Printer Friendly

The role of dispositions in politics perception formation: the predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy.

Theoretical frameworks have suggested that a combination of individual influences, job/work environment influences, and organizational influences combine to contribute to the formation of individuals' perceptions of organizational politics (Ferris et al., 2002; Ferris et al., 1989). However, empirical investigations of the individual-level antecedents of politics perceptions have focused on demographic factors such as age, sex, race, organizational tenure, and organizational level (e.g., Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk et al., 1996; Ferris, Frink, Galang et al., 1996; Ferris et al., 1994; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992). With the notable exception of O'Connor and Morrison (2001) and Valle and Perrewe (2000), research has neglected the potential influence of personality characteristics on the formation of politics perceptions.

Valle and Perrewe (2000) initiated the exploration of the personality--politics perception relationship by examining the mediating role of politics perceptions between dispositions such as need for power, Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and locus of control, with outcomes such as job satisfaction, job anxiety, and intent to turnover. The study found that Machiavellianism and external locus of control serve as significant predictors of politics perceptions. In addition, O'Connor and Morrison (2001) explored the relationship between situational and dispositional antecedents and politics perceptions. Consistent with the findings of Valle and Perrewe (2000), O'Connor and Morrison also found significant relationships between work locus of control and Machiavellianism with politics perceptions.

The present study extends Valle and Perrewe's (2000) and O'Connor and Morrison's (2001) personality-based perspective by proposing that an individual's dispositional traits directly affect their perceptions of politics in work environments. However, the present study extends the previous research by exploring dispositions such as negative affect, positive affect, self-efficacy, and equity sensitivity that have not been examined as antecedents in prior politics perceptions research. The following sections explore previous research examining politics perceptions formation and offers theoretical justification as to why additional dispositions should be studied as integral predictors in the Ferris et al. (1989) perceptions of politics model.

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POPS)

Organizational politics is defined as "individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all in a technical sense, illegitimate--sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (although it may exploit any one of these)" (Mintzberg, 1983: 172). A key point to be developed from this definition is that, because political activities are not formally sanctioned by the organization, such activities tend to create divisive effects. Organizational politics places individuals and groups with conflicting ideologies against one another in a dynamic struggle for scarce organizational resources. The inherent conflict created by this struggle for scarce resources might generate attitudes and behavior divergent from the goals and needs of the organization (Ferris et al., 1994; Rosen et al., 2006).

Theorists have argued that the precursors of these attitudes and behaviors are the individuals' perceptions of organizational politics (Gandz and Murray, 1980; Ferris et al., 1989). Advocates of the perceptual view of politics in organizations argue that even if individuals' perceptions of the impact of political influence on organizational activities and decision-making process is a misrepresentation of actual events, this perception is part of individuals' view of reality and, therefore, will drive their associated cognitive and behavioral responses (Lewin, 1936). As a result, these perceptions may tend to develop more from subjective than objective views of reality. In fact, Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Dulebohn proposed that perceptions of organizational politics "involves an individual's attribution of behaviors of self-serving intent, and is defined as an individual's subjective evaluation about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by co-workers and supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior" (2000: 90).

Empirical evidence suggests that decreased promotional opportunities (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar and Baron, 1999; Valle and Perrewe, 2000), formalization (Fedor et al., 1998; Ferris, Frink, Galang et al., 1996), and interactions with co-workers and supervisors (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar and Baron, 1999; Parker et at, 1995) are relatively consistent predictors of perceived politics formation. Absent from the literature is research consistently supporting the importance of individual difference variables in predicting the formation of politics perceptions. Indeed, only minority status (Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk et al., 1996; Parker et al., 1995) has been shown to influence perceived politics in multiple studies. Given the inconsistency of findings in past research, we propose that there is a theoretical evidence and need for examining the roles of dispositions such as positive affect, negative affect, self-efficacy, and equity sensitivity as predictors of political perceptions.

Dispositions in Organizations

There has been an ongoing debate in the organizational behavior literature regarding the nature of the contribution that dispositional research makes to organizational study. Some scholars (Davis-Blake and Pfeffer, 1989, 1996; Mischel, 1968) have maintained that situational factors serve as the primary determinants of individual behavior within organizations, whereas others (House et al., 1996; Staw and Ross, 1985; Shane et al., 1996) have argued that dispositions can influence and predict the formation and development of attitudes and behaviors within organizations. As previously discussed, Ferris et al.'s (1989) original conceptualization of the perceptions of politics construct accounted for both the situational and dispositional perspective of organizational action. While a relative abundance of research has assessed the impact of situational factors on the formation of politics perceptions, little research has been conducted assessing the role of dispositional traits in the formation of politics perceptions.

