Minimum Wages Act 1948

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/247727663
Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development

and Construct Validation
Article in Educational and Psychological Measurement · March 1991

DOI: 10.1177/0013164491511019
CITATIONS READS
277 10,510
2 authors:
K. Michele Kacmar Gerald R. Ferris

Texas State University Florida State University
155 PUBLICATIONS 11,097 CITATIONS 318 PUBLICATIONS 17,707 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Team Political Skill View project
Personal initiative at work View project
All content following this page was uploaded by K. Michele Kacmar on 27 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Journal of Management
1997, Vol. 23, No. 5, 627-658
FURTHER VA LIDA T/ON OF THE

PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICS SCALE
(POPS): A MULTIPLE SAMPLE
IN VESTIGA T/ON
K. Michele Kacmar
Florida State Universio
Dawn S. Carlson
Universi& of Utah
Although political behavior in organizations is ubiquitous,

measuring it is often dijkult. In one attempt to create such a measure,
Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed and evaluated the psychometric
properties of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS). Later, Nye and
Witt (1993) examined the dimensionality of POPS and its construct
validity by comparing it with the Survey of Perceived Organizational
Support (SPOS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986).
The present research extends these previous studies by using structural
equation modeling to evaluate the dimensional@, reliability, and valid-
ity of POPS across three different studies utilizing nine d@erent
samples for a total of 2758 respondents. Results suggested that some of
the original POPS items were ineffective and needed to be removed or
replaced. Hence, some of the original items were deleted and additional
items were generated and tested to produce a rt$ned and revised
version of POPS.
The use of political tactics in organizations is widespread. Virtually every

employee in America can recount a political incident in which he or she was
directly or indirectly involved. The consequences of these political events lead
those involved to view organizational politics in their own way. Some, who may
have been negatively affected by a political incident, perceive it to be a negative
influence in organizations, while others, mostly those whose position was
advanced by political means, view it as a useful tool in an organization (Ferris &
Kacmar, 1992). Since people act upon their perceptions of reality, not reality per
se, recognizing and understanding employees’ perceptions of politics is of impor-
tance to organizations (Lewin, 1936; Porter, 1976).
Direct all correspondence to: K. Michele Kacmar, Department of Management. Florida State University, College
of Business, Tallahassee, FL 32306-I 110.
Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063
627
628 K. MICHELE KACMAR AND DAWN S. CARLSON
The perceptions individuals hold about the political nature of their work
environment influence the way they do their jobs. These perceptions affect how
employees feel about their company, boss, and co-workers, and they impact the
productivity, satisfaction, and intent to turnover of the workers (Ferris & Kacmar,
1992). Individuals’ perceptions about politics in the organization also determine
how political the environment will be. If employees perceive that others get ahead
by acting politically, these individuals will be more likely to engage in political
behaviors themselves (Ferris, Fedor, Chachere, & Pondy, 1989). Therefore, orga-
nizational culture is influenced by the degree of political activity found in an orga-
nization and how the employees in that organization react to these activities.
Although perceptions of organizational politics play an important role in the
organization, relatively little is known about this process (Ferris, Russ & Fandt,
1989). One reason for a lack of knowledge in this area is that no established scale
existed to measure perceptions of organizational politics. However, this void was
recently filled by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) who developed and performed an
initial validation of a measure entitled the Perception of Politics Scale (POPS).
This twelve-item scale was designed to assess the degree to which respondents
view their work environments as political. Armed with this information, managers
can better understand how employees perceive and react to politics in the organi-
zational environment around them.
While an initial validation of POPS was conducted during the development
of the scale, further examination of the dimensionality and construct validity of
POPS was performed by Nye and Witt (1993). However, before researchers inter-
ested in the area of organizational politics accept this scale for widespread use,
further validation is needed. Hence, the purpose of the present study is to provide
subsequent empirical validation of this scale.
Perceptions of Organizational Politics

Although politics is virtually endemic in organizational life (Ferris &
Kacmar, 1992; Frost, 1987; Kumar & Ghadially, 1989; Porter, Allen & Angle,
1981), only a limited amount of attention has been paid to this research area.
Some interest in organizational politics surfaced in the late 1970s a&l the early
1980s (Farrell & Peterson, 1982; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Madison, Allen, Porter,
Renwick & Mayes, 1980; Mayes & Alien, 1977; Porter et al., 1981; Schein, 1977;
Tushman, 1977), however, interest in organizational politics as a research area
soon waned. This lack of interest may be attributed to the difficulty early organi-
zational politics researchers experienced in defining, quantifying, and measuring
this elusive phenomenon. However difficult the task, prior to reviewing the past
research performed in the area of organizational politics, some consensus about
what constitutes organizational politics must be reached. Therefore, the following
section will grapple with the very difficult task of defining organizational politics.
Toward A Definition of Organizational Politics
One thing that becomes immediately evident when reviewing the organiza-
tional politics literature is that no one definition of the term has received wide-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, \‘OL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

FURTHER VALIDATION 629
spread support (Cropanzano, Kacmar & Bozeman, 1995; Drory & Romm, 1988,
1990; Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989; Porter et al., 1981). Virtually every article writ-
ten in the area includes some reference to the fact that the concept is difficult to
define. In 1990, Drory and Romm wrote an entire article on the definition of orga-
nizational politics. However, after reviewing and integrating the various defini-
tions of organizational politics that had been presented in the literature, they too
avoided offering a definition for the term.
When examining the definitions that have been offered in the literature
(Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick & Mayes, 1979; Farrell & Peterson, 1982;
Ferris et al., 1993; Ferris & Judge, 1991; Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989; Kumar &
Ghadially, 1989; Porter et al., 1981), several commonalities emerge. One
theme is the fact that political activities are a means of exercising social influ-
ence. A second notion is that political behaviors are designed to promote or
protect one’s own self-interests. Finally, the notion that at least two parties
must be included and that these two parties have the potential to possess diver-
gent interests is either explicit or implicit in many definitions. Combining these
perspectives into one general definition allows one to view organizational poli-
tics as social influence attempts directed at those who can provide rewards that
will help promote or protect the self-interests of the actor (Cropanzano et al.,
1995).
Armed with a working definition of organizational politics, we are now
ready to explore past research in this domain. In the sections that follow, theoreti-
cal and empirical efforts in the area of organizational politics will be reviewed
briefly. The review is organized around the three factors generated by Kacmar
and Ferris (1991): general political behavior, which includes the behaviors of
individuals who act in a self-serving manner to obtain valued outcomes; go along
to get ahead, which consists of a lack of action by individuals (e.g., remain
silent) in order to secure valued outcomes; and pay and promotion policies,
which involves the organization behaving politically through the policies it
enacts.
General Political Behavior
It has been suggested that political behavior in organizations will increase
when rules and regulations are not available to govern actions (Drory & Romm,
1990; Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris, Fedor, Chachere & Pondy, 1989; Ferris &
King, 1991; Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar & Ferris, 1993; Madison et al.,
1980; Tushman, 1977). In the absence of specific rules and policies for guidance,
individuals have few clues as to acceptable behavior, and therefore, develop their
own. When left to their own, individuals often develop rules that are self-serving
and better the position of the rule maker. Individuals who are more adept at deal-
ing with uncertain situations and persons who impose their own rules on others
are more likely to have their rules adopted.
Another process impacted by uncertainty is decision making. Decision
making under uncertainty has been found to be susceptible to political influence
(Drory & Ron-m, 1990). When the information needed to make an informed deci-
sion is lacking or ambiguous, decision makers rely upon their own interpretations
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

of the data. Multiple translations of the same information can result in ineffective
decisions that may appear political to those not directly involved in the decision
making process (Cropanzano et al., 1995).
Scarcity of valued resources (e.g., transfers, raises, office space, budgets)
generates competition. Several researchers have suggested that jockeying for a
position that will allow one to receive a valued resource is quintessential political
behavior (Drory & Romm, 1990; Farrell & Peterson, 1982; Kumar & Ghadially,
1989). This implies that organizations with limited resources will have political
environments. Since most organizations will have limited resources in at least one
area, political activities may occur in virtually any organization.
Examining exactly why resources are scant can help to predict who the target
of the political activities will be, as well as how heated the contest may become.
Any individual who has control over critical resources that cannot be secured
elsewhere will be a probable target of political influence tactics (Frost, 1987).
Further, the attractiveness and immediate benefit of the resource also will factor
into the decision to engage in political activities (Drory & Romm, 1990). In some
cases, a scarce resource, such as the organization’s tickets to a sporting event, may
only be valued by a few individuals, and hence, the actions engaged in to secure
this resource may not be as competitive as those used to secure a scare resource
valued by all, such as a raise or a promotion.
Go Along to Get Ahead
Conflict is consistently related to organizational politics in the literature
(Drory & Romm, 1988; Frost, 1987; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Mintzberg, 1985;
Porter et al., 1981; Tushman, 1977). The essence of this connection is that politi-
cal behavior is self-serving, and thus, has the potential to threaten the self-inter-
ests of others. When a threat is followed by retaliation, conflict arises (Porter et
al., 1981). According to Drory and Ron-n-n (1990), the existence of conflict is a
necessary underlying element of organizational politics. Further, the actual influ-
ence attempts themselves are an indication of the potential state of conflict that
exists between the two parties.
Some individuals may desire to avoid conflict, and therefore, not resist
others’ influence attempts. While this may appear to be a nonpolitical act, it
can actually be considered a form of political behavior. It has been suggested
that the distinction between political and nonpolitical behavior in organizations
can be made on the basis of intent (Drory & Romm, 1990). That is, if a behav-
ior is enacted specifically for the purposes of advancing one’s own self-inter-
ests, then the individual is acting politically (Frost, 1987). Individuals who
“don’t rock the boat” are not viewed as a threatening opponent by those who
are acting politically. Hence, the nonthreatening individual may be welcomed
into the “in-group” and received valued outcomes simply for not interfering
with a politically acting individual’s or group’s agenda. Lack of action, or
going along to get ahead, can be a reasonable and profitable approach to take
in order to advance one’s own self-interests when working in a political envi-
ronment .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

Pay and Promotion Policies

The final category of organizational politics is how organizations can reward
and perpetuate political behavior through policy implementation (Ferris, Fedor,
Chachere & Pondy, 1989; Ferris & King, 1991; Kacmar & Ferris, 1993). Even
though organizational decision makers may not do so consciously, the human
resource systems that are developed and implemented may reward individuals
who engage in influence behaviors and penalize those who do not. Such practices
will result in a culture in which political activity will be commonplace in virtually
every aspect of human resource decisions.
Organizations can design reward systems that perpetuate political behavior
in a variety of ways. For example, individually oriented rewards induce individu-
ally oriented behavior. Individually oriented behavior, as opposed to organiza-
tionally oriented behavior, is often self-interested and political in nature. When
this type of behavior is rewarded or reinforced, the tactics used to secure the
reward will likely be repeated. Hence, organizations may develop environments
that foster and reward political behavior. Rewarding political behavior also can
influence those who have not acted politically in the past to do so in the future.
That is, individuals who perceive themselves as inequitably rewarded relative to
others who engage in organizational politics may be more likely to engage in
political behaviors in the future (Ferris, Russ & Fandt, 1989; Kacmar & Ferris,
1993).
Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS)
Each of the three factors just discussed are represented in the Perception of
Organizational Politics Scale (POPS) (Kacmar & Ferris, 1991) which is the focus
of this paper. A brief explanation of previous development and validation efforts
of POPS is provided below.
The original development and validation of POPS was a two-phase process
(Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). To begin, 31 items were generated by examining
research, theory, and anecdotal evidence relevant to organizational politics. Three
hundred and eighty-seven responses to these items were factor analyzed using
principal components analysis with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation. In addition,
a dataset that contained random data equivalent to 387 responses to 31 items was
subjected to an identical factor analysis. The resulting eigenvalues from the two
factor analyses were plotted over one another to determine how many factors to
extract (Humphreys & Montanelli, 1975). Results indicated that the two lines
crossed at five factors, so five factors were retained. Next, classical test theory
(i.e., reliability analysis; Nunnally, 1967) was applied to the resulting factors to
produce the most parsimonious set of items that still had acceptable reliability.
After applying classical test theory, two of the factors reduced to two items.
Therefore, in the second phase of this study, nine additional items were generated
for these factors. In phase two, a survey containing the original 31 and the addi-
tional 9 items was distributed to approximately 3,000 state workers. Also included
in the second survey administration were four subscales (i.e., co-workers, pay,
promotions, and supervisors) of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall
& Hulin, 1969). These subscales were included as a means of assessing the

discriminate validity of POPS because several of the POPS factors from phase
one seemed to parallel the concepts tapped by the JDI subscales.
The 40 items from POPS and the four JDI subscales were subjected to a prin-
cipal components analysis with an orthogonal varimax rotation which yielded five
factors, one for each JDI subscale and one for the politics items. However, as
expected, several of the POPS items (i.e., 13) loaded on one of the JDI factors.
Items that loaded only on POPS and not on a JDI factor were retained. The
retained items were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with a
varimax rotation resulting in three factors. Finally, classical test theory was
applied to the remaining three factors to further reduce them as described above.
The final results for the second phase produced a twelve-item, three-factor scale.
This final scale was further examined by Nye and Witt (1993). Specifically,
these authors examined the dimensionality and construct validity of POPS. With
respect to the dimensionality of POPS, Nye and Witt used both exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. First, they used principal components analysis with
a varimax rotation and selected factors with an eigenvalue over 1.0. They also
used structural equation modeling (i.e., LISREL) to compare a three-factor solu-
tion to a one-factor solution. The exploratory factor analysis results (eigenvalues
greater than 1) indicated that a one-factor solution was appropriate for the sample
used. The confirmatory factor analyses results, however, were not as clear. The
three-factor model produced a better model-to-data fit (GFI=.87 versus .89,
NFI=.93 versus .90), but had less parsimony (.74 versus .72). However, the high
factor correlations (-.85, -.94, and .91) provide additional evidence in support of
a one-factor solution.
Nye and Witt (1993) also examined the construct validity of POPS by
comparing it to the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisen-
berger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986). Given that SPOS was designed
to measure the degree to which individuals viewed their organizations as
concerned about their well-being and appreciative of their efforts, a negative
relationship between SPOS and POPS was expected and found. Specifically,
results from these analyses indicated POPS and SPOS were strongly and
inversely related (-.85). Further, each of these scales produced significant but
oppositely signed correlations with other job related measures (e.g., job satis-
faction-POPS = -.62, SPOS = .68; commitment-POPS = -.58, SPOS = .59).
While these results indicate some conceptual overlap between POPS and SPOS,
there also are distinctions. The main difference between these two scales is their
focus. Each item in SPOS asks the respondent to comment on how the “organi-
zation” treats him or her while POPS more explicitly delineates the group to be
evaluated (e.g., influential group, supervisors, people in my department). If
raters focus on the same referent group when completing SPOS and POPS, the
conceptual overlap could be great. However, if top management rather than
departmental colleagues and immediate supervisors are the target of individu-
als’ SPOS ratings, there could be virtually no conceptual overlap.
Several limitations of the Nye and Witt (1993) examination should be noted.
First, the wording of two of the POPS items had to be changed in order for the
survey to be approved and distributed. The original item “There is no place for

Item 7
w-&o Alo
to Get
Ahead
Y
Figure 1. Model of Perceptions of Politics Scale

yes-men around here; good ideas are desired even when it means disagreeing with
supervisors.” (reverse coded) was changed to read “It is safer to agree with
managers than to say what you think is right.” Also, the original item “Since I
have worked in this department, I have never seen pay and promotion policies
applied politically.” (reverse coded) was modified to read “Pay and promotion
decisions are consistent with policies.” Hence, the integrity of the scale was
violated. Second, analysis of individual items was not performed. That is, POPS
and SPOS items were not factor analyzed together as was done with the JDI in the
initial validation of the POPS. An in-depth examination of the individual scale
items might have produced more useful results.
Since the validation research to date on POPS has not fully established the
dimensionality and psychometric properties of the scale, additional work is
needed. To address this need, the present study used a structural equation model-
ing approach (i.e., LISREL) to examine, validate, and modify POPS.
The Current Study

Figure 1 shows the structural model for POPS as empirically derived by
Kacmar and Ferris (1991). The model has three latent constructs: General Politi-
cal Behavior, Go Along to Get Ahead, and Pay and Promotion. Each of these
constructs map to specific items presented as Item 1 through Item 12 in Figure 1.
Further, because these three subscales were designed to measure portions of the
overall construct of perceptions of organizational politics, it is assumed that they
are correlated. Hence, paths between the latent factors also should be estimated as
indicated in Figure 1.
Study 1 - Dimensionality
Nye and Witt’s (1993) results indicated that the model shown in Figure 1
may not be the best representation of POPS. Therefore, Study 1 was designed to
examine the dimensionality of POPS. Specifically, the model proposed in Figure
1 and a one-factor model in which all twelve items were mapped to one general
political factor were estimated. The model providing the best model-to-data fit
was then further examined in detail for overall model acceptability.
Study 2 - Individual Item Analysis
Study 2 was designed to consider the performance of each individual item in
POPS. Specifically, items that did not load significantly on their intended factor
or items that loaded on multiple factors were identified. To do this, content
adequacy data (Schreisheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner & Lankau, 1993) were
collected on each of the twelve items in POPS. These data were factor analyzed
and mean values for each item across the three factors were calculated. As a third
decision criteria, results from exploratory factor analyses of the four datasets
containing responses to the 12 POPS items were used. Based on all of these
results, items that did not adequately map to the factor to which they belonged
were deleted. Structural equation modeling analysis was then applied to the
remaining items using a series of four different datasets to determine the overall
fit of the model as well as the validity of the remaining items. Finally, additional

scales were introduced at this point to examine the convergent and discriminant
validity of POPS.
Study 3 - Augmenting POPS
In the third study, additional items were developed to augment the reduced
set of items. The development of the new items was based upon the rationale
described by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) when they originally developed items for
POPS and the theory outlined earlier. Content adequacy, content analysis, and
exploratory factor analyses were performed for each of these new items to deter-
mine which to keep. Those that remained were then examined via structural equa-
tion modeling using a new dataset collected specifically for this purpose.
STUDY 1: DIMENSIONALITY
Methods
Sample and Data Collection
The sample in Study 1 consisted of 749 responses (64% response rate) from an
attitude survey for a large state agency in which POPS was one of many variables
included. The survey was mailed via interoffice mail to all members of the agency.
A cover letter written by the director of the agency was included with each survey.
The cover letter introduced the project and stressed the importance of participation
in the project. An envelope addressed to the researchers also was enclosed so that
the respondents could return the surveys directly to the researchers.
Measure
Perceptions of politics. The Kacmar and Ferris (1991) 12-item Perception
of Politics Scale was administered to respondents from the state agency sample.
The internal reliability estimate for this sample was .87.
Analyses
To assess the dimensionality of POPS, structural equation modeling analysis
using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) was applied to the data from the
state agency sample to compare the fit of the three-factor model shown in Figure 1
to a one-factor model in which all 12 items were linked to one general political
factor. A X2 difference test was used to compare the two models. The best-fitting
model was then examined more closely for overall model fit using the available
LISREL indicators (e.g., GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI).
Results and Discussion

Table 1 provides an intercorrelation matrix of the 12 POPS items for the state
agency sample. Also included in Table 1 are the means and standard deviations.
To examine the dimensionality of POPS, a variance/covariance matrix of the state
agency data was used as input. The model shown in Figure 1 and a one-factor
model (i.e., all twelve items loading on one factor) were examined using LISREL
8. All of the fit indices for the 3-factor model were better than for the one-factor
model (3-factor: X2(51)=498.76, p = .OO, NFI = .87, CFI = .88, PNFI = .67,

Table 1. Correlation Matrix for Individual POPS Items*: State Agency Sample N = 749
Ite m Mean SD I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12
I 2.6 1.2 -
2 2.6 1.1 .57 -
3 2.1 1.1 .40 .47 -
4 2.9 1.1 .60 .57 .39 _
5 2.6 1.2 .3X .44 SO .42 -
6 2.7 1.2 .51 .59 .44 .60 .46 -
I 2.7 1.1 .24 .38 .36 .31 .4X .33 -
8 2.6 1.2 .24 .35 .40 .34 .51 .33 .59 -
9 2.9 1.1 .32 .41 .42 .35 .41 .41 .39 .39 -
10 2.9 1.2 .29 .3X .3X .33 .40 .3X .37 .3X .65 -
11 2.3 1.3 .20 .24 .1X .1X .26 .14 .34 .33 .25 .22 -
12 2.6 1.1 .22 .29 .33 .21 .31 .22 .43 .39 .2x .2x .54 -
*All correlations are significant at the p < .Ol level.
RMSEA = .lO; l-factor: X2(54) = 919.55, p = .OO, NFI = .76, CFI = .77,
PNFI = .56, RMSEA = .14), however, the overall fit was modest, most likely indi-
cating model misspecification. Further, a X2 difference test between these two
models (426 with 3 degrees of freedom) was significant (p < .Ol). Finally, the
correlations between the three factors were not excessively large (.74, .44, .62).
All of these results suggest that the three-factor model best fit the data, so further
examination of this model was conducted.
LISREL Results
Modification indices. Discriminant validity of the factors can be deter-
mined by examining the modification indices of Lambdax. According to
Medsker, Williams and Holohan (1994), values less than 4 are acceptable, while
values higher than 4 indicate that the items are loading on multiple factors and
that the error terms might be correlated. Results from the present data indicated
that half (12 of 24) exceeded the recommended cutoff.
Item loadings/lambdas. The standardized parameter estimates, often
referred to as the Lambdas, are presented in the middle of Figure 2. In order to
determine the significance of the loadings, t-values are examined because they are
independent of units of measurement (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). The t-values,
which ranged from 18.36 to 24.24, were all significant at the p < .Ol level. This
indicates that each item is significantly related to its specified construct.
Squared multiple correlations. The squared multiple correlations (SMCs)
provide information about the reliability of the items as well as the extent to
which they measure what they purport to measure. Specifically, SMC values indi-
cate the percent of variance accounted for by each item in the factor. These values
will always be less than the composite reliabilities. While composite reliabilities

637
THETA DELTAS LAMl3DA X PHI CQEFFKIENTS
.63
.60
.80
‘62
.7-l
.75
.68
.73
.90
.44
Figure 2. Study f Test for Model of PUPS
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23, NO. 5, I997

should be greater than .70, it is not possible to even suggest a rule of thumb cutoff
for SMCs (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
For the current sample, the SMCs ranged from .39 to .66 (mean = .49;
median = .48; 9 > = .45) with a composite reliability of .87. Since this value was
above the suggested cutoff of .70, the scale had acceptable reliability.
Chi-square. The chi-square test is a measure of overall fit of the model
to the data. The goal when using LISREL is to fail to reject the null hypothesis
that the model fit the data (i.e., Sigmadata = Sigma,,&. In this case, the chi-
square value was statistically significant (X2(51) = 489.76, p c .OOO),indicating
that the model does not fit the data. It is important to note, however, that when
the dataset used with this test is large, it is virtually impossible to fail to reject
the null hypothesis.
Goodness-of-fit. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is another indication of
how well the model fits the data. The current data produced a value of .89
which indicates that the model does a reasonable job of fitting the data.
However, to adjust for model parsimony, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI) is calculated which should exceed .90 (Medsker et al., 1994). The AGFI
value for the current sample dropped to .84, which placed it out of the accept-
able range.
Normed fit index. To examine the proportion of total variance accounted
for by a model, the normed fit index (NFI) is used (Medsker et al., 1994). An
acceptable value for the NFI is .90 (Medsker et al., 1994). The NFI for the three-
factor model was .87, indicating that this fit statistic falls just below the border of
acceptability.
Comparative fit index. The comparative fit index (CFI) is similar to the
NFI, except that it overcomes the difficulties associated with sample size
(Medsker et al., 1994). The CFI for the present model was .88, which falls just
below the acceptable level of .90 (Mulaik et al., 1989).
Parsimony fit index. The parsimony fit index (PFI) reflects the amount of
covariance explained by a model when its number of parameters is taken into
account (Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). That is, if the same amount of construct
covariance is explained by two models, the less complex of the two models will
have a higher PFI value. PFI values over .60 are considered acceptable (Mulaik et
al., 1989). A value of .67 was found for the present data, indicating adequate
parsimony for the model.
Summary. While it is clear that the three-factor model is superior to the
one-factor model, the detailed assessment of the overall fit of the three-factor
model demonstrated that it had shortcomings. Therefore, further adjustments to
the model needed to be made. One approach that can be taken to increase the
overall fit of a confirmatory factor analysis model is to remove items that do not
load significantly on the intended factor as well as those items that load on
multiple factors. To determine which, if any, POPS items fell into one or the
other of these categories, each individual item of POPS must be examined.
Study 2 was undertaken to ascertain each item’s contribution to the overall
model fit.

STUDY 2: INDIVIDUAL ITEM ANALYSIS
Methods
Overview
A variety of analyses were performed in study 2. First, content adequacy data
(Schreisheim et al., 1993) were collected for each of the twelve items in POPS.
This required respondents to indicate how closely each POPS item represented a
definition of each of the three factors of POPS. To determine which items did not
relate to the factor to which they were intended to measure, an exploratory factor
analysis of the content adequacy data was conducted. In addition, the mean values
for each item across the three factors also were calculated using the content
adequacy data. As a third decision criteria, exploratory factor analyses on the four
POPS datasets were used to ascertain which items to retain and which to discard.
Next, a multiple groups analysis using structural equation modeling was applied
to the remaining items using a series of four different datasets to determine the
overall fit of the model and validity of the remaining items. Finally, additional
scales were introduced to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the
reduced POPS scale. Each of these steps is examined in greater detail below.
Content adequacy. A total of 102 upper level undergraduate students in
the College of Business at a large southern university were asked to complete a
content adequacy analysis of the original 12 items of POPS. Specifically, each
respondent was asked to determine the degree to which each item of POPS repre-
sented a factor definition. This required the judges to rate an item three times,
each time comparing it to a different factor definition. For example, a respondent
read the following definition for the “Go Along to Get Ahead” factor:
These are actions used to maintain the current way of thinking or the
way things are done in an organization in order to get ahead (e.g., not
making your opinion known to get along with important others).
and then rated how closely each of the 12 items from POPS fit this factor defini-
tion. This process was repeated after each new factor definition was presented.
The scale used was a 5-point Likert type scale with definitely not representative
(1) and definitely representative (5) as the anchors. The gender mix of the sample
included 63 (62%) males and 39 (38%) females. The average age was 23.5 years.
POPS data. A total of four separate samples were used to test the model-
to-data fit for the refined POPS scale (i.e., after the content adequacy and explor-
atory factor analyses were conducted). Each of these samples used POPS as a
variable in a larger data collection project. All of the data were collected via mail-
out surveys that were returned directly to the researchers. The first sample was
from an attitude survey for an electric cooperative from which a total of 466 (94%
response rate) responses were included. The next sample came from a survey
about current policies, perceptions, and attitudes of Human Resource profession-
als in a two state area. A total of 58 1 (39% response rate) responses were included

640 K. MICHELE KACMAR AND DAWN S. CAKLSON
from this survey. The third sample represented 220 (44% response rate) nonfac-
ulty employees at a small no~heaste~ university who responded to an attitude
survey. In the fourth sample, 320 (64% response rate) responses were generated
from full-time employees in the private sector specifically for POPS validation
purposes. A correlation matrix for each of the four samples for each of the twelve
individual POPS items is available from the first author.
Measures
P~~ce~~on~ of politics. The Kacmar and Ferris (1991) 12-item perception
of politics scale was administered to respondents from each sample. The internal
reliability estimate for each sample was as follows: cooperative = X3, human
resource professionals = .86, university employees = .89, and validation study
respondents = .88.
The validation study respondents also were asked to respond to a variety of
scales that were thought to be distinct from but related to POPS as a means of
assessing the discriminant validity of POPS. These scales were used in the second
set of analyses in which the reduced set of items was examined across a variety of
samples. Each of these scales is described below.
F&h in people. The faith in people scale (Rosenberg, 1957) was designed
to measure one’s degree of confidence in the trustwo~hiness, honesty, and good-
ness in mankind. A reverse scored sample item is “If you don’t watch yourself,
people will take advantage of you.” In our study, individuals with high scores
represented people who were willing to use unscrupulous means to get ahead and
believed in the superior efficacy of “contacts” over ability. Thus, these individuals
were likely to believe that politicai behavior can and should be used to get ahead
in life. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was 68.
AGenation. The alienation via rejection scale (Streuning & Richardson,
1965) measures the emotional distance and purposelessness people experience
when dealing with others. A sample item is “Most people don’t realize how much
their lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret by others.” Thus, individuals
high in alienation believe that they cannot trust the people around them. This
would be consistent with POPS in that someone who saw activities as political
also would think that he or she has to beware of people who have an influence on
his or her life. The internal consistency estimate for this scale was .81.
An alienation scale developed by Dean (1961) also was used to examine the
alienation concept. This scale taps the powerlessness and normlessness that an
individual feels in his or her life. A sample item is “Sometimes I have the feeling
that other people are using me.” Thus, individuals scoring high on this scale
would feel they have little power over their own lives and view their lives as
controlled by others. This concept is very similar to perceptions of political
behavior in that an individual who views his or her work environment as political
would feel that he or she is negatively affected by the political actions of others.
This scale produced an internal reliability estimate of 64.
Cynicism. A cynicism subscale from the New F (Authorit~an) Scale
(Webster, Sanford & Freeman, 1955) was used to tap the degree of cynicism or
skepticism an individual has toward people in the world. An example item is “I

don’t blame anyone for trying to grab all he can get in this world.” Hence, this
scale measures ways in which political behavior is enacted in a social context. As
with POPS, the higher the cynicism score, the more likely the respondent will
view others’ behaviors as political. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .67.
Ah&m. The altruism subscale from the Philosophy of Human Nature
Scale (Wrightsman, 1964) was used to measure the extent of unselfishness,
sincere sympathy, and concern one has for others. Wrightsman has shown both
reliability and validity of this measure. A sample item (reverse scored) is “People
pretend to care more about one another than they really do.” The scale was scored
such that a high score indicated selfishness and lack of concern for others. The
overall internal reliability estimate for this scale was .64.
Trust. Trust, a second subscale from the Philosophy of Human Nature
Scale (Wrightsman, 1964), was used to measure the expectancies people have
about the way other people generally behave. A sample item that is reverse scored
is “Most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it.” The scale was scored
such that a high score indicated low overall favorability toward human nature,
which would be consistent with POPS. This scale produced an internal consis-
tency estimate of .8 1.
Social Attitude. Campbell’s (1966) social attitude scale assesses how posi-
tive a view one has about humankind. In this scale, a positively viewed item was
paired with a negatively viewed item and the respondents were asked to indicate
their agreement with one of the paired items. A sample item is “The golden rule is
still the best rule to live by” versus “Nice guys finish last.” Similar to POPS, the
items were coded such that a high score represented a negative view of mankind.
The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .67.
Self-activity inventory. The self-activity scale is used as a general measure
of self- concept adjustment (Worchel, 1958). An example of one of the items used
is “I am a person who plays up to others in order to advance his/her position.”
This scale measures specific behaviors an individual will enact to adapt to his or
her environment. Those who attempt to fit into their environment should be more
political in nature, and thus be more aware of political behavior around them.
Therefore, an individual who scores high on the self-activity inventory also
should score high on POPS. This scale produced an internal consistency estimate
of .78.
Analyses
Data generated from the content adequacy analysis were examined using
exploratory factor analysis (principal components with an oblimin rotation) to
determine if the content adequacy ratings for the items loaded on the expected
dimensions. In addition, exploratory factor analyses (principal components with
an oblimin rotation) were performed on each of the four POPS datasets to confirm
these results. Finally, the mean rating for each item on each of the factors using
the content adequacy data was calculated and used as an additional decision tool.
Results from all of these analyses were used to determine which of the original
POPS items should be retained. Next, structural equation modeling was applied to
covariance matrices of the remaining items for each of the four datasets to explore

Table 2. Results for Item Analysis from Study 2
A. C?MpMliW HR Prqfessionals UniversiQ
Fat 1 Fuc 2 Fat 3 Fuc I Fat 2 Fat 3 Fat 1 Fat 2 Fat 3

-
E POPS I ,732 .077 -.262 .777 ,087 .157 ,214 ,475 ,287
“z POPS2 .665 ,131 .165 ,789 ,158 ,191 ,866 -.027 ,126
P
” POPS3 ,176 ,713 -.089 ,488 -.073 .275 .739 ,290 -.090
G
s POPS4 .754 ,083 .073 ,657 -.I54 -.I49 ,079 ,802 -.llO
POPS5 .327 .543 -.151 ,476 -.261 ,196 .216 ,574 ,138
POPS6 ,817 -.057 ,090 ,689 -.248 -.225 -.144 ,464 ,526
POPS7 -.086 ,840 .170 -.042 -.705 ,211 ,016 .576 ,286
POPS8 -.025 ,814 ,090 -.112 -.455 ,565 ,102 .760 -.055
POPS9 -.455 ,138 ,447 -.I07 -.770 -.I23 .214 ,577 .007
POPS IO ,420 -.039 ,588 -.155 -.65 1 ,062 -.108 ,895 -.058
POPS 11 -.02 1 ,143 ,705 ,152 .046 ,762 .129 -.215 ,840
POPS 12 -.098 ,525 ,466 .125 -.I03 .588 ,023 ,185 .67 1
Eigenvalues 5.28 1.31 .90 4.78 .99 1.11 .86 5.50 1.21
Factor Correlations Fl->F2 Fl->F3 F2->F3 Fl->F2 FI->F3 F2->F3 FI->F2 Fl->F3 F2->F3
,459 ,211 ,358 -.432 ,315 -.282 .453 ,279 ,331
B. Full-time Employees Content Adequucy Means
Fuc 1 Fat 2 Far 3 Fat 1 Fat 2 Fat 3 Fuc I Fat 2 Fat 3
POPS 1 ,488 -.407 ,010 -.654 ,356 -.024 3.57 3.45 2.75
POPS2 ,623 -.114 ,113 -.685 .333 -.I31 4.00 3.60 2.79
POPS3 ,765 ,134 ,085 -.621 -.200 ,422 3.65 2.70 3.49
POPS4 ,758 ,008 -.012 -.838 p.203 -.I17 4.29 2.28 2.51
POPS5 ,885 ,116 -.054 .005 ,257 ,789 3.03 3.06 3.92
POPS6 -.072 -.894 ,046 -.151 ,806 -.073 3.39 4.34 2.54
POPS7 ,111 -.792 ,080 .074 -.065 .791 2.90 2.64 4.00
POPS8 ,471 -.354 -.013 -.200 -.092 ,715 3.06 2.52 3.74
POPS9 ,593 -.052 ,032 ,065 ,865 -.044 2.66 4.25 2.42
POPS10 ,555 -.262 p.034 .044 ,887 ,100 2.97 4.23 2.78
POPS 11 -.044 ,074 ,917 ,122 -.006 ,783 2.76 2.67 3.98
POPS12 ,084 -.134 .741 ,059 -.080 ,810 2.80 2.39 3.90
Eigenvalues 5.25 .94 1.16 1.77 2.51 3.71
Factor Correlations Fl->F2 Fl->F3 F2->F3 Fl->F2 Fl->F3 F2->F3
-.511 ,328 -.283 -.187 -.009 -.lll
the overall fit of the reduced model. Specifically, a reduced model was examined
by applying LISREL 8’s multiple group analysis technique to the four datasets.
Finally, the discriminant and convergent validity of the reduced POPS model was
examined using LISREL 8.

Item Analysis
The data from the content adequacy test were analyzed using a principal
components exploratory factor analysis with an oblimin rotation. The identical
item 124
Figure 3. Reduced Model of Perceptions of Politics Scale

analysis also was applied to the four POPS datasets just discussed. Results for
each of these analyses are presented in Table 2. Also presented in Table 2 are the
mean values for each item from the content adequacy test across the three factors.
The six decision tools shown in Table 2 were used to judge which of the original
twelve POPS items should be retained.
In order for an item to be retained, it had to load on its intended factor in a
minimum of three of the five factor analyses. Further, the mean for the item had to
be largest on the factor it was designed to measure, and this value had to be signif-
icantly different than the mean for the other two factors. Implementing these rules
resulted in items 2,4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 being retained and items 1, 3, 5,6,7, and 8
being deleted.
Table 3. LISREL Results for Reduced Model Across Four Samples

Cooperative HR Managers Universi@ Validation
Fit Statistics:
x2 12 35 32 21
df 6 6 6 6
GFI .99 .98 .99 .99
AGFI .98 .95 .95 .96
PGFI .28 .28 .28 .28
NFI .99 .96 .97 .98
PNFI .40 .38 .39 .39
CFI 1.oo .96 .98 .98
IF1 1 .oo .96 .98 .98
RF1 .98 .89 .93 .94
RMSEA ,036 ,079 ,075 ,068
Path Loadings: *
Item 1 -> Factor 1 1.02 .94 .I3 .86
Item 2 -> Factor 1 .64 .88 .69 .92
Item 3 -> Factor 2 .90 .99 .93 .80
Item 4 -> Factor 2 .73 .96 .83 .&O
Item 5 -> Factor 3 .80 .70 .70 .69
Item 6 -> Factor 3 .96 .59 .65 .71
Factor Correlations:
Factor 1 - Factor 2 .59 .72 .81 .80
Factor 1 - Factor 3 .56 .60 .55 .76
Factor 2 - Factor 3 .64 .54 .61 .69
*All path loadings are significant at p < ,000

LISREL Results
Figure 3 depicts the structural model of POPS after removing the items that
did not perform as expected in the content adequacy analysis. The model shown in
Figure 3 was analyzed using the multiple group feature of LISREL 8. Specifi-
cally, each of the remaining four datasets was used to explore the data-to-model
fit of the reduced model.
The first analysis run was a four-group comparison that required the path
loadings, factor correlations, and the error variances for each dataset to be equiva-
lent. The X2 for the comparison between the datasets was significant with a value
of 284.88 and 69 degrees of freedom (p < .OOO).However, the comparative fit
index for the datasets was acceptable (CFI = .90) as was the IFI (.90), and the GFI
(.94). These results suggest that the four different datasets map well to the model
with respect to the factor loadings, factor correlations, and error variances, indi-
cating that the model is generalizable to a variety of datasets. This model was
rerun allowing the path loadings and factor correlations to be re-estimated for
each dataset. The fit statistics for this model were stronger (GFI = .97, CFI = .93,
IF1 = .93). Table 3 presents the specific fit statistics for each of the four datasets
and the resulting path loadings and correlations for the freed model.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
A scale has convergent validity if it is associated positively with other
measures of the same construct or other theoretically relevant constructs. That is,
different measures of the same construct should converge. A scale has discrimi-
nant validity if it is able to discriminate itself from measures of conceptually simi-
lar constructs (Kerlinger, 1986). That is, constructs similar to one another should
be correlated, just not too highly. A number of different measures that purport to
measure constructs that are conceptually similar to POPS were used in order to
establish the convergent and discriminant validity of the POPS. Specifically, the
validation sample respondents were simultaneously administered POPS and eight
other scales that measured theoretically similar constructs to POPS: faith in
people scale (Rosenberg, 1957) alienation via rejection scale (Streuning & Rich-
ardson, 1955) alienation (Dean, 1961), cynicism (Webster et al., 1955) altruism
and trust (Wrightsman, 1964) social attitude (Campbell, 1966), and a self-activity
inventory (Worchel, 1958).
To examine the convergent and discriminate validity of POPS, the process
described by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed. Anderson and Gerbing
suggested developing and testing a measurement model with all of the variables
of interest included. This model should include multiple indicators that are linked
directly to the variable of interest and to no other variables. These multiple indica-
tors can be individual scale items or composites of these items. The only require-
ment is that each set of indicators be unidimensional. Therefore, exploratory
factor analyses were run on the eight scales used for validity purposes to create
subscales where necessary to insure unidimensionality.
Since the overall fit for this model was reasonable (GFI = .88, PGFI = .74,
PNFI = .70, CFI = .88), both discriminant and convergent validity could be
assessed. Convergent validity is present when each indicator’s estimated path
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

coefficient for its assigned variable is significant. Since all of the path coefficients
in the measurement model were significant, convergent validity was achieved.
Discriminant validity can be assessed by examining the confidence intervals
for the factor correlations. This required that confidence intervals for the correla-
tions between POPS and faith in people, alienation, alienation via rejection, cyni-
cism, altruism, trust, social attitude, and self-activity inventory be calculated. In
each case, the confidence intervals showed that the correlations were significantly
different from 1.O. The magnitude of the range of correlations was from .24 to .59,
further showing that different constructs were being measured. Thus, the results
suggested, both statistically and practically, that the concepts considered here are
distinct from POPS.
Summary
Study 2 provided many significant and important findings. First, the
content adequacy analysis and exploratory factor results showed that several of
the original POPS items were not functioning as originally intended. Several
items cross loaded or did not clearly relate to the factor that they were intended
to measure. These results suggested that the original scale should be reduced to
six items (i.e., 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12) with two items remaining on each of the
three factors.
Next, the generalizability of the new factor structure for POPS was examined
via a multiple group LISREL 8 analysis. Results from this test indicated that the
new factor structure did indeed map to the four different datasets used in the anal-
yses. Individual fit statistics for each of the datasets were extremely strong. These
results suggested that the remaining items were stable across a variety of datasets
representing a variety of samples and that the new refined POPS model fit all of
the datasets well.
Finally, the convergent and discriminant validity of the reduced scale was
examined. With respect to convergent validity, all of the retained items in POPS
loaded significantly on the factor that they were intended to measure. To assess
discriminant validity, POPS was compared to a variety of scales that were
suggested to represent a construct similar in nature to the underlying construct
measured by POPS. All of these analyses indicated that while POPS was similar
to these scales, it was distinct (i.e., it showed discriminant validity).
STUDY 3: AUGMENTING POPS

While all of the results reported for Study 2 were positive, the resulting
POPS scale had three two-item factors. In general, two-item factors are consid-
ered less stable and reliable than factors with more than two items. Therefore, the
next step required an expansion of the two-item factors. This was the goal of
Study 3. Specifically, additional items were generated for each of the three POPS
factors to strengthen them. These items were subjected to the same analyses
reported in Study 2 (i.e., content adequacy analysis and structural equation
modeling).
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

Developing Additional Items

A variety of approaches were undertaken to develop new items for POPS.
First, the items that were deleted in Study 2 were examined to determine why they
did not adequately or uniquely represent the POPS factors, and whether they
could be altered to perform as intended. For example, the exploratory factor anal-
ysis results showed that item 1 (“There is a group of people in my department who
always get things their way because no one wants to challenge them.“) cleanly
loaded on the general political factor as originally intended. However, the content
adequacy results indicated that respondents could not decide if the item belonged
on the general political factor (3.57) or the go along to get ahead factor (3.45).
Close examination of this item may suggest why this is the case. A literal interpre-
tation of this item would suggest that this group is acting in a self-serving manner
and, hence, the group’s behavior clearly falls under the category of general politi-
cal behavior. However, a more subtle interpretation might lead to the conclusion
that inaction, not crossing the powerful group, is actually going along to get
ahead. Thus, it appears that some respondents may have taken the item at face
value, while others looked deeper into the actual behaviors being described in the
items. To avoid this problem in the future, new items need to clearly represent
only the factor on which they are intended to load.
A second method used for generating new POPS items was to use existing
organizational politics theory outlined in the literature as a guide. To do this, we
searched for themes in the literature that were commonly accepted or agreed upon
by scholars. One example was the multitude of definitions of politics provided by
the literature. While these definitions were all unique, they shared a common
thread. Specifically, all of the definitions incorporated the idea that political
behavior was self-serving in nature. Hence, items that clearly showed individuals
or groups engaging in self-serving behaviors would fit well with the literature.
Finally, in an effort to make the items seem real to the respondents, a final
approach used to develop new POPS items was to rely on anecdotal evidence and
our own experiences. We each suggested personal examples of events in which
we were affected by organizational politics and then made the specifics surround-
ing these incidents more generic in nature. Utilizing all three of these approaches
allowed us to create 14 new items to be tested in Study 3. A list of these items is
provided in the appendix.
Method
Content adequacy. The same respondents who performed the content
adequacy analysis for the original items in Study 2 were used to perform the
content adequacy analysis on the new items that were developed to augment the
existing POPS scale. The same procedure was followed in that respondents were
required to rate each item three times, once for each factor definition. As previ-
ously explained, the ratings made determined the degree to which the item
measured the definition of the factor being considered.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. S, 1997

FURTHER VALIDATION
ro-- ---mchw~Q-a-N-
113-m-3
.KXJRNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO, 5, t’)97

Content analysis. Fifteen graduate students and faculty members were

given the fourteen new items on slips of paper and the definitions of the three
factors on index cards. In addition, a “none of the above” index card was included.
Judges were instructed to content analyze the items by placing each with the index
card which best represented it. The judges included 8 males (53%) and 7 females
(47%) who had an average age of 35.6 years.
POPS data. The revised and updated POPS scale was mailed to 600
members of the Society for Human Resource Management who lived in the south.
Included with the survey was a self-addressed, stamped envelope for them to use
to return the survey directly to the researchers. A total of 123 usable surveys were
returned (21% response rate). Demographics for this sample included 37 (30%)
males and 107 (87%) Caucasians. The average age of the respondents was 45.2
years, while the average tenure with their organizations was 10.7 years.
This sample was augmented with a second sample collected from night
students enrolled in a business course at a large western university. Of the 182
respondents, 161 (89%) were employed. The gender composition of the sample
included 114 (63%) males and 68 (37%) females. The average age of the sample
was 25.4 years, and the average organizational tenure was 3 years. A correlation
matrix of the combined sample is available from the first author.
Measure
Perceptions of politics. The 6 items that were retained from the Kacmar
and Ferris (1991) 12-item Perception of Politics Scale and the 14 new items that
were developed for Study 3 composed the measure of perceptions of politics. The
internal reliability estimate for these items was .8 1.
Analyses
The exploratory factor analysis and mean calculations performed on the
content adequacy data in Study 2 were repeated in Study 3 on the new items. As a
third decision criteria, 15 people were asked to sort (i.e., content analyze) the 20
items into categories representing the three factor definitions or a none of the above
category. Finally, exploratory factor analysis on the POPS data was included as a
fourth decision criteria. Once a determination of which new items to include was
made, the structural equation modeling analyses described in Study 1 (dimension-
ality and overall fit of POPS) were performed to test the final POPS scale.

Item Analysis
As in Study 2, the data from the content adequacy test for the new items were
analyzed using a principal components exploratory factor analysis with an
oblimin rotation. Also, the mean values for each item across the three factors were
calculated using the content adequacy test data. In addition, 15 judges content
analyzed the new items providing another decision criteria. Finally, exploratory
factor analysis was conducted on the new items using the POPS dataset. Results
for these analyses are presented in Table 4.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

Table 5. Final POPS Scale Items

Factor 1: General Political Behavior
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.
Factor 2: Go Along to Get Ahead
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.
Factor 3: Pay and Promotion Policies
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.
Results from these four analyses were used to decide which new items to
include and exclude. In order to pass the factor analysis tests, an item had to load
at .40 or higher on its intended factor and less than or equal to .35 on all others.
With respect to the mean decision criteria, the mean for an item had to be greater
than or equal to 4.00 on the intended factor and less than 3.5 on all others to pass.
Finally 10 judges (71%) had to place the item on its intended factor to meet this
decision criteria. Applying these four decisions criteria, 9 of the 14 new items
were retained (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10). When these 9 items were combined
with the original 6, the final scale was composed of 15 items (shown in Table 5)
that represent three factors.
To examine the dimensionality of the modified POPS scale, a structural
equation modeling approach was applied to a variancekovariance matrix of the
POPS data created by including the items shown in Table 5. Specifically, the
three-factor model shown in Figure 4, as well as a one-factor model (i.e., all
fifteen items loading on one factor), were examined using LISREL 8. Results for
these analyses indicated that the fit statistics for the three-factor model were better
than the fit statistics for the one factor model on all indicators (three-factor:
RMSEA = .076, GFI = .91, AGFI = .87, NFI = .86, NNFI = .87, PNFI = .72, CFI
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

THETA DELTAS LAMBDA X PHI COEFFICIENTS
.67
.67
.74
.61
40
.29
.61
.66
.70
I
Item 9
.97
.91
.68
.27
.25
Figure 4. Extended Model of Perceptions of Politics Scale

= .91, IF1 = .91, RF1 = 84; l-factor: RMSEA = .13, GFI = .79, AGFI = .72, NFI
= .70, NNFI = .70, PNFI = .60, CFI = .74, IF1 = .74, RFI = .66). Additionally, a
X2 difference test between these two models (276.55 with 3 degrees of freedom)
was significant @ < .OOO). Finally, two of the three correlations between the
factors were moderate (.54, .71, and 1.OO). All of these results suggest that the
three-factor model best fit the data, so further examination of this model was
conducted.
Modification indices. An examination of the modification indices of
Lambdax can be performed to examine the discriminant validity of the factors.
According to Medsker et al. (1994), values less than 4 are acceptable, while
values higher than 4 indicate that the items are loading on multiple factors and
that the error terms might be correlated. Results from the present data indicated
that only 8 of the 30 values (27%) exceeded the recommended cutoff.
Item loadings/lambdas. The completely standardized parameter estimates,
often referred to as the Lambdas, are presented in the middle of Figure 4. In order
to determine the significance of the loadings, t-values were examined because
they are independent of units of measurement (Joreskog & S&born, 1993). The t-
values, which ranged from 3.02 to 17.89, were all significant at the p < .Ol level.
This indicates that each item is significantly related to its specified construct.
Squared multiple correlations. The squared multiple correlations (SMCs)
provide information about the reliability of the items, as well as the extent to
which they measure what they purport to measure. Specifically, SMC values indi-
cate the percent of variance accounted for by each item in the factor. These values
will always be less than the composite reliabilities. While composite reliabilities
should be greater than .70, it is not possible to even suggest a rule of thumb cutoff
for SMCs (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
For the current sample, the SMCs ranged from .03 to .75 (mean = .41;
median = .34; 6 > = .45) with a composite reliability of .87 for the overall scale.
Since this value was above the suggested cutoff of .70, the scale had acceptable
reliability.
Chi-square. The chi-square test is a measure of overall fit of the model
to the data. The goal when using LISREL is to fail to reject the null hypothesis
that the model fit the data (i.e., Sigmadata = Sigma,,del). In this case, the chi-
square value was statistically significant (X2(87) = 237.29, p = .OO) indicating
that the model does not fit the data. However, when using large samples, it is
normally impossible to fail to reject the null hypothesis. One way in which the
size of the sample can be taken into consideration is by dividing the X2 value by
the degrees of freedom. Values less than 5 indicate that the model does fit the
data (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin & Summers, 1977). For the present sample, the
X2/df ratio was 2.73 indicating good model-to-data fit.
Goodness-of-fit. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is another indication of
how well the model fit, the data. The current data produced a GFI value of .91,
which indicates that the model fits the data. However, to adjust for model parsi-
mony, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) is calculated which should
exceed .90 (Medsker et al., 1994). The value for the current sample was .87,
which is just below the acceptable range.

Normed jit index. To examine the proportion of total variance accounted

for by a model, the normed fit index (NFI) is used (Medsker et al., 1994). An
acceptable value for the NFI is .90. The NFI for the three-factor model was .86,
indicating that the model does a moderate job in accounting for the variance in the
data.
Comparative fit index. The comparative fit index (CFI) is similar to the
NFI, except that it overcomes the difficulties associated with sample size
(Medsker et al., 1994). The CFI was .91, which is above the acceptable level of
.90 (Mulaik et al., 1989).
Parsimony fit index. The parsimony fit index (PFI) reflects the amount of
covariance explained by a model taking into account the number of parameters
(Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). If the same amount of construct covariance is
explained by two models, but one model does so with fewer estimated parameters,
the PFI would be greater for this model. PFI values over .60 are considered
acceptable (Mulaik et al., 1989). A value of .72 was found for the present data,
indicating adequate parsimony for the model.
General Discussion
In an effort to further validate POPS, a three-study investigation of the
dimensionality, reliability, and validity of POPS was undertaken. In the first
study, a comparison was made of the original three-factor model to a one-factor
model. Results suggested that while the three-factor model produced a better
model-to-data fit than the one-factor model, the fit of the three-factor model could
be improved. Model fit can be improved by adding or deleting paths. Given the
format of the model tested, adding paths meant adding new items to the scale,
while deleting paths meant deleting items from the scale. Both of these possibili-
ties were investigated in Study 2 and Study 3.
In Study 2, each item of the original scale was examined for its contribution
to the overall scale. Six items that either cross loaded or did not load on the
intended factor were removed. The reduced scale was then examined across four
different samples to assess its stability. Results indicated good fit for the refined
scale across each dataset as well as within each. In addition, the new six-item
scale demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity.
The final step was to create new items to add to the scale. In Study 3, four-
teen new items were generated and examined for inclusion. Applying four deci-
sion criteria to the new items indicated that 9 items should be retained. The
resulting fifteen item scale was then examined for overall dimensionality by
comparing it to a one-factor model as was done in Study 1. Results indicated that
the three-factor model fit substantially better than the one-factor model. Further,
the X2 difference test was significant, indicating that a three-factor model was
more appropriate than a one-factor model. The three-factor model was then exam-
ined for overall model fit. Results suggested that the model-to-data fit was strong.
As with any empirical study, there are limitations which need to be
mentioned. For example, using students as content adequacy raters may be
considered a limitation. It is important to note, however, that content adequacy

ratings require judges to compare the content of an item to a predetermined cate-

gory. Therefore, the only skills required of judges is that they possess sufficient
intellectual ability to perform the rating task, making college students a highly
appropriate sample choice (Schreisheim et al., 1993). Furthermore, the final
model was not confirmed on a second sample. Until this is done, it is impossible
to determine whether the current results are only sample specific. Finally, the
current study did not include the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (SPOS)
in its convergent and discriminate validity tests. Given that past research has
shown this scale to correlate highly with POPS, future research efforts that exam-
ine POPS also should include SPOS.
Despite these limitations, the present study does make a contribution to the
organizational politics literature. First, the study refined and extended a measure
of perceptions of politics in the organization. This refinement included deleting
items that did not perform as expected, as well as adding new items to produce a
better fitting model. Additionally, a variety of datasets, all of which were large
and representative of the organizations from which they were drawn, were used to
refine the scale.
There are a variety of ways in which future researchers can focus their atten-
tion to further contribute to the field of organizational politics. One area in partic-
ular that is lacking is theoretical development. In 1989, Ferris, Russ and Fandt
proposed three areas that could be examined to advance the field of organizational
politics: conditions under which political behavior occurs, the specific types of
political behavior enacted, and the antecedents and consequences of political
behavior. Over the past several years, Ferris and his colleagues (Fandt & Ferris,
1990; Ferris et al., 1993; Ferris & Buckley, 1990; Ferris, Fedor, Chachere, &
Pondy, 1989; Ferris et al., 1996; Ferris, Frink, Gilmore & Kacmar, 1994; Ferris &
Judge, 1991; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Ferris & King, 1991) have been diligently
working in this final area by verifying and testing a theoretical model of percep-
tions of organizational politics developed by Ferris, Russ and Fandt (1989). This
model delineates a collection of antecedents and consequences of perceptions of
organization politics, many of which have been found to hold. While this stream
of research has been informative, more and different antecedents and conse-
quences need to be explored. One way to expand the list offered by Ferris, Russ
and Fandt (1989) is to ask individuals affected by organizational politics to
describe the antecedents and consequences they view as relevant. Content analyz-
ing responses from individuals who hold an assortment of positions in a variety of
organizations should produce an array of new antecedents and consequences that
can be used to augment Ferris, Russ and Fandt’s (1989) model.
Based upon all of the findings reported in this manuscript, the new version of
POPS appears to be a reliable and valid measure of perceptions of organizational
politics. However, some improvements still could be made. For example, some of
the SMCs were low, indicating that the variance accounted for by certain individ-
ual items could be improved. In addition, the correlation between factor 1 and
factor 2 was high (1 .OO). To examine whether or not the remaining two items for
factor 1 should be included in factor 2, a X2 difference test was performed to
compare a three-factor model to a two-factor model. Results (16.95 (2), p < .OOO)

indicated that factor 1 was unique and should be included as a separate factor.
However, future research efforts should be undertaken to add additional items to
this factor in an effort to distinguish it even more from factor 2.
Given that the lack of interest in organizational politics research may be
attributed to the difficulty early researchers had defining, quantifying, and
measuring this elusive phenomenon, the final scale resulting from this work is an
important contribution to the organizational politics literature. Only when consen-
sus is reached about what organizational politics is and how it should be measured
will the field be advanced. The development and refinement of POPS is offered as
a step toward reaching a meeting of the scholarly minds.
Acknowledgment: This manuscript was greatly improved by comments

received from Martha Andrews, Dennis P. Bozeman, Charles Hofacker, Larry J.
Williams, and three anonymous reviewers. The authors would like to thank J.
Michael Whitfield for his technical help. Portions of this manuscript were
presented at the 1994 National Academy of Management Meetings in Dallas,
Texas.
APPENDIX
1. When if comes to pay raises and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant.
2. Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in this organization.
4. Promotions around here are not valued much because how they are deter-
mined is so political.
5. I have seen changes made here that only serve the purposes of a few individu-
als, not the whole work unit or department.
6. Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the system.
7. Favoritism, rather than merit, determines who gets good raises and promo-
tions around here.
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. Inconsistent with organizational policies, promotions in this organization
generally do not go to top performers.
11. None of the raises I have received are consistent with the policies on how
raises should be determined.
12. This organization is not known for its fair pay and promotion policies.
13. Rewards such as pay raises and promotions do not go to those who work hard.
14. The stated pay and promotion polices have nothing to do with how pay raises
and promotions are determined.
References
Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A. & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Orgamzational polltics: Tactics
and characteristics of its actors. California Mana,qement Review. 22: 77-83.
Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychdogical Bulkfin, IOj: 41 1423.

Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On evaluation of structural equation models. Jolrrnal ofAcademy ofMnrketing
Science, 16: 74-94.
Campbell. D. (1966). Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology. Northwestern University.
Cropanzano, R.S.. Kacmar. K.M. & Bozeman, D.P. (1995). Organizational polmcs, justice, and support: Their
differences and similarities (pp.I-IX), in R.S. Cropanzano & K.M. Kacmar (Eds.). OrX”ni~ntionnIpolitics.
Justice and support: Managing socicll climate nr work. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Dean. D. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Socio&icrrl ReiYe~, 25: 753- 758.
Drory, A. & Romm, T. (1988).Politics in organization and its perception in the organization. Ory+vzi,-utionnl Stud-
ies. 9: 16.5~179.
Drory, A. & Romm, T. (I 990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Humcv~ Relmior~. 43: 1 133%
1154.
Eisenberger. R., Huntington. R., Hutchison. S. & Sowa. D. (I 986). Perceived organizational support. Journal oj
Applied Psychology, 71: 500-507.
Fandt. P.M. & Ferris, G.R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees behave
opportumstically. Orgcmiz,ationnl Behm?or and Human Decision Processes, 45: 130-l 5X.
Farrell, D. & Peterson, J.C. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Acuderny of Mnnc~gement
Rev&v, 45: 403-412.
Ferris, G.R., Brand, J.F.. Brand, S., Rowland, K.M., Gilmore. D.C.. King. T.R., Kacmar, K.M. & Burton. C.A.
(1993). Politics and control in organizations (pp. X3-1 I I). in E.J. Lawler. B. Markovsky, J. O’Brien, K.
Heimer (Edu.), Adwmres in groupprocesses (vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ferris, G.R. & Buckley, M.R. (1990). Performance evaluation in high technology firms: Process and politics (pp.
243-263). in L.R. Gamer-Mejia & M.E. Lawless (Eds.). Organizational issues in high technology manage-
ment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ferris. G.R.. Fedor. D., Chachere. J.G. & Pondy. L. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational contexts. Gmup
& Orgrrni:ntionnl Srudies. 14: 8X-103.
Ferris, G.R.. Frink, D.D., Galang. M.C.. Zhou. J.. Kacmar. K.M. & Howard. J.L. (1996). Political work environ-
ments. Hutntrn Relations. 49: 233-266.
Ferris, G.R., Frmk. D.D., Gilmore. D.C. & Kacmar, K.M. (1994). Understandmg politics: Antidote for the
dysfunctional consequences of organizational politics as a stressor. Journcd ofApplied Social P.+~olog~
24: 1204&1220.
Ferris. G.R. & Judge, T.A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective.
Joumcrl of Management. 17: 447-488.
Ferris, G.R. & Kacmar, K.M. (I 992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal ofManclge,nent. 18: 93-l 16.
Ferris, G.R. & King, T.R. (1991). Politics in human resource decisions: A walk on the dark side. Orgcmi:crtiona/
D~mnics. 20: 59-7 I.
Ferris, G.R.. Russ, G.S. & Fandt. P.M. (1989) Politics in organizations. (pp. 143-170), in R.A. Giacalone & P.
Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the orgnni:nrron. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frost, P.J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Hnnd-
hook oforgmbtionul communicntion. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gandz. J. & Murray, V.V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy ofManagement Journal. 23:
231-25 1.
Humphreys, L.G. & Montanelli, R.G. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining
the number of common factors. Multivarime Behavioral Research, IO: 193-205.
Joreskog. K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equntion modeling with the SIMPLIS co~nmtmd
language. Hillsdale, NJ: SSI.
Kacmar. K.M. & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and
construct validation. Educntional and Psychological Measurement, 51: (193-205.
Kacmar, K.M. & Ferris, G.R. (1993). Politics at work: Sharpenmg the focus ofpolitical behavior in organizations.
Business Hori:on.s, 36: 70-74.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations ofbehn~ioral resenrch (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston.
Kumar, P. & Ghadially, R. (1989). Organizational politics and its effect on members of organizations. Human
Relations. 42: 305-314.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles oftopoloRicnlp.s~~hol~g~. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Madison, D.L., Allen, R.W., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A. & Mayes, B.T. (1980). Organizational politics: An
exploration of managers’ perceptions. Humun Relafions, 33: 79-100.
Mayes, B.T. & Allen, R.W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academ,v ofManagement
Review, 2: 672-678.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. & Holohan, P.J. (1994). A review of currentpractices for evaluating causal models
in organizational behavior and humanresources managementresearch. J~~urnalofManaRement, 20: 439464.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journnl ofManagement Studies, 22: 133-154.

Mulaik. S.A., James, L.R.. Van Alstine, .I., Bennet, N., Lind, S. & Stillwell, C.D. (1989). An evaluation of good-
ness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. P.@o/ogicn/ Bullerin, 105: 430445.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nye, L.G. & Witt, L.A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the perceptions of politics scales (POPS).
Education and Psychological Measurement, 53: 821-829.
Porter, L.W. (1976). Organizations as political animals. Presidenfial address, Division of Industrial- Orgnni:rr-
rionul Psychology, 84th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Porter, L.W., Allen, R.W. &Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations (pp. 109% 149)
in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Renn, R.W. & Vandenberg, R.J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented component in job
characteristics model research. Journal ofManagemenr, 21: 279-303.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Schein. V.E. (1977). Individual power and political behaviors in organizations: An inadequately explored reality.
Academy of Management Renew, 2: 64-72.
Schreisheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C. & Lankau, M.J. (1993). Improving construct
measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessmg the theoretical
content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journc~l ofMunagement, 19: 3855417.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The meamrement c>f sarisfaction innvrk and retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Streuning, E. & Richardson, A. (1965). A factor analytic exploration of the alienation, anomia, and authoritarian-
ism domain. American Sociological Review, 30: 768-776.
Tushman, ME. (1977). A political approach to organization: A review and rationale. Academy of Manu,gement
Review, 2: 206-2 16.
Webster, H., Sanford, N. & Freeman, M. (1955). A new instrument for studying authoritarianism in personality.
Journul of Psychology, 40: 73-85.
Wheaton, B.B., Muthen, B., Alwin. D.F. & Summers, G.F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel
models. In D.R. Heise (Ed.). Sociologicul Methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Worchel, P. (1958). Personality factors in the readiness to express aggression, Jorrrnal of Clinical Psychology, I4:
355-359.
Wrightsman. L. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychologicnl Reports. 14: 743-75 1.
View publication stats

Minimum Wages Act 1948

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Minimum Wages Act 1948

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development

Article in Educational and Psychological Measurement · March 1991

K. Michele Kacmar Gerald R. Ferris

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Team Political Skill View project

Personal initiative at work View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

FURTHER VA LIDA T/ON OF THE

Although political behavior in organizations is ubiquitous,

The use of political tactics in organizations is widespread. Virtually every

Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063

Perceptions of Organizational Politics

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, \‘OL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

Pay and Promotion Policies

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

The Current Study

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

Results and Discussion

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

*All correlations are significant at the p < .Ol level.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

THETA DELTAS LAMl3DA X PHI CQEFFKIENTS

Figure 2. Study f Test for Model of PUPS

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23, NO. 5, I997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

STUDY 2: INDIVIDUAL ITEM ANALYSIS

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

Fat 1 Fuc 2 Fat 3 Fuc I Fat 2 Fat 3 Fat 1 Fat 2 Fat 3

Fuc 1 Fat 2 Far 3 Fat 1 Fat 2 Fat 3 Fuc I Fat 2 Fat 3

Results and Discussion

Figure 3. Reduced Model of Perceptions of Politics Scale

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

Table 3. LISREL Results for Reduced Model Across Four Samples

*All path loadings are significant at p < ,000

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

STUDY 3: AUGMENTING POPS

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

Developing Additional Items

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. S, 1997

.KXJRNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO, 5, t’)97

Content analysis. Fifteen graduate students and faculty members were

Results and Discussion

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5. 1997

Table 5. Final POPS Scale Items

1. People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

THETA DELTAS LAMBDA X PHI COEFFICIENTS

Figure 4. Extended Model of Perceptions of Politics Scale

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1991

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

Normed jit index. To examine the proportion of total variance accounted

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997

ratings require judges to compare the content of an item to a predetermined cate-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23. NO. 5, 1997

Acknowledgment: This manuscript was greatly improved by comments

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 1997