Toward a political theory of leadership Anthony P. Ammeter a, * , Ceasar Douglas b , William L. Gardner a , Wayne A. Hochwarter b , Gerald R. Ferris b a School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA b Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Accepted 9 September 2002 Abstract Leadership has been an active area of scientific investigation for over half a century, with scholars developing different perspectives on antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Conspicuous in its absence has been a conceptualization of leadership from a political perspective, despite appeals for such a theory and the widely acknowledged view of political processes in organizations. In this article, we develop a model of a political theory of leadership in an effort to address this need, and to demonstrate the versatility of such a conceptualization for understanding both leadership and social influence processes in organizations. Because we define politics in organizational leadership as the constructive management of shared meaning, we demonstrate how a political perspective does not necessarily cast leaders in a personally ambitious, manipulative role. We proceed to show how this political perspective can contribute to effectiveness through both enhanced leader outcomes and the constituencies’ consequences to which leaders are directing their efforts. The implications for a political theory of leadership are discussed, as are directions for future research. D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc. 1. Toward a political theory of leadership A political perspective on organizations has become an increasingly accepted view in recent years. Indeed, if we can accurately characterize organizations as ‘‘political arenas’’ (Mintzberg, 1983, 1985), then it seems quite reasonable that we should be interested in the 1048-9843/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc. PII:S1048-9843(02)00157-1 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-662-915-6748; fax: +1-662-915-7968. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.P. Ammeter). The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751 – 796
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Toward a political theory of leadership
Anthony P. Ammetera,*, Ceasar Douglasb, William L. Gardnera,Wayne A. Hochwarterb, Gerald R. Ferrisb
aSchool of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USAbDepartment of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
Accepted 9 September 2002
Abstract
Leadership has been an active area of scientific investigation for over half a century, with scholars
developing different perspectives on antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Conspicuous in its absence
has been a conceptualization of leadership from a political perspective, despite appeals for such a
theory and the widely acknowledged view of political processes in organizations. In this article, we
develop a model of a political theory of leadership in an effort to address this need, and to demonstrate
the versatility of such a conceptualization for understanding both leadership and social influence
processes in organizations. Because we define politics in organizational leadership as the constructive
management of shared meaning, we demonstrate how a political perspective does not necessarily cast
leaders in a personally ambitious, manipulative role. We proceed to show how this political perspective
can contribute to effectiveness through both enhanced leader outcomes and the constituencies’
consequences to which leaders are directing their efforts. The implications for a political theory of
leadership are discussed, as are directions for future research.
D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
1. Toward a political theory of leadership
A political perspective on organizations has become an increasingly accepted view in
recent years. Indeed, if we can accurately characterize organizations as ‘‘political arenas’’
(Mintzberg, 1983, 1985), then it seems quite reasonable that we should be interested in the
1048-9843/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
collaboration, (7) personal appeals, (8) ingratiation, (9) legitimating tactics, (10) pressure, and
(11) coalition tactics.
Note that the pressure tactic is basically equivalent to the self-presentational strategy of
intimidation (Jones & Pittman, 1982) discussed above. Because these tactics have been
extensively researched and discussed elsewhere (Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., in press; Yukl,
2002), we focus our attention on those that theory and research suggest are most important to
effective leadership.
Insights into the frequency of use and relative utility of alternative influence tactics for
leaders are provided by Yukl (2002). Based on findings from an extensive research program
(Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl & Tracy, 1992), he concluded that rational
persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration tend to be highly effective
forms of influence, followed by apprising, ingratiation, exchange and personal appeals, which
have a moderate chance of being effective; coalition tactics, legitimating tactics, and pressure
were least likely to be effective. Similarly, Ferris, Hochwarter, et al. (in press) concluded from
a more extensive review of the social influence literature that supervisor-focused ingratiation,
rational appeals, inspirational appeals, and consultation appear to yield the most positive
effects, whereas pressure (i.e., assertiveness) tends to backfire; findings for the remaining
tactics were inconsistent.
