Understanding the use of intimidation as a response ... - IngentaConnect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

CDI 13,7

Understanding the use of intimidation as a response to job tension

648

Career implications for the global leader

Received 12 May 2008 Revised 5 July 2008 Accepted 10 July 2008

Vickie Coleman Gallagher College of Business, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky, USA

Kenneth J. Harris School of Business, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, Indiana, USA, and

Matthew Valle Martha and Spencer Love School of Business, Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USA

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between job tension (JT) and the use of intimidation in the workplace, as well as positive and negative affectivity as two potential personality trait moderators of this relationship. Design/methodology/approach – The paper hypothesizes that employees would use more intimidation when they perceive higher levels of JT based on a fight response. Furthermore, it hypothesizes that when JT was high, people high in negative affectivity would use more intimidation in the workplace due to trait activation, whereas individuals high in positive affectivity would use less intimidation due to greater resource pools. The hypotheses was tested with a sample of 134 employees from a wide range of occupations and industries who completed an online survey measuring their levels of felt JT, usage of intimidation behaviors, and self-reported affectivity. Findings – Hierarchical moderated regression analyses revealed that JT was positively related to intimidation usage. The analyses also showed support for negative affectivity as a moderator, such that high levels of intimidation occurred when JT and negative affectivity were both high. Positive affectivity did not moderate the relationship. Originality/value – Although persons high in negative affectivity are particularly vulnerable to the effects of JT, organizations must be aware of the potential for behaviors (e.g. intimidation) that can result from felt tension. Prior research has primarily viewed tension as an outcome variable; the research conceptualizes tension as an antecedent in the stressor-strain-outcome paradigm. Intimidation is shown to be an outcome of workplace tension – a behavioral reaction to psychological strain that is an attempt to protect valued resources. Keywords Stress, Bullying, Managers, Career development, Globalization, United States of America Career Development International Vol. 13 No. 7, 2008 pp. 648-666 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/13620430810911100

Paper type Research paper

Ever since Pfeffer (1989) suggested that a political focus might be an important perspective with which to understand career success, organizational researchers have

sought to study and classify the various forms of informal influence in use in the workplace. Pfeffer (1989) suggestion was quickly followed by Ferris et al.’s (1989) theoretical model of the antecedents and consequences of politics perceptions, which itself has been refined and extended over the past 20 years by numerous empirical examinations of antecedent factors, moderating variables, and individual, group and organizational level outcomes (Miller et al., 2008). However, while these investigations have illuminated social influence processes in organizations, few have provided insights into how specific influence tactics might affect individual careers in an increasingly global business environment. In this study, we examine the interactive effects of job tension (JT) and trait affectivity to understand the use of one particular influence behavior tactic – intimidation. From that examination, we posit career implications for leader behavior and performance in a global business environment. Judge and Bretz (1994) provided the first empirical examination of the effect of political influence behavior on career success. In their study, they found that combinations of supervisor-focused influence tactics (i.e. ingratiation) were more effective at promoting career success than self-focused influence tactics (i.e. self-promotion). That study led to others that investigated the effect of influence behavior use on career progression and performance (Wayne and Liden, 1995; Wayne et al., 1997). The common element in all of these studies is that they assume that all influence behavior is strategically goal directed. For instance, Mayes and Allen (1977) suggested that career goals precede strategic planning, followed by tactical implementation. Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984) proposed that all political behavior was composed of goal-directed tactics, and Valle and Perrewe´ (2000), among many others, investigated the effects of strategic political orientations. However, none of these studies considers the career implications of the use of one specific and less desirable influence tactic. Therefore, we wondered why individuals would choose to use intimidation as an influence tactic when the research to date has suggested that such a tactic can lead to long-term, negative career consequences (Ferris et al., 2007b; Maccoby et al., 2004). Moreover, while it is common knowledge that workplace stress can lead to negative psychological, physiological, and behavioral outcomes, we wondered how JT and disposition (in this case, trait affectivity) would interact to create behavioral outcomes. In a global marketplace increasingly characterized as stressful and hurried, we believe the illumination of these relationships might provide managers and employees with useful knowledge for career development. The study of influence behavior use in the workplace has received a significant amount of attention in the past 20 years, spurred initially by Goffman’s (1959) theory that individuals consciously manage the impressions they want to convey to others, and energized and extended by Ferris’s work on organizational politics (Ferris et al., 1989). Yet there remains great debate as to the meaning of impression management and influence behaviors. The term “influence behaviors” subsumes numerous categories of influence tactics (Kipnis et al., 1980) such as assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward appeal, blocking, coalitions, inspirational appeal, consultation, and pressure/threats (intimidation) (Kipnis et al., 1980; Mcfarland et al., 2002). Within the domain of this research, we focus on the use of intimidation (Jones, 1990) as a set of behaviors which implicitly pressures or threatens individuals with harm or sanctions in order to achieve desired outcomes. Such behaviors include

