leaders’ political skill, organizational politics savvy, and change … · 2012-03-21 · 2...
TRANSCRIPT
Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – May 2008
Imran Qaboos Cheema Hafsa Amin Cheema Kashif Ashraf School of Business and Economics University of Management and Technology
Although leadership concept has been a topic of inquiry from the last one century particularly
in business organizations, there has been relatively little research that addresses the impact
of its different dimensions on organizational change. Some scholars have explored the effect
of transformational leadership on cultural change but it is a broad effort. In this paper we
develop a conceptual framework that articulate which specific dimensions of leaders will
enable them to accept change and then mobilize and motivate their followers for its
acceptance.
In this paper we have limited the scope of discussion by defining leadership general
influential role in all work settings without differentiating among its different theories and
typologies. Then we focus on two important dimensions of leaders’ i.e. political skill and
better understanding of organizational politics and their effect on organizational change. We
have taken organizational change in broader sense that includes all forms of change e.g.
mergers, acquisitions, culture etc.
A few studies have attempted to conceptualize independent relationships between
organizational politics, political skill, and different personal and organizational outcome. This
paper searches into the effects of leaders’ political skill in conjunction with their
organizational politics savvy on organizational change. We present a model that
2 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
conceptualizes this leading process. It is argued on the basis of the research and theory of
leadership, political skill, organizational politics, and change that leaders who have political
skill can develop a better understanding of organizational politics and can also use different
influencing skills particularly their political skill to initiate, promote, and lead a positive
change in organizations. This “right stuff” will make them more effective in managing friction
and resistance against change and ultimately enable them to cope with dysfunctional
conflicts. We develop propositions regarding the political skill of leaders and its influence on
organizational change through better understanding of organizational politics. These
propositions also throw light that a leader with innate or developed political skill can develop
a better understanding of organizational politics and also a savvy of organizational politics
can brush up their political skill. To our view these both comprehend each other and can give
more favorable results if employed simultaneously. By this we have tried to explore the
leaders’ qualities and skills which motivate acceptance of change by individuals during and
after change process. Implications for practice, future potential research areas, and
limitations of the paper are also given.
A few studies have attempted to conceptualize independent
relationships between organizational politics, political skill, and
different personal and organizational outcome. This paper searches
into the effects of leaders’ political skill and their understanding of
organizational politics on organizational change. We present a
model that conceptualizes how organizational leaders manage the
change in organizations by using their political skill and
organizational politics savvy. It is argued on the basis of the
research and theory of leadership, political skill, organizational
politics, and change that leaders who have political skill can develop
a better understanding of organizational politics and can also use
different influencing skills particularly their political skill to initiate,
promote, and lead a positive change in organizations. This “right
stuff” will make them more effective in managing friction and
resistance against change and ultimately enable them to cope with
dysfunctional conflicts. After defining leadership, leaders’ political
skill, organizational politics, and change in organizations, we
develop propositions regarding the political skill of leaders and its
influence on organizational change through better understanding of
organizational politics. Implications for practice, future potential
research areas, and limitations of the paper are also given.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 3
Introduction
Leadership concept has been prevailing throughout the history of human. Normally
researchers start it from ancient Greece philosophers and try to find its traces in the philosophic
thoughts of Socrates. They make Plato’s The Republic as the starting point about their leadership
thoughts and articulate his view that the world’s problems would be solved only when philosophers will
become kings or kings would take up philosophy. In The Republic he also detailed some of the skills
and other relevant characteristics of the ruling class. After that the work of Machiavelli (1961) comes
as a “literary model of sorts” i.e. The Prince. Recently Keohane (2005) has proposed some better
qualities to prospective leaders. He takes Machiavelli’s The Prince as a model in terms of format for
his suggestions to organizational leaders, and offers his opinions either in agreement or
disagreement. He has adopted the normative approach in his thoughts same as of Machiavelli and
paid attention to what leaders actually do. The key of leadership is to influence and motivate others
(Iacocca, 1985) and their ultimate objective is to boost up the productivity of organization through
people. They are in the business of capital and they have one law: the business of money to make
money (Akbar, 2006).
The literature of political theory reveals that at first the leadership concept was built up on the
phenomenological level i.e. the society then it boiled down to a concept at the organization level and
in the end it became a practice concept for leaders. For our paper we attempt to theorize it for all
categories and typologies of leadership without any differentiation (e.g. between leadership concept
from dispositional point i.e. Transformational, Transactional, Charismatic, and from situational point
i.e. Autocratic, Democratic, Bureaucratic, and Laissez-Faire) because according to Simon (1952)
sometimes every arbitrary selected unit does not define a suitable level for scientific study. Much of
the leadership is a social influence process. This requires a broad set of skills and knowledge of when
to apply them. This is the realm of political skill and organizational politics savvy. Political behavior is
also an influencing behavior in a sense that in this an individual attempts to influence others to
achieve some ends, either personal or organizational. Therefore it is the intention of the influencer
that qualifies the influencing behavior. Politics is an inevitable part of organizations and political skill is
essential for all types of leaders. Therefore for inborn or learned political skill and understanding of
organizational politics phenomenon the concept of leadership is taken here in its generic influencing
role. Same is the case for all the organizational situations because every situation requires political
skill. Change is the only constant factor in this world (Iqbal, 2003) and same is the case with
organizations as Berquist (1993) argues that in postmodern world, organizations have to deal with as
much chaos as order and change is a constant dynamic. Change has been an ongoing process due to
environment threats or within organizational forces. It has proven to be a significant and popular
mean for achieving organizational growth and corporate diversity and expansion (Cartwright & Copper,
1992). It is the responsibility of leaders to promote change and to create vision (Bass, 1985). Bass
and Avolio (1994) emphasize that change is accomplished through the leader’s implementation of the
unique vision of the organization through powerful persuasive skills, characteristics, and actions. As
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
4 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
per demand of the change, for a more typical leader there appear to be many missing skills rather
than just one. Failure of leadership in managing change seems to result from an intricate synergy of
leadership deficiencies i.e. political skill and poor understanding of organizational politics. Hence the
purpose of this paper is to understand the role of leaders’ political skill and their understanding of
organizational politics in organizational change.
