Working While Liberal/Conservative: A Review of Political

For Peer ReviewWorking While Liberal/Conservative: A Review of Political

Ideology in Organizations

Journal: Journal of Management

Manuscript ID JOM-18-0667.R4

Manuscript Type: Review Issue Paper or Proposal

Keywords: Identity < MICRO TOPICS, Diversity/Gender < MICRO TOPICS, Strategic Decision-Making < MACRO TOPICS

Abstract:

Political polarization has increased significantly in society over the past decade, and whether intended or not, political ideologies are carried into the workplace. We review distinct conceptualizations of political ideology as representing values, identity, and party affiliation. We then review literature in the organizational sciences which has examined political ideology as a source of motivated reasoning and biased information processing. From this values-based perspective, political ideology has fundamentally been connected to strategic decisions. We also review a smaller subset of literature which has examined political ideology as a source of social identity that can inform cognitive, affective, and behavioral dynamics between individuals, groups and organizations. Finally, we chart a course for future research on political ideology, focusing on (1) conceptual expansions, (2) contextual determinants, (3) diversity, (4) cross-level alignment and (5) the acknowledgement of possible researcher bias.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jom

Journal of Management

For Peer Review

1POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN ORGANIZATIONS

Working While Liberal/Conservative:

A Review of Political Ideology in Organizations

Kristen L. SwigartThe Pennsylvania State University

Anuradha Anantharaman

The Pennsylvania State University

Jason A. WilliamsonThe Pennsylvania State University

Alicia A. Grandey

The Pennsylvania State University

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge Kelly Coleman, Katie England, and Carri Rae David for their help with editing this manuscript. Corresponding author: Kristen Swigart, 140 Moore Building, University Park PA, 16802 Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


ABSTRACT

Political polarization has increased significantly in society over the past decade, and whether

intended or not, political ideologies are carried into the workplace. We review distinct

conceptualizations of political ideology as representing values, identity, and party affiliation. We

then review literature in the organizational sciences which has examined political ideology as a

source of motivated reasoning and biased information processing. From this values-based

perspective, political ideology has fundamentally been connected to strategic decisions. We also

review a smaller subset of literature which has examined political ideology as a source of social

identity that can inform cognitive, affective, and behavioral dynamics between individuals,

groups and organizations. Finally, we chart a course for future research on political ideology,

focusing on (1) conceptual expansions, (2) contextual determinants, (3) diversity, (4) cross-level

alignment, and (5) the acknowledgement of possible researcher bias.

Keywords: identity; diversity/gender; strategic decision making

Page 2 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


WORKING WHILE LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE:A REVIEW OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN ORGANIZATIONS

“No politics at work” is a standard policy in many workplaces (Society for Human

Resource Management [SHRM], 2016); yet a simple glance at the news illustrates that politics

are certainly present at work. Organizational decisions such as those to promote a Black Lives

Matter spokesman (Nike; Draper & Belson, 2019), to avoid filming in a state that has upheld

anti-abortion laws (Disney; Victor, 2019), or to support family policies only for heterosexual

families (Chick-fil-A; Bellafante, 2015) are interpreted as representing particular political views.

Political ideology also seems to influence employee outcomes: At Facebook, Google, and Apple,

employees acted in ways that were perceived to be incongruent with the dominant political

ideologies of their organizations, costing them their jobs (Grind & Hagey, 2018; Steinbuch,

2018; Wakabayashi, 2017). In short, political ideology, “a set of beliefs about the proper order of

society and how it can be achieved” (Erikson & Tedin, 2003: 64; Jost, Federico, & Napier,

2009), guides decisions and behavior by organizational members, whether intentionally or not.

A review of and framework for political ideology in organizations is necessary and

timely due to several trends that have made it harder than ever to keep politics out of the

workplace. First and foremost, politics is more salient in our daily lives than in the past, with the

24/7 news cycle accessible anywhere—including the workplace—on mobile devices. This

salience is even stronger during national elections (every four years in the United States) and

during major political transitions (Brexit in the United Kingdom), when it is hard to avoid

political discussions in social contexts (Peterson, Goel, & Iyengar, 2017). Second, political

ideology is more polarizing and divisive than ever before. In addition to experiencing a news

cycle hallmarked by divisive tones (Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012), individuals tend to live near

others whose politics are similar to their own (Motyl, Iyer, Oishi, Trawalter, & Nosek, 2014) and

Page 3 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


to marry others with similar views (Iyengar & Konitzer, 2017), reducing exposure to opposing

views in social contexts. The combination of lack of exposure to other views and increased

polarization of politics has led individuals to despise those who vote for the “wrong” candidate

(Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). Finally, a person’s political ideology may be more likely to differ

from others’ ideologies in the work context (compared to the personal context) and more likely

to be openly discussed, given the trend of employees bringing their “authentic selves” to work

(Inam, 2018; Kahn, 1990; Opie & Freeman, 2017). For example, Twitter’s website states that

employees should “[f]eel comfortable being yourself every day you’re here,” yet, Jack Dorsey,

the CEO of Twitter acknowledged that conservative employees may be penalized for sharing

their views (Wagner, 2018). Thus, we are at a time when political ideology is particularly

influential in organizations.

As these media cases suggest, political ideology is highly prevalent in and relevant to

organizations; accordingly, the time is right to comprehensively review what we know about

political ideology in organizational science. Our aim is to provide a review and integrated

framework of scholarly attention to this topic in organizations such that future scholars can

continue to build on and extend this body of knowledge. Since political ideology in organizations

is a relatively new topic, we first reviewed how scholars in political psychology, sociology, and

political science have conceptualized the topic. Following this, we searched for key terms

(“politics,” “political ideology,” “political identity,” and “political affiliation”) in applied

psychology and organizational behavior journals and conference proceedings. Given the

surprisingly limited number of articles found within the organizational science journals, we also

searched for these key terms plus “workplace,” “organization,” and “work” in political science

journals (e.g., Political Psychology, Political Behavior, Public Opinion Quarterly). We then

Page 4 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


reviewed our literature and excluded articles if they either focused on electoral or government

decisions (e.g., political science rather than organizational science) or referred to the concept of

organizational politics (e.g., forming coalitions to gain power; e.g., Ferris & Kacmar, 1992).

Based on our review of this literature, we structured this review as follows. First, we offer

an integrative conceptualization of the topic as studied in political science, political psychology,

and organizational science. Next, we organize the evidence of political ideology in organizations

around two dominant paradigms: (1) political values and strategic decisions and (2) political

identity and social dynamics. We conclude with future directions related to expanded theoretical

development, novel methodological approaches, and ideas for interventions and practices.

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND DIFFERENTIATION

Political ideologies are widely shared and deeply held beliefs regarding how a society

ought to be structured (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009). While scholars have debated the

underlying components (Converse, 1964; Parsons, 1951), most agree that political ideology

represents a schema of interconnected attitudes, beliefs, and values that enable people to

organize and process social and political information (Erikson & Tedin, 2003; Jacoby, 1991). We

present three lenses of political ideology conceptualization in the literature: political ideology as

values, as identity, and as party affiliation. We then differentiate political ideology from other

individual differences to explain why political ideology deserves focused attention in

organizations.

Conceptualization: Three Lenses of Political Ideology

Political ideology is complex and has been conceptualized differently in the fields of

political science, organizational science, and political psychology. Based on our review of the

literature, we conclude that there are three dominant conceptualizations, or lenses, which we

Page 5 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


synthesize in Figure 1. The hierarchical positioning indicates that each lens builds on the one

below it and that the higher lenses are more known, meaning the individual is more likely to be

aware of them and they are more behavioral and thus more visible to others in the environment.

Specifically, the first lens at the bottom of the figure focuses on values or beliefs (Jost, 2006),

which are not directly observable. The second lens views political ideology as a form of social

identity (Levitin & Miller, 1979), as part of one’s self-concept that can be inferred by others via

behavioral cues. Finally, the third lens, at the top, focuses on party affiliation as tied to behaviors

(Goren, Federico, & Kittilson, 2009), such as campaigning for or donating to a certain political

party. This final lens is the most visible to the self and others. In the following section, we

explain these conceptualizations and discuss measurement techniques associated with each.1

-----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here

------------------------------------

Cognitive lens: Political ideology as values. A values-based perspective conceptualizes

political ideology as a stable individual difference, or a “predisposition” (Hibbing, Smith, &

Alford, 2014), such that the beliefs are deeply held and likely to remain consistent throughout the

life course. From this lens, political ideology represents a schema of related values (Jost, 2006;

Tedin, 1987) or beliefs that some behaviors are preferable to others (Rokeach, 1973: 160). These

values or philosophies exist across a spectrum of left (liberal values; e.g., liberalism) to right

(conservative values; e.g., conservatism) – at present, this terminology is widely utilized and

accepted to generalizes across countries and nationalities (Ware, 1996).

The defining values of liberalism and conservatism differ in many ways. For example,

liberals tend to be concerned with social justice, economic equality, market controls, and planned

changes to society (Jost, 2006). Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to value free markets,

Page 6 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


individualism, respect for authority, and differential economic rewards (McClosky & Zaller,

1984). While values are invisible to the naked eye (unseen by others), they are relatively known

to an individual and represent what the individual believes (e.g., “I believe in social justice” or “I

believe in free markets”).

Despite a vast array of values differences, research suggests that there are broad

underlying distinctions at the heart of these different beliefs which are interrelated and threefold:

the extent to which an individual (1) advocates for social change vs. tradition, (2) advocates for

equality vs. hierarchy, and (3) emphasizes contextual factors vs. personal agency in explaining

outcomes and circumstances (Erickson & Tedin, 2003; Jost et al., 2009; Skitka & Tetlock, 1993).

Put differently, those high in liberalism value social change and tend to focus on the situational

and contextual factors that impede equality of outcomes, while those high in conservatism value

traditionalism and accept status hierarchy, believing in the agency of individuals to change their

position (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009). These values are not mutually exclusive, however:

conservatives may highly value meritocracy—for example—but that does not mean they are

anti-egalitarian (or vice versa for liberals); rather, they more strongly believe in meritocracy as

the right way to structure society.

In terms of measurement, most scholars using a value-based lens see this construct as

unidimensional, with liberalism at one end of a continuum (left) and conservatism at the other

(right). As such, political ideology is operationalized using a self-reported single-item continuum

ranging from “Very liberal” to “Very conservative” (e.g., Inbar & Lammers, 2015; Rock &

Janoff-Bulman, 2010; Tetlock, Vieider, Patil, & Grant, 2013). While some scholars have

advocated for a multi-dimensional approach where differentiation can be made regarding social

and economic values (e.g., one may be fiscally conservative but socially liberal; Feldman &

Page 7 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Johnston, 2014), a unidimensional approach is still widely utilized in both the political and

organizational sciences. As an alternative to the self-report continuum, organizational scholars

have used archival political donation data to infer political values (Chin, Hambrick & Treviño,

2013), thus using a behavioral approach as a proxy for a values-based conceptualization.2

Social lens: Political ideology as identity. Scholars in the field of political science have

focused on political ideology as identification with a social group (Greene, 1999; Huddy, 2001;

Huddy, Mason, & Aarøe, 2015; Mason, 2018). The identity-based approach was first introduced

in political science by Levitin and Miller (1979), with more recent scholars referring to

“ideological social identity” (Devine, 2015), “ideological identity” (Malka & Lelkes, 2010), and

“symbolic ideology” (Ellis & Stimson, 2012). These scholars all focus on how the ideological

labels of “liberal” and “conservative” confer a personal connection to a group, even if these

identities are not always precisely connected to the associated underlying values and beliefs

(Ellis & Stimson, 2012; Malka & Lelkes, 2010). In other words, while the labels of “liberal” and

“conservative” often represent underlying value beliefs (regarding hierarchy and inequality, for

example), for some individuals these labels may only hold symbolic meanings (e.g., represent

tribal memberships), and are not representative of deeper value beliefs (Ellis & Stimson, 2012).

These symbolic memberships can still be quite powerful in motivating behaviors and actions as

they help individuals make sense of their social world.

Through a social identity lens, political ideology is best understood as self-defining and

self-referential (e.g., “I am”). For example, one might say “I am a conservative” or “I am a

liberal” not only to affiliate themselves with a group whose members they perceive as similar to

them, but also to differentiate themselves from members of another group. When an individual

views membership in a political group as part of their self-definition, the individual has strong

Page 8 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


emotional reactions to events that affect the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), such as when their

political party or a rival party wins an election (Lench, Tibbett, & Bench 2016; Lench et al.,

2019). Thus, this lens can explain attitudes and hostility toward political out-groups (Iyengar et

al., 2012; Malka & Lelkes, 2010).

Measurement of political ideology by scholars using an identity lens includes asking

individuals to endorse a category (e.g., liberal, conservative, or moderate) or rating on a

continuum (e.g., very liberal to very conservative; Talaifar & Swann, 2019), similar to the values

approach. More specific to the identity-based conceptualization are self-reported assessments of

political group as a part of one’s self-concept (Huddy et al., 2015). For example, the item,

“When talking about [liberals/conservatives], how often do you use ‘we’ instead of ‘they’?”,

predicts distance from the out-group regardless of actual similarity or difference on issues and

values (Mason, 2018).

Behavioral lens: Political ideology as party affiliation. The third approach to

conceptualizing political ideology, found at the top of Figure 1, is political affiliation, which

represents the specific political parties that one is likely to donate to, campaign for, and vote for.

Though the value- and identity-based views of political ideology (as a left-right continuum) can

be generalized across countries and populations, political affiliation is specific to the political

parties and governmental institutions of a nation (i.e., Tories in the UK, Social Democrats in

Germany). For example, in the United States, most people affiliate with one of two political

parties (Pew Research Center, 2016): Democrat (left) or Republican (right). Some self-categorize

as independent but tend to lean liberal or conservative (Carmines & D’Amico, 2015), and a

smaller number endorse Libertarian (further right) and Green (further left) parties. Some nations

Page 9 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


have multiple dominant political parties (e.g., France, United Kingdom), and others have one

(e.g., China), though every party leans toward either liberal or conservative values.

According to this party affiliation lens, behaviors toward a political party (e.g.,

campaigning, donating, and voting) are proxies for underlying values and identity (Goren et al.,

2009), as seen at the top of Figure 1. These behaviors are also quite visible— campaign bumper

stickers, hats, and pins that are disseminated during election years (but exist long after) serve as

explicit cues of affiliation to all, political donations are publicly available information to any

who seek it, and voting reveals to the actor (and others if disclosed) their affiliation of choice. In

recent years, political affiliation (e.g., Democrat or Republican) has become one of the most

salient characteristics that unites or divides people (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018).

When measuring political affiliation, scholars use self-reported categories (e.g., political

party; Talaifar & Swann, 2019), a self-rating scale on a continuum from strong Democrat to

strong Republican (Rock & Janoff-Bulman, 2010), or publicly available archival records of

political behavior (e.g., donations to a political party; Chin, Hambrick, & Treviño, 2013; Gupta,

Briscoe, & Hambrick, 2017b). Archival indicators of donations comprise the dominant approach

within the organizational sciences because they provide behavioral and accessible data for hard-

to-survey populations (e.g., executives; Chin et al., 2013). Notably, party affiliation may be used

as a proxy for underlying values and identity, but people may not always act in ways consistent

with their internal beliefs and values (e.g., donating in strategic, rather than belief-driven, ways).

Differentiating Political Ideology from Related Constructs

In order to justify focused attention on political ideology in organizations, it is important

to demonstrate how it differs from other more-established individual and group differences.

Page 10 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Religious ideology. Religiosity and religious identities of workers are of rising interest in

organizational scholarship (Gebert et al., 2014; King, Stewart, & McKay, 2017; Jones & King,

2014). Conceptually, political ideology and religious ideology both reflect the strength of beliefs

and values that guide behavior, with both religiosity and conservativism having values-based

foundations related to tradition and moral purity (Graham et al., 2009). Both of these ideologies

are often formed early in life and can influence each other; however, they can also diverge over

time (Green, 1999; Margolis, 2017). In fact, researchers found that in a representative sample of

Americans, political conservatism was positively but weakly correlated with religiosity (r = .17;

Malka et al., 2012). The two were similarly correlated among a representative sample of Italians

(r = .20; Dallago, Cima, Roccato, Ricolfi, & Mirisola, 2008). This evidence suggests the two

constructs are weakly associated such that they are independent constructs, each meriting

particular attention.

We argue that there are two distinct reasons for focusing on the effects of political

ideology in organizational scholarship rather than simply inferring that it has effects similar to

those of religious ideology. The study of religious ideology in the workplace is typically the

study of minority groups that tend to be stigmatized in society (King, McKay & Stewart, 2014).

Political identity is distinct from these religious identities, in that being liberal or conservative is

only a source of stigma depending on the social context. For example, a Muslim worker is part of

a numerical minority group whose members tend to be stigmatized in the United States

workforce (King & Ahmad, 2010), but a strongly conservative or liberal worker is likely

stigmatized only if working in a place where the worker’s colleagues skew in the opposite

ideological direction. A social conservative is a minority if they work as a professor in a liberal

arts college but not if they move to work as a consultant in the natural gas drilling industry

Page 11 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


(Bonica, 2014). This fluidity means that the stigmatization on the basis of political ideology is

dependent on the social context in which one is embedded, making it distinct from most religious

groups that are numerical minorities across time and context. Such variability leads to unique

questions about how employees’ political ideologies fit—or do not fit—with their organizations’

political ideology.

People feel more intensely hostile toward those affiliated with a rival political party than

they do toward other minority groups, including Muslims and gay and lesbian individuals

(Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018). While there are federal legal protections for religious beliefs, there

are no national laws protecting people from discrimination based on political beliefs.3 Though

legal protections do not stop all discrimination toward protected classes (King & Ahmad, 2010;

Martinez, Hebl, Smith, & Sabat, 2017), a lack of legal protection for political differences means

that negative political feelings may result in biased treatment that goes unpenalized. The

combination of stronger negative emotions and a lack of legal protection suggests discrimination

due to political views may be more likely than discrimination due to other factors.

Dispositional differences. Political ideology is associated with personal dispositional

tendencies and preferences. Though a full review of these relationships is beyond the scope of

this paper, we investigate those often used in organizational scholarship: namely, the Big Five

personality traits and cognitive tendencies.

Political ideology is correlated with two Big Five traits: openness to experience (higher if

more liberal) and conscientiousness (higher if more conservative; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, &

Dowling, 2011). Given that openness is related to creativity and conscientiousness is predictive

of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), one might draw the conclusion that liberals are

more creative and conservatives perform better. However, scholars have suggested that the

Page 12 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


openness scale may measure experiences that tend to be valued more by liberals than

conservatives, leading to an artificial difference in their openness to experience score (e.g.,

secular arts, moral relativism; Duarte et al., 2015). In general, these findings are consistent with

value preferences for change/risk versus tradition/stability.

Political ideology is also linked to cognitive styles and preferences, such as the desire for

cognitive complexity and closure. Studies have shown that liberals are more comfortable with

cognitively complex and ambiguous activities than conservatives (Jost et al., 2003, 2008; Jost,

2017). Again, these findings may be due to methods used, given that the political ideology

difference seems to depend on type of task (Conway et al., 2016) or due to minor adjustments

that are made to commonly used scales (Conway, Houck, Gornick, & Repke, 2018; Ditto et al.,

2019; Winegard, Clark, Hast, & Baumeister, under review). While there is substantial research

and debate within the field of political psychology regarding the underlying dispositions and

motivational tendencies of liberals and conservatives, to date, we cannot assume that knowing

one’s personality or cognitive preferences is the same as knowing one’s political ideology.

HOW POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AFFECTS ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

In this section we organize our review of political ideology in organizations according to

the two main approaches in the literature: (1) the dominant approach is political ideology as

values that affect strategic decisions via motivated reasoning and biased information processing,

and (2) the emerging focus is on political ideology as identity that can influence social dynamics

at work.

Political Ideology as Values: Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations

Scholars across psychology, political science, and management have long been interested

in how individuals make decisions with limited time and incomplete information (Hambrick &

Page 13 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Mason, 1984; Simon, 1997). Within the field of management, theories such as bounded

rationality (Simon, 1997) and upper echelons (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) suggest that managers

and leaders frequently use intuition, beliefs, and values to make decisions more quickly and

effortlessly rather than deploying a more deliberate approach that produces more accurate

decisions (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Kahneman, 2003). In particular, political ideology scholars

rely on the idea of motivated reasoning, a type of information processing in which accuracy is

less important than the desire to meet a cognitive goal or personal need (Kunda, 1990).

Motivated reasoning explains how political ideology can bias attention and information

processing (Jost, 2006; Jost et al., 2009; Kahan, 2013). Political ideology represents values and

beliefs that together serve as a cognitive filter when gathering and evaluating information, which

can lead to biased conclusions (Kahan et al., 2013; Kunda, 1990). Put differently, political

ideology affects decision-making because individuals arrive at the conclusions they want to be

true rather than those that are objectively more accurate, so long as they can (consciously or not)

justify their decisions (Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2013; Kunda, 1990).

Individuals and groups can be charged with gathering information and making decisions.

While political ideology originates in the cognitions and behaviors of individuals, through shared

interactions it can manifest as a higher order, collective phenomenon (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000:

55). In other words, individual-level political ideology can be aggregated to the team- or

organizational-level and used to represent the political leaning (highly liberal or conservative) of

decision-makers to understand information processing biases of the collective (Christensen,

Dhaliwal, Boivie, & Graffin, 2015; Gupta & Wowak, 2017).

In the following subsections, we review organizational literature that has examined the

role of political ideology as source of cognitive bias in decision making. We organize our review

Page 14 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


around how the values (at the individual or group level) that differentiate conservatives and

liberals have been shown to influence organizational information processing and decisions about

(1) resource allocation, (2) organizational strategy and governance, and (3) financial investment.

Resource allocation decisions: Values of egalitarianism versus hierarchy. The

allocation of limited resources such as pay and promotions can be influenced by political

ideology. As previously noted, egalitarianism is a key component of political ideology: Liberals

tend to place greater value on achieving social and economic equality, whereas conservatives

have a greater tolerance for unequal outcomes (e.g., hierarchy), believing that meritocracy should

determine the distribution of resources (Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008; Skitka & Tetlock, 1993).

According to this logic, liberals have a preference for processes and outcomes that distribute

resources more evenly, and conservatives are more comfortable with disparities. These

preferences are seen in the greater likelihood of liberal CEOs compared to conservative CEOs to

provide the same financial resources (capital allocation) across units within their firms (Gupta,

Briscoe, & Hambrick, 2018a) and to ensure pay equity within the top management teams of their

organizations (Chin & Semadeni, 2017).

Political ideology may also influence organizational decisions and policies that address

gender disparity (Lyness & Grotto, 2018). Given the liberal focus on the value of egalitarianism,

employees with liberal ideologies may be more likely than their conservative peers to recognize

societal inequities; they may also be more motivated to protect those lower in the status

hierarchy (Graham et al., 2009). In contrast, those with more conservative ideologies are more

likely to focus on individual merit and consider internal attributes as explanations of success

(Tetlock et al., 2013). This value differentiation explains why liberal decision-makers are more

likely to hire and promote female team and board members than are conservative decision-

Page 15 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


makers (Carnahan & Greenwood, 2018; McSweeney, McSweeney, Oliver, Park, & Withers,

2018). Similarly, employees who work under more liberal supervisors experience less gender

disparity in performance-based pay than those who work under conservative supervisors

(Briscoe & Joshi, 2017). Note that these authors do not conclude that conservative managers are

more “sexist” than liberal managers but rather that liberal and conservative managers utilize

different filters and place emphasis on different pieces of information due to their values.

Similarly, liberal managers take into account the systemic and situational factors that influence

an individual’s output (i.e., process accountability), and more conservative managers focus on

the quantity and quality of the output itself (i.e., outcome accountability; Tetlock et al., 2013),

consistent with a focus on internal attributes and merit.

Corporate strategy and governance decisions: Broad versus narrow view of

stakeholders. Leadership decisions about corporate strategy and governance are determined by

leaders’ perceptions of who constitutes key stakeholders and thus to whom the leaders are

accountable. Political ideology affects leaders’ estimation of those to whom the organization is

responsible, whether the direct stakeholders alone (narrow) or the stakeholders as well as the

community in which the leaders’ organization are embedded (broad). Top management is

obligated to consider stakeholders during strategic decisions (Andrews, 1971), but more liberal

managers may also feel accountable to the broader society, community, and world, given their

value of egalitarianism and their tendency towards social change and concern (Tetlock, 2000).

As such, those with more liberal political ideologies place emphasis on organizational initiatives,

strategies, and governance models that both take responsibility for and share accountability with

individuals inside (employees) and outside (e.g., the community, customers) the organization

(Tetlock, 2000). Alternatively, conservative managers, who place emphasis on hierarchy and

Page 16 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


merit, give preference to local organizational shareholders (the most direct stakeholders in the

company) and preferring models of governance that place accountability in the hands of few

(Gupta, Wowak & Boeker, 2017a; Tetlock, 2000).

These distinctions emerge clearly when focusing on corporate social responsibility

(CSR) initiatives, which are “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the

interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001: 117). CSR

includes an organization’s investments of time and money to support diversity and community

relations, environmental protection, and human rights (Garriga & Melé, 2004), all of which

move beyond internal shareholders to focus on organizational stakeholders. As expected based

on the values represented by their political ideologies, liberal CEOs in the United States are more

likely than conservative CEOs to put forth CSR initiatives (Chin et al., 2013; Gupta, Nadkarni, &

Mariam, 2018b). Furthermore, the more liberal its members are on average (e.g., liberal

organization ideology), the more likely a company is to adopt and promote CSR policies (Gupta

et al., 2017b). For instance, Chinese leaders with stronger left-wing political ideologies were

more likely to adopt CSR strategies—specifically for environmental protection—than those who

were less ideologically left (Jiang, Zalan, Tse, & Shen, 2018; Ou, Li, Jiang, & Deng, 2017). This

emerging body of work on the ideology – CSR relationship has primarily used archival data

(e.g., donations or party memberships) to predict CSR decisions; however, Jiang and colleagues

(2018) used an experimental design and found consistent results.

Another organizational decision is how to respond to outsider advocacy, which refers to

the work of activists to encourage organizations to change policies. For example, pressure from

labor activists and campus-organizers in the 1990s compelled Nike to change their policies

regarding the working conditions of their overseas factories (Anderson, 2015). Leaders holding

Page 17 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


more liberal political ideologies are more likely to see their organizations as embedded in the

broader community and thus recognize activists’ claims and their firms’ activities as

interconnected. Furthermore, top management teams whose members are, on average, more

liberal have been found to be more receptive to activist groups than more conservative teams

(Neville & Gamache, 2018). Similarly, more conservative organizations are less receptive to

activists, using impression management tactics to avoid taking a stand on the controversial topics

(Gupta & Briscoe, 2019).

Finally, decisions that are made about how to best structure and govern an organization

may be influenced by political ideology. Decision-makers with more conservative political

values are more likely to restructure an organization by downsizing than are those with more

liberal values (Gupta et al., 2018b). This is consistent with conservatives’ valuing of

shareholders (by maximizing profits) over the community (by retaining workers; Gupta et al.,

2018b; Kavadis & Sidhu, 2017; Tetlock, 2000). Taken together, this research suggests that the

more liberal or conservative ideologies of individual leaders, top management teams, and

organizational members in the aggregate lead them toward strategic choices and governance

practices that focus on shareholders or broaden their view to include community stakeholders.

Financial investment decisions: Values of change versus stability. Finally, leaders are

tasked with making decisions about how to manage organizational assets and resources. Using

political ideology as a proxy for risk-propensity, scholars found that liberal CEOs were more

likely to engage in the risky strategy of corporate tax avoidance than conservative CEOs which is

consistent with the different values that the two groups place on change and stability

(Christensen et al., 2015). The value of stability may also explain why ideologically conservative

leaders hired and promoted male rather than female lawyers (Briscoe & Joshi, 2017; Carnahan &

Page 18 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Greenwood, 2018), as males are perceived to be less risky in that profession (Nair, Gupta, &

Wowak, 2018). However, the link between political ideology and other indicators of valuing

change and risk, such as entrepreneurship and innovation, is unknown.

Political Ideology as Identity: Social Dynamics

The secondary theme in the literature is how political ideology influences the way

employees interact with each other. This literature largely draws on psychological theories of

social identity and self-categorization of in-groups and out-groups (Huddy, 2001; Hogg & Terry,

2000). Such categorization processes inherently create conflict as individuals attribute positive

qualities to their group, the in-group, and negative qualities to the out-group (Tajfel & Turner,

1986). Indeed, research has demonstrated that members of opposing political parties have more

negative affect toward out-group members than they do towards members of other salient groups

such as those based on ethnicity, religion, or gender (Iyengar et al., 2012). Thus, while political

ideology as values influences cognition and decision-making, political ideology as identity

influences social dynamics among members.

We organize the research into three categories: (1) stereotyping, or how political ideology

is a heuristic or social cue that biases judgments of and behavior towards others; (2) diversity and

conflict, or how political ideology differences affect group interactions; and (3) perceived fit, or

how similarity in political ideology (e.g., person with organization) affects outcomes.

Stereotypes and bias based on others’ political ideologies. As with other forms of

social identity & group membership, political ideology can activate stereotypes. Stereotypes

refer to overgeneralized beliefs about a group that may be applied to an individual based on their

group membership (McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980). Stereotypes act as heuristics or mental

shortcuts, allowing individuals to quickly form judgments without having to process a lot of

Page 19 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


information (Kunda & Spencer, 2003). In learning that someone holds a liberal political

ideology, one may assume the person also supports LGBT rights, affecting future interactions.

Similarly, knowledge that an employee supports LGBT rights (e.g., seeing a rainbow sticker on

their door) may be used to infer the person holds a liberal political view (Mason & Wronski,

2018). Importantly, individuals may infer one’s political ideology not only from overt cues (e.g.,

bumper stickers or hats) and issue-relevant conversations but also from subtle indicators of

cultural preferences, such as the TV shows one watches, the car one drives and the food one eats

(Deichert, 2019).

As with all stereotypes, those derived from people’s political ideologies can be biased.

Individuals form stereotypes about others’ underlying values and tendencies based on their

political affiliation, but these stereotypes are likely to be more positive when both an individual

and their interlocutor share a political identity. For example, liberals perceive other liberals to be

“caring” and “open-minded,” whereas they perceive conservatives to be “prejudiced” and “close-

minded.” Similarly, conservatives see other conservatives as “honest” and “individualistic,”

whereas they see liberals as “lazy” and “unrealistic” (i.e., “bleeding heart”; Rothschild, Howat,

Shafranek, & Busby, 2018). Such stereotyping can lead to prejudicial actions (Mackie & Smith,

1998), such as the expression of disgust or hatred towards members of the other group (Iyengar

et al., 2012). Stereotypes based on political ideology have implications for how organizational

members judge, make decisions about, and interact with each other.

Theoretical models suggesting that political ideology is a determinant of interpersonal

bias during the selection process have recently emerged (Johnson & Roberto, 2018; Roth,

Goldberg & Thatcher, 2017). Leveraging principles of similarity-attraction and the attraction-

selection-attrition model (Byrne, 1969; Schneider, 1987), the models propose that managers are

Page 20 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


less likely to interview or hire applicants who hold political ideologies different from their own

(Johnston & Roberto, 2018; Roth et al., 2017). Gift and Gift (2015) found that résumés

indicating a job candidate supports conservative causes received significantly fewer callbacks in

counties that leaned heavily liberal, whereas the opposite was true in counties that leaned

conservative. Across two experimental résumé studies, similarity in political identity (i.e., shared

party affiliation between the evaluator and applicant) was found to predict greater hireability of

potential job candidates; this favorable bias was stronger than a negative bias against dissimilar

others (Griffith, Baur, & Buckley, 2018; Roth et al., 2019). At the same time, academics

explicitly stated that they would not hire and/or would discriminate against ideologically

dissimilar others when reviewing their work (Inbar & Lammers, 2015). Such bias may result in

hiring a less-qualified applicant, though it is likely—but not directly studied—that job candidates

conceal their political ideology in their applications.

Diversity and teamwork. In order for individuals in groups or teams to work together

effectively, they must communicate, exchange information, and coordinate with one another

(Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Having some forms of diversity—especially diversity in

skills and knowledge—can benefit team performance (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs,

2011). Yet diversity can also evoke conflict and harm performance (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007).

Political ideology diversity is functional if it leads to differences in processing information but

dysfunctional if it produces hostility and conflict (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).

There is limited evidence for how political ideology diversity affects a team. One study in

Nature examined how the political ideology of Wikipedia editors affects their website pages,

finding that writing teams with greater political diversity (e.g., balanced numbers of liberal and

conservative editors) produced higher-quality articles than homogeneous (skewed one way or the

Page 21 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


other) teams (Shi et al., 2019). Notably, the editors worked with one another virtually and

adhered to strict rules for group deliberation and decisions (i.e., wiki-page moderators) that could

have reduced conflict. Another study demonstrated that political ideology affected beliefs about

team members, with individuals seeing colleagues holding the same political ideology as

offering greater expertise and counsel than those colleagues of a different political ideology. This

occurred even when the individuals were explicitly told that a colleague with a different political

ideology had more expertise (Marks, Copland, Loh, Sustein & Sharot, 2019). This similarity bias

may lead ideologically diverse teams to avoid sharing information and working with others

because of political dissimilarity. To date, however, there are no known studies assessing the role

of political ideology diversity in ongoing or face-to-face workplace teams.

Though there is little direct evidence for how political ideology diversity affects team

processes, there is reason to believe value-based diversity may evoke conflict and harm

performance. Though not the same as political ideology, diversity in religious ideology increases

relational conflict under certain conditions, such as when identity salience is high or there are

extreme views (Gebert et al., 2014). In fact, individuals tend to have strong negative emotions

(i.e., disgust, hatred) toward political outgroups and may lash out or undermine those who voted

for the rival candidate (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).

Perceived fit of political ideology in organizations. The extent of similarity in values

between applicants and organizations is linked to attraction and selection into organizations

(Cable & Judge, 1997; Schneider, 1987). Individuals consider how their values and tendencies

match those of the organization (person-organization [P-O] fit), group or team (person-group [P-

G] fit), and supervisor (person-supervisor [P-S] fit), with greater perceived fit related to higher

job satisfaction, job performance and well-being (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson;

Page 22 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


2005). Recent work has shown that political ideology contributes to fit perceptions in

organizations (Johnston & Roberto, 2018; Roth et al., 2017; van Vianen, 2018). Individuals who

perceived political ideology fit with their supervisors (i.e., P-S fit) experienced less job-related

stress and higher job satisfaction than those with lower perceptions of fit (Foley, Offerman, &

Lanzo, 2018). Similarly, the greater perceived political ideology dissimilarity among coworkers

(i.e., P-G fit) the more distress, with implications for job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover

intentions (He, Costa, Walker, Miner, & Wooderson, 2019).

In general, fit has implications for the retention of employees (Schneider, 1987), though

few studies have assessed if and when political ideology incongruence results in quitting. In one

study, political ideology misfit of members with their organization predicted turnover,

specifically for conservative employees more than their liberal peers (Bermiss & McDonald,

2018). Employees who perceive misfit may not be able to leave, suggesting that there may be

conservative employees working in liberally skewed teams/organizations and vice versa. Such

employees may feel stigmatized or fear saying the wrong thing, with termination possible if the

employees’ comments do not align with the organizational ideology, as seen at Google and

Apple (Wakabayashi, 2017). In fact, holding a political ideology different than that of the

majority may be so risky that individuals put on a “facade of conformity” to fit in (Hewlin,

2003), which is draining and costly for health and performance (Hewlin, Dumas & Burnett,

2017). More research is needed on how political misfits manage their dissimilarity in

organizations, and if strategies look different from other types of misfits (e.g., demographic).

Finally, the fit of a leader’s and organizational members’ political ideology can enable or

constrain the extent to which the leader’s ideology influences organizational practices and

decisions. Liberal CEOs with predominantly liberal organizational members allocated resources

Page 23 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


more evenly across multi-business unit firms than their conservative peers (Gupta et al., 2018a),

strongly left-leaning CEOs in China allocated more money towards CSR when employees also

tended to be strongly socialist (Ou et al., 2017), and liberal CEOs were more likely to provide

equal pay when compensation committees were more liberal than conservative (Chin &

Semadeni, 2017). Further, organizational members may consider political ideology fit with top

decision-makers before implementing new practices and policies at work: for example, the

formation of LGBT-supportive groups was more likely to occur when the CEO was perceived to

be liberal rather than conservative (Briscoe, Chin, & Hambrick, 2014). The importance of fit is

represented in a recent theoretical model on how leader-organization political ideological fit

enables CEOs’ socio-political activism (their personal and public expression of a stance on a

political issue) and whether employees feel engagement at work (Hambrick & Wowak, 2019).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN ORGANIZATIONS

Based on our review, the majority of research on political ideology in organizations treats

political ideology as indicating certain values and beliefs, which determine leader’s strategic

decisions, with less attention to political ideology as an identity, which affects members’ social

dynamics. We see an identity lens—and its integration with the value lens—as a critical area of

future development, given the political polarization and “us versus them” aspect of politics today

(Iyengar, et al., 2012; Pew, 2017). Below we specifically call for research that (1) conceptualizes

political ideology as a personal identity, recognizing this may vary in strength and consistency

with underlying values, (2) identifies contextual factors that determine for whom, when and

where political identity and values are most salient and influential at work, (3) incorporates

political ideology with workplace diversity, drawing on diversity theorizing and contributing to

Page 24 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


that body of evidence (4) considers cross-level fit in political ideology and (5) acknowledges and

accounts for the potential of researchers’ own political biases. (See Table 1 for a summary)

-----------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here

------------------------------------

Conceptual Expansion of Political Ideology in Organizations

Our review revealed that the vast majority of organizational research focuses on how

political ideology contributed to strategic decisions by representing values (Kunda, 1990;

Hambrick & Mason, 1984), but much less on the “who am I” approaches of identity and

affiliation. Identity research that does exist is limited to a unidimensional (e.g., liberal-

conservative) conceptualization, which is under debate in the political sciences (Feldman &

Johnston, 2014; Morgan & Wisneski, 2017). Notably, multidimensional approaches to

measurement and theory are beginning to emerge (e.g., one can be conservative and liberal on

social versus fiscal dimensions; Feldman & Johnston, 2014; Chin, Zhang, Jahanshahi, &

Nadkarni, 2018; Roumpi, 2015). We strongly suggest that organizational scholars take a

multidimensional approach in their conceptualization of political ideology, and particularly

incorporate more theorizing and measurement drawing on social identity.

One multidimensional approach to political ideology is to assess political values, identity

and affiliation in the same study, and determine their alignment as a predictor of outcomes. As

noted earlier, the label of “liberal” and “conservative” may only hold symbolic meaning as a

tribal identity or affiliation and may not always be representative of the values and beliefs one

holds (Ellis & Stimson, 2012). Further, when this value-identity dissonance is made salient

during decision-making or conversations, the employee is likely to feel negatively and strive to

bring values and expressed social identities in line (Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, & Levy,

Page 25 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


2015). In short, the independence of political values and identities, and potential dissonance

between them, suggests better prediction of decisions and social behavior when examined jointly

than either one alone.

We also propose modeling the joint effects of political values/identity (i.e., liberal or

conservative) with the extent to which those beliefs and identity are central to one’s self concept

(i.e., identity centrality; e.g., Swann & Bosson, 2010; Terry & Hogg, 1996). Employees hold

many identities as part of the self, such as their gender and race, as well as occupational and

organizational membership, but those that are more important or central to one’s self are more

likely to predict how one processes information and enacts social behavior (Ashforth & Mael,

1989; Sellers et al., 1998). As such, political ideology as an affiliation should more clearly

predict organizational decisions and behavior when political identity is a strongly held aspect of

the self (Chen & Urminsky, 2019), suggesting an interaction effect that has yet been fully tested.

At an extreme level, political identity fusion, where one feels a visceral sense of oneness

with their political group or party that is both social and personal—means that when the political

party is denigrated either by others or via the loss of an election, one feels personally threatened

and motivated to take extreme actions to defend the group (Swann & Buhrmester, 2015). The

integration of an identity fusion lens would be fruitful to explain ingroup favoritism in decision-

making and prosocial/antisocial behavior (Swann, Jetten, Gómez, Whitehouse, & Bastian, 2012).

Currently, organizational scholars using donations to political parties as a way to infer the

political ideological values and identities of individuals, however such indirect metrics fail to

capture identity centrality. Political science scholars have created measure that ask directly about

individual’s identification with their partisan view (e.g., Huddy et al., 2015; Bankert, Huddy, &

Rosema, 2017). We suggest drawing on social identity measures of identity centrality (e.g.,

Page 26 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


choosing a visual representation of how much the self-overlaps with political identity; items

about how important one’s political affiliation is) when direct assessment is possible (e.g., survey

or experimental research). Further, scholars might consider using the implicit association test

(IAT), as individuals may associate with a political party at a visceral, automatic level (Deichert,

2019; Theodoridis, 2017). Such a measure could be particularly useful with experimental designs

when explicit self-ratings might reveal the study’s purpose (Jost, 2019; Deichert, 2019), or when

employees work in a highly skewed organization and may not accurately indicate a minority

view (i.e., social desirability bias). Overall, we should use the social identity psychology

literature to conceptualize and measure political ideology to better understand its influence on

decisions about and behavior toward others in organizations.

Contextual Determinants of Political Ideology in Organizations

Political ideology is expected to be suppressed at work (SHRM, 2016), but as stated in

one article: “In the media, workplace, and daily social interactions, political cues abound. Thus,

the salience of one’s political identity can be increased when one least expects it” (Kim, Han,

Duhacheck & Tormala, 2018, p. 178). Future scholarship must develop conceptual models and

test the contextual conditions that make one’s political views salient to organizational members

(Johns, 2006). Context “includes ambient background stimuli, more salient situational features,

and changes in these variables over time” (Johns, 2018, p. 22). Future scholars need to consider

for whom, when, and where political ideology tends to be activated—or dormant—to understand

when it is likely to influence organizational decisions and social dynamics.

As indicated above, people differ in how central their political identity is to their sense of

self. Moreover, political events or conditions make salient one’s political ideology such that it is

even more likely to influence one’s decisions and behavior (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). In one

Page 27 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


study, when participants’ political affiliations were made salient by asking them to describe

words or phrase associated with their own political party, their endorsement of politically-

consistent values for equality versus hierarchy was strengthened compared to a control condition

(Kim et al. 2018). Thus, we need to consider what situations makes the political values and

identity salient to best predict decisions and behavior.

In line with event systems theory, politically relevant events, such as elections or key

legal rulings, can make salient organizational members’ political ideology at work (Morgeson,

Mitchell & Liu, 2015). During an election year, political debates and animosity are constantly in

the news (Iyengar et al., 2014), making political ideology more salient and members more aware

of their differences. In fact, a recent study found that during the weeks prior to the U.S.

Presidential election of 2016, there was an increase in identity fusion—where the self and

political group identity merge as one (Misch, Fergusson & Dunham, 2018), which then predicted

prosocial ingroup behavior (e.g., donations to the party). This might also suggest more negative

outgroup behavior would occur: Elections increase perceived political differences and incivility

(He et al., 2019), and make it likely that teams have ideological ambivalence (e.g., some feel

very positive about an election outcome, while others feel very negative; Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt,

& Pradies, 2014; Pradies & Pratt, 2010), which can be destabilizing for group affect and

outcomes (Pratt & Pradies, 2011).

Beyond political elections and events, organizational and industry events are likely to

affect political ideology and outcomes. Hambrick and Wowak’s (2019) stakeholder alignment

model suggests that CEO’s socio-political activism can create ripple effects on the engagement

of employees and the ideological composition of the organization, as non-aligned individuals

may exit. A recent Business Roundtable—a group of more than 180 prominent CEOs from

Page 28 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


various industries— endorsed a statement that organizations should serve the interest of all

stakeholders (Harrison, Phillips & Freeman, online first), distinct from the politically

conservative view that shareholders should be paramount (Tetlock, 2000). This industry event

could create a shift in the endorsement of politically-linked values, and in the political ideology

of leaders seen as a good fit to these broad stakeholder values.

Context also includes time, and scholars should study political ideology in more

temporally dynamic ways. Political ideology is thought to be stable over time (Hibbing et al.,

2014); however, the members of a team may change over time, organizational members are not

constant, and the aggregated ideology of an organization may vary due to headquarter

relocations, mergers, or acquisitions. Event systems theory might be a useful framework, which

proposes when, why, and how events might have top-down and bottom-up effects on

organizations (Morgeson, Mitchell, & Liu, 2015). Event disruption—defined as when the

external situation has changed—can occur when an election results in moving from a more

liberal to a more conservative national leader with implications for business laws, or can occur as

an organization’s headquarters moves from a primarily conservative to a primarily liberal

location. Such event disruption might be expected to influence the salience of the organizational

ideology of the organization and success at interacting with the new public and clients. Scholars

have theorized that founders might have an outsized influence in establishing the ideology of an

organization (Gupta et al., 2017b), the departure of a founder might be an internal event that

could also lead to long term changes to the firm’s political ideology. To answer these questions,

scholars will need to leverage longitudinal research methods and specifically examine or control

for impactful discrete events.

Theoretical Integration of Political Ideology with Diversity

Page 29 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


We strongly encourage scholars to integrate political ideology with work diversity

concepts and theorizing. Strategy scholars have aggregated political ideology to the team level to

represent political skew (highly liberal or conservative) and predict team processes and decision-

making (Christiansen, Dhaliwal, Boivie, & Graffin, 2015, Gupta & Wowak, 2017), but future

research should consider the diversity or extent of separation (or variability) from this average

level (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Conceptualizing political ideology diversity as deep (values)

versus surface (i.e., identity/social category) suggests predictions about how it might

differentially affect group processes and outcomes, providing an intriguing direction for future

research.

Work groups vary in their heterogeneity or similarity on different attributes, and there

have been calls to move away from the focus on demographic or surface-level diversity (i.e.,

gender, race) to more deep-level characteristics (i.e., , values, personal identities) that cannot be

immediately discerned (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Nkomo, Bell, Roberts, Joshi & Thatcher,

2019; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Joshi & Roh, 2009). Similar to political ideology as values and

as identity in our review above, these two forms of diversity may enhance decision making via

information processing, but may also hinder social processes due to social categorization and

conflict (Bell et al., 2011; Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

Political ideology conceptualized as differing values (e.g., for egalitarianism versus hierarchy)

seems like deep-level diversity, which might provide cognitive diversity that helps quality of

outcomes (Shi et al., 2019) but be harmful as those differences emerge over time (Harrison,

Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002). In one study, value-based team diversity did not affect team

performance but did elicit more conflict and less cohesion than teams who had more similar

Page 30 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


values (Woehr, Arciniega, & Poling, 2013); we propose diversity in political values—when

salient—could be even more divisive due to their moralized nature (Graham et al., 2013).

Political identity or party affiliation can also act as a surface-level characteristic if it

known or simply perceived through social information (Deichert, 2019), quickly triggering social

categorization and activating stereotypes and negative emotions that affect team processes

immediately (Iyengar et al., 2012; He et al., 2019). Scholars should test whether employees use

identity management in similar or unique ways to other types of identities, where they disclose,

conceal or subtly signal their political ideology at work (Jones & King, 2014). A single member

who decides to share their authentic (political) self can have a vicarious learning effect, sharing

information about their political values and beliefs with their coworkers and attempting to learn

from them (Follmer, Talbot, Kristof-Brown, Astrove, & Billsberry, 2018). However, if the

organization permits hostile work behaviors towards certain ideologies (i.e., conservative views),

those members may put on a facade of conformity to appear to fit in, linked to more exhaustion

and withdrawal cognitions (Bermiss & McDonald, 2018; Hewlin, 2003, 2009; Miner-Rubino &

Cortina, 2007). These ideas lead to interesting research comparing how managing political

ideological differences compare to other types of diversity and contribute to employee

performance, burnout and withdrawal behaviors.

In politically diverse teams, conflict is likely given group polarization and identity fusion

that may occur around political identities/affiliations (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Swann et al.,

2012). With long-standing teams, one question is whether political identity differences spiral into

“intractable conflicts”, where members’ differing identities are salient and feel more threatened

over time (Rothman, 1997), highly likely given that elections result in winners and losers. The

intractable identity conflict resolution model proposes organizational strategies to help people

Page 31 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


shift their identities and avoid conflict escalation (Fiol, Pratt, & O’Connor, 2009), particularly

during election seasons when political ideology becomes salient. This model suggests ways that

organizations strive to promote higher-order goals and commonalities while still respecting

group differences and others’ perspectives (see also Pratt & Corley, 2007). Perspective-taking

exercises, in which an individual attempts to adopt another person’s values and beliefs, has been

effective in diversity trainings regarding LGBT populations (Lindsey, King, Hebl, & Levine,

2015) and general practices of mindfulness help to enable individuals to overcome reductive

negative stereotypes by seeing multiple perspectives (Fiol & O’Connor, 2003). Overall, such

approaches may help the employee have an identity more strongly fused with that of the

organization than one’s political ideology (Swann et al., 2012).

While organizational scholars are primarily concerned with how diversity impacts work-

related outcomes, exposure to diverse political views at work may have effects beyond the

organizational boundaries. In other words, might the interaction of a very liberal individual and a

very conservative individual at work help reduce negative stereotyping and bias towards

members of the outgroup outside of work (e.g., a family member)? Such notions would fit with

the general principles of the contact hypothesis, as workplaces (more so than other venues of

political discussion) are typically seen as places where individuals have relatively equal status

and pursue common goals (Allport, 1954). Evidence for the contact hypothesis is equivocal

(Paluck, Green & Green, 2018), but whether workplaces could foster understanding across

political party lines by having employees work toward a common goal merits consideration in

this polarized time.

Cross-Level Alignment of Political Ideology in Organizational Research

Page 32 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


The majority of research has focused on the political ideology held by the upper echelons

of the organization and affecting strategic decisions. We call for more research at all levels of the

organization, and particularly consideration of alignment in political ideology that occurs at

multiple levels and changes dynamically, and alignment of our own political views as

researchers (and reviewers) with the research.

Political ideology held at the upper echelons of organizations is proposed to constrain or

enable the influence of political ideology at lower levels, and vice versa (Hambrick & Wowak,

2019). Scholars might find it useful to apply person-organization fit perspectives to political

ideology, particularly assessments of value fit (Li, Kristof-Brown & Nielsen, 2019; Seong et al.,

2015). While we know that cross-level alignment enhances implementation of leaders’ policies,

such as more liberal organizational members supporting CSR (e.g., environmental and diversity-

related initiatives) (Gupta et al., 2017b), empirical research is still needed on how that political

ideology alignment enhances the employees’ engagement and well-being (Hambrick & Wowak,

2019). We need to extend beyond the decision-maker’s perspective (e.g., Gift & Gift, 2015;

Johnston & Roberto, 2018), and determine how applicants use political ideology fit. Do they

manage their political ideology differently depending on organizational-level political ideology,

and does such fit affect attraction to an organization above and beyond the many other predictors

of attraction (Cable & Judge, 1996)? We propose that most newcomers to the job market (e.g.,

the often-studied college students) are unlikely to use political ideology to determine attraction

and selection of companies until they have experienced person-group political ideology misfit,

suggesting predictions that change with job experience.

Another expansion to the existing work on upper echelons is to focus on how the

ideological (mis-)fit of outside actors (e.g., activists and consumers) with organizational or CEO

Page 33 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


ideology influence’s an organization’s governance policies and decision making. While some

preliminary work has examined the influence of outsider advocacy on organizational practices

(c.f., Gupta & Briscoe, 2019), there remain multiple avenues for future research that examines

different constituents such as investors. One example in particular is that of activist investing,

where by hedge fund, private equity, or wealthy individual investors buy large shares in a target

organization and then exert influence to change the strategic, operational, and financial

management practices of the organization (Goranova, Abouk, Nystrom & Soofi, 2017). A misfit

between investor and organizational ideological values may motivate investors to target certain

firms. Given the radical disruption and changes that can result from such practices (Goranova et

al., 2017), it is fruitful to explore if and how ideology plays a role in such decision making.

Future research examining these questions will further theory on organizational governance,

agency theory and political ideology.

Another new approach around cross-level alignment is to determine if certain types of

industries are a better fit for some political values and political ideology diversity than others.

For example, entrepreneur and innovator success requires risk-taking and willingness to face

uncertainty and ambiguity (Stewart & Roth, 2001). To the extent that liberals prefer change and

are more comfortable with uncertainty and conservatives value tradition and stability, one might

expect that new businesses and innovative outcomes tend to be driven by liberal-leaning leaders.

In fact, most of the innovative technology companies cited at the beginning of this review

(Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple) have an overt liberal leaning ideology, and political

ideology seems to be linked to certain industries (Bonica, 2017). At the same time, it is possible

that diversity in political values is better for balancing risk and stability in new businesses and for

innovative products (Shi et al., 2018). New research should give attention to entrepreneurs,

Page 34 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


startups and research and development (R&D) teams to identify how political ideology is linked

to success in entrepreneurship and innovation.

Potential for Researcher Bias

Finally, we strongly urge scholars to consider how their own political ideology is,

perhaps unintentionally, aligned with the research questions they ask and measures they use.

Our review shows compelling evidence that political ideology can bias decisions via motivated

reasoning; as such, it would be naive to believe that the decisions of scholars—including the

phenomena we study, the theories that we leverage, and the conclusions that we draw—are not

also biased by our own political views. Indeed, the majority of academics hold liberal-leaning

political ideologies; this decreases ideological diversity in the classroom and research (Duarte et

al., 2015), and contributes to the public’s distrust due to the scientists’ perceived bias (Rynes,

Colbert, & O’Boyle, 2018). We must also reflect upon the role that our own ideologies play in

our research and reviews of others work, and take steps to mitigate bias.

We offer four suggestions to help scholars with drawing fair inferences in this line of

research: (1) generate competing inferences, pitting against each other charitable explanations of

conservative and liberal behaviors instead of ensuring a positive explanation no matter the

outcome for liberals and a negative explanation for conservatives (Washburn & Skitka, 2018);

(2) create more transparent methods and clearer explanations that offer less possibility for

misinterpretation by science journalists (Rynes et al., 2018); (3) scrutinize the measures you

utilize for potential bias. For example, personality may seem to be associated with political

ideology because the personality items in use may be measuring activities that are more valued

by those holding a particular political perspective (e.g., openness to experience scales; Charney,

2015); and (4) make academic posts more desirable for those with conservative ideologies by

Page 35 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


highlighting how viewpoint diversity is also a valued for of diversity to the departments doing

the hiring (Duarte et al., 2015).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In the past decade, political polarization has increased dramatically (Pew Research

Center, 2017). Employees bring their conservative and liberal political ideologies to work, and

these values and identities impact decision-making and social interactions, whether intentionally

or not. Much remains unknown about how and when political ideology influences organizational

life. As political ideology continues to cause divisions in societies across the globe,

organizational scholars should seek to understand the implications of working with people

holding different political ideologies for both work outcomes and for society.

Page 36 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


REFERENCES

Allport, G. 1954. The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.Anderson, T. 2015. How do activists create change? Kellogg Insight. Retrieved from

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/how-do-activists-create-change.Andrews, K. R. 1971. The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

management review, 14: 20-39Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. 2014. Ambivalence in organizations:

A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25: 1453–1478.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance:

A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1–26.Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. 2011. Getting specific

about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37: 709–743.

Bankert, A., Huddy, L., Rosema, M. Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39: 103–132.

Bellafante, G., 2015, October 9. Chick-fil-A and the politics of eating. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2015/10/11/nyregion/chick-fil-a-and-the-politics-of-eating.html.

Bermiss, Y. S., & McDonald, R. 2018. Ideological misfit? Political affiliation and employee departure in the private-equity industry. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 2182–2209.

Bonica, A. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58: 367–386.

Bonica, A. 2017. Are donation-based measures of ideology valid predictors of individual-level policy preferences? Social science research network: 94305.

Briscoe, F., & Joshi, A. 2017. Bringing the boss’s politics in: Supervisor political ideology and the gender gap in earnings. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1415–1441.

Briscoe, F., Chin, M. K., & Hambrick, D. C. 2014. CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1786–1809.

Bullock, J. G. 2011. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10: 519–578.

Byrne, D. 1969. Attitudes and attraction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4: 35–89. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and

organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67: 294-311.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1997. Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 546.

Page 37 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Carmines, E. G., & D’Amico, N. J. 2015. The new look in political ideology research. Annual Review of Political Science, 18: 205–216.

Carnahan, S., & Greenwood, B. N. 2018. Managers’ political beliefs and gender inequality among subordinates: Does his ideology matter more than hers? Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 287–322.

Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Charney, E. 2015. Liberal bias and the five-factor model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38: E139–E139.

Chen, S.Y., & Urminsky, O. 2019. The role of causal beliefs in political identity and voting. Cognition, 188: 27–38.

Chin, M. K., & Semadeni, M. 2017. CEO political ideologies and pay egalitarianism within top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1608–1625.

Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 197–232.

Chin, M. K., Zhang, S. X., Afshar Jahanshahi, A., & Nadkarni, S. 2018. The effect of two dimensions of CEO political ideology on corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018: 12910.

Christiansen, D. M., Dhaliwal, D. S., Boivie, S., & Graffin, S. D. 2015. Top management conservatism and corporate risk strategies: Evidence from managers’ personal political orientation and corporate tax avoidance. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 1918-1938.

Converse, P. E. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review, 18: 1 – 74. Conway, L. G., Gornick, L. J., Houck, S. C., Anderson, C., Stockert, J., Sessoms, D., & McCue,

K. 2016. Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37: 777–798.

Conway, L. G., Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J., & Repke, M. A. 2018. Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39: 1049–1067.

Dallago, F., Cima, R., Roccato, M., Ricolfi, L., & Mirisola, A. 2008. The correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: The moderating effects of political and religious identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30: 362–368.

Deichert, M. 2019. Partisan cultural stereotypes: The effect of everyday partisan associations on social life in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Devine, C. J. 2015. Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37: 509–535.

Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. 2019. At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14: 273–291.

Page 38 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Draper. K., & Belson, K. 2018, September 3. Colin Kaepernick’s Nike campaign keeps N.F.L. anthem kneeling in spotlight. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/03/sports/kaepernick-nike.html.

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. 2015. Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38: E130.

Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.

Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. 2003. American public opinion: Its origins, content, and impact.

New York, NY: Routledge.Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. 2014. Understanding the determinants of political ideology:

Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35: 337–358.Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of

Management, 18: 93–116.Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. 2003. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons.

Academy of Management Review, 28: 54–70.Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. 2009. Managing intractable identity

conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34: 32–55.Foley, K., Offerman, L. R., & Lanzo, L. 2018. U.S. politics at work: The impact of leader-

follower political alignment on satisfaction and stress. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Follmer, E. H., Talbot, D. L., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Astrove, S. L., & Billsberry, J. 2018. Resolution, relief, and resignation: A qualitative study of responses to misfit at work. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 440–465.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. 2005. Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8: 109–124.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51–71.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., Kearney, E., King, J. E., Zhang, K., & Song, L. J. 2014. Expressing religious identities in the workplace: Analyzing a neglected diversity dimension. Human Relations, 67: 543–563.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. 2011. The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14: 265–287.

Gift, K., & Gift, T. 2015. Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior, 37: 653–675.

Goranova, M., Abouk, R., Nystrom, P. C., & Soofi, E. S. 2017. Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero‐inflated process. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 415-435

Page 39 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. 2009. Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53: 805–820.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 1029–1046.

Greene, S. 1999. Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20: 393–403.

Griffith, J., Baur, J., & Buckley, M. R. 2018. Beyond the ballot box: How political identity influences interpersonal judgements at work. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018:14563.

Grind, K., & Hagey, K. 2018, November 11. Why did Facebook fire a top executive? Hint: It had something to do with Trump. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump-1541965245.

Gupta, A., & Wowak, A. J. 2017. The elephant (or donkey) in the boardroom: How board political ideology affects CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 1–30.

Gupta, A., Wowak, A. J., & Boeker, W. 2017a. Red ties and blue ties: Director political ideology and the diffusion of lone-insider boards. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017: 14084.

Gupta, A., Briscoe, F., & Hambrick, D. C. 2017b. Red, blue, and purple firms: Organizational political ideology and corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1018–1040.

Gupta, A., Briscoe, F., & Hambrick, D. C. 2018a. Evenhandedness in resource allocation: It’s relationship with CEO ideology, organizational discretion, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1848–1868.

Gupta, A., Nadkarni, S., & Mariam, M. 2018b. Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Administrative Science Quarterly: 855- 891.

Gupta, A., & Briscoe, F. 2019. Organizational political ideology and corporate openness to social activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 1-40.

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. 2015. An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24: 184-189.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199–1228.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96–107.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: A longitudinal study of the changing effects of diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Proceedings, 45: 1029–1045.

Harrison, J. S., Phillips, R. A., & Freeman, R. E. Online first. On the 2019 business roundtable “statement on the purpose of a corporation” Journal of Management, 1–15.

Page 40 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Hambrick, D. C., & Wowak, A. J. 2019. CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder alignment perspective. Academy of Management Review. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0084

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.

He, Y., Costa, P. L., Walker, J. M., Miner, K. N., & Wooderson, R. L. 2019. Political identity dissimilarity, workplace incivility, and declines in well‐being: A prospective investigation. Stress and Health, 35: 256–266.

Hewlin, P. F. 2003. And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28: 633–642.

Hewlin, P. F. 2009. Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating facades of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 727–741.

Hewlin, P. F., Dumas, T. L., & Burnett, M. F. 2017. To thine own self be true? Facades of conformity, values incongruence, and the moderating impact of leader integrity. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 178–199.

Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. 2014. Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37: 297–307.

Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 401.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33: 987–1015.

Huddy, L. 2001. From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22: 127–156.

Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. 2015. Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 10: 1–17.

Inam, H. 2018, May 10. Bring your whole self to work. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/hennainam/2018/05/10/bring-your-whole-self-to-work/#4a5aa8326291.

Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. 2015. Increasing ideological tolerance in social psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38: E147–E147.

Iyengar, S., & Konitzer, T. 2017. The moderating effects of marriage across party lines. Stanford University, 1–37.

Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. 2018. Partisanship as social identity: Implications for the study of party polarization. Forum, 16: 23–45.

Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. 2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59: 690–707.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. 2012. Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76: 405–431.

Page 41 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Jacoby, L. L. 1991. A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 513–541.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–763.

Jiang, F., Zalan, T., Tse, H. H. M., & Shen, J. 2018. Mapping the relationship among political ideology, CSR mindset, and CSR strategy: A contingency perspective applied to Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 147: 419–444.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of management review, 31:, 386-408.

Johns, G. 2018. Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 21-46.

Johnson, A. F., & Roberto, K. J. 2018. Right versus left: How does political ideology affect the workplace? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39: 1040–1043.

Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. 2014. Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40: 1466–1494.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 599–627.

Jost, J. T. 2006. The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61: 651–670.Jost, J. T. 2017. Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political

Psychology, 38: 167–208.Jost, J. T. 2019. The IAT is dead, long live the IAT: Context-sensitive measures of implicit

attitudes are indispensable to social and political psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28: 10–19.

Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. 2009. Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 307–337.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. 2003. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 339.

Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. 2008. Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 126–136.

Kahan, D. M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8: 407–424.

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E., & Slovic, P. 2013. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1: 54–86.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kahneman, D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93: 1449–1475.

Kavadis, N., & Sidhu, J. S., 2017. Corporate governance and restructuring: The influence of CEO ideology. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017:12542.

Page 42 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Kim, C. H., Han, D., Duhachek, A., & Tormala, Z. L. 2018. Political identity, preference, and persuasion. Social Influence, 13: 177-191.

King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. 2010. An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63: 881–906.

King, J. E., McKay, P. F., & Stewart, M. M. 2014. Religious bias and stigma: Attitudes toward working with a Muslim co-worker. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 11: 98–122.

King, J. E., Stewart, M. M., & McKay, P. F. 2017. Religiosity, religious identity, and bias towards workplace others. Academy of Management Proceedings. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2010.54492059

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kristof‐Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta‐analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342.

Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 480–498.Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. 2003. When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color

judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 522–544.

Lench, H. C., Levine, L. J., Perez, K. A., Carpenter, Z. K., Carlson, S. J., & Tibbett, T. 2019. Changes in subjective well-being following the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Emotion, 19: 1–9.

Lench, H. C., Tibbett, T. P., & Bench, S. W. 2016. Exploring the toolkit of emotion: What do sadness and anger do for us? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10: 11–25.

Levitin, T. E., & Miller, W. E. 1979. Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 73: 751–771.

Li, C. S., Kristof‐Brown, A. L., & Nielsen, J. D. 2019. Fitting in a group: Theoretical development and validation of the Multidimensional Perceived Person–Group Fit scale. Personnel Psychology, 72: 139-171.

Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. 2015. The impact of method, motivation, and empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30: 605–617.

Lyness, K. S., & Grotto, A. R. 2018. Women and leadership in the United States: Are we closing the gender gap? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 227–265.

Mackie, D., & Smith, E. 1998. Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105: 499–529.

Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. 2010. More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23: 156–188.

Page 43 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., Srivastava, S., Cohen, A. B., & Miller, D. T. 2012. The association of religiosity and political conservatism: The role of political engagement. Political Psychology, 33: 275–299.

Margolis, M. F. 2017. How politics affects religion: Partisanship, socialization, and religiosity in America. Journal of Politics, 80: 30–43.

Marks, J., Copland, E., Loh, E., Sunstein, C. R., & Sharot, T. 2019. Epistemic spillovers: Learning others’ political views reduces the ability to assess and use their expertise in nonpolitical domains. Cognition, 188: 74–84.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.

Martinez, L. R., Hebl, M. R., Smith, N. A., & Sabat, I. E. 2017. Standing up and speaking out against prejudice toward gay men in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103: 71–85.

Mason, L. 2018. Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82: 280–301.

Mason, L., & Wronski, J. 2018. One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39: 257–277.

McCauley, C., Stitt, C. L., & Segal, M. 1980. Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 195–208.

McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. 1984. The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McSweeney, J., McSweeney, K., Oliver, A. G., Park, U. D., & Withers, M. C. 2018. Liberal boards and diversity: Examining the impact of board ideology on female board appointments. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018: 12097.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117–127.

Misch, A., Fergusson, G., & Dunham, Y. 2018. Temporal dynamics of partisan identity fusion and prosociality during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Self and Identity. 17: 531-548.

Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. C. 2017. The structure of political ideology varies between and within people: Implications for theories about ideology’s causes. Social Cognition, 35: 395–414.

Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40: 515-537.

Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S., & Nosek, B. A. 2014. How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51: 1–14.

Nair, K. P., Gupta, A., & Wowak, A. 2018. Man up: The influence of board political ideology on the selection of masculine CEOs. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018: 15740.

Neville, F., & Gamache, D. 2018. Managerial political ideology and firm receptivity to secondary stakeholders. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018: 15010.

Page 44 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., & Thatcher, S. 2019. Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 44 (3): 498–517.

Opie, T. R., & Freeman, R. E. 2017. Our biases undermine our colleagues’ attempts to be authentic. Harvard Business Review.

Ou, A. Y., Li, S., Jiang, P., & Deng, L. 2017. Chinese CEOs’ socialist political ideology and corporate social responsibility commitments. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017: 10985.

Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. 2018. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2): 129–158.

Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Peterson, E., Goel, S., & Iyengar, S. 2017. Echo chambers and partisan polarization: Evidence

from the 2016 presidential campaign. Stanford Political Communications Lab. Retrieved from https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2017/peterson-echo-chambers.pdf.

Pew Research Center. 2016. 6 facts about America’s political independents. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents.

Pew Research Center. 2017. Political polarization, 1994–2017. Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017.

Pradies, C., & Pratt, M. G., 2010. Ex uno plures: Toward a conceptualization of a group ambivalence. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2010:54493648.

Pratt, M. G., & Corley, K. 2007. Managing multiple organizational identities: On identity ambiguity, identity conflict, and members' reactions. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A. Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pratt, M. G. & Pradies, C. 2011. Just a good place to visit? Exploring positive responses to psychological ambivalence. In G. M., Spreitzer & K. S., Cameron (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook

of Positive Organizational Scholarship: 924-937. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Randel, A. E. 2002. Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 766: 749–766.

Rock, M. S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. 2010. Where do we draw our lines? Politics, rigidity, and the role of self-regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1: 26–33.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Roth, P. L., Goldberg, C. B., & Thatcher, J. B. 2017. The role of political affiliation in

employment decisions: A model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 286–304.

Roth, P. L., Thatcher, J. B., Bobko, P., Matthews, K. D., Ellingson, J. E., & Goldberg, C. B. 2019. Political affiliation and employment screening decisions: The role of similarityand identification processes. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Rothman, J. 1997. Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Page 45 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Rothschild, J. E., Howat, A. J., Shafranek, R. M., & Busby, E. C. 2018. Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior, 41(2): 423–443.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. 2018. When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management, 44: 2995–3010.

Roumpi, D. 2015. Effects of CEO political ideology on the provision and inclusiveness of work-family policies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015: 13179.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2007. Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254–1269.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–453.Seong, J. Y., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Park, W. W., Hong, D. S., & Shin, Y. 2015. Person-group fit:

Diversity antecedents, proximal outcomes, and performance at the group level. Journal of Management, 41: 1184-1213.

Shi, F., Teplitskiy, M., Duede, E., & Evans, J. A. 2019. The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 3: 329–336.

Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bian, L. 2012. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 197–212.

Simon, H. A. 1997. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes. Administrative Organizations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.

Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. 1993. Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 1205–1223.

Society for Human Resource Management. 2016. Policies on politics in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/SHRM-Policies-Politics-Workplace.pdf.

Steinbuch, Y. 2018. Apple’s diversity chief out after outcry. New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months.

Stewart Jr., W. H., & Roth, P. L. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 145–153.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1994. Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts?. Social psychology quarterly, 16-35.

Swann Jr., W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. 2012. When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119: 441.

Swann, W. B., Jr., & Bosson, J. K. 2010. Self and identity. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Swann, W. B., & Buhrmester, M. D. 2015. Identity fusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24: 52–57.Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 5: 7–24.

Page 46 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Talaifar, S., & Swann Jr., W. B. 2019. Deep alignment with country shrinks the moral gap between conservatives and liberals. Political Psychology, 40: 657–675.

Tedin, K. L. 1987. Political ideology and the vote. Research in Micropolitics, 2: 63–94.Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure

depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 293–326.Tetlock, P. E., Vieider, F. M., Patil, S. V., & Grant, A. M. 2013. Accountability and ideology:

When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122: 22–35.

Theodoridis, A. G. 2017. Me, myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. Journal of Politics, 79: 1253–1267.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515–541.

Van Vianen, A. E. M. 2018. Person-environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 75–101.

Victor, D. 2019, May 30. Disney C.E.O. warns Georgia abortion law would make it “very difficult” to film in the state. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/business/media/disney-georgia-boycott-abortion.html.

Wagner, K. 2018. Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey. Vox. Retrieved from

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics.

Wakabayashi, D. 2017. Contentious memo strikes nerve inside Google and out. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-engineer-fired-gender-memo.html.

Ware, A. 1996. Political Parties and Party Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. 2018. Strategies for promoting strong inferences in political

psychology research. In B. T. Rutjens & M. J. Brandt (Eds.), Belief systems and the perception of reality. New York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. A., 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior. 20: 77-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Winegard, B., Clark, C. J., Hasty, C., & Baumeister, R. 2019. under review. Low-status groups as a domain of liberal bias.

Woehr, D. J., Arciniega, L. M., & Poling, T. L. 2013. Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28: 107-121.

Page 47 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


FOOTNOTES

1. Extensive work has been conducted on the origins of political ideologies, with evidence

supporting both top-down influences (e.g., political elites, family members) and bottom-up

influences (e.g., individual needs, motives, cognitions). As shown in Figure 1, some political

psychologists have pointed to latent underlying needs and motives manifesting as political

beliefs and values (Jost, 2017); others have considered the identity and affiliation perspectives,

which focus on the socializing influences of political elites who shape the issue positions and

voting behavior of the public (Bisgaard & Slothuus, 2018; Bullock, 2011). A comprehensive

treatment of the origins of ideologies is beyond the scope of this paper (see Jost et al., 2009, and

Bisgaard & Slothuus, 2018, for reviews).

2. In the United States, the subject of most of the present research, these archival databases are

maintained by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and tracked by non-partisan research

institutes. Scholars use these donations to infer the underlying values, identity, and strength of

political affiliation (Gupta, Wowak, & Boeker, 2017a). Chin and colleagues (2013) created a

composite measure of strength of commitment to a political affiliation that includes four

indicators: (1) behavioral (i.e., number of donations made to one party divided by the number of

donations made in total to both parties); (2) financial (i.e., total amount donated to one party

divided by the total amount donated to both parties); (3) persistence (i.e., number of years

donations were made to one party divided by the number of years donations were made to either

party); and (4) scope (i.e., number of unique candidate recipients of one party divided by the

total number of unique candidate recipients). These indicators are summed to arrive at a single

score on liberalism or conservatism depending on theoretical framing (c.f. Gupta, Wowak, &

Page 48 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Boeker, 2017). Though donations are made by individuals, these indicators of political ideology

have been aggregated to the team and organizational level.

3. California, New York, and Washington D.C. do have laws prohibiting discrimination on the

basis of political affiliation.

Page 49 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


TABLE 1: Future Research Opportunities

Recommendations Example Research Questions

Conceptual Expansion of Political Ideology (PI) in Organizations

Use integrated multi-

dimensional PI

approach (values,

identity, affiliation) and

draw more on social

identity theorizing and

measurement

When a person’s PI values, identity and party affiliation show

dissonance versus fusion how does that change work

decisions and behavior?

Does the PI intensity (i.e., belief strength, identity centrality)

matter more than the type (liberal to conservative); do they

interact to predict outcomes?

Might direct (self-reported values, identity) and indirect

(behavioral observations, implicit measures) assessments

intersect to predict organizational outcomes, particularly in

skewed organizations?

Contextual Determinants of Political Ideology (PI) in Organizations

Model the context to

improve prediction: For

whom, when and where

is PI activated and

salient to self and others

Who: Is the centrality of political identity to one’s self-

concept a determining factor in predicting decisions and social

dynamics?

Where: How does local political dominance (e.g., country,

region, industry) constrain or enhance the emergence of PI

among organizational members?

When: What role do politically charged events (e.g., legal

decisions, elections) play in making PI more salient within

Page 50 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


organizations; are the relationships between PI and relevant

outcomes dynamic over time?

Theoretical Integration of Political Ideology (PI) with Diversity

Use diversity concepts

and theories to develop

predictions; introduce

political ideology as a

personal attribute that

contributes to group

diversity

Does perceiving PI differences in work colleagues affect

prosocial (i.e., information sharing) and antisocial (i.e.,

incivility) behavior?

How does a PI minority use disclosure/concealment

strategies; what is effective and are the conclusions unique

from the existing typologies?

In teams, when does PI diversity function like a deep-level or

surface-level characteristic, with implications of timing of the

effects?

What are the benefits and costs of PI team diversity, given

cognitive flexibility and alternative viewpoints; but also

conflicts and stereotyping?

Does PI diversity create intractable conflicts and how can

interventions create an overriding shared organizational

identity?

Cross-Level Alignment of Political Ideology (PI) in Organizational Research

Page 51 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


Recognize the multi-

level nature of political

ideology and explore

the implications of

cross-level

(mis)alignment at

multiple levels.

How does the PI “fit” of newcomers, teams, and leaders,

intersect to predict attraction, socialization and attrition in

organizations?

Does the alignment between investors and organization/CEO

ideology predict investment decisions?

Does entrepreneurial success or groundbreaking innovation

require value-based PI for risk over stability, or best to have

diversity in the leadership and members to balance those

values?

Potential for Researcher Bias

Acknowledge and

guard against the

possibility of political

ideological bias in

organizational research.

What role do our own ideologies as researchers and reviewers

play in our decision-making regarding the research questions

we explore and papers we accept?

Page 52 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


FIGURE 1: Conceptualizing Political Ideology Across Disciplines

Note: These conceptualizations range from those that are visible to others to those that are

invisible (left arrow) and from those that are personal to those that are social identities (right

arrow). The conceptualization of values located at the bottom of the figure draws upon research

in political psychology connecting ideology to dispositional characteristics of individuals; this

has been largely been the focus of management scholars. The conceptualization of partisan

affiliation at the top of the figure considers how political leaders influence affiliation behavior

like voting and donations and has been the focus of political science scholars. The

Page 53 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


conceptualization of identity located in the middle of the figure is based predominantly on

political psychology, with a focus on how both values and affiliation affect one’s self-concept

and social identity.

Page 54 of 54



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960