Article - POP Review Horwarter 2020 (Diagram)

Journal of Management
Vol. 46 No. 6, July 2020 879–907

DOI: 10.1177/0149206319898506
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Perceptions of Organizational Politics Research:

Past, Present, and Future
Wayne A. Hochwarter
Florida State University and Australia Catholic University
Christopher C. Rosen
University of Arkansas
Samantha L. Jordan
Gerald R. Ferris
Florida State University
Aqsa Ejaz
University of Lahore
Liam P. Maher
Boise State University
Research examining the influence of perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) is currently

at a nexus—capable of recognizing its previous contributions but also with an eye toward the
future. Scholars credit much of the maturation over the past 30 years to Ferris, Russ, and
Fandt’s seminal model. Despite the ever-increasing number of publications attributed to this
topic, and model, opportunities to bridge and expand the current research base remain
plentiful. We begin this review by differentiating POPs from political behavior and constructs
considered overlapping conceptually. We then describe the evolution of two models responsible
for guiding POPs research and conclude our review by summarizing meta-analytic studies
investigating antecedents and outcomes of POPs. Doing so allows us to identify gaps
currently impeding development and to recommend relevant approaches to extend research.
Following this review, we introduce event systems theory as a guiding framework for
integrating and expanding the knowledge base. This structure allows scholars to recast POPs
as a discrete phenomenon capable of being evaluated in terms of its novelty, disruption, and
criticality. Theoretically, this approach allows for greater precision in identifying causes and
consequences of POPs, and it provides insight into
Supplemental material for this article is available with the manuscript on the JOM website.
Corresponding author: Wayne A. Hochwarter, Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State
University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA.
E-mail: whochwar@business.fsu.edu
879
88 Journal of Management / July 2020
how such perceptions emerge and evolve. Last, we discuss future research opportunities
intended to improve understanding of this pervasive phenomenon, and we encourage much-
needed future research examining the dynamics of POPs in contemporary work settings.
Keywords: perceptions of organizational politics; event systems theory; political behavior;

motives; multilevel; review
In order for anything to exist, it must be distinguished from everything else. If no distinction is
made between a specific thing and everything else, then there is only an undifferentiated
everything—which is another way of saying nothing. (Lefkoe, 2011)
Demonstrating the continued relevance of office politics, a recent survey of 2,700 indi-
viduals from over 100 countries indicated that members of the modern workforce view
office politics as one of the top barriers to job performance (HBR Ascend Staff, 2019).
Coupled with social forces promoting the pursuit of self-serving objectives (Schmid,
Pircher Verdorfer, & Peus, 2019), the inevitability of work politics positions the
phenomenon as a focal research topic across disciplines (Teimouri, Arasli, Kiliç, & Aghaei,
2018). Indeed, scholars have characterized the research base as “vibrant” (Ferris, Perrewé,
Daniels, Lawong, & Holmes, 2017: 5), “very important and widely studied” (Naseer, Raja,
Syed, Donia, & Darr, 2016: 15), and a “field of intensive and fruitful academic writing”
(Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2016: 1). Published research dedicated to workplace politics has
grown exponentially (e.g., by a multiple of four from 2001 to 2018) in recent years, with
few signs of slowing down.
Rather than studying objective measures of politics, which are inherently unverifiable,
research has focused on perceived politics, described as “an individual’s subjective evalua-
tion about the extent to which the work environment is characterized by coworkers and
supervisors who demonstrate such self-serving behavior” (Ferris, Harrell-Cook, &
Dulebohn, 2000: 90). Scholars recognize Ferris, Russ, and Fandt’s (1989) perceptions of
organizational politics (POPs) model as a catalyst for research examining antecedents and
outcomes of observed political behavior (Meisler, Vigoda-Gadot, & Drory, 2017). The
model proposed antecedents (e.g., personal, job/work environment, and organizational
influences) that created conditions promotive of political behavior (e.g., scarce resources,
increased ambiguity, the perceived instrumentality of political behavior, and the presence of
constraints).
Once established, POPs impact a variety of worker and organizational outcomes (e.g.,
stress, turnover intention, job satisfaction). Empirical tests (Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, &
Anthony, 1999), reviews (Ferris, Ellen, McAllister, & Maher, 2019), and meta-analyses
(Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009) supported many, but not all, model linkages. To date, the
model “continues to extend and support the existence of robust relationships between vari-
ous organizational, work environmental, and personal factors, and the individual subjec-
tive determination that organizations operate in less than rational ways” (Valle, Kacmar, &
Zivnuska, 2019: 173).
The 30th anniversary of the publication of Ferris et al.’s (1989) POPs model represents
an appropriate time to evaluate previous findings and research trends in the hopes of
redirecting future research. Indeed, Ferris et al.’s (1989) model has generated considerable
scholarship and contributed to research bases across disciplines (Ferris et al., 2019).
However, significant
Hochwarter et al. / Past, Present, and 8
limitations remain (e.g., “. . . there is still insufficient attention paid to how politics percep-
tions and behaviors originate, change, and evolve over time”; McFarland, Van Iddekinge, &
Ployhart, 2012: 124-125) and warrant consideration. Our review attempts to address these
limitations by first defining POPs and differentiating it from other “politically oriented”
variables in the organizational sciences. We then discuss the evolution and integration of
foundational models guiding politics research to date (Ferris et al., 1989; Ferris, Adams,
Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002). Next, we report and summarize the results of
several workplace politics meta-analyses that have tested POPs linkages and proposed
modifications.
Following our review of the literature, we connect past, present, and future thinking by
documenting how conceptualizations have evolved, and we offer suggestions for
modernizing the model. Accordingly, we contend that POPs research will advance by
considering the phenomenon through the lens of event system theory (EST; Morgeson,
Mitchell, & Liu, 2015). As a logical extension of open systems paradigms (Katz & Kahn,
1978; von Bertalanffy, 1950), EST contends that critical events can initiate at multiple
levels in the organization (person, group, company, external/social environment) and exert
effects across such levels (Morgeson et al., 2015). As discussed later, events that are novel,
disruptive, and critical elicit stronger reactions and command more considerable attention.
Evaluation processes intensify if reactions and attention warrant doing so (Morgeson et
al., 2015). As examples, research has positioned presidential elections (Beck & Shen,
2019), career shocks (Akkermans, Siebert, & Mol, 2018), transitions (e.g., Bliese, Adler, &
Flynn, 2017), and work-impacting disasters (Maitlis, 2020) as events that are
characteristically unfamiliar, interruptive, and meaningful.
The EST approach casts POPs as an environmentally shaped, change-inducing event
hav- ing influence both within and between levels of analyses. As a framework, EST is
relevant because, like POPs, it recognizes that signals from the environment arouse
attention and initiate resource investments (Crawford, Thompson, & Ashforth, 2019).
Moreover, consistent with EST, organizational politics theory contends that events
influence outcomes to the extent that salience is established (Rosen & Hochwarter, 2014)
and when cues disrupt routine, or ordinary, work experiences (Lawong, McAllister,
Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2018).
Morgeson et al. (2015) theorized that unique events change environments to varying
degrees—a view also held historically by politics theorists (Edinger, 1975). As an example,
Drory (1993: 63) maintained that the “events comprising OP [organizational politics] natu-
rally occur within the social arena of organizations” and vary depending on the situation
and company structure. Others argued that success in understanding political landscapes
occurs when actors effectively make sense of the distinct events that establish reality
(Silvester & Wyatt, 2018). Thus, political events coalesce to create perceptions of reality
(Liu & Liu, 2018), yet little research has examined how discrete incidents influence work
contexts. Last, because it is an amalgam of both stable and dynamic elements, discussions
of politics must include both feature (e.g., Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Arnell, & James,
2007) and process orientations (Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2009). EST provides a means for
integrating these perspectives.
Review of Foundational POPs Research