In the work of Ferris, Berkson, Kaplan, Gilmore, Buckley, Hochwarter, & Witt (1999), Ferris,
Perrewe´, Anthony, & Gilmore (2000), Ferris, Treadway, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, Kacmar, Douglas, &
Frink (2005), Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ferris (2004), Perrewe´, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony (2000),
Perrewe´, Zellars, Ferris, Rossi, Kacmar, & Ralston (2004), Perrewe´, Zellars, Rossi, Ferris, Kacmar,
Liu, Zinko, & Hochwarter (2005), and Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter (2004), by and
large political skill has been considered as having a direct or moderating role for different
organizational outcomes e.g. for team performance, role conflict, and job stress. Their research
sounds that this skill can give desired results exclusively. We will take the definition of political skill by
Ferris et al. (1999), Perrewe´ et al. (2004), and Ahearn et al. (2004) and will go a step further by
suggesting that this skill can give more favorable outcomes when combined with leaders
understanding of organizational politics. The second contribution of the paper is that we will try to find
the relationship of these two constructs with organizational change. To the best of our knowledge no
one has explored this area. In the next sections we will define the key constructs to develop our
propositions and to present our model.
Leadership
Leadership concept surfaced in the business world in the early 19th century (Davis &
Cushing, 1999). The apex of the leadership is to enable ordinary people to produce extraordinary
things while facing challenges and change and to constantly turn in superior performance to the long-
term benefit of all the concerned constituencies (Charlton, 2000). The following brief wording from
many definitions is chosen to describe the difference between management and leadership:
legitimate power and control vs. empowerment and change. The role of leaders in organizations has
been changed entirely due to change in global environment. Now the notion of leadership is not
attached with a person who only controls the employees. It is replaced with the leaders who are
visionary, assist employees to plan, organize, lead and control their activities. Michela and Burke
(2000) view is that leaders are hoped to initiate organizational change and to generate followers
acceptance by effecting and changing their perceptions. Yeo (2006) is of the view that the
development of employees in order to create a learning environment and to emphasize self-
management and entrepreneurial behavior is the responsibility of business leaders. Due to
unpredictable, diversified, and complex work situations different kinds of leaders will emerge to lead
in ways different from those of the past (Jooste, 2004). In the following discussion we will reflect on
the evolution of leadership and conceptualize it for this paper.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 5
The Past–Present–Future Leadership Scenario
In the past, patterns and characteristics of the organization were hierarchical structures and
authority, inflexibility, formalization, centralized controls, a stable environment, and less competition
within and outside. Organizations believed that change was for someone else. Most of the markets
were of selling nature and the philosophy to run an organization was to produce and dump into the
market. Due to the dynamism in the environmental forces, breadth and change in consumers’ needs,
desires and preferences, markets has become more turbulent and volatile. In these circumstances
organizations have to adopt outside-in approach and bring drastic changes (Day, 1990). For example
Cartwright and Schoenberg (2006) have reported that in 2004, 30000 acquisitions were completed
globally, equivalent to one transaction every 18 minutes. The total worth of theses acquisition was $
1900 billion, greater than the GDP of several large countries. In this new organizational context
positions and responsibilities are less static and more open-ended, and the familiar upper, middle and
lower level boundaries are being redrawn and even some of them are being removed to meet the
competition. In the past the emphasis has been on how leaders oversee the work of people within
fixed units (Chapman, 2001). Recently leadership competence is important, assessing past impacts
and current reality, matching job requirements with strategic human resource systems to address the
future. The main focus is on the identification of strategies and factors that may explain the
performance of individuals and organizations. Future departmental level leaders should undergo
transformation from implementers to aggressive entrepreneurs. The middle level managers are
playing the role of coaches and mentors instead of controllers, and top-level leaders are leading their
organizations by setting direction and objectives of business rather providing sufficient resources
(Chapman, 2001). The lesson of the past is that leaders should identify future trends in technology,
social and culture developments, demographics, economics, politics and market expectations that can
influence organization and force them to bring a change (Jooste, 2004). In this scenario leadership is
the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations. Leaders therefore must be
skilled in change management process and motivate others to follow it (Van Kinppenberg & Hogg,
2003). Hence one of their prime jobs is to predict and lead or manage change by mobilizing and
motivating followers and for that purpose they need political skill and organizational politics
understanding.
When one goes through the leadership literature extensively he identifies that it has been
produced by two camps i.e. of dispositionalists and situationalists. The leadership theories produced
as the phenomenons of situation are Group and Exchange Theory of Leadership (Graen& Uhl-Bien,
1995), Contingency Theory of Leadership proposed by Fiedler, and Path-Goal Theory by Evans and
House. The theories of Leadership that are mediated from personality paradigm are Great Man
Theory, Transactional, Transformational, and Charismatic Leadership Theories. From the past few
years leaders skills has become the topic of research for theorists e.g. the work of House and
Podsakoff, and of Whetten and Cameron (Luthans, 2002).
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
6 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
In addition to influence, leadership has been defined in terms of processes, personality
compliance, particular behaviors, persuasion, power, goal achievement, interaction, and role
differentiation, initiation of structure, and combination of two or more of these aspects. As a matter of
fact we do not undermine and deny any of the paradigms but for this paper we lean toward the later
view i.e. skills for leadership. We will develop our thesis in the later discussion that all types of leaders
need political skill and the leaders who have or can incorporate it in their personality will most likely
be able to develop a better understanding of organizational politics and as a result will be able to
manage change effectively.
By and large the researchers developed their theories of leadership by focusing on one
paradigm and ignoring the other. This approach can reveal the partial reality only. This paper
concludes that for a holistic view one should consider all the dimension of this construct and should
adopt an integrative approach i.e. the role of personality, situation, and skills in leadership. This
integrative approach is more real and comprehensive. That’s why for this paper we argue that two
constructs are of perennial importance for leadership i.e. political skill and organizational politics.
Political skill is an interpersonal skill that can be innate or learned and organizational politics is the
combination of both personality and situation. From the above discussion of leadership we can derive
our first proposition.
Proposition 1. The Leadership theories that are developed by integrative approach (situation,
disposition, and skills) are most likely to comprehend leadership concept.
Marketing of an idea, persuasion and allures are far better alchemists of social change than
political compulsion, remembering that researchers like Zalezink (1970) and Mintzberg (1983)
considered business organizations as social settings. In work settings it’s wise to get one’s job by
influencing others and making allies. Leaders who are equipped with social and interpersonal skills
are supposed to manage their activities effectively. So we propose our second proposition.
Proposition 2. The leadership theories that incorporate social and interpersonal skills are
most likely to give a real and practical approach.
