Ferris 2016

656003
research-article2016
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051816656003Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesFerris et al.
Article
Social Influence and Politics in

Organizational Research: What
We Know and What We Need to Know
Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
115
The Authors 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051816656003
jlo.sagepub.com
Gerald R. Ferris1, Pamela L. Perrew1, Shanna R. Daniels1,

Diane Lawong1, and Jeanne J. Holmes2
Abstract
This special issue of the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies addresses the topic of Social Influence and Politics
in Organizational Research, a topic which spans more than a century and represents one of the oldest areas of inquiry
in the field. In this article, we first review the literature to extract what we seem to know about this area of the field, and
then we shift to an identification of some areas about which we still need to know more. Nine articles were selected to
be published in this special issue, and they reflect different aspects of some these need to know more areas of social
influence and politics in organizations. We believe these articles represent solid contributions to new knowledge in this
area, and we hope they stimulate further and renewed scholarly interest.
Keywords
social influence, organizational politics, political skill, impression management, influence tactics
Introduction
Social influence, or how others affect our behavior and attitudes, has been an important focus of investigation and concern for over a century. In fact, social influence represents
the oldest experimental paradigm in the behavioral sciences, dating back to Tripletts (1898) investigation of how
cyclists perform differently in the presence of other cyclists
than they do when riding alone. Then, about 80 years ago,
the political scientist, Lasswell (1936), described politics as
who gets what, when, and how, thus contributing another
dimension to social influence, and developing a body of
work that continues to be a vibrant area of scholarship to
this day. Today, it appears to be a generally accepted fact
that influence and politics are fundamental to all social phenomena, including work organizations, and the role of
social influence processes in the organizational sciences has
evolved in terms of the precision of our understanding over
time.
Because of its role in the field, it is useful to periodically
assess the status of theory and research on topics like influence and politics, highlighting what we know, and what we
still need to know. Indeed, this special issue of the Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies intends to do just
that. Leadership is a basic social influence process, and
obviously, a major focus of scholarship published in this
journal since it began. Sometimes it is important, in special
issues such as this, to take stock of where the field currently
resides on topics, and thus, where we might need to go with

future work (The Leadership Quarterly did that for the field
of leadership in 2004 with a special issue on Political
Perspectives on Leadership, Ammeter, Douglas,
Hochwarter, Ferris, & Gardner, 2004).
In the first part of this article, we conduct a thorough
review of the social influence and politics literature, with
particular emphasis on underscoring what we know and
understand about these phenomena. In so doing, we divide
the scholarly literature into the three main areas of work
noted by Ferris and Hochwarter (2011): Political/influence
behavior, perceptions of organizational politics (POP), and
political skill. In the latter part of the article, we suggest
ideas on emerging and future directions in social influence
and politics research, noting how the articles published in
this special issue of the Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies address some of these needed areas
of investigation.
The social influence and politics scholarly literature is
quite extensive in nature, and has been studied from many
1
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gerald R. Ferris, Department of Management, College of Business,
Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA.
Email: gferris@fsu.edu
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
different disciplinary perspectives, thus making it impossible to comprehensively cover within the page limitations of
this article. So, rather than advertise our article as being
exhaustive in nature, we present it as a representative sampling of some important issues in the field and literature.
We suggest this review be considered as supplementary to
the several more comprehensive reviews published in the
past of the social influence and politics literature (see Ferris,
Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002; Ferris,
Harris, Russell, & Maher, in press; Ferris, Hochwarter,
etal., 2002; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar & Baron,
1999; Lux, Ferris, Brouer, Laird, & Summers, 2008;
Silvester, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2006).
What We Know About Social

Influence and Politics
Political Influence Behavior
Influence Tactics.According to social influence theory,
most interpersonal relationships involve some type of
social influence; that is, people desire to influence others
while at the same time they are being influenced by others
(Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Goffman (1959) suggested that
social influence encompasses an infinite cycle of
exchanges that prompts individuals to represent themselves
in the most positive light so that it will induce positive
reactions from the target of the influence. Social influence
involves tactics utilized by individuals to increased positive outcomes and reduce potential negative consequences
associated with a given interpersonal interaction (Ferris,
Hochwarter et al., 2002).
There have been a variety of social influence tactics
studied in the organizational sciences literature (e.g.,
Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Tedeschi and
Melburg (1984) developed a taxonomy to organize the different influence tactics. According to their taxonomy,
influence tactics are classified along two dimensions:
assertivedefensive and tacticalstrategic. Assertive behavior are actor initiated in response to something, whereas
defensive tactics are reactive and usually occur in response
to a perceived threat. Tactical behavior encompass a shortterm view perspective, whereas strategic behavior involves a
long-term view that can have positive implications for the
actors personal reputation. In this way, the tacticaldefensive
behavior includes actions such as excuses and justifications,
and disclaimers. Tactical assertive behaviors include intimidation, self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification.
Strategic defensive behavior includes alcoholism, learned
helplessness, and substance abuse. Strategic assertive
behavior include behaviors that are oriented toward creating positive personal reputational characteristics.
Employees often engage in upward influence tactics to
the extent that they can affect a valued outcome (Ferris,
Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994). The research in this

domain suggests that ingratiation and self-promotion have
most often investigated subordinate upward influence tactics. Both tactics appear to be distinct with different advantages and consequences. Subordinate influence tactics have
largely been considered in the performance evaluation context (Dulebohn & Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris
& King, 1991; Villanova & Bernardin, 1989). Ilgen and
Feldman (1983) argued that subordinates should be treated
as active participants in the performance evaluation context.
As such, they should be engaged in the process to manage
the impressions and information they convey.
Several studies demonstrate the impact of social influences tactics on subordinate performance ratings (Kipnis &
Schmidt, 1988; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Kacmar,
1991). Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) conducted a study that
investigated the impact of employees use of influence tactics on their evaluations of the fairness of the performance
evaluation process. Specifically, they examined influence
tactics as an informal mechanism of voice on justice reactions to the performance evaluation process. Dulebohn and
Ferris (1999) found that the use of supervisor-focused
influence tactics were related to positive procedural justice
evaluations, whereas the use of job-focused influence tactics were related to negative evaluations. They also found
that employees perceptions of decision control and opportunity for formal voice moderated the relationship between
influence tactics and procedural justice. The findings of
their study suggests that the impact of procedural justice
evaluations depend on the relative type and use of influence tactics.
In a meta-analytic study examining the gendered nature
of lateral and upward influence attempts, A. N. Smith etal.
(2013) investigated the conditions under which the gender
of the influencer affected the use and effectiveness of influence behaviors. They argued that gender has been neglected
in this conversation, but instead has been considered mostly
as a control variable in most studies on influence. A. N.
Smith etal. (2013) suggested that gender is associated with
prescriptive stereotypes. There are categorically specific
norms of behaviors that are prescribed as appropriate and
inappropriate for both men and women. They further
explain that these prescribed gender-based behaviors also
apply to the influence tactics context and have implications
for the frequency of use and effectiveness based on gender.
They found that men were more likely to use agentic influence tactics, and women were more likely to receive personal advancement outcomes when they used communal
influence tactics. In short, A. N. Smith etal. (2013) highlight that influence tactics may in fact be gendered in nature.
Reputation.Reputation has important implications for
assessing the value of an organization. Previous reviews of
reputation were narrow in focus to the extent that they
Ferris et al.
primarily examined organizational reputation. To answer
the call for research on reputation Ferris, Blass, Douglas,
Kolodinsky, and Treadway (2003) provided an assessment
of personal reputation in organizations which is an individual level analysis of the construct. In 2007, Zinko, Ferris, Blass, and Laird offered the following definition of
personal reputation:
Reputation is a perceptual identity formed from the collective
perceptions of others, which is reflective of the complex
combination of salient personal characteristics and
accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and intended images
presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or
reported from secondary sources, which reduces ambiguity
about expected future behavior. (p. 215)
Several scholars in this area have suggested that although

