The technical staff is the largest population of the

survey with percentage of 75.00.

Figure 3.1

Distribution and Retrieval of Questionnaire by Position Level

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2

Distribution

Retrival

Table 3.2

Frequency Distribution of the Respondents by Educational Qualification of

Respondents

Educational Qualification Total Percentage

Bachelor’s Degree 55 39.29

Master’s Degree 77 55.00

63

By educational attainments, the dominant numbers of respondents are masters’ degree at

55.00% followed by bachelor degree with 55 or 39.29%. The educational attainment of the

majority of respondent refers to the fact that they were qualified to participate in this

research in an effective manner. Also we need to examine how the age can influence the

research. Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of respondents by education qualifications.

Figure 3.2

Frequency Distribution of the Respondents by Educational Qualification of

Respondents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1

Bachelors

Masters

Table 3.3

Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age Classification Total Frequency Percentage

20-29 106 75.71

30-39 26 18.57

40-49 0 0.00

50 & Above 0 0.00

64

Total 132 100.00

Table 3.3 depicts the distribution of respondents with regards to their age. Dominant

number of respondents is in the rage of 2-29 years, followed by 30-39, none of the

respondents were in 40-49 and 50 & above. The situation gives a picture all respondents

were young and energetic towards their career achievement this condition normally

neutralizes the politically charged environment (Ferris et al; 1989).

Figure 3.4

Distribution of Respondents by Age

20-29106

30-3926

40-490

50 & Above0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1

20-29

30-39

40-49

50 & Above

.

Table 3.4

Gender Distribution of Respondents

Gender Total Frequency Percentage

Male 123 87.86

Female 9 06.43

Total 132 100.00

65

Table 3.4 illustrates the distribution of respondents with respect to their gender. Dominant

numbers of respondents are male, followed by female respondent of 6.43 percent of total

population. The table also depicts the fact that number of female in the total population is

really very low.

Figure 3.4

Gender Distribution of Respondents

Male

Female

The research used both primary and secondary data sources for data gathering. Primary

data was collected though unstructured interviews, questionnaires upon which the response

was collected by respondents. The primary data was collected form various key functional

areas of the organization to ensure the participation of all functional areas.

The secondary data is consists of extensive readings of related materials. These related

material were magazines, Journals, related books and studies with contributed a lot to

develop the understating and development of the study.

Instrument and Technique Used

1. Questionnaire

66

Questionnaire was specially designed for this particular study. Since many independent and

dependent variables were recorded by researcher. It consisted of several parts which

covered all the area to be investigated and which are presented in the statement of problem.

It was designed in such a way that multiple choices were given to the respondents for them

to answer in more convenient way. The idea was to get the how much respondent is agree

or disagree to a statement. In brief the purpose of questionnaire was to collect response for

an independent variable POPS (perception of organizational politics) Kacmar and Ferris

1992. impacts of POPS was collected in terms of Employee Withdrawal Behavior, General

Fatigue, Organizational Support, Job Motivation (in-role extra role), Organizational

Commitment.

2. Unstructured interviews

Unstructured interviews were conducted with the respondents during the retrieval of the

questionnaires to verify or clarify responses that might be vague and to provide additional

explanation to response.

3. Documentary analysis

Since research is not a pure exploratory research, to support the hypothesis of the study

extensive literature review and documentary analysis was conducted. Although no previous

studies is similar to this study but the formulation of hypothesis was basically influence by

previous researches conducted by Ferrier, Kacmar , Vigoda, Cropanzano etc. other material

such as unclassified personnel records and general job description and policies were

reviewed to argument the responses that were retrieved from the questionnaires.

Statistical treatment of Data

The data were classified according to the relevant topics into in the study. The respective

calculation were arranged and organized in accordance with the sequence presented in the

statement of the problem.

To make the interpretation of data comprehensive, the following statistical

Formulas were used.

67

Percentile

This is the presentation of the ration of the part to a whole. This was used to present the

data on the profile, and on the problems that were encountered. For percentage calculations,

the formula is:

100*n

fp

Where

P = Computed percentage

f = Frequency of the scores

n = number of respondents

Weighted Arithmetic Mean

This measure of central tendency was used to determine the perception of organizational

politics and employees’ productivity. The formula is:

W

WXxw

Where: xw = the weighted mean

=symbol of summation

W = the weight of the value

X = scale value

Standard Deviation

This measure of variance was used to analyze the deviation in the results that could be

possibly due to hierarchal level of age difference. The formula is:

N

xx

)(2

Where: x = mean value

X= scale value

N= total number of observation

68

= Symbol of standard Deviation

=symbol of summation

The obtained means were interpreted using a 5 point Likert scale, detailed as indicated

below.

Table 3.5

Calculation and Degree of Intensity

Scale Weight Range of mean Values Interpretation

1 1.00-1.50 Strongly Agree

2 1.51-2.50 Moderately Agree

3 2.51-3.50 Undecided

4 3.51-4.50 Disagree

5 4.51-5.00 Strongly Disagree

69

C H A P T E R 4

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

This chapter presents the data, which was collected from Validated Questionnaire,

unstructured interviews, observation, documentary analysis and other reading materials and

were organized, classified and statistically treated. The data presented, analyzed and

interpreted in the context of the problems presented in chapter 1.

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of organizational politics in terms of

employees’ productivity. The validity of hypothesis was tested through relationship of

independent variable which is Organizational politics and dependent variables i.e.

Employee withdrawal behaviors, General fatigue, Organizational Support, Job Motivation

(in-role extra role), Organizational Commitment.

Table 4.1

Employee Perception of Organizational Politics and Its Impact on Organizational

Decisions

Responses F Percentage

Strongly Agree 9 6.82

Moderately Agree 29 21.97

Undecided 23 17.42

Disagree 45 34.09

Strongly Disagree 26 19.70

Table 4.1 depicts that only a small number of people strongly agree with the notation that

organizational decisions always transparent where as a larger group of people were not

agreed with this statement. Analysis of response signifies that the 34.09% or around 34%

people disagree that organizational decisions are transparent, followed by group of people a

percentage of 21.97 who agree with the statement. Third large segment with a percentage

of 19.70 strongly disagree with the statement that organizational decisions have always

been transparent. People with a percentage of 17.42 were unable to decide that either

organizational decision as transparent or vice versa. Overall a large number of people a

70

percentage of 53.79 disagreed that organizational decisions are always transparent. Figure

4.1 shows the perception of organizational politics in terms of organizational decisions.

Figure 4.1

Employee Perception of Organizational Politics and Its Impact on Organizational

Decisions

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.2

Relationship between Organizational Politics and Performance Appraisals




Undecided 14 10.61

Disagree 9 6.82


With regard to relationship between organizational politics and performance appraisal,

response in table 4.2 shows that a large population of sample a percentage of 50.00

believed that performance appraisals cannot be influenced by organizational politics and

71

hard work is a key to get better performance appraisal, followed by a percentage of 25.09

respondents who strongly agreed with this observable fact. A smaller group of people at a

percentage of 6.82 disagreed with the statement, a similar number of people a percentage of

6.82 strongly disagreed with this avowal. Another group of respondents with a percentage

of 10.87 were failed to decide the situation and they remain undecided. The situation could

also be expressed as there might be political influence for performance appraisals but

performance can neutralize the impact of this political decision.

Figure 4.2

Relationship between Organizational Politics and Performance Appraisals

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.3

Supervisory Favoritism Behavior




Undecided 26 19.70

72

Disagree 17 12.88


During the literature review it was anticipated that perception of organization politics

supervisory attitudes or personal favorites should always be in better situation to get the

high salary raise and promotion, data in table 4.3 strongly support this perceived relation.

Respondents with a percentage of 39.39 agreed with the statement that people those were

favorites to their supervisors are awarded with better salary and promotions. Second

highest group of people with a percentage of 25.76 strongly agreed with to this point. 19.70

percent of people were unable to conclude that either personal favorite are awarded with

better promotions or not. Respondents with a percentage of 12.88 disagreed, whereas only

2.27 percent of people strongly disagree with prejudice in supervisory attitudes. From the

forgoing explanation one can easily conclude that organizational politics have a strong

relationship with supervisory bias.

