The social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity explain the analogy of maintaining the balance of social exchange between employees and the organisation. 

• The behavior towards organization.
•  The behavior towards individual

Any deliberate attempt to maintain the balance is reasonable to suggest that the behavior is more directly intended to benefit the organisation

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=37&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAGOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.usm.my%2Faamj%2F16.2.2011%2Faamj_16.2.7.pdf&ei=mfwcVYG8MsesuQTBr4HgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEIorSg3NQWbC6CPdgwMDpfGCnojQ

This is very critical question. I think that the behavior of the employees in the organization in many cases is influenced by organizational politics. The job satisfaction of employees will be affected by the working environment in an organization. And the organizational politics affects the congeniality of the working environment. Therefore,  it could be both mediator or moderator variables.

Dear Daryn,

Some  interesting articles in this area are the following.

http://philpapers.org/archive/ABBCEO.pdf

http://www.unc.edu/~bwilder/inls131/131rdg21mar.pdf

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/32491/20374

http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/doap/PDF-FILES/Abstract%20No.%205_v24_no2_14.pdf

I would say that organizational politics destroys job satisfaction and hence the organization itself. Politics, in the private perspective, according to McShane (1992) is to pursue individual interests, avoid or prevent alternative solution. Killian (2005/2007) on the other hand, said that, organizational politics often produce negative result. For example, with promotion, people will pull you down. It makes people to focus on the individuality rather than achieving the organizational goals. Therefore, my conclusion is that organizational politics destroys motivation and it is demoralizing. The final impact is destruction.

Dear Daryn

Organisational/Departmental/Institutional politics is a reality, be it Govt, SemiGovernment or Private. Only the quantum and nature will defer. Involving in it is not a must for job satisfaction, if you can find satisfaction in excelling what you do. But, unfortunately, such a person soon will become aware/realise that he has been overlooked and bye passed for many things, and then is likely to become bitter, and then feel that he should have played politics long back. The truth is that such guys never could have done it even if they had wanted long back. I know, I am such a guy. The situation is akin to: If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it! :)

Narayanan

In 20 years as an Organizational Development Consultant, I have never seen organizational politics net a positive result.  There are the political facets on the surface, and the real game that goes on underground.  The "gutter ball game" is  entirely destructive.  This is why HR departments cannot be run by Legal or Finance but must include those with significant training in Counseling and Mediation.  They must see the game being played and know what to do to interdict.   They can have training in business or elsewhere, but to truly be effective in their jobs as "HUMAN RESOURCE" professionals, they must know how to deal with ---- humans.  The delta in stress between working at, say Amgen, Inc. and Disney is astounding.  The productivity of the individual at Amgen is twice that of the employee at Disney.  The turnover cost per annum at 2% (Amgen) vs. 22% (Disney) gives one an idea why corporations are failing.  The cost of such turnover is staggering.  Keep politics to a minimum.  Period.  

Hi Randall,

Thanks for your feedback,

I agree, HR from an image perspective is not viewed by many executives as a centre for adding value or, a results oriented business function. There are many who still view it as an administrative position, ie: the go to department for personnel inquires, H& Safety, benefits, payroll, formalizing new hires and so forth. Moreover, as economies modernize, the development of competitive advantage will go to companies that are strategically organized (OS) and socially complex (SC). The leadership for OS/SC will come from HR managers whom have the independence to act on opportunities. In short, the function is in an evolutionary state flux and I think you will see more companies buy into the fact that HR departments do add value and that better managed people, are far more innovative, productive, satisfied and synergistic.

It will be interesting to see, 

Daryn 

Organizational politics are informal, unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell ideas, influence an organization, increase power, or achieve other targeted objectives. This is obvious in the organisation, where people work.

To keep the organisation effective and employees productive & satisfied, organizational politics must be contained to a limit.

So without politics, more spontaneous behavior and interaction within the organization, e.g. like self regulation using individual-based information as a basis (cf. country as an organization?)?

Imposed politics: the potential problem is that those that impose do not have access to all information in the organization given that the multiple social networks reflecting the organization are extremely complex (cf. country as an organization?)?

The relationship between organizational politics and employee job satisfaction though are related to each other yet  its impact varies from person to person and situation to situation. For performer employees it has negative impact however less performers or those involved in politics derive sadistic pleasure in making scapegoats.

With regard to its mediating or moderating role, in the initial stage it mediate in the job satisfaction and on a later stage it act as moderator on either side. 

Dear BK,

What are scapegoats?