House et al. defined dispositions as "psychological (as opposed to physical or other objectively assessed characteristics of individuals) personality characteristics, need states, attitudes, preferences, and motives. Dispositions generally are viewed as tendencies to respond to situations, or classes of situations in a particular, predetermined manner" (1996: 205). This study focuses on personality traits, which are considered the most stable individual dispositions over time and context (House et al., 1996; Weiss and Adler, 1984).

Positive and Negative Affectivity. Positive affectivity is defined as a stable tendency to experience positive emotional states across time and context, and display positive emotional states through behaviors that are enthusiastic, active, joyful, alert, and socially responsive (Larsen and Ketelaar, 1991; Watson and Clark, 1984). Negative affectivity refers to "a stable tendency to experience negative emotions across situations and time" (Spector et al., 1999: 206). As a result, high negative affect individuals might be viewed as reflecting a depressive orientation towards life (George, 1992). It is important to note that affectivity research indicates that positive affect and negative affect are independent personality dimensions, where individuals can be high on both, low on both, or high on one and low on the other (George, 1992; Watson and Tellegen, 1985).

Prior research examining the predictive role of positive affect and perception-based outcomes offers some insight for this study. Iverson, Olekalns, and Erwin (1998) found that workers higher in positive affect tend to experience less job burnout and higher levels of perceived support, while a meta-analysis by Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) reported a strong positive correlation between positive affect and job satisfaction. As a result, it seems likely that an individual's positive affect might serve as a coping mechanism to reduce negative perceptions and effects associated with politics. Also, due to their general tendencies to view the world in a positive light, high positive affect individuals might be less likely to perceive negative political behaviors, or make attributions to politics regarding organizational decision-making.

Conversely, high negative affect individuals tend to view their environments in a negative light. Research by Golin, Terrell, and Johnson (1977), Sweeney, Anderson, and Bailey (1986), and Staw and Barsade (1993) have demonstrated that individuals with negative views of life have stronger tendencies to make attributions to negative stimuli, as well as perceive external forces acting within their environments. For example, individuals high in negative affect have been found more likely to perceive inequities in job outcomes (Hochwarter et al., 1996). Therefore, it seems likely that high negative affect individuals should be more likely to perceive the impact of negative events such as politics within their organizational environment (Watson and Pennebaker, 1989). Hence,

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant, negative relationship between positive affect (PA) and Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POPS) such that high PA individuals are less likely to experience POPS than low PA individuals.

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant, positive relationship between negative affect (NA) and Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POPS) such that high NA individuals are more likely to experience POPS than low NA individuals.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has been defined as an individual's "beliefs in one's capability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands" (Wood and Bandura, 1989: 408). Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to have innate confidence that they can successfully execute their job duties and responsibilities within an organizational environment (Gardner and Pierce, 1998). As mentioned earlier, politics perceptions research to date has employed self-efficacy only as a moderator of the relationship between perceived politics and individual outcomes such as job satisfaction and intent to turnover (Bozeman et al., 2001; Ferris et al., 1989).

In addition to these prior conceptualizations of self-efficacy, there are also theoretical foundations for viewing self-efficacy as an antecedent of politics perceptions formation. One relationship that seems to suggest the antecedent nature of self-efficacy is found in linkages between self-efficacy and locus of control. Locus of control is a bi-polar construct describing an individual's beliefs of control in the receipt of rewards and performance reinforcement (Spector, 1982). Gist (1987) proposed the initial strength of linkage between self-efficacy and locus of control, while research by Phillips and Gully (1997) supported this relationship, finding significant, positive correlations between self-efficacy and locus of control. The perceptions of politics model of Ferris, Russ and Fandt (1989) included locus of control as an antecedent to POPS formation. As mentioned earlier, subsequent empirical testing of political perception antecedents by Valle and Perrewe (2000) and O'Connor and Morrison (2001) found that external locus of control was a significant predictor of perceived politics. Given the exploratory nature of this study and the inherent conceptual linkages between locus of control and self-efficacy and locus of control with POPS, we extended the transitive property of mathematics to this study to propose that:

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant, negative relationship between self-efficacy (SE) and Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POPS) such that high SE individuals are less likely to experience POPS than low SE individuals.

Equity Sensitivity. The study of equity sensitivity evolved from a stream of equity theory research (Adams, 1963, 1965; Carrell and Dittrich, 1978; Greenberg, 1982; Walster et al., 1978) that examined individual perceptions and comparisons of the relative fairness of their interactions with others. Equity theory maintains that individual attitudes and behaviors are affected by the individual's assessment of their work contributions relative to the rewards received for their contributions, and that individual distress increases as the contribution to reward ratio gets larger (Adams, 1965; Greenberg, 1998).

Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles developed the equity sensitivity construct as an extension of equity theory, proposing "that individuals react in consistent but individually different ways to both perceived equity and inequity because they have different preferences for (i.e., are differentially sensitive to) equity" (1987: 233). Three primary equity sensitivity classifications are noted, namely, those of Benevolents, Equity Sensitives, and Entitleds (Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993). Benevolents are defined as individuals that have a greater tolerance for underreward in their input/output ratio relative to comparison others (King et al., 1993). Equity Sensitives are denoted as those that have a general preference of equality in their input/output ratio relative to comparison others (Huseman et al., 1987). Entitleds are conceptualized as those "who are more focused on the receipt of outcomes than on the contribution of inputs and who are thus intolerant of underreward, more tolerant of overreward than either Equity Sensitives or Benevolents, and for whom satisfaction and the receipt of rewards are positively and linearly related" (King et al., 1993: 304).

Although there has been no work linking the equity sensitivity and politics perceptions research streams, there does appear to be logical as well as conceptually compelling connections between the two areas. Studies have explored the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and the individual equity effect described by Adams (1963, 1965), where procedural justice refers to "the fairness of procedures that are used to divide valued organizational outcomes" (Gillebrand, 1993: 695). Across a variety of settings and contexts, these studies indicate that an individual's perceptions of fairness or inequity in organizational decision and reward processes are associated with a variety of outcome behaviors (Brockner et al., 1994; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). In such cases, equity sensitivity differences across individuals should tend to influence the point at which individual members begin to experience distress, as well as the levels of distress experienced by organizational members, and the nature of the attributions such individuals make to perceived external factors such as organizational politics (Henle, 2005).

In addition, the self-serving bias tenet of attribution theory suggests that individuals are more likely to attribute successes to personal traits and internal qualities, while attributing failures to external factors that are beyond the individual's ability to control (Schwenk, 1990; Trope and Gaunt, 2000; Zuckerman, 1979). Extending this tenet to the equity sensitivity-politics perceptions relationship, as an individual's relative equity sensitivity increases (i.e., moving from Benevolence towards Entitled), the attainment of outputs for a given level of input becomes increasingly important. As the desire for outputs increases and becomes increasingly difficult to attain, the individual is more likely to seek out external explanations for output attainment failures, including attributing such failures to phenomena such as organizational politics (Allen and White, 2002; Hartman et al., 1999; Miller and Ross, 1975). As a result, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant, positive relationship between equity sensitivity (ES) and Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POPS) such that high ES individuals (Entitleds) are more likely to experience POPS than low ES individuals (Benevolents).

METHODS

Participants

The data were obtained from a retail financial services firm, and surveys were mailed directly to the employee's place of business. Included with the surveys were two letters. The first was a letter from the research team outlining the objectives of the study. A letter of endorsement from the organization also accompanied the instrument. Both letters stressed the voluntary nature of the study and the confidentiality of all responses provided. A total of 2,898 surveys were distributed, of which 890 were returned (30.7% response rate). List-wise deletion data sorting methods were employed where respondents were dropped if they failed to complete any of the included scales. This data sorting technique resulted in a usable sample size of 543 for our analyses. The participants were predominantly female (72.4%) and Caucasian (62.1% of total sample), with representative samples from African-American (10.8% of total sample) and Hispanic-American (14.6%) employees.

Measures

Perceptions of Politics. The 12-item perceptions of politics scale (Kacmar and Ferris, 1991) was utilized to assess the degree to which the employee perceived their environment to be political in nature. A representative item is "People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down." The scale utilizes a seven-point scale anchored by "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree." The coefficient alpha internal consistency estimate for this scale was [alpha] = .76.

Positive and Negative Affectivity. The 20-item PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) scale was used to capture the affectual disposition of the individual. A five-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "extremely" was used to assess the degree to which the respondent experienced emotions such as distressed, interested, or hostile. The scale demonstrated an [alpha] = .80 for the positive affect dimension and [alpha] = .84 for the negative affect dimension.

Self-efficacy. A four-item modified version of the Riggs (1994) individual efficacy scale was utilized for this study. Representative items included "I feel I am qualified for my job" and "I am confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my co-workers." This measure demonstrated a reliability of [alpha] = .77.

Equity Sensitivity. The King and Miles (1994) Equity Sensitivity Index (ESI) was used. On each of five pairs of items, respondents were asked to distribute ten points between those items to illustrate their relative level of agreement. This instrument was scored by summing the points allotted to the Benevolent item within each pair. Thus, one can conceptualize this raw score as the level of Benevolence that each individual shows. The scale had a reliability of [alpha] = .71.

There has been some concern expressed over the measurement of equity sensitivity in past research. Sauley and Bedeian (2000) noted deficiencies in the ESI originally developed in Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1985), and further refined in Huseman et al. (1987) and King and Miles (1994). Specific problems with the ESI denoted in Sauley and Bedeian (2000) include: (1) a sample-specific scoring procedure and (2) the inappropriate use of cut scores. Because the data in this sample were collected prior to the publication of Sauley and Bedeian (2000), the King and Miles (1994) version of the ESI was employed. In this study the ESI was utilized as a continuous variable, negating the scoring procedure and cut score issues mentioned in Maxwell and Delaney (1993), Sauley and Bedeian (2000), and Foote and Harmon (2006).