Yukl (2002) provides additional insights about the directional use of the tactics. Rational
persuasion is widely used in upward, downward, and lateral directions, whereas inspirational
appeals and pressure are typically used to achieve downward influence. Consultation,
collaboration, apprising, ingratiation, exchange, and legitimating tactics are predominantly
used for downward and lateral influence. Interestingly, the findings that ingratiation is directed
most often subordinates and peers contradicts the previous discussion which suggested that
motives to ingratiate are greatest for subordinates seeking to influence superiors (Jones &
Wortman, 1973; Liden &Mitchell, 1988, 1989; Ralston, 1985). Perhaps, ingratiation was used
more often in downward and lateral directions for precisely this reason—it is less obvious and
less likely to arouse suspicion when directed at subordinates and peers. Finally, personal
appeals and coalition tactics appear to be used at the lateral level most extensively.
The preceding discussion implies that effective leaders will make extensive use of rational
persuasion to influence targets across organizational levels, while utilizing inspirational
appeals, consultation, and collaboration to influence subordinates, as well as the latter two
tactics with peers. It is interesting to note that these tactics are the only ones likely to be
sanctioned by the organization as appropriate means of influence, which undoubtedly
contributes to their effectiveness. It is also noteworthy that these tactics resemble well-
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 775
documented forms of leadership. Specifically, inspirational appeals correspond to the
inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), whereas
consultation and collaboration are consistent with a participative style of leadership (Vroom
& Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Nonetheless, we believe that apprising, ingratiation,
exchange, and personal appeals may also be effective when used by a politically skilled
leader, especially when directed at subordinates and peers. Finally, we expect only the most
politically savvy leader to achieve consistent success with pressure and legitimating tactics.
5.2.3. Tactics suggested by organizational politics literature
As was the case for impression management behaviors and influence tactics, several
taxonomies of organizational political tactics have been advanced (Allen et al., 1979;
Fairholm, 1993; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984; Zanzi et al., 1991). Although these taxono-
mies encompass many of the impression management and influence tactics described above,
they also delineate other types of political behaviors that are available to organizational
leaders. In this section, we examine these behaviors. Moreover, we draw on the research of
Fairholm (1993), Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984), and Zanzi and O’Neill (2001) to make an
important distinction between political behaviors that are likely to be sanctioned by the
organization and nonsanctioned behaviors.
Consistent with our initial definition of leadership based on House (1995) and these
authors’ arguments, we define sanctioned political tactics as ones that are deemed to be
acceptable because they are consistent with the organization’s norms; that is, they ‘‘are
typically tolerated, expected, or even encouraged’’ (Zanzi & O’Neill, 2001). In contrast, when
political behavior deviates from organizational norms, it is considered to be nonsanctioned.
Not surprisingly, people typically do not want others to know that they are using non-
sanctioned political tactics, since these are viewed as undesirable, unacceptable, and negative.
The sanctioned political tactics identified by Zanzi and O’Neill (2001) include four
discussed above: networking, coalition-building, persuasion (rational), and image building.
Two additional political tactics were also identified as likely to be sanctioned: use of expertise
and super-ordinate goals. The former tactic refers to ‘‘providing particular skills, unique
knowledge, or solutions to enhance one’s position’’ (Zanzi & O’Neill, 2001, p. 249). The
utility of expertise as a power base for effective leadership is well recognized (French &
Raven, 1959; Yukl, 2002). A related tactic involves the use of an outside expert such as an
external consultant to legitimize a position favored by the leader (Dubrin, 1998; Fairholm,
1993; Zanzi et al., 1991).
