Abstract
Social influence is one of the oldest and most researched constructs in organizational behavior. Most research has examined the “what” and “who” of social influence behavior, but it was not until recently that scholars began examining the “how,” or the operation, of social influence techniques and behaviors. Social effectiveness constructs, such as political skill, have been the primary focus of this research effort. However, despite these constructs illuminating social influence processes, little is known about the actual operation of the social effectiveness constructs themselves. Thus, to develop a more complete understanding of social influence effectiveness, this article develops a theoretical framework by synthesizing several literatures and explaining how the individual dimensions of political skill affect the social influence process. Specifically, the authors (a) review and integrate research and theory in social influence and political skill; (b) develop an opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization model to provide a theoretical framework for the dimensional dynamics of political skill; and (c) provide suggestions for how this framework informs future political skill research.
Keywords
Social influence research focuses on how individuals interact with others to achieve desired outcomes, which makes it critical to our understanding of behavior in organizations (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987). Thus, “There are few concepts more essential to the very foundations of the organizational sciences” (Ferris et al., 2002: 66). As a result, it is not surprising that social influence represents the oldest experimental paradigm in the behavioral sciences, dating back over a century (Triplett, 1898). It has received considerable research attention since the early human relations studies (Mayo, 1933), and a sizable knowledge base has been developed. Individuals engage in social influence tactics to maximize goal achievement (i.e., the “why” of social influence); Ferris et al. (2002) noted that much of the social influence literature had addressed the specific tactics and methods of social influence (i.e., the “what”), the contexts in which influence occurs (i.e., the “where”), and the personal characteristics of influencers (i.e., the “who”). However, despite calls to more precisely explain effective styles of social influence (Jones, 1990), little attention had been devoted to its execution (i.e., the “how”).
Since the Ferris et al. (2002) review, an impressive body of work has been amassed to address the “how” of social influence, with much of it detailing the role of political skill in the effective execution of social influence attempts. Ferris et al. (2007) positioned political skill (composed of the four underlying dimensions of social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity) as the central construct in their agentic theory of social/political influence in organizations, and argued that it allows individuals to read and interpret situations or contexts accurately, select and/or adapt behavior that is most situationally appropriate, and employ proper delivery or style of execution in order to increase the effectiveness of social influence attempts.
Although this body of knowledge contributed much to our understanding of interpersonal influence, it left one question unanswered, and inspired another question worth answering. The first question asks, “What is the process that leads up to individuals’ actual attempts to influence others?” Although we now know that political skill is a crucial element that determines the efficacy of influence attempts, we know very little about the process that precedes the execution of influence attempts. Theory and research on political skill repeatedly has claimed that it aids in the selection of situationally appropriate behaviors (e.g., Ferris et al., 2002, 2007; Ferris, Treadway, Brouer, & Munyon, 2012); however, our literature search failed to identify any research that explains this process.
The second question asks, “What role do the political skill dimensions play in the social influence process?” Despite an understanding of what political skill is, and a large body of empirical research demonstrating its predictive abilities across a diverse body of social influence literature (Munyon, Summers, Thompson, & Ferris, 2015), the explanation of how political skill affects influence success has not yet been precisely articulated (Ferris & Treadway, 2012; Ferris et al., 2012). Nearly a decade of empirical research solely relies on the Ferris et al. (2007) meta-theoretical conceptualization of political skill, which largely addresses the effects of the composite construct (Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015). Research generally remains focused on the composite construct despite several arguments that the individual dimensions of political skill represent independent, but related, concepts. Thus, although we know that political skill drives influence effectiveness, we still do not completely understand how the specific dimensions of the construct operate to facilitate this effectiveness (Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015). This represents a significant gap in the literature that stems from a lack of theoretical specification regarding political skill’s dimensions (Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015).
The purpose of the present article is to address these two questions. To do so, we develop a conceptual framework that explicates the social influence process, including the stages that precede the actual execution of social influence behavior. Our conceptualization argues that, prior to the effective execution of social influence behavior, politically skilled individuals, motivated to achieve desired goals, must recognize opportunities for social influence, and then evaluate those opportunities to decide whether and how to act. Further, our conceptual framework specifies the role of the individual dimensions of political skill in the social influence process and articulates how the political skill dimensions enable individuals to recognize social patterns within an organizational environment, which helps them identify opportunities to execute social influence attempts at times and in ways that facilitate goal attainment. We describe this three-stage process as opportunity recognition, opportunity evaluation, and opportunity capitalization.
Social Influence in Organizations
Social influence represents a broad category of behavior (Ferris & Mitchell, 1987) and is based on the fundamental assumption that individuals are motivated to employ social influence tactics in order to accomplish preconceived goals (Hogan & Blickle, 2013). These constructs (e.g., impression management, influence tactics, self-presentation, and political behavior) are each unique, but are considered to have much in common (Ferris & Judge, 1991). A great deal of research has centered on individuals’ use of these tactics and behaviors to influence others, generally for some personal benefit (e.g., goal attainment). For example, classifications of impression management behaviors have emerged from the literature (e.g., ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation; Jones & Pittman, 1982), which demonstrate how these behaviors differentially affect influence targets and subsequent outcomes. This body of work can be conceptualized as the “what” of social influence (Ferris et al., 2002).
The “who” of social influence focuses on the role of individuals’ choices when selecting and enacting influence behaviors (Ferris et al., 2002). Individual differences, including personality factors (Caldwell & Burger, 1998), gender (DuBrin, 1991; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988), age (Erber & Praeger, 2000), Machiavellianism (Vecchio & Susman, 1991), and motivation (Grams & Rogers, 1990) all factor into individuals’ choice of influence tactics. For example, Caldwell and Burger (1998) found that extraverts tended to select rational persuasion as an influence tactic, whereas those high in agreeableness relied more heavily on assertiveness and exchange. The consensus within the literature seems clear—“who” individuals are (i.e., based on their unique attributes) affects their selection and enactment of social influence behaviors.
With respect to the initial approach to the “how” of social influence, Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical perspective proposed that successful influence attempts necessitated individuals acting in such a manner as to be perceived as sincere. Following this early attempt to explain how social influence behaviors are enacted, research in this area stagnated and instead focused largely on the relationship between influence behaviors and various outcomes (i.e., the “what” of social influence; Ferris et al., 2002). Jones (1990) articulated this gap in social influence knowledge and called for work that addressed the interpersonal style that made influence attempts effective. In response to this call, Ferris and his colleagues developed a program of research, centered on political skill, designed to address the “how” of social influence, arguing that influencers must possess personal resources, establish goals, strategically select appropriate behaviors for the situation, and execute the behaviors effectively (Ferris et al., 2007).
Political Skill
Political skill is defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris et al., 2007: 291). Further, political skill consists of four underlying dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005). Political skill aids the effective execution of social influence because it enables the strategic selection of behaviors, and enhances the presentation of selected behaviors in a manner that facilitates interpretation as influencers intend (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2007), which aids personal goal attainment. This ability to read situations and adapt one’s behavior borrows much from self-regulation theory, also reflective of human agency, which refers to “any effort by a human being to alter its own responses” (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994: 7). This suggests that employees control their own behavior by setting goals, observing and regulating their behavior in relation to these goals, and self-administering reinforcements or sanctions as feedback concerning goal attainment.
The Ferris et al. (2007) social/political theory of influence suggested that social actors deploy resources at their disposal to influence others toward particular end states. Political skill positions these actors as managing meaning for others or manipulating interpersonal relationships in order to achieve success. The deployment of resources, coupled with the ability to successfully manage meaning, suggests that political skill contributes to a sense of self-confidence and control, empathy, and accountability, such that politically skilled individuals tend to present their behaviors in ways that inspire trust and lead to interpersonal effectiveness and goal accomplishment (Ferris et al., 2007). Indeed, in a recent qualitative study of political skill, Smith, Plowman, Duchon, and Quinn (2009) found that successful managers manifested their political skill through affability, a sense of humility, an effective interpersonal style, the creation of accountability, and the development of trust.
Researchers have investigated political skill’s effect on self-evaluations, situational appraisals and responses, as well as others’ assessments of politically skilled individuals. The research on self-evaluations indicates political skill is positively related to self-efficacy (Ferris, Kane, Summers, & Munyon, 2011; Munyon et al., 2015), and Munyon et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis found that self-efficacy does mediate the relationship between political skill and task performance. Research also demonstrates that political skill facilitates individuals’ accurate assessment of their work environment and the intentions of others (Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005). Furthermore, political skill reduces experienced stress by improving individuals’ ability to navigate political environments (Ferris et al., 2011) and individuals’ use of it as a coping mechanism capable of attenuating stress (Perrewé et al., 2004). Finally, researchers consistently have found positive associations between political skill and performance, both task and contextual (Bing, Davidson, Minor, Novicevic, & Frink, 2011; Brouer, Douglas, Treadway, & Ferris, 2013; Munyon et al., 2015). This supports the idea that politically skilled individuals are better able to secure resources and exert influence in the course of accomplishing their goals.
Despite the accumulated research demonstrating a robust understanding of political skill and how it affects many outcomes, including the selection of situationally appropriate behaviors (e.g., Ferris et al., 2002, 2007, 2012) and social influence attempts (e.g., Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw, 2007; Kolodinsky, Treadway, & Ferris, 2007; Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007), theory is lagging behind the empirical findings. Specifically, we know little about the role of the political skill dimensions in the social influence process, as most studies have studied the composite construct (Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015). Even though a few studies have investigated dimensional-level relationships, they tend to explore only one or two dimensions (e.g., Wihler, Blickle, Ellen, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2017). Although studies like this are helpful in developing an understanding of the individual dimensions, there still is little understanding of how political skill’s component parts work together to drive influence effectiveness, despite arguments that the individual dimensions of political skill represent independent, but related, concepts (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Wihler et al., 2017).
These questions must be addressed in order to advance understanding of social influence in organizations, as well as the operation of political skill. That is, future empirical work on social influence needs an expanded framework that delineates social influence, including both the actual influence attempts and the process preceding these attempts. Additionally, future research on the political skill dimensions needs a refined conceptual framework from which to build. In the following sections, we develop a conceptual model that addresses both needs.
A Model of Social Influence Opportunity Recognition, Evaluation, and Capitalization
Our framework (see Figure 1) conceptualizes the social influence process as composed of three distinct subprocesses: social influence opportunity recognition, social influence opportunity evaluation, and social influence opportunity capitalization. This three-stage conceptualization details the process through which individuals become aware of opportunities to engage in social influence behaviors (i.e., opportunity recognition), evaluate whether and how to act (i.e., opportunity evaluation), and execute social influence behaviors in an effective manner (i.e., opportunity capitalization). Further, our framework unpacks the political skill dimensions and delineates their unique roles in the social influence process.
A Theoretical Model of Social Influence Opportunity Recognition, Evaluation, and Capitalization
In our model, the social astuteness and networking ability dimensions facilitate the opportunity recognition process, which captures how individuals socially embed themselves to identify potential courses of action that can lead to influence success. After generating options, individuals begin the opportunity evaluation process, in which they conduct goal, power, and risk assessments; these assessments, coupled with individuals’ political will, determine whether they decide to act upon a recognized opportunity. Subsequently, individuals choose which option to pursue, and then enact the chosen goal-directed influence behavior. The interpersonal influence and apparent sincerity dimensions of political skill influence the effect of this behavior on achieving the desired outcome, which allows individuals to exploit opportunities identified through the recognition process.
Cognitive Ability as a Prerequisite for Effective Social Influence
Prior to further developing our model, we need to discuss the role of general cognitive ability (GCA) in the social influence process, as our framework stems from a very rational-cognitive perspective. Essentially, individuals’ ability to navigate political environments must be dependent upon both knowledge and the manipulation of information. Thus, we consider GCA as somewhat of a prerequisite for individuals’ engagement in the social influence processes we outline. Although this relationship has not been explored extensively in the past, recent research into the predictive capabilities of intelligence and the multiple forms of intelligence (e.g., emotional intelligence: Goleman, 1995) has expanded our understanding of the important and currently understudied relationship between political skill and GCA.
The Cattell-Horn model of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Gf-Gc theory: e.g., Horn & Cattell, 1966) proposes that cognitive ability is comprised of two distinct factors: fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence. Fluid intelligence is defined as the “use of deliberate and controlled mental operations to solve novel problems that cannot be performed automatically” (McGrew, 2009: 5). This type of intelligence is resistant to change, peaks early in life, and generally is found to steadily decline throughout individuals’ lives (Kaufman, Johnson, & Liu, 2008). Crystallized intelligence is distinct in that it represents the accumulation of knowledge gained through life experience and acculturation (Horn, 1968; Kaufman, Kaufman, & Plucker, 2013); as such, it is highly amenable to change and typically tends to increase throughout the duration of individuals’ lives (Schaie, 2013). Investment theory (Cattell, 1971, 1987) presents the relationship between these two types of intelligence as fluid intelligence facilitating the accumulation and elaboration of crystallized intelligence.
Cantor and Kihlstrom (1989) suggested that crystallized intelligence enhances and improves upon what fluid intelligence can accomplish in isolation. Similarly, we posit that fluid intelligence is required to help individuals create the experiential knowledge (e.g., crystallized intelligence) necessary to enact social influence behaviors. This dynamic has been demonstrated in the social influence literature, as Ferris, Witt, and Hochwarter (2001) found that high levels of social skill resulted in higher performance ratings and salaries among those individuals also possessing high rather than low GCA.
However, despite their seemingly additive properties, much like fluid and crystallized intelligences, political skill and GCA are separate and distinct constructs. Research consistently has demonstrated that GCA and political skill are not correlated (Ferris et al., 2001; Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2007; Munyon et al., 2015), suggesting that they represent independent constructs. This has been further supported by empirical research demonstrating that the inclusion of GCA in models of political skill’s effects on performance does not eliminate the significance of political skill’s regression coefficient (e.g., Blickle, Kramer, et al., 2011).
We acknowledge the fundamental role of crystallized intelligence in social influence, while simultaneously acknowledging the foundational role of fluid intelligence in enabling individuals to engage in the social influence process. Essentially, fluid intelligence is a prerequisite for the formulation of crystallized intelligence (Schmidt, 2014). Similarly, fluid intelligence is a prerequisite for engaging in social influence behavior because of the requisite crystallized intelligence necessary to execute social influence behaviors successfully. Accordingly, our model implicitly assumes that a threshold level of fluid cognitive ability is required in order to successfully engage in the social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes. Thus, our conceptualization represents a type of multiple-hurdles framework, in that a requisite level of intelligence, as well as political skill, is required to engage fully in the opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes.
Social Influence Opportunity Recognition
Opportunity recognition is defined as the process of recognizing new and potentially successful ideas (Shane, 2003) and two critical components facilitate this recognition: individual characteristics and contextual factors. Opportunity recognition occurs at the intersection of these two components. The absence of either one (i.e., adequate individual characteristics or cues from the environment) inhibits the ability to recognize opportunities. The environment provides cues that, when perceived, often allow astute individuals to take advantage of a sort of “insider” knowledge that is readily accessible to all, but really only visible to a few.
Individual characteristics
Three components aid individuals in successful opportunity recognition: active search, level of alertness, and access to and attainment of appropriate information (Baron, 2006). Each of these components represents a means through which individuals can better interpret their environment. Thus, astuteness represents the foundation of each of these individual characteristics. Active search is the first individual characteristic that facilitates individuals’ opportunity recognition capabilities. This has been described as individuals’ ability to recognize opportunities as they arise (Baron, 2006; Baron & Ensley, 2006). This describes situations where individuals are cognizant of their own intent to decipher environmental cues in an attempt to recognize potential opportunities that may exist.
However, a passive search for opportunities also is a component of opportunity recognition (Baron, 2006). The second element, alertness, represents this passive search and is expressed as individuals’ readiness to recognize the existence of opportunities as they occur (Kaish & Gilad, 1991). Thus, despite the similarities between these two components of opportunity recognition, they are differentiated by individuals’ intentionality. That is, an active search for opportunities is a deliberate act that involves expending resources towards finding opportunities that exist within the environment. Conversely, a passive search largely is an unintentional process that operates automatically without the same level of resource expenditure.
Both of these search processes are aided by individuals’ access to information, the third component of opportunity recognition. This can be in the form of prior experiences (e.g., advanced cognitive frameworks), or in more conventional and timely forms such as professional networks (Arenius & De Clercq, 2005). Access to information serves two critical functions for individuals. Without the appropriate information, it is possible that relevant environmental cues will be discarded as unimportant. Also, access to information can provide an organizing framework that facilitates the ordering and understanding of perceived environmental cues. Although opportunities can be recognized without the presence of all of these elements (e.g., an individual may not be actively searching for an opportunity, but recognizes one nonetheless), it is beneficial for individuals to situate themselves such that each of these three tenets is possible, as they enhance individuals’ ability to recognize opportunities within their environment.
The environment
The actual process of opportunity recognition is not self-contained, but rather is a dynamic interaction between individuals and their environments (i.e., the context). The agentic theory of social/political influence proposed by Ferris et al. (2007) suggests that there are environmental cues available in all contexts. Furthermore, Ferris and colleagues argued that the accurate perception and interpretation of such cues yields information about which behaviors are most situationally appropriate, and, if executed effectively, will result in desired outcomes. Because a pattern of social behavior exists that conveys the optimal identity for each specific context or setting, research in social cognition has reported that individuals try to decipher situationally appropriate behaviors, and then adjust their own behavior to these contextual norms or expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Such behavioral conformity to contexts has been referred to as a “situated identity,” and research has indicated that individuals use their ability to read situations accurately to develop patterns of situationally appropriate behavior designed to produce favorable results (Alexander & Knight, 1971; Gergen & Taylor, 1969; Hewlin, 2003).
Accurately reading contextual cues to determine situationally appropriate behavior is similar to the “demand characteristics” concept proposed by Orne (1962). Indeed, Orne and Whitehouse (2000: 470) suggested that demand characteristics “should be acknowledged as a pervasive influence upon all human interaction. Both researchers and clinicians can benefit from determining what meaning an individual attributes to the totality of cues in any given situation.” Because the context (i.e., the cues inherent in an environment) tends to shape the assumptions and boundary conditions of theories, it is particularly important for our framing of the theoretical underpinnings of political skill dimensional dynamics.
The intersection: pattern recognition
Individuals’ perceptions of environmental cues represent the intersection between the individual and the environment. However, recognizing a single environmental cue is unlikely to lead to the recognition of an opportunity. Instead, individuals must create a mental framework by searching for patterns among the cues, which, when organized, reflect a potential opportunity. These mental frameworks are important when individuals attempt to make sense out of some type of unknown environmental cue. In these instances, individuals may attempt to break cues down into several smaller pieces. Using these pieces, they try to discern patterns that may help inform their understanding of the unknown, allowing them to successfully interpret the cue.
Pattern recognition is defined as the “process through which specific persons perceive complex and seemingly unrelated events as constituting identifiable patterns” (Baron, 2006: 106). The ability to recognize patterns is attained through the development of unique cognitive frameworks (Baron & Ensley, 2006), which represent the composite of individuals’ prior knowledge and experiences. With experience, it is likely that individuals’ cognitive frameworks will change in three particular ways: clarity, richness of content, and the degree of focus on the most important attributes within a content domain (Baron & Ensley, 2006). These frameworks allow individuals to evaluate new information by comparing it against their preestablished frameworks, thus enabling the identification of potential gaps in data, novel solutions to problems, and the applicability of prior successful solutions (Baron, 2006).
Pattern recognition is a key factor in individual and organizational decision-making and behavior enactment, because it represents the ability to weave sense into the fabric of social interactions. Without pattern recognition, we perceive the world around us as disconnected and chaotic. However, with pattern recognition comes the ability to make connections between seemingly disparate cues, and identify potential opportunities, including the knowledge of how to adjust behavior such that it “fits in” with the prevailing social pattern.
At its core, the opportunity recognition process is one of pattern recognition, and this link often has been noted in the entrepreneurship literature (Lehner & Kansikas, 2012). Active search for opportunities and alertness are alternative ways of stating that individuals are searching for recognizable patterns in their environment. The primary difference is that individuals engaged in opportunity recognition are hoping to leverage those recognized patterns in such a way as to facilitate goal attainment. Individuals use both their inherent knowledge and the cues within their environment to recognize patterns (e.g., potential opportunities), and this process is facilitated by individuals’ political skill.
The Role of Political Skill in the Recognition of Social Influence Opportunities
Recent research on opportunity recognition within the bounds of entrepreneurship (e.g., inventions, business opportunities) has found that political skill is instrumental in gaining access to the information, influence, and referrals necessary for success (Fang, Chi, Chen, & Baron, 2015). Similarly, we contend that political skill can be used to explain how individuals recognize social influence opportunities. Social contexts are rich with environmental cues that, when accurately recognized as opportunities for social influence, can facilitate success. Political skill can inform our understanding of this process, as two dimensions (i.e., social astuteness and networking ability) are uniquely suited to serve as proxies for opportunity recognition’s core components—active search for opportunities, alertness, and access to information.
Social astuteness
Social astuteness represents individuals’ abilities to consistently understand environments, and to maintain a sense of self-awareness in social settings (Ferris et al., 2007). Further, social astuteness facilitates the active and passive searches associated with opportunity recognition. Socially astute individuals tend to actively search their environment in an effort to achieve a better understanding of its nature, boundaries, and standards. This allows them to identify behaviors appropriate for situations, and to adjust their behavior to better fit the prevailing circumstances. This active survey of the workplace helps identify opportunities to expend personal resources in order to facilitate desired outcomes.
Social astuteness also includes a passive search component quite similar to the alertness component of opportunity recognition. Socially astute individuals also exhibit self-awareness, and are sensitive to the other people within their environment (Ferris et al., 2007). As such, these individuals exist in a highly primed state of passive search. There is a striking similarity between the constructs of alertness and social astuteness. Alert individuals tend to be described as open to opportunities, but not involved in an active or systematic search for them (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003).
Networking ability
Opportunity recognition also relies heavily upon individuals’ access to information (Shane, 2003), an element that relates closely to the networking ability dimension of political skill. Prior research has found that social networks are critical sources of knowledge (Johannisson, 1990). Singh, Hills, Hybels, and Lumpkin (1999) demonstrated that the number of opportunities recognized by entrepreneurs is linked to their network embeddedness. This is no different for members of an organization, as well-connected individuals within social networks have access to greater amounts of information, and are more likely to recognize opportunities.
For example, it has been shown that access to a mentor’s network leads to otherwise inaccessible opportunities (Ozgen & Baron, 2007). Arenius and De Clercq (2005) found that differences in the type of network to which one belongs, as well as the potential exposure to network contacts, affect individuals’ opportunity recognition capabilities. For example, they found that individuals embedded in small, more cohesive networks were at a disadvantage when compared to those embedded in large, less cohesive networks. The driving force behind this finding is clear; with greater access to information, socially astute individuals will be able to recognize opportunities that otherwise would not be available to their less connected counterparts. However, organizational members cannot maintain prominent positions in every available network due to the required start-up and maintenance costs (Boissevain, 1974; McFadyen & Cannella, 2004). Thus, being aware of appropriate networks (e.g., social astuteness) and gaining access to them (e.g., networking ability) are critical to opportunity recognition.
Social embeddedness
Individuals’ social astuteness and networking ability enable them to gain privileged positions from which they have access to information and, ultimately, the potential to recognize more and better opportunities for social influence. Political skill assists individuals in forming networks and work relationships (Munyon et al., 2015), as social astuteness allows politically skilled individuals to actively pursue relevant activities while screening out competing thoughts (Ferris et al., 2007). Thus, socially astute individuals are capable of effectively positioning themselves, through networking ability, in ways that enable goal attainment (Ferris et al., 2007). Networking has been conceptualized as a dyadic process that generates social capital, goodwill, and trust between partners (Porter & Woo, 2015). The result of this goodwill is favorable positioning within networks (i.e., social embeddedness), and increased access to information. This knowledge may come in the form of raw information (e.g., notification of an opening for a promotion) resulting in recognized opportunities, or it may manifest as individuals’ understanding of how to respond appropriately to otherwise uncertain or ambiguous situations (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).
Although time spent within an organization should facilitate favorable network position, objective tenure should not be used as a measure of embeddedness, as the time it takes to become established within networks varies. More specifically, certain individuals are capable of developing relationships and recognizing group norms very quickly, while others often require additional time. Thus, we argue that socially astute individuals can leverage cognitive schema developed through their prior knowledge and experience to help decode new situations. Thus, although social embeddedness should improve over time, it does not necessarily require a fixed or substantial amount of objective time to achieve. Similarly, there is not necessarily a required level of embeddedness necessary for successful recognition of social influence opportunities. Rather, the more embedded individuals are, the greater their access to information, which makes them better positioned to recognize opportunities and generate potential options for social influence.
Option generation
The recognition of social influence opportunities should facilitate the generation of a number of potential influence options. That is, socially astute and well-connected individuals, because of their social embeddedness, are expected to generate more, and better, options for social influence. In fact, some available opportunities may go unnoticed by less astute and networked individuals who can’t “connect the dots” inherent in the environment (Baron, 2006: 106). These individuals will struggle to generate ideas regarding how to achieve their goals through social influence. Even when the overall goal is clear, the more astute and networked employees will be more likely than their less embedded peers to recognize a number of potential options available to accomplish that goal.
Thus, individuals need the ability (i.e., social astuteness and networking ability) to accurately scan their environment in order to identify the situationally-appropriate behaviors most likely to facilitate goal attainment (i.e., recognize opportunities for social influence behavior that will facilitate goal attainment). However, the recognition of opportunities itself does not assure that influence efforts will be successful. Rather, the effective demonstration of influence in organizations involves a three-part process: opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization. The second process, opportunity evaluation, facilitates individuals’ assessment of their goals, power, risk propensity, and their willingness to engage in political behavior.
Social Influence Opportunity Evaluation
Individuals do not automatically act on every recognized opportunity. Instead, individuals evaluate the viability of executing the options generated as means to capitalize on available opportunities for social influence. Within this phase of the process, individuals’ evaluations are predicated on three specific factors: goal assessments, power assessments, and risk assessments. These three factors directly influence individuals’ decisions to act. However, individuals’ political will moderates each of these three direct relationships.
Goal assessment
Individuals set goals based upon their motivation to achieve desired outcomes, while simultaneously avoiding detrimental outcomes (Bandura, 1991). In creating and assessing the viability of goals, individuals “motivate themselves and guide their actions” to reduce the discrepancy between their current state and achieving their goal. Thus, we argue that individuals’ influence behavior is guided by their goal discrepancies. More ambitious goals result in greater goal discrepancies, and the difficulty of the goal selected is directly influenced by individuals’ belief in their own capabilities (Bandura, 2015). Politically skilled individuals tend to be highly efficacious (Ferris et al., 2011; Munyon et al., 2015), and thus tend to produce large goal discrepancies.
Accordingly, goals and the effort required to reduce goal discrepancies affect individuals’ decisions to capitalize upon recognized opportunities. Individuals may determine that a recognized opportunity for social influence, although potentially beneficial, will not aid them in attaining desired outcomes; this likely will result in a decision to forego an attempt to capitalize on the aforementioned opportunity. Similarly, individuals are likely to decide to act on an opportunity that directly supports the achievement of one or multiple goals. Thus, in accordance with our agentic perspective of social influence behavior, we expect that individuals’ goals will serve as a critical factor when they evaluate whether and how to engage in behavior to capitalize on recognized opportunities. More specifically, if individuals’ assessments indicate that engaging in social influence behavior will further their pursuit of specific goals (i.e., potentially resolve existing goal discrepancies), they will decide to pursue the social influence opportunity.
Power assessment
Even if a recognized opportunity for social influence provides individuals with a chance to achieve a desired goal, they must determine if they have the power necessary to capitalize on it. Individual power within organizations is a well-established concept (Pfeffer, 1981), and a detailed discussion of this broad literature is beyond the scope of this article. However, social influence behaviors necessitate the use of power (Mintzberg, 1983; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), and must be considered in our conceptualization of the social influence process. More specifically, individuals need an appropriate base of power in order to engage successfully in influence behaviors (Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
Emerson (1962) defined power as the dependence of a referent other on the individual in question. Thus, individuals must determine the relative dependence between them and the target to assess whether they have power to engage in influence behavior. Further, French and Raven (1959) described five power bases (i.e., referent, expert, legitimate, reward, coercive) that can affect individuals’ choice of tactic. For example, the use of threats or pressure to influence others necessitates that individuals have coercive power. Thus, in addition to determining whether they have the power to engage in social influence behaviors, individuals must also assess their source of power to determine the most appropriate behavior to capitalize on the recognized opportunity.
Risk assessment
Tolerance for risk is referred to as risk propensity, and it is defined as individuals’ likelihood to select options that lead to the greatest rewards at the cost of lowered probabilities of success (Abad, Sanchez-Iglesias, & Tella, 2011). Research repeatedly has demonstrated that risk is a potent factor in determining whether individuals enact social influence behaviors (e.g., Morrison & Bies, 1991; Rudman, 1998; Shaughnessy, Treadway, Breland, Williams, & Brouer, 2011). Part of these risk assessments considers targets’ susceptibility to influence (Liden & Mitchell, 1988), as attempting to influence less susceptible targets is considered risky because of a heightened chance of resistance.
The risk of a failed influence attempt is real. Research has demonstrated that for those less skilled in social influence, it is often better not to engage in an influence attempt than to fail in its execution (Treadway et al., 2007). These findings reflect the basic assumption that engaging in influence behavior comes with potential costs (Yukl & Tracey, 1992), such as the loss of personal resources. Also, Treadway (2012) argued that personal risk serves as an environmental regulator of influence attempts, potentially restricting individuals’ decisions to engage in such behavior. Thus, it is expected that individuals’ assessment of the potential risks associated with social influence behavior will affect their evaluation of recognized opportunities, such that less perceived risk will result in a favorable risk assessment, and increased likelihood to engage in social influence behavior.
Political will
Engaging in influence behavior requires that individuals possess the motivation or willingness to expend personal resources in an effort to achieve desired goals (Mintzberg, 1983; Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Ferris, 2005). Thus, individuals (even if politically skilled) must possess political will, defined as “the motivation to engage in strategic, goal-directed behavior that advances the personal agenda and objectives of the actor that inherently involves the risk of relational or reputation capital” (Treadway, 2012: 533).
Political will is comprised of two interrelated dimensions that serve to delineate the genesis of individuals’ motivation(s) for engaging in political behavior, whether instrumental (i.e., self-serving political will) or based in a concern for others (i.e., benevolent political will; Kapoutsis, Papalexandris, Treadway, & Bentley, 2017). In sum, theory on political will suggests that varying motivations serve as stimuli that spur individuals to engage in influence behavior. As such, political will is a critical motivational factor in determining whether individuals will act upon a recognized opportunity. Specifically, we argue that political will moderates the relationship between the three assessments made during the opportunity evaluation phase and the decision to act on an opportunity for social influence. More specifically, political will strengthens the relationship between favorable assessments and decisions to act.
Social Influence Opportunity Capitalization
The style with which behavior is implemented affects the outcomes of influence attempts (e.g., Farmer & Maslyn, 1999; Jones, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Thus, the successful execution of selected tactics requires actors to possess the skill to demonstrate or execute the chosen tactics in an effective manner. Ferris et al. (2007) noted that politically skilled individuals possess this ability to demonstrate behaviors in the precise manner necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Consistent with this argument, Treadway et al. (2007) found support for the moderating effects of subordinate political skill on supervisor impressions of subordinate ingratiation. However, a precise explanation of this, including which dimensions drive the process, has been missing. Thus, the final section of our model describes the role that the apparent sincerity and interpersonal influence dimensions play in the effective execution of influence behavior, where individuals seek to capitalize on recognized opportunities.
Similar to its use in the entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Sirén, Kohtamäki, & Kuckertz, 2012), we conceptualize opportunity capitalization as the process through which organizational actors take advantage of strategic behavior. More specifically, we argue that opportunity capitalization is the process through which politically skilled employees use their apparent sincerity and interpersonal influence ability to take advantage of favorable contextual circumstances in the act of successfully executing strategic, goal-directed influence behaviors.
Goal-directed social influence behavior
People at work seek to accomplish goals by executing selected goal-directed behaviors, often through social interactions (Hogan & Blickle, 2013). In terms of social and political influence behavior, the research literature consists of many conceptualizations. In prior research, several taxonomies of influence tactics have emerged (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), which include behaviors like blocking, assertiveness, upward appeal, rational persuasion, exchange, and consultation, among others. Similarly, a related stream of research has identified tactics specifically related to impression management (i.e., supervisor-focused, self-focused, and job focused), a subset of influence behaviors designed to create favorable evaluations of the actor (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). These include self-presentation behaviors like self-promotion or self-handicapping and other-enhancing tactics like flattery/ingratiation and opinion conformity (Wayne & Liden, 1995).
Additionally, influence tactics can be considered assertive or defensive, as well as tactical or strategic (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), depending on the goals of individuals. For example, striving towards goals that bestow resources (e.g., reputation, trust) may require the use of strategic-assertive behavior (e.g., impression management). However, individuals faced with embarrassment or failure may need to rely on tactical-defensive behavior (e.g., apologies) in order to mitigate damage to their reputation. In this classification, various forms of behavior, even those not obviously influence-based, can be categorized by their purpose in the social influence process.
However, conceptualizations of social/political influence behavior should not be limited to impression management or other behaviors specifically labeled as influence tactics. Theory and research have identified several work behaviors not originally conceptualized as indicative of social influence, but that actors may employ to craft impressions and influence others. For example, Bolino (1999) argued citizenship behaviors could be used to favorably manage impressions. Similarly, research has shown that proactive work behaviors (e.g., personal initiative) can influence others’ evaluations (Wihler et al., 2017).
Therefore, rather than select a single and narrow set of behaviors, we adopt a perspective that considers the broad possibilities of goal-directed behavior available to employees. This includes historically researched influence and impression management tactics, as well as more traditional work-related behaviors that can be leveraged to influence others. Regardless of the goal-directed influence behavior chosen, we agree with previous scholars’ arguments that individuals’ style of execution affects the outcome of behavior intended to influence others (Farmer & Maslyn, 1999; Ferris et al., 2007; Jones, 1990; Treadway et al., 2007).
Political Skill’s Effects on Behavior-Outcome Relationships
Ferris et al. (2007) argued that political skill allows people to achieve their social goals due to its effects on the relationship between behavior and various work-related outcomes (for a review, see Ferris et al., 2012). For example, Treadway et al. (2007) found that supervisors were less likely to rate politically skilled subordinates’ ingratiation attempts as manipulative. However, these prior investigations, as well as theoretical developments (i.e., Ferris et al., 2007), have neglected the role that individual dimensions of political skill play in influence behavior–outcomes relationships. As a result, comprehensive understanding of the construct’s role in the social influence process is lacking, which has inhibited the progression of more fine-grained research on social influence.
Whereas networking ability and social astuteness are more likely to provide politically skilled individuals the ability to recognize opportunities for influence, and facilitate the generation of options for situationally appropriate behavior, these dimensions are less likely to play a role in the actual execution of social influence behavior. We argue that it is the interpersonal influence and apparent sincerity dimensions of political skill that determine whether the selected behavior is executed in a manner that brings about the desired responses from others (i.e., capitalized upon).
Interpersonal influence
The interpersonal influence dimension captures the adaptable orientation of politically skilled individuals that allows them to calibrate their behavior to fit different situations (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2007, 2012). This is what Pfeffer (1992) referred to as flexibility, which enables individuals to adjust the delivery of behavior based on the present target and context, such that it is more likely to result in desired results. Interpersonal influence represents the action-oriented component of political skill (Ferris et al., 2012). Thus, it is positioned in the opportunity capitalization section of our model as a moderator of the relationship between goal-directed influence behavior and influence outcomes.
Influence behaviors can be difficult to enact effectively (Ferris et al., 2007), and the failure to do so can lead to highly counterproductive outcomes. For example, Harris et al. (2007) revealed a downside to social influence attempts by empirically demonstrating that individuals who are not politically skilled actually tended to fare better when they chose to not engage in social influence. This suggests that individuals lacking political skill necessary to successfully execute social influence attempts risk failing to achieve the goal that necessitated the use of social influence. Relatedly, Ferris et al. (2007) theorized that influencers’ political skill affects the way in which they are perceived when executing influence attempts; high-political-skill individuals may be viewed as legitimate while executing an influence attempt, but those low in political skill may be viewed as manipulative. Consistent with these arguments, Wihler et al. (2017) found that interpersonal influence moderated the relationship between employees’ personal initiative and supervisors’ ratings of performance. Thus, interpersonal influence facilitates individuals’ optimal calibration of behavior to elicit desired responses.
Apparent sincerity
Apparent sincerity enables politically skilled individuals to be perceived by others as genuine. Thus, they are perceived as honest, forthright individuals, and are able to gain the trust of targets (Ferris et al., 2012). This may include mimicking others’ emotions or responding to influence targets’ needs by demonstrating a specific emotion (Hareli & Rafeli, 2008). In many ways, apparent sincerity can be viewed as a form of emotional labor (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993), in which influencers attempt to adjust their outward expression to match their desired emotion (e.g., smiling while congratulating a rival). Thus, apparent sincerity may help disguise any ulterior motives (Ferris et al., 2012), which Ferris et al. (2007) argued is a crucial determinant in the success of influence attempts, because it addresses the perceived intentions of the influencer. That is, apparent sincerity helps actors create favorable impressions such that they are given the benefit of the doubt, and are judged to be acting with integrity.
For example, proactive work behavior is defined as “anticipatory action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environments” (Grant & Ashford, 2008: 8), in which employees engage as part of a “motivated, conscious, and goal directed” process (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010: 830). Without apparent sincerity, individuals’ demonstration of proactive behavior at work may be evaluated as threatening the status quo, rocking the boat unnecessarily, or even as an attempt to alter conditions in a self-interested manner (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Conversely, apparent sincerity enables individuals to behave proactively at work and create impressions of being “team players” interested in bettering the work environment for the group, rather than attempting to control the situation for their own benefit.
Outcomes
Individuals engaging in social influence behaviors do so in order to achieve desired outcomes or goals. These outcomes are varied, and can be both temporally proximal and distal. Common distal outcomes of social influence behavior include increased salary (Ferris et al., 2001), expedited promotions (Todd, Harris, Harris, & Wheeler, 2009), and improved performance reviews (Harris et al., 2007). For example, a recent meta-analysis of political skill found that it had a positive relationship with both contextual performance (r = .33, p < .01) and task performance (r = .22, p < .01) (Munyon et al., 2015). However, it is clear that there are more proximal goals that individuals hope to achieve in order to reach these more distal goals.
Proximal goals include the development of both formal and informal power, enhanced reputation, and procurement of key positions in relevant networks, among others. For example, reputation has been shown to mediate the relationship between political skill and career success (Blickle, Schneider, Liu, & Ferris, 2011). These proximal goals are more foundational in nature, and serve as the “engine” that powers individuals to achieve their more distal goals (e.g., increased performance evaluations and salary). As such, individuals engaging in social influence opportunity capitalization may possess multiple, but interrelated, outcomes that they desire to achieve.
Informed Learning
As individuals move through the opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes, they are likely to take into account the successes and failures they have experienced in the past when selecting actions (cf. Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011). Individuals capable of repeatedly enacting the opportunity recognition and capitalization processes should gain experience, and in doing so create more extensive cognitive frameworks. However, the experience is only likely to be meaningful if the underlying cause of the outcomes is understood. This notion stems from the conceptualization of pattern recognition as the ability to compare novel situations to past experiences in an effort to determine meaningful patterns and connections (Baron & Ensley, 2006). As individuals build more robust cognitive frameworks, they are better able to leverage them in future situations (e.g., prototype theory; Rosch, 1973). Baron (2006) considered prior knowledge to be a critical component of opportunity recognition, and learning is what develops that prior knowledge.
Organizational theorists have recognized that learning can increase organizations’ flows and bases of knowledge, resulting in improved levels of opportunity capitalization (Sirén et al., 2012). Garrett, Covin, and Slevin (2009) found that learning allowed organizations to identify failing business strategies, recognize new opportunities, and adapt to the situation. Similarly, we argue that individuals learn from the outcomes of their influence attempts, such that the feedback individuals receive from their interpersonal encounters leads to “control and mastery over others in their work environment” (Ferris et al., 2007: 302). Thus, we believe that social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization are dynamic capabilities amenable to development. We term learning from the influence outcomes, both successful and unsuccessful, of goal directed behaviors as informed learning.
However, simply engaging in social influence attempts will not always facilitate the development of individuals’ ability to recognize, evaluate, and capitalize on opportunities. In order to facilitate learning and improvement, individuals must recognize the reasons behind their social influence successes and failures, which are not always obvious (Mueller & Shepherd, 2012). Supporting this idea, researchers have found that the length of individuals’ professional experience (e.g., time spent engaging in goal-directed behaviors) does not necessarily correlate with improvement in work-related skills (e.g., decision making) (Moxley, Ericsson, Charness, & Krampe, 2012). This is most likely because in order to improve, individuals need a requisite level of cognitive ability and astuteness to understand why their actions brought about a specific result.
Ideally, individuals acquire skill by engaging in deliberate practice coupled with accurate feedback and opportunities for gradual improvement (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Roemer, 1993). However, research has demonstrated that deliberate practice only accounts for a small percentage of variance explained when predicting overall performance across several domains (e.g., sport, music, professions; Hambrick, Oswald, Altmann, Meinz, Gobet, & Campitelli, 2014; Macnamara, Hambrick & Oswald, 2014). Instead, the deliberate practice–performance relationship is moderated by theoretical factors such as the domain itself and the predictability of the task environment. For example, the domain of running is highly predictable and thus the relationship should be strengthened, whereas in an unpredictable situation such as aviation emergencies, the relationship will weaken (Macnamara et al., 2014). Further, deliberate practice does not preclude the importance of individual differences such as intelligence or motivation (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).
Thus, we believe that similar conditions hold true for those attempting to become adept at opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization; individuals will experience informed learning only when the proper mix of individual characteristics and environmental conditions are present. The social influence process may be considered an unpredictable task environment because reasons for social influence success and failure are not always obvious (Mueller & Shepherd, 2012). Research suggests that in this situation, deliberate practice is less likely to result in improved performance (Macnamara et al., 2014); however, efforts to reduce ambiguity, such as obtaining accurate feedback (from oneself or others) or being socially astute enough to recognize which decisions/choices were responsible for their successful (or unsuccessful) selection and execution of influence behaviors may increase performance.
Therefore, the social astuteness dimension of political skill is a primary driver of informed learning, as socially astute individuals are capable of interpreting environmental cues and identifying the root causes that led to their success (or failure). Astute individuals learn from the process of selecting a goal, identifying opportunities that lead to the accomplishment of the goal, evaluating whether and how to pursue those opportunities, and capitalizing on those opportunities. Then they can apply this acquired knowledge to future influence opportunities, strengthening their ability to engage in each of these three processes.
Discussion
With the present article, we have extended the understanding of the execution of social influence behavior in organizations by developing a theoretical framework that explains the social influence process as a three-step procedure of opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization, in which the individual dimensions of political skill play specific roles. This conceptualization provides important guidance for future research on social influence, as the extant literature largely has avoided the process preceding the actual execution of influence behavior. Further, social influence research that has incorporated political skill almost exclusively has used the aggregate construct, ignoring the potential differential operation of its individual dimensions. This has occurred despite theoretical arguments that the political skill dimensions are related but distinct concepts (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005), and repeated calls for research that explores how the individual dimensions of political skill might relate to work outcomes (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015).
Implications for Social Influence Theory
Social influence is a fundamental area of inquiry of individual and organizational behavior (for reviews, see Ferris et al., 2002; Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Jones, 1990). A primary goal of this article was to synthesize recent findings within several literatures in an effort to extend social influence theory. Our approach does this by integrating diverse theoretical perspectives (e.g., opportunity recognition, social influence) into a coherent theory that re-illuminates previous research findings, while also generating new research avenues for examining social influence in organizations.
Much like political skill answered the call by Jones (1990) to provide a much-needed explanation as to why certain individuals’ influence attempts succeed when others’ fail, our theory of social influence opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization provides an understanding of what “intentional activity” influencers are enacting. Despite the diversity in prior theoretical frameworks used within the social influence literature, one common foundation is the agentic nature of individuals’ actions. However, rather than accept agency as a broad reason as to why or how individuals engage in social influence techniques, we have provided a framework explaining how individuals are constantly engaged in intentional attempts to recognize, evaluate, and exploit opportunities for social influence.
Our theoretical framework provides a number of options for future research on social influence in organizations. For example, in addition to research on the role the political skill dimensions play in the opportunity recognition and capitalization processes, our model provides direction for future work on influence opportunity evaluation. For example, prior theoretical developments within the social influence literature have speculated about the role of susceptibility to social influence (e.g., Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Liden & Mitchell, 1988). However, empirical examinations of influence susceptibility have been limited. Much of the foundational work has considered susceptibility to influence as a fairly stable trait (Bearden et al., 1989) and has failed to address individuals’ ability to gauge the susceptibility of others. We, like others (e.g., Liden & Mitchell, 1988), consider susceptibility to influence as an important factor in actors’ decisions to engage in influence attempts. Empirical investigation in this area has the potential for significant impact on the field and on our understanding of the selection of influence targets.
Further, research has not addressed the temporal elements inherent in the social influence process. Although our model unfolds in a sequential manner, and we reference the impact of time in the process of social embeddedness, additional research related to social influence and time (e.g., the timing of influence attempts) is necessary. We suggest that there may be an element of time or timing that governs when individuals perceive a tactical or strategic advantage to acting immediately or waiting patiently before engaging in an influence attempt. For example, some recognized opportunities may require immediate action (e.g., securing a position in a new workgroup) and others necessitate patience (e.g., building extensive networks to land a better job). Future research should investigate the implications of time and timing on the opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes.
Implications for the “How” of Political Skill
Our framework injects into the literature a much-needed theoretical explanation of the “how” of political skill, specifically explaining the role of political skill during the execution of social influence behaviors within organizational contexts. Whereas previous scholars focused on carving out theoretical space for political skill (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005; Ferris et al., 2007), and understanding its outcomes on individuals and organizations (Munyon et al., 2015; Perrewé et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2005), our approach provides a theoretical foundation explaining political skill’s role within a three-process model of social influence. The three processes presented here (i.e., opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization) explicate how political skill enables individuals to succeed in the social arenas of organizations.
Thus, rather than simply accept that politically skilled individuals are adept at adapting their behavior to the prevailing context, our approach outlines the specific manner in which this process unfolds. Because politically skilled individuals can recognize social patterns within their work environment, they are able to recognize opportunities through which their goals may be achieved by utilizing social influence behavior. This understanding should change the perspective of organizational scholars attempting to understand better the motivations and precursors of social influence behavior within organizations.
Additionally, the introduction of informed learning into the political skill literature provides a new perspective on the development of political skill. Whereas prior literature suggests that political skill is trainable, the process by which political skill is taught or increases has not been clearly articulated. The expertise and intelligence literatures indicate that deliberate practice is simply not enough for most people to improve political skill; due to the unpredictability inherent in social environments, individual differences (e.g., intelligence, social astuteness), and skilled others (e.g., mentors) capable of reducing the ambiguity associated with social influence outcomes should benefit the development of political skill. Also, we note that informed learning, as a process, should enable researchers to engage in an empirical examination of political skill’s development over time; this is an area of political skill that, despite its clear benefit to practitioners, is sorely underresearched.
Implications for Political Skill’s Underlying Structure
Further, we have argued here that the overwhelming focus of empirical research on the operation of the composite political skill construct (Ferris et al., 2012; Kimura, 2015; Munyon et al., 2015) is rooted in the conceptual framework (i.e., Ferris et al., 2007) that has served as the foundation for political skill research for much of the past decade. Although Ferris et al. (2007) presented arguments for some differing antecedents of the political skill dimensions, their theoretical framework addressed political skill only as a composite construct. Thus, political skill research has advanced almost exclusively at the composite construct level. As a result, despite the significant body of research on political skill that has been amassed (Munyon et al., 2015), we know little about the roles played by the individual dimensions (Ferris et al., 2012). We add value to the field’s understanding of political skill by explaining how its individual dimensions facilitate the recognition, evaluation, and capitalization of social influence opportunities.
Our model suggests that political skill’s component parts play critical and specific roles in the social influence process. In particular, we assert that individuals’ levels of social astuteness and their networking ability are directly tied to how in sync they are with the social context of the work environment. The greater the understanding of their environment, the better the chance for individuals’ recognition of potential opportunities for the exercise of influence. Similar effects hold true for the dimensions of apparent sincerity and interpersonal influence, which serve to moderate the actual execution of influence attempts.
The effects of political skill are well researched (for reviews, see Ferris et al., 2012; Munyon et al., 2015), but there is room for further refinement regarding the nature of these relationships. For example, research suggests that political skill moderates the stressor/strain relationship (Perrewé et al., 2004). Using the theory proposed in this article, we can now expand upon this earlier finding. Those who are politically skilled, because of their social astuteness and networking ability, perceive more possible courses of action. This gives them both a greater sense of perceived control over their environment and also allows them the ability to choose their next best step from a multitude of possibilities. Thus, politically skilled individuals do not feel constrained, but rather feel in control of their future. This is just one example of how the theory developed here can enrich the explanations of earlier studies, and inform directions for future research to expand our understanding of political skill.
Additionally, although the opportunity evaluation process is not comprised of political skill’s components, we believe it represents a step forward in our understanding of political skill’s nomological network. For example, the relationship between political will and political skill has been empirically documented (r = .47, p < .01; Treadway et al., 2005), but a deeper explanation of this relationship, and its effects on social influence behavior, is lacking. Thus, future research should investigate how varying combinations of political skill and political will result in the demonstration and effectiveness of social influence. Similarly, the goal, power, and risk assessments that constitute the majority of the opportunity evaluation process provide a new starting point for studying other factors related to political skill and how they affect individuals’ enactment of social influence behaviors. That is, future research should explore the nature of these assessments, including their differential effects on decisions to enact influence behavior.
Future research also will benefit from investigating the interplay between individuals engaged in the social influence process. Our model considers the importance of context, but it does not take into account how other politically skilled individuals influence our proposed processes. It is likely that the social astuteness dimension will help individuals not only to recognize opportunities but also to recognize other individuals who are engaging in social influence, as well as their level of political skill. Little research has been conducted regarding the interactions between politically skilled individuals. An important question that extends from our framework is how the perception of other individuals’ political skill affects the recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes. Do people view politically skilled individuals as more difficult targets for influence attempts? For example, does the knowledge of target political skill play a role in the perception of target susceptibility to social influence (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Liden & Mitchell, 1988) and affect individuals’ assessments of social influence risks?
Multilevel Possibilities
Although we have presented these processes at the dyadic, interpersonal level, we believe the model has potential intergroup or organization implications. Similar to individuals, teams and organizations might approach influence opportunities through a similar process. Thus, investigating the effects of political skill at higher levels could inform how intergroup influence affects the competition for scarce and valuable resources. Baker and Nelson’s (2005) characterization of competitive organizations engaging in entrepreneurial bricolage is a parallel example of opportunity recognition at a higher level of analysis. Just as individuals recognize opportunities within their environment, proactive organizations scan their environments for potential opportunities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The same is true for opportunity evaluation and capitalization, in that organizations must evaluate opportunities before endeavoring to translate them into realized gains. For example, strategic alliances are firm relationships that form for mutual benefit but suggest the operation of influence dynamics throughout the relationship (e.g., Ingram & Zou, 2008; Munyon, Perryman, Morgante, & Ferris, 2011). It would seem quite likely that our model could be useful in understanding and predicting the interactions and influence efforts of firms in such alliances.
Potential Effects of Other Individual Differences
Given the primacy of agency in perspectives of social influence, individual differences play a critical role in the enactment of the opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization processes. Our framework focused on political skill, due to the large volume of research that positions it as a critical factor for social influence. However, future research should explore how other theoretically relevant individual differences relate to and inform our conceptualization. The opportunity recognition literature provides an excellent starting point, and previous empirical research has demonstrated that individuals’ intelligence (Gregoire, Barr, & Shepherd, 2010; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and self-efficacy (Tumasjan & Braun, 2012) affect their ability to recognize opportunities. We also suggest that researchers investigate the impact of individual differences previously found to be related to political skill, such as self-monitoring (Ferris, Treadway, et al., 2005) and personality factors (e.g., Blickle, Kramer, et al., 2011), to determine what effect they have on individuals’ ability to recognize, evaluate, and capitalize on social influence opportunities.
We note here that the relationship between intelligence and political skill presently has escaped critical examination. Specifically, the nature of the relationship between the two factors of intelligence, Gf and Gc, and political skill needs further exploration and explication. Previous investigations’ goals were to demonstrate a distinction between intelligence and political skill; however, we suggest that these efforts may have examined only a single factor of intelligence. Further, psychometric tools capable of measuring both fluid and crystallized intelligence are available and should be used to refine our understanding of this relationship. Analyzing not just the overall constructs of cognitive ability and political skill, but their component parts as well, may provide unique insight into an under researched and potentially fruitful area of inquiry.
Practical Implications
Given that social influence is a fundamental part of organizational life, the model presented here has important implications for all organizational members. Understanding the dynamics of social influence can help shape individuals’ assessment of influence attempts and facilitate learning from both successful and failed attempts. Although scholars have proposed methods for improving individuals’ influence through the development and training of political skill (Ferris, Davidson, et al., 2005), a full understanding has proved elusive to both researchers and practitioners. One of the reasons for this dearth of information on the development of influence ability has been a lack of understanding regarding the operation of political skill. By explicating the processes of opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization, as well as the specific role of the political skill dimensions within these processes, we provide an opportunity for more targeted training and development in social influence.
Conclusion
Social influence and political skill research have grown steadily in recent years. Yet despite this, little research has focused on the overall process of social influence, or the inner workings of political skill and the effects of its dimensions on social influence. Our opportunity recognition, evaluation, and capitalization conceptualization provides a more specific articulation of the social influence process, through a specification of the dynamics of the political skill dimensions. This sheds light on how political skill operates within an agentic conceptualization of social/political influence in organizations, which can be used to drive future empirical research in a number of areas.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. The authors would like to acknowledge Timothy Munyon for his helpful review and comments on an earlier version of this article. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their invaluable feedback as we prepared this article.