Understanding the use of intimidation 649

CDI 13,7

650

aggressively dealing with coworkers in order to get your way, communicating that you can make a coworker’s life difficult if they push you too far, or the use of force or coercion to get someone to help you with your work (Bolino and Turnley, 1999). This research investigates the relationship between JT and a specific behavioral outcome (intimidation as an influence behavior), as moderated by the individual difference variables negative and positive affectivity. Our measure of JT is the articulation of felt strain in the workplace based on an array of stressors. We know generally that stress causes negative behavioral responses and believe that some individuals use a fight response (Cannon, 1914) as a reaction to fear or stress. That response, we believe, can assume the form of aggressive workplace behaviors, like intimidation. We also know, based on trait activation theory (De Hoog et al., 2005; Tett and Burnett, 2003), that stressful workplace conditions interact with affective personality attributes to alter behaviors in the workplace. Based on Hobfoll (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory, we believe that people strive to protect and retain resources under stressful conditions. We propose that individuals may utilize intimidation as a reactive mechanism primarily cued by stressful circumstances that interact with their personality traits (Tett and Burnett, 2003) thus allowing them to protect themselves from future resource losses. In addition, it has been suggested that the empirical relationships between dispositions and various forms of influence behavior use remain relatively under-investigated (Ferris et al., 2002; Kacmar et al., 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002), and that the mixed results (Ferris et al., 2002) have not produced a comprehensive understanding of the effects of individual dispositional variables on outcomes. This research seeks to clarify the effect of trait affectivity on influence behavior use. Interestingly, the conceptualization of the stressor-strain-outcome relationship is not new to the impression management literature. Ferris and colleagues (Ferris and Judge, 1991; Ferris et al., 1989) theorized that stressful workplace conditions (i.e. ambiguity, perceptions of politics, etc.) were a precursor to the use of influence tactics. However, as evidenced by a review of the literature on the social influence-JT relationship, JT has primarily been studied as an outcome of influence behavior use (Hochwarter, 2003), such that organizational stressors interact with political behavior and control to impact the degree of JT (Valle and Perrewe´, 2000). Therefore, based on COR theory, our current study proposes that tension in the workplace leads to fight reactions (Cannon, 1914), including the use of political influence behaviors such as intimidation in an effort to protect workplace resources. Theoretical development and the stressor-strain-outcomes relationship The stressor-strain-outcome relationship is process oriented, or as coined by Lazarus (1991), the process is cognitive-transactional. It includes causal antecedents or stressors, mediating processes in the form of cognitive appraisals and coping, and both short and long-term consequences (e.g. physiological, psychological, and social functioning; Lazarus, 1991). More specifically, stressors are events, conditions, or demands that can lead to individual levels of perceived strain (Beehr, 1995). Stressors, such as role ambiguity or conflict, have been shown to lead to diminished job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Jackson and Schuler, 1985). As a result of workplace stressors, JT is the psychological manifestation of felt stress. (See Method

Section for a more detailed discussion of our measure of JT, and how it fits within the stressor-strain-outcome paradigm.) The psychological consequences of workplace stressors can snowball into more severe cognitive consequences, such as depression and anxiety (Beehr, 1995), even resulting in physiological effects such as high blood pressure (Beehr and Glazer, 2001), and negative behavioral consequences such as turnover or chronic tardiness (Beehr, 1995). While the affective and physiological consequences of stressors in the workplace are worrisome in and of themselves, the behavioral effects are of primary importance to employers, and subsequently are the focus of this research. While Lazarus deals more with the initial appraisal, Hobfoll (1989) focuses more on resources and coping (Schwarzer, 2001). Specifically, according to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), it is argued that individuals strive to retain, protect, and build resources. Psychological stress is sparked when there is a threat of net loss of resources, a net loss of resources actually occurs, or when resources are not gained following the investment of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). We suggest that, under stressful conditions (articulated by employees as JT), one potential behavioral reaction is to utilize intimidation in an effort to protect one’s resources in the workplace. While this tactic may only have short-term benefits, we should recognize that under stressful conditions many people may lack rational judgment, with decisions clouded by emotions, often producing self-defeating consequences (Hobfoll, 1989). We view intimidation as a fight response based on psychological threats (Mayes and Ganster, 1988) rather than a reaction based on fear of physical threats as first introduced by Cannon (1914). This fight response interpretation of COR theory was first articulated by Quick and Gavin (2001), arguing that it is part of man’s basic physiological design to protect and even defend against loss. Although a flight option may indeed be a viable option (e.g. in the form of turnover; Mayes and Ganster, 1988), this assumes that alternative job options are available. We argue that the subsequent job search process and the stress of relocation may in fact tax one’s resources more so that reacting with impression management tactics in one’s current organization. Therefore, this research focuses squarely on investigating the fight response of intimidation under stressful conditions, as moderated by the dispositional variable trait affectivity. Stress and influence behaviors in the workplace Nearly two decades ago, Ferris et al. (1989, p. 145) proposed that workplace stressors such as uncertainty and ambiguity would lead to political influence behaviors that were thought to be “strategically designed to maximize short-term or long-term self-interest”. In an experimental study, Fandt and Ferris (1990) found that under varying conditions of ambiguity, decision makers were more likely to manipulate information through the use of influence tactics. Ferris et al. (1997) extended this research showing that ambiguity interacts with accountability to produce moderate workplace stress, in turn driving employees to engage in more influence tactics. Hence, our research highlights the fact that when employees experience JT, they may resort to the increased use of influence tactics. In a more recent study, situation (role ambiguity and leader-member exchange) and disposition (self-esteem, need for power, job involvement, and shyness) were shown to contribute to the types of softer ingratiatory behaviors used by employees (Kacmar et al., 2004). In a study investigating influence behavior use among salespeople, role conflict led


