THE POWER AND POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONS

Abstract

Individuals use various ways to exercise power upon others and to negotiate the political interactions within organizations. Workplace is such a political arena in which employees are often faced with situations in which they should choose how to react to others that use power in the ways they do not prefer, adopt or support. Power can simply be defined as get someone to do something as the way you want done or the ability to influence the behavior of other people to get what you want. Additionally, power is associated with someone’s ability to allocate resources, and command over other individuals and commanding others mainly depends upon the ability to make other individuals do something they, on the other hand, never think of doing that. It’s so obvious that every organization has its own working environment and way of getting things done and when anyone starts a new job it’s vital that he/she should be well aware of that. In this sense, power games that were formed long before anyone starts a new position at a workplace because power games have already been in play and the new comer’s success will base on how well he/she can interpret the power games especially dealing with positional power, resources and rewards and can select best options to respond them appropriately.

Full text

221
CHAPTER 9
THE POWER AND POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Assist. Prof. Dr. CanBİÇER
1
1
Karabuk University, Safranbolu Vocational School, Department of Travel,
Tourism and Leisure, Karabuk, Turkey, canbicer@karabuk.edu.tr.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7270-7417

222
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES

223
INTRODUCTION
It’ssoobviousthatbeyondinallsocial entities, politics are peculiar to
organizations as well. Within the concept of individuals’personality
diversity in organizations, the individual and contextual differences in
political behaviors highly depend on the perception of power and
politics of the employees in organizations. In addition, organizations
simply operate by distributing authority and roles and creating a stage
for the exercise of power so employees are usually eager to secure and
use power to seek a familiar and hospitable environment in
organizations. Since power is a basic force of human interaction and
individuals come to work with various goals, it’s so common that
these goals end up with conflicts and competition among employees
because of the expenditure or distribution of scarce resources in
organizations. It’s obvious that politics are at the core of public life
and so in organizations. As a result, the existence and the various
types of politics and power are endemic to organizations.
Besides, it can be inferred that distribution of power is often apparent
in organizations and organizations are political structures that provide
opportunities for individuals to develop careers and establish an
environment for the expression of individual interests and motives at
workplaces. In sum, Fleming and Spicer (2014) described power as
the possibility that an individual within a social or organizational
structure tries to pursue his/her goal or personal interest despite any
resistance. And, it has been defined that politics is the tactics and
strategies individuals use to articulate this power or attempt to resist it,

224
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
especially when goals and interests in the organization are conflicted.
Thus, it has been mentioned that organizational politics is still usually
viewedasdirty“backstabbing”typesofbehavior,involving backroom
deals, and the improper and irrational influence over other people in
the organizations. Therefore, the power and politics in organizations
will be studied in more detail in this chapter.
1. THE POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS
Individuals use various ways to exercise power upon others and to
negotiate the political interactions within organizations. Workplace is
such a political arena in which employees are often faced with
situations in which they should choose how to react to others that use
power in the ways they do not prefer, adopt or support. Power can
simply be defined as get someone to do something as the way you
want done or the ability to influence the behavior of other people to
get what you want. Additionally, powerisassociatedwithsomeone’s
ability to allocate resources, and command over other individuals and
commanding others mainly depends upon the ability to make other
individuals do something they, on the other hand, never think of doing
that. It’s so obvious that every organization has its own working
environment and way of getting things done and when anyone starts a
new job it’s vital that he/she should be well aware of that. In this
sense, power games that were formed long before anyone starts a new
position at a workplace because power games have already been in
play andthe new comer’s success will base onhow wellhe/she can
interpret the power games especially dealing with positional power,

