HomeMy WebLinkAboutAndrew Thomas - Request For Proposal_ Public Relations for Study CommissionFrom:Thomas, Andrew
To:Bozeman Procurement
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Request For Proposal: Public Relations for Study Commission
Date:Wednesday, June 25, 2025 9:56:17 PM
Attachments:RFP, BZN Community Comm. A. Thomas, 6.24.2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to submit the attached RFP for the Public Relations for Study Commissionposition with the Bozeman Study Commission.
Regards,
Andrew Thomas
--
Andrew R. Thomas J.D., Ph.D., D.B.A.
Assistant Professor of Accounting and Business
Department of Business, Carroll College
332B Simperman HallOffice: 406-447-5454
Cell: 509-592-0720ARThomas@Carroll.edu
Page 1 of 77
Andrew R. Thomas, J.D., PhD, D.B.A.5895 Redwing RdHelena MT, 59602ARThomas@Carroll.edu509-592-0720
RE: Request for Proposal, Public Relations for Study Commission.
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to express my interest in the community outreach and communications position availablewith the City of Bozeman Study Commission. I believe my background in social science research,public administration, public policy, as well as my background dealing with community related issues inMontana makes me well suited for the position.
In terms of my qualifications, I possess over 20 years experience doing research on social sciencerelated topics in public policy, public administration as well as other social science related topics suchas management and governmental resource allocation. During this period of time, I have implementednumerous studies which have analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data relating to communityopinions as well as governmental performance. Additionally, I have conducted research in an appliedsetting utilizing surveys stakeholder interviews and other evaluation tools to help measure communityattitudes towards specific issues either within an organization or in the community at large. In additionto this, I possess specific training in both legal as well as accounting and finance as well as economicrelated topics which provides me with an extremely thorough and broad background to evaluatesituations.
Relative to my work specifically in Montana, I have been involved in a variety of policy related situationssuch as contributing to land use policy in Lewis and Clark County, drafting land use and otherregulations for the state legislature, and helping to manage a large not-for-profit and its relationshipswith governmental actors.
In addition to my experience, I possess a variety of credentials that are applicable for this position.Specifically, I possess a PhD in public policy administration and political behavior from WashingtonState University. I also possess a juris doctorate from Gonzaga University, and I am a licensed memberof the Idaho State Bar. Finally, I possess a doctorate in business administration from the University ofMissouri St Louis and my research there focused on organizational behavior and organizationalpolicies.
I am trained in several specific methodologies with regards to developing and implementing surveys,focus groups, interviews as well as statistical analysis and qualitative analysis. I am very familiar withmany of the issues that the City of Bozeman Study Commission must deal with both in terms oftheoretical structure as well as heading to the current opinions along with the social and economicclimate here in Montana. My interest in this position stems from my desire to do objective empirical
Page 2 of 77
research on the topics that the Commission is currently dealing with and to assist the Commission inassessing accurately current community opinions relating to the topics that it deals with as well ashelping the Commission formulate data-driven analysis to create equitable and inclusive policysolutions for all stakeholders. I have included an outline of my proposal as well as supporting examplesof my work and documentation relating to my professional experience. I am more than happy to engagethe Commission in answering any questions they might have relating to my ability to complete therequirements of this assignment as well as any other matter that they may be interested in.
Thank you for considering me for this position.
Sincerely,
Andrew R Thomas J.D., PhD, D.B.A.
Request for Proposal, Public Relations for Study Commission.
Page 3 of 77
Andrew Thomas
• Executive Summary
The following outlines how community assessment, engagement and communication would beapproached for the Bozeman city Commission study. Please note that this outline is somewhat flexiblein terms of implementation and areas of emphasis. However, with regards to the core functionalities ofengaging the conducting public survey research engaging stakeholders and presenting an overallanalysis public and stakeholder responses two issues relating to the goal of the Commission theseactivities remain consistent and can be adapted to the specific needs of the situation.
• Firm/Individual Profile
I am an academic/practitioner with an extensive background in a variety of legal, accounting, policy andbehavioral science related topics. My research training and experience spans almost two decades andI have substantial experience teaching at all levels of higher education in addition to substantialpractice related experience in law, public policy, and accounting. Additionally, I have engaged insignificant research work dealing with issues of governance, public opinion and public administration.
• Scope of Project
The following is a general discussion of the methods and approaches I will use to address the primarygoals of the Commission:
a. Educate ourselves and the community to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the City of Bozeman’s current structure, Charter form, and the
processes of local government.
b. Conduct a transparent and inclusive study process that engages the community
in evaluating our current structures and identifying any necessary changes.
c. Engage the community in the local government study process using a variety of
methods to gather information regarding what’s working, what’s not working,
and ideas to explore to improve the City’s governance.
Plan formulation:
Page 4 of 77
1 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. See also attachedgrounded theory research.
The first required task is to formulate a plan in terms of determining what the Commission deems to bethe most relevant issues to be explored in preliminary public meetings and surveys. Plan formulationwill likely occur through a meeting with the Commission as well as through written correspondence withthe Commission detailing the areas that are deemed most relevant for subsequent assessment.Additionally, a preliminary review of the City Charter and associated documents will be done. A keyfeature of formulating the plan is establishing a scope of inquiry for assessing areas that theCommission deems relevant.
Public meetings:
Public meetings provide an opportunity for in-depth interaction with the public to discuss general issuesrelating to Bozeman city governance as well as specific issues relating to participants in neighborhoodsor sub-communities. Once the initial areas of inquiry are established by the Commission, publicmeetings will be held both in person as well as virtually so that residence may express their viewpointconcerns or provide any other relevant information to the Commission. Ideally, public meetings will beheld throughout the engagement. Meetings will be held both in person virtually. Also, if permissiblethrough interviews with stakeholders or concerned citizens individually. By providing multipleopportunities in different formats for public engagement it is assumed that a more representativesample will be provided in terms of public opinion about the issues the Commission must deal with.Additionally, after initial engagement has occurred through public meetings written public commentsand surveys more opportunities for public engagement will be provided based upon any issues thatmight be derived from the initial public engagement. In terms of the approach taken to analyze anddistill the content of public meetings, a grounded theory methodology1 is applied whereby responsesare categorized based upon areas of emphasis such as public services zoning law enforcement orother areas that consistently develop as themes. Through utilizing a grounded theory approach, it ispossible to develop narratives based upon public comments regarding major themes that are importantfor most Bozeman residents.
Stakeholder engagement:
Aside from general residents of Bozeman, stakeholders, namely businesses public officials and otherindividuals who represent groups or institutions in Bozeman will be engaged for specific input relating tohow Bozeman policy relates to their industry or group. This type of stakeholder engagement will consistof public meetings surveys as well as written public comments or communications which will beanalyzed in a fashion similar to the general public meetings.
Surveys:
Page 5 of 77
Surveys will be developed and implemented in a fashion like public meetings. Surveys will beimplemented using web-based survey software such as Qualtrics. Surveys will include questions thatcan be translated into quantitative responses such as Likert scale or rankings. Additionally, surveys willalso provide ample opportunities for free response by participants. Survey responses will then beanalyzed and compared to responses from the public meetings to determine if there is any diskcongruence between attitudes expressed at public meetings and what community members say on thesurveys. Additionally, identifying information regarding participants approximate neighborhood locationon the survey as well as other demographic data will be collected from respondents so that surveyresponses can be analyzed relative to a representative sample of Bozeman residents. Initially, surveyswill likely present questions derived from representations made by members of the city Commission.However, after public input has been collected more detailed and targeted surveys can be administeredthat assess specific attitudes or that are directed at specific members of the community based uponeither their identity, economic position or neighborhood of residence.
Analysis:
The data collected from public meetings written public comments as well as surveys will be aggregatedand systematically analyzed to create a model of public attitudes related to the topics deemedimportant by the Commission. Additionally, this analysis will involve comparing Bozeman residents’specific responses with research that has been done on these topics in other jurisdictions. Comparableresearch can include published reports by other governments as well as academic and professionalresearch on the topics covered by the Commission. Through analyzing the data provided by Bozemanresidents as well as contextualizing the data in the existent body of research on the topics covered aseries of policy recommendations as well as conclusions can be developed for presentation to theCommission that can help guide their decisions regarding the tasks that they are charged with.
Public communication:
Notice for all public meetings and surveys will be provided through direct communication withstakeholders, local media outlets as well as online outlets including social media as well as targetedadvertising. The analysis as well as aggregations of responses to public meetings and surveys will beprovided to the public via online resources that will be freely accessible to all community members aswell as the Commission.
• General and Technical Requirements
Access to any source documentation the Commission has generated.Public records regarding demographics community characteristics including budgetary and GISdata.Recording equipment and technical support for public meetings either in person or virtual.
Page 6 of 77
Access to Commission website or social media to post surveys, notices and analyses.Generative AI will not be used.
• Related Experience with Projects Similar to the Scope of Services
I have done a variety of surveys as well as interview research on topics similar to goal of theCommission.See attached examples.Additionally, I have done numerous policy related analyses ofissues of governance and public administration.See attached C.V.
• Description of Proposed Solution
See Scope of Services.
• Proposed Schedule
As needed.
• Present and Projected Workloads
As needed. Given the scope of services, I would estimate that the project would average 20hours per week for the duration of the study.
•Recent and Current Work for the City of Bozeman
N/A
• References
Nicholas P. Lovrich PhD, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University, Divisions of governmentStudies and Services,Faclovri@wsu.edu.
David Pearl PhD, Professor Olympic College,DPearl@olymic.edu, 509-339-5221
Adel F. Dimian PhD, Associate Professor of Management, Carroll College.Dimian@carroll.edu, 714-690-7798
• Training
Doctor of Business AdministrationDecember 2022Emphasis Area: AccountingUniversity of Missouri St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Page 7 of 77
Dissertation: Towards a Revised Model for CPA Firm Ownership and Compensation in a TightLabor Market and a Changing Culture
https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/1280/
Masters of Accountancy May 2016Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA
Juris Doctor May 2014Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA Idaho State Bar#9748, Effective January 2018.
PhD., Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice,May 2010 WashingtonState University, Pullman, WAM.A., Department of Political Science, cum laude May 2004Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL
B.A., Department of Psychology, University of Maine, Orono, ME
May 2002
I have extensive training in both qualitative and quantitative research methodology including surveydevelopment and analysis.See attached examples and C.V.
• Price Proposal
Negotiable.
Appendix A
NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PAY AFFIRMATION
Page 8 of 77
_____Andrew R. Thomas__________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will
not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national
origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and
acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting
discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the
hiring and treatments or proposer’s employees and to all subcontracts.
__Andrew R. Thomas_______________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will
abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act).
_____/S/ Andrew R. Thomas_________________________________
[Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of Respondent]
Andrew Robert Thomas, J.D., Ph.D., D.B.A.
