Introduction
Organizational politics, aka office politics or workplace politics, is a process of social influence, a self-servicing behavior and a threat to the benefits of others (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, Reference Ferris, Russ and Fandt1989). It is regarded as the perceptive evaluation and subjective experience of organizational members on activities launched by individuals, groups and organizations to pursue individual benefits (Ferris & Kacmar, Reference Ferris and Kacmar1992). It also refers to the political behaviors that an individual employs to affect other organizational members for achieving personal goals (Greenberg & Baron, Reference Greenberg and Baron1997). Because man is a political animal – where there are humans interacting there are politics activities (Ferris & Treadway, Reference Ferris and Treadway2012), organizational politics indeed exists ubiquitously at schools, companies, unions, social clubs and associations and the governments. As remarked by Pfeffer (Reference Pfeffer1992), organizational politics is exerted by individuals to obtain and secure power and resources for realizing their expected outcomes – the power reflects the existence of influence and the politics encompasses the methods and techniques of influence. Although organizational politics is never sanctioned, it appears at various levels in organizations where the employees develop their political behaviors based on their perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) (Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, Reference Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter2002).
In general, POPs is constituted by individuals’ subjective perceptions on organizational members’ behaviors and organizational events. In particular, when the resources in organizations are limited, individuals are apt to achieve their goals at the expense of others. Take ‘promotion’ as an example. If several employees were to compete for a promotion they would expect the selection to be made purely on their merits. However, if some people believe this may put them at disadvantage, they are likely to use other means of coercion or influence to place them into a more advantageous situation. Parker, Dipboye, and Jackson (Reference Parker, Dipboye and Jackson1995) investigated the antecedents and consequences of POPs and found that the relationships between politics and its antecedents were not influenced by an overall affective response to the work environment. Measures of perceived intergroup cooperation, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and fairness of rewards/recognition were most predictive of politics perceptions. Chen and Fang (Reference Chen and Fang2008) pointed out that when POPs was strong, organizational members tended to feel uncertain and ambiguous because they did not know how to garner rewards, handle penalties, or win identification from others. This also explained why political practitioners in organizations would avoid participating in actions (Mintzberg, Reference Mintzberg1985).
Organizational politics may cover all dimensions and features from culture issues to leadership to personality to strategy (Ferris & Treadway, Reference Ferris and Treadway2012); however, how to make a great organization and how to make an organization great remain two prominent organizational territories for research. Much ink has been spent on either making a great organization from ‘bottom-up’ perspectives or making an organization great from ‘top-down’ perspectives. Relevant works include seeding of teams (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, Reference Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer and Ilgen2007), putting the best members into the most strategically core roles (Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, Reference Humphrey, Morgeson and Mannor2009), configuring the reward structure in a team (Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, & Ilgen, Reference Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon and Ilgen2003; Aime, Meyer, & Humphrey, Reference Aime, Meyer and Humphrey2010), structuring the team to capitalize on different beliefs and opinions (Moon, Conlon, Humphrey, Quiqley, Devers, & Nowakowski, Reference Moon, Conlon, Humphrey, Quigley, Devers and Nowakowski2003; Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, van Knippenberg, Ilgen, & van Kleef, Reference Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, van Knippenberg, Ilgen and van Kleef2008), designing work to improve motivational and social processes (Morgeson & Humphrey, Reference Morgeson and Humphrey2006; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, Reference Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007; Harrison & Humphrey, Reference Harrison and Humphrey2010), change in team members and roles (Moon et al., Reference Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, West, Ellis and Porter2004; Summers, Humphrey, & Ferris, Reference Summers, Humphrey and Ferris2012), change in rewards (Johnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt, & Meyer, Reference Johnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt and Meyer2006), the progression toward an endpoint (Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, & Hoffman, Reference Humphrey, Moon, Conlon and Hoffman2004; Jensen, Conlon, Humphrey, & Moon, Reference Jensen, Conlon, Humphrey and Moon2011), among others. What seems to be lacking, however, is an in-depth understanding of the relationships among POPs, work motivation and job performance for different groups of organizational members. Different groups of people may possess dissimilar POPs in the workplaces, and so are their work motivations. This could lead to inconsistent results of correlations between POPs and job performance. The foregoing argument that POPs and job performance are negatively correlated may be accepted by most people; however, it leaves unanswered the issue about direct and indirect effects of POPs via work motivation as a mediator on job performance for the ‘outward’ employees like salespersons, as opposed to the ‘inward’ employees like office workers.
In organizational literature, many researchers have focused on different organizational members such as office workers, public servants, teachers and stated-owned business workers and reached rather consistent conclusions that POPs and job performance are negatively correlated (e.g., Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, Reference Ferris, Russ and Fandt1989; Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson, & Anthony, Reference Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson and Anthony1999; Vigoda, Reference Vigoda2000; Poon & Bangi, Reference Poon and Bangi2003; Zivnuska, Kacmar, & Witt, Reference Zivnuska, Kacmar and Witt2004; Harris & Kacmar, Reference Harris and Kacmar2005; Rosen, Levy & Hall, Reference Rosen, Levy and Hall2006; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008; Marschke, Preziosi, & Harrington, Reference Marschke, Preziosi and Harrington2010; Cohen & Liu, Reference Cohen and Liu2011; Varghese, Reference Varghese2011; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012; Pal & Dasgupta, Reference Pal and Dasgupta2012). Some researchers have examined POPs in relation to job outcome-related variables (Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewé, & Johnson, Reference Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewé and Johnson2003; Vigoda-Gadot & Talmud, Reference Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud2010); while others have focused on the negative effect of organizational politics on job satisfaction (Zhou & Ferris, Reference Zhou and Ferris1995; Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, & Howard, Reference Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar and Howard1996), organizational commitment (Randall, Cropanzano, Borman, & Birjulin, Reference Randall, Cropanzano, Borman and Birjulin1999; Vigoda, Reference Vigoda2000; Yahcouchi, Reference Yahcouchi2009; Anari, Reference Anari2012), job stress, strain and burnout (Kacmar et al., Reference Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson and Anthony1999; Valle & Perrewé, Reference Valle and Perrewé2000). It is important to recall that POPs and job performance are negatively correlated for office workers, thus the negative impacts of organizational politics on job performance or satisfaction should be kept at a minimum. It is more important to bear in mind that salespersons differ from office workers in many ways (e.g., office time, work pressure, salary structure and work motivation), thus we must look into the same issue for salespersons more carefully. The purpose here is to explore a little further into the relationship between POPs and job performance for salespersons.
Salespersons tend to protect or even extend their own interests in conformation with the organizational politics when accomplishing the missions assigned by the sales managers or organizations under the circumstances of resource scarcity, economic instability and increasing competition (Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008; Marschke, Preziosi, & Harrington, Reference Marschke, Preziosi and Harrington2010; Varghese, Reference Varghese2011; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012). The tasks for salespersons are primarily visiting customers and winning orders and they usually operate their work in the places remote from their home bases (Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth, Reference Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer and Roth1998), hence salespersons have less close administration than office workers by their supervisors. Moreover, salespersons have significantly higher work pressure than office workers because they must deal with considerable percentages of ‘no sales’ (Low, Cravens, Grant, & Moncrief, Reference Low, Cravens, Grant and Moncrief2001). Even more importantly, the majority of salespersons are salaried on a commission basis, which is apparently different from office workers receiving regular salaries. All in all, the POPs, work characteristics, salary structures and work motivations can be quite different between salespersons and office workers; as such, the conclusions reached by most previous studies on office workers that ‘POPs and job performance are negatively correlated’ should not be overemphasized or generalized to salespersons. Without further evidence, this conclusion may still be indecisive to organizational members like salespersons. This study contributes to the management and organizational behavior literature by throwing new light on this indecisive issue.
Central to this issue is the problem of work motivation. In this study, work motivation refers to the process used to encourage and inspire organizational members to perform their jobs efficiently and effectively. To deal with work motivation, some researchers (e.g., Witt, Reference Witt1998; Kacmar et al., Reference Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson and Anthony1999; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008) suggest investigating the correlations between POPs and outcomes from a motivational perspective as motivation is a psychological process that drives individuals to pursue one or more goals to fulfill their needs or expectations (Lam & Tam, Reference Lam and Tam2003). Various theories can be found to elucidate the effects of work motivation on job performance and such theories may broadly fall into two categories: content and process theories. The former focuses on factors existent within individuals that energize, direct and sustain behavior; the latter emphasizes on how behavior is energized, directed and sustained. Of these theories, the expectancy theory, coined by Vroom (Reference Vroom1964), has been satisfactorily used to explain the behavioral process of why individuals choose one behavioral option over another and how they make decisions to achieve the end they value. The expectancy theory of motivation offers compatible frameworks for understanding work motivation, thus it becomes one of the most common theories of motivation in workplaces (Heneman & Schwab, Reference Heneman and Schwab1972; Tien, Reference Tien2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, de Witte, & Feather, Reference Vansteenkiste, Lens, de Witte and Feather2005; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012). Further, the expectancy theory of motivation serves as a practical and powerful tool for creating a motivating environment, thus it is recognized as one of the most promising conceptualizations of individual motivation (Ferris, Reference Ferris1977; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012).
Based on the expectancy theory of motivation, this study aims to propose and test three hypotheses of relationships among POPs, work motivation and job performance for salespersons. The remainder is organized as follows. The literature on POPs, salesperson performance, and expectancy theory is briefly reviewed, and three hypotheses are proposed accordingly. An empirical study is presented. The questionnaire items about POPs and work motivation are answered by salespersons, while the items about sales performance are assessed by their supervisors (the sales managers). A hierarchical regression analysis is employed to test the proposed hypotheses. Based on the findings, policy implications and avenues for future studies are further discussed.
Literature review
POPs and salesperson performance
The characteristics of sales work are extensively different from office work in terms of work pressure, compensation structure, office time and more. There are aspects of sales that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs as a result of demand for autonomy (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, Reference Churchill, Ford, Hartley and Walker1985). This is true concerning the negotiations with customers where salespersons must make immediate decisions, in particular, when a bargain is obtained after several rejections (Vinchur et al., Reference Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer and Roth1998). It also explains why salespersons have considerably greater work pressure than office workers while achieving such appointed missions as business and marketing strategies and contributing sales volume, profit and customer satisfaction (Baldauf & Cravens, Reference Baldauf and Cravens2002). In contrast to most office workers who receive regular salaries, most salespersons receive commission-based salaries and therefore they would value more their sales performance. Recall that salespersons are mainly visiting customers and winning orders and that they typically operate their work in the places remote from their home bases (Vinchur et al., Reference Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer and Roth1998), hence their ‘office time’ (stay in the office) is shorter than office workers and their information about organizational events or gossips is less than office workers. As such, it can be an error to assume that the job performance correlating to POPs for salespersons is compatible to that for office workers.
Members in organizations can influence organizational objectives, operational policies and important decisions in a highly political environment (Wamsley & Zald, Reference Wamsley and Zald1973); however, little is known about how salesperson performance is affected when organizational sales policies are influenced by politics. Given that POPs is the consistent predictor of negative outcomes for office workers (Vigoda, Reference Vigoda2000; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter2002; Harris & Kacmar, Reference Harris and Kacmar2005; Harris, Harris, & Harvey, Reference Harris, Harris and Harvey2007; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008; Miller, Rutherford, & Kolodinsky, Reference Miller, Rutherford and Kolodinsky2008) and that the work characteristics and work motivations between salespersons and office workers are different, the interpretability of correlations between POPs and job performance for salespersons remains an open issue. This motivates the present study for clarifying the relationships among POPs, work motivation and salesperson performance.
Expectancy theory
In expectancy theory, motivation is regarded as a process governing individual choices among alternative activities. Individuals make choices based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behavior will match up with and eventually lead to the desired results. Should a model of expectancy theory be operationalized and followed in an organization, there is a strong probability that its employees will be highly motivated. According to the expectancy theory, motivation is the energy of behavior and the effort expended to reach a certain goal (Campbell & Pritchard, Reference Campbell and Pritchard1976). Effort is reflected in performance and monetary rewards, thus employees believe that pay and performance are two sides of the same coin (Lawler, Reference Lawler1971). This is particularly crucial to the commission-based salespersons whose rewards are highly associated with their effort; namely, sales performance directly determines their salaries.
The expectancy theory has been used to predict motivational consequences on pay changes, promotions, changes in working conditions and assignments, use of overtime, training and recognition of achievements (Warren, Reference Warren1989; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012). It has also been used to comprehend sales force (e.g., Oliver, Reference Oliver1974; Walker, Churchill, & Ford, Reference Walker, Churchill and Ford1977; Teas, Reference Teas1981; Tyagi, Reference Tyagi1982; Teas & McElroy, Reference Teas and McElroy1986; Johnston & Kim, Reference Johnston and Kim1994; Geiger & Cooper, Reference Geiger and Cooper1996; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012) assuming that salespersons have expectancy about what they should receive from the organization as a result of their effort. Outcome-based systems, which rely on a higher proportion of variable pay, assume high levels of salesperson autonomy (Oliver & Anderson, Reference Oliver and Anderson1994, Reference Oliver and Anderson1995; Kunz & Pfaff, Reference Kunz and Pfaff2002). Commission-pay programs empower the salespersons by allowing them to select methods to bring about sales improvements. According to Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram, and LaForge (Reference Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram and LaForge1996), commission is more important than other variables (e.g., training and organizational support) in predicting the intrinsic motivation levels. This positive link between compensation-driven motivation and task enjoyment is also evidenced in more heterogeneous cross-sectional studies (Miao & Evans, Reference Miao and Evans2007). Commission payment is acknowledged as one of the oldest individual incentive schemes and is also based on the concept of pay-for-performance. Compared with regular wages and salaries received by most office workers, commission-based monetary rewards received by salespersons have more straightforward influence on work motivation and consequently on sales performance. The incentives may involve relating employees’ pay to their individual performance as with piece rates or most sales commissions (Brown & Heywood, Reference Brown and Heywood2002; Kuvaas, Reference Kuvaas2006).
Referring to Porter and Lawler (Reference Porter and Lawler1973), the expectancy model used in this study contains three components: the effort-performance (EP) probability, the performance-outcome (PO) probability and the value of an outcome (V). It is believed that job performance is associated with monetary reward – the greater the monetary rewards, the better the job performance (Shamir, Reference Shamir1983).
Hypotheses
Based on the expectancy theory of motivation, this study proposes three hypotheses: (1) POPs is positively related to salesperson performance, (2) POPs is positively related to salesperson work motivation and (3) there is mediator effect for work motivation in the relationship between POPs and salesperson performance. The framework of the three hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 1: POPs is positively related to salesperson performance.
Previous studies interpret and support the negative correlations between POPs and job performance for two reasons (Vigoda, Reference Vigoda2000; Witt, Kacmar, Carson, & Zivnuska, Reference Witt, Kacmar, Carson and Zivnuska2002; Rosen, Levy, & Hall, Reference Rosen, Levy and Hall2006). First, employees do not believe that tangible benefits are obtainable from a highly political environment where high payoff is not assured in the presence of many uncertainties (Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008). Second, the performance of office workers is rewarded by a regular salary rated in a compensation structure containing less incentive (Pearce, Reference Pearce2010). Namely, the correlation between performance and rewards is insignificant to the office workers (Varghese, Reference Varghese2011; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012), but the question now arises if we turn office workers to salespersons. As mentioned, the tasks for salespersons are mainly visiting customers and winning orders and they have significantly higher work pressure than office workers because they must deal with large percentages of ‘no sales’ (Low et al., Reference Low, Cravens, Grant and Moncrief2001). Salespersons are salaried on a commission basis. They usually face challenges in ways that competitions and uncertainties motivate them to excel in sales performance. In a highly political environment where many sacrifice others for personal benefits, salespersons may have stronger POPs because they want to secure their rewards (performance), power and resources from being threatened or sacrificed by others. Once they think organizational politics behaviors have damaged their benefits and threatened their opportunities, they might have positive reactions by increasing their work motivations, thus in turn increase their job performance. For this reason, this study proposes the first hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: POPs is positively related to salesperson work motivation.
Organizational politics is linked to individual work motivation. A worker’s social perception of others within the organization can affect his/her work motivation to complete work effectively to a large degree. As aforementioned, members in organizations usually influence organizational objectives, operational policies and important decisions in a highly political environment. A threatening highly political environment may motivate people to work hard (Jamal, Reference Jamal1997). Salespersons often feel increased pressure to work hard, an experience that may be motivating but at the same time be exhausting and stressful. They tend to protect or even extend their own interests in conformation with the organizational politics. As rewards are motivated by self-interests, strong POPs might become the work incentive for salespersons. In light of the above, this study proposes the second hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: There is mediator effect for work motivation in the relationship between POPs and salesperson performance.
The idea that politics and job performance are related has been noted by Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (Reference Ferris, Russ and Fandt1989). The expectancy theory states that a leader will exert a certain behavior or performance based on the expectation of a certain outcome to motivate subordinates. The leader may increase expectancy by providing a work environment that encourages high performance. A commission-based reward system, for example, can be implemented to help motivate the subordinates. According to the expectancy theory, motivation is the energy of behavior and the effort expended to reach a certain goal (Campbell & Pritchard, Reference Campbell and Pritchard1976). Effort is reflected in performance and monetary rewards. This is particularly crucial to the commission-based salespersons whose rewards are highly associated with their effort; namely, sales performance directly determines salespersons’ salaries. When perceiving strong organizational political influence and attracted to the commission-based rewards, salespersons might work harder to excel their sales performance. Based on the above, this study further proposes the third hypothesis.
Figure 1 Framework of research
Empirical study
Participants
Four participating companies were selected from the list of product manufacturers and service providers in Taiwan. These companies were all private, including a cosmetics manufacturer (10 sales managers, 50 sales representatives), a communication apparatus manufacturer (16 sales managers, 180 sales representatives), a domestic insurance enterprise (46 sales managers, 640 sales representatives), and a foreign insurance enterprise (26 sales managers, 236 sales representatives). This study used the judgment sampling method, which involved the choice of samples that were most advantageously placed to provide the required information. It was especially useful when a limited number of individuals possessed the trait of interest or when the researcher knew a reliable professional or authority that was capable of assembling representative samples (Babakus et al., Reference Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram and LaForge1996; Low et al., Reference Low, Cravens, Grant and Moncrief2001).
To enhance the return rate and questionnaire validity, a letter of intent was sent to each company before the survey was conducted. Each sales manager was requested to assess 10 of his/her subordinates about their sales performance. To avoid deviation from homology, the POPs and work motivation items were answered by the salespersons, whereas the salespersons’ performance items were assessed by the sales managers. As such, the relationships between the three variables (POPs, work motivation and performance) would not be contaminated by the common method variance. The POPs and work motivation questionnaires were distributed and collected by sales managers, who were advised to choose their subordinates most advantageously placed to meet the merits of judgment sampling method (Low et al., Reference Low, Cravens, Grant and Moncrief2001). All participated salespersons and sales managers were clearly explained about the objectives of the survey with an assurance that all data were absolutely confidential and would be used only for academic research purposes.
A total of 85 sales managers participated in this survey, which came to 850 participated salespersons. Of the 850 questionnaires distributed, 672 were collected (return rate 79%), including 510 valid responses and 162 invalid responses, most of which were due to incomplete answers. The demographic details of these 510 valid responses were (1) gender: 77.6% males, 22.4% females; (2) age: 58% between 20 and 35, 34% between 36 and 50, 8% above 51; (3) education: 79.4% holding a first degree; (4) service tenure: 44.7% over 5 years.
Measurements
POPs
This study used the 15-item POPs measurements developed by Kacmar and Carlson (Reference Kacmar and Carlson1997), which had been proven effective in different empirical studies (Harris, Harris, & Harvey, Reference Harris, Harris and Harvey2007; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008). The salespersons were requested to rate each of the 15 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Work motivation
According to the expectancy theory of motivation, work motivation could be simply measured by the equation: Motivation=EP×PO×V, where EP is the effort-performance probability, PO the performance-outcome probability, V the value of an outcome. In this study, EP, PO and V were responded by salespersons with the following questions. (1) EP: ‘Given your abilities, experiences, self-confidence and understanding of your supervisor’s expectations, what is the probability that your effort will result in a superior sales performance?’ (2) PO: ‘How sure are you that your boss will reward you when you do a good job?’ (3) V: ‘What is the value of the outcome to you?’ The above three items were measured on a percentage scale.
Salesperson performance
Following Yilmaz (Reference Yilmaz2002), the following three questions were used to measure the salesperson performance: (1) ‘He/she is one of the most successful sales consultants.’ (2) ‘He/she is one of the highest earners in his/her dealership.’ (3) ‘Other sales consultants consider his/her career as a highly successful salesperson.’ Sales managers assessed their subordinates by rating each question on a 5-point Likert scale, also ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Control variables
Gender, tenure and education were regarded as important factors affecting salesperson performance (Yilmaz & Hunt, Reference Yilmaz and Hunt2001; Yilmaz, Reference Yilmaz2002). Accordingly, this study utilized them as control variables in the hierarchical regression analysis.
Results
To test the hypotheses, this study employed a hierarchical regression analysis, which contained three equations suggested by Baron and Kenny (Reference Baron and Kenny1986). The first equation tested if the initial variable could significantly predict the outcome variable. The second equation tested if the initial variable could significantly predict the mediator. In the third equation, both initial variable and mediator were entered jointly to predict the criterion variable. Meditation was established if the first and the second equations were statistically significant. A full mediation would be concluded if two criteria could satisfy in the third equation; that is, the mediator should significantly predict the criterion variable and the direct relationship between initial variable and criterion variable should reduce to zero. If the initial variable could be reduced to an absolute size other than zero when the mediator was controlled, then a partial mediation could be concluded.
For the POPs measurement, the principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed to examine the 15-item scale before testing the hypotheses. The factor loading for all items is >0.5, suggesting that the scale is valid for the hierarchical regression analysis. Cronbach’s α is 0.78, indicating the reliability of the scale. Of the 510 valid responses, the POPs aggregated mean is 47.79 (SD=7.37; range=31–63). To assess the construct validity of POPs, a confirmatory factor analysis was further performed as the POPs measures had a priori factor structure. The resulting POPs items show a satisfactory goodness of fit (χ2=48.92, df=9, p=.000; NFI=0.90; GFI=0.97; CFI=0.95; RMSEA=0.036). As for the salesperson performance measurement, the overall construct validity of the performance evaluation scale is 0.87, suggesting that the scale is valid for measuring salesperson performance. Cronbach’s α is 0.84, suggesting the reliability of the scale. Of the 510 valid responses, the salesperson performance aggregated mean is 9.68 (SD=2.97; range=3–15).
Based on the results of correlation analysis (Table 1), POPs and work motivation are positively correlated (r=0.45, p<.01). POPs and salesperson performance are also positively correlated (r=0.30, p<.01). Control variables (gender, tenure and education) show low correlation to POPs, work motivation and salesperson performance. Therefore, all variables are used for the regression analysis except control variables.
Table 1 Correlation matrix
Notes: POPs=perceptions of organizational politics; Gender: 0=male, 1=female; Tenure: measured in years; Education: 1=high school diploma, 2=college degree, 3=graduate degree.
**p<.01.
Three regression equations were run. First, the predictor variable (POPs) was regressed on the outcome (salesperson performance) and the result in Table 2 has shown that β=0.30 is positive and significant (p<.001). Therefore, the first hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) ‘POPs is positively related to salespersons performance’ can be supported. Second, the predictor variable (POPs) was regressed on the mediator (work motivation) and the result in Table 3 has shown that β=0.45 is also positive and significant (p<.001). Therefore, it supports the second hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) ‘POPs is positively related to salesperson work motivation.’ Third, both variables of predictor (POPs) and mediator (work motivation) were regressed on the outcome (salesperson performance) and the result in Table 4 has indicated that the relationship between mediator variable (work motivation) and outcome (salesperson performance) is positive and significant with β=0.48 (p<.001). Although the significant relationship between predictor (POPs) and outcome (salesperson performance) in the first regression becomes insignificant with β=0.09 (p=.13) in the third regression, the result can support the third hypothesis (Hypothesis 3). ‘There is mediator effect for work motivation in the relationship between POPs and salesperson performance.’
Table 2 Regression results for POPs on salesperson performance
Note: POPs=perceptions of organizational politics.
**p<.01.
Table 3 Regression results for POPs on work motivation
Note: **p<.01.
Table 4 Regression results for POPs and work motivation on salesperson performance
Note: POPs=perceptions of organizational politics.
**p<.01.
Discussion and implications
The empirical results have supported the three hypotheses proposed: (1) POPs is positively related to salesperson performance, (2) POPs is positively related to salesperson work motivation and (3) there is mediator effect for work motivation in the relationship between POPs and salesperson performance. Based on the findings, it can be best summarized in the following: POPs is the predicator of salesperson performance strength. The implications suggest that POPs can encourage the salespersons to improve sales performance. This new evidence for salespersons has apparently disagreed with the orthodox finding within the literature concluding that POPs and job performance for office workers are negatively correlated (Vigoda, Reference Vigoda2000; Ferris et al., Reference Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter2002; Harris & Kacmar, Reference Harris and Kacmar2005; Harris, Harris, & Harvey, Reference Harris, Harris and Harvey2007; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008). Our findings are consistent with Ferris et al. (Reference Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter and Ammeter2002) and Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud (Reference Vigoda-Gadot and Talmud2010) in terms of the indirect nature of the POPs and the outcome (performance) relationship.
As mentioned, when POPs in organizations is high, salespersons tend to protect or even extend their own interests to conform with the organizational politics in accomplishing the missions assigned by sales managers or organizations, especially under the circumstances of resource scarcity, economic instability and increasing competition (Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008; Marschke, Preziosi, & Harrington, Reference Marschke, Preziosi and Harrington2010; Varghese, Reference Varghese2011; Nasri & Charfeddine, Reference Nasri and Charfeddine2012). The inconsistent results for POPs and job performance may be ascribed to diverse work motivations between these two groups of people.
Political behaviors in organizations may vary according to perceptive differences among organizational members (Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008). Sales performance is crucial to salespersons (Yilmaz, Reference Yilmaz2002) because it not only determines their salary and promotion but affects the organizational performance as a whole. Thus, understanding the correlations between POPs and salespersons performance can greatly facilitate the sales managers to develop pragmatic strategies to improve the overall organizational performance (Churchill et al., Reference Churchill, Ford, Hartley and Walker1985). Our findings provide the sales managers with new clues to initiate innovative strategies or tactics through organizational political activities in promoting individual salespersons’ performance.
Although POPs is capable of improving sales performance, sales managers must not forget the consequences of organizational politics can turn out to be a threat in the end if salespersons exploit it too aggressively. In other words, POPs can defect to others under the influence of organizational politics, which can severely damage the overall benefits of an organization after all. Therefore, when boosting sales performance, sales managers must detect the potential workplace deviant behaviors to prevent organizational politics from damaging the overall benefits of an organization.
Conclusions
This study has contributed to management and organizational behavior literature in many ways. It is the first of its kind to investigate the relationships between POPs and job performance for salespersons with work motivation as a mediator. Based on literature review and the expectancy theory of motivation, this study has proposed and tested three hypotheses: (1) POPs is positively related to salesperson performance, (2) POPs is positively related to salesperson work motivation and (3) there is mediator effect for work motivation in the relationship between POPs and salesperson performance. The empirical results support the three hypotheses, suggesting POPs can lead to improved salesperson performance and this effect is mediated through work motivation. This new finding disagrees with the orthodox finding within the literature, which states that POPs and job performance for office workers are negatively correlated. Our results should meet the scientific spirits as they are theoretical, logical and empirical. It is never easy to make a general conclusion simply based on our empirical results, but it seems possible that POPs can be the work incentive for salespersons. Our new finding can provide sales managers with new clues to initiate pragmatic tactics through organizational political activities to boost individual salespersons’ performance. However, the managers must closely watch the potential workplace deviant behaviors to prevent organizational politics from damaging the overall organization benefits.
Although this study has shed new light on the relationship between POPs and job performance for salespersons, there is yet no rigorous proof that POPs is the predicator of salesperson performance strength. It calls for further studies. First, the sampling data in this study are based on a cross-sectional survey even though the data are collected from two independent sources of information on each case (the manager and the salesperson). As Ployhart and Vandenburg (Reference Ployhart and Vandenburg2010) point out, relationships that seem clear and certain in a cross-sectional study may not exist if viewed longitudinally. For some industries, the particular season could be a key factor affecting salespersons performance, that is, sales performance may not be truly reflected by a snapshot outcome; in this circumstance, longitudinal research is deemed more appropriate. Second, sales performance in this study is measured as a single construct. According to Baldauf and Cravens (Reference Baldauf and Cravens2002), sales performance may comprise two constructs: behavioral and outcome. It may need to measure the strength of these two constructs notwithstanding that the behavioral performance (teamwork, sales support) and outcome performance (sales, new customers) of salespersons are positively correlated (Oliver & Anderson, Reference Oliver and Anderson1994). Third, other mediating variables such as organizational support (Harris, Harris, & Harvey, Reference Harris, Harris and Harvey2007) and impression management (Zivnuska, Kacmar, & Witt, Reference Zivnuska, Kacmar and Witt2004; Chen & Fang, Reference Chen and Fang2008) have been proven to moderate the performance of office workers. The effects of these variables on salespersons performance require further exploration. Finally, there is no comparison between the performance outcomes of salespersons and other organizational members of the same company in the present study. This is an issue for further research.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to editor-in-chief and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which help level up the quality of this paper. Special thanks go to Lawrence W. Lan, Chair Professor of Ta Hwa University of Science and Technology Taiwan, for his endless effort on polishing the technical writing.