In the subsequent part we will discuss political skill and will also attempt to articulate that it is
a different skill as compare to other interpersonal skills. Then we will give the details of organizational
politics and finally it will be concluded that leaders equipped with political skill and knowledge of
organizational politics are most likely to manage change more successfully and positively.
Interpersonal Control
Leaders in organizations are viewed as desirous of increasing their control; they can gain and
exercise it if they apply their interpersonal skills properly particularly their political skill. They make
decisions and consult other proposals and petitions. They motivate their team by giving incentives and
sanctioning resources. They identify and share strategies that can solve organizational problems. They
are determined to achieve the desired goals and for this they persuade or force others to follow a
course of action. All these activities have to be performed in work setting and the scope of leadership
also differs from that of most others activities. According to Keohane (2005) the issues that leaders
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 7
must address have broad implications, and a large number of human beings are affected. Kotter
(1998) stresses that leadership in contrast to management is the process of motivating people to
change. It has been suggested that by influencing the nature of the work environment and
organizational culture, leaders can have an effect on employees’ attitude to work related change. The
challenge then is to select and acquire a particular set of skills and actions that are prone to absorb
change and resources in organizations (Amabile, 1998). Thus they require interpersonal and social
skills.
Research in the areas of social capital, emotional intelligence, positive psychology, and
knowledge management has revealed that interpersonal relationships are critical to one’s
performance at work and career success (Ferris et al., 2000). Perrewe et al. (2000) proposed that the
ability of an individual to form positive interpersonal relationships should leverage their ability to cope
with stressful job demands. This ability gives leaders a sense of self-confidence and personal security
by developing a deep understanding and control over events. Fredrickson (1998) accentuates that it
enhances individuals’ psychological well-being, performance, and generates tangible benefits. It also
recovers the bad experience of negative effectiveness. In this paper, this ability of the leaders is
referred as political skill, which is discussed in the following part.
Political Skill
Over two decades ago, Pfeffer (1981) argued for a political perspective on organizations that
introduced “political skill” as a critical competency for effectiveness in the ambiguous and often
turbulent environments of political organizations. Mintzberg (1983, 1985) also coined the term
“political skill” and suggested that organizations could be characterized as political arenas, and for
survival and success in such work settings the possession of “political will and political skill” is
required. Mintzberg made reference to political skill as the exercise of influence using negotiation,
manipulation, and persuasion. How-ever, Pfeffer and Mintzberg work was of basic nature and they did
not contribute in the conceptual or empirical development of this construct. After their work we find a
gap of almost fifteen years until Ferris et al. (1999) broke the ice and made an initial attempt to more
fully conceptualize, establish the construct domain, and empirically assess political skill. They have
further developed and validated the political skill inventory (Ferris et al., 2005). Therefore, building on
the early work by Pfeffer (1981) and Mintzberg (1983), and as well as the work of Ferris et al. (1999,
2005), the next section presents the definition and construct validity of political skill.
Definition and Origin
Political skill is characterized by social perceptiveness and the ability to adjust one’s
behaviors to different and changing situational needs (Ferris et al., 1999, 2005) and the
ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to
influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational
objectives (Perrewe´ et al., 2004, p. 142, and Aheran et al., 2004, p. 311).
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
8 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Although other dimensions of social skills like social intelligence, emotional intelligence, ego-resiliency,
social self-efficacy, self monitoring and practical intelligence can influence political skill (Ferris,
Perrewe´, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000; Ferris, Perrewe´, & Douglas, 2002), but research has
demonstrated that political skill is a distinct construct with respectable psychometric properties (Ferris
et al., 1999, 2000, 2005; Perrewe´ et al., 2004, 2005).
Issues pertaining to the derivation of political skill are concerned with whether this construct
reflects a skill, an ability, or a trait, and therefore whether it is a learned competency or innate. We
conceptualize that leaders can be predisposed to political skill, but it can be shaped and developed
through training. This view is consistent with contemporary integrative dispositional–situational
approach which we have discussed throughout the paper.
Construct Validity
Basically political skill was designed to focus on interactions in work organizations; on the
contrary we also see it as conceptually unique to other social effectiveness constructs typically
characterized as more general competencies affecting social interactions in a broad array of everyday
contexts (e.g., Ferris, Perrewe´, & Douglas, 2002). There is some natural overlap of the construct
domains of political skill and some other social effectiveness measures. Therefore, it is expected that
modest relationships would be found between political skill and particular personality characteristics
that tend to focus on social interactions, as well as with some other social effectiveness measures e.g.
understanding of organizational politics.
Ferris et al. (1999) argued that politically skilled individuals develop an intuitive savvy, and
they reflect positive interpersonal effectiveness that might relate to other social effectiveness
constructs, as well as to some personality characteristics. Ferris et al. (1999) reported that political
skill was modestly related to self-monitoring (r = .13 and .21, p < .01, in two samples), positive
affectivity (r = .36, p < .001), extraversion (r = .28, p < .01), empathy (r = .28, p < .01), and
conscientiousness (r = .25, p < .01). They also argued that politically skilled individuals enjoy a sense
of personal security and self-confidence from prior experience in, and mastery over, their work
environments and the individuals with whom they interact. Perrewe´ et al. (2004) found significant
negative relationships between political skill and both cognitive anxiety (r = –.30, p < .01) and somatic
anxiety (r = –.23, p < .01).
Such personal security and self-confidence may contribute to politically skilled individuals
experiencing more control in organizational change process. Such individuals appear to be more
resistant to the potentially dysfunctional conflicts and thus can deal with chaos and disturbance while
initiating, leading, and promoting change. This would suggest an inverse relationship between political
skill and problems of change.
Regarding discriminant validity, the main challenge is to demonstrate that political skill is not
correlated with intelligence or cognitive ability. In psychology and the organizational sciences, cognitive
ability has dominated the category of individual differences, regularly explaining substantial variance
in personnel selection contexts and concerning other work outcomes. Research across several
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 9
samples has revealed that there is a zero correlation between political skill and cognitive ability, thus
supporting its discriminant validity (Ferris et al., 1999, 2005).
