Purpose: The purpose of this research was to understand the phenomenon of political maneuvering conducted by managers in public organizations. This study addresses the increasingly political nature of public-sector institutions in Iran, where pressures arising from political appointments, bureaucratic structures, ambiguous rules, and informal power relations contribute to the intensification of political behavior. Although political maneuvering plays a significant and often disruptive role in management processes, previous studies have mostly focused on general political behavior rather than the deeper and more destructive aspects of maneuvering in public systems. Furthermore, the political dynamics of Iranian Public organizations, with their structural complexities, informal networks, and persistent lobbying, have not received adequate academic attention. By exploring political maneuvering through the perspectives of managers in Kermanshah Province, the study aims to identify the causal conditions that trigger it, the processes that sustain it, the contextual factors that enable it, the intervening conditions that modify its intensity, and the consequences that result from such behaviors. Ultimately, the research seeks to develop a grounded model that explains how political maneuvering emerges and affects organizational life in public institutions.
Design/Methodology/Approach: This study uses a qualitative research methodology based on the principles of Grounded Theory, following the systematic coding approach of Strauss and Corbin. The statistical population consisted of managers in public organizations in Kermanshah Province. Through theoretical sampling, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached, which occurred around the twelfth interview and was confirmed with three additional interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding. Through this process, a total of 35 subcategories were extracted and organized into broader conceptual themes. To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, the study employed several validation strategies, including participatory validation, peer review, and inter-coder reliability checks. Additional qualitative criteria—credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and auditability—were also considered to reinforce methodological rigor. The final result was the construction of a paradigmatic model that identified the relationships among causal conditions, contextual factors, intervening variables, political strategies, and the consequences of political maneuvering.
Findings: The findings revealed that political maneuvering is a multi-layered and evolving process shaped through six major components. The central phenomenon includes coalition networking, forming relationships with influential individuals and power centers, capturing or concealing information, engaging in illegal or non-transparent behavior, developing influence mechanisms, and performing disruptive actions within the organization. The study identified several causal conditions that fuel political maneuvering. These include individual factors such as ambition, need for power, Machiavellian tendencies, self-monitoring, personal helplessness, and fear of losing one’s position. Job-related factors also play a role, including role ambiguity, lack of recognition, unclear responsibilities, weak promotion pathways, and perceptions of increased political behavior in the organization. Organizational factors such as weak structures, unfair resource distribution, ineffective evaluation systems, lobbying, and hidden communications further intensify political maneuvering. Contextual factors that facilitate political maneuvering include weak organizational culture, a hypocritical work environment, rigid rules that limit transparency, political appointments, unequal power distribution, and the dominance of bargaining-oriented thinking. Intervening conditions such as gender dynamics, moral obligations, personality types, organizational silence, personal needs, and pressure tactics shape how political maneuvering occurs. Managers used several strategies, including unmeritocratic appointments, flattery, spying, bold political actions, selective information sharing, and forming informal coalitions to increase influence or weaken opponents. The consequences of political maneuvering were predominantly negative, including reduced innovation, increased sabotage, weakened effectiveness, administrative corruption, heightened conflicts, erosion of trust, and decreased employee morale. These outcomes collectively harm organizational performance and lower the quality of public service delivery.
Discussion and Conclusion: The study concludes that political maneuvering is not simply an individual choice but a behavior shaped by organizational weaknesses, political pressures, and cultural norms. The interaction of causal, contextual, and intervening conditions creates an environment where political maneuvering becomes common and normalized. Although some managers may gain short-term benefits, the long-term consequences are harmful. Political maneuvering erodes trust, disrupts cooperation, reduces transparency, undermines meritocracy, and contributes to inefficiency within public organizations. The grounded model developed in this research clarifies how political maneuvering emerges, develops, and affects organizational outcomes. The study highlights the need for transparent appointment systems, objective evaluation mechanisms, ethical leadership development, and cultural reforms to minimize political pressures and reduce destructive behaviors in public-sector organizations.