Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice

About the Editors

Dr Jonathan Houdmont BSc PGCE MSc PhD is a Lecturer in Occupational Health Psychology and Director of the Workplace Health & Wellbeing postgraduate studies program in the Institute of Work, Health and Organisations (IWHO) at the University of Nottingham, UK. His current research interests focus on measurement and intervention issues in relation to work-related stress and psychosocial risk, and workplace health promotion. He is co-editor of Occupational Health Psychology, also published by Wiley-Blackwell and currently the discipline's sole student textbook. Further information about Jonathan and his work can be found at www.nottingham.ac.uk/iwho/people/jonathan.houdmont

Dr Stavroula Leka is an Associate Professor in Occupational Health Psychology at I-WHO and Director of its programme of work for the World Health Organization. Her primary research interests are the translation of occupational health and safety knowledge and policy into practice, and psychosocial risk management. She has been awarded an early career achievement award in occupational health psychology by the American Psychological Association, US NIOSH and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. She is Chair of the Education Forum of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Further information about Stavroula and her work can be found at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iwho/people/stavroula.leka

Dr Robert R. Sinclair is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Clemson University. He is a founding member and Past-President of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and a current Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Dr Sinclair's research focuses on occupational health concerns faced by retail employees, military personnel, and nurses, and covers topics such as economic stress, leadership and mental health, work scheduling, personal resilience, and safety. Further information about Robert and his work can be found at http://bobsinclair.webnode.com/

Contributors

Preface

Welcome to the second volume of Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice. We are delighted that the first volume was well received by researchers, practitioners, and students of the discipline and we hope that readers will be similarly engaged by the variety of contemporary topics addressed in the current volume.

Published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, the series sets out to:

1. Publish authoritative, stand-alone reviews in the field of occupational health psychology.

2. Publish new empirical research, where it is appropriate to do so, to enable contributors to advance the field in ways that are not typically possible within the confines of the traditional journal article. This applies particularly to developments in professional practice, education, and training.

3. Attract contributions from an international constituency of experts which, in time, become citation classics.

4. Include topics of contemporary relevance to the interests and activities of occupational health psychology researchers, practitioners, educators, and students.

Preparations are already underway for the third volume (2014/2015) and the editors would welcome informal enquires from prospective contributors. Please note that contributions are evaluated on the following criteria:

1. contemporary relevance of the topic to the activities of researchers, educators, practitioners, and students;

2. appropriateness and strength of the literature review;

3. conceptual strength;

4. strength of methodology and data analysis (where a contribution contains new empirical data);

5. quality of writing;

6. implications for professional practice.

We hope that you enjoy this volume and that it becomes a useful resource in your work.

Jonathan Houdmont

Stavroula Leka

Robert Sinclair

Chapter 1

Organizational Politics and Occupational Health Psychology: A Demands-Resources Perspective

Simon L. Albrecht

School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Erin M. Landells

Monash University, Australia

. . . a political perspective need not reflect a destructive, manipulative, and inherently negative view of organizational phenomena. Instead, . . . politics are simply a fact of life in organizations, and . . . leaders need to work on and through others to accomplish personal and organizational goals.

Ammeter et al. (2002, p. 788)

Organizational Politics and Occupational Health Psychology: What We Already Know

The pervasive reality of organizational politics (OP) continues to attract considerable research attention (Buchanan, 2008; Chang, Rosen & Levy, 2009; Hochwarter et al., 2010). Researchers and practitioners are increasingly recognizing that an understanding of the practicalities of organizational politics is critical to effective leadership and effective managerial, team, and organizational functioning (Kurchner-Hawkins & Miller, 2006; Pfeffer, 1992; Zanzi & O'Neill, 2001). It has been argued, for example, that a critical level of politics is needed in the workplace to activate attention and resources toward the achievement of personal and organizational goals (Hochwarter et al., 2010, p. 757). This is particularly true in today's complex organizational environments and flatter organizational structures where leaders and managers may not possess or desire traditional forms of authority and control (Douglas & Ammeter, 2004).