Interestingly, there is some disagreement among scholars regarding the ethicality of this
tactic. Whereas Dubrin (1998) recommended the use of experts as an ethical political tactic
that can be employed to gain support for one’s position, and hence power, the respondents to
Fairholm’s (1993) survey identified it as an ethically negative tactic when used to influence
superiors. Further evidence of the ambiguity regarding the perceived appropriateness of this
tactic arises from the fact that it failed to load on either the sanctioned or the nonsanctioned
factor in Zanzi and O’Neill’s (2001) study. Thus, it appears that the use of experts may be
seen as both a sanctioned and a nonsanctioned form of influence, depending on the manner
and circumstances in which it is used.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796776
Appealing to a super-ordinate goal involves efforts to gain support for one’s argument by
linking it to the greater good of the organization (Zanzi et al., 1991). This tactic is especially
significant from a political perspective of effective leadership. Indeed, one of the challenges
for leaders is to convince constituents that the actions they advocate will facilitate the
attainment of organizational goals. We have already discussed one specific manifestation of
this tactic: vision promotion. In this case, the leader’s vision serves as the super-ordinate goal.
By promoting their vision, leaders seek to convince target audiences that the idealized future
they foresee can be attained through the cooperative efforts of the collective (Block, 1987;
Gardner & Avolio, 1998).
Nonsanctioned political behaviors identified by Zanzi and O’Neill (2001) include just one
tactic that has been previously discussed: intimidation and innuendoes. Other nonsanctioned
political tactics they identified include manipulation, co-optation, control of information,
using surrogates, organizational placements, and blaming or attacking others. For example,
manipulation involves efforts to convince another party to accept your point of view by
distorting reality or misrepresenting one’s intentions such as through selective disclosure or
‘‘objective’’ speculation about other persons or situations (Zanzi et al., 1991).
Other nonsanctioned political tactics identified by Fairholm (1993) include controlling the
agenda, controlling decision criteria, using ambiguity, brinkmanship, and incurring obliga-
tions. A leader may control the agenda by determining in advance the subjects or concerns to
be considered by a decision-making body; he or she may also act to keep unwanted issues or
proposals off the agenda. Similarly, a leader may choose the criteria for making decisions so
that desirable results will be obtained regardless of who decides. Using ambiguity involves
purposefully generating unclear communications that are subject to multiple interpretations.
Brinkmanship or planned disorganization (Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984) involves
intentionally disturbing the organization’s equilibrium to gain control over choice options.
An example would be a computer systems manager who favors the introduction of a fully
automated production system, but anticipates resistance from program managers due to initial
costs and concerns about automation. The systems manager may allow excessive backlogs in
the existing semi-automatic system to develop until the program managers have no option but
to purchase the recommend information system (Fairholm, 1993). Note that this is a highly
risky tactic, since the leader risks being seen as incompetent in light of the performance
difficulties he or she creates or allows to develop. Finally, leaders may incur obligations from
others to insure that they will do what they desire (Allen et al., 1979). This tactic is most often
used with peers by generating an unbalanced exchange of capital, information, materials,
friendship or psychological support.
Given the inherently self-serving nature of many of the nonsanctioned tactics, we expect
that they will often be used for purposes that have little or nothing to do with leadership.
Nevertheless, there are also circumstances where such tactics may be used by the leader to
secure desired outcomes for one or more key constituencies. For example, controlling the
agenda can be an effective means whereby the leader can ensure that top priority issues
receive adequate consideration without attention being diverted to less pressing concerns.
Similarly, using ambiguity may be the only means whereby the leader can prevent an
unpopular but nonetheless promising alternative from being prematurely eliminated. Thus,
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 777
we believe that there are a wide array of situations for which a leader’s use of nonsanctioned
political tactics may prove to be advantageous for selected constituents, and often, the
organization as a whole.
5.3. Reactive leader political behaviors
In contrast to the proactive tactics described above which are employed to assertively
pursue desired outcomes, reactive tactics are used to protect the actor’s interests (Valle &
Perrewe, 2000). These tactics encompass a wide array of defensive impression management
tactics including accounts, disclaimers, self-handicapping, restitution, prosocial behaviors,
excuses, and apologies (Gardner & Martinko, 1988a, 1988b; Schlenker, 1980; Scott &
Lyman, 1968; Snyder, Higgins, and Stuckey, 1983).