Figure 4.3

Supervisory Favoritism Behavior

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

73

Table 4.4

Political Group/Personal Influences




Undecided 11 8.33

Disagree 5 4.55


One of the driving factors of organizational politics is group influence or supervisory bias.

As Cropanzano describes in his article published in 1997 title “The relationship of

organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress” that people

normally attached themselves to a stronger cabal where they have a chance to get better

opportunities in an organization. Similar to Cropanzano research table 4.4 portrayed similar

results. Respondents at a very high percentage of 54.55 strongly agreed that there exists a

group in our target population who was influencing the organizational decisions. So we

could infer that there was a strong existence of informal groups which was not allowing the

organization to work in neutral in environment, followed by another high percentage of

30.30 who agreed with the group politics or groups think happening in target population.

Figure 4.4 shows the group influence behavior in target organization. A very small group

of respondents with a percentage of 4.55 and 2.27 disagreed and strongly disagreed with

the phenomenon discussed in the questionnaire, similar to previous question a percentage

of 8.33 in proportion responded as undecided to this phrase.

74

Figure 4.4

Political Group/Personal Influences

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.5

Individual Response towards Influential Group




Undecided 14 10.61

Disagree 26 19.70


Factor was added to evaluate how people react to any influential groups, either they join

them or they oppose such unwritten agreements among people to maximize their interest.

The factor got much significance in perception of organizational politics because it was

considered as dysfunctional. This cause was initially identified by Russell Cropanzano in

1997 and Ferris et al in 1989. Table 4.5 presented the response of the people that did they

agreed with the statement that they should be the part of a groups which influences the

75

organizational decisions. A major group of respondents at high percentage of 28.76

strongly agreed with the statement that they should be a part of such group. The second

largest cluster with a percentage of 25.76 moderately agreed with this statement. Only

10.61 people remain undecided about the state of affairs. However relatively larger number

of respondents with percentage of 19.70 disagreed with the proclamation. Furthermore

15.15 percent of respondents strongly disagreed with statement. The above situation of

response could be that people with high education normally prefer to escape the politically

charged environment rather than getting favor from surroundings. Also we deduced that

there could be two types of reactions whenever this is chance of organizational politics

either people become a part of politics to play for their better interest of they oppose to such

situations and if they are unable to combat with these influential groups they may escape

the organizational landscape.

Figure 4.5

Individual Response towards Influential Group

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

76

Table 4.6

Preference towards Personal Goals Rather Than Organizational Goals

Particulars F Percentage



Undecided 23 17.42

Disagree 23 17.42


Table 4.6 depicts the preference of respondents towards their personal goals over

organizational goal. In highly political environment people usually prefer their personal

interest over organizational interest and they always try to attain a batter payoff of their

dedications to organizations. Table illustrates that there was no significant relationship

between organizational politics and organizational goal displacement. A fairly high

number of respondents at a percentage of around 34.85 agreed with the statement that

organizational goal should be preferred over personal objectives, followed by 19.70 percent

on respondents who are strongly agreed with the statement. 17.42 percentages of

respondents remained undecided with the question where as 17.42 percent of respondents

disagreed with it, only a small ratio of respondent with a percentage of 10.61 strongly

disagreed with the condition. From the above results we can understand that people

normally have a preference towards organizational goals over their personal goals but if the

situation is really worse or high politically charged then it becomes a spoil system rather

than organization.

Figure 4.6

Preference towards Personal Goals Rather Than Organizational Goals

77

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree.

Table 4.7

Neutral Work Environment




Undecided 17 12.88

Disagree 3 2.27


Table 4.7 demonstrates a very critical point of study that majority of respondents with a

percentage of 76.52 strongly agreed with the statement that like to work in a situation

which is neutral in decisions and there is no place for organizational politics. Respondent

with a percentage of 8.33 agreed with this notation. The second large segment of people

with a percentage of 12.88 were unable to decide either they prefer to work in neutral

environment or not. Only three respondents disagree with above mentioned statement.

78

As discussed earlier perception of organizational politics was measured with help of

abovementioned seven items scale. In terms of weighted mean the facts are given below.

Figure 4.7

Neutral Work Environment

Strongly Agree

AgreeNeutral


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.8

Perception of Organizational Politics

Particulars Weighted

Mean

Do you think that organizational decisions are always transparent 3.38

Good performance and hard work is a key to promotions and raises in

salary? 2.19

Personal favorites are awarded with better raises in salary and

promotions? 2.26

There is always a group/person that influences the formal decisions in

organization? 1.70

79

It is always a better idea to stay with some influential group to get high

raise and promotion?

2.67

Organizational goals should always be preferred even if they contradict

with personal objectives?

2.64

I always prefer to work in a situation where people are neutral in thoughts

and affiliations

1.41

Perception of organization politics was measure by a 7 scale POPS survey which was

designed after comprehensive analysis of literature review. Original POPS version was

developed by Kacmar and Ferris232 (1991) this version did not have any particular option

from POPS but original POPS is used as reference. Segment of POPS is also influenced by

Research of Nye and Witt233 (1993), Randall et al234 (1994), Cropanzano et al235 (1997)

and Vigoda236 (1999, 2002, and 2004). Respondents’ perception of organizational politics

is shown in table 4.8. Overall respondents were unable to decide that whether

organizational decisions are always transparent or not as the weighted average mean 3.39

shows no significance in results. Good performance is a key to promotion and raises in

salary with a weighted mean of 2.17. A strong correlation was found between personal

favorites and performance appraisal (2.26). A very strong relationship was found in

perception of respondent and influential group (1.69) which supports the previous studies.

Somewhat weak relationship which was not expected was identified between group politics

and response to such situation (2.67). We can infer that people can react differently to this


233 Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829.




80

situation at different number of occasions. In addition to the previous phenomenon another

weak relationship (2.65) was found perception of organizational politics and organizational

goal displacement. It can be deduced that people do not overrule the organizational goals

for their personal interests. In high political environment people wish to work in non

political situations. A very strong desire from respondents was measured to work in neutral

environment (1.41).

Figure 4.8

Perception of Organizational Politics

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Responses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Questions

POPS

POPS

During the literature review it was expected that could is a strong relationship between

perception of organizational politics and employee withdrawal behavior. Withdrawal could

be psychological or physical as discussed during chapter 2. People who have low desire to

manipulate the situation for their personal objective usually avoid political behavior and

their reactions very from time to time.

81

Table 4.9

Propagation of Grapevine




Undecided 9 6.82

Disagree 6 4.55


Table 4.9 give a picture that a large number of respondents at percentage of 64.39 strongly

agree with the fact that it always better to tell the truth rather than heard stories, followed

by moderately agree respondents at a percentage of 19.70. Only small strata of respondents

around 6.82 were unable to decide the phenomenon. A very low number of people with a

percentage of only 4.55 each with disagree and strong disagreeing responses. From the

results we can infer that due to some reasons respondents have a strong desire to share the

about the truth instead of heard stories. Possible variables affecting the phenomenon could

be external locus of control and personality factors. In some case education play a vital role

to change the personalities of the respondents, further studies are suggested to explore this

area of current research which researcher is unable to cover.

82

Figure 4.9

Propagation of Grapevine

Strongly Agree

Agree

NeutralDisagree Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.10

Psychological Withdrawal Behavior




Undecided 6 4.55

Disagree 11 8.33


83

As Vigoda emphasis in his article that in highly charged environment people mentally

withdraw from the organization and such withdrawal reflects negligent behaviors in their

daily work habits. Table 4.10 illustrates the data gather for such situation. Largest of group

of respondents seems to be in mental withdrawal stage as 62.88 percentages of respondents

strongly agreed with phenomenon that they should keep silent instead of participating in

rumors. We can infer that this group was not socially active in organization. Second larger

segment of respondents with a percentage of 19.70 moderately agreed with it. Only a 4.55

percentage of respondents are unable to decide the situation, followed by a very low ration

of people who were against this attitude. Researcher personally found some biasness in

response to this question due to respondents overall role in organization. For example

respondent of human resource department most strongly disagreed to this question because

they were trying to promote spoken habits in employees. Inference can be perceived from

this ratio that there is high levels of psychological withdraw in the employees of the

organization.