Within the existing body of research, OP has conventionally been defined in terms of behavior which is undesirable, self-serving, illegitimate and non-sanctioned, and which results in dysfunctional organizational outcomes (e.g., Kiewitz, Restubog, Zagenczyk & Hochwarter, 2009; Miller, Byrne, Rutherford & Hansen, 2009). Some 30 years ago Mintzberg (1983) defined OP as behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the technical sense, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise (p. 172). More recently, Rosen, Chang, Johnson and Levy (2009) defined OP as activities that are self-serving, illegitimate, and often harmful to the organization or its members (p. 203). More particularly, OP has also been characterized with reference to behaviors such as back-stabbing, self-promotion, and ingratiation (Ferris et al., 2002; Gandz & Murray, 1980).

Given the prevailing negative conceptualizations, definitions and associated measures of OP, it is not surprising that OP has been shown to have adverse effects on a range of individual and organizational outcomes. Miller, Rutherford and Kolodinsky's (2008) meta-analysis, integrating the results of 59 studies spanning more than 20 years, noted quite strong positive associations between OP and job stress (r = 0.45) and turnover intentions (r = 0.44), and quite strong negative associations between OP and job satisfaction (r = −0.45), and organizational commitment (r = −0.41). Chang, Rosen and Levy's (2009) meta-analysis of 70 studies showed OP has strong associations with psychological strain (β = 0.48) and employee morale (β = −0.57). Overall, the research clearly suggests that organizational politics can have a detrimental effect on key occupational health psychology (OHP) outcomes and consequently on individual, team, and organizational effectiveness.

Despite most researchers using negatively framed conceptualizations and measures of OP, a number of researchers and commentators have called for recognition of the functional and positive aspects of organizational politics (Albrecht, 2006; Liu, Liu & Wu, 2010; Vigoda & Cohen, 1998). These researchers have argued that organizational politics can be both good and bad and that politics plays an important functional role in organizational change and organizational decision-making. Despite such arguments, only limited research has been devoted toward identifying the functional or positive aspects of organizational politics and articulating a more balanced approach (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010; Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010).

In this chapter we pose six key questions and propositions that we hope will progress appreciation and understanding of the functional and positive aspects of organizational politics. While there are no doubt numerous additional and related issues, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight a number of key areas to help researchers and practitioners better understand and manage the OHP implications associated with OP.

The key questions we address are:

1. Should OP be conceptualized as both a positive and a negative?

2. How should we define OP and what are its key characteristics or dimensions?

3. What theoretical models, theories, and frameworks can help explain the phenomenon and the effects of OP?

4.How should we measure OP?

5. How, at a practical level, can we intervene to optimize OP in organizational settings?

6. What are some key areas for future research to help bridge the science–practice divide?

1. Should OP Be Conceptualized as Both a Positive and a Negative?

There are differing and dissenting views as to how OP should best be conceptualized. Dipboye and Foster (2002), for example, noted 15 different ways in which OP has been conceptualized. Most of these conceptualizations have OP as a negative. Kurchner-Hawkins and Miller (2006), however, argued that the pervasive negative view of politics has diminished the potential for understanding the richness, subtlety and range of how political behavior occurs in organizations and how it contributes to the accomplishment of organizational outcomes (p. 347). Kurchner-Hawkins and Miller defined organizational politics as an exercise of power and influence that primarily occurs outside of formal organizational processes and procedures (p. 331) and suggested that organizational politics is a neutral concept that can be either positive or negative in how it occurs (p. 331).