Dear Marcel

In our language (Malayalam) there is a saying: When any festival/festivities come, the chicken is the sufferer. Here chicken is the scapegoat. Likewise, in Institutions, when bad times come, some people are identified and chickened. They are the scapegoat. The others then have festival and festivities :) ;)

Many vegetarians do eat scapegoats, I think

Narayanan

@Marcel,

Scapegoat is "someone" who gets the blame for mistakes or crimes of other people.

"bouc émissaire"

Daryn

Also Survival of the fittest; the City (and businesses) is a concrete jungle full of predators and scapegoats.

Narayanan

Dear Daryn

I think it is time you linked this question with the other one (What is the best strategy for dealing with bad bosses?). Isn't Bad bosses a creation of office politics and vice versa?

:)

Narayanan

True. let Daryn ask this as the third question, since he has got many answers for the other two. Then he can link them. I think Daryn is a real Master in Social and Organisational psychology

Kudos and Keep it up

Narayanan

Skills positions employees into Confident states at Work

Employers may offer job-specific training to provide employees with the relevant skills to enable them to perform their duties efficiently. Job-specific training is also necessary to fill a newly hired employee’s skills gap. The immediate application of skills acquired through such training may boost employee confidence and productivity

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Documents/12-0537%202012_jobsatisfaction_fnl_online.pdf

Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts, Scapegoats many a times is used to denote the people who are trapped in the trap of politics or some mischievous situation.

There is no positive relationship between organisational politics and job satisfaction. Organisational politics reduces the quality of work life and creates anomalies on systems and processes. It exacerbates inequalities and inconsistencies (race, gender, sexual orientation, remuneration, rewards etc). Such politics aggravate the culture of poor performance and non-accountability. There is a positive relationship between organisational culture and job satisfaction.

the negative aspects of these politics create some negative effects on job satisfaction. Some time as moderator, some time mediator.

I don't think that there is any strong direct relationship between organisational politics and job satisfaction. But I don't think that organisational politics (in the positive sense) is an unnecessary thing and has no positive effects. Staff associations and unions have significant roles in the well being of employees. These associations support and protect the employees  from all sorts of exploitations, harassments, cheating, misbehaviours etc. from the government, management or the employer. This factor plays an important role in job satisfaction of employees. But the negative politics definitely ruin the employees and the firm as well. The primary aim of the employee associations should be to create a good and pleasant working environment in the organisation.

I think you might have a look to the European Foundation for Quality Management.

They developped tools and questionnaires that measure the employee satisfaction and the customer satisfaction

http://www.efqm.org/efqm-model/model-criteria

Hello All,

Thanks for the comments thus far,

I will have to follow up with a second question as Mr. Bhattathiri suggested.

Daryn

Hi Daryn!

This is an interesting question. There is a wealth of literature on both sides of the issue. In my own experience I have found that the tone of the politics can determine job satisfaction for some people, while others are very much in a silo, so to speak. This means that some organizations have positions that are so isolated that politics do not really impact specific roles on a daily basis. While I am aware that this sounds very generalized, I think it is important to realize that each organization is different and has its own nuances that can impact work satisfaction.

Rich

My sense is similar to Richard's above. Having worked in multiple environments over the years, I have seen organizational politics erode job satisfaction significantly. Sometimes, it can be nothing more than, say a consultancy, where staff co-located with clients often find themselves left out of critical decisions, promotions, or other positive reinforcement by their seniors simply due to the 'out of sight--out of mind' attitude, and the ability of those situated in the office to curry more favor.

In other situations, there seems to be less, and for those, such as myself who often were out with clients and did not really care what was going on in the office, the sense of job satisfaction was built from success with clients--which also managed to keep the seniors happy--equilibrium.

Most people are at least somewhat sensitive, and necessarily so if they really care about their work. They hope, even unconsciously for some sense of affirmation they are doing a good job, but often have to rationalize that if they don't hear something adverse, they are OK. Few of those people are really satisfied with their job situation, and eventually the quality of their work declines.

Just a few thoughts

Richard,

Point well made and very significant.  In most organizations there are jobs that politics don't impact nearly to the degree that politics impact other positions, e.g. at a biotechnology concern,  research associate (or even scientist) relative to clinical development manager.  As well, each organization is in fact different from all others.  However, my caveat is that organizations are run by people, and because that is so, eventually, after working through "stages of growth" where politics can be relatively harmless or even helpful ...if that organization is around long enough...the politics ("underground" as I described in my first answer) are inevitable, will touch everyone, and the effect will not be positive.  It would serve us well to define "organization"  (size, purpose) and also factor in "stage of development" of the organization" as both are important variables.  I admit, I am biased after 20 years of being inside so many organizations and never seeing the "gutter ball" go away or fail to develop (maybe its just the west coast U.S.?).  Whatever the case, I think the introduction of the differences between jobs and the nuances between organizations are great strokes and critical to work into any analysis.  I flat missed them.  Glad you did not.