Figure 4.10


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.11

Supervisory Influence and Withdrawal Behavior



84


Undecided 20 15.15

Disagree 20 15.15


Table 4.11 shows the percentage of responses that how people perceive that how much

their ideas are accepted even if they are against their supervisor. If people believe that their

suggestion will be accepted without biasness, they become more creative in terms of

productivity. A large number of respondents at a percentage of 41.67 moderately agreed

with this opinion followed by strongly agreed people at a percentage of 17.42. 15.15

percentages of respondents were undecided; same is the case for people who disagreed with

this question. Only a small group of respondents with a percentage of 10.61 strongly

disagreed with this point.

Figure 4.11

Supervisory Influence and Withdrawal Behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

85

Table 4.12

Negligent Attitudes and Withdrawal Behavior




Undecided 11 8.33

Disagree 52 39.39


In high politically charged environment people usually don’t care about intensive situation

or it becomes a norm for a group of employees. Table 4.12 shows the careless attitudes as

an outcome of psychological withdrawal behaviors. A large majority of people disagreed

that they do not care about the crisis and severe time in their organization, however almost

similar number of people a sum of 45.45 a percentage with 28.03 strongly agreed and 17.42

moderately agreed with this option, so overall respondents are similar at both poles. Only a

percentage of 8.33 respondents were undecided.

86

Figure 4.12

Negligent Attitudes and Withdrawal Behavior

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.13





Undecided 11 8.33

Disagree 37 28.03


Psychological withdrawal behaviors can be quantified in different manners, table 4.13

depicts one of these outcomes that can be possible by psychological withdraws behaviors.

The opinion required in this question was, would it be a good idea to keep unvoiced instead

of demanding for constitutional rights in organization. A large fragment of respondents

around 59.09 percentage of people disagreed with this situation with 28.03 and 31.03

87

people disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively. A 24.24 percentage of respondents

agreed with the situation and proportion of 8.33 of respondents strongly agreed with the

observable fact; however a group of respondents with a percentage of 8.33 remained

undecided. From this perspective we can conclude that employee have a tendency to ask

for their rights instead of keeping silent for the demands. The possible reason for such

responses was the falter nature of organization. Due to lower number in hierarchal level

technical staff has a close interaction with their immediate managers. However there was a

strong vertical hierarchy after the line managers. Researcher personally observed that

managerial tier mostly responded as they were disagreed with the inquiry.

Figure 4.13


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.14

Physical Withdrawal Behavior




88

Undecided 20 15.15

Disagree 32 23.24


In high politically charged environment it was observed that people like to spend time in

chitchats and gossips instead of focusing on works. Table 4.14 illustrates somehow

expected results, a relatively high number of respondents with a percentage of 28.03 agreed

with the state of affairs followed by 24.24 percentages of strongly agreed people. A group

of respondents proportionately 23.24 disagree to the phenomenon, and a percentage of 8.33

people were unable to conclude the state. From the results we concluded that target

organization had a higher level of political behaviors which is building up a psychological

withdrawal syndrome in employees. Over longer span of time this syndrome will have an

effect on the overall productivity and efficiency of employees.

Figure 4.14


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.15

Psychological and Physical Withdrawal Behaviors


Mean

Telling the truth is good rather than propagating heard stories? 1.65

89

Being silent is good rather than propagating heard rumors? 1.71

Wise suggestions are always appreciated even if they oppose supervisors? 2.59

I don’t care about crunch modes because it is a norm in my organization? 2.79

It is always better to be quite rather than struggle for basic rights like

proper performance evaluation? 3.49

It is always better to spent sometime in relaxing activities rather than doing

work of others. 2.64

Analysis of psychological and physical behaviors of reveals a strong agreement regarding

perception of organizational politics. Withdrawal behavior could be of two types one

psychological and other is physical the scale was determined after analysis of work of

Vigoda237 (2000), Hulin238 (1991) and Vardi & Wiener239 (1996). Table 4.15 presents

psychological and physical withdrawal behaviors which are possible presumptions of

organizational politics. Most of the respondents strongly feel that there could be a strong

relationship between organizational politics and employee withdrawal behaviors. Data

retrieved for the analysis of employees’ withdrawal behaviors shows that most of the

employees are in psychological withdrawal stage so this could have an impact their daily

work routines. Although the weighted average of most of the responses were unable to

draw some clear distinction in their attitudes however a minor skewness in data showed the

trend. People prefer to be silent instead of being talkative for unwanted situations. People

did not want to share their concerns which could eventually lead to employee burnout and

turnover intensions. Similarly a large relatively larger number of respondents believed to

struggle for their basic rights instead of being silent observer. Overall researcher was

unable to decide whether to share sensible suggestion with seniors or not as the data is slant



238 Hulin, C. L. (1991). Àdaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations'. In: Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn., Consulting Psychologistics Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 445-506.

239 Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organizational Science, 7. 151-165.

90

towards undecided situation. We have also observed the mild intentions for turnover and

physical withdrawal behaviors (3.49). Second parameter for physical withdraw was the

spending time in repartee and gossips rather than to focus on work and which was

supported by the data (2.64). Figure 4.2 show this data graphically.

Figure 4.15

Psychological and Physical Withdrawal Behaviors

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Propagation ofgrapevine

Psychologicalwithdrawalbehavior

Supervisoryinfluence

Negligentattitudes

Psychologicalwithdrawal

Phys icalwithdrawal

During the literature review it was observed that there could be strong relationship between

general fatigue and perception of organizational politics.

Table 4.16

Distribution Of Overburdened




Undecided 29 21.97

Disagree 43 32.58

91


Table 4.16 gives a picture of employees feeling for general fatigue in a manner that how

they feel in their workplace and how they perceive about the overall work stress level.

Results from the respondents’ basis on the primary data collected were difference from the

perceived results. A minor relationship was observed in this situation. A large number of

respondents about a 32.58 in percentage responded that they did not agreed with this

notation, followed by a 21.97 percentage of respondents who were unable to settle on this

opinion. Moreover respondents with percentages of 15.15 and 19.70 strongly agreed and

moderately agreed with this question respectively.

Figure 4.16

Distribution Of Overburdened

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

92

Table 4.17

Distribution of Physical and Mental Stress




Undecided 26 19.70

Disagree 37 28.03


As we have discussed in table 4.16 that there were chances that a strong relationship might

be possible between perception of organizational politics and employee mental and

physical health and could be possible to observe a strong impact of organizational politics

over general health of employees. Table 4.17 portrays this relationship; data retrieved for

this particular reaction was not equivalent with the perceived theory. A percentage of 28.26

of respondent disagreed with the statement, however respondents with a percentage of

24.24 agreed with it. 19.70 percent of respondents who strong agreed and 19.70 percent of

respondent remain inconclusive. A proportion of respondents at percentage of 8.33

strongly disagreed in response to this inquiry.

93

Figure 4.17

Distribution of Physical and Mental Stress

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.18

Approach towards Mental Discomfort




Undecided 14 10.61

Disagree 23 17.42


As discussed in explanation that a strong relationship was expected between employees

mental health and perception of organizational politics. Table 4.18 gives a very good

picture of this situation. A large majority of respondents at with a sum of 65.15 percentages

in proportion strongly or moderately agreed that they were unable to spend much time with

their families due to extra burden of work at office these 34.85% and 30.30 moderately and

strong agrees respectively. Some respondents 10.61 in percentage were unable to answer or

94

decide for this particular problem, only a small proportion of 17.42 was not agreed and

very minor fraction of about 6.82 strongly disagreed with the question.

Figure 4.17

Approach towards Mental Discomfort

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.18

Distribution of Aggressive Attitudes




Undecided 23 17.42

Disagree 43 32.58


Table 4.18 illustrate the responses of respondents in the form of their opinion, do people

get exhausted at times because people were not ready to cooperate in drastic situations?