CDI 13,7

652

to more assertive and upward appeals, whereas ambiguity led to more exchange and coalition-building (Nonis et al., 1996). Another study found that when individuals experience role stressors, they engage in political behavior only when they are not committed to the organization (Mayes and Ganster, 1988). The authors concluded that politics could serve as a coping strategy in response to role stressors, however, their measure of influence behavior included an array of tactics, including coalitions, exchange, ingratiation, and bargaining. However, because an array of tactics was included in one measure, it is unclear from prior research how or when specific types of tactics (e.g. ingratiation versus coalitions) would be used and under what circumstances. Finally, in a recent meta-analysis, while Machiavellianism and extrinsic motivation were found to be positively related to assertive tactics, there was insufficient data utilizing stressors (such as role clarity and ambiguity) as an antecedent to the use of influence tactics (Barbuto and Moss, 2006). Nevertheless, based on the above theoretical development, we argue that under conditions of JT, individuals are likely to resort to intimidation tactics: H1. Perceptions of job tension will be positively related to frequency of use of intimidation in the workplace. In summary, when considering JT in the workplace, contemporary theorists urge us to recognize the various behavioral and emotional reactions to perceived stressors (Lazarus, 1984). Our research makes a contribution to the extant research because it is workplace specific, rather than based on scenarios of situational conditions. Additionally, we explore the use of intimidation, rather than ingratiation, a specific hard tactic of influence (rather than a composite of various tactics as was the case in previous research). Furthermore, although individuals may indeed appraise a situation in a similar manner, this “sharing does not include every detail of the appraisal, and the emotional reactions, experienced or displayed” (Lazarus, 2001, p. 386) can vary by persons. Ultimately, persons may react differently to the same or similar conditions. Hence, our research extends the aforementioned studies grounded in the impression management literature, and extends COR theory, by investigating individual differences in influence behaviors that are reactive in nature due to conditions of JT. Trait activation theory and individual differences in affectivity This research is concerned primarily with trait affectivity as a moderating variable in the JT-intimidation relationship. Positive and negative affectivity are viewed as substantive individual difference variables that are believed to play an important role in stress relationships and outcomes at work (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002). This nuance is important given that affectivity, although most often considered a broadly defined stable trait, has sometimes been considered a state, unstable predisposition, or even dynamic variable (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002). Hence, based on trait activation theory, we consider affectivity to be a stable trait whereby the behavioral components are induced by relevant contextual cues. In fact, a growing stream of personality research suggests that behavioral expression of traits vary by situation (Chatman et al., 1999; De Hoog et al., 2005; Tett and Burnett, 2003) and individuals will behave in trait-like ways only in situations relevant to a given trait (Tett and Burnett, 2003; Tett and Gutterman, 2000). For example, charismatic leadership was positively related to perceived effectiveness, but only in perceived dynamic work contexts (De Hoog et al., 2005). Similarly, correlations between assessment center exercises high in activation

potential for a given five factor model trait were twice as large as the average correlation (where the exercises provided limited opportunity to observe trait relevant behaviors; Haaland and Christiansen, 2002). As an important individual difference variable, affectivity has received nominal attention within the influence behavior and impression management literature (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002). Furthermore, given that intimidation is conceptualized as a form of protecting resources and coping under stressful conditions, it is also important to note that broad affective, temperamental personality dimensions are believed to hold much promise within the coping literature (Watson et al., 1999a; Zellars and Perrewe´, 2001). Specifically, negative affectivity is the tendency to experience unpleasant feelings (Cropanzano et al., 2003) which correlate strongly with negative emotional states and moods, such as being irritable, ashamed, or afraid (Watson et al., 1988). Overall, negative affectivity is the general propensity to view the world and self through a negative lens (Clark and Watson, 1991). In cases where negative affectivity is low, positive affect is not necessarily present (Cropanzano et al., 2003). On the other hand, positive affectivity correlates with positive emotional states and moods, such as being interested, strong and enthusiastic (Watson et al., 1988) and when enthusiasm and excitement are low, negative affectivity is not necessarily present (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Hence, these constructs are believed to be orthogonal (Tellegen et al., 1999), and it is argued that individuals high on either trait can experience greater intensity of felt emotions and subsequently more intense behaviors. Therefore, we chose to consider both negative and positive affectivity in this investigation. Negative affectivity Persons who report high levels of negative affectivity are more likely to report counterproductive work behavior, such as abusive or aggressive behavior toward coworkers, sabotage, stealing, and wasting time (Douglas and Martinko, 2001; Fox and Spector, 1999; Fox et al., 2001; Tepper et al., 2001). Neuroticism (a construct often equated with high negative affectivity) (Clark and Watson, 1991), has also been associated with talking about the negative aspects of work with coworkers (Zellars and Perrewe´, 2001). However, persons high in negative affectivity do not appear to utilize outwardly aggressive tactics or workplace interactions. One potential explanation may be that individuals with high negative affectivity also exhibit a general avoidance temperament (Elliot and Thrash, 2002) under most circumstances, leading to the assumption of less interaction in the workplace during stressful conditions. On the other hand, persons high in negative affectivity are believed to experience a hyper-responsivity mechanism as a response to perceived stressors (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002). This phenomenon is similar to over-reaction such that behaviors are not necessarily in line with appropriate responses for a given situation. Coupled with their potential fear of changing jobs, persons high in negative affectivity are more likely to remain in unsatisfying jobs (Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002). Based on trait activation theory, this form of commitment, albeit dysfunctional, may indeed lead to hyper-responsive, assertive political behaviors activated only under stressful conditions, similar to the fight or flight phenomena (Mayes and Ganster, 1988). Stressful working conditions may indeed provide the contextual cues that elicit intimidation behaviors.