Historically, research has subsumed POPs and political behavior as foundational ele-
ments (i.e., POPs reflect a subjective state in which workers view the nonsanctioned actions
of others as self-serving; Ferris et al., 2000). Although positive (i.e., “The better my
manager is at being a politician, the better it is for my work group”; Maslyn, Farmer, &
Bettenhausen, 2017: 1513) and neutral (“On a scale of 0 [none] to 100 [extremely], please
indicate the level of politics in your organization”; Hochwarter, Kacmar, Treadway, &
Watson, 2003: 2003) approaches exist, the majority of conceptualizations view politics as
an observed aversive element of work. Specific behaviors often considered (and measured)
as political include striving for in-group status, sucking up to others, backstabbing, and
pursuing personal goals instead of those that benefit the group or organization (Hochwarter,
Kacmar, Perrewé, & Johnson, 2003).
Conversely, political behavior is the personal use of informal influence to secure desired
outcomes unavailable through company-prescribed means (Gandz & Murray, 1980).
Initially, scholars identified political behavior as a reactive coping strategy exercised as
protection against others’ egoistic behavior (Hochwarter, 2003). However, contemporary
discussions underscore the proactive, volitional underpinnings of political engagement
(Ferris et al., 2019). As examples, political behavior “can be a covert activity that takes
advantage of environmental uncertainty” (King & Levy, 2012: 89) to “improve the
conditions of others instead of focusing on personal achievement” (Kapoutsis,
Papalexandris, Treadway, & Bentley, 2017: 2255).
Despite the intuitive appeal, evidence suggesting that POPs hasten engagement in politi-
cal behavior is scant (Hochwarter, 2003; i.e., r = .01). Ferris et al. (2019) recently described
the agentic underpinnings of POPs and political behavior, concluding that POPs represent
an outcome while political behavior constitutes an action. Accordingly, it makes sense to
view POPs and political behavior as distinctive features. Nevertheless, research signaling
interactive effects of politicking in high-POPs settings suggest a relationship to some
degree (Sun & Chen, 2017). We argue that our current theoretical base has yet to explore
the intri- cacies of this relationship and that the expansion of POPs research in new
directions may offer clarity. We address this issue in subsequent sections by promoting
previously ignored conceptualizations.
As expected with research in its nascent stages, tests have compared POPs to measures
that capture a range of objective and subjective work experiences (Malik, Shahzad, Raziq,
Khan, Yusaf, & Khan, 2019). For example, partiality, resource distribution, health and wel-
fare, and engagement in social relationships are presumably at risk in high-POPs settings
(Valle & Perrewé, 2000). Accordingly, research has investigated the commonalities of
POPs and constructs with these characteristics to determine discriminant validity. Table 1
provides brief definitions of these variables, representative correlations with POPs in prior
research, and conceptual features that offer evidence for divergence.
Research distinguishing POPs from justice, support, and leader–member relationships
support independence. For example, studies found unique factor structures for POPs and
procedural justice, also supporting predictive validity (e.g., justice predicted performance
whereas POPs did not; Aryee, Chen, & Budhwar, 2004). Moreover, because POPs affect
decision- making roles (Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, & Howard, 1996) and strains
relations with one’s supervisor (Rosen, Ferris, Brown, Chen, & Yan, 2014), variables
implying status were compared with POPs. Studies document independent POPs
associations with leader– member exchange (LMX; Aggarwal, Goyal, & Nobi, 2018),
participative decision making (Harris & Kacmar, 2005), and contract breach (Rosen,
Chang, Johnson, & Levy, 2009).
Last, research clusters POPs, role ambiguity, and role conflict as hindrance stressors
because they have the potential to obstruct personal growth and goal attainment (Podsakoff,
LePine, & LePine, 2007). Chang et al. (2009) tested these assumptions, reporting that POPs
Table 1
Differentiating Perceptions of Organizational Politics From Related Constructs
Variable Definition Sample rs Discriminating Feature
Organizational
support Company-level activities addressing –.34g, –.72h Perceptions of the organization
Supervisor employee needs and welfare rather than those of individuals
support Supervisor-assisted guidance and –.09i, –.41j The leader is the focus rather than
concern for subordinates individuals seeking resources for
egoistic objectives
Procedural justice Perceived fairness in the reward –.38k, –.48l Organizationally sponsored events
allocation process versus unsanctioned co-worker
influence attempts
Distributive Fairness of received outcomes –.43h, –.66m Fairness of allocated resources
justice from organizational sources
versus informal accrual behaviors
Informational Fairness and accuracy of –.28n, –.54o Information quality and accuracy
justice communicated expectations and rather than unsanctioned and
procedures informal pursuits
Interactional Fairness of treatment when company –.41p, –.47q Respect from company agent
justice procedures are implemented or during formal changes rather
enacted than others’ resource pursuits
Contract violation Company disregards promised .40r, .49s Organizational-level breach rather
obligation(s) than individual violations
Leader–member Quality of supervisor–subordinate –.25t, –.40h Concentrates of the dyadic
exchange relationships relationship
Participation in Collective decision making or –.46u, –.48v Leader or company focus;
decision making influence sharing across levels considered a moderator of POPs
Trust Assumed vulnerability of one party –.35w, –.67x Global assessment of honesty
to those controlling outcomes and dependability; considered a
consequence of POPs
Organizational Negative attitudes from contract .39y, .46z Pessimism resulting from formal
cynicism breach or a lack of company activities rather than perceived
integrity self-serving acts of select
coworkers
Strain Adverse reactions when demands .25aa, .30x Physical and psychological
exceed resources responses to job demands rather
than an informal social threat
Role conflict Inconsistent expectations for work .55ab, .63h Assessment of role stipulated by
behavior organization versus threat from
the social environment
Role ambiguity Lack of information regarding task .25z, .54x Fosters the onset of POPs and
completion political behaviors
Note: r = correlation coefficient between perceptions of organizational politics and related construct in primary
study. References for each superscripted article are provided in Online Supplemental Appendix D.
differentially predicted outcomes both directly and after considering mediating effects.
Qualitatively, POPs focus on social evaluations, whereas role stressors emphasize personal
circumstances (e.g., demands vs. resources). In sum, accumulated research supports
viewing POPs as a unique hindrance stressor relative to demands resulting from role
expectations.
Comparable findings also come from non-U.S. samples. Lee and Peccei’s (2011) two-
wave panel study in South Korea established POPs and support as unique constructs that
differentially predict outcomes (i.e., affective commitment, turnover intention, and

individually oriented citizenship behavior). Similar findings were shown for POPs and
LMX in Pakistan (Naseer, Raja, Syed, et al., 2016); POPs, support, cynicism, and silence in
Iraq (Al-Abrrow, 2018); and POPs, LMX, insider status, and psychological safety in China
(Li, Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Liu, 2014). Although we cannot claim to have canvassed the
population of possible studies, the available research supports viewing POPs as a stand-
alone construct. However, given the rapid infusion of new scales and expansion of studies
in different environments (e.g., international, work locations, “e-lancing”), we argue for a
continued emphasis on construct validity.
Models and Meta-Analyses of POPs in Prior Research

