The Relationship between Political Behavior and Team

The Relationship between Political Behavior and Team Effectiveness in Management

Teams:

The Mediating Role of Team Cohesion

Therese Thanh

Master Thesis Department of Psychology

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

25.04.2016

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, TEAM COHESION AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

II

Abstract

Research on political behavior in organizations has grown considerably the last

decades. However, there is a missing link in the literature regarding political behavior in

management teams and how it affects team effectiveness. The purpose of this study has been

to examine the effect of political behavior in management teams on task performance and

team member satisfaction through its effect on team cohesion. 155 management teams from

Norway and Denmark in the private and public sector were studied. Results from regression

analysis showed that political behavior was negatively associated with task performance (β =

-.61, p < .01), and team member satisfaction (β = -.60, p < .01). In line with earlier findings,

team cohesion was found to be positively associated with task performance (β = .78, p < .01)

and team member satisfaction (β = .80, p < .01). Results from mediation-analysis in

PROCESS indicate that political behavior and its negative relationship with team

effectiveness must be considered in light of diminished team cohesion. Significant mediation

effects indicate that political behavior is indirectly negative to task performance (b = -.35,

CI95% = -.46 to -.25), and team member satisfaction (b = -.45, CI95% = -.60 to -.30). The

substantial mediation effects suggest that political behavior harms team effectiveness by

reducing team cohesion. Theoretical and practical implications are provided for management

teams about how they can become more effective by reducing political behavior and

maintaining team cohesion.


III

Acknowledgements

I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor Henning Bang for his

invaluable insight, honest approach and faith in me throughout the year. You have been a true

inspiration for me and I have learned a lot throughout this process. I would also like to thank

Dag-Erik Eilertsen for good statistical and methodological support.

Furthermore, a big thanks to my classmates who have made these two years a great

experience. A special thanks to “Team Bang” – my fellow students on this topic, for great

social support and academic discussions.

Last, I would like to thank my good friend, Oda Opdal Zachrisen for excellent

feedback on my thesis.


IV

Table of Content Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5

Effective management teams ..................................................................................................... 7

Political behavior in management teams and team outcomes: Direct effect ............................. 8

Team cohesion: construct and outcomes ................................................................................. 13

Method ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Results ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 29

Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 34

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 35

References ................................................................................................................................ 36

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 46


5

Introduction

Management teams (MT) are responsible for decision making in complex situations,

which may result in severe consequences for the entire organization (Edmondson, Roberto, &

Watkins, 2003). Members of a MT often interact on a regular basis and need to function

effectively during different team processes to produce satisfying results and achieve goals

(Bang & Midelfart, 2012). Since a MT’s ability to create high quality team results seems to

be heavily weighted on interpersonal processes to lay a foundation for important and

effective team processes (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), factors that may disturb

functional interpersonal processes inside the team are crucial to address.

MTs can prevent the organization from functioning effectively by having internal

power struggles, intrigues and personal positioning (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988).

Organizations in general, and MTs especially, are described as arenas for games and power

play – also known in the literature as organizational politics (Bang & Midelfart, 2012).

Organizational politics are commonly termed as “activities taken within organizations to

acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes”

(Pfeffer, 1981, p. 7). Political behavior in management teams are “the observable, but often

covert, actions by which executives enhance their power to influence decisions” (Eisenhardt

& Bourgeois, 1988, p. 738).

The research field of organizational politics is characterized by a lack of agreement in

what should be included in the term, and the constructs “organizational politics”, “political

behavior” and “politics” are used interchangeably. This leads to inconsistent results when

assessing the scope, content, factors that affect and consequences of politics in organizations

(Buchanan, 2008). While theory and research on organizational politics has expanded rapidly

in recent decades, there is relatively little knowledge about organizational politics in and

around teams, including management teams. Few studies specifically and explicitly deal with

organizational politics within teams or workgroups. Although there is little doubt that internal

politics is a common phenomenon in every organization, too little is known about the exact

nature and boundaries of such politics among teams of various structures, nature, cultures and

orientations.

The few studies regarding organizational politics in MTs have been with a qualitative

approach and relatively small in sample size. The results have been inconclusive and certain

knowledge about how politics affect effectiveness in management teams is yet not

established. Managers who have power to make crucial decisions on behalf of the

organization play a major part in the organizations effectiveness. Given this pivotal role in


6

organizations there is a need for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon and how it

affects MTs’ effectiveness.

Much of the research done on organizational politics show that politics leads to low

performance on various dimensions, from attitudes such as satisfaction and commitment, to

self-reports of lower performance (Hochwarter, 2003; Miller, Rutherford, & Kolodinsky,

2008). In the same vein, elevated levels of stress, negligent behaviors, and aggression tend to

be found as consequences of organizational politics (e.g., Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, &

Toth, 1997; Vigoda, 2000). When taking this perspective and elevating it to the team level, it

is likely that teams perceived as highly political will be perceived as such due to rivalry

political behaviors within the team.

Activities of political character that is essentially self-promoting and intended to

influence team members’ decisions and behaviors may inhibit positive group processes.

Team cohesion may be such a process political behavior can have a negative effect on. Teams

that are cohesive might have a better ability to perform effectively by generating a

constructive climate, which in turn can foster positive affections and collaborative team

behavior that leads to successful functioning and performance. In contrast to organizational

politics, team cohesion has almost solely been related to positive outcomes, and cohesive

groups have been found to exhibit persistence despite obstacles, which eventually leads to

better performance (see the meta-analyses of Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Evans

& Dion, 1991; Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994).

Political behavior might create an unfortunate team dynamic by alienating team

members and forming alliances. If political behavior within MTs inhibit positive team

processes to emerge, such as cohesion, it will be reasonable to assume that this will harm the

effectiveness of the team. To study MTs as arenas for organizational politics is relevant for

several reasons. Organizational politics is more or less a reality in many MTs, and can have

negative consequences for the effectiveness, and in the end the organizations performance.

Moreover, it calls for an understanding for the phenomenon and why it can be negative for

MT effectiveness. The reason may lay in the fact that it decreases cohesion within the team.

A relationship between organizational politics, cohesion and performance in teams was been

proposed in Howes, Citera, and Cropanzano’s (1995) team-based model. However, no

empirical studies have yet examined this relationship.

The aim of this paper is to investigate to which extent and how political behavior

within management teams can affect team effectiveness, and if team cohesion mediates the

relationship between political behavior and team effectiveness.


7

Effective management teams

A management team usually consists of a superior leader and those leaders that

directly report to him or her (Bang & Midelfart, 2012). To be an effective management team,

the team must reach its goals, enhance team member’s ability to cooperate interdependently

in the future and create development and motivation for its members (Wageman, Nunes,

Burruss, & Hackman, 2008). Further, there is a wide range of challenges inside the MT that

needs to be encountered in order to have satisfied team members, as well as function and

deliver results effectively alongside with high quality. Challenges like diversity (Jehn,

Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997), social integration and communication (Smith et al., 1994),

differing interests, goals, as well as other individual characteristics, such as personality (Wall

& Callister, 1995), might be sources of pressure that can affect team outcomes.

Team outcomes has been measured and operationalized through different

performance typologies such as group performance (Hackman & Katz, 2010; Mullen &

Copper, 1994), team performance (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004;

Thompson et al., 2015) proximal and distal team outcomes (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012),

decision making (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988) and team effectiveness (Edmondson et al.,

2003; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). Hackman and Katz (2010) propose that effective

teams should be evaluated through a multidimensional framework of team effectiveness since

a singular focus on task outcomes might have a detrimental effect concerning team function

and performance over time. By having a wider team outcome measure, it can give more

knowledge of management teams. In regards to this study, effective MTs will be measured on

the criterion variables task performance (TP) and team member satisfaction (TMS).

Task Performance

Task performance can be understood as management teams’ own perception of its

successfulness and the added value the MT contribute to the organization. To assess the

quality on their own performance, MTs must identify the main results the team produces.

Management teams can produce results that give an added value to the organization both

directly or indirectly. Development of overarching goals and strategies, or quality control and

follow up on plans produces results directly. Whereas, giving advice and input to other team

members so they have a better foundation to make a good decision in their unit is producing

results indirectly. In addition to MTs perception of added value to the organization, getting

positive feedback on their performance can also characterize a highly performing MT.

Finally, the decisions MTs make must be perceived as high in quality and beneficial for the


8

organization in order to contribute positively to MT effectiveness. Task performance in this

study is operationalized as a distal outcome that includes high quality decisions made by the

team, in addition to general task performance.

Team Member Satisfaction

Team member satisfaction (TMS) is included as the second outcome variable of

interest as a supplement to task performance. To function as an effective team, team members

must perceive that they are developing their professional competencies and learning as a

result of being a member of the MT. Further, team members who enjoy working in the MT

and get a lot of energy from meetings can contribute to effectiveness. Team member growth

and well-being can be understood as individually experienced motivation and stimulation

inside the team. Wageman et al. (2008) suggest that these factors should be included to have

a comprehensive measurement of team effectiveness. In their model of conditions for team

effectiveness they highlight individual team members’ learning and team capability as an

additive measure of team effectiveness together with task performance.