Although a complete discussion of the similarities and differences among these tactics is
beyond the scope of this article, it is clear that all fall within a more general category that
Goffman (1967) labeled ‘‘facework.’’ Here, the term ‘‘face’’ refers to ‘‘the conception of the
self that each person displays in particular interactions with others’’ (Cupach & Metts, 1994,
p. 3). Facework is required whenever an actor encounters a ‘‘predicament,’’ i.e., a situation
‘‘in which events have undesirable implications for the identity-relevant images actors have
claimed or desire to claim in front of real or imagined audiences’’ (Schlenker, 1980, p. 125).
Note that defensive impression management tactics cannot be used by a leader to acquire a
desired image; they can only be used to protect their established identity by warding off or
discounting unfavorable images.
Ashforth and Lee (1990) have also identified a number of reactive political behaviors that
organizational actors use to avoid action (e.g., overconforming, buck passing, playing dumb,
depersonalizing, stretching and smoothing, and stalling) or avoid blame (e.g., buffing, playing
safe, justifying, scapegoating, and misrepresenting). From their description of these tactics,
however, it appears that they are most often used for purely self-serving purposes, and hence
have little to do with leadership. Indeed, to constitute leadership, these reactive tactics must
be used to protect, at least indirectly, the interests of a collective body the leader represents.
As is the case with the proactive tactics described above, the effectiveness of reactive tactics
is likely to depend on the leader’s style or social effectiveness. Indeed, leaders who make
excessive use of reactive tactics or employ them in an obvious fashion, may find that such
tactics do more harm to their image, and in the process, the interests of the collective, than they
do good (Cupach &Metts, 1994). Not only are the leader’s efforts at image protection likely to
fail, but both the leader and the collective may be perceived as being unwilling to assume
responsibility for their transgressions. It is equally clear that reactive tactics, when skillfully
used, can go a long ways toward preserving a leader’s favorable image in the face of highly
threatening and embarrassing incidents, and hence preserving his or her capacity to lead.
5.4. Symbolic and nonverbal forms of influence
House and Podsakoff (1994) argued that outstanding leaders are very concerned about
their own image, particularly with respect to the need to be perceived by followers as
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796778
credible, competent, and trustworthy. House (1977) suggested that outstanding leaders need
to possess the ability to be verbally articulate as well as nonverbally expressive, recognizing
that the effective use of facial and bodily expressions and gestures can be useful in altering
the affective/emotional reactions of followers.
This indicates that symbolic and nonverbal behaviors by leaders can be potentially
powerful forms of influence. Strong evidence of the role that symbolism exerts on perceived
leadership is provided by Emrich, Brower, Feldman, and Garland (2001). In this study, US
presidents who used image-based as opposed to concept-based rhetoric (e.g., ‘‘heart’’ vs.
‘‘commitment,’’ ‘‘dream’’ vs. ‘‘idea,’’ ‘‘sweat’’ vs. ‘‘toil’’) more extensively in their speeches
received higher ratings of charisma and greatness from historians. Furthermore, Peters (1978)
argued that one way managers and leaders focus attention on, and symbolize the importance
of, an activity or issue is to spend time on it, which then serves as a surrogate measure of
importance.
Other research documents the importance of nonverbal and expressive behaviors to
leadership, demonstrating the impact of eye contact, facial expression, gestures, and so forth,
on reactions of others (e.g., DePaulo, 1992). Direct empirical evidence of the importance of
such behaviors to leadership is provided by Awamleh and Gardner (1999) and Holladay and
Combs (1994). These experiments confirmed that the nonverbal and expressive behaviors have
a potent impact on perceived leadership. Awamleh and Gardner interpret these findings as
reinforcing the previously noted assertion of Gardner and Avolio (1998) that what a leader says
may, at times, be less important than how he or she says it, in determining follower impressions.
Also, there has been some research done on how individuals can employ both verbal and
nonverbal behaviors to influence the affect and emotional states of others. Some of this work
has examined the effective regulation and demonstration of emotion as an influence tactic,
designed to inspire emotional expression and affectivity in others (e.g., Arvey, Renz, &
Watson, 1998; Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). So, as a mechanism of influence
designed to manage shared meaning, symbolic and nonverbal behaviors need to be
investigated more specifically in the repertoire of leader political behaviors employed alone
and in combinations with other forms political behavior.