5895 Redwing Rd ARThomas@Carroll.edu
Helena MT 59602 509-592-0720
Education
Page 9 of 77
Doctor of Business AdministrationDecember 2022Emphasis Area: AccountingUniversity of Missouri St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Dissertation: Towards a Revised Model for CPA Firm Ownership and Compensation in a TightLabor Market and a Changing Culture
https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/1280/
Masters of Accountancy May 2016Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA
Juris Doctor May 2014Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA Idaho State Bar#9748, Effective January 2018.
PhD., Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice,May 2010 WashingtonState University, Pullman, WAPrelim Fields: Political Psychology, Public Administration, Public Policy, exams completed andpassed 12/2006.
Dissertation:Work, Time and Sustainability: The Political Economy of Work and Time Usagein the Context of Policy Related to a Sustainable Society.Description:This work hypothesizes that nations that exhibit high levels of sustainability will also exhibitequitable time use patterns and policies vis-à-vis work/life balance considerations. Using this hypothesis adiscussion is presented of the political economy, policy, and normative implications of time use and work/lifebalance-related subjects
M.A., Department of Political Science, cum laude May 2004Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL
MA Paper #1:An Analysis of HR 1042, A Bill to Prohibit Discrimination inInsurance Underwriting and in the Workplace,Paper #2:Integrative Complexity and Political Sophistication
B.A., Department of Psychology, cum laude, Honors May 2002 University ofMaine, Orono, ME
Page 10 of 77
Honors Thesis:Cooperation and Competition: A Bio-Social Analysis,
Professional Experience
Assistant Professor,Department of Business and Accounting, Carroll College, Helena MT,2023-Present
Board of Directors, Family Outreach, Helena Montana, Finance Committee, 2023-present
Governance Board, Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority, 2023-present
Instructor,Department of Business and Accounting, Carroll College, Helena MT, 2018-2022
Instructor, New Mexico Highlands University, Fall 2020-2023
Consultant,Helena Association of Realtors, Summer 2021-Spring 2022
Instructor of Science II,Tenure Track, Highlands College, Department of General Studies,Butte MT, Fall 2016-Spring2018
Instructor, Helena College, Department of Business, Helena MT
Spring 2017-Present
Instructor, North Idaho College, Social Sciences Department, Coeur d’Alene ID, 2012-2016
Instructor, Spokane Falls Community College, Social Sciences Department, Spokane WA,2015-2016
Course mentor, Running Start Program/Early College in the High school, Spokane FallsCommunity College, Spokane WA, 2015-2016
Course instructor, On Track Academy, Spokane Falls Community College, Spokane WA,Spring 2016
Page 11 of 77
Legal intern, Macomber Law PLLC, Coeur d’Alene ID, January 2015-May2015
Assistant to the director, Federal Tax Clinic, Gonzaga University Legal Assistance,
Spokane, WA May 2014-August 2014
Legal Extern, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue, Service,
Spokane, January-May 2014
Legal Intern, Business Law Clinic, Gonzaga University Legal Assistance, Spokane, WA LegalIntern, August 2013-December 2013
Research Assistant,Gonzaga Law Professor George
Critchlow, Spokane, WA, July 2013-January 2014
Legal Intern, Federal Tax Clinic, Gonzaga University Legal Assistance, Spokane, WA,
January-August 2013
Research and Data Analyst on drug impaired driving, child welfare and offender rehabilitation,Division of Governmental Studies and Services, Pullman WA, 2011-2015
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman WA, Fall, 2009-Summer, 2011
Board of Directors, Garfield Public Development Authority, 2010-2013
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Gonzaga University, Spokane WA, Fall, 2008
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University,
Pullman WA, Summer, 2008
Research Assistant Department of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman WA,Spring, 2008
Research Assistant, Center for Teaching Learning and Technology, WashingtonState University, Pullman WA, Summer 2007-Fall 2007.
Page 12 of 77
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University,
Pullman WA, Spring 2007
Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman WA,Fall 2006
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman WA,
Spring 2006
Research Assistant, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University,
Pullman WA, Fall 2005
Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman WA
Summer 2005
Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Political Science, Washington State University,
Pullman WA, Fall 2004-Spring 2005
Teaching and Research Assistant, Department of Political Science,
Northern Illinois University, Dekalb Illinois, 2002-2004
Publications
Butler, W., Decker, G., Peters, J.,Thomas, A. R., & Merritt, S.Positive Organizational Politics: AGrounded Theory Study (September 15, 2019). Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3454066 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3454066
Critchlow, G. (2014)Beyond Elitism: Legal Education for the Public Good.University of ToledoLaw Review.(I served as the primary research assistant for this article. See footnote page 1).
Washington State Truancy Bench Book, Chapter: “Becca” Laws, prepared for the Center For
Page 13 of 77
Children and Youth Justice (Seattle) Fall 2012. Work supported by a grant from the John D. and Katherine T.MacArthur Foundation as part of the foundation’s national Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative.
Thomas, A. R. (2007) “Liberalism.” In Kenneth Warren (ed),Encyclopedia of Campaigns, Electionsand Electoral Behavior.Sage Publications.
Thomas, A. R. (2007) “Pluralist Politics.” In Kenneth Warren (ed),Encyclopedia of Campaigns,Elections and Electoral Behavior.Sage Publications.
Thomas, A. R. and Nice D. C. (2006). “The Role of Prayer in Times of Peace and War, In: EnrieHakanen and Anne-Marie Obajateki-Kirkland (eds),Signs of War. Palgrave.
Thomas, A. R. and Nice D. C. (2005). “State homeland security coordination.” In Jack Rabin (ed),Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, online edition. Taylor and Francis.
Conference Papers/Other Work/Presentations
Thomas, A. R.,Firm Size and Post Senior Manager Retention,Northwest Accounting ResearchGroup, Spokane, Washington, October 26, 2024.
Thomas, A. R.,Integrating Research in the Undergraduate Accounting Curriculum,NorthwestAccounting Research Group, Spokane, Washington, October 25, 2024.
Thomas, A. R.,Advances in Accounting Information Systems,Helena Society of CPAs, May 2nd,2024.
Thomas, A. R,Universal Capital Accounts and Public Policy,Beyster Symposium, RutgersSchool of Management and Labor Relations,online, June 23-25 2020.
Thomas, A. R.,Employee Stock Ownership and Retirement Savings,Beyster Symposium,Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations,La Jolla, California, June 23-25 2019.
Thomas, A. R.,Exclusionary Zoning and Legal Challenges to Restrictive Planning,AmericanDream Coalition, August 6-8, 2017, Washington D.C.
Guest Lecture:Enron, Sarbanes Oxley, and Fin 46,Business Ethics, Taught by Dr. John Garic,Montana Tech, Spring 2016.
Page 14 of 77
Lovrich, N.P, Pearl D.S., Thomas, A. R.,Contemporary Probation and Parole Practices in theUnited States: Innovation Arising from Excessive Incarceration,International AcademicsSeminar on Rehabilitation and Protection Legislation and Practice, 2015, Taipei Taiwan.
Keynote Address, November, 2013, Antalya, Turkey5thAnnual International Symposium on Children at Risk and in Need of Protection “Insights from theHistory of U.S. Efforts to Legislate, Adjudicate and Enforce Protections AgainstChild Abuse” (with Detective William Marshall, Spokane Police Dept. and NicholasLovrich, Washington State University).Conference hosted by the Turkish National Police Academy; funding from the UN, the European Union, andThe Netherlands.
Gentrification and Transportation: An Analysis of Congestion and Real Estate Values inWashington State.Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, 2010, Spokane Washington.
The Audacity of Soap: Assessing the Impact of Voter Appraisals of Cleanliness onCandidate Preference,Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, 2010, Spokane,Washington. (with David Pearl and Barbara Salera)
The State of Transportation Policy in the Pacific Northwest: A Long Term Analysis,PacificNorthwest Political Science Association, 2009, Victoria B.C.
Regional Colonialism: The Political Economy of Regional Migration in the Pacific Northwest,Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, 2008, Portland Oregon.
The New Planned Obsolescence, Integrating Technology and Sustainability Through Policy.American Political Science Association, 2008, Boston, Massachusetts.
Extremism and Complexity: Discordant Objects: Cognitive Sophistication andIdeology,Midwest Political Science Association, 2008, Chicago, Illinois. (with David Pearl andGlenn Smith)
Extremism and Complexity: Exploring the Relationship between Right-wingAuthoritarians and Religious Fundamentalists,Southwestern Political Science Association,2008, Las Vegas, Nevada (with David Pearl and Glenn Smith)
Legislative and Other Challenges to the Growth Management Act in Washington State: ThePast, Present and Future of Land Use Planning in the Evergreen State.Pacific NorthwestPolitical Science Association, 2007, Spokane, Washington.
In the Name of God the Creator: Religious Perceptions of Evolution and Creationism.International Society of Political Psychology, 2007, Portland, Oregon.
Page 15 of 77
The Effect of Subject Self-Description on the Evaluation of a Candidate’s Social Position.International Society of Political Psychology, 2005, Toronto, Canada.
Gender, Sensation-Seeking, and Attitudes toward the War in Iraq: Dixie Chicks and Good ‘OlBoys.Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, 2003. (with James N. Schubert)
Sensation Seeking and Risky Political Decision Making.International Society of PoliticalPsychology, 2003, Boston, Massachusetts. (with James N. Schubert)
Awards and Scholarships
Gonzaga School of Law, Merit Scholarship, 2011-2014
Washington State University,Paul S. Beckett Memorial Scholarship, 2004-2006
Awarded to most outstanding graduate student in Public Administration studies
University of Maine,Distinguished Scholar Award, 1998 - 2002
Professional Activities
Internal Revenue Service, Low Income Taxpayer Clinic, Quarterly Grant Reporting,
Federal Low Income Tax Clinic, University Legal Assistance, Gonzaga University,
Summer 2014
Garfield Public Development Authority, Draft Proposals for Department of Agriculture
Economic Development Grant, 2011-2012
Washington State University Department of Political Science,Department Research and TravelGrant, For Southwestern Political Science Association, 2008 (With David Pearl and Glenn Smith)
Northwest Political Science Association, Travel Grant, NWPSA Conference, 2008
American Political Science Association, Graduate Student Research and Travel Grant, For APSAConference, 2008.