Although there has been a proliferation of social effectiveness constructs in recent years, and
there is the need to theoretically and empirically distinguish among them, it is perhaps most important
to demonstrate the lines of demarcation between political skill and social skill, primarily because
these two constructs sometimes have been used interchangeably and are suggested to be redundant
because of similarity. However, in the research literature, scholars have made clear distinctions
between social skill and political skill (Luthans, 2002; Peled, 2000). Peled argued that social skill
refers to
the ease and comfort of communication between leaders and their employees,
peers, superiors, and clients (p. 27).
Alternatively, Peled suggested that political skill refers to
the manager’s ability to manipulate his or her interpersonal relationships with
employees, colleagues, clients, and supervisors to ensure the ultimate success of the
project (p. 27).
Because both political skill and social skill have their roots in the early work on social intelligence
there is bound to be some similarity in the two constructs, and perhaps reflected by modest
correlations. However, we see these as two distinct constructs with different derivations and
uniqueness.
With an ability to perceive others and the situation accurately, politically skilled people have
an intuitive savvy and understanding of people and events in organizations (Ahearn et al., 2004). The
tacit knowledge derived from such understanding helps to effectively regulate interpersonal
interactions. Consequently, politically skilled individuals enjoy a sense of personal security and
increased feelings of control (Ferris et al., 1999, 2005; Perrewe´ et al., 2004) over the process and
outcomes of interpersonal interactions. Politically skilled individuals combine social astuteness with
the capacity to adjust their behavior to different and changing situational demands in a manner that
appears to be sincere, inspires support and trust, and effectively influences and controls the
responses of others. Trust and transparency become more important when employee perceive
hypocrisy in various change processes.
Political Skill and Change in Organizations
Organizations are neither uniform nor static. They evolve over time, and so it seems
reasonable to posit that all work settings will exhibit continuous and incremental changes punctuated
on occasions by more episodic and radical changes (Weick & Quinn, 1999) e.g. mergers and
acquisitions represent major and sudden change. It would be problematic if employees will not follow
the change. There is a single right answer to all managerial problems. Some options may appear
better than others but outcomes invariably depend upon context, timing, and implementation.
Successful leadership is a process of continual adjustment to changing environment. The
leaders’ need is to establish and develop distinctive skills and competencies like political skill and
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
10 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
organizational politics savvy through their personal analysis, and then match this very skill with best
opportunities for change in the organization. Simultaneously they must be sensitive to the politicking
and resistance from their subordinates.
Companies that manage change in their favor are run by leaders who have this skill, usually
because of their role in establishing the organization culture favorable to change. They make some
critical and some not-so-critical decisions in this regard e.g. real delegation of power and not only the
lip service, and intimating with their workers respectively. The political skill orientation is a very
important variable in influencing decisions than are the leaders with out this course. Political skill
enables them to scan the environment, establish sensitive controls, and facilitate internal
communication before and after change. They discuss organizational matters with middle and lower
level managers and also down the road with employees. Understanding of organizational politics
guides them the right situation and time for decentralization and delegation, and also sensitize on the
hoarding of power. Traditions in the organization may impede any attempt at radical change, but
leaders having this “stuff” can move the organization in the preferred direction.
Political skill reinforces individuals’ belief, at a given point in time, in their ability to act as a
causal agent to effect change in the intended direction on their environment (Greenberger & Strasser,
1986) and achieve what they desire (Perrewe´ et al., 2004). Political skill makes interactions more
predictable, reducing the pressures caused by uncertainty, and in turn, enhancing perceived control
over events (Ferris et al., 1999). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that, when facing daunting challenges
of change politically skilled people will find ways to solve the immediate problem or at least determine
how to “get by” i.e., cope (Perrewe et al., 2005).
Politically skilled individuals not only are successful at regulating interpersonal interactions
but also know exactly how to exert such influences in a manner that facilitates interpersonal
relationships characterized by confidence, trust, and sincerity (Ferris, Hochwarter, Blass, Kolodinsky, &
Treadway, 2002). Politically skilled people view interpersonal interactions as opportunities (vs.
threats), facilitating the establishment of friendships, connections, and alliances, which in turn
ensures a favorable social identity in their network (Perrewe´ et al., 2000) by the help of which they
can manipulate the environment in their favor for desired change.
For example, politically skilled individuals may enjoy network centrality, enabling them to gain
access to important information. Moreover, the confidence and trust placed in politically skilled
individuals likely increase cooperation from others in the network. Therefore, in addition to
contributing to a greater sense of perceived control, political skill, and the accompanying interpersonal
influence, may enable individuals to gain actual control over events, thus helping individuals to cope
with job demands fitting to organizational change.
Collectively, the literature suggests that political skill provides a unique type of control in work
settings, that is, interpersonal control. With their social perceptiveness and the ability to productively
use insights gained, politically skilled individuals are at a vantage point in controlling the outcomes of
interpersonal interaction, enhancing their ability to cope with job demands. Through effective
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 11
regulation of interpersonal interactions, political skill may act as a coping resource, thereby
attenuating the negative effects of change process. From the analysis of body of literature of political
skill we can posit our third proposition i.e.
Proposition 3. The leaders who are predisposed with political skill or who can develop it later
are most likely to manage change effectively in organizations.
Perrewe´ and her colleagues (2000) found that political skill served as an antidote to
workplace stressors, its role for the negative influences of role conflict on strain (Perrewe´ et al.,
2004), and it also takes away the bad effects in the role overload-strain relationship (Perrewe´ et al.,
2005) . Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, and Ferris (2004) found that moderate levels of political skills were
associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of job tension, they also conclude that
in comparison to more moderate levels higher and lower levels of political skill were adversely related
to these outcomes. In another important study by Ahrean et al. (2004) leader political skill explained a
significant proportion of variance in team performance of casework team in a large state child welfare
system. Although these all are important findings and explained the prediction power of leader’s
political skill but more studies were needed to examine the effect of this skill on other organizational
outcomes e.g. organizational change. We hope that this paper will fill this gap. This skill can produce
more favorable results if it is combined with leader understanding of organizational politics.
One of the axiom of this study is that leaders having political skill can manage change in a
more effective way if they can develop a better understanding of organizational politics, as it is also
about the influence processes in organizations. These two concepts are very much related to each
other in a sense that through political skill one can understand organizational politics and the other
way is that by developing a better understanding of politics in organizations leaders can develop and
brush up their political skill. The first step in this direction is that leaders should develop a true picture
of organizational life.
People are the most important ingredient of the organizations. This is the human capital that
gives a competitive edge to an organization in the presence of abundant capital and technological
resources. Studies support this view that organizations are the functions of the different kinds of
people; and not vice versa (Schneider, 1987).