A team may deliver satisfying results in line with the performance criterion, but not

necessarily on the personal well-being criterion. Hackman and Katz (2010) elaborate on how

group processes and experiences might foster good performance, but can be on the expense

of team members’ well-being. Hence, an effective team will be better measured by different

effectiveness criteria, including both a performance level and a satisfaction measurement

(Wageman et al., 2008). In light of this description, a management team will be characterized

as effective if it is able to achieve satisfying levels of task performance and at the same time

experience high level of team member satisfaction and learning. Thus, team member

satisfaction will function as a measure of proximal outcome in addition to the distal outcome

variable task performance.

Political behavior in management teams and team outcomes: Direct effect

Research in organizational politics has strong roots in theory and research on social

influence and has been developed and advanced largely through contributions of different

scholars and others over the past half-century (for reviews, see Ferris, Hochwarter, et al.,

2002; Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). In one of the first scholarly discussions of

organizational politics, Burns (1961) argued that corporations are made up of social systems

in which members compete, often vigorously, for rewards and advancement. Accordingly,

Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) maintained that “organizations will tend to be influenced by


9

those who control the resources they require” (p. 44). Based largely on Gandz and Murray’s

(1980) results confirming that the existence of workplace politics is common to most

organizations, research attained heightened scholarly and applied legitimacy during the late

1970s and early 1980s (e.g. Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981). Efforts to explain behavioral

tactics, in the form of classification taxonomies (Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes,

1979; Mintzberg, 1985), promoted more refined treatments of the organizational politics

construct. Finally, it was now firmly established that organizations are indeed political

arenas, often reflecting conflict for resources that is both ubiquitous and energy depleting

(Mintzberg, 1985). These contributions increased the research base of organizational politics

considerably the next 30 years. Systematic approaches that both evaluated and extended

previous research were considered necessary after the construct gained an identity in the

organizational sciences.

Definition of political behavior

In its broadest sense, the area of organizational politics includes theory and research

on power, influence, and politics, and the style of delivery and execution of influence. This

study will focus on the construct of political behavior within the field of organizational

politics. Given the substantial interest in political behavior, both within the organizational

sciences and across disciplines, it is not surprising that numerous definitions pervade the

literature (Buchanan, 2008). However, some commonalities can be identified. For example, a

number of studies have acknowledged that political behavior is essentially self-serving

(Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989; Porter et al., 1981). Others have classified political behavior as

unauthorized activity undertaken to secure outcomes not attainable via organizationally

sanctioned means (Mayes & Allen, 1977) or a power struggle over workplace assets in

settings typically considered bureaucratic (Vigoda-Gadot, 2003). Some research endorsing a

less negative view of political behavior is represented in the literature as well. Pfeffer (1981)

described politics as a social activity that can contribute to the organization’s goals and

objectives. Vigoda-Gadot (2003) maintained that political behavior is “a socially acceptable

phenomenon” (p. 10), whereas others have documented a relationship between the use of

political activity and managerial success (Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Harry, 1985). Some

scholars have adopted a middle-of-the-road perspective. For example, politics has been

described as a “two-edged sword” (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980, p. 93).

Buchanan’s (2008) review identified both functional and dysfunctional antecedents,

behaviors, and consequences of political behavior. Finally, a growing number of scholars


10

regard politics in neutral terms (Buchanan, Claydon, & Doyle, 1999), as a component of the

social environment (Fedor, Maslyn, Farmer, & Bettenhausen, 2008; Pfeffer, 1981) which is

neither inherently positive nor inherently negative.

In spite of the inability to consistently define political behaviors in organizations, this

study intends to have a focus on political behavior as essentially self-serving, as it has been

positioned by traditional definitions. More explicitly, in this study I define political behavior

as informal (i.e., not sanctioned by the employer), strategic activities aimed at protecting or

promoting self-interest by influencing the thinking, perceptions, or behavior of the other

members of the organization (Allen et al., 1979; Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Hochwarter, 2003;

Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Pettigrew, 2014; Porter et al., 1981). Political behavior is

considered as the opposite of making use of direct influence techniques, like open discussion

were information is shared in arenas that are available for all relevant actors in the decision

making process (Bourgeois III & Eisenhardt, 1988).

Political behavior in management teams

Theory and research on political behavior has increased in recent decades. However,

there is relatively little knowledge about politics in and around teams, including management

teams. Even though it might be taboo among leaders to talk about having and using their

power, it has been established through a number of studies that politics, alliances, hidden

agendas and power struggles among leaders do exits. As Ferris and Hochwarter (2011) notes

in their review about political behavior in organizations: “Those failing to acknowledge this

certainty presumably operate with a “head in the sand” mentality, which diminishes one’s

sensitivity to unwanted or destructive political conduct” (p. 450). Pfeffer (1992) argued in

addition that political behavior is more profound in top management teams (TMT) in

comparison with other teams. Since their role is at times crucial for survival and success, it is

more likely that internal politics of decision-making directed towards other team members

will be higher in TMTs compared with ordinary teams.

It may not be unexpected that political behavior is more common among managers

compared to other individuals in the organizations as set forth by two conceptual models that

articulate antecedents of political behavior. Porter et al. (1981) suggested that the decision to

engage in political behavior, at least partially, was driven by individuals’ need for power,

Machiavellianism, locus of control, risk-seeking propensity, and lack of personal power.

Similarly, Ferris, Fedor, and King (1994) argued that much of managerial effectiveness is

determined by the ability to effectively navigate the political context of the organization.


11

Although there is little doubt that internal politics is a common phenomenon in every

organization, too little is known about the exact nature and boundaries of such politics among

teams of various structures. Nevertheless, when searching for research on politics in MTs

especially there are relative few publications and even fewer empirical studies conducted.

In this study, political behavior in management teams is defined in line with

Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) as “the observable, but often covert, actions by which

executives enhance their power to influence decisions” (p. 738). These actions are usually

indented to either promote or protect self-interest for individuals or groups (Allen et al.,

1979). Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) conducted a qualitative study examining the impact

of politics in eight TMTs. Four typical examples of politics among top managers were

observed in their study:

• Unofficial alliances and coalitions between some of the members.

• Hidden lobbying and attempt to influence central decision makers.

• Filtering and withholding information.

• Filtering of what should be discussed in meetings and which decisions that was made outside

of the group.

Even though variations were found regarding how much politics characterized

interaction, there was a clear pattern among the eight TMTs. When power was centralized

around the top manager there was a greater degree of politics compared to TMTs where

power was decentralized and distributed between members (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988).

Thus, there is reason to believe that MTs varies when it comes to how much they are

characterized by alliances, power battles, hidden agendas and withholding information.

Consequences of organizational politics and political behavior

When organizational politics is defined as a phenomenon that subsumes all forms of

influence in organizations, it can take on both negative and positive connotations. It is not

uncommon for employees to view “office politics” as a phenomenon having only negative

organizational and interpersonal consequences (Gandz & Murray, 1980). Though, political

behavior is often described as an important component of influence processes in

organizations (Mayes & Allen, 1977) and research indicate potential interpersonal and

organizational benefits to engaging in such activity. For example, Buchanan (2008) found

some functional consequences of political behavior amongst managers, like succeeding as a


12

change agent, contribution to organizational effectiveness and winning competition for

resources.

However, in line with political behavior being actions to protect or promote self-

interests, it is commonly associated with a variety of negative actions that are harmful and

dangerous from the organizational point of view (e.g., Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Ferris & King,

1991; Mintzberg, 1983; Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995; Vigoda, 2000, 2001, 2002).

Several meta-analysis and research conducted on organizational politics and outcomes

suggests that highly political organizational environments are responsible for a variety of

harmful work consequences. This includes higher strain and job stress, higher turnover

intentions, and lower job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship

behaviors, perceived innovation and task performance (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Miller

et al., 2008; Parker et al., 1995). Consequently, occurrence of organizational politics, whether

actual or perceived, will have adverse effects on organizational productivity and profitability

(Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002; 1989; Kacmar & Baron, 1999).

Research on political behavior in teams, including MTs and team effectiveness is

nonetheless limited. The few empirical studies conducted of politics in MTs indicate certainly

that political behaviors mostly have negative outcomes, both for the MT and for the

organizations performance (Bourgeois III & Eisenhardt, 1988; Dean & Sharfman, 1996; Nutt,

1993; Voyer, 1994). Indeed, Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) found in their study of eight

top management teams a clear negative relationship between the degree of politics in the

TMT and the organizations results (measured in sales volume, sales growth and profit

margin). TMTs of effective firms avoided negative political behavior, whereas the TMTs of

poor-performing firms tended to use negative political behaviors. Dean and Sharfman (1996)

found the same pattern in their study of 52 decisions in 24 different firms: the more MTs was

characterized by politics, the less the chance for that the decisions made resulted in goals

managers had set out for the case.