The purpose of this question was to evaluate how people react to unsolicited situation. A

larger segment of respondents around 28.03 in percentage strongly agreed followed by

19.70% who moderately agrees with this point. A 32.58 percent of responses were against

95

this statement and 2.27 percent strongly disagreed with it. However another larger segment

of about 17.42 remained undecided.

Figure 4.18

Distribution of Aggressive Attitudes

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.19

Distribution of General Fatigue


Mean

I feel I am overburdened because some people are doing nothing in the

organization

3.04

I am not 100% because I am mentally and physically overloaded with

office assignments?

2.81

I cannot spend much time with my family because I have lot of things to

do in office

2.31

I feel exhausted at times because people are not ready to cooperate in

drastic situations?

2.61

96

Table 4.19 tries to find out any positive or negative relationship between perception of

organizational politics and it possible outcomes towards mental and physical strain240 or

fatigue241 in employees. (Cropanzano 1997, Randall et al 1999). Analysis of general fatigue

in context of perception of organizational politics show that there is a moderate relationship

between both these variables like in case of personal feelings of respondent perception was

they overburdened because other people do nothing in the organization, we unable to

conclude due an overall tendency of results to skew towards undecided (3.04). Furthermore

feelings of strain were expected in employees due to intensive political influences. In this

case we concluded there might be chances with larger data that people agree with the

situation. Weighted average for this particular response is about 2.81; high chances of the

data to skew towards undecided instead of agree. Item three in this section depicts that a

positive relationship is possible between organizational politics and discomfort. Higher the

perception of politics will lead to higher degree of discomfort in employee. People do agree

with the point that they are unable to spend enough time with their families due to office

assignments. In addition it was observed that people feel exhausted in situation where

people do not realize the importance of cooperation in drastic situation (2.61). The outcome

is very much aligned with previous researches242 that organizational citizenship behaviors

have strong negative relation243 with organizational politics as identified by many

researchers (Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991); Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C.,

Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997)) organizational politics. People hesitate to support their

co-workers in political environment and they usually isolate themselves from such situation

240 Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths of workplace politics: The relationships among politics, job distress, and

aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 571-591.




97

which some times creates problem for other employees. Figure 4.3 shows above mentioned

data graphically.

Figure 4.19

Distribution of General Fatigue

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Feelings ofOverburdened

Physical and MentalStress

Mental Discomfort Aggressive A ttitudes

Table 4.20

Organizational Support




Undecided 40 30.30

Disagree 56 42.42


Table 4.20 shows an overall response of people for a situation that how they feel others

discuss their personal problems and routine matters in office. A large majority of people

around 42.42 disagreed with the statement that they feel it disturbing, followed by 30.30

percent of people who remained undecided in response to this question. 10.61 percentages

98

of respondents strongly disagree with the question and only 8.33 percent each of people

moderately or strongly agreed with this statement.

Figure 4.19


Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.21



Mean

It is very disturbing for me when people discuss their day to day problems

in office

3.39

Above question was posed in order to verify employee support behavior in high political

environment as we have already discussed that there might be chances that people feel fear

to discuss their personal matter in such situations. Higher the perception of organizational

politics may lead to low organizational support though the responses do not back up this

assumption and data evaluated for this question refers to an overall tendency of undecided

99

(3.39). The results are somehow aligned with previous researcher that there is no

significant relationship between perception of organizational politics and employee

citizenship behaviors. Figure 4.4 show this graphically.

Figure 4.21


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Table 4.22

Job Motivation In-Role Behaviors




Undecided 6 4.55

Disagree 6 4.55


Table 4.22 shows that how employee approach towards assigned tasks to them; for this

purpose in-role motivation was measure, data retrieved for this purpose depicts that there

was a strong intention in employees to accomplish their job within a given time with

100

quality. They are inclined to perform this responsibility with a strong motivation as we

have strongly agreed respondent in proportion of 68.94 in percentage. Second larger

segment of respondents were moderately agreed with this opinion and only a small faction

of respondents were remain unresolved, disagreed or strongly disagreed with proportions of

4.55, 4.55 and 2.27 respectively.

Figure 4.22

Job Motivation In-Role Behaviors

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.23

Job Motivation Extra-Role Behaviors




Undecided 34 25.76

Disagree 9 6.82


101

Job motivation in context of extra-role assignment was measure with an influence scale of

motivation. A simple question asked to respondents if they were willing to be assigned with

extra responsibilities other than job description. Respondent with a percentage of around

43.18 moderately agreed with opinion, 17.42 percentages of respondents were strongly

agreed with it and 25.76 percent of respondents were unable to response in either way for

this question. A portion of people with percentage of 6.82 responded in disagreement with

situation either as strongly disagree or disagree.

Figure 4.23

Job Motivation Extra-Role Behaviors

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Table 4.24

Distribution of Job Motivation


Mean

I always prefer to finish tasks assigned to me and on time? 1.5

I often offer my services for assignments other than my job

responsibilities

2.42

102

Table 4.24 symbolizes how people much people are motivated to perform their duties

either in-role244 or extra-role capacity245 (Cropanzano; 1997, Zhou & Ferris; 1995). A large

majority of employees found highly motivated towards their job in each category. Most of

the employees are willing to finish their assignments on time (1.5) similarly for extra role

motivation it is found that comparatively a larger segment is willing to share burden with

other. This situation eventually leads to a healthy environment with high level employee

citizenship behavior. This usually happens where workforce is highly qualified having

good moral values. The behavior is negatively related with perception of organizational

politics. From the above results it might be inferred as in target population people have

strong intention to perform under job description but at the same time hesitation have been

observed for additional responsibilities Figure 4.24 show this graphically.

Figure 4.24

Distribution of Job Motivation

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Job Motivation In-role Behaviors Job Motivation extra-role Behaviors

244 Vigoda, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics: How political dynamics affect employee performance in

modern worksites. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.


103

Table 4.25

Organizational Goal Alignment




Undecided 34 25.76

Disagree 50 37.88


Table 4.25 shows a picture that how much organizational is aliened with goals of

employees. Overall perception of employees were bit disagreeing with percentage of 37.88

but due to some personal reservations therefore we retrieved a lot of data with undecided

response, respondents with a high proportion of 25.76 in percentage either did not

responded to this question or they opt undecided. Conversely a large strata of respondents

selected the option of disagree with the question that organization is aligned with their

goals. Respondents with percentage of 17.42 in percentage responded that organization is

strongly aligned with their goals, group of responses with a percentage of 8.33 moderately

agreed. A fairly high number of respondents selected that organization strongly unaligned

with their goals (10.61); possibility of this response could show the frustration due to

political environment.

Figure 4.25

Organizational Goal Alignment

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

104

Table 4.26

Organizational Allegiance




Undecided 37 28.03

Disagree 20 15.15


Table 4.26 characterizes the responses, will respondents always prefer to be a part of

current organization. The question was added to measure the long term commitment of

current employees. Same problem which was discussed previously faced during this

question that people remained undecided to due to some personal fears which is 28.03 in

percentage. People with a percentage of 21.97 strongly disagreed that they was to be part of

this organization in longer terms. Similarly respondents with a percentage of 15.15 replied

that they disagree with this notation. Conversely people with percentage of 21.97 replied

that they moderately agree to be a part of the organization in the long run. Smallest group

of people with a percentage of 12.88 in proportion responded that strongly agree to be a

part of the organizational in the long run.

Figure 4.26

Organizational Allegiance

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

105

Table 4.27

Organizational Dedication




Undecided 35 26.52

Disagree 34 25.76


Dedication can be termed as “a mental state when an employee tried to server its

organization in best possible manner with extra efforts”. Table 4.27 depicts level of

organizational dedication, opinions was asked about if people are willing to be assigned

with any responsibility within organization to serve better for their organization. A

heterogeneous reaction was recorded against this question. Larger segments with

percentage of 26.09 each received as undecided or disagree or moderately agree. 12.88

percentage of respondents replied in strongly agree way; whereas 21.97 percentage

responded in strongly disagree. Since the data retrieved in both directions such as

agreement and disagreement so we could not conclude any observation for this particular

question.