there may be different dimensions of reputation that vary by
particular situation, that there are believed to be two higher
order dimensions of reputation that serve to transcend particular situations. Those two dimensions are performance/
results and character/integrity, and they have been identified and confirmed in several studies (Ferris etal., 2014;
Hochwarter etal., 2007; Zinko etal., 2007).
Reputation is based on a collection of factors that
include an individuals past behavior, actions, as well as
their human capital and their social skill and political skill
(Zinko, Ferris, Humphrey, Meyer, & Aime, 2012). The
information and observations of behaviors and actions are
what allows form perceptions of individuals and their subsequent reputation. In a two-study investigation of the
temporal development of personal reputation, Zinko etal.
(2012) found that human capital, time, and social effectiveness influence the formation of reputation. They also
found that career success, power, and autonomy are outcomes of personal reputation. Blickle, Schneider, Liu, and
Ferris (2011) suggested that individuals who are politically skilled have a high level of social astuteness, which
allows them to be malleable in their effort to engage in
social influence. As a result, they are better positioned to
create the socially desirable images which positively
affects their individual reputation.
In an empirical study investigating reputation, Blickle,
Schneider, Liu, & Ferris, (2011) found support for their
assertion that reputation mediated the effects of political
skill on careersuccess measures (i.e., position structure,
income, career satisfaction). The findings of that study
highlight the contribution of political skill in the formation
of reputation, and thus provide evidence for the role it plays
in creating a favorable image. Similarly, Laird, Zbjo,
Martinez, and Ferris (2013) investigated and found support
for role of work relationship quality and citizenship behavior as partial mediators of the political skillpersonal reputation relationship. The findings of their study highlight the
process mechanism through which political skill influences

personal reputation. They suggest functions through the
relationships employees develop with their colleagues and
the perceptions and evaluations of personal reputation by
these counterparts are salient.
In related study on the role of political skill in the creation of personal reputation, A. D. Smith, Plowman,
Duchon, and Quinn (2009) conducted a qualitative study
which employed in-depth interviews with high-reputation
plan managers and their direct reports and observations of
day-to-day plant operations to gain insight about characteristics of effective plant managers. After conducting field
interviews and observations of over 10 manufacturing
plants, they found that effective political skill was a proxy
for plant managers to influence their subordinates to engage
in behaviors that contributed to successful organizational
outcomes.
In 2014, Ferris etal. conducted a multilevel review (i.e.,
individual, unit/team, and organization), and they offered
some conclusions about the level-specific or levelgeneric bases for reputation construct. They suggested that
reputation at all levels of analysis are practically the same.
More specifically, the review conducted by Ferris etal.
(2104) revealed that the antecedents and consequences of
reputation are essentially the same across three levels of
reputation (i.e., individual, unit, organizational). That is,
common predictors across levels include behavior (i.e.,
political skill, general mental ability [GMA], department
reputation, firm financial performance) and characteristics
enacted over a prolonged time period, including such factors as context of the entity and stakeholder perceptions.
Regarding reputation at the unit level, Ferris etal. (2014)
found that reputation was mostly influenced by third-party
reports and stakeholder perceptions of teams based (M. V.
Jones, Paull, & Erskine, 2002; Tyran & Gibson, 2008).
They also reported that positive unitlevel reputation is
positively associated with financial performance (Hannon
& Milkovich, 1996; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). At the organizational level, research reveals that reputation leads to
increased power (Mahon, 2002), increased access to
resources (Staw & Epstein, 2000), increased financial performance (Roberts & Dowling, 2002), and increased discretionary to affect institutional norms (Deephouse & Carter,
2005). Ferris etal. (2014) concluded that reputation is one
construct that can be conceptualized across multiple levels
of analysis, and in many ways considered an asset that can
be used to gain access to additional valued resources.
Communication and Symbolic Behavior. In a study examining
leader charismatic rhetoric and influence, Baur etal. (2016)
argued that the manner in which leaders communicate their
vision can be viewed as an important tool to influence follower support. Baur etal. (2016) suggested that rhetorical
skills for leaders are essential for them to communicate a
vision effectively and to influence followers to rally support. Thus, leaders are more likely to increased subordinate
performance, commitment, and satisfaction (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Shamir and colleagues (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir, House, &
Arthur, 1993) conceptualized charismatic rhetoric along
eight distinct dimensions: (a) collective focus, (b) temporal
orientation, (c) follower worth, (d) similarity to followers,
(e) values and moral justifications, (f) tangibility, (g) action,
and (h) adversity. Baur etal. (2016) investigated whether
leaders use different configurations of charismatic rhetoric
when communicating a vision and attempting to influence
followers to accept the vision. In their study on charismatic
rhetoric, Baur etal. (2016) found evidence of the use of
distinct rhetoric configurations, and their ability to predict
influence success. More specifically, follower similarity,
collective focus, and action orientation were all significant
predictors of influence effectiveness.
Politics Perceptions
Antecedents and Consequences.Although the scientific
study of political behavior within organizations can be
traced back to the 1960s, Gandz and Murrays (1980) assertion that the presence of politics is a subjective assessment
rather than reality was the likely catalyst for the growing
interest in perceptions of organizational politics as a focal
area of study. Their argument supported Lewins (1936)
earlier suggestion that individuals act on their perceptions
of reality rather than objective reality, and it highlighted
that the misinterpretation of actions was important in the
study of political behavior. POP involves an individuals
attribution of behaviors of self-serving intent and is defined
as an individuals subjective evaluation about the extent to
which the work environment is characterized by co-workers
and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, & Dulebohn, 2000, p. 90).
In their seminal model, Ferris etal. (1989) proposed that
three categories of antecedents drive POP: personal influences, jobwork environment, and organizational influences. These categories stimulate POP by creating
conditions that increase political behavior, such as competition for scarce resources, increased ambiguity, perceived
instrumentality of political behavior, and the presence of
constraints (Ferris etal., 1989, 2002; Kacmar & Baron,
1999). In turn, POP positively influence a variety of negative organizational outcomes including stress and turnover
intention while lowering job satisfaction. Consequently,
politics perceptions are often branded as an obstacle that
decrease an individuals self-efficacy in the achievement of
professional goals (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009).
Within the antecedent model, there are two types of personal influences on POP: demographic variables and personality characteristics. In early theoretical models,
demographic variables were the focus of research (Adams,