Page 16 of 77
Washington State University, Graduate Research Grant, For International Society of
Political Psychology Conference, 2007
Washington State University, Graduate Research Grant, For International Society of PoliticalPsychology Conference, 2005
Research Interests
American Legal SystemTaxation, BudgetingBusiness AdministrationLand Use
Political PsychologyPublic AdministrationPublic PolicyManagement
Political EconomyEnvironmental PolicyPublic Sector Accounting
Courses Taught (both seated and on-line)
Taxation of Business Entities, Carroll College,Fall 2024
Macroeconomics, Carroll College,Spring 2022
Not for profit governmental accounting,New Mexico Highlands University, Spring 2022
Financial accounting,New Mexico Highlands University, Summer 2022
Microeconomics,Carroll College, Fall 2021
Accounting Information Systems,New Mexico Highlands University, Fall 2021
Business and Society, New Mexico Highlands University, Spring 2021
Page 17 of 77
Employment Law,New Mexico Highlands University, Fall 2020
Estate and Gift Planning, (CFP Cert. core class),Carroll College, Fall 2019-Present
Accounting Information Systems,Carroll College, Spring 2019-Present
Not for Profit Governmental Accounting, (Graduate/Undergraduate),Carroll College Spring2019-Present
Advanced Tax Research and Theory (Estate and Gift/Planning),Carroll College, Fall 2018-Present
Individual Income Tax,Carroll College, Fall 2018-Present
Business Law,Carroll College, Fall 2019-Present
Advanced Taxation (Taxations of Business Entities),Carroll College, Fall 2018PresentProfessional Ethics and Law,Carroll College, Summer 2018-Present
State and Local Government,Helena College (online), Spring 2018-Present
Intellectual Property,Montana Tech, Fall 2017
Law and Society,Montana Tech, Fall 2017-2018
Individual Taxation,Montana Tech, 2017
Managerial Accounting,Montana Tech, 2017-2018
Taxation of Business Entities,Montana Tech, 2017-2018
Macro Economics,Helena College, Spring 2017
Medical Law and Ethics,Highlands College, Spring 2017
Introduction to American Government,Shasta College, Spring 2017
Business Law,Highlands College 2016-2018
Records Management,Highlands College, 2016-2017
Introduction to Paralegal Studies,Highlands College, 2016-2017
Legal Research and Writing,Highlands College, 2016-2017
Page 18 of 77
Introduction to Criminal Justice,Highlands College, 2016-2018
Introduction to American Government,North Idaho College 2012-2016
Introduction to American Government & Global Issues, Spokane Falls Community College 2015-2016.
Introduction to Public Policy,Washington State University, 2004-2011
Introduction to American Government,Distance Degree Program, Washington State University2004-2011
Introduction to American Government, Gonzaga University, 2008
State and local government,Distance Degree Program, Washington, State University. 2004-2011
Public Administration,Distance Degree Program, Washington State University. 20042011
Teaching Interests
Public Administration Law and Society
Accounting/Taxation Public Policy
Business Administration Political Economy
Land use planning/policy Governmental accounting
Committee Work/Institutional Service
Faculty Welfare Committee,Carroll College, Fall 2024 - present
Retirement Investment Advisory Board,Carroll College, Summer 2024
Institutional Review Board,Carroll College, Fall 2019 - present
Non-traditional/professional degree exploration committee,Carroll College, Fall 2018
Faculty Senate,Montana Tech/Highlands College, 2017-18
Page 19 of 77
General Education Committee, Montana Tech/Highlands College, 2016-18
Student Retention Committee, Montana Tech/Highlands College, 2016-18
Academic Standards Committee, Taskforce to revise and update academic dishonesty standards,Montana Tech/Highlands College, 2016-17
Health and Wellness Committee, 2016-18
Indigenous Mentoring Program, 2016-17
Symposium: Reaching Out to the Adult Student,
Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education, Helena Montana,
October 12, 2016
Graduate Student Committee Representative, Dept. of Political Science,Washington State University, Pullman WA, 2005-2006
Community Service
Butte Kiwanis, 2016-2018
Professional References
Dr. Belle Marie, CPA, CGMA, CMA, CIA, CFEProfessor, Business DepartmentCarroll College1601 N. Benton Ave.Helena, MT 59625bmarie@carroll.edu406-447-5444
Page 20 of 77
Dr. Adel F. DimianAssociate Professor of Management, Business Department
Dean of Graduate & Professional Education
Carroll College adimian@carroll.edu517-690-7798
John M. Garic, J.D.Former Dean Highlands College, Franklin Marshall College917 Columbia Ave, Lancaster, PA 17603johnmgaric@gmail.com406-490-0963
David HoodProfessor Emeritus, Montana Technological University307-840-6931DWHood1960@gmail.com
Dr. David NiceProfessor Emeritus, Washington State University
801 Crestline Ave
Pullman WA 99163
DNice@wsu.edu(509)-334-2268
Dr. David PearlProfessor
Olympic College
1600 Chester Ave,
Bremerton, WA 98337
DPearl@Olympic.edu509-339-5221
Page 21 of 77
Survey Completed for Helena Association of Realtors inresponse to proposed zoning changes:
July 19-26, 2021
500 Respondents (573 Unweighted)
349 Phone Respondents (400 Unweighted), 151 Online Respondents (173 Unweighted)
255 Wireless Respondents, 20 VOIP, 74 LandlineMargin of error: ± 4.4 percentage pointsNational Association of REALTORS® MT -Helena Area Smart Growth Frequencies (%responding)
Q.2 First of all, are you registered to vote in Lewis and Clark County?
(IF NO) I'm sorry. Is there a registered Lewis and Clark County voter available I can speak to?TotalYes100No (TERMINATE)-
Q.3 Sex of respondent (INTERVIEWER CODE--DO NOT ASK RESPONDENT)TotalMale50Female50
Q.4 Generally speaking, how would you describe the quality of life in Lewis and Clark County - (ROTATE FIRSTTO LAST, LAST TO FIRST) excellent, good, just fair or poor?
Page 22 of 77
TotalExcellent27Good54Just fair 14Poor4(Don'tknow/refused)1
Excellent/Good 81Just Fair/Poor 18
Excellent/Good - Just Fair/Poor 64
National Association of REALTORS® MT - Helena Area Smart Growth: Frequencies, July19-25, 2021
77
(407 respondents)
Q.5 (IF EXCELLENT OR GOOD IN Q.4) And what specifically about the quality of life in your area makes itEXCELLENT/GOOD?
(OPEN END -- RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE-- ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES)TotalOutdooractivities/recreation/walkingtrails 24Warm/accepting community ofpeople 24Small town/peaceful andquiet/lack of traffic 22Nice scenery/mountains/lakes 18Strong job market/economy 11Lowcrime rate/safe area 10Clean air/clean water/clean environment 8Good community/place to live in 8Large number ofopportunities/resources/servicesforcitizens 8Proximity to friends and family 6Quality educational system/schools 5Affordable housing/cheap cost ofliving 4Lackofgovernmentinterferenceinpeople'slives 4Goodhealth care/medical treatment 2(Other)7(None)1(Don'tknow/refused)2
National Association of REALTORS® MT - Helena Area Smart Growth: Frequencies, July19-25, 2021
77
(90 respondents)
Q.6 (IF JUST FAIR OR POOR IN Q.4) And what specifically about the quality of life in your area makes it JUST
FAIR/POOR? (OPEN END -- RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE -- ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES)TotalHousingunaffordability/housepriceinflationdue to people relocating 25Highcost of living/high taxes 24Incompetence/ineffectivenessoflocalgovernment officials 13Lackofjobopportunities/excess ofservicejobs/bad economy 11Low income/wages are toolow 10Poor living conditions/wildfires 7Ineffectiveness ofpolice department 5Lackofinfrastructural development/bad roads 6Lack of medical services 4Nothing todo/no activities 4Poor economy/hard to do business 4Bad traffic 4High crime rate/lack of public safety 3Shrinking ofcitizens' freedoms/liberties 3Too much population growth 3Lack of housing 2(Other)16(None)3
4
Q.7 Next I am going to read some issues that local officials will be facing over the next few years. For each one pleasetell me how much of a priority it should be for the Lewis and Clark County Commissioners to address. Should it be(ROTATE FIRST TO LAST, LAST TO FIRST) an extremely high priority, a high priority, a middle priority, or a lowpriority for the Lewis and Clark County Commissioners?
(READ ITEM -- RANDOMIZE)
(PROMPT) Should that be (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST, LAST TO FIRST) an extremely high priority, a highpriority, a middle priority, or alow priority for your county government?Anextremelyhighpriority
Ahighpriority
Amiddlepriority
Alowpriority (Dk/Ref)Ext/Highpriority Mid/Lowpriority NetA. Protecting open space, like fields,forests,andranchlandfromdevelopment 35 38 18 9 1 73 27 46
B.Improvingforestfirepreventionandprotection 42 40 14 4 0 83 17 65
C.Protectingpublicwaterqualityandsupply 36 46 14 4 1 81 18 64
D.Improvingtheavailabilityandaffordability of housing 32 35 20 12 1 67 32 34
E. Attracting businesses andcreating jobs 19 41 27 13 0 60 40 20
F. Keeping property taxes undercontrol 33 42 22 3 1 76 24 51
G. Roadmaintenance and construction 19 47 29 5 0 66 33 33
5
Q.8 And which ONE of those issues do you think should be the top priority for your local county
government? (READ LIST)
(RANDOMIZE)
(IF MORE THAN ONE) Well which ONE do you think should be the top priority for your local county government?
TotalKeeping property taxes under control 22The availability andaffordability of housing 21Forest fire prevention 14Protectingopenspace12Water quality 13Attracting businesses andnew jobs 11Roadmaintenance and construction 6(Don'tknow/refused)1
Q.9 (ROTATE Q.9 AND Q.10) Generally speaking, would you say that the cost to buy a house in Lewis andClark County is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) too high, about right, or too low?
(IFTOO HIGH) Would you say the cost to buy a house is much too high or somewhat too high?TotalMuchtoo high 55Somewhattoo high 28Aboutright15Toolow0(Don'tknow/refused)2
Much/Somewhat too high 83Aboutright/Too low 15
Much/Somewhattoohigh -Aboutright/Toolow 68
6
Q.10 (ROTATE Q.9 AND Q.10) Generally speaking, would you say that the cost to rent an apartment inLewis and Clark County is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) too high, about right, or toolow?
(IF TOO HIGH) Would you say the cost to rent an apartment is much too high or somewhat too high?TotalMuchtoo high 49Somewhattoo high 27Aboutright15Toolow1(Don'tknow/refused)9
Much/Somewhat too high 76Aboutright/Too low 15
Much/Somewhattoohigh -Aboutright/Toolow 61
Q.11 Do you (ROTATE) agree or disagree with the following statement: young adults and families can't afford tolive in Lewis and Clark County and are leaving for places where housing is more affordable.
(FOLLOW UP) And is that strongly AGREE/DISAGREE or somewhat AGREE/DISAGREE?TotalStrongly agree 34Somewhat agree 25Somewhat disagree 25Strongly disagree 9(Neitheragree nor disagree)1(Don'tknow/refused)6
Total Agree 60Total Disagree 34
Total Agree - Total Disagree 26
7
Q.12 As you may know, housing costs in Lewis and Clark County have been on the rise. I am going to read to you a listof different reasons that some people have given for why housing costs have increased. For each one, please tell me ifyou think it is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) a very significant factor, a significant factor, a not verysignificant factor, or not a factor at all for the increased housing costs in Lewis and Clark County.
(READ STATEMENT, PROMPT) Would you say that is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) a very significant factor, asignificant factor, a not very significant factor, or not a factor at all for increased housing costs in Lewis and Clark County?