225
resources and rewards and can select best options to respond them
appropriately.
As a definition, power is the potential ability to influence behavior and
to change the sequence or course of actions, to deal with the resistance
and to get individuals to do things that they would otherwise never do
at any time and politics and influence are the processes, the intentions,
actions or the behaviors through which this potential power is used or
realized in organizations. Besides, it has been argued that power is
utilized more when encountering moderate interdependence and there
is often no need to exercise power or influence upon others especially
with little or no interdependence. On the other hand, when the
interdependence is at higher levels individuals gave incentives to work
together, pursue joint goals and develop cooperation and begin to
coordinate their activities in organizations and when they ignore the
incentives they might fail organizationally or individually in the end.
Meanwhile, since interdependence is the main outcome of many
things, the most critical matter is the scarcity of resources in
organizations and while slack resources reduce interdependence,
scarcity increases it in organizations (Pfeffer, 1994, 35-38). According
to Hinck and Conrad (2018) when individuals or group of people
employ their communicative abilities and strategies in order to
influence others in ways that fulfill what they perceive are their own
interests, within the process of insisting their wishes on less powerful
individuals in the organization and from a traditional point of view,
powerisaninstrumentthatenduresindependentofactors’perceptions
and is more readily available to some people than others. In brief,

226
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
power is the capacity which A has to influence the perception and
behavior of B so that B behaves or acts as the way A wishes especially
when A possesses something that B requires or if B thinks that he/she
is dependent on A so A has power on B. Figure 1 displays the
interaction of power of A on B:
Figure 1. The Power Interaction in Organizations
Geppertetal.(2016)underlinedWeber’spointofviewaboutpower
as to get others to do what you want them to do and if necessary
against their will in their study and they also reminded Marxist
expression that the rulers are in power and will stay in power provided
that theyareabletomanipulatethe‘realinterests’oftheruled.They
also stated in their study that there are four main ‘faces’ of
organizational power that are coercion, manipulation, domination and
subjectification. To make them clear, it has been concluded as
coercion is associated with the one-dimensional idea of power and
determined as immediate ‘mobilizationofpower’ bythe individuals,

227
manipulation is associated with the two-dimensional idea power and
refers to the attempts to ensure action and discussion occurs within
accepted boundaries, domination, refers to the attempts to make
relations of power seem inevitable and natural and the last one
subjectification defines to form sense of self, experience and emotions
and existed at the ‘deeper’ or ‘systemic power level. From an
organizational theory point of view, Fairholm (2009) remarked that
power is both an enigma and a central theme in organization theory
sinceit’sasignificantfeatureofformalandinformalrelationshipsat
workplacesandithasbothsocialand psychologicaldimensions.It’s
so clear that the organization is a social grouping that consists of at
least two people involved in some common initiatives with pre-
established goals, structure and methods. Indeed the allocation of
power and the system of power planning in place in the organization
have a substantial effect on the kind of adjustment individuals make or
can make in the organization to achieve their goals and desires, the
needs for achievements, power or affiliation. So since the
organizational construct is in every respect one of power it cannot be
considered as organization is apart from the idea of power. In sum,
these three power use theory below define the three theoretical
constructs:
1- Exchange Theory: Power within the concept of symmetry-
asymmetry, as systems of control over information and affection
just like an aspect of prestige. Power is a balancing of values
hold by competing participants in an exchange relationship since
it has been regarded as the organization is center of exchanging

228
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
the goods and services, information and insight to achieve bot
the individual and organizational goals or outcomes.
2-Alignment Theory: The idea of alignment depends upon the
organizational culture and the culture, customs and traditions
should be compatible with the individuals in some real ways and
cultures that concentrate on a central power figure outline the
power dynamic more than do cultures concentrating on position,
task or role though power use is integral to the relationships in
organizations.
3-Contingency Theory: The effects and force of contingencies in
the environment on organizational and individual capacity to
obtain goals are so real and pats of contingency have an effect
on power use so identification and acquiring control over the
critical contingences becomes an essential reason of power use
in organizations.
Additionally Omisore and Nweke (2014) indicated in their study that
power is the ability to apply force and mobilize resources, energy,
capacity and information on behalf of preferred goals and it has been
underlines that there are various bases for using information in
organizations and six major bases of power have been listed as
coercion, expertise, rewards, legitimacy, referent power and
information. Figure 2 displays the six key bases of power in detail:

229
Figure 2. The Six Major Bases of Power (Omisore, and Nweke, 2014:167)
According to the Shafritz et al. (2014) it has been emphasized that the
effectiveness that power brings evolves from two main ways that the
first one is access to resources, information and the second one is the
capacity or skill have cooperation in carrying out what is necessary
especially in managerial process. For example, during the decision-
making process in a meeting or in a committee, the person who is in
charge of the department or organization or who directs the meeting or
keeps the minutes can have significant power to control decision
making process at that time. In addition, it has been maintained that
thereare somecertain symbolsof amanager’s organizationalpower
that influences upward and outward especially to what extent a
manager:

230
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
1- can intercede favorably on behalf of somebody who has some
problems with the organization,
2- can get a favorable placement for a more talented coworker or a
subordinate,
3- can get confirmation for the spending beyond the organizational
planned budget,
4- can get above-average income raises for the subordinates,
5- can get items on the agenda at policy meetings,
6- can get faster access to top decision-makers in organization,
7- can get regular, instant and closely contact to top decision-
makers,
8- can get earlier or more instant information about administrative
decisions and policy shifts.
Hence, Gencer et al. (2018) maintained in their study that since power
is a source or a kind of force reserve engage in tactics and used by
anyone effectively to influence or change the attitude and behavior of
another one then the concept of power is the core of the interest of
individuals for management and organization. Wilson (1995) stated
that power is a core function of the structure in organizations and
power inheres in one’s structural position and it enables a kind of
access to individuals, information, cooperation and financial resources
(budgets) as well. So, it has been underlined that those in power stay
in power by reinforcing the existing structure of the organization.
Shafritz et al. (2014) emphasized in their study that when managers

231
think they are in powerful situations then they assume that it will be
easier for them to accomplish more because they are sure that where
the tools and they tend to be highly motivated and so they can easily
motivate their subordinates. Plus, their actions and activities in the
organization will be more likely to be on target and so they can easily
and flexibly evaluate or shape policy to meet the certain fields,
instantaneous environmental shits or emergent situations. Therefore
they will certainly gain the respect and the cooperation which
attributedpowerbringsandit’sso clearthatsubordinates’ skillsand
talents are authentic resources rather than threats or negative effects.
Besides powerless live in a different world and usually have a
negative point of view because lacking the supplies and resources,
information or cooperation they might turn instead to the last weapon
of those who don’t have productive power or oppressive power and
then hold other people back and punishing with any threat they can
create. In sum, Table 1 shows some of the main ways in which
variables in the organizations and in job design contribute to either
power or powerlessness in organizations:

232
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
Table 1. Ways that Organizational Factors Contribute to Power or Powerlessness
(Shafritz et al.,2014:276).

233
2. THE POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONS
From the traditional point of view, organizations are regarded as
rational systems so it can be inferred that they are social machines that
have been designed and operated just like instruments for reaching the
predetermined organizational goals. So to speak organizational
participants are the operators the machines, expected to carry out their
jobs and duties efficiently as they are prescribed by formal rules,
procedures, principles, job descriptions and contacts. Organizations
are social systems but they differ from families and communities
because they produce certain products or special services for the
surrounding environment. On the other hand, since organizations are
social systems and created and run by individuals, organizations might
turn into arenas for political struggles easily because individuals work
alone or as groups to obtain the best benefit that can be gained from
the organization in which they are involved especially when the
resources are scarce. Moreover, in this arena, any individual have
some goals of his/her own that differ or contradict those of other
individualswithintheorganization.Therefore,it’ssoclearthatthere
is an ongoing over the organizational spoils between its competing
individuals. In sum, politics are complex case for the organization
because in one hand organization has official rules and demands for
obtaining the organizational goals and on the other hand from the
unofficial side that is utilitarian attitudes and behaviors of the
individuals that exploit every chance to get the best for oneself
(Samuel, 2018:1-3). Political behaviors in organizations imply the
intentional actions that includes influence tactics, self-presentation,

234
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
impression management, voice and helping behavior to control or
manage (create, maintain, modify or abandon) the shared instruments
of organizational events in order to reach ambitioned goals which
may, on the other hand, be unfeasible. In sum, political behaviors are
both self-serving and benevolent motives in employees'/managers'
efforts to attain personal and/or organizational goals and such
purposive behaviors, which may range from active to passive
engagement, form a concept within which employees and managers
act to reach their goals. It has been commonly concluded recently by
the business management scholars that politics are ubiquitous and they
can be destructive to most employees, work teams, and organizations
and through their assumption it can be evaluated that politics as a
zero-sum game where the personal interests are ran after at the
expense other individuals, resulting in backstage trade-offs, allusions,
backstabbing and undermining the coworkers in the organization. On
the other hand, ignoring the side effects of the politics in the
organization, it has also been mentioned in the management literature
that there are also positive effects about politics such as higher
productivity, career advancement, higher innovation, and decision
making consensus in the organizations (Kapoutsis and Thanos,
2016:310). Organizational politics have been defined as informal,
unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell ideas,
influence an organization, increase power, or achieve other targeted
objectives. Since organizations often have limited resources that must
be allocated in some way, employees and groups in the organizations
usually would not be agree with how the organizational resources

235
should be distributed or shared, so they sometimes try to get these
resources for themselves or for their interest groups, which eventually
increases the political games in organizations. Therefore, employees
usually fraternize themselves with other individuals who have more
common likes and taste in an effort to gain the scarce resources and
often exhibit behaviors such as bargaining, negotiating, alliance
building, and resolving conflicting interests. It has also been
underlined that organizational politics are a dispensable fact of
organizational life as organizations are came together with various
aims and interests which must to be adjusted and about 93% of
managers surveyed stated that organizational politics exist in their
organization, and 70% thought that to be successful, aa individual has
to engage in politics (Bauer and Erdogan, 2012:648). Figure 3
monitors the main potential individual and organizational antecedents
of political behavior:
Figure 3: Main individual and organizational antecedents that lead to political
behavior (Bauer and Erdogan, 2012: 650).

236
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
Furthermore, Landells and Albrecht (2019) outlined in their study that
the organizational politics have usually been identified such a
behavior that is “self-serving, inconsistent with the organizational
objectives, and deliberate to give individuals, groups or entities harm
and often viewed the negative outcomes of them as the impairing,
destructive, and negative effects of organizational politics effects such
as stress, burnout, turnover intentions, lower levels of job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment and on the other hand fewer
researches found out that there are some advantages like the impact of
organizational politics on employee engagement, a construct higly
regarded as essential to organizational achievement and competitive
advantage. Besides, Mintzberg (1985) argued that political activities
in organizations are often evaluated within the concept of “games”
and political games are described as not only intricate and subtle
simultaneous, over-lapping but also they are guided by rules while
some of them are explicit, clear and stable but some of them are
implicit, fuzzy or ever changing. Table 2 displays some of the features
of the political games that are commonly played in organizations:

237
Table 2. Some Features of the Political Games in Organizations (Mintzberg,
1985:135).
Guo et al. (2019) emphasized in their study that the organizational
politics associate with the non-sanctioned behaviors and activities
strategically planned to preserve and enhance self-interests commonly
in conflict with organizational objectives and organizational politics
have been outlined as a disruptive organizational characteristic that,
when perceived by employees, is probably to have a destructive effect
on employees’ behaviors so it hasbeen mentioned that most people
perceive organizational politics as self-serving and manipulative and it
will eventually jeopardize the well-being of both employees and
organizations on the whole. Besides, it has been underlined that
workplaces with higher levels of politics are usually expressed as

238
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
distrust, injustice, unfair decision making processes and disparity in
organization. Moreover, it has been maintained that when
organizational politics are perceived to be at higher levels, some
employees will probably engage in political behaviors such as self-
promotion and ingratiation, to protect self-interests rather than the best
interest of the organization. For example, employees are often likely
to engage in influencing behaviors such as self-promotion and
ingratiation to get higher performance ratings from their supervisors.
In sum, it has been mentioned that when the level of organizational
politics is perceived to be low, highly engaged employees are more
likely to be recognized by their supervisors, because supervisor
evaluation is less likely biased toward employees heavily engaged in
organizational politics. On the other hand, some employees will
intensively show political behaviors to affect supervisor evaluations
when organizational politics are perceived to be high by them.
However, these employees who are opposed to organizational politics
and more engaged in their duties will probably receive less favorable
performance evaluation from their managers. Moreover, Kacmar and
Baron (1999) stated in their study that a behavior can only be
considered as political if others are made use of as resources in
competitive situation, that is to say the essence of the political
behavior is inherently self-centered, for example using others and
political behavior in organizations are enacted to reach goals that are
not sanctioned by the organization or to reach organizationally
sanctioned outcomes via non-sanctioned means. Additionally, Ferris
et al. (2019) stated in their study that political characteristics influence

239
individuals’ political actions and interpretation of political effects in
organizations and it has been maintained that political actions work to
manage shared meaning in a manner which affects political outcomes.
It has also been concluded that political outcomes also influence the
ways in which individuals behave politically and politics generates
effectiveness feedback, which affects decisions and whether and how
to engage in subsequent self-interested behavior. Figure 4 displays the
visual reorganization of organizational politics and the causes and
outcomes of them:
Figure 4. Organizational Politics and Their Causes and Outcomes, (Ferris et al.
2019:302).
Vigoda (2000) argued that organizational politics are often viewed as
self-serving behaviors by individuals to obtain self-interests,

240
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
advantages, and personal benefits at the expense of others and very
often contradictory to the interests of the entire organization or work
team. These behaviors have also been related with manipulation,
defamation, disruptiveness, and illegitimate ways of overusing power
to attain one’s objectives. It has also been suggested that politicsin
organizations should be understood within the concept of what
individuals think of it rather than what it actually represents because
the higher the perceptions of politics are in the eyes of an organization
member,thelowerinthatperson’seyesisthelevelofjustice,equity,
and fairness and when employees perceive more politics in the
organization, they are also likely to see the organization as less
supportive of innovation. Salem (2014) suggested that organizational
politics are a subjective perception and perceptions of politics may
become more determinant to some extent that when employees think
that their working environment as highly political, promoting self-
interests of others and thereby unfair and unjust from an individual
point of view so employees wouldn`t be satisfied particularly when
they think that the organizational decisions making regarding rewards
and promotion to be unfair especially when the resources are scarce
and they may lead to increased negative feeling towards others, loss of
position credibility and strategic power, lower levels of job
performance, higher levels of dissatisfaction and work stress, lower
job performance and finally less organizational commitment.
Labrague et al. (2017) maintained in their study that organizational
politics consist of a sequence of intentional actions which are carried
out by an individual in order to pursue only his/her own self-interests

241
byoverlookingotherpeople’srightsandwelfareortheirorganizations
and these deliberate acts are usually hidden or can be beyond the
organizational rules and regulations, on the other hand, they directly
or indirectly influence the organization’s functions and processes as
well and it`s certain that organizational politics can be observed in all
organizations in varying degrees since they are used to achieve
personal goals and interests, protect or enhance one’s own
professional career and gain resources or advantages from the
organization. It has also emphasized that organizational politics are
often associated with negative effects on employees such as decrease
in work performance level, decreased job satisfaction, decreased
organizational commitment, lowered attendance, low morale, negative
attitudes and negligent behaviors such as the intention to leave and
disregard of duty and organizational politics perceptions of the
employees are directly related to negative emotional states such as job
stress and job burnout.
In addition, according to Nawaz et al. (2019) organizational politics
may result in a rather rational basis for competitive advantage,
especially when individuals in organizations are appropriately
politically skilled and a foresighted management may successfully
direct those highly political organizational environments that are
under stress and a political skill that includes an aptitude to employ
actions that support feelings of trust, confidence and sincerity among
employees may reduce conflicts. Moreover, it has been concluded that
managers can also maintain their political behaviors to enhance justice

