Praise for Organizational Climate and Culture

“Ehrhart, Schneider, and Macey have created a rich, thoughtful, and com-
prehensive resource for scholars and practitioners. They lead us through a
wide range of complex issues with style and substance. You’ll know a lot
more about culture and climate after you read it. I know I did!” —Daniel
Denison, Ph.D., IMD Business School, Switzerland

“This book breaks new ground regarding the integration of scholarship and
practice, quantitative and qualitative methods for studying and changing
organizational climate and culture, and includes a sizeable body of litera-
ture.” —W. Warner Burke, Teachers College, Columbia University

“This volume offers a powerful and scholarly overview of the climate and
culture literatures and seeks to integrate them. The authors are hugely knowl-
edgeable about these areas and so it is just a treasure trove of information.
It offers new insights about the links between strategy and culture and offers
a comprehensive overview of measurement methods for climate and culture.
The authors take clear positions on some of the key controversies in the field,
the writing is clear, there are good summaries at the end of each chapter,
and some novel methods of communicating key issues to readers. One such
method is the use of a summary of key critiques of some concepts with the
authors’ helpful responses to critiques. The authors do not, as so many aca-
demics do, sit on the fence in relation to key controversies.” —Michael West,
Lancaster University, UK
This page intentionally left blank
 Organizational Climate
and Culture

The fields of organizational climate and organizational culture have co-

existed for several decades with very little integration between the two.
In Organizational Climate and Culture: An Introduction to Theory, Re-
search, and Practice, Mark G. Ehrhart, Benjamin Schneider, and William
H. Macey break down the barriers between these fields to encourage a
broader understanding of how an organization’s environment affects its
functioning and performance. Building on in-depth reviews of the de-
velopment of both the organizational climate and organizational culture
literatures, the authors identify the key issues that researchers in each
field could learn from the other and provide recommendations for the
integration of the two. They also identify how practitioners can utilize
the key concepts in the two literatures when conducting organizational
cultural inquiries and leading change efforts. The end product is an in-
depth discussion of organizational climate and culture unlike anything
that has come before that provides unique insights for a broad audience
of academics, practitioners, and students.

Mark G. Ehrhart is Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology

at San Diego State University. His research interests include organiza-
tional climate and culture, organizational citizenship behavior, leader-
ship, and work stress, and the application of these topics across levels of
analysis and in service and health/mental health settings. He has over
30 journal articles and book chapters on these topics, including in such
journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management
Journal, Personnel Psychology, and the Journal of Management. He is on the
editorial board for the Journal of Applied Psychology, and is a member of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and the
Academy of Management.

Benjamin Schneider is Senior Research Fellow at CEB and Professor

Emeritus, University of Maryland. Ben’s interests concern organiza-
tional climate and culture, employee engagement, service quality, staffing
issues, and the role of manager personality in organizational life. Ben has
been awarded SHRM’s Michael R. Losey Award, SIOP’s Scientific Con-
tributions Award, the Academy of Management’s HR Division Career
Contributions Award, and the Academy of Management’s OB Division
Lifetime Achievement Award.

William H. Macey is Managing Director, Global Research Office at CEB

and has more than 35 years of experience consulting with organizations
to design and implement survey research programs. He served as an advi-
sor to the Mayflower Group from 1992 to 2010 and is the co-author of
several recent publications on employee engagement. He is a Fellow of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the American
Psychological Association, and the Association for Psychological Science,
and is a SIOP past president.
 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT SERIES
Series Editors
Arthur P. Brief
University of Utah
Kimberly D. Elsbach
University of California, Davis
Michael Frese
University of Lueneburg and National University of Singapore

Ashforth (Au.): Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based

Perspective.
Bartel/Blader/Wrzesniewski (Eds.): Identity and the Modern Organization.
Bartunek (Au.): Organizational and Educational Change: The Life and
Role of a Change Agent Group.
Beach (Ed.): Image Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations.
Brett/Drasgow (Eds.): The Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based Empiri-
cal Research.
Brockner (Au.): A Contemporary Look at Organizational Justice: Multiply-
ing Insult Times Injury.
Chhokar/Brodbeck/House (Eds.): Culture and Leadership Across the
World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies.
Darley/Messick/Tyler (Eds.): Social Influences on Ethical Behavior in
Organizations.
De Cremer/Tenbrunsel (Eds.): Behavioral Business Ethics: Shaping an
Emerging Field.
De Cremer/van Dick/Murnighan (Eds.): Social Psychology and Organizations.
Denison (Ed.): Managing Organizational Change in Transition Economies.
Dutton/Ragins (Eds.): Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a
Theoretical and Research Foundation.
Earley/Gibson (Aus.): Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective.
Ehrhart/Schneider/Macey (Aus.): Organizational Climate and Culture.
Elsbach (Au.): Organizational Perception Management.
Fayard/Metiu (Aus.): The Power of Writing in Organizations: From Letters
to Online Interactions.
Garud/Karnoe (Eds.): Path Dependence and Creation.
Grandey/Diefendorff/Rupp (Eds.): Emotional Labor in the 21st Century:
Diverse Perspectives on Emotion Regulation at Work.
Harris (Ed.): Handbook of Research in International Human Resource
Management.
Jacoby (Au.): Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transfor-
mation of Work in the 20th Century, Revised Edition.
Kossek/Lambert (Eds.): Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cul-
tural and Individual Perspectives.
Kramer/Tenbrunsel/Bazerman (Eds.): Social Decision Making: Social Di-
lemmas, Social Values and Ethical Judgments.
Lampel/Shamsie/Lant (Eds.): The Business of Culture: Strategic Perspec-
tives on Entertainment and Media.
Lant/Shapira (Eds.): Organizational Cognition: Computation and Inter-
pretation.
Lord/Brown (Aus.): Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity.
Margolis/Walsh (Aus.): People and Profits? The Search Between a Com-
pany’s Social and Financial Performance.
Miceli/Dworkin/Near (Aus.): Whistle-blowing in Organizations.
Nord/Connell (Aus.): Rethinking the Knowledge Controversy in Organiza-
tion Studies: A Generative Uncertainty Perspective.
Messick/Kramer (Eds.): The Psychology of Leadership: Some New Approaches.
Pearce (Au.): Organization and Management in the Embrace of the
Government.
Peterson/Mannix (Eds.): Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic
Organization.
Rafaeli/Pratt (Eds.): Artifacts and Organizations: Beyond Mere Symbolism.
Riggio/Murphy/Pirozzolo (Eds.): Multiple Intelligences and Leadership.
Roberts/Dutton (Eds.): Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations:
Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation.
Schneider/Smith (Eds.): Personality and Organizations.
Smith (Ed.): The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Indi-
viduals and Organizations.
Thompson/Choi (Eds.): Creativity and Innovation in Organizational
Teams.
Thompson/Levine/Messick (Eds.): Shared Cognition in Organizations:
The Management of Knowledge.
Zaccaro/Marks/DeChurch (Eds.): Multiteam Systems: An Organization
Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments.
 Organizational
Climate and Culture
An Introduction to Theory,
Research, and Practice

Mark G. Ehrhart
San Diego State University
Benjamin Schneider
CEB
William H. Macey
CEB
First published 2014
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Mark G. Ehrhart, Benjamin Schneider, and William H. Macey
The right of Mark G. Ehrhart, Benjamin Schneider, and William H. Macey to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ehrhart, Mark G.
Organizational climate and culture : an introduction to theory, research,
and practice / Ehrhart Mark G., Benjamin Schneider, William H. Macey.
pages cm. — (Series in organization and management)
1. Organizational behavior. 2. Corporate culture. I. Schneider,
Benjamin, 1938– II. Macey, William H. III. Title.
HD58.7.E384 2013
302.3'5—dc23 2013022806

ISBN: 978-0-415-87980-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-84872-528-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-85766-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Berling
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
M.G.E.: For Karen and Evan, who are such integral
parts of the climate and culture of my life.

B.S.: For Boaz, Gabe, CeCe, Chloe, and Gillian, who

make their Poppy happy every day.

W.H.M.: For Billy, Sarah, and Brandon.

This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

About the Authors xv

Series Foreword xvii
Preface xix

1. Introduction 1
Definitions of Organizational Climate and Culture 1
Assumptions 3
Our Goals: What We Hope to Accomplish 4
What We Are Not Trying to Accomplish 5
Organization of the Book 6
Summary 8

2. History of Organizational Climate Theory

and Research 11
From 1939 to the Mid-1960s: The Early Years
of Climate Research 12
From the Late 1960s through the Early 1970s:
The Expansion of Empirical Climate Research 32
The Mid-1970s: Major Critiques of the Climate
Literature and Their Resolution 50
Conclusion 59

3. Organizational Climate Research: The Current State

of the Field 63
The Definition of Organizational Climate 64
Climate at the Individual Level: Psychological
Climate 70

xi
xii Contents

Measurement and Levels of Analysis 72

Types of Climate Studied: Molar and Focused Climates 79
Climate Strength 98
Other Boundary Conditions of Climate–Outcome
Relationships 105
Climate Itself as a Moderator Variable 108
Additional Approaches to Studying Climate: Antecedents
and Mediators 110
Summary and Conclusions 114

4. Foundations of Organizational Culture 117

A Brief History of Research on Organizational Culture 118
Approaches to Understanding Organizational Culture 125
Defining Organizational Culture 130
Levels of Culture and Cultural Forms 135
Methods for Studying Organizational Culture 138
Summary: On Understanding and Studying
Organizational Culture 144

5. The Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

of Organizational Cultures 145
The Emergence of Organizational Culture 145
Socialization and the Perpetuation of Organizational
Culture 153
Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness 160
Organizational Subcultures 168
Culture Strength 173
Organizational Culture Change 178
Summary: The Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change
of Organizational Cultures 192

6. Integrating Organizational Climate

and Organizational Culture 195
On the Relative Absence of the Integration of Climate
and Culture 196
Similarities Between Organizational Climate and Culture 197
Differences Between Organizational Climate and Culture 203
What Organizational Climate Researchers Could
Learn from Organizational Culture Research 208
What Organizational Culture Researchers Could
Learn from Organizational Climate Research 213
Toward Integrating Organizational Climate and Culture 217
Contents xiii

Climate, Culture, and Competitive Advantage 225

Climate, Culture, and Organizational Change 229
Conclusion 231

7. Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational

Cultural Inquiry 233
Why Executives Care: Strategy, Leadership,
and Organizational Culture 234
The Bases for Cultural Diagnosis and Change 236
Talent Management and Cultural Inquiry 239
The Measurement Framework for Cultural Inquiry
and Diagnosis 241
Qualitative Approaches to Cultural Diagnosis 244
Quantitative Approaches to Cultural Diagnosis 249
Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural
Inquiry: A Case Example 275
Summary of Key Points to Consider in Conducting
a Cultural Diagnosis 279

8. Summary and Conclusion 283

Organizational Climate 283
Organizational Culture 289
Integrating Organizational Climate and Culture 296
Implications for Practice 299
Organizational Climate and Culture: A Research Agenda 301
Conclusion 304

References 305
Author Index 339
Subject Index 349
This page intentionally left blank
 About the Authors

Mark G. Ehrhart is Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology

at San Diego State University. He received his Ph.D. in industrial/organi-
zational psychology from the University of Maryland. His research inter-
ests include organizational climate and culture, organizational citizenship
behavior, leadership, and work stress, and the application of these topics
across levels of analysis and in service and health/mental health settings.
He has over 30 journal articles and book chapters on these topics, includ-
ing in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Man-
agement Journal, Personnel Psychology, and the Journal of Management.
He is on the editorial board for the Journal of Applied Psychology and is a
member of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and
the Academy of Management.

Benjamin Schneider is Senior Research Fellow at CEB and Professor

Emeritus, University of Maryland. Ben’s interests concern organizational
climate and culture, employee engagement, service quality, staffing is-
sues, and the role of manager personality in organizational life. He has
published 140 journal articles and book chapters as well as ten books.
Ben has won awards for his research including SHRM’s Michael R. Losey
Award, SIOP’s Scientific Contributions Award, the Academy of Manage-
ment’s HR Division Career Contributions Award, and the Academy of
Management’s OB Division Lifetime Achievement Award. Besides the
University of Maryland, Ben has taught at Yale University, Michigan State
University, Bar-Ilan University (on a Fulbright), and for shorter periods
of time at Dartmouth College, Peking University, and the University of
Aix-Marseille. Ben joined CEB in 2003 and since then has consulted with
companies and associations on projects concerning service climate, safety
climate, innovation climate, and the ways potential employees experience
the selection process and the consequences of those experiences.

William H. Macey is Managing Director, Global Research Office at CEB

and has more than 35 years of experience consulting with organizations

xv
xvi About the Authors

to design and implement survey research programs. He served as an ad-

visor to the Mayflower Group from 1992 to 2010 and is the co-author
of several recent publications on employee engagement. He is a Fellow
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the
American Psychological Association, and the Association for Psychologi-
cal Science, and is a SIOP past president. He received his Ph.D. from
Loyola University Chicago in 1975.
 Series Foreword

Ehrhart, Schneider, and Macey have written an important book, for it

bridges the science–practice divide. It puts meat on the bones of the po-
tentially elusive constructs of “organizational climate” and “organizational
culture.” Definitions, history, research, and relationships between the two
constructs as well as their practical utility are dealt with in informative
and actionable ways. Readers will leave the book with an impressive un-
derstanding of their scientific merits and their utility as managerial tools.
You are in for a terrific read!

Arthur P. Brief
Kim Elsbach
Michael Frese

xvii
This page intentionally left blank
 Preface

This book is about how the people in work organizations experience

them. It concerns the ways people interpret and understand what hap-
pens to them at work, and how they describe what it is like to work in
their organizations. That is, it addresses the abstractions and meanings
people derive from their work experiences—the company is very service-
oriented, the company treats us fairly, the company values profits above
all—as well as the specific kinds of things that happen to employees that
yield those abstractions.
There is great variety in the way these issues have been conceptual-
ized and studied, but most are captured under the broad categories of
organizational climate and organizational culture. We present how each
of these concepts came to prominence and how they have evolved over
time. A major goal of the book is to provide a firm foundation for inte-
grating across the literatures on climate and culture to produce a view
of organizations that is tangible and manageable while retaining the ab-
stractions that are so useful for common conversation. The cover of the
paperback, designed by Chad Smith, visually captures our goal of bridg-
ing these two well-developed literatures that for too long have existed
side by side but separate.
This book is a testament to the impressive body of work that now ex-
ists on the study of organizational climate and culture, and we acknowl-
edge all of those who have contributed to the rich foundation of effort
on which this book rests. In addition, the book has profited greatly from
our work with various collaborators and students in our careers and their
willingness to provide the energy and insight that pushed our thinking
forward. The clients we have worked with in consulting roles have also
pushed our thinking and made us cognizant of the necessity to not only
be academically rigorous but relevant as well. Readers will appreciate this
drive for relevance in how we describe research approaches and, especially,
our notion of using data as a basis for both understanding and change.
The book would not exist without the calm prodding of Anne Duffy
of Routledge. Anne never pushed us overtly and never threatened us,

xix
xx Preface

but her role as the Jiminy Cricket on our shoulders to keep working was
important. We also want to acknowledge the input we received from
Neal Ashkanasy, Jean Bartunek, Paul Bliese, Warner Burke, Dan Denison,
Vicente González Romá, and Michael West that not only refined our
writing, but also reassured us that our efforts were worthwhile. Some say
effort breeds commitment, but in our case, it was commitment to under-
standing and then integrating these literatures that produced the effort.
Of course, writing a book like this requires maintaining that effort over
a long period, and we deeply appreciate our families and colleagues for
supporting us and giving us the energy to keep moving forward.
Finally, we remain good friends even after all the drafts and comments
and critiques we did of each other’s work. Too many revisions to count
have produced, we hope, an integrated whole of a book that has a com-
mon language and proceeds logically and forcefully.

Mark G. Ehrhart, San Diego

Benjamin Schneider, Tucson
William H. Macey, Rolling Meadows
 CH APTER

1
Introduction
This book is about the emergence, nature, and assessment of organiza-
tional climate and culture and the ways in which the two may be inte-
grated to yield improved understanding about organizations and their
effectiveness. The genesis of the book lies in our writing chapters for the
APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Schneider,
Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011b) and the second edition of the Handbook of Or-
ganizational Culture and Climate (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011a),
as well as our articles in the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology’s (SIOP) journal, Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2012),
and the Annual Review of Psychology (Schneider, Ehrhart,  & Macey,
2013). We realized that we had a tremendous amount of excellent and
interesting material to work with for these chapters and that our reflec-
tions on what we had written revealed that we had still more ideas that
might prove useful for those interested in the topics. Therefore, this book
presents a summary of what we learned in those chapters with expanded
reviews of relevant research literatures, potential for their integration,
and expanded implications for practice.
In this opening chapter, we introduce the reader to what organiza-
tional climate and culture are, the assumptions and goals we had as we
wrote the book, some clarifications of what we intentionally were not
trying to accomplish, and a brief overview of the chapters to follow.

DEFINITIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

AND CULTURE
Our experience in teaching about organizational climate and culture and
in trying to inform management in organizations about the importance

1
2 Introduction

of these ideas tells us that everyone has their own ideas about what they
mean when they say climate and/or culture. People use many different
ways to characterize these two constructs. For example, as we will see
in the discussions of the history of these constructs, various terms have
been used to try to capture the overall or global or macro look and feel of
organizations to their members. In addition to climate and culture, terms
such as organizational atmosphere and organizational character have also
been used.
For now we define organizational climate as the shared meaning or-
ganizational members attach to the events, policies, practices, and pro-
cedures they experience and the behaviors they see being rewarded,
supported, and expected (we discuss this definition in more depth in
Chapter Three). Organizational climate is an abstraction that represents
the cognitive structuring of a whole out of many observations and expe-
riences; the whole is the meaning attached to those many observations
and experiences. Thus, climate is conceptually an abstraction about the
meaning of a setting for the members that experience it. There has been
debate about whether climate exists primarily as an individual experi-
ence or as a characteristic of the group or organization, especially because
our measurement of climate typically involves collecting individual re-
ports of climate and then aggregating them to the organizational level
of interest (e.g.,  group, department, or organization). That debate and
how it has been resolved will be one of the central foci of the chapters
on organizational climate. Climate research has attempted to capture
the abstractions members experience about their unit and relate those
abstractions to effectiveness indices that are important to those units.
Climate has been outcome-focused and in that sense, research on it has
largely been based on a predictive model—one attempts to assess climate
because it helps understand important effectiveness outcomes that are
conceptually seen to emerge from the climate.
Organizational culture is defined as “a pattern of shared basic assump-
tions learned by [an organization] as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to
be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”
(Schein, 2010, p. 18). The idea that beliefs, ideologies, and values are
shared has been assumed in the organizational culture research para-
digm, with culture always referring to something that exists beyond the
individual member and that is transmitted through stories and rituals as
well as the experiences newcomers have. Much of the theory underlying
culture would suggest that the members of the collective characterized
by it are not necessarily aware of the culture in which they reside but
that it exists in their behaviors and the assumptions they make about
what is important. Culture research has historically been descriptively
focused: what is culture, what are its components, and how do people
come to learn the culture of their unit. It is only in more recent guises
that culture research has been focused on effectiveness outcomes, and
Introduction 3

this transition from a more descriptive to a more predictive approach to

culture will be one of the central foci of the chapters on organizational
culture. Thus, while management consultants and news media observers
of organizations have discussed the nature of culture and its importance
for effectiveness, it is more recently that researchers have also had this
focus on effectiveness.
The focus on the meaning and cognitive structuring of actual experi-
ences in climate research suggests the psychological traditions, especially
Gestalt psychology, from which organizational climate emerged. In con-
trast, the focus on values and beliefs and the methods by which they
are transmitted (myths and stories) indicates the locus of organizational
culture in anthropology and sociology. Readers will find it interesting in
the discussions of history that come later to see how these ideas emerged
and became relevant for the modern study of organizations and how we
think they together yield powerful insights for not only understanding
organizations, but also for helping them become more effective.
So many issues to review to understand these complex ideas, but so
little time! As we noted earlier, our collective sense after the writing of
the two review chapters (Schneider et al., 2011a, 2011b) was that there
was a need for a more in-depth discussion of what each of the orga-
nizational climate and culture literatures brings to the table and how
the two can build on each other and be integrated in both research and
practice. This book is our attempt to provide an expanded historical and
practical—and integrated—treatment of these complex but understand-
able, interesting, and important concepts.

ASSUMPTIONS

The three of us have a background in industrial/organizational (I/O)

psychology, and that background has greatly influenced our approach
to this book and general thinking on these topics. One of the hallmarks
of I/O psychology is its emphasis on the scientist-practitioner model.
This model integrates science with practice and vice versa, suggesting
the rigor that should underlie practice and the need to focus research
efforts on practical problems in the work place. Thus, we deeply value
the need for a rigorous, scientific approach to the study of climate and
culture and we believe it important for the study of both to focus on
improving organizational effectiveness vis–à–vis the employees who
work in them. In short, our position is that research has little value
unless it is put into practice and influences how organizations actu-
ally function. We believe that the topics of climate and culture are (or
should be) highly valuable to practitioners because they deal with how
people sense what is valued and important in their work place, and as
the sense they make of their workplace is based on what employees ac-
tually observe and experience, this information can be useful for mak-
ing improvements.
4 Introduction

Another of our assumptions is the value we place on research excel-

lence whether of the quantitative or qualitative variety. Early research
on both climate and culture was characterized by a more qualitative ori-
entation and that approach yielded numerous insights. Culture research
persisted longer with a focus on qualitative approaches as befits its back-
ground in anthropology, while climate became increasingly quantitative
in its approach to measurement. The point is not which is better but the
purpose for which the research has been accomplished and its useful-
ness. Indeed one of us has written for many years about the need for
both types of methods in both climate and culture research (e.g., Schnei-
der, 2000). On a distinct but oftentimes related note, we emphasize and
value both etic approaches (comparisons across organizations), particu-
larly for applied research efforts, and emic approaches (studying an or-
ganization individually and in-depth), particularly for practical purposes
when a specific company has sought our services. So, it is one thing to
know the correlates of a climate for service across many organizations
(etic approach) and it is another thing to work in a specific organization
to make improvements in its climate for service (emic approach).
A final assumption is that organizational effectiveness is an expansive
concept and needs to be defined broadly and not solely in terms of finan-
cial performance. Particularly, it need not be defined only in the ways that
management dictates. Effectiveness is multifaceted, and it is important
to think about it from the perspective of the multiple stakeholders of the
organization. Our preference is not to limit our discussion by focusing
on either/or thinking—for example, this stakeholder (e.g., stockholders)
receives an outcome OR this one (e.g., employees) does, but not both.
Rather, we favor climates and cultures that work in favor of multiple
stakeholders because those solutions tend to provide the most benefit to
the organization in the long run. The research we will later summarize
supports this more expansive perspective.

OUR GOALS: WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH

1. To stimulate thinking and research on organizational climate. Research on
organizational climate has grown substantially since the turn of the cen-
tury (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009); our goal is to help move the study of
climate forward, especially via insights learned from the study of orga-
nizational culture.
2. To stimulate thinking and research on organizational culture. Some orga-
nizational culture researchers have observed that the field has perhaps
lost some of its earlier momentum (Alvesson, 2011), at least in that
organizational culture is more rarely the primary focus of academic
researchers (Martin, Frost,  & O’Neill, 2006). Our review of publica-
tions in top I/O psychology and management journals suggests that
empirical research specifically focused on organizational culture in the
past decade or so has been more limited than it had been in the previ-
ous two decades, particularly relative to empirical research on climate
Introduction 5

(Schneider, Ehrhart,  & Macey, 2013). We think this state of affairs is

neither useful nor necessary.1 So we will address how research on or-
ganizational culture can (a) benefit from the work on organizational
climate, and (b) help with many issues practitioners face, particularly
in the area of organizational change and, reciprocally, how the practical
implications of organizational culture can renew interest in the topic
among organizational researchers.
3. To put a variety of information on climate/culture in one place and organize
it in a holistic way. Although several handbooks of organizational cli-
mate and culture have appeared in the literature over the past 20 years,
those that we know of are edited books with some authors focusing on
climate and others on culture, with little integration between the two.
By authoring a book that focuses simultaneously on both topics, we
hope to be a force for more integrative thinking and communication
across the two fields.

WHAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH

1. To present ourselves as unbiased. We do not pretend to be unbiased in
our evaluations and conclusions of the organizational climate and cul-
ture literatures. Thus, this book offers our collective perspectives on the
two topics, including our viewpoint on what the topics offer individu-
ally and collectively to both understanding and practice. We focus on
what we see are the key themes and “big picture” issues in the two
literatures, and we review them with sample studies. We recognize that
others may have highlighted different issues or come to different con-
clusions, and thus we are up front that this book represents our own
collective perspective.
2. To provide an exhaustive literature review. Our goal in writing this book
was never to provide an exhaustive review of the literatures on orga-
nizational climate and culture. In our overviews of the history of these
constructs (particularly climate), we have tried to highlight the articles
that in our view have had the largest impact on the field, supplemented
with some that have less impact but help to paint a picture of the gen-
eral thinking of the time. In addressing contemporary issues related to
both climate and culture, we selected articles that best highlight the
general themes we identified in the literature. We have certainly had
to leave out many interesting and well-done articles and chapters, but
hopefully our summaries provide a good starting point for readers wish-
ing to do a more in-depth review of particular topics.
3. To discuss all practices that influence or are influenced by climate and cul-
ture. As outcomes of the thousands of things that happen in organiza-
tions, climate and culture can be addressed from the perspective of all
formal and informal practices that yield them. We do not do this here.
The fields that serve as the primary foundations for the contemporary
study of climate and culture, specifically industrial/organizational psy-
chology and organizational behavior, are the sources for those details.
Thus, while leadership and teams and pay practices and job attributes
all likely contribute to and are influenced by the climate and culture of
organizations, the details of basic research on each of these is not within
6 Introduction

the purview of this book; we focus on their relationship to climate and

culture.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

The chapters of the book can be grouped into three general sections,
each with two chapters. Chapters Two and Three focus on organizational
climate, Chapters Four and Five discuss organizational culture, and the
Chapters Six and Seven address the integration of the two. The final
chapter, Chapter Eight, summarizes our major points from through-
out the book and highlights practical implications for organizations and
recommended areas for future research on organizational climate and
culture.
Of the two chapters on organizational climate, the first covers the his-
tory of organizational climate research. Although aspects of this history
have been summarized by us (e.g.,  Schneider et  al., 2011b; Schneider,
Bowen, Ehrhart, & Holcombe, 2000; Reichers and Scheider, 1990) and
others (e.g.,  Ashkanasy, Wilderom,  & Peterson, 2000a), the history of
climate research has not been described in the level of detail we provide
here. We cover the history of climate in such depth because of its im-
portance in setting the stage for later climate research. In fact, many of
the major differences in the ways climate has been conceptualized and
studied can be traced to diverging perspectives in those early years. In
Chapter Two, we divide the foundational work on climate into two major
periods. The first period covers the years before the formal, quantitative
study of climate began in earnest, when the seeds of the construct were
being planted by researchers in various outlets who shared an interest in
the study of the unique environments that are created by and for people
in work organizations. The second period began in the late 1960s and
continued through the 1970s. This era witnessed the beginning of formal
studies of climate coupled with various reviews and critiques of the con-
struct, its conceptualization, and its measurement. Of particular impor-
tance during this early work was the design of survey measures for the
assessment of organizational climate, whether climate was a generic con-
struct or whether it should be studied with some focus, and distinctions
among job satisfaction, organizational climate, and psychological climate.
The time frame from the 1980s to the present comprises what we
consider to be the contemporary study of organizational climate, which
is the focus of Chapter Three. This period has been characterized by
the resolution of many of the early controversies, as evidenced by sig-
nificant progress in the areas of levels of analysis and the study of cli-
mates focused on specific outcomes (like safety and service). As part of
Chapter Three, we address how climate is currently defined and studied
and its expansion into significant organizational process foci of theory
and research in organizations (e.g., fairness, ethics). We describe how cli-
mate research has moved beyond just focusing on mean levels of climate
Introduction 7

perceptions to taking into account variability in those perceptions (i.e.,

climate strength), and how research on climate has taken numerous
vantage points, including antecedents, outcomes, boundary conditions
of those outcomes, processes that mediate the resulting effects, climate
itself as a moderator, and so on. In sum, Chapter Three covers both the
current state of the art in the field and also suggests in some detail areas
of thinking and research where progress still needs to be made.
In the second section of the book, Chapters Four and Five, we focus
on organizational culture and organize the two chapters similarly to the
two chapters on climate. Chapter Four concerns foundational ideas in
the literature on organizational culture, although we do not develop our
discussion of the history of culture to the extent that we do the his-
tory of organizational climate in Chapter Two. Somewhat paradoxically,
there are extensive books on organizational culture history, research,
and theory (e.g., Alvesson, 1993; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1990;
Hofstede, 1991; Martin, 1992, 2002; Schein, 1985, 2010; Trice & Beyer,
1993), more so than exist on organizational climate (zero such books!)
even though there is a larger empirical research literature on climate.
Therefore, we highlight what we see as the key developments in the
history of organizational culture, with a particular emphasis on the way
the roots of culture research are intertwined with those of climate re-
search. In fact, as we note, the rise in studies of culture was at least in
part a reaction to the state of the field of organizational climate and the
disagreements that dominated the field over what some considered to be
“technical minutiae” (Ashkanasy, Wilderom,  & Peterson, 2000b). After
our brief historical treatment of culture, we address three foundations of
the culture literature: how it has been conceptualized, how it has been
defined, and how it has been studied.
Chapter Five transitions to some of the issues we view as critical for
understanding where culture comes from and its effect on organizations.
We begin with a summary of some of the key influences on the develop-
ment of organizational culture that have been identified in the literature,
including the organizational founder, the collective learning by organi-
zational members as a result of the organization’s successes and failures,
and the organization’s context including its industry and the national
culture of its home country. Closely related to the issue of how culture
emerges is how it is perpetuated and maintained, and thus in the subse-
quent section we address the literature on organizational socialization.
This literature informs us about such topics as the stages new employees
go through as they enter and learn about the organization, the types of
cultural understanding acquired by new employees as they go through
those stages, and the tactics used by organizations to support the social-
ization process. It could be argued that the importance of how culture
emerges and is maintained is tied to its relationship with organizational
effectiveness, which is the topic we explore next in Chapter Five. The
existence of a direct link between culture and effectiveness is controver-
sial, with critics specifically commenting on how quantitative research
8 Introduction

attempting to address this relationship oversimplifies the culture con-

struct and ignores numerous possible boundary conditions. Another criti-
cism is that such research ignores possible subcultures, which we discuss
along with the closely related concept of culture strength. Building on
the previous sections, Chapter Five culminates with a discussion of cul-
ture change. Central to this discussion is the idea that culture is both
quite stable and yet constantly changing, as well as the question of the
extent to which management’s attempts to change organizational cul-
ture will yield their hoped-for results.
In the next section of the book, Chapters Six and Seven, we attempt
to bring together the fields of organizational climate and culture in a
way that benefits both research and practice in both fields. Chapter Six
integrates the preceding chapters in a discussion of the similarities and
differences between the fields of climate and culture and how the two
can learn from each other moving forward. In addition, we discuss three
recent frameworks that describe ways that climate and culture can be
integrated with each other, and we provide some specific ways that the
two constructs can be studied in the future in a more integrative manner.
This chapter ends with a discussion of the ways by which both organi-
zational climate and culture can provide a competitive advantage to or-
ganizations, and how organizations may approach organizational change
through an integrated climate and culture lens. Although the previous
chapters include an emphasis on both research and practice in line with
our value for the scientist-practitioner model, the Chapter Seven is more
purely practice-focused. For practitioners especially, the topics of climate
and culture are of interest because they have learned that (a) executives
think easily in organizational culture terms to explain what happens in
their companies, and (b) the choices among tactics for approaching cul-
tural inquiry are difficult. This chapter provides an in-depth discussion
surrounding the issue of assessment including a discussion of both quali-
tative and quantitative procedures for such inquiry to serve as a founda-
tion for future efforts to improve effectiveness and implement change.
Chapter Eight is, for the most part, a summary of the key points made
throughout the rest of the book. Our goal was to provide a useful refer-
ence for readers wanting to quickly see the “big picture” of the content
of the book. In addition, we use this final chapter to review what we see
as the primary implications for practitioners along with the major direc-
tions for future research in each area separately and in the integration of
the two.

SUMMARY

We collectively have almost 100 years of experience with research and

thinking on, and practical applications of, organizational climate and
culture. This book documents our understanding of these topics with
the hope that both researchers and practitioners would simultaneously
Introduction 9

grasp the complexity of the issues involved and the potential for using
that very complexity for helping organizations become more compet-
itive. Our hope is that by discussing in depth the issues scholars and
practitioners confront when dealing with climate and culture, we both
humanize organizations and make them more competitive. That is, we
see the people who work in organizations as the embodiment of those
organizations—they make organizations real. As such, people play a criti-
cal role in helping scholars understand why organizations are the way
they are and in giving practitioners the insights they need to help orga-
nizations be increasingly competitive in a dynamic and changing world.

NOTE
1. To be clear, we are not saying that there is not general interest in the concept
of organizational culture. The concept continues to have much influence in
theoretical work and general discussion about how workers experience their
organizations. Perhaps the issue was best summarized by Weber and Dacin
(2011), who observed that researchers have shifted to studying culture more
as “a broad theoretical and methodological lens rather than a distinct object
of study” (p. 287).
This page intentionally left blank
 CH APTER

2
History of
Organizational Climate
Theory and Research
The study of organizational climate did not emerge out of nowhere; it
emerged from the concern in psychology for understanding situational
influences on behavior. The early history of psychology addressed in-
dividual behavior and the seeking of generalizations that characterized
individuals. Researchers were concerned with basic sensory processes
such as vision and hearing and the experiences associated with them
(color, timbre) as well as basic human learning and motivational pro-
cesses. Beginning in the late 1930s with work by Skinner in particular
(Skinner, 1938), the effects of situations on behavior became a focus
of study. Thus, in laboratory experiments on animals (rats and pigeons)
and humans (especially children), Skinner and his colleagues at Harvard
demonstrated that behavior was controlled by situational forces, espe-
cially reinforcement schedules.
In the world of industrial psychology (now called industrial/organi-
zational psychology), however, the individual and his or her behavior
remained the clear focus of psychological work in business and indus-
try. Indeed, from the earliest days of industrial psychology the focus was
not only on individuals (rather than situations), but also on individual
differences, especially as those differences were reflected in differences
in performance at work (Ghiselli, 1939). Industrial psychology was the
application of the study of individual differences, especially individual
differences in ability, and the ways those differences were important
for behavior at work and the effectiveness of organizations. That is, the

11
12 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

supposition was that if organizations had more able workers they would
definitely be the most effective organizations, so what was critical for ef-
fectiveness was the selection of more able workers.
A departure from the individual differences model of organizations
emerged from what have come to be called the Hawthorne studies
(Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger, 1941; Roethlisberger  & Dickson, 1939).
These studies, which were also conducted by people at Harvard but in
sociology, demonstrated the large influence the work situation/context
had on employees and their performance. Thus in a series of in-depth
case studies, it was revealed, for example, that the social situation in
which workers did their jobs affected not only how they felt at work,
but also their overall productivity. In fact, the studies showed that some
social situations at work (where coworkers threaten newcomers for being
too productive) can have considerable inhibitory effects on employee
productivity. In other words, situations could have both positive and neg-
ative effects on worker productivity.
What was missing from this work at the Hawthorne plant was a con-
venient label to capture the effects so elegantly addressed using observa-
tions of workers. Just before and just after World War II, as we will see,
there began to emerge studies of these situational influences on behavior
that were rigorously applied to research on work behavior. While not all
that followed used the term climate as a label to summarize these effects,
enough did so that the term became ubiquitous by the mid-1960s as a
convenient rubric for identifying research on the effects of situations on
workers.
The rest of this chapter on the early history of organizational climate
theory and research has two major sections. Within each major section,
we proceed essentially chronologically as this is generally the way theory
and research on climate developed. The first section of the chapter com-
prises the years prior to the late 1960s as researchers began to refer to
the concept of climate and to discuss the role of the environment more
generally in understanding behavior at work. In the second section of the
chapter, the late 1960s through the 1970s, the pace of research—as well
as critiques of such work—expanded greatly. We highlight key examples
of climate research and the resolutions to concerns about the way cli-
mate was conceptualized and studied as a segue to the following chapter
on contemporary climate research.

FROM 1939 TO THE MID-1960S: THE EARLY

YEARS OF CLIMATE RESEARCH

This era was an exciting time for the study of organizational climate be-
cause there were few guidelines for how to proceed either conceptually
or empirically. Researchers went hither and yon pursing the construct
from numerous perspectives and in numerous ways. The goal of this sec-
tion of the chapter is to provide readers with a flavor of the dynamism
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 13

that existed and in fact provided for future theory and research on the
construct. In this section then, we trace the roots of climate research, re-
viewing key contributors to the early development of the field by briefly
describing their perspectives and contributions. We particularly highlight
points that are most closely related to the contemporary development
of the climate construct and how the authors differentiated between cli-
mate and culture, as this will form the foundation for our discussions in
later chapters integrating the two constructs.

Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939)

and “Social Climates”
Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) introduced the term “climate” to the
world of social psychology research. Their research was accomplished at
a time when concerns existed globally for the effect of leadership on how
people behaved. Lewin had left Germany in the early 1930s because he
was greatly concerned about the effects he had observed there of Hitler’s
leadership style. Of particular interest to him was the degree to which
the autocratic leadership style he had observed resulted in changes in the
ways people behaved toward others.
In this context, he and his colleagues focused their research on the
role of three different leadership styles for the functioning and perfor-
mance of groups: democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire. They varied
the leadership styles within four groups of 10-year-old boys, with each
group of five boys participating in a number of activities including soap
carving and model airplane construction. Lewin and colleagues focused
specifically on the levels of aggression within each club and how the
atmosphere in the group that emerged affected the aggressive behaviors
that were observed. Interestingly, although the title of their paper refers
to “social climates” (their quotes), they actually use the term “climate”
sparingly. Instead, they refer to the “social atmosphere” or just “atmo-
sphere” of the group, using those terms synonymously with climate. In
any case, the research revealed that the boys were more aggressive to-
ward each other under the autocratic condition, cooperated more under
the democratic condition, and were less involved in the activities under
laissez-faire leadership. The boys were equally productive in the demo-
cratic and autocratic conditions but there was less chatter, less coopera-
tion, and less smiling in the latter condition.
There are several features of this early work on climate worthy of
note. First, Lewin and colleagues were interested in a specific type of cli-
mate: the social climate, as characterized by the interactions of the boys
with each other. Second, the observations they made of the boys focused
on the level of cooperation and aggression and smiling and chatter in
the groups as a whole rather than on the individual differences among
group members; the effect of interest was on the group as a whole, not
individual differences, in response to the climate. Finally, they viewed the
14 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

behavior of the leader as the proximal antecedent of the group’s climate.

In fact, their conceptual model seemed to be that specific leadership
styles created specific types of climates, which subsequently resulted in
specific (and generally universal) social behavioral responses from the
group. These three issues—the specific nature of the climate of interest,
the group nature of climate, and the influence of the leader on climate—
continue to be of interest to modern climate researchers as we will see
(e.g., Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-Jolly, 2005).

Fleishman (1953) and Leadership Climates

Perhaps because the research presented by Lewin and colleagues was

done with groups of boys and perhaps because it was published out-
side of the industrial psychology world, the issue of climate lay fallow
in the research literature until resurrected by Fleishman (1953) in his
research as part of the Ohio State Leadership projects (e.g.,  Stogdill,
1968). Fleishman was the developer of the leadership behavior descrip-
tion questionnaire (LBDQ), empirically documenting and distinguishing
between the two broad categories of leadership behavior called consider-
ation and initiating structure.
As part of the Ohio State leadership studies, efforts were made to
train leaders to be more considerate to the needs and feelings of employ-
ees rather than just giving orders (as in initiating structure). In Fleish-
man’s 1953 article, the focus was on the transfer of the training received
by trainees (foremen) at the training site to the “home” work environ-
ments. Leadership climate was defined on the first page of the article in
terms of the extent to which a returning foreman’s boss created condi-
tions (climate) for the transfer of training to occur. As described by Salas,
Priest, Stagl, Sims, and Burke (2007), Fleishman reported that his focus
on climate was directly influenced by the work of Lewin and colleagues
(1939). Fleishman’s research revealed that when the boss recognized and
supported the more human relations orientation (consideration) taught
in training, then the training was implemented by the returning foreman.
On the other hand, when the bosses themselves were less considerate
and more structure-oriented, then the returning foremen were seen as
behaving similarly as before the training. In short, the climate created by
the boss was what the trainees followed rather than what they had been
taught—and had demonstrated—in training.
There are a few highlights of this research important to note. First,
Fleishman, like Lewin and colleagues, focused on a particular type of cli-
mate: in this case, leadership climate. While Fleishman also wrote about
the larger context in which the leader and his boss worked—calling the
larger context the culture of the setting—the focus of the work was on
the climate created by the leader for the returning trainee. As a sidebar, it
is interesting to note that whenever Fleishman referred to “climate,” the
term was in quotes, whereas the term culture was not, perhaps signifying
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 15

the more common usage of the term culture at the time and the infancy
of the climate construct.
Second, even though the definition of leadership climate focused on
the boss’s leadership behavior, a key aspect of the measurement of the
leadership climate construct was that it included both the foreman’s per-
ception of what his boss expected as well as the boss’s report of his ex-
pectations. Thus, leadership climate was not defined by behaviors alone,
but expectations as well. How those expectations were communicated
was not specified. Finally, Fleishman emphasized the role of climate in
organizational effectiveness. Specifically, he noted that the leadership cli-
mate created at each level of the organization is important for the effec-
tiveness of training to transfer back to the workplace, which ultimately is
intended to increase organizational effectiveness.

Argyris (1957, 1958)

Argyris’s writings were largely concerned with the “formal organization”

as created by management and its implications for worker well-being.
In the 1957 book, the emphasis was on the lack of alignment between
the formal organization and workers’ needs, resulting in negative em-
ployee adaptive behaviors such as aggression and apathy. He described
the formal organization largely in terms of such generic attributes as the
chain of command and specialization of production that are intended to
control employees’ actions. This control, he noted, is most fundamentally
represented in the directive leadership behaviors on the part of manage-
ment. Argyris’s challenge was to suggest how management might be-
come less directive in ways that would remove the incongruency he saw
between the directive and stifling ways formal organizations functioned
and the adult needs of workers. In short, Argyris argued that the typical
organization infantilized workers by directing all of their behavior when,
as adults, workers required some autonomy and flexibility to feel con-
nected with their work and the workplace. For Argyris (1957) the key
issue, then, was the degree to which the modern corporation facilitated
or inhibited the adult personality and his conclusion was that for the
most part it inhibited it.
In his 1957 book, Argyris rarely used the term climate. The use of the
term was limited to his description of how employees are likely to resist
employee-centered leadership because of the existing “human relations
climate.” Nevertheless, he did discuss similar ideas without using the
term climate, particularly when he described the role of the “competent
executive.” By emphasizing how executives should clearly communicate
to employees the “objectives, policies, and practices” of management and
then should ensure that the performance evaluation system is aligned
with those policies and practices, Argyris laid the foundation for future
discussions of the importance of alignment for creating strategic climates
and the leader’s role in that process (e.g., Schneider, 1975b; Schneider
16 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

et al., 2005). We will return to those issues in more depth in the next
chapter.
In contrast to the 1957 book, Argyris’s 1958 paper describing the de-
velopment of a bank’s climate and “informal culture” was replete with
references to climate. Unlike later climate and culture research, for Ar-
gyris climate was a much broader construct than culture. Climate was
described as the totality of the complexity of organizational life, encom-
passing the formal organization, its interaction with individuals, and the
resulting informal organizational culture. He also described climate as
the “homeostatic state” of the organization “representing many different
levels of analysis” (p. 516), consistent with his broad view of the climate
construct. The concept of culture, on the other hand, was used more nar-
rowly to describe the informal behavioral norms that developed as result
of employees’ (and separately, the bank’s officers’) dissatisfaction with
the formal structure.
Argyris made three observations about organizations and their climate
that are worthy of specific note. First, the climate of an organization
will tend to be stable as long as it satisfies the needs of the individuals in
the organization. Second, he described how management could change
the climate by hiring different types of employees because as long as the
same “right-type” employees were hired, the climate (and culture) would
remain the same. In essence, Argyris (1958) argued that climates emerge
in organizations as a result of the kinds of people hired by them who
then work together and over time create the climate in which they work.
Many years later Schneider (1987) proposed an expanded view of this
idea in what has come to be called the Attraction–Selection–Attrition
(ASA) cycle.
Finally, and importantly, Argyris (1958) foreshadowed much of the
later work on levels of analysis by describing how the organization is
a “discrete level of analysis, resulting from the interaction of the (tra-
ditional) individual, formal, informal, and cultural levels of analyses”
(p.  516) and opposing the idea that the “organization can eventually
be reduced to the individual level of analysis” (p. 517). We will explore
this issue in considerable detail later, but emphasize for now that Ar-
gyris identified this issue back in 1958, and yet it took almost a quarter
century before the implications of what he said became clear and were
studied in depth.

Leavitt (1958)

Leavitt was a student of McGregor’s (who will be discussed shortly), and

the thinking displayed in his book Managerial Psychology was clearly in-
fluenced by his mentor (who in turn was influenced by his mentor, Kurt
Lewin). Although organizational climate was not a primary explicit focus
in his book (it is mentioned in the next-to-last chapter), the book was
in fact about the “tenor” created by management for employees. Leavitt
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 17

made quite similar arguments to those of Argyris (1957), proposing that

the typical organizational hierarchical structure and authority system
pushes its members to be more defensive, short-term, and self-focused
in their behavior, when what is needed for organizational effectiveness
are the opposites of these: open, long-term, and organizationally focused.
One of four strategies Leavitt mentioned to counteract these unproduc-
tive tendencies is to “change the ‘climate’ of the organization” (p. 277),
although the section on that strategy was entitled “Changing the Orga-
nizational Atmosphere” and he used the term atmosphere more than cli-
mate. His main point was that if employees are going to contribute their
energies and motivation to organizational effectiveness, management
needs to make employees feel more secure and in control at work, and to
do so, they need to create the right “atmospheric conditions.” These con-
ditions are created by being more open with employees, providing them
a chance to learn, allowing them to participate in decision-making, and
giving them room to express their feelings. Leavitt mentioned that more
important than specific policies enacted by management for creating “an
atmosphere of security and independence” (p. 288) is management’s gen-
eral attitude toward people as being intelligent, motivated, and able.
Leavitt’s book was a major milestone in publishing because the book
was an interpretation of psychological principles applied to the work-
place written more for managers than for academics. Thus, while
Argyris’s (1957) book received considerable attention in the world of
practice, it was fundamentally an academic treatise with numerous cita-
tions and footnotes. Leavitt’s book was not so encumbered, and it was
written in a style that made it easily available to practicing managers.
What was important is that his book and Argyris’s book served, along
with McGregor’s writings (to follow next), to introduce the psychology
of the workplace to many managers and academics who previously had
focused almost exclusively on hiring the right people (Viteles, 1932) and
had ignored the climate, culture, character, and atmosphere they were
creating that the researchers felt inhibited rather than facilitated the ef-
fectiveness of workers.

McGregor (1960)

McGregor was a practicing executive prior to his tenure at MIT where he

produced his book, The Human Side of Enterprise. His book, like Argyris’s
(1957), focused on the ways the modern organization stifled rather than
facilitated the adult intelligence and motivation of workers. He argued
that the theory or philosophy managers hold about worker motivation
determines their behavior toward workers, so it is critical for managers
to understand what their theory about worker motivation actually is to
better understand how and why they are likely to behave as they do.
The focus of McGregor’s book was on two such theories or philoso-
phies of management: Theory X and Theory Y. These theories described
18 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

management’s fundamental assumptions about human nature that, in

turn, drive how they treat workers and subsequently how workers re-
spond. A Theory X philosophy assumes that workers dislike work, wish
to avoid responsibility at work, and have little creativity and ambition
vis-à-vis working. As a result, they need to be controlled and coerced
into putting effort toward the achievement of organizational goals. In
contrast, Theory Y presumes that workers desire to put forth effort and
be committed toward the goals for which they are rewarded, and that
fundamentally they seek responsibility and to exercise their creativity.
Following a Theory Y philosophy, management focuses on creating the
proper conditions for workers to achieve both their own goals and the
goals of the organization.
As part of his discussion, McGregor dedicated a chapter to the “mana-
gerial climate” or the climate of the supervisor-subordinate relationship.
He noted that the nature of this relationship is not directly tied to a par-
ticular set of policies and procedures, but more important are the “evi-
dences of how they are administered.” He then stated the following: “The
day-by-day behavior of the immediate superior and of other significant
people in the managerial organization communicates something about
their assumptions concerning management which is of fundamental sig-
nificance” (p. 133). In other words, employees go beyond a narrow focus
on the tangible practices of management and attribute to those practices
what management truly believes about the employees with whom they
work. Those attributions employees make about what management be-
lieves constitutes the substance of climate.
In one of McGregor’s first mentions of the term climate, he stated
that “many subtle behavioral manifestations of managerial attitude create
what is often referred to as the psychological ‘climate’ of the relation-
ship” (p. 134). Note that even though McGregor described it as a psy-
chological climate, it was “of the relationship,” meaning that it was shared
by the individuals in that relationship. This distinction was emphasized
as he explicitly described that the managerial climate is not determined
by the manager alone, but is co-determined by the subordinate as well.
In subsequent chapters, McGregor discussed the “climate of line-staff
relationships,” implying that the climate concept he described as being
shared between two individuals could be expanded across larger groups.
He later even described the “broader context of the climate created by
company policy and practice, organization structure, and general phi-
losophy” (p. 199) within which the more local supervisor-subordinate
climates are found. This broader view aligns quite closely with Argyris’s
(1958) observations about levels of analysis and with modern approaches
to organizational climate described later in this book. We begin to see in
McGregor’s writings the idea that climates nest within climates at differ-
ent levels of analysis, an idea we will pursue in some detail later.
Interestingly, in the last chapter of his book when discussing distinc-
tions between effective and ineffective groups, he described the “atmo-
sphere” of the group that can be “sensed in a few minutes of observation”
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 19

(p. 232). This is interesting because it indicates that climate exists in the
behaviors of people, and it is the nature of the behavior that occurs that
forms the basis for perceptions of climate. One final point on McGregor
is that at the end of the last chapter, he suggested that the managerial
climate had important implications in two major areas: subordinate ex-
pectations for goal accomplishment and subordinate need satisfaction.
Thus, McGregor viewed the relationships established between manager
and subordinate as creating a climate for both performance and satisfac-
tion; we will speak later to the issues of creating climates that are useful
for more than one important outcome.

Likert (1961)

As may be coming through to readers, the decade surrounding 1960 was

a magical time for what has come to be called industrial/organizational
psychology and organizational behavior. This period formed the founda-
tion for the study of organizational climate but perhaps more impor-
tantly the broad study of leadership, motivation, and group dynamics.
Rich conceptualizations emerged about what motivated people, how
managers’ assumptions about what motivated people might have been in
error, and how moving from an authority systems-based vantage point on
the management of the modern organization to a more democratic view
could produce not only improved organizational effectiveness, but also
need satisfaction for employees.
Likert (1961) was at the University of Michigan when he presented
evidence for a new theory of management at one and the same time
consistent with the classical theories of management of the time, but ap-
plied in ways that moved away from control through authority and more
toward meeting worker needs. We mention the University of Michigan
because at the time Likert began his writings it was perhaps the pre-
eminent home for the kinds of thinking and research that were at the
foundation of these new fields. In addition to Likert and his work on or-
ganizational design, Katz and Kahn (1966; reviewed later) were there as
were Cartwright and Zander (1960), arguably the fathers of the modern
study of teams at work.
For Likert, leadership was the critical factor in determining employee
motivation and organizational effectiveness. By comparing lower-level
managers that led highly effective work groups to those who led less
effective ones, Likert sought to identify the leadership practices that
resulted in increased effectiveness. Similar to Argyris (1957) and Mc-
Gregor (1960), Likert concluded that managers needed to move beyond
controlling employees through the exercise of authority. For highly ef-
fective leaders, he found the following: “Reliance is not placed solely or
fundamentally on the economic motive of buying a man’s time and using
control and authority as the organizing and coordinating principle of the
organization. On the contrary . . . The full strength of all economic, ego,
20 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

and other motives is generated and put to use.” (pp. 98–100). Building on
these findings, he introduced four systems by which organizations might
function on a continuum from completely autocratic to completely par-
ticipative, which he later (Likert, 1967) labeled as follows: System 1 (Ex-
ploitative Autocratic), System 2 (Benevolent Authoritative), System 3
(Consultative), and System 4 (Participative Group).
Although we could not find any direct reference in Likert’s writing to
climate or culture, he discussed many similar ideas. For instance, Likert
stated, “The values of the group, the stability of these values, the group
atmosphere, and the nature of the conformity demanded by the group
determine whether a group is likely to have a positive or negative impact
upon the growth and behavior of its members” (1961, p. 162). The val-
ues referenced here appear to align with later conceptualizations of the
concept of culture. As for the atmosphere, Likert noted that it needed to
be “warm, supportive, and full of understanding” (p. 164). Where does
such an “atmosphere” originate? Likert was quite explicit that he viewed
its source as the leader, who “uses group methods of supervision and
which develops in the entire group a sense of responsibility for getting
the total job done” (pp. 34–35). Similarly, he described how “the superior
of each work group exerts a major influence in establishing the tone and
atmosphere of that work group by his leadership principles and prac-
tices” (p. 167). It is important to note that he did not view such an at-
mosphere alone to lead to group effectiveness, but instead he proposed
that the atmosphere provides the context in which “all the interaction,
problem-solving, decision-making activities of the group occur” (p. 166).
So although the leader was viewed as an important source of support,
he was also “an important source of enthusiasm for the significance of
the mission and goals of the group” (pp. 171–172). Researchers today
might describe this as the need for both a generally positive social cli-
mate and a specific strategic climate for goal accomplishment within the
work group. A final note on Likert was his emphasis on measurement. He
specifically described how this “atmosphere” of groups could and should
be measured regularly, setting the stage for later quantitative measure-
ment of the climate construct.

Gilmer (1961, 1966) and Forehand

and Gilmer (1964)
The first industrial psychology textbook references to climate appeared
in the first edition of Gilmer’s Industrial Psychology (1961). In that book,
Gilmer included two sections specifically focused on climate. The first
was in the chapter on “The Structures of Organizations,” with a section
entitled “The Psychological Climate in Industry.” Gilmer equated climate
with an organization’s “personality or character,” making the following
observation about research in the area up to that point: “The idea that the
character of an organization is a subject for study is a rather new concept
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 21

in spite of the fact that the literature includes such terms as ‘quality
of managers,’ ‘environmental factors,’ and ‘leadership climate’ ” (p. 49).
Throughout this section of his book, Gilmer used the term climate in
ways that seem to capture elements of contemporary perspectives on both
climate and culture. For instance, similar to Lewin and colleagues’ (1939)
conceptualization of climate, he contrasted the “democratic or permis-
sive climate” with an “autocratic climate.” At the same time, he included
such issues as the way managers dress and the cars they drive, which
now would both be considered artifacts of culture. For Gilmer, the top
executive played a major role in the development of the climate/culture,
as he described the company’s character as “an extended shadow of the
personality of its top executive” (p. 50). He also noted that one of the
major ways that climate/culture can change is if the behavior of the top
executive changes. At the same time, Gilmer was aware of the differen-
tial impact of leaders according to their level, as he pointed out that at a
local level, the foreman may have more of an impact than the executive.
Finally, he discussed the concept of fit, referencing Mayo (1945) for the
idea that fit with the organization and its climate/culture may be a better
predictor of success than technical skills. Interestingly, he closed this sec-
tion with a subsection entitled “Wives of Men in Industry,” in which he
argued for the importance of the wives of the male employees to fit with
the organization’s climate as well!
The other section on climate in Gilmer’s book was entitled “The Psy-
chological Climate for Work,” in the chapter on “Attitudes, Job Satisfac-
tions, and Industrial Morale.” Although he did not use the term climate
very much in this section—he focused mostly on describing the informal
social structures in organizations—he did make the following observa-
tion about climate at the beginning of the section: “The social aspects of
the job-work groups, leadership, and organization of the company all add
up to a psychological climate for the person to work in” (p. 205). This
perspective is similar to the Gestalt perspective emphasized by Lewin
and colleagues and later climate researchers (e.g., Schneider, 1975b), al-
though with a particular emphasis on the social aspect of work. There
is one other section in which Gilmer, although he did not use the term
climate, referred to ideas that came to be labeled as climate in later writ-
ings. In his chapter on “Business Operating Procedures,” Gilmer described
how procedures and “innocuous-looking rules” have implications for the
environment that forms in organizations, with some intended effects
but many unintended ones. His discussion foreshadowed later distinc-
tions made in the literature between the policies and procedures created
by management and the climate those policies and procedures produce
among employees. Finally, Gilmer briefly made reference to a level of
analysis issue with regard to the possibility of the formation of subcli-
mates in organizations: “Different parts of the organization see different
environments, and the environments they see depend on the rules for
recording and processing information” (p. 86). Thus because the poli-
cies and procedures vary across different units of the organization, the
22 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

environments or climates that form across those units are also likely to
vary.
Subsequent to his 1961 book, Gilmer extended his thinking on climate
in a 1964 Psychological Bulletin article with Forehand on “environmental
variation” in organizational research, as well as in the second edition of
his Industrial Psychology book in 1966 in which he dedicated a full chap-
ter to the topic of climate. Forehand and Gilmer (1964) observed that
the climate term seemed to mean “different things to different writers,”
a problem that to some degree continues to persist to this day, and thus
they wanted to focus on those features “amenable to specification, mea-
surement, and incorporation into empirical research” (p. 362). They pro-
vided the following definition of climate: “the set of characteristics that
describe an organization and that (a) distinguish the organization from
other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influ-
ence the behavior of people in the organization” (p. 362). Gilmer (1966)
also described climate as the “psychological structure” of an organization,
in contrast to the physical structure. Unfortunately, such a broad view of
climate captures many constructs, and Gilmer gave clear indication that
he equated the concepts of culture and climate (along with company
personality). He also used the terms psychological climate and organiza-
tional climate interchangeably—a clear distinction between the two did
not appear until several years later (James & Jones, 1974).
Consistent with this broad view of climate, both sources (Forehand &
Gilmer, 1964; Gilmer, 1966) identified a range of variables as descrip-
tive of the dimensions of climate, including size and shape, leadership
patterns, systems complexity, organizational structure, communication
networks, goal directions, and decision-making procedures. Of particular
note, Forehand and Gilmer (1964) emphasized that various attributes
of climate can have motivating effects on workers through their direct
or indirect specification of what is rewarded or punished in the organi-
zation. Forehand and Gilmer (1964) and Gilmer (1966) also discussed
some methodological issues, such as the different ways climate can be
measured (including case studies or other forms of in-depth description,
surveys measuring worker perceptions, objective indices, and experimen-
tal manipulations in a lab setting) and how climate can have both direct
effects (similar effects on all members of a unit) and interactive effects
(differential effects across individuals). Although both sources generally
tended to focus on climate as a characterization of an entire organization
(or organizational subunit), they also pointed out that individual percep-
tions of climate can vary based on experience, skill, attitudes, or person-
ality. Forehand and Gilmer (1964) closed their article with four issues
that needed to be resolved to establish the usefulness of the climate con-
struct: (1) what level of analysis is appropriate for the study of climate
and the importance of ensuring comparability of level across the various
organizations studied, (2) the need for homogeneity of perceptions of
climate within the organizational unit being studied for there to be a
climate there, (3) the relative permanence of climate beyond the effects
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 23

of a particular leader, and (4) how to combine different dimensions of

climate to best describe an organization (advocating particularly for ap-
proaches emphasizing the overall pattern or configuration of dimensions).
Finally, although in a chapter other than the one on climate, Gilmer also
foreshadowed the work on focused or strategic climates, and specifically
safety climate, when he mentioned research searching for a “climatic pat-
tern” that may be associated with low-accident environments.
The article by Forehand and Gilmer (1964) and Gilmer’s (1961, 1966)
textbooks were very important because they introduced in considerable
detail the notion that the context was important for understanding the
behavior of people at work. As we will see, it is right around the time of
the second book when research on climate as we know it today began
in earnest. However, the idea that context has a role to play in human
behavior at work received other significant input from Schein (1965) and
Katz and Kahn (1966), which we explore next.

Schein (1965)

Schein’s book was one of several at the time to focus on the “new” field of
organizational psychology. This field could be distinguished from indus-
trial psychology, which dealt with “the assessment and selection of individ-
ual workers and ignored those questions which involve the organization
as a whole” (Schein, 1965, p. 2; italics in original). In Schein’s view, it was
necessary to view the organization from a systems perspective; individual
behavior could only be fully understood when viewed in its context of a
“complex social system.” This emphasis on “the behavior of individuals
as with the behavior of groups, subsystems, and even the total organiza-
tion in response to internal and external stimuli” (pp. 3–4) distinguished
Schein’s writings from his contemporaries in industrial psychology but
aligned with the writings of Argyris, McGregor, and Likert, who we may
consider founders of the contextual movement. Schein’s book was im-
portant for many reasons. First, it was one of the first books with the title
Organizational Psychology (Bass’s book with the same title also came out
in 1965). Second, it presented organizational psychology as an addition
to, not a substitute for, the focus in industrial psychology on individual
differences and personnel selection. Third, Schein summarized the his-
torical perspectives that at the time had permeated ways to conceptual-
ize employee motivation in the workplace. Thus, he showed that the
scientific management notion of motivation as directed by money was no
longer viable (as had Argyris and McGregor), that man had more than
social needs that had to be met through and in the work environment,
and that human motivation included the desire to be competent and
creative at work.
Given this focus on the effects of the organization as a whole on work
motivation, it is not surprising that Schein mentioned concepts related
to climate and culture (e.g., environment, image, and setting) throughout
24 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

his book, although he used the actual terms climate and culture very
little. The most direct mention of climate and culture was when describ-
ing Fleishman’s (1953) research on leadership training. Schein described
how “the effects of training were intimately related to the culture, or
climate, of the departments from which the men came. These climates
had as much of an effect on the trainee as did the training” (p. 38). Later
in that same chapter, when discussing human relations training, he de-
scribed how a climate or setting (he used both terms interchangeably)
in which members feel comfortable being open about their feelings can
stimulate more open expressions from the members of the group. The
only other direct mention of climate was when discussing the impor-
tance of management’s assumptions about people (along the lines of
McGregor, 1960). Schein stated, “As assumptions become increasingly
realistic, management practices will begin to build the kind of climate
which is needed for reliable and valid communication, creative effort,
flexibility, and commitment” (pp. 104–105).
It is clear that the concepts of climate and culture as applied to orga-
nizations were not well developed at this point, and perhaps not distin-
guishable. What these few mentions by Schein (1965) do tell us is that
there was something in the environment or context of the workplace
that had an important role in determining worker attitudes and behavior.
Furthermore, this climate was strongly affected by the leadership of the
organization that emerged out of the assumptions leaders made about
what motivates workers. Finally, there is an implication that there may
be different types of climates in organizations. For example, one kind
of climate might directly affect the transfer of leadership training back
to the job, another might be related to the level of open expression by
group members, and yet a third kind of climate had broader implications
for workers’ more generic motivation, adaptability, and attitudes.
Although Schein explicitly mentioned the concepts of climate and
culture relatively sparingly, he discussed in many other places similar
concepts that would be labeled as climate or culture by researchers
today. In terms of culture, Schein discussed how leaders must adapt to
a group’s norms, history, and tradition to be effective. He also described
how in rapidly changing environments, socialization practices (or what
he referred to as “systematic indoctrination”) needed to be viewed as in-
terdependent with other organizational functions like job design and se-
lection. Finally, he described how organizational leaders must define the
values and norms that become core to the organization’s basic identity.
With regard to climate, when discussing the balance between pri-
mary task completion and innovation, Schein specifically described how
management’s policies and procedures create climate: “. . . many of the
procedures which organizations develop to maximize their day-to-day
effectiveness lead to a psychological climate in which innovation and
creativity may actually be punished” (p. 16). Such thoughts foreshadow
later discussions of possible conflicts between, for example, strategic
climates for innovation and cost-cutting in organizations. Schein also
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 25

discussed how an organization is “unaware of the kind of image its prac-

tices are creating in the minds of its members” that are “determiners of
how individual employees will relate themselves to the organization”
(p. 33). The idea of image seems to align closely with that of climate.
Furthermore, even though Schein was focusing on the image formed by
individual employees and its consequences for individual behavior, there
was also the implication that similar, shared images would be formed
across employees.
On a final note, Schein placed a heavy emphasis on the need for orga-
nizations to focus on the “total, organizational performance rather than
individual subgroup performance” (p. 105). It is not that the individual
parts do not matter, but it is more important how they come together
in an integrative way to understand organizational effectiveness from a
human organization vantage point. This idea was foundational for the
literatures on both organizational climate and organizational culture.

Katz and Kahn (1966)

Katz and Kahn’s influential text focused on organizations as social sys-

tems, applying open-systems theory to the study of human work orga-
nizations. Although they discussed a number of issues with regard to
organizational structure, roles, communication, decision-making, and
leadership, there was little direct mention in their book of climate and
culture, and little additional discussion of topics that would fall under
the domain of the constructs of climate or culture by today’s standards.
However, they did include a short subsection entitled “Organizational
Culture and Climate” within a broader section on “Subsidiary Concepts”
that characterized the “overall functioning and structure of social organi-
zations” (p. 63). Their use of the terms climate and culture is informative.
There is no indication that they distinguished between the two concepts.
The first mention is of “culture or climate” in the first sentence of the sec-
tion, followed by “climate or culture” in the second sentence. Although
they use the terms individually throughout the rest of the section, they
appear to be used interchangeably. What is perhaps most interesting is
the other terms used in that section. That is, the concepts that Katz and
Kahn considered as either equivalent to climate and culture or falling
within their domain include norms, values, roles, subculture, collective
feelings and beliefs, atmosphere, history, taboos, folkways, mores, types of
people, work processes, physical layout, modes of communication, and
exercise of authority.
Although many of these terms have come to be more associated with
culture than climate, it is clear that elements of both were included in
describing the social situation of organizations. And in keeping with
the more-culture-than-climate idea, they proposed these elements are
“passed along to new group members” (p. 66), foretelling an emphasis
on socialization common in the later culture literature. As a final note
26 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

on this section, Katz and Kahn mentioned that “The climate or culture
of the system reflects both the norms and values of the formal system
and their reinterpretations in the informal system” (pp. 65–66). This idea
that the culture or climate is not something that exists within the formal
structure of the organization but in its perception and interpretation by
organizational members is common to many current conceptualizations
of both climate and culture. In the same way, later in their book Katz
and Kahn described how the informal structures in organizations are fre-
quently in contradiction to the goal of the formal structure, and how
management’s goal is to direct the enthusiasm and motivation of these
informal groupings toward the accomplishment of the collective goals.
This point sounds similar to later discussions in the culture literature of
the need to understand the deeper level of culture to have successful or-
ganizational change, and in the climate literature of the friction between
the actual policies and procedures of management and the climate that
evolves based on the meaning employees associate with them.
Katz and Kahn’s book had a dramatic effect on work in organiza-
tional psychology for several reasons. First, they, like Likert, were at the
University of Michigan and along with others (Seashore, Georgopoulos,
French, Lawler) were creating a new way to study organizations from a
more social psychological vantage point in contrast to the earlier focus in
industrial psychology on individual differences. Second, their use of an
open systems framework in which organizations are seen as production
throughput systems in intimate contact with the environments in which
they operate was understandable to managers and the way they think.
That is, managers must be in continuous sensing mode to understand
their marketplace from both an input and an output vantage point, and
Katz and Kahn showed them how intimately related people are to the
input–throughput–output cycle. Their second edition of The Social Psy-
chology of Organizations (1978) further solidified their status as founders
of the field of organizational psychology and as important commentators
on this thing called climate/culture.

Additional Work on Climate through the Mid-1960s

The people whose writings we chose for explicit review were not the
only ones working on organizational climate and related concepts in this
time. Early on, Barnard (1938) noted that a group is defined and under-
stood through the system of interactions. Most importantly for present
purposes, he noted how it is through the interaction of individuals that
“uniform states of mind” come to exist, what today we would describe
as shared perceptions of what it is and how it is that work is best accom-
plished. Not incidentally, Barnard’s thinking in this regard was clearly
influenced by the works of Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Dickson. Buchele
(1955), using the concept of company character, was one of the first to
write about the importance of the general nature of the context created
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 27

in the workplace for employees. Buchele identified a company’s char-

acter as the explanation for why similar programs implemented in dif-
ferent companies will have starkly differing levels of success. He aligned
his concept of character with other concepts such as Lewin and col-
leagues’ (1939) three types of leadership and Fleishman’s (1953) leader-
ship climate, among others. Included within a company’s character were
its supportive programs and structures, decision-making and initiative
expectations, superior-subordinate relationships, managers’ personalities
and interests, company product and mission, relative success in terms
of profitability and growth, the nature of the work and work groups,
and the attributes of the surrounding community in which the company
functioned. Buchele’s concept of character appears to be a blend of cli-
mate and culture issues, although perhaps more similar to culture given
the breadth of issues he included. Buchele (1955) is not often cited in
reviews of the climate and culture literature most probably because his
framework was so broad as to include virtually everything—from man-
ager personality to the socioeconomics of the context in which organi-
zations operated. In this way, Buchele’s concept of character was very
similar to early measures of climate—with their focus on almost every-
thing that might influence people in a situation.
There were several other indicators in addition to the sources de-
scribed earlier in this chapter that there was a growing interest in climate
during this time. For instance, in one of Fiedler’s (1962) early studies on
LPC (Least Preferred Coworker), he included “group climate” as a vari-
able, although the measure itself was labeled as “group atmosphere.” The
items he developed for this measure captured a general perception of
whether members had a positive or negative view of the group (pleas-
ant versus unpleasant, relaxed versus stressed, etc.). Forehand (1963)
measured “perceived organizational climate” in his study of the innova-
tive behavior of managers. Using a leadership practices scale that was
adjusted to rate the typical practices in the organization, he examined
bureaucratic versus democratic climate perceptions as a moderator of
the relationship between innovative behavior and general effectiveness.
This study was at the individual level, and thus Forehand’s use of the
label “perceived” climate was not only appropriate, but also indicates an
awareness that simply labeling it as “organizational climate” would imply
aggregate perceptions.
Another example of the growing recognition of the salience of climate
comes from the Bradford, Gibb, and Benne’s (1964a) edited book on
T-Groups. The theme across the various chapters of this book was the
importance of the climate formed in T-Groups in order for them to be
successful. For instance, Bradford, Gibb, and Benne (1964b) described
how a “climate supporting change” is created in learning laboratories;
Benne, Bradford, and Lippitt (1964) included a “climate of permissive-
ness and inquiry” as part of the optimal conditions for training and learn-
ing; Bradford (1964) discussed how the T-Group trainer must “develop a
group climate in which learning can take place” that includes a “norm of
28 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

permissiveness” encouraging open communication (p. 211); and finally in

his chapter on the “climate for trust formation,” Gibb (1964) contrasted
the “defensive climates” found in most organizations to the “defense-
reductive climates” that T-Groups encourage.
As a final example, Pelz and Andrews published a book in 1966 on
their research on “productive climates” for scientists in organizations. On
page 1, their overview of the book highlights the critical role of climate
in organizations: “This book is based on the premise that R & D organiza-
tions provide more than facilities for their members. They also provide
an environment which may either stimulate or inhibit the scientists’ per-
formance” (italics in original).

Early Climate Research in School Environments

Business organizations were not the only ones receiving attention in this
early period with regard to organizational climate. Some of the earliest
work developing quantitative measures of climate came from research
in education. Examples include Christie and Merton’s (1958, as cited in
Tagiuri, 1968a) research describing medical schools in terms of their “cli-
mate of values,” and Michael’s (1961) research on high school climates
as indicated by such non-perceptual variables as class size, school size,
staff quality and size, curriculum, community education levels, and com-
munity cultural resources. For the most part, it is not clear how much
influence a lot of the work in education had on organizational climate
researchers in industrial/organizational psychology. However, there are
two exceptions where the influence was clear: the work by Stern and his
colleagues (1970) and the work by Halpin and Croft (1963).
Stern (1970) described an elaborate and inclusive theory—along with
the research to test it—that represented he and his colleagues’ efforts
to better understand the college learning environment for students. The
earliest work was published in 1958 (Pace & Stern, 1958) and summa-
rized the development of the College Characteristics Index. This mea-
sure was based on Murray’s need-press model of personality and was
derived from an interest measure Stern had developed that was directly
tied to needs described in Murray’s theory. However, instead of asking
about individuals and their needs, the College Characteristics Index asked
about characteristics of the college environment. A number of variations
of this measure for different contexts were subsequently developed, in-
cluding work between 1965 and 1969 to develop the Organizational
Climate Index. As opposed to measuring the environment as perceived
by students, the goal of this measure was to understand the environ-
ment experienced by the administrative staff. Using 300 items and 30
subscales that aligned with the original Activities Index, Stern reported
that there was general consensus for seven common factors: intellectual
climate, achievement standards, group life, personal dignity, orderliness,
constraint, and practicalness. This effort was notable for several reasons,
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 29

including that the measure development was based on a theory of per-

sonality, that it was one of the earliest attempts to quantitatively measure
the general climate of an organization, and that it was developed to be
used across a wide variety of educational settings providing a basis for
organizational level comparisons. Particularly relevant for this book, the
measure was later extended for use in industrial settings.
Another notable effort from roughly the same time period was that
of Halpin and Croft (1963). Their goal was to measure the “personality”
or climate of schools as experienced by teachers. Their measure, the Or-
ganizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), specifically
focused on the “social” component of organizational climate, which they
defined as the social interaction between the principal and the teach-
ers. Their items were derived from descriptions by education graduate
students and interviews with teachers, along with other measures de-
veloped to describe leaders and groups. Their analyses revealed eight
sub-dimensions (disengagement, hindrance, esprit, intimacy, aloofness,
production emphasis, thrust, and consideration) that loaded on three
general factors (social needs, esprit, and social control). In addition, they
found that schools could be grouped into six climate profiles on a con-
tinuum from open to closed (open, autonomous, controlled, familiar, pa-
ternal, and closed). In their discussion of the development of the OCDQ,
they note several issues that foreshadowed concerns with which later
climate researchers would grapple. For instance, they noted the overlap
between what they were trying to measure as climate and what was typi-
cally referred to as morale, noting specifically their goal to focus on the
description of the climate and not an affective evaluation of the climate.
At the same time, their goal was not to simply attain an objective as-
sessment of the climate; they recognized that it is the group members’
perceptions that drive their behavior, not necessarily the objective reality.
They were also quite aware of levels of analysis issues. They described
how their original goal was to focus on the climate of school systems
as a whole, but there was too much variability across individual schools
within a school system, leading them to focus on schools instead. As an-
other example, when discussing the generation of the items for use in
their surveys, they noted they had to design items that would achieve
two primary criteria: (1) producing between-school variability while also
(2) resulting in low within-school variability. It is almost scary to see how
prescient these researchers were so early in the climate research agenda
since these remain, as we will see, central measurement issues in the
design of contemporary climate measures for us in the business world.
But their prescience did not stop there. The importance of the proper
referent for climate items is often discussed in the literature today; that
is, if a climate items refers to the external world then the specific external
world to which it refers must be specified or else the resultant measure
is not as tangible as it might otherwise be. Thus it is notable that they got
it right in that their questions asked about the experiences of “teachers
at this school” and not the respondent’s personal attitude or idiosyncratic
30 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

experience. A  final relevant issue they addressed was the role of the
leader in establishing the school organization’s climate. Although they
acknowledged that the principal’s behavior “should be construed as a
necessary but not a sufficient condition which determines the school’s
climate” (p. 86), they go on to describe how the climate can also limit the
influence the leader may have due to structural and procedural restric-
tions placed on him or her as well as the nature of the school populations
with which he or she is forced to deal. Similar discussions continue to
this day, as we will describe in the next chapter.

Climate and the Annual Review of Psychology

As we close this section of the chapter, we illustrate the rise in interest

in the organizational environment and in organizational climate in par-
ticular by tracking mentions of climate in Annual Review of Psychology ar-
ticles in the area of industrial/organizational psychology (although it was
not called that yet) during this period. The Annual Review of Psychology
began in 1950, and although there were articles on industrial psychology
from the beginning, the first mention of climate did not come until the
fourth volume (Harrell, 1953). Both in that volume and in the volume 2
years later (Wallace & Weitz, 1955), climate was mentioned, but only in
descriptions of Fleishman’s (1953) research on leadership climate in sec-
tions on leadership (Harrell, 1953) and training (Wallace & Weitz, 1955).
Climate also received a passing mention by Kendall in 1956 in a dis-
cussion about the proper methods researchers should use to understand
“the climate of the company and habitual approaches to accomplishing
organizational objectives” (p. 225). Recognition of climate as a variable of
interest received a slight uptick in 1957 by Katzell. After bemoaning that
“too much effort is still being dissipated in the pursuit either of minor
refinements or of unexciting objectives,” he goes on to list some of the
more significant variables that were “germinating in industrial psychol-
ogy” (p. 263). The first item on his list was “the ingredients and conse-
quences of directive and permissive organizational climates . . .” (p. 263).
The first significant presence of organizational climate in an Annual
Review article came in Gilmer’s (1960) review. This was prior to the pub-
lication of his Industrial Psychology textbook in 1961 that we described
previously, but his interest in the role of the situation and in climate spe-
cifically was clear. He devoted an entire section to “Situational Variables”
and begins with this quote: “A renewed interest in the study of organi-
zational theories and situational environments within industry appears
to be in the making” (p. 337). That section is filled with references to
climate, and a few are particularly of interest. For instance, he described
how General Electric had been carrying out “ ‘business climate’ apprais-
als,” referencing a 1955 manual for doing so. He also described a report
by “technical manpower consultants” (Deutsch & Shea, 1958) on how to
create an organizational climate to foster more creativity in engineers and
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 31

scientists. In line with these references, Gilmer’s view seemed to be that

practice was leading research on the climate, personality, or character of
organizations (he used all three terms), and that this was “an important
new area for study by industrial psychologists” (p. 338).
In the years that followed, climate research continued to receive men-
tion although without necessarily being a major emphasis. For instance,
in their review of “Industrial Social Psychology” in 1961, Vroom and
Maier mentioned research on “company policies and leadership climate”
in their section on situational factors in leadership. In his review of “Per-
sonnel Management” in 1962, Dunnette referred to how Odiorne (1960)
discussed the need to create “ ‘climates’ conducive to innovation” and
to Likert’s theory that included the need for a “managerial climate of
open communication.” However, the next major recognition of climate
did not come until 1964. There were two articles related to industrial/
organizational psychology that year. In his review of “Personnel Manage-
ment,” Sells placed climate as a part of one of the three major trends in
the field. He followed by including climate as one of several “environ-
mental factors” that were “generally accepted” as “relevant to individual
and organizational behavior” (p. 410). The title of the other 1964 review
by Leavitt and Bass was “Organizational Psychology”; this may have been
one of the first times the term was used in print. Although the article
did not have a heavy emphasis on climate, it is important to mention to
signify the broader shift that was occurring in psychological research on
organizations at that time. The model they proposed was characterized
by “systems-oriented, dynamic approaches to psychological problems
in industry dealing with the interaction of organizational and human
behavior” (p. 371). The only mention of climate was in the section on
superior-subordinate relationships; the term “organizational climate” is
put in quotes and is described as a “diffuse concept.” Nevertheless, the
shifting trend toward paying attention to environmental influences on
individual behavior was clear.
In a similar way, Porter in 1966 did not discuss climate extensively
(beyond some acknowledgement of Forehand’s work in the area),
but his review is important to this overview of the history of climate
nonetheless. He started by highlighting the “need to wed the mature
personnel-differential part of the field to the younger, and seemingly
more glamorous, industrial-social or organizational area” (p. 395), fore-
shadowing the combining of the two into the field of industrial/organi-
zational psychology and acknowledging the importance of integrating
research on macro issues like climate with the more typical micro issues
that had been the focus up to that point. He reiterated this emphasis
in his section on “the organizational and social environment” when he
overtly acknowledged that “the organizational and social environment
plays a key role in the relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness of many
personnel procedures” (p. 413). This statement captured the sentiment
of the time and why interest in the concept of climate began taking off
shortly thereafter.
32 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

Summary

The period from 1939 to the mid-1960s witnessed a steady increase in

understanding the environment in and environmental variation between
organizations. There were many terms that were used to describe that en-
vironment (such as atmosphere, personality, or character), with climate
becoming the most common and well-developed construct to capture
that environment. The earliest research on climate was by Lewin and his
colleagues (1939), and his influence was apparent in the work of oth-
ers that followed (particularly Argyris, McGregor, and Likert). Although
Lewin’s perspective that individual behavior was a function of the person
and the environment, relatively little was known about the environment
side of the equation relative to the person side that had dominated indus-
trial psychology. The rise in interest in higher levels of analysis than the
individual that led to the birth of the field of organizational psychology
was coupled with a rise in interest in the climate construct. Undoubtedly,
part of the goal of the new organizational psychology was to understand
worker behavior and improve worker well-being, but at the same time,
a close reading of the major authors of the time makes it clear that the
primary goal in studying organizational climate was to improve orga-
nizational effectiveness. Ultimately, the research revealed that the two
were interconnected—that treating people well tended to increase the
effectiveness of those individuals and the organization as a whole. Per-
haps just as importantly, research on organizational climate through this
time helped make the study of the organizational system as a whole a
legitimate subject of research.

FROM THE LATE 1960S THROUGH THE EARLY

1970S: THE EXPANSION OF EMPIRICAL
CLIMATE RESEARCH

Although the concept of organizational climate had been receiving in-

creased attention by organizational scholars, Dunnette and Campbell still
concluded in their 1966 review of the managerial effectiveness literature
that “. . . there is almost no existing literature concerning the measure-
ment and exploration of variables which meaningfully describe the or-
ganizational environment. Measures of organizational climate and other
situational factors are nearly non-existent and are sorely needed” (p. 7).
Their description did not prove true for long; building on the intellectual
foundation of the early climate writings described above, a notable in-
crease in quantitative climate research began in the late 1960s. Indeed, as
we will see, by 1970 research on climate had developed enough for Dun-
nette and Campbell through their publication with Lawler and Weick to
devote considerable attention to the topic. In this section we start with
an overview of some of the influential research and writings on climate
that helped propel the field forward, and then in the next section move
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 33

toward some of the critiques climate researchers faced fairly soon there-
after. The responses to those critiques and the subsequent research in the
late 1970s and early 1980s formed the foundation of much of contem-
porary climate research and theory.

Tagiuri and Litwin (1968)

In January 1967, a conference was hosted by Tagiuri and Litwin at Har-

vard Business School on the topic of organizational climate. Tagiuri and
Litwin (1968) compiled the papers that were presented at that con-
ference into book form. Reichers and Schneider (1990) point to this
conference and the subsequent book as a marker of the beginning of
a contemporary perspective on climate. Rather than summarize each
chapter in that book, we highlight the major themes below.
Conceptualizing and defining climate. The most widely addressed
topic throughout the papers was how to conceptualize and define climate.
In relation to other organizational variables, Tagiuri (1968a) described
climate as a summary concept outside of an organization’s environment,
social system, culture, situation, or setting that described the quality of
these other variables. Evan (1968), noting that Argyris (1958) seemed to
equate climate and culture, specifically argued that culture was too broad
of a concept to form the foundation for a definition of climate. Although
these authors viewed climate as distinct from culture and other charac-
teristics of the organization, a tension remained between viewing climate
as environmental and yet based in the perceptions of individuals. For in-
stance, Forehand (1968) articulated a Lewin-influenced view of climate
as the interaction between person and environmental variables; similarly,
Evan (1968) described climate as a “union between an individual and an
aggregate level of analysis” (p. 108). Although the authors acknowledged
that climate is perceived by individuals, it was consistently discussed in
terms of a shared, aggregate phenomenon. Tagiuri (1968a) perhaps ad-
dressed this issue most directly by stating the following with regard to
climate: “It is capable of being shared (as consensus) by several persons
in the situation, and it is interpreted in terms of shared meanings (with
some individual variation around a consensus)” (p. 25).
In terms of specific definitions of organizational climate, Tagiuri
(1968a) described it as a characteristic of an organization’s internal en-
vironment and therefore voiced concern that Forehand and Gilmer’s
(1964) definition of climate did not place enough emphasis on how
climate is perceived by those internal to the organization. He offered
this definition: “Organizational climate is a relatively enduring quality
of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experienced
by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described
in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes)
of the organization” (p. 27). Evan (1968) voiced some hesitations about
the concept of climate—he described how “from a scientific point of
34 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

view, it appears to be so gross and ambiguous as to be of doubtful util-

ity; however, from a common-sense point of view, it appears to be use-
ful” (p. 107)—but nevertheless offered a definition that de-emphasized
perceptions of organizational members and removed reference to the
outcomes of climate: “Organizational climate is a multidimensional per-
ception of the essential attributes or character of an organizational sys-
tem” (p. 110). Litwin, while perhaps not offering a formal definition of
climate, described climate in terms of the “total subjective impact of the
environment on people” (Litwin, 1968a, p. 49, italics in original) and as
“the total pattern of expectancies and incentive values that exist in a
given organizational setting” (Litwin, 1968b, p. 172).
Types of climate and configurations. Throughout their chapters, the
authors mentioned a number of dimensions or types of climate. Litwin
(1968b) used Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) climate measure that had
the following seven dimensions: structure, responsibility, risk, reward,
warmth, support, and conflict. Meyer (1968) summarized his research on
the influence of organizational climate on motivation at General Electric
and described how he refined Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) climate mea-
sure and ultimately found six dimensions: constraining conformity; re-
sponsibility; standards; reward; organizational clarity; and friendly, team
spirit. Evan (1968) described “various dimensions of climate” and in-
cluded value climate, interpersonal climate, and task climate as his exam-
ples. Forehand (1968) contrasted pairs of competing climates, including
climate for rule-following versus climate for individual freedom (or in-
novative climate), and mastery-striving climate versus defensive climate.
Several authors moved beyond a discussion of individual dimensions
or types of climate to focus on their configuration. For instance, Tagiuri
(1968a) described climate as a “particular configuration of situational
variables” (p. 24) and the meaning of that configuration. Forehand (1968)
proposed that various “conditions” or dimensions of climate (including
complexity, rules-centeredness, closeness of supervision, and work-group
competitiveness) coexist, and they may “cancel, or enhance, the effects
of one another, or they may cohere to create a climate with effects dif-
ferent from those of any dimension taken separately” (p. 77). Although
most of these authors did not directly distinguish between a molar or
general climate perspective versus a focused or strategic climate per-
spective (a distinction that we discuss later), Pace (1968) provided an
early indication of how one can conceptualize and measure criterion-
or outcome-focused climates. He described it in the following way: “If
one approaches the task of characterizing environments in relation to
some criterion measure, the resulting characterizations will be limited
to those aspects of the environment related to the criterion, and other
perhaps equally significant aspects of the environment in general will be
by-passed” (p. 144). In other words, by focusing on a particular outcome
of interest, certain aspects of climate become more relevant and others
become less relevant. He gave several examples of such criterion-focused
climates: “the climate for research, the climate for profit, the climate for
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 35

innovation, the climate for happiness, the climate for learning, or the
climate for productivity” (p. 144).
Subclimates. As opposed to different dimensions or types of climate,
several of the authors referred to different climates that exist based on
who is perceiving them. For instance, Evan (1968) suggested that climate
is perceived differently by those internal to the organization compared
to those who are outsiders. He also described how members in differ-
ent roles or in different subunits may perceive the climate differently. In
Meyer’s (1968) analysis of the General Electric climate data, two differ-
ent plants were compared (suggesting the existence of a “plant climate”
within the more macro General Electric climate) as were individuals
who performed similar tasks (suggesting the existence of a “job climate”).
Finally, Tagiuri (1968b) summarized an investigation of the “executive
climate” as a subclimate of organizations that is only relevant for the
executive level.
The effects of climate. Litwin most directly addressed the effects or
outcomes of climate. He acknowledged that climate has an effect on
the “total organization,” but argued that “it does so through its influence
on individual and small group behavior” (Litwin, 1968a, p. 47). In his
second chapter in the book, Litwin (1968b) described his research with
Stringer on climate in which they manipulated leadership styles to cre-
ate particular climates (power, affiliative, or achieving), which were then
found to affect motivation, satisfaction, and performance (this research is
described in more detail in the next section). Evan (1968) discussed the
effects of climate in terms of its implications for change in an organiza-
tion. In a series of propositions, he addressed how climate tends to be
perpetuated across generations (and how difficult it is to change it), the
difficulty in changing climate as organizational size increases, how cli-
mate is easier to change when the consensus about it is lower (i.e., when
climate strength is low), and how there is an increased level of conflict in
organizations when sub-unit climates differ more.
Summary. Readers familiar with the issues that climate researchers
and theoreticians confront can only be astonished by how these same
issues were so articulately presented over half a century ago. Readers
new to the topic need to accept our statement that they have been in-
troduced in this brief section to the major issues in climate research and
theory: the definition of climate, the dimensions that characterize cli-
mate, the degree to which organizations have numerous climates, includ-
ing subclimates, and the relevance of climate for specific organizational
outcomes. These topics, as well as others, will be open for consideration
as we proceed.

Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970)

In addition to the Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) edited book, Campbell

and colleagues’ early review of the climate literature in their book on
36 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

managerial performance and effectiveness proved to be another major

contributor to the rise of climate research. Campbell and colleagues dis-
cussed climate in their chapter on “environmental variation,” where it
was presented simultaneously with other variables like structural proper-
ties, environmental characteristics, and formal role characteristics. That
they distinguished climate from these other variables was notable; not all
early climate research did. At the same time, they referred to research on
norms (Georgopoulos, 1965), company personality (Gellerman, 1959),
and organizational values (Andrews, 1967) as climate research, suggest-
ing a lack of discrimination in the definition of the construct at the time.
Perhaps this broad view of climate was based in their fairly general defi-
nition of climate: “a set of attributes specific to a particular organization
that may be induced from the way that organization deals with its mem-
bers and its environment” (p. 390).
This chapter is probably most heavily cited for its review of and com-
ments on the dimensions of climate. Campbell and colleagues viewed
a “fruitful taxonomy” of climate dimensions as the “key to unraveling”
the organizational environment portion of their model of managerial be-
havior. They identified four dimensions of climate based on research ac-
complished until their review: individual autonomy; degree of structure
imposed on the situation; reward orientation; and consideration, warmth,
and support. At the same time, they did not view the commonality in
taxonomies as a “cause for rejoicing” because the relatively few dimen-
sions implied that there was more to be discovered.
Campbell and colleagues also laid the groundwork for several debates
that would continue in the climate literature for years to come. For in-
stance, they specifically referred to climate and these other situational
variables as “properties not of individuals but of environments”; subse-
quent researchers would struggle with this issue of climate as an indi-
vidual attribute versus an organizational attribute. In their view, even if
there were differences in perceptions across individuals, as long as there
was a significant main effect for the environment, then an environmen-
tal attribute was present. They also described as problematic the lack of
clear conceptualization of climate as a direct predictor of performance
or a moderator of the relationship between other individual differences
and individual performance. Although subsequent researchers continued
to struggle with this issue as well, perhaps a more active debate derived
from another area they emphasized: whether climate (and other envi-
ronmental variables) should be measured using objective or perceptual
approaches. They summarized the issue in this way: “The central issue is
whether the determiner of significant effects is the situation as it actu-
ally is or as it is perceived” (p. 389). In the end, they concluded that the
two are distinct and both may be important. Subsequent research on
climate attempted to establish relationships between the actual and the
perceived with little long-term consequences since the effects of such
tangibles as organizational structure that can be measured objectively
are further removed from individual behavior, and likely work through
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 37

perceptual measures of variables like the perceived climate that provide

a more proximal predictor to behavior. In conclusion to their review of
climate, Campbell and colleagues provided the optimistic view that the
area had “considerable promise for the future” (p. 414).
The review of climate research by Campbell and colleagues was im-
portant for many reasons. The first was because the book in which it
appeared was written by four major figures in the established world of
industrial psychology and the growing field of organizational psychol-
ogy: Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick. Second, the book reviewed
what was then known about managerial performance and effectiveness
comprehensively: selection, appraisal, training, leadership, as well as cli-
mate/environmental issues within the broad general framework that
both individual characteristics and the environment in which managers
function are important for understanding what managers do and what
they accomplish. Third, the book is a model of comprehensiveness in that
it reviewed hundreds of pieces of research both from academia and from
the world of practice (e.g., the AT&T management progress studies, the
Standard Oil of New Jersey studies, and research at General Electric on
appraisal and climate). Finally, the book is a good read; it is comprehen-
sive and readable and the “story” is told with elegance and ease of ac-
cessibility. These made the book a “hit” and required reading and study
for at least a decade of graduate students just when the fields of industrial/
organizational psychology and organizational behavior were gaining a
strong foothold in both academe and industry; Latham (2007) referred to
finding it in his graduate student days, and it becoming his “academic bible.”

Examples of Early Climate Research

Climate research began to grow in earnest in the late 1960s, continuing

through the 1970s. Our goal is not to provide an exhaustive review of
the research during that period, but we did want to provide some ex-
amples of research during that period that was both highly cited (based
on information from PsycInfo and Google Scholar) and that captured the
variety of research on climate-related issues that was being performed
at that time. For interested readers, we have included a listing of these
and additional examples of empirical research from this era in Table 2.1.
Common themes during this time included the extent to which climate
moderated the relationship between individual differences and outcomes
(such that a fit between the individual and the situation was thought to
produce better outcomes), the extent to which other organizational vari-
ables like structure influenced the climate of the organization, and the
extent to which climate was directly related to outcomes like satisfaction
and performance.
Litwin and Stringer (1968). In their book, Motivation and Organiza-
tional Climate, Litwin and Stringer used the concept of organizational cli-
mate as a bridge between theories of individual motivation and behavior
TABLE 2.1 A sample of early empirical articles on organizational climate
(1968-1977)

Article Brief Summary

Litwin & Stringer (1968) Development of measure and experimental

study on climate, leadership, motivation,
and performance
Schneider & Bartlett (1968) Development of a climate measure in life
insurance agencies
Friedlander & Margulies (1969) Climate predicting job satisfaction as
moderated by individual values
Schneider & Bartlett (1970) Further measure development and
comparison of sources of climate ratings
Friedlander & Greenberg (1971) Effects of climate on performance and
retention
Payne & Pheysey (1971) Development of a measure of climate
Frederiksen, Jensen, & Beaton Experimental study of climate’s effects on
(1972) productivity
House & Rizzo (1972) Development and validation of a measure
of organizational climate/practices
Schneider (1972) Study of the relationships among actual
climate, preferred climate, and expected
climate
Schneider & Hall (1972) Antecedents of climate perceptions among
Roman Catholic diocesan priests
Hand, Richards, & Slocum (1973) The impact of climate on the effectiveness
of human relations training
Payne & Mansfield (1973) Relationships among climate, structure,
context, and hierarchical level
Prichard & Karasick (1973) Differences in climate across subunits and
the relationship of climate with satisfaction
and performance
Schneider (1973) Climate from the customer’s perspective
related to service outcomes
Dieterly & Schneider (1974) Experimental study of the effects of the
organizational environment on climate
Downey, Hellriegel, Phelps, & Relationship between organizational
Slocum (1974) climate and job satisfaction
Lawler, Hall, & Oldham (1974) Administrative process and structure
predicting climate and climate predicting
performance
Downey, Hellriegel, & Slocum Interaction of organizational climate and
(1975) individual needs in predicting performance
and job satisfaction
Schneider (1975a) The fit of employee’s climate preferences
and expectations with actual climate
Schneider & Snyder (1975) The relationship between organizational
climate and job satisfaction

(Continued)
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 39

TABLE 2.1 A sample of early empirical articles on organizational climate

(1968-1977)
TABLE 2.1 (Continued)

Article Brief Summary

Sims & LaFollette (1975) Evaluation of the Litwin & Stringer (1968)

climate measure
LaFollette & Sims (1975) The relationship between organizational
climate and job satisfaction
Muchinsky (1976) Evaluation of the Litwin & Stringer (1968)
climate measure
Drexler (1977) Agreement on climate measures across
levels of analysis
Howe (1977) Evaluation of the construct validity of
group climate
Muchinsky (1977) Relationships among organizational
climate, job satisfaction, and organizational
communication

and more macro conceptualizations of organizations. Based on a fairly

broad definition of climate (“a set of measurable properties of the work
environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and
work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and
behavior,” p. 1), they conceptualized climate as an intermediary variable
that is influenced by history and tradition (i.e., organizational culture),
leadership style, and physical space, and which subsequently affects the
motivation and behavior of workers. They emphasized the perceptual
and subjective nature of climate, distinguishing it from such concepts as
management practices, decision-making processes, technology, formal or-
ganizational structure, and social structure, which are objective features
of the organization that can be observed directly and which have their
effect through climate. In their view, the concept of climate provided
managers with accessible and manageable factors for instituting change
in their work units; by paying attention to climate and the factors that
influence it, they could have an effect on their employees’ motivation
and subsequent behavior.
After describing their model of climate, Litwin and Stringer transi-
tioned to presenting two major empirical studies of climate. The first
involved the development of a climate scale. Starting with eight concep-
tual facets or dimensions of climate based on their review of the research
literature, they asked managers to describe their work environment in
an open-ended format and then sorted the topics that emerged from the
open-ended data into their proposed eight dimensions. As a result, one
dimension was dropped and two were combined, resulting in the follow-
ing six dimensions on Form A of their measure: structure, responsibility,
risk, reward, warmth and support, and conflict. After additional revisions
and attempts at improvements to the scale, they finalized a Form B of
the instrument that consisted of the following nine dimensions: struc-
ture, responsibility, risk, reward, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and
40 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

identity (although they cautioned use of the conflict scale due to weak
scale properties). When reporting on field studies later in the book, they
grouped these nine dimensions into four broader categories: structure,
challenge, reward and support, and social inclusion.
Next, Litwin and Stringer described their laboratory study of the ef-
fects of leadership on climate and motivation. They created three sim-
ulated organizations with 15 members each whose job was to create
various “products” made of “Erector Set” parts and who worked for 8 days
at their tasks. The “president” of each organization was a confederate who
was trained to implement one of three leadership styles, each of which
was designed to create a climate that would arouse either need for power,
need for affiliation, or need for achievement. Consistent with their hy-
potheses, they found that these leadership styles resulted in significant
differences in climate and aroused motives, all in less than eight days. They
also found significant differences in outcomes across the conditions, with
leadership that emphasizes need for achievement in workers resulting in
the optimal outcomes in terms of satisfaction, innovation, and productiv-
ity. Overall, their results experimentally supported their model of the rela-
tionships among leadership, climate, motivation, and behavior.
Litwin left academe after publishing this research effort and began a
long-term role as consultant to organizations using various versions of the
scale he and Stringer had developed. Especially in his collaboration with
Burke (e.g., Burke & Litwin, 1992), a model for describing organizational
systems with organizational climate as a central variable evolved. The
collaboration began in 1985 and continues to this writing (e.g.,  Burke,
2011), having accomplished major organizational change projects at
such major corporations as Citibank (as it was then known) and Brit-
ish Airways. We will have more to say about organizational change in
later chapters but it is important to note here that it was the Litwin
and Stringer research that revealed experimentally perhaps for the first
time the clear implications of leadership action in worker motivation and
behavior.
Schneider and Bartlett (1968, 1970). In this set of papers, Schneider
and Bartlett discussed the importance of including the role of the situ-
ation to better understand individual performance. For them, the study
of climate was necessary because a focus only on individual differences
typical of personnel selection researchers left out another important cor-
relate of individual performance: the situation in which they behaved.
Their view was that the effects of individual difference predictors would
be moderated by the climate of the organization (or subunit). That is,
their hypothesis was that the climate of a situation might enhance or
inhibit the display of ability at work with some climates being facilitators
and others inhibitors.
It is important to understand that their work was done in an era when
it was believed by selection researchers that a test had to be revalidated
each time it was used in a new setting because one never knew if the
validity from one situation would generalize to the validity in a new
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 41

situation, even for the same job. That is, selection researchers had shown
that validity was ephemeral, jumping around from one site to another
with no apparent explanation. Schneider and Bartlett believed that cli-
mate was the explanation; that in some situations the display of ability
differences was enhanced while in others it was depressed. Of course,
subsequent research on what was referred to as validity generalization
(Schmidt  & Hunter, 1977) revealed that validity changes from setting
to setting for similar jobs are most likely a function of the small sample
sizes used as a basis for the assessment of validity. That is, when sample
sizes are large these ephemeral changes in validity do not appear and,
furthermore, when the validity in many small samples is examined, the
mean of the distribution of those validity coefficients is equivalent to that
obtained on a single large sample (~500 people).
In any case, at the time they began this work Schneider and Bartlett
did not have access to a measure of climate. Litwin and Stringer (1968)
were working on their measure about the same time so it was not avail-
able, and creating a measure seemed the only route to testing their idea.
Across the two papers, they described the development of their climate
measure on a sample of managers in life insurance agencies (1968) and
then presented a follow-up study on a larger sample of life insurance
agency managers, assistant managers, and agents (1970). In the papers,
they address several issues that climate researchers wrestled with for
many subsequent years (and perhaps even to this day). First, how broad
must one be to capture the climate space? In other words, how many
dimensions of climate are there? They did not provide a firm answer to
the question, but after conducting a factor analysis of a 300-item sur-
vey (1968), they ended up assessing six dimensions of climate: manage-
rial support, intra-agency conflict, managerial structure, new employee
concern, agent independence, and general satisfaction. Table 2.2 shows
sample items for each of these scales so the reader can get a “feel” for
what items in an early climate measure looked like.
Schneider and Bartlett acknowledged that two of their climate dimen-
sions, managerial support and managerial structure, emerged from the
work of Fleishman (1953) and that two facets of leadership emerged
from the LBDQ: consideration and initiating structure. The dimension
labeled “general satisfaction” they had originally labeled “managerial cli-
mate attitudes”; the issue of the overlap between climate and attitudes
was a target for later critics. A third dimension, new employee concern,
is of interest because no subsequent measures of climate with which we
are familiar have addressed the issue of new employee socialization, a
topic of central concern to culture researchers. Later in the book we will
suggest socialization be re-introduced to climate research.
A second question, addressed in the 1970 paper, concerned the issue
of from whose perspective should one assess climate. They discussed
their own tendency to focus on the manager’s perspective because of
the manager’s larger contribution to defining the climate (including
using the term “managerial climate”—a la McGregor, 1960). Today that
42 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

TABLE 2.2 Dimensions with sample items from the “Agency Climate
Questionnaire” of Schneider and Bartlett (1968, 1970)

Dimension Label Sample Items

Managerial Support Managers take an active interest in the progress of

their agents
Managers always keep promises made to agents
Intra-Agency Conflict There are definite “in” and “out” groups of agents
within the agency
Agents look upon managers as necessary evils
Managerial Structure Ineffective agents are told to “get busy or get out”
Managers give agents formal quizzes on new
provisions of grade books and/or policy plans
New Employee Concern Agents receive sufficient field training prior to
being left on their own
The cost-effective way to contract a new agent is
to give pre-contract training*
Agent Independence Agents like the commission form of compensation
Agents feel that the job they have is more
interesting than other jobs they could get
General Satisfaction Agents keep themselves informed on many topics
besides life insurance
Life insurance agents believe their status to be high
in relation to that of other businessmen
*As a sign of the times in which this work was done, this dimension included the following
item: “Agent’s wives, as well as agents, are interviewed prior to contract.”

perspective would no longer be the one used, with modern work focus-
ing almost exclusively—perhaps narrowly—on employee perceptions as
the key approach. Their attempt to empirically address the best source
of climate ratings in the 1970 paper represented an early consideration
of agreement about climate. They approached consensus both within
and across perspectives by looking at inter-rater agreement from differ-
ent positions in agencies (manager, assistant manager, agent). What they
showed was that there was little agreement across the perspectives but
that within the agents’ perspectives there appeared to be some agree-
ment. Thus, rather than try to understand which view was “correct,” they
instead focused on how the choice of the relevant perspective may vary
depending on the criteria of interest. Since the target of their study was
new agents hired into the life insurance agencies, they focused on the
agents’ perceptions for defining agency climate.
There is an unhappy and a happy ending to the tale. The unhappy
ending is that the Schneider and Bartlett hypothesis that climate would
moderate the ability-performance relationship was not supported. The
happy ending is that the development of the climate measure received
so much subsequent positive attention as an early model for what such
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 43

a measure might look like that no one noticed the failure to support
the hypothesis that stimulated the development of the measure!1 The
measure received considerable attention in the book by Campbell and
colleagues (1970) because at the time there were not many other mea-
sures around and also because, as we have now learned, there was some
overlap in the dimensions from the Schneider and Bartlett work with
those of Litwin and Stringer (1968).
Friedlander and Margulies (1969). In line with much of climate re-
search at the time, Friedlander and Margulies examined climate’s role
in predicting individual satisfaction, but in their case they looked at this
relationship as moderated by individual values. They measured the eight
dimensions of climate from Halpin and Croft’s (1963) Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) along with commensurate
measures of three dimensions of values and satisfaction; all measures and
analyses were at the individual level. They found strong relationships
between climate and satisfaction; six of the eight dimensions were cor-
related with all three satisfaction dimensions. Multiple regression analy-
sis showed that the dimensions of thrust (positive relationship), which
captured management behavior that was active and task-oriented, and
hindrance (negative relationship), which captured employees’ feelings of
being burdened with busy work and routine activities, had the strongest
and most consistent direct effects with the three facets of satisfaction.
Finally, they found that a median split based on the values measures pro-
duced a different pattern of climate predictors for those high in all the
values than for those low in all the values. They conclude that climate is
“a dynamic phenomenon which may release, channel, facilitate, or con-
strain the organization’s technical and human resources” (p. 180).
Frederiksen, Jensen, and Beaton (1972). A continuing early theme in
organizational climate research was the interaction of person and situa-
tion variables in understanding performance behavior. The Schneider and
Bartlett (1968, 1970) work was