(RANDOMIZE)
A verysigfactor A sigfactor
A notverysigfactor
Not afactoratall (Dk/Ref)
Very/Asigfactor
Notvery/Nota factorat all NetA. The cost of building and materials 46 41 9 2 2 88 10 78
B. Labor costs 16 39 34 7 5 54 41 14
C. County building andzoning codes 15 29 40 11 5 44 51 -6
D. Peoplemoving infromout ofstateandpricing out local residents 64 27 7 1 1 90 9 82
E.Thelackofsingle-familyhomesavailable for purchase 32 43 17 5 4 75 21 54
Q.13 Switching gears a bit, are you aware that the county government recently adopted new zoning regulations forhousing and building construction in Lewis and Clark County? (ROTATE) Yes or no.TotalYes44No56(Don'tknow/refused)-
Yes - No -13
8
Q.14 As you may know, last year the county passed a new regulation requiring a minimum lot size of tenacres for new homes built outside the Helena city limits. This means that any newly constructed homeoutside of the city limits will require at least ten acres of land. No further subdivision is allowed. Based onwhat you know, do you (ROTATE) favor or oppose the minimum lot size of ten acres for new homeconstruction outside the Helena city limits?
(FOLLOW UP) And is that strongly FAVOR/OPPOSE orsomewhat FAVOR/OPPOSE?
TotalStrongly favor 20Somewhat favor 20Somewhat oppose 21Strongly oppose 35(Don'tknow/refused)5
Total Favor 40Total Oppose 56
Total Favor - Total Oppose -16
Q.15 Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes.
In what year were you born? (DON'T KNOW/REFUSED = 0000)Total18-29 830-39 1840-49 1650-64 2765+30(Don'tknow/refused)2
9
Q.16 What is the last year of schooling that you have
completed? (DO NOT READ LIST)Total1st - 11th grade 1Highschool graduate 15Non-college post H.S.6Some college 23College graduate 31Post-graduateschool 23(Don'tknow/refused)2
H.S. or less 16Post H.S.28College Graduate 54
Not College 44
Q.17 And do you currently own your home, rent your home, or are you living with friends or family?TotalOwn79Rent16Living withfriends or family 3(Don'tknow/refused)2
Q.18 If you could choose where to live today, which ONE of the following types of housing would you
prefer? (READ LIST - ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST)TotalAnapartment3A condominium 4A single-family house with a small yard 23A single-family house with a large yard 36A rural ranch or farm property 30(Somethingelse)2(Don'tknow/refused)1
10
Q.19 In terms of your job status, are you employed, unemployed but looking for work, retired, a student, or a homemaker?TotalEmployed61Unemployed but looking for work 3Retired32Student0Homemaker2(Other)2(Don'tknow/refused)1
TotalOut of work force 37
Q.20 What is your annual household income? Just stop me when I get to the right amount. (READOPTIONS TOP TO BOTTOM)TotalLess than $25,000 10$25,000to $50,000 14$50,001to $75,000 21$75,001to $100,000 18$100,001to $125,000 13More than $125,000 16(Don'tknow/refused)8
Less than or equal to $50K 24Greater than $100K 29
Less than or equal to $75K 46Greater than $75K 47
Regionby place name TotalHelena45Helena Valley 35Other20
11
Place Name TotalAugusta1Craig0East Helena 3Helena45Helena Valley Northeast 4Helena Valley Northwest 7Helena Valley Southeast 10Helena Valley West Central 14Helena West Side 0Lincoln1Marysville0Unknown15
(349 respondents)
Phoneline type TotalLandline21VOIP6Wireless73
Mode TotalPhone70Online30
Mode TotalPhone70Email11SMS20
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Survey Methodology
American Strategies designed and administered this Telephone and online survey conducted by professionalinterviewers. The survey reached 500 adults, age 18 or older, who indicated they were registered to vote in Lewisand Clark County, Montana. The survey was conducted from July 19-25, 2021.
Fifty-one percent of respondents were reached on wireless phones, four percent on VOIP phones, fifteen percenton landlines, and thirty percent online. Quotas were assigned to reflect the demographic distribution of registeredvoters in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, and the data were weighted to ensure an accurate reflection of thepopulation. The sample was drawn from a third-party vendor voter file and based on vote history. The overallmargin of error is +/- 4.4%. The margin of error for subgroups is larger and varies. Percentage totals may not add upprecisely due to rounding.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Survey for D.B.A. dissertation. See:https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/1280/for full analysis anddiscussion.
Instructions
In this survey, you will be asked to respond to various questions about firmownership, engagement, attitudes, and advancement in public accounting firms. There areseveral different types of questions, including multiple-choice, "slider scale" questionswhere you select a value on a sliding scale, and free-response questions. With many of thequestions, you may choose Not applicable if you are not familiar with the topic. Eventhough some of the responses might not precisely reflect your views, always try to selectthe answer that best matches your beliefs. Also, we appreciate any additional insights youmight be able to provide in the free-response question. Thank you for your participation.
Survey
Post senior managers (PSMs)are positions where senior staff who do not make managing
partner or shareholder remain at the firm in a non-managerial role. Typically, these employees do
not have executive powers regarding firm-wide decisions, nor do they usually have equity interests
in the firm.
· If your firm has a PSM position, answer the questions as they are written.
· If your firm does not have a PSM position and you are familiar with PSMs, answer the questions to
the best of your knowledge.
· If you are unfamiliar with PSMs, select the box labeled Not applicable.
1. Smaller firms retain PSMs more than larger firms.
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Strongly disagree), 25 (Disagree), 50 (Neutral), 75(Agree), 100 (Strongly agree), (Not applicable)2. Given your response to the prior question, how much do the following considerations
play a role in your answer:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Direct compensation that is not competitive with larger firms
b.Offering equity
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
c.Alternative work arrangements
d.Work-life balance
e.Mentorship
f.Programs directed at inclusivity
g.Limited supply of talent
Compensation, Equity, and Firm Policies
1. How important is compensation to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
2. How important is being offered equity to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
3. How important is work-life balance to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
4. How important are alternative work arrangements to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
c.Being satisfied with your job
5. How important is mentorship to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
6. How important is inclusivity to each of the following:
(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 75 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
7.How important is staying in a community that you have, friends, family, or ties to
relative to the following:
(Slider response, 1-100), 0 (Not at all), 25 (Somewhat important), 50 (Neitherimportant or not important), 25 (Important), 100 (Very important), (Not applicable)a.Staying at your position
b.Advancing or being promoted
c.Being satisfied with your job
Priorities
8. For the following statements, rank how important they are to you when thinking
about where you want to work. (Rank each)
a.Direct compensation
b.Owning stock in your employer
c.Work-life balance
d.Alternative work arrangements (remote work, alternative schedules)
e.Mentorship
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
f.Inclusivity
g.Inclusivity based upon gender, race, or other demographic background.
h.Staying in a community you have ties to.
Demographic/background information
9. Age in years
a.Numerical (Slider response 1–100) (Can be segmented based upon various
age groups)
10.Gender
a.Male
b.Female
c.Other/non-binary
11.Ethnicity
a.White
b.Black (non-white)
c.Hispanic (non-white)
d.Asian/Pacific Islander (non-white)
e.Native American (non-white)
f.Other (non-white)
12.Years of education:
a.High school or less (0–12), 12–16 (2-year college), 16–20 (4-year college),
20–22 (Master’s degree) 22–30 (Doctorate)
13.What best describes your current position?
a.Student
b.Sole practitioner/industry/government
c.Staff (non-accountant/non-managerial)
d.Associate
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
e.Manager
f.PSM, director, non-equity partner (does not have executive powers)
g.Partner/Shareholder
h.Retried
i.Other non-accounting manager such as HR.
14.Have you ever worked in public accounting?
a.Yes/No
15.Have you ever been on track to become a partner/shareholder?
a.Yes/No
16.How many years of work experience do you have?
a.(numeric) (Can be segmented based upon experience levels)
17.How would you describe the community you live in?
a.0 (Rural), 25 (Semirural), 50 (Suburban), 75 (Small city), 100 (Large city)
18.Being a member of the community, being from here, or having family obligations are
reasons I stay here.
a.(Slider response, 1–100), 0 (Strongly disagree), 25 (Disagree), 50 (Neutral),
75 (Agree), 100 (Strongly agree)
19.How many people worked at your most recent employer? (Can be segmented in to
small, medium, and large firms)
a.(Slider response 1–500)
20.Is there anything else you would like to add about the topics covered in this survey?
a.(Free response)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Example of grounded theory interview andanalysis:
A HOLISTIC MEASURE FOR THEPERCEPTIONS OFORGANIZATIONALPOLITICS
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Andrew Thomas
College of Business UNIVERSITYOFMISSOURI–STLOUIS
ABSTRACT Organizational politics is a force that is always present in organizations (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey,and Toth, 1997; Kacmar and Baron, 1999). For many years, negative connotations of self-interest, divisivebehavior, and illegitimate actions branded the construct. However, recent scholars acknowledge that politics canbe functional and moderate levels ofpolitics can provideoptimum levels ofjob satisfaction and lower levels of jobtension (Butler, Decker, Thomas, Peters, & Merritt, 2019; Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway, & ColemanGallagher, 2010).
However, scholarshave not developed aninstrument that candifferentiate positive and negative politics,leaving practitioners with instruments that are either negative or positive in nature. In fact, to date, the literatureis not clear on what differentiates a positive or negative valence.
This study fills the literature gap in three ways. First, it creates an instrument with languagethatassociates valance with thebeneficiary. Next, wedemonstrate there is a difference between positive and negativepolitics and its effect on anxiety (positive politics reduces anxiety and negative politics increase anxiety). Finally,we find that negative politics has a curvilinear relationship with stress, such that moderate levels of negativepolitics provide low levels of stress, like the Vitamin Effect (Warr, 1987).
Keywords: Perceptions of organizational politics, positive politics, job satisfaction, jobanxiety, job stress
2
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
3
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
A HOLISTIC MEASURE FOR THE PERCEPTIONSOF ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS
Abstract
Organizational politics is a force that is always present in organizations (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey,and Toth, 1997; Kacmar and Baron, 1999). For many years, negative connotations of self-interest, divisivebehavior, and illegitimate actions branded the construct. However, recent scholars acknowledge that politicscan be functional and moderate levels of politicscan provideoptimum levels of job satisfaction and lowerlevelsof job tension (Butler, Decker, Thomas, Peters, & Merritt, 2019; Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway, &Coleman Gallagher, 2010).
However, scholarshave not developed aninstrument that candifferentiate positive and negative politics,leaving practitioners with instruments that are either negative or positive in nature. In fact, to date, the literatureis not clear on what differentiates a positive or negative valence.
This study fills the literature gap in three ways. First, it creates an instrument with languagethatassociates valance with thebeneficiary. Next, wedemonstrate there is a difference between positive and negativepolitics and its effect on anxiety (positive politics reduces anxiety and negative politics increase anxiety). Finally,we find that negative politics has a curvilinear relationship with stress, such that moderate levels of negativepolitics provide low levels of stress, like the Vitamin Effect (Warr, 1987).