Treadway, & Stepina, 2008). It was assumed that out-group
members (i.e., women, racial minorities, older individuals)
and those with longer tenure would be more likely to have
higher levels of POP (Ferris etal., 1989; Parker, Dipboye, &
Jackson, 1995) than individuals with higher education
(Parker etal., 1995). However, meta-analytic studies have
highlighted inconsistent findings for these demographic
variables (Atinc, Darrat, Fuller, & Parker, 2010; Ferris
etal., 2002). Accordingly, Ferris etal. (2002) decided to
remove demographic variables from their antecedent
models.
While demographic variables have been the focus of the
majority of studies, personality characteristics have garnered
far less attention (Adams etal., 2008). This is surprising
given that personality traits are thought to influence the perception and interpretation of political behavior (Adams etal.,
2008). Recent meta-analyses agree that Machiavellianism,
positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA) have direct
relationships with POP (Atinc etal., 2010; Ferris etal., 2002).
For example, Machiavellianism is characterized by a ruthless
drive to fulfill self-interests and skepticism about the motives
of others (Christie & Geis, 1970); therefore, individuals high
in Machiavellianism are likely to be attentive to and participate in organizational politics (OConnor & Morrison, 2001;
Valle & Perrew, 2000).
Affect has also received attention in the POP literature.
Higher levels of NA are strongly associated with dissatisfaction, anxiety, and distrust. These feelings make individuals
more likely to interpret workplace events negatively (Adams
etal., 2008); consequently, NA is positively related to POP
(Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009; Kiewitz,
Restubog, Lloyd, Zagensczyk, & Hochwarter, 2009).
Conversely, high levels of PA are associated with enthusiasm and optimism, which make individuals less likely to
perceive events cynically or through a pessimistic lens. PA is
negatively related to POP (Breaux etal., 2009; Kiewitz
etal., 2009). External locus of control is also a significant
predictor of POP (Atinc etal., 2010; Valle & Perrew, 2000).
Another category of antecedents explores jobwork
environment variables. Early conceptualizations of job
work environment variables argued that several job design
characteristics (i.e., skill variety, autonomy, feedback) were
antecedents to POP, because these factors reduced uncertainty and, therefore, mitigated political perceptions (Ferris
etal., 1989; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). For example, employees with lower levels skill variety and job autonomy must
rely on others to direct work and have limited control in the
workplace. And, without the benefit of constructive feedback, individuals are less aware of their performance status
and may experience more anxiety and lower role clarity.
Thus, it is assumed that skill variety, autonomy, and feedback are negatively related to POP (e.g., Atinc etal., 2010;
Vigoda-Gadot, Vinarski-Peretz, & Ben-Zion, 2003).
Ferris et al.
Other characteristics of the jobwork environment also
influence political perceptions in the workplace. Employee
perceived less politics when there were higher numbers of
career development opportunities (Atinc etal., 2010; Ferris
etal., 2002; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Parker etal., 1995) and
when rewards were reflective of performance levels (Parker
etal., 1995). Research has also found that opportunities for
advancement have a negative relationship with POP (Atinc
etal., 2010; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar & Baron,
1999; Valle & Perrew, 2000). It is important to note that
career development opportunities were found to have a
stronger relationship to POP than advancement opportunities (Atinc etal., 2010).
Met expectations (e.g., Vigoda, 2001; Vigoda & Cohen,
2002, 2003) and employee participation in decision making
(PDM; e.g., Ferris etal., 2002; Vigoda & Cohen, 2002) are
two additional antecedents proposed to have significant
negative influence on POP in the revised model of organizational politics. Met expectations, a feature of person
organization fit, reflect the congruence between the
employees job expectations and the realities experienced
while on the job. Incongruence in this area implies that a
realistic job preview was not provided and/or the employees psychological contract was breached. A lack of
employee PDM reflects limited control and greater ambiguity in the workplace, which makes POP more likely.
Furthermore, relationships within the jobwork environment have significant influence on politics perceptions.
Specifically, leadermember exchange (LMX; Atinc etal.,
2010; Kacmar, Zivnuska, & White, 2007; Poon, 2006), trust
in coworkers (e.g., Atinc etal., 2010; Parker etal., 1995;
Poon, 2006), and cooperation and collaboration across work
units (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Atinc etal., 2010;
Parker etal., 1995) have significant negative relationships
with politics perceptions.
The last category of antecedents is organizational influences, which include centralization, formalization, procedural justice, span of control, and hierarchical level.
Centralization refers to the concentration of power or control at the top management ranks. The assumption is that the
concentration of power in the highest echelon will increase
political behavior in the lower levels. Although one study
(Parker etal., 1995) found a negative relationship, most
studies have found a significant positive relationship
between centralization and POP (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar,
2001; Valle & Perrew, 2000). Formalization is the extent
to which rules and procedures are explicitly communicated
to employees. This factor is closely related to procedural
justice, which is the perceived fairness of the procedures
used to allocated resources.
High levels of formalization and procedural justice
reduce ambiguity and perceptions that subjective criteria
will be used in decision making; therefore, they reduce perceptions of politics. A negative relationship between
formalization and POP (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;

Vigoda, 2001) and between procedural justice and POP
(e.g., Aryee, Chen, & Budhwar, 2004; Atinc etal., 2010) is
supported by several studies. Past research, however, did
not find a significant relationship between span of control
and POP (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Valle & Perrew, 2000).
In addition, empirical findings are mixed regarding the
directional relationship between hierarchical level and POP
(e.g., Miller & Nicols, 2008; Valle & Perrew, 2000).
Among the antecedent model variables, jobwork environment variables are more strongly related to POP than
those within the personal and organizational influence categories (e.g., Atinc etal., 2010; Parker etal., 1995). In addition, meta-analytic research found the most influential
antecedents to be leadermember relationship quality
(LMX), PDM, met expectations, advancement opportunities, trust in coworkers, and career development opportunities (Atinc etal., 2010). These antecedents highlight the
importance of human resource practices and procedures on
employee POP (Atinc etal., 2010).
For example, providing applicants with realistic job previews during the interview process and having clear communication about job roles and responsibilities can increase
met expectations. In addition, organizations can give special attention to communicating career and advancement
opportunities to employees. Finally, organizations can
implement programming and procedures that increase
employee PDM. The creation of peer panels to address
employee disputes and the implementation of quality circles to facilitate employee discussions about for process
improvement opportunities are examples.
In nearly three decades since Ferris etal. (1989) published their model of organizational politics perceptions,
there has been a wealth of research investigating the consequences of POP. The growing body of research has identified several outcomes of POP, including the following:
increased stress (e.g., Ferris etal., 1996; Wiltshire,
Bourdage, & Lee, 2014), reduced organizational commitment (e.g., Chang etal., 2009), increased turnover intention
(e.g., Chang etal., 2009; Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2009),
lower perceptions of innovation (Parker etal., 1995), lower
job satisfaction (e.g., Chang etal., 2009; Rosen etal., 2009;
Wiltshire etal., 2014), lower job performance (e.g., Chang
etal., 2009; Witt, 1998), increased counterproductive workplace behavior (Wiltshire etal., 2014; Zettler & Hilbig,
2010), higher levels of frustration (Rosen etal., 2009), and
increased impression management behavior (e.g., HarrellCook, Ferris, & Dulebohn, 1999; Kacmar etal., 2007;
Wiltshire etal., 2014; Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson, &
Bratton, 2004).
Despite the seemingly intuitive logic that POP will lead
to negative employee outcomes, many of the earlier studies
produced equivocal results regarding the magnitude and
direction of POP outcomes. Consequently, meta-analyses
have been critical in determining whether past mixed results