We agree with the researchers and practitioners who have argued that OP can be both positive and negative and can result in functional and dysfunctional individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Indeed, and hinting at the existence of a research–practice divide, research (Buchanan, 2008) suggests that managers do not necessarily perceive politics as negative and self-serving, with 53% of 250 managers surveyed indicating that politics positively contributes to organizational effectiveness. Similarly, Butcher and Clarke (2003) suggested that there may be many instances where behavior can have both self-interest and organizational interest. For example, successfully leading an important technological innovation may result in benefits for the organization (e.g. increased productivity) and also benefits for the project leader through increased organizational visibility and greater promotion prospects. More generally, because positive politics, exercised in the service of the achievement of personal and organizational goals (Hochwarter et al., 2010), can often result in productive performance outcomes which yield positive emotions and feelings of accomplishment, it is therefore also likely to be associated with positive OHP and organizational outcomes. Madison et al. (1980), for example, reported that organizational politics can result in feelings of getting the job done, enhanced decision-making, and improved communication. Similarly, Buchanan (2008) concluded that politics can be used to build networks of useful contacts, support initiatives, and achieve objectives. Our own preliminary qualitative research suggests positive outcomes of OP include increased communication, increased productivity, greater transparency, increased flexibility, increased innovation, and increased ability for the organization to progress and lift beyond the status quo.

Overall, available theory and research evidence leads us to our first proposition:

Proposition 1: Researchers and practitioners need to acknowledge that organizational politics can be both positive and negative and can therefore result in functional and dysfunctional individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Definitions, measures and models need to accommodate this organizational reality.

2. How Should We Define OP and What Are Its Key Characteristics or Dimensions?

Numerous and competing definitions and conceptualizations of OP have appeared in the literature. Drory and Vigoda-Gadot (2010) recently observed that the wide variety of definitions of organizational politics suggests that the concept is in transition and under continuous debate (p. 195). So, how best to define and capture OP in a way that reflects the reality of today's complex, dynamic, and flatter organizational contexts?

Building on the recent momentum of positive organizational psychology and positive organizational behavior (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Luthans & Youssef, 2004, 2007) we propose, as per Proposition 1, that OP needs to be defined in a way which accommodates the positive, negative and neutral aspects of the construct. In addition to the negative OHP outcomes consistently shown to be associated with OP, such as anxiety and a lack of commitment, positive OHP outcomes such as positive mood (Albrecht, 2006), job involvement (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992), engagement (Albrecht & Wilson-Evered, in press), innovation (Pfeffer, 1992), and performance (Rosen, Levy & Hall, 2006) also need to be accommodated.

With respect to the dimensionality of OP, most writers have agreed that politics is associated with influence and power (Block, 1987; Drory, 1993; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1992). We propose that OP will be salient where there is broad agreement that people strategically or tactically use power and influence (both formal and informal), networks, relationships, and knowledge to affect organizational decision-making, resource allocation, and organizational goals. In contrast to previous mainstream definitions of OP, we do not see that informal processes (Chang, Rosen & Levy, 2009; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981), non-sanctioned behaviors (Mintzberg, 1983; Vredenburgh & Shea-VanFossen, 2010), or impression management (Fedor, Ferris, Harrell-Cook & Russ, 1998) are necessarily essential dimensions of OP. While, for example, we agree that politics perceptions will be strongly associated with the use of informal processes and work-arounds (Kurchner-Hawkins & Miller, 2006) to influence decision-making and resource allocation, we would also argue that a strict and formalized work-to-rule regime, whereby employees or supervisors only engage in tasks that are explicitly defined by their job description, could equally be regarded as a form of organizational politics. Although work-to-rule involves the use of power, influence, networking, relationships and knowledge to influence organizational outcomes, rather than relying on informal processes, work-to-rule assumes a strict adherence to established and formalized rules, regulations, and responsibilities.

Maslyn and Fedor (1998) argued that individuals experience politics differently depending on whether that experience is embedded within their direct working context (e.g., an experience with a colleague or a supervisor), within a wider group experience (e.g., within their team) or at the broader organizational level (e.g., employee attributions about organizational climate and culture), and showed that different perceptions across different levels are associated with different attitudes and behaviors. Fedor, Maslyn, Farmer, and Bettenhausen (2008) argued that these level of analysis issues should equally apply for positive and negative conceptualizations of OP. Importantly, we argue that OP, whether positive, negative, or neutral, can most usefully be conceptualized as an organizational-level construct, analogous to organizational climate, and as such is therefore best understood in terms of shared perceptions. OP, defined in terms of employee-shared perceptions about the political climate of the organization, provides a practical platform from which to diagnose the nature and extent of OP and from which to identify whether, where, and how to intervene.