Control Variables

The control variables employed in this study are consistent with the individual, demographic variables proposed in Ferris et al. (1989) and Ferris et al. (2002). The use of these variables should allow for the separation of variance explained between individual demographic and dispositional effects.

Job Title. A listing of the eight primary job classifications of the surveyed employees was included in the instrument. The respondents were asked to indicate to which job classification they belonged.

Race, Gender, Age. Respondents were asked to indicate their "Age," "Gender," and "Race."

Tenure. Respondents were asked to indicate "How long have you been working for (Company X)?" The answers were converted to months for ease of analysis. This company has been in operation for four years and, therefore, average tenure is relatively low in comparison with other studies of perceived politics.

The research hypotheses were tested utilizing hierarchical regression. The control variables were entered into the first block of the analysis, while the second block included the dispositional variables excluding the primary hypothesized variable of interest. The hypothesized variable of interest was entered in Step 3. A significant change in the R" from the second block to the third indicates that the variables of interest to this study offer a contribution to our ability to explain the variance in the dependent variable (POPS).

RESULTS

The results for our study are displayed next. Table 1 includes the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates for all variables included in the study. Tables 2 through 5 represent the results from Hypotheses 1 through 4, while Table 6 shows the variance explained by the dispositional variables when regressed as a block. The dispositional variables were able to predict politics perceptions above and beyond the predictive ability of the control variables (F (4, 533) = 14.77, [DELTA][R.sup.2] = .096, p < .001). Since Hypotheses 1 through 4 are all directional predictions, one-tailed t-tests were used to test for significance. As hypothesized, negative affect (b = .231, p < .001) (H2) and equity sensitivity (b = -.088, p < .05) (H4) had a significant impact on political perceptions in the workplace. The hypothesized relationships between self-efficacy and POPS (H3) operated in the hypothesized direction, but was not significant (b = -.074, p < .10). Finally, each of the dispositional effects operated in the hypothesized direction.

DISCUSSION

Research Implications

This study makes several contributions to the perceptions of politics research stream. First, the findings indicate that the dispositions of equity sensitivity and negative affectivity serve as determinants of politics perception formation and development. In addition, our findings indicate that dispositions account for over three times the variance explained in politics perceptions by demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, job title, and organizational tenure. Integrated with previous research, these results suggest that "negative" dispositions such as negative affectivity and equity sensitivity operate as antecedents of politics perceptions, while "positive" dispositions such as self-efficacy and positive affectivity best function as moderators/coping mechanisms in politics perceptions--outcomes relationships.

This research also represents an initial exploration into the relationship between equity sensitivity and politics perceptions formation. Our findings imply that differences in an individual's relative equity sensitivity might offer additional insight into the development of politics perceptions by individuals in organizational environments. Extending the Schneider (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework to equity sensitivity and politics, one might propose that differences in industry and organizational culture could influence the average equity sensitivity of organizational members, which in turn could affect the level of political behaviors engaged in and levels of politics perceptions experienced by organizational members.

These results imply that dispositions have additional influences beyond moderating the relationship between politics perceptions and individual-level outcomes. In addition to potential moderating effects, our findings imply that dispositions themselves influence how individuals perceive and interpret politics within organizational environments. In such cases, dispositions might serve as a valid explanation for why individuals perceive and respond to organizational environmental activities, such as politics, in different manners.

There are several interesting interpretations of these specific findings. There has been an ongoing debate in the politics literature regarding positive and negative states of political behavior and politics perceptions. From an organizational change perspective, it has been argued that any activity where a minority engages in behaviors to produce change in a majority view fits the definition of political behavior, although such behaviors might be engaged in by firm leaders to increase the long-term viability of the organization. However, politics has typically been conceptualized and measured as a negative behavior within organizations, whereby individuals and/or groups act in political manners to the detriment of other individuals, groups, or the organization as a whole (Ferris et al., 2002; Pfeffer, 1981).

Such views of politics as a zero-sum game and a negative societal mind-set towards politics in general have contributed to the tendency to characterize and measure politics as a negative organizational force (Harris et al., 2005). This perspective is supported by our findings, where the tendency to view organizational life in a negative light contributes to individuals' perceptions of, and attributions to, political behaviors and politics within organizations. These findings are consistent with the signal sensitivity research of Larsen and Ketelaar (1991), as well as the personality literature review of Perrewe and Spector (2002), each of which notes that individuals high in negative affectivity are increasingly sensitive to negative environmental signals such as organizational politics. This research stream also might explain the lack of strong support of the self-efficacy/ positive affect-politics perception linkages, because individuals who view the world in a positive light might not tend to perceive or attribute organizational behaviors as being politically motivated.

