Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 1

Background and Purpose

The article further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS) written by K. Michele
Kacmar and Dawn S. Carlson. It states that concept of political tactics is wide spread which
affects either positively or negatively to the people in the organization. Those who are positively
affected by the politics perceive it as a useful tool to advance their positions while others who are
negatively affected perceive it to be negative influence. The article also explains that political
behavior induces people to develop their own rules and regulations and serve self-interest if
specific rules and regulations are not developed in the organization. The study basically revolves
around a model that has three latent constructs such as general political behavior; go along to get
ahead, and pay and promotion which are required to measure portions of the overall construct of
perceptions of organizational politics. In this article, in an effort to further validate and revise the
POPS, researchers have removed, replaced and added some of the items as per the requirements.
The main purpose of this research is to provide subsequent empirical validation of perceptions
of politics scale (POPS) and to evaluate the various attributes at work with which the individuals
perceive their work environment as political by doing the investigation of three factors such as
dimensionality, reliability, and validity.
Issues
Is there a positive or a negative relationship between perceptions of politics scale (POPS) and
Survey of perceived organizational support (SPOS)?
Is it three factor model or one factor model that better fits data to further validate the
perceptions of politics scale (POPS)?
Is the correlation among three factors (i.e. general political behavior; go along to get ahead,
and pay and promotion) high, medium, or low?
Does a perception of politics scale (POPS) have convergent and discriminate validity?
Is it good to pursue new items in the POPS to have a better-fitting model?
Basic arguments made by Authors
Previous research stated that there was no established scale to measure the perceptions of
organizational politics but recently in this study Kacmar and Ferris (1991) has developed 12
items scale to test the validity of perceptions of politics scale.
Although the concept of organizational politics is pervasive in organizational life, very little
considerations were given in this area and very few researches had been conducted in the
past.
Past study indicated that people who are not affected by the politics in the past will continue
the same behaviors in the future too but this study has indicated that 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.
It was stated in the previous study that organizations with limited resources face political
environment but current study has argued that this may not be true always and valued by all
because almost all organizations have limited resources at least in one field.
Methodology
Researchers have altogether carried out three different studies with nine different samples
consisting of 2758 respondents.
Study 1: Dimensionality
It is done to analyze the dimensionality of POPS for which sample of 749 responses with 64%
response rate via attitude survey for a large state agency was taken. To collect the data, the
survey was mailed via interoffice mail to all members of the agency. The director of the agency
wrote the cover letter to introduce the project and stressed the importance of participation. Such
Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 2
an attempt must have encouraged participants to provide more reliable data in the collection
phase. For the ease of respondents in returning the survey directly to researchers, an envelope
addressed to the researchers was also enclosed. The Kacmar and Ferris (1991) 12-item
Perception of Politics Scale was administered to respondents from the state agency sample. The
researchers have also tested discriminant validity of the factors via modification indices of
Lambdas, the standard parameter estimates lambdas was also used to determine the significance
of loading where the researcher used t-value as it is independent of unit of measurement and to
identify the composite reliability, squared multiple correlation were used.
To assess the dimensionality of POPS, structural equation modeling analysis using LISREL 8
was applied to the data from the state agency sample to compare the fit of the three-factor model
to a one-factor model, where a variance/covariance matrix of the state agency data was used as
input. Various indicators of LISREL were used. A chi square difference test, NFI, CFI, PNFI and
RMSEA were used. At the beginning the overall fit of the model was modest indicating
misspecifications, to overcome which, a further chi square test and correlation between factors
were used to reach a conclusive result i.e. 3 factor model was better. But for more detail
assessment of 3-factor model, goodness of fit index and the adjusted goodness of fit were also
used to see if the model fitted the data. Being parsimonious is also a trait of scientific research,
and for this purpose AGFI was used, which questions the convergent validity as the results from
GFI and AGFI varies. To examine the proportion of total variance accounted for by a model, the
normed fit index (NFI) was used but since it had difficulties associated with sample size, to
overcome which the comparative fit index (CFI) was used. To choose the less complex one
between the two models, given there is same amount of construct covariance explained, the
parsimony fit index (PFI) was used which added to making research more scientific.

Study 2: Individual Item Analysis
The above explained detailed assessment showed there were short comings of 3-factor model as
well; study 2 was undertaken to ascertain each items contribution to the overall model fit.
Content Adequacy data were collected where 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. The gender mix of the sample: 62% males and 38%
females with average age of 23.5 years. Each respondent was asked to determine the degree to
which each item of POPS represented a factor definition. Then the judges rated an item three
times, each time comparing it to a different factor definition, for which a 5-point Likert scale
with definitely not representative (1) and definitely representative (5) as the anchors. The neutral
point in the 5 points scale may give rise to central tendency biases. Each of the four separate
samples (university, HR professionals, cooperative and validation) 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 consisted of a total of 466 (94% response
rate) responses from an attitude survey for an electric cooperative. The next sample consisted of
survey from HR professional about their current policies, perceptions, and attitudes in a two state
area where a total of 581 (39% response rate) responses were included. The third included non
faculty employees at a small north eastern university who responded to an attitude survey where
220 responded (44% response rate). In the fourth sample, 320 (64% response rate) responses
were generated from full-time employees in the private sector.
The Kacmar and Ferris (1991) 12-item perception of politics scale was administered to
respondents from each sample and the internal reliability estimate for each sample was also
found. To measure ones degree of confidence in the trustworthiness, honesty etc, the faith in
people scale was used. To measure the emotional distance and purposelessness of people when
dealing with others, the alienation via rejection scale was used. Likewise, to tap the degree of
Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 3
cynicism or skepticism an individual has toward people in the world, a cynicism subscale was
used. To measure the extent of unselfishness, sincere etc, the altruism subscale from the
Philosophy of Human Nature Scale was used. To measure the expectancies people have about
the way other people generally behave, trust, a second subscale was used. The social attitude
scale assessed how positive a view one has about humankind. Finally, the self-activity scale was
used as a general measure of self-concept adjustment.
Data generated from the content adequacy analysis were examined using exploratory factor
analysis to determine if the content adequacy ratings for the items loaded on the expected
dimensions. In addition, exploratory factor analyses were performed on each of the four POPS
datasets to confirm these results. As if the results be same convergent validity would be
established. Then, the mean rating for each item on every factor using the content adequacy data
was calculated and used as an additional decision tool. To find out which items to retain/discard,
results from all of these analyses were used. For this an item had to load on its intended factor in
a minimum of three of the five factor analyses. And the mean for the item had to be largest on
the factor it was designed to measure, and this value had to be significantly different than the
mean for the other two factors. Then, structural equation modeling was applied to covariance
matrices of the remaining items for each of the four datasets to explore the overall fit of the
reduced model. Generalizability of a reduced model was examined via LISREL 8 multiple group
analysis technique to the four datasets. In this chi square test, GFI and CFI were used. This
model was rerun for re-estimation. To examine the convergent and discriminate validity of
POPS, the process described by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed, where a model was
developed that included multiple indicators directly linked to the variable of interest. Then,
exploratory factor analyses were run on the eight scales used for validity purposes to create
subscales necessary to ensure unidimensionality. Thus, the convergent and discriminant validity
of the reduced scale was examined.
Study 3: Augmenting POPS
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. Same procedure was followed where respondents
rated each item three times once for each factor definition. These ratings determined the degree
to which the item measured the definition of the factor being considered. Fourteen new items on
slips of paper and the definitions of the three factors on index cards were given to fifteen
graduate students and faculty members. Here, a none of the above index card was included.
This ensured reliability of data collected as respondents who felt the items didnt represented had
an option. Judges were instructed to content analyze the items by placing each with the index
card which best represented it. The judges with an average age of 35.60 years, included 8 males
(53%) and 7 females (47%). The revised and updated POPS scale (three 2-item factors) was
mailed to 600 members of the Society for Human Resource Management who lived in the south.
This survey included a self-addressed, stamped envelope for them to return the survey directly to
the researchers. Total surveys that were returned from 123 respondent (21% response rate) with
average age of 45.2 years and average tenure of 10.7 years included 37 (30%) males and 107
(87%) Caucasians. 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 with
average age of 25.4 years and three years of organizational tenure, 161 (89%) were employed
and the gender composition of the sample included 114 (63%) males and 68 (37%) females. The
6 items that were retained from the Kacmar and Ferris (1991) 12-item Perception of Politics
Scale and the 14 new item (via literature review) that were developed for Study 3 composed the
measure of perceptions of politics.
Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 4
Like in study 2 the data from the content adequacy test for the new items were examined using
exploratory factor analysis. Also, using the same content adequacy test data, the mean values for
each item across the three factors were calculated. In addition, 15 judges content analyzed the
new items providing another decision criterion. Then, 15 people were given to sort the 20 items
(14 new items) into categories that represented the three factor definitions or none of the above
category. Finally, using the POPS dataset, exploratory factor analysis on the POPS data was
conducted. To measure of overall fit of the model to the data, chi-square test was used. Results
from these four analyses were used to decide which new items to retain or discard. 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. To meet these decision criteria, 10 judges (71%) had to place the item on its intended
factors. Applying these four decisions criteria, thus, 9 of the 14 new items were retained which
were combined with the original 6, the final scale was composed of 15 items. Once a
determination of which new items to include was made, the structural equation modeling
analyses (dimensionality and overall fit of POPS) were applied to a variance covariance matrix
of the POPS data created by including the items, performed to test the final POPS scale.
Specifically, the three-factor model and one-factor model were compared using LISREL 8. An
examination of the modification indices of Lambdax was performed to examine the discriminant
validity. In order to determine the significance of the loadings, t-values were examined. To test
the reliability of the factors, the squared multiple correlations (SMCs) was used. To find out how
well the model fits the data, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was used. To examine the
proportion of total variance accounted for by a model, the normed fit index (NFI) was used and
to overcome its difficulties associated with sample size, the comparative fit index (CFI) was
used. To reflect the amount of covariance explained by a model when its number of parameters
is taken into account, the parsimony fit index (PFI) was used.

Major Findings
The findings of Study 1 indicate the following:
The3-factor model is superior as compared to the one factor model
The findings of Study 2 indicate the following:
The results showed that several of the original POPS items did not clearly relate to the
factor they intended to measure.
The findings suggest that the original scale needs to be reduced to 6 items with 2 items on
each of the 3 factors.
The remaining items of the refined POPS model fit all of the data sets well
The remaining item in the POPS loaded significantly on the factor they intended to
measure and POPS scale showed discriminant validity
The findings of Study 3 indicate the following:
The four decision criteria to the new additional items showed, 9 items should be retained
The resultant new 15-item scale 3-factor model was better than the one factor model
The X
2
difference test also indicated that the 3-factor model was more appropriate than
the one factor model
The overall model to data fit for 3-factor model was strong
Main Idea: The main focus of the study was to provide empirical validation of the POP scale
developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991). In order to do so the authors have conducted 3 studies
were the authors first attempted to compare the 3-factor model with one factor model, eventually
Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 5
determining that the 3-factor model is superior in comparison. The study then attempted to
improve the 3-factor model by adding or removing items from the POP scale. The third study
generated a new refined POP scale, which was better fitting model to measure the perceptions of
politics in organizations.
Research implications: The study which was carried out with the intention of developing a
thoroughly validated scale for measuring the perceptions on politics on organizations, succeed in
making significant contributions to the field. The study highlighted numerous research
implications. The refined validated scale will allow future researchers to use the scale in order to
understand organizational politics. Furthermore the generalizability of the POP scale with three
two-item factor structures can be used by future researchers in the field. However despite the
contributions of the study, future researchers can overcome its limitations. One limitation of this
research was that the final model might be sample specific as it was tested on only one sample,
future researchers can be conducted on different samples. Future researchers can use other raters
besides student raters as content adequacy raters. Also, future researchers can expand on the
current study by including the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (SPOS) in convergent and
discriminate validity tests. Future researchers can also attempt to add additional items to the new
refined scale developed by this study.
Overall Assessment: This research article is significant in the sense it attempts to expand
previous studies and has succeeded in making contributions in the field of organizational politics
research. The study can be deemed as significant as it refined and extended the POP scale
developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991). The study identified that some of the original POPS
items were ineffective and needed to be replaced. The removal of ineffective items resulted in a
refined and revised version of the POP, which can be used by future searches. The study is
further significant as preciously very little attention was paid to this area. Furthermore in order to
revise the original scale the study added new items for which content adequacy, content analysis
and exploratory factor analyses were conducted which further strengthened the study. Here
various internal reliability tests for each of the scales of the POPS, which is a merit of the study.
The authors in order to measure the variance accounted by each factor the Square Multiple
Correlation was conducted, which further confirmed the reliability of the scale. The authors also
conducted goodness of fit, which indicated a reasonable fit for the data, but the adjusted
goodness of fit index showed that the scale was out of acceptability range, which may hamper its
applicability. The study also significant as it first identified which model is superior (3 factor or
one factor), then the study attempted to improve the model by replacing items. The study further
examined the generalizability of new factor structure for POPS, through a multiple group
LISREL 8 analysis. The study also examined to determine why the deleted items did not
adequately represents POPS, thereby supporting the replacements with analytical evidence,
increasing the strength of the study. Therefore the overall study can be assessed as significant
contributions as it successfully develops a refined validated POP scale.
Having said this there are few limitations as well surrounding this research that might limit its
applicability. The final model which the authors develop after the three studies, was tested on
only one sample, which may make the results sample specific thereby hampering the wide spread
applicability of the model. Furthermore the study failed to include the Perceived Organizational
Support Scale (SPOS). Previous researchers indicate that this excluded scale has a high
correlation with POPS, so the exclusion of this scale may be a demerit of the study. Despite its
demerits the significance of this study cannot be undermined. The authors also conducted The
two-sample Kolmogorov- Smirnov test indicated no differences in human, social, organizational
capital or CE and perfor- mance, suggesting the absence of attrition bias.
Roll no: 13309, 13322, 13336 Page 6