Another important issue with respect to defining and understanding OP, and one which is not often explicitly acknowledged in definitions of OP, concerns the nature of the organizational context within which OP needs to operate. While Aristotle, and others since, broadly acknowledged that OP tends to thrive under conditions of ambiguity, conflict, and competing interests, such conditions have not fully received the explicit acknowledgment they deserve within the OP literature. Just as the conceptualization and experience of organizational trust presupposes uncertainty or risk (Albrecht, 2002), OP similarly requires uncertainty, ambiguity, competing interests or conflict in order to become salient. In effect, there needs to be disagreement or competing views about desired individual, team, and organizational outcomes and the means by which they should be achieved, in order for OP to become salient. Under conditions where there are no competing interests and no opportunity for flexibility in decision-making, OP will only play a minor role in organizational functioning.

In summary, and consistent with our call for recognition of the functional and positive dimensions of organizational politics, the above arguments lead us to our second proposition:

Proposition 2: Organizational politics is defined as the shared perceptions about the strategic or tactical use of power and influence (both formal and informal), networks, relationships, and knowledge (under conditions of uncertainty, ambiguity, or competing interests) in the service of decision-making, resource allocation and the achievement of individual, team and organizational goals.

3. What Theoretical Models, Theories, and Frameworks Can Help Explain the Phenomenon and Effects of OP?

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics model (POPM) is the most widely referenced framework for understanding perceptions of politics (Chang, Rosen & Levy, 2009). The POPM was originally proposed by Ferris, Russ and Fandt (1989) and subsequently developed by Ferris and colleagues (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Ferris et al., 2002; Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). The model specifies antecedents, moderators, and consequences of politics. The antecedents are grouped into three areas: organizational influences (e.g., centralization, formalization), job and work environment influences (e.g., career development, accountability), and personal influences (e.g., positive affectivity, Machiavellianism). Proposed moderators include perceived control, understanding, and political behavior (Harrell-Cook, Ferris & Dulebohn, 1999). The consequences or outcomes include lower job satisfaction, higher job anxiety, lower organizational commitment, and a range of other negative outcomes (Ferris et al., 2002).

Although a significant amount of empirical support has been published in support of the POPM (Byrne, Kacmar, Stoner & Hochwarter, 2005; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey & Toth, 1997; Ferris et al., 1996), critics have pointed out that it does not have a strong theoretical base and does not provide a strong explanation of how the constituent constructs are interrelated (Chang, Rosen & Levy, 2009). Additionally, the Ferris et al. (2002) model largely focuses on the detrimental effects of organizational politics and does not take sufficient account of the positive motivational dimensions of OP and associated antecedents and outcomes. Furthermore, and unlike more comprehensive and broad-ranging models such as the Job Demands-Control-Support model (Johnson & Hall, 1988; Karasek, 1979), the POPM is quite narrowly focused on OP and its associated antecedents and outcome variables. As such, the complex relationships between OP and other important organizational variables (e.g., organizational support, procedural justice, organizational climate) are not easily taken into account. We argue that OP might usefully be considered as one of many elements within a more comprehensive model, or nomological net, which more fully describes and explains relationships among a broad yet core range of organizational, job, and personal resources and demands.

So which theoretical perspectives will help progress contemporary OP and OHP research and practice? We propose that the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R: Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which is the most widely referenced theoretical framework in the engagement literature (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011), might usefully be applied to understanding the perceptions and consequences of OP within an OHP context. The JD-R model explains how a range of personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy) and work characteristics (e.g., autonomy) function as resources which have positive motivational qualities and which result in engagement and positive downstream organizational outcomes such as commitment, in-role performance, extra-role performance, creativity, and financial returns (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Halbesleben, 2010). Work demands, on the other hand, are associated with a health impairment process leading to adverse OHP and organizational outcomes such as burnout, absence, and turnover. Importantly the JD-R also shows how there is an interplay of demands and resources such that resources can buffer the adverse effects of demands on outcomes (Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema, 2005; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2007), and that minimum levels of demand are needed for personal and work resources to substantively influence engagement (Bakker, 2010).

Recently, Albrecht and Wilson-Evered (in press) argued that it may prove useful to extend the JD-R model by more explicitly differentiating more distal organizational-level resources (e.g., senior leadership; organizational climate; organizational support; HRM policies; etc.) from more proximal job-level resources, such as autonomy, skill utilization, supervisor support, and training and development opportunities. In line with other researchers, Albrecht and Wilson-Evered also suggested disaggregating the demands component of the JD-R model into challenge demands and hindrance demands (see Crawford, LePine & Rich, 2010; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Podsakoff, LePine & LePine, 2007; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Negatively framed organizational politics can clearly be conceptualized as a hindrance demand and positive OP as a challenge demand.

Figure 1.1, our proposed model of OP, elaborated from the JD-R model, shows how challenge demands (including positive organizational politics) lead to engagement and how hindrance demands (including negative organizational politics) lead to burnout. Strong associations between negative politics and adverse OHP outcomes such as anxiety and burnout have previously been noted. In support of the claim that positive OP leads to engagement, we argue that positive OP behaviors share similarities with job crafting (Bakker, 2010). Consistent with our description of OP, Tims and Bakker (2010) argued that job crafting can take the form of proactive behavior aimed at (a) increasing (structural or social) job resources; (b) increasing job demands/challenges; or (c) decreasing job demands. Positive OP, through the exercise of influence, networks, and knowledge, can similarly be aimed at expanding resources, meeting personal and organizational challenges, and influencing the level of demands placed on individuals and work groups. Given the large number of studies which have shown that engagement results from challenging and resourceful work environments (Bakker & Bal, 2010; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010), we propose that positive politics will similarly contribute to positive motivational processes and lead to engagement.

Figure 1.1 A Demands–Resources Model Incorporating Organizational Politics NB. Dashed arrows represent moderated relationships.

The JD-R model also takes account of how personal resources such as psychological capital (PsyCap) influence engagement (Sweetman & Luthans, 2010) and related OHP outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment, and well-being. Halbesleben's (2010) meta-analysis showed a very strong relationship between self-efficacy (a personal resource and a component of PsyCap) and engagement. As per Figure 1.1, we argue that political skill can also be conceptualized as a personal resource which will influence engagement and the extent to which demands and organizational and job resources influence engagement. Political skill has been defined as the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one's personal and/or organizational objectives (Perrewé et al., 2004, p.142). Political skill as a personal resource may therefore help to buffer the individual from negative consequences of workplace stressors such as organizational politics (Harrell-Cook, Ferris & Dulebohn, 1999), and may also facilitate individuals in expending energy and using resources toward the achievement of desirable individual and organizational outcomes.

In summary, and as highlighted by Chang, Rosen and Levy (2009) and Ferris and Hochwarter (2011), an integrated theoretical approach is needed to understand the formation of perceptions of organizational politics and its relationship with organizational outcomes. We argue that an elaborated Demands-Resources model might sensibly accommodate both the positive and negative dimensions and consequences of organizational politics.

Proposition 3: A comprehensive theoretical framework is needed that allows for both negative and positive conceptualizations of organizational politics. The proposed Demands-Resources model accommodates the modeling of organizational, job-level and personal resources, and challenge and stressor demands, and as such will provide a useful framework for understanding and managing OP and its outcomes.

4. How Should We Measure OP?

The most widely used measure of OP is the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS). The scale was developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) and later refined by Kacmar and Carlson (1997). Miller et al. (2009) described the POPS as the de facto standard of measurement for political perceptions (p. 282) and identified 75 empirical studies including 95 samples where the measure was used. The POPS consists of three subdimensions titled general political behavior, go along to get ahead and pay and promotion. Although researchers have consistently reported acceptable alpha reliabilities for the subscales and for the total scale (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 1997; Kiewitz et al., 2009), factor analyses of the POPS have yielded inconsistent solutions (Fedor et al., 1998; Nye & Witt, 1993) and the dimensionality of the POPS remains not fully resolved. The negative bias of the POPS is exemplified in items such as People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down, and Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than telling the truth. Reflecting on how OP has traditionally been measured, Fedor and Maslyn (2002) concluded that

as organizational researchers we are left in a somewhat familiar place of not having measures that fully capture the construct of interest. When it comes to empirically investigating both the positive and negative sides of political behavior, we only assess one side due to the fact that currently available scales reflect a predominantly negative bias (e.g., Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). Thus, at this point in time, it is very difficult to test for the positive role that politics might play in such things as organizational change. (p. 273)

More generally, the positive side of organizational politics has been described as being virtually unexplored (Ferris et al., 2002, p. 219).