For people in power it's moderating variable but working class in Malaysia accept it as mediating factor..

Hi

Organizational politics, as mentioned leads to extreme work pressure. It can lead to demoralisation and poor performance at work. This is extreme in IT industry, wherein project deliverables on time, without the boost from the higher management can Mart the work life balance. The constant pressure to avoid being in the bottom 20 percent performers,might lead to chronic diseases.

POP may result in negative effects, such as low job satisfaction, and intention to exit. Employees who see themselves injured by power-seeking activities of organization may react in the form of an intention to leave the organization. Turnover intention refers to employees' thoughts of quitting their present job. Since people tend to view organizational politics as undesirable, they are not likely to remain permanently in a workplace they perceive to be highly politically active. Employees may choose to withdraw either physically or psychologically. Intent to quit is a form of psychological withdrawal referring to one’s thoughts of quitting one’s present job

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=94&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjADOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaxwellsci.com%2Fprint%2Fajbm%2Fv4-396-406.pdf&ei=U7coVbWlNcrvUu_BgbAM&usg=AFQjCNGRWeDWSIiZ1_Htoa6X9tDlySa85A

That's an interesting question, Daryn. I'm not sure that I have the answer your need, but let me see if I can help. 

Brian Miller and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of organizational politics.As is common in the politics literature, these authors treated job satisfaction as an outcome variable (i.e., not as a moderator or mediator). However, their findings might be interesting nevertheless. Miller et al.also found that the association between politics and satisfaction was negative.They also identified some moderators of this  relationship.

Here is the reference:

Miler, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of Organizational Politics: A Met-Analysis of Outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 209-222.

For the other part of your question, which deals with the consequences of politics, I encourage you to see the following book:

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Drory, A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Organizational Politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

I'm a little biased, as these editors published my chapter (!), but I think that Vigoda-Gadot and Drory have edited a very good set of papers.

I believe that are both

Hi All,

Thank you all for your comments, journals and experiences.

From what I have seen here, I think there is a basis for further research on the topic. I have not yet decide how I will design a follow up question, but I do plan on doing so and would once again appreciate your valued input.

Thanks again,

Daryn

According to mediator or moderator definition I think mediator for it is impact negative or positive on job satisfaction.

For me organization is the fundamental building block of capitalism in which the main function of managerial talent is to find right combination of labour and capital in order to maximize benefits of all resource providers (capital by owners, labour by employees and idea of combination by managers). However there are two conflicts of interest namely conflict of interests of owners and managers and between managers and employees. Organizational politics is means and ends of resolving these conflicts of agents and clients and thus it is a reality and necessity of organizational life. To facilitate of resolving these conflicts of interest, social systems develop external means (maybe better to name them as institutions) such as legal systems for protecting owners, managers and employees. Ideally these external aids by social system should reduce intensity of struggle for power. But in most cases (specially in developing countries in which society itself is politicized) the legal system fails to protect all participants of the system and a negative process of politicization of organizational politics arises. In politicized systems amoral and coercive forms of persuasion prevails and there is no room to such issues as job satisfaction. To conclude, we can consider organizational politics as directly affecting factor on job satisfaction. If the system is politicized the relationship could be negative, otherwise could be positive. I mean it depends on the quality of organizational politics. Some exogenous factors such as the quality of labour law, taxation law and intellectual propert law could be considered as mediating (and not moderating) factors as could have effect directly on both organizational politics and job satisfaction. At least my daily observations from a developing country supports this idea.

Dear Narayanan

I believe that there is no bad bosses!!! The most bad bosses are those that seek their own interests and to me it is very natural and indeed very pleasant to see those people who act according to their most valuable intrinsic capability. the problem is with the way that his interest seeking behavior is regulated to protects others.

I believe that humankind has a very deeply cultivated capability of seeking self interest. however at the same time this man is confronted with a conflict of interests between current self as agent and future self as client. this conflict of now and future interests enable us to practice self-control and self-regulation. I think this is a necessity for coping with changing interests due to ever changing environments. Morality and ethics is the human invention to regulate this internal conflict. however this is not the only invention to resolve conflict. When it goes to relations of self with others, morality is not sufficient. Then the second invention is law. the first is more responsible for internal regulation of conflict and the second one is more suited in solving conflict of self and others.

To my knowledge in oriental culture there is more stress on internal control (morality and ethics) and in western countries there is more stress on external control (law). Which strategy is better to solve conflicts of now and future self and between self and others  is not known for me but maybe a third strategy of more pro-ethics law making is needed. Something that mixes oriental and western cultures in more innovative and artistic ways.

