Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale

Abstract

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS) is a robust Psychological Scale designed to measure an individual’s subjective assessment of the political climate and behaviors within their workplace environment. The scale was revised and validated by Kacmar and Carlson (1997), resulting in a refined 15-item instrument derived from the original 12-item version developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991). The POPS systematically assesses three core dimensions of perceived Organizational Politics: general political behavior, the perceived necessity to “go along to get ahead,” and the perceived political nature of pay and promotion policies. The validation studies involved multiple large samples to confirm the scale’s dimensionality and Construct Validation.

Keywords

Organizational Politics, POPS, Workplace Behavior, Pay and Promotion Policies, Political Behavior, Construct Validation, Psychometrics, Job Attitudes

Authors

Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. W., Ferris, G. R.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the POPS is to systematically quantify employee perceptions regarding the extent to which non-merit-based influence tactics and self-serving behaviors dominate decision-making and resource allocation processes within an organization. By assessing these perceptions, the scale helps researchers and organizational behavior specialists understand how the perceived political climate affects critical employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job stress.

The validation studies performed by Kacmar and Carlson (1997) aimed to provide further empirical support for the dimensionality and psychometric properties of the scale across diverse organizational settings, moving beyond the initial development phase to establish broader applicability and reliability for the revised 15-item instrument.

Construct

The POPS measures the overarching construct of perceived Organizational Politics, which is conceptualized as having three distinct, yet related, dimensions based on the accepted three-factor solution:

• General Political Behavior: This factor captures broad, self-interested behaviors, such as the use of manipulation, backstabbing, or the existence of influential, uncrossable cliques within the department or organization.
• Go Along to Get Ahead: This dimension assesses the perception that conformity, silence, and agreeing with powerful others are essential strategies for career advancement or survival, often at the expense of speaking the truth or expressing critical ideas.
• Pay and Promotion Policies: This factor specifically measures the belief that official organizational policies regarding compensation, raises, and promotions are disregarded or applied unfairly due to political maneuvering rather than objective performance criteria or merit.

Validity

The validation research, particularly Study 2 conducted by Kacmar and Carlson, provided crucial evidence for the scale’s psychometric soundness. This study established both Convergent and Discriminant Validity for the POPS.

Convergent validity was demonstrated by showing that the POPS scores correlated appropriately with measures of related constructs, such as job tension or burnout. Conversely, discriminant validity confirmed that the scale was sufficiently distinct from measures of unrelated psychological constructs, ensuring that the POPS uniquely captures the phenomenon of perceived organizational politics. The extensive factor analyses conducted across multiple samples further supported the structural validity of the three-dimensional model.

Reliability

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale exhibits strong Internal Reliability, demonstrating consistent measurement across diverse samples. The scale’s internal consistency, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, remained high throughout the validation studies.

• The original 12-item POPS demonstrated an internal reliability of 0.87 in the initial validation (Study 1).
• Across the four distinct organizational samples utilized in Study 2, the internal reliability for the 12-item POPS consistently ranged from 0.86 to 0.89.
• A 20-item version tested during the development phase (Study 3) also maintained adequate internal consistency, reporting an alpha of 0.81.

Factor Analysis

Multiple Factor Analysis procedures were crucial in establishing and confirming the underlying structure of the POPS. In Study 2, a principal components factor analysis with an oblimin rotation was performed across four groups. While the results generally aligned with the hypothesized three-factor solution from the original study, the item loadings were initially weak for some factors.

To address these issues and refine the scale, Study 3 involved the development and testing of 14 new items. A subsequent principal components Factor Analysis with oblimin rotation led to the acceptance of the final 15-item, three-factor solution used in the revised scale: general political behavior (Items 1 and 2), go along to get ahead (Items 3 through 9), and pay and promotion policies (Items 10 through 15). The data analysis supporting these findings included item loadings, squared multiple correlations, chi-square statistics, and various goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., normed fit index, comparative fit index, and parsimony fit index).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological Scale

Format: 15-item scale utilizing a five-point Likert-type response format.

Language Available: English (Original development and validation).

Population Group: Employees and professionals across various organizational and industry sectors.

Age Group: Adult working population and university students.

Population Details: The validation studies encompassed diverse populations, including 749 respondents from a large state agency (Study 1); 466 workers from an electronic cooperative, 581 human resource professionals, 220 nonfaculty workers, and 320 additional workers (Study 2); and 123 members of the Society for Human Resource Management and 182 college students (Study 3).

Test Methodology: Survey administered using a five-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

Keywords

Organizational Behavior, POPS, Scale Development, Internal Reliability, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Human Resource Management, Work Environment

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Original Development (1991, Kacmar & Ferris); Major Validation/Revision (1997, Kacmar & Carlson).

Permissions & Fee: Researchers and practitioners seeking to use the scale should consult the authors or the publishers of the originating academic journals (e.g., Journal of Management, Educational and Psychological Measurement) for usage permissions.

Reference’s

• Kacmar, K. M., and Carlson, D. W. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management 23:627–58.
• Kacmar, K. M., and Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51:193–205.
• Medsker, G. J., et al. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human re- sources management research. Journal of Management 20:439–64.
• Nye, L. G., and Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of politics scales (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement 53:821–29.

Items of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Scoring: A five-point scale ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

1. People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down.
2. There has always been an influential group in this department that no one ever crosses.
3. Employees are encouraged to speak out frankly even when they are critical of well-established ideas.
4. There is no place for yes-men around here; good ideas are desired even if it means disagreeing with superiors.
5. Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in this organization.
6. It is best not to rock the boat in this organization.
7. Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the system.
8. Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than telling the truth.
9. It is safer to think what you are told than to make up your own mind.
10. Since I have worked in this department, I have never seen the pay and promotion policies applied politically.
11. I can’t remember when a person received a pay increase or promotion that was inconsistent with the published policies.
12. None of the raises I have received are consistent with the policies on how raises should be determined.
13. The stated pay and promotion policies have nothing to do with how pay raises and promotions are determined.
14. When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant.
15. Promotions around here are not valued much because how they are determined is so political.