组织中的政治技能

290 Political Skill in Organizations† Gerald R. Ferris* Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 Darren C. Treadway Department of Organization and Human Resources, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-4000 Pamela L. Perrewé Robyn L. Brouer Ceasar Douglas Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 Sean Lux Center for Entrepreneurship, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., BSN 3404, Tampa, FL 33620 Political skill is a construct that was introduced more than two decades ago as a necessary com- petency to possess to be effective in organizations. Unfortunately, despite appeals by organiza- tional scientists to further develop this construct, it lay dormant until very recently. The present article defines and characterizes the construct domain of political skill and embeds it in a cog- nition–affect–behavior, multilevel, meta-theoretical framework that proposes how political skill operates to exercise effects on both self and others in organizations. Implications of this con- ceptualization are discussed, as are directions for future research and practical implications. Keywords: political skill; social competency; interpersonal style; influence; astuteness †The authors would like to express their gratitude to Russell Cropanzano for his thorough and insightful comments and his support. This article is a much better product as a result. *Corresponding author. Tel: 850-644-3548; fax: 850-644-7843. E-mail address: gferris@cob.fsu.edu Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, June 2007 290-320 DOI: 10.1177/0149206307300813 © 2007 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved. Organizational politics has drawn considerable interest from scholars for decades. However, much less is known about the requisite competencies to successfully practice pol- itics in the workplace. In the early 1980s, both Pfeffer (1981) and Mintzberg (1983) advo- cated political perspectives on organizations, and both suggested that to be effective in political environments, individuals needed to possess political skill. Unfortunately, despite appeals by scholars for more work in this area, research on political skill lay dormant until recently, when Ferris and his colleagues (Ferris et al., 1999; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) developed a measure of the construct and a program of research. The purpose of the present article is to propose a conceptualization of political skill in organizations that considers the effects on both self and others. Political skill is character- ized as a comprehensive pattern of social competencies, with cognitive, affective, and behav- ioral manifestations, that have both direct effects on outcomes and moderating effects on predictor–outcome relationships. Characterization of Political Skill A perspective shared by many academicians is that organizations are inherently political arenas (Mintzberg, 1985). In this regard, it is assumed that although performance, effective- ness, and career success are determined in part by intelligence and hard work, other factors such as social astuteness, positioning, and savvy also play important roles (e.g., Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Mintzberg, 1983). In his articulation of the political per- spective on organizations, Pfeffer (1981) was one of the first to use the term political skill in the scholarly literature. He suggested that political skill is needed to be successful in organi- zations, and he called for research that would develop a more informed understanding of the construct. Similarly, Mintzberg (1983) suggested that political skill referred to the exercise of influence through persuasion, manipulation, and negotiation. Although considerable research has examined organizational politics, a serious omission has been the failure to evaluate the political skill of the influencer, leaving us ill informed about why influence efforts are (or are not) successful. Indeed, theory and research largely have assumed that the mere demonstration of an influence attempt is synonymous with its effectiveness. However, it is not enough to study the particular influence tactics or political behaviors that reflect the “what” of influence. We also need to critically examine the politi- cal skill of the influencer to understand the “how” of influence, which addresses the selec- tion of the most situationally appropriate influence tactics and their successful execution (Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., 2002). Definition and Construct Specification In an effort to capture the essential nature of the construct as discussed by Ferris et al. (1999), Mintzberg (1983), and others, we define political skill as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005: 127). As such, politically skilled individuals combine social astuteness with the capacity to adjust Ferris et al. / Political Skill in Organizations 291 their behavior to different and changing situational demands in a manner that appears to be sin- cere, inspires support and trust, and effectively influences and controls the responses of others. Political skill, then, is about competencies that are manifested in work-relevant situations that reflect both dispositional antecedents and situational variability. Although the variance because of dispositions is more stable, the variance attributable to situations can be affected through training, practice, and experience. As such, individuals benefit from experiences that cultivate the development of political skill, regardless of their inherent political capabilities. Dimensionality of Political Skill Careful examination of the organizational politics and political skill literature indicates several important aspects that should be included in any conceptualization of the political skill construct. This examination indicates four critical dimensions of political skill: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity. Subsequent conceptual and empirical development has lent support to the robustness of this formulation of political skill. Social astuteness. Individuals possessing political skill are astute observers of others. They understand social interactions well and accurately interpret their behavior and the behavior of others. They are keenly attuned to diverse social settings and have high self- awareness. Pfeffer (1992) referred to this characteristic as being sensitive to others, and he argued that the ability to identify with others is critical to obtaining things for oneself. Socially astute