Political behavior among managers may be evident in an attempt to acquire their fair

share of available rewards, where, due to uncertainty, the environment does not provide

normative guidelines for appropriate behavior. Such self-interest behavior can harm team

effectiveness because such people might not have the team goals as their priority. Moreover,

the other team members might shift focus from the behaviors needed for achieving team

goals toward the political behaviors apparent in the team. Similarly, when others believe an

individual is acting in a self-interested or negatively political manner, they may feel the need


13

to engage in their own defensive tactics (Mayes & Allen, 1977) which can hinder

effectiveness.

Literature on political behavior on an individual level shows different outcomes.

However, studies of political behavior in MTs show subsequently negative consequences.

Hence, although it appears that MTs are more profoundly characterized by political behavior,

these actions seem to harm performance and lower team member satisfaction in various

ways. All in all, it is therefore reasonable to assume the following:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Political behavior in management teams is negatively related to

task performance.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Political behavior in management teams is negatively related to

team member satisfaction.

Team cohesion: construct and outcomes

Teams are not merely sets of aggregated, independent individuals; they are unified

social entities (Forsyth, 2005). Whenever a team comes into existence, it becomes a system

with emergent properties that has to be understood as more than the sum of individual

members. Marks et al. (2001) defined emergent states as “construct that characterize

properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team

context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (p. 357). Examples of emergent states include

variables such as collective efficacy, potency, cohesion, and situational awareness (Marks et

al., 2001). Emergent states can be considered both as team inputs and proximal outcomes. As

a proximal outcome, different team-level processes such as the political behaviors of team

members may affect emergent states, like team cohesion.

The classical definition of cohesion or cohesiveness was provided by Festinger,

Schachter, and Back (1950) as “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in

the group” (p. 164). This definition provided direction for scores of studies that followed.

However, the operational difficulties that accompanied such an ambitious definition became

apparent - not the least of which was how to measure a “total force field”. This ambiguity led

some to question the adequacy of the concept itself (Albert, 1953). There is now a general

agreement in the literature that group cohesion is composed of more than one dimension and

a three-factor conceptualization of cohesion dates back to one of the earliest mentions of the

concept by Festinger et al. (1950). The three factors are interpersonal attraction, task

commitment and group pride. In previous meta-analysis of cohesiveness, both Mullen and


14

Copper (1994) and Beal et al. (2003) adopted this tripartite conceptualization of the

components of cohesiveness.

Beal et al. (2003, p. 995) defined interpersonal attraction as “a shared liking for or

attachment to the members of the group”; task commitment as “the extent to which a shared

commitment to the group’s task exists”; and group pride as “the extent to which group

members exhibit liking for the status or the ideologies that the group supports or represents,

or the shared importance of being a member of the group”. More specifically, team cohesion

is often said to represent the degree of member integration or “bonding” in which members

share a strong commitment to one another and/or to the purpose of the team (Zaccaro,

Rittman, & Marks, 2001).

Within management teams, cohesiveness can be thought to be especially important

because of the complex and ambiguous nature of the team’s task. Research has shown that

teams that perform well under uncertain and ambiguous conditions are highly coordinated

and flexible (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). As Smith et al. (1994)

explain, “top management teams that work well together react faster, are more flexible, use

superior problem solving techniques, and are more productive and efficient than less

integrative teams” (p. 432). The sort of integration that is necessary for this flexibility and

efficiency is more likely to be a function of affective, interpersonal relationships than of

formal, role-defined relationships (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Team cohesion has been one of the most thoroughly investigated features of teams

over the past 75 years (see Friedkin, 2004, for reviews), with literally thousands of studies

completed and several meta-analyses published in the existing literature. Cohesion is also

found to be one of the most relevant mediators affecting team performance (González, Burke,

Santuzzi, & Bradley, 2003; Greer, 2012; Zaccaro, 1991). A positive relationship between

cohesion and team performance has been shown in several meta-analytic reviews conducted

over the past 25 years (Beal et al., 2003; Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully et al., 1995; Mullen &

Copper, 1994). In the most recent meta-analysis, Beal et al. (2003) showed that group

cohesion was more strongly related to performance behavior (i.e., what team members do)

with a mean corrected correlation of (Mp̂ = .301), than to other performance outcomes (Mp̂ =

.168). Also, group cohesion was more strongly related to efficiency (Mp̂ = .310) than to

effectiveness (Mp̂ = .175). In addition, all of the cohesion components were significantly

related to team performance at the team level of analysis, with task commitment exhibiting

the strongest relation. The ascending order of effect sizes was interpersonal attraction (Mp̂ =

.199), group pride (Mp̂ = .261), and task commitment (Mp̂ = .278).


15

The outcome of team cohesiveness has also been claimed to be divided into two

categories – morale and performance (Daft, 2014). As a general rule, morale is higher in

cohesive teams because of increased communication among members, a friendly team

climate, maintenance of membership because of commitment to the team, loyalty, and

member participation in team decisions and activities. High cohesiveness has almost

uniformly good effects on the satisfaction and morale of team members (Tekleab et al.,

2009). With respect to performance, studies suggest that teams in which members share

strong feelings of connectedness and generally positive interactions tend to perform better

(Gupta, Huang, & Niranjan, 2010).

Accordingly, a friendly, positive team environment is expected to contribute to

productivity and higher task performance as well as member satisfaction, and therefore the

following is proposed:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Team cohesion in management teams is positively related to

task performance.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Team cohesion in management teams is positively related to

team member satisfaction.

Team cohesion as a mediator between political behavior and team effectiveness in

management teams

The development on team cohesion seems to depend a lot on team processes, or

behaviors, such as communication, information-sharing and coordination (e.g., Temkin-

Greener, Gross, Kunitz, & Mukamel, 2004). If political behavior characterizes the working

environment, it can decrease these factors alongside cohesion and negative effects from this

occurrence will most likely harm team effectiveness. Several propositions from earlier

research can be drawn to imply decreased team cohesion following political behavior.

Social relationships. Work environments characterized by political behavior might

be thought to start up some mechanisms affecting individual team members and also change

the climate within the team. Political behavior has been found to inhibit the development of

effective social relationships (Witt, Kacmar, Carlson, & Zivnuska, 2002). In contexts that are

perceived as highly political, people are unlikely to want to go out of their way to help others,

as any energy that they dedicate to others may be perceived as taking away from their efforts

to promote self-interests. This can make it difficult to acquire an interpersonal attraction for

one and another, which is considered to be a vital component of group cohesion. Lencioni


16

(2002) described the ultimate dysfunction as occurring when team members put their

individual needs above the collective goal of the team. This tends to shift focus from the

relevant team results and impedes the desire to win. Furthermore, it has been suggested that

political behavior may take the form of bullying in settings perceived as unfair (Ferris, Zinko,

Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007), which have negative consequences. Perceived political

behavior seems to positively correlate with antagonistic work behavior such as arguing with

co-workers or gossiping (Cheng, 1983; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1994), or

even violent behavior causing distress among colleagues (Vigoda, 2002). Employees

perceiving the work environment as political will also report greater levels of anxiety and

tension, and lower levels of general health (Cropanzano et al., 1997). Political behavior may

appear to reflect descriptions of relationship conflict in terms of friction, personality clashes,

or threat between members.

Shifting alliances. When team members use power in an attempt to divide the team

and form coalitions within the team, competing for acknowledgement of their ideas over

those of others, it is unlikely for the team to be viable. Political behavior has often been

described as organized into temporary and shifting alliances (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988),

consequentially harming the team as a whole unit. Eisenhardt and Bourgeois’ (1988) study

showed that the TMTs failed to develop natural, issue-based alliances when they were

characterized by political behavior. In addition, their study demonstrated that MTs with little

degree of politics had top leaders that were experienced as easy to cooperative with, human

oriented, pragmatic, team player and consensus oriented. They explain the results by saying

that politics takes time and attention away from the managers’ responsibilities. Politics were

also found to be information restricting, which created communication barriers making the

MTs more rigid and less flexible.

Organizational support. Complex and unsettled working environments are often

characterized by lack of organizational support and resources. Such environments have been

found to attract more political activity than environments that are not so political

characterized and favoritism often develops (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Poon, 2004; Vigoda,

2002). How employees view the support for and importance of teamwork in the organization

has been found to moderate the relationship between their perception of politics and

expressions of job satisfaction (Valle & Witt, 2001). Woodman and Sherwood (1980) found

that an emphasis on teamwork, which builds trust and cooperation, provides organizational

members with information about their fellow workers. When employees have knowledge of

coworker contributions, higher levels of trust are likely among coworkers (Banker, Field,


17

Schroeder, & Sinha, 1996), which may contribute to the cohesiveness of the team. Valle and

Witt’s (2001) findings revealed that among workers reporting moderate to high levels of

organizational politics, those reporting high levels of teamwork importance were more

satisfied than were those reporting low levels of teamwork importance. Consequently, an

emphasis on the importance of teamwork, including efforts to support teamwork behaviors

that will benefit cohesion, may increase the levels of job satisfaction among some employees

(Valle & Witt, 2001).