Fedor and colleagues (Fedor & Maslyn, 2002; Maslyn, Fedor, Farmer & Bettenhausen, 2005; Fedor et al., 2008) are among the few researchers who have endeavored to develop measures of both positive and negative politics perceptions. Fedor and colleagues developed a 20-item measure to assess perceptions of both positive and negative politics. They created six subscales representing positive and negative perceptions at the individual, group, and organizational level. Example items representing some of the positive subscales included I often need to influence others to get the best results I can achieve (positive-individual) and The better my manager is at being a politician, the better it is for my work group (positive-group). Drawing from questionnaire responses by 119 MBA students, Fedor et al. (2008) concluded that employees perceive both positive and negative dimensions of OP and reported that the positive scales predicted variance over and above the negative scales for job satisfaction, satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with coworkers, and delivery on the psychological contract. Although the measures developed by Fedor and colleagues have not been widely validated or adopted, their research clearly suggests that positive OP measures can legitimately be associated with positive OHP outcomes. More research is needed in this area. Our preliminary thinking on this issue suggests inclusion of items such as: in this organization, to get things done, it is important to be effective at influencing others; in this organization people realize that ideas need the support of influential people to proceed; and in this organization obtaining support from influential people is important for projects to progress. However, we recommend additional qualitative research to ensure the ecological validity of new and expanded measures of OP and to ensure that they reflect the felt experience of employees in contemporary organizational contexts.

Proposition 4: Measures of organizational politics should allow for positive, negative, and neutral aspects of organizational politics. Empirical research is needed to determine items that are reliably viewed as positive, negative, or neutral and how they differentially relate to important organizational outcomes.

5. How, at a Practical Level, Can We Intervene to Optimize OP in Organizational Settings?

Previous research and theory suggests that there are a number of ways in which organizations can practically intervene to optimize OP in organizational settings. Consistent with our recommendation for using a Demands-Resources model as a lens through which OP can be viewed, interventions should be directed toward helping employees recognize and optimize the positive challenge dimensions of OP and minimize and manage the negative hindrance dimensions of OP. Additionally, because organizational, job, and personal resources moderate the influence of organizational politics (both as challenge demands and as hindrance demands) on burnout, engagement and downstream OHP outcomes, interventions should also be aimed at the optimization and management of organizational, job, and personal resources.

At the organizational level, interventions would most fruitfully include traditional organizational development methodologies such as culture change and survey feedback processes. It may be useful, for instance, to collect baseline data on organizational political climate (using positive, negative, and neutral measures aligned with suggestions previously offered in this chapter), and then to provide organization-wide feedback through survey feedback meetings. Employees participating in facilitated workshops would be encouraged to come up with organizational values, culture characteristics, and processes and procedures which would both acknowledge and embed positive organizational politics as an organizational reality. Kurchner-Hawkins and Miller (2006) suggested that transparency, trust, and timely and complete communication of information are among the key factors needed to support positive politics. Workshops and processes aimed at sensitizing leaders, managers, and employees to different political strategies and tactics and their appropriateness and consequences could also be implemented. Multi-rater feedback processes, for example, as part of performance management and performance development systems, could be put in place to provide managers and leaders with feedback about the extent to which their behaviors and intentions are perceived to align with positive, neutral, or negative politics.