Managerial Implications

The most important managerial implication of this study is to note that the study and its findings are meant to be interpreted in a descriptive rather than prescriptive manner. While our findings indicate that individuals with specific dispositional qualities may be more likely to perceive organizational politics, we would not use dispositions alone as a screening mechanism in a firm's hiring or promotion processes. It is imperative to remember that just because one perceives organizational politics does not mean that the individual will enact negative behaviors based upon those perceptions (Ferris et al., 2002).

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged and addressed. First, the study survey data were collected with a single-source, self-report design, contributing to the potential for common method variance (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). As a result, we conducted a Harman one-factor test on the study's independent and dependent variables. A single factor failed to emerge with the use of minimum eigenvalue selection criteria, and the highest factor loading contributed only 18% to the total variance explained. These findings indicate that common method variance was not a serious problem in this study (Kent and Moss, 1994; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

A second limitation of the study is that causality is implied between the examined dispositions and politics perceptions, even though a cross-sectional research design was employed in the study. While such a design limits the ability to assess causality between independent and dependent variables, in this case theory suggests that dispositions are individual personality traits formed early in life that remain stable over time and context (House et al., 1996; Weiss and Adler, 1984). In this study, while direction of causality cannot be determined given methodological limitations, it is extremely unlikely that perceptions of politics lead to disposition development and change (O'Connor and Morrison, 2001).

In addition, this study serves as a preliminary examination into the role of dispositions as antecedents to politics perceptions formation. In this research, we examined the direct relationships between dispositions and politics perceptions. However, it might be the case that these relationships are more complex, with interactions between dispositions and/or dispositions with other situational factors also impacting politics perception formation.

Directions for Future Research

Based on the findings in this study, there are both interesting and potentially important implications for future research examining the relationship between individual-level dispositions and interactional constructs such as perceptions of organizational politics. One direction for future research deals with investigating potential interactive effects between dispositions and their influence on politics perceptions. In other words, are there combinations of dispositions that could diminish or exacerbate how individuals perceive and make attributions to organizational politics?

Another direction for future study involves the inclusion of additional dispositions that may influence politics perceptions formation. Our findings imply that positive and negative affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy all play a role in how individuals perceive organizational politics. Examples of other dispositions that might affect politics perceptions formation include Type A behavior and need for achievement, as dispositions that impact individual actions and interactions with others within organizations also seem to influence both individual political behaviors and politics perceptions by themselves and others.

This study also indicates the need for multi-level research examining antecedents to politics perception formation. Specifically, how do individual, dyadic, group or department, and organizational-level factors interact to influence the nature of politics perceptions formation? As the research methods available become increasingly sophisticated, there is both the need and opportunity available to model and test increasingly complex, multi-level organizational interactions to understand individual perception development and behavior in organizational contexts.

As mentioned earlier, this study serves as an initial examination into the role of dispositions as antecedent conditions to politics perceptions formation. The results imply that the inclusion of dispositional effects aid in the study of perceptual constructs such as politics perceptions.

References

Adams, J. S. 1965. "Inequity in Social Exchange." Chapter in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York, NY: Academic Press. pp. 267-299.

--. 1963. "Towards an Understanding of Inequity." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 422-436.

Allen, R. S. and C. S. White. 2002. "Equity Sensitivity Theory: A Test of Responses to Two Types of Under-reward Situations." Journal of Managerial Issues 14 (4): 435-451.

Bozeman, D. P., P. L. Perrewe, W. A. Hochwarter and R. A. Brymer. 2001. "Organizational Politics, Perceived Control, and Work Outcomes: Boundary Conditions on the Effects of Politics." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31 (3): 486-503.

Brockner, J., M. Konovsky, R. Cooper-Schneider, R. Folger, C. Martin and R. Bies. 1994. "Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity on Victims and Survivors of Job Loss." Academy of Management Journal 37: 397-409.

Campbell, D. T. and D. W. Fiske. 1959. "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychological Bulletin 56: 81-105.

Carrell, M. R. and J. E. Dittrich. 1978. "Equity Theory: The Recent Literature, Methodological Considerations, and New Directions." Academy of Management Review 3: 202-210.

Connolly, J. J. and C. Viswesvaran. 2000. "The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis." Personality and Individual Differences 29: 265-281.

Davis-Blake, A. and J. Pfeffer. 1996. "Two Steps Forward, One Step Back." Academy of Management Review 21: 340-343.

-- and -- 1989. "Just a Mirage: The Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Research." Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 385-400.

Fedor, D. B., G. R. Ferris, G. Harrell-Cook and G. S. Russ. 1998. "The Dimensions of Politics Perceptions and Their Organizational and Individual Predictors." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 1760-1797.

