Organizational politics has been an oft-studied phenomenon for nearly four decades. Prior reviews have described research in this stream as aligning with one of three categories: perceptions of organizational politics (POPs), political behavior, or political skill. We suggest that because these categories are at the construct level research on organizational politics has been artificially constrained. Thus, we suggest a new framework with higher-level categories within which to classify organizational politics research: political characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes. We then provide a broad review of the literature applicable to these new categories and discuss the possibilities for future research within each expanded category. Finally, we close with a discussion of future directions for organizational politics research across the categories.

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 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.

We draw from social psychological and resource-based theories to meta-analytically examine curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors (i.e., job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and workplace deviance). Overall, our meta-analytic results demonstrate that relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors are essentially linear. The limited evidence of curvilinear relationships we did find supports the application of social psychological theories when examining high levels of destructive leadership.Overall, this study's meta-analytic regression, relative weight, and semipartial correlation results have important implications for how to interpret the conclusions drawn from prior destructive leadership research, how to conduct future studies that examine destructive leadership, and practitioners' attempts to limit the effects of destructive leadership on followers' workplace behaviors.

No abstract

No abstract