Commitment, withdrawal and stress. Other factors related to political behaviors are

also likely to decrease the level of team cohesion. Organizational politics has among others

been shown to negatively influence affective commitment (Chang et al., 2009), be a source of

withdrawal behavior (Cropanzano et al., 1997) and stress (e.g. Ferris, Frink, Gilmore, &

Kacmar, 1994) among workers. For example, low organizational commitment and displaying

of withdrawal behavior can make it difficult to interact with processes resulting in

cohesiveness. It may result in lower task commitment, and make it challenging to tie bonds

with other team members, or take pride in what the team does and accomplishes. Empirical

research have indicated that organizational politics have direct, moderated, and mediated

effects on stress-related outcomes (Perrewé, Rosen, & Maslach, 2012). Driskell, Driskell, and

Salas (2015) suggested that stress can result in a loss of team perspective and a shift to a

more narrow or individualistic self-focus which will impair social behavior. This is thought

to primary affect the “shared bond” component of cohesiveness. In addition, research has

documented a significant relationship between perceived stress and negative emotional state

and it is likely that the primary effect of increased negative emotion will be on the

interpersonal integration component of cohesiveness (Driskell et al., 2015). That is, increased

negative emotion may result in team members who are moody, angry, sullen, emotionally

unstable, and high-strung.

Mediation model

Consequently, earlier research indicates that political behavior alone does not

necessarily decrease team effectiveness. However, it might give rise to some mechanisms in

the team that affects other important factors that may be the reason for performance suffering

and individuals being less satisfied. When viewing politics as a destructive phenomenon, I

suggest that higher levels of political behavior within the team can influence some individual

and team factors negatively. Examples are increased frustration among some team members,


18

higher levels of stress and cynicism, lower levels of team cohesion and eventually poorer

levels of team effectiveness.

Consistent with theory, political behavior can have dysfunctional outcomes both at

the individual and organizational level, and it makes sense to elevate these outcomes to

concern a team level as well. Moreover, several meta-analyzes conducted on the relationship

between team cohesion and performance show a positive association. Even though no such

relationship has been shown empirically in the literature, earlier findings imply that there can

be a negative relationship between political behavior and team cohesion.

To explain how political behavior affects team effectiveness, a mediation model is

proposed, whereby political behavior is related to outcomes via the emergent state of team

cohesion.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model linking Political behavior and Team Effectiveness

Taken together, and in accordance with earlier literature, I suggest that political

behavior in MTs will have an adverse effect on MTs effectiveness by minimizing team

cohesion. In light of this, hypothesis 3a- and b is formulated:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Team cohesion mediates the relationship between political

behavior and task performance in management teams; that is, political behavior decreases

team cohesion, which in their turn decreases task performance.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Team cohesion mediates the relationship between political

behavior and team member satisfaction in management teams; that is, political behavior

decreases team cohesion, which in their turn decreases team member satisfaction.

Political Behavior

Team Cohesion

Team Effectiveness


19

Method

Self-report data from a sample of 155 management teams (80 Norwegian, 71 Danish

and 4 teams from other countries) from public and private sector, comprising 1083 managers,

was used to perform regression analysis using SSPS 22.0 and PROCESS 2.15.

Sample

The sample of 155 MTs included organizations from a broad range of sectors: health

care, consultancy, economy and finance, facility and support, industry, entertainment, public

administration, commercial service, transport, culture, energy and education. The respondents

were recruited through consultation and development work in Norway and Denmark.

The size of the MTs varied from large teams with 23 leaders to small teams of 3

leaders with an average MT size of 7 members. The majority of MTs comprised 4 to 6

persons. The distribution of gender was almost equal across MTs with a total percentage of

54% males and 46% females. In the present sample, 20% were top management teams, 41%

middle-level management teams and 39% lower-level management teams (level 3 or lower).

Procedure

The participants rated their respective management teams on several dimensions of

effectiveness. There was no systematic procedure of recruitment of the sample.

Approximately 40% of the MTs answered the survey as an introduction to a following

development course. The other 60% was asked to participate and be part of a research

project. All MTs received an email with a web link with invitation to answer the

questionnaire with a deadline of one week. The MTs that had not responded within the

deadline received an additional email with a reminder. All of the participants in the survey

received a written report after completion, containing management team scores and feedback

on the questionnaire results.

The mean response rate across management teams was 96.9%.

Measures

The scales used in this study come from a questionnaire called effect (Bang &

Midelfart, 2015), developed by Henning Bang and Thomas Nesset Midelfart, based on the

research described in their book “Effektive ledergrupper” (Bang & Midelfart, 2012) and in

Bang’s doctoral dissertation (Bang, 2010). Each measure consists of 5-8 questions on a 7-

point Likert scale, with the value of 7, indicating “totally agree”, 1 as “totally disagree”, and


20

4 as “neither agree nor disagree”. This study examines the measures of political behavior (5

questions), team cohesion (6 questions), task performance (8 questions) and team member

satisfaction (5 questions). Reliability of measures was estimated at individual levels by

Cronbach's alpha.

A complete overview of the items for each dimension with Cronbach’s alpha values is

presented in Appendix A.

Political behavior (PB) was operationalized as the degree of hidden agendas,

alliances and power struggles within the team, and the degree of withholding of information

and decisions made outside the team. The PB-scale was based on the study of political

behavior in management teams by Bourgeois III and Eisenhardt (1988), and included items

like: “Often matters which should have been addressed in the management team meeting are

decided outside the meeting”, and “Certain team members deliberately withhold information

that may be important for the management team”. PB was measured as a continuous variable

with five items on a seven point Likert scale, with the value 7 indicating the highest level of

political behavior within the team. Estimated reliability of PB was .80 (Cronbach's alpha).

Team cohesion (TC) was operationalized as the degree of team members exhibiting a

liking for each other, group pride and a commitment to the task (Mullen & Copper, 1994).

TC was measured as a continuous variable with six items on the same seven point Likert

scale, and included items like: “The management team members seem to really like one

another” and “The management team members rarely take an overall perspective on the

matters we discuss” (reversed). A value of 7 on the TC scale indicates the highest level of

cohesiveness. Estimated reliability of TC was .85 (Cronbach’s alpha).

Team member satisfaction (TMS) was operationalized as the degree to which

individual team members experience learning, well-being and motivation within the MT

(Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005, p. 376). The TMS-scale was based on theories and

research on management teams performed by Hackman (2002) and Wageman and colleges

(2008). TMS was measured as a continuous variable with five items on a seven point Likert

scale, with the value 7 indicating the highest level of team member satisfaction in the MT.

Two items included were: “Working in this management team contributes to my learning”,

and “I really enjoy working together with my management team colleagues”. Estimated

reliability of TMS was .87 (Cronbach's alpha).

Task performance (TP) was operationalized as the MTs ability to deliver high quality

performance results, which contributes to both an increased added value to the organization

and decision quality. TP was measured as a continuous variable with eight items on a seven


21

point Likert scale with the value of 7 indicating the highest level of task performance in the

MT. Two items included were: “Our management team is very successful in its efforts”, and

“The vast majority of decisions made by the management team turn out to be beneficial for

the organization”. Estimated reliability of TP was .89 (Cronbach's alpha).

Reliability is an estimate of “true score variance” - i.e. the amount of variance in an

observed indicator that is explained by variance in a latent construct. A Cronbach's alpha

value of .80 (PB) indicates that 80% of the variability in the scores represents the construct of

interest, and 20% is considered as random measurement error. All scales had satisfying alpha

values (ranging from .80 to .89), meeting commonly used criteria for acceptable reliability

(Kline, 2000; Nunnally, 1978).

Possible confounding variables. In the analyses, two possible confounding variables

were controlled for: management team size (MTS) and management team level (MTL). Team

size itself might be a source of confrontations, large group effects and logistical issues

(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Large teams might have greater likelihood of fostering negative

group effect like social loafing or free rider effects (Cornes & Sandler, 1996; Karau &

Williams, 1993). Such negative group effects can harm team performance and satisfaction.

Large management teams may also face more challenges with creating an effectiveness

climate with collective engagement than small management teams. In the present sample,

there was substantial variability in management team size – MTS ranging from 3 to 23 team

members, calling for the effect of team size to be controlled for. MTS was measured simply

as the number of team members in each management team (M=6.99, SD=3.33).