Initially, theories of organizational politics explained bureaucratic changes affecting
firms at the time (Harvey & Mills, 1970). Later, the focus shifted from macrolevel
discussions to those describing normative, individual political behaviors (Cavanagh,
Moberg, & Velasquez, 1981). Despite an emphasis on theory building, development was
fragmented (Cobb, 1984) and disconnected (Farrell & Peterson, 1982) and lacked
integration (Mayes & Allen, 1977). Regarding focus, Zald and Berger (1978: 824) argued,
“Studies or theories of organizational politics rarely take note of their kinship with
investigations of political processes in nations and communities. Thus, they ignore a
massive amount of thinking and research that might
be relevant to work on organizations.”
Ferris et al.’s (1989) conceptualization (see Online Supplemental Appendix A)
responded to these shortcomings. This model proposed that organizational, job/work
environment, and personal influences represented general antecedent categories.
Consequences in the Ferris et al. (1989) model included job involvement, job satisfaction,
anxiety, and withdrawal. Moreover, the extent to which these consequences would manifest
was determined (i.e., moderated) by the individual’s perceived control and understanding
of the immediate work context. Over the following decades, scholars evaluated the model’s
core tenets. Although no one study assessed the entire model, several studies (Ferris et al.,
1996; Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995; Valle & Perrewé, 2000) supported Ferris et al.’s
(1989) general antecedent and consequence categories.
A primary goal of subsequent research was to augment the model by including organiza-
tional and personal consequences absent from the Ferris et al. (1989) model, including com-
mitment (Hochwarter, Perrewé, Ferris, & Guercio, 1999), in-role performance (Vigoda,
2000), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, &
Birjulin, 1999), and perceived innovation (Parker et al., 1995). The contributions of Ferris
et al.’s (1989) model during the 10 years following its presentation were impressive; how-
ever, studies were characteristically data descriptive rather than normative or theoretical
(Zhou & Ferris, 1995).
A review of studies following the initial model culminated in Ferris et al.’s (2002)
recon- figuration (see Online Supplemental Appendix B), which included an expanded list
of outcomes (e.g., commitment, justice, trust, cynicism, performance). Additionally,
demographic and personality influences joined perceived control and understanding as
moderators. With this updated model, demographic influences governed whether
individuals recognized POPs as a threat, whereas the previous model suggested between-
individual variance during coping.
In response to initial POPs theorization, the past decade has seen an increase in POPs-
related meta-analyses, focusing primarily on outcomes while considering antecedents and
moderating effects to a lesser extent. Figure 1 synthesizes these meta-analytics. As part of
this integration, variables are ordered and font styled to reflect the historical development
of previous models. For example, all constructs in regular typeface reflect variables
theorized in the original Ferris et al. (1989) model. In contrast, variables in bold correspond
with the updated Ferris et al. (2002) conceptualization. Because meta-analyses have
expanded understanding of POPs by adding new constructs, Figure 1 also includes
variables examined but not theorized as part of either previous model. We present these
variables in italics for clarity. For full meta-analytic details, see Online Supplemental
Appendix C.
As illustrated in Figure 1, only one meta-analysis to date (i.e., Atinc, Darrat, Fuller, &
Parker, 2010) has considered the antecedents theorized in either of the original POPs
models (Ferris et al., 1989, 2002). In their study, Atinc et al. (2010) examined 19 out of the
26 primary antecedents, finding significant associations for 13. Although Atinc et al.’s
study is the only meta-analysis to focus on antecedents, Munyon, Summers, Thompson,
and Ferris’s (2015) review of political skill and POPs (as a secondary variable) is also
worth noting, as it captures an empirically unexplored meta-analytic relationship between
political skill and POPs. Counter to previous theorization (Ferris et al., 2002), across 130
primary studies, results failed to identify political skill as a significant predictor of POPs.
Miller, Rutherford, and Kolodinsky (2008: 210) argued that “results for the outcomes of
POP thus far have been equivocal, leaving the magnitude and direction of the various rela-
tionships examined—and the efficacy of the conceptual models—largely unsettled.” Across
79 independent samples, their meta-analytic results supported several outcomes proposed
by Ferris et al. (1989, 2002). Additionally, the rater source of performance moderated this
relationship, such that POPs predicted negative supervisor-rated job performance but had
little effect on self-reported performance. Previously untheorized (Ferris et al., 1989, 2002),
Miller et al. (2008) also documented a significant positive association between POPs and
turnover intentions.
Miller et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis examined only a subset of outcomes theorized by
Ferris et al. (1989, 2002) and did not present a comprehensive framework. In response,
Chang et al. (2009) identified the critical psychological mechanisms linking POPs to its
associated outcomes. Although prior research had explained POPs through either stress-
based or social exchange perspectives, Chang et al. argued that POPs represented a
hindrance stressor, which impedes work achievements and morale. Extending Miller et al.’s
findings, Chang et al. found that POPs were positively related to job strain and negatively
related to affective commitment and individual and organizational OCBs.
Bedi and Schat’s (2013) meta-analysis positioned POPs as a demand requiring the sus-
tained use of limited personal resources to ward off adverse psychological, attitudinal, and
behavioral effects. Further, in line with Ferris et al.’s (1989, 2002) theorization, POPs were
associated with increased job anxiety and absenteeism, and declines in fairness, trust, job
satisfaction, involvement, and commitment. Previously untheorized by Ferris et al. (1989,
2002), Bedi and Schat also documented significant positive associations between POPs and
job burnout, turnover intentions, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and a nega-
tive relationship between POPs and perceived support. Last, Bedi and Schat found that
higher levels of POPs lead to less work control. This finding is noteworthy, given that
Ferris et al. (1989, 2002) positioned work control as a moderator, rather than a
consequence, of POPs.
Figure 1
8
History of Perceptions of Organizational Politics Relations and Corresponding Meta-Analytic Coefficients
(continued)
Figure 1 (continued)
Note: For simplicity purposes, the figure does not depict cyclical effects, associations between antecedents, associations between moderators, associations between
outcomes, or the meta-analytic coefficients for moderators. Constructs in regular typeface reflect variables theorized by Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989). Constructs in
bold reflect variables theoretically added in the revised model by Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, and Ammeter (2002). Constructs in italics reflect variables
established in previous meta-analyses but not included in either the Ferris et al. (1989) or Ferris et al. (2002) theoretical models.  = mean weighted correlation
coefficient corrected for sampling error and measurement unreliability from previous meta-analytic studies; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; N/A = no
meta- analytic relationships established to date. All corresponding confidence intervals and associated information is provided in Online Supplemental Appendix C.
aMiller, Rutherford, and Kolodinsky (2008).
bChang, Rosen, and Levy (2009).
cAtinc, Darrat, Fuller, and Parker (2010).
dBedi and Schat (2013).
eMunyon, Summers, Thompson, and Ferris (2015).
fWatkins, Smith, Long, and Christian (2014).
gMeta-analytic moderator effect established but not reported here for simplicity purposes.
8
8 Journal of Management / July
Watkins, Smith, Cooke, and Christian (2014) analyzed POPs–work outcomes relation-
ships to identify moderating effects across cultural dimensions (i.e., individualism, power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity). In addition to reaffirming relationships
examined in prior meta-analyses, POPs represented a predictor of outcomes (i.e., empower-
ment, overall justice, LMX, and relationship quality) absent in previous models (Ferris et
al., 1989, 2002). Their review also confirmed a significant relationship between POPs and
perceived uncertainty. In terms of culture, individualism intensified POPs–commitment
relationships, whereas power distance reduced POPs’ negative effect on task performance.
Overall, research has done a commendable job summarizing previously conceptualized
POPs relationships (Ferris et al., 1989, 2002). However, there is ample room for develop-
ment. For example, research presents POPs as a subjective “eye-of-the-beholder” phenome-
non, yet scholars measure POPs as a static feature of the work environment captured at a
single point in time. As such, research is at a nexus. We argue that research has grown
“wider” (i.e., more outcomes, more moderators, etc.), especially in recent years, at the
expense of moving forward. If POPs research is to remain vital and timely, it is necessary
to adopt new ways of viewing the phenomenon. Rather than focusing on the subjectivity of
POPs, we argue that researchers take a more contemporary approach in considering POPs
as an event- based phenomenon, whereby specific events—in combination with event and
organizational characteristics—drive POPs.
When assessing POPs research since the Ferris et al. (2002) review, three related themes
emerged. First, although no unifying theory exists, expectancy (Valle, Kacmar, & Zivnuska,
2003), conservation of resources (Sun & Chen, 2017), uncertainty management (Yang,
2017), social learning (Kacmar, Andrews, Harris, & Tepper, 2013), social exchange
(Crawford et al., 2019), stress appraisal (Rosen et al., 2014), and affective events (Rosen et
al., 2009) conceptualizations surfaced as explanations for how and why POPs relate to
employee outcomes. Although these contributions have expanded the existing research
base, whether their inclusion has created more of a “weed patch than a well-tended garden”
(Pfeffer, 1982: 1) remains an important consideration.
A related second theme is a proliferation of moderators purported to explain
relationships between POPs and attitudes and behaviors. Both Ferris et al. (1989, 2002)
models limited moderating effects to personal characteristics, providing opportunities to
consider contextual features, such as unit structure (Yang, 2017), climate (Kiewitz,
Hochwarter, Ferris, & Castro, 2002), and LMX (Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2011).
Additional evidence for considering boundary effects comes from meta-analyses (Chang et
al., 2009) that report modest or inconsistent correlations.
Last, it is an appropriate time in the construct’s development for empirical summaries to
identify prevailing trends because (a) enough research is available for accumulation and (b)
variance in substantive relationships signals a need for broader inspection and scrutiny.
Citing inconsistencies in the literature, Chang et al. (2009: 780) noted that “a meta-analytic
examination of the perceptions of organizational politics-outcome relationships is important
because it helps determine whether the past inconsistent findings were the result of
statistical artifacts or, rather, were associated with a broader issue such as
misspecification.” In addition to summarizing research, meta-analyses bring null results
into consideration (which published articles rarely do), providing a more comprehensive
picture of existing research. For example, Chang et al. included 57 unpublished papers with
70 unique samples to address the file drawer problem.
Event-Based Perceptions of Organizational Politics
In recent years, scholars have shifted from an explicit focus on organizational features
(i.e., enduring characteristics) to workplace events (i.e., discrete happenings) and more pro-
cess-oriented research (Gabriel et al., 2019). Consequently, phenomena once viewed as
static features (e.g., justice, incivility, and leadership) are now considered dynamic and
subject to abrupt change across incidents. In recent years, scholars have argued that “real-
world processes and situations unfold dynamically over time” (Wolfson & Mathieu, 2018:
1167), leading employee experiences to differ as they evolve uniquely (Li, Burch, & Lee,
2017). Accordingly, even modest day-to-day changes across tasks, interactions, and
contexts may demonstrate a nontrivial impact on employee and organizational outcomes.
We contend that there is merit to applying such a perspective to politics research, given
the hierarchical structure of organizations as well as inherently high levels of competition
for resources (Hochwarter, 2012). These aspects of organizational life drive individuals to
con- tinually reevaluate their place in the pecking order as relevant events that have the
potential to influence the balance of power (e.g., coalition realignment, leadership change,
shifting strategic priorities) transpire. Such events challenge the established hierarchy,
introduce uncertainty regarding what employees need to do to get ahead, and motivate
individuals to engage in behaviors aimed at defending, retaining, or advancing their status
(Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006). Therefore, variance in the level of politics enacted and
subsequently perceived by employees over relatively short time frames likely exists. In
support, political contexts have been described as tumultuous (Kapoutsis, Papalexandris,
Nikolopoulos, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2011), fluctuating over time (Hill, Thomas, & Meriac,
2016), and unpredictable (Elbanna, Kapoutsis, & Mellahi, 2017).
To bring attention to the dynamic nature of POPs, we present event systems theory
(EST; Morgeson et al., 2015) as a framework for studying event-based POPs. In so doing,
we explain how event-based POPs differentiate from feature-based conceptualizations,
which provides a bridge between past and future research. More specifically, although
much is known about how political activity develops (e.g., Sederberg, 1984), there is little
discussion of how POPs change (Maher, Russell, Jordan, Ferris, & Hochwarter, in press).
An event-based perspective provides insight into how POPs evolve based on incidents
(i.e., discrete political behavior enacted by organizational members), identifying why (and
when) employee POPs are likely to be (in)accurate, distributed (un)evenly, and linked to
higher levels of uncertainty. These factors are incorporated into our model and identified as
mechanisms that drive employee perceptions of, and reactions to, event-based POPs. This
perspective also helps explain how discrete events are linked to perceptions that drive
behaviors that ultimately influence the political context in which event-based politics are
embedded, thus providing insight into how events, observations, and behaviors are related.
EST
According to Dewey (1926), an event subsists as “a qualitative variation of parts with
respect to the whole, which requires duration in which to display itself.” Later, Allport
(1940) described events as experiences between explicitly identifiable entities, which
require time- space coincidence as a condition. Importantly, events represent contextually
driven actions that are recognizable and external to the observer (Johns, 2018). Across
disciplines, scholars
have theorized that social structure and personal reality exist, primarily, due to a recurring
pattern of relevant events (Czarniawska, 2006; Lachmann, 1970). Extending this view,
Morgeson et al. (2015: 516) offered EST as an “overarching event-oriented theoretical sys-
tem that bridges and ultimately extends feature- and process-oriented perspectives.” Within
this framework, events contain three defining characteristics: (a) events are discrete and
diverge from routine aspects of the organization and its environment, which are salient to
observers; (b) events have a temporal beginning and end, which are bound in space and
time; and (c) events occur outside of the individual at the intersection between an action
and its context.
Morgeson et al. (2015) further theorized that three discrete characteristics determine
event strength, which refers to the process through which events command attention and
relate to changes in behavior. Events that are novel (i.e., those that differ significantly from
expectations or standards), disruptive (i.e., those that reflect discontinuity with the context),
and critical (i.e., those that are highly relevant to an entity) prompt controlled (rather than
automatic) information processing. Controlled processing allows individuals to make sense
of events and effectively adapt behavior in response (Crawford et al., 2019). EST also iden-
tifies how the effects of events might transverse space (i.e., move through the organization)
and time (i.e., exerting short- vs. long-term influence) based on the salience and strength of
a given occurrence. In the following sections, we present our conceptual framework (see
Figure 2) and supporting propositions.
Event-Based POPs
POPs reflect a subjective evaluation of the extent to which one’s work environment is
characterized by unsanctioned, self-serving behavior (Ferris et al., 2000). We posit that
political behavior, when perceived (either directly through observation or indirectly
through hearsay) by an entity (i.e., someone other than the person engaging in the
behavior), represents a discrete event rather than a feature. Considered individually, such
events have the potential to influence the extent to which employees perceive organizations
as political, with some events demonstrating a more significant impact on perceptions than
others.1 Drawing from EST, we identify the unique characteristics (i.e., novelty,
disruptiveness, and criticality) that differentiate event-based POPs from features of the
environment, and we consider how these characteristics influence the level and accuracy of
POPs. In so doing, we provide insight into the emergence and evolution of POPs and
extend understanding of politics as a dynamic phenomenon, which has the potential to exert
short- and long-term influences on employees and organizations.
Event-based politics. Political context (i.e., a feature of the environment that reflects
aggregate POPs; Perrewé, Rosen, & Maslach, 2012) serves as the backdrop in which event-
based POPs occur and plays a central role in determining the extent to which workplace
political behaviors are novel and disruptive (Naseer, Raja, & Donia, 2016). Importantly,
novelty and disruptiveness are both central to differentiating events from features (Morge-
son, 2005). When an event is novel, few preexisting responses exist. As a result, discomfort
increases due to the exertion of cognitive resources required to make sense of an unfamiliar
signal (Carpenter & Grossberg, 2003). Likewise, disruption causes environmental change,
requiring shifting of attentional focus from task engagement to the source of discontinuity
Figure 2
Event-Based Framework of Perceptions of Organizational Politics
(Rosen, Koopman, Gabriel, & Johnson, 2016). Accordingly, disruption’s impact is gauged
by the length of the interruption and the resources transferred to deal first with the threat
and then to return to predistraction engagement. At a minimum, disruption causes an
immediate shock that triggers unanticipated scrutiny and valuation (Stigliani & Ravasi,
2012).
In terms of novelty, discrete political behaviors are more likely to counter expectations
when occurring in environments where such expressions are uncommon. In settings laden
with self-serving behavior, event-based politics will not be particularly novel and presum-
ably expected owing to their frequency. Because such acts are common in highly political
contexts, employees will be able to anticipate and prepare accordingly (Vredenburgh &
Maurer, 1984). Therefore, political acts will be less novel and disruptive in contexts where
such activity is normative, given that employees will have adapted their behavior and rou-
tines to respond. In contrast, discrete political behaviors occurring in less political contexts
will be more novel and disruptive because of added uncertainty and time pressures
associated with balancing task and threat-related cues (Merkus et al., 2017).
Regardless of the context in which event-based politics occur, the political behaviors of
others are high in criticality because they present either a threat or opportunity (Albrecht &
Landells, 2012). Appraisals of threat or opportunity depend on the relevance of observed
acts to the self and their potential to promote or prevent goal attainment (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). For example, if the political behavior undermines or otherwise exploits the
observer, it impedes goal attainment (Lampaki & Papadakis, 2018). However, if the
political behavior benefits the individual (or a group or coalition to which the observer is a
member), it represents an opportunity that has the potential to facilitate goal achievement
(Ferris et al., 2019). Such appraisals trigger reactions, including negative emotions (e.g.,
anxiety and anger) associated with threat assessments and more positive emotions (e.g.,
attentiveness and serenity) associated with opportunity assessments (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Importantly, EST suggests that the degree to which cognitive processes, rather than
emotions, drive the sensemaking process around events is contingent upon the criticality
(i.e., relevance) of the event to the individual.
Criticality is based on the centrality of the goal supported or challenged by an event,