When an individual joins an organization and becomes a part of the workplace community, he
only does this to fulfill his self-interests. This supposition is presumably false that people enter in the
jobs to serve the organization (Cheema, 2006). In fact the prime motive of joining an organization is to
serve one’s own interests (Mayes & Allen, 1977; Mintzberg, 1985; Pfeffer, 1981).People come to work
situations with many goals and preferences. These goals invoke conflict and competition among
workers to utilize the scarce resources. This competition, in turn, affects the use of power and politics
in organizations (Wilson, 1995). Some researchers have associated political activity in organizations
with the distribution of resources or other advantages (Harvey & Mills, 1970; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1974; Pfeffer, 1981 Wildavsky, 1964).
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
12 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Consideration of the human factor involved should guide the formulation and implementation
of the change process. The key to choosing the right approach to change is to keep in mind how
organizations function. As a social system comprising of work, people, formal and informal systems,
organizations are inherently resistant to change and designed to neutralize the impact of attempts at
change. Leaders can play a critical role in selecting and planning appropriate change management
approaches. They can do this job if they have organizational politics savvy by encompassing a real
picture of the organizational life.
During the last two decades the concept of organizational politics has received an increased
attention in management literature. This attention relied partly on the expectation of finding new
answers to some old questions, such as what motivate or demotivate individuals at work and how can
we explain variations in employees’ behavior and their performance in a better way. In the following
part we will discuss organizational politics in some details and its relation with political skill and
organizational change.
Organizational Politics
Michela and Burke (2000) argue that to change an organization, one must first understand
the organization. Leaders’ organizational politics savvy will provide them opportunity to fully
understand the work settings. In term, organizational politics is built upon intra-organizational
influence tactics used by organizational members to promote self-interests or organizational goals in
different ways. It is usually associated with phenomenon such as power, struggles, and conflicts over
the sources of power, influence, and planned and directed attempts to actualize warring interests in
the workplace (Vigoda, 2003; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Ferris, Fedor, Chachere, & Pondy, 1989a).
A politically oriented manager might use the performance evaluation system for self-promotion or
show favoritism to a personal friend. According to this definition politics is generally perceived as
dysfunctional (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Randall,
Cropanzano, Borman, & Birjulin, 1999).
Therefore one can say that conflicts in workplace are almost inevitable and theories of
organizational conflict are helpful in analyzing the possible consequences of organizational politics
(Vigoda, 2000). This is the political skill of the astute managers that help them to resolve these
conflicts. It also has the potential to enhance growth and stability and facilitate effective decision-
making and effective management of organizational change.
From the literature it is evident that organizational politics has two connotations i.e. positive
and negative and both will be considered here. The common perception is that politics in the
workplace is a necessary evil, unfair and irrational and thus have impression of harming the
organization and its members that led to definition of negative organizational politics (Drory & Beaty,
1991; Ferris & King, 1991). One can also define it as manipulation, achievement of goals in improper
ways, and perceive it as unhealthy behavior (Gandz & Murray, 1980). Therefore, management
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 13
literature considered politics relating among stakeholders as illegitimate, informal and dysfunctional.
On the other hand Ferris and King (1991) found that
use of influence in the organization is positively related to the manager’s positive
attitude toward his employees, that is, the more an employee uses influence in the
organization, the better employee he is perceived to be and the more his
performance is appreciated. Organizational politics is sometimes perceived as a
legitimate fight response in times of crisis in the organization.
It is also considered as a positive process for decision-making and implementations. This is the
particular domain of organizational politics where political skill of leaders can play a role for better
performance of organizations (Cheema, 2006) which may also include leading change more
effectively.
Available research on organizational politics have mainly considered it as an independent
variable predicting personal and organizational outcomes such as satisfaction, organizational
commitment, in-role performance, organizational citizenship behavior, job stress, and turnover etc.
(e.g. Byrne, Kacmar, Stoner, & Howchwarter, 2005; Randall et al., 1999; Vigoda, 2002). Some of the
research has tried to dig out the underlying situational factors that promote the political behavior
among employees. These situational variables are ambiguous roles, policies, and discrimination for
promotion and rewards. Personality has also been cited as a role player in organizational politics
(Vredenburgh, & Maurer, 1984) but it’s Cheema (2006) who recently has tried to conceptualize the
role of personality in organizational politics and tried to make a relationship of Big-Five personality
dimensions with different categories of organizational politics.
In short, these attempts correlate organizational politics with personal struggles, conflicts,
influential activities, political skill of leaders, inequity, unfairness, and effective management that
result from the strong ambitions or aspirations of those who hold power in the workplace.
It is not wrong to say that based on the interactional and political skills and their beter
understanding of organizational politics, leaders have the ability to manage the change by reducing
system uncertainty, friction and even by breaking existing political fiefdoms. They can also generate
programmed conflicts, conflicts that raise different opinions regardless of the personal feeling of the
employees, for decision making, decision-adoption, policy implementation, and change management
(Singh, 2003). Fry (2003) has examined leadership as motivation to change and concluded that, to
motivate followers, leaders must get in touch with their core values and communicate them to
subordinates through vision and personal actions. House and Shamir (1993) and Judge and Avolio
(2000) have found that leaders who display behavioral components of inspirational motivation,
intellectual simulation, idealized influence, and individualized consideration are able to align their
followers’ values and norms and promoter both personal and organizational change. Organizational
politics is all about the influence process and is also one of the important domains of the leaders. We
expect that its understading will enhance their ability to accept and implement change because
leaders having political skill and understanding of organizational politics will go beyond exchanging
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
14 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
contractual agreements for desired performance by engaging employees in the change process. From
the preceding discussion we can infer that
Proposition 4. The leaders with political skill and better understanding of organizational
politics might be able to manage change more effectively.
A Model of Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Understanding, and Organizational Change
Drawing from the literature of leadership, political skill, organizational politics and change, a
theoretical framework has emerged which explains how leader’ political skill and understanding of
organizational politics would influence organizational change. The proposed relationship is illustrated
in figure 1.