Additionally, management team level (MTL) was used as a control variable. Some

have suggested that higher-level management teams differ from lower level management

teams in longer decision making processes (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Presumably, members of a

top management team might be more motivated to make effective and good decisions in light

of their pivotal role in the organization. For instance, Hambrick (1994) highlights how the

role of top management teams is different to lower level management teams with regards to

their higher-level responsibilities in context of accountability of the key-decision making

processes. Hence, differences in responsibility and position through level of management can

have an effect on team outcomes, which needs to be controlled for. MTL was measured as a

quasi-continuous variable on a three point scale with items involving 1 as top management

teams, value 2 as level 2 of management and value 3 as level 3 or lower of management

team.


22

Aggregation

This study examines political behavior, cohesion and team effectiveness on team

level. It is conceptually meaningful to view team effects on a group level when cohesion

emerges as a product of members’ interaction (Marks et al., 2001) and when political

behavior is reflected as influential activities and tactics like building coalitions and

withholding information from others (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988). Additionally, team

performance as a product of team members’ interactions, is conceptually meaningful to

investigate on an aggregated level.

To appropriately aggregate data to investigate such effects on a group level, two

conditions must be satisfied: There must be substantial variability in aggregated scores, and

management team members must show substantial agreement in perceptions of team

characteristics. To examine variability between teams and agreement among team members,

Eta Squared and inter-rater agreement based measures such as rwg were calculated and

compared to threshold values. All of the rwg values were in the range of .64-.73. James,

Demaree, and Wolf (1984) recommend .70 as a cutoff for within-team interrater agreement,

while other researchers (e.g., Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993) suggests that values of

.50 and above can be used. All of the Eta-Squared values (η2) were in the range of .33-.42,

meaning for example that 42% of the variation in political behavior can be explained by

differences between management teams. It is recommended to have η2-coeffisients above .20

to argue for substantial variability in scores (Georgopoulos, 1986). Agreement among team

members and variability between teams are shown in table 1, in addition to reliability for

aggregated scores estimated by intraclass correlations (ICC(2)).

Table 1.

Inter-rater agreement, variability between teams and reliability of aggregated scores Variables rwg η2 ICC(2)

Political behavior .63 .42 .71 Team cohesion .65 .39 .68 Task performance .73 .37 .64 Team member satisfaction .62 .33 .58

Statistical analyses

The assumptions of normality and linearity were examined for all measures, and


23

multivariate normality was examined by Mahalanobis distances. Mahalanobis distance is

based on a chi-square distribution and provides indications of which cases may be

multivariate outliers. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) propose a critical value of Mahalanobis

distance to be 13.82, when the analysis has two or more independent variables. All teams

were found to be in the range of the critical value, with the maximum Mahalanobis distance

of 9.84. The final sample compromised 155 management teams with no missing data. To

examine the proposed hypotheses about direct effects, ordinary multiple regression analyses

were performed in SPSS and examination of mediated effects were performed using

PROCESS.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics with means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and zero-

order correlations among all study variables are provided in table 2. As presented in table 2,

political behavior is negatively and significantly correlated with task performance (r = -.64, p

< .01) and team member satisfaction (r = -.59, p < .01), which offer support to H1. Political

behavior is also negatively correlated with team cohesion (r = -.71, p < .01). Team cohesion

is positively and significantly correlated with both task performance (r = .80, p < .01) and

team member satisfaction (r = .77, p < .01), which offers support to H2 and is consistent with

prior findings (e.g., Beal et al., 2003).

Table 2.

Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha), means, standard deviations and zero-order

correlations (N=155).

Note. ** p < .01.

Variables α M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Management team size - 6,99 3,33 - 2. Level of management - 2,19 0,75 -.16 - 3. Political behavior .80 2,61 0,87 .29** -.12 - 4. Team cohesion .85 5,34 0,82 -.26** .13 -.71** - 5. Task performance .89 5,35 0,66 -.29** .10 -.64** .80** - 6. Team member satisfaction .87 5,44 0,79 -.14 .00 -.59** .77** .75**


24

Examination of direct effects through multiple regression analysis

To investigate H1a and H1b, and H2a and H2b, predicting a relationship between

political behavior and team outcomes, and team cohesion and team outcomes, multiple

regression analysis was conducted. The controlling variables, MTS and MTL were run in step

1, and the predictor variable was additionally included in step 2.

Table 3.

Regression analysis: Direct effect of Political behavior on team outcomes

Predictor: Political behavior Task performance Team member satisfaction Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Constant 5.621** 6.683** 5.729** 6.989 Management team size -.28** -.11 -.14 .02 Management team level .06 .01 -.02 -.07 Political behavior -.61** -.60** Adjusted R2 .075** .414** .007 .337** F 7.267** 37.205** 1.552 27.035** ΔR2 .338** .329** Note. All numbers in each columns are standardized β-coefficients, ** p < .01.

Table 4.

Regression analysis: Direct effect of Team cohesion on team outcomes

Predictor: Team cohesion Task performance Team member satisfaction Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Constant 5.621** 2.158** 5.729** 1.484** Management team size -.28** -.09 -.14 .05 Management team level .06 -.01 -.02 -.09 Team cohesion .78** .80** Adjusted R2 .075** .642** .007 .596** F 7.267** 92.922** 1.552 76.811** ΔR2 .561** .584** Note. All numbers in each columns are standardized β-coefficients, ** p < .01.

As shown in table 3, hypothesis 1a and 1b, predicting a negative association between

political behavior and task performance (β = -.61, p < .01) and between political behavior and

team member satisfaction (β = -.60, p < .01), was fully supported. Hypothesis 2a and 2b,

predicting a positive relationship between team cohesion and task performance (β = .78, p <


25

.01) and between team cohesion and team member satisfaction (β = .80, p < .01), was also

fully supported as evident in table 4.

Possible confounding variables. Management team size and management team level

had no effect on task performance or team member satisfaction in regards to the proposed

relationships as shown from step 2 in the table.

Examination of mediated effects using PROCESS.

PROCESS was used to investigate H3a and H3b, predicting that the relationship

between political behavior and task performance and political behavior and team member

satisfaction is mediated by team cohesion. The variables were run in model 4, basic

mediation (Hayes, 2013). Management team size and management team level was included

as covariates in the analysis.

Figure 2 illustrates the simplest of all intervening variable models, the simple

mediation model (Hayes, 2009). In this model, a is the coefficient for X in a model predicting

X on M. b and c′ are the coefficients predicting both M and X on Y, respectively. In the

language of path analysis, c′ quantifies the direct effect of X, whereas the product

of a and b quantifies the indirect effect of X on Y through M. The direct effect is interpreted

as the part of the effect of X on Y that is independent of the pathway through M. The indirect

effect is interpreted as the amount by which two cases who differ by one unit on X are

expected to differ on Y through X's effect on M, which in turn affects Y. If all three variables

are observed, then the total effect of X on Y is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect

effects of X: c = c′ + ab. This relationship can be rewritten as ab = c – c′, which provides

another definition of the indirect effect. The indirect effect is the difference between the total

effect of X on Y and the effect of X on Y controlling for M, the direct effect.

Figure 2.

Generic mediation model being examined

M TC

a b

c′ X Y


26

Results from PROCESS examining the mediated effect of political behavior on task

performance and team member satisfaction are shown below.

Note. PB = Political behavior, TC = Team cohesion, TP = Task performance, * p < .05, ** p < .01 Figure 3.

Mediated effect of Political behavior on Task performance

Table 5.

Regression coefficients from mediation analysis predicting Task performance

b SE R2 F Control variables Management team size -.02 .01 Management team level .01 .05 Path a Political behavior à Team cohesion -.65** .06 Path b Team cohesion à Task performance .55** .05 Total effect of political behavior (path c) -.46** .05 Direct effect of political behavior (path c’) -.11* .05 Model summary .43** 37.2** Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient.* p < .05. ** p < .01.

PB

TC TC

TP

a

c′

b = .55** b = -.65**

b = -.11*

b


27

Note. PB = Political behavior, TC = Team cohesion, TMS = Team member satisfaction, ** p < .01.

Figure 4.

Mediated effect of Political behavior on Team member satisfaction

Table 6.

Regression coefficients from mediation analysis predicting Team member satisfaction

b SE R2 F Control variables Management team size .01 .02 Management team level -.08 .07 Path a Political behavior à Team cohesion -.65** .06 Path b Team cohesion à Team member satisfaction .70** .07 Total effect of political behavior (path c) -.55** .06 Direct effect of political behavior (path c’) -.10 .07 Model summary .35** 27.0** Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Indirect effects and significance tests. The indirect effect can be estimated by the

product of coefficients a and b in figure 2, or by the change in coefficient c when the

unconditioned effect of a causal variable is controlled for the mediator. For example, the

indirect effect of PB on TMS in figure 4, may be estimated as -.65*.70 = -.45, or -.55 - -.10 =

-.45.

PB

TC TC

TMS

b

c′

b = .70** b = -.65**

b = -.10

a


28

The "Sobel test" has been extensively used as significance test of mediated effects.