Ferris, G. R., G. L. Adams, R. W. Kolodinsky, W. A. Hochwarter and A. P. Ammeter. 2002. "Perceptions of Politics: Theory and Research Directions." Chapter in Research in Multi-level Issues, Vol. 1. Eds. F. Dansereau and F. Y. Yammarino. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. pp. 65-127.

--, D. D. Frink, D. P S. Bhawuk, J. Zhou and D. C. Gilmore. 1996. "Reactions of Diverse Groups to Politics in the Workplace." Journal of Management 22: 23-44.

--. --, M. C. Galang, J. Zhou, K. M. Kacmar and J. L. Howard. 1996. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics: Predictors, Stress-related Implications, and Outcomes." Human Relations 49: 233-266.

--, --, D. C. Gilmore and K. M. Kacmar. 1994. "Understanding as an Antidote for the Dysfunctional Consequences of Organizational Politics as a Stressor." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 1204-1220.

--, G. Harrell-Cook and J. H. Dulebohn. 2000. "Organizational Politics: The Nature of the Relationship between Politics Perceptions and Political Behavior." Chapter in Research in Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 17. Eds. S. B. Bacharach and E.J. Lawler. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. pp. 89-130.

-- and K. M. Kacmar. 1992. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics." Journal of Management 18: 93-116.

--, G. S. Russ and P. M. Fandt. 1989. "Politics in Organizations." Chapter in Impression Management in the Organization. Eds. R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 143-170.

Foote, D. A. and S. Harmon. 2006. "Measuring Equity Sensitivity." Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 (1/2): 90-108.

Gandz, J. and V. Murray. 1980. "The Experience of Workplace Politics." Academy of Management Journal 23: 237-251.

Gardner, D. G. and J. L. Pierce. 1998. "Self-esteem and Self-efficacy within the Organizational Context: An Empirical Examination." Group and Organizational Management 23 (1) : 48-70.

George, J. M. 1992. "The Role of Personality in Organizational Life: Issues and Evidence." Journal of Management 18: 185-213.

Gillebrand, S. W. 1993. "The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective." Academy of Management Journal 18 (4): 694-734.

Gist, M. 1987. "Self-efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management." Academy of Management Review 12: 472-485.

Golin, S., F. Terrell and B. Johnson. 1977. "Depression and the Illusion of Control." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86: 440-442.

Greenberg, J. 1998. "Equity Theory." Chapter in The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Eds. C. L. Cooper and C. Argyris. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 201-202.

--. 1982. "Approaching Equity and Avoiding Inequity in Groups and Organizations." Chapter in Equity and Justice in Social Processes. Eds. J. Greenberg and R. L. Cohen. New York, NY: Academic Press. pp. 389-435.

Harris, K. J., M. James and R. Boonthanom. 2005. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Cooperation as Moderators of the Relationship between Job Strains and Intent to Turnover." Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (1): 26-42.

Hartman, S.J., A. C. Yrle and W. P. Galle. 1999. "Procedural and Distributive Justice: Examining Equity in a University Setting." Journal of Business Ethics 20: 337-351.

Henle, C.A. 2005. "Predicting Workplace Deviance from the Interaction between Organizational Justice and Personality." Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (2): 247-263.

Hochwarter, W. A., L. P. Stepina and P. L. Perrew. 1996. "Always Getting the Short End of the Stick: The Effects of Negative Affectivity on Perceptions of Equity." Journal of Managerial Issues 8 (4): 457-483.

House, R. J., S. A. Shane and D. M. Herold. 1996. "Rumors of the Death of Dispositional Research are Vastly Exaggerated." Academy of Management Review 21: 203-224.

Huseman, R. C., J. D. Hatfield and E. W. Miles. 1987. "A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct." Academy of Management Review 12 (2): 222-234.

--, -- and --. 1985. "Test for Individual Perceptions of Job Equity: Some Preliminary Findings." Perceptual and Motor Skills 61: 1055-1064.

Iverson, R. D., M. Olekalns and P. J. Erwin. 1998. "Affectivity, Organizational Stressors, and Absenteeism: A Causal Model of Burnout and Its Consequences." Journal of Vocational Behavior 52: 1-23.

Kacmar, K. M. and R. A. Baron. 1999. "Organizational Politics: The State of the Field, Links to Related Processes, and an Agenda for Future Research." Chapter in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 17. Ed. G. R. Ferris. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. pp. 1-39.

-- and G. R. Ferris. 1991. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and Construct Validation." Educational and Psychological Measurement 51: 193-205.

Kent, R. L. and S. E. Moss. 1994. "Effects of Sex and Gender Role on Leader Emergence." Academy of Management Journal 37 (5): 1335-1346.

King, W. C. and E. W. Miles. 1994. "The Measurement of Equity Sensitivity." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67: 133-142.

--, -- and D. D. Day. 1993. "A Test and Refinement of the Equity Sensitivity Construct." Journal of Organizational Behavior 14:301-317.