Figure 4.27

Organizational Dedication

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly DisagreeStrongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

106

Table 4.28

Organizational Commitment


Mean

This organization is not aligned with my career objectives? 3.15

I will always prefer to be a part of this organization? 3.11

I can be assigned with any responsibility because I am really concerned

about my organization?

2.90

Table 4.28 portrays an overall response for the organizational commitment levels scale was

influenced by work of Porter and Smith (unpublished manuscript), commitment can be

termed as the willingness to exert extra efforts for organizations and desire to retain

membership in the organization246 (Mowday & Boolean, 1974). For organizational goal

alignment we are unable to conclude any significant response due a large segment of

respondents who respondents as undecided due to some personal reservations. However a

large number of respondents answered as the organization was not aligned with their goals.

Researcher will discuss possible outcomes of this response in next chapter of

recommendations. For the question that if they always prefer to be a part of this

organization mostly the respondents replied as undecided because of researcher’s role in

the organization however a fairly large amount of respondents disagreed with this point and

some of them replied that they strongly disagree with this point. Overall calculated average

of this question was 3.10. For measurement of organization dedication a simple question

was posed to respondents “will they accept any responsibility in the organization” here

again we faced fear of unwanted from respondent due to researcher’s personal capacity in

the organization. Calculated average of this question was 2.90. Figure 4.28 represent this

information graphically.

246 Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. M. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

107

Figure 4.28


2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

Organizational GoalAlignment

Organizational A llegiance Organizational Dedication

Two questions were asked at the end to identify if there is any particular relationship

between organizational politics and individual growth. The opinion was retrieved in a scale

from 1 to 10. Responses for these questions are presented below in table 4.29

Table 4.29

Relation between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Individual Growth


Mean

How would you rate the impact of organizational politics on an

individual’s growth?

9.8

Table depicts that there was significant relationship of between perception and

organizational and individual growth. Scale was set from 1 to 10 means strongest to

weakest relations, outcome obtained was 9.8 which means that there a very strong negative

relationship and perception of organizational politics and individual growth. Almost 73%

108

respondent responded that there is some how a relationship between personal growth and

organizational politics, this high percentage show that environment can be highly

politically charged and employees are playing political games. Higher the organizational

politics lower will be the individual growth and vice versa. A similar question was asked

from the respondents that is there any significance of organizational politics in growth of

organizations? Table 4.30 represents the consolidated response for this question. Figure

4.29 represent this information graphically.

Figure 4.29

Relation between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Individual Growth

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4.30

Relation between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Organizational Growth


Mean

How would you rate the impact of organizational politics in organizational

growth?

2.40

109

Above rating scale question was asked to find out relation between organizational politics

and organizational growth, we have observed a significant relation and strongly negative

relationship between both these variables (2.40~2). Question was seems not to simple to

respond as there could be multiple factors involved in organizational growth and most

importance is the strategic decisions, however some respondents communicated in during

their responses that strategic decision are also influenced by organizational politics or

personal preferences. Respondent with a percentage of 60.61 were in favor of negative

skewness of organizational politics and organizational growth where as remaining 39.39

percentages we favor of no relationship between organizational politics and organizational

growth. Figure 4.30 represent this information graphically.

Figure 4.30

Relation between Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Organizational Growth

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4.30

Means, Standard Deviation of Research Variables

Variables Mean S.D

Organizational Politics 2.32 0.65

110

Withdrawal behaviors 2.48 0.69

General Fatigue 2.69 0.30

Organizational Support 3.36 0

Job Motivation 1.95 0.64

Organizational Commitment 3.05 0.13

Table 4.31 shows overall mean values of mean and standard deviation of each research

variable. Lower mean values of variables show that there was strong level of

organizational politics and high level of feeling of fatigue or strain among employees.

Conversely a high rate of job motivation and organizational support; also observed a slight

lower level of organizational commitment. This study tried to support the idea that

organizational politics should be considered a prominent behavior with significant

consequences on employee performance in an organization. This study tried to empirically

determine relationship between organizational politics and employee productivity in terms

their performance, physical and mental health and long term commitment with

organizations. Study has also provided a relative deep insight that organizational politics is

a good mediator organization and working employees. This perception somehow

determines the factor of organizational commitment and organizational support. Some

limitation of the study were faced which were discussed in the first chapter, despite of

limitations researcher was able to succeeded in obtaining useful information regarding

organizational politics in AAJ Technologies. Furthermore, perception of politics was

successfully related to the objective information on formal and informal performance and

productivity of employees. The present findings reveal that politics contributes to our

understanding of organizational dynamics and outcomes. The most profound finding of this

study was that perception of organizational politics extensively exists and does make a

difference in research organization. . The significant paths of the research model showed

that politics had a modest negative effect on formal performance (in-role behavior). It also

maintained a stronger negative influence on informal performance and long term

organizational commitments. It is also important to note that the silent effect of

111

organizational politics can spill over beyond the formal boundaries of organizations.

Attitudes and behaviors of employees can be low and aggressive in daily work and

eventually can create unwanted situations. A strong level of perception of organizational

politics works a catalyst for physical withdrawal and a vast majority of employee spent

valuable time and resources of organization in job hunting and job search.

Figure 4.30

Means, Standard Deviation of Research Variables

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Per

cept

ion

of

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Pol

itics

(P

OP

S)

Em

ploy

ee

With

draw

al

Beh

avio

r

Gen

eral

Fat

igue

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Sup

port

Job

Mot

ivat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Com

mitm

ent

112

C H A P T E R 5

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

Findings

The findings of the study are:

1. A strong level of organizational politics was observed among the organization. The

level of perception of organizational politics was much higher among managers

whereas its intensity was lower at technical staff.

2. Perception of influential group was very strong across the organization; the perception

may also lead to influencing supervisory attitudes.

3. There is always a will in human mind to work in low political setups; it is also observed

that in low politically charged environment people may work with more enthusiasm.

4. A fairly high level of biasness was observed in organizational decisions. There could be

other reasons for this biasness such as strategic decision or ground realities.

5. A high level of tendency to share reality was observed at organization level. The

situation also referred as the respondents are observed as straight forward in the

organization.

6. A mild tendency of wisdom was observed at senior organization level of organization.

A larger segment of respondents believe that they are free to share their ideas with their

managers.

7. Due to high level of physical of mental exhaustion high intensity of negligence attitudes

is observed. These negligent attitudes eventually to lead to employee withdrawal

behaviors. A larger segment of respondents are observed as high psychological

withdraw stage, moreover a reasonably good number of respondents are found in

physical withdrawal stage.

8. A high rate of turnover was examined in the organization, based on the data of last one

year 62.5 % turnover was recorded. This high level of turnover rate can be a strong

indicator of withdrawal behaviors due organizational politics or high stress levels.

113

9. A considerably high level of organizational support was observed during the research

possible reasons could be friendly atmospheres among technical staff or some informal

group influence due to institutional bindings, ethnic diversity common benefits.

10. A high degree in-role motivation is observed in the respondents. However a lower level

of extra-role was discovered. This means that employees if directed properly can be

more beneficial than they are at the moment.

11. Organization alignment it found to be very low. In lower level of organizational

alignment people tend to leave the organizational in short periods rather than consider

for lifetime employment. Also people refuse to put extra efforts in their daily working

because they consider it as a time waste.

12. So far we have not mentioned any finding about organizational commitment, a severely

lower percentage of organizational commitment is observed in respondents. The

situation could lead to a very alarming fact that people do not want to stay longer in the

organization, so they could be more interested expanding their social networks rather

than being beneficial for organization.

Conclusions

1. Organizational politics was overall found to be treacherous and harming for the

organizations. It could cause serious levels of feelings of general fatigue and

deceitfulness among employees. In highly educated industries like information

technology it also impacts the overall turnover rate in the organizations. Organizational

policies can lead to negligent behaviors which sometimes leads to security or moral

hazards on the other hand it increase the anxiety and severity in attitudes. Politically

influence decision of manager can cause dissatisfaction in lower technical personal.

2. A high politically charged environment can be a strong factor in lower organizational

commitment. Industrial sectors like information technology where job substitutions was

not a big factor people always prefer to escape from political environment and always

try to find neutralized environments. High salaries and greater number of incentive

114

some time fails to create stronger bonds between person and organization due to

political environment.

3. Industries where workforce is the most critical factor of success like the one we have

target must be free from organizational politics up to certain level, fatigue and lower

physical or mental health can cause severe impacts on organizational growth. Tired

minds cannot perform in critical situations and this tiredness could be due to

organizational politics. Moral hazards can be caused due to stress working

environments.

Recommendations

1. To reduce level of organizational politics job allocation must be revised after a certain

time period. In this way people will be unable to form their cabals

2. Supervisory decision must me made after discussion in some central meeting this will

reduce the personal influences.

3. Senior management should be aware of the internal problems and conflicts among the

employee otherwise they would be unable to understand the problem from grass root

level.

4. To reduce semiotic tension there must be some forum where people feel free to share

their problem with others and management must have some process to understand these

problems.

5. Human resource department is the strongest and the most basic department in any

organization. Their role should be of a facilitator rather than a new caster of senior

management.

6. Organizational decision must me be made after consensus with all senior resources.

Otherwise it will increase the job dissatisfaction in employees.

7. Turn out intension can be reduced by inquiring the basic reasons for such intentions

also some time proper job allocation can reduce these intentions.

8. Manager should be aware of job stressors that are creating aggressive attitudes in

employees.

9. To reduce fatigue intentions work items should be properly estimated and managed.

115

10. Employees must be given stress breaks; this can be helpful in providing them a feel of

comfort and job confidence.

11. Performance appraisal or progress reviews must be done with 360 degree method to

reduce supervisory influences.

12. Management must identify opinion leaders and they should be treated carefully to

reduce the overall feelings of discomfort among the employees.

116

References

1. Aristotle, (322 BC), A Treatise on Government, Translated from the Greek By William Ellis (1912 reprinted 1919, 1923, 1928), London &.Toronto published by j m dent &sons ltd. &.in new york by e. P. Dutton &. Co. http://www.literaturepage.com/read/treatiseongovernment.html

2. Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress-related aftermaths of workplace politics: The relationships among politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 571-591.

3. Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14, 59-71.

4. Randall1, M., I.., Russell Cropanzano, Carol a. Bormann and Andrej Birjulin (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior, 20, 159±175.

5. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159±180.


7. Vigoda (2000). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance. Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 pp 185-210


9. Ferris, G. R., Brand, J. F., Brand, S., Rowland, K. M., Gilmore, D. C., King, T. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Burton, C. A. (1993). Politics and control in organizations. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, & K. Heime (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 83-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

10. Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 17 (pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

117


12. Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43, 1133-1154.

13. Bozeman, D., Perrewe, P., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, M., & Brymer, R. (1996). An examination of reactions to perceptions of organizational politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, New Orleans.

14. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational

15. Randall, M.., I., Russell Cropanzano, carol a. Bormann and andrej birjulin (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior

16. Shore, L. M. and Shore, T. H. (1995). `Perceived organizational support and organizational justice'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.


18. Vigoda (2000). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance. Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 pp 185-210



21. Witt, L. A. (1995). Influences of supervisor behaviors on the levels and effects of workplace politics. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 37-53). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

118

22. Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281

23. Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.

24. Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.

25. Tushman, M.L. (1977). A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale. Academy of Management Review, 2, 206-216.

26. Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). `The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1±18.

27. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

28. Frost, P.J., & Hayes, D.C. (1977). An exploration in two cultures of political behavior in organizations. Paper presented at the Conference on Cross-Cultural Studies of Organizational Functioning, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

29. Porter, L., Allen, R.W. & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. Pp. 109149 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

31. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. W., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfield (Eds.), Impression management in organizations (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

32. Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M. and Bozeman, D. P. (1995). `The social setting of work organizations: Politics, justice, and support'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 1±18.

33. Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations: Contextualization, mobilization, and coordination. In R.M. Kramer & M.A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 67-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

119

34. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


36. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.


38. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The conceptual integration of divergent constructs. In R. Cropanzano & M. K. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 21-36). Westport, CT: Quorum.

39. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.

40. Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

41. Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

42. Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.

43. Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237-251.


45. Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A. & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of a leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

120

46. Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986a. Handbook of Organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

47. Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor sub -ordinate interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487-499.

48. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. (1996). Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal of Management, 22, 23-44.

49. Vigoda, E. (2000b). Internal politics in public administration system: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185-210.

50. Vigoda, E. (2000a). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizen’s demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration, 78, 165-191.

51. Bozeman, D. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, K. M. and Brymer, R. A. (1996). Òpportunity or threat? An examination of differential reactions to perceptions of organizational politics'.

52. Kacmar, K. M. and Carlson, D. S. (1997). `Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation', Journal of Management. Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 627-658. Southern Management Association.





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


121

59. Mintzberg. H. 1979a. Organizational power and goals: A skeletal theory.

60. Mintzberg, H. 1979b. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

61. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement nt. Chicago.

62. Madison, D.L., Allen, R.W., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A. & Mayes, B.T. (1980). Organization politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations, 33: 79-100.

63. Ferris, G.R., & Buckley, M.R. 1990. Performance evaluation in high technology firms: Process and politics. In L.R. Gomez-Mejia & M.W. Lawless (Eds.) Organizational issues in high technology management: 243-263. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

64. People who are more selfish and motivated only by personal gain (Management and organization, Col MBA. p, 32 )

65. Term Adopted from Management and Organization COLMBA. P,34), Christie and Geiss, Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970




69. Term Adopted from Cropanzano et al The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress (1997)

70. Term Adopted from Cropanzano et al The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress (1997)


72. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A. and Birjulin, A. (1994). `The relationship of organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes

122

and behavior'. Paper presented at the 1994 meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

73. Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.






79. Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Test of an implicit assumption and an expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.


81. Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizationalpolitics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891±912.



84. Pfeffer, J. (1989). A political perspective on careers: Interests, networks, and environments. Pp. 380-396 in M. G. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

123

85. Timothy A. Judge (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Walker, J. W. (1980). Human resources planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. JAI Press, Inc.2004 Gale Group.


87. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266.


89. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.

90. Ganster, D. C. and Schaubroeck, J. (1991). `Work stress and employee health', Journal of Management, 17,235-271.

91. Joure, S. A., Leon, J. S., Simpson, D. B., Holley, C. H. and Frye, R. L. (1989, March). `Stress: The pressure cooker of work', The Personnel Administrator, 34, 92-95.

92. Minter, S. G. (1991). `Relieving workplace stress', Occupational Hazards, April, pp. 39-42.

93. Murphy, L. R. (1988). `Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention'. In: Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping, and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, London.

94. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A. and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

95. Cropanzano, R., & Li, A. (in press). Organizational politics and workplace stress. In E. Vigoda-Gabot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward-Elgar.

96. Dipboye, R. L., & Foster, J. B. (2002). Multi-level theorizing about perceptions of organizational politics. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 255-270). JAI: Amsterdam.

97. ability to behave appropriately

124

98. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

99. Fried, Y., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1984). The physiological measurement of work stress: A critique. Personnel Psychology, 37, 583-615.

100. Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.

101. Cooper, C. L., & Roden, J. (1985). Mental health and satisfaction among tax officers. Social Science & Medicine, 21, 747-751.

102. Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1986). Executive women under pressure. Occupational and life stress and the family (Special issue). International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 301-326.

103. Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39-53.

104. Kobasa, S. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress among lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.

105. Blau, G. (1981). Organizational investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 279-302.

106. Mangione, B. L., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 114-116.

107. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

108. Tracy, M., and Siegall, M., Burnout and Expectancies About Alcohol Use: Drinking Behavior in a Sample of University Professors. http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/burnout.htm

109. Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87-96.


125

111. Holmbeck, G. N., Colder, C., Shapera, W., Westhoven, V., Kenealy, L., & Updegrove, A. (2000). Working with adolescents: Guides from developmental psychology. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures, (pp. 334-385). New York: Guilford Press

112. Narayanan, V. K., and L. Fahey. (1982) 'The micro-politics of strategy formulation'. Academy of Management Review 7/1: 25-34.