However, it has been criticized, as it requires strong assumptions, like normal sampling

distribution of indirect effect, which often are not satisfied. Competing tests are available that

do not make this assumption and that are known to be more powerful than the Sobel test. At

present, a bootstrap approach is commonly preferred, as generated through PROCESS.

Bootstrapping generates an empirical representation of the sampling distribution of

the indirect effect by treating the obtained sample of size as a representation of the population

in miniature, one that is repeatedly resampled during analysis as a means of mimicking the

original sampling process. Once a resample is constructed, a and b are estimated this

resampled data set and the product of the path coefficients recorded. This process is repeated

for a total of times (typically at least 1000 is recommended).

An inference is made about the size of the indirect effect in the population sampled by

using the estimates to generate a ci% confidence interval. If zero is not between the lower and

upper bound of a ci% confidence interval, then the indirect effect is not zero with ci%

confidence. This is conceptually the same as rejecting the null hypothesis that the true

indirect effect is zero at the 100 ci% level of significance.

Simulation research shows that bootstrapping is one of the more valid and powerful

methods for testing intervening variable effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;

Williams & MacKinnon, 2008).

Table 7.

Indirect effects and Bootstrap results

95% CI Estimate SE Lower Upper Indirect effect of political behavior on task

performance

-.35 .05 -.46 -.25

Indirect effect of political behavior on team

member satisfaction -.45 .08 -.60 -.30

Note. Standard errors and confidence intervals estimated by 1000 bootstrap replications.

As evident from table 7, bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect

effects based on 1000 bootstrap samples were entirely below zero, providing full support

hypothesis 3a and 3b. Political behavior has a negative indirect effect on task performance,


29

through team cohesion (b = -.35, CI95% = -.46 to -.25), and a negative indirect effect on team

member satisfaction, through team cohesion (b = -.45, CI95% = -.60 to -.30).

Discussion

In this study, comprising 155 management teams, the main aim was to investigate to

which extent political behavior influences task performance and team member satisfaction,

and whether this relationship is mediated through team cohesion.

A negative and significant relationship between political behavior and team outcomes

was found; when team members engage in political behavior, it can influence team outcomes

in a negative way and decrease team effectiveness. This is in line with earlier research on

political behavior in management teams. The decrease in team effectiveness accompanying

political behavior, have been explained by actions managers engage in that are intended to

protect or promote self-interests, like withholding information, deciding matters outside

meetings and forming alliances. These actions suggest that political behavior may trigger a

negative working environment that leads to lower team effectiveness.

In addition, a positive and significant relationship between team cohesion and team

outcomes was found; a team that is cohesive influence team outcomes in a positive manner

and are more effective. This is in line with several meta-analyses examining the relationship

between team cohesion and performance. When team members exhibit a liking for each other

it is more likely that they will feel satisfied. In addition, team members that are willing to

exert themselves for the tasks are also more likely to perform better.

To explore how political behavior influences team outcomes, this study examined if

the effect of political behavior on task performance and team member satisfaction could be

explained through the fact that political behavior diminish team cohesion, and that this effect

contribute to the negative effect of political behavior on team outcomes. Political behavior

was found to have a significant negative indirect effect on task performance and team

member satisfaction through its effect on team cohesion. The fact that the indirect effects are

substantially negative indicates that political behavior is one important factor when regarding

teams’ effectiveness. The decrease in effectiveness implies that engaging in political behavior

is harmful for the team through its negative influence on the level of team cohesion.

Management teams characterized by political behavior leads to difficulties for team members

exerting themselves, feel group-pride or like each other, which in turn decrease performance

and satisfaction.


30

The correlations among the variables show that the control variables had different

impacts. Management team size was, as expected, found to be significantly negatively

associated with task performance, but not with team member satisfaction. Team size may

negatively influence task performance, but not necessarily affect team members’ feelings of

satisfaction. Level of management team was not found to have a significant impact on any of

the outcome variables. However, when including the variables as covariates in the analysis,

they had no impact on team outcomes. The insignificant relationship between management

team size and team outcomes and the insignificant relationship between management team

level and team outcomes indicates that the effect of political behavior and team cohesion is

not affected by team size or team level.

Contribution to theory and future directions

This study has taken steps to explore a missing link in the literature about how

political behavior in management teams influences team effectiveness through decreased

levels of team cohesion. This relationship within teams has earlier been positioned

theoretically with a need for empirical examination. While most research on organizational

politics has concentrated on the influence politics has on the individual in the organization or

on the organization as a whole, it has largely overlooked the role organizational politics plays

at the team level. This is evident both within the team and in the external activities of the

team. Moreover, this study is one of few empirical studies examining political behavior in a

management team setting. Considering the arguments that political behavior is common

among managers who have power to influence central decisions, there is certainly a need for

an understanding on how this affects team effectiveness. Finally, research on teams has

mainly focused on team processes influencing the effectiveness of teams, but has largely

missed the impact internal organizational politics can exert on team effectiveness. Political

behavior as a team-level process is likely to impact team-level performance or emergent

states such as team cohesion, as this study has shown. Team cohesion studies examining the

consequences of cohesion outnumber those examining antecedents, partly because of the

difficulty of isolating those antecedents that are independent of the group. Thus, much less is

known about cohesion’s antecedents (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Kozlowski & Ilgen,

2006). This study contributes to the understanding of antecedents of team cohesion.

Political behavior in teams can also affect outcomes at the organizational level, in

addition to harm team outcomes. Therefore, the political behavior and style of the team

leader are important issues when discussing organizational politics. The research conducted


31

to this date indicates that politically skilled leaders are associated with more effective

performance (e.g., Ferris et al., 2005). However, the relationship between the political

behavior of the leader and the political behavior of the team has yet to be examined. Do

highly political leaders create highly political teams? Or are teams with highly political

leaders low in internal political behavior because the leader dominates all power issues?

Further research must begin to examine the antecedents and consequences of political

behavior in teams as well as the conditions and circumstances that may affect the political

behavior-effectiveness relationships. Uncovering some of the missing links in this direction

with political behavior and teams can contribute to the generalization power of the field and

its scholarly robustness, which might point to promising paths for future empirical research.

How management teams can become more effective

As shown in this study, a management team engaging in political behavior cannot

ignore the likelihood of decreasing cohesiveness. Management teams can become effective if

they are able to avoid using political behavior or deal successfully with it when it occurs.

Management teams that are capable of not using political tactics and actions to influence

decisions may perceive their teams as having constructive and positive team processes and

group experiences. Teams characterized by little politics might create a more open

environment where important issues are openly discussed, therefore making team members

more equipped to make high qualitative decisions. Furthermore, they may additionally feel

satisfied with high levels of positive emotions from being cohesive, as a sign of good team

functioning. Several implications for management teams are suggested to become more

effective.

Organizational justice. Team members may engage in political behavior when there

is unequal distribution of resources, and these kinds of behaviors are often not sanctioned

(Mayes & Allen, 1977). One measure to reduce politics will be to sanction behaviors of

political character that are negative for effectiveness. This will also create more justice in the

team, and several researches have suggested that organizational politics and organizational

justice share an underlying mutual construct (e.g., Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). Inflexible and

impersonal policies and procedures can make managers engage in political behavior as an

attempt to restore control. Team members may then try to “destructure” procedures in an

attempt to develop satisfying work environment for the team. That is, they use political

actions to create or maintain justice (Dipboye, 1995). Justice then becomes a way to manage

dysfunctional politics. If team members perceive that justice is optimal, they may not feel the


32

need to have hidden agendas or withhold information from other team members, and in that

way be more effective. Additionally, justice is found to be a predictor of trust and justly

treated employees are more likely to show extra care and behave altruistically toward others

(Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). If team members are justly treated, they will

more likely exert themselves for the success of the team, rather than withholding information

to secure resources.

Leaders concerned with improving the effectiveness of their teams should make

efforts to foster a favorable justice climate. This can be done in a variety of ways, from

providing members more involvement into key decisions, to providing opportunities to

appeal decisions, to making decisions consistently and neutrally. Past research has shown that

managers can be trained to make decisions in a more procedurally just manner as a means of

improving subordinate behavior (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). Justice training may be

particularly necessary for teams lacking collective members.

Participative decision-making and goal congruence. Employees may be less

affected by political behavior if they have feelings of control and an understanding of events

at work (Ferris et al., 1996; Ferris, Frink, et al., 1994). Managers are well positioned to

address negative impacts of politics by explaining relevant issues, set direction, directly

address resistance to their efforts, act quickly, and take follow-up action. This assertion is

also supported by Witt, Andrews, and Kacmar (2000), that one way to address the negative

impact of organizational politics is for the leader to engage in participative decision making

(PDM) with his/her subordinates. PDM has been suggested as a method of increasing job

satisfaction as it provides employees with a feeling of control, which makes them feel less

threatened (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). Team members, who actively engage in

discussion about important issues and, as a result, develop a consensus to resolve the issues,

might be less characterized by political behavior as a team. Team members are likely to view

the leader making the decision as more fair and appropriate than a process characterized by

self-serving or political behavior. Thus, by formulating a decision outcome after hearing

others’ views, the management team can promote the decision quality and implementation

commitment essential to team effectiveness.