reflect statistical concerns or broader issues including the
misidentification of relationships. Chang etal.s (2009)
meta-analysis added to the study of political perceptions by
exploring both direct and indirect effects. Their study
revealed that POP had an indirect effect on turnover intentions and job performance through psychological strain and
morale. Other evidence in support of the indirect effect of
POP include findings that NA (Albrecht, 2006) and frustration (Rosen etal., 2009) mediate the relationship between
POP and individual-level outcomes.
Political Skill
Direct Effects and Relationships With Other Constructs.Organizational politics are typically associated with negative
workplace behaviors. Yet Mintzberg (1985) described
organizations as inherently political environments where
individuals need political skill to be successful. Accordingly, political skill is considered a desirable social effectiveness competency that enhances individual and
organizational objectives. Political skill is defined as the
ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use
this understanding to influence others to act in ways that
enhance ones personal and/or organizational objectives
(Ferris etal., 2005, p. 127). Individuals who possess these
skills understand the social dynamics of interpersonal interactions and adjust their behavior to fit the situation in order
to influence others while projecting trustworthiness and sincerity (Ferris etal., 2007).
Political skill is composed of four dimensions: social
astuteness, networking ability, interpersonal influence, and
apparent sincerity (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrew, 2005).
These dimensions reflect a skillset that enables an individual to manage potentially divergent interests in a manner
that inspires consistent, and positive, ratings of both task
and contextual performance from multiple assessors
(Blickle, Ferris, etal., 2011, p. 450). Empirical research
confirms this assumption and reveals that it has strong relationships with a variety of desired outcomes. Political skills
is positively related to self-efficacy beliefs, personal reputation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work
productivity, and job performance assessments (e.g.,
Munyon, Summers, Thompson, & Ferris, 2015). Political
skill enables individuals to become adept at forming coalitions and relationships with others that result in personal
status gains (i.e., relational centrality; Bolander, Satornino,
Hughes, & Ferris, 2015).
Early work in social intelligence is foundational to several social effectiveness measures (e.g., self-monitoring,
empathy, etc.), including political skill (Ahearn, Ferris,
Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004). While there is
inherent overlap among these constructs, empirical research
has differentiated political skill from similar social
effectiveness constructs. Specifically, Ferris etal. (2005)

provided convergent validity support in distinguishing
political skills from self-monitoring, political savvy, GMA,
and emotional intelligence. Similarly, an earlier study contributed convergent validity support by reporting that political skill was only moderately related to positive affectivity
(r = .36, p < .001), extraversion (r = .28, p < .01), empathy
(r = .28, p < .01), conscientiousness (r = .25, p < .01),
understanding of events (r = .39, p < .001), and delay of
gratification (r = .32, p < .01). In addition, studies have
found discriminate validity between political skill and
GMA as their studies fail to find a significant relationship
between the constructs (Ferris etal., 1999, 2005).
Its Role in Leadership. Leadership is a social influence process, and as such, leaders are effective the extent to which
they can influence followers (Ahearn etal., 2004). This
definition supports Mintzbergs (1983) claim that individuals need to possess political skill in order to be successful in
organizations and solidifies the relevance of political skill
to leadership studies. Theories of political leadership has
only gained traction in recent years (e.g., Ahearn etal.,
2004; Brouer, Douglas, Treadway, & Ferris, 2013; Ellen,
Ferris, & Buckley, 2013; Ewen etal., 2013; Ewen etal.,
2014; Treadway etal., 2004).
Before Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, and
Ferris (2002) proposed a political theory of leadership, earlier leadership studies highlighted the role of social adaptability (i.e., social astuteness), a dimension of political skill,
in managerial effectiveness. For example, Zaccaro, Gilbert,
Thor, and Mumford (1991) suggested that social intelligence is a key leadership competency. Their study found
that leader emergence is linked to individuals ability to
effectively choose among a variety of appropriate managerial behaviors. This finding supports Mainieros (1994)
assertion that political skill is essential to breaking glass
ceiling barriers to womens career progression. In addition, Hooijberg (1996) found that managerial effectiveness
was closely linked to a managers use of a wide range of
behaviors. These characteristics are central to arguments
that successful social influence by the leader requires mastery of a range of skills and the ability to select and apply
them to the appropriate situation (Zaccaro, 2002, p. 45).
Leader political skill has a significant main effect on a
variety of forms of outcomes. Political skill is a significant
predictor of various measures of leader effectiveness (e.g.,
Ahearn etal., 2004; Treadway etal., 2004). Furthermore, it
is a stronger predictor of a managers job performance than
self-monitoring, leadership self-efficacy, and emotional
intelligence (Semadar, Robins, & Ferris, 2006). It is positively linked with team performance such that teams with
leaders high in political skill performed better than teams
with leaders low in political skill (Ahearn etal., 2004).
Leaders high in political skill also influence their
Ferris et al.
subordinates perceptions of organizational support
(Treadway etal., 2004) and increase the quality of their
leaderfollower relationship (i.e., LMX). These studies
reinforce our understanding that high levels of leader political skill cultivate relationship quality and have the ability to
influence the perceptions and attitudes of others.
Interactions With Influence Tactics. Organizations are inherently political in nature (Pfeffer, 1981). The ambiguous and
subjective nature of organizational processes such as performance evaluations, and the rewards at stake such as pay
and recognition (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, &
Thatcher, 2007), provide motivation for workers to engage
in influence attempts. People engage in influence tactics in
an attempt to change the judgment of their target, to the
extent that it leans more in their favor when their target
makes decisions concerning them (Kolodinsky, Treadway,
& Ferris, 2007). The judgment made by the target could
either be positive or negative based on the style and skill
used by the influencer during the influence attempt (Wayne,
Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).
After the case for the need of workers to engage in various influence behaviors in the workplace had been made,
researchers (e.g., Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; E. E.
Jones, 1990) called for more research that would investigate
why and how influence tactics are effective. Since then,
researchers have introduced political skill to the influence
tactic literature in order to answer E. E. Joness (1990)
question of the why and how, as well as to figure out
moderating forces within the relationship of influence tactics and work outcomes, and which styles guarantee the
successful delivery and execution of influence attempts.
Researchers such as Pfeffer (1981) encouraged further
development of the political skill construct, after assessing
that due to the inherently political nature of organizations,
the use of political skill is necessary for successful social
influence in organizations. Since then, the argument concerning the necessity of political skill and its use in influence has been made very strong. In fact, the use of influence
to achieve favorable outcomes is part of the end goal that is
spelled out in some definitions of political skill. Ferris,
Treadway, etal. (2005, p. 127) defined political skill as the
ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use
such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that
enhance ones personal and/or organizational objectives
and Mintzberg (1985) referred to political skill as the ability
to effectively exercise influence during negotiation, persuasion, and manipulation.
Noteworthy is the presentation of political skill by
researchers as the answer to the why and the how influence tactics are effective. Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and
Shaw (2007) noted that why and how influence tactics work
is a result of the personal characteristics of the influencers
such as their political skill. Workers engagement in an
influence attempt does not guarantee successful influence

of their target; however, researchers such as Kolodinsky
etal. (2007) have recognized political skill, as a construct
that perfects the manner, presentation style, and execution
of influence tactics to ensure the success of an influence
attempt. They explained that the manner, presentation style,
and execution of an influence tactic affected the perception
of the influence attempt by the target, which in turn affects
how the target reacts to the influence attempt and the influencer. If the influence attempt was executed with high political skill, the target favorably perceived the attempt and the
end result was positive outcomes for the influencer.
Several instances have been cited of how political skill
comes into play when people engage in influence tactics.
Harris etal. (2007) highlighted the ability of politically
adroit people to use social cues in order to understand the
relationship dynamics between themselves and their target;
and to use this knowledge to their advantage by tailoring
and consciously managing their behavior in order to effectively influence their target. Harris etal. (2007) also mentioned other factors politically skilled people take into
account when engaging in influence attempts such as the
frequency of tactic usage and their choice of style for execution. Depending on the situation, there is a number of
influence tactics that people could choose to engage in
order to achieve their objectives. People could even decide
to engage in a combination of two or more influence tactics,
and because of the variety of available influence tactics, it is
not unlikely to engage in an inappropriate influence tactic.
In comparison with people low in political skill, people
high in political skill exercise more savvy when deciding
on the choice of which influence tactic to employ in particular situations and change their behavior to be situationally appropriate in order to ensure the successful execution
of the influence tactic (Kolodinsky etal., 2007). Treadway
etal. (2007) noted that how the influence attempt is perceived and interpreted by the target is a function of the
influencers political skill and it is a decisive factor of the
success of the influence attempt. They gave the example of
how ingratiation behaviors backfire when the target interprets the behavior as obvious and manipulative. Politically
skilled people are perceived as more prosocial and their
behaviors are interpreted as less neutral rather than political and self-serving. Ferris etal. (2005) best described the
reasoning behind why the use of political skill is effective
in social influence when they said People high in political
skill not only know what to do in different social situations
at work, but how to do it in a manner that disguises any
ulterior, self-serving motives, and appears to be sincere
(p. 128).
Interactions With Personality. The inconsistency in the use of
personality traits to predict task performance has called for
the examination of potential moderators in the relationship
(Blickle, Meurs, Zettler, etal., 2008; Meurs, Perrew, &

Ferris, 2011). Political skill is one of the moderators that has
been investigated and socioanalytic theory justifies its use
as a social effectiveness competency that yields greater performance when combined with personality (Blickle etal.,
2011; Meurs etal., 2011). The socioanalytic view of job
performance posits that people are motivated to getalong
and get ahead (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). To do so, however,
socioanalytic theory proposes that the personality of people
be complemented with a social effectiveness competency
for the effective achievement of influence (Blickle, Wendel,
& Ferris, 2010; Hogan & Shelton, 1998).
Witt and Ferris (2003) defended the potency of the interaction between social effectiveness competencies and facets
of personality, when they described the moderating role of
social skilla construct similar to political skillin the
conscientiousness and performance relationship. Witt and
Ferris (2003) emphasized the learned ability of social skill
that allows personality dispositions to demonstrate their positive effect. Similarly, political skill can be learned and
developed (Ferris etal., 2005), and it facilitates the translation of a stable personality trait into action. The interaction
between political skill and facets of personality results in an
increase in job performance due to the complementary motivation they both provide for each other, and are each lacking
on their own (Blickle etal., 2008; Blickle etal., 2010).
Researchers have found significant interactions between
political skill and various dimensions of personality traits
such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion
(Blickle etal., 2008; Blickle etal., 2010), and one narrow
personality trait, trait sincerity (Meurs etal., 2011), and
their effect on increased performance. Research has also
found that low or absent political skill is particularly detrimental to performance when people are high in certain personality traits such as agreeableness (Blickle etal., 2008;
Blickle etal., 2010). These research findings have made
significant contributions that clarify some of the inconsistencies in the use of personality to predict performance.
What we know now in research ratifies the need for personality to be accompanied by high political skill in order to
achieve better performance.
Interactions With Context. Researchers have found that political skill is a strong predictor of outcomes such as job performance. The relationship, however, is bound by contextual
variables (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Political skill is a resource
that is activated by context-driven changes in threat perceptions (Ferris etal., 2007; Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Nikolopoulos, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2011) and in accordance with
the situationist perspective, such changes lead people to
respond with a modification in their behavior (Andrews,
Kacmar, & Harris, 2009; Kapoutsis etal., 2011). The context determines how political skill will be used; politically
skilled people evaluate their situations and thereafter engage
in context-specific behaviors that would help them attain

their objectives (Ferris etal., 2007). Despite the emphasis
on the importance of context in the use of political skill,
there has not been a lot of research that accounts for social
context when examining the relationship between political
skill and performance (Kapoutsis etal., 2011).
Some of the findings relating to political skills interaction with context include Kapoutsis etal. (2011) who found
that organizational politics perceptions contextually moderated the political skill and job performance relationship.
High levels of political skill had more positive effects on job
performance when political perceptions were low. The
effects of political skill on job performance were not as
strong when the political perceptions were high. Furthermore,
Andrews etal. (2009) found that when procedural and distributive justice were both low, political skill was positively
related to performance. Political skills interaction with context remains a fertile area for research based on its theorized
importance and lack of extensive theoretical and empirical
investigation. Future researchers should examine other contextual and situational variables that may affect the relationship of political skill and its related outcomes.
What We Need to Know About Social

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

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

and Reputation
People have a fundamental need and concern with how they
present themselves to others in ways that are self-serving
and result in benefits (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Indeed,
organizational life operates in a perceptual world where
people experience their realities based on their perceptions
and interpretations of the cues, images, and impressions
that are presented to them. This basic understanding led
Ferris, King, Judge, and Kacmar (1991) to characterize
organizational politics as a fact of life, and as the management of shared meaning, where by individuals present their
behavior in ways that are designed to fit in with the normally prescribed actions endorsed by the organization.
In the next article in this special issue, by Baskin,
McKee, and Buckley, the authors present a new concept
called time banditry. They suggest this involves the pursuit of non-task-related activities during work time.
Because there is considerable ambiguity in most work
environments, the authors argue that time bandits capitalize on the ambiguity in organizations to manage impressions that their time banditry behavior actually constitutes
productive and not counterproductive work behavior. In
this investigation, two studies were conducted to explore
variables that can be used to classify time bandits into four
different categories, determine which individual-level and
job-level factors can be used to classify time bandits, and
which situational and dispositional variables can be used
to predict time bandit type.
Scholars have argued that reputation is more of a sociopolitical than a scientific construct, and that it plays an important role in the organizational sciences, but that we just do not
understand enough about it yet at either the individual group/
team or organization level of analysis (Ferris etal., 2003;
Ferris etal., 2014; Tsui, 1984). Although there has not been
much work done on the dimensions of reputation, some
scholars have suggested that there are probably two basic
higher order dimensions of individual or organization reputation: Performance/results and character/integrity (Ferris
etal., 2014; Laird, Zbjo, & Ferris, 2012; Zinko etal., 2007).
More research is needed in the future to examine the underlying dimensions of reputation at different levels of analysis.
In this special issue, Martinez, Russell, Maher, BrandonLai, and Ferris examine the interaction of organizations
financial reputation social reputation on firm financial
performance, characterizing the financial reputation as similar in nature to the performance/results dimension and the
social reputation as the character/integrity dimension.

Specifically, argued that if firm managers attend to their
financial and social reputations, they can optimize their
financial performance. However, if managers fail to establish a sound financial reputation, then their financial performance suffers, especially if the firm has invested resources
into maintaining a strong social reputation. Their results
provided support for the hypotheses that financial performance is predicted by financial reputation, and that this
relationship is moderated by social reputation.
Social Influence, Politics, and the Nature of

Political Skill
From the literature review presented earlier in this article, it is
apparent that the political skill construct has been around a
while in concept, but only about 15 years as an empirically
investigated area of work. Although quite a bit has been learned
about political skill to date, there is still much to investigate.
One area that needs investigation focuses on the underlying
dimensions of political skill and how they operate. McAllister
and his colleagues have begun work in this area, characterizing political skill as a process of opportunity recognition,
evaluation, and capitalization (McAllister, Ellen, & Ferris,
2016; McAllister, Ellen, Perrew, Ferris, & Hirsch, 2015), and
some recent empirical work adds some support for these
notions (Wihler, Blickle, Ellen, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2014).
Political Skill and Other Social Constructs.Another area of
inquiry where more research is needed concerns how political skill resonates with other important organizational science constructs. Early work in the development of the
political skill construct needed to establish its construct
validity, and did so by showing that political skill was correlated modestly with other social effectiveness constructs,
and not correlated with GMA (Ferris etal., 2005; Ferris,
Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012). Subsequent empirical research demonstrated that political skill was a significant predictor of job performance even when other
potentially related constructs (i.e., GMA, personality, selfefficacy, self-monitoring, and emotional intelligence) were
put in the prediction equation (Blickle, Kramer, etal., 2011;
Semadar etal., 2006).
The next article in this special issue responds to this
need. Frieder and Basik investigate political skill and
behavioral integrity as predictors of important work outcomes, finding that political skill serves as a key input to
behavioral integrity. Furthermore, they reported that behavioral integrity mediated the relationship between leader
political skill and trust in leader, and work effort significantly predicted objective performance.
Politics and Political Skill in Leadership. Leadership is a social
influence process whereby leaders engage in intentional
10
behaviors to influence others (e.g., Ferris etal., 2007; Ferris

& Hochwarter, 2011). Only relatively recently have scholars
begun to acknowledge the potential importance of political
perspectives on leadership (Ammeter etal., 2002; special
issue on Political Perspectives on Leadership, Ammeter
etal., 2004; Yammarino & Mumford, 2012), and called for
more research in this area in the future (Ferris etal., 2012;
Treadway, Bentley, Williams, & Wallace, 2014).
The next article in this special issue addresses this need
to examine politics and political skill in leadership by focusing on the informal leadership status phenomenon.
Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, and Perrew examine the
roles of political will and political skill in understanding the
relationship between informal leadership status and individual performance. More specifically, they propose, and
find support for, a mediated moderation model that positions political will (i.e., as operationalized as the need for
power) as an input into informal leadership (as operationalized using social network analysis), which in turn predicts
performance, as moderated by political skill.
Politics and Political Skill in Teams. Although social influence,
politics, and political skill have been studied quite a bit
among individuals in organizations, there has been an interesting gap in our knowledge regarding how political and
influence dynamics play out in team contexts, despite the
fact that team-based work structures have become increasingly prevalent. Political skill is just beginning to be considered in research on teams, and the dynamics that occur
among team members, but very little research has been published to date on this topic. Ahearn etal. (2004) found leader
political skill to be significantly and positively related to
team performance, and Lvina, Johns, and Vandenberghe
(2015) reported that team-level political skill affects team
cohesion and team performance.
We included an article in this special issue by Lvina,
Maher, and Harris that addresses the roles of team political
skill in team process and outcomes. Addressing multiple calls
on the need to study politics and political skill within groups/
teams (e.g., Munyon etal., 2015; Vigoda-Gadot & Vashdi,
2012), they build and test a model that represents an attempt
to address this knowledge gap. Studying 525 students, organized into 115 teams, they demonstrate that political skill at
the individual level shapes individual perceptions of team
efficacy and trust in team, and both the composition and level
of political skill within the team critical for these team emergent states, hopefully stimulating further interest in this topic.
Social Influence and Politics Effects on WellBeing

Historically, theory and research on organizational politics
had tended to cast the construct in a pejorative light as
reflecting something inherently bad (e.g., Ferris &
Treadway, 2012). More recently, Hochwarter (2012) has

proposed that this negative label for politics and influence
processes is not a fair characterization, but that politics and
influence can be both good and bad. Unfortunately, not
much research has been focused on the positive aspects of
politics for positive behaviors and attitudes. Earlier work on
politics perceptions demonstrated in many studies that politics perceptions was associated with job dissatisfaction and
some other attitudinal outcomes. Yet there appears to be
boundary conditions that affect the relationships between
politics perceptions and work outcomes.
In the next article in this special issue, Hall, Franczak,
Ma, Herrera, and Hochwarter used sensemaking theory to
hypothesize that those with high levels of work drive would
experience fewer adverse consequences when coupled with
heightened perceptions of politics relative to those reporting less work drive. The hypotheses were strongly supported across two independent samples, demonstrating that
politics perceptions exhibited a significant, direct influence
on job satisfaction, job tension, and emotional exhaustion
for those with lower work drive in Sample 1, but showed
only a minimal impact for those with higher levels of drive.
Furthermore, these results were replicated in Sample 2.
The final article in this special issue by Johnson, Rogers,
Stewart, David, and Witt focuses on the implications of
organizational politics for positive organizational outcomes.
Their study examines antecedents of job dedication (i.e.,
being loyal and cooperative), which are likely to offer value
to managers. The authors examined the combined effects of
organizational politics and emotional stability on the relationship between LMX and job dedication. Their results
revealed that LMX quality yielded high levels of job dedication among all workers except the emotionally unstable
in highly political climates. These results not only point to
the limitations of leader influences on employee contextual
performance but also reinforce the need to hire emotionally
stable workers and keep organizational politics at low
levels.
Conclusion
Social influence and politics in organizations continue to be
a vibrant area of scientific inquiry in the organizational sciences, with a history that dates back over a century.
However, it is useful to reenergize interest in topics over
time, particularly when we see that needs arise relative to
some gaps in our knowledge base. In this article, we
reviewed the literature in this area to demonstrate what we
already know about social influence and politics in organizations, then argued for some issues and topics about which
we still need to know more. Then, we introduced new
research that addresses some of these needs, and those articles formed the content of this special issue. We view the
nine articles in this special issues as interesting and
11
Ferris et al.
important contributions to new knowledge, and efforts to
expand our knowledge base in this important area of the
field. Furthermore, it is our hope that these articles individually, and this entire special issue collectively, serve to
stimulate and reinvigorate scholarship on these and other
important issues on social influence and politics in organizational research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adams, G. L., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2008). The role
of dispositions in politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20,
545-563.
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., &
Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309-327.
Albrecht, S. (2006). Organizational politics: Affective reactions,
cognitive assessments and their inuence on organizational
commitment and cynicism toward change. In E. VigodaGadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics (pp. 230-252). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W. L., Hochwarter, W. A.,
& Ferris, G. R. (2002). Toward a political theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 751-796.
Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R.,
& Gardner, W. L. (2004). Introduction to: The Leadership
Quarterly special issue on political perspectives on leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 433-435.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among
organizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 347-366.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K., & Harris, K. (2009). Got political
skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political
skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1427-1437.
Aryee, 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.
Atinc, G., Darrat, M., Fuller, B., & Parker, B. W. (2010). Perceptions
of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of theoretical antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22, 494-513.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Baur, J. E., Ellen, B. P., III, Buckley, M. R., Ferris, G. R., Allison,
T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2016). More than one
way to articulate a vision: A configurations approach to leader
charismatic rhetoric and influence. Leadership Quarterly, 27,
156-171.
Blickle, G., Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Momm, T., Zettler, I.,
Schneider, P. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2011). A multi-source,
multi-study investigation of job performance prediction by
political skill. Applied Psychology, 60, 449-474.
Blickle, G., Frohlich, J., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes,
T. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Socioanalytic theory and work
behavior: Roles of work values and political skill in job performance and promotability assessment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 78, 136-148.
Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Schneider, P. B., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G.
R., Mierke, J., . . . Momm, T. (2011). Role of political skill in
job performance prediction beyond general mental ability and
personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 488-514.
Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Schneider, P. B., Kramer, J., Zettler, I.,
Maschler, J., . . . Ferris, G. R. (2008). Personality, political
skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72, 377-387.
Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer,
J., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Personality, political skill, and job
performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377-387.
Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A
predictive investigation of reputation as mediator of the political skill/career success relationship. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 41, 3026-3048.
Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Political skill as
moderator of personality-job performance relationships in
socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 326-335.
Bolander, W., Satornino, C. B., Hughes, D. E., & Ferris, G. R.
(2015). Social networks within sales organizations: Their
development and importance for salesperson performance.
Journal of Marketing, 79(6), 1-16.
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R.
(2009). Politics as a moderator of the accountability-job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of
Management, 35, 307-326.
Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R.
(2013). Leader political skill, relationship quality, and leader
effectiveness: A two-study model test and constructive replication. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20,
185-198.
Chang, C-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship
between perceptions of organizational politics and employee
attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Machiavellianism. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social
norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
12
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral

theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational
reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329-360.
Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence
tactics in perceptions of performance evaluations fairness.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 288-303.
Ellen, B. P., III, Ferris, G. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2013). Leader
political support: Reconsidering leader political behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 24, 842-857.
Ewen, C., Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Oerder, K., Ellen, B. P., III,
Douglas, C., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Further specification
of the leader political skill-leadership effectiveness relationships: Transformational and transactional leader behavior as
mediators. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 516-533.
Ewen, C., Wihler, A., Kane-Frieder, R. E., Blickle, G., Hogan, R.,
& Ferris, G. R. (2014). Leader advancement motive, political
skill, leader behavior, and effectiveness: A moderated mediation extension of socioanalytic theory. Human Performance,
27, 373-392.
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.), Research in multi-level issues, Volume 1:
The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). Oxford,
England: JAI Press.
Ferris, G. R., Blass, R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., &
Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations.
In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of
the science (2nd ed., pp. 211-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Brouer, R. L., Laird, M. D., & Hochwarter, W. A.
(2005). The consequences of organizational politics perceptions as a workplace stressor. In A. M. Rossi, P. M. Perrew,
& S. L. Sauter (Eds.), Stress and the quality of working life:
Current perspectives in occupational health (pp. 155-165).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrew, P. L. (2005). Political
skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain View,
CA: Davies-Black.
Ferris, G. R., & Frink, D. D. (1997). Influence tactics in the performance evaluation process. In L. H. Peters, S. A. Youngblood,
& C. R. Greer (Eds.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary
of human resource management (pp. 165-167). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
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.
Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2000).
Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between
politics perceptions and political behavior. In Research in the
sociology of organizations (Vol. 17, pp. 89-130). Bingley,
England: Emerald Group.
Ferris, G. R., Harris, J. N., Russell, Z. A., Ellen, B. P., III,
Martinez, A. D., & Blass, F. R. (2014). The role of reputation
in the organizational sciences: A multi-level review, construct
assessment, and research directions. In M. R. Buckley, A. R.

Wheeler, & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 32, pp. 241-303).
Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Ferris, G. R., Harris, J. N., Russell, Z. A., & Maher, L. (in press).
Politics in organizations. In D. S. Ones, N. R. Anderson, H.
K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2011). Organizational politics.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 435-459). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, R.,
Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21,
pp. 65-127). Oxford, England: JAI Press.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources
management: A political influence perspective. Journal of
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D.
E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116.
Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources
decisions: A walk on the dark side. Organizational Dynamics,
20(2), 59-71.
Ferris, G. R., King, T. R., Judge, T. A., & Kacmar, K. M.
(1991). The management of shared meaning in organizations: Opportunism in the reflection of attitudes, beliefs, and
values. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied
impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 41-64). US: Sage Publications.
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.
Ferris, G. R., & Treadway, D. C. (Eds.). (2012). Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (SIOP Frontier
Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Brouer, R. L., & Munyon, T. P.
(2012). Political skill in the organizational sciences. In G. R.
Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations:
Theory and research considerations (pp. 487-528, SIOP
Frontier Series volume). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter,
W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005).
Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory.
Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrew, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33, 290-320.
Frink, D. D., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Social influence in the performance evaluation process. In S. Cartwright
(Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource
13
Ferris et al.
management (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 346-349). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace
politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237-251.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 32-58.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hannon, J. M., & Milkovich, G. T. (1996). The effect of human
resource reputation signals on share prices: An event study.
Human Resource Management, 35, 405-424.
Harrell-Cook, F., Ferris, G., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political
behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics-work outcomes relationships. Journal of
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007).
The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278-285.
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence
tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Hochwarter, W. A. (2012). The positive side of organizational
politics. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in
organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 2766). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrew, P.
L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as
neutralizer of felt accountability-job tension effects on
job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
102, 226-239.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on
job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129-144.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity.
Human Relations, 49, 917-946.
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal:
A process focus. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 141-197).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: W.
H. Freeman.
Jones, M. V., Paull, G. C., & Erskine, J. (2002). The impact of a
teams aggressive reputation on the decisions of association
football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 991-1000.
Kacmar, K., & Baron, R. (1999). Organizational politics: The
state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for
future research. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Stamford,
CT: JAI Press.
Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & White, C. D. (2007). Control and
exchange: The impact of work environment on the work effort
of low relationship quality employees. Leadership Quarterly,
18, 69-84.
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Nikolopoulos, A., Hochwarter,
W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Politics perceptions as moderator of the political skill-job performance relationship: A
two-study, cross-national, constructive replication. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 78, 123-135.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T., & Hochwarter,
W. (2009). The interactive effects of psychological contract
breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational
support: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of
Management Studies, 46, 806-834.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles:
Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 528-542.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980).
Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting
ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Kolodinsky, R. W., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2007).
Political skill and influence effectiveness: Testing portions
of the expanded Ferris and Judge (1991) model. Human
Relations, 60, 1747-1777.
Laird, M. D., Zbjo, J. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). Partial mediation of the political skill-reputation relationship. Career
Development International, 17, 557-582.
Laird, M. D., Zbjo, J. J., Martinez, A. D., & Ferris, G. R. (2013).
Performance and political skill in personal reputation assessments. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 661-676.
Lasswell, H. (1936). Who gets what, when, and how. New York,
NY: Whittlesey House.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of typological psychology. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hall.
Lux, S., Ferris, G. R., Brouer, R. L., Laird, M. D., & Summers, J.
K. (2008). A multi-level conceptualization of organizational
politics. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 353-371). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lvina, E., Johns, G., & Vandenberghe, C. (2015). Team political
skill composition as a determinant of team cohesiveness and
performance. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206315598371
Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda
using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society,
41, 415-445.
Mainiero, L. A. (1994). On breaking the glass ceiling: The political seasoning of powerful women executives. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(4), 5-20.
McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., III, & Ferris, G. R. (2016). Social
influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization: Increased theoretical specification through political skills dimensional dynamics. Journal of Management.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206316633747
McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., III, Perrew, P. L., Ferris, G. R.,
& Hirsch, D. J. (2015). Checkmate: Using political skill to
recognize and capitalize on opportunities in the game of
organizational life. Business Horizons, 58(1), 25-34.
Meurs, J. A., Perrew, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Political skill
as moderator of the trait sincerity-task performance relationship: A socioanalytic, narrow trait perspective. Human
Performance, 24, 119-124.
Miller, B. K., & Nicols, K. M. (2008). Politics and justice: A
mediated moderation model. Journal of Managerial Issues,
20, 214-237.
14
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal
of Management Studies, 22, 133-154.
Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. W., & Ferris,
G.R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the
future. Personnel Psychology, 68, 143-184.
OConnor, W. E., & Morrison, T. G. (2001). A comparison of situational and dispositional predictors of perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Psychology, 135, 301-312.
Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions
of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA:
Pitman.
Poon, J. M. (2006). Trust-in-supervisor and helping coworkers: Moderating effect of perceived politics. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 518-532.
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 23, 1077-1093.
Rosen, C. C., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process
model. Human Relations, 62, 27-57.
Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing
the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in
the prediction of managerial job performance. Journal of
Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of
charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study,
and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25-42.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based
theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
Silvester, J. (2008). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Politics and
politicians at work. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 23, 107-148.
Smith, A. D., Plowman, D., Duchon, D., & Quinn, A. (2009). A
qualitative study of high-reputation plant managers: Political
skill and successful outcomes. Journal of Operations
Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Burke, M. J., Christian, M. S.,
Smith, C. E., Hall, A., & Simms, S. (2013). Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness
of influence tactics. Journal of Management, 39, 1156-1183.
Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring:
Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, 523-556.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management
and influence in the organization. Research in the Sociology
of Organizations, 3, 31-58.
Treadway, D. C., Bentley, J. R., Williams, L. R., & Wallace, A.
(2014). The skill to lead: The role of political skill in leadership dynamics. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
leadership and organizations (pp. 505-523). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A.,