114. Porter, L. W., R. W. Allen, and H. L. Angle. (1983) 'The politics of upward influence in organizations' in Organizational influence processes. R. W. Allen and L. W. Porter (eds.), 408-422. Glenview, III. Scott, Foresman and Company.



117. Cavanagh, G. F., D. J. Moberg, and M. Velasquez (1981) 'The ethics of organizational politics'. Academy of Management Review 6/3: 363-374.

118. Kozlowski, S. W. J., and M. Doherty. (1989) 'Integration of climate and leadership: examination of a neglected issue'. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 546-553.






126


125. Ferris, G.R., Fedor, D., Chachere, J.G. & Pondy, L. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational contexts. Group & Organizational Studies, 14: 88-103.



128. Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41-47.

129. Dipboye, R. L. & Wiley, J. W. (1977). interviewee sex and self-presentation style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10: 1-12.

130. Gilmore, D. C. & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15: 557-564.

131. Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 971-977.


133. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M. & Fitzgibbons, D. E. in press. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

134. Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 528-542.


136. Bartol, K. M. & Martin, D. C. (1988). Influences on managerial pay allocations: A dependency perspective. Personnel Psychology, 41: 361-378.

127

137. Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely, B. . (1989). Influence tactics and salary attainment: A gender-specific analysis. Sex Roles, 20: 535-550.

138. Gould, S. & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 244-265.


140. Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In L.L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


142. Marketplace

143. Thibault, J. and Kelly, H. H. (1986). The Social Psychology of Groups, Transaction, New Brunswick.

144. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.




148. Bozeman, D. P., Perrewe , P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, K. M. and Brymer, R. A. (1996). Òpportunity or threat? An examination of differential reactions to perceptions of organizational politics'.

149. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

128





154. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.

155. Cheng, J. L. (1983). Òrganizational context and upward influence: An experimental study in the use of power tactics', Group and Organizational Studies, 8, 337-355.

156. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A. and Birjulin, A. (1994). `The relationship of organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes and behavior'. Paper presented at the 1994 meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

157. Hulin, C. L. (1991). Àdaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations'. In: Dunnette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn., Consulting Psychologistics Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 445-506.

158. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Guercio, R. (1999). Commitment as an antidote to the tension and turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 277-297.


160. Fedor, D. B., & Maslyn, J. M. (2002). Politics and political behavior: Where else do we go from here? In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 271-285). JAI: Amsterdam.

129


162. Vigoda, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics: How political dynamics affect employee performance in modern worksites. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

163. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1204-1220.





168. George, J. M., Reed, T. F., Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993). `Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support', Academy of Management Journal, 36, 157-171.

169. Shore, L. M. and Shore, T. H. (1995). `Perceived organizational support and organizational justice'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.

170. Fasolo, P. M. (1995). `Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hypothesized effects on job performance'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 185-195.

171. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job

130

performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.





176. Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995). Political fairness and fair politics: The conceptual integration of divergent constructs. In R. Cropanzano & M. K. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 21-36). Westport, CT: Quorum.




180. Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829.

181. Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L. and Jackson, S. L. (1995). `Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences', Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.

182. Ferris, G. R., Brand, J. F., Brand, S., Rowland, K. M., Gilmore, D. C., King, T. R., Kacmar, K. M., & Burton, C. A. (1993). Politics and control in organizations. In E. J.

131

Lawler, B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, & K. Heime (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 10, pp. 83-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


184. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M. & Fitzgibbons, D. E. in press. Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.





189. Vigoda, E. (2002). Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems, An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship With Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance Public Personnel Management Volume 29 No. 2 Summer 2000 185-210.

190. Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Oragan, D.W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241-253.

191. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

192. Dipboye, R. L., & Foster, J. B. (2002). Multi-level theorizing about perceptions of organizational politics. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 255-270). JAI: Amsterdam.

193. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970), Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

132

194. Netemeyer, R. G., Joshnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148-157.



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


199. Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341-358.



202. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


204. Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). JAI: Amsterdam.

133

205. Kacmar, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (1991). `Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation', Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205.


207. Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Benson, L., III. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Barling, K. Kelloway and M. Frone (Eds.) Handbook of work stress (pp. 63-87). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

208. Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and Implications for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior 57, 326-347



211. Management and Organization Course Curriculum COL MBA pp,22



214. Johns, G. (1999). A multi-level theory of self-serving behavior in and by organizations. In R.I. Sutton & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 1-38). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.



134



219. Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.

220. Porter, L.W. (1976). Organizations as political animals. Presidential address, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual

221. Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). `The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization', Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

222. Mayes, B., & Allen, R. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 4, 672-677.

223. Cropanzano, R., Kacmar, K. M. and Bozeman, D. P. (1995). `The social setting of work organizations: Politics, justice, and support'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of Work Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 1-18.



226. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.



135




232. Farrell, D. & Petersen, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7:403-412.

233. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.



236. Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An examination of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383-416.



239. Kacmar, K.M., Delery, J.E. and Ferris, G.R. (1992) Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.


136

241. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

242. Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Test of an implicit assumption and an expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.

243. information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001-inpress

244. information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001

245. information retrieved from perceptions of organizational politics Theory and research directions by Ferris et al 2001





250. Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 821-829.

251. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A. and Birjulin, A. (1994). `The relationship of organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes and behavior'. Paper presented at the 1994 meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.


137




256. Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organizational Science, 7. 151-165.







263. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. M. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

138

264. Anderson, T. P. (1994). Creating measures of dysfunctional office and organizational politics. Psychology, 18, 159-180.

265. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 103: 41-423.Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 1-14.

266. Bacharach, S.B., & Lawler, E.J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

267. Bartol, K. M. & Martin, D. C. (1990). When politics pays: Factors influencing managerial compensation decisions. Personnel Psychology, 43: 599-614.

268. Bentler, P. M. (1985). Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program, BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles.

269. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS Structural Equation Program Manual. BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles.

270. Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. (1980). `Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures', Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

271. Bies, R. J. and Tripp, T. M. (1995). `The use and abuse of power: Justice as social control'. In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, M. K. (Eds) Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 131-145.

272. Boehm, V.R. (1980). Research in the "real world"--A conceptual model. Personnel Psychology, 33: 495-503.

273. In: Schnake, M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.

274. Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W. and Price, J. L. (1988). `Discriminate validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment', Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139-145.

275. Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Àlternative ways of assessing model fit'. In: Bollen, K. and Lang, J. S. (Eds) Testing Structural Equation Model, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

276. Cannon, W. B. (1935). Stress and strains of homeostasis. American Journal of Medical Science, 189, 1.

139

277. Cobb, A. T. (1986). `Political diagnosis: Applications in organizational development', Academy of Management Review, 11, 482-496.

278. Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

279. Cropanzano, R. and Grandey, A. (in press). Ìf politics is a game, then what are the rules?: Three suggestions for ethical management'. In: Schminke, M. (Ed.) Organizations and Ethics: Morally Managing People and Processes, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

280. Cropanzano, R. and Schminke, M. (in press). `Justice as the mortar of social cohesion'. In: Turner, M. (Ed.) Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

281. Cropanzano, R., James, K. and Konovsky, M. A. (1993). `Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-600.

282. Dreher, G. F., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely, B. (1985). Generalizability of MBA degree and socioeconomic status effects on business school graduates' salaries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 769-773.

283. Dierendonck, D. V., Schaufeli,W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). The evaluation of an individual burnout intervention program: the role of inequity and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 392-407.

284. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1988). `What organizational politics is: Organization members' perceptions', Organization Studies, 9/2, 165-179.

285. Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being. Academy of Management Review, 17, 238-274.

286. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). `Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation', Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.

287. Evans, M.G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46: 6-15.

288. Frost, P.J. & Egri, C.P. (1991). The political process of innovation. Pp. 229-295 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 13. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

140

289. Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333.

290. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Coping and emotion. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (pp. 207-227). New York: Columbia University Press.

291. Freedman, S. M. (1978). Some determinants of compensation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 379-409.

292. Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1991). `Coping and emotion'. In: Monat, A. and Lazarus, R. S. (Eds) Stress and Coping: An Anthology, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 207-227.

293. Forster, N (2004). Maximum Performance, A practical guide to Leading and managing People at work, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 7, 276-296.

294. Gray, B. & Ariss, S. (1985). Politics and strategic change across organizational life cycles. Academy of Management Review. 10: 707.723.

295. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

296. Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

297. Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J. & Lucas, J.A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 536-544.

298. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

299. Hobfoll, S. E. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 115-129). New York: Taylor & Francis.

300. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

301. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

141

302. Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81-127). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

303. Jex, S. M., Beehr, T. A., & Roberts, C. K. (1992). The meaning of occupational stress items to survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 623-628.

304. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rothenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, England: John Wiley.

305. Kanter, R.M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. Pp. 169-211 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

306. Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

307. Keil, R. M. K. (2004). Coping and stress: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45, 659-665.

308. Kim, J.O. & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

309. Maslach, C. (1978). The client role in staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 111-124.

310. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

311. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.

312. Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. (1990). À review and meta-analysis of the antecedent, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment', Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

313. Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. (1984). `Testing the ``side bet theory'' of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.

314. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. and Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Àffective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720.

142

315. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goon, R. D. and Jackson, D. N. (1989). Òrganizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts', Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

316. Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin. 103: 391-410.

317. McDonald, R.P. & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 247-255.

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


320. Mintzberg, H. 1979b. The structuring of orgnizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

321. Mintzberg. H. (1979a). Organzational power and goals: A skeletal theory.

322. Morrison, E.W. (1992). An exploratory study of information acquisition during socialization. Paper presented at the 1992 Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Quebec.

323. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, D. C. Heathy & Company, Lexington, MA.

324. Osler, W. (1910). The Lumleian lectures on angina pectoris. Lancet, 1, 696-700, 839-844, 974-977.

325. Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., et al. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429-452.

326. Pfeffer, J. (1982). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

327. Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout. New York: The Free Press.

328. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

143

329. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69-82.

330. Porter, L. W., R. W. Allen, and H. L. Angle. (1983) 'The politics of upward influence in organizations' in Organizational influence processes. R. W. Allen and L. W. Porter (eds.), 408-422. Glenview, III. Scott, Foresman and Company.

331. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

332. Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986b. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

333. Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Helplessness: On development, depression and death. New York: Freeman.

334. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 26-48). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

335. Romm, T. and Drory, A. (1988). `Political behavior in organizations Ða cross-cultural comparison', International Journal of Value Based Management, 1, 165-179.

336. Rusbult, C. E. and Farrell, D. (1983). À longitudinal test of the investment model', Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429-627.

337. Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G. and Mainous, A. G. (1988). Ìmpact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction', Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627.

338. Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P. and Camman, C. (Eds) (1982). Observing and Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice, Wiley, New York.

339. Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Helplessness: On development, depression and death. New York: Freeman.

340. Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse noxious agents. Nature, 138, 32.

341. Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life (Revised Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill

342. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity', Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

144

343. Shirom, A. (1989). Burnout in work organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 26-48). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

344. Shore, L. M. and Tetrick, L. E. (1991). À construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643.

345. Shore, L. M. and Wayne, S. J. (1993). `Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support', Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780. Shirom, A. (1989). Burnout in work organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.

346. Tracy, M., and Siegall, M., Burnout and Expectancies About Alcohol Use: Drinking Behavior in a Sample of University Professors. http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2004/burnout.htm



349. Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organizational Science, 7. 151-165.






145

355. Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor sub -ordinate interactions. Journal of Applied Psycology, 75: 487-499.

356. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. and Liden, R. C. (1997). `Perceived organizational support and leader member exchange: A social exchange perspective', Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.

357. Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. (1991). `Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors', Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

358. Witt, L. A. (1995). Influences of supervisor behaviors on the levels and effects of workplace politics. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 37-53). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

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

360. Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341-358.

146

Glossary

absenteeism, 30, 38

Age, 63

antecedents, 39, 48

Aristotle, 8

cabal, 23, 34, 73

competitive styles, 33

congruence, 45

continuance, 38

decision structures, 41

demographics, 22, 40

effectiveness, 48, 53

exit rates, 11, 15

exogenous, 47

external force, 41

favoritism, 34, 71, 72

Feedback, 21

groupthink, 41

indigenous, 47

Injustice, 43

job anxiety, 20, 48

Job autonomy, 22

job congruence, 44

Job satisfaction, 16

justice, 33, 40

loyalty, 24, 48

Machiavellianism, 23, 46

market place, 33

marketplace, 32, 34

micropolitics, 45

minority status, 48

motivation, 10, 11, 15, 34, 44, 61, 99, 101, 102,

110, 113

negative relationship, 23, 42, 43, 49, 96, 107, 109

negligent attitude, 38, 112

OCB, 38, 57

organizational citizenship behavior, 38, 41

organizational support, 37, 98, 110, 113

personality traits, 21, 40

physical withdrawal, 48, 89, 112

political behaviors, 10, 22, 30, 40, 44

recognition, 31, 48

role ambiguity, 42

role conflict, 42

self serving instinct, 33

social contract, 42

span of control, 21, 49

statecraft, 41

stress, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44,

112, 114, 115

turnover, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 24, 28, 33, 38, 42, 89,

112, 113

unidimensional, 46

work stress, 26, 91

workplace, 8, 9, 23, 30, 32, 35, 40, 43, 44

147

Questionnaire

NOTE: I really appreciate your feedback in this survey. Information gathered by this

survey will be confidential and none of its part will be shared with any other

person/organization.

Directions

Multiple choices are provided for following questions. Please respond to each question as

honestly as you can.

Where required kindly add your answer in text form.

General information

Age:(20-29) (30-39) (40-49) (50 & above)

Gender Male ( ) Female ( ) No of Supervisors:

Designation:

Highest degree:Graduation Masters

Please select the most appropriate option with which you agree or disagree.

Particular Scale

S.

NoStrongly

Agree

Moderately

AgreeUndecided Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Perception of Organizational Politics (POPS)

1. Do you think that

organizational

decisions are always

transparent?

148

2. Good performance

and hard work is a

key to promotions and

raises in salary?

3. Personal favorites are

awarded with better

raises in salary and

promotions?

4. There is always a

group/person that

influences the formal

decisions in

organization?

5. It is always a better

idea to stay with some

influential group to

get high raise and

promotion?

6. Organizational goals

should always be

preferred even if they

contradict with

personal objectives?

7. I always prefer to

work in a situation

where people are

neutral in thoughts

and affiliations

Employee Withdrawal Behavior

S.

NoStrongly

Agree

Moderately


Strongly

Disagree

149

8 Telling the truth is

good rather than

propagating heard

stories?

9 Being silent is good

rather than

propagating heard

rumors?

10 Wise suggestions are

always appreciated

even if they oppose

supervisors?

11 I don’t care about

crunch modes because

it is a norm in my

organization?

12 It is always better to

be quite rather than

struggle for basic

rights like proper

performance

evaluation?

13 It is always better to

spent sometime in

relaxing activities

rather than doing

work of others.

General Fatigue

S.

NoStrongly

Agree

Moderately


Strongly

Disagree

150

14 I feel I am

overburdened because

some people are doing

nothing in the

organization

15 I am not 100%

because I am mentally

and physically

overloaded with office

assignments?

16 I cannot spend much

time with my family

because I have lot of

things to do in office

17 I feel exhausted at

times because people

are not ready to

cooperate in drastic

situations?


18 It is very disturbing

for me when people

discuss their day to

day problems in office

Job Motivation (in-role extra role)

19 I always prefer to

finish tasks assigned

to me and on time?

S.

NoStrongly

Agree

Moderately


Strongly

Disagree

151

20 I often offer my

services for

assignments other

than my job

responsibilities


21 This organization is

not aligned with my

career objectives

22 I will always prefer to

be a part of this

organization?

23 I can be assigned with

any responsibility

because I am really

concerned about my

organization?

How would you rate the impact of organizational politics on an individual’s growth?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

How would you rate the impact of organizational politics in organizational growth?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Documents

Ihsan Sabh Thesis (1)