Figure 1
A Model of Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Understanding, and Organizational change
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 15
Leadership Dispositional
• Transformational
• Transactional • Charismatic
Situational • Autocratic • Democratic • Bureaucratic • Laissez-Faire
As shown in Fig 1, the leaders who have political skill and savvy of organizational politics
would be better equipped to manage change in a more effective, smooth, and productive way. For this
paper we have assumed leadership in its general influential role and have not differentiated among its
different forms both dispositional i.e. transformational, transactional, and charismatic; and situational
i.e. autocratic, democratic, bureaucratic, and laissez-faire. This model also explains that a leader can
be predisposed to political skill or it can be developed later through training. Furthermore it throws
light on different sources of politics in organizations which means that employees and leaders can
engage in it because of their personal traits or due to work situations. A close relationship is also
portrayed between leader’s political skill and understanding of organizational politics. The leaders with
political skill can have a better understanding of organizational politics and organizational politics
Political Skill • In-borne • Learned
Understanding of Organizational Politics
• Dispositional • Situational
Organizational Change (Smooth, Effective, and Productive)
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
16 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
savvy can provide the right assessment of the situation and can make ground for the development
and exercise of political skill. These two constructs support and comprehend each other and the
leaders who can deploy them simultaneously would be able to manage organizational change
effectively in favor of all the stakeholders of organization. Leaders of organizational change should be
competent and trained in the process of transforming organizations if changes are to succeed. This
model specifies that this competency can stem from leader political skill and his understanding of
organizational politics.
Conclusion
Theory and research on Leadership, organizational politics and political skill have progressed
considerably. Some of the researchers have also taken the political skill and different personal
outcomes as a topic of inquiry, but no one has tried to state its role in organizational change. A thread
of continuity through the existing literature is questioned and recognized i.e. leadership role in
organizational change. The present paper contributes to understanding of leadership concept which
has been the focus of research for several decades. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) have noted that
It is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people. Leaders do not have to
be great men or women by being intellectual geniuses or omniscient prophets to
succeed, but they do need to have the right stuff: and this stuff is not equally present
in all people (p. 58).
This paper indicates that political skill along with organizational politics savvy might represent a part of
the “right stuff,” and propose that a leader equipped with this stuff will most likely be able to manage
organizational change effectively. It also makes a close link between these two important dimensions
of leaders i.e. organizational politics savvy and political skill.
Management scholars recognized the existence of the informal organization that comprised
of spontaneous and discretionary choices (Peled, 2000). Pfeffer (1992) is of the view that power,
influence, and politics are the certain part of organizational life. By ignoring these issues we may miss
the opportunity to understand these critical social processes and may lose the chance to train
managers to cope with them. Organizational politics has its ambivalence, but we can exploit its good
aspects by developing its proper understanding and political skill among leaders, which can be used
for decision making and implementation, to bring a good and positive change.
Zaleznik (1970) also supported this view that organizations are politically structured. Scarcity
of the resources and competition over them become the bases of organizational politics and at the
same time organizations provide opportunities for people to develop their career by exercising power
and politics. Thus the leaders who have political skill in conjunction with organizational politics savvy
can excel at a higher pace than leaders who do not have this “right stuff”. It also suggests that leaders
can enjoy psychological and tangible benefits when they deploy them simultaneously to manage
change in organizations. They can also yield the same benefits for employees and organizations as a
result of positive change. our model infers that leaders need to lead in a positive manner, recognizing
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 17
that change is an emotive process and followers are need to be changed by exercising their political
skill and organizational politics savvy.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the strengths of the theory and proposed model this paper is not without limitations.
We have treated leadership, without any differentiation, in its general influential role. It may be well
explored for a particular type of leadership e.g. transformational leader may be more appropriate for
organizational change. At this point we can not look at it; if one can investigate; it will be a further step
toward understanding leadership.
Political skill and organizational politics both root in social intelligence and social interactions,
so they may overlap. However measuring these constructs by using exclusive scales may take away
this constraint. For example political skill scale/inventory by Ferris et al. (1999, 2005) can be used
and to measure one’s understanding of organizational politics, perceptions of organizational politics
scale (POPS) by Kacmar and Ferris (1997) and Kacmar and Carlson (1999) can be a useful
instrument.
As this is a theoretical paper so we are not sure about the effect size of leader’s political skill
on his/her understanding of organizational politics and vice versa.
A large body of academic research provides strong evidence that national culture plays an
important and enduring role in shaping the assumptions, beliefs, and values of individuals in the
organizations. According to the most celebrated work of Hofstede (1984) on cultural differences and
their effect on all the functions of organization, we assume that strength and size of leader’s political
skill and his/her understanding of organizational politics will be different in individualistic and
collective culture e.g. in USA and Asia. It is also a potential area for future research. For future
research we also recommend if one can test our constructed theory and model empirically.
Implications for Practice
This article has attempted to define the role of leader’ political skill and organizational politics
savvy in organizational change. The managerial applications of the proposed model are quite
extensive. The more important is that organizations should employ those leaders who are predisposed
with political skill and understanding of organizational politics at all managerial levels. Or the other
way is to develop them among leaders by proper training as Ferris, Anthony, Kolodinsky, and Harvey
(2002) have suggested some ways to develop political skill such as drama-based training,
developmental simulations, and behavior modeling. This implication is more congruent for the
organizations which are in the phase of drastic change e.g. mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures,
cultural, or technological change. Top and functional level leaders are responsible for smooth
changes. They are desirous to bring it preemptively by assessing the environmental requirements or
when facing them as challenges. As noted above that organizations are viewed as political arenas.
Thus leaders need to have an interpersonal control over employees so that they can mould individuals
and situations according to the desired change.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
18 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Another implication is for the promotion of leaders at higher ranks. Leaders equipped with
political skill and organizational politics savvy might be promoted to the upper levels. These leaders
can play the role of negotiators in business dealings with counterparties and also in resolving conflicts
in their and organization favor. In the model, double arrow between political skill and understanding of
organizational politics depicts a close relationship between them. Leaders with political skill can deal
with the negative effects of organizational politics and can also make use of its positive effects in their
own and organization interest. Organizational politics savvy can facilitate leaders to en-sharp or
develop their political skill. If this relationship can be approved empirically it will be a great
contribution to leadership and organization science.
References
Akbar, M. J., “Empowering Women in Bangladesh,” Dawn, 304(6), (Nov 7, 2006).
Ahearn, Kathleen K., Ferris, Gerald R., Hochwarter, Wayne A., Douglas, Ceasar, & Ammeter, Anthony
P., “Leader political skill and team performance,” Journal of Management, 30(3), (2004),
309–327.
