Perceived Organisational Support Scale (POS)

Abstract

The Perceived Organisational Support Scale (POS) is one of the most extensively utilized psychometric instruments in industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior. Developed by Robert Eisenberger, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa in 1986, the instrument operationalizes the core tenets of Organizational Support Theory (OST). The scale measures the global beliefs employees form regarding the extent to which their employing organization values their active contributions and cares about their personal well-being and socioemotional welfare. The original, comprehensive instrument consists of 36 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”) or alternately coded from 1 to 7. Across nearly four decades of empirical investigation, the POS scale has consistently demonstrated robust psychometric properties, characterized by high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding .90, frequently reaching .95 to .97), stable test-retest reliability, and a robust unidimensional factor structure despite the inclusion of both positively and negatively worded items. Extensive meta-analytic evidence confirms its powerful criterion-related validity, demonstrating that elevated perceived organizational support serves as a crucial antecedent to affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors, while functioning as a potent mitigator of workplace burnout, turnover intentions, and counterproductive work behaviors.

Keywords

Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Support Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Norm of Reciprocity, Employee Well-Being, Affective Commitment, Turnover Intention, Job Performance, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Eisenberger, Workplace Attitudes

Authors

The Perceived Organisational Support Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a team of researchers led by Dr. Robert Eisenberger at the University of Delaware:

• Robert Eisenberger, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at the University of Delaware (subsequently Research Professor of Psychology and Management at the University of Houston). Dr. Eisenberger is the primary pioneer of Organizational Support Theory and has published foundational works on human motivation, reward mechanisms, and leader-member dynamics.
• Robin Huntington: Co-investigator and researcher in the Department of Psychology at the University of Delaware during the scale’s inception and validation across diverse industry cohorts.
• Steven Hutchison, Ph.D.: Co-author, organizational psychologist, and researcher specializing in quantitative assessment, employee engagement, and institutional social exchange dynamics.
• Debora Sowa: Co-investigator and psychometric researcher instrumental in collecting early validation data among educational and corporate personnel.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Perceived Organisational Support Scale is to measure the psychological construct of perceived organizational support (POS)—defined as an employee’s generalized perception that the employing entity values their active work contributions and takes a benevolent interest in their physical, psychological, and financial welfare. Prior to the development of this instrument by Eisenberger and colleagues in 1986, the vast majority of literature on employee-organization relationships focused predominantly on the organization’s perspective or unilateral employee commitment to the firm (such as Porter’s early conceptualizations of organizational commitment). Researchers had paid inadequate empirical attention to the reciprocal dynamic: how employees perceive the organization’s commitment to them.

Eisenberger et al. recognized that employees do not view their workplace merely as an impersonal, neutral nexus of contractual agreements and legal requirements. Rather, individuals psychologically personify their organization. Through cognitive anthropomorphism, policies, norms, managerial actions, and organizational communications are interpreted as expressive of an underlying corporate character, moral disposition, and benevolence. The POS scale was designed precisely to capture this global cognitive-affective schema.

In applied and research contexts, the scale serves several critical diagnostic and predictive functions:

• Occupational Health and Well-Being Diagnostics: The scale serves as a leading indicator of employee psychological strain, workplace stress, and occupational burnout. Low POS scores consistently warn organizational leaders of systemic neglect, perceived psychological contract breach, and emotional exhaustion among staff.
• Retention and Turnover Modeling: High POS acts as a primary psychological anchor that diminishes both voluntary turnover intention and actual turnover behavior. Measuring POS enables human resource strategists to model retention risks across departments and organizational hierarchies.
• Predicting Discretionary Effort and In-Role Performance: Grounded in the norm of reciprocity, POS explains why employees go beyond formalized job descriptions to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), assist colleagues, protect company property, and offer proactive constructive suggestions.
• Service-Profit Chain Dynamics: In consumer research and service management, POS forms the psychological bedrock of the service-profit chain. Frontline service workers who experience high levels of organizational support exhibit stronger customer service orientation, higher emotional labor authenticity, and superior service delivery quality, which translates directly into customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the POS scale is conceptualized as a global, unitary belief system regarding an employer’s commitment to the individual. Rather than representing an inventory of specific tangible perks or distinct isolated events, POS reflects a holistic cognitive heuristic synthesized across an individual’s career within the enterprise. It comprises two deeply interconnected dimensions that operate synergistically:

1. Valuation of Employee Contributions

This dimension reflects the degree to which an individual believes their organization notices, appreciates, and meaningfully values their labor, unique competence, and discretionary effort. Employees continually process performance feedback, managerial recognition, promotion systems, and compensation adjustments. When an organization acknowledges extra effort—such as working overtime during a crisis, resolving complex technical dilemmas, or offering creative innovations—the employee infers that their identity and inputs are seen as vital to the firm’s overarching mission. Conversely, if an organization is perceived as indifferent to exemplary performance (e.g., “Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice”), the employee concludes their contributions are marginalized, leading to cognitive disengagement and minimal in-role compliance.

2. Care for Employee Well-Being and Socioemotional Welfare

The second core facet pertains to the benevolent disposition of the organization regarding the human, physical, and psychological vulnerabilities of the worker. This entails beliefs that the organization:

• Considers employee goals, values, and personal aspirations when formulating operational decisions.
• Acts charitably and tolerantly in the face of honest human error rather than imposing punitive retaliation.
• Provides robust, empathetic assistance during personal crises, severe medical emergencies, or unanticipated financial difficulties.
• Actively fosters safe, humane, and stimulating work conditions, respecting psychological health rather than viewing workers as disposable operational machinery.

Crucially, organizational support theory dictates that actions taken by an organization do not influence POS equally. Employees make spontaneous cognitive attributions regarding the discretionary nature of the organizational treatment. Benevolent actions, resource allocations, or supportive policies perceived as voluntarily initiated by the organization exert an exponentially stronger positive influence on POS than identical actions mandated by external labor legislation, union collective bargaining agreements, or intense public market pressure. Thus, POS reflects not merely the receipt of benefits, but the attribution of benevolent underlying organizational intent.

Theoretical Framework

The Perceived Organisational Support Scale is anchored primarily in two fundamental theoretical perspectives: Social Exchange Theory and the Norm of Reciprocity, which together form the architecture of Organizational Support Theory (OST).

Social Exchange Theory and the Norm of Reciprocity

Pioneered by sociological theorists such as Peter Blau (1964) and Alvin Gouldner (1960), social exchange theory posits that human interpersonal interactions involve the exchange of unspecified, socioemotional obligations that operate outside strict, legally binding economic transactions. Gouldner’s universal norm of reciprocity asserts that when person or entity A provides a discretionary benefit to person B, an internalized moral obligation is activated within person B to reciprocate favorably, paired with a cultural prohibition against harming the benefactor.

Eisenberger et al. (1986) brilliantly transposed this interpersonal framework onto the relationship between the individual employee and the larger collective organization. According to OST, because employees personify their employing institution, they construct a social exchange relationship with it. When employees judge that the organization treats them favorably through discretionary developmental opportunities, job enrichment, competitive compensation, supportive supervision, and fair procedural policies, the norm of reciprocity triggers a psychological felt obligation. Employees feel internally motivated to repay the organization. This repayment manifests not merely in fulfilling basic contractual duties, but in high affective commitment, sustained effort, proactive problem solving, and citizenship behaviors that directly foster organizational prosperity.

Socioemotional Needs Fulfillment

Beyond transactional and social reciprocity, Organizational Support Theory incorporates psychological principles of human motivation. High POS satisfies fundamental socioemotional needs within the workplace, notably:

• The Need for Esteem: Confirmation that one’s professional identity and craftsmanship possess genuine worth.
• The Need for Affiliation and Belonging: Experiencing psychological inclusion and acceptance within an enduring collective social unit.
• The Need for Emotional Security: Confidence that during periods of personal illness, stress, or career setbacks, the organization will act as a psychological safety net rather than an exploitative adversary.

Fulfillment of these socioemotional needs integrates organizational membership into the employee’s personal self-identity, cultivating deep affective commitment and intrinsic motivation.

Validity

Decades of rigorous psychometric evaluation across hundreds of independent organizational studies, spanning private corporations, governmental agencies, healthcare systems, and academic institutions, have established exceptional construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity for the POS scale.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the seminal 1986 study by Eisenberger and colleagues, the construct validity of the 36-item measure was initially evaluated using exploratory factor analysis across two distinct samples: 361 employees from nine diverse organizations and 195 public high school teachers. The analyses confirmed that the items converged onto a predominant single dimension, establishing that employees synthesize varied organizational experiences into a singular, overarching heuristic of perceived support rather than segregating their evaluations into disjointed conceptual compartments.

Discriminant Validity

A primary psychometric hurdle in early validation was verifying that POS was empirically distinct from other established affective and organizational constructs. Extensive confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) have unambiguously demonstrated that POS is distinct from:

• Affective Organizational Commitment: While POS captures the employee’s perception of the organization’s dedication to the employee, affective commitment reflects the employee’s emotional dedication to the organization. Large-scale structural equation modeling (e.g., Shore & Wayne, 1993; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) confirms that they share a moderate-to-strong positive correlation (typically r = .50 to .65) but represent entirely distinct latent factors with different antecedent and consequence profiles.
• Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS): Employees clearly distinguish between their immediate supervisor and the overarching organization. PSS operates as a distinct, upstream antecedent to POS; supervisors are seen as organizational agents, and their support is generalized upward into overall POS only to the extent that the supervisor is perceived as having high corporate status and embodiment of organizational values (Eisenberger et al., 2002).
• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): LMX reflects the quality of dyadic interpersonal relationships between an employee and their specific leader, whereas POS measures the generalized institutional relationship. Multi-trait multi-method studies consistently support their empirical divergence (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).
• Job Satisfaction: While POS correlates positively with global job satisfaction (r ≈ .60 to .70), job satisfaction represents an evaluative reaction to job characteristics and environment, whereas POS is an attribution of institutional benevolence.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Meta-analyses synthesizing hundreds of empirical studies (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009; Kurtessis et al., 2017) have cemented the predictive power of the POS instrument. Significant meta-analytic correlations include:

• Affective Commitment: True-score correlation estimated between ρ = .68 and .73.
• Job Satisfaction: True-score correlation estimated at ρ = .65.
• Turnover Intentions: Powerful inverse relationship, with ρ ranging between -.45 and -.51.
• Subjective and Objective Job Performance: Statistically significant positive association with in-role task performance (ρ = .18 to .26) and organizational citizenship behaviors (ρ = .24 to .31).
• Psychological Strain and Burnout: Substantial negative correlations with emotional exhaustion (ρ = -.35 to -.45) and workplace somatic complaints.

Reliability

The Perceived Organisational Support Scale demonstrates exemplary internal consistency and temporal stability across a wide variety of organizational environments and demographic cross-sections.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies conducted by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986), the 36-item instrument yielded an unprecedented level of internal reliability:

• Sample 1 (N = 361 employees across diverse manufacturing, financial, and service firms): Cronbach’s alpha was α = .97.
• Sample 2 (N = 195 high school teachers): Cronbach’s alpha was α = .97.
• Item-total correlations were extraordinarily robust: in the 1986 sample, the median item-total correlation was .67, with individual item loadings extending up to .84, and no item demonstrating an item-total correlation below .42.

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing shortened iterations derived from the 36-item pool (such as the popular 16-item and 8-item versions) routinely document internal consistency coefficients exceeding α = .90, verifying that reliability is preserved even when administrative constraints mandate brief forms.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that POS represents an enduring psychological schema rather than a transient, fluctuating mood state. Test-retest reliability studies across temporal intervals ranging from two to six months consistently yield stability coefficients between r = .65 and r = .83 in environments characterized by stable organizational management and working conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Noticeable shifts in POS scores over time correspond predictably to concrete organizational interventions, leadership changes, restructuring events, or psychological contract breaches, demonstrating sensitive psychometric responsivity to meaningful environmental transitions.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the Perceived Organisational Support Scale has been the focus of detailed scrutiny across four decades of quantitative structural modeling.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the foundational work by Eisenberger et al. (1986), principal components factor analysis was conducted on the full 36-item instrument. The results revealed an overwhelmingly dominant first unrotated factor that accounted for approximately 48.3% of the total variance in the primary sample. All 36 items exhibited substantial factor loadings on this initial general dimension (loadings ranged from .42 to .83). Although secondary factors emerged with eigenvalues marginally exceeding 1.0, an examination of scree plots and item saturation confirmed that these minor factors were essentially methodological artifacts resulting from positive versus negative item phrasing, rather than substantively meaningful sub-dimensions. The authors consequently concluded that the construct is fundamentally unidimensional.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Method Effects

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses in contemporary literature (e.g., Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Kurtessis et al., 2017) have rigorously tested competing structural models. Standard one-factor CFA models frequently encounter mild strain on global fit indices (such as Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .08) if the 18 reverse-scored items are treated naively. Methodologists have demonstrated that this is an artifact of cognitive response bias associated with negatively keyed statements. When structural equation models incorporate a method factor for reverse-worded items—or model correlated error variances among negatively worded items—the single-factor model exhibits outstanding fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .93 to .96.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically spans .92 to .95.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently maintains values below .05.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Stably settles between .038 and .055, confirming robust model fit.

Consequently, psychometric consensus strongly endorses treating the POS scale as a strictly unidimensional instrument representing a global psychological continuum of institutional support.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below are the structural and administrative parameters of the Perceived Organisational Support Scale:

• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire designed for adult working populations across all industries and organizational tiers.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or enterprise intranet/mobile survey delivery.
• Item Count: 36 items in the comprehensive full form (with authenticated abbreviated 16-item and 8-item derivatives available for constrained survey batteries).
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 0 = Strongly Disagree
  • 1 = Moderately Disagree
  • 2 = Slightly Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Slightly Agree
  • 5 = Moderately Agree
  • 6 = Strongly Agree
  • (Note: Alternate scoring protocols coding anchors from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree are equally prevalent in academic literature).
• Reverse-Scoring Instructions:
  • To counter systematic acquiescence response bias, 18 of the 36 items are negatively worded.
  • The designated reverse-scored items are: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36 (according to the original publication scoring protocol).
  • When scored 0 to 6, reverse items by subtracting the participant’s raw rating from 6 (e.g., a score of 6 becomes 0; a score of 0 becomes 6).
  • When scored 1 to 7, reverse items by subtracting the raw score from 8 (e.g., 7 becomes 1; 1 becomes 7).
• Score Computation and Interpretation:
  • After properly inverting the reverse-scored items, compute the composite mean score across all 36 items (sum of all items divided by 36) or sum all 36 items to generate an overall aggregate index (range: 0–216 for 0–6 scoring, or 36–252 for 1–7 scoring).
  • Higher composite scores unambiguously indicate higher perceived organizational support, reflecting strong feelings of organizational valuation, socioemotional security, and felt reciprocity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Perceived Organisational Support Scale was originally published in 1986 by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Under academic fair use standards and authorial release, the instrument is available free of charge for non-commercial scientific, academic, and doctoral research investigations without requiring explicit formal licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is formally maintained in all written works and publications.

Commercial deployment, proprietary corporate consulting batteries, inclusion within monetized enterprise diagnostic software platforms, or broad-scale commercial distribution may require formal copyright clearance from the American Psychological Association and the copyright holders. Researchers seeking formal documentation or inquiries regarding shortened adaptations can review resources provided by Dr. Robert Eisenberger’s academic laboratory and the APA permissions portal.

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
• Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
• Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
• Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
• Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003
• Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
• Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637
• Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.5465/257021

Items of the Scale