Understanding politics in PSM teams: A cross-disciplinary review and future research agenda

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pursup

Understanding politics in PSM teams: A cross-disciplinary review and future research agenda

T

Henrik Frankea, Kai Foerstlb,∗ a b

Production & Operations Management, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland Supply Chain Management & Logistics, German Graduate School of Management & Law (GGS), Heilbronn, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Team politics Cross-functional teams Internal integration Organizational politics Systematic literature review

Purchasing and Supply Management (PSM) decisions, such as make-or-buy or vendor selections, are highly dependent on the cooperation of several functions in decision-making teams in order to make more holistic and effective decisions. However, members of cross-functional PSM teams often also pursue diverse goals rooted in functional incentive structures that may lead to misalignment and competition. One of the resulting problems are so-called “organizational politics”, being self-serving influence attempts among functional representatives. Examples can be nondisclosure of information, coalitions, or lobbying to protect unidimensional functional interests that potentially obstruct effective PSM decision making. So far, PSM scholars have made exploratory and inductive inquiries in team politics while the larger body of research on politics exists outside the PSM scope. Thus, as PSM scholarship transcends toward deductive theory testing designs on team politics, the fields is at risk taking isolated perspectives and failing to deduce from the extant disaggregated “general management” literature on politics. In response to this emerging trend, we review 91 contributions to the organizational literature on politics at the individual, team or group, and dyadic (individual-individual) level to build a future research framework on politics in real-world cross-functional PSM decision-making teams. To do so, we distinguish thematic areas of interest and derive future avenues for research in light of ongoing PSM debates on human resource management in PSM, leadership in PSM teams, and top management support of PSM. Furthermore, we derive epistemological, instrumental, and theoretical guidance on how to approach politics in cross-functional PSM teams.

1. Introduction Decisions regarding firms' Purchasing and Supply Management (PSM), such as global sourcing or plant location decisions, have become increasingly complex and strategically important to modern firm's success (Barney, 2012; Driedonks et al., 2010). Thus, firms tend to join several functional areas, such as the purchasing, logistics, R&D, production, and marketing function, and their diverse knowledge and expertise in internal integration processes when tackling multi-dimensional PSM questions (e.g., Mentzer et al., 2008). Such integration processes are usually carried out in cross-functional decision making teams that seek to optimize PSM decision outcomes (Trent and Monczka, 1994). Swink and Schoenherr (2015) even explicitly call internal integration the “extent to which intra-firm functional teams (operations, logistics, sales, marketing, supply management) work together to accomplish supply chain planning and execution” (p. 84) and operationalize it at the team level. While the motives of cross-functional

∗

integration in teams are clear and well researched (e.g., Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Schoenherr and Swink, 2012), obtaining truly effective integration and coordination at the PSM team-level is obstructed by several problems in practice (Moses and Åhlström, 2008). Understanding internal integration as a dominantly team-oriented and thus behavioral process opens new challenges to PSM scholars. Particularly, early case studies show that self-serving incentives and the protection of nested functional interests and misaligned functional goals cause political game playing, which negatively affect analytical scrutiny and performance of PSM decisions (Franke and Foerstl, 2019; Marshall et al., 2015; Stanczyk et al., 2015). Reported examples speak of functional managers selectively disclosing information, manipulating requirements, or creating facts by working ahead to serve nested functional interests in cross-functional sourcing teams (Moses and Åhlström, 2008; Stanczyk et al., 2015). Although original PSM frameworks on Organizational Buying Behavior (OBB) include the notion of politicking or back-stabbing in

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Franke), [email protected] (K. Foerstl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100608 Received 18 October 2018; Received in revised form 10 January 2020; Accepted 5 February 2020 Available online 09 February 2020 1478-4092/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

consider the “human factor” of PSM, which is the most underestimated theme according to a recent poll of PSM scholars (Wieland et al., 2016). Thereby, we contribute to the emerging literature on politics in PSM teams and the larger discussion on behavioral problems in internal integration for PSM and operational research (Gino and Pisano, 2008; Schorsch et al., 2017) while taking a behavioral process perspective on strategic decisions as called for by Silver (2004). Finally, with this study, we enhance process models of Organizational Buying Behavior (OBB) that have originally included “politicking” and influencing behavior (Sheth, 1973; Webster and Wind, 1972) with insights from adjacent disciplines enabling future studies to fill the empirical void surrounding political cross-functional PSM teams today. The structure of this article is as follows. First, we present central concepts of organizational politics. Next, we derive our research gap based on the nascent PSM literature on politics in teams and introduce how our work relates to the OBB tradition in purchasing research. Further, we describe our methods of data collection, coding, and analysis before presenting the results of our research. Subsequently, we elaborate our results in a future research framework that is based on the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm (Caves, 1992), which we adapted to the context of integration as in earlier supply chain research (Ralston et al., 2015). We channel the discussion of the most PSM-relevant findings into future research recommendations and end the study with its managerial implications, a brief summary, and the study's limitations.

integrated buying centers (Sheth, 1973; Webster and Wind, 1972), empirical PSM research has yet to embrace the particular inter-personal challenges that so-called organizational politics (as opposed to federal politics) can pose to PSM decision-making. In concordance with our own assessment of the emerging behavioral literature, there is little research on politics in groups or teams in PSM and studies tend to neglect the inner social structures of organizations (Schorsch et al., 2017). Consequently, scholars conclude that “impacts of political environments […] on [PSM/SCM] remain empirically untested and poorly understood” (Thornton et al., 2016, p. 44). Hence, most empirical PSM literature has, thus far, assumed that PSM team members act rationally as a group, serving solely their firm's best interests. Such an assumption seems questionable at best in the light of findings from recent behavioral PSM team research (Kaufmann et al., 2014). The foreign origin of politics concepts introduces another dimension of complexity to the recently emerging PSM team politics research. The existing stream of organizational politics research does not originate from the PSM field but goes back to earlier studies conceptualizing politics as resource acquiring tactics and describing it as common to business life (Mintzberg, 1985; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1974). While the recently sparked research on politics in team-based purchasing has derived interesting inductive insight (e.g. Stanczyk et al., 2015), the PSM field is partly at risk failing to account for the diversity and mere quantity of knowledge on politics as PSM scholars build deductive theory on earlier advances. These advances are primarily published in general management1 literature and are therefore somewhat hard to oversee for PSM scholars that are deeply grounded in their own discipline. In response to this research potential, we analyze 91 contributions and relate them back to the PSM context and the so far published studies on political PSM teams. Our research questions are: (1) What is the state of research on organizational politics in the PSM domain and general management literature, respectively? (2) What can be possible extensions to PSM's understanding of team politics and how can they be researched effectively? Our study shall pay tribute to the emerging literature on politics in PSM teams and allow us to develop PSM-grounded theory on politics based on a complete digestion of the rich organizational politics literature. Following the guidelines for systematic literature analysis (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Durach et al., 2017), we provide a comprehensive forward-facing look across relevant topics surrounding individual, dyadic, and team level politics in the general management literature. Thereby, we elaborate established findings and theory in the PSM context and construct a comprehensive model for future research. In particular, this study motivates why PSM, as a department-spanning field of research and practice, is especially affected by politics in teams’ internal integration processes, advises PSM scholarship on how to approach team politics epistemologically and instrumentally, and suggests what theories future PSM team politics studies may apply in their endeavors. Beyond this conceptual and instrumental guidance, our study also makes tangible future research questions (FRQ) for future inquiry in PSM based on themes that have been dominant in politics research. With our work, we want to encourage the building of middle-range theory on political teams in purchasing environments as described in Garver (2019). Thereby, our approach is not seeking to open a niche of PSM team politics research but emphasizes the potentials the topic holds for cross-disciplinary research as recently emphasized in Wynstra et al. (2019). With this study, we contribute to answering the “call for SCM researchers to devote greater effort on exploring the roles of individual actors and groups in decision-making” (pp. 207–208) and explicitly

2. Definition of terms and conceptual background Organizational politics research goes back to organizational studies of the last century, such as Pfeffer and Salancik (1974) and Mintzberg (1985), that view politics as inevitable part of organizational life. Politics research takes two perspectives today. The first and more prominent goes back to Ferris et al. (1989) and Ferris and Kacmar (1992) who define perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) as “the factors that contribute to employees perceiving a work environment as political in nature” (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992, p. 93). This broad and perceptual view builds on perception of political events, which may differ among individuals; for instance the “winner” and “loser” of a political incident. POPs have occupied much of the literature, while comparably few studies observe politics directly (e.g., DuBrin, 1989; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Treadway et al., 2005c). The latter direct perspective observes political behavior, which can be defined as “intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the self-interest of individuals or groups” (Allen et al., 1979, p. 77). Political behavior shows in several tactics such as coalition formation, control of agendas, and strategic use of information (Walter et al., 2008) as well as ingratiation, self-promotion, and appeals towards co-workers or supervisors (Harrell-Cook et al., 1999; Kipnis et al., 1980). The co-existence of the alternative approaches to politics has triggered ongoing discussion. Several studies have related POPs and political behavior (e.g., Harrell-Cook et al., 1999; Sun and Chen, 2017; Valle and Perrewe, 2000) and both approaches are still applied (Brouer et al., 2015; Naseer et al., 2016). However, studies have tended to focus on POPs rather than the equally meaningful direct perspective (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2008). Finally, leading figures in politics research mention both in the same breath which underscores their conceptual proximity (Hochwarter, 2012). The research stream further suggests that the political persuasion of others requires social skills (Kimura, 2015; Mintzberg, 1983). Hence, political skill is understood 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” (Ahearn et al., 2004, p. 311; Mintzberg, 1983). Taken together, POPs, political behavior, and political skill are the three major concepts of organizational politics research (Kapoutsis and Thanos, 2016). Younger ideas such as political will (the motivation to exert political influence) have indeed been theoretically established, yet received relatively little

1 Organizational politics is discussed in various outlets of various origins, for instance organizational research, occupational psychology, organizational behavior and strategic management. Research published in these domains is subsumed under the term ‘general management’ literature.

2

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

as is commonly practiced in PSM research (e.g., Delgado García et al., 2015; Quarshie et al., 2016). Our sample thus excludes published metaanalyses, which can be found in Miller et al. (2008), Higgins et al. (2003), Munyon et al. (2015), and Bing et al. (2011). These studies provide comprehensive overviews on each of the three popular politics concepts – behavior, perception, and skill – yet no integration across them, which is part of our mission. Notably, the two earlier published semantic reviews on politics we identified either chose a narrow literature sample focusing on conceptualizations only (Doldor, 2007) or focused on a limited sub-field of management literature for sampling (Weissenberger-Eibl and Teufel, 2011). We applied search terms taken from influential articles in the field (e.g., Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Ferris and Kacmar, 1992) – “organizational politic*” OR “political behavior” OR “political behaviour” OR “politics in organization*” OR “politics in decision*” OR “perception* of politic*” OR “politics perception*” OR “political skill*” OR “strategic decision making” OR “strategic decisionmaking” – along with a selection of terms pointing towards empirical methods following Zimmermann and Foerstl (2014) 2 in a title and abstract search. We retrieved 1400 references in total.

empirical attention (Treadway et al., 2005c). We therefore focus on the three strongly related and well-established concepts. 2.1. The nascent political perspective on PSM teams/buying centers Empirical PSM scholarship, so far, recognizes organizational politics in PSM team literature in three main studies. Other notable contributions have focused on politics at the supply chain level of inter-firm integration (Thornton, 2013; Thornton et al., 2016). At the team level, Moses and Åhlström (2008) contend that functional silo-thinking and misaligned goals lead to the “seek [ing of] information which supports their [own function's] hunches while ignoring contrary evidence” (Moses and Åhlström, 2008, p. 97) – political behavior in the sense of original definitions (Allen et al., 1979). Furthermore, the authors identify functional interdependency and function specific motives and incentives as sources of misalignment and politics. Moreover, PSM research differentiates positive and negative effects of politics. Marshall et al. (2015) take political goals as origins of political behavior and observe that outsourcing projects driven by long-term managerial goals (e.g., personal reputation) are more likely to succeed than projects driven by short-term goals (e.g., attainment of financial benefits). Stanczyk et al. (2015) argue that functional goal misalignment and power imbalance combined exert negative effects on teams' procedural rationality through political behavior and that reliance on creative, as opposed to fact-based, intuition reduces rationality. Beyond the emerging representation of politics in empirical PSM work, frameworks of OBB have highlighted that politics are also rooted in original conceptual models of the purchasing research domain. Organizational buying has been characterized as a complex multiperson and multi-objective process that can lead to both conflicts among buying center (i.e., team) members and also “politicking” that seeks to overcome or maneuver around conflicts of interest via influencing (Sheth, 1973). Similarly, Webster and Wind (1972) postulated that “personal-political tactics” (p.18) play a significant role in buying teams. The authors mirror the notion of POPs (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992) in their discussion of personal ties and favors as determinants of buying decisions. Furthermore, OBB resonates with the extant published project-level PSM politics evidence in Marshall et al. (2015) as it distinguishes task-related motives (e.g., sourcing item quality or quantity) from personal political motives (e.g., promotion). Also, more recent OBB work implicitly addresses politics as it refers to sourcing as a non-linear and rationally bounded process (Makkonen et al., 2012). Further it is characterized by dominance-seeking and controlling behavior of members during negotiations which are conceptually close to political tactics (Rajala and Tidström, 2017). In summary, we can find emerging empirical work on political PSM teams and recognition of the general idea of politics in original OBB frameworks and thereafter following literature. The mission of this study is to deepen and enhance the conceptual understanding of PSM team-level politics. This will allow for middle-range theory building in the PSM team context as described in Garver (2019) by making use of the established concepts and empirical insights in general management literature. To accomplish this, we perform a cross-disciplinary review and elaboration, whose methods we describe in the following.

3.2. Inclusion criteria Researchers must “determine the quality and rigor of primary studies before synthesizing their findings” (Durach et al., 2017, p. 8). Consequently, journal rankings and impact factors are common proxies to quality and rigor in meta and review studies in scientific management literature (e.g., Cankurtaran et al., 2013; Franke and Foerstl, 2018; Quarshie et al., 2016; Vanneste et al., 2014). We applied a quality filter to the retrieved references also because higher ranked studies tend to be more transparently reported, a necessary condition to conducting a thorough literature review (Aytug et al., 2012; Durach et al., 2017). We use a composite ranking of the three major European Journal Rankings, namely the Dutch EJL ranking, the German VHB list, and the UK ABS list. We do not expect a significant influence of the particular ranking choice, since popular rankings list similar journals. To ensure journal quality, we only considered journals ranked in the abovementioned list (not ranked to a certain level) an equipped with a 5-year Thomson Reuters Impact Factor of 1.5 or higher. Our impact benchmark is comparable to other recent review and meta-studies to balance between permeability and data quality (e.g., Bruton and Lau, 2008; Foerstl et al., 2016; Geyskens et al., 2009). We follow the notion of being inclusive rather than excluding potentially meaningful studies exante (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Anyhow, quality judgment via journal rankings must not be the ultimate selection criterion for a systematic literature review (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Durach et al., 2017). Therefore, we developed four additional purposeful inclusion criteria that guided our selection in subsequent phases. We restrict our sample to studies that (1) observe human interaction (e.g., rather than quantitative decision models) (2) in business environments (e.g., rather than public or federal contexts) (3) in the course of strategic decisions (e.g., rather than shop floor) that (4) relate to organizational politics (i.e., political behavior, POPs, or political skill). We applied the criteria to all high quality references by manual screening using a publication's title and abstract and, where in doubt, including the main text of the publication. After the screening, we examined the remaining articles in depth. Also during this process, we

3. Research methods 3.1. Sampling process

2 We extended the original Zimmermann, F., Foerstl, K., 2014. A MetaAnalysis of the “Purchasing and Supply Management Practice–Performance Link”. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50 (3), 37–54. search terms to: (“performance” OR “efficiency” OR “effectiveness” OR “efficacy” OR “functioning” OR “outcome*” OR “source*” OR “antecedent*” OR “origin*” OR “drive*” OR “root*” OR “effect*” OR “decision*” OR “decid*”) AND (“empirical” OR “survey*” OR “case stud*” OR “field stud*” OR “sampl*” OR “SEM” OR “structur* equation modeling” OR “path analy*” OR “correlat*” OR “regression” OR “factor analys*”).

Our review takes methodological guidance from two published review studies in the field (Koberg and Longoni, 2019; Quarshie et al., 2016). We searched for general management literature in the following databases: ABI/Inform Research, Scopus, EBSCO Business Source Complete, and Elsevier ScienceDirect. For all database searches, we only considered published primary empirical journal articles and excluded doctoral dissertations, books, and conference proceedings, etc., 3

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Fig. 1. Publication selection process.

literature sample instead of reporting excessive descriptive information. Vivid example for the merits of focusing on the inherent themes and meaning of papers are the undetected theoretical resemblances between PSM and general management concepts, such as political goals and psychological needs (Marshall et al., 2015; Treadway et al., 2005c). We allow all sampled contributions to be coded into several themes and theories to avoid losing information in the analysis. However, no study used more than two theories or fit to more than two themes in the end. The grouping into thematic areas was executed in a recursive backand-forth process in which the two primary researchers strived to achieve “fit” of already grouped themes to data still to be grouped (avoiding ungrouped studies if possible). Whenever disagreements occurred, a third scholar with neutral stance was included to help resolve the issue. A theme had to appear in at least five different studies to be included in order to assure thematic relevance. The five-paper threshold was chosen ex-ante to the thematic analysis to avoid in- or exclusion of themes by varying the threshold ex-post. Still, we found our grouping to be robust to an increased threshold in ex-post robustness checks. Lower thresholds would inflate the number of themes and capture niche issues, which contradicts the idea of thematic analysis. Furthermore, we coded all studies' research focus in terms of their models’ main perspective on politics (i.e., antecedents, outcomes, proactive avoidance, or reactive management), the level of analysis (i.e., individual, dyad, or team), and a range of other descriptive statistics across published articles as presented in the next section. We continue to present our results in detail. For comprehensiveness and brevity, we immediately connect our thematic results to the cross-functional PSM team context in the subsequent sections.

strived to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Out of the total 1400 retrieved articles, 320 met the quality criteria based on impact factor and journal ranking. Among these references, 87 were duplicates, 45 were excluded since they did not observe human interaction, 22 were excluded since they did not concern business environments, two were excluded due to non-strategic decisions, and 66 did not observe politics. Finally, 91 publications on organizational politics were identified. Since literature screening and selection is commonly the most unreliable step in the selection process, three scholars re-screened 100 randomly selected papers and made consistent choices with the original for 89.7% of the cases. Thus, our inter-rater reliability well exceeds the recommended level of 70% as applied in Carter and Easton (2011). We closed the final data search in April 2018 and commenced with the analysis. Fig. 1 summarizes the whole search and evaluation process. 3.3. Thematic analysis process “Linking themes across the various core contributions wherever possible and highlighting such links is an important part of the reporting process” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 219). Still, Tranfield and colleagues find that business research lacks appreciation of such analysis techniques compared to other disciplines such as the medical sciences. To identify and relate “themes” in politics research, we stick to the notion of thematic analysis (or thematic synthesis) discussed by Tranfield et al. (2003). Their sources describe the approach as “the bringing together of findings on a chosen theme, the results of which should, in conceptual terms, be greater than the sum of parts” (Campbell et al., 2003, p. 672). In short, thematic analysis is the comparison and grouping of relevant contributions into themes that represent major topics in the literature. It is important to note that themes are areas of interests or hot topics similar to “future research themes” or “topic fields” as used in other recent studies (Schorsch et al., 2017; Wieland et al., 2016). Thus, themes are not restricted to one particular theoretical approach, methodology, or unit of analysis. Furthermore, themes do not aggregate single studies into a theoretically or methodologically homogenous set but are designed to show thematic (in terms of meaning) rather than simple structural similarity (Campbell et al., 2003). Accordingly, this open and inductive approach is ideal to develop upon the little PSM team politics evidence using thematic areas of interest that help to trace the How's in PSM politics in the future (Durach et al., 2017; Whetten, 1989). We thereby explicitly do not attempt causally relating across units of analysis but show linkages worth exploring by associating thematic results. Hence, our methods take the dangers of transferal of evidence across levels of analyses and study contexts (PSM vs. general management) into account. Notably, this also leads to one of our explicit limitations. We accept this limiting factor to focus our analysis more on the underlying themes and theoretical approaches within the

4. Results 4.1. General observations Most of the sampled contributions focused on outcomes of politics and POPs in particular. In addition, antecedents to organizational politics receive significant research attention, while only 5.5% of all contributions focus on proactively avoiding and reactively managing politics (Table 1). This may be caused by the ongoing discussion whether politics might also yield desirable effects in addition to or despite the many undesirable effects (e.g., Hochwarter, 2012; Hsiung et al., 2012). Most studies issue surveys to employees and managers in a wide variety of manufacturing and service industries predominantly residing in North America. Strikingly, 37.3% of all analyzed contributions do not ground their studies in a guiding or overarching theory. The remaining chose social exchange theory or work stress theory as well as a wide variety of less spread lenses such as balance theory (e.g., Treadway et al., 2007), conservation of resources theory (e.g., Wu et al., 2012), or 4

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Table 1 Sample distribution across journals.

Table 2 Sample descriptive statistics.

Journal Title

Articles

Focal construct

Journal of Applied Psychology* Journal of Vocational Behavior Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Management* Journal of Business and Psychology Human Relations* Journal of Management Studies* Academy of Management Journal* European Journal of Work and Org. Psych. Journal of Occupational and Org. Psych. Org. Behavior and Human Decision Processes* Leadership Quarterly Organization Science* Administrative Science Quarterly* Asia Pacific Journal of Management British Journal of Management Information and Organization Journal of Operations Management* Organization Studies* Public Administration Review Tourism Management n = 91; * FT50 Journal

14 12 11 10 8 6 6 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perceptions of politics (POPs) Political skill Various Political behavior Research perspective Outcomes Antecedents Avoidance (proactive) Other/none Management (reactive) Level of analysis Individual Dyad (Supervisor-Employee) Team Organizationa Theme Personality & emotions Supervision & leadership None dominant Organizational citizenship behavior Turnover & retention Career Diversity Justice & trust Organizational support None dominant/n Theoretical background None dominant Other Social exchange theory Social influence/role theory (Work) stress theory Socio-analytic theory Expectancy theory None dominant/n

uncertainty management theory (Andrews et al., 2009). Notably, no sampled contribution applied the grand organizational theories (i.e. resource-based view, resource dependency theory, or transaction costs economics), which are commonly used to study PSM phenomena (Spina et al., 2016; Wynstra et al., 2019). In fact, we too observe that general management articles are more frequently grounded in behavioral and social theories compared to publications in PSM and logistics journals (Wieland et al., 2016). Despite an increasing number of studies on behavioral, human aspects in PSM, scholars in the domain rarely apply behavioral theories but tend to adapt theory commonly known in the discipline. Fig. 2 and Table 2 give an overview of the development of the overall politics stream over the sampled period of 30 years and rank the most prominent outlets that published the papers in our sample. In addition, Fig. 3 shows how the several themes that we identified in our content analysis have emerged and declined over time. Fig. 3 displays a smoothening moving average to identify global trends rather than short-term changes. It distinguishes seemingly temporal phenomena, such as the focus on Career, from rather constant research efforts at relatively low intensity, such as Organizational Support, or relatively high intensity, such as Personality & emotions. The following paragraphs present details on the identified themes in

36 29 16 10 75.5% 12.7% 5.5% 5.5% 0.8% 59.4% 32.3% 5.2% – 25.2% 17.3% 15.1% 11.0% 9.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 22.0% 35.4% 27.0% 11.5% 9.4% 7.3% 5.2% 4.2% 37.3%

a

The organizational level was omitted since it is little established (Hochwarter, 2012) and thus not yet conclusive enough to provide a solid literature base.

a descriptive way to later to elaborate on the connection and research potentials of four most impactful themes in light of ongoing PSM discussions. We thereby construct a future research framework (Fig. 4) that connects our inductively identified themes with extant PSM team politics evidence. We were guided by the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm (Caves, 1992), which we adapted to the context of integration as in earlier supply chain research (Ralston et al., 2015). Our approach matches Structure with structural antecedents from the

Fig. 2. Sample distribution over time. 5

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Fig. 3. Themes distribution over time (moving average).

Fig. 4. Framework for future research on PSM team politics.

4.2. Presentation of identified themes

literature, such as misaligned functional goals or power imbalance. The Process dimension represents the behavioral interactions in sourcing teams indicated in PSM studies such as politics via agenda setting or information distortion but also conflicts among functions. Finally, the Performance dimension shows outcomes at the team/project level indicated in the extant PSM literature such as achieved cost savings or project objectives. In addition to the relatively broad framework, we also offer several tangible ways how to exactly expand today's knowledge and how to address the themes we found in future research. These avenues are derived in the following.

4.2.1. Careerism This theme encompasses employees' advancement at work, in particular their career success and obtaining of promotions. Evidence shows that POPs triggers citizenship behavior directed at advancing one's career (Hsiung et al., 2012) whereas political skill has positive effects on career success (Blickle et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2010), promotability (Gentry et al., 2012), as well as Guanxi, which are informal tiesthat help climbing the career ladder (Wei et al., 2012). Furthermore, political skill helps building and using network resources for career growth (Wei et al., 2010, 2012) and drives perceived control (Zellars 6

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

outcomes as they obstruct relationship-building with supervisors when employees lack political skill and reduce the perceived level of political skill, respectively (Brouer et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2013). Furthermore, the contextualizing value of gender is addressed and suggested to explain variance in political skill's effect on individual performance (DuBrin, 1989; Snell et al., 2014). In terms of POPs, higher age seems to reduce perceived politics, suggesting effects of habituation and cultural differences (Maslyn and Fedor, 1998; Vigoda, 2001). Finally, different combinations of gender and ethnicity can affect how anxious and dissatisfied employees feel in political workplaces (Ferris et al., 1996a).

et al., 2008), reputation (Liu et al., 2007), and satisfaction at work (Kolodinsky et al., 2004). Overall, two fundamental perspectives of political skill emerge in connection to careerism: the enabler and the coping resource. Political skill serves as enabler to capitalize on extraversion, agreeableness, and proactive personality in terms of performance (Blickle et al., 2008; Blickle et al., 2010; Sun and van Emmerik, 2015) and helps to effectively exert influence through political behavior (Blickle et al., 2011). Alternatively, political skill serves as coping resource that reduces emotional labor when behaving politically, depression when facing workplace ostracism, and anxiety and burnout at work (Meurs et al., 2010; Perrewé et al., 2004; Treadway et al., 2005c; Wu et al., 2012).

4.2.5. Justice & trust Several studies report on justice in political spheres and find that formalization and decentralized decision-making consistently improve justice, foster speaking up behavior, and reduce POPs (Aryee et al., 2004; Ferris et al., 1996b; Vigoda, 2001). Harris et al. (2007) find that procedural justice, distributive justice, and POPs interact and detect that employees are most satisfied in non-political and twofold just working conditions. Other researchers, however, found no support for justice as a moderator of the POPs-job performance link (Byrne, 2005). While some studies find no significant direct or moderating effect of trust (Parker et al., 1995), Bouckenooghe (2012) does find evidence for a positive direct effect of trust in top management on commitment to change and a negative moderation on the POPs-commitment link. Further, the reputation of an individual serves to steer effects of political behavior on one's performance. Political actions of well-reputable employees are considered to contribute towards self- and supervisorrated performance (Hochwarter et al., 2007).

4.2.2. Personality & emotions POPs have a number of negative implications such as job strain (Harris and Kacmar, 2005; Rosen et al., 2013), stress (e.g., Wiltshire et al., 2014), job anxiety resulting in tension, nervousness, worry (Ferris et al., 1996a, 1996b), frustration (Rosen et al., 2009), and tension (Hochwarter et al., 2010; Rosen and Hochwarter, 2014). POPs further reduces the sense of belonging, competence, and autonomy in employees, endangers psychologically safe climates, and causes emotional labor – meaning “dissonance between felt and displayed emotions” (Li et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 2013; Treadway et al., 2005c, p. 233). These manifold negative psychological states frequently reduce employee performance and morale, employee satisfaction (Rosen et al., 2009), or even cause depressions (Rosen and Hochwarter, 2014). However, research has identified that understanding of other's political actions, individual reputation, or good relations to the supervisor can alleviate some negative effects of POPs (Ferris et al., 1996b; Harris and Kacmar, 2005; Hochwarter et al., 2007). Emotional intelligence (i.e., understanding and use of emotions) can even strengthen emotional commitment for employees in political workplaces (Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010). Additionally, research has identified effects of personality traits in connection to POPs: agreeableness helps to still perform under POPs while employees with a tendency to seek personal gains by manipulation will engage into political behavior as a response (Wiltshire et al., 2014; Witt et al., 2002). Conversely, conscientious employees tend to work productively and refrain from political behavior despite high POPs (Wiltshire et al., 2014). Finally, Andrews et al. (2003) observe that a strong personal belief in reciprocity of effort and reward drives withdrawal from political workplaces.

4.2.6. Supervision & leadership POPs generally reduces employee's satisfaction with supervisors (Ferris et al., 1996b) but it can also be reduced among employees and improve morale when supervisors provide feedback and clear ways to obtain promotions (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Rosen et al., 2006). Likewise, the relation to supervisors, work group cohesion, and advancement opportunities reduce individually felt POPs on the supervisor-, co-worker and clique-, and firm-wide level, respectively (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992). Moreover, good relations to supervisors can increase commitment to the organization (Maslyn and Fedor, 1998) and further decrease POPs (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Harris and Kacmar, 2005; Valle and Perrewe, 2000). Additionally, Naseer et al. (2016) find that being close to an unethical leader attenuates employee performance and Witt (1998) adds that goal congruence between employee and supervisor can safeguard employee performance in political spheres. Several studies also observe political behavior in Supervision & leadership and some connect it to POPs. Harrell-Cook et al. (1999) find that political behavior (i.e., self-promotion and ingratiation) can preserve employee satisfaction in high POPs environments, suggesting that engaging in politics can sustain satisfaction. In a similar vein, impression management towards the supervisor has positive effects for supervisorrated performance, however only in non-political environments (Zivnuska et al., 2004). Finally, studies show that supervisors who exploit control mechanisms create political enclaves that hamper speaking up behavior. Though, negative consequences are less severe when employees understand the political actions of their supervisors (Ferris et al., 1996a; Hayes and Walsham, 2001).

4.2.3. Turnover & retention Numerous studies have found that turnover intentions (i.e., the intention to leave the job) are driven directly by perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) (Andrews et al., 2003; Hochwarter et al., 1999; Rosen et al., 2009), and that the intent to turnover likely leads to action (Wesolowski et al., 1989). Conversely, only few find no such relation (Lee and Peccei, 2011; Randall et al., 1999). Maslyn and Fedor (1998) add detail and that POPs drive organization-level turnover intentions yet not at the group-level. Self-promotion behavior (Harrell-Cook et al., 1999) and perceived justice (Byrne, 2005; Harris et al., 2007) may relieve the pressure to withdraw. Interestingly, POPs and turnover intentions interact to reduce actual withdrawal (Wesolowski et al., 1989) suggesting that voicing the intent to leave in the sense of bluffing may be a political tactic itself. Finally, trust and job satisfaction are processes that translate POPs into turnover (Rosen et al., 2009; Vigoda, 2000) whereas older and long-tenured employees show signs of habituation and inertia in political workplaces (Maslyn and Fedor, 1998; Vigoda, 2001; Wesolowski et al., 1989).

4.2.7. Organizational citizenship behavior Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been formally defined as “individual behavior that is […] not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Simply, it means going the extra mile at work. OCB has been distinguished from job performance and differentiated into OCBI (OCB towards individuals, i.e. co-workers or supervisors) and OCBO (OCB towards the organization) by Williams and Anderson (1991). Sampled studies

4.2.4. Diversity Studies capture diversity along several dimensions such as culture, ethnicity (“surface-level”), gender, and functional background (“deeplevel”) and is associated predominantly with political skill and POPs in the sample. Diverse ethnicities and foreign accents have negative 7

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Conversely, we observe that the reviewed general management publications often describe the task, people, and context in team studies less intensively and tend to pool across practical settings. This tendency may drive paradoxical findings of zero effect sizes in meta-studies, also on team phenomena (e.g., De Wit et al., 2012). Consequently, PSM is the ideal soil to generate middle-range theory on politics in specialized PSM teams by promoting rich descriptions of their organizational context, team task, team members, type of functional integration, and organizational surrounding (Garver, 2019). Thus, the first piece of guidance to PSM scholarship is: PSM scholarship should not hesitate until general inquiry is made but – based on this review – engage in research on politics in teams to contribute to the understanding of team politics in PSM. PSM/SCM research is unique in two further ways: concepts frequently have several ways of operationalization and the unit of analysis is often fuzzy and hard to identify (Durach et al., 2017). Our review showed several constructs subsumed under “organizational politics”, in particular the finite POPs and political skill with their accepted instruments (Ferris et al., 2005; Kacmar and Carlson, 1997) and the nonfinite political behavior divided in numerous distinct tactics (e.g., Kipnis et al., 1980). Since PSM research is already challenged by the heterogeneity of constructs and instruments today (Durach et al., 2017), future studies should be aware of this possible pitfall as politics research transcends to the cross-functional team-level. All three identified concepts predominantly take the perspective of the individual within a larger organization, such as a departments or firms. Moreover, the few team politics studies tend to divide and adapt original instruments into organization-level and team-level items and obtain meaningful results (e.g., Maslyn and Fedor, 1998). Some, however, assume parity between politics on the organizational and the team-level (Bai et al., 2016), mostly due to the fact that most available team studies are intra-functional or intra-departmental instead of cross-functional. While an effect of organizational-level politics on team politics is plausible, assuming parity may be dangerous because several studies prove cross-level differences, for instance in the strength of political sub-climates (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992; Maslyn and Fedor, 1998; Treadway et al., 2005a). Hence, the second piece of guidance to PSM scholarship is: Future PSM research should treat politics in teams and in their surrounding organizations as related but distinct and carefully adapt the established organization-level instruments to the inter-functional PSM team context where necessary. Hardly any studies among today's politics research ground their arguments in transaction cost or resources-based theory, while the few published PSM politics studies do use these “go-to-theories” of PSM scholars. Furthermore, no team-level PSM publication hitherto considered the widely spread concept of POPs from general management literature. This inter-disciplinary misalignment may be due to the inherited tendency of PSM research to theorize about legal entities and their relations (i.e., buyers and suppliers) and devote actions and behavior to firms rather than individuals. This tendency is not flawed in itself but rather a coping mechanism to the idiosyncratic complexity of choosing the unit of analysis in supply chains as multi-level phenomena (Durach et al., 2017). Thus, PSM scholarship seems to shy away from using behavioral theories and favor theoretical ideas that fit the interactions of legal entities (Knemeyer and Naylor, 2011; Spina et al., 2016). However, natural entities (i.e., individuals or teams of individuals) take the real decisions that are attributed to suppliers or buyers in organizational theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). A main learning from our study shall be that this aggregation enables the application of “classical” PSM theory but may impede our understanding of politics in PSM teams. Conversely, a more intensive integration of behavioral actor-based theory in addition to PSM-specific concepts may enhance our understanding of relational dynamics PSM, including team politics, and foster inter-disciplinary discussion within this emerging research stream. Hence, despite the PSM discipline's aspiration to grow more distinct, we want to stress the merits and necessity of applying actor-based theories when studying behavioral PSM phenomena such as

mostly discuss effects of POPs on OCB and disagree fundamentally. Some find negative effects for OCBO only (Byrne, 2005; Randall et al., 1999) whereas others detect negative implications for OCBI (Lee and Peccei, 2011) and again others find negative effects on both (Chang et al., 2009) or none of the two dimensions (Kacmar et al., 2011; Maslyn and Fedor, 1998). Literature shows that employees with strong ability to understand and adapt to social demands on the job are less affected by POPs with respect to their OCBI and OCBO (Chang et al., 2012). However, employees that are motivated but cannot play along due to insufficient social skills, significantly reduce their OCB. Furthermore, studies show that good treatment triggers higher reciprocation especially under political conditions (Kacmar et al., 2011; Naseer et al., 2016). 4.2.8. Organizational support Organizational support denotes the “extent to which the organization values their [the employees’] contributions and cares about their well-being” (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003, p. 493) and is exclusively discussed in connection with POPs in our sample. POPs directly decreases the perceived level of organizational support on several hierarchical levels and, in turn, individual performance and job involvement (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Hochwarter et al., 2003). Furthermore, Lee and Peccei (2011) found individuals reduce their OCBI to a lesser degree in non-supportive organizations (as compared to supportive ones) with rising POPs. This counter-intuitive effect could be caused by the opportunity to gain, which poorly supported employees feel in political environments (Lee and Peccei, 2011). Finally, Li et al. (2014) contend that perceived insider status (i.e., social support from the organization) can safeguard voicing behavior under political conditions but also that employees who do not feel as supported insiders tend to avoid speaking up under high POPs. 5. Discussion Our review showed that evidence on political teams is not only scarce in the PSM domain but also underrepresented outside our discipline. At the same time, inter-individual behavior and organizationwide perceptions of employees are covered by today's politics literature (e.g., Miller et al., 2008; Sun and Chen, 2017), which we condensed in our review. Now, PSM scholars may assume that first “general management” inquiry in political teams is necessary before developing middle-range PSM theory. Contrarily, we argue based on our review that PSM scholarship has a chance not only to inform practice on the hitherto neglected phenomenon on politics in PSM/SCM teams (Thornton et al., 2016) but can also advance inter-disciplinary contributions at the unexplored team level in general (Vigoda-Gadot and Vashdi, 2012). Consistently, Wynstra et al. (2019) argue that “individual PSM studies – at best – work with different disciplines” (p. 31) to span disciplinary boundaries. To assist such future contributions, we i) derive epistemological, instrumental, and theoretical guidance, ii) elaborate the most important politics themes in the PSM context, and iii) give a general overview of possible future research avenues in the following. 5.1. Epistemological, instrumental, and theoretical guidance One of the central epistemological idiosyncrasies of PSM/SCM research is that “findings in PSM studies are often attributed to contextual conditions” (Durach et al., 2017, p. 7) and that PSM as a discipline is interested in context-specific phenomena in general (Schorsch et al., 2017). Consistently, the reviewed PSM team research focuses on specialized cross-functional team activities such as sourcing, outsourcing, or planning activities (Marshall et al., 2015; Moses and Åhlström, 2008; Oliva and Watson, 2011; Stanczyk et al., 2015) and PSM studies recognize alternative temporal conditions of integration, namely temporal and permanent teams (Foerstl et al., 2015; Germain et al., 1994). 8

9

The displayed FRQ are the ones that have the highest relevance for PSM research. Other results of the elaborations for the PSM field can be found in an appendix.

Competing concepts of perceived support and support as resources in PSM teams Organizational Support

How can felt support or individual traits reduce the politicization of well-equipped PSM project teams?

Leadership type, opportunism, transactive memory

Turnover & Retention

Lateral career moves (job rotation), political behavior, collaboration Turnover as loss of expertise, crossfunctional training, Political skill Careerism

a

Career or attainment-focused goals of PSM managers (Marshall et al., 2015) Cross-functional HRM practices (Carter et al., 2000); Skills in purchasing management (Knight et al., 2014) Requirements for PSM leadership (Trent, 1996) and leadership types (e.g., Foerstl et al., 2015)

Key concepts Future Research Questions

Table 3 Suggestions for future research questions (FRQ)a.

Possible research question

5.2.1. Human resource and talent management in PSM Two of our identified themes address employees’ professional life as their Career advancement and choices pertaining to their Turnover & retention from or at their current job. While the few PSM team politics studies have partly considered these two themes as career goals in outsourcing projects (Marshall et al., 2015), careers and turnover of employees in PSM have remained underrepresented. Yet, the themes resonate strongly with the ongoing debate around human resource and talent management in the PSM function. Early PSM studies on the matter have taken higher-level perspectives on human resource practices and how they affect organizational-level outcomes (Carter et al., 2000; Jayaram and Vickery, 1998). Based on that, studies highlighted firm-level processes that translate human resource management into PSM success or failures, such as organizational culture (McAfee et al., 2002). The results of our review are closely tied with the relatively recent developments recognizing that PSM requires individual-level skills (e.g., Knight et al., 2014) and understands the impact of human resource practices in a behavioral and cross-functional PSM space (Feisel et al., 2011; Foerstl et al., 2013). Specifically, Knight et al. (2014) show that influencing and persuasion are important skills for both strategic and tactical sourcing decisions. This type of skill is conceptually close to political skill, which will help employees advance on the career ladder (Blickle et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2010); yet we do not know what implications the use of those special skills has for the entire PSM team. Political skill may be misused to entertain politics while favorable individual traits, such as conscientiousness, may catalyze political skills to foster collaboration in PSM teams. So far, PSM research has only generally established that talent management, including comprehensive training, improves collaboration (Foerstl et al., 2013). Thus, human resource and talent management practices could be one possible way of directing politically skilled PSM personnel's efforts toward an organizational goal and avoid political striving toward unidimensional goals. This research potential has been further underlined by the relevance of job rotation for crossfunctional collaboration in case study observations (Feisel et al., 2011).

Supervision & Leadership

Example(s)

Table 3 summarizes the most relevant future research avenues that were derived from the identified themes in the following sections. The ones that were deemed less connected to ongoing PSM streams of inquiry are summarized in an appendix. All avenues may guide entirely new ways of researching cross-functional PSM teams.

Two effects may result from cross-functional experience: selfish goaldirected behavior or collaborating cross-functional integration Cross-functional training can close representational gaps between functional areas and create mutual understanding that channels turnover intentions Formal leadership can serve the team when leaders use their transactive memory to coordinate or hurt the team when leaders behave opportunistically ‘Caring’ support may create communion while increased available resources may enhance distribution fights via POPs (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1974) (interaction effects expected)

5.2. Elaboration of key themes in light of ongoing PSM debates

How can job rotation foster integration through the reduction of political influence behavior? How can cross-functional training direct individual political/negotiation skills to foster collaboration and reduce turnover? What influence do different leadership types have on the effectiveness of sourcing teams?

Concept to achieve embeddedness in PSM realm

team politics. This notion is reflected in the idea of “unity in diversity” recently put forward by (Wynstra et al., 2019). If we continued exclusively applying PSM “go-to-theories” while transcending from buyersupplier relationships towards PSM team research, we may be approaching a theoretical boundary between organizational theory and behavioral theory. On a practical note, we advise scholars to search for theoretical boundary-spanners to overcome today's theoretical gap. For instance, for the emerging research stream on PSM teams, OBB literature comprehends organizational buying as a “multiphase, multiperson, multidepartmental, and multiobjective process” (Johnston and Lewin, 1996, p. 1) and can help theorize behavioral hypotheses in the PSM community. Similarly, social network theory can span across firms and individuals as actors to ease the transitioning from firm-level to team or individual-level unit of analyses (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Only when PSM can find and utilize such theoretical boundary-spanners or apply theoretical approaches detected in the systematic search more intensively, we can achieve mutual exchange of nested implications across disciplines. Thus, our third recommendation is: As PSM scholars continue to address team politics as behavioral phenomenon, their choice of theory and unit of analysis should reflect the origin of the observed behavioral constructs to allow cross-disciplinary discussion.

Resources and management attention as success factors (Trent and Monczka, 1994, 2005)

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

research that generally finds sourcing improved by top management attention and commitment (Petersen et al., 2000). Trent and Monczka (2005) put forward that successful global sourcing is characterized by an executive steering committee and executive leader dedicated to PSM and “extensive reliance on teams to analyze and propose sourcing strategies” (p. 29). This combination of management attention and use of teams is interesting from the political perspective and a possible connection point between the hitherto under-researched “support-performance link” (see Giunipero et al., 2018) and insights from our literature review based on the theme Organizational support. Some PSM contributions interpret organizational support as the extent of tangible management support for projects or initiatives in terms of attention, time, and resources (e.g., Fawcett et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2008) whereas others adopts the caring and appreciating theoretical perspective in line with the theme in our study (Cantor et al., 2012). We know that “caring” organizational support is incompatible with POPs (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2003). Yet, an alternative perspective emerges based on the notion of politics as contest for resources in organizations (Allen et al., 1979). “Resource-providing” organizational support from top management should thus increase political behavior and POPs among corporate functions in PSM teams as more resources are available and their distribution is unclear. It may be possible that the established positive effects of management support to PSM (Petersen et al., 2000; Trent and Monczka, 2005) can be strengthened. To achieve that, PSM researchers need to be able to guide management on how to best organize support to PSM without driving political distribution fights. Specifically, the increase of overall tangible resources may drive insecurity about the relative share of accessible resources for each of the integrating functions. This insecurity in turn may trigger political behavior seeking to maximize resources allocated to functional tasks and impede them from achieving higher-level outcomes such as cost savings or high capacity utilization (see Fig. 4). Conservation of resource theory helps setting up this research as it describes insecure resource access as stressor (cf. Treadway et al., 2005b; Wu et al., 2012). The theoretical divide between conceptualizations of organizational support highlights the idiosyncrasy of competing concepts and constructs in 5.1. Hence, future PSM team research may contribute to the disentanglement of coexisting theoretical interpretations of organizational support (Fig. 4 top half) and build grounded theory on support as resources and felt appreciation in cross-functional PSM teams (Fig. 4 bottom half).

Such cross-functional training may also reduce the tendency to withdraw from politically charged environments via fostering the understanding of other functions' viewpoints. This is essential since withdrawal means a loss of important information needed to complete complex sourcing tasks. The negative consequences of PSM/SCM personnel turnover have been shown in the supply chain risk and inventory management context (Alfaro and Tribó, 2003; Jiang et al., 2009). Such research could be conducted using the lens of self-identity theory and the notion of the possible-self, that is the self we like to become (Markus and Nurius, 1986). This possible-self may be either a collaborating servant to organizational goals driving cooperation in PSM teams or an attaining servant to individual (i.e., functional) goals (cf. Marshall et al., 2015) (see political goals in Fig. 4). This research could advise practice whether human resource and talent management practices can counter political bias and how they need to be applied to foster collaboration in PSM teams. 5.2.2. Leadership and organization of PSM teams PSM has been gaining relevance in organizations evolving from a set of administrative tasks into its own functional space with strategic tasks and significance. Given PSM's strategic nature and the cross-functional coordination necessary to execute sourcing, PSM researchers have asked how sourcing teams should be lead to maximize their success. Our theme of Supervision & leadership resonates with this ongoing PSM stream, creating potentials for future research. Extant contributions have stressed several tasks a PSM team leader needs to fulfil (Trent, 1996), the influence of leadership styles (Driedonks et al., 2010), or salience of leadership provided by team-external parties (Englyst et al., 2008). However, assuming that “only a formal team leader can satisfy many of the responsibilities associated with team leadership” (Trent, 1998, p. 50) may be dangerous as we lack conclusive empirical evidence for the superiority of formal leaders and given evidence that successful sourcing teams may also self-organize in a shared leadership style (Stanczyk et al., 2015). Relatively little research attention has been paid to different modes of PSM team leadership although the question whether a team should govern itself (shared leadership), be governed by an internal leader (formal or emergent) (e.g., Li et al., 2012), or steered from an outside party (the "liaison role"; Foerstl et al., 2015) remains unanswered. The results of our review inform this current ambiguity in PSM research from the political perspective. Supervisory or leadership status may create or diminish value through organizational politics in cross-functional PSM teams, such as sourcing teams. On the one hand, organizational politics literature suggests that formally empowered individuals use their power and trigger politics and dissatisfaction in work teams (Bai et al., 2016; Ferris et al., 1996a; Stanczyk et al., 2015). On the other hand, so-called transactive memory systems (i.e., individual knowledge and communication processes within groups) can enable well-informed leaders to structure and catalyze team work by fostering effective communication (e.g., Mell et al., 2014). The managerial choice of how to lead crossfunctional PSM teams (e.g., internal hierarchy, external control, or internal emergence/self-leadership) is relevant and it appears to be a determining factor for success in cross-functional PSM teams (Naseer et al., 2016). Following our agenda provides a possibility to add contextualized evidence on leadership and politics in PSM teams in line with the maxims in section 5.1. In addition, this line of research may extend the limited representation of sourcing team leadership in future census of the sourcing literature compared to recent contributions (Giunipero et al., 2018) and further develop the multi-disciplinary character of PSM as a field (Wynstra et al., 2019).

5.3. Managerial implications This research informs PSM executives directing or participating in cross-functional teams on pitfalls and possible opportunities of political dynamics in cross-functional work, such as supplier selection or makeor-buy decisions. However, given the large empirical gap, PSM practitioners cannot count on scholarly research to explain political dynamics in PSM teams in their entirety today. This is especially true for crossfunctional teams in both PSM and general management research. Yet, studies highlight that managers can reduce political behavior and POPs in teams by providing feedback, offering transparent advancement opportunities, as well as defining and adhering to openly communicated policies. Most studies inherently assume political behavior and perceived politics to have adverse effects. To date, this notion has been uncontested in most contributions. However, comparably recent studies begin to consider possible positive effects (e.g., Hochwarter, 2012; Hsiung et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2015). Our study opens up the large body of general management politics research for PSM practitioners. Furthermore, we provide quick access to focused areas of the literature by grouping our results into themes. This way, PSM managers and scholars can access branches of general organizational politics literature, but should not assume perfect validity for PSM team environments. Future PSM research will have to create more evidence to

5.2.3. Top management attention and support for PSM teams Sourcing and other PSM tasks are receiving more and more top management attention especially due to growing impact of sourcing decisions and higher levels of maturity of global sourcing organizations (Monczka and Trent, 1991). This phenomenon entertains a stream of 10

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

of such) as important challenge of cross-functional PSM teams (Marshall et al., 2015; Moses and Åhlström, 2008; Stanczyk et al., 2015). Our study assesses the current state of the emerging PSM politics literature and identifies a significant research gap around political teams in PSM. In order to create a solid base for future inquiry of this empirical void, we review findings published in multi-level general management literature on politics and make it accessible to the scholarly PSM and logistics community. We motivate whether and how researchers should focus on “politicking” in organizational buying (Sheth, 1973) and move research on politics in PSM teams forward. Central advice is to (1) engage into research on political PSM teams with strong emphasis on context, (2) conceptually and instrumentally differentiate their work from the established stream of individual-level effects of politics, and (3) apply behavioral theories where “classical” PSM concepts may reach their theoretical and predictive boundaries. Furthermore, we derive a framework of future research on political PSM teams through elaboration of themes identified in a systematic review of general management findings on multi-level politics (Fig. 4). As a result, we formulate future research questions (see Table 3 and Appendix A) at the interface of the PSM and “general management” in line with PSM's inter-disciplinary identity (Wynstra et al., 2019). The central contribution of this study is a more nuanced picture of politics in PSM that allows developing and testing PSM middle-range theory in specialized PSM applications (Garver, 2019). In closing, with the here presented findings, our hope is to spark more intensive PSM politics research that contributes to solving the challenges arising from PSM's cross-functional nature.

provide a complete picture of politics in cross-functional PSM teams. We suggest a guiding theoretical framework for inquiries that connect the identified themes and extant PSM literature (Fig. 4) and provide several tangible avenues as possible starting points for future research (Table 3 an Appendix A). With this study, we hope to create more awareness and interest in the under-researched phenomenon of team politics in line with PSM's nature as boundary spanning field of research (Wynstra et al., 2019). 5.4. Limitations Our study faces four main limitations pertaining to our methods and study approach. First, we restrict our sample to articles published in internationally ranked research outlets. This may lead to the exclusion of emerging topics published in conference proceedings or brown papers. We justify this quality threshold by our aspiration to report on theoretically and methodologically transparent and solid research that has undergone a rigorous review process only (Aytug et al., 2012; Durach et al., 2017). Secondly, we require each theme to be associated with at least five contributions. Given that we aimed to identify major themes while capturing ongoing discussions within politics research, we believe that a five-paper threshold is rather low. Post-hoc tests show that the number of themes is robust to larger thresholds, thus indicating that the effect of our quality threshold is negligible. Third, we have weighted the results of our review to focus on developing unique research avenues for themes that directly correspond to streams of PSM literature. We accept this additional subjectivity to gain higher PSM relevance yet still report all findings in compliance with the maxims of replicability and transparency (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Finally, our thematic analysis allows grouping of diverse publications in terms of method, theory, and unit of analysis to find themes of similar meaning rather than similar method, theory, etc. (Tranfield et al., 2003). The elaborations of selected themes in the PSM context (in section 5.2. and Table 3) provide connections to contemporary PSM literature (e.g., human resources, team leadership and organizational support) and rest on this aggregation. Scholars should be aware of the imperfect validity of organizational-level findings for the PSM team level. Thus, our concluding framework (Fig. 4) comprises thematic associations rather than causal links, which interesting future PSM team research will hopefully establish.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Henrik Franke: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Kai Foerstl: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

6. Conclusion Studies have deemed politics (self-serving behavior and perceptions Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100608. Appendix A. Additional suggestions for future research questions (FRQ)

Future Research Questions

Key concepts

Personality & Emotions

Individual personality, Team composition, POPs

Diversity

Justice & Trust

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Possible research question

How does the deep-level composition of PSM teams affect POPs and team effectiveness? Political behavior, diversity Do surface- and deep level faultlines faultlines, virtual teams, interfere to increase politics in virtual PSM teams? Trust-building mechanisms, How do the emergence and maintenance of trust depend on the difendurance of integration, ferent modes of integration? political behavior How does integration endurance afOCB as advantage-gaining fect the POPs-OCB link in crossmechanism, POPs, endurfunctional teams? ance of integration

Example(s)

Concept to achieve embeddedness in PSM realm

Diverse personalities may lead to mutual awareness while similar personalities may be perceived as competitors, resulting in increasing POPs Global manufacturing teams characterized with diverse surface (ethnic) and deep (culture) level employees which may affect their political behavior Embedded interfaces may be highly dependent on justice and trust while task-based integration may be more transactional and require less personal facilitation Permanent, embedded teams may show more robust OCB under increasing POPs whereas task-based teams reduce philanthropic efforts in response to POPs

Functional diversity in PSM teams (Huckman and Staats, 2011; Huckman et al., 2009) Dispersion of SCM operations (Ellram et al., 2013; Foerstl et al., 2016b) Key drivers of cross-functional integration for PSM tasks and processes (Pagell, 2004) OCB and fairness at cross-functional interfaces (Qiu et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2009)

11

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Manag. Rev. 17 (2), 191–211. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publishing, Los Angeles, CA. Doldor, E., 2007. Conceptualizing and Investigating Organizational Politics: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cranfield University. Driedonks, B.A., Gevers, J.M., van Weele, A.J., 2010. Managing sourcing team effectiveness: the need for a team perspective in purchasing organizations. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 16 (2), 109–117. DuBrin, A.J., 1989. Sex differences in endorsement of influence tactics and political behavior tendencies. J. Bus. Psychol. 4 (1), 3–14. Durach, C.F., Kembro, J., Wieland, A., 2017. A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 53 (4). Eisenhardt, K.M., Bourgeois, L.J., 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in highvelocity environments: toward a midrange theory. Acad. Manag. J. 31 (4), 737–770. Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., Petersen, K.J., 2013. Offshoring and reshoring: an update on the manufacturing location decision. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49 (2), 14–22. Englyst, L., Jørgensen, F., Johansen, J., Mikkelsen, O.S., 2008. Commodity team motivation and performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 15–27. Fawcett, S.E., Ogden, J.A., Magnan, G.M., Bixby Cooper, M., 2006. Organizational commitment and governance for supply chain success. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 36 (1), 22–35. Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., Giunipero, L., 2011. The importance of the human aspect in the supply function: strategies for developing PSM proficiency. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 17 (1), 54–67. Ferris, G.R., Kacmar, K.M., 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. J. Manag. 18 (1), 93–116. Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., Fandt, P.M., 1989. Politics in organizations. In: Giacalone, R.A., Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.), Impression Management in the Organization. Sage, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 143–170. Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Bhawuk, D.P., Zhou, J., Gilmore, D.C., 1996a. Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. J. Manag. 22 (1), 23–44. Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Galang, M.C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K.M., Howard, J.L., 1996b. Perceptions of organizational politics: prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Hum. Relat. 49 (2), 233–266. Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C., Frink, D.D., 2005. Development and validation of the political skill inventory. J. Manag. 31 (1), 126–152. Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., Wynstra, F., Moser, R., 2013. Cross-functional integration and functional coordination in purchasing and supply management: antecedents and effects on purchasing and firm performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (6), 689–721. Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T., Hartmann, E., 2015. Drivers of supplier sustainability: moving beyond compliance to commitment. J. Supply Chain Manag. 51 (1), 67–92. Foerstl, K., Franke, H., Zimmermann, F., 2016. Mediation effects in the ‘purchasing and supply management (PSM) practice–performance link’: findings from a meta-analytical structural equation model. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (4), 351–366. Franke, H., Foerstl, K., 2018. Fostering integrated research on organizational politics and conflict in teams: a cross-phenomenal review. Eur. Manag. J. 36 (5), 593–607. Franke, H., Foerstl, K., 2019. Goals, conflict, politics, and performance of cross‐functional sourcing teams — results from a social team experiment. J. Bus. Logist. 1–25. Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies. J. Oper. Manag. 19 (2), 185–200. Garver, M.S., 2019. Threats to the validity of logistics and supply chain management research. J. Bus. Logist. 40 (1), 30–43. Gentry, W.A., Gilmore, D.C., Shuffler, M.L., Leslie, J.B., 2012. Political skill as an indicator of promotability among multiple rater sources. J. Organ. Behav. 33 (1), 89–104. Germain, R., Dröge, C., Daugherty, P.J., 1994. The effect of just-in-time selling on organizational structure: an empirical investigation. J. Market. Res. 31 (4), 471–483. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B.E., Cunha, P.V., 2009. A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. J. Manag. 35 (2), 393–419. Gino, F., Pisano, G., 2008. Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 10 (4), 676–691. Giunipero, L.C., Bittner, S., Shanks, I., Cho, M.H., 2018. Analyzing the sourcing literature: over two decades of research. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 25 (5), 1–14. Hambrick, D.C., Mason, P.A., 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9 (2), 193–206. Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G.R., Dulebohn, J.H., 1999. Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics-work outcomes relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 20 (7), 1093–1105. Harris, K., Kacmar, K.M., 2005. Easing the strain: the buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions of politics–strain relationship. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78 (3), 337–354. Harris, K.J., Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., 2007. The moderating effects of justice on the relationship between organizational politics and workplace attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 22 (2), 135–144. Hayes, N., Walsham, G., 2001. Participation in groupware-mediated communities of practice: a socio-political analysis of knowledge working. Inf. Organ. 11 (4), 263–288. Higgins, C.A., Judge, T.A., Ferris, G.R., 2003. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta‐analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 24 (1), 89–106. Hochwarter, W.A., 2012. The positive side of organizational politics. In: Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C. (Eds.), Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations. Routledge, New York, pp. 61–100.

References Vigoda-Gadot, E., Meisler, G., 2010. Emotions in management and the management of emotions: the impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sector employees. Publ. Adm. Rev. 70 (1), 72–86. Ahearn, K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A.P., 2004. Leader political skill and team performance. J. Manag. 30 (3), 309–327. Alfaro, J.A., Tribó, J.A., 2003. Operations manager turnover and inventory fluctuations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 81–82, 51–58. Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., Mayes, B.T., 1979. Organizational politics: tactics and characteristics of its actors. Calif. Manag. Rev. 22 (1), 77–83. Andrews, M.C., Witt, L., Kacmar, K.M., 2003. The interactive effects of organizational politics and exchange ideology on manager ratings of retention. J. Vocat. Behav. 62 (2), 357–369. Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Harris, K.J., 2009. Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (6), 14–27. Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Budhwar, P.S., 2004. Exchange fairness and employee performance: an examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 94 (1), 1–14. Aselage, J., Eisenberger, R., 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. J. Organ. Behav. 24 (5), 491–509. Aytug, Z.G., Rothstein, H.R., Zhou, W., Kern, M.C., 2012. Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organ. Res. Methods 15 (1), 103–133. Bai, Y., Han, G.H., Harms, P., 2016. Team conflict mediates the effects of organizational politics on employee performance: a cross-level analysis in China. J. Bus. Ethics 139 (1), 95–109. Barney, J.B., 2012. Purchasing, supply chain management and sustained competitive advantage: the relevance of resource‐based theory. J. Supply Chain Manag. 48 (2), 3–6. Bing, M.N., Davison, H.K., Minor, I., Novicevic, M.M., Frink, D.D., 2011. The prediction of task and contextual performance by political skill: a meta-analysis and moderator test. J. Vocat. Behav. 79 (2), 563–577. Blickle, G., Meurs, J.A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., Ferris, G.R., 2008. Personality, political skill, and job performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 72 (3), 377–387. Blickle, G., Oerder, K., Summers, J.K., 2010. The impact of political skill on career success of employees' representatives. J. Vocat. Behav. 77 (3), 383–390. Blickle, G., Fröhlich, J.K., Ehlert, S., Pirner, K., Dietl, E., Hanes, T.J., Ferris, G.R., 2011. Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: roles of work values and political skill in job performance and promotability assessment. J. Vocat. Behav. 78 (1), 136–148. Bouckenooghe, D., 2012. The role of organizational politics, contextual resources, and formal communication on change recipients' commitment to change: a multilevel study. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 21 (4), 575–602. Brouer, R.L., Duke, A., Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., 2009. The moderating effect of political skill on the demographic dissimilarity—leader–member exchange quality relationship. Leader. Q. 20 (2), 61–69. Brouer, R.L., Badaway, R.L., Gallagher, V.C., Haber, J.A., 2015. Political skill dimensionality and impression management choice and effective use. J. Bus. Psychol. 30 (2), 217–233. Bruton, G.D., Lau, C.M., 2008. Asian management research: status today and future outlook. J. Manag. Stud. 45 (3), 636–659. Byrne, Z.S., 2005. Fairness reduces the negative effects of organizational politics on turnover intentions, citizenship behavior and job performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 20 (2), 175–200. Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., Donovan, J., 2003. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc. Sci. Med. 56 (4), 671–684. Cankurtaran, P., Langerak, F., Griffin, A., 2013. Consequences of new product development speed: a meta‐analysis. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 30 (3), 465–486. Cantor, D.E., Morrow, P.C., Montabon, F., 2012. Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: an organizational support theoretical perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 48 (3), 33–51. Carter, C.R., Easton, L.P., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41 (1), 46–62. Carter, J.R., Smeltzer, L.R., Narasimhan, R., 2000. Human resource management within purchasing management: its relationship to total quality management success. J. Supply Chain Manag. 36 (1), 52–62. Caves, R.E., 1992. American Industry: Structure, Conduct, Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 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. Acad. Manag. J. 52 (4), 779–801. Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C.C., Siemieniec, G.M., Johnson, R.E., 2012. Perceptions of organizational politics and employee citizenship behaviors: conscientiousness and selfmonitoring as moderators. J. Bus. Psychol. 27 (4), 395–406. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A., Toth, P., 1997. The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. J. Organ. Behav. 18 (2), 159–180. De Wit, F.R., Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A., 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a metaanalysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 (2), 360–390. Delgado García, J.B., Quevedo Puente, E., Blanco Mazagatos, V., 2015. How affect relates to entrepreneurship: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda. Int. J.

12

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

political skill. J. Vocat. Behav. 76 (3), 520–533. Miller, B.K., Rutherford, M.A., Kolodinsky, R.W., 2008. Perceptions of organizational politics: a meta-analysis of outcomes. J. Bus. Psychol. 22 (3), 209–222. Mintzberg, H., 1983. Power in and Around Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Mintzberg, H., 1985. The organization as political arena. J. Manag. Stud. 22 (2), 133–154. Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J., 1991. Global sourcing: a development approach. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 27 (2), 2–8. Moses, A., Åhlström, P., 2008. Problems in cross-functional sourcing decision processes. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (2), 87–99. Munyon, T.P., Summers, J.K., Thompson, K.M., Ferris, G.R., 2015. Political skill and work outcomes: a theoretical extension, meta‐analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Person. Psychol. 68 (1), 143–184. Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M.B., Darr, W., 2016. Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. Leader. Q. 27 (1), 14–33. Oliva, R., Watson, N., 2011. Cross-functional alignment in supply chain planning: a case study of sales and operations planning. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (5), 434–448. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: the Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com. Pagell, M., 2004. Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing and logistics. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (5), 459–487. Parker, C.P., Dipboye, R.L., Jackson, S.L., 1995. Perceptions of organizational politics: an investigation of antecedents and consequences. J. Manag. 21 (5), 891–912. Perrewé, P.L., Zellars, K.L., Ferris, G.R., Rossi, A.M., Kacmar, C.J., Ralston, D.A., 2004. Neutralizing job stressors: political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (1), 141–152. Petersen, K.J., Prayer, D.J., Scannell, T.V., 2000. An empirical investigation of global sourcing strategy effectiveness. J. Supply Chain Manag. 36 (1), 29–38. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 1974. Organizational decision making as a political process: the case of a university budget. Adm. Sci. Q. 19 (2), 135–151. Qiu, T., Qualls, W., Bohlmann, J., Rupp, D.E., 2009. The effect of interactional fairness on the performance of cross‐functional product development teams: a multilevel mediated model. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 26 (2), 173–187. Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A., Leuschner, R., 2016. Sustainability and corporate social responsibility in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain management and business ethics journals. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (2), 82–97. Rajala, A., Tidström, A., 2017. A multilevel perspective on organizational buying behavior in coopetition–an exploratory case study. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 23 (3), 202–210. Ralston, P.M., Blackhurst, J., Cantor, D.E., Crum, M.R., 2015. A structure–conduct–performance perspective of how strategic supply chain integration affects firm performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 51 (2), 47–64. Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A., Birjulin, A., 1999. Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 20 (2), 159–174. Rosen, C.C., Hochwarter, W.A., 2014. Looking back and falling further behind: the moderating role of rumination on the relationship between organizational politics and employee attitudes, well-being, and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 124 (2), 177–189. Rosen, C.C., Levy, P.E., Hall, R.J., 2006. Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (1), 211–220. Rosen, C.C., Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., 2009. The emotional implications of organizational politics: a process model. Hum. Relat. 62 (1), 27–57. Rosen, C.C., Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., Chen, Y., Yan, M., 2013. Perceptions of organizational politics: a need satisfaction paradigm. Organ. Sci. 25 (4), 1026–1055. Schoenherr, T., Swink, M., 2012. Revisiting the arcs of integration: cross-validations and extensions. J. Oper. Manag. 30 (1), 99–115. Schorsch, T., Wallenburg, C.M., Wieland, A., 2017. The human factor in SCM: introducing a meta-theory of behavioral supply chain management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 47 (4), 238–262. Sheth, J.N., 1973. A model of industrial buyer behavior. J. Market. 37 (4), 50–56. Silver, E.A., 2004. Process management instead of operations management. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 6 (4), 273–279. Snell, S.J., Tonidandel, S., Braddy, P.W., Fleenor, J.W., 2014. The relative importance of political skill dimensions for predicting managerial effectiveness. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 23 (6), 915–929. Spina, G., Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., Ronchi, S., 2016. Assessing the use of external grand theories in purchasing and supply management research. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22 (1), 18–30. Stanczyk, A., Foerstl, K., Busse, C., Blome, C., 2015. Global sourcing decision‐making processes: politics, intuition, and procedural rationality. J. Bus. Logist. 36 (2), 160–181. Sun, S., Chen, H., 2017. Is political behavior a viable coping strategy to perceived organizational politics? Unveiling the underlying resource dynamics. J. Appl. Psychol. 102 (10), 1471–1482. Sun, S., van Emmerik, H.I., 2015. Are proactive personalities always beneficial? Political skill as a moderator. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 (3), 966. Swink, M., Schoenherr, T., 2015. The effects of cross‐functional integration on profitability, process efficiency, and asset productivity. J. Bus. Logist. 36 (1), 69–87. Thornton, L.M., 2013. Good Partners or Good Politicians: an Exploration of Politics in Supply Chain Management. University of Tennessee Retrieved at. http://trace. tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3050&context=utk_graddiss. Thornton, L.M., Esper, T.L., Autry, C.W., 2016. Leader or lobbyist? How organizational

Hochwarter, W.A., Perrewé, P.L., Ferris, G.R., Guercio, R., 1999. Commitment as an antidote to the tension and turnover consequences of organizational politics. J. Vocat. Behav. 55 (3), 277–297. Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C., Perrewe, P.L., Johnson, D., 2003. Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 63 (3), 438–456. Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., Arnell, B., James, M., 2007. Reputation as a moderator of political behavior-work outcomes relationships: a two-study investigation with convergent results. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (2), 567. Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Laird, M.D., Treadway, D.C., Gallagher, C.V., 2010. Nonlinear politics perceptions—work outcomes relationships: a three-study, fivesample investigation. J. Manag. 36 (3), 740–763. Hsiung, H.H., Lin, C.W., Lin, C.S., 2012. Nourishing or suppressing? The contradictory influences of perception of organizational politics on organizational citizenship behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85 (2), 258–276. Huang, L., Frideger, M., Pearce, J.L., 2013. Political skill: explaining the effects of nonnative accent on managerial hiring and entrepreneurial investment decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 (6), 1005–1017. Huckman, R.S., Staats, B.R., 2011. Fluid tasks and fluid teams: the impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 13 (3), 310–328. Huckman, R.S., Staats, B.R., Upton, D.M., 2009. Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: evidence from Indian software services. Manag. Sci. 55 (1), 85–100. Jayaram, J., Vickery, S.K., 1998. Supply‐based strategies, human resource initiatives, procurement leadtime, and firm performance. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 34 (4), 12–24. Jiang, B., Baker, R.C., Frazier, G.V., 2009. An analysis of job dissatisfaction and turnover to reduce global supply chain risk: evidence from China. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (2), 169–184. Johnston, W.J., Lewin, J.E., 1996. Organizational buying behavior: toward an integrative framework. J. Bus. Res. 35 (1), 1–15. Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., 1997. Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. J. Manag. 23 (5), 627–658. Kacmar, K.M., Bachrach, D.G., Harris, K.J., Zivnuska, S., 2011. Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 (3), 633–642. Kapoutsis, I., Thanos, I., 2016. Politics in organizations: positive and negative aspects of political behavior. Eur. Manag. J. 34 (3), 310–312. Kaufmann, L., Meschnig, G., Reimann, F., 2014. Rational and intuitive decision-making in sourcing teams: effects on decision outcomes. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20 (2), 104–112. Kimura, T., 2015. A review of political skill: current research trend and directions for future research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 17 (3), 312–332. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., Wilkinson, I., 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one's way. J. Appl. Psychol. 65 (4), 440–452. Knemeyer, A.M., Naylor, R.W., 2011. Using behavioral experiments to expand our horizons and deepen our understanding of logistics and supply chain decision making. J. Bus. Logist. 32 (4), 296–302. Knight, L., Tu, Y.-H., Preston, J., 2014. Integrating skills profiling and purchasing portfolio management: an opportunity for building purchasing capability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 271–283. Koberg, E., Longoni, A., 2019. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1084–1098. Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., 2004. Nonlinearity in the relationship between political skill and work outcomes: convergent evidence from three studies. J. Vocat. Behav. 65 (2), 294–308. Lee, J., Peccei, R., 2011. Discriminant validity and interaction between perceived organizational support and perceptions of organizational politics: a temporal analysis. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 84 (4), 686–702. Li, Y., Chun, H., Ashkanasy, N.M., Ahlstrom, D., 2012. A multi-level study of emergent group leadership: effects of emotional stability and group conflict. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 29 (2), 351–366. Li, J., Wu, L.-Z., Liu, D., Kwan, H.K., Liu, J., 2014. Insiders maintain voice: a psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 31 (3), 853–874. Liu, Y., Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., Perrewé, P.L., Weitz, B., Xu, J., 2007. Dispositional antecedents and outcomes of political skill in organizations: a four-study investigation with convergence. J. Vocat. Behav. 71 (1), 146–165. Makkonen, H., Olkkonen, R., Halinen, A., 2012. Organizational buying as muddling through: a practice–theory approach. J. Bus. Res. 65 (6), 773–780. Markus, H., Nurius, P., 1986. Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41 (9), 954. Marshall, D., Ambrose, E., McIvor, R., Lamming, R., 2015. Self-interest or the greater good: how political and rational dynamics influence the outsourcing process. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35 (4), 547–576. Maslyn, J.M., Fedor, D.B., 1998. Perceptions of politics: does measuring different foci matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 83 (4), 645–653. McAfee, R.B., Glassman, M., Honeycutt Jr., E.D., 2002. The effects of culture and human resource management policies on supply chain management strategy. J. Bus. Logist. 23 (1), 1–18. Mell, J.N., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W.P., 2014. The catalyst effect: the impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Acad. Manag. J. 57 (4), 1154–1173. Mentzer, J.T., Stank, T.P., Esper, T.L., 2008. Supply chain management and its relationship to logistics, marketing, production, and operations management. J. Bus. Logist. 29 (1), 31–46. Meurs, J.A., Gallagher, V.C., Perrewé, P.L., 2010. The role of political skill in the stressor–outcome relationship: differential predictions for self-and other-reports of

13

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2020) 100608

H. Franke and K. Foerstl

Wei, L.Q., Liu, J., Chen, Y.Y., Wu, L.Z., 2010. Political skill, supervisor–subordinate guanxi and career prospects in Chinese firms. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (3), 437–454. Wei, L.Q., Chiang, F.F., Wu, L.Z., 2012. Developing and utilizing network resources: roles of political skill. J. Manag. Stud. 49 (2), 381–402. Weissenberger-Eibl, M.A., Teufel, B., 2011. Organizational politics in new product development project selection: a review of the current literature. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 14 (1), 51–73. Wesolowski, M.A., Mossholder, K.W., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., 1989. The role of perceptions of political tactics in predicting turnover from behavioral intentions. J. Bus. Psychol. 3 (4), 413–422. Whetten, D.A., 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 490–495. Wieland, A., Handfield, R.B., Durach, C.F., 2016. Mapping the landscape of future research themes in supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 37 (3), 205–212. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 17 (3), 601–617. Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J.S., Lee, K., 2014. Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 (2), 235–251. Witt, L., 1998. Enhancing organizational goal congruence: a solution to organizational politics. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 (4), 666. Witt, L., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Zivnuska, S., 2002. Interactive effects of personality and organizational politics on contextual performance. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (8), 911–926. Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., Liu, C., 2009. Cross‐functional team organizational citizenship behavior in China: shared vision and goal interdependence among departments. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39 (12), 2879–2909. Wu, L.Z., Yim, F.H.k., Kwan, H.K., Zhang, X., 2012. Coping with workplace ostracism: the roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. J. Manag. Stud. 49 (1), 178–199. Wynstra, F., Suurmond, R., Nullmeier, F., 2019. Purchasing and supply management as a multidisciplinary research field: unity in diversity? J. Purch. Supply Manag. 25 (5), 1–17. Zellars, K.L., Perrewé, P.L., Rossi, A.M., Tepper, B.J., Ferris, G.R., 2008. Moderating effects of political skill, perceived control, and job‐related self‐efficacy on the relationship between negative affectivity and physiological strain. J. Organ. Behav. 29 (5), 549–571. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J., Lai, K.-H., 2008. Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply chain management practices in the Chinese context. Omega 36 (4), 577–591. Zimmermann, F., Foerstl, K., 2014. A meta-analysis of the “purchasing and supply management practice–performance link”. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (3), 37–54. Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K.M., Witt, L., Carlson, D.S., Bratton, V.K., 2004. Interactive effects of impression management and organizational politics on job performance. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (5), 627–640.

politics and top supply chain manager political skill impacts supply chain orientation and internal integration. J. Supply Chain Manag. 52 (4), 42–62. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222. Treadway, D.C., Adams, G.L., Goodman, J.M., 2005a. The formation of political sub-climates: predictions from social identity, structuration, and symbolic interaction. J. Bus. Psychol. 20 (2), 201–209. Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Witt, L., Goodman, J.M., 2005b. The role of age in the perceptions of politics–job performance relationship: a three-study constructive replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (5), 872. Treadway, D.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Ferris, G.R., 2005c. Political will, political skill, and political behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 26 (3), 229–245. Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., Duke, A.B., Adams, G.L., Thatcher, J.B., 2007. The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (3), 848. Trent, R.J., 1996. Understanding and evaluating cross‐functional sourcing team leadership. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 32 (3), 29–36. Trent, R.J., 1998. Individual and collective team effort: a vital part of sourcing team success. J. Supply Chain Manag. 34 (4), 46–54. Trent, R.J., Monczka, R.M., 1994. Effective cross‐functional sourcing teams: critical success factors. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 30 (3), 2–11. Trent, R.J., Monczka, R.M., 2005. Achieving excellence in global sourcing. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 47 (1), 24–32. Valle, M., Perrewe, P.L., 2000. Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Hum. Relat. 53 (3), 359–386. Vanneste, B.S., Puranam, P., Kretschmer, T., 2014. Trust over time in exchange relationships: meta‐analysis and theory. Strat. Manag. J. 35 (12), 1891–1902. Vigoda, E., 2000. Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: exploration and implications for the public sector. J. Vocat. Behav. 57 (3), 326–347. Vigoda, E., 2001. Reactions to organizational politics: a cross-cultural examination in Israel and Britain. Hum. Relat. 54 (11), 1483–1518. Vigoda-Gadot, E., Vashdi, D.R., 2012. Politics in and around teams: toward a team-level conceptualization of organizational politics. In: Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C. (Eds.), Politics in Organizations: Theory and Research Considerations. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp. 287–322. Walter, J., Lechner, C., Kellermanns, F.W., 2008. Disentangling alliance management processes: decision making, politicality, and alliance performance. J. Manag. Stud. 45 (3), 530–560. Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press. Webster, F.E., Wind, Y., 1972. A general model for understanding organizational buying behavior. J. Market. 36 (2), 12–19.

14