Amabile, Teresa. M., “How to kill creativity,” Harvard Business Review, 76(5), (1998), 76–87.
Baron, Robert A., & Markman, Gideon D., “Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance
entrepreneurs’ success,” Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), (Feb 2000), 106–116.
Bass, Bernard M., & Avolio, Bruce J., Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA., 1994.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 19
Bass, Bernard M., Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press, New York, 1985.
Berquist, William, The Postmodern Organization: Mastering the Art of Irreversible Change. Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, 1993.
Bizer, George Y., Krosnick, Jon A., Holbrook, Allyson L., Wheeler, S. Christian, Rucker, Derek D., &
Petty, Richard E., “The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political
processes: The effects of need to evaluate,” Journal of Personality, 72(5), (Oct 2004), 995–
1027.
Byrne, Zinta S., Kacmar, Charles, Stoner, Jason, & Hochwarter, Wayne A., “The relationship between
perceptions of politics and depressed mood at work: Unique moderators across three levels,”
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), (2005), 330–343.
Cartwright, Sue. & Cooper, Cary, Lynn, Managing Mergers, Acquisitions and Strategic alliances:
Integrating People and Cultures. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996.
Chapman, Judith, A., “The work of managers in new organizational contexts,” The Journal of
Management Development, 20(1), (2001) 55–68.
Charlton G., Human Habits of Highly Effective Organizations, The Human Race, Van Schaik, Cape
Town, 2000.
Cheema, Imran, Qaboos, “The Role of Dispositions in Organizational Politics: An Investigation of Big-
Five Personality Dimensions for Different Facets of Organizational Politics,” Paper presented
in the 2006 Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management
(IACM) Montreal, Canada, (June 2006).
Cobb, Anthony T., “Political diagnosis: Application in organizational development,” Academy of
Management Review, 11(3), (July 1986), 482–496.
Cropanzano, Russell, Howes, John C., Grandey, Alicia A., & Toth, Paul, “The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress,” Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 18(2), (March 1997), 159–180.
Davis, James, & Cushing, Angela, “Nursing leadership in the US 1950s–1970s: a discourse analysis,”
International history of Nursing Journal, 5(1), (Winter 1999), 12–18.
Day, George S., Strategic Choices in Competitive Markets. Market Driven Strategies: Process for
Creating Value: 3-41, New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Inc., 1990.
Drory, Amos, & Beaty, D. “Gender Differences in the Perception of Organizational Influence Tactics,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, (1991), 249-258.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
20 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Drory, Amos, & Romm, Tsilia, “The definition of organizational politics,” Human Relations, 43(11),
(1990), 1133–1154.
Ferris, Gerald R., Treadway, Darren C., Kolodinsky, Robert W., Hochwarter, Wayne A., Kacmar, Charles
J., Douglas, Ceasar, & Frink, Dwight D., “Development and validation of the political skill
inventory,” Journal of Management, 31(1), (Feb 2005), 126–152.
Ferris, Gerald R., Hochwarter, Wayne A., Douglas, Ceasar, Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, Robert. W., &
Treadway, Darren C., Social influence processes in organizations and human resources
systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management, Oxford, England: Elsevier Science, 21, 2002, 65–127.
Ferris, Gerald R., Anthony, William. P., Kolodinsky, Robert. W., Gilmore, David. C., & Harvey, Michael G.,
Development of political skill. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (ed.), Research in management
education and development: Rethinking management education for the 21st century,
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 1, 2002, 3-25.
Ferris, Gerald R., Perrewe´, Pamela L., Anthony, William P., & Gilmore, David C., “Political skill at
work,” Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), (2000), 25–37.
Ferris, Gerald R., Berkson, Howard. M., Kaplan, David. M., Gilmore, David. C., Buckley, M. Ronald.,
Hochwarter, Wayne. A., & Witt, L. A. “Development and initial validation of the political skill
inventory,” Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Chicago, (Aug 1999).
Ferris, Gerald R., & Kacmar, K. Michele, “Perception of organizational politics,” Journal of
Management, 18(1), (March 1992), 93–116.
Ferris, Gerald R., & King, Thomas R., “Politics in Human Resource Decisions: A Walk on the Dark Side,”
Organizational Dynamics, 20(2), (Autumn 1991), 59-71.
Ferris, Gerald R., Russ, Gail S., & Fandt, Patricia M., Politics in organizations, In R.A. Giacalone; & P.
Rosenfeld (ed.), Impression management in the organization: 143–170. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1989.
Ferris, Gerald R., Fedor, Donald.B., Chachere, J.C., & Pondy, L.R. “Myths and Politics in Organizational
Context,” Group and Organization Studies, 14, (1989a), 83-103.
Fredrickson, Barbara. L., “What good are positive emotions,” Review of General Psychology, 2(3), (Sep
1998), 300-319.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 21
Fry, Louis W., “Towards a theory of spiritual leadership,” The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), (Dec 2003),
693–727.
Gandz, Jeffrey, & Murray, Victor V., “The experience of workplace politics,” Academy of Management
Journal, 23(2), (June 1980), 237–251.
Greenberger, David B., & Strassser, Stephen, “Development and application of a model of personal
control in organizations,” Academy of Management Review, 11(1), (1986), 164–177.
Greenberg, Jerald, & Baron, Robert A., Influence, Power and Politics in Organizations. Behaviors in
Organizations: 436–468. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall India, 2003.
Harvey, Edward, & Mills, Russell, Patterns of organizational adoption: A political perspective, Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970, 181-213.
Hochwarter, Wayne A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. Michele, “Perceptions of organizational politics as a
moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(3), (2000), 472-478.
Hofstede, Greet, Cultures Consequences, Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications, 1984.
House, Robert J., & Shamir, B., Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary
theories, In: M. M. Chemers and R. Ayman (ed.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and direction, Academic Press, San Diego, CA., 1993, 81–107.
Iacocca, Lee, & Novak, William, Iacocca: An Autobiography, London: Sidjwick & Jackson Limited,
1985.
Iqbal, Muhammad, The Reconstruction of Religious Thoughts in Islam. Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of
Islamic Culture, Club Road, 2003.
Jooste, Karien, “Leadership: a new perspective,” Journal of Nursing Management, 12(3), (May 2004),
217-223.
Jung, Dong I., & Avolio, Bruce J., “Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), (Dec 2000), 949–964.