Keywords: Perceptions of organizational politics, positive politics, job satisfaction, jobanxiety, job stress
4
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
A New Measure for Both Sides of the Perceptions
of organizational politics Introduction
The term “organizational politics” conjures negative connotations such as visions of back-room deals and
the use of unsanctioned processes to obtain resources. The literature has also embraced this bias to the negative
side of politics, which is evident in published definitions. For example, Mintzberg’s 1983 work defines politics as
“individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the
technical sense, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise”
(Mintzberg, 1983: 172).
However, other scholars have found a positive side to organizational politics and proposed a definition
that reflects a more positive tone. “[Organizational politics] is a broad and influential social tool that can
contribute to the basic functioning of the organization” (Cropanzano et al., 1997: 161). As definitions soften to
recognize a more benign side of organizational politics, scholars began exploring the existence of both a positive
and negative valence of perceptions of organizational politics. Fedor et al. (2008) found that positive and negative
perceptions of organizational politics are distinct constructs. We propose that positive behavior can occur outside
the formal system, and the beneficiary of the action can be the individual or a group. Butler et al. (2019) showed
that the number of beneficiaries matters (perceived motives) to the positive perception of organizational politics.
When the action is selfish, benefiting only the political actor, the most common perception is negative. However,
when either a greater number of people benefit from a political action or the actor themselves works for the
greater good (e.g., helping the organization), the chances of the action being perceived as positive significantly
increase (Butler etal., 2019). Thediscrepancy between Fedor
5
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
et al. (2008) and Butler et al. (2019)leaves the literaturewith inconsistent findings on how beneficiaries determine
valence.
Perceptionsoforganizationalpoliticsarealsoassociatedwithorganizationaloutcomes.
Most of the literature links politics to adverse outcomes such as higher levels of job stress, turnover intentions,
reduced levels of job satisfaction, and diminished organizational commitment (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Kacmar &
Carlson, 1997; Poon, 2003). However, Fedor et al. (2008) claimed that any behavior that is functional to the
organization is positive, as it will improve organizational effectiveness. Other scholars find that the absence of
politics leads to detrimental outcomes. Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway, and Gallagher (2010) find that there
is a curvilinear relationship between job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational politics, such that low
levels of perceptions of organizational politics have low levels of job satisfaction and high levels of perceptions of
organizational politics produce low levels of job satisfaction. Therefore, some degree of perceptions of
organizational politics helps optimize outcomes like job satisfaction.
This study expands on Butler et al. (2019) by creating an instrument that can measure valancebased on
whether the action benefits others or anindividual. This instrument is needed to honor the distinctness of
positive and negative politics while linking the valence to beneficiaries. The new metric is then used to link
positive and negative perceptions of organizational politics to the outcomes of job stress and job anxiety.
Literature Review
Research into organizational politics has ebbed and flowed for more than 50 years, and in that time,
numerous definitions were born. A comprehensive look at the stream of literature from its earliest days shows
two separate lines of definitions. One stream grounds itself in the
6
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
negative connotations (epitomized by Mintzberg’s 1983 description) and centers on the self- serving nature of the
actions. A second, newer stream has definitions that areoutcome neutral or reflect both the positive and negative
side of the construct (For a summary, see Appendix 1).
Burns (1961: 257) defines behavior as political if “others are made useof as resources in competitive
situations.” This definition focuses on the action rather than the outcome.
Another early attempt to define organizational politics from Mayes and Allen’s (1977: 675) work, “Organizational
politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization orto obtain
sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned influencemeans,”is more neutral in terms of outcomes. Importantly,
this definition does not suggest that the results of organizational politics have to be self-serving. It leaves the
possibility of positive, neutral, or negative consequences from the actions. The same year, Tushman (1977: 207)
also offered a perception-neutral definition of “the structure and process of the use of authority and power to
effect definitions of goals, directions, and other major parameters of the organization.”
However, oncethe1983 Mintzberg definition came out, themainstream of organizational politics
literature definitions turned definitively negative. Drory and Romm (1988 and 1990) define organizational politics
using ten negatively skewed attributes: self-serving behavior, acting against the interests of the organization,
securing valuable resources, obtaining power, influence attempts, power tactics, informal behavior, concealing
one’s motive, conflict, and uncertainty in the decision making process. These characteristics continued to be used
in several definitions by many leading researchersthroughout the late1980s to the early 2000s (e.g., Ferris, Frink,
Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, and Howard, 1996; Fedor, Ferris, Harrell-cook, and Russ, 1998). For example, Kacmar and
Baron (1999: 4) emphasize self-interest, “Organizational politics
7
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
involvesactions by individuals which are directed towardthegoal of furthering their own self- interest, without
regard for the well-being of others or their organization.”
Despite the vast stream of literature that focused on the negative side, a smaller second stream of
organizational politics research emerged. This new stream acknowledged the functional nature that
organizational politics can assume and recognized outcomes that were not necessarily adverse. In 1999,
Buchannan and Badham’s qualitative study used the participants’ definition of political action as its basis. This
definition was not inherently negative, and it emphasized the use of an informal network rather than an
organizationally sanctioned method. They found that political behavior has the potential to be considered
acceptable rather than innately destructive. Hochwarter (2003: 1362) acknowledged that accepting the negatively
connotated definitions is a bit contradictory since “politics can lead to positive outcomes” and went on to show
that some individuals flourish in political atmospheres. Gotsis and Kortezi (2009: 498) describe politics as a
comprise of “intentional acts of influence, mainly through informal means, the intentional use and exercise of
power, often through activities employed to give access to scant resources, actions, and tactics to influence
decision making, as well as behaviors occurring on an informal basis within organizational settings.” The main
components of these definitions are behaviors that leverage an informal system, outside of organizational
procedures, to influence others to obtain resources that can benefit an individual or a group. Our working
definition is that anindividual who uses influence through theinformal system to obtain a resource is engaging in
organizational politics without regard to the positive or negative outcomes.
Evidence of a positive side of politics emerged, and definitions became broader as a result.
“[Organizational politics]is abroad and influential social tool that cancontribute to the
8
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
basic functioning of the organization” (Cropanzano et al., 1997: 161). Hochwarter (2012: 33) suggested that
positive politics was “an indispensable component of organizational life.” However, it was Fedor, Maslyn, Farmer,
and Bettenhausen (2008: 78) that first determined that politics could be both positive and negative. They state,
“what may make political (i.e., non- normative, self-serving) behaviors positive is not whether they are self-serving
per se, but, instead, the extent to which self-serving behaviors are seen as legitimate or consistent with goals that
enhance organizational effectiveness.” Fedor et al. (2008) understood that the valence of perceptions would be
dependent on the outcome of the actions, not necessarily the tacticsused to achieve the result. Butler et al.’s
(2019) qualitative study furthered the understanding of perceptions by suggesting that onemajor component, the
beneficiary(s), could drive viewsof the political act as positive or negative. For example, when a single individual
benefits, the chances of a negative valence significantly increased; however, when many people or the
organization benefit, the positive valence was more likely.
Perception of Organizational Politics Scales
Kacmar and Ferris (1992) created the first perceptions of organizational politics scale to measure
organizational politics. It contains three factors: supervisor behavior, co-worker and clique behavior, and
organizational policies and practices. The final 22-question scale emphasizes the self-serving, negative
connotation of organizational politics grounded in Mintzberg’s (1983) definition. Questions like “My co-workers
help themselves, not others” and “Whereas a lot of what my supervisordoes around here (e.g., communicates and
givesfeedback, etc.) appears to be directed at helping employees, it is actually intended to protect
himself/herself” show the downside of organizational politics, without any accompanying questions that probe
any positive political situations. The positive questions emphasize the
9
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
formal structure of the organization; for example, “Pay and promotion politics are generally communicated in this
company.” This question is reverse-scored, suggesting it would lower perceptions of organizational politics rather
than increase the positive perception of organizational politics. To date, the Kacmar et al. (1992)scale is the most
widely used andcited instrument to measure perceptions of organizational politics.
In 1997, Kacmar revised her original perceptions of organizational politics scale into a new 15-question
scale. She used three different factors: general political behavior, go along to get ahead, and pay and promotion.
The instrument seeks to understand how individuals interact with formal systems to allocate resources. Example
questions include, “When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant.” There are also
questions with negatively charged language, such as “Peoplein this organization attempt to build themselves up
by tearing others down.” Again, the language in the questions is negative or neutral, resulting in the inability to
detect positive perceptions of organizational politics.
In 2008, Fedor et al. developed a scale that confirmed that positive perceptions of organizational politics
are distinct from negative perceptions of organizational politics. Their instrument also demonstrated that the
perceptions of organizational politics differs by organizational level. They posited that proximity to action could
impact perception, and they validated this claim with an instrument that differentiated perceptions of
organizational politics by organizational level (Fedor et al., 2008). The 20-question scale contained both positive
and negative language. For example, “The better my manageris at being a politician, the better it is for my
workgroup,” paired with “We have not been as effective as we could have been because of people being political
within our workgroup” (Fedor et al., 2008: 95). The scale finally
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
10
validated thatorganizational politicscan beperceived both negatively and positively at all levels of the
organization; however, it failed to determine the mechanism that creates that distinction.
Maslyn, Farmer, and Bettenhausen (2017) created a new scale to measure only the positive side of the
organizational politics construct. They developed the instrument to understand if frequency and proximity were
different for positive and negative perceptions but needed a positive scale that was agnostic of level (Maslyn et
al., 2017). The language on this scale is more agnostic than those from the past. Of the seven questions, five
contain language that indicates benefit directly to the survey respondent with questions like “Learning how to
work the system has had real benefits for me at work” and “The better my manager is at being a politician, the
betterit is formy workgroup.” The last two questions talked about benefits to the organization. Consequently,
the scale fails to address the key reason behind the difference in perception. It does not capture perceptions that
could be universally held by the organization; after all, other workgroups and individuals may have a different
perception of the person who learned to work the system than the respondent. While Maslyn et al. (2017)
advanced the literature by including positive perceptions of organizational politics, it did not address the gap
related to valence determination.
Our study set out to create a scale that shows both the positive and negative sides of organizational
politics that demonstrates that the beneficiary from thepolitical action is acritical differentiator of valence
perceptions.
H1: Two factors will emerge among the politics items, including both positivepolitics (group benefits) and negative politics (individual benefits)
Organizational Politics Outcomes
The literature has indicated that negative-scaled perceptions of organizational politics leads to outcomes
suchas reduced job satisfaction, increased intentions to turnover, decreased
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
11
organizational commitment, increased levels of stress and strain, and increased levels of job tension (Ferris et al.,
1996; Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway, & Gallagher, 2010; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006).
