Honesty-Humility and Perceptions of Organizational Politics in Predicting Workplace Outcomes
The present study sought to examine whether a personality dimension named Honesty-Humility influences the relationship between employees’ perceptions of organizational politics (POP) and workplace outcomes, both attitudinal and behavioral.
Data were collected online and cross-nationally from 268 full-time employees from various organizations and occupational backgrounds.
Results indicate that the adverse effect of POP in the workplace is exacerbated for employees who are lower (rather than higher) in Honesty-Humility. Specifically, when perceiving their workplace as political, low Honesty-Humility individuals were more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior and impression management behavior and to experience greater job stress and decreased job satisfaction.
Examining the role of individual differences in POP helps to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that employees use to interpret and react within a perceived politically charged workplace. This study provides further evidence of the deleterious effects of POP in the workplace, especially among low Honesty-Humility individuals. Practical implications of this research focus on reducing the likelihood of hiring low Honesty-Humility individuals as well as on reducing the opportunity for undesirable behaviors among currently employed individuals.
There is a paucity of research exploring the possibility that individuals may react differently from one another to POP within their workplace and, in turn, experience varying outcomes. The present study helps to fill this gap in the literature by providing novel insights as to the role of personality in predicting perceptions of, and reactions to, organizational politics.
KeywordsPerceptions of organizational politics Honesty-Humility Counterproductive work behavior Impression management
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant 410-2011-0089.
- Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Bowen, M. G. (2004). The dark side of politics in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 237–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393–413). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1–39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Kacmar, K. M., Harris, K. J., & Nagy, B. G. (2007). Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley impression management scale. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(1), 16–32.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1342). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human resource and management strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Nelson, D. L., & Burke, R. J. (2000). Women executives: Health, stress, and success. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 107–127.Google Scholar
- Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Honesty-Humility and a person-situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24, 569–582.Google Scholar