5.5. Combinations of tactics
Various authors have suggested that organizational influencers tend to use combinations of
influence tactics rather than just single tactics. For example, Kipnis and Schmidt (1988)
suggested that influence attempts are not always confined to the use of a single influence tactic.
Rather, they found that influence attempts often consist of clusters of tactics, and developed
labels for such clusters or ‘‘influence styles.’’ The ‘‘shotgun’’ influence style is characteristic of
‘‘people who refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer’’ (Vecchio, 1997, p. 89), and who use varying
combinations of many (e.g., assertiveness, appeals to higher authority, and coalition influence)
if not all of the influence and IM tactics discussed above. ‘‘Tacticians’’ are those who primarily
use rational persuasion, reason, and logic to influence others. ‘‘Ingratiators’’ focus their
influence attempts on flattery and ingratiation. Lastly, ‘‘bystanders’’ are those who fail to make
influence attempts, instead opting to watch rather than influence others.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 779
Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) found that tacticians received the highest performance ratings,
ingratiators received moderate ratings, and shotgun managers received the lowest ratings.
Interestingly, bystanders, who ostensibly wielded the least influence, received moderate to
high performance ratings by their supervisors. Farmer and Maslyn (1999), with two diverse
samples, found strong support for the existence of the shotgun, tactician, and bystander styles,
and only partial support for the ingratiator style.
Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that certain combinations of influence tactics were more
effective than others, and that effectiveness was determined by the potency of the individual
tactics. Whether a combination was better than a single tactic depended on what tactics were
combined. For example, combinations of ‘soft’ tactics such as consultation, ingratiation, and
inspirational appeals were usually more effective than use of a soft tactic alone. [Fur-
ther]. . .the use of a soft tactic was usually enhanced when it was combined with rational
persuasion’’ (Yukl, 1998, p. 217). Interestingly, they also found that combining soft with
hard tactics (e.g., pressure and coalitions) was not as effective as a soft tactic used alone.
Yukl (1998, p. 218) suggested that ‘‘effectiveness of a tactic combination probably de-
pends. . .on the extent to which the component tactics are compatible with each other. . .Rational persuasion is a very flexible tactic that is usually compatible with any of the other
tactics.’’ Developed in a later section of this article, we also suggest that factors such as the
reputation of both the influencer and the target(s) of influence help to facilitate such
effects.
5.6. Moderator role of leader interpersonal style
5.6.1. Leader Interpersonal Style�GMA interaction
Leadership theory and research generally has recognized the roles of GMA and social or
interpersonal style in leader effectiveness for many years (e.g., Bass, 1990). We have
discussed the importance of each of these constructs in earlier sections of this article as
demonstrating main effects on leader political behavior. Additionally, we believe that leader
interpersonal style interacts with GMA to affect target reactions. As noted by Ferris, Witt, and
Hochwarter (2001), social skill and GMA represent largely independent but complementary
constructs, essentially providing individuals with behavioral and cognitive flexibility, both of
which can enhance effectiveness. This would imply that the constructs have merely additive
effects on outcomes, but they argued (and found evidence to support) that performance
ratings and salary would be maximized when individuals are high on both social skill and
GMA.
Similarly, we argue here that leader interpersonal style and GMA interact to affect target
reactions such that the highest levels of these reactions are found when both interpersonal
style and GMA are high. Under conditions of high interpersonal style and low GMA, leaders
may be socially impressive but lack the cognitive resources to generate a sufficiently large
repertoire of effective solutions to issues and problems, thus generating lower target reactions.
Also, when leaders are high on GMA but low on interpersonal style, targets may be
unimpressed by the decisions and actions the leaders take if they are unable to frame and
present such actions in an accessible and convincing way.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796780
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327–343.
Brass, D. J. (2001). Social capital and organizational leadership. In S. J. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The
nature of organizational leadership: understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders
(pp. 132–152). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: an investigation of structure and behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441–470.
Burns, I., & Stalker, G. M. (1966). The management of innovation (2nd ed.). London: Tavistock.
Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365.
Cobb, A. T. (1986). Political diagnosis: applications in organizational development. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 482–496.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
S95–S120.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 789
Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). Tournament players. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in
personnel and human resources management, vol. 11 (pp. 83–132). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 151–170.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass communication and
resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.
DeLuca, J. R. (1999). Political savvy: systematic approaches to leadership behind-the-scenes. Berwyn, PA:
Evergreen Business Group.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315–326.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement
initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and
practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Thinking strategically: the competitive edge in business, politics, and
everyday life. New York: Norton.
Dossett, D. L., & Greenberg, C. I. (1981). Goal setting and performance evaluation: an attributional analysis.
Academy of Management Journal, 24, 767–779.
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theories as a determinant of the factor structure underlying
supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs,
51, 227–242.
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images and words: presidential rhetoric,
charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527–557.
Fairholm, G. W. (1993). Organizational power and politics: tactics in organizational leadership. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: managing the language of leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of
tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–653.
Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. (1999). Why are styles of upward influence neglected? Making the case for a
configurational approach to influence. Journal of Management, 25, 653–682.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organiza-
tional politics: theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-
level issues, volume 1. The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179–254). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship:
attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution theory:
an organizational perspective (pp. 231–252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (in press). Personal reputation in
organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: the state of the science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human
Resource Management Review, 4, 1–34.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (in press).
Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martoc-
chio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/
Elsevier.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796790
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: a political influence perspective.
Journal of Management, 17, 447–488.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the
performance evaluation process: test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
58, 101–135.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93–116.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational
Dynamics, 28, 25–37.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in organizations: construct validity and
research directions. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 30–55.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld
(Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job
performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075–1082.
Fine, G. A. (1996). Reputational entrepreneurs and the memory of incompetence: melting supporters, partisan
warriors, and images of President Harding. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1159–1193.
Fiol, M. C., O’Connor, E. J., & Aguinis, H. (2001). All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of
power across organizational levels. Academy of Management Review, 26, 224–242.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power.
Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources
management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 16 (pp. 1–51).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Frost, T. F., & Moussavi, F. (1992). The relationship between leader power base and influence: the moderating role
of trust. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8, 9–14.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23,
237–251.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 32–58.
Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). Impression management strategies associated with transformational
leaders at the world-class level: a psychohistorical assessment. Management Communication Quarterly, 12,
3–41.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988a). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14,
321–338.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988b). Impression management: an observational study linking audience
characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 42–65.
Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretive sociologies. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9,
449–459.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and
reputation. Journal of Management, 9, 7–26.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goodman, P. S., Ancona, D. G., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction: special topic forum on
time and organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 507–511.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leader-
ship Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 791
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader–member interactions. Organ-
izational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429–458.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw,
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12 (pp. 111–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Guion, R. M. (1983). Comments on Hunter. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measure-
ment and theory (pp. 267–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G. R., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of
organizational politics–work outcomes relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093–1105.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Hogan, R. J. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11,
129–144.
Holladay, S. J., & Combs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: an exploration of the
effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8,
165–189.
Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex
Model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership:
the cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10 (pp. 305–357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J. (1991). The distribution and exercise of power in complex organizations: a meso theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 2, 23–58.
House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work
(pp. 411–450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Manage-
ment, 23, 409–473.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: some empirical generalizations and new research. In B. M. Staw
(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1 (pp. 341–423). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3,
81–108.
House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: past perspectives and future directions for
research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: the state of the science (pp. 45–82). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: a new synthesis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: an assessment of transformational and charismatic
Hunt, J. G., & Peterson, M. F. (1997). Two scholars’ views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 343–354.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: an attributional approach. Morriston, NJ: General Learning.
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related processes,
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796792
and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources manage-
ment, vol. 17 (pp. 1–39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An examination of the perceptions of
organizational politics model: replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383–416.
Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market
for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87–108.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: relationship with performance evaluations, salary,
and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 528–542.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: explorations in getting
one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and influence: beyond formal authority. New York: Free Press.