CDI 13,7

654

This behavioral reaction may appear to provide only a short-term solution to workplace stressors. That is, the long-term consequences may indeed result in job loss or loss of credibility. However, as noted by Hobfoll (1989), some personality types may be ill equipped to gain resource surpluses and may lean toward prevention of loss using a self-protective style (Arkin, 1981; Cheek and Buss, 1981; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). Not all individuals are capable of an analysis of the likelihood of success of particular coping strategies (Hobfoll, 1989). Persons high in negative affectivity may indeed lash out in an effort to protect their own self-interests, rather than seek social support, for example, as an alternative coping mechanism. Therefore, we propose that while passive, less assertive tactics have been reported in previous literature (e.g. wasting time), persons high in negative affectivity will be more likely to utilize intimidation under circumstances of JT: H2. Negative affectivity moderates the relationship between job tension and intimidation such that the relationship will be stronger when negative affectivity is higher. Positive affectivity Positive affectivity has been linked to positive attitudes and decreased symptoms and pain (Cohen and Pressman, 2006). Extroversion, a closely related construct, is believed to encompass a positive affective component (Tellegen, 1985; Watson and Clark, 1992; Watson et al., 1999b). This positive affective component has been shown to be related to multiple forms of seeking positive emotional support (Zellars and Perrewe´, 2001), leading to the likelihood of building a larger pool of workplace resources. Persons who possess strong pools of resources are believed to possess the social capital necessary to utilize political influence (Ferris et al., 2007a), possessing a wider array of tactics in their behavioral repertoire. Positive affectivity has received less attention compared to negative affectivity (Cohen and Pressman, 2006; Perrewe´ and Spector, 2002), with researchers calling for more research into the role of positive affectivity, particularly in situations where social interactions are important. Perhaps, the lack of reported data may be a result of moderate or insignificant findings in previous investigations and the lack of an investigation into the conditions in which particular behaviors may be exhibited. For example, positive affectivity was not found to be related to counterproductive work behaviors (Duffy et al., 1998), and only moderately related to organizational citizenship behaviors (Borman et al., 2001). We know that positive emotions and high activation states produce a broader thought-action repertoire (Fredrickson, 2001), allowing for consideration of a wider range of thoughts and actions. Within the context of influence tactics, this may equate to a larger pool of resources as well as tactics available for use based on the given array of organizational conditions. In fact, extroversion is related to more frequent attempts to influence, although Caldwell and Burger (1997) do not report higher levels of assertive tactics use. Furthermore, persons high in positive affectivity are proud, determined and confident (Watson et al., 1988) and more closely aligned with engagement and activation (Watson et al., 1999b). Active engagement and the protection of existing resources is more realistic when individuals already possess strong resource pools (Hobfoll et al., 2003). Hence, based on the approach-related

motivational system of positive affectivity and their tendency to engage rather than withdraw (Elliot and Thrash, 2002), we argue that those high in positive affectivity have both the confidence and existing social resources (Hobfoll, 1989) in order to more confidently address stressful workplace conditions and resist the urge to employ intimidation in an effort to fight for or protect existing resources:

Understanding the use of intimidation

H3. Positive affectivity moderates the relationship between JT and intimidation such that the relationship will be weaker when positive affectivity is higher.

655

Method Sample A total of 160 full-time working adults completed the survey online. However, due to missing data the final useable sample size consisted of 134 respondents. Our sample consisted of 52 percent males and 48 percent females, with an average age of 45 years old, primarily Caucasian (92 percent) and African-American (5 percent). With regard to education, 17 percent had high school degrees or less, 16 percent had at least some college, 49 percent had graduated from college, and the remaining 27 percent attended graduate school. Finally, the average organizational tenure was 9.5 years. Our sample was acquired via a snowball methodology, with the assistance of graduate and undergraduate students attending a private university in the southeast region of the United States. Students emailed the survey link to family and friends who were working full-time and students received course credit for their assistance with this data collection. Respondents provided their names and phone numbers, and students who received credit were told that the respondents would be contacted to verify authenticity. A total of 10 percent of those who completed the survey were randomly contacted via telephone and asked a few brief demographic questions to confirm their identity as it related to their reported demographics. This snowball method of data collection, with the assistance of student populations, has been successfully utilized in a number of studies (Liu et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2005). Measures Job tension. A seven-item measure of JT (House and Rizzo, 1972) was used, with a response scale of 1-7 with scale anchors of 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”. The following seven items are the components of the JT measure (House and Rizzo, 1972): My job tends to directly affect my health; I work under a great deal of tension; I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job; If I had a different job, my health would probably improve; Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night; I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company; and I often “take my job home with me” in the sense that I think about it when doing other things. The a-coefficient of this measure was 0.85. Reflecting back to our earlier discussion of the stressor-strain-outcome relationship, our measure illustrates how situational conditions at work (e.g. the stressor) are leading to felt tension in the workplace (e.g. strain) articulated in the form of physical and psychological symptoms (e.g. sleeplessness, nervousness, fidgety, health problems). Therefore, our research explores the subsequent outcomes of JT (e.g. behavioral reactions in the form of intimidation), thereby attempting to inform the stressor-strain-outcome model.