individuals are often seen as ingenious, even clever, in dealing with others. Interpersonal influence. Politically skilled individuals have an unassuming and convinc- ing personal style that exerts a powerful influence on others around them. Interpersonal influence allows people to adapt and calibrate their behavior to different situations to elicit the desired responses from others. The interpersonal influence dimension captures what Pfeffer (1992) referred to as “flexibility,” which involves adapting one’s behavior to different targets of influence in different contextual settings to achieve one’s goals. Networking ability. Individuals with political skill are adept at identifying and develop- ing diverse contacts and networks of people. People in these networks tend to hold assets seen as valuable and necessary for successful personal and organizational gains. Because of their typically subtle style, politically skilled individuals easily develop friendships and build strong, beneficial alliances and coalitions. Furthermore, individuals high in networking abil- ity ensure they are well positioned to both create and take advantage of opportunities (Pfeffer, 1992). Finally, they are often highly skilled negotiators and deal makers and are adept at conflict management. Apparent sincerity. Politically skilled individuals appear to others as having high levels of integrity and as being authentic, sincere, and genuine. They are, or appear to be, honest and forthright. This dimension of political skill is crucial if influence attempts are going to 292 Journal of Management / June 2007 be successful because it focuses on the perceived intentions of the behavior exhibited. Perceived intentions or motives are important and have been argued to modify the interpre- tation and labeling of behavior. As noted by Jones (1990), influence attempts will be suc- cessful when actors are perceived to possess no ulterior motives. Individuals high in apparent sincerity inspire trust and confidence in and from those around them because their actions are not interpreted as manipulative or coercive. The four dimensions of political skill (i.e., social astuteness, interpersonal influence, net- working ability, and apparent sincerity) are assumed to be related to one another. Although the dimensions are presumed to correlate, they remain distinct constructs. Construct Validity of Political Skill Construct validity is perhaps the most important psychometric property a measure can pos- sess, and it reflects evidence in several areas, including the extent to which a measure relates to similar constructs and does not relate to constructs from which it should differ (Schwab, 1980). This section presents information, discussion, and results regarding the constructs to which political skill should be related and the degree of construct overlap expected and found. Other social competencies. Scholars have argued that political skill naturally somewhat overlaps with some other social competencies. For example, Ferris, Perrewé, and Douglas (2002) suggested that political skill would reflect some similarities with interpersonal acumen, sociopolitical intelligence, functional flexibility, social intelligence, and interpersonal intelli- gence. However, these authors noted that such overlap would not be expected to reflect more than modest-sized relationships, thereby allowing political skill to retain its distinctiveness as a construct that is sufficiently different from others. Because of their obvious similarity, political savvy has been examined in light of its rela- tionship to political skill. Political savvy suggests adeptness at the intuitive aspects of politics in organizations. Research by Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner (1994) on orga- nizational socialization identified a politics dimension of socialization. Closer inspection of the item content of this dimension reveals that it is actually measuring political savvy or under- standing. The item content tended to focus on issues such as learning how things really work in the organization, identifying who are the most influential people in the organization, and devel- oping a sound understanding of the motives behind the actions of people in the organization. To the extent that political savvy might be driven by a knowledge or understanding compo- nent, notions of political savvy make reference to a degree of understanding, which is closely related to the social astuteness dimension. Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) provided supportive evidence for these ideas. The political skill composite score was significantly (albeit modestly) related to political savvy (r = .47, p < .01), and the strongest correlation political savvy demon- strated with the political skill dimensions was with social astuteness (r = .60, p < .01). Another social competency construct that Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) deemed impor- tant to distinguish from political skill is emotional intelligence. For more than a decade, the concept of emotional intelligence has captured widespread interest from a scholarly perspec- tive, but also, and even more noteworthy, from a popular perspective. Attracting considerable Ferris et al. / Political Skill in Organizations 293 attention in the popular and business press, primarily as a function of Goleman’s (1995, 1998) best-selling books, emotional intelligence involves a facility with interpersonal behavior, which suggests that it might somewhat overlap with political skill. The nature of emotional intelligence appears to predominantly focus on the emotion-based aspects of interpersonal effectiveness, influence, and control. Conversely, political skill is con- ceptualized as incorporating knowledge and skill that go beyond emotions. Particularly because Goleman tended to develop a very broad characterization of emotional intelligence (i.e., which led Hedlund and Sternberg [2000] to suggest that Goleman viewed emotional intel- ligence as including everything except IQ), it seems important to demonstrate the construct dif- ferentiation between emotional intelligence and political skill. Admittedly, there should be some overlap in constructs, as indicated by a relationship of modest magnitude. Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) demonstrated that the political skill composite score was related to emotional intelligence at a modest level (r = .53, p < .01). Furthermore, the dimensions of polit- ical skill demonstrated correlations with emotional intelligence that ranged from .38 to .43. General mental ability (GMA). Social competency constructs, like political skill, which include cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements, bear the burden of demonstrating that such constructs are not simply driven, and/or subsumed, by GMA. At issue here is really that political skill and GMA are different constructs that tap into different domains. This is reflected in researchers’ tendency to distinguish between fluid and crystallized categories of intelligence (Cattell & Horn, 1978). Fluid intelligence tests frequently assess perception, rea- soning, and memory, whereas crystallized intelligence measures individuals’ common understandings of real-world issues and concerns (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987). Research has shown that crystallized intelligence is maintained and, in some cases, increases throughout life, whereas fluid intelligence tends to decline with age (e.g., Dixon & Baltes, 1986). The rationale for this distinction has its roots in the early work on social intel- ligence, where it was identified that individuals could be smart in ways that had little rela- tionship to IQ (Thorndike, 1920). Furthermore, Sternberg (1985) identified a “social competence” dimension of intelligence, which he argued was independent of problem-solv- ing and verbal abilities, that is, the abilities most typically associated with IQ. The foregoing discussion addresses the construct distinctiveness of political skill and GMA; indeed, they are quite different constructs that tap into different domains. However, a different issue, but important for purposes of the political skill conceptualization presented in the article, is the extent to which we might expect GMA to reflect some relationship with political skill. We would expect to see some degree of relationship, albeit modest, between these two constructs given the role that cognition plays in the intrapsychic processes of the meta-theoretical framework. Strain or anxiety. It has been suggested that political skill generates an increased sense of self-confidence and personal security because politically skilled individuals experience a greater degree of interpersonal control, or control over activities that take place in social interactions at work (Paulhus & Christie, 1981). Furthermore, greater perceptions of control should lead individuals high in political skill to perceive and interpret workplace stressors in different ways, resulting in such individuals experiencing significantly less strain or anxiety 294 Journal of Management / June 2007 at work (Kanter, 2004; Perrewé, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000). Indeed, Perrewé and her colleagues (2000) argued that political skill demonstrates an inverse relationship with trait anxiety, which reflects “relatively stable individual differences in anxiety-proneness, that is, to differences between people in the tendency to perceive stressful situations as dangerous or threatening and respond to such situations with elevations in the intensity of their state anxiety (S-Anxiety) reactions” (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983: 4). In support of these notions, recent research indicates that political skill neutralizes the dysfunctional effects of role conflict on strain for both behavioral and physiological strain measures (Perrewé et al., 2004). Furthermore, Perrewé et al. (2005) found that political skill demonstrated a similar antidote effect, but this time on the role overload–strain reaction rela- tionship. Finally, conceptualizing perceptions of organizational politics as a workplace stres- sor, Brouer, Ferris, Hochwarter, Laird, and Gilmore (2006) conducted a three-study investigation examining political skill as a moderator of the politics perceptions–strain reac- tion relationship, where the measure of strain used was employee depressive symptoms. The convergent results across all three studies demonstrated that, for those low in political skill, increases in politics perceptions were associated with increases in depressive symptoms, but for those high in political skill, increases in politics perceptions were associated with decreases in employee depressive symptoms. Concerning the dimensions of political skill, we argue that interpersonal influence should exhibit the strongest negative relationship with trait anxiety. The heightened sense of per- sonal security is likely to be associated with a perception of greater control over one’s work environment, with particular reference to interpersonal control perceptions (e.g., Paulhus & Christie, 1981). Such feelings are likely reflective of the perceptions of greater interpersonal control they derive from past experiential success at exercising interpersonal influence. These increased perceptions of control provide a comfort level that would result in reduced strain or anxiety. Offering empirical support for these notions, Ferris, Treadway, et al. (2005) reported relationships of the Political Skill Inventory (PSI) composite score and trait anxiety of r = –.27 and r = –.31 (p < .01) in two samples. Furthermore, they found that the political skill dimensions demonstrated significant negative correlations with trait anxiety ranging from r = –.11 to r = –.42 in two samples, with interpersonal influence exhibiting the strongest relationships in both samples (i.e., r = –.37, r = –.42, p < .01). Dispositional and Developmental Influences on Political Skill Although political skill has been viewed as a competency that can be substantially shaped or developed through training and socialization (Ferris, Anthony, Kolodinsky, Gilmore, & Harvey, 2002), it is believed to have dispositional and personal ability antecedents. Because political skill is an interpersonal style construct that contributes to effectiveness in inter- personal interactions, the personality antecedents conceptualized are ones that position people to exercise personal influence and appropriately behave in social situations at work. In an historical review of the personality field, Mayer (2005) argued that the absence of a more informed understanding was because of the approach taken by scholars who intro- duced particular perspectives but never attempted integration across such views, an approach Ferris et al. / Political Skill in Organizations 295 he referred to as the “perspective-by-perspective approach to personality.” In reaction to this, Mayer proposed an alternative view. He introduced the “systems framework,” which refocused personality on the mission originally proposed decades ago, w