Over the last three decades, a consensus has emerged in the organizational politics literature concerning the importance of politics in every aspect of organizational life. Organizational politics refers to ‘activities taken within an organization to acquire, develop, and use power, and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes’ (Treadway, Reference Treadway2012: 11; Pfeffer, Reference Pfeffer1981). Recently, organizational politics, both in terms of perceptions and behaviors, has garnered increased attention as the subject of social facilitation and systematic investigation (Hochwarter, Kapoutsis, Jordan, Khan, & Babalola, Reference Hochwarter, Kapoutsis, Jordan, Khan and Babalola2020). Not surprisingly, the changing nature of work – due to global socio-political, economic, and health-related crises – has bred uncertainty in the processes surrounding work environments (Lawong, Ferris, Hochwarter, & Harris, Reference Lawong, Ferris, Hochwarter, Harris, Buckley, Wheeler, Bauer and Halbesleben2021). This uncertainty has increased organizational politics and heightened the need for employees to operate more effectively in politically charged work arenas. Contributing to this trend are suggestions that the ability to navigate and enact politics is heavily dependent on the complex interplay between personality, personal characteristics, desires, and capabilities (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1983; Pfeffer, Reference Pfeffer1981). However, despite calls for more research articulating these nuanced dynamics (for a review see, Ferris, Ellen, McAllister, & Maher, Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019), political processes remain a relatively understudied, yet important, aspect of organizational research.
Decades of accumulated knowledge (for a review see, Hochwarter et al., Reference Hochwarter, Kapoutsis, Jordan, Khan and Babalola2020; Maher, Russell, Jordan, Ferris, & Hochwarter, Reference Maher, Russell, Jordan, Ferris, Hochwarter, Stone-Romero and Rosopa2020) and existing theory (e.g., social/political influence theory; Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, Reference Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, Ammeter, Yammarino and Dansereau2002) acknowledge the individual and joint impact of unique attributes and characteristics, including dark personalities (e.g., Machiavellianism and narcissism; Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, Reference Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell and Marchisio2011; Vecchio & Sussman, Reference Vecchio and Sussman1991), individual difference characteristics (e.g., extraversion, agreeableness; Caldwell & Burger, Reference Caldwell and Burger1998), political capabilities (e.g., political skill; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007), and political motivations (e.g., political will; Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1983), as potential factors shaping employee’s political behaviors. Other voices recognize the role of cognitive abilities and events as important factors for the successful navigation of politics at work. For example, Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway, and Bentley (Reference Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway and Bentley2017: 40) noted that little is known of ‘…cognitive events that drive political behavior’. Despite these advancements, early research by Ferris et al. (Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019) emphasized the need to consider process-related factors to better articulate the nuanced dynamics surrounding organizational politics.
In response, we introduce the concept of political self-efficacy at work (PSEW), which we define as an employee’s perceived self-confidence in their ability to master various political activities (e.g., social influence, impression management, networking) and execute political influence attempts successfully in the workplace (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Munyon, Summers, Thompson, & Ferris, Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015). Although political efficacy is often described in passing as a necessity for success in politically charged environments (e.g., Doldor, Anderson, & Vinnicombe, Reference Doldor, Anderson and Vinnicombe2013; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Hogan & Shelton, Reference Hogan and Shelton1998; Meurs, Gallagher, & Perrewé, Reference Meurs, Gallagher and Perrewé2010), PSEW’s theoretical and empirical role is unknown as is its empirical role in a larger model of organizational politics. Without its consideration, researchers are inadvertently underestimating the predictive power of potentially impactful political processes within their larger political frameworks. Furthermore, the absence of a valid construct and measure aimed at capturing a domain-specific political efficacy represents a significant gap in the literature that hampers future investigations.
We ground our new construct in the larger political literature and within social/political influence and social cognitive research and theory. The concept of social/political influence was first introduced by Ferris et al. (Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007) and later coined ‘social/political influence theory’. Since its original development, empirical research using the theory has been relatively scarce until Munyon et al. (Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) reviewed the political skill literature and proposed an integrative metatheoretical framework. As an extension of social/political influence theory, the metatheoretical framework of social/political influence proposed sequential mediating linkages between political skill and related variables (for a review, see Frieder, Ferris, Perrewé, Wihler, & Brooks, Reference Frieder, Ferris, Perrewé, Wihler and Brooks2019). Given our focus on the role of PSEW within its larger theoretical framework, Ferris et al.’s (Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007) and Munyon et al.’s theoretical frameworks offer exemplary frameworks for understanding how political self-efficacy fits within the larger literature.
Inherently, the tenets of social/political influence theory are grounded in the idea that actors within organizations need to possess not only social acumen (e.g., political skill) but also political motivation (e.g., political will) to navigate organizational politics (Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen, & Ferris, Reference Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen and Ferris2021; Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1983). Building on this perspective, we argue that skill and will alone are not enough to explain such complex political dynamics at work and that political players must also have high levels of political self-confidence. Given the necessity of self-confidence for successful navigation in political contexts, we argue that PSEW must also be grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1989). Essentially, PSEW captures a self-efficacy evaluation, which suggests that capability-related beliefs are the interface of cognition that is likely to explain work-related political behavior. Recent evidence (Malik, Sharma, Ghosh, & Sahu, Reference Malik, Sharma, Ghosh and Sahu2024) in the organizational politics literature highlights the need to pair politics research with social cognitive theory.
Therefore, consistent with Bandura’s agentic perspective, which involves interactions between individuals, behavior, and their environment (Bandura, Reference Bandura1989), we posit that when individuals perceive their workplace as being highly political (environment), they will utilize their political self-efficacy (i.e., PSEW; personal factor), leading to more favorable outcomes at work. In line with Bandura (Reference Bandura1997: 223), who stated that ‘people need a sense of efficacy to apply what they know consistently, persistently, and skillfully’, we argue that political players at work draw from a general sense of political self-confidence when navigating organizational politics.
Our research makes several contributions to existing thought. First, reviews in organizational politics continue to identify the inadequate attention given to understanding the complex interplay between political skill and self-evaluations, as well as misunderstanding regarding whether self-evaluated beliefs can offer additional information on the nuanced dynamics surrounding organizational politics (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019). Although previous scholarship (e.g., Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) acknowledges the impact political competencies have on politically charged attitudes and behaviors, empirical research is limited (Maher et al.’ (Reference Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen and Ferris2021) review). Consequently, after four decades, the time is ripe to incorporate the PSEW construct into the organizational politics and related literature. As such, we position PSEW as a vital political characteristic (for a review of other political characteristics see, Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019), which helps employees navigate organizational politics. In conceptualizing PSEW as a critical but previously overlooked element in the political game, we highlight how internalized drivers (i.e., political self-efficacy) allow for the successful navigation of organizational politics. In doing so, we fill acknowledged gaps in the literature (Maher et al., Reference Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen and Ferris2021) and establish the necessity and role of the new PSEW construct.
