a solution to organizational politics - goal congruence

7/29/2019 A Solution to Organizational Politics - Goal Congruence

1/10

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.1998 , Vo | . 83 , No . 4 , 666- 674 0021-9010/98 /$3.00

Enhancing Organizat ional Goal Congruence:A Solution to Organizational Polit icsL. A . W i t tUniversity of New Orleans

Results of moderated multiple regression analyses on data collected from 979 workersin 5 organizations confirmed the hypothesis that supervi sor-s ubo rdin ate goal congruencewou ld moderate the relationship b etwee n organizational politics and organizational com -mitment. Similar analyses on data co llected from 366 workers in 2 of those organizationsprov ided partial support fo r the second hypothesis that goal congruence w ould alsomoderate the relationship betw een organizational politics and job performance. Percep-tions of politics w ere more strongly related to expressions of commitment and supervisor-rated perfo rman ce among individuals who did n ot share the priorities of their supervisorsthan among those whose g oal priorities were consistent w ith those o f their supervisors.Results suggest that supervisors and managers ca n help their employees cop e with politicsby making efforts to ensure that they share their goal priorities.

W o r k e r s h a v e l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e p e r v a s iv e n e s s o fw o r k p l a c e p o l i t i c s c o n s t i t u t e s a t h r e a t t o i n d i v i d u a l a n dorgan iza t iona l goa l s . S urpr i s ing ly , re sea rche rs pa id l i t t l ea t t e n t i o n t o w o r k p l a c e p o l i t i c s a s a t a r g e t p r o b l e m f o ro r g a n i z a t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n u n t i l t h e l a t e1 9 7 0 s ( e . g . , M a y e s & A l l e n , 1 9 7 7 ) . C o n c e p t u a l a n d e m -p i r i c a l w o r k h a s f o c u s e d o n p o l i t i c s a t t h e l e v e l o f t h eo r g a n i z a t i o n ( e . g . , F e r r is , R u s s , & F a n d t , 1 9 8 9 ) . H o w e v e r ,t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s u c c e s s i n a d d r e s s i n g p r o b l e m s a s s o c i -a t e d w i t h w o r k p l a c e p o l i t ic s m a y b e g r e a t er w h e n f o c u s e da t t h e l e v e l o f t h e f i r s t - li n e s u p e r v i s o r t h a n a t t h e l e v e l o ft h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y w a s t o t e s tt h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e e f f o r t s o f f i r s t - l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s t oe n h a n c e a g r e e m e n t o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l p r i o r i t i e sa m o n g t h e ir e m p l o y e e s w o u l d d e c r e a s e t h e i m p a c t o f o r -g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s o n o u t c o m e s f o r t h o s e e m p l o y e e s( W i t t , 1 9 9 5 ) .

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P o l i ti c sM i n t z b e r g ( 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 ) v i e w e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s

a s r e f l e c t i n g a c t i o n s b e y o n d t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f a c c e p t e d

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 12thannual meeting of the Society for Industrial Psychology, St.Louis, Missouri. I thank Bill Farmer, Gera ld R. Ferris, and Len-dell G. Nye for their insightful comments on earlier drafts ofthis article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto L. A. Witt, Department of Management, Sc ho ol of Business,University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 7 0148-1560. Elec-tronic mail may be sent to [email protected]

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r t h a t a re d e s i g n e d t o p r o m o t e s e l f -i n t e r e s t . T h e s e a c t i o n s a r e t a k e n w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o o r a tt h e e x p e n s e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s . T h e c a r e e r - e n h a n c i n gp r a c t i c e o f " s a v i n g t h e b a b y " i s an e x a m p l e o f p o li ti c s.M a n a g e r s m a y d e l i b e r a t e l y p e r m i t f a i l u r e i n a r e a s w i t h i nt h e i r s p a n o f c o n t r o l o r w i t h h o l d a s s i s t a n c e t o o t h e r a r e a s( i . e ., l e t th e b a b y f a l l i n t o t h e w a t e r ) . T h e n , j u s t a s e x e c u -t i v e a t te n t i o n i s f o c u s e d o n t h e c r i t i c a l s i tu a t i o n , t h e m a n -a g e r j u m p s i n t o f i x t h e p r o b l e m w i t h f a n f a r e ( i . e . , s a v i n gt h e b a b y f r o m d r o w n i n g ) . I n s u c h c a s e s , t h e m a n a g e rg a i n s c r e d i t a n d v i s i b i l i t y f o r f i x i n g t h e p r o b l e m a t t h ee x p e n s e o f a v o i d a b l e d i s r u p t i o n s t o b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s .

T h e o r i s t s ( e . g . , F e r r i s e t a l . , 1 9 8 9 ; G a n d z & M u r r a y ,1 9 8 0 ) h a v e a r g u e d t h a t p o l i t i c s i s b e s t c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a sa s u b j e c t i v e s t at e . S u b s e q u e n t l y , r e se a r c h e r s h a v e f o c u s e do n perceptions o f p o l i t i c s a n d t h e i r a d v e r s e e f f e c t so n w o r k e r s ( f o r l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w s , s e e C r o p a n z a n o ,K a c m a r , & B o z e m a n , 1 9 9 5 , a n d F e r r i s & J u d g e , 1 9 9 1 ) .T h e n e g a t i v e i m p a c t o f p o l i t i c s s t e m s f r o m i t s i m p a c t o nt h e " s o c i a l c o n t r a c t " ( K e e l e y , 1 9 8 8 ) b e t w e e n t h e e m -p l o y e r a n d e m p l o y e e ( C r o p a n z a n o , H o w e s , G r a n d e y , &T o t h , 1 9 9 7 ) . T h i s c o n t r a c t is a m i x t u r e o f e c o n o m i c a n ds o c i a l e x c h a n g e s ( O r g a n & K o n o v s k y , 1 9 8 9 ) . F o r e x a m -p l e , m a n a g e m e n t a w a r d s p a y i n c r e a s e s a n d e m p l o y a b i l i t y -e n h a n c i n g t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s . C o w o r k e r s p r o v i d e s o -c i a l r e la t i o n s h i p s . P o l i t ic s a f f e c t s b o t h t h e e c o n o m i c a n ds o c ia l a s pe c t s o f th e e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e e x c h an g e . F o re x a m p l e , c l i q u e s f o r m e d o n t h e b a s i s o f s e l f - i n t e r e st c h a r-a c t e r i st i c o f h i g h l e v e l s o f p o l i t i c s c o m p r o m i s e t h e q u a l i t yo f p e r s o n n e l d e c i s i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , o r g a n i z a t i o n w i d en o r m s o f s a v i n g t h e b a b y a n d o t h e r f o r m s o f s t r a t e g i cs e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e a n t a g o n i s t i c t o d e v e l o p i n g s o c i a lr e l a t i o n s h i p s .


2/10

RESEARCH REPORTS 66 7Politics and Organizational Commitment Reducing the Impact of Organizational Politics

R e s e a r c h e r s h a v e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m -m i t m e n t a s r e f l e c t i n g e m o t i o n a l a t t a c h m e n t a n d i n v o l v e -m e n t - - t h e s t re n g th o f th e s o c ia l e x c h a n g e ( M o w d a y ,S t e e rs , & P o r te r , 1 9 7 9 ) - - a n d a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e e c o -n o m i c i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d t h e c o s t o f l e a v -i ng i t (Far r e l l & Rusbu l t , 1981) . Fer r i s e t a l . ( 1989) sug -g e s t e d t h a t e m p l o y e e s a r e u n l i k e l y t o f e e l c o m m i t t e d t oo r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e y s e e a s p o l i t ic a l . S i m i l a r ly , C r o p a n z a n oe t a l. ( 1 9 9 7 ) a r g u e d t h a t t h e l a c k o f p re d i c t a b l e s u p p o r ta t w o r k m a k e s t h e i n v e s t m e n t o f l o n g - te r m o r g a n i z a t i o n a lm e m b e r s h i p s o m e w h a t ri s k y . E m p l o y e e s a r e l i k e l y t o s e e ke x i t s t r a te g i e s w h e n t h e i n v e s t m e n t i s n o t p a y i n g o f f ; a l t e r-n a t i v e l y , t h e y m a y e l e c t t o r e m a i n w h e n i t i s . E m p i r i c a le v i d e n c e h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s o f p o l i t i c s a r ei n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o e x p r e s s i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t -m e n t a n d s e l f - r e p o r t e d t u r n o v e r i n t e n t i o n s ( C r o p a n z a n oet a l . , 1997 ; Fer r i s & Kacmar , 1992 ; Nye & Wi t t , 1993 ;R a n d a l l , C r o p a n z a n o , B o r m a n n , & B i r j u l i n , 1 9 9 4 ) . T or e p l i c a te p r e v i o u s f i n d in g s , I p r o p o s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g :

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of organizational politics arenegatively related to expressions of organizationalcommitment.Politics and Job Performance

R a n d a l l e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t h i g h l e v e ls o f p o l i-t i c s r e d u c e i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . T h i s m a y o c c u r i nt w o w a y s . F i r s t , p o l i t i c s m a y h a v e a d e m o t i v a t i n g e f f e c to n w o r k e r s . A s n o t e d b y K a c m a r , B o z e m a n , C a r l s o n , a n dA n t h o n y ( i n p r e s s ) , a t l e a s t t w o t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c ti v e ss u p p o r t t h i s a s s e r t i o n . E x p e c t a n c y t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a tw o r k m o t i v at io n is d e p e n d e n t o n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e - r e w a r dl i nk . However , r eward d i s t r i bu t i on i n po l i t i ca l env i ron -m e n t s i s b a s e d o n f a c t o r s e x t r a n e o u s t o p e r f o r m a n c e( K a c m a r & F e r r is , 1 9 9 1 ) . T h u s , p e r c e p t i o n s o f p o l it i c sw e a k e n t h e l i n k b e t w e e n p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v a l u e d o u t -c o m e s . S i m i l a rl y , e q u i t y t h e o r y d o e s n o t a d v i s e d i s t ri b u t -i n g r e w a r d s o n t h e b a s i s o f " g o i n g a l o n g t o g e t a h e a d "o r m e m b e r s h i p i n a c l i q u e t o p r o m o t e s e l f - in t e r e st s . D o i n gs o c r e a t e s f e e l i n g s o f u n f a i r n e s s , w h i c h a f f e c t t h e d i sc r e -t i o n a r y a s p e c t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e ( M o o r m a n , 1 9 9 1 ). S e c -o n d , p o l i ti c a l e n v i r o n m e n t s m a y r e d u c e t h e l e v e ls o f c o o p -e r a t i o n f r o m o t h e r s , a s c o o p e r a t i o n m a y n o t o n l y b ea g a i n s t t h e n o r m b u t a l s o r i s k y . M o r e o v e r , i n d i v i d u a l si n p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s i m m e r s e t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e i r w o r k( F e r r is & K a c m a r , 1 9 92 ) a n d t h u s a r e u n l i k e l y t o m a k et h e m s e l v e s a v a i l a b l e t o h e l p c o w o r k e r s . L o w l e v e l s o fc o o p e r a t i o n c o m p r o m i s e g o a l a c h i e v e m e n t a n d d e g r a d eef f i c i ency .

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of organizational politics arenegatively related to job performance.

Fer r i s e t a l . ( 1989) p roposed t ha t worker s wi l l be l essa f f e c t e d b y p o l it i c s w h e n t h e y h a v e ( a ) a n u n d e r s t a n d i n go f e v e n ts a t w o r k a n d ( b ) f e e l i n g s o f c o n t r o l . U n d e r s ta n d -i n g i s t h e k n o w l e d g e o f w h y e v e n t s a t w o r k t a k e p l a c e( S u t t o n & K a h n , 1 9 8 6 ) . A t l e a s t th r e e s t u d ie s h a v e s h o w nt h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g - - o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d b y F e r r i s e t a l . ,( 1 9 9 6 ) b y t h e t h r e e - i t e m T e t r i c k a n d L a R o c c o ( 1 9 8 7 )U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l E v e n t s s c a l e , b y F e n i s ,F r i n k , G i l m o r e , a n d K a c m a r ( 1 9 9 4 ) a s t e n u r e , a n d b yK a c m a r e t a l. ( i n p r e s s ) a s t h r e e it e m s a s s e s s i n g in c l u s i o ni n s u p e r v is o r y d e c is i o n -m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s - - r e d u c e d t hei m p a c t o f p o l i ti c s o n j o b a n x i e ty , j o b a f f e c t , a n d s e l f -r e p o r t e d p e r f o r m a n c e . F e r r i s e t a l. ( 1 9 9 6 ) a l s o f o u n d t h a tp o l i t i c s h a d l e s s i m p a c t o n o u t c o m e s a m o n g w o r k e r s r e -p o r t i n g g r e a t e r c o n t r o l o v e r th e i r w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t .

A n e c d o t a l e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t it i s c o m m o n f o r e m -p l o y e e s t o c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e y d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d m a n a g e -m e n t ' s p r i o r i t i e s . T h i s l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a y a d -v e r s e l y a f f e c t p e r f o r m a n c e , a s w o r k e r s m a y a c t o n l o w -p r i o r i ty g o a l s . I t m a y a l s o a f f e c t c o m m i t m e n t , a s w o r k e r sm a y h a v e d i f f i c u l ty i n a s s e s s in g l o n g - t e r m p e r s o n - o r g a n i -z a t i o n f it w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o f c o m p a n y v a l u e s a n d p r i o r-i t ies (Kr i s t o f , 1996 ; Vancouver & Schm i t t , 1991) . Thus ,l o w l e v e l s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a r e l i k e l y t o c o m p o u n d t h ep r o b l e m s i n h e r e n t i n p o l i t i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e ,i n c r e a s i n g u n d e r s t a n d in g a n d d e c r e a s i n g p o l i ti c s m a y i n -c r e a se c o m m i t m e n t a n d p e r f o rm a n c e .

However , a t t empt s t o r educe o rga n i za t i on - l eve l po l i t i ca ln o r m s a r e u n l i k e l y t o s u c c e e d ( s e e W i t t , 1 9 9 5 ) . I n c o n -t r as t , f i r s t - l i ne superv i so r s a r e wel l -pos i t i oned t o coun t ert h e n e g a t i v e i m p a c t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w i d e p o l i t i c a l n o r m sb y i n c r e a s i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g a m o n g t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s .T h e y c a n e x p l a i n r e l e v a n t i s s u e s , s e t d i r e c t i o n , d i r e c t l yaddress r es i s t ance t o t he i r e f fo r t s , ac t qu i ck l y , and t akef o l l o w - u p a c t io n .

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h th e l o g i c o f F e r r is e t a l . 's ( 1 9 8 9 ) m o d e l ,i t i s l i k e l y t h a t w h e n s u b o r d i n a t e s u n d e r s t a n d a n d s h a r et he i r superv i so r ' s p r i o r i t i es , t hey wi l l be l ess a f f ec t ed byp o l it ic s . B y p r o v i d i n g f o r a m o r e s t r a i g h t fo r w a r d a s s e s s -m e n t o f p e r s o n - o r g a n i z a t i o n f i t a s w e l l a s f e e l i n g s o fcon t ro l , an under s t and i ng o f o rgan i za t i ona l p r i o r i t i es r e -d u c e s t h e s a l ie n c e o f t he e x p e r i e n c e o f p o l i ti c s o n d e v e l o p -m e n t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t .

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of poli tics are m ore stronglyrelated to com mitment am ong individuals who do not sharethe priori t ies of their supervisors than among those whosegoal priorities are consistent with those of their supervisor.K n o w i n g t h e p r i o r i ti e s m a y a b a t e t h e i m p a c t o f p o li t ic s

o n p e r f o r m a n c e n o t o n l y b y s u p p l y i n g a p p r o p r ia t e s t ra t e -g i c o r t a c t ic a l d i r e c t io n b u t a l s o b y p r o v i d i n g a s e n s e o fs e c u r i t y w h e n l e v e l s o f p o l it i c s a r e h i g h . T h i s s e n s e o f


3/10

668 RESEARCH REPORTSs e c u r i t y m a y t a k e t w o f o r m s . O n e i s a f e e l in g t h a t e f f o r td i r e c t e d t o w a r d p u r s u i t o f t h o s e o b j e c t iv e s w i l l b e r e -w a r d e d . T h e o t h e r in v o l v e s a r e d u c e d r i s k o f b e i n g v i s i b l ei n t h e p u r s u i t o f o b j e c t iv e s , i n c l u d i n g c o o p e r a t i n g o p e n l yw i t h o t h e r s .

Hypothesis 4: P e r c e p t i o n s o f p o l i t i c s a r e m o r e s t r o n g l yr e l a t e d t o p e r f o r m a n c e a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s w h o d o n o t s h a r et h e p r i o r i t i e s o f t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s .

M e t h o dP a r t i c i p a n t s a n d P r o c e d u r e

I c o l l e c t e d d a t a f r o m f iv e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , w i t h l o g i s t i c a l h e l pf r o m o n - s i t e h u m a n r e s o u r c e s s t a f f . E m p l o y e e s w e r e a s k e d t oc o m p l e t e th e s u r v e y s a t w o r k o n c o m p a n y t i m e a n d w e r e a s s u r e dtha t pa r t i c ipa t ion was conf iden t ia l . I a sked the f i r s t - l ine superv i -s o r s t o p r o v i d e t h e i r g o a l p r i o r i t i e s a n d a s s u r e d t h e m t h a t t h e i rr e s p o n s e s w o u l d b e t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t ia l l y . I n S a m p l e s 4 a n d 5 ,I a l s o a s k e d t h e f i r s t - l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s t o p r o v i d e p e r f o r m a n c er a t i n g s o n t h e i r d i r e c t r e p o r t s a n d a s s u r e d t h e m t h a t t h e s e r e -s p o n s e s w o u l d b e t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n ti a l ly .Sample 1. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d a n d r e t u r n e d v i at h e i n t e r n a l m a i l s y s t e m t o a l l 5 0 2 e m p l o y e e s o f a n o r g a n i z a t i o np r o v i d i n g t e l e p h o n e - b a s e d f i n a n c i a l c o l l e c t i o n s e r v i c e s . B e -c a u s e o f a c o n c e r n a b o u t a n o n y m i t y , o n l y o n e d e m o g r a p h i c i t e mw a s i n c l u d e d i n th e s u r v e y , w h i c h a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e e sh a d w o r k e d l e s s t h a n ( 5 7 % o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ) o r m o r e t h a n1 2 m o n t h s ( 4 3 % ) i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . O f t h e 5 0 2 e m p l o y e e s ,3 9 1 ( 7 8 % ) p a r t i c i p a t e d , b u t c o m p l e t e d a t a ( i n c l u d i n g s u p e r v i -s o r g o a l r a ti n g s ) w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r o n l y 3 0 1 ( 6 0 % ) .Sample 2. A l l 3 0 0 e m p l o y e e s o f a n i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o nw e r e a s k e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s t u d y ; a l th o u g h 2 4 1 ( 8 0 % )p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t w o l a r g e g r o u p m e e t i n g s , c o m p l e t e d a t a w e r ec o l l e c te d f o r o n ly 1 7 5 ( 5 8 % ) , o f w h o m 1 16 ( 6 6 % ) w e r e m e na n d 5 9 ( 3 4 % ) w o m e n . T h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l te n u r ew e r e ( a ) l e s s t h a n 1 y e a r, 1 % o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ; ( b ) 1 t o 3years , 27%; ( c ) 4 to 10 yea rs , 46% ; (d ) 11 to 15 yea rs , 10%;( e ) 1 6 t o 2 0 y e a rs , 8 % ; a n d ( f ) 2 0 o r m o r e y e a r s , 8 % .Sample 3. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d a n d r e t u r n e d v i at h e i n t e r n a l m a i l s y s t e m t o 2 6 7 e m p l o y e e s o f a p r o d u c t i o n o r g a -n i z a t i o n . A l t h o u g h 2 4 0 ( 9 0 % ) p a r t i c i p a t e d , c o m p l e t e d a t a w e r ec o l l e c te d f o r o n l y 1 3 7 ( 5 1 % ) , o f w h o m 1 4 ( 1 0 % ) w e r e m e n ,1 23 ( 9 0 % ) w o m e n , a n d 9 3 ( 6 8 % ) m i n o r i t i e s . T h e i r s e l f - r e -p o r t e d t e n u r e i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n w e r e ( a ) l e s s t h a n 1 ye a r, 1 5 %o f t h e re s p o n d e n t s ; ( b ) 1 t o 4 y e a r s , 4 2 % ; ( c ) 5 t o 1 0 y e a r s ,2 9 % ; ( d ) 1 1 t o 1 5 y e a rs , 9 % ; a n d ( e ) 1 6 o r m o r e y e a r s , 7 % .

Sample 4. A l l 4 1 0 w o r k e r s i n a t e l e m a r k e t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o nw e r e a s k e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y ; 3 78 v o l u n t e e r e d ( 8 8 % )a n d c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s i n s m a l l g r o u p m e e t i n g s . H o w e v e r , c o m -p l e t e d a t a ( i n c l u d i n g s u p e r v i s o r - r a t e d p e r f o r m a n c e s c o r e s ) w e r ec o l l e ct e d f o r o n l y 2 4 0 ( 5 9 % ) e m p l o y e e s , o f w h o m 7 2 ( 7 0 % )w e r e m e n , 1 68 ( 7 0 % ) w o m e n , a n d 1 17 ( 4 9 % ) m i n o r i t i e s . T h ed a t a c o l l e c t i o n w a s n o t d o n e a n o n y m o u s l y . T e n ur e i n t h e o r g a n i -z a t i o n , a g e , s e x , a n d E q u a l E m p l o y m e n t O p p o r t u n i t y C o m m i s -s i o n ( E E O C ) r a c e c o d e s ( r e c o d e d i n t o t w o c a t e g o r i e s: m i n o r i t ya n d n o n m i n o r i t y ) w e r e p r o c u r e d f r o m o r g a n i z a t i o n a r c h i v e s .T h e s e d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s e s b e -

c a u s e o f t h e i r p o t e n t i a l to a c c o u n t f o r v a r i a n c e i n t h e v a r i a b l e so f i n t e r e s t ( e . g . , e m p l o y e e s w i t h l o n g e r t e n u r e m i g h t h a v eg r e a t e r a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n a n d t h u s p e r h a p s g r e a t e r g o a l c o n -g r u e n c e ) . M o r e o v e r , a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s e s w e r e s e l f -r e p o r t e d y e a r s o f e d u c a t i o n a n d e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t ' s s c o r e o n t h es h o r t f o r m o f t h e W a t s o n - G l a s e r C r i t i c a l T h i n k i n g A p p r a i s a l( W G C T A ; W a t s o n & G l a s e r , 1 9 9 4 ), a g - f a c t o r m e a s u r e s e l e c t e do n t h e b a s i s o f j o b a n a l y s i s r e s u l ts i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a n a l y t i c t h i n k -i n g w a s c r i t i c a l to j o b s u c c e s s . T h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e W G C T A h a sb e e n w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d ( e . g . , W o o d & S t e w a r t , 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d i tw a s a d m i n i s t e r e d w i t h t h e o t h e r i n s t r u m e n t s . T h e s e v a r i a b l e sw e r e i n c l u d e d b e c a u s e e m p l o y e e s w i t h m o r e e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i -e n c e o r g r e a t e r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y m i g h t b e m o r e c a p a b l e o f" c a t c h i n g o n " t o s u p e r v i s o r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a b o u t g o a l p r i o r -i t i e s a n d t h u s a c c o u n t f o r s o m e o f t h e v a r i a n c e .Sample 5. A l l 3 1 0 w o r k e r s i n a d i s t r i b u t i o n s e r v i c e s o r g a n i -z a t i o n w e r e a s k e d t o p a r t ic i p a t e i n t h e s tu d y ; 2 5 4 ( 8 2 % ) v o l u n -t e e r e d a n d c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s i n s m a l l g r o u p m e e t i n g s . H o w e v er ,c o m p l e t e d a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r o n l y 12 6 ( 4 1 % ) e m p l o y e e s ,o f w h o m 2 7 ( 2 2 % ) w e r e m en , 99 ( 7 9 % ) w o m e n , a n d 6 9 ( 5 5 % )m i n o r i t i e s . T h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n w a s n o t d o n e a n o n y m o u s l y . A si n S a m p l e 4 , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t e n u r e , a g e , se x , a n d E E O C r a c ec o d e s ( r e c o d e d i n t o t w o c a t e g o r i e s : m i n o r i t y a n d n o n m i n o r i t y )w e r e p r o c u r e d f r o m o r g a n i z a t i o n a r c h i v e s. A l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h ea n a l y s e s w e r e s e l f - r e p o r t e d y e a r s o f e d u c a t i o n a n d e a c h p a r t i c i -p a n t ' s s c o r e o n t h e W o n d e r l i c P e r s o n n e l T e s t , F o r m 5 ( W P T ;W o n d e r l i c P e r s o n n e l T es t , I n c . , 1 9 9 2 ) , a c o m m o n l y u s e d g - f a c t o rm e a s u r e s e l e c t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f j o b a n a l y s i s re s u l t s . T h e W P Tw a s a d m i n i s t e r e d w i t h t h e o t h e r i n s t r u m e n t s .G o a l s M e a s u r e d

I a s k e d t h e s e n i o r m a n a g e m e n t t e a m i n e a c h o r g a n i z a t i o n t op r o v i d e f i v e t o e i g h t n o n o p e r a t i o n a l g o a l s ( M a r c h & S i m o n ,1958) tha t r e f l ec t va lue p r io r i t i e s r a the r than un i t - spec i f i c t ac t i -c a l o b j e c t i v e s . T h e g o a l s f o r e a c h s a m p l e a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h eA p p e n d i x .J o b A t t i t u d e M e a s u r e s

Organizational politics. I u s e d t h e f o u r - i t e m G o i n g A l o n gt o G e t A h e a d s u b s c a l e o f t h e K a c m a r a n d F e r r i s ( 1 99 1 ) P e r c e p -t i o n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P o l i t i c s S c a l e ( P O P S ) t o a s s e s s p e r c e p -t i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i t ic s . T h e r e l i a b i l i t y ( a ) e s t i m a t e swere .70 , .72 , .75 , .71 , and .71 fo r Samples 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 ,r e s p e c ti v e l y . G i v e n t h a t N y e a n d W i t t ( 1 9 9 3 ) f o u n d t h e P O P St o b e u n i d i m e n s i o n a l , a s s e s s m e n t o f p o l i t i c s b y t h i s s u b s c a l e o ft h e P O P S s h o u l d y i e l d i n f o r m a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t p r o v i d e d b yt h e f u l l s c a l e . H i g h s c o r e s r e f l e c t p e r c e p t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e v e l so f p o l i t ic s .Organizational commitment. I u s e d t h e H r e b i n i a k a n dA l u t t o ( 1 9 7 2 ) f o u r - i t e m sc a l e t o a s s e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m i t -m e n t . I t a s s e s s e s t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o l e a v e a s a f u n c t i o n o f a l t e r n a -t ive inducem ents . The re l i ab i l i ty (c~) es t im a tes fo r th i s sca le inSamples 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 were .78 , .74 , .75 , .76 , and .75 ,r e s p e c ti v e l y . H i g h s c o r e s r e f l e c t g r e a t e r c o m m i t m e n t .S u p e r v i s o r R a t i n g s o f P e r f o r m a n c e

C r i t e r i o n i t e m s m i r r o r e d r e s u l t s o f j o b a n a l y s e s f r o m b o t hs a m p l e s . I n S a m p l e 4 , th e s u p e r v i s o r s r a t e d th e e m p l o y e e ' s


4/10

RESEARCH REPORTS 66 9p e r f o r m a n c e us i n g 1 0 i te m s ( a = . 94 ; e .g ., " [ e m p l o y e e n a m e ]c he e r f u l ly f o l l ows r u l e s , po l ic i e s a nd p r oc e du r e s " ) . The s upe r -v i s o r s i n Sa mpl e 5 r a t e d f ou r i t e ms ( a = . 85 ; e . g ., " [ e m p l o ye en a m e ] m a k e s a n e x t r a e f f o r t d u r in g p e r i o d s o f p e a k d e m a n d " ) .I t e ms w e r e p r e s e n t e d on a 5 - po i n t s c a l e ( 1 = w e a k , o r b o t t o m1 0 % , 2 = f a ir , o r n e x t 2 0 % , 3 = g o o d , o r m i d 4 0 % , 4 = v e r yg o o d , o r n e x t 2 0 % , a nd 5 = b e st , o r t o p 1 0 % ) . H i g h s c o r e sr e f l e c t h i ghe r l eve l s o f j ob pe r f o r ma nc e .

ever, I used the m ore pars imo nious D s tat is t ic , beca use m y focuswa s on t he mode r a t i ng e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e nc e s i n r a nk i ngs r a t he rthan the main or in terac t ive ef fec ts of individual cons t i tuencygoal ra t ings on a cr i te r ion . I evaluated a speci f ic , theory-basedhypo t he s i s a nd d i d no t a t t e mp t t o de ve l op a ge ne r a l r e s pons es u r f a c e mode l .

R e s u l t sG o a l C o n g r u e n c e A n a l y s e s

Hypo t he s e s 3 a nd 4 f oc us on t he mode r a t i ng e f f e c t o f t hegoa l c o ng r ue nc e be t we e n t he e m p l oye e a nd f i rs t - li ne s upe rv is o r.The r e f o r e , I c a l c u l a t e d t he a g r e e me n t a l ong goa l p r i o r i t i e s be -tween the individual employee and his or her f i r s t - l ine supervi -sor . As pointed out by Vancouver , Mi lsap , and Peters (1994) ,o t he r f o r ms o f c ong r ue nc e a r e i mpor t a n t whe n t he i nd i v i dua l sha ve s i mi l a r i n t e r es t s a nd pe r c e p t i ons o f c l i ma t e s ( J ohns t on ,1976; Pa yn e & M a ns f ie l d , 1973 ) . A que s t i on mi gh t be whe t he re m p l o ye e - bo s s goa l c ong r ue n c e i s a c t ua l l y r e f le c t i ng s omeother , perhap s mo re sa lient, for m of congru ence . Therefo re , tomor e r i go r o us l y t e s t Hypo t he s e s 3 a nd 4 , 1 a l s o a s s e s s e d e m-p l o ye e - pe e r c ong r ue nc e . Th i s wa s ope r a t i ona l iz e d a s t he a g re e -me n t be t we e n a n e mp l oye e a nd t he a ve r a ge goa l - i mpor t a nc eranking of h is or her peers in the work uni t ( i . e . , individualsr e po r t i ng t o t he s a me s upe r v i s o r ) .

F o l lo w i n g H u d s o n a n d C a m p i o n ( 1 9 9 2 ) a n d V a n c o u ve r a n dSchm it t ( 1991 ) , I used the D s ta t i s t ic prof i le score (C ron bac h &Gleser , 1953) as the indica tor o f cong ruenc e . Th e D s ta t i s tic i st he s qua r e r oo t o f t he s um o f t he s qua r e d d i f f e r enc e s be t we e ne a c h goa l r a nk i ng o f t he i nd i v idua l a nd t he r a nk i ng o f t he o t he rc ons t i t ue nc y , e i t he r t he a ve r a ge r a nk i ng o f pe e r s i n t he wor kuni t or the ranking o f the imm edia te supervisor . A ppropr ia te ly ,r e s e a r c he rs ha ve f o l l owe d Cr onb a c h ( 19 58 ) i n po i n ti ng ou t s e v -era l l imi ta t ions in the use o f the D s tat is t ic and othe r prof i lea na l y s is me a s u r e s ( Edw a r ds , 1993, 1994 ; Edw a r ds & Pa r r y ,1993; Johns , 1981) . O ne co ncer n has bee n tha t the D s tat is t icdoe s no t t a ke i n t o a c c oun t t he d i r e c t ion o f t he d i f f er e nc e . Asi mp l i e d by Va nc o uve r a nd Sc h mi t t ( 1991 ) , howeve r, t he i s s uewi t h r e ga r d t o goa l c ong r ue nc e i s no t whe t he r t he goa l i s o fhigher or lo we r pr ior ity , per se . Rather , the i ssue i s tha t across theke y goa l s o f the o r ga n iz a t i on , d i s a g r e e m e n t - - w he t h e r e xp l i c i t lyr e c ogn i z e d o r no t a nd in e i the r d i r e c t i o n - - m a y l e a d ind i v idua l st o a dop t a nd f o l l ow da y - t o - da y p r i o r it i e s t ha t a r e i nc ons i s t e n twi t h t hos e o f t he i r pe e r s a nd ma na ge r s . Ano t he r c onc e r n ha sbe e n t ha t d i f f e r e nc e s c o r e s a r e c onc e p t ua l l y s i mi l a r t o t he i rcomponent var iables . However , th is not ion has not been univer -sa l ly accepted (e .g . , Tisak & Smith , 1994) . Indeed, in the caseo f t he p r e s e n t s t udy , t he e mp l oye e ' s r a nk o f a n o r ga n i z a t i ona lgoa l i s c onc e p t ua l l y d i st i nc t f r om t he c omp a r i s on o f the e mp l oy -e e ' s r a nk wi t h t he s upe r v i s o r ' s r a nk .

A prom is ing a l ternative to the D s ta t i s tic i s the polyno mia lr e g r e s s i on t e c hn i que a dvoc a t e d by Edw a r ds ( 1993, 1994 ) . Th i sma t he ma t i c a l - mode l i ng a pp r oa c h t o a s e t o f da t a ma x i mi z e sthe var iance acc oun ted for by determ ining a l l poss ib le l inear ,in terac t ive , and polyn om ial e f fec ts . I t per forms v ery wel l ini l lus t ra t ing the re la t ionship be tween ra t ings and cr i te r ia in te rmso f mu l t id i me ns i ona l r e s pons e s u r f a c e s ( Edwa r ds , 1996 ; Ed -wa r ds & Pa r r y , 1993 ; Kr i s t o f - Br ow n & S t e ve ns, 1996 ) . How -

T h e s c a l e m e a n s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , a n d i n t e r c o r r e l a -t i o n m a t r i x a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b le 1 . A s s h o w n t h e r e,t h e re s u l t s c o n f i r m e d H y p o t h e s e s 1 a n d 2 . P e r c e p t i o n so f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o l i t ic s w e r e i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o s e l f -r e p o r t e d e x p r e s s i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t io n a l c o m m i t m e n t i n a l lf iv e s a m p l e s ; th e c o r re l a t io n s r a n g e d f r o m - . 2 5 t o - . 5 6( p < . 01 ) . P e r c e p t i o n s o f p o l it i c s w e r e i n v e r s e l y r e l a te dt o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r a t in g s ( S a m p l e 4 : r = - . 1 8 , p < . 0 1 ;S a m p l e 5 : r = - . 3 2 , p < . 0 1 ) .

I u s e d h i e r a r c h i c a l m o d e r a t e d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l -y s e s ( C o h e n & C o h e n , 1 9 8 3 ) t o t e s t H y p o t h e s e s 3 a n d 4 .I n t h is a p p r o a c h , t h e i n c r e m e n t a l v a r i a n c e ( A R 2 ) a c -c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e a d d i ti o n o f th e c r o s s - p r o d u c t t e r m t ot h e e q u a t i o n r e f le c t s t h e e f f e c t s i z e o f t h e i n t e r ac t i o n .T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s r e s u l t s f r o m t w o s e t s o f r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y -s e s . T h e f i r st f e a t u r e s r e s u l t s w i t h t h e f i v e p r e d i c t o r v a r i -a b le s c o m m o n t o e a c h s a m p l e - - p o l i t i c s , g o a l co n g r u e n c ew i t h t h e b o s s , g o a l c o n g r u e n c e w i t h p e e r s , t h e p o l i t i c s -b o s s c o n g r u e n c e c r o s s - p r o d u c t , a n d t e n u r e . T h e s e c o n da l s o f e a tu r e s t h e r es u l t s o f th e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s , i n c l u d -i n g a l l o f t h e c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s a v a i l a b l e i n e a c h s a m p l e .A s s h o w n i n T a b le 2 , t h e c r o s s - p r o d u c t t e r m s o f th e p o l i-t i c s a n d e m p l o y e e - b o s s g o a l - c o n g r u e n c e s c o r e s a d d e ds i g n if i ca n t a m o u n t s o f v a r i a n c e i n t he e x p l a n a t i o n o f c o m -m i t m e n t , o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e l i n e a r e f f e c t s o f t h e p r e -d i c t o r s . T h e c r o s s - p r o d u c t t e r m s a d d e d s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i -a n c e t o th e e x p l a n a ti o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e i n S a m p l e 4 ( A R 2= . 0 2, p < . 0 5 ) b u t n o t i n S a m p l e 5 ( A R 2 =. 01 , n s ) .

T o g r a p h i c a l l y d e p i c t t h e i n t e r a c ti o n , I f o l l o w e d a p r o -c e d u r e a d v o c a t e d b y S t o n e a n d H o l l e n b e c k ( 1 9 8 9 ) , p l o t -t i n g s l o p e s a t t h r e e l e v e ls o f g o a l c o n g r u e n c e : a t t h e m e a na n d a t o n e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a b o v e a n d b e l o w t h e m e a n .F i g u r e 1 p r o v i d e s a n e x a m p l e o f t h e fi v e p l o t s o f p o l it i c sa n d g o a l c o n g r u e n c e p r e d i c ti n g c o m m i t m e n t s c o r e s , p r e -s e n t i n g t h e p l o t o f t h e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n f r o m S a m p l e 5 .F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s t h e p l o t o f p o l it i c s a n d g o a l c o n g r u e n c ep r e d i c t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e s c o r e s i n S a m p l e 4 . C o n f i r m i n gH y p o t h e s e s 3 a n d 4 , t h e s e f i g u r e s s h o w t h a t p e r c e p t i o n so f p o li ti c s w e r e m o r e s t r o n g ly r e la t e d t o c o m m i t m e n t( F i g u r e 1 ) an d p e r f o r m a n c e ( F i g u r e 2 ) a m o n g i n d i v id u a l sw h o d i d n o t s h a r e t h e p r i o r it i e s o f t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s t h a na m o n g t h o s e w h o s e g o a l p r i o r i t i e s w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t ht h o s e o f th e i r s u p e r v i s o r .

T h e A R 2 s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 2 , r a n g i n g f r o m .0 1 t o. 0 3 , r e f l e ct v e r y s m a l l a m o u n t s o f a d d it i o n a l v a r i a n c e c o n -


5/10

T a b l e 1I n t e r c o rr e l a ti o n M a t r i x f o r a l l S a m p l e s

Variable/sample M S D /3-C /3-P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111. Politics

Sample123452. Congruence w/boss

Sample12345

3. Congruence w/peersSample

12345

4. TenureSample

12345

5. Cross-product termSample

12345

6. CommitmentSample

12345

7. GenderSample

2345

8. Minority statusSample

345

9. g factorSample

4510. Education

Sample45

11. AgeSample

45

12. PerformanceSample

45

2.41 0.97 -0 . 88 -- --3 .13 0.90 -0 . 422.66 0.95 -0 . 49 - - --2 .79 0 .60 -0 .26 -1 .57 - -3 .02 0.86 0.48 -7 .9 5 --

8 .07 2.25 -0 .0 9 -- - .0 1 --5.58 0.75 0.04 -- .18 --7 .90 2.31 -0 . 13 -- .08 --8 .59 1.85 -0 .0 1 -0 . 68 .12 --8.79 2.21 0.26 -1 .17 .09 --

6.20 1.25 -0. 09 -- .10 .44* --2 .20 0.89 -0 .0 4 -- .18 - .4 7* --5 .64 1.55 -0 .0 6 -- .04 - .0 2 --6.59 1.74 0.04 -0 .59 .18" .27* --6.99 0.93 0.11 -0 .97 .10 .11 --

1 .45 0,56 0.23 -- .02 - .2 2* - .1 2 --3.20 1.19 0.05 -- .11 .06 .07 --2 .51 1.06 0.13 -- - .2 0* - .0 8 .03 --2 .68 3.57 0.00 -0 . 07 .12 - .0 6 - , 03 --4 .13 4.73 0.03 -0 . 42 .12 - .0 2 - . 03 --

.01 19.52 9.86 -- .82* .98* .52* -. 09* --- .17 1 .42 -0 .10 - - - . 22* .29 - .14 - .05 - -

.08 1 .00 -0 .14 - - - . 02 - .01 - .02 .02 - -

.12 3.57 -0 .1 0 -1 . 23 - .0 4 .06 .05 .01 --26.6 10,40 -0 .09 0.57 .75* .70* .12 .11 --

3 .05 1.26 -- -- - .3 2* .03 - .1 2 .09 - .2 2* --3 .47 0.47 -- -- - .4 2* .10 - ,12 .03 - .0 5 --3 .28 0 .98 - - - - - . 56* - .18 - .07 .25* - .13 - -2 .87 0 .82 - - - - - . 26* - ,04 - .01 .06 - .15 - -3 .24 0.92 -- -- - .2 5* - .1 6 ,09 .27* - .3 0* --

1.32 0.47 0.14 -- .14 -. 02 .01 .15 .03 .01 - -1.90 0.30 0.16 -- -. 08 . .02 -. 00 .12 .02 .10 --1 .70 0.46 0.08 -0 . 44 .03 - .0 4 - .02 .16 - .0 5 .10 --1.79 0.41 -0 .05 -2 .8 9 .00 .09 -. 06 .07 .03 .06 --

1 .70 0.46 0.04 -- - .2 0 .01 - .07 .11 - .0 4 .14 - ,0 6 --1 .49 0.50 -0 . 34 1.34 - .0 2 .13 .13 - .06 .04 - .2 1" - .0 2 --1 .55 0.50 -0 . 09 -1 . 63 - .0 6 .11 .04 - .11 .03 - .2 3 - ,17 --

24 .19 5.72 -0 .02 0 .12 - .18 - .30* - .23* .02 .04 - .05 - .19 - .20* - -18.16 6.57 0.01 -0 . 00 .07 - .1 2 - .1 1 .06 - .0 2 .14 - .2 2 - .4 1" --

13.88 1 .56 -0 .04 -0 .39 - .10 - .17 - .09 - .11 .14 - .09 - .22* - .03 .32* - -13.31 1 .39 -0 .08 -0 .41 - .03 - .06 - .04 - .03 - .06 - .11 - .19 .22 .17 - -

29.93 9.79 0.01 -0 .03 .04 -. 07 .01 .40* .05 .19" .07 -. 19 .07 .13 --31.06 10.10 0.03 -0 .0 3 .09 -. 08 .07 .51" .02 .41" .10 -, 21 .20 ,09 --

49.92 10.10 --50.17 10.30 --

- - - . 1 8 " - . 1 0 - . 1 1 - . 0 6 - . 1 4 . 1 0 - . 0 2 . 05 . 10 - . 0 2 - . 0 7- - - . 3 2 * . 07 - . 0 8 - . 2 4 - . 1 7 . 13 - . 1 3 - . 0 4 . 0 7 - . 0 5 - . 2 0

Note. /3-P = fl in the equation predicting perfo rman ce; /3-C = /3 in the equation predicting commit ment.* p < .01.


6/10

R E S E A R C H R E P OR T S 6 7 1T a b l e 2R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s e s

Step 1 Step 2Adjusted AdjustedSamp le Cri ter ion R~ F p < R~ F p < A R 2 F p

a solution to organizational politics - goal congruence

Documents