given that events which are considered significant tend to command attention and resource
alloca- tions (Gersick & Hackman, 1990) and “become a central focus until they are
resolved” (Morgeson et al., 2015: 521). Responses necessitate attentiveness and behavior
that are often unfamiliar, tapping mental resources until the effects are placated or settled
(Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). After experiencing a more critical event (i.e., one that presents
a more sub- stantial threat or opportunity), individuals engage in effortful processing to
determine how much energy and attention should be directed to a response. Such effortful
processing relates to more enduring changes to perceptions, attitudes, and behavior because
it brings the event to the level of conscious awareness (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). EST
suggests that event-based politics that are higher in criticality (hence, strength) will
influence employees via a controlled, cognitive route rather than through a more
automatic and emotional one, resulting in a more dynamic change to cognitive schema and
routines in the long term.
Drawing from the theory presented above, we submit that the event strength of discrete
political acts is a function of (a) the political context in which such events occur and (b) the
relevance of the observed political act to the observer vis-à-vis the degree of threat or
opportunity that it represents. The former determines the extent to which events are novel
and disruptive, while the latter relates directly to event criticality. Together, these factors
determine the extent to which observers engage in effortful information processing to make
sense of discrete political behaviors, which determines the degree to which perceptions,
behaviors, and routines change as the result of experiencing a given event (Morgeson et al.,
2015).
When discrete political acts are observed in highly political environments, automatic
information processing is more likely to occur. When such behaviors are observed in less
political contexts, they will be more novel and disruptive, which leads individuals to
engage in a deliberative sensemaking process. Likewise, political acts that are low in
criticality (i.e., those that do not present a direct threat or that present little opportunity to
advance the self) will be processed automatically because they do not challenge the status
quo. However, when such events become more threatening or present a more significant
opportunity for advancement, observers are more likely to direct effort and attention to
understanding their implications.
To the extent that effortful and controlled processing occurs, political behavior will dem-
onstrate a more lasting influence on event-based POPs because such processing is
necessary for perceptual changes that drive adaptation (Triberti & Riva, 2016). Automatic
processing is unlikely to result in similar, lasting changes to perceptions or behaviors. For
these reasons, we propose that novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality determine the
strength of the relationship between discrete political behavior and event-based POPs,
such that highly novel, disruptive, and critical political acts will have a stronger positive
relationship with event-based POPs.
Proposition 1: The event characteristics of novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality determine the
strength of the relationship between discrete political behaviors and event-based POPs, such
that the positive relationship between discrete political behaviors and event-based POPs is
strongest when observed political behaviors are highly (a) novel, (b) disruptive, and (c) critical.
Spatial dynamics. Event space refers to the location where an incident occurs and is
essential for understanding how events spread through organizations. Events occur at all
levels of the organization and can influence entities above, below, or within a single loca-
tion. According to Morgeson et al. (2015), spatial dynamics of the event space (i.e., the
origin, dispersion, and spatial proximity of an event) play an essential role in determining
how and why events affect workers. Origin refers to where the event occurs in the hierar-
chy. Dispersion is the degree to which events spread throughout the hierarchy, with some
staying within the confines of a specific level and others affecting multiple levels. Spatial
proximity refers to the physical distance between organizational levels and determines the
extent to which entities at one level have access to information about activities occur-
ring at other levels (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Considering these space-oriented aspects
of organizations provides insight into how event-based POPs evolve and spread through
organizations.
As theorized earlier, highly novel, disruptive, and critical events will have an enduring
influence on event-based POPs. However, owing to spatial dynamics, event information is
not distributed uniformly, leading to different levels and distributions (or clustering) of
POPs throughout an organization. Concerning POPs levels, political activities occurring at
one’s level are likely to be particularly salient and threatening because employees who are
at the same level are direct competitors for resources (e.g., promotions and pay raises). This
reality is consistent with social comparison theory (SCT), which suggests that people see
others who are similar as their most likely competitors (Festinger, 1954; Gibson &
Lawrence, 2010; Wood, 1989). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the political behavior
of colleagues who occupy the same level (i.e., those who are similar) will be the most
salient to observers. Moreover, beyond their immediate supervisor, employees who are at
lower levels do not frequently interact with those who are higher in the hierarchy and,
therefore, have fewer opportunities to observe their political behaviors. Thus, political
events (e.g., using ingratia- tion to manipulate others, undermining out-group members,
displaying favoritism) occurring within the same unit or hierarchical level are likely to have
a stronger impact on event-based POPs levels.
EST further suggests that spatial proximity will play an essential role in determining the
effects of event-based POPs, as entities that are closer together (i.e., those with higher
spatial proximity) have more opportunities to observe and access information about each
other. This reasoning is also supported by SCT, which suggests that physical proximity is
as essential as similarity for determining the extent to which social information is available
and salient to observers (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Accordingly, when spatial proximity is
high (e.g., when there is a great deal of interdependence between leaders and followers),
novel, disruptive, and critical discrete political behaviors are likely to exert a stronger
influence on event-based POPs levels. Likewise, when spatial proximity is high, the effects
of discrete political acts are likely more dispersed across the organization. Specifically,
employees working in environments where physical distance is low will have a greater
opportunity to interact with and gain information (through observation or hearsay) about
activities occurring at different levels or in different units.
In contrast, when spatial proximity is low, event-based POPs will be more clustered
within the unit (or units) in which it originates. As such, the effects of discrete political
behavior, and related changes to event-based POPs, will be uniform across units when
spatial proximity is high. When spatial proximity is low, the effects of discrete POPs will be
more isolated to the group in which it occurs, resulting in considerable variability in POPs
distribution across units.
Proposition 2: Spatial dynamics will influence the relationship between discrete political acts
and event-based POPs, such that the positive relationship between discrete political behaviors
and event-based POPs levels is strongest for discrete political behaviors that (a) originate
closer to one’s hierarchical level and (b) occur in contexts where spatial proximity is high.
Proposition 3: Spatial proximity determines the extent to which the effects of discrete political
acts spread through the organization, such that in organizations where spatial proximity is
high, the effects of discrete political acts will be (a) more dispersed in organizations where
spatial proximity is high and (b) uniformly distributed in organizations where spatial proximity
is low.
Temporal context. Events are bounded temporally and by location and are, therefore,
incapable of occurring precisely again (Cooper, 2003). As such, time-based aspects of
events (i.e., duration, timing, and strength change) play an essential role in determining
their impact. Duration is the extent to which an event is transitory (i.e., lasting for a brief
amount of time) versus ongoing. According to EST, an event will exhibit a more significant
impact when it is longer lasting (e.g., ongoing conflict within a business unit that drains
coping resources vs. a single argument between colleagues). Event timing refers to when,
during the developmental stage of an entity, an event occurs. Organizations, teams, and
employees have different life cycles and unique sets of needs attached to participation in
each role.
EST suggests that events that closely match the needs associated with each
developmental stage will be more impactful (e.g., an experienced manager is likely better
equipped to recognize and respond to a subordinate’s political influence tactics than one
who is less sea- soned). Event strength change reflects fluctuations in the novelty,
disruptiveness, and criticality of an event over time. For example, incivility has the
potential to trigger upward spirals of distress (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In this regard,
employees escalate the magnitude of incivility over time, resulting in event patterns that
are increasingly novel, disruptive, and critical. Similar effects exist in contexts of
declining fairness and trust (Korsgaard, 2018; Moorman, Brower, & Grover, 2018), both of
which have properties and manifestations conceptually similar to event-based POPs
(Lampaki & Papadakis, 2018).
Temporal aspects have three important implications for event-based POPs. First,
political events that are longer in duration will have a more significant impact on perceivers
(assuming comparable levels of novelty, disruption, and criticality). For example, when
workers form a coalition, their constant engagement in opportunistic behaviors aimed at
acquiring or protecting the alliance’s resources will be taxing to others, given that
defending oneself against perceived threats of organizational politics is “a very
emotionally demanding and pleasant experience” that is associated with higher levels of
stress (Valle & Perrewé, 2000: 364).
Second, employees may perceive politics at times when the acts of others meet (or chal-
lenge) their current needs. For example, political actions are more threatening to newer
employees (i.e., those with lower job tenure) because they (a) have a more limited under-
standing of the organizational environment (Ferris et al., 2000), which stimulates “surprise
reactions and increased cognitive activity directed at making sense of or attempting to
better understand . . . and effectively deal with political behavior” (Ferris, Frink, Gilmore,
& Kacmar, 1994: 1208) and (b) have yet to accumulate the social capital necessary to
defend themselves against competitors (Silvester & Wyatt, 2018). Thus, the criticality of
discrete political behavior will be a function of its timing.
Finally, as event-based POPs strengthen over time, behaviors, features, and actions also
will experience corresponding reinforcement. For example, when a coalition continues to
wield power in contexts that are becoming less political, the defensive political acts of
members are viewed as more novel and disruptive, increasing their strength and impact on
others at work (Morgeson et al., 2015). Therefore, we propose that the temporal context in
which discrete political acts occur plays a role in determining the extent to which discrete
political behavior relates to changes in perceptions, behaviors, and routines.
Proposition 4: Event-based politics will exert a more significant impact (a) when political
events are longer in duration, (b) when political events meet or challenge needs that are
associated with developmental stages of entities perceiving them, and (c) when there is a
significant increase in the event’s strength over time.
POPs accuracy. In contemporary research, there is an implicit assumption that POPs

reflect an accurate evaluation of the level of politics in an organization. However, Ferris
and colleagues were careful to emphasize that POPs refer to a “state of mind” (Ferris &
Kacmar, 1992: 94), which reflects one’s subjective experience, rather than a purely
objective state (Ferris et al., 1989). Ferris et al. (1989) argued that it is essential to study
POPs because people respond to their perceptions of reality, even if they reflect
misperceptions of what is actually going on at work. An important implication is that after
an event occurs, collective worker evaluations may change. However, these changes are
unlikely to be distributed evenly across the organization and do not necessarily have a
direct connection with reality (Daft & Weick, 1984).
Although POPs often are an inaccurate proxy of reality (McFarland et al., 2012), little
theory exists to explain when and why POPs may be more (or less) accurate. Drawing from
EST, we posit that perceptual accuracy is driven by the depth of information processing that
occurs following an event as well as the amount and type of information available about
the event. When people engage in controlled (i.e., deliberative and effortful) information
processing, they are less likely to rely on heuristics to make sense of their experiences
(Morgeson et al., 2015; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). As a result, their perceptions are more
accurate because they are (a) less influenced by surface-level cues and implicit biases and
(b) more likely to evaluate events within the broader temporal, social, and organizational
context in which they occur.
Event characteristics play an essential role in determining the depth of information pro-
cessing that occurs. According to Morgeson et al. (2015), events that are more novel (e.g.,
political events occurring in contexts that are not highly political), disruptive (e.g., those
that interrupt or interfere with ongoing work), and critical (e.g., those which have direct
implications for one’s goal attainment) are more salient to observers and command
considerable attention. Accordingly, these events foster effortful information processing
because (a) such events are more likely to “reflect a break in expectations” (Morgeson et
al., 2015: 520) which serves to challenge the status quo (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014); (b)
individuals are unlikely to have routines for dealing with events that are more novel and
disruptive, thus requiring individuals to initiate changes aimed at adapting to such events
(Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003); and
(c) these types of events have greater potential to present opportunities or threats and
become the center of focus until resolved (Gersick & Hackman, 1990).
For these reasons, individuals will be more motivated to invest time, energy, and
attention into deliberative information processing, which contributes to a greater
understanding of
political behaviors that are more novel, disruptive, and critical. This approach increases the
accuracy of threat/opportunity cues associated with observing political activity, leading to a
favorable response to such events in terms of taking advantage of political opportunities,
defending themselves against threats, or avoiding distraction.
The amount and type of information available will be a function of how POPs are
distributed through the organization and spatial proximity, both of which play essential
roles in determining the extent to which employees have firsthand information about an
event. In organizations where there is high spatial proximity, POPs are more uniformly
distributed, and there is less information asymmetry because employees have relatively
equal access to direct (i.e., observable) information about political events. However, when
spatial proximity is low, event information will be spread unevenly because information
about specific events will be less accessible when employees work at levels or locations
that are farther away from each other (Morgeson et al., 2015). Consequently, outside of the
group where event-based politics occurs, POPs will be influenced more by hearsay (and
heuristics), rather than direct observation. Therefore, event-based POPs will be more
contaminated, and hence a less accurate reflection of reality, in contexts where spatial
proximity is low.
Proposition 5: The accuracy of event-based POPs will be determined by event characteristics

and the distribution of POPs, such that (a) political event novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality
will have a positive impact on POPs accuracy, and (b) POPs distribution will have a negative
impact on POPs accuracy.
Political uncertainty. Thus far, we have described the process through which discrete
political behaviors influence POPs level, accuracy, and distribution. Two critical theoreti-
cal implications of this discussion are that (a) political event information is not distributed
uniformly within or across organizational levels and (b) POPs accuracy varies based on the
level of processing. We further theorize that resulting information asymmetries contribute
to uncertainty around the extent to which one’s workplace is political, which has the
potential to create opportunities for self-serving political action.
More specifically, when the frequency of political events increases over time (i.e., such
that it results in a change to baseline levels), the novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality of
each political event is reduced because individuals adapt to higher levels of politics by
developing scripts and routines that allow them to avoid depleting resources necessary for
functioning in increasingly political contexts (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Thus, when
political events occur in environments where such events are increasingly common, they
become less salient (i.e., individual political events are unlikely to stand out against features
of the environment, such as the political context). As a result, POPs accuracy is likely to
decrease because employees begin to rely on heuristic, rather than deliberative, processing
to avoid information overload associated with assimilating each event into existing schemas
(Huesmann, 1998).
When political events begin to occur more frequently, POPs distribution increases as
information about such events spreads through the organization. When this happens (i.e.,
when POPs accuracy decreases and POPs distribution increases), employees experience
more uncertainty around the real (i.e., objective or true) level of politics. Political
uncertainty injects arbitrariness into performance and reward systems (Cropanzano, Howes,
Grandey, & Toth, 1997), which leads employees to “engage in political behaviors that
advance their own
careers but create little value for the organization” (Rosen et al., 2006: 213). In other words,
some employees will begin to view political behavior as normative and subsequently adapt
to the environment by engaging in their own political behaviors as a means of taking advan-
tage of opportunities to get ahead or protecting themselves against resource threats
presented by others (Valle & Perrewé, 2000). Thus, although POPs traditionally reflect a
measure of organizational politics, our event-based framework suggests that, owing to its
influence on political uncertainty, it might also be an antecedent to political behavior
enacted by entities.
Proposition 6: When the frequency of political events increases above baseline, POPs accuracy
decreases, and POPs distribution increases, leading to more uncertainty about the real level of
politics.
Proposition 7: Employees who experience higher levels of political uncertainty will be more
likely to engage in political behavior to take advantage of opportunities or protect themselves
against threats posed by the political acts of others.
Summary
Our review of empirical research supports several of the critical tenets of Ferris et al.’s
(1989, 2002) seminal models. Expressly, research conducted over the past 30 years has
con- sistently provided evidence that POPs is an aversive feature of the work environment
that is associated with less favorable job attitudes, reduced motivation, and work
withdrawal. During this same time frame, theory in the organizational sciences has evolved,
and scholars have taken a more process-oriented view of employee perceptions of, and
reactions to, work phenomena. Consistent with this perspective, work environments
signaling others’ political intentions are evolving, dynamic, and fluctuate under changing
contextual realities. Given the potential for rapid and momentary transformations, it is
puzzling why scholars have focused on chronic exposure to politics that occurs during
nonspecific time periods (i.e., focusing explicitly on the perceived political “climate” of
organizations) while overlooking dynamic and temporal aspects of the phenomena that may
relate to adaptation and change in observer perceptions and behavior. Equally concerning is
the lack of consideration for influences that envelop POPs and behaviors.
To address these concerns, we introduced EST as a mechanism for addressing issues
impeding current POPs research. Shifting focus from an omnibus political climate view to
one that considers discrete events (and their unique characteristics) allows for a level of
precision consistent with dynamics embedded in existing contexts (Ward, Gore, Hutton,
Conway, & Hoffman, 2018). In assimilating EST into POPs research, we embraced
principles of con- textualism, which considers change and turbulence as defining features of
social contexts (Pepper, 1942). Finally, viewing POPs as an occurrence-based phenomenon
allows us to identify several avenues for future research. Accordingly, we conclude this
review with a discussion of future research directions that augments the discussion offered
thus far.
Future Directions
Given that the list of potential research foci resulting from the preceding discussion is
limitless, we focus on a few essential areas. First, Bem and Allen (1974: 518) argued, “The
classification of situations . . . will have to be in terms of the individual’s phenomenology,

