Literature review:-

Organizational Politics:

Organizational politics mentions behaviors
“which are arise on an casual basis within an organization and include planned
actions of influence that are aimed to defend or improve individuals’
proficient careers when contradictory ways of act are possible”

(Drory, 1993; Porter, Allen, & Angle,
1981).

 

Ferris et al.(1989a) emphasized that
“organizational politics is a biased view, but not necessarily an unbiased
truth” (p 0.157). View of organizational politics has negative work
consequences and is destructive for employees as well as for organization
(Byrne, 2005).

Performance Appraisal:

 John
Douglas, Stuart Klein and David Hunt defined:

“Performance
appraisal as a systematic evaluation review of employees meaningful job
behavior with respect to their effectiveness in meeting their job requirements
and responsibilities”.

Organizational
politics and Performance Appraisal:

The idea of organizational politics and the
views of organizational politics in the work place developed in the 1990’s and
are considered to be a key feature in current business practices. There is a
significant amount of literature present for study.

Ferris et al. (1989) stated that organizational politics
is not only unseen and symbolic but also different across individuals because
of subjective view, as a consequence, the same political manners can be
understood into political or non-political manners by different viewer, depending
on each viewer’s prior understanding and frame of reference. Ferris et al.,
(1989) suggested the concept of the view of organizational politics (Perception
of Organizational Politics Scale – POPS) as a good measure of Organizational
Politics. Moreover, Kacmar and Ferris (1991, pp. 193-194) and Ferris and Kacmar
(1992, p. 93) debated that the higher the perceptions of politics are in the
eyes of an organization member, the lower in that person’s eyes is the level of
justice, equity, and fairness.

 

 At the individual
level, scholars have predictable certain personality traits, needs, and other
factors that are expected to be related to political behavior. Individuals with
an internal locus of control, because they believe they can control their environment,
are more straightaway take active position and try to control situations in
their favor (Robbins, 2005).

 

Significant to the Ferris et al., (1989) model is the
view that the effects of experiencing politics are weakened by other variables.
In precise, they focused on perceived control and understanding as important
moderators of the relationship between perceived politics and consequences.
According to Ferris et al., (1989), if people observe that politics go on in
the work environment, and if they have little understanding or control over the
method, politics can be understood as a danger and would be likely to lead to
more negative consequences. However, if employees understand the political game
well and feel that they have a high degree of control over the process and
outcomes, more favorable outcome should result. Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou,
Kacmar, and Howard (1996) believed that political work environments can posture
as a chance or a danger for employees, and whether workplace politics is perceived
as an opportunity or a threat depends on employees’ level of understanding.
Understanding can decrease the doubt and threat of organizational politics
according to Poon’s (2004) belief.

 

A major finding has been that when individuals are given
the chance for voice in the performance evaluation process, their evaluations
of justice are improved (Greenberg, 1986, 1990a; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Voice
is effort into organizational decision-making processes (Tyler & Lind,
1992).

 

Literature also indicates certain indication in support
of organizational politics. As Gotsis and Kortezi (2010) took a realistic view
of the organizational politics by authorizing both positive and negative
features linked with it depending upon the situation. It can be simple appearance
of social effect procedures for the best interest of the organization or it can
be a selfish and illegal actions, opposing to organizational objectives (N. Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010). According to Valle and Perrewe´ (2000), political
behavior is all about the use of significant tactics by employees which are
rational, conscious, and tactically goal-oriented and planned to promote
selfishness which may be at the cost of or in favor of others’ interests. In
short, organizations free from any troublemaking things of politics are in fact
experiencing politics in the form of mentoring, persuasion, coalition-formation
and networking (N. Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010). Organizational politics is reflected as a contrary
feature of organizational life and majority of the authors have consensus that
negative effects of organizational politics overweigh the positive effects. It
brings employees towards lobbying. They start developing associations and
informal groups in reaction to current political group (Yen, Chen, & Yen, 2009).

 

Practical scholars have found that key features of the social
perspective of performance evaluation contain the use of influence tactics by
assistants to application control over the performance ratings they receive
(e.g., Barry & Watson, 1996; Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons,
1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).

 

A common method relates to view organizational politics
in relation with influence strategies and actual political behavior; second
method deals with the view of politics while the last dominant method deals
with observing the political skills of individuals working in several
capabilities (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010) The third method closely tells with the Machiavellian
viewpoint which emphasizes leaders to show good political skills to rule
affectively. The effect of this idea in organizational setting has appeared
lately which emphasizes managers to determine good political skills to manage
organizational matters affectively (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010).

 

Murphy and Cleveland (1995) pointed out that it may be
illogical to give correct ratings if they are near to upset the manager. In
circumstances like this it is easier to monitor one’s own prompts and influence
ratings. Also Longenecker, Sims and Gioia (1987) very willingly brought up that
it is only human to consider the impacts of one’s ratings. Since managers need
to live with their decisions, it would be even hurtful not to think what will
happen after each rating. Furthermore, Longenecker and associates (1987) found
out that the supervisors, who seem to continuously manipulate the ratings,
don’t usually admit that their behavior is in any way political. Quite
contradictory, they consider manipulation as a part of good management and
define all kind of organization politics as a tool which helps them to balance
effectiveness and survival.

 

Many researchers are of the opinion that most of the
evaluators or the managers repel the evaluation process for many reasons (Brown
et al., 2010). Some reasons the appraisers resist the performance appraisal of
their assistants can be unsatisfactory yields they will get for what they have
done during the procedure and that they panic about the results of the
performance appraisal (Latham et al., 1993). Harris (1994) referred to Benedict
& Levine (1988) and Larson (1989) that when evaluators repel the appraisal
they will try to postponement the process, will somehow mislead the scores and
will use many other strategies.

 

According to Gandz and Murrays’s research, usually the
politic was deliberated as bad, biased, excessive and unhealthy (Gandz  & Murray, 1980, 243). Therefore, it could
be claimed that the definition of organizational politics inclines to have
negative perception focused on the dim side of the human behavior, like
influence. On the other hand, organizational politics as a social process can
have useful as well as dysfunctional concerns, and might impose damage or be
helpful for the workers. The examples of organizational politics’ positive
effects are career Advancement, enhanced position and success. On the other
hand, harm to strategic power and negative moods towards others signify the
negative consequences of organizational politics. Nonetheless, political
behavior is vital if person wants to be a good employee and prosper in the
organization. (Vigoda 2000, 190.)

 

Performance appraisal system, when functioning as the
organization designed and projected it, has intrinsic power. In such system,
raters appraise employees correctly; finding each employee’s strengths and
weaknesses and differentiating among the good and poor employees. (Murphy &
Cleveland 1995, 101-102). However, this is not the case in most of the
organizations. Like Longenecker and coworkers as well as many other scholars
(For example Berbardin & Beatty, 1984) pointed out, performance appraisals
take place in a setting that may not be entirely rational, straightforward, or
unbiased. Thus, the political perspective is appeared as a significant and
general issue distressing the practice how managers appraise their
subordinates. (Longenecker, Sims & Gioia 1987, 184, 190). However, when job
performance evaluators manipulate scores for political determinations in their
performance appraisal process the correctness of the performance appraisal
falls and thus the job satisfaction and motivation decreases. Therefore, an efficient
view dimension is needed for appraising organizational politics (Longenecker et
al., 1987).

 

Logenecker
et al., (1987) reported many details for which the performance appraisals are
overstated through the evaluators such as to increase the employee’s
performance with inspiring him/her by giving good ratings. The other reason
reported by Logenecker et al., (1987) is avoiding the poor scores because they
don’t want to leave a written record for the employee’s deprived performance.
The evaluators may evade giving low scores to the subordinates because the
managers may deliberate that there are some problems with the competence of the
manager (appraiser) handling his subordinates (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991).
Chen et al., (2007) also supports the argument that supervisors avoid giving
negative scores to the subordinates. Folger et al., (1992) cites Tetlock (1985)
who stressed that all the human beings have in-built abilities concerning the
politics and they always plan, think and take care of the results for what they
do.

There
are also numerous details for which the scores are deflated in the Performance
appraisal by the evaluators (Logenecker et al., 1987). These reasons are to
keep the subordinate on the path and make him a good performer, punishing the
subordinate and reminding him about the 
appraiser’s power, pushing him to leave the organization and overstate
the record of his/her poor performance in documents so that he/she may quit
early (Logenecker et al., 1987).

 

Organizations having ambiguous performance appraisal
process and indeterminate environment provide probabilities for the politics to
prevail (Poon, 2004). Folger et al., (1992) cited Cascio (1982) that studying
the performance appraisal process in an organization checks that the politics
exists in all organizations which is a fact.

Employees appear to believe that supervisor’s appraisals
are revealed by the personal liking or disliking ((karpinen, 2007).

 

Organizational politics in public and private sector
depends upon certain dimensions and these dimensions are purposes or goals,
accountability, autonomy, orientation to action, and   environment. In principle, the basic values
of public organizations are considered as transparency, impartiality,
dedication, efficiency, lawfulness, obedience, incorruptibility,
responsiveness, serviceability and social justice. On the other hand, private
sector organizations accept sustainability, effectiveness, innovativeness, profitability,
collegiality and self-fulfillment (Wal and Huberts, 2008).

 

Accountability, formal and informal in nature (Cohen and
Axelrod 1984), implies that political organizations are considerably less
autonomous than private-sector organizations.

In private sector environmental landscape full of
dangerous surprises and subject to frequent and radical change while in public
the environment is constant based on bureaucratic set up. The study on
performance appraisal methods indicate that in the earliest time essay method
or graphic rating type of techniques are used for evaluating the performance
but they are subjective. Performance appraisal process will start from the
Taylor’s Scientific management technique. In public sector organizations ACR
are used for evaluate the performance of employees while in private sector
different techniques are used for evaluating the performance of employee like
360 degree, MBO etc.

 

x

Hi!
I'm Katy!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out