Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale

Abstract

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS), originally conceptualized and psychometrically operationalized by K. Michele Kacmar and Gerald R. Ferris (1991), stands as the premier self-report instrument designed to quantify an employee’s subjective appraisal of self-serving, non-sanctioned, and politically motivated behaviors within their organizational work environment. Grounded in the premise that cognitive perceptions of the workplace dictate employee attitudes and behaviors more decisively than objective reality itself, the POPS evaluates the degree to which workplace processes are manipulated by individuals and coalitions for personal gain rather than collective organizational goals. The canonical condensed version of the POPS consists of 12 items spanning three intercorrelated yet conceptually distinct dimensions: General Political Behavior (GPB), which assesses overarching political tactics, power plays, and systemic self-interest; Go Along to Get Ahead (GATGA; or political behavior to get ahead), which gauges behavioral compliance, passive acquiescence, and impression management required for survival or advancement; and Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP), which reflects the perceived distortion, ambiguity, or non-merit-based execution of formal human resource allocation systems. Items are scored on a standardized 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric evaluations across diverse industrial and cross-cultural samples demonstrate robust internal consistency reliability, with full-scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging from .87 to .91, and subscale coefficients spanning .74 to .88. Confirmatory factor analyses establish solid construct distinctiveness from related organizational climate and affective constructs such as job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, and procedural justice. The instrument exhibits strong criterion-related validity, serving as an empirical predictor of adverse workplace outcomes including somatic strain, psychological withdrawal, burnout, decreased organizational citizenship behaviors, and elevated turnover intentions.

Keywords

Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale, POPS, organizational politics, Kacmar and Ferris, workplace politics, impression management, organizational justice, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, psychometrics, scale validation, organizational behavior

Authors

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale was conceptualized, developed, and validated by prominent organizational behavior and human resource management scholars:

• K. Michele (Mickey) Kacmar, Ph.D. — Professor of Management, Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (formerly at Florida State University, Texas A&M University, and the University of Alabama). Dr. Kacmar is an internationally recognized scholar in organizational behavior, specializing in organizational politics, workplace ethics, impression management, and leadership dynamics. Her empirical and theoretical publications have appeared extensively in premier outlets including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, and Educational and Psychological Measurement.
• Gerald R. Ferris, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Management and Psychology, Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University. Dr. Ferris is a seminal theorist in organizational science who pioneered the conceptualization of organizational politics, political skill, and social influence in organizations. He has authored or edited numerous foundational texts and scholarly articles, earning lifetime achievement recognitions from the Academy of Management and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale is to assess an individual employee’s cognitive appraisal and subjective perception of the degree of political maneuvering, non-meritocratic decision-making, and self-serving influence tactics present within their immediate organizational environment. In modern organizational science, researchers make a deliberate epistemological distinction between “objective” political behavior (e.g., observable coalitions, overt lobbying, or institutional power struggles) and “perceived” politics. As articulated in early social-cognitive models, individuals do not respond directly to an objective physical or social environment; rather, they react to their psychological interpretation of that environment. Consequently, measuring subjective perceptions is essential, as these cognitive appraisals directly shape emotional reactions, motivational frameworks, cognitive engagement, and behavioral responses.

From an applied organizational diagnosis perspective, the POPS functions as a diagnostic instrument for human resource professionals, organizational development consultants, and occupational health psychologists. High aggregate scores on the POPS across departments or business units signal potential systemic dysfunctions, including:

• Erosion of procedural and distributive justice mechanisms;
• Diminished psychological safety and organizational trust;
• Deterioration of transparent performance management and reward systems;
• Pervasive cynicism, employee disengagement, and voluntary turnover of high-performing talent.

From a basic and applied research perspective, the POPS provides an empirically rigorous, psychometrically stable operationalization of a chronic workplace stressor. Within occupational health psychology, political environments are classified as hindrance stressors—workplace demands that thwart personal growth, goal attainment, and psychological well-being. Using the POPS, researchers examine complex mediation and moderation models involving psychological contract breach, work exhaustion, workplace deviance, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and the mitigating effects of individual differences such as political skill, resilience, and emotional intelligence.

Psychological Construct

Organizational politics is defined as intentional acts of influence undertaken by individuals or groups to enhance, protect, or protect their self-interests, often in conflict with or at the expense of organizational goals and the interests of other organizational members. Because these behaviors are non-sanctioned, covert, and informal, they introduce ambiguity, unpredictability, and perceived unfairness into the social fabric of the organization. The psychological construct captured by the POPS comprises three distinct, highly integrated dimensions:

1. General Political Behavior (GPB)

The General Political Behavior dimension captures an employee’s overarching observations regarding the systemic use of self-serving tactics, power dynamics, and factional influence within the organization. This subscale reflects an organizational culture where influential cliques or dominant groups consistently orchestrate outcomes to advance their own agendas (“One group always gets their way”; “Influential group no one crosses”). It captures a climate characterized by zero-sum competition, where individuals undermine peers to facilitate their own progression (“Build themselves up by tearing others down”) and where institutional policy shifts are perceived as self-serving stratagems engineered to benefit a select elite rather than the broader enterprise. Furthermore, GPB encapsulates the suppression of voice and psychological safety, as employees observe that dissent or transparency is met with covert or overt retaliation.

2. Go Along to Get Ahead (GATGA) / Getting Ahead

The Go Along to Get Ahead dimension reflects the perceived behavioral contingencies required for personal survival, psychological safety, and upward mobility within the organization. In a highly political organization, objective task performance, productivity, and innovation are perceived as secondary to political conformity, acquiescence, and sycophancy. This dimension evaluates the degree to which employees perceive that advancement requires staying silent, avoiding confrontation with dominant authority figures, actively accommodating powerful individuals, and functioning as “yes men.” Positively keyed items in this domain emphasize that meritocracy is compromised: rewards do not reliably accrue to hard workers, nor do promotions go to top performers. Instead, advancement is contingent upon active participation in impression management, flattery, and loyalty signaling to organizational power-holders.

3. Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP)

The Pay and Promotion Policies dimension measures an employee’s perception of the extent to which the organization’s formal human resource systems—specifically remuneration, bonus allocations, performance evaluations, and career advancements—are executed in a fair, meritocratic, and objective manner versus being manipulated by political bias, nepotism, and favoritism. While GPB captures macro-level cultural maneuvers and GATGA assesses micro-level individual behavioral strategies, PPP focuses directly on formal administrative justice. High political perception in this domain indicates that stated organizational policies are viewed as mere facades, with compensation and promotional decisions being driven by informal power networks, backroom agreements, and subjective allegiances rather than established procedural standards.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale is primarily rooted in the conceptual framework advanced by Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989), further expanded by Kacmar and Ferris (1991), and situated within several foundational organizational and psychological paradigms:

1. The Cognitive Appraisal Model of Organizational Politics

Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989) posited that perceptions of politics mediate the relationship between objective organizational antecedents (such as centralization, formalization, resource scarcity, and span of control) and employee psychological and behavioral outcomes. Drawing upon Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress and coping, an employee constantly evaluates their work context. When workplace mechanisms appear opaque, non-contingent, and dominated by self-serving actors, the individual appraises the environment as a chronic hindrance stressor. This cognitive appraisal evokes feelings of vulnerability, anxiety, and perceived loss of control, ultimately driving compensatory behavioral adaptations (e.g., withdrawal, alienation, or defensive political engagement).

2. Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) provides a robust theoretical foundation for understanding the negative consequences measured by the POPS. Under normative social exchange conditions, organizations provide socioemotional support, recognition, and fair compensation in return for employee loyalty, high effort, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). When employees perceive high levels of organizational politics, they infer that the psychological contract has been violated. The social exchange relationship degrades into an exploitative, transactional dynamic where discretionary effort is withheld, mutual trust collapses, and reciprocal withdrawal takes place.

3. Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

According to Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources theory, individuals possess finite pools of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that they strive to acquire, protect, and accumulate. A political work environment represents an environment of perpetual resource threat and loss. Navigating ambiguous agendas, protecting oneself from Machiavellian maneuvers, and managing political reputation deplete valuable cognitive and emotional bandwidth. Employees functioning under elevated POPS conditions must constantly expend self-regulatory resources simply to defend their standing, leading directly to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and somatic strain.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale has been thoroughly evaluated across multiple empirical investigations, replication initiatives, and comprehensive meta-analyses over the past three decades:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validation was systematically conducted during the scale’s initial development by Kacmar and Ferris (1991). Across an initial pool of over 40 conceptual items, iterative exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using maximum likelihood and principal axis factoring with orthogonal and oblique rotations isolated a stable three-factor structure. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse occupational samples (e.g., healthcare personnel, public sector employees, corporate administrative staff) have demonstrated that the hypothesized three-factor model provides a significantly better fit to empirical data than alternative single-factor (unidimensional) or two-factor models.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To establish that the POPS measures a distinct psychological construct rather than general workplace dissatisfaction, Kacmar and Ferris (1991) factor-analyzed POPS items alongside the items of the widely validated Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). The results confirmed that POPS items loaded unequivocally on their respective political dimensions and maintained factor independence from general job satisfaction facets (satisfaction with work, supervision, pay, promotions, and co-workers).

Meta-analytic evidence compiled by Ferris et al. (2002) and Rosen, Chang, and Levy (2006) systematically confirmed convergent validity through robust, statistically significant correlations with theoretical correlates:

• Perceived Organizational Support (POS): Moderate to strong negative correlations (sample-weighted mean r ≈ -.50 to -.57);
• Organizational Justice: Substantial negative relationships with procedural justice (r ≈ -.54 to -.62), distributive justice (r ≈ -.45 to -.52), and interactional justice (r ≈ -.48);
• Job Satisfaction: Consistent inverse correlations across industries (sample-weighted mean r ≈ -.45 to -.55);
• Organizational Commitment: Strong negative association with affective commitment (r ≈ -.42 to -.49);
• Turnover Intentions: Statistically significant positive correlations with voluntary turnover cognitions and intent to leave (sample-weighted mean r ≈ .38 to .46);
• Workplace Strain and Burnout: Consistent positive correlations with job anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and somatic stress symptoms (r ≈ .32 to .48).

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Cropanzano et al. (1997) demonstrated that the POPS prospectively predicted objective employee turnover, organizational citizenship behaviors directed at both individuals (OCB-I) and the organization (OCB-O), and subjective self-ratings of performance. Longitudinal designs have shown that baseline POPS scores significantly predict subsequent increases in physiological burnout and self-reported depressive symptoms over 6-month and 12-month evaluation intervals, even when controlling for baseline negative affectivity (trait NA) and demographic characteristics.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale have been extensively documented in original psychometric validations and independent replication studies:

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original validation study by Kacmar and Ferris (1991), the internal consistency of the overall 12-item scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 in an initial mixed-industry sample and .89 in a cross-validation sample of public sector workers. Subscale reliability coefficients typically display strong psychometric integrity:

• General Political Behavior (GPB): Cronbach’s alpha values consistently range from .78 to .86;
• Go Along to Get Ahead (GATGA): Cronbach’s alpha values typically fall between .74 and .84;
• Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP): Cronbach’s alpha values generally span .72 to .82.

Subsequent high-profile replications have corroborated these estimates. For instance, Cropanzano et al. (1997) reported overall scale reliability alphas ranging from .88 to .91 across separate professional samples. Kacmar (1999) observed a composite alpha coefficient of .90. Meta-analyses encompassing tens of thousands of participants report sample-weighted average internal consistency reliabilities of .88 for the total composite scale, establishing that measurement error is minimal and well within acceptable thresholds for research and diagnostic utility.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest stability coefficients for the POPS reflect the expected balance between stable environmental appraisal and sensitivity to changing workplace dynamics. In studies measuring stability across short-to-medium intervals (e.g., 4 to 8 weeks), test-retest reliability correlations range between r = .71 and r = .79. Over longer intervals (6 to 12 months), stability coefficients attenuate to approximately r = .45 to .58, consistent with theoretical expectations that political perceptions naturally fluctuate in response to structural reorganizations, executive leadership transitions, and shifts in organizational resource allocation.

Factor Analysis

The structural evolution and latent variable configuration of the POPS represent one of the most thoroughly analyzed psychometric trajectories in organizational assessment literature:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The development of the POPS initiated with a comprehensive 40-item conceptual instrument reflecting Ferris, Russ, and Fandt’s (1989) theoretical framework. Kacmar and Ferris (1991) subjected these items to exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation with both varimax (orthogonal) and oblimin (oblique) rotations. Items exhibiting cross-loadings greater than .35 on multiple factors, items failing to achieve a primary loading of .40, and items that degraded conceptual clarity were iteratively excised. This rigorous reduction yielded a parsimonious 12-item model structured across three distinct factors:

• Factor 1: General Political Behavior (Items 1–6) — captures overt, active political behavior, dominance of cliques, and perceived systemic self-interest;
• Factor 2: Go Along to Get Ahead (Items 7–10) — captures the requirement of compliance, passive agreement, and lack of voice to secure career progression;
• Factor 3: Pay and Promotion Policies (Items 11–12) — reflects the absence or presence of political manipulation in formal compensation and advancement practices.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analyses have consistently affirmed that the three-factor oblique model provides superior fit relative to single-factor or two-factor alternatives. Kacmar and Ferris (1991), along with subsequent evaluations by Kacmar and Carlson (1997), assessed model fit using standard goodness-of-fit indices:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates for the three-factor model typically range from .041 to .058, indicating excellent to close approximate model fit;
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Standard values consistently exceed .93, frequently reaching .95 to .98 in well-specified samples;
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI / NNFI): Values regularly surpass the recommended .90 threshold, typically clustering between .92 and .96;
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values generally remain below .050.

Standardized item factor loadings across the three factors are uniformly robust, with primary loadings typically spanning .55 to .84. Although Factor 1 and Factor 2 exhibit moderate inter-factor correlations (often r ≈ .45 to .65), and Factor 3 correlates inversely with Factors 1 and 2 (due to positive institutional phrasing before reverse-scoring), higher-order hierarchical CFA models demonstrate that a single second-order “Overall Perceptions of Politics” construct accounts effectively for the common variance among the three primary dimensions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The practical administration, architectural structure, and scoring conventions for the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Ferris, 1991) are outlined below:

• Scale Name: Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS)
• Authors: K. Michele Kacmar and Gerald R. Ferris (1991)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychological scale / Organizational climate diagnostic
• Target Population: Adult employees, managerial personnel, and professionals across all industries and organizational tiers
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration via paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI), or online web-based assessment platforms
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Item Count: 12 items
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • General Political Behavior (GPB): 6 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • Go Along to Get Ahead (GATGA) / Getting Ahead: 4 items (Items 7, 8, 9, 10)
  • Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP): 2 items (Items 11, 12)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Items denoted with (R) are reverse-scored prior to composite calculation. To reverse-score on a 1-to-5 scale, use the formula: Reversed_Score = 6 − Observed_Score (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
  • Items 7, 8, 9, and 10 within the “Get ahead” subscale are reverse-scored when framed positively in the authentic instrument.
  • Items 11 and 12 within the “Pay and promotion policies” subscale describe non-political, fair administration and must be reverse-scored so that higher numerical values indicate higher perceived organizational politics.
  • Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the respective items (range: 1.00 to 5.00).
  • An overall POPS composite score is obtained by averaging across all 12 items after reverse-scoring. Higher composite scores signify greater perceived levels of organizational politics, cronyism, and non-meritocratic behaviors.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale was formally published in 1991 in the peer-reviewed journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (Sage Publications, Inc.):

• Publication Year: 1991
• Original Copyright: © 1991 by Sage Publications, Inc. Items originally appeared in Table 3 (p. 203) of the seminal article by K. Michele Kacmar and Gerald R. Ferris.
• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Permissions: Under standard scholarly doctrine and academic fair-use guidelines, researchers, university faculty, doctoral students, and non-commercial investigators may administer the POPS for academic and scientific empirical investigations without paying royalty fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is given to the original authors and publisher.
• Commercial and Consulting Usage: Commercial entities, corporate management consultancies, for-profit assessment platforms, and executive coaching organizations seeking to monetize the instrument or integrate it into proprietary assessment batteries should seek explicit copyright clearance or licensing permissions through Sage Publications, Inc. or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2
• Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Kacmar, K. M. (1999). An examination of the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and turnover. In Proceedings of the Southern Management Association Meeting (pp. 120–124).
• Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(4), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057004007
• Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Rosen, C. C., Chang, C. H., & Levy, P. E. (2006). Personality and perceptions of politics: A model of organizational cynicism and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211
• Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Rand McNally.
• Vigoda, E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its effect on employees’ job attitudes and behavior. Public Personnel Management, 29(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900203

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)