Kacmar, K. Michele, & Carlson, Dawn S., “Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale
(POPS): A multiple sample investigations,” Journal of Management, 23(5), (1997), 627–658.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
22 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Kacmar, K. Michele, & Ferris, Gerald R., “Perception of organizational politics scale (POPS):
Development and construct validation,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51,
(1991), 193–205.
Kacmar, K. Michele, Bozeman, Dennis P., Carlson, Dawn S., & Anthony, Willaim P., “An examination of
the perception of organizational politics model: replication and extension,” Human Relations,
52(3), (1999), 383-416.
Keohane, Nannerl O., “On Leadership,” Perspectives on Politics, 3 (4), (Dec 2005), 705-722.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., & Locke, Edwin A., “Leadership: Do traits matter?” Academy of Management
Executive, 5(2), (May 1991), 48–60.
Kolodinsky, Robert. W., Hochwarter, Wayne A., & Ferris, Gerald R., “Nonlinearity in the relationship
between political skill and work outcomes: Convergent evidence from three studies,” Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 65, (2004), 294–308.
Kotter, John, P., The leadership factor. Free Press, New York, 1988.
LaPalombara, Joseph, Power and politics in organizations: Public and private sector comparison, In M.
Dierkes, A.B. Antal, J. Child & I. Nonaka (ed.), Handbook of organizational learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, (n.d.).
Luthans, Fred, Organizational Behavior, Chapters 17, Effective Leadership Processes & Chapter 18,
Great Leaders: Styles, Activities, and Skills, Lahore, 2002.
Mayes, Bronston T., & Allen, Robert W., “Toward a definition of organizational politics,” Academy of
Management Review, 2(4), (Oct 1977), 672–678.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, The prince. Trans. George Bull. London: Penguin, 1961.
Michela, John L., & Burke, W. Warner, Organizational culture and climate in transformations for quality
and innovation, In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. E. Wilderom and M. F. Peterson (ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate, London: Sage Publications Inc., 2000,117–129.
Mintzberg, Henry, “The organization as political arena,” Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), (Mar
1985), 133–154.
Mintzberg, Henry, Power in and around organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
Parker, Christopher P., Dipboye, Robert L., & Jackson, Stacy L., “Perception of organizational politics:
An investigation of antecedents and consequences,” Journal of Management, 21(5), (1995),
891–912.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 23
Peled, Alon, “Politicking for success: The missing skill,” Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 21(1), (2000), 20–29.
Perrewe´, Pamela L., Zellars, Kelley L., Rossi, Ana M., Ferris, Gerald R., Kacmar, Charles J., Liu,
Yongmei, Zinko, Robert, & Hochwarter, Wayne A. “Political Skill: An antidote in the role
overload-strain relationship,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), (2005), 239–
250.
Perrewe´, Pamela L., Zellars, Kelley L., Ferris, Gerald R., Rossi, Ana M., Kacmar, Charles J., & Ralston,
David A., “Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional
consequences of role conflict stressors,” Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), (2004),
141–152.
Perrewe´, Pamela L., Ferris, Gerald R., Frink, Dwight D., & Anthony, William P., “Political skill: An
antidote for workplace stressors,” Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), (2000), 115–
123.
Pfeffer, Jeffery, “Understanding power in organizations,” California Management Review, 35, (Winter
1992), 29–50.
Pfeffer, Jeffery, Power in organizations, Marshfield, MA: Pittman, 1981.
Pfeffer, Jeffery, & Salancik, G. “The bases and use of power in organizational decision-making: The
case of a university,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), (Dec. 1974), 453–473.
Pettigrew, Andrew, M., The politics of decision-making. London: Tavistock, 1973.
Plato, The Republic. Trans. A. D. Lindsay, London: EVERYMAN, J. M. Dent, 1992
Randall, Marjorie L., Cropanzano, Russel, Bormann, Carol A., & Birjulin, Andrej, “Organizational politics
and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance and
organizational citizenship behavior,” Journal of Organization Behavior, 20, (1999), 159–174.
Schneider, Benjamin, “The people make the place,” Personnel Psychology, 40(3), (1987), 437–453.
Simon, Herbert A., “Comments on the Theory of Organizations,” The American Political Science
Review, 46(4), (Dec 1952), 1130-1139.
Singh, Nirmal. Influence, Power and Politics in Organizations. Organizational Behaviour: 749–755.
New Delhi-110027: Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2003.
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
24 Leaders’ Political Skill, Organizational Politics Savvy, and Change in Organizations - A Constellation
Treadway, Darren C., Ferris, Gerald R., Howchwarter, Wayne, Perrewe, Pamela, Witt, L.A., & Goodman,
Joseph M., “The role of age in the perception of politics – job performance relationship: A
three study constructive replication,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), (2005), 872–881.
Valle, Matthew, “The power of politics: Why leaders need to learn the art of influence,” Leadership in
Action, 26(2), (May/June 2006), 8 – 12.
Valle, Matthew, “The effects of political orientation on attributions of co-workers success/failure,”
Social Behavior and Personality, 25, (1997), 211-222.
Van Knippenberg, Daan & Hogg, Michael. A., A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in
organizations. In: B. Staw and R. M. Kramer (ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Greenwich: JAI Press, CN., 25, (2003), 245–297.
Vigoda, Eran, Development in Organizational Politics: How Political Dynamics Affect Employee
Performance in Modern Work Sites, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Cheltenham, UK.
Northampton, Massachusetts, USA, 2003.
Vigoda, Eran, “Stress-related aftermaths to workplace politics: The relationship among politics, job
stress, and aggressive behavior in organizations,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
(2002), 1–21.
Vigoda, Eran, “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, 26, (2000), 185–210.
Vredenburgh, Donald J., & Maurer, John G., “A process framework of organizational politics,” Human
Relations. 37, (1984), 47-66.
Weick, Karl E., & Quinn, Robert E., “Organizational change and development,” Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, (Feb 1999), 361–386.
Wildavsky, Aron, The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little Brown, 1964.
Wilson, Patricia A., “The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal
executives,” Journal of Management, 21(1), (Spring 1995), 101-118.
Witt, L.A., “Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(4), (1998), 666–674.
Yeo, Roland K., “Building knowledge through action systems, process leadership and organizational
learning,” foresight, 8(3), (2006), 34 – 44.
Servent Leadership Roundtable – May 2008 25
Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
Zaleznik, Abraham, “Power and politics in organizational life,” Harvard Business Review, (May –June
1970), 1–13.