Konovsky, M. A. and S. D. Pugh. 1994. "Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange." Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 656-669.

Larsen, R. J. and T. Ketelaar. 1991. "Personality and Susceptibility to Positive and Negative Emotional States." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (1): 132-140.

Lewin, K. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Maxwell, S. E. and H. D. Delaney. 1993. "Bivariate Splits and Spurious Statistical Significance." Psychological Bulletin 113: 181-190.

Miller, D. T. and M. Ross. 1975. "Self-serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction?" Psychological Bulletin 82: 213-225.

Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and Assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

O'Connor, W. E. and T. G. Morrison. 2001. "A Comparison of Situational and Dispositional Predictors of Perceptions of Organizational Politics." Journal of Psychology 135 (3): 301-312.

Parker, C., R. Dipboye and S. Jackson. 1995. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics: An Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences." Journal of Management 21: 891-912.

Perrewe, P. L. and P. E. Spector. 2002. "Personality Research in the Organizational Sciences." Chapter in Research in Personnel and Human Research Management, Vol. 21. Eds. G. R. Ferris and J. J. Martocchio. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. pp. 1-65.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Phillips, J. M. and S. M. Gully. 1997. "Role of Goal Orientation, Ability, Need for Achievement, and Locus of Control in the Self-efficacy and Goal-setting Process." Journal of applied Psychology 82 (5): 792-802.

Podsakoff, P. M. and D. W. Organ. 1986. "Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects." Journal of Management 12 (4): 531-544.

Poon, J. 2003. "Situational Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Politics Perceptions." Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (1/2): 138-155.

Riggs, M. L., J. Warka, B. Babasa, R. Betancourt and S. Hooker. 1994. "Development and Validation of Self-efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Scales for Job-related Applications." Educational and Psychological Measurement 54 (3): 793-802.

Rosen, C. C., P. E. Levy and R. J. Hall. 2006. "Placing Perceptions of Politics in the Context of the Feedback Environment, Employee Attitudes and Job Performance." Journal of applied Psychology 91 (1): 211-220.

Sauley, K. S. and A. G. Bedeian. 2000. "Equity Sensitivity: Construction of a Measure and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties." Journal of Management 26 (5): 885-910.

Schneider, B. 1987. "The People Make the Place." Personnel Psychology 40: 437-453.

Schwenk, C. 1990. "Illusions of Management Control? Effects of Self-serving Attributions on Resource Commitments and Confidence in Management." Human Relations 43 (4): 333-347.

Shane, S. A., D. M. Herold and R. J. House. 1996. "Situational Determinism One Step Forward, Two Steps Back." Academy of Management Review 21: 343-345.

Spector, P. E. 1982. "Behavior in Organizations as a Function of Employee's Locus of Control." Psychological Bulletin 91 (3): 482-497.

--, S. Fox and P. T. Van Katwyk. 1999. "The Role of Negative Affectivity in Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: Bias Effect or Substantive Effect?" Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72: 205-218.

Staw, B. M. and S. G. Barsade. 1993. "Affect and Managerial Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser Vs. Happier-and-Smarter Hypotheses." Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 304-331.

-- and J. Ross. 1985. "Stability in the Midst of Change: A Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes." Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 469-480.

Sweeney, P. D., K. Anderson and S. Bailey. 1986. "Attributional Style in Depression: A Meta-analytic Review." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 974-991.

Trope, Y. and R. Gaunt. 2000. "Processing Alternative Explanations of Behavior: Correction or Integration?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 344-354.

Valle, M. and P. L. Perrewe. 2000. "Do Politics Perceptions Relate to Political Behaviors?" Human Relations 53: 359-386.

Walster, E., G. W. Walster and E. Berscheid. 1978. Equity: Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Watson, D. and L. A. Clark. 1984. "Negative Affectivity: The Disposition to Experience Aversive Emotional States." Psychological Bulletin 96: 465-498.

--, -- and A. Tellegen. 1988. "Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scale." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 1063-1070.

-- and J. Pennebaker. 1989. "Health Complaints, Stress, and Distress: Exploring the Central Role of Negative Affectivity." Psychological Review 96: 234-254.

-- and A. Tellegen. 1985. "Towards a Consensual Structure of Mood." Psychological Bulletin 98 (2): 219-235.

Weiss, H. M. and S. Adler. 1984. "Personality and Organizational Behavior." Chapter in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 1-50.

Wood, R. and A. Bandura. 1989. "Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 407-415.

Zuckerman, M. 1979. "Attribution of Success and Failure Revisited, or the Motivational Bias is Alive and Well in Attribution Theory." Journal of Personality 47: 245-287.

Garry L. Adams

Department of Management

Auburn University

Darren C. Treadway

Assistant Professor of Organization & Human Resources

State University of New York at Buffalo

Lee P. Stepina

Department of Management

Florida State University
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients and
Intercorrelations

Variable M SD 1 2

 1. Age 32.62 10.16
 2. Gender (1) 0.79 0.41 -.10 *
 3. Tenure 14.64 11.88 .24 ** -.03
 4. Title 3.70 1.08 -.20 ** .14 **
 5. Race 3.02 0.74 .04 .05
 6. Negative Affect 1.72 0.53 -.13 ** .04
 7. Positive Affect 3.88 0.64 .14 ** .04
 8. Self-efficacy 5.69 0.81 .04 -.04
 9. Equity Sensitivity (2) 30.50 6.68 .17 ** .10 *
10. POPS 4.04 0.80 -.08 * .00

Variable 3 4 5 6

 1. Age
 2. Gender (1)
 3. Tenure
 4. Title -.36 **
 5. Race .00 -.04
 6. Negative Affect .09 * .03 .07 -.84
 7. Positive Affect -.05 -.03 -.02 -.38 **
 8. Self-efficacy .03 -.07 .04 -.21 **
 9. Equity Sensitivity (2) .01 -.05 -.08 * -.20 **
10. POPS .13 ** .03 -.O1 .31 **

Variable 7 8 9 10

 1. Age
 2. Gender (1)
 3. Tenure
 4. Title
 5. Race
 6. Negative Affect
 7. Positive Affect -.80
 8. Self-efficacy .20 ** -.77
 9. Equity Sensitivity (2) .35 ** .04 -.71
10. POPS -.21 ** -.14 ** -.17 ** -.76

N = 543.

(1) Gender was coded "0" for Male and "1" for Female.

(2) Since Equity Sensitivity is measured from Entitled to Benevolent,
the signs are reverse of the ESI conceptualization.

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

() Indicate Reliability Coefficients.

Table 2
Regression Results for Unique Variance Explained in the NA--Perceived
Politics (POPS) Relationship

Step and Variable Standardized b [DELTA Total
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]
Step 1:
Age -.112 *
Gender -.014
Race .004
Job Title .076
Organizational Tenure .180 **
 .035 ** .035
Step 2:
Positive Affectivity -.131 **
Equity Sensitivity -.102 *
Self-efficacy -.108
 .053 ** .088
Step 3:
Negative Affectivity .231 **
 .043 ** .131

N = 543; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Table 3
Regression Results for Unique Variance Explained in the PA--POPS
Relationship

Step and Variable Standardized b [DELTA] Total
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]
Step 1:
Age -.112 *
Gender -.014
Race .004
Job Title .076
Organizational Tenure .180 **
 .035 ** .035
Step 2:
Negative Affectivity .249 **
Equity Sensitivity -.104 *
Self-efficacy -.082 *
 .094 ** .128
Step 3:
Positive Affectivity -.060 **
 .003 ** .131

N = 543; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Table 4
Regression Results for Unique Variance Explained in the
Self-efficacy--POPS Relationship

Step and Variable Standardized b [DELTA] Total
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]
Step 1:
Age -.112 *
Gender -.014
Race .004
Job Title .076
Organizational Tenure .180 **
 .035 ** .035
Step 2:
Negative Affectivity .243 **
Positive Affectivity -.071
Equity Sensitivity -.0851 ([dagger])
 .091 ** .126
Step 3:
Self-efficacy .0741 ([dagger])
 .005 * .131

N = 543; ([dagger]) p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Table 5
Regression Results for Unique Variance Explained in the Equity
Sensitivity--POPS Relationship

Step and Variable Standardized b [DELTA] Total
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]

Step 1:
Age -.112 *
Gender -.014
Race .004
Job Title .076
Organizational Tenure .180 **
 .035 ** .035
Step 2:
Negative Affectivity .237 **
Positive Affectivity -.086 ([dagger])
Self-efficacy -.072 ([dagger])
 .090 ** .125
Step 3:
Equity Sensitivity -.088 *
 .006 ** .131

N = 543; ([dagger]) p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Table 6
Regression Results for Variance Explained in Politics Perceptions/
All Dispositions Entered in Step 2

Step and Variable Standardized b [DELTA] Total
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]

Step l:
Age -.112 *
Gender -.014
Race .004
Job Title .076
Organizational Tenure .180 **
 .035 * .035
Step 2:
Age -.047
Gender -.005
Race -.021
Job Title .052
Organizational Tenure .136 *
Negative Affectivity .231 **
Positive Affectivity -.060 ([dagger])
Self-efficacy -.074 *
Equity Sensitivity -.088 *
 .096 ** .131

N = 543; ([dagger]) p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Adams, Garry L.; Treadway, Darren C.; Stepina, Lee P.
Publication:Journal of Managerial Issues
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Dec 22, 2008
Words:6876
Previous Article:Supply chain orientation and balanced scorecard performance.
Next Article:Using a repeated-measures approach to validating personality tests in small samples: a feasibility study with implications for small businesses.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |