CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF POLITICAL SKILL

Social effectiveness is critical to mastering social interactions and “office politics”, however there is ambiguity in defining these social effectiveness constructs, in particular, political skill. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the construct validity of political skill utilizing a partial multitrait multimethod approach. The participants were undergraduate students with substantial work experience. Discriminant validity was examined with measures of political skill, emotional intelligence, self-monitoring, and social skill. Convergent validity was assessed with independent interpersonal sensitivity and behavioral measures of political skill. The results indicated a lack of construct validity evidence for political skill, with significant overlap among the scales. In particular, a CFA yielded one general social effectiveness factor. Further, the interpersonal sensitivity and behavioral measures were not significantly related to the political skill scale. The implications for the lack of construct validity for political skill are discussed and directions for future research are proposed. POLITICAL SKILL Thenhaus, Katie, 2011, UMSL, p. 4 Construct Validation of Political Skill Organizations are inherently complex and ambiguous. Successful functioning within an organization requires more than technical skill in one‟s position. Employees‟ success and impact are also a product of social skills. That is, employees at every level of the organization need to understand and manage their own behavior while, at the same time, predicting and influencing the behavior of others. The ability to master these goals plays an important role in job performance and contributing effectively to the success of the organization. Organizational functioning requires a wide range of employee interactions. Corporate meetings are common means for discussing issues, considering policy, and making decisions. There are, of course, frequent, less formal contacts between supervisors and employees and collaborative efforts on various projects. In addition, more casual interactions over lunch, during breaks, or around the water cooler provide opportunities for learning more about colleagues and facilitating interpersonal influence. Managing this wide range of social contacts is an important element for success in organizations. There have been many attempts to define these social skills and there is some agreement on the constituent elements. For example, socially skilled people typically have the following characteristics: (a) a repertoire of effective social behaviors, (b) an awareness of social norms for varying situations, (c) the ability to select the most effective responses, (d) the ability to perceive accurately the feedback from others, and (e) the ability to change one‟s social behavior based on feedback (Eisler & Frederiksen, 1980). POLITICAL SKILL Thenhaus, Katie, 2011, UMSL, p. 5 Although it is difficult to define these social skills precisely, we often intuitively know whether someone is utilizing these skills effectively. For example, when a coworker in the customer call center uses the speaker phone for her incoming calls, you may determine that she is not aware of the social norms associated with working in close proximity with others. We can determine individuals‟ social competence based on their ability to uphold social norms and achieve and maintain interpersonal relationships necessary to succeed in a number of social areas (e.g., marriage, education, occupation). Attempts to distinguish between individuals with good versus poor social skills were originally based on the observation of certain personality traits, such as empathy, emotional stability, maturity, and need for affiliation. Traits such as neuroticism, introversion, and dependency were thought to hinder one‟s social skill development. More recently, theorists assert that different personality traits are activated by cues from the social environment allowing one‟s social competence to fluctuate based on the social situation (Lievens, Chasteen, Day, & Christiansen, 2006). For example, a new employee may appear introverted when asked to speak in front of a large board room of upper management, but behave in a more outgoing and extraverted fashion when in the cafeteria with peers. Origins of Political Skill In today‟s corporate world, social skills are critical to master effectively the day to day social interactions and “office politics” within and between organizations. Executives often say, “You just have to know how to play the game” if you want to get ahead. That is, it requires a certain social skill to navigate successfully in organizations. Performing the tasks of the job itself is important, but job knowledge alone is not POLITICAL SKILL Thenhaus, Katie, 2011, UMSL, p. 6 sufficient. At one time or another, successful people need to influence others‟ attitudes and decisions (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewe, 2005). First, it may be helpful to take a broader look at organizational politics. Defining Organizational Politics The idea of organizational politics was noticeably absent in management and organizational theory literature until recent years. Although there was an early reference by Lasswell in 1936, as “the study of who gets what, when, and how,” organizational politics did not gain much attention until the 1970‟s. There are two possible explanations for the lack of management research on organizational politics despite its frequent use in everyday conversation. First, because “politics” is often used in everyday organizational conversations, most managers may assume that it is intuitively understood. According to a sample of over 400 managers, 60% said that “most casual conversation appears to be about things I would consider as workplace politics” (Gandz & Murray, 1980). In fact, in a study of 87 managerial personnel surveyed about organizational political tactics, none of them requested a definition of politics before completing the assignment (Allen, Panian, & Lotz, 1979). Because of this apparent intuitive understanding, it may have seemed unnecessary to develop a precise definition of organizational politics. Second, because politics has a negative connotation, it provides a perspective on analyzing organizational processes that competes with more theoretical perspectives typically presented in management research. Researchers may have eluded the topic in order to avoid the negative connotation of politics (Pfeffer, 1981). There are two competing views in defining organizational politics: those occurring through sanctioned means versus those occurring through means that are POLITICAL SKILL Thenhaus, Katie, 2011, UMSL, p. 7 unsanctioned by the organization. Mayes and Allen (1977) discussed organizational politics in terms of influence to obtain outcomes not sanctioned by the organization or to obtain legitimate organizational outcomes through non-sanctioned means. This definition fails to address the possibility that power and political activity could define what is or isn‟t sanctioned within the organization (Pfeffer, 1981). That is, it is plausible that powerful individuals would not engage in political activity because what they do is likely to be sanctioned, and, in contrast, the powerless would almost inevitably engage in political activity (Pfeffer, 1981). Organizational politics may even be a mix of sanctioned and non-sanctioned tactics. For example, Mintzberg (1983) suggested that authority or ideology used to gain coordination and consensus through sanctioned behavior can be a form of political activity within an organization. On the other hand, he also described organizational politics as behavior that is informal, often narrow-minded and disruptive, and not sanctioned by the organization (Mintzberg, 1983). Further, he contended that politics includes three elements: (a) behavior outside of the legitimate systems of influence and often in opposition to them; (b) behavior designed to benefit the individual or group, presumably at the expense of the organization at large (although not always); and (c) as a result of a and b, behavior typically disruptive or conflictive in nature, pitting individuals or groups against the organization at large or against each other. Many definitions ignore the functionality and beneficial outcomes of political activity for both the individual and the organization (Pfeffer, 1981). Organizational politics, then, can be perceived as positive or negative depending on the viewpoint of the individuals involved. That is, whether one‟s intentions and behaviors are being POLITICAL SKILL Thenhaus, Katie, 2011, UMSL, p. 8 threatened or supported can determine the connotation given to a particular political situation (Kakabadse & Parker, 1984). As a result of these issues, other authors have attempted to provide a more inclusive definition. In this way, the sanctioned versus unsanctioned debate can be avoided and the positive or negative connotation is left to interpretation. Pfeffer (1981) proposed that organizational politics involves activities within organizations to gain and employ resources such as power, to achieve the preferred outcome in uncertain situations. Explicit in this definition is the idea that political activity is the outcome of discretion in the choices of a decision. Mintzberg (1983) suggested two main reasons behind this discretion: (a) the presence of problems or gaps in the other systems of influence (i.e., decision-making power based on authority, ideology, or expertise), or (b) the needs of the individual are not being satisfied within these systems. Problems and gaps give rise to discretion in work and unsatisfied needs lead to exploitation of that discretion. Similarly, Porter, Allen, and Angle (1981) acknowledge the inconsistencies in defining organizational politics and offer four elements that cover both types of political behavior. They define organizational politics as