There is Convincing evidence of the role of POS in mediating the effects of  organizational culture on job satisfaction and turnover intentions – a role that heretofore has been assumed, but not demonstrated. POS has been demonstrated to be a significant factor in how the effects of organizational culture are exerted on important outcomes for governmental accountants. While these effects may not be completely generalizable to accountants in the private sector, (due to the unique organizational structure at the VHA), the insights learned from this study should apply to organizations of all types. Specifically, nurturing a culture that values and rewards respect for the individual, horizontal communication, and innovation can generate feelings of satisfaction and support while enhancing the probability of employee retention.

http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3964&context=etd

It's both -mediating as well as moderating depending on the stakeholders theory. But it's none if some one applies TPB (theory of Planned Behavior).

Dear Jalal,

I agree. It is my ego's perception of the ego and actions of my boss (friends, spouse, parents, etc too) that makes him appear good or bad, other than disregard of any written law.

Narayanan

I agree with Mr Punia.Low performers to a great extent derive pleasure in Organisational politics whereas, an employee who is committed towards his work  will be adversely affected by Organisational politics. People who can't grow seeks for an opportunity to let down the high potential performer because of sadist approach

Dear All,

I have no data on the correlation between organizational politics and job satisfaction. However, regarding my personal experience I have to agree with Cecilia. Nevertheless, this is a catastrophe when organizational politics does not serve and support the most powerful element of human performance. What kind of world are we living?

Organizational politics undermine the importance of best performers and create unproductive work culture.

Dear All,

Organizational politics in governmental education and research institutions is highly influenced by the historical culture, the standard of democracy and mostly by the actual interest of the ruling party. The last one often has no relationship to ability or performance of scientists. To be objective also the richness of a country matters. There is still one factor, the corruption level. Official organizational politics in antidemocratic and corrupt countries is counterproductive.

Perceived organizational politics impact negatively on job satisfaction. Perceived control and understanding influence the negative relationship between perceived organizational politics and job satisfaction at a moderate level.

http://www.kln.ac.lk/fcms/ICBI2012/images/ICBM/dccs/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20HRM014.pdf

Organisational politics and job are correlates, job determines politics, politics determines jobs. Peoples in job world do the politics only to spend time, speed of promotion and superseding others.  Who poltics in organisation never do any job. Think about crab. What do they do? 

All over the world, many organizations suffer from a common disease with varying degrees: The top management is not appointed on the basis of "real" merits. Usually, there are destructive political interventions in such appointments. When there is corruption in the top jobs, a chain-like process will move on in a dominos effect leading to injustice, nepotism, erroneous activities, polluted atmosphere, spying, bullying, and lack of job satisfaction by the "majority" of staff. It will be natural to see the curve going down with the organization becoming more of a burden on the country than an asset. In some places, there is a good start and then a bad finish when politics start to play.

The map of any organisation is nothing but the reflection of human structure with its human relation .If he value the organisation with politics ,we are not offering the justice to organisation whatever may be the areas of the activities in any form including our social fabrics ,the word politics can not be a right picture.

All we know their politics is a dirty game .When ever there is an entry of politic in anywhere it has its roots from JEALOUSY ,ENVY,EGO,& PRIDE .  In such a environment if we join human relation in right direction & right spirit ,it may bring fragrance to such gathering or formation any organisation & such other activities of any kind.

This is only personal opinion .

I reiterate "When ever there is an entry of politic in anywhere it has its roots from JEALOUSY ,ENVY,EGO,& PRIDE". I would like to share an experience of organisational politics- at workplace and in organisations many people who are not efficient, who can not perform, they are feeling inferior, they always look with a negative attitude, envy and jealousy toward the good/high performer. Many a time the boss of such organisation to uphold the position/chair, he has to take side/favours only to the non performing members only. I have also seen many worst performer in organisation always makes their group, the leader leading the group are always getting more advantages, quick promotions without following any rule regulations and ordinances. Specially, in Indian central universities, these politics are more, as I have observed. I Those who performs best but not in politics are always sit behind ever where. Thus, it teaches about non performing culture instead of instilling high performing, innovative, quality culture.

At individual level, any person, those  who are confident on work, those who are confident duty, quality, and productivity in any field, they never bothers about such politics. But, non performing politics politics of non performance compels them not to work, but follow the majority of members in working groups. Organisational politics transforms positive and high performing people to demotivated one. Thus, politics ends the work ethos, kills innovations, creativity, continuity, conformance. Many a time such politics diverts the engagement, organisational citizenship, instills a blame culture.      

.