Literature meaningful job behavior with respect to their

Literature review:-Organizational Politics: Organizational politics mentions behaviors” which are arise on an casual basis within an organization and include plannedactions 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 unbiasedtruth” (p 0. 157). View of organizational politics has negative workconsequences and is destructive for employees as well as for organization(Byrne, 2005). Performance Appraisal: JohnDouglas, Stuart Klein and David Hunt defined:” Performanceappraisal as a systematic evaluation review of employees meaningful jobbehavior with respect to their effectiveness in meeting their job requirementsand responsibilities”. Organizationalpolitics and Performance Appraisal: The idea of organizational politics and theviews of organizational politics in the work place developed in the 1990’s andare considered to be a key feature in current business practices.

There is asignificant amount of literature present for study. Ferris et al. (1989) stated that organizational politicsis not only unseen and symbolic but also different across individuals becauseof subjective view, as a consequence, the same political manners can beunderstood into political or non-political manners by different viewer, dependingon each viewer’s prior understanding and frame of reference. Ferris et al.,(1989) suggested the concept of the view of organizational politics (Perceptionof Organizational Politics Scale – POPS) as a good measure of OrganizationalPolitics. 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 theeyes of an organization member, the lower in that person’s eyes is the level ofjustice, equity, and fairness.

At the individuallevel, scholars have predictable certain personality traits, needs, and otherfactors that are expected to be related to political behavior. Individuals withan internal locus of control, because they believe they can control their environment, are more straightaway take active position and try to control situations intheir favor (Robbins, 2005).  Significant to the Ferris et al., (1989) model is theview that the effects of experiencing politics are weakened by other variables.

In precise, they focused on perceived control and understanding as importantmoderators of the relationship between perceived politics and consequences. According to Ferris et al., (1989), if people observe that politics go on inthe work environment, and if they have little understanding or control over themethod, politics can be understood as a danger and would be likely to lead tomore negative consequences. However, if employees understand the political gamewell and feel that they have a high degree of control over the process andoutcomes, more favorable outcome should result. Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, and Howard (1996) believed that political work environments can postureas a chance or a danger for employees, and whether workplace politics is perceivedas an opportunity or a threat depends on employees’ level of understanding. Understanding can decrease the doubt and threat of organizational politicsaccording to Poon’s (2004) belief.

A major finding has been that when individuals are giventhe chance for voice in the performance evaluation process, their evaluationsof justice are improved (Greenberg, 1986, 1990a; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Voiceis effort into organizational decision-making processes (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Literature also indicates certain indication in supportof organizational politics. As Gotsis and Kortezi (2010) took a realistic viewof the organizational politics by authorizing both positive and negativefeatures linked with it depending upon the situation. It can be simple appearanceof social effect procedures for the best interest of the organization or it canbe a selfish and illegal actions, opposing to organizational objectives (N.

Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010). According to Valle and Perrewe´ (2000), politicalbehavior is all about the use of significant tactics by employees which arerational, conscious, and tactically goal-oriented and planned to promoteselfishness which may be at the cost of or in favor of others’ interests. Inshort, organizations free from any troublemaking things of politics are in factexperiencing politics in the form of mentoring, persuasion, coalition-formationand networking (N. Gotsis & Kortezi, 2010). Organizational politics is reflected as a contraryfeature of organizational life and majority of the authors have consensus thatnegative effects of organizational politics overweigh the positive effects.

Itbrings employees towards lobbying. They start developing associations andinformal groups in reaction to current political group (Yen, Chen, & Yen, 2009). Practical scholars have found that key features of the socialperspective of performance evaluation contain the use of influence tactics byassistants 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 politicsin relation with influence strategies and actual political behavior; secondmethod deals with the view of politics while the last dominant method dealswith observing the political skills of individuals working in severalcapabilities (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010) The third method closely tells with the Machiavellianviewpoint which emphasizes leaders to show good political skills to ruleaffectively. The effect of this idea in organizational setting has appearedlately which emphasizes managers to determine good political skills to manageorganizational matters affectively (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010).

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

Many researchers are of the opinion that most of theevaluators or the managers repel the evaluation process for many reasons (Brownet al., 2010). Some reasons the appraisers resist the performance appraisal oftheir assistants can be unsatisfactory yields they will get for what they havedone during the procedure and that they panic about the results of theperformance appraisal (Latham et al., 1993). Harris (1994) referred to Benedict& Levine (1988) and Larson (1989) that when evaluators repel the appraisalthey will try to postponement the process, will somehow mislead the scores andwill use many other strategies.  According to Gandz and Murrays’s research, usually thepolitic was deliberated as bad, biased, excessive and unhealthy (Gandz  & Murray, 1980, 243).

Therefore, it couldbe claimed that the definition of organizational politics inclines to havenegative perception focused on the dim side of the human behavior, likeinfluence. On the other hand, organizational politics as a social process canhave useful as well as dysfunctional concerns, and might impose damage or behelpful for the workers. The examples of organizational politics’ positiveeffects are career Advancement, enhanced position and success. On the otherhand, harm to strategic power and negative moods towards others signify thenegative consequences of organizational politics. Nonetheless, politicalbehavior is vital if person wants to be a good employee and prosper in theorganization.

(Vigoda 2000, 190.) Performance appraisal system, when functioning as theorganization designed and projected it, has intrinsic power. In such system, raters appraise employees correctly; finding each employee’s strengths andweaknesses and differentiating among the good and poor employees. (Murphy &Cleveland 1995, 101-102). However, this is not the case in most of theorganizations. Like Longenecker and coworkers as well as many other scholars(For example Berbardin & Beatty, 1984) pointed out, performance appraisalstake place in a setting that may not be entirely rational, straightforward, orunbiased. Thus, the political perspective is appeared as a significant andgeneral issue distressing the practice how managers appraise theirsubordinates. (Longenecker, Sims & Gioia 1987, 184, 190).

However, when jobperformance evaluators manipulate scores for political determinations in theirperformance appraisal process the correctness of the performance appraisalfalls and thus the job satisfaction and motivation decreases. Therefore, an efficientview dimension is needed for appraising organizational politics (Longenecker etal., 1987).

Logeneckeret al., (1987) reported many details for which the performance appraisals areoverstated through the evaluators such as to increase the employee’sperformance with inspiring him/her by giving good ratings. The other reasonreported by Logenecker et al., (1987) is avoiding the poor scores because theydon’t want to leave a written record for the employee’s deprived performance.

The evaluators may evade giving low scores to the subordinates because themanagers may deliberate that there are some problems with the competence of themanager (appraiser) handling his subordinates (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991). Chen et al., (2007) also supports the argument that supervisors avoid givingnegative scores to the subordinates. Folger et al., (1992) cites Tetlock (1985)who stressed that all the human beings have in-built abilities concerning thepolitics and they always plan, think and take care of the results for what theydo.

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

Organizations having ambiguous performance appraisalprocess and indeterminate environment provide probabilities for the politics toprevail (Poon, 2004). Folger et al., (1992) cited Cascio (1982) that studyingthe performance appraisal process in an organization checks that the politicsexists in all organizations which is a fact. Employees appear to believe that supervisor’s appraisalsare revealed by the personal liking or disliking ((karpinen, 2007).

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

Accountability, formal and informal in nature (Cohen andAxelrod 1984), implies that political organizations are considerably lessautonomous than private-sector organizations. In private sector environmental landscape full ofdangerous surprises and subject to frequent and radical change while in publicthe environment is constant based on bureaucratic set up. The study onperformance appraisal methods indicate that in the earliest time essay methodor graphic rating type of techniques are used for evaluating the performancebut they are subjective. Performance appraisal process will start from theTaylor’s Scientific management technique. In public sector organizations ACRare used for evaluate the performance of employees while in private sectordifferent techniques are used for evaluating the performance of employee like360 degree, MBO etc.