CDI 13,7

656

Affectivity. Negative and positive affectivity were measured with an adapted version of Watson et al.’s (1988) 20-item measure. This scale was adapted because instead of asking respondents “how often in the last (time period , e.g. month, year)” they experienced a certain feeling, we asked respondents to indicate “the degree to which you generally feel this way (each word) – that is, how you feel on the average”. The response scale for these items ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 representing that they feel that attribute “very slightly or not at all” and 5 representing “extremely”. Sample positive affectivity items include interested, proud, and attentive. The a-coefficient of positive affectivity was 0.87. Sample negative affectivity items include distressed, irritable, and jittery and the a-coefficient was 0.84. Intimidation. We used Bolino and Turnley (1999) scale to measure intimidation. This measure consists of five items on a scale of 1-5, with 1 representing that they “never behave this way” and 5 representing that they “often behave this way”. This measure was adapted to measure prevalence of tactics used toward various targets (superiors, peers, and support staff). Sample items include “Deal strongly or aggressively with __ when they interfere in your business” and “Let __ know you can make things difficult for them if they push you too far”. By cognitively filling in the blank for each item, respondents indicated the frequency of use of that tactic for each of the three types of targets (superiors, peers, and support staff). The survey was designed in a grid format for readability. However, we were interested in overall intimidation; hence, an overall intimidation scale was created (i.e. five items within the scale and three targets for each tactic). Reliability for the composite 15-item scale was 0.88. For comparison purposes, the following descriptive statistics were found for each target: intimidation toward support staff a ¼ 0.75, intimidation toward peers a ¼ 0.71, and intimidation toward superiors a ¼ 0.77. Control variables Tenure, age, and gender have been used in prior impression management and influence tactic research (Cable and Judge, 2003; Kacmar et al., 2004; Thacker and Wayne, 1995; Zivnuska et al., 2004) since they are believed to be important demographic variables that effect influence processes and effectiveness (Ferris et al., 2002). Hence, we control for these three demographics in our research. Tenure. Tenure may impact the use of influence, given that as an individual gains credibility and social capital within an institution (Cable and Judge, 2003; Kacmar et al., 2004; Thacker and Wayne, 1995), it is believed that the use of intimidation or other impression management tactics may change. Our measure of tenure is based on the number of years employed with the current organization (M ¼ 9.54, SD ¼ 9.48). Age. Similarly, age was used as a control variable since it is believed that older individuals may use impression management in order to minimize negative aspects of age-based stereotypes, as a coping mechanism to reduce stress, or simply expand their repertoire of influence behaviors (Ferris et al., 2002). Respondents were 18 years of age or older and our measure of age shows a mean of 45 years (SD ¼ 10.33). Gender. Finally, gender is one of the most widely reviewed demographic characteristics in relation to social influence (Ferris et al., 2002), believed to be related to power, societal biases in appropriate tactics, and selection of tactics, to name a few. Hence, we controlled for gender, with a 0 representing females and a 1 representing males (M ¼ 0.51, SD ¼ 50).

Analysis A four-step moderated hierarchical regression was conducted (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) to test our hypotheses. In step 1, we entered the three control variables. In steps 2 and 3, we entered the main effects, and in step 4, we entered the interaction terms (as described in detail below). Results Means, standard deviations, and bi-variate correlations are presented in Table I. As can be seen, neither of the affective traits were significantly correlated with the use of intimidation. Our control variable of gender was significantly correlated with intimidation (0.20, p , 0.05) and our predictor of JT is significantly correlated with intimidation (0.31, p , 0.01). Table II reports the results from the hierarchical moderated regression of negative affectivity. First, after controlling for organizational tenure, age, and gender, JT (b ¼ 0.31, p , 0.01) independently explained 10 percent of the variance in intimidation, supporting H1. In the third step, negative affectivity was not significantly related (b ¼ 2 0.13, p ¼ 0.16) to intimidation. In the final step of analysis, the interaction term of JT £ negative affectivity (b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.05) was

Variable 1. Tenure 2. Age 3. Gender (0 ¼ female, 1 ¼ male) 4. Job tension (JT) 5. Negative affect (NA) 6. Positive affect (PA) 7. Intimidation

M

SD

9.54 44.72

9.48 10.33

0.51 3.98 1.62 3.92 1.76

0.50 1.29 0.55 0.49 0.60

1

2

– 0.50 * * 0.22 * 0.06 2 0.11 0.14 0.06

3

4

5

6

– 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 *

– 0.38 * * 20.09 0.31 * *

– 2 0.27 * * 0.02

– 0.09

Step 1 Tenure Age Gender Step 2 Job tension (JT) Step 3 Negative affect (NA) Step 4 JT £ NA

Step 1 b R2

– 0.07 0.09 20.16 0.10 20.01

0.04 20.04 0.19 *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

0.04

Step 2

b

DR 2

0.03 20.07 0.19 * 0.31 * *

657

7

–

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Step/variable


Step 3 b DR 2 0.02 2 0.09 0.20 *

0.10 * *

DR 2

0.03 2 0.08 0.19 *

0.36 * * 2 0.13

Step 4

b

Table I. Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and correlations (n ¼ 134)

0.39 * * 0.01

2 0.18 0.19 *

0.03 *

Table II. Hierarchical regression analyses: job tension, and negative affect predicting intimidation (standardized bs) (n ¼ 134)

CDI 13,7

658

significantly related to intimidation, and provided an additional 3 percent ( p , 0.05) explanation for the variance in intimidation. In order to graphically depict the interactive relationship, negative affectivity was calculated as two standard deviations above and below the mean (Aiken and West, 1991). As can be seen in Figure 1, and as supported by the analysis of the slope differentials, as JT increases, intimidation increases only for those with average ( p , 0.01) and high negative affectivity ( p , 0.01). Tension among employees low in negative affectivity ( p ¼ 0.12) does not increase their use of intimidation. Thus, H2 was supported. Table III reports the results from the hierarchical moderated regression of positive affectivity. First, after controlling for organizational tenure, age, and gender, JT (b ¼ 0.31, p , 0.01) independently explained 10 percent of the variance in intimidation. Next, positive affectivity was not significant (b ¼ 0.12, p ¼ 0.15). Positive affectivity explained 1 percent of the variance in intimidation beyond JT, but it was not significant ( p ¼ 0.15). In the final step of analysis, the interaction term of JT £ positive affectivity (b ¼ 0.03, p ¼ 0.70) was not significantly related to intimidation, and did not provide any additional explained variance in intimidation ( p ¼ 0.70). Thus, H3 was not supported. Discussion JT is associated with an increased use of intimidation in the workplace. In the stressor-strain-outcome relationship, this is an important finding such that we have identified how the perception of tension in the workplace leads to self-reported behaviors of intimidation. Clearly, these behavioral reactions can have negative career consequences for individuals (Ferris et al., 2007b; Maccoby et al., 2004). While intimidation may alleviate some of the causes of tension in the short-term (e.g. by