242
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
and equality in organizations when they perceive highly political
environment at a workplace.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, power and politics have been outlined, the definitions
of them have been given in detail and a condensed conceptual
framework of the power and politics in organizations have been
discussed. Broadly speaking, the human factor and its outcomes on the
behavior of organizations in general and the individuals in particular
are obvious and organizations are created and run by human beings
should be always remembered. So, organizations can easily be turned
into arenas for political games or power struggles since every
individual may have ambitions and their own plans in order to reach
their goals or gain more personal benefits in organizations. Therefore,
it can be inferred that organizations also are political structures that
provide opportunities for employees to develop careers and also
enable platforms for the pursuit of personal interests and motives.
Additionally, accumulation of power is the instrument for
transforming individual interests into activities which influence other
people and a key to the development of careers for the employees as
well. Power struggles come into being especially when the resources
are scarce and to control the knowledge and information and decision
making processes in the organizations. Hence, there is a distinct
expression that politics exist in every organization so employees often
engage in self-serving behaviors, organizational politics, in order to
increase the probability of obtaining positive outcomes in

243
organizations and personal interests without regarding to their effect
on the organization itself. To sum up, it must be remembered that
when both individuals and groups engage in organizational politics
that may be rather destructive, as individuals focus on personal
interests and goals at the expense of the organization, such self-
serving political efforts might negatively influence the social
groupings, cooperation, information sharing, and many other
organizational functions on the whole and they may lead to huge
hidden costs for the organizations such as higher levels of employee
turnover and employee burn out and lower levels of work engagement
and work satisfaction in organizations.

244
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AGENTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES
REFERENCES:
Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). An introduction to organizational
behavior. Creative Commons. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/an-
introduction-to-organizational-behavior-v1.1.pdf.
Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Organizational power politics: tactics in organizational
leadership. Greenwood Publishing Group, ABC-CLIO, California, U.S.A.
Ferris, G. R., Ellen III, B. P., McAllister, C. P., & Maher, L. P. (2019). Reorganizing
organizational politics research: A review of the literature and identification
of future research directions. Annual review of organizational psychology
and organizational behavior, 6, pp 299-323.
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science.
Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp 237-298.
Gencer, M., Tok, T. N., & Ordu, A. (2018). The effect of power base games on
organizational silence and organizational socialization.
Geppert, M., Becker-Ritterspach, F., & Mudambi, R. (2016). Politics and power in
multinational companies: Integrating the international business and
organization studies perspectives. Organization Studies, 37(9), pp 1209-
1225.
Guo, Y., Kang, H., Shao, B., & Halvorsen, B. (2019). Organizational politics as a
blindfold. Personnel Review.
Hinck, R., & Conrad, C. (2018). Organizational Politics. The International
Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, pp 1-12.
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics. Research in human
resources management, 1, 1-39.
Kapoutsis, I., & Thanos, I. (2016). Politics in organizations: positive and negative
aspects of political behaviour. European Management Journal, 34(3), pp
310-312.
Labrague, L. J., McEnroe‐Petitte, D. M., Gloe, D., Tsaras, K., Arteche, D. L., 
Maldia, F. (2017). Organizational politics, nurses' stress, burnout levels,

245
turnover intention and job satisfaction. International nursing review, 64(1),
pp 109-116.
Landells, E. M., & Albrecht, S. L. (2019). Perceived organizational politics,
engagement and stress: The mediating influence of meaningful work.
Frontiers in psychology, pp 10, 1612.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of management
studies, 22(2), pp 133-154.
Nawaz, M., Syed, A., & Dharejo, N. (2019). Two facets of organizational politics,
the constructive and destructive role of organizational politics on employee
work related attitudes: A theoretical study. Annals of Contemporary
Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 15-22.
Omisore, B. O., & Nweke, A. N. (2014). The influence of power and politics in
organizations (Part 1). International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 4(7), pp 2222-6990.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations.
Harvard Business Press.
Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating
role of perceived organizational politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 172(27), pp 563-569.
Samuel, Y. (2018). The political agenda of organizations. Routledge, New York,
U.S.A.
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2014). Classics of organization theory.
Cengage Learning, Eighth Edition, Printed in the U.S.A.
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.
Wilson, P. A. (1995). The effects of politics and power on the organizational
commitment of federal executives. Journal of Management, 21(1), 101-118.