Second, in response to a recent review emphasizing the need to investigate with whom and when politics can have positive or negative influences (Malik et al., Reference Malik, Sharma, Ghosh and Sahu2024), we utilize a micro-level theoretical approach to facilitate a more thorough understanding of political processes. In developing PSEW and embedding it as a mediating mechanism within a larger theoretical framework, we help to explain the process by which employees develop the ability to successfully navigate politically charged environments. Thus, we answer calls to consider process-related factors (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019) and to explore personal qualities of politically skilled and willed actors (Maher et al., Reference Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen and Ferris2021). Although political skill and political will are considered the two key drivers of social/influence political theory, we acknowledge the importance of the PSEW construct as a critical driver/path that links political capabilities (e.g., political skill) to political outcomes. Accordingly, our work provides further evidence of the meaningfulness of PSEW in explaining the ‘black box’ between political characteristics and enacted political actions (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019).
Third, politics research has historically focused on constructs that are overtly negative (Castanheira, Sguera, & Story, Reference Castanheira, Sguera and Story2022; Khattak, Zolin, & Muhammad, Reference Khattak, Zolin and Muhammad2021; Li, Liang, & Farh, Reference Li, Liang and Farh2020; Maher et al., Reference Maher, Russell, Jordan, Ferris, Hochwarter, Stone-Romero and Rosopa2020; Malik et al., Reference Malik, Sharma, Ghosh and Sahu2024). Within the last decade, several efforts have been made to explore the positive aspects of politics, as scholars have begun to acknowledge its bright and neutral sides (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019). We build on this emerging research (Ellen, Reference Ellen2014; Hochwarter, Reference Hochwarter, Ferris and Treadway2012; Hochwarter et al., Reference Hochwarter, Rosen, Jordan, Ferris, Ejaz and Maher2020; Landells & Albrecht, Reference Landells and Albrecht2017; McAllister, Ellen, & Ferris, Reference McAllister, Ellen and Ferris2018; Wihler, Blickle, Ellen, Hochwarter, & Ferris, Reference Wihler, Blickle, Ellen, Hochwarter and Ferris2017) and subscribe to the perspective that politics is not always overtly negative. By diffusing specific elements of positive self-beliefs and positivism to internalized drivers of organizational politics, our new PSEW scale adds additional clarity to the positive side of organizational politics. Our PSEW construct acts as a personal efficacy evaluation, which is unique from other recently acknowledged favorable political constructs (e.g., orientations, behaviors, and activities). As such, our construct acts as an appropriate addition to an emerging body of research de-emphasizing the inherent ‘darkness’ of organizational politics (Treadway, Reference Treadway2012) and helps generate ‘insightful approaches that promote richer interpretations of this important phenomenon’ (Hochwarter, Reference Hochwarter, Ferris and Treadway2012: 52).
Toward a theoretical framework of PSEW
The foundation for our research lies in Lasswell’s (Reference Lasswell1936: 264) famous question: ‘Who gets what, when, and how’. Although a seemingly simplistic question, Lasswell’s inquiry continues to be a vibrant area of scholarship to this day. Applicable to employers and employees alike, research places a particular emphasis on the role of political characteristics (the ‘how’ of organizational politics) and motivations (the ‘when’ of organizational politics) for explaining what drives successful political navigation at work. Consequently, alongside its nomologically related neighbors, we position PSEW as an impactful, but novel, situation-specific political characteristic capable of producing favorable outcomes for political actors in political organizational settings (for a review, see Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019).
Although necessary for successful political navigation at work (e.g., Harris, Maher, & Ferris, Reference Harris, Maher, Ferris, Vigoda-Gadot and Drory2016; Kapoutsis, Reference Kapoutsis, Vigoda-Gadot and Drory2016; Maher, Gallagher, Rossi, Ferris, & Perrewé, Reference Maher, Gallagher, Rossi, Ferris and Perrewé2018), existing political characteristics (e.g., political skill) and motivations (e.g., political will) alone are not enough. Prior research highlights that existing characteristics are only the antecedents and boundary conditions of a larger, more nuanced, theoretical model (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019). As such, there is a clear need for more research considering emerging constructs that can help explain complex political dynamics. Answering recent calls, we suggest that employees must not only have the characteristics, competencies, and willingness to enact politics, but they must also possess the ‘insider’ conviction and resources (i.e., confidence) necessary to develop and utilize political competencies.
Drawing on Munyon et al.’s (Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) and McAllister et al.’s (Reference McAllister, Ellen and Ferris2018) research, which demonstrates that political skill is a predictor of efficacious beliefs (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015), we argue that political players at work must possess high levels of political self-efficacy. Furthermore, sufficient empirical evidence has been compiled to support the assertion (Meurs et al., Reference Meurs, Gallagher and Perrewé2010: 530) that self-ratings of political skill capture political self-efficacy, while other ratings of political skill capture political capabilities at work. This causal assumption regarding a difference between self- and other ratings of political skill aligns with tenets of social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1989), which suggests that competency-related self-beliefs (i.e., PSEW) are helpful in explaining the link between ability and eventual success. As such, self-beliefs can be viewed as a motor (or ‘a can-do motivation’) within a larger, more nuanced, theoretical model.
Our domain-specific definition of PSEW draws from past theory and research on organizational politics (Pfeffer, Reference Pfeffer1981) and neo-classical assumptions (organizational symbolism; Sederberg, Reference Sederberg1984). Like other domain-specific constructs, PSEW is dependent on the specifics of the context (i.e., the workplace) and tasks (i.e., political navigation) and, therefore, is not transferable to other domains or tasks outside the workplace. Although other political capabilities can be found in a variety of contexts and settings, our definition emphasizes the importance of having self-confidence in one’s political capabilities at work.
Nomological antecedents and outcomes of PSEW
To embed PSEW within a larger theoretical framework, we must clearly differentiate the new construct from other constructs within its nomological network. To do so, we identified several constructs (i.e., political skill, generalized self-efficacy, workplace status, the Dark Triad, general political behavior and impression management, and political will) that likely exhibit the greatest conceptual similarity to PSEW, and we illustrate the differences between PSEW and each nomological neighbor while placing each construct within a larger theoretical framework (presented in Fig. 1).
Figure 1. A Theoretical Framework of Political Self-Efficacy at Work Scale.
Nomological antecedents of PSEW
PSEW and political skill
Political skill refers to one’s ‘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’ (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, Reference Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas and Ammeter2004: 311). Given that both political skill and PSEW constitute political characteristics (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019), there is some degree of shared meaning between them. For starters, both constructs are grounded in the organizational politics and political/social influence literature (e.g., Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007) and include items that constitute critical components for the execution of politics at work. Additionally, both are personal attributes that are positioned as crucial means by which individuals influence others (Ferris, Harris, Russell, & Maher, Reference Ferris, Harris, Russell, Maher, Anderson, Ones and Sinangi2018; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007).
A second difference between political skill and PSEW relates to the perceptual nature of self-efficacy. Despite suggestions that self-rating measures of political skill are inherently conflated with self-efficacy (Hogan & Shelton, Reference Hogan and Shelton1998; Meurs et al., Reference Meurs, Gallagher and Perrewé2010), while other-rating measures of political skill assess political capabilities (Hogan & Shelton, Reference Hogan and Shelton1998; Meurs et al., Reference Meurs, Gallagher and Perrewé2010), scholars do not distinguish between general political self-efficacy and enacted political behavior. As such, we argue that our self-efficacy-based conceptualization of PSEW quantifies the type and degree of self-confidence that individuals possess with regard to their attempts to navigate organizational politics.
In contrast to political skill, which is directly associated with actual behavior and generally describes subjective behavior and measures of employees’ work capabilities, PSEW may play a self-regulatory role that clearly explains which individuals successfully enact politics. Although political skill reflects the ability to understand the self, others, and the environment, PSEW focuses on employees’ perceived confidence, credited to beliefs and perceptions of political capabilities. To this point, researchers have called into question whether the Political Skill Inventory (PSI; Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, Reference Ferris, Davidson and Perrewé2005) is conflated with evaluative judgments, efficacy overtones, and behavioral indicators. Given that existing measures of political skill are inherently conflated, political skill demonstrates a non-significant relationship with organizational politics (Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015). However, PSEW, as an unconflated efficacy-based construct, may act as a more appropriate means of linking political characteristics with political behavior.
Overall, we view PSEW as encapsulating individuals’ self-confidence in performing a wide array of politics. PSEW focuses on employees’ perceived confidence, credited to self-beliefs of their own political capability accounting for a can-do motivation (or the motor) driving one’s enacted political behavior. Prior developments on political skill and meta-analyses (e.g., Bing, Davison, Minor, Novicevic, & Frink, Reference Bing, Davison, Minor, Novicevic and Frink2011; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) make valuable contributions by linking political behavior (i.e., the ‘what’ of behavior) with aspects of ‘who’ individuals are (i.e., the attributes and psychological needs of individuals), but these prior efforts do not entirely clarify the linkages through which political capabilities (e.g., political skill) manifest in the favorable enactment of political behavior (Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015). Drawing on elements of social/political influence theory, we posit PSEW as a more appropriate ‘motor’ driving one’s preferences for fulfilling successful navigation of politics. Actually, PSEW in theory constitutes a critical mediator linking political capabilities with individual’s political behavior at work (McAllister et al., Reference McAllister, Ellen and Ferris2018; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015; Tumasjan & Braun, Reference Tumasjan and Braun2012).
Another difference relates to the critical components that synthesize both constructs. Political skill is comprised of the distinct underlying dimensions of interpersonal influence, social astuteness, networking ability, and apparent sincerity. On the other hand, PSEW concentrates on one central theme: an individual’s self-confidence in their ability to master organizational politics. As such, PSEW is conceptually narrower, more nuanced, and more parsimonious than political skill. Furthermore, whereas political skill and PSEW are task-specific (i.e., focusing on political activities), only PSEW is domain-specific (i.e., specific to the workplace). This difference is important given earlier research highlighting the theoretical and empirical distinctiveness of domain-generic and domain-specific phenomena (e.g., generalized self-esteem, self-efficacy, and strain; Bandura, Reference Bandura1986; Gentile et al., Reference Gentile, Grabe, Dolan-Pascoe, Twenge, Wells and Maitino2009). Overall, both are needed for survival and success in political situations, but as presently defined, they refer to different phenomena. Furthermore, they have different roles within a larger political process model (i.e., political skill as an antecedent and PSEW as a mediating mechanism). Thus, according to social/political influence theory, PSEW acts as an intrapsychic variable that is distinct from political skill (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015).
Also different regarding political skill and PSEW is how certain individuals are in the enactment of their future behavior. The intensity of how certain a person is about an expected outcome is attributable to confidence (Román & Iacobucci, Reference Román and Iacobucci2010). Whereas PSEW signals the self-efficacy to expect with (high) certainty a positive outcome when trying to predict future politically oriented behaviors, political skill does not make favorability predictions and instead focuses on enacted behaviors. As such, PSEW uncovers an alternative path through which individuals may reap benefits from the enactment of politics. Thus, PSEW allows for easier functional adaptation at work and better situational awareness, as self-efficacy is meant to influence how certain and sure people are of their political capabilities (McAllister et al., Reference McAllister, Ellen and Ferris2018; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015).
Hypothesis 1: PSEW and political skill demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.
PSEW and generalized self-efficacy
Self-efficacy reflects a belief ‘in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands’ (Bandura, Reference Bandura1989: 408). Not only does self-efficacy vary in the level of magnitude and strength, but also there exist differences in generality (i.e., the extent to which self-efficacious beliefs generalize across contexts and tasks) (Bandura, Reference Bandura1986). The concept of generality is important here as it provides the basis for differentiating PSEW from generalized self-efficacy. Indeed, PSEW and generalized self-efficacy are derived from different (i.e., general vs. work-specific) contexts and represent alternative task (i.e., general vs. politically specific) assessments in which self-confidence is realized. Specifically, compared with generalized self-efficacy, PSEW captures self-confidence in politically charged social situations in the workplace. As such, successful political navigation (i.e., the task) at work (i.e., the context) is necessary for PSEW to be present. This is not the case for generalized self-efficacy, which is both context and task-generic.
Hypothesis 2: PSEW and generalized self-efficacy demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.
PSEW and workplace status
Workplace status is defined as an employee’s perception of their own respect, prestige, and prominence relative to others (Djurdjevic et al., Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017). Given that workplace status and PSEW both reflect domain-specific competence and a relatively comprehensive understanding of social behavior in organizations (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007), there exists a degree of convergence between the two constructs. For example, PSEW and workplace status are both perceptual, and both acknowledge the utilization of power and positional dynamics for the acquisition of resources (Anderson & Brion, Reference Anderson and Brion2014).
Although PSEW and workplace status capture hierarchical elements of the work environment, the concepts are phenomenologically different for two important reasons. First, workplace status does not account for any political dynamics beyond status/power (e.g., Djurdjevic et al., Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017; Pearce, Reference Pearce and Pearce2011). On the other hand, PSEW encapsulates numerous political elements at work (e.g., social influence, impression management, and networking). Second, compared to PSEW, which is an internalized, self-driven confidence (within the person), workplace status is socially constructed (i.e., created, maintained, and adapted based on the collective beliefs of peers). This means that workplace status requires input from external sources, whereas the feeling of self-confidence innate to PSEW is driven from within the person.
Hypothesis 3: PSEW and workplace status demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.
PSEW and the Dark Triad
The Dark Triad consists of three interrelated personality subdimensions, including Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, Reference Paulhus and Williams2002). Whereas Machiavellianism is characterized by a lack of morality and an innate willingness to manipulate and exploit others, while narcissism reflects feelings of grandiosity, entitlement, and an overarching lack of empathy. Psychopathy, the most destructive of the three subdimensions, includes impulsivity, callousness, and remorselessness. While each subdimension has differential effects in work settings, all three Dark Triad traits are thought to be linked to elevated self-confidence in uncertain situations, like politically charged contexts (Jonason & Webster, Reference Jonason and Webster2010). In fact, prior research posits that the Dark Triad traits can influence specialized state-like forms of self-efficacy (e.g., entrepreneurial self-efficacy; Wu, Wang, Zheng, & Wu, Reference Wu, Wang, Zheng and Wu2019).
Hypothesis 4: PSEW and (a) Machiavellianism, (b) narcissism, and (c) psychopathy demonstrate both convergent and discriminant validity.
Nomological outcomes of PSEW
PSEW and political behavior
General political behavior constitutes a major element of social influence (Mayes & Allen, Reference Mayes and Allen1977; Treadway, Bentley, Williams, & Wallace, Reference Treadway, Bentley, Williams, Wallace and Day2014; Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Ferris, Reference Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar and Ferris2005) and is a representative construct of political actions, which encompass formal and informal activities in organizational settings (e.g., bribes, withholding information, blackmail; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019). While political behavior entails actions that are self-interested, strategic, and planned with intentionality to achieve personal or collective goals, PSEW accounts for individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs to execute those political behaviors effectively. Whereas PSEW is a confidence-based scale that centers on personal subjective assessments focusing on narrowly defined tasks and contexts at work, political behavior encapsulates actual behaviors aimed at exercising power and influence over others.
Beyond general political behavior, it is also important to differentiate PSEW from another type of political action (i.e., impression management). Impression management is a specific form of political behavior aimed at shaping the identities that others prescribe to oneself (Tedeschi & Melburg, Reference Tedeschi and Melburg1984). Like general political behavior, impression management reflects actual tactics and behaviors (e.g., ingratiation and exemplification) that are utilized for, traditionally, self-serving reasons (Jones & Pittman, Reference Jones, Pittman and Suls1982). Although both impression management and PSEW acknowledge the necessity of navigating politics, PSEW is conceptually unique given its focus on internalized competency beliefs, rather than explicit behaviors.
Hypothesis 5: PSEW and (a) general political behavior and (b) impression management demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.
PSEW and political will
The term political will portrays an individual’s willingness to engage in influence behavior (Treadway, Reference Treadway2012; Treadway et al., Reference Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar and Ferris2005) and to expend energy toward that goal (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1983). Defined as a multidimensional construct, political will captures a self-serving and benevolent desire to enact politics (Kapoutsis et al., Reference Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway and Bentley2017; Treadway, Reference Treadway2012). Although an important construct in prior politics research, political will differs from PSEW in several ways. First, while political will is motivation-based (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1983; Treadway, Reference Treadway2012), PSEW reflects confidence (rather than a willingness) to enact politics. Furthermore, whereas PSEW does not focus on one’s behavioral desires and intentions, political will consists of an inherent self- and other-serving desire.
Hypothesis 6: PSEW and political will demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.
Development and validation of the PSEW scale: an overview of the studies
Following recommendations by Hinkin (Reference Hinkin1998) and MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (Reference MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Podsakoff2011), we utilized a multistep procedure to develop and validate the PSEW scale. In Study 1, we generated an initial pool of items reflecting our conceptualization of PSEW. All baseline items were assessed for content validity using subject matter experts (SMEs) and a Q-sort task. Having established content validity, in Study 2, we evaluated the reliability and factor structure of the 9-item PSEW scale. Then, in Study 3, we re-examined the psychometric properties of the PSEW measure and assessed its overlap with (convergent validity) and distinctiveness from (discriminant validity) several nomologically related constructs (e.g., political skill, generalized self-efficacy, and workplace status). We repeated this process, in Study 4, on several new nomological neighbors (e.g., the Dark Triad traits, general political behavior, impression management, and political will). In Studies 5 and 6, we assessed the criterion-related and predictive validity of the newly developed PSEW scale. In Study 7, we tested our full theoretical model.
Study 1: item generation, reduction, and content validation
Phase 1: item generation
As recommended (Hinkin, Reference Hinkin1998; Schwab, Reference Schwab, Cummings and Staw1980), we utilized a mixed-method approach to generate items for the PSEW scale. As alluded to previously, we developed a theoretical definition of PSEW grounded in the existing literature on political influence and recent operationalizations of political competencies. We relied on our conceptualization of PSEW as a starting point and consulted pre-existing scales on related constructs to generate an initial pool of potential items. Consistent with prior scale developments and methodological recommendations (e.g., Djurdjevic et al., Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017; Hinkin, Reference Hinkin1998), all items were first screened to ensure representativeness and non-redundancy, resulting in 16 unique items. We provided our definition of PSEW to two faculty members, who indicated if each of the 16 items were (a) simple and easy to understand, (b) conceptually convergent with our conceptualization of PSEW, and (c) without double-barreled wording. Two items were omitted given the reported mismatch between conceptualization and operationalization.
Phase 2: item reduction and content validation
The remaining 14 items (provided in Table 1) underwent further content and substantive validation using an item-sort task (MacKenzie et al., Reference MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Podsakoff2011). Consistent with the sample size (Djurdjevic et al., Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017) and populations (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, Reference Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner and Lankau1993) of comparable content validation studies, 36 SMEs were recruited for a Q-sort activity. In line with Hinkin and Tracey’s (Reference Hinkin and Tracey1999) validation approach, participants were asked to indicate how well each of the 14 items matched the provided conceptual definition of PSEW. Responses were assessed on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Does NOT match this definition AT ALL) to 5 (Matches this definition PERFECTLY). The sample was 41.7% male and 63.9% Caucasian. The mean age was 37.03 (SD = 10.03). To determine content adequacy, we calculated a Hinkin–Tracey correspondence (htc) statistic (Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell, & Hill, Reference Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell and Hill2019), where higher values reflect more definitional correspondence relative to the number of anchors provided. All htc statistics are provided in Table 1. We retained nine items for further analysis that had an htc value of at least .80.
Table 1. PSEW items and corresponding Hinkin and Tracey correspondence statistics (N = 36)
PSEW = political self-confidence at work; htc = Hinkin and Tracey correspondence statistic.
a Item omitted in Phase 1 of Study 1 and, therefore, does not have a corresponding htc value.
b Item omitted in Phase 2 of Study 1 due to a low htc value.
Study 2: psychometric properties
Participants and procedures
Study 2 explored the factor structure of the PSEW scale using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Undergraduate Management students in a large Southeastern university each recruited two adults working full-time (30+ hr a week) in a traditional job setting (i.e., not self-employed or working entirely from home) (Hochwarter, Reference Hochwarter2014; Wheeler, Shanine, Leon, & Whitman, Reference Wheeler, Shanine, Leon and Whitman2014). We used the 9-item scale developed in Study 1 to measure PSEW in Study 2 (α = .92). The scale was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. We received emails from 148 potential participants, 129 of whom completed the survey and met all survey requirements (response rate of 87.16%). After omitting participants who (a) failed an embedded attention check question and/or (b) answered ‘False’ to an accuracy question (‘I have answered the questions in this survey accurately and to the best of my ability’) (N = 20), we retained usable data for 109 participants. The sample was 46.30% male and 69.70% Caucasian, and the mean age was 36.64 years (SD = 12.36).
Study 2: results
CFA was conducted using Stata Version 15 (StataCorp, 2017). Significant Lambda (λ) values greater than or equal to .30 were considered representative of a proper factor structure (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, Reference Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham2006). Factor goodness-of-fit was evaluated using traditional fit indexes (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999; Little, Reference Little2013). In support of our proposed unidimensional factor structure, all nine items of the PSEW scale significantly (p < .001) loaded on a single factor, with all λ values exceeding the recommended .30 cut-off standard. Most fit indices met the recommended criteria for acceptable fit (X 2(27) = 56.15, CFI = .95, TFI = .93, SRMR = .05). Of note, the RMSEA value (.10) was slightly higher than conventional standards (e.g., Little, Reference Little2013). Taken together, results provide initial evidence for the unidimensionality of the 9-item PSEW scale.
Study 3 and Study 4: convergent and discriminant validity
Participants and procedures
Study 3 and Study 4 sought to further evaluate the psychometric properties of the 9-item PSEW scale by examining the scale’s factor structure, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity when compared to its nomological neighbors. A summary of all measures utilized across the studies is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Overview of measures used for validation studies (Studies 1–7)
Note: XS denotes a self-report measure completed by the focal employee; XS,T1 denotes a self-report measure completed by the focal employee at Time 1; XS,T2 denotes a self-report measure completed by the focal employee at Time 2; XC,T2 denotes a coworker-rated measure of the focal employee at Time 2; and XS,T3 denotes a self-report measure completed by the focal employee at Time 3.
Study 3
Two hundred and fifty adults, working full-time (30+ hr a week) in the United States, were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, Reference Buhrmester, Kwang and Gosling2011). Eligible respondents were compensated $0.75 for completing the online survey. After omitting participants who (a) failed several attention check questions and/or answered ‘False’ to the accuracy question noted in Study 2 (N = 19), (b) completed the survey in less than 2 s per item (N = 27), and/or (c) were working less than 30 hr a week (N = 19), we retained usable and complete data for 185 participants. The sample was 61.62% male and 76.22% Caucasian, and the mean age was 38.79 years (SD = 10.42).
Study 4
We recruited 250 adults working full-time in a traditional job setting in the United States via Prolific Academic Limited (e.g., Carnevale, Huang, Vincent, Farmer, & Wang, Reference Carnevale, Huang, Vincent, Farmer and Wang2021; Gladstone, Jachimowicz, Greenberg, & Galinsky, Reference Gladstone, Jachimowicz, Greenberg and Galinsky2021). Participants were compensated $1.40 for completing the survey. As in Study 3, we removed participants who (a) failed attention check questions and/or the accuracy question (N = 25), (b) completed the survey in less than 2 s per item (N = 18), and/or (c) were working less than 30 hr a week (N = 6). We retained usable and complete data for 201 participants. The sample was 57.23% male and 68.66% Caucasian, and the mean age was 35.75 years (SD = 10.22).
Measures
All scales were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. All items and constructs were presented in random order. We used the same 9-item PSEW scale from Study 2 in Study 3 (α = .89) and Study 4 (α = .92). In Study 3, we used the 18-item PSI (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Davidson and Perrewé2005) to measure employee political skill (α = .91). We assessed generalized self-efficacy using the 8-item generalized self-efficacy scale developed by Chen, Gully, and Eden (Reference Chen, Gully and Eden2001) (α = .90), and we measured work status using the 5-item scale (Djurdjevic et al., Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017; α = .93). For Study 4, we measured Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy using the Dirty Dozen Dark Triad scale developed by Jonason and Webster (Reference Jonason and Webster2010). Each dimension was assessed using the 4-item scale (Machiavellianism: α = .81; narcissism: α = .79; psychopathy: α = .81). We assessed general political behavior using the 6-item scale by Treadway et al. (Reference Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar and Ferris2005) (α = .87). We utilized Bolino and Turnley’s (Reference Bolino and Turnley1999) 22-item scale to measure impression management (α = .89), and we assessed political will using a scale developed by Kapoutsis et al. (Reference Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway and Bentley2017; α = .91).
Study 3 and study 4: results
Table 3 provides the correlations for both Study 3 (above the diagonal) and Study 4 (below the diagonal). We assessed the factor structure and model fit of the PSEW scale using the same procedures as in Study 2. In support of our proposed unidimensional factor structure, all nine items of the PSEW scale significantly (p < .001) loaded on a single factor, with all λ values exceeding the recommended .30 cut-off standard, in both Study 3 and Study 4. For Study 3, most fit indices met the recommended criteria for acceptable fit (X 2(27) = 48.98, CFI = .97, TFI = .96, SRMR = .04). Like Study 2, the RMSEA value (.07) was slightly higher than conventional standards (e.g., Little, Reference Little2013). For Study 4, fit indices were acceptable (X 2(27) = 90.59, CFI = .94, TFI = .92, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .11). Cumulatively, these results add further validity to the unidimensional factor structure found in Study 2.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for Study 3 and Study 4
Notes: Sample 3 (N = 185); Sample 4 (N = 201). Sample 3 is provided above the diagonal, and Sample 4 is provided below the diagonal. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PSEW = political self-efficacy at work; SE = self-efficacy; Gen. pol. beh. = general political behavior; Imp. man. = impression management. For gender, 0 = male and 1 = female. For race/ethnicity, 0 = Caucasian/White and 1 = minorities (which include Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino[a] American). For education, 1 = Some high school, no diploma; 2 = High school graduate, diploma, or the equivalent; 3 = Some college; 4 = Associate degree; 5 = Bachelor’s degree; 6 = Master’s degree; 7 = Professional degree; and 8 = Doctorate degree.
* p < .05,
** p < .01.
Convergent and discriminant validity
Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed using the same process as Djurdjevic et al. (Reference Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, da Motta Veiga, Yam and Chiang2017). This approach also aligns with recent guidelines by Colquitt et al. (Reference Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell and Hill2019) and other recent top-tier publications (Clark, Smith, & Haynes, Reference Clark, Smith and Haynes2020; Smit & Montag-Smit, Reference Smit and Montag-Smit2019). In Studies 3 and 4, PSEW significantly correlated with political skill (r = .66, p < .001), generalized self-efficacy (r = .65, p < .001), workplace status (r = .52, p < .001), Machiavellianism (r = .17, p = .02), narcissism (r = .29, p < .001), general political behavior (r = .57, p < .001), impression management (r = .27, p < .001), and political will (r = .40, p < .001). PSEW was not significantly correlated with psychopathy (r = − .08, p = .26).
As an initial test of discriminant validity, the PSEW scale was compared to each related construct using chi-squared difference tests. Each one-factor model was compared to its corresponding two-factor model for the constructs of interest (i.e., PSEW and political skill, PSEW and generalized self-efficacy, PSEW and workplace status, PSEW and Machiavellianism, etc.). The results of all chi-squared difference tests are provided in Table 4. As expected, the two-factor models (i.e., when PSEW was modeled separately from the related construct) were preferred over the one-factor models (i.e., when PSEW was modeled as one factor combined with the related construct).
Table 4. Results of chi-squared difference tests between political self-efficacy at work and related constructs in Study 3 and Study 4
Notes: PSEW = political self-efficacy at work; GPB = general political behavior; IM = impression management. S3 = Study 3; S4 = Study 4. All X 2 difference tests have one degree of freedom. All two-factor models fit comparably better than the corresponding one-factor model. X 2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
** p < .01.
As a secondary check, we compared the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct with the shared variance between the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, Reference Fornell and Larcker1981). As expected, in Study 3, the AVE for the PSEW scale (AVE = .47) exceeded the shared variance between PSEW and political skill, generalized self-efficacy, and workplace status (r 2 = .44, .42, .27, respectively). In Study 4, once again, the AVE for the PSEW scale (AVE = .56) exceeded the shared variance between PSEW and Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, general political behavior, impression management, and political will (r 2 = .02, .08, .01, .32, .07, and .16, respectively), thus providing further evidence of discriminant validity and finding support for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 5a–b, and 6. Only partial support was found for Hypothesis 4, given that PSEW was not significantly associated with psychopathy (Hypothesis 4c).
Study 5 and Study 6: criterion-related and predictive validity
In line with the final stages of the scale validation process, we now examine the relationships between PSEW and theoretically driven outcomes that are common in organizational research (Hinkin, Reference Hinkin1998) and are beyond the politically oriented outcomes described previously. These specific outcomes selected stem from larger discussions regarding the diverse effects that self-efficacy (Bandura, Reference Bandura, Pervin and John1999) has on human functioning (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997) through four major processes (i.e., attitudes/cognitions, emotions, motivations, and choices/behaviors). We identify common organizational outcomes in each of these four domains. In this section, we hypothesize the impact of PSEW on job satisfaction (Hypothesis 7), emotions (Hypothesis 8), motivational strivings (Hypotheses 9a–c), task and person OCBs (Hypotheses 10a–b), creative performance (Hypothesis 11), and job performance (Hypothesis 12). A detailed description of the corresponding hypotheses can be found in Supplementary Appendix S1.
Study 5 and Study 6: methods
In Study 5, we test the predictive validity of the PSEW scale using a two-wave single-source sample. Given the single-source nature of Study 5, we focus on affective, emotional, and motivational outcomes best captured using self-report measures (e.g., job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and achievement, communion, and status strivings). We also examine the extent to which the PSEW scale is contaminated by method effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). In Study 6, using a three-wave multi-source sample, we re-examine the relationships between PSEW and self-reported job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and each motivational striving, as well as between PSEW and coworker-reported citizenship behaviors (both task- and person-focused), performance creativity, and job performance.
Participants and procedures
Study 5
Two hundred and fifty adults were recruited using MTurk. Similar to Study 3, we restricted participation to ensure a representative and valid sample. Eligible respondents were compensated $0.30 for completing the first online survey, which included all demographic questions and the PSEW scale. After omitting participants who (a) failed the same embedded attention check or accuracy questions noted in Study 3 (N = 27), (b) completed the survey in less than 2 s per item (N = 13), and/or (c) were working less than 30 hr a week (N = 12), we retained usable data for 198 participants. To ensure independence across samples, we removed one participant from Study 4 who had previously participated in Study 3. Two weeks later, the remaining participants were compensated $0.50 for completing the final survey, which contained measures for each outcome variable. We received complete Time 2 data from 163 participants (response rate of 82.74%). After omitting 22 participants who failed several attention check questions, answered ‘False’ to the previously noted accuracy question, and/or completed the survey in less than 2 s per item, we retained usable data for 141 participants. The sample was 63.1% male and 65.2% Caucasian, and the mean age was 37.45 years (SD = 9.99).
Study 6
Students in a large online management class in the United States were asked to recruit focal employee–coworker dyads in exchange for course credit. To be eligible to participate, focal employees needed to be (a) 18 years or older, working full-time in a traditional job setting (i.e., not self-employed), and (b) willing to recruit a coworker with whom they work full-time. Of the 972 focal employees originally recruited, 857 recruited an eligible coworker and completed the Time 1 survey (response rate of 88.17%), which included a measure of self-reported PSEW and demographic variables of interest. Two weeks post-Time 1, focal employees were sent the Time 2 survey, which included self-reported measures of job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and each motivational striving. Of the 857 focal employees who completed Survey 1, 787 completed the Time 2 survey (response rate of 91.83%). At the same time the Time 2 survey was sent, the coworkers were sent a survey, which included other-reported measures of task-focused (OCB-task) and person-focused (OCB-person) citizenship behaviors, performance creativity, and general job performance.
Matched data were available for 669 dyads. After screening the data for participants who (a) failed several attention check and accuracy questions noted in Study 3 and Study 4 and/or (b) completed the survey in less than 2 s per item, we retained usable and complete data for 582 dyads. The focal employee sample was 42.8% male and 72.8% Caucasian, and the mean age was 45.24 years (SD = 11.77). On average, focal participants worked with their recruited coworker for 4.79 years (SD = 5.79), and the dyads interacted/observed each other for 4.33 hr/day (SD = 2.75). The coworker sample was 38.7% male and 70.5% Caucasian, and the mean age was 41.86 years (SD = 11.94).
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), and all items and constructs were presented in random order. We used the 9-item PSEW scale from Study 2 to measure employees’ PSEW in Study 5 (α = .91) and Study 6 (α = .87). In Study 5 (α = .88) and Study 6 (α = .86), we used Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh’s (Reference Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, Klesh, Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis and Cammann1983) 3-item job satisfaction scale. In Study 5, we measured exhaustion using the 5-item emotional exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, Reference Maslach, Jackson and Leiter1996) (α = .96), while we used the 3-item scale from Wharton’s (Reference Wharton1993) emotional exhaustion scale (α = .93) for Study 6. For both Study 5 and Study 6, we used Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski’s (Reference Barrick, Stewart and Piotrowski2002) 12-item motivational striving scale to capture achievement (Study 5: α = .90; Study 6: α = .93), communion (Study 5: α = .90; Study 6: α = .82), and status (Study 5: α = .91; Study 6: α = .86) strivings at work. In Study 6, we assessed coworker-reported citizenship behaviors using the task-focused (6-item; α = .93) and person-focused (8-item; α = .93) scales (Settoon & Mossholder, Reference Settoon and Mossholder2002), coworker-reported creativity using the 3-item scale (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, Reference Shalley, Gilson and Blum2009; α = .86), and coworker-reported general work performance using the 7-item scale developed by Wayne and Ferris (Reference Wayne and Ferris1990; α = .92). For general work performance, the items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Poor to (5) Excellent.
Study 5 and study 6: results
Table 5 provides the correlations for both Study 5 (above the diagonal) and Study 6 (below the diagonal). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test all associations (StataCorp, 2017). Similar to Study 3, we compared fit index values to recommended criteria for acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999; Little, Reference Little2013), and analyses were tested using the two-step SEM procedure developed by Anderson and Gerbing (Reference Anderson and Gerbing1988). In Step 1, our measurement models were tested using CFA with maximum-likelihood estimation. Then, in Step 2, we examined the full structural model using bootstrap estimations with 5,000 replications (Tibshirani & Efron, Reference Tibshirani and Efron1993). The measurement model for Study 5 showed adequate model-data fit (X 2(362) = 691.95, p < .001, CFI = .90, TFI = .89, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .08). Because preliminary analyses revealed that gender and age were significantly related to variables of interest, we controlled for both in our SEM model. In Sample 5, we found that there is initial support for Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9a–c, as PSEW was positively related to job satisfaction (b = .60, p < .001), negatively associated with emotional exhaustion (b = − .33, p < .001), and positively related to achievement striving (b = .49, p < .001), communion striving (b = .68, p < .001), and status striving (b = .64, p < .001). Results remained significant when controls were removed.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for Study 5 and Study 6
Notes: Sample 5 (N = 141); Sample 6 (N = 582). Sample 5 is provided above the diagonal, and Sample 6 is provided below the diagonal. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; PSEW = political self-efficacy at work; OCB-task = task-focused citizenship behaviors; OCB-person = person-focused citizenship behaviors; SR = self-reported; CR = coworker-reported. For gender, 0 = male and 1 = female. For race/ethnicity, 0 = Caucasian/White and 1 = minorities (which include Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino[a] American). For education, 1 = some high school, no diploma; 2 = high school graduate, diploma, or the equivalent; 3 = some college; 4 = associate degree; 5 = bachelor’s degree; 6 = master’s degree; 7 = professional degree; and 8 = doctorate degree.
* p < .05,
** p < .01.
The measurement model for Study 6 also showed adequate model-data fit (X 2(1180) = 2287.42, p < .001, CFI = .95, TFI = .94, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .04). We controlled for gender, age, education, and ethnicity in our model, as all controls were significantly related to variables of interest in preliminary analyses. In Sample 6, PSEW was positively related to job satisfaction (b = .28, p < .001), achievement striving (b = .36, p < .001), communion striving (b = .43, p < .001), status striving (b = .33, p < .001), OCB-task (b = .15, p < .001), OCB-person (b = .22, p = .001), and general job performance (b = .20, p < .001). PSEW was also negatively associated with emotional exhaustion (b = − .15, p < .001). Thus, we found support for Hypotheses 7, 8, 9a–c, 10a–b, and 12. The relationship between PSEW and creative performance was non-significant (b = .06, p = .24); thus, support for Hypothesis 11 was not found. Results remained significant with controls removed.
As an additional check, we tested for the extent to which the PSEW scale is contaminated by method effects. Following procedures described by Podsakoff et al. (Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003) and those utilized in prior scale validations in organizational politics (e.g., Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, Blass, Kolodinsky, Treadway, Ferris and Martocchio2002, Reference Ferris, Davidson and Perrewé2005), we utilized the measured latent-methods variable approach (Williams & Anderson, Reference Williams and Anderson1994). We found that the PSEW scale is not disproportionately confounded with method effects (i.e., social desirability or negative affect). More information on these tests is provided in Supplementary Appendix S2.
Study 7: further validity evidence
To help ensure a reliable assessment of the nomological network of the newly developed PSEW scale, an additional sample (Study 7) was included. Study 7 sampled 211 workers from three time-matched data and evaluated the links between PSEW and nomologically related variables thought to be antecedents and outcomes in our foundational theoretical model. To explore corresponding hypotheses and subsequent analyses in more detail, see APPENDIX C.
General discussion
In this paper, we introduce the concept of PSEW as a parsimonious organizational political construct that encapsulates an employee’s self-efficacy in their ability to successfully navigate organizational politics. We establish a definition of PSEW and develop a 9-item measure using seven independent and varying samples. Our research design and an overview of our samples are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Overview of Studies 1–7
Theoretical contributions
Our core contribution is that the new PSEW scale matters for enhancing individual’s success in work environments fraught with politics. PSEW constitutes one element of a greater set of political capabilities (e.g., political skill-PSEW-political will), which is meant to improve effectiveness in the navigation of organizational politics because it carries some unique information about employees’ political work qualities, including their self-assurance and self-trust. We believe that the field benefits from the inclusion of the new PSEW scale, offering the opportunity to regenerate organizational politics research in several ways.
The first contribution is that, by incorporating the new self-efficacy-based construct within a larger theoretical model and demonstrating its value, the emerging literature on organizational politics is enriched (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019; Malik et al., Reference Malik, Sharma, Ghosh and Sahu2024; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015). Whereas most research efforts focus on political capabilities/attributes (e.g., political skill and political will), we position PSEW as an efficacious belief that has profound implications for navigating organizational politics.
Second, we contribute to social/political influence theory (e.g., Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) and highlight the prominent role that ‘social influence processes’ have in all social phenomena (e.g., Ferris, Perrewé, Daniels, Lawong, & Holmes, Reference Ferris, Perrewé, Daniels, Lawong and Holmes2017). Prior reviews in organizational politics (Ferris & Treadway, Reference Ferris, Treadway, Ferris and Treadway2012; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019) have alluded to the necessity of studying process-related factors. Despite some progress, the mechanisms underlying politics-related relationships are largely unknown. To address this gap, we created the PSEW construct and embedded the variable within a larger process model, placing PSEW as a mediating linkage between political capabilities, political behaviors, and work outcomes. Indeed, the newly developed PSEW construct helps to explain the ‘black box’ between individual’s political capabilities/characteristics and enacted political behaviors. The PSEW scale provides a unique explanation for why some employees are capable of successfully navigating organizational politics. Additionally, by integrating elements of social/political influence theory (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Munyon et al., Reference Munyon, Summers, Thompson and Ferris2015) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, Reference Bandura1989), we reply to recent discussions in the literature to pair politics research with social cognitive theorizations (Malik et al., Reference Malik, Sharma, Ghosh and Sahu2024).
As another contribution to theory and empirical research, our results have positive implications for the organizational politics literature (Hochwarter, Reference Hochwarter, Ferris and Treadway2012; Hochwarter et al., Reference Hochwarter, Kapoutsis, Jordan, Khan and Babalola2020), as well as for the larger positive psychological movement (e.g., Seligman, Reference Seligman2011; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi2000), particularly in the workplace (Cameron & Dutton, Reference Cameron and Dutton2003). By presenting PSEW as a favorable self-concept and a critical component of one’s political resources portfolio, we help mitigate a historical emphasis on the ‘dark side’ of organizational politics. In addition, our development of the PSEW scale replies to calls for more research on positive and neutral organizational politics (e.g., Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007; Hochwarter, Reference Hochwarter, Ferris and Treadway2012; Pfeffer, Reference Pfeffer1981). Thus, we add a more nuanced understanding of the full valence (i.e., desirability – undesirability; Lewin, Reference Lewin and Rapaport1951) of political attributes at work.
Finally, we begin to build the nomological network surrounding PSEW. Our results demonstrated that PSEW is strongly related to key political behaviors and desires, as well as job attitudes, motivations, emotions, and behaviors, thereby emphasizing that PSEW has broad applicability across various occupational groups and work settings. Given the commonality of organizational politics for workplace, we believe that this parsimonious measure can contribute to the betterment of organizational functioning holistically.
Practical implications
From a practical standpoint, the way work is conducted has drastically changed (e.g., social distancing, telework) due to recent social crises and a global pandemic, along with abrupt and constant technological advances. Given massive modifications to ‘how work is done’ and job uncertainty, which is at an all-time high, organizational politics is an unavoidable aspect of the workplace. Under these circumstances, a more thorough understanding of PSEW is especially practical, valuable, and timely. As such, it would be fruitful to design cost-effective developmental programs, including creative training seminars aimed at helping employees develop optimal levels of PSEW.
Furthermore, all political actors can benefit from our study, particularly those who work in contexts prone to political maneuverings. Political and ambiguous work contexts, which are becoming increasingly more common, can provide the opportunity for the development and growth of PSEW. Like other political capabilities (i.e., political skill; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Davidson and Perrewé2005, Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007), PSEW can likely be developed and learned over time. In this case, an important question that all (managers and employees) should ask themselves is: what can we do to cultivate the development of PSEW? Awareness of the presence of unpredictable contemporary work contexts, which allow politics to flourish, is the first step. Awareness must go hand in hand with preparedness for how to train and develop PSEW, as well as a better understanding of what optimal levels of PSEW look like.
Our results also have relevance for managerial practice. Essentially, line managers should strive to support the development of their employees’ PSEW. For example, managers could hold sessions of in-role play scenarios or simply ask employees to write down important opportunities for manifesting and utilizing political self-confidence beliefs at work. This means that it may be worthwhile for managers to devote training and development budgets to activities that may improve PSEW. Additionally, organizations interested in promoting and supporting the practical utility of PSEW could organize consultation sessions. Also, organizations may consider offering alternative paths to develop PSEW.
However, as organizations face many practical constraints (e.g., financial and market concerns), companies may not always be able to fulfill expected promises regarding the development of PSEW. Thus, our work also highlights the need for managers to be vigilant in identifying and training their own PSEW. Political capabilities can be learned; thus, witnessing PSEW in supervisors may be enough to facilitate employees' own growth and development. It does appear that people are more likely to look to others for self-enhancing opportunities (self-consistency theory; Slovic, Reference Slovic1966). By simply treating employees with the principles of faith, self-assurance, and trust, employees can reap the benefits of their supervisors’ political self-confidence. In addition, the adoption of signaling and mentorship schemes in order to alter self-enhancing reports of PSEW may be helpful in such directions.
Lastly, PSEW may be particularly well suited for understanding employees’ reactions to negative feedback in the human resources management literature (Kluger & DeNisi, Reference Kluger and DeNisi1998). Therefore, organizations should develop a greater awareness of how the newly developed PSEW scale can be utilized to shape employee’s reactions to feedback. In accordance with self-enhancement theory, negative feedback may be viewed as less damaging for those high in PSEW who harbor favorable views of themselves. The reason is that employees high in PSEW may be more open to any type of feedback (Ashford & Tsui, Reference Ashford and Tsui1991), as it may be perceived as an opportunity for growth and a way to reinforce notions of self-worthiness and value (Ilies, De Pater, & Judge, Reference Ilies, De Pater and Judge2007). However, the practical implications of the new PSEW scale have yet to be realized in the broader organizational context, and our research seems to represent a fairly large territory waiting to be explored!
Limitations and future research directions
We took precautionary steps to minimize concerns regarding common method variance (CMV; Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). For example, we included temporal separation and collected data from multiple sources (i.e., self-reported perceptions, affects, emotions, and motivations vs. coworker-reported behaviors). Additionally, we sampled employees from a wide range of occupations and backgrounds. Findings generally converged, enhancing confidence that the observed relationships are not the product of spurious correlational inflations but, rather, reliable associations. Despite our efforts to reduce CMV, future research may seek to re-examine the PSEW scale in other samples, cultures, and contexts.
Nonetheless, from the standpoint of basic psychological research, there is a need for future research examining the factors (e.g., dispositional and situational) that shape employees’ PSEW. An important research avenue is to test if PSEW is dependent upon the relative power of positive personality traits, like proactive personality (Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013) and self-monitoring (Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Davidson and Perrewé2005). Identifying additional determinants of PSEW represents a promising area for future research. Future research should also attempt to explain the link between PSEW and positive emotions and competencies, like grit and passion (Jordan, Ferris, Hochwarter, & Wright, Reference Jordan, Ferris, Hochwarter and Wright2019). Although our theoretical model is a step in the right direction, we did not examine any boundary conditions. As such, future research may seek to establish moderators of these associations.
Furthermore, it is possible that possessing PSEW may not manifest in the same way or produce the same types of outcomes across different cultures. Given that all our samples originated from the United States, our results are limited to populations that have similar cultural norms and values (i.e., individualistic cultures). It is possible that the development of PSEW and the utilization of said self-confidence differ in cultures that emphasize collective success, collaboration, and social relationships. For example, although purely speculative, PSEW may develop more efficiently through mentorship and networking opportunities in collectivistic societies, whereas its development in individualistic societies is based on physically enacting politics. As such, the organizational politics literature would be greatly advanced by the diversification of cross-cultural comparisons.
Lastly, although we share the sentiments of previous researchers that existing politics-oriented scales may be inherently conflated (e.g., the PSI), our goal was not to develop a new scale that would replace existing measures. Rather, we aimed to highlight why PSEW, and the new PSEW measure, should be considered beyond the existing nomological framework. Until the deficiencies in the measurement of PSEW’s nomological neighbors are addressed, we cannot be entirely certain of PSEW’s true role within the larger organizational politics literature. As researchers begin to address limitations in their politically oriented measures, we hope scholars will continue to empirically test the theoretical framework presented in this paper.
Conclusion
Explaining the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of navigating organizational politics is a fundamental research question that has not only one answer. Instead, it requires the consideration of fundamentally different capabilities and unique political processes. Prior research on political capabilities/characteristics is insufficient for understanding all political processes in organizations, and the dominant perspective (e.g., Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Ellen, McAllister and Maher2019) highlights the need to better flesh out the process-related factors underlying employees’ political navigation. As such, we introduce the construct of PSEW, as a critical element in the organizational political process, which may more fully explain why certain employees are incapable of successfully navigating workplace politics. Using social/political influence and social cognitive theories, we embed PSEW within a larger theoretical framework.
Once PSEW’s necessity and role within our model are established, we develop and validate a measure of PSEW using seven independent and varying samples. We position PSEW as an impactful situation-specific political characteristic capable of producing favorable outcomes in politically charged organizational settings. Altogether, we document support for the reliability and content, convergent, discriminant, criterion, and predictive validity of a 9-item PSEW scale. We hope our work energizes future investigations to unpack other antecedents, boundary conditions, and consequences of PSEW.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2025.10017.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Drs. Wayne Hochwarter and Gonzalo Molina-Sieiro for their assistance with data collection for this article.
Financial support
We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support received for this research from the Marie Krafft Fund and the Florida State University Research Foundation.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare none.
Open access