Figure 1. The interactive effects of job tension and negative affectivity (NA) on Intimidation

forcing coworkers to get out of their way), the long-term negative consequences to reputation, performance, and career success may not be worth it. Similarly, persons high in negative affectivity are more likely to use intimidation as they experience tense conditions than are their low positive affectivity counterparts. On the other hand, intimidation does not vary by levels of JT for persons low in negative affectivity. Interestingly, while not part of our formal hypothesis, the main effect of negative affectivity did not predict intimidation. This may be evidence of the trait activation theory such that intimidation is only cued under conditions relevant to the use of this behavioral tactic, such that the negative affectivity traits of being hostile, distressed, or afraid are only behaviorally activated under conditions of reported JT. As previously discussed, persons high in negative affectivity may lack the judgment to weigh the short and long-term consequences of using intimidation. A fight mechanism may be engaged because of their fear of engaging in job search behaviors. H3 stated that positive affectivity moderates the relationship between JT and intimidation such that the relationship will be weaker when positive affectivity is higher. This hypothesis was not supported. Persons high in positive affectivity are not less likely to utilize intimidation under conditions of tension. Persons high in positive affectivity are believed to have a wider range of thoughts and actions (Fredrickson, 2001), helping them to build up their resources in a more sustained manner by not focusing only on stressful situations. As noted by Hobfoll (1989), some individuals may combat enduring stress by altering their interpretation of events or consequences, proactively coping, or by more carefully analyzing the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, under conditions of tension, persons high in positive affectivity may be able to “bounce back” more quickly due to their general sense of resiliency (Fredrickson, 2001), perhaps employing other coping tactics from their arsenal of resources. Although our study did not test other influence tactics with regard to positive affectivity, we hope future studies will be designed to more specifically test these relationships through the inclusion of multiple tactics and antecedents of personal resources.

Step/variable Step 1 Tenure Age Gender Step 2 Job tension (JT) Step 3 Positive affect (PA) Step 4 JT £ PA

Step 1 b R2 0.04 2 0.04 0.19 *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

0.04

Step 2

b

DR 2

0.03 20.07 0.19 * 0.31 * *

Step 3

b

DR 2

0.01 20.07 0.20 * 0.10 * *

659

DR 2

0.01 20.07 0.20 *

0.32 * * 0.12

Step 4

b


0.33 * * 0.01

0.12 0.03

0.00

Table III. Hierarchical regression analyses: job tension, and positive affect predicting intimidation (standardized bs) (n ¼ 134)

CDI 13,7

660

Strengths Our research highlights how perceived chronic stressors in the workplace can indeed lead to negative reactions, yet individual differences moderate these reactions. Trait specific responses are cued by the situation. This study helps to inform how affective personality alters one’s decision to utilize intimidation – conceptualized as a fight tactic (Quick and Gavin, 2001) in an effort to protect and retain valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989) as a reaction to JT. While researchers have indeed investigated situational conditions (such as ambiguity) that can cause political behaviors in the workplace, some of these studies have utilized scenarios of ambiguity to test the relationship (Fandt and Ferris, 1990; Ferris et al., 1997). In contrast, our research explores the perceptions of working adults who are experiencing chronic JT. Furthermore, research with regard to similar tactics (such as assertiveness and pressure) has produced mixed results in the influence tactic – outcome relationship (Ferris et al., 2002). For example, in a recent meta-analysis, assertiveness was negatively related to performance assessments but positively related to extrinsic success (Higgins et al., 2003), with these researchers calling for an investigation into work contexts that can alter the use of various tactics and their relative outcomes. In fact, some researchers have omitted harder tactics from their analyses (i.e. sanctions and blocking), citing infrequent use and conceptual problems (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1988; Yukl and Falbe, 1990). Therefore, this research serves as an attempt to fill this void and contribute to our understanding of the context in which harder tactics of intimidation are used based on one’s negative affectivity. Limitations Although this study has strengths and contributes to the extant literature, there are limitations that must be acknowledged to properly interpret the study’s results. First, we were unable to determine causality. Based on theory and logic, we posit that JT serves as the proximal antecedent of intimidation, but it may be that those who intimidate others more often experience higher levels of JT. Second, all of our data were collected using the same method and from the same source. As a result, there are concerns related to common method variance (CMV; Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, previous research has shown that CMV is less of a threat when testing for interactions (Harris and Kacmar, 2005). Additionally, the low/moderate correlations in our study suggest that CMV played a minor, if any role in our results (Spector, 2006). Finally, our data collection technique did not allow us to control for a number of factors (e.g. industry, stability, size) that are “controlled” when data are collected from a single organization. Although this is a limitation, we feel that the wide range of jobs and industries of our respondents helps to establish the tentative generalizability of our results. Implications for practice The findings from this study have important implications for the career development of managers operating in an increasingly global business environment. The finding that JT is a strong and significant predictor of intimidation behaviors helps to inform managers. Intimidation as a form of social influence would seem to conflict with cultural values such as collectivism and feminism, and would admittedly alter power distance relationships in organizations (Hofstede, 2001). Depending on the particular