Organizational resources such as organizational support (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli & Lynch, 1997) and a supportive organizational climate (Patterson et al., 2005) have direct effects on outcomes such as employee engagement, job satisfaction, and performance (as modelled in Figure 1.1). These organizational resources can also moderate the influence of hindrance stressors (such as negative organizational politics) on adverse OHP outcomes such as burnout, absence, and turnover (see Figure 1.1). As such, organizations should actively work to create a climate that enables a shared understanding of the positives and negatives associated with different forms of OP. More specifically, organizations can initiate training and development programs to assist organizational members to understand the positive political strategies they can use, make individuals aware of when they are using politics in a positive way, and provide a vocabulary that encourages discussion of these positive political strategies. Zanzi and O'Neill's (2001) sanctioned and non-sanctioned political tactics could usefully form the conceptual foundations of interventions designed to develop a positive vocabulary and shared understanding regarding organizational politics.

At the job level, Valle and Perrewé (2000) concluded that:

. . . everyone may perceive an organization as less political when managers work to increase individual workers' job autonomy, skill variety, feedback and advancement opportunity, and work to increase communication and cooperation with subordinates and fellow workers. Such an environment would serve to increase worker knowledge of events and reduce uncertainty, all of which should lead to decreased perceptions of politics. (p. 380)

Traditional job design interventions such as job enlargement and team-based organizing systems (see Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp & Gilson, 2008; Parker & Ohly, 2008) are therefore indicated. Furthermore, and consistent with previous research, Figure 1.1 shows that job resources can moderate the influence of organizational demands (e.g., OP as a hindrance or a challenge demand) on outcomes such as engagement and burnout and other OHP-related outcomes. Ferris et al. (1996), for example, found that control and understanding moderated the relationship between perceptions of politics and outcomes, including job anxiety. More generally, Hochwarter, James, Johnson, and Ferris (2004) argued that having some level of control over the work environment and understanding the underlying rationale for organizational phenomenon can partially ameliorate the harmful effects of politics perceptions (p. 45). Therefore organizational, leadership and management development interventions designed to help leaders to empower, resource, and support their team members are indicated as foundational intervention strategies that can have direct effects on OHP outcomes, and also interact with organizational demands to supercharge the positive effects of good politics and ameliorate the negative effects of bad politics.

With respect to personal or individual level resources, Hochwarter et al. (2004) argued what is currently lacking in the literature is a disciplined examination of the dispositional variables that may influence the relationships between politics perceptions and work outcomes (p. 44). Subsequent research has shown that a range of personality or individual difference factors can serve to influence perceptions of OP. Rosen, Levy and Hall's (2006) review of the literature showed that perceptions of politics are associated with Machiavellianism, locus of control, need for power (O'Connor & Morrison, 2001; Valle & Perrewé, 2000), self-monitoring (Valle & Perrewé, 2000), positive affectivity, negative affectivity, self-efficacy, and equity sensitivity (Adams, Treadway & Stepina, 2008). More usefully, developable individual difference factors such as political skill (Ferris et al., 2005) and PsyCap (Luthans & Youssef, 2004) should be recognized as individual difference variables which are also likely to exert main and moderating effects on OP and its relationships with motivational and OHP-related outcome variables. In support of this contention, Brouer et al. (2006) found that political skill moderated the relationship between perceptions of politics and outcomes, including depressive symptoms and job satisfaction. PsyCap (Luthans & Youssef, 2004), given its moderating influence on engagement (Medhurst & Albrecht, 2011), might also usefully be included among the set of personal resources or individual difference variables that exert main and moderating effects on OHP-related outcomes. Irrespective of which individual difference variables are in focus, further research is needed to determine how such individual difference variables operate to help determine whether OP is perceived positively or negatively.

Overall the research suggests that there are complex relationships between individual, job-level, and organizational-level factors (including perceptions of organizational politics) and OHP-related outcomes. We need to better understand how these individual, job-level, and organizational-level constructs individually and in combination influence OHP outcomes. We need to be able to intervene at all three levels to manage the influence of OP on OHP-related outcomes.

Proposition 5: Organizations can implement strategies to optimize the effect of OP on OHP outcomes. Strategies at the organizational level include fostering transparency, trust, open communication, participation in decision-making, networking and collaboration across the business, and the development of a shared understanding about the positive and negative dimensions of OP. At a job level, managers should seek to increase autonomy, control, understanding, skill variety, feedback and