not the investigator’s.” We argue that evaluating intraindividual processes resulting from
event- based politics is appropriate and necessary. Importantly, this perspective suggests
that the relationship between POPs and outcomes is more complicated than once thought.
Accordingly, scholars should consider momentary processes (e.g., appraisals of
threat/opportunity, discrete emotions, resource depletion and replenishment, motivational
processes), as well as more static between-person constructs, that influence how event-
based POPs relate to dynamic and adaptive work behaviors (e.g., defensive vs. reactive
political acts, coping behaviors).
More explicitly, EST identifies factors that affect how observers appraise event-based
politics, calling attention to factors that influence the novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality
of such events. For example, construal theory (Fujita, Trope, Liberman, & Levin-Sagi,
2006) suggests that individuals differ in the extent to which they mentally construe actions
in a concrete (i.e., seeing actions as capturing discrete, subordinate, and incidental features
that emphasize how the action is performed) versus an abstract (i.e., seeing actions as cap-
turing superordinate and central features that emphasize why the action is performed, its
motives, and broader meaning) manner. Those who tend to construe incidents at a higher,
more abstract level tend to “see the forest for the trees” and have a deeper understanding of
how they influence the behaviors of others. Thus, construal level is likely to play an essen-
tial role in determining the criticality of one’s event-based politics, exerting influence on
how observers appraise, process, and respond to their perceptions of discrete political
behavior (Rosen et al., 2016).
Also, observers might be influenced in different ways by political acts emanating from
sources higher (e.g., supervisors or executives), lower (e.g., subordinates), or at the same
level (e.g., coworkers) in the organizational hierarchy. For example, if supervisors or
executives frequently engage in political acts, this might signal that there is an opportunity
to get ahead by engaging in political behavior. In contrast, the political acts of coworkers
may reflect a more imminent threat to the self and one’s resources, eliciting more defensive
political behaviors from observers (Valle & Perrewé, 2000). Thus, we encourage future
researchers to consider how observer reactions are affected by the source (i.e., supervisor,
coworker, or subordinate) of political events, as this might serve to provide additional
insight into how, why, and when politics are likely to spread through organizations.
Importantly, our presented model is not deterministic, and we encourage scholars to con-
sider additional factors that determine how employees uniquely respond to event-based
POPs. Providing an exhaustive discussion of such boundary conditions is beyond the scope
of our review. However, in an attempt to integrate our EST model of POPs with contempo-
rary research (e.g., Kapoutsis et al., 2017; Maher, Gallagher, Rossi, Ferris, & Perrewé,
2018), and to provide direction for future researchers, we consider two additional individual
differences (i.e., political skill and political will) that are likely to influence how
employees respond to the political uncertainty that is generated by event-based POPs.
Political skill refers to “the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use
such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or
organizational objectives” (Ferris et al., 2005: 127). Political skill serves as a resource that
provides employees with the ability to reduce the uncertainty experienced in political work
environments while also enabling them to reduce threats and enhance positive outcomes
(Kacmar et al., 2013). Owing to their social astuteness and ability to influence others,
politically
skilled employees are less likely to view the uncertainty that is inherent to political environ-
ments as negative because they have greater control over their environment, which
increases predictability. Kacmar et al. (2013) further theorized that politically skilled
individuals are more likely to view politics and its surrounding uncertainty as an
opportunity to get ahead, which explains behavioral outcomes (e.g., engaging in political
behavior to exploit the situation). Thus, extant theory and research suggest that when
political uncertainty is high, employees who are higher (lower) in political skill are more
(less) likely to engage in political behaviors as a means of taking control of the situation
and exploiting opportunities to accomplish their own goals.
Whereas political skill refers to an ability that allows employees to take advantage of
ambiguous and uncertain situations, political will is closely linked to one’s motivation to do
so. Political will refers to “the motivation to engage in strategic, goal-directed behavior that
advances the personal agenda and objectives of the actor that inherently involves the risk of
relational and reputational capital” (Treadway, 2012: 533). Political will reflects a willing-
ness to direct effort toward advancing political goals (e.g., influencing others, developing
liking, accumulating power, building trust; Maher et al., 2018), and has been described as
“an essential precursor to engaging in political behavior” (Treadway, Ferris, Hochwarter,
Perrewé, Witt, & Goodman, 2005: 231).
As noted previously, political uncertainty creates opportunities for political action.
Individuals who are high in political will are more likely to take advantage of such
opportunities because of their willingness to risk social capital to satisfy personal
political goals. Therefore, political will is likely to serve as another boundary to the effects
of political uncertainty and enacted political behavior, such that the relationship between
political uncertainty and enacted political behavior will be stronger for employees who are
higher in political will. Second, including EST in POPs research will promote richer
understandings of issues that have shadowed organizational politics studies since initiated. As
an example, research continues to wrestle with the “good politics”–versus–“bad politics”
dichotomy. Trippe (1922: 7) argued, “Making good on the job and being scrupulously fair
with the boss’s time and money, is the very best kind of office politics in the long run.”
Despite being approximately 100 years old, this statement is reflective of contemporary
views of scholars and practitioners. At this point, we
urge researchers to put this debate to rest—politics are both good and bad, not one or the other.
Once we move on from this, better questions will follow. When, why, and how does a
once-benign political context become one fraught with toxicity? What level of intrusion is
necessary before politics changes attitudes and behaviors? How do workers react when
political cues differ across multiple levels? How do self-serving behaviors initiated
outside of organizational boundaries affect those within, and how can work politics affect
government functioning (Limba, Hutahayan, Soliunm, & Fernandes, 2019)? These
questions represent a small subset of unresolved issues benefiting from EST approaches.
Third, POPs theory and research might also be useful for informing future research on
broader social phenomena. For example, academic and popular-press articles (e.g., Chopik,
Joshi, & Konrath, 2014; Hall, 2018) suggest that Americans are becoming more self-
focused, frequently engaging in self-serving acts without regard for their impact on others.
Given its focus on how people perceive and respond to self-serving behaviors,
organizational politics research might provide insight into why Americans are experiencing
declining levels of psychological and physiological well-being and may be useful for
identifying coping strategies (e.g., defensive or proactive tactics) that might attenuate such
influences.
One insight provided by the theory that we present is that as population density
increases, such effects will become stronger because spatial proximity is likely to increase
the extent to which self-serving acts spread through society. Likewise, self-serving political
acts create uncertainty, leading people to question the motives and behaviors of others,
which may lead to a degradation of the social fabric that unites members of society. Future
research, which considers interventions aimed at reducing the presence or effects of
workplace politics, may be useful for informing scholars interested in addressing these
critical societal issues.
Fourth, although scholars (e.g., Gibson, 2006; Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, & Zivnuska,
2011) have suggested that members of historically less powerful groups (e.g., women and
minorities) might experience workplace politics in a way that is fundamentally different
from the way others do, little research has considered causes or consequences of these
differences. For example, it might be more difficult for members of historically
discriminated-against groups to join powerful organizational coalitions, making it tough to
protect themselves against the political actions of others (Charles & Nkomo, 2012). This
argument aligns with research that has demonstrated that race impacts access to
organizational networks (Ibarra, 1995), such that members of underrepresented groups have
less access to information, put- ting them at a disadvantage for navigating political
environments (Ferris et al., 1996). As a result, discrete political behavior might be more
disruptive and represent a more imminent threat to minorities in organizational settings
(Heilman, 2012).
Gender might also influence how people respond to the political behavior of actors,
impacting the extent to which one’s own political behavior results in desirable outcomes.
For example, in response to the political behavior of others, some employees may engage
in aggressive political behavior aimed at defending themselves or exerting control over the
environment (Valle & Perrewé, 2000). Men may accrue benefits from engaging in these
agentic and self-serving behaviors because such behaviors are consistent with prevailing
gender stereotypes (Rudman & Glick, 2001), whereas the same behaviors may be more
costly to women because they violate implicit beliefs that women should conform to com-
munality stereotypes (e.g., “women are prohibited from demonstrating the self-assertion,
dominance and achievement orientation so celebrated in men”; Heilman, 2012: 123; and
“political activity is seen as gendered and masculine and contrary to female identity”;
Davey, 2008: 650). This reality is particularly likely in male-dominated work contexts
(Heilman, 2012).
For the reasons discussed previously, women and minorities are likely to experience
workplace politics in a way that is different from the way their peers do. As such, we
encourage future scholars to (a) consider how (and why) perceptions of the novelty,
disruptiveness, and criticality of political events might vary as a function of subgroup
membership and (b) identify theoretically relevant constructs (e.g., social networks, access
to those who hold power or political information, diversity of one’s group, organization,
and profession) that might explain these effects. Such scholarship is likely to generate
insight into interventions that might serve to even the playing field for members of
underrepresented groups in organizational settings.
Finally, future scholars should ensure that study design and analysis approaches keep
pace with the evolving nature of POPs research. To date, studies have relied primarily on
single- source survey approaches often collected at one point in time. Although there are
times when this approach is warranted (Spector, Rosen, Richardson, Williams, & Johnson,
2019), if research is to progress, alternative strategies need to be included. For example,
Maher et al.
(in press) suggested that event-oriented approaches will help scholars understand how tem-
poral, cross-level occurrences affect individuals and organizations. Importantly, to test the
propositions described in our event-based model, scholars will need to adopt dynamic,
within-person approaches to studying POPs (Gabriel et al., 2019). Such approaches will
involve adopting longitudinal designs to measure discrete political events and related con-
structs (e.g., POP levels, distributions, and uncertainty; enacted political behavior by
observers) multiple times throughout specified periods (e.g., days, weeks, or months).
Conclusion
Accumulating evidence has provided support for Ferris et al.’s (1989, 2002) POPs mod-
els. With few exceptions, however, research has presented a snapshot of how workers per-
ceive and respond to politics without considering acute and transformative aspects. In
addition to reviewing relevant research, we address calls to develop theory that captures the
dynamics of POPs. In response, drawing from Morgeson et al.’s (2015) EST, we discuss
POPs as an event-based phenomenon. Although our presentation of EST represents a
radical departure from existing approaches, stretching the boundaries of thinking is
required at this critical stage of development. We hope others join in this journey by
offering unique perspectives of a phenomenon that shows little evidence of abating in
both society and science.
ORCID iDs
Samantha L. Jordan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1192-1967
Aqsa Ejaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5912-5540
Liam P. Maher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2903-352X
Note
1. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, nonpolitical events (i.e., behaviors not explicitly self-serving)
also can influence perceptions of organizational politics. For example, an employee may make a publicly visible
mistake and act as though nothing happened. An incompetent manager may allow the mistake to go unnoticed and
fail to rebuke the employee. Such acts of incompetence may be perceived as politically motivated events. In our
theorizing, we focus only on self-serving events while recognizing that events that are not self-serving may also be
construed as political by observers lacking full information. When perceivers have limited knowledge, they rely
on surrounding informational cues and heuristic processing to make sense of the event. Thus, contextual
information (i.e., political context) will play a more significant role in determining how nonpolitical and
ambiguous events are perceived, such that ambiguous events occurring in more (less) political contexts will be
viewed as more (less) self-serving.
References
Aggarwal, A., Goyal, J., & Nobi, K. 2018. Examining the impact of leader-member exchange on perceptions of
organizational justice: The mediating role of perceptions of organizational politics. Theoretical Economics
Letters, 8: 2308-2329.
Akkermans, J., Seibert, S., & Mol, S. 2018. Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career shocks in the
contemporary careers literature. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 44: 1-10.
Al-Abrrow, H. 2018. The effect of perceived organisational politics on organisational silence through organisa-
tional cynicism: Moderator role of perceived support. Journal of Management & Organization. doi:10.1017/
jmo.2018.62
Albrecht, S., & Landells, E. 2012. Organizational politics and occupational health psychology: A demands-
resources perspective. In J. Houdmont, S. Leka, & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational health
psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice: 1-18. New York: Wiley Blackwell.
Allport, F. 1940. An event-system theory of collective action: With illustrations from economic and political phe-
nomena and the production of war. Journal of Social Psychology, 11: 417-445.
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of
Management Review, 24: 452-471.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z., & Budhwar, P. 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. 2010. Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of
theoretical antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22: 494-513.
Beck, J., & Shen, W. 2019. The effects of US presidential elections on work engagement and job performance.
Applied Psychology, 68: 547-576.
Bedi, A., & Schat, A. 2013. Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of its attitudinal, health, and
behavioural consequences. Canadian Psychology, 54: 246-259.
Bem, D., & Allen, A. 1974. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational
consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81: 506-520.
Bliese, P., Adler, A., & Flynn, P. 2017. Transition processes: A review and synthesis integrating methods and
theory. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 263-286.
Carpenter, G., & Grossberg, S. 2003. Adaptive resonance theory. In M. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory
and neural networks: 87-90. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Cavanagh, G., Moberg, D., & Velasquez, M. 1981. The ethics of organizational politics. Academy of Management
Review, 6: 363-374.
Chang, C., Rosen, C., & Levy, P. 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.
Charles, A., & Nkomo, S. 2012. The intersection of race and politics: A framework for racialized organizational
politics perceptions. In G. Ferris & D. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research
considerations: 451-486. New York: Routledge.
Chopik, W., Joshi, D., & Konrath, S. 2014. Historical changes in American self-interest: State of the Union
addresses 1790 to 2012. Personality and Individual Differences, 66: 128-133.
Cobb, A. 1984. An episodic model of power: Toward an integration of theory and research. Academy of
Cooper, H. 2003. Psychological bulletin: Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 3-9.
Crawford, W., Thompson, M., & Ashforth, B. 2019. Work-life events theory: Making sense of shock events in dual-
earner couples. Academy of Management Review, 44: 194-212.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J., Grandey, A., & Toth, P. 1997. The relationship of organizational politics and support to
work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 159-180.
Czarniawska, B. 2006. A golden braid: Allport, Goffman, Weick. Organization Studies, 27: 1661-1674.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management
Review, 9: 284-295.
Davey, K. 2008. Women’s accounts of organizational politics as a gendering process. Gender, Work &
Organization, 15: 650-671.
Dewey, J. 1926. The historic background of corporate legal personality. Yale Law Journal, 35: 655-673.
Drory, A. 1993. Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organization Studies, 14: 59-71.
Edinger, L. 1975. The comparative analysis of political leadership. Comparative Politics, 7: 253-269.
Elbanna, S., Kapoutsis, I., & Mellahi, K. 2017. Creativity and propitiousness in strategic decision-making: The
role of positive politics and macro-economic uncertainty. Management Decision, 55: 2218-2236.
Farrell, D., & Peterson, J. 1982. Patterns of political behavior in organizations. The Academy of Management
Review, 7: 403-412.
Ferris, G., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R., Hochwarter, W., & Ammeter, A. 2002. Perceptions of organizational poli-
tics: Theory and research directions. In F. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues:
Vol. 1. The many faces of multi-level issues: 179-254. Oxford: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Ferris, G., Ellen, B., III, McAllister, C., & Maher, L. 2019. Reorganizing organizational politics research: A
review of the literature and identification of future research directions. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6: 299-323.
Ferris, G., Frink, D., Galang, M., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K., & Howard, J. 1996. Perceptions of organizational politics:
Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49: 233-266.
Ferris, G., Frink, D., Gilmore, D., & Kacmar, K. 1994. Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional conse-
quences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24: 1204-1220.
Ferris, G., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J. 2000. Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between
politics perceptions and political behavior. In S. Bacharach & E. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of
organizations: 89-130. Stamford, CT: JAI.
Ferris, G., & Kacmar, K. 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18: 93-116.
Ferris, G., Perrewé, P., Daniels, S., Lawong, D., & Holmes, J. 2017. Social influence and politics in organizational
research: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24: 5-
19.
Ferris, G., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. 1989. Politics in organizations. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Impression management in the organization: 143-170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G., Treadway, D., Kolodinsky, R., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. 2005.
Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31: 126-152.
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7: 117-140.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. 2006. Construal levels and self-control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 351-367.
Gabriel, A., Podsakoff, N., Beal, D., Scott, B., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J., & Butts, M. 2019. Experience sam-
pling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational
Research Methods, 22: 969-1006.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. 1980. The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 237-
251.
Gersick, C., & Hackman, J. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 47: 65-97.
Gibson, D., & Lawrence, B. 2010. Women’s and men’s career referents: How gender composition and comparison
level shape career expectations. Organization Science, 21: 1159-1175.
Gibson, S. 2006. Mentoring of women faculty: The role of organizational politics and culture. Innovative Higher
Education, 31: 63-79.
Hall, G. 2018. Is narcissism the cost of being American? Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psycholo- gytoday.com/us/blog/life-in-the-intersection/201804/is-narcissism-the-cost-being-
american
Harris, K., & Kacmar, K. 2005. Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions of politics-
strain relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 337-354.
Harvey, E., & Mills, R. 1970. Patterns of organizational adaptation: A political perspective. In M. Zald (Ed.),
Power in organizations: 181-213. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Press.
HBR Ascend Staff. 2019. The changing perspectives of young professionals on work and the workplace. Retrieved
from https://hbrascend.org/topics/the-changing-perspectives-work-and-the-workplace-youth-skills-survey/
Heilman, M. 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 113-135.
Hill, S., Thomas, A., & Meriac, J. 2016. Political behaviors, politics perceptions, and work outcomes: Moving to
an experimental study. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics: Looking
back and to the future: 369-400. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Hochwarter, W. 2003. The interactive effects of pro-political behavior and politics perceptions on job satisfaction
and affective commitment Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33: 1360-1378.
Hochwarter, W. 2012. The positive side of organizational politics. In G. Ferris & D. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in
organizations: Theory and research considerations: 20-45. New York: Routledge.
Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Zinko, R., Arnell, B., & James, M. 2007. Reputation as a moderator of political
behavior-work outcomes relationships: A two-study investigation with convergent results. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 567-576.
Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P., & Johnson, D. 2003. Perceived organizational support as a mediator
of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63:
438-456.
Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, K., Treadway, D., & Watson, T. 2003. It’s all relative: The distinction and prediction of
political perceptions across levels. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33: 1995-2016.
Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Ferris, G., & Guercio, R. 1999. Commitment as an antidote to the tension and
turnover consequences of organizational politics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 277-297.
Huesmann, L. 1998. The role of social information processing and cognitive schemas in the acquisition and main-
tenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories,
research, and implications for social policy: 73-109. New York: Academic Press.
Ibarra, H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of
Management Journal, 38: 673-703.
Johns, G. 2018. Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 21-46.
Kacmar, K., Andrews, M., Harris, K., & Tepper, B. 2013. Ethical leadership and subordinate outcomes: The
mediating role of organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill. Journal of Business
Ethics, 115: 33-44.
Kacmar, K., Bachrach, D., Harris, K., & Zivnuska, S. 2011. Fostering good citizenship through ethical leader-
ship: Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96: 633-642.
Kacmar, K., Bozeman, D., Carlson, D., & Anthony, W. 1999. An examination of the perceptions of organizational
politics model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52: 383-416.
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Nikolopoulos, A., Hochwarter, W., & Ferris, G. 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.
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., Treadway, D., & Bentley, J. 2017. Measuring political will in organizations:
Theoretical construct development and empirical validation. Journal of Management, 43: 2252-2280.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kiewitz, C., Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., & Castro, S. 2002. The role of psychological climate in neutralizing the
effects of organizational politics on work outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 1189-1207.
King, A., & Levy, P. 2012. A theoretical framework for organizational politics during the economic downturn.
In P. Perrewé, J. Halbesleben, & C. Rosen (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being: 87-130.
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Korsgaard, M. 2018. Reciprocal trust: A self-reinforcing dynamic process. In R. Searle, A. Nienaber, & S. Sitkin
(Eds.), Routledge companion to trust: 14-28. London: Routledge.
Kulik, C., & Ambrose, M. 1992. Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of
Lachmann, L. 1970. The legacy of Max Weber. London: Heinnemann.
Lampaki, A., & Papadakis, V. 2018. The impact of organisational politics and trust in the top management team
on strategic decision implementation success: A middle manager’s perspective. European Management
Journal, 36: 627-637.
Lawong, D., McAllister, C., Ferris, G., & Hochwarter, W. 2018. Mitigating influence of transcendence on politics
perceptions’ negative effects. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33: 176-195.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lee, J., & Peccei, R. 2011. Discriminant validity and interaction between perceived organizational support and
perceptions of organizational politics: A temporal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Lefkoe, M. 2011. How our perceptions shape our reality. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-
our- perceptions-shape_b_839089
Li, J., Burch, T., & Lee, T. 2017. Intra-individual variability in job complexity over time: Examining the effect of
job complexity trajectory on employee job strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38: 671-691.
Li, J., Wu, L., Liu, D., Kwan, H., & Liu, J. 2014. Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organi-
zational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31: 853-874.
Limba, R., Hutahayan, B., Solimun, S., & Fernandes, A. 2019. Sustaining innovation and change in government
sector organizations. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12: 103-115.
Liu, Y., & Liu, X. 2018. Politics under abusive supervision: The role of Machiavellianism and guanxi. European
Management Journal, 36: 649-659.
Maher, L., Gallagher, V., Rossi, A., Ferris, G., & Perrewé, P. 2018. Political skill and will as predictors of
impression management frequency and style: A three-study investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
107: 276-294.
Maher, L., Russell, Z., Jordan, S., Ferris, G., & Hochwarter, W. in press. Research methods in organizational
politics: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. In E. Stone-Romero & P. Rosopa (Eds.), Research methods in
human resources management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Maitlis, S. 2020. Posttraumatic growth at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 7: 10.1-10.25.
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy
of Management Annals, 8: 57-125.
Malik, O., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M., Khan, M., Yusaf, S., & Khan, A. 2019. Perceptions of organizational politics,
knowledge hiding, and employee creativity: The moderating role of professional commitment. Personality
and Individual Differences, 142: 232-237.
Maslyn, J., Farmer, S., & Bettenhausen, K. 2017. When organizational politics matters: The effects of the
perceived frequency and distance of experienced politics. Human Relations, 70: 1486-1513.
Mayes, B., & Allen, R. 1977. Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 2:
672-678.
McFarland, L., Van Iddekinge, C., & Ployhart, R. 2012. Measurement and methodology in organizational politics
research. In G. Ferris & D. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations:
99-129. New York: Routledge.
Meisler, G., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. 2017. Stress, psychological strain, and reduced organizational effec-
tiveness: The destructive consequences of the uses of intimidation and pressure by supervisors. In C. Rosen
&
P. Perrewé (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being: Power, politics, and political skill in job
stress: 51-80. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Merkus, S., Willems, T., Schipper, D., van Marrewijk, A., Koppenjan, J., Veenswijk, M., & Bakker, H. 2017. A
storm is coming? Collective sensemaking and ambiguity in an inter-organizational team managing railway
system disruptions. Journal of Change Management, 17: 228-248.
Miller, B., Rutherford, M., & Kolodinsky, R. 2008. Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of out-
comes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22: 209-222.
Moorman, R., Brower, H., & Grover, S. 2018. Organizational citizenship behavior and trust: The double
reinforcing spiral. In P. Podsakoff, S. Mackenzie, & N. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
organizational citizenship behavior: 285-296. London: Oxford.
Morgeson, F. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and
disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 497-508.
Morgeson, F., & DeRue, D. 2006. Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt
teams and influence team leader intervention. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 271-287.
Morgeson, F., Mitchell, T., & Liu, D. 2015. Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the
organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40: 515-537.
Munyon, T., Summers, J., Thompson, K., & Ferris, G. 2015. Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical
extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Personnel Psychology, 68: 143-184.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. 2000. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control
resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126: 247-259.
Naseer, S., Raja, U., & Donia, M. 2016. Effect of perceived politics and perceived support on bullying and emo-
tional exhaustion: The moderating role of Type A personality. Journal of Psychology, 150: 606-624.
Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M., & Darr, W. 2016. Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environ-
ment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader-member exchange, and perceived organi-
zational politics on behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 27: 14-33.
Parker, C., Dipboye, R., & Jackson, S. 1995. Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21: 891-912.
Pepper, S. 1942. World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Perrewé, P., Rosen, C., & Maslach, C. 2012. Organizational politics and stress: The development of a process
model. In G. Ferris & D. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations:
213-255. New York: Routledge.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology: 123-205. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Podsakoff, N., LePine, J., & LePine, M. 2007. Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with
job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C., & Birjulin, A. 1999. Organizational politics and organizational sup-
port: Predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20: 159-174.
Rosen, C., Chang, C., Johnson, R., & Levy, P. 2009. Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological
contract breach: Assessing competing perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108: 202-217.
Rosen, C., Ferris, D., Brown, D., Chen, Y., & Yan, M. 2014. Perceptions of organizational politics: A need
satisfaction paradigm. Organization Science, 25: 1026-1055.
Rosen, C., Harris, K., & Kacmar, K. 2009. The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model.
Human Relations, 62: 27-57.
Rosen, C., Harris, K., & Kacmar, K. 2011. LMX, context perceptions, and performance: An uncertainty manage-
ment perspective. Journal of Management, 37: 819-838.
Rosen, C., & Hochwarter, W. 2014. Looking back and falling further behind: The moderating role of rumina-
tion on the relationship between organizational politics and employee attitudes, well-being, and performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124: 177-189.
Rosen, C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A., & Johnson, R. 2016. Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and
why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 1620-1634.
Rosen, C., Levy, P., & Hall, R. 2006. Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment,
employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 211-220.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of
Social Issues, 57: 743-762.
Schmid, E., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. 2019. Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measure-
ment of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management, 45: 1401-1433.
Sederberg, P. 1984. The politics of meaning: Power and explanation in the construction of social reality. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Silvester, J., & Wyatt, M. 2018. Political effectiveness at work. In D. Ones, C. Viswesvaran, N. Anderson, & H.
Sinangil (Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology: 228-247. London:
Sage.
Spector, P., Rosen, C., Richardson, H., Williams, L., & Johnson, R. 2019. A new perspective on method variance:
A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management, 45: 855-880.
Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. 2012. Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition
from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1232-1259.
Sun, S., & Chen, H. 2017. Is political behavior a viable coping strategy to perceived organizational politics?
Unveiling the underlying resource dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 1471-1482.
Teimouri, R., Arasli, H., Kiliç, H., & Aghaei, I. 2018. Service, politics, and engagement: A multi-level analysis.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 28: 10-19.
Treadway, D. 2012. Political will in organizations. In G. Ferris & D. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations:
Theory and research considerations: 531-556. New York: Routledge.
Treadway, D., Ferris, G., Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Witt, L., & Goodman, J. 2005. The role of age in the per-
ceptions of politics-job performance relationship: A three-study constructive replication. Journal of Applied
Triberti, S., & Riva, G. 2016. Being present in action: A theoretical model about the “interlocking” between inten-
tions and environmental affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 2052.
Trippe, H. 1922. Getting a raise out of the boss: The wisdom of impressing an employer with the efficiency of
your production—Many fallacious reasons advanced by the workers in the ranks—The firm’s viewpoint.
Office Management: A Constructive Monthly Magazine on Business Methods, 8: 7-11.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117:
440-463.
Valle, M., Kacmar, K., & Zivnuska, S. 2003. Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and organizational politics per-
ceptions. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 5: 13-24.
Valle, M., Kacmar, K., & Zivnuska, S. 2019. Understanding the effects of political environments on unethical
behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 156: 173-188.
Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. 2000. Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit
assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53: 359-386.
Vigoda, E. 2000. Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the
public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 326-347.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. 2016. Introduction: Back to the future of organizational politics. In E. Vigoda-
Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics: Looking back and to the future: 1-12.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1950. An outline of general systems theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1:
134-165.
Vredenburgh, D., & Maurer, J. 1984. A process framework of organizational politics. Human Relations, 37: 47-65.
Ward, P., Gore, J., Hutton, R., Conway, G., & Hoffman, R. 2018. Adaptive skill as the condition sine qua non of
expertise. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7: 35-50.
Watkins, M., Smith, A., Cooke, E., & Christian, M. 2014. The role of culture on perceptions of organizational poli-
tics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1: 16529.
Wolfson, M., & Mathieu, J. 2018. Sprinting to the finish: Toward a theory of Human Capital Resource
Complementarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103: 1165-1180.
Wood, J. 1989. Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin,
106: 231-248.
Yang, F. 2017. Better understanding the perceptions of organizational politics: Its impact under different types of
work unit structure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26: 250-262.
Zald, M., & Berger, M. 1978. Social movements in organizations: Coup d’etat, insurgency, and mass movements.
American Journal of Sociology, 83: 823-861.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 2003. Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49: 514-528.
Zhou, J., & Ferris, G. 1995. The dimensions and consequences of organizational politics perceptions: A confirma-
tory analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 1747-1764.

Article - POP Review Horwarter 2020 (Diagram)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article - POP Review Horwarter 2020 (Diagram)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Vol. 46 No. 6, July 2020 879–907

Perceptions of Organizational Politics Research:

Research examining the influence of perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) is currently

Keywords: perceptions of organizational politics; event systems theory; political behavior;

Review of Foundational POPs Research

differentially predict outcomes (i.e., affective commitment, turnover intention, and

Models and Meta-Analyses of POPs in Prior Research

History of Perceptions of Organizational Politics Relations and Corresponding Meta-Analytic Coefficients

Criticality is based on the centrality of the goal supported or challenged by an event,

POPs accuracy. In contemporary research, there is an implicit assumption that POPs

Proposition 5: The accuracy of event-based POPs will be determined by event characteristics

classification of situations . . . will have to be in terms of the individual’s phenomenology,

Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

You might also like