Noting the long list of adverse outcomes, scholars sought to understand how to reduce the harmful effects of
perceptions of organizational politics. For example, the political skill inventory was developed as a tactic to reduce
the detrimental impact of politics (Ferris et al., 2007). Also, Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewe, and Johnson (2003)
found that perceived organizational support fully mediated the path between perceptions of organizationalpolitics
andjobsatisfaction,performance,affectivecommitment,andjob-induced tension. Hochwarter et al. (2010) found
that perceptions of organizational politics in moderate levels increases job satisfaction and reduces job tensions.
Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Job Anxiety.Ferris et al. (1989) theorized a relationship
between perceptions of organizational politics and job anxiety. Anxiety is a form of psychological strain. Boswell,
Olson-Buchanan, and LePine (2004: 169) described anxiety as “(something that) reflects an individual’s emotional
reaction to stressful experiences.” Cheng and McCarthy (2018: 537) describe workplace anxiety as “a response to
stressors in the form of a strain symptom, is defined asfeelings of nervousness, uneasiness, and tension about job-
related performance.” Job anxiety is an extension of workplace anxiety. Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, and
Howard (1996) describe job anxiety as a strain that happens at the individual level. The original perceptions of
organizational politics scale did not include job anxiety as one of the tested outcomes (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992). It
was not until 1996, when Ferris et al. measured this connection, finding that perceptions of organizational politics
(based on the 1992 measure) positively relates to job anxiety. The connections between perceptions of
organizational politics and job anxiety have been strictly limited to understanding the relationship under negative
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
12
perceptions. To date and our knowledge, no research has tested the link between job anxiety and positive
perceptions oforganizational politics ordetermined if abalanced measureof perceptions (both positive and
negative) relates to job anxiety. This leads to our second set of hypotheses:
H2a: perceptions of organizational politics will be negatively related to job anxiety
H2b: The valence of the perceptions affects job anxiety differently, such thatnegative perceptions of organizational politics increases job anxiety, and positiveperceptions of organizational politics reduces job anxiety.
Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Stress. In addition to job anxiety, the literature also links
perceptions of organizational politics to stress. Ferris et al. (1996), in their analysis on the mediating impact of
perceptions of organizationalpolitics, developed what they termed “politics as a source of stress in the work
environment” (Ferris et al., 1996: 235).
Cropanzano et al. (1997) conducted a study that linked the 1992 perceptions of organizational politics scale with
four work stress variables: job tension, somatic tension, general fatigue, and burnout. Ferris et al. (1996) theorized
that higher levels of perceived politics led to more uncertainty about job performanceand proposition opportunity,
which created elevatedlevels of job stress. Accordingly, a negative perception of organizationalpolitics is
associated with stress both theoretically and as assessed by Cropanzano et al. (1997).
Before continuing, we find it necessary to review the distinction between stress and strains. Most studies
linking perceptions of organizational politics with outcomes (e.g., Fedor et al., 2008; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992;
Hochwarter et al., 2010), albeit negative, frequently focus on what thestress literature terms as strains, e.g., job
satisfaction orphysical illness (Spector & Jex, 1998). Strains are the outcomes related to stress. Burton, Hoobler,
and Scheuer (2012: 272) define stress as “the relationship between a person and his/her environment that is
perceived to be unbalanced in terms of one’s physical and psychological resources and the demands of the
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
13
situation.” Stress can have both positive (job satisfaction and loyalty) and adverse outcomes (psychologicalstrain,
turnoverintentions, withdrawal behavior). Boswell et al., 2004, call stress with positiveoutcomes“challenge-
related.”When stress interferes with performance, it is called “hindrance-stress” (Boswell et al., 2004).
Positive perceptions of politics are not immune to adverse outcomes; they too can add stress. Ferris et al.
1989 werethe first to recognizethat some individuals understand politics and know how to operate in a political
environment. Ferris contends these individuals have control over the process, so they generally have more
favorable outcomes and view politics as an “opportunity stress” because they gain something in return from
engaging in the political system (Ferris et al., 1989: 162). However, in his 1994 study, Ferris found that perceptions
of organizational politics leads to stress, but stress levels were lower for individuals who felt control. Political
actions are associated with ambiguity and uncertainty. Accordingly, when an individual leverages the political
system for positive outcomes, there will be a degree of stress related to the action because of the uncertainty
(Fedor et al., 2008). Thus, even positive events and their perceptions can cause some levels of stress.
Ferris et al. (1996) describe politics as a source of stress. Moreover, Ferris et al. (1996) discuss political
environments as places of uncertainty and stress scholars link uncertainty with higher levels of stress (McGrath,
1976). This leads to our third hypothesis.
H3a: Stress related to perceptions of organizational politics will be curvilinear,such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higher levels ofstress, while moderate levels of perceptions of organizational politics have lowerlevels of stress.
H3b: Stress related to positive perceptions of organizational politics will becurvilinear, such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higherlevels of stress, while moderate have lower stress.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
14
H3c: Stress related to negative perceptions of organizational politics will becurvilinear, such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higherlevels of stress, while moderate levels have lower stress
Method
Participants and Design
Werecruited 420 participants viaa Qualtrics panel. Participants wererequiredto have at least five years
of work experience, work in the US, and be at least 18 years old. The average age of the participants was 47.2
years (SD = 14.1). Of the total sample population, 47.6% of participants identified as male, and 52.4% of
participants identified as female. The racial profile of the sample was primarily Caucasian (82.9%) but included
Asian (1.9%), Black (7.9%), Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin (4.7%), and 1.7% Pacific Islander. Participants were in
the workforce for an average of 25 years (SD = 14.8) and with their current firm for 11 years (SD = 9.3).
We used a single sample, split into two parts, to develop and test our new measure. We performed an
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the first half of the sample (referred to as EFA sample) and aConfirmatory
FactorAnalysis (CFA)on thesecond half (referred to as CFA sample). After finding the best-fit model, we
performed regression on the full sample to replicate the links between both valences of perceptions of
organizational politics, job anxiety, and job stress.
Measures
Job Stress Scale.We used the 13-item job-stress scale developed by Parker and DeCotiis (1983). Job
stress is measured using a5-point Likert scale ranging from 1- Strongly Disagree to 5- Strongly Agree. Six
categories of job stressors (aspects of the job; structure, climate, information flow; career development;
relationships at work; aspects of the role; and
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
15
extraordinary variables) relate to two dimensions of job stress: feelings of being under substantial time pressure
(timestress) and job-related feelings of anxiety (anxiety). This scale is one of the most used instruments for
empirical studies of job stress (Jamal, 2011).
Job AnxietyScale.The study used asix-item abbreviated anxiety inventory developed by Marteau &
Bekker (1992). The instrument consists of 6-questions using a Likert scale ranging from 1- Not at all to 4- Very
much. Three questions required reverse coding. The scale is an abridged version of the state-trait inventory
developed initially by Spielberger et al. (1979).
Organizational Politics Scale.We developed our perceptions of organizational politics scale using four
political actions common in literature: Influence, Impression Management, Networking, and Building
Relationships. Influence is a common theme in the perceptions of organizational politics literature and definitions
(Cropanzano et al., 1997; Kacmar and Baron, 1999; Ferris et al., 2007; Ferris et al., 2019), so it became our first
political behavior. Impression management was the next political action used to develop questions. Impression
management is synonymous with the politics literature, especially political skill (Ferris et al., 1989; Ferris et al.,
1996; Ferris, 2007; Ferris et al., 2019). Next, the team usednetworking questions becauseof the frequency in the
literature (Landells and Albrecht, 2015; Allen et al., 1979; Ferris et al., 2007).
Finally, theteam selected questions underbuilding relationships, alignedwith the literature (Landells and Albrecht,
2015; Ferris et al., 2007).
In line with other Organizational Politics scales, we asked a series of questions that described events
within an organization, such as “My manager overtly tries to influence other departments to advance his or her
interests” and “When people need help at work, they can always count on a co-workerto step in.” An initial group
of 20 questions was written based on four constructs known to relate to political actions (networking, influencing
others, impression
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
16
management, and relationship management) and varying the beneficiaries from many people to one person and
the wording from positive to negative (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Ferris et al., 2005; Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). Our
instrument departed from prior scales by including language to specify the beneficiaries. The resulting scale
measures both the positive and negativesidesof organizational politics, creating anAll PoliticsScale (“All Pol”). A
five-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, measured the respondent’s
answers.
Results
We used the EFA sample with 210 and screened the data using Mahalanobis Distance criteria (Meyers,
Gamst, & Guarina, 2017).Per Meyers et al. (2017), weeliminated Mahalanobis Distance values greater than 45
from the dataset, eliminating seven responses. After screening, the EFA sample was a 203-sample set.
InsertTable 1 AboutHere
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
17
Initial results from the scree plot suggested three factors were present with Eigen Values greater than 1.
However, we eliminated one factor as it had only a single, vaguely worded question loading onto it. Consistent
with Meyer et al. (2017), we removed weakly loaded items with a value of less than 0.55. As a result, the six items
on the Negative Perceptions of Organizational Politics factor and four items on the Positive Perceptions of
Organizational Politics factor, all loaded with a minimum of .55. The six items loading onto Negative Perceptions
of Organizational Politics were self-serving questions like “My manager overly tries to influence other departments
to advance his or her interests” and “People in my organization develop one on one relationships only to help
themselves.” The five items loading onto Positive Perceptions of Organizational Politics indicate that someone
other than the actor (e.g., co- worker, organization) benefits. For example, “People do favors to show they are
friendly and help each otherout” and “When co-workers receivea difficult task, they canuse their networkto get
it done.”
Oncethefinal ten items weredetermined, wecontinuedby screening the CFA sample for Mahalanobis
Distance based on 10 degrees of freedom and alpha of 0.001 (Meyers et al., 2017). This resulted in a data set of
201 responses. (Six responses were removed for Mahalanobis Distances greater than 29.5). Next, we performed
CFA to confirm that the two-factor solution from the EFA was the best model and that the negative, self-serving
political factor was separate from the positive, multi-beneficiary political behavior factor. We compared the
hypothesized two-factor model and the alternative model using a difference of chi-squared test (Meyers et al.,
2015). The two-factor model showed very good absolute fit (χ2(34) = 74.359, p = .000, RMSEA
= 0.076, CFI= 0.943). Thesingle factor model showedpoor fit (χ2(35)= 289.886, p = .000,
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
18
RMSEA = .188, CFI = .638). However, with a difference of 202.342 in its chi-square at a change of 1 degreeof
freedom, the two-factor model was astatistically significant betterfit to the data. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was
accepted.
InsertTable2AboutHere Insert
Table 3 AboutHere
After obtaining the best fitting model, we returned to the complete data set from the Qualtrics Panel with
a sample sizeof420. We performed datascreening and reviewed thefile for missing data. One case was void of all
data and therefore eliminated from the file. Mahalanobis Distances were conducted on composite scores that
were created for Stress, Anxiety, Positive Politics, Negative Politics, and All Politics. We ended with a sample size
of n=391.
Next, wescreened the data for normality to facilitateregression ofthea priori hypothesis (e.g., Negative
Perceptions of Organizational Politics, Positive Perceptions of Organizational Politics, Job Stress, Job Anxiety).