Leary, M. R. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Impression management in the organization (pp. 363–374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 13, 572–587.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1989). Ingratiation in the development of leader–member exchanges. In R. A.
Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 343–361). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange: the past and potential for the
future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perception, leadership perceptions and behav-
ioral measurement in organizational settings. In L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: linking perceptions and performance.
London: Rutledge.
Lucas, R. (1987). Political–cultural analysis of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 144–156.
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Madison, D., Allen, R., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. (1980). Organizational politics: an exploration of
managers’ perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79–100.
March, J. G. (1984). Notes on ambiguity and executive compensation. Journal of Management Studies, 21,
53–64.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team
processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
Matthews, C. (1988). Hardball: how politics is played told by one who knows the game. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for
McClelland, D. C. (1966, Nov./Dec.). That urge to achieve. Think, 19–32.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McClelland, D. C. (1993). Intelligence is not the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2, 5–6.
Meichenbaum, D., Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of social competence. In J. D.
Wine, & D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 36–60). New York: Guilford Press.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 793
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133–154.
Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (in press). Mentoring: what we know and where we might go. In G. R.
Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21. Oxford,
UK: JAI Press/Elsevier.
Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
Parker, C., Dipboye, R., & Jackson, S. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: an investigation of ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 5, 891–912.
Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: an antidote for workplace
stressors. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 115–123.
Peters, T. J. (1978). Symbols, patterns, and settings: an optimistic case for getting things done. Organizational
Dynamics, 1, 3–23.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L.
Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 3 (pp. 109–149). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 11 (pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: the role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10,
477–487.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 1, 86–89.
Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
321–336.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1989). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall,
& B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 329–353). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (2002). Impression management: building and enhancing
reputations at work. London: Thomson Learning.
Schlenker, B. (1980). Impression management: the self concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life
(pp. 65–99). New York: McGraw-Hill.Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: a
comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.
Schutz, A. (1995). Entertainers, experts, or public servants? Politicians’ self-presentation on television talk shows.
Political Communication, 12, 211–221.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.
Sederberg, P. C. (1984). The politics of meaning: power and explanation in the construction of social reality.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a
case study, and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25–42.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-
concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 18, 257–273.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796794
Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stuckey, R. J. (1983). Excuses: masquerades in searches of grace. New York:
Wiley.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–member exchange. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 22, 522–552.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The geocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1–4.
Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1985). The concept of ‘‘coalition’’ in organization theory and
research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 256–268.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melberg, V. (1984). Impression management in the organization. In S. B. Bacharach, & E. J.
Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 3 (pp. 31–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The
self and social life (pp. 293–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings,
& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7 (pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and
assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739–756.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–235.
Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Perform-
ance, 34, 64–96.
Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images which avoiding undesired images: exploring
the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351–360.
Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Human Relations, 53,
359–386.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of
Management Executive, 9, 62–72.
Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Leadership: understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A process framework of organizational politics. Human Relations, 37,
47–66.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: managing participation in organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Wagner, R. K. (1997). Intelligence, training, and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059–1069.
Waldman, D. A. (1993). A theoretical consideration of leadership and TQM. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 65–79.
Wernerfelt, B. (1988). Reputation, monitoring, and effort. Information Economics and Policy, 3, 207–218.
Williams, M. L., & Goss, B. (1975). Equivocation: character insurance. Human Communication Research, 1,
265–270.
Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: a solution to organizational politics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 666–674.
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leader-
ship theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161–186.
Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and ingratiation in organizational settings.
In B. M. Staw, & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 133–178). Chicago:St. Clair Press.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychological Reports, 14, 743–751.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence
attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796 795
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 20, 219–232.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determi-
nants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 127–143.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
309–317.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, &
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (pp. 147–197).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: an introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: understanding the performance imperatives
confronting today’s leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zanzi, A., Arthur, M. B., & Shamir, B. (1991). The relationship between career concerns and politics in organ-
izations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 219–233.
Zanzi, A., & O’Neill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned versus non-sanctioned political tactics. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 13, 245–262.
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751–796796