Question

Define political behavior and explain its features. What are positive and negative aspects of political behavior? (from organization behavior)

Answer 1

Study 1: Positive and Negative Politics Perceptions Via Motives and Attributions While the antecedents and outcomes of politics perceptions have been studied and modeled, examination of the relationships positive- and negative-politics have with politics perceptions has not been conducted. The differences in the perceptual processes behind politics perceptions are important to advance of our understanding of politics in general. Study 1 applied MIM (Reeder, 2009; Reeder, Kumar, Hesson-Mclnnis, & Trafimow, 2002; Reeder & Trafimow, 2005; Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, & Lawrence, 2004) to explain how positive and negative politics lead to different attributions of political actors and there fore perceptions of politics, and accounted for the influence of the perceiver's attribution style (see Figure 1). Politics Perceptions and Political Behavior Most research has been conducted either on politics perceptions or political behavior, but not both simultaneously (Valle & Perrew 2000). In fact, Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) stated that the complexity of the relationship between the two has been virtually ignored. However, in spite of their conceptual distinctiveness, the two streams of research have been put under the organizational politics wing (Ferris et al, 2000. Politics perceptions have gen eencceived as the individuails pereption of how othern

use influence to manipulate the social sphere, while political behavior has focused on the individual's use of behaviors to influence and manipulate others. The two areas have proceeded separately, yet in parallel, under the assumption that they were related. As aptly stated by Ferris et al. (2002), "Despite the fact that it is plausible that the level of politics would predict participation in the influence process, the preponderance of research in each of these areas has failed to consider the potential of perceptions and behaviors to affect work outcomes simultaneously" (p. 228) This is not to say that there has been a total absence of research incorporating both perceptions and behavior. For instance, in their longitudinal study of actual political behavior (behavior engaged in by oneself) as an antecedent of perceptions, Vigoda and Cohen (2002) found a positive relationship between behavior and perceptions. This relationship was, however, moderated by the level of met expectations. Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) investigated the moderating effects of ingratiating and self-promotion behaviors on the relationship between politics perceptions and outcomes of intention to tumover, general job satisfaction, and satisfaction with supervisor. Ingratiating behaviors were conceptualized along Tedeschi and Melburg's (1984) typology as less proactive and more reactive, while self-promotion behaviors were more proactive and less reactive. The researchers viewed political behavior as a coping mechanism or means of exerting control in a political environment. Self-promotion was supported; the use of self- promotion behaviors resulted in fewer negative outcomes while not using them resulted in more negative outcomes. Ingratiation was also a significant moderator, but the effect was the opposite of what was expected. The researchers surmised that sing self

promotion gave a greater sense of control over tangible rewards like promotions, but ingratiation may fail to give that sense of control. Valle and Perrew (2000) looked at the moderating effects of reactive and proactive actual political behaviors. They tested whether reactive political behavior resulted in more negative outcomes due to politics perceptions and if proactive behaviors resulted in less negative outcomes. In their research, reactive behaviors were operationalized as defensive tactics against perceived threats while proactive behaviors were tactics used to take advantage of perceived opportunities. Results suggested that reactive behavior had significant moderating effects leading to greater dissatisfaction, but proactive behavior was not a significant moderator, contrary to the findings of Harrell Cook et al. (1999). The authors suggested that the effects of proactive behaviors as control mechanisms may actually occur after the onset of antecedents, but before perception formation, implying that the proactive behavior one chooses could alter the perceptions one has. Cheng (1983) used an experimental design to examine if political context has an impact on individual political behavior. In his study, he asked if individuals would choose more rational political behavior(ie, sanctioned, benefitting the organization) when they were in a rational political environment, and conversely if they would choose more non rational behavior (non-sanctioned and not in pursuit of organizational goals) if in a non rational environment. With the exception of upward appeal and exchange, the individual's intention to use non-rational tactics was significantly matched with perceptions of non-rational politics. Further, perceptions of a rational context were associated with intention to use rational inf lence. While only partially supported

Cheng's work provided clear support for the idea that perceptions are associated with the perceiver's behavior. The research by Hill et al. (2016) took a different perspective on political behavior, using an experimental design to manipulate the political behavior of others to detemine its relationship with politics perceptions. The question asked was, do individuals actually perceive others' political behavior as political? The predictive pulitiabe ior n was supported, and this is important as it provides evidence of a causal relationship between the political behavior one witnesses and the politics one perceives, which had not been experimentally tested before. It is worth noting, however, that this moderately strong relationship .62,p<.001) does not indicate that political behavior was the only predictor of perceptions. Other unmeasured variables clearly account for portions of the variance seen in politics perceptions The research reviewed in this section has promoted the notion that behavior is related to perceptions, but has primarily relied actual political behavior and upward influence and impression management tactics. As discussed previously, this may not be a thorough representation of political behaviors (Ferris et al, 2002). In fact, these behaviors appear to be rather innocuous in nature, and comprise merely a subset of political behaviors. Others have acknowledged the wide variety in political behaviors (Kacmar& Baron, 1999) including potentially damaging methods like sabotage (Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000). Different influence tactics can have different relationships with politics perceptions and outcomes, and the tactic chosen and outcomes achieved depend on the context and individual Dcinlan

Ferris et al. (2002) acknowledged this and called for research to extend beyond upward influence tactics in elucidating the construct. Specifically, they emphasized the need to disentangle the reasons behind political behavior, a phenomenon still largely unexplained. As they note, the 36 correlation between politics perceptions and political behavior (self-promotion) found by Ferris et al. (2000) indicates a strikingly large amount of variance unaccounted for in political behaviors. Of equal importance is the consideration of objective politics (the actual behaviors demonstrated) vs. subjective perceptions of those behaviors. While Hill et al. (2016) established a relationship between them, they also noted that the objective level of politics is a meaningful source of information in addition to politics perceptions. Unfortunately, an understanding of what exactly makes up politics perceptions is lacking, and the perceptions of politics literature does not directly address this issue. General statements about increased perceptions are made, but greater detail is not offered. Additionally, the primary scale used to measure politics, the POPS, is no clearer on this than it is on the positive or negative nature of politics. Most items focus on (or imply a focus on) instrumentality of politics (e.g, "People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down"), but there are more policy focused items as well (e.g. "When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irelevant"). As the perceiver witnesses a political behavior, infers motivation, and makes an attribution of the actor, in many cases they simultaneously witness the results of the behavior, did the behavior result in the actor's desired outcome or not? This is a very basic aspect of perception of the behaviors of others, and thus, instrumentality is an important aspect of perception for this research to consider