Kacmar, C. J., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2004).
Leader political skill and employee reactions. Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 493-513.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G., &
Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate
political skill on supervisors impressions of subordinate
ingratiation and ratings of interpersonal facilitation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 848-855.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and
competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.
Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,
64-96.
Tyran, K. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you
get? The relationship among surface-and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation.
Group & Organization Management, 33, 46-76.
Valle, M., & Perrew, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate
to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and
expanded model. Human Relations, 53, 359-386.
Vigoda, E. (2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A crosscultural examination in Israel and Britain. Human Relations,
54, 1483-1518.
Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. (2002). Influence tactics and perceptions
of organizational politics: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Business Research, 55, 311-324.
Vigoda, E., & Cohen, A. (2003). Work congruence and excellence in human resource management empirical evidence
from the Israeli nonprofit sector. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 23, 192-216.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of organizational politics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Vashdi, D. R. (2012). Politics in and around
teams: Toward a team-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.),
Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations
(pp. 287-322, SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Ben-Zion, E. (2003).
Politics and image in the organizational landscape: An empirical examination among public sector employees. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18, 764-787.
Villanova, P., & Bernardin, H. I. (1989). Impression management
in the context of performance appraisal. In R. A. Giacalone &
P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 299-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect,
and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions:
A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 487-499.
Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48,
70-88.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The
role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions.
Personnel Psychology, 50, 979-1006.
15
Ferris et al.
Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Ellen, B. P., III, Hochwarter, W. A., &
Ferris, G. R. (2014). Personal initiative and job performance
evaluations: Role of political skill in opportunity recognition
and capitalization. Journal of Management. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0149206314552451
Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., & Lee, K. (2014). Honesty-humility
and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29,
235-251.
Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence:
A solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of
the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent
evidence across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 809-820.
Yammarino, F. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leadership and
organizational politics: A multilevel review and framework
for pragmatic deals. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.),
Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations
(pp. 323-354, SIOP Frontier Series volume). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2002, April). Organizational leadership and social
intelligence. In Kravis-de Roulet Leadership Conference,
1999. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D.
(1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social
perspectiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 317-342.
Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Honestyhumility and a personsituation interaction at work. European Journal of
Personality, 24, 569-582.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., & Laird, M. D. (2007). Toward
a theory of reputation in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 26, pp. 169-209). Oxford, England: JAI Press.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Aime,
F. (2012). Personal reputation in organizations: Two-study
constructive replication and extension of antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Carlson, D. S., &
Bratton, V. K. (2004). Interactive effects of impression management and organizational politics on job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 627-640.
Author Biographies
Gerald R. Ferris is the Francis Eppes Professor of Management, professor of psychology, and professor of sport management at Florida
State University. He received a PhD in business administration from
the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. He has research

interests in the areas of social influence processes in human resources
systems. He is the author of numerous articles published in a number
of top journals. He served as editor of the annual series, Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, from its creation in
1981 until 2003. He has been the recipient of a number of distinctions
and honors. In 2001, he was the recipient of the Heneman Career
Achievement Award, and in 2010, he received the Thomas A.
Mahoney Mentoring Award, both from the Human Resources
Division of the Academy of Management.
Pamela L. Perrew is the Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent
Scholar of business administration, professor of sport management, and distinguished research professor at Florida State
University. She has focused her research interests in the areas of
job stress, coping, organizational politics, and social influence.
She has Fellow status with the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, the American Psychological
Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and
Southern Management Association. Furthermore, she is the creator and lead editor of an annual series titled, Research in
Occupational Stress and Well-Being published by Emerald
Publishing.
Shanna R. Daniels is an assistant professor of management in the
College of Business at Florida State University. She received a
PhD in management from Tulane University. She has focused her
research interests in the areas of social exchange processes, workplace aggression, and employment discrimination. Her work has
been published in such journals and books as the Human Resource
Management Review, Research in Occupational Stress and WellBeing, Organizational Justice: International Perspectives and
Conceptual Advances, and The Oxford University Press Handbook
of Organizational Psychology.
Diane Lawong is a PhD student in management at Florida State
University. She holds a masters degree in labor relations and
human resources and a BS degree in biology and health science
both from Cleveland State University. She has research interests in
the areas of social influence, political skill, workplace diversity,
organizational culture, and organizational change.
Jeanne J. Holmes is an assistant professor of management in the
College of Business at North Carolina A&T University. She
received a PhD in management from the University of South
Carolina. She earned her bachelors degree in management from
Miami University and an MS in organizational communication
from North Carolina State University. Her research interests are in
identity, social influence, and human resource management systems. Her research has been published in outlets such as the
Journal of Vocational Behavior and the Journal of Business
Venturing.

Ferris 2016

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ferris 2016

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

656003

JLOXXX10.1177/1548051816656003Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesFerris et al.

Social Influence and Politics in

Journal of Leadership &

Gerald R. Ferris1, Pamela L. Perrew1, Shanna R. Daniels1,

resides on topics, and thus, where we might need to go with

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

What We Know About Social

Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994). The research in this

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Several scholars in this area have suggested that although

process mechanism through which political skill influences

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

demographic variables were the focus of research (Adams,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

formalization and POP (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001;

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

have been critical in determining whether past mixed results

effectiveness constructs. Specifically, Ferris etal. (2005)

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

influence attempt does not guarantee successful influence

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

(Blickle, Meurs, Zettler, etal., 2008; Meurs, Perrew, &

in context-specific behaviors that would help them attain

What We Need to Know About Social

Social Influence and Politics in Human

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Social Influence and Politics in Image Making

social reputation as the character/integrity dimension.

Social Influence, Politics, and the Nature of

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

behaviors to influence others (e.g., Ferris etal., 2007; Ferris

Social Influence and Politics Effects on WellBeing

Treadway, 2012). More recently, Hochwarter (2012) has

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral

assessment, and research directions. In M. R. Buckley, A. R.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

two-study, cross-national, constructive replication. Journal of

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations.

Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A.,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. He has research

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at La Trobe University on July 11, 2016

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen