Perceived organizational politics

Organizational politics is driven by power relations (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2024) that can be found in all organizations to varying degrees (Husted et al., Reference Husted, Moufahim and Fredriksson2022). Employees are often directly or indirectly involved in power struggles and influence tactics to secure or maximize their interests (Sowmya & Panchanatham, Reference Sowmya and Panchanatham2012). Organizational roles and processes are affected by politics, which are often hidden or outside of rules and regulations (Toegel et al., Reference Toegel, Levy and Jonsen2022).

There has been much debate about whether organizational politics is positive or negative (Fahmy et al., Reference Fahmy, Soliman, Khairy and Ashour2024). Several scholars (Zahid, Butt & Khan, Reference Zahid, Butt and Khan2022) note that organizational politics has positive aspects, such as advancing the objectives of an organization. According to Butts, Casper, and Yang (Reference Butts, Casper and Yang2013), organizational politics can serve a variety of individual purposes, including achieving personal goals, protecting or improving professional reputations, and obtaining resources and benefits from the organization.

However, in most cases, organizational politics is synonymous with manipulation and coercion, is perceived as contrary to the organization’s common good, and adversely affects performance (Ferris & King, Reference Ferris and King1991). Studies (for example, Sanson & Courpasson, Reference Sanson and Courpasson2022) have linked organizational politics to negative consequences for employees, including lower job satisfaction, lower performance at work, decreased organizational commitment, lower attendance, and low morale (Randev et al., Reference Randev, Jha and Shukla2025).

Perceived organizational politics (POP) reflects employee opinions and viewpoints toward organizational politics (Yang, Reference Yang2017). As De Clercq and Pereira (Reference De Clercq and Pereira2024) reported, employees often view perceived organizational politics as dysfunctional, which leads to distance from management and counterproductive responses. Sowmya and Panchanathan (Reference Sowmya and Panchanatham2012) asserted that perceived organizational politics are associated with negative emotional states such as job stress and job burnout. Zhou and Liu (Reference Zhou and Liu2023) reported a curvilinear relationship between perceived organizational politics and employee behavior. Consequently, Hochwarter et al. (Reference Hochwarter, Rosen, Jordan, Ferris, Ejaz and Maher2020) claimed that perceived organizational politics has a complicated relationship with outcomes and suggested continuing to research the relationship between perceived organizational politics and other organizational variables, especially employee outcome variables.

An outcome variable that is negatively connected to perceived organizational politics is employee performance (Bhattarai, Reference Bhattarai2021). Shrestha (Reference Shrestha2021) contends that organizational politics negatively impacts employee job performance and calls for leaders and administrators to reduce unnecessary organizational politics. Some scholars (such as Nazir, Khadim, Asadullah & Syed, Reference Nazir, Khadim, Asadullah and Syed2024) claim that the negative relationship between perceived organizational politics and employee performance is mitigated by variables such as organizational justice, political behavior, or emotional exhaustion (Sun & Chen, Reference Sun and Chen2017). Randev et al. (Reference Randev, Jha and Shukla2025), for example, reported a negative effect of perceived organizational politics on employee performance mediated by opportunistic silence. Another variable that may mitigate the negative effect of perceived organizational politics on employee performance is social capital (Hochwarter et al., Reference Hochwarter, Rosen, Jordan, Ferris, Ejaz and Maher2020).

Social capital in organizations

Social capital is an intangible asset that represents the advantages of social relationships (Lin, Reference Lin, Lin, Cook and Burt2001); therefore, Coleman (Reference Coleman1988) referred to it as a bridge between sociology and economics. Putnam (Reference Putnam1995) suggested that social capital enhances society’s efficiency by facilitating coordinated actions through the combination of trust, norms, and networks. Portes (Reference Portes2024) noted that social capital benefits society in many ways, including through social control, supporting the family, and enhancing interpersonal relationships. In organizations, social capital is a vital concept that highlights the importance of social life for employees; for example, it has a significant effect on employee health, mental stability, satisfaction, and welfare (Gao et al., Reference Gao, Weaver, Dai, Jia, Liu, Jin and Fu2014). Moreover, it affects tangible outcomes such as intrapreneurial activities (Klein & Ben-Hador, Reference Klein and Ben-Hador2025) and even economic profit (Lee, Jang & Choi, Reference Lee, Jang and Choi2016).

According to Halpern (Reference Halpern2005), social capital can be divided into three levels: large-scale groups (such as countries), groups (such as communities and families), and individuals. Nienaber (Reference Nienaber2022) claimed that organizations consist of individual, team, and enterprise levels; Hence, in organizations, social capital is divided into three levels: personal, intra-organizational, and external social capital (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2017). As most employees are not directly impacted by the external social capital level, the current study investigates the personal and intra-organizational social capital levels (Ratten, Reference Ratten2024).

Personal social capital (Ben-Hador, Eckhaus & Klein, Reference Ben-Hador, Eckhaus and Klein2021) refers to the benefits that are derived from personal connections from outside the organization, such as acquaintances, friends, neighbors, and family, as well as from inside the organization with personal friends (Ben-Hador & Eckhaus, Reference Ben-Hador and Eckhaus2019). Personal social capital is linked to personal career outcomes such as advancement, gaining power, and even higher salaries (Peters & Stringham, Reference Peters and Stringham2006), along with emotional outcomes such as job satisfaction. As personal social capital is an asset of the individual, McElroy (Reference McElroy2002) called this level of social capital “egocentric” because it reflects the value individuals place on relationships with other people within the organization in order to achieve their own personal goals.

Intra-organizational social capital (Kidron & Vinarski-Peretz, Reference Kidron and Vinarski-Peretz2022) is derived from connections within and between formal and informal groups and teams in organizations (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2016). It comprises shared goals, information and knowledge sharing, reciprocity, trust, and norms (Adler & Kwon, Reference Adler and Kwon2002). Many benefits can be gained from a high level of intra-organizational social capital, including enhanced employee performance and job satisfaction (Bakker, Hendriks & Korzilius, Reference Bakker, Hendriks and Korzilius2022). Organizations highly value this level of social capital since it greatly benefits them (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2019).

The distinction between social capital levels is attributed by Yu and Junshu (Reference Yu and Junshu2013) to the social networking ties theory of Granovetter (Reference Granovetter1973), which distinguishes between weak and strong ties, claiming that the latter are imperative for close relationships and support. Conversely, weak ties can be useful for receiving information and finding jobs. According to Yu and Junshu (Reference Yu and Junshu2013), personal social capital consists primarily of weak ties, as most people have many weak ties and only some strong ties (Kim & Fernandez, Reference Kim and Fernandez2023). In contrast, intra-organizational SC is based on strong ties within the organization because it is derived from mutual trust (Ortiz, Donate & Guadamillas, Reference Ortiz, Donate and Guadamillas2021).

The distinction between social capital levels may help to narrow the research gap regarding the relationship between social capital and perceived organizational politics. Some researchers (De Clercq & Pereira, Reference De Clercq and Pereira2022; Fahmy et al., Reference Fahmy, Soliman, Khairy and Ashour2024) have reported that social capital decreases the negative political perceptions of employees. However, others did not find such an effect (Su, Zhou & Yang, Reference Su, Zhou and Yang2024). Therefore, it is possible that only intra-organizational social capital decreases the negative political perceptions of employees, whereas personal social capital, owing to its egocentric nature (McElroy, Reference McElroy2002), does not. The intra-organizational social capital effect may be evidenced if it also increases employee performance in a perceived political environment.

Employee performance and hypothesis development

Employee performance (Parker et al., Reference Parker, Halgin and Borgatti2016) is widely used to evaluate the effectiveness of employees (Wandycz-Mejias, Roldán Salgueiro & Lopez-Cabrales, Reference Wandycz-Mejias, Roldán Salgueiro and Lopez-Cabrales2024). Babin and Boles (Reference Babin and Boles1996) defined employee performance as the level of productivity of employees compared with their colleagues in terms of work-related behaviors and outcomes; hence, employee performance plays a significant role in determining an organization’s results (Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman & Rupp, Reference Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman and Rupp2009). Pugliese et al. (Reference Pugliese, Pica, Bonaiuto, Cancellieri, van Knippenberg and Bonaiuto2024) reported that an organization’s performance is determined by its employee willingness to work for its success, namely, employee performance.

Therefore, studies have examined the factors that hinder and enhance employee performance (i.e., Audenaert, Decramer, Lange & Vanderstraeten, Reference Audenaert, Decramer, Lange and Vanderstraeten2016), and social capital has been found to have a significant influence (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2019). According to Huang, Yu, Shao, Yu, and Li (Reference Huang, Yu, Shao, Yu and Li2021), employee performance is directly related to social capital; for example, Oldroyd and Morris (Reference Oldroyd and Morris2012) reported a positive relationship between social capital and employee performance.

Leana and Van Buren (Reference Leana and Van Buren2012), however, did not find such a direct connection, and Ibarra, Kilduff, and Tsai (Reference Ibarra, Kilduff and Tsai2005) reported contradictory results. These contradictory results may be attributed to different levels of social capital (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2017). When researchers distinguished between the personal level and the intra-organizational level (Xu et al., Reference Xu, Hou, Zhang, Yu, Guan and Liu2022), a direct connection was found between intra-organizational social capital and performance (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2016) but not between personal social capital and performance (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2019). Rhee and Ji (Reference Rhee and Ji2011) concluded that personal social capital does not correlate with employee performance, suggesting that it can serve personal interests that may conflict with company goals. Nevertheless, since a direct connection between intra organizational social capital and performance has been established (Ben-Hador & Eckhaus, Reference Ben-Hador and Eckhaus2019), the first hypothesis is as follows:

Despite the certainty regarding the relationship between intra-organizational social capital and performance, there should also be a relationship between personal social capital and performance. Members of a group must have social capital capabilities for the group to have intra-organizational social capital, and since intra-organizational social capital is primarily based on personal social capital (Ben-Hador, Reference Ben-Hador2019). Therefore, it is hypothesized that intra-organizational social capital mediates these relationship:

The next hypothesis concerns the relationship between employee performance and perceived organizational politics (Hochwarter et al., Reference Hochwarter, Rosen, Jordan, Ferris, Ejaz and Maher2020). Researchers have established that perceived organizational politics negatively affects employee performance (Jeong & Kim, Reference Jeong and Kim2022; Randev et al., Reference Randev, Jha and Shukla2025; Shrestha, Reference Shrestha2021), possibly because when employees believe that their reward is determined by political behavior, rather than competence, they disengage or withhold their efforts (Ferris & Kacmar, Reference Ferris and Kacmar1992). Therefore, it was hypothesized that:

Finally, to mitigate the negative impact of organizational politics on employee performance, we attempted to examine whether intra-organizational social capital moderates this relationship. This moderation effect can be supported by the JD-R theory (Demerouti et al., Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli2001). This theory suggests that all work environments have specific job demands and job resources. Job demands are aspects of a job that require sustained effort and are associated with physiological or psychological costs, such as workload, emotional demands, or organizational politics (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007). Perceived organizational politics may be a hindrance that typically generates stress and reduces motivation, leading to negative outcomes such as decreased performance, and therefore is considered a job demand (Crawford, LePine & Rich, Reference Crawford, LePine and Rich2010). Job resources, on the other hand, are physical, psychological, or organizational aspects that help reduce job demands, achieve work goals, or stimulate personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007). Social capital, particularly intra-organizational social capital, may function as a job resource under the JD-R model, as it provides emotional support, access to information, and collaborative work that buffers the negative effects of job demands and enhances performance (Tims, Bakker & Derks, Reference Tims, Bakker and Derks2013). Therefore, according to JD-R theory (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Demerouti and Verbeke2004), employees who perceive their environment as politically charged may still perform well if they have intra-organizational social capital (De Clercq & Pereira, Reference De Clercq and Pereira2022); thus, the last hypothesis is as follows:

To establish the variables and hypotheses to obtain initial approval and additional insights, a qualitative pilot study was conducted prior to the quantitative study.

Phase 1 – qualitative pilot study

Participants and procedure

The participants included 30 respondents from three countries, Israel, Australia, and Cyprus. These three locations are all Western countries but are very different in cultural dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2009; Cyprus was not measured; instead, we looked for the Greek index that resembled Greek Cyprus, where the study took place) that was found to be related to perceptions of politics in the organization (Stewart, Gulzaib & Morris, Reference Stewart, Gulzaib and Morris2019). To ensure a broad representation of the diversity of opinions, we selected interviewees who represent a range of employees in terms of age, sector, and country.

Sixteen women and 14 men participated, and their ages ranged between 24 and 73 years. Participants were recruited through personal contacts of the researchers (convenience sample) and were employed for at least one year in the same organization. Except for one participant who is both employed and self-employed, all the participants are employed in organizations. Table 1 shows the participants and the evaluations the researchers determined for personal and intra-organizational social capital, as well as their sentiment toward organizational politics:

Table 1.

Qualitative pilot participant characteristics

Note: SC = Social capital.

The interview protocol (Appendix 1) was broad and general and dealt with personal and intra-organizational social capital and organizational politics. The interviews were conducted by the researchers. Most of the interviews (25) were conducted via “Zoom” and were recorded and automatically transcribed using an automatic transcription application (“Gladia”). The interviews lasted 15–50 min. Before the interviews began, an explanation of the general research process and data anonymity was provided.

The data were analyzed manually using the “content analysis” approach, which involves categorizing recorded or written verbal materials into groups with similar meanings (Cho & Lee, Reference Cho and Lee2014). To extract the research themes, related codes are assigned based on the interview protocol (Maleki, Dehghan Nayeri, Hamidieh & Pouraboli, Reference Maleki, Dehghan Nayeri, Hamidieh and Pouraboli2024). All the transcribed data were read, and an Excel spreadsheet was created with initial categories according to the interview outline. By relying on the content and coding of the themes, the relationships between the themes were extracted, and the variables and understandings were confirmed.

Although it was a pilot study, it must demonstrate trustworthiness (Haq, Rasheed, Rashid & Akhter, Reference Haq, Rasheed, Rashid and Akhter2023). Trustworthiness was ensured by triangulation (Cho & Lee, Reference Cho and Lee2014), which was achieved by performing interviews in three countries with two interviewers and data coded by two coders (the coding table is presented in Appendix 2). The use of representative quotations presented in the “Findings” section increases credibility (Lincoln & Guba, Reference Lincoln and Guba1986). Ethics was maintained by ensuring participant anonymity, reading their rights before interviewing, and receiving approval from the university ethics committee.

Pilot findings

A qualitative pilot study was conducted to characterize the variables and their importance, as well as to help generate research hypotheses.

As shown in Table 1, participants have different levels of personal and intra-organizational social capital, as well as different sentiments regarding organizational politics. In general, organizational politics were perceived negatively by most participants. Positive perceptions appeared to be confined to participants with high intra-organizational social capital, but more research is needed to confirm this.

The two focuses that were investigated were confirmed as qualitative themes: (1) social capital, consisting of personal social capital and intra-organizational social capital and (2) perceptions of organizational politics, which could be positive or negative (as most of the perceptions were negative, even if the answers were not negative, they were coded as positive). In the aggregated theme, positive and negative organizational politics perceptions were combined with personal and intra-organizational social capital. Table 2 offers a representative illustration of the categories and combinations.

Table 2.

Qualitative pilot themes and quotes

The pilot findings indicate that organizational politics perceptions are influenced by social capital, especially intra-organizational social capital, which is associated with a more positive perception of organizational politics among participants. Unfortunately, in attempting to diagnose the participants’ performance qualitatively, there were no references to negative self-performance; therefore, it appears that qualitative tools are less useful for diagnosing performance. In conclusion, the pilot study confirms personal social capital, intra-organizational social capital, and perceptions of organizational politics variables, and shows that the variables are related and that there is a mutual influence; however, the direction of the relationship cannot be determined. Therefore, an analysis that measures the relationships between variables more accurately is needed. Additionally, the performance variable could not be extracted, so quantitative research should be conducted to allow for a more objective and accurate examination of employee performance.

Phase 2 – quantitative study

After conducting the qualitative pilot, a quantitative study was conducted in which, rather than understanding respondent subjective perceptions (Doran, Burden & Shryane, Reference Doran, Burden and Shryane2022), the variables, including employee performance, were measured (Yang, Reference Yang2017). To validate the research data, the data were collected twice, separately, from two different samples of respondents from different workplaces. Additionally, the second sample data were collected 4 months after the first sample data collection was completed. To ensure that the samples were taken from different sources, the data collectors were instructed not to send the questionnaire to people who had already answered it, and the second questionnaire included a screening question. The participants in the quantitative research were all Israelis, and the questionnaires were in Hebrew. As the original questionnaires were in English, they were translated to Hebrew and then retranslated back to English for double-checking by a linguistic editor; multiple imputation was used to minimize missing data.

Participants

Measurements

The measurements were applied in both rounds:

Employee Performance – We used Black and Porter’s (Reference Black and Porter1991) performance questionnaire to measure employee performance levels. The scale contains five items for respondent self-evaluation of performance compared with their coworkers (sample item “my performance in general”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.871). The response scale ranged from 1 well below average to 5 well above average.

Intra-organizational social capital – This was measured via a questionnaire developed by Carmeli et al. (Reference Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman and Rupp2009). The items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree, consisting of six items such as ‘I share common goals with my teammates’, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.852.

Personal social capital – The questionnaire was developed by Ben-Hador et al. (Reference Ben-Hador, Eckhaus and Klein2021) and includes 23 statements, such as ‘I volunteer in places outside my workplace’. The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale (from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.879.

Perceived organizational politics – The questionnaire was developed by Ferris and Kacmar (Reference Ferris and Kacmar1992) and was improved by Kacmar and Carlson (Reference Kacmar and Carlson1997). We used the first factor that pertains to coalitions, for example, “There has always been an influential group in this department that no one ever crosses,” and the second factor that refers to interpersonal politics, for example, “People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down.” Altogether, 14 items were measured; nevertheless, all the questions were found to be one factor, so the questionnaire was considered as one factor in this study. The response scale ranged from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree; the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.873.