Abstract

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship of organizational politics on the performance of teaching faculty of the universities of Pakistan. The nature of the study was descriptive. The public sector universities of Punjab were the population of the study. The researchers randomly selected the four universities, i.e. the University of the Punjab Lahore, Bahaud din Zakria University Multan, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi and The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Two questionnaires, namely Organizational Politics by Vigoda (2007) and Teachers Performance Evaluation Scale (TPES) by Shehzad and Farooqi (2016), were adapted for the study. The statistical techniques t-test and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were applied to analyse the data. It was inferred that organizational politics had significant impact and relationship with the performance of university teachers. It is recommended that a qualitative approach may be adopted to get a further in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.

Key Words

Co-Relational, Organizational Politics, Teachers’ Performance

Introduction

Universities have an undeniable role in the development of society. The universities not only change the pattern of society but also provide visionary leadership and new policies to states. The academia of universities is the most important force that can contribute and provide evidence-based knowledge for policy measures.  Thus, teachers have a prime role in universities. Like other organizations, universities also have certain problems, i.e. organizational and individual politics which need to be addressed in order to uplift the institutional performance. Among these problems, organizational politics is one of the most important phenomena in the universities of Pakistan. Politics in any organization is the nature of life. It has emerged as an important concept in organizational research, which receives considerable attention from industrial and organizational psychologists and management scientists. This concept is studied with different perspectives in an organization (Sowmya&Panchanatham, 2011). It directly or indirectly influences the behaviour and attitudes of teachers at the universities. 

The concept of organizational politics and its effects on employees’ performance has remained at the core of the theorists and practitioners. They made efforts to enhance employees’ performance in organizations (Chang, Rosen, Siemieniec, & Johnson, 2012; Rosen, 2006; Vigoda& Talmud, 2010; Witt, Kacmar, Carlson, &Zivnuska, 2002). In the recent past, organizational politics and related ideas got more attention. It is considered a performance predictor (Vigoda-Gadot&Drory,2006). It is an effort to gain power and influence and secure self-interest in the organization (Vigoda,2002). It is generally considered an effort to get power and influence the situation (Vigoda,2006). According to Shamaila (2012), organizational politics is an activity through which people achieve their goal without following rules and regulations. This activity may be useful for an organization depending upon the fact whether the goals of individuals suit and match with the goals of the organization. Organizational politics shows improper behaviors of employees only for their self-interests. They work to achieve their interests even at the cost of other employees, or they also may forget the organizational goals.

In recent times, it has been observed that organizational politics has attained importance in the eyes of scholars and practitioner due to its complex nature. The organization is comprised of individuals having differences of beliefs, ideas and attitude.  The way individual expresses their differences explain the organizational events like politics (Silvester, 2008) as Sowmyaand Panchanatham (2009) stated that organizational politics is behaviour that aims to influence individuals or groups in an organization. 

The empirical evidence proves that itis an action of an individual only for personal interests and goals without caring for the well-being of others (Vigoda, 2003). It has also been found that the political working environment can lead to mental stress,  deterioration of morale, and an imbalance in relationships that affect performance (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009). Contrary to the above-said approach, it is revealed by the researchers that a certain level of political behaviour is necessary because it does not directly harm anyone (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2007). Politics is described as a necessary evil, and anyone who does not use political behavior will have to struggle hard to achieve his/her goals. 

There are differences in politics intensity (Cable & Judge, 2003) which affects employees’ performance. The performance of an organization can be enhanced by employing the right people at the right place (Davidson, 2003; Karatepe, Yorganci, &Haktanir, 2009). It is commonly known that an employee can perform in a better way if his/her personality traits and needs are well matched to the organizational goals (Yang & Choi, 2009). George and Jones (2005) have described that good political behavior often results in positive effects on work outcomes and can help the organization to achieve its goals. 

It is evident from the previous literature that organizational politics is one of the most important workplace phenomena that directly or indirectly affect the behavior and attitudes of academia and officers (Atta & Khan, 2016). Now the question is what are the factors of organizational politics which may help or create hindrances in performance. There are certain factors which are involved in organizational politics. These factors are power, blaming others, creating conflicts, whistleblowing and favouritism. Along with these factors, there are some other factors which are involved in organizational politics, i. e. personal factors (age, gender, job title, and job tenure), dispositional factors (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), organizational factors (centralization, formalization, Hierarchical) and job-related factors (skill variety, job autonomy and feedback) (Sultan, Kanwal, & Gul, 2015). 

These factors directly influence the performance of employees (Rehman, Hossain,&Haque, 2011). Similarly, Abbas and Awan (2017) revealed that organizational politics has an impact on employees’ performance. On the contrary to this, Samad and Amri, (2011) reported that organizational politics and its elements have a negative correlation with job performance. Moreover, they added that two factors, including pay and promotion policies, have a significant influence on job performance. In the same way, another study by Oloruneke (2015) revealed that organizational politics is negatively correlated with organizational goals and achievement of harmony among the department as well as employees. In addition to this, Ullah and Ahmad (2018) stated that there is a strong relationship between organizational politics and job stress. Similarly, Venugopal (2013) revealed in his study that organizational politics have a negative association with employees’ job performance, but this negative relationship may be reduced by employees’ emotional intelligence and workplace spirituality. 

In the light above, empirical pieces of evidence across the globe, organizational politics have a strong relationship with employees’ performance. These evidences also urged the researchers to investigate the phenomenon at higher education institutions in Pakistan. Thus, the researchers tried to investigate the influence of organizational politics on university teachers’ performance. The organizational politics was investigated through factors like power, blaming others, creating conflicts, whistleblowing and favoritism while teachers performance was investigated through factors like the power of expression, knowledge of work, decision making, supervision and guidance, analytical ability, and work (output and quality) (Shehzad & Farooqi, 2016). 

Keeping in view the significance of the subject, the researchers here explored the influence of organizational politics on university teachers’ performance. In the local setting, such investigation was very rare, particularly at the higher education level. Thus, the purpose of the study was to explore the relationship of organizational politics with university teachers’ performance. Moreover, the researchers also investigated the perception of male and female university teachers aboutorganizational politics.

Research Questions

Research Questions of the study were

1. What is the level of organizational politics at universities in Pakistan?

2. What is the perception of male and female teaching faculty of the universities about organizational politics?




Hypothesis of the Study

H01. There is no significant influence on organizational politics with the performance of university teachers?




Delimitations of the Study

The study was delimited to

1. Only universities of public sector located in the Punjab

2. Only the regular teaching faculty of the universities of the Punjab.

Methodology

The current study was correlational in nature and executed through the survey technique. The focus of the study was to explore the influence of organizational politics on the performance of university teachers.

 

Population

Teachers of thirty-eight (38) public sector universities of the Punjab province of Pakistan were the population of the study. The population was scattered in 38 public universities of the Punjab.

 

Sampling

Four old universities of the Punjab were randomly selected as a sample to ensure the truthful representation of the population. The logic behind the selection of old universities was that these universities have strong political institutions in the shape of ASA (Academic staff association). The following pictorial diagram represents the true picture of the selection of samples. The following table represents the true picture of the sample.

 

Table 1. Summary of Randomly Selected Sample

University Name	Teaching Faculty		Total Respondents
	Male	Female
1. The University of Punjab	30	17	47
2. Bahauddin Zakariya University	23	24	47
3. The Islamia University of Bahawalpur	31	14	45
4. Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agri University	44	2	46
Total Respondents	128	57	185

 

Research Tools

In order to measure the perception of organizational politics the Likert scale developed by Vigoda, (2002, 2006 and 2007) was adapted. This instrument was used and modified in the Pakistani context by Abbas, (2017). Teachers’ Performance Evaluation Scale (TPES) comprised of 43 five-point Likert Scale items was developed by Shehzad & Farooqi (2016). The ‘TPES’ adapted was used to measure the teachers’ performance.

 

 

Pilot Testing

The scales of the study were pilot tested to ensure the reliability and validity concerns. To measure the reliability of the tools, Cronbach alpha was calculated. The Coefficient of Reliability for Organizational Politics and Teachers’ Performance Evaluation Scale was calculated as0.851 and 0.943, respectively. 

Results of the Data Analysis

RQ 1: What is the Level of Organizational Politics at Universities in Pakistan?

Table 2. Level of Organizational Politics among Teaching Faculty of Universities

Factors	Mean	Standard Deviation
Politics	3.06	.556
Power	2.98	.582
Blaming Others	3.22	.648
Creating Conflict	3.23	.681
Whistle Blowing	3.18	.544
Favoritism	3.21	.697
Total	3.15	.373

 

The table shows the mean scores of organizational politics of teaching faculty. The mean scores and standard deviation of Politics, Power, Blaming Others, Creating Conflict, Whistle Blowing and Favoritism are respectively (M=3.06, D=.556); (M=2.98, D=.582); (M=3.22, D=.648); (M= 3.23, SD=..681) ; (M= 3.18, D=.544) ; (M=3.21, D=.697) and over mean score of Organizational Politics and Standard deviation is (M=3.15, D=.373). The teaching Faculty perceived Creating Conflict the most, and Power is the least. The table shows that there is enough organizational politics exist among female teaching faculty of the university.

 

Table 3(a). Factor Wise Comparative Analysis of Male and Female University Teachers about Organizational Politic.

Variables	Male		Female		T	p-Value
	M	SD	M	SD
Politics	3.05	.583	3.11	.492	-.677	.500
Power	3.01	.557	2.90	.633	1.201	.231
Blaming Others	3.18	.646	3.29	.653	-1.045	.297
Creating Conflict	3.20	.660	3.27	.732	-.649	.517
Whistle Blowing	3.21	.564	3.11	.496	1.069	.287
Favoritism	3.24	.683	3.12	.725	1.073	.285
Total	3.15	.355	3.14	.416	.236	.814

*=> .05; (N=185)

 

Table 3 (b). Comparison of Male and Female University Teachers about Organizational Politics

Variable	Male		Female		T	p-value
	M	SD	M	SD
Organizational Politics	3.15	.355	3.14	.416	.236	.814

 

The above table compares the perception of male and female faculty members about “Organizational Politics” at universities. It indicates that the mean score of male faculty members is 3.15 while female is 3.14. The value of t= .236 which is not significant as (p=.814>.05). The t value for all the statements was not found significant at .05 level of significance.

 

Data Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis is used to further analyse the data. SEM is a technique

 used to test the empirical data prior to theoretical assumptions. SEM measure the reliability and validity of the constructs employed as well as the hypothesized relationships among the constructs of the study (Barclay et al., 1995; Chin et al., 2003; Westland, 2007).

 

Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS)

At the first step, the assessment and refinement of the outer model or measurement model are ensured. This stage covers the steps to ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment tools employed. Secondly, the structural model or inner model of the study is proved. The results of the study have been displayed in section A and B.

 

Section A: Assessment of the Reflective Measurement Model

The model is estimated in two steps. First, the measurement model is the validity and reliability of the constructs are measured. Secondly, the structural model is measured. The first step involves the following parameters

1.       Item Reliability/ Face Validity

2.       Internal Consistency Reliability (Composite Reliability and Cronbach Alpha)

3.       Convergent Validity

4.       Discriminant Validity

 

Item Reliability/ Face Validity

Face validity of the items in a study is described as how the item is understood by a lay man with clarity and accuracy. There are many ways to test and ensure the face validity of the scales. It can be measured through items loading. Items loading above .70 is acceptable as the items having loading above can explain more than 50% of the variance that construct explains. The value of item reliability above 0.60 is considered suitable and can be used in a scale or construct as suggested by the previous researchers (Hair, Ringle, &Sarstedt, 2011). All the indicators in the present study have the factors loading above the mentioned threshold value. So, we can report that all the items prove the reliability concern of the measurement model (See Table 4)

 

Table 4. Validity, Reliability and VIF_S of the Model

Construct	Statement and Code	Item Loading	Cronbach Alpha	Composite Reliability (CR)	AVE	VIF
Organizational Politics (OP)
Politics (OP)	OP1: Promotion here is determined by personal preferences of employees rather than by performance.	0.885	0.870	0.911	0.720	3.513
	OP2: There is a group of people in my colleagues who always get things their way because no one wants to challenge.	0.891				3.707
	OP3: Good ideas are welcomed by the higher authorities and seniors.	0.809				1.974
	OP4: In our institute, colleagues resolve conflicts soon after they occur.	0.807				2.359
Power (PW)	PW1: Favoritism rather than merit determines the promotion or appointment at a higher position.	0.847	0.866	0.909	0.714	2.380
	PW2: There is a group of people in my colleagues who always get what they want because nobody wants to face them.	0.854				2.406
	PW3: Our organization asks our opinions in decision making.	0.853				2.572
	PW4: Everyone seems interested and cooperative but reluctant to speak up.	0.825				2.192
Blaming Others (BO)	BO1: Favoritism is experienced in the appointment at the institute.	0.884	0.907	0.933	0.777	2.214
	BO2: People in the institute try to build themselves at the expense of others.	0.893				3.358
	BO3: Usually people here say their opinions without any fear	0.888				3.406
	BO4: The working of some of the colleague is disturbed due to some other colleagues.	0.860				2.490
Creating Conflict (CC)	CC1: Only someone who works hard enough to get here a positive reward.	0.885	0.922	0.942	0.763	3.599
	CC2: People should be encouraged to report the wrongdoing in the organization.	0.902				4.023
	CC3: Rewards are given only to those whom managements like.	0.919				3.839
	CC4: Changes in the institutional goals, give benefit to many people but not serve the goals of the entire institute.	0.830				2.327
	CC5: There is a group of influential people no one had ever dared to go against them.	0.830				2.206
Whistle Blowing (WB)	WB1: There are good feelings and relationship among teachers of this institute.	0.801	0.842	0.894	0.678	2.105
	WB2: The reporting of wrongdoing (whistleblowing) to the higher authority is encouraged.	0.869				2.871
	WB3: During appointments skill, performance and educational level are taken into consideration.	0.823				2.922
	WB4: Here some staff members won a promotion or got an incentive because of political pressures	0.799				2.358
Favoritism (FV)	FV1: The reporting of wrongdoing (whistleblowing) is only for the personal benefits in the organization.	0.783	0.856	0.897	0.636	1.883
	FV2:	0.870				2.475
	FV3: Favoritism is not considered unethical in this institute.	0.796				1.827
	FV4: I have an influence on the decisions of the institute.	0.737				1.614
	FV5: Staff members can openly discuss their own problems and issues.	0.796				1.792
Teacher Performance (TP)
Power of Expression (PE)	PE1: I assess students’ learning efficiently.	0.689	0.809	0.863	0.512	2.780
	PE2: I guide students in subject selection.	0.736				1.667
	PE3: I set appropriate learning objectives for students.	0.631				2.349
	PE4: I show commitment to professional ethics.	0.731				2.023
	PE5: I communicate ideas and concept logically.	0.796				2.961
	PE6: I encourage discussion during teaching.	0.701				2.854
Knowledge of Work (KW)	KW1: I precede my lecture logically.	0.740	0.703	0.818	0.529	2.386
	KW2: I select content according to learning objectives.	0.733				2.694
	KW3: I use instructional technology to enhance students learning.	0.764				2.931
	KW4: I anticipate students’ misunderstanding during the lecture.	0.669				2.337
Analytical Ability (AA)	AA1: Teaching methods are selected according to learning objectives.	0.689	0.706	0.819	0.532	1.741
	AA2: I reinforce learning goals consistently throughout the lesson.	0.773				2.419
	AA3: Assignments are well versed with the students’ ability.	0.712				2.456
	AA4: I choose appropriate assessment techniques.	0.741				2.206
Supervision and Guidance (SV)	SV1: I guide students in subject selection.	0.774	0.876	0.900	0.562	1.970
	SV2: I provide timely feedback to students.	0.767				2.517
	SV3: I provide proper guidance to the students for career development.	0.706				2.751
	SV4: I offer counselling services to students to overcome their academic difficulties.	0.720				2.193
	SV5: I spent extra time to guide students.	0.809				1.835
	SV6: I assist students in planning for homework assignments.	0.750				2.073
	SV7: I help students to solve their psychological problems.	0.718				2.404
Decision Making (DM)	DM1: I try to produce quality work.	0.649	0.751	0.834	0.502	2.966
	DM2: My teaching approach is objective oriented.	0.715				2.531
	DM3: I make instructional decisions based on student achievement data analysis.	0.722				2.275
	DM4: I assist students in planning for homework assignments.	0.734				2.185
	DM5: I help students to solve their psychological problems.	0.719				2.641
Work (Output & Quality) (WQ)	WQ1: I help students in resolving the problems.	0.621	0.799	0.857	0.502	2.491
	WQ2: I am capable of using appropriate audio-visual aids.	0.668				2.480
	WQ3: I participate enthusiastically in training programs organized by the department.	0.682				2.207
	WQ4: I deliver lesson confidently.	0.781				2.997
	WQ5: I explain the lesson with examples from everyday life.	0.752				2.661
	WQ6: I give clear instructions to the students to maintain discipline.	0.735				2.305

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency of the measurement model indicates how an indicator measures what it is supposed to measure in different attempts. Composite reliability and Cronbach Alpha are the most commonly used method of measuring internal consistency reliability  (Hair et al., 2019). Internal consistency reliability is prerequisite to further analyze the data (Hair et al., 2019)

Composite Reliability

In smart PLS SEM analysis, the composite reliability is measured automatically. Composite reliability

is the measure of the internal consistency reliability. The threshold value for composite reliability is 0.60 or above. The value between 0.60 to 0.70 is considered acceptable, 0.70 to 0.90 are decent values. Values above 0.95 are not considered good ((Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012;). All the values in the present study, thus proving composite reliability.




Cronbach Alpha

Cronbach’s alpha is considered another measurement tool of measuring the internal consistency reliability and also undertakes the parallel threshold levels, but Cronbach alpha generates lower values than the composite reliability. It can be considered that the Cronbach’s alpha is a less precise measurement tool of reliability as compared to composite reliability measure. The minimum acceptable value for Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). All the values of Cronbach alpha are above the prescribed threshold value. 




Convergent Validity (AVE)

Convergent validity explains that to what extent the construct converges to explain the extent of the variance of its items. It shows the theoretical relationship between the study variables. It represents the extent to which the variables of the framework are correlated or interlinked with each other. Because if there is no correlation between the constructs, then they cannot be part of the same framework. The tool used to evaluate the convergent validity of the constructs is the average variance extracted (AVE) for all the items of the same construct. AVE is calculated by taking the square of the loadings of the items of a construct and then compute the mean value (Hair et al., 2019). The threshold value for AVE is above or equal to 0.50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2019) and the study constructs all attained the threshold level and above the 0.50 so prove the convergent validity. 

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is the extent to which the measure is unique and measure novel phenomena, not a reflection of other variables (Peter &Churchill, 1986). There are several methods to calculate discriminant validity. The average variance extracted is a common method for determining discriminant validity (Gerbing & Anderson,1988). The square root of AVE for all factors should be greater than the correlation among the construct. Table 5 indicates that the AVE for each variable exceeds the respective squared correlation between factors, thus proving evidence of discriminant validity.

 

Table 5. Correlation and AVE of the First Order Constructs

	AVE	OP	PW	BO	CC	WB	FV	PE	KW	AA	SV	DM	Q
Politics (OP)	0.720	0.848
Power (PW)	0.714	0.523	0.845
Blaming Others (BO)	0.777	0.290	0.296	0.881
Creating Conflict (CC)	0.763	0.281	0.280	0.880	0.873
Whistle Blowing (WB)	0.678	0.782	0.578	0.262	0.218	0.823
Favoritism (FV)	0.636	0.522	0.506	0.238	0.237	0.611	0.797
Power of Expression (PE)	0.512	0.108	0.019	0.050	0.094	0.061	0.44	0.716
Knowledge of Work (KW)	0.529	0.056	0.040	0.066	0.117	0.054	0.043	0.659	0.727
Analytical Ability (AA)	0.532	0.152	0.045	0.016	0.019	0.043	0.001	0.645	0.613	0.729
Supervision and Guidance (SV)	0.562	0.138	0.194	0.704	0.693	0.090	0.097	0.126	0.183	0.027	0.749
Decision Making (DM)	0.502	0.107	0.032	0.058	0.058	0.035	0.011	0.526	0.508	0.558	0.050	0.708
Work (Output & Quality) (WO)	0.502	0.147	0.004	0.014	0.039	0.075	0.040	0.612	0.622	0.590	0.016	0.605	0.708

Ection B: Structural Model

Figure 1

Factor Loadings and Paths of the Model



As the research is following the PLS-SEM approach steps, as suggested by (Hair et al., 2019). So, after proving the measurement model, the second step is to prove and validate the structural model of the study. The structural model follows the following under mentioned steps.

• Coefficient of Determination (R²)

• Model fit

• First Order Construct vs Second Order Construct

• Path Coefficients

Coefficient of Determination (R²)

Coefficient of Determination (R²) measures the variance of each endogenous variable in the study, and that is why considered the explanatory power of the research model (Shmueli & Koppius, 2011). R² is also considered as the predictive power of the in-sample. R² values are in between 0 and 1. R² value as 0.75 is considered good, 0.50 considered normal and 0.25 considered weak (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). Higher R² value represents higher explanatory power than lower R² values. R² values are always acceptable, according to the research context. In the current research, there is one edogenous variables, teacher’s performance and corresponding variables is, 0.450. Representing a good explanatory power of the model.

Model Fit

The model fit can be proved in many ways. The software SmartPLS-3, used in the research, provides the model fit values and the second criterion used to prove the model fit is through the goodness of fit (GOF) measurement.

 

Overall Model Fit

As we used SmartPLS3- statistical software for this study. The software shows two important values for a model fit that are SRMR and NFI. First, SRMR value less than 0.1 is considered a good fit (Henseler et al., 2014; Hu, &Bentler, 1998) current research SRMR values is 0.05 less than 0.1 so representing a good model fit. Second, NFI is defined as 1 minus the Chi² value of the proposed model divided by the Chi² values of the null model. Consequently, the NFI results in values between 0 and 1. The closer the NFI to 1, the better the fit. NFI values above 0.9 usually represent an acceptable fit, the NFI result of the current model is 0.721 represent a good value.

 

First Order Construct vs Second Order Construct

The current study contained two second-order construct, Organizational Politics (OPS) and Teacher’s Performance (TP). Both second-order constructs comprised of six first-order constructs, Politics, Power, Blaming Other, Creating Conflict, Whistle Blowing and Favoritism (six sub-construct of OPS). Similarly, Power of Expression, Knowledge of Work, Analytical Ability, Supervision and Guidance, Decision Making and Work (Output & Quality) are six sub-constructs of TP. The dimensions of OPS and TP (first-order) are attached to OPS and TP (second-order) in a formative way. So statistically, the current research framework is a reflective formative model. All the requirements related to reflective formative assessments are already discussed in detail. Table 6is providing the details of different statistical parameters including the weights of first-order construct on its concerned second-order construct, including outer weights, path coefficients, T statistics, P values and inner VIF values to prove the relationship (as dimensions) of first-order constructs with designated second-order construct (See Table 6)

 

Table 6. First Order Constructs of Designated Second Order Construct

Second Order Construct	First Order Construct	Outer Weights	Path Coefficients	t-Statistics	Inner VIFs
Organizational Politics	Politics	0.058	0.395	22.622	3.380
	Power	0.093	0.351	16.456	1.755
	Blaming Other	0.461	-0.009	0.652	5.418
	Creating Conflict	0.484	0.006	0.458	5.233
	Whistle Blowing	0.033	0.388	24.382	4.071
	Favouritism	0.034	-0.007	0.663	1.780
Teacher Performance	Power of Expression	0.117	0.240***	14.352	2.661
	Knowledge of Work	0.153	0.173***	17.145	3.353
	Analytical Ability	0.064	0.168***	14.193	2.857
	Supervision and Guidance	0.859	0.147***	14.588	1.078
	Decision Making	0.059	0.196***	18.102	2.561
	Work Output and Quality	0.086	0.243***	17.884	3.183

Note 1: SMBE = Social Media Brand Engagement.

Note 2: Note 2. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05

 

Path Coefficients

The last part of the structural model is to present the statistical significance and relevance of path coefficient results (Hair et al., 2019). Results of the path coefficient tells us whether to accept or reject the hypotheses developed in the study. However, in this section, the path coefficient results will be provided with details.

 

Consolidated Path Coefficient Results

As the study consists of many hypotheses developed to understand different relationships of the constructs within the framework in a better way. We can divide hypotheses into two types, Straight/Direct effects, and Indirect Effects. All two types have been explained separately and properly.

 

Straight Effects

Table 7 and Figure 2 displayed that organizational politics (OPS) is positively and significantly influence the teacher’s performance. The null hypothesis that there is no influence of OPS on TP is rejected statistically and the hypothesis that OPS influence TP statistically (OPS?TP: ? = 0.671, t-value = 3.178, p-value = 0.001).

 

Indirect Effects

 Indirect effects are presented in the Table 7 and Figure 2 displayed that OP, PW, BO, CC, WB and FV does not influence the teacher’s performance indirectly. All the hypotheses are accepted which indicates that there is no indirect effect of OP, PW, BO, CC, WB and FV on TP.

 

Table 7. Summary of Path Coefficient Results (Consolidated)

Hypothesis Number	Hypothesis Statement	Path Coefficients	t-Statistics	P-value	Decision
Straight Effects
	OPS ? TP	0.671	3.178	0.001	Rejected
Indirect Effect
	OP -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.315	0.753	Accepted
	PW -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.323	0.747	Accepted
	BO -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.178	0.859	Accepted
	CC -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.132	0.895	Accepted
	WB -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.315	0.753	Accepted
	FV -> OPS -> TP	0.000	0.178	0.859	Accepted

Null: There is no influence of OP on TP

Rejected=Organizational Politics effects the teacher performance

Accepted= Organizational Politics does not affect the teacher performance

Discussion

The study at hand was carried out to measure the influence of organizational politics on the performance of university teachers. The statistical techniques Mean, Standard Deviation, t test and SEM were applied to reach out the decision. It was inferred from the analysis that organization as whole feels the influence of organizational politics. It was revealed in the analysis that there is enough organizational politics exist in the university work place. Moreover, it is measured that female teaching faculty have more organizational politics as compared to male. The present study is in line with the study of Bodla and Danish (2010) who described that females perceive higher level of politics in their organization as compared to males. Moreover, they concluded that women in their organizations have high level stress, less job satisfaction, job involvement and commitment. 

The researchers in the current the current study applied smart PLS-3 to further test the hypothesis that organizational politics have no significant influence on teachers’ performance. The detailed analysis revealed that organizational politics does not affectteachers’ performance. The study at hand is in line with the study of Rahman, Hussain and Haque (2011) they propagated that organizational politics have no significant influence on teachers’ performance while it has significant impact on job commitment. On the other hand, the findings of the study have contradiction with the results of the study of Samad and Amri (2011), they stated that organizational politics have negative relationship with employees’ performance. Similarly, the results of the current study negate the findings of the study of Atta and Khan (2016) that organizational politics have negative impact on organizational citizenship behavior and job attitude. In the same way, the study at hand also contradicts the results of the study of Asrar-ul-Haq, Ali, Anwar, Iqbal, Suleman,Sadiq and Haris-ul-Mahasbi (2019), they stated that organizational politics have negative association with job stress and turnover of the employees. 

Recommendations

The researchers recommended that such kind of study should be conducted at large scale from elementary to higher education institutions to further strengthen the results in local arena. Moreover, qualitative approach may be adopted to verify and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.

References

• Abbas, Q., & Awan, S. H. (2017). Impact of organizational politics on employee performance in public sector organizations. Pakistan Administrative Review, 1(1),19-31.
• Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Ali, H.Y., Anwar, S., Iqbal, A., Iqbal, M.B., Suleman, N., Sadiq, I. and Haris-ulMahasbi, M. (2019). Impact of organizational politics on employee work outcomes in higher education institutions of Pakistan: Moderating role of social capital. South Asian Journal of Business Studies,8(2), 185-200.
• Atta & Khan (2016). perceived Organizational Politics, Organizational Citizenship Behaviorand Job Attitudes Among University Teachers: Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 26(2), 21-38.
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration
• Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2010). The Perceptions of Organizational Politics and Work Performance: Exploring the Differences in Public and Private Sector. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 8(4), 123-132.
• Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (2),197- 212.
• Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779-801.
• Chin, W. W., Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2008). Structural equation modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 16(4),287-298.
• Davidson, E. (2007, June). The pivotal role of teacher motivation in Tanzanian education. In the Educational Forum,71(2), 157-166.
• Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434-449.
• Ferris, G., &Hochwarter, W. (2011). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leong, & S. Parker, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (435-459).
• George, J.M., &Jones, G. R. (2005). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior (4th ed.), New Jersey, USA: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., &Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long range planning, 46(1-2),1- 12.
• Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., (2019). When to use and how to reportthe results of PLS-SEM, European Business review, 31(1), 1-22.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., &Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.