Finally, we ran a correlation matrix on the variables for the analysis. See Table 4.
InsertTable4
With two separate sides of the same construct, we thenturned to discoverif the presence of perceptions
of organizational politics affects job anxiety. Hypothesis 2a stated that perceptions of organizational politics
would be negatively related to job anxiety. Our findings do not support Hypothesis 2a. See Table 5.
InsertTable 5 AboutHere
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
19
The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics (All Politics) and job anxiety was slightly
positive and not significant (β=.104; R2= .009; p=0.064). We also tested a curvilinear (β=-.083; R2= .015; p=0.056)
and cubic relationship (β=-.055; R2= .019; p=0.059), but they were not significant either.
However, the curvilinear was close to significant at a p-value of 0.056. We believe the curvilinear result
could indicate that a moderate level of perceptions of organizational politics reduces job anxiety, but as levels are
low and increase, job anxiety decreases. Hochwarter et al. (2010) also found a curvilinear relationship between
perceptions of organizational politics and job tensions. They described this curvilinear finding using Vitamin
Model (Warr, 1987). The Vitamin Model states that moderate levels of vitamin intake improve results; however,
as vitamin levels increase, results decrease. This indicates there can be too much of a good thing.
Hypothesis 2b stated the valence of perceptions of organizational politics affects job anxiety differently
such that negative perceptions of organizational politics would increase job anxiety, and positive perceptions of
organizational politics would reduce job anxiety. Our findings support this hypothesis. See Table 6. Negative
Perceptions of Organizational Politics had aweak but positiveand significant relationship with job anxiety,
indicating that higherlevels of negative perceptions of organizational politics are related to higher levels of job
anxiety (β=0.162; R2=0.043; p=0.00). Positive Perceptions of Organizational Politics had a weak but negative and
significant relationship to job anxiety (β=-.202; R2=0.038; p=0.000). This indicates that higher levels of positive
perceptions of organizational politics reduce job anxiety.
InsertTable 6 AboutHere
To ensurethere is a differencebetween the correlations of positive politics and job anxiety and the
negative politics and job anxiety, we used procedures outlined in Lee and
20
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Preacher (2013). This online calculated tests of the difference between two dependent correlations with one
variable in common. See Table 7. The test indicated there was a differencebetweenpositivepolitics and
negative politics, indicating that each factor is distinct.
InsertTable 7 AboutHere
Hypothesis 3A was stress related to perceptions of organizational politics (All Pol) will be curvilinear, such
that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higher levels of stress, while moderate levels of
perceptions oforganizational politics have lowerlevels of stress.
We believe that perceptions of organizational politics would have a curvilinear relationship with job
stress, consistent with the Hochwerteret al. (2010) study. We hypothesized a curvilinear relationship on the basis
that the presence of moderate levels of perceptions of organizational politics is good for the organization because
it allows some flexibility in approaching a work-related task. Low levels of perceptions of organizational politics
would increase stress as the rigidity of the formal systems could make it harder to accomplish tasks.
Finally, high levels of perceptions of organizational politics would indicate alack of formal operational channels,
which could also increase job stress.
To perform the analysis, the team conducted a hierarchical regression with the All Politics scale and
Job Stress. However, Hypothesis 3Awasrejected. In fact, thereis alinear, significant, and positive relationship
with Job Stress and All Politics (β=0.839; R2=0.242; p=0.00). See Table 8.
InsertTable 8 AboutHere
Hypothesis 3B stated that stress relatedto positive perceptions oforganizational politics would be
curvilinear, such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higher levels of stress, while moderate
levels have lower stress. Like Hochwarter et al. (2010), we
21
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
expected both positiveand negativeperceptions of organizational politics to have a curvilinear relationship with job
stress, such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higher levels of stress, while moderate have
lower stress.
However, we found thatpositivepolitics and negative politics behaved very differently with job stress.
We conducted a linear and curvilinear regression on Job Stress and Positive perceptions of organizational politics
and found a slightly positive but non-significant relationship between the two factors (β=.099; R2=0.006; p=0.15).
Therefore, we reject Hypothesis 3b. See Table 9 below.
InsertTable 9 AboutHere
Hypothesis 3C stated that stress related to negative perceptions of organizational politics will be
curvilinear, such that low levels of politics and high levels of politics create higher levels of stress, while moderate
levels have lower stress. This hypothesis was accepted, and the change in R2indicated that the curvilinear model is
the best fit (β=.099; R2=0.324; p=0.000).
InsertTable10 AboutHere
Discussion
Our study contributes to the perceptions of organizational politics literature in threeways. First,
it establishes awayto distinguish perceptions of organizational politicsvalence by confirming that the beneficiary is
a driving force in perceptions. Second, the study confirms that positive and negative perceptions of organizational
politics are distinct constructs. Finally, with a robust instrument, this study was able to challenge past assumptions
on the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and Job Stress. Specifically, that negative
perceptions of organizational politics increases anxiety and have a curvilinear relationship with
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
stress, such that moderate levels of negative perceptions of organizational politics have optimal levels of stress.
On the otherhand, positive perceptions of organizational politics did not have a significant relationship with stress.
The creation of our instrument, which is sensitive enough to detect the difference between a positive and negative
valence, enabled this unique finding.
InsertTable11 AboutHere
Implications to Managers
The default definition of organizational politics is negatively biased, both in the literature (Ferris, 1989)
and in the workplace (Butler et al., 2019). However, there are two sides of the same construct. Management
should recognize that organizational politics is not all bad or all good. Some levels of politics are helpful to the
organization. Attempts to eliminate all politics would likely create too rigid a work structure and reducethe
benefits of positivepolitical actions, which could increase the speed of projects (Butler et al., 2019). The creation
of a balanced scale, with positive and negative factors, shows that these are distinct dimensions but are a part of a
single construct, which is the contribution of this paper.
Positive perceptions of organizational politics were found to reduce anxiety and did not havea significant
relationship to stress. Similar to otherstudies (Fedoret al., 2008; Hochwarter, 2012; Maslyn et al., 2017; Butler et
al., 2019), positive politics can provide benefits to the organization.
Negative organizational politics were found to cause job anxiety and stress, like past studies. However,
this study provided evidence that positive and negative politics can be differentiated by the numberof
beneficiaries. Moreover, this study contributes an instrument that is capable of measuring both positive and
negative politics, which is a significant contribution.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Limitations
Like all studies, our study had some limitations. First, we were only able to conduct our survey at one
time; we used the same sample, split in half to create and confirm our new scale. Second, validity could be
improved if we added historical perceptions of organizational politics scale to compareand contrast results
between the new (Maslyn, Farmer,and Bettenhausen, 2017; Fedor, Maslyn, Farmer and Bettenhausenn 2008) and
historical (Kacmar and Ferris, 1991; Kacmar, 1997) scales.
The literature is not clear on what differentiates a negative or positive valence. After all, it is individually
determined. This study leveraged the findings from Butler et al. (2019), which advocated that the number of
beneficiaries is the most significant contribution to valence.
However, even Butler et al. (2019) findings indicate other factors determine valences, such as transparency of the
action and the emotional intelligence of the political actor. This study only considersthenumberof beneficiaries
to determinevalence. Future researchers could expand the questions in an attempt to capture more aspects of
the construct.
24
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
References
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. 2004. Relations between stress and work outcomes: Therole
of felt challenge,job control, and psychologicalstrain.Journal of Vocational Behavior,64(1): 165-181.
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. 2012. Supervisorworkplacestress and abusive supervision: The
buffering effect of exercise.Journal of Business and Psychology,27(3): 271-279.
Butler, B., Decker, G., Thomas, A., Peters, J., & Merritt, S. 2019.Positive
Organizational Politics: A Grounded Theory Study. Paper presented at the
Engagement Management Scholarship Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.
Cheng, B. H., & McCarthy, J. M. 2018. Understanding the dark and bright sides of anxiety: A theory of workplace
anxiety.Journal of Applied Psychology,103(5): 537.
Decker,G., Peters, J., Thomas, A., Boyle, E., & Butler,W. 2020. Perceptions of organizational politics: Should
Teleworkers Beware.Muma Business Review.
Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer,S., & Bettenhausen, K. 2008. The contribution of positivepolitics to the prediction of
employee reactions: Employee reactions to positve politics.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,38(1):
76-96.
Ferris, G.R. & Kacmar, K.M. 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics.Journal of
Management,18(1): 93-116.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. 1996. Perceptions of organizational
politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes.Human Relations,49(2): 233-266.
25
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar,C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. 2005.
Development and validation of the political skill inventory.
Journal of Management,31(1): 126-152.
Ferris,G.R.,Treadway, D. C.,Perrewé,P. L.,Brouer, R.L., Douglas,C., &Lux, S.2007.
Political skill in organizations.Journal of Management,33(3): 290-320.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. 1980. The experience of workplace politics.Academy of
Management Journal,23(2): 237-251.
Hochwarter,W. A.,Ferris,G.R.,Laird,M.D., Treadway, D.C.,& ColemanGallagher,V.
2010.Nonlinearpoliticsperceptions—workoutcomesrelationships: Athree-study,five- sample
investigation.Journal of Management,36(3): 740-763.
Hochwarter,W. A., Kacmar,C., Perrewe, P. L., & Johnson, D.2003. Perceived organizational support as a mediator
of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes.Journal of Vocational Behavior,
63(3): 438-456.
Jamal, M. 2011. Job stress, job performance and organizational commitment in a
multinational company: An empirical study in two countries.International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20).
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. 1999. Organizational politics: The state ofthefield, links to related processes, and an
agenda for future research.Research in human resources management,Vol. 17: 1-39. US: Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. 1997. Furthervalidation of the perceptions of politics scale (perceptions of
organizational politics): A multiple sample investigation.Journal of Management,23(5): 627-658.
26
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of organizationalpolitics scale (perceptions of organizational
politics): Development and construct validation.Educational and Psychological Measurement,51(1):
193-205.
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. 2013.Calculation for the test of the difference between
two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer
software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org.
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker,H. 1992. The development of a six‐item short‐form of the state scale of the Spielberger
State—Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).British Journal of Clinical Psychology,31(3): 301-306.
Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Bettenhausen, K. L. 2017. When organizational politics matters: The effects of the
perceived frequency and distance of experienced politics.Human Relations,70(12): 1486-1513.
Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. 1977. Toward a definition of organizational politics.
Academy of Management Review,2(4): 672-678.
McGrath, J. E. 1976. Stress and behavior in organizations. M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Meyers, L., Gamst, G., & Guarina, A. J. 2017.Applied Multivariate Research (3 ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mintzberg, H. 1983.Power In and Around Organizations (Vol. 142). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. 1983. Organizational determinants of job stress.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,32(2): 160-177.
27
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Poon,J. M.L.2003.Situationalantecedentsandoutcomesoforganizationalpoliticsperceptions.
Journal of Managerial Psychology,18(2): 138-155.