values in practice in a given country, region or operational unit, the use of intimidation would differentially affect relationships between the focal individual and the manager, sometimes with disastrous consequences. While an explicit delineation of what those affects might be is beyond the scope of this research, the implication that such a strong form of influence may not be well received must be heeded by managers operating in an international context. Managers may be aware of these aggressive behaviors in the workplace, often termed intimidating, bullying, or being aggressive, but rarely, if ever, has a strain-related variable been shown to be a proximal antecedent. Thus, the results of this study provide further support for the admonition that managers should redouble their efforts to reduce levels of JT in the workplace. Managers can accomplish this in a number of ways, such as by keeping workloads at a manageable level, giving high workloads to those who have the best resources to handle them, avoiding unnecessary political behaviors, and making sure that there are not conflicting expectations or work demands. Specifically, organizations should consider programs that offer mentors as a support system, given that mentors have been shown to buffer the negative outcomes of adverse working conditions (in the form of role conflict) and contribute to career and job satisfaction (Van Emmerik, 2004). Furthermore, leadership development and training, even in a simulated situation, can aid employees in understanding and altering their coping and behavioral reactions under turbulent conditions (Hunsaker, 2007). A more important and insightful implication is that to accurately predict intimidation behaviors, one must consider the joint effect of JT and individual affect. As can be seen, the lowest levels of intimidation occurred when JT was low and negative affectivity was high, whereas the highest levels of intimidation occurred when JT and negative affectivity were both high. Thus, managers should not necessarily be overly concerned that their employees high in negative affectivity will engage in intimidation behaviors, but when these individuals are also experiencing high levels of JT, there are likely to be more intimidating behaviors. In fact, perhaps persons high in negative affectivity will have the most to gain from mentoring and leadership development efforts by their organization. Future research The results of our study suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we believe that too little is known about how intimidation (as an influence behavior) is used or how it is received in different countries/cultures. Such research would prove enlightening as it relates to tactical and strategic influence efficacy, and general career success. We believe that future research should explore the relationships between JT, trait affectivity and other influence behaviors. It would be interesting to see how the predictors in our study impact other influence behavior outcomes including ingratiation, exemplification, supplication, and self-promotion (Bolino and Turnley, 1999). Another avenue for future research is to investigate more fully how negative affectivity moderates the JT-intimidation relationship. We found that negative affectivity did moderate this relationship, but we did not examine this multi-dimensional construct in detail. We wonder if our results were due to how those high in negative affectivity deal with JT, or whether the hyper-responsivity mechanism was operating. We hope future researchers will design studies that are able to more explicitly determine the exact nature of the causal relationship. Furthermore, while we investigated overall


CDI 13,7

662

intimidation, it would be interesting to tease out how tension may or may not lead to the use of intimidation upward toward superiors, laterally toward peers, and/or downward toward subordinates. We invite future research efforts that examine other influence behavior outcomes that flow from workplace stressors. Finally, there exist an array of other potential moderators that may play a role in the JT –intimidation relationship. In order to more accurately test the COR theory, future research might include a measure of social or political resources, such as political skill (Ferris et al., 2005; 2007a). Other traits that may serve as important moderators in the JT –intimidation relationship are Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, locus of control, and self esteem, to mention a few. Not only do these traits provide opportunities to understand the use of particular tactics under conditions of JT, but these personality traits are also believed to contribute to career success (Lau and Shaffer, 1999). Our research has only scratched the surface, and perhaps, has generated more questions than answers as to the impact these behaviors may have on one’s career success. What we do know, however, is that stress is the cause of many negative things, some of which are short-term, and some of which are long-term, career limiting outcomes. References Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Arkin, R.M. (1981), “Self-presentation styles”, in Tedeschi, J.T. (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 311-33. Barbuto, J.E.J. and Moss, J.A. (2006), “Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 30-52. Beehr, T.A. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, Routledge, London. Beehr, T.A. and Glazer, S. (2001), A Cultural Perspective of Social Support in Relation to Occupational Stress, Elsevier, Edinburgh. Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (1999), “Measuring impression management in organizations: a scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 187-206. Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D. and Motowidlo, S.J. (2001), “Personality predictors of citizenship performance”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 No. 1&2, pp. 52-69. Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.M. (2003), “Manager’s upward influence tactic strategies: the role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 197-214. Caldwell, D.F. and Burger, J.M. (1997), “Personality and social influence strategies in the workplace”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1003-12. Cannon, W.G. (1914), “The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the major emotions”, American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 356-72. Chatman, J.A., Caldwell, D.F. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1999), “Managerial personality and performance: a semi-idiographic approach”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 514-45. Cheek, J.M. and Buss, A.H. (1981), “Shyness and sociability”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 330-9.

Clark, L.A. and Watson, D. (1991), “Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 316-36. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Cohen, S. and Pressman, S.D. (2006), “Positive affect and health”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 122-5. Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H.M., Hale, J.M.S. and Reb, J. (2003), “The structure of affect: reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 831-57. De Hoog, A.H.B., Hartog, D.N.D. and Koopman, P.L. (2005), “Linking the big five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 839-65. Douglas, S.C. and Martinko, M.J. (2001), “Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 547-59. Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Shaw, J.D. (1998), “Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: the role of tenure and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 950-9. Elliot, A.J. and Thrash, T.M. (2002), “Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 804-18. Fandt, P.M. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), “The management of information and impressions: when employees behave opportunistically”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 140-58. Ferris, G.R. and Judge, T.A. (1991), “Personnel/human resources management: a political influence perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 447-88. Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S. and Fandt, P.M. (1989), “Politics in organizations”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rosenfeld, P. (Eds), Impression Management in the Organizations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 143-70. Ferris, G.R., Dulebohn, J.H., Frink, D.D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T.R. and Matthews, L.M. (1997), “Job and organizational characteristics, accountability and employee influence”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. IX No. 2, pp. 162-75. Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C., Blass, F.R., Kolodinsky, R.W. and Treadway, D.C. (2002), “Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 65-127. Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C. and Frink, D.D. (2005), “Development and validation of the political skill inventory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 126-52. Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Perrewe´, P.L., Brouer, R.L., Douglas, C. and Lux, S. (2007a), “Political skill in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 290-320. Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R.L., Buckley, M.R. and Harvey, M.G. (2007b), “Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 195-206. Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (1999), “A model of work frustration-aggression”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 915-31.