Furthermore, several researchers (e.g., Ferris & Treadway, 1989; Witt, 1998) have

showed that enhancing goal congruence could be a solution to organizational politics. Both

perceptions of politics and actual goal congruence have been shown to have interactive

effects on organizational commitment and job performance (Witt, 1998). When team

members have different priorities it can be difficult to understand the core goal of the team.


33

This lack of understanding might adversely affect performance, as team members act on low-

priority goals. Therefore, increasing understanding and decreasing politics may be good for

team effectiveness. One way to address the negative impact of political behavior is for the

MT leader to ensure that the other team members hold the appropriate goal priorities. By

doing so, team members will have a greater sense of control over and understanding of the

workplace.

Knowing the priorities can decrease the impact of politics on performance not only by

supplying appropriate strategic or tactical direction but also by providing a sense of security

when levels of politics are high. This sense of security may take two forms. One is a feeling

that effort directed toward pursuit of those objectives will be rewarded. The other involves a

reduced risk of being visible in the pursuit of objectives, including cooperating openly with

others. Ultimately, a concerted decision provides both joint ownership and understanding,

which may generate feelings of security and protection in a political environment (Witt et al.,

2000). Furthermore, these feelings can contribute to increased cohesiveness within the team.

Team psychological safety. Teams with greater power centralization are less likely

to perceive the environment as safe for interpersonal risk (Edmondson et al., 2003). Low

level of psychological safety can make team members feel uncomfortable revealing uniquely

held information. They may become preoccupied with concerns about the risk of sharing

information and withhold important information, which can be perceived as securing own

interests. Team members might also have a concern for not confirming the existing views

within the group. In contrast, team members are more likely to share information if the

climate fosters tolerance and acceptance, and the psychological safety is perceived as high.

Greater psychological safety may enhance team members to identify opportunities for mutual

gains by being open about their own interests and objectives, rather than defending their own

interests. Additionally, risk taking is found to be a component that relates to the cohesion of

the group (Stokes, 1983).

To benefit from being a cohesive team and prevent the negative effects of political

behavior from occurring, management teams should try to improve conditions for risk taking,

team member interaction and bonding, through a safe team environment. Teams that enhance

team psychological safety and focus specifically on having an open environment and

collaborative interactions, may buffer the negative effects of politics by maintaining

cohesion. Management teams which provide team psychological safety (i.e. safety of

interpersonal risk-taking) and behavioral integration, might feel less of a need to use political

behavior and be more cohesive when they have team trust, meet on a regularly basis,


34

empathize collaboration and make decisions in plenary. Powerful leaders can take actions

that create psychological safety, such as acknowledging their own mistakes, actively inviting

others’ ideas, and communicating a genuine interest in open discussion and experimentation

(Edmondson et al., 2003).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations of the study. First, due to the use of self-reports and

a cross-sectional approach, there are some difficulties with regards to causality. Some of the

relationships may be reciprocal and causal over time. For instance, low effectiveness in itself

can make it essential for team members to engage in political behavior to secure

performance. Moreover, highly performing teams can be characterized as being more

cohesive. In addition, team cohesion is commonly described as an emergent state that evolves

over time (Marks et al., 2001). Future research in more controlled settings might have a

greater chance to determine causality and offer more support to these results. Second, the

likelihood of having common-method variance is high, due to all the variables in the survey

being obtained from the same source, measured at the same time, and because the same

participants answered all questions. This can, for instance, create artificial correlations among

variables.

Third, task performance was measured through self- report, which implies the teams’

experience of achieved task performance and not real objective measures of task

performance. The results are not able to show that the perceptual measures of task

performance are predictors of objective or “real” measures of task performance. Fourth, the

measurement-scales used from the survey effect, is developed based on research conducted

on management teams in Scandinavia. A more precise measurement could be obtained if this

study used well-known and validated scale measurements, for instance POPS (Kacmar &

Ferris, 1991) for perception of politics. Measurement of political behavior in this study

actually measures manager’s perception of how much the team is characterized by politics,

and may not capture the true degree of political behavior among team members or one self.

Finally, one may also benefit from controlling for other possible covariates, such as gender,

tenure, level of experience and diversity in future studies. Since the sample of this study was

restricted to include management teams only, the results from this study cannot be

generalized to other populations.


35

Conclusion

It is necessary to have an understanding of the effects of political behavior in the

context of management teams in order to avoid negative team outcomes. The supported

mediation effects explain one important thing; decreased cohesiveness is one possible

important reason why political behavior is negatively associated with task performance and

team member satisfaction in management teams. These findings suggests that a negative

indirect effect of political behavior on team outcomes should be discussed in the light of

diminished emergent states, like cohesion, and negative emotions and environment that may

be provoked in a context characterized by politics. Management teams can benefit from being

cohesive if they are capable of keeping political behavior to a minimum. By reducing

political behavior and creating better conditions for team member interaction resulting in

cohesion, management teams can become more effective.


36

References

Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004).

Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of management, 30(3), 309-327.

doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.004

Albert, R. S. (1953). Comments on the Scientific Function of the Concept of Cohesiveness.

American Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 231-234. doi: 10.1086/221325

Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979).

Organizational Politics - Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors. California

management review, 22(1), 77-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41164852

Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among organizational politics,

justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(4), 347-366. doi: DOI

10.1002/job.92

Bang, H. (2010). Effektivitet i ledergrupper: en studie av sammenhengen mellom

gruppeprosesser og teameffektivitet i ledermøter.

Bang, H., & Midelfart, T. N. (2012). Effektive ledergrupper: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS.

Bang, H., & Midelfart, T. N. (2015). Description of factors measured in effect. Department of

Psychology, University of Oslo.

Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Sinha, K. K. (1996). Impact of work teams

on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(4), 867-890. doi: 10.2307/256715

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and

performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J Appl

Psychol, 88(6), 989-1004. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

Bourgeois III, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity

environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management science, 34(7),

816-835. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.7.816

Buchanan, D. (2008). You stab my back, I'll stab yours: Management experience and

perceptions of organization political behaviour. British Journal of Management,

19(1), 49-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00533.x

Buchanan, D., Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1999). Organisation development and change: the

legacy of the nineties. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(2), 20-37. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.tb00194.x

Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics - Mechanisms of Institutional Change. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 6(3), 257-281. doi: 10.2307/2390703


37

Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment

of the group cohesion–performance literature. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 11(2), 223-246. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x

Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The Relationship between Perceptions of

Organizational Politics and Employee Attitudes, Strain, and Behavior: A Meta-

Analytic Examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779-801. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670894

Cheng, J. L. (1983). Organizational context and upward influence: An experimental study of

the use of power tactics. Group & Organization Management, 8(3), 337-355. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960118300800310

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice

at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice

research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425-445. doi: 10.1037//0021-

9010.86.3.425

Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods

(2nd ed.): Cambridge University Press.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of

organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159-180. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-

1379(199703)18:2%3C159::aid-job795%3E3.0.co;2-d

Daft, R. (2014). The Leadership Experience: Cengage Learning.

de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-

analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 97(2), 360. doi: 10.1037/a0024844

Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic

decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368-392.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256784

Dipboye, R. L. (1995). How politics can destructure human resources management in the

interest of empowerment, support, and justice Organizational politics, justice, and

support: Managing social climate of the workplace (Vol. 5580).

Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2015). Mitigating Stress Effects on Team Cohesion

Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological Theory, Methods and Practice (pp. 247-

270): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


38

Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2003). A dynamic model of top

management team effectiveness: managing unstructured task streams. Leadership

Quarterly, 14(3), 297-325. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00021-3

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case-Study Research. Academy of

management review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: Doi 10.2307/258557

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of Strategic Decision-Making in High-

Velocity Environments - toward a Midrange Theory. Academy of Management

Journal, 31(4), 737-770. doi: 10.2307/256337

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance a meta-analysis. Small

group research, 22(2), 175-186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002

Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organization. Academy

of management review, 7(3), 403-412. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285337

Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer, S., & Bettenhausen, K. (2008). The contribution of positive

politics to the prediction of employee reactions. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 38(1), 76-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00297.x

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002).

Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions Research in

Multi Level Issues.

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial

behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4(1), 1-34. doi: 10.1016/1053-

4822(94)90002-7

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996).

Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and

outcomes. Human Relations, 49(2), 233-266. doi: 10.1177/001872679604900206

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Gilmore, D. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (1994). Understanding as an

antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor 1.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(13), 1204-1220. doi:


Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2011). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck & A.

American Psychological (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology : Vol. 3 : Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp.

435-459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


39

Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway,

D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources

systems. Research in personnel and human resources management, 21, 65-128. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0742-7301(02)21002-6

Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of Organizational Politics. Journal of

management, 18(1), 93-116. doi: 10.1177/014920639201800107

Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in Human-Resources Decisions - a Walk on the

Dark Side. Organizational Dynamics, 20(2), 59-71. doi: 10.1016/0090-

2616(91)90072-H

Ferris, G. R., Russ, G., & Fandt, P. (1989). Politics in organizations in RA Giacalone & P.

Rosenfield (Eds.): Impression management in the organization: NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Ferris, G. R., & Treadway, D. C. (1989). Politics in Organizations.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J.,

Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill

inventory. Journal of management, 31(1), 126-152. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386

Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic

bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 195-206. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.004

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups : a study

of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.

Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role

conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25(1), 154-177. doi:


Forsyth, D. (2005). Group Dynamics: Cengage Learning.

Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-425. doi:

10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625

Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The Experience of Workplace Politics. Academy of

Management Journal, 23(2), 237-251. doi: 10.2307/255429

Georgopoulos, B. S. (1986). Organizational structure, problem solving, and effectiveness: A

comparative study of hospital emergency services: Jossey-Bass.

González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). The impact of group

process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in


40

Human Behavior, 19(5), 629-648. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0747-

5632(02)00084-5

Greer, L. L. (2012). Group Cohesion: Then and Now. Small group research, 43(6), 655-661.

doi: 10.1177/1046496412461532

Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and

performance effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small group

research, 26(4), 497-520. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496495264003

Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the

relationship between team leadership and performance. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 17(4), 335-350. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051809359184

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups:

Articulating a construct. British journal of social psychology, 32(1), 87-106. doi:


Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams : setting the stage for great performances. Boston,

Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Katz, N. (2010). Group behavior and performance. Handbook of social

psychology. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002032

Hambrick, D. C. (1994). CEOs Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (Vol. 11).

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New

Millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420. doi: Pii 917285720

10.1080/03637750903310360

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach: Guilford Press.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89-106. doi:

10.1002/job.181

Hochwarter, W. A. (2003). The Interactive Effects of Pro‐Political Behavior and Politics

Perceptions on Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment1. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 33(7), 1360-1378. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2003.tb01953.x

Howes, J. C., Citera, M., & Cropanzano, R. S. (1995). Total quality teams: how

organizational politics and support impact the effectiveness of quality improvement


41

teams Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of

the workplace (pp. 165-184).

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-Group Interrater

Reliability with and without Response Bias. Journal of applied psychology, 69(1), 85-

98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of

value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup

outcomes. International journal of conflict management, 8(4), 287-305. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022799

Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to

related processes, and an agenda for future research Research in human resources

management, Vol. 17 (pp. 1-39). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS):

Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological measurement,

51(1), 193-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and

theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams: Harvard Business Press.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with

performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4),

528-542. doi: 10.2307/2392642

Kline, P. (2000). The Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and

teams. Psychological science in the public interest, 7(3), 77-124. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-

1006.2006.00030.x

Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable (Vol. 13): John

Wiley & Sons.

Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Harry, W. (1985). What do successful managers really

do? An observation study of managerial activities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 21(3), 255-270. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638502100303


42

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the

indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate

behavioral research, 39(1), 99-128. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980).

Organizational politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations,


Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review, 26(3), 356-376. doi:

10.5465/Amr.2001.4845785

Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human

resource and management strategies: Jossey-Bass.

Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy

of management review, 2(4), 672-678. doi:


Miller, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of organizational

politics: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3),

209-222. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9061-5

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations (Vol. 142): Prentice-Hall

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Mintzberg, H. (1985). The Organization as Political Arena. Journal of management studies,

22(2), 133-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00069.x

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The Relation between Group Cohesiveness and

Performance - an Integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210-227. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nutt, P. C. (1993). The Formulation Processes and Tactics Used in Organizational Decision-

Making. Organization Science, 4(2), 226-251. doi: 10.1287/orsc.4.2.226

Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of Organizational Politics

- an Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of management, 21(5),

891-912. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100505

Perrewé, P. L., Rosen, C. C., & Maslach, C. (2012). Organizational Politics and Stress: The

Development of a Process Model.

Pettigrew, A. M. (2014). The politics of organizational decision-making: Routledge.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations (Vol. 33): Pitman Marshfield, MA.


43

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding Power in Organizations. California management review,

34(2), 29-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511626562.003

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource

dependence approach. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

Poon, J. M. L. (2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and

turnover intention. Personnel review, 33(3), 322-334. doi:

10.1108/00483480410528850

Porter, L., Allen, R., & Angle, H. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations.

L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 109-149.

Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C., & Birjulin, A. (1994). The relationship of

organizational politics and organizational support to employee attitudes and

behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,

Dallas, TX.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor

union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of applied psychology, 81(2),

161. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.161

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Obannon, P., & Scully, J. A. (1994).

Top Management Team Demography and Process - the Role of Social Integration and

Communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412-438. doi:

10.2307/2393297

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion intermember attraction, instrumental

value, and risk taking. Small group research, 14(2), 163-173. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649648301400203

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.): Boston: Pearson

Education.

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team

Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group &

Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205. doi: 10.1177/1059601108331218

Temkin-Greener, H., Gross, D., Kunitz, S. J., & Mukamel, D. (2004). Measuring

interdisciplinary team performance in a long-term care setting. Medical care, 42(5),

472-481. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000124306.28397.e2

Thompson, B. M., Haidet, P., Borges, N. J., Carchedi, L. R., Roman, B. J., Townsend, M. H.,

. . . Levine, R. E. (2015). Team cohesiveness, team size and team performance in

team-based learning teams. Med Educ, 49(4), 379-385. doi: 10.1111/medu.12636


44

Valle, M., & Witt, L. A. (2001). The moderating effect of teamwork perceptions on the

organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology,

141(3), 379-388. doi: 10.1080/00224540109600559

Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and

implications for the public sector. Journal of vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326-347.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1742

Vigoda, E. (2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross-cultural examination in Israel

and Britain. Human Relations, 54(11), 1483-1518. doi: 10.1177/00187267015411004

Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress‐related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among

politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 571-591. doi: 10.1002/job.160

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2003). Developments in organizational politics: How political dynamics

affect employee performance in modern work sites: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Voyer, J. J. (1994). Coercive organizational politics and organizational outcomes: An

interpretive study. Organization Science, 5(1), 72-85.

Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey development

of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373-398. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886305281984

Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Senior leadership

teams: What it takes to make them great: Harvard Business School Press Boston, MA.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of management,


Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product

methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation

Modeling, 15(1), 23-51. doi: 10.1080/10705510701758166

Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational

politics. Journal of applied psychology, 83(4), 666. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.666

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-

making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations,

53(3), 341-358. doi: 10.1177/0018726700533003


45

Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Zivnuska, S. (2002). Interactive effects of

personality and organizational politics on contextual performance. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 911-926. doi: 10.1002/job.172

Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). The Role of Team Development in

Organizational-Effectiveness - a Critical-Review. Psychological bulletin, 88(1), 166-

186. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.88.1.166

Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent Associations between Forms of Cohesiveness and

Group-Related Outcomes - Evidence for Multidimensionality. Journal of Social

Psychology, 131(3), 387-399. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1991.9713865

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5


46

Appendix A

Table 1. Summary of survey scales and items

Items SD α ICC(2)

Political behavior 1. Often matters which should have been addressed in

the management team meeting are decided outside the meeting.

2. Some members of the management team have hidden agendas.

3. There are coalitions or alliances between some of the management team members.

4. Certain team members deliberately withhold information that may be important for the management team

5. There are few power struggles between the members of our management team (-).

0,87

.80

.71

Team cohesion 1. Our management team is not particularly cohesive (-). 2. I feel proud to belong to this management team. 3. There are not many team members who would be

willing to exert themselves for the success of this management team (-).

4. The management team members seem to really like one another.

5. The management team members rarely take an overall perspective on the matters we discuss (-).

6. The management team is a tightly knit group of people.

0,82 .85 .68

Task performance 1. Our management team is very successful in its

efforts. 2. Our management team does not perform well as a

team (-). 3. You are given useful input when you bring up an

issue in the management team. 4. We receive positive feedback on our performance as

a management team. 5. It is difficult to see what added value the management

team contributes to our organization (-). 6. We consistently make high quality decisions in our

management team.

0,66 .89 .64


47

7. The vast majority of decisions made by the management team turn out to be beneficial for the organization.

8. Those affected by the decisions of the management team are generally very satisfied with the decisions we make.

Team member satisfaction 1. I develop my professional competencies by

participating in this management team. 2. Working in this management team contributes to my

learning. 3. I really enjoy working together with my management

team colleagues. 4. Being part of this management team has had little

impact on my development as a leader (-). 5. I get a lot of energy from our management team

meetings.

0,79 .87 .58

Documents

The Relationship between Political Behavior and Team