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. 2006. Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback
environment, employee attitudes, and job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1): 211-220.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. 1998. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain:
interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workloadinventory,and
physicalsymptomsinventory.JournalofOccupationalHealth Psychology,3(4): 356.
Spielberger,C.D.,Jacobs,G.,Crane,R.,Russell,S.,Westberry,L.,Barker,L.,&Marks, E.
1979. Preliminary manual for the state-traitpersonality inventory (STPI).
Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofSouthFlorida,Tampa.
Tushman, M. L. 1977. A political approach to organizations: A review and rationale.
Academy of Management Review,2(2): 206-216.
28
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Table 1: EFA with Varimax Rotation
Neg Pol Pos Pol OtherPO10.067 0.516 0.344PO20.386 0.558 0.082PO30.553 0.307 0.179PO40.675 0.183 -0.001PO50.644 0.054 -0.179PO60.811 0.058 -0.083PO70.012 0.409 0.712PO80.176 0.567 0.093PO90.58 0.166 0.02PO100.205 0.613 0.02PO110.614 0.234 -0.046PO120.208 0.66 0.123PO130.598 0.277 0.063PO14-0.005 0.631 0.061PO150.449 0.34 0.334PO16-0.133 0.645 0.196PO170.761 0.055 0.271PO180.353 0.531 0.046PO190.612 -0.09 0.268PO200.215 0.665 0.027
Table 2: CFA Results for Perceptions of Politics Model
Table CFA Results for Perceptions of Politics Model
Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA TLI SRMRTwoFactor74.359 34 0.943 0.076 0.924 0.0765One Factor 289.886 35 0.638 0.188 0.534 0.1664
Table 3: Measures from CFA Analysis: Beneficiary differentiates the valence
NegativePolitics Beneficiary PositivePolitics BeneficiaryMy manager overtly triestoinfluence other departmentstoadvance his or her interestsPeople who are friendswiththe supervisor tend to get whattheywantWhereas a lot of what my manager does around here (e.g.,communicates and givesfeedback, etc.) appears to be directedat helping employees, it is actuall yinteded to protecthimself/herself
Self
Self
Self
When coworkers receive a complicated task, they can use theirnetwork to get it doneWhen people need help at work, they can always count on a coworerto step in
People inmyorganizationgenuinelywant toget toknowpeople andwork together, without regard to the political advantages
Others
Others
Others
Peopleinmyorganizationflatterimprotantpeople Self Peopleinmyorganizationactivelyseekhelp by tappingexistingrelationships to accomplish difficult tasks OthersPeople inmyorganizationdeveloponeonone relationshipsonly to help themselvesPeople inmyorganizationwillnot goout oftheirwaytohelpothers when they don't know each other
Self
Self
29
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Table 4: Correlations
Table Means, standard devations, and correlations among study variablesVariableMeanSDAnxietyStressAllPolNegPolPosPolAnxiety2.3956 0.7191 0.86Stress2.7174 1.1003 .521**0.958AllPol3.4197 0.6459 0.094 .492**0.788NegPol3.1445 0.9234 .208**.561**.903**0.854PosPol3.8325 0.6967 -.196**0.026 .522**.105*0.770Note N=391. The Cronbach'salpha foreach scale ispresented on the diagonal. **p<.01 *p<.05
Table 5: Job Anxiety and All Politics: No Relationship
JobAnxVariablesModel 1 Model 2 Model 3AllPol (linear)0.104 0.686 -0.954AllPol (Quad)-0.083 0.415AllPol (Cubic)-0.055∆F 3.452 2.353 1.686
R2 0.009 0.015 0.019Note N=391.**p<.01
Table 6: Negative Politics and Positive Politics-LinearRelationship with Job Anxiety
JobAnx JobAnxVariablesModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3PosPol (linear)-0.202**-0.265 1.539 NegPol (linear)0.162**0.277 -0.536PosPol (Quad)0.009 -5.78 NegPol (Quad)-0.019 0.271PosPol (Cubic)0.06 NegPol (Cubic)-0.032∆F 15.511**0.039 2.748 ∆F 17.560**0.299 1.108R20.038 0.038 0.045 R2 0.043 0.044 0.047Note N=391. **p<.01 Note N=391. **p<.01
Table 7: Lee and Preacher (2013) SignificantDifferences between Correlations per Lee andPreacher (2013)
RR(Neg,Pos)0.105
210
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
R(Neg,All)-0.196R(Pos,All)0.208N3911-tail p: 0
30
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Table 8: All Politics Scale Regressed with JobStress: Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Equation
Job StressVariablesModel 1 Model 2 Model 3AllPol (linear).839**-0.104 0.719AllPol (Quad)0.135 -0.133AllPol (Cubic)0.028∆F 124.459**3.466 0.237
R2 0.242 0.249 0.25Note N=391. **p<.01
Table 9: Positive Perception of Organizational Politicsand Stress – Not Significant
Job StressVariablesModel 1 Model 2PosPol (linear)0.04 -0.664PosPol (Quad)PosPol (Cubic)∆F 0.255
0.099
2.072R20.001 0.006∆R2 -0.002 0.001Note N=391. **p<.01
Table 10- Negative Perceptions of organizationalpolitics and Stress- Curvilinear
Job StressVariables Model 1 Model 2NegPol (linear).669**0.052NegPol (Quad)0.099*NegPol (Cubic)∆F 178.729**5.131*R2 0.315 0.324∆R2 0.313 0.32Note N=391. **p<.01 * p<.05
31
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Table 11- Summaryof Hypothesis Hypothesis
Accept/Reject
H1 Two factors will emerge among the politics items, including both positivepolitics(groupbenefits)andnegativepolitics(individual benefits)Accept
H2A POP willbe negatively related to job anxiety RejectH2BThe valence of the perceptions of organizational politics affects job anxietydifferently, such that negative POP increasesjob anxiety, and positive POPreduces job anxiety.H3A Stress related to POP will be curvilinear, such that low levels of politics and high levels ofpoliticscreate higher levelsof stress, while moderate levels of POP have lower levelsof stress.H3B Stress related to positive POP will be curvilinear, such that low levels ofpoliticsandhighlevelsofpoliticscreatehigherlevelsofstress,while moderate have lower stress.H3C Stress related to negative POP will be curvilinear, such that low levels ofpoliticsandhighlevelsofpoliticscreatehigherlevelsofstress,while
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
moderate levelshave lower stress
32
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Appendix1:DefinitionsofOrganizationalPolitics
Study Definition Valence
"individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the
Mintzberg (1983)technical sense, illegitimate - sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certifiedexpertise" (p. 172)Negative
Ferris et. al (1996)"behavior not formally sanctioned by the organization, which produces conflict and disharmony in the workenvironment by pitting individuals and/or groups against one another, or against the organization" (p.234)
Negative
Kacmar & Baron (1999) "Organizational politics involves actions by individuals which are directed toward the goal of furthering their ownself-interest, without regard for the well being of others or their organization." (p.4)
Negative
Burns (1961)political behavior is when "other are made use of as resources in competitive situations (p.257)"Neutral
Mayes & Allen (1977)"Organizational Politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or
to obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned influence means (p.675)"Neutral
Tushman (1977)"use of authority and power to affect definitions of goals, directions, and other major parameters of the
oganization" (p. 207)
Cropanzano et. al (1997)"a broad and influential social tool that can contribute to the basic functioning of the organizational" (p.
161)
Neutral
Neutral
Gotsis and Kortezi (2009)"intentional acts of influence, mainly through informal means, the intentional use and exercise of power,
often through activities employed to give access to scant resources, actions, and tactics to influence decisionmaking, as well as behaviors occuring on an informal basis within organizational settings" (p. 498)
Neutral
Ferris et. al (2019)"actively managing meaning of situations in ways that result in the elicitation of desired actions and
outcomes" (p. 301)Neutral
Decker et al. (2020)"the use of an informal process to influence others to obtain outcomes" (p. 3)Neutral
"what make political (i.e. non-normative, self-serving) behaviors positive is not whether they are self-serving
Fedor et al. (2008)per se, but instead the extent to which self-serving behaviors are seen as legitimate or consistent with goals thatenhance organizational effectiveness" (p.78)Both
Hochwarter (2003)"politics can lead to positive outcomes" (p. 1362)Positive
33
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Appendix2Perceptions of Politics Items
Based on your current organization and work environment, please indicate your level ofagreement with each of the following statements below.
Rating Scale: 1 = Disagree Strongly, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Agree Strongly
Influence
1.People use data and facts to influence change in my organization2.When someone wants something done in the workgroup, the best approachis to gain support from co-workers before presenting the idea to thesupervisor3.In order to get a fair budget, the managers have to band together to pushback on allocation methods4.My manager overtly tries to influence other departments to advance his or herinterests5.People who are friends with the supervisor tend to get what they want
Impression Management
6.Whereas a lot of what my manager does around here (e.g., communicatesand gives feedback, etc.) appears to be directed at helping employees, it isactually intended to protect himself/herself.7.While others might judge what my manager/supervisor does as being political,his/her actions have been for the benefit of my work group.8.To keep the group working well, it is important for group members tocomplement one another9.Sometimes people act like they know less than what they do, so colleagues willhelp them out10.People do favors to show they are friendly and help each other out.11.People in my organization flatter important people
Networks
12.When co-workers receive a complicated task, they can use their network to get itdone13.People know how to work a group to get their own benefit14.When people need help at work, they can always count on a co-worker to step in15.Political behavior takes a lot of time and effort upfront but helps improve aworkgroup’s results in the end
Building Relationships
16.People in my organization genuinely want to get to know people and worktogether, without regard to the political advantages17.People in my organization develop one on one relationships only to helpthemselves18.Personal relationships are the key to working the system to advance theagenda for the organization
34
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
19.People in my organization will not go out of their way to help others whenthey don’t know each other20.People in my organization actively seek help by tapping existingrelationships to accomplish difficult tasks
35
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
Job Satisfaction- Thompson & Phua (2012)
Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 =Strongly Agree
1.I find real enjoyment in my job2.I like my job better than the average person3.Most days I am enthusiastic about my job4.I feel fairly well satisfied with my job
Job Stress- Parker and DeCotiis (1983)
Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 =Strongly Agree
1.I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job2.Working here makes it hard to spend enough time with my family3.My job gets to me more than it should4.I spend so much time at work, I can’t see the forest for the trees5.There are lots of times when my jo drives me right up the wall6.Working here leaves little time for other activities7.Sometimes when I think about my job I get a tight feeling in my chest8.I frequently get the feeling I am married to the company9.I have too much work and too little time to do it in10.I sometimes dread the telephone ringing at home because the call might bejob-related11.I feel like I never have a day off12.Too many people at my level in the company get burnt out by job demands
Job Anxiety - Marteau and Bekker (1992)
Rating Scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = very much
1.I feel calm2.I feel tense3.I feel upset4.I feel relaxed5.I feel content6.I feel worried
36
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737
37
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3944737