CDI 13,7

664

Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (2001), “Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 1-19. Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 218-26. Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Bantam Books, Garden City, New York, NY. Haaland, S. and Christiansen, N.D. (2002), “Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 137-63. Harris, K.J. and Kacmar, K.M. (2005), “Easing the stain: the buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions of politics-strain relationship”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 337-54. Higgins, C.A., Judge, T.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2003), “Influence tactics and work analysis: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 89-106. Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-24. Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. and Jackson, A.P. (2003), “Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 632-43. Hochwarter, W.A. (2003), “Social influence and job stress: direct, intervening, and non-linear effects”, in Perrewe´, P.L. and Ganster, D. (Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being: Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives, JAI Press, London, pp. 167-206. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. House, R.J. and Rizzo, J. (1972), “Toward the measurement of organizational practices: scale development and validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 388-96. Hunsaker, P.L. (2007), “Using social simulations to assess and train potential leaders to make effective decisions in turbulent environments”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 341-60. Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1985), “A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 16-78. Jones, E.E. (1990), Interpersonal Perception, Freeman, New York, NY. Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. (1994), “Political influence behavior and career success”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-65. Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S. and Bratton, V.K. (2004), “Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 309-31. Kipnis, D. and Schmidt, S.M. (1988), “Upward-influence styles: relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 528-42. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M. and Wilkinson, I. (1980), “Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one’s way”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 440-52. Kristof-Brown, A.L., Barrick, M.R. and Franke, M. (2002), “Applicant impression management: dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27-46.

Lau, V.P. and Shaffer, M.A. (1999), “Career success: the effects of personality”, Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 225-30. Lazarus, R.S. (1984), “On the primacy of cognition”, American Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 124-9. Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, London. Lazarus, R.S. (2001), “Conservation of resources theory (COR): little more than words masquerading as a new theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 381-91. Liu, Y., Perrewe´, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A. and Kacmar, C.J. (2004), “Dispositional antecedents and consequences of emotional labor at work”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 12-26. Mcfarland, L.A., Ryan, A.M. and Krista, S.D. (2002), “Field study investigation of applicant use of influence tactics in a selection interview”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 135 No. 4, pp. 383-98. Maccoby, M., Gittell, J.H. and Ledeen, M.A. (2004), “Leadership and the fear factor”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 14-18. Mayes, B.T. and Allen, R.W. (1977), “Toward a definition of organizational politics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 672-7. Mayes, B.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1988), “Exit and voice: a test of hypotheses based on fight/flight responses to job stress”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 199-216. Miller, B., Rutherford, M. and Kolodinsky, R. (2008), “Perceptions of organizational politics: a meta-analysis of outcomes”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-22. Nonis, S.A., Sager, J.K. and Kumar, K. (1996), “Salespeople’s use of upward influence tactics (UITs) in coping with role stress”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 44-56. Perrewe´, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (2002), “Personality research in the organizational sciences”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press/Elsevier Science, Inc., Oxford, UK, pp. 1-64. Pfeffer, J. (1989), “A political perspective on careers: interests, networks, and environments”, in Arthur, M.G., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 380-96. Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.M., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Quick, J.C. and Gavin, J.H. (2001), “Four perspectives on conservation of resources theory: a commentary”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 392-400. Schwarzer, R. (2001), “Stress, resources, and proactive coping”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 400-7. Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-32. Tellegen, A. (1985), “Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report”, in Tuma, A.H. and Maser, J.D. (Eds), Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders, Erlbaum, Hilldale, NJ, pp. 681-706. Tellegen, A., Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1999), “On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect”, Psychological Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 297-309. Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K. and Shaw, J.D. (2001), “Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 974-83.


CDI 13,7

666

Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), “A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 500-17. Tett, R.P. and Gutterman, H.A. (2000), “Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 397-423. Thacker, R.A. and Wayne, S.J. (1995), “An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 739-56. Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York, NY. Treadway, D.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J. and Ferris, G.R. (2005), “Political will, political skill, and political behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 226-45. Valle, M. and Perrewe´, P.L. (2000), “Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 359-86. Van Emmerik, H. (2004), “For better and for worse: adverse working conditions and the beneficial effects of mentoring”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 358-73. Vredenburgh, D.J. and Maurer, J.G. (1984), “A process framework of organizational politics”, Human Relations, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 47-66. Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1992), “On traits and temperament: general and specific factors of emotional experience and their relationship with the five-factor model”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 441-75. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1063-70. Watson, D., David, J.P. and Suls, J. (1999a), “Personality, affectivity, and coping”, in Snyder, C.R. (Ed.), Coping: The Psychology of What Works, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 119-40. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J. and Tellegen, A. (1999b), “The two general activation systems of affect: structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 820-38. Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (1995), “Effects of impression management on performance ratings: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 232-60. Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., Graf, I.K. and Ferris, G.R. (1997), “The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 979-1006. Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1990), “Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 132-40. Zellars, K.L. and Perrewe´, P.L. (2001), “Affective personality and the content of emotional social support: coping in organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 459-67. Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K.M., Witt, L.A., Carlson, D.S. and Bratton, V.K. (2004), “Interactive effects of impression management and organizational politics on job performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 627-40. Corresponding author Vickie Coleman Gallagher can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints