Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL POLITIC
ON TEACHERS’ WORK BEHAVIOUR IN MALAYSIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Aziah Ismail,
School of Educational Studies, University Sains
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Abstract. The main purpose of this study is to examine the influence of perceived organizational politic
(POPS) on Malaysian teachers’ work behaviour (i.e. commitment and innovative work behaviour). A total number of
961 questionnaires were collected from teachers in secondary schools. The results indicated that the dimensions of
POPS are significant predictors of the variance in teachers’ commitment and innovative work behaviour. Based on the
results, it can be concluded that the teachers’ perception of political games in their organization does affect their
working behaviour.
Keywords: teachers’ perception; organizational politic; commitment; innovative behaviour, secondary
school teachers.
Introduction. Changes in structure and roles for instance downsizing, outsourcing and restructuring have led
to an unstable internal environment in the organization. According to Adnan Riaz (2013), in such environment, there
will lack communication, mistrust and insecurity among workers and weaken the relation between organization and
labour. As a result, employees will try to perform 'political game' to secure their position and interests (Rosen, Harris &
Kacmar, 2009) in the organization. In general, politic refers to human activities to protect and improve the rules and
regulations that imposed on them (Adnan Riaz, 2013). And many previous authors associate the definition of
organizational politic with action and usage of power to defend self-interest against others. Allen, Madison, Porter,
Renwick and Mayes (1979) and Yahya, Aziah and Yaakob (2007) referred organizational politic as the behaviour of
individual or groups that exist informally in an organization and try to fight for their interests, needs and desires and
often coupled with tactics to maximize their self-interest (Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989). It also involves efforts of
individuals or groups within the organization to obtain support or oppose the organizational strategies, policies or
practices in which they have rights and interests (Bacharach & Lawler, 1998). These efforts include reactive actions to
protect self-interests while proactive promotes self-interests (Allen, Madison, Porter et. al., 1979). In detail, Allen et. al.
(1979) identified some of the tactics used by the political players in the organization, for instance, (i) use the
information as a political tool. The information will withhold, distorted or used to overwhelm another. The purpose of
this tactic may bury or obscure an important detail which the political actor believe could harm him when the risk of
withholding information is too great; (ii) creating and maintaining a favourable image by adopting attributes as the
individual considers to be thought desirable by influential members of the organization; (iii) developing a base of
support which includes getting others to understand one’s ideas before a decision is made, setting up a decision before
the meeting is called, and getting others to contribute to the idea to assure their commitment. This tactic is usually
occupied by top-level managers, and; (iv) blaming or attacking the rivals. Drory and Romm (1988) have described the
key elements that can be clues to the existence of political games, namely:
a) The way employees react towards ideas, decisions, policies, rules etc. in the organization whether in
formal, informal or illegal action;
b) Their action towards organization;
c) Power of achievement;
d) Conflict;
e) Hidden agendas.
Previous researchers, for instance, Vigoda (2000), Ferris and Kacmar (1992) and Kacmar and Baron (1999)
proclaimed that organizational politic could not be eliminated and often contrary to the common goals of the
organization and individual interests. Usually, researchers refer organizational politic as the political behaviour in an
internal environment of organization (Adnan Riaz, 2013; Nor Azmawati Abdul Rahman, et. al, 2010). However,
Cropanzano et al. (1997) pointed out that individual perception towards political games in the organization is more
important and relevant to be studied compared to the real organizational politic as perceived organization political game
is formed by a set of beliefs defined by the employees (Drory, 1993) and individual reaction to what they perceived is
not necessarily true (Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar & Howard, 1994; Ferris et al., 1993). In fact, Cropanzano et
al. (1997) pointed out that in the context of the organization, perception is a matter that will show a direct relationship to
the work outcome.
Perceived organizational politic. The perceived organizational politic refers to the perception of the employee
to the conducts of their colleagues who have a personal interest and tend to fulfil their personal goals without
considering others’ feeling and welfare as well as organization well-being (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Teachers’
perception of political aspects of the organization, undoubtedly, do exist in a school context. Bacharach and Mundel
(1993) stated that the school administration that embraces a bureaucratic system also has the tendency to initiate the
emergence of significant political games or teachers’ perception of the games. According to their 'logic of action'
concept that implicit relationship between the tactics hired and the goals of the political games is believed by the players
in the school organization. As presumed by Nor Azmawati et. al. (2010), as a social entity, school has limited resources
1004
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
for all staffs, for instance, promotion, increment and social mobility which are usually the ultimate goals for the players.
This situation leads to competition among members of the organization (especially teachers) who has their own
personal needs and interests to achieve. Kacmar and Carlson (1997) have generated three dimensions of organizational
politic in their study entitled “Further Validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS)” namely General Political
Behaviour, Go Along to Get Ahead and, Pay and Promotion Policies.
General political behaviour. This dimension refers to the behaviours of individuals who act in a self-serving
manner to obtain valued outcomes. Previous researchers such as Drory and Romm (1990), Fandt and Ferris (1990) and
Kacmar and Ferris (1993) suggested that political behaviour in organizations will increase under a few circumstances
for instance when rules and regulations are not available to govern actions, uncertainty in decision making and scarcity
of valued resources (e.g., transfers, raises, office space, budgets).
Go along to get ahead. In literature, conflict is consistently related to organizational politics (Drory & Romm,
1988; Frost, 1987; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mintzberg, 1985). According to Drory and Romm (1990), the existence of
conflict is a necessary underlying element of organizational politics. The actual influence attempts themselves are an
indication of the potential state of conflict that exists between the two parties.
Pay and promotion policies. These two involve the organization behaving politically through the policies it
enacts. Even though organizational decision makers may not do so consciously, the human resource systems that are
developed and implemented may reward individuals who engage in influence behaviours and penalize those who do
not. Such practices will result in a culture in which political activity will be commonplace in virtually every aspect of
human resource decisions (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997).
Teachers’ commitment. Commitment refers to the voluntary behaviour to pay efforts to provide conscious
awareness to organizational objectives beyond passive loyalty to the organization. According to Mowday, Porter and
Steers (1982), committed employees will show strong desire to serve their organization and would not leave their
organization. In the school context, Ates and Buluc (2015) noted that commitment is one of the critical elements in
increasing the performance of teachers and school as they are directly involved in the educational process and
development as well as responsible to equip students with the knowledge and good manners. Meyer and Allen's (1991)
have developed a three-dimensional model of commitment that corresponds with different psychological states. The
three dimensions of the Meyer and Allen’s commitment model are affective commitment, continuance commitment and
normative commitment.
Affective Commitment is defined as the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. An
employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a
part of the organization.
Continuance Commitment refers to the “need” component or the gains verses losses of working in an
organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) believed that individuals may commit to the organization because they perceive
of a high cost of losing organizational membership.
Normative Commitment is defined as the feelings of obligation by individuals that cause them to commits and
remains with the organization. This feeling may derive from a strain on an individual before and after joining an
organization.
Innovative Work Behaviour. West and Farr (1990) defined innovative work behaviour as generating,
promoting and realizing new ideas for individual, teamwork or organization. This behaviour is often associated with
employees’ creativity, however, innovative behaviour implies more creativity and produce a wide range of benefits and
have clearer useful components (de Jong & den Hartog, 2007). Armbruster, Bikfalvi, Kinkel & Lay (2008) explained
that, in order to survive in global changes and competition, an organization must embark on innovation activities that
are highly correlated in producing better performance and productivity as well as high level of teachers’ commitment
(Janssen, 2003). The three creative components of innovative work behaviour which identified by Janssen (2000)
encompasses the exploration of opportunities for innovation (also referred to as problem recognition) and the generation
of innovative ideas. The implementation component encompasses the promotion (or introduction and dissemination) of
these ideas and their realization (or application) in organizational practice. According to Janssen (2000), individuals
who possess innovative work behaviour will develop ideas, react to other ideas, and shape ideas to their specific work
contexts.
The impact of organizational politic on teachers’ work behaviour. According to Vigoda (2000), the
importance of perceived organizational politic is on its effects towards work performance. The perceived politic was
expected to has a negative impact to the organization (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997), especially on the employee work
attitude and performance (Buenger, Forte, Boozer & Maddox, 2007), Sowmya & Panchamanatham, 2012, Rashidah &
Suryati, 2010; Vigoda, 2000).
Ferris, Russ and Fandt (1989) believed that employees who have high organizational politic perception will be
dissatisfied with their jobs and will lead to ineffectiveness in the organization. As proclaimed by Drory (1993), if
employees do not have any access to the power source and status in the organization, they will take advantage in the
political game for having their share of the benefits that they are entitled to receive. However, Daft (1992) believes that
the negative impact of organizational politic will sense more by subordinates who do not have rights in the decisionmaking process. Among the impact of organizational politic and perceived organizational politic on work behaviour, as
discussed by previous studies were job satisfaction (Ram & Prabhakar, 2010; Poon, 2003; Poon, 2004; Bodla & Danish,
2009; Adnan Riaz, 2013); job frustration (Harris et al., 2009); intention for turnover (Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun, 2005;
1005
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
Harris et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2009; Poon, 2003 ; Miller et al., 2008; Bodla & Danish, 2009); organizational
commitment (Vigoda and Cohen, 2002; Wilson, 1995; Miller et al., 2008; Bodla and Danish, 2009); subordinate anxiety
(Ferris et al., 1996; Adnan Riaz, 2013); psychological withdrawal (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Adnan Riaz, 2013);
organizational cynicism (Buenger et al., 2007; Adnan Riaz (2013) and; work pressure (Miller et al., 2008; Poon, 2003;
Buenger et al., 2007; Bodla & Danish, 2009).
Previous studies have listed many effects of perceived organizational politic in many aspects on school
performance, especially on teachers’ commitment and innovative behaviour that referred as teachers’ work behaviour by
Vigoda (2000). Findings in previous studies also have proven that commitment (Vigoda, 2000; Al-amin, 2012;
Thilagavathy, 2014) and innovative behaviour (Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003; Soleimani & Tebyanian, 2011; Mesut Sagnak,
2012; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Mayeng Yewae, 2013) were attitudes that should possess by teachers for their continuous
teaching effectiveness as well as improve students achievement. Committed and innovative teachers are key factors for
school as they need to perform as a technician who responsible for schools core business and ‘social engineer’ for
students’ performance and well-being. Though many previous researchers have proclaimed the negative impact of
POPS on teachers’ work behaviour, there is still a lack in the Malaysian school context. Thus, this study is intended to
examine the influence of POPS on the teachers’ commitment and innovative work behaviour. Specifically, the
objectives of this study are to identify the significant predictor of POPS dimensions on the variance change in teachers’
commitment and innovative work behaviour.
Methodology. The study was based on a survey of secondary schools in three states in Northern Part of
Peninsular Malaysia namely Penang, Kedah and Perlis in order to reduce the size of population for this study.
According to Ministry of Education Malaysia (2016), the actual number of secondary schools in Malaysia is 2271.
According to Educational Management Information System (EMIS) (2011) of Malaysia, there are 324 secondary
schools in the three selected states. The selection of respondents was conducted using two phases, namely the selection
of schools followed by the selection of teachers for each selected school. Based on the sampling justification by Gay,
Mill and Airasian (2006), about 40 percent, which is approximately 130 schools, were selected using stratified random
sampling. A total of 1,300 teachers from 10 schools (130 teachers per school, respectively) were randomly selected. The
questionnaires were distributed by mail and by hand to the respondents. However, due to the late and incomplete
respond, only 961 distributed questionnaires can be used for the data analysis.
In this study, perceived organizational politic is the independent variable while the teachers’ commitment and
innovative work behaviour are the dependent variables. A questionnaire consisting 4 parts was used for data gathering,
namely:
Section A: Demographics of respondents and school
Section B: The perceived organizational politic items were adapted from Kacmar & Carlson (1997) which
originally consists of 15 items with negative statement. However, all the items were changed into positive statements as
advised by experts during content validity and ethical panel in researcher’s university for the negative items regarding
organizational politic in school context will give negative impact to the name Ministry of Education. Thus the items to
measure POPS especially for pay and promotion policies in this study were changed to positive statement consisting16
items. The items of pay and promotion policies in this study were focused on teachers’ performance appraisal only
which were eventually used in teacher’s selection for awards, for instance, outstanding teacher award, promotion,
scholarship etc. The reliability for the POPS factor was α=0.89
Section C: Teachers’ commitment of teachers adapted from
Meyer and Allen's (1997) with the reliability value
α =0.93.
Section D: Teachers’ innovative behaviour teachers which
contains 9 items adapted from Janssen (2000) with
reliability value α = 0.90.
All items on the questionnaire B to D were measured using a 5-point Likert scale with a value of 1 = 'strongly
disagree' to the 5 = 'strongly agree'.
Results. This study is to investigate the significant predictors of POPS’ dimensions on the variance changes in
teachers’ commitment and innovative work behaviour. This objective was tested using multiple regression analyses and
the results as shown in Figure 1 and 2. The results of the regression in Figure 1 indicated the three dimensions of POPS
explained 15.6% of the variance in teachers’ commitment (R2 =.16, F(3,957)=59.08, p<.01) with β value of ‘general
political behaviour’ (β=.33, p=.00), ‘go along to get ahead’ (β=.07, p=.04 ) and ‘pay and promotion policies’ (β=.13,
p=.00). The results indicated that these three POPS’s dimensions are significant predictors of the variance change in
teachers’ commitment.
1006
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
General political
behaviour
POPS
Go Along to get
ahead
Aziah Ismail
.33**
.07*
Commitment
.13**
Pay and promotion
policies
R=.40
R2= .156
Adjusted
R2=.15
F=59.08**
*p<.05 **p <.01
Figure 1: Multiple regression of POPS dimensions on teachers’ commitment
The multiple regression results in Figure 2 revealed that the three dimensions of OP explained 13.1% of the
variance in teachers’ innovative behaviour (R2 =.13, F(3,957)=48.15, p<.05). However, only two of the
dimensions namely, ‘general political behaviour’ (β=.32, p=.00) and ‘go along to get ahead’ (β.08, p=.02) become
the significant predictors while ‘pay and promotion policies’ (β=.02, p=.44) is an insignificant predictor.
General
behaviour
POPS
.32**
political
.08*
Go Along to get
ahead
Innovative
behaviour
work
R2= .131
Adjusted
R2=.13
.02
Pay and promotion
policies
R=.36
F=48.15**
*p<.05 **p <.01
Figure 2: Multiple regression of POPS dimensions on teachers’ innovative work behaviour
Discussion. The results of the present study revealed that the three dimensions of POPS explained 15.6% of
the variance in teachers’ commitment and become significant predictors. In this study, the positive β value for each
dimension shows the positive influence of POPS on teachers’ commitment as the POPS items is in a positive statement.
Thus this result is consistent with previous findings which found the negative impact of POPS on employee
commitment (Vigoda & Cohen, 2002; Wilson, 1995; Miller et al., 2008; Bodla & Danish, 2009). According to Mabasa
Fumani Donald, Letsoalo Bertha, Mabasa Engetani Lucia (2016), even though politics are an inevitable reality, they can
be managed and controlled by the organization. However, if not managed and controlled to a minimum level, it can lead
to organizational discomfort and also results in the low level of employees’ commitment.
Meanwhile, the result of multiple regression in this study indicated that the three dimensions of POPS explained
13.1% of the variance in teachers’ innovative behaviour (R2 =.13, F(3,957)=48.15, p<.05). This result is consistent with
Muhammad Abbas and Usman Raja (2014) which revealed that perceived organizational politics had a negative
relationship to innovative performance. In addition, they emphasized that employees, who perceived elevated levels of
politics in their organizations, were less likely to demonstrate innovative behaviours at work. In contrast, those who
perceived low levels of politics in their workplace were more likely to exhibit innovative behaviours at work. This
finding is consistent with the previous categorization of perceived politics as a hindrance-related stressor that dampens
one’s motivation to work.
Conclusions. Every day people in organization express their dissatisfaction on many aspects related to politics
in the organization, for instance, political games, biases, butt polisher, politic players, tactics etc. The previous metaanalyses suggest that perceived politics is generally harmful to the desirable job outcomes (Vigoda, 2000, Buenger,
Forte, Boozer & Maddox, 2000; Cropanzo et al., 1997; Sowmya & Panchamanatham, 2012; Rashidah & Nandita,
2010; Vigoda, 2000). Though many studies have been done in this area, the present study tries to replicate the issues as
the impact of POPS to teachers’ work attitude specifically commitment and innovative work behaviour are still remain
unexplored in the context of Malaysian schools. According to Vigoda (2000), the goal of studies in this particular
aspect was to further theory and knowledge on employees’ reactions to politics in public organizations by providing
some answers to these questions, and several unique features were indeed produced. Furthermore, the majority of the
previous studies in organizational behaviours are conducted in Western settings, thus more research is required to test
various theories predominantly developed in West in Eastern settings to provide evidence for generalizability
(Muhammad Abbas & Usman Raja, 2014).
Acknowledgement. This work was supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia under the Research University
Grant [number 1001/PGURU/816254].
1007
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
References
1. Adnan Riaz (2013). Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Politics: A Study of the Public Sector
Organizations of Pakistan, Tesis PhD yang tidak diterbitkan. Islamabad: Mohammad Ali Jinnah University
2. Al-Amin Mydin (2012). Pengaruh Peranan Transformasi Pengetua Terhadap Hubungan Antara Spirituality
di Tempat Kerja dengan Komitmen Guru. Tesis Ph. D yang tidak diterbitkan, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.
3. Allen, R., Madison, D., Porter, L., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and
characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22(1), pp.475- 483.
4. Anandan Kuppan (2010). Pengaruh efikasi kendiri dan kolektif guru terhadap hubungan antara kepemimpinan
transformasi sekolah dengan komitmen kualiti pengajaran. Tesis Ph. D yang tidak diterbitkan, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.
5. Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S. & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of
measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation. Vol.28(10), pp. 644-657.
6. Ates, O.T. & Buluc, B. (2015) The Relationship between the Emotional Intelligence, Motivation and
Organizational Commitment of Primary School Teachers, Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research,
Issue 17, pp. 31-49
7. Ayeesha Yaseen (2013). Effect of Compensation Factors on Employee Satisfaction- A Study of Doctor‟s
Dissatisfaction in Punjab, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 142-157.
8. Azra Ayue Abdul Rahman, Siti Aisyah Panatik and Rose Alinda Alias (2014). The Influence of Psychological
Empowerment on Innovative Work Behavior among Academia in Malaysian Research Universities. Retrieved on 7 Jan
2016 from http://www.ipedr.com/vol78/021-ICSEP2014-S10025.pdf
9. Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1998). Political Alignments in Organizations: Contextualization,
Mobilization, and Coordination. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and Influence in Organizations (pp. 6788). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Bacharach, S. B. & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational Politics in Schools: Micro, Macro, and Logics of
Action. Educational Administration Quarterly, (29), 423-440
11. Bodla, M.A., & Danish R.Q. (2009), Politics and Workplace: An Empirical Examination of the Relationship
Between Perceived Organizational Politics and Work Performance, South Asian Journal of Management, 16(1), 44-62.
12. Buenger C.M., Forte, M., Boozer, R.W., & Maddox, E.N. (2007). A Study Of The Applicability Of The
Perceptions Of Organizational Politics Scale (Pops) For Use In The University Classroom. Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning, 34, (294-301).
13. Celep, C. (2000). Teachers’ Organizational Commitment In Educational Organizations. Trakya University.
Edirne, TURKEY. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, l (10E), (3). ERIC NO: ED452179.
14. Cropanzano, R., Howes J. C., Grandey, A. A. & Toth, Paul (1997). The Relationship of Organizational
Politics And Support To Work Behaviors, Attitudes, and Stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
15. Daft, R. L. (1992). Organization Theory And Design (4th Ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing
16. de Jong, J.P.J., Hartog, D.N.D (2007) "How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour", European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10(1), pp.41 - 64
17. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1988). `What organizational politics is: Organization members' perceptions',
Organization Studies, 9/2, 165-179.
18. Drory, A. (1993). Perceived political climate and job attitudes. Organizational Studies, 14, 59–71.
19. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93116.
20. Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Galang, M.C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, M.K. & Howard, J.L. (1996), Perceptions of
organizational politics: prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 233-266.
21. Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S. & Fandt, P.M. (1989), “Politics in organizations”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rosenfeld,
P. (Eds), Impression Management in the Organization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 143-70.
22. Frost, P.J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Gandz. J. & Murray, V.V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal. 23,
pp. 231-25 1.
24. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 398-426.
25. Harris, J.K., Andrews, M.C., & Kacmar, K.M. (2007), The Moderating Effects of Justice on the Relationship
between Organizational Politics and Workplace Attitudes, Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 135–144.
1008
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
26. Harris, J.K., Wheeler, A.R., & Harris, R.B. (2009), Relationships between Politics, Supervisor Communication
and Job Outcomes, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2669–2688.
27. Janssen, O. (2000), Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior, Journal
of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73, 287-302.
28. Janssen, O. (2003), Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfaction with
co-workers, Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 76 (3), 347- 364.
29. Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational
innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525–544
30. Kacmar, K.M. & Carlson, D.S. (1997) Further Validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (Pops): A
Multiple Sample Investigation. Journal of Management , 23 (5), 627-658
31. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related
processes, and an agenda for future research, Research in personnel and human resources management, 1, 1–40.
32. Kleysen, R.F. & Street, C.T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behaviour.
Journal of intellectual Capital. 2(2), 284-296.
33. Kushman, J.W. (1992). The Organizational Dynamics of Teacher Workplace Commitment: A Study of Urban
Elementary and Middle Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (1), 5-42.
34. Mabasa Fumani Donald, Letsoalo Bertha, Mabasa Engetani Lucia (2016), Perceived Organizational Politics
Influences On Organizational Commitment Among Supporting Staff Members At A Selected Higher Education
Institution. The 2016 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings, Vienna, Austria.
35. Mayeng Yewae (2013). Pengaruh Amalan Pengurusan Strategik, Sokongan Pengetua dan perlakuan Inovatif
terhadap Prestasi kerja Guru Sekolah Agama Rakyat di Wilayah Yala, Thailand. Unpublished Phd Thesis, Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
36. Mercurio, Z.A, (2015). Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment: An
Integrative Literature Review, Human Resource Development Review 2015, Vol. 14(4) 389–414, SAGE Publication.
37. Mesut Sagnak (2012). The empowering leadership and teachers’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of
innovation climate African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(4), pp. 1635-1641,1 February, 2012
38. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 1(1), 61-89.
39. Miller, B.K., Rutherford, M.A. & Kolodinsky, R.W., (2008), Perceptions of Organizational Politics: A Metaanalysis of Outcomes, Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 209–222.
40. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2016).
Secondary School. Accessed on 23 June 2015 from
http://www.moe.gov.my/index.php/my/sekolah/sekolah-menengah
41. Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journnl of Management Studies, 22: 133-154.
42. Mowday, Richard T., Porter, Lyman, W. & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
43. Muhammad Abas & Usman Raja (2014). Impact of perceived organizational politics on supervisory-rated
innovative performance and job stress: evidence from Pakistan. Journal of advanced management science, 2(2). 15-162
44. Muhammad Ehsan Malik, Rizwan Qaiser Danish and Yasin Munir (2012), The Impact of Pay and Promotion
on Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan, American Journal of Economics, Special
Issue: 6-9
45. Nor Azmawati Abdul Rahman, Nordin Abd Razak, Mohammad Zohir Ahmad & Hazri Jamil (2010). Politik
Dalaman Sekolah dan Impaknya Kepada Sekolah: Satu Penerokaan, DP. Jilid 10, Bil. 1/2010, pp. 79-86.
46. Nunally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
47. O'connor, W.E., and Morrison, T.G. (2001), A Comparison of Situational and Dispositional Predictors of
Perceptions of Organizational Politics, Journal of Psychology, 35(3), 301-312.
48. Parker, C.P., Dipboye, R.L. & Jackson, S.L. (1995), Perceptions of Organizational Politics: An Investigation of
Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of Management, 21, 891–912.
49. Poon, J.M.L. (2003). Situational Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Politics Perceptions, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 18(2): 138–155.
50. Poon J.M.L. (2004), Effects of Performance Appraisal Politics on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention,
Personnel Review, 33(3), 322-334.
51. Ram, P. & Prabhakar, G. V., (2010), Leadership Styles and Perceived Organizational Politics as Predictors of
Work Related Outcomes, European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1), 40-55.
52. Rashidah Arshad & Suryati Ahmad Zawawi (2010). Tanggapan sokongan organisasi, kepuasan kerja,
komitmen dan kelakuan kewargaan organisasi pekerja: peranan politik organisasi sebagai perantara. Jurnal
Pengurusan, 31, 83-92
53. Rosen, C.C., Harris, K.J., and Kacmar, K.M. (2009), The Emotional Implications of Organizational Politics: A
Process Model, Human Relations, 62(1), 27-57.
1009
Herald NAMSCA 1, 2018
Aziah Ismail
54. Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989): Teachers’ workplace. The social organization of schools. New YorkLondon:
Longman.
55. Soleimani, N. & Tebyanian, E. (2011). A study of the relationship between principals' creativity and degree
of environmental happiness in Semnan high schools. International Conference on Education and Educational
Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011), 1869 – 1876.
56. Sowmya, K.R & Panchamanatham (2012). Influence of Oganizational Politics on turnover intention of
employees in education sector, Chennai, India. Arth Prabhand: A Journal of Economics and Management, Vol 1(1),
19-25.
57. Spreitzer, G. M. & Quinn, R. E. (2001). A company of leaders: Five disciplines for unleashing the power in
your workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58. Thilagavathy a/p Aramugam (2014). Pengaruh Moderasi Kapasiti Kepimpinan Diri Guru Terhadap
Hubungan antara Organisasi Pembelajaran dengan Komitmen Kualiti Pengajaran Guru di Sekolah Berprestasi Tinggi.
Unpublished PhD Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
59. Van de Ven, A.H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management Science, accessed
on 5 March 2017 from http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
60. Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Politics, Job Attitudes, and Work Outcomes: Exploration and Implications
for the Public Sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 326–347.
61. Vigoda, E. & Cohen, A. (2002), Influence Tactics and Perceptions of Organizational Politics, A longitudinal
Study, Journal of Business Research, 55, 311 –324.
62. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007), Leadership Style, Organizational Politics, and Employees’ Performance: An
Empirical Examination of two Competing Models, Personnel Review, 36(5), 661-683.
63. West, M.A. & Farr, J.L. (1990). Innovation at work. In West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds), Innovation and
Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies (pp.3- 13). Chichester : Wiley.
64. Wilson, P.A. (1995), The Effects of Politics and Power on the Organizational Commitment of Federal
Executives, Journal of Management, 21, 101–18.
65. Yahya Don, Aziah Ismail & Yaakob Daud (2007). Kepimpinan dan Pembangunan Pelajar Sekolah di
Malaysia. Bentong: PTS Pub.
66. Yasin Munir, Saif-Ur-Rehman Khan, Zainab, Tahira Asif, Hashim Khan (2014). Interactive Effect of
Organizational Cynicism on Perception of Organizational Politics and Citizenship Behaviour. International Journal of
Information Processing and Management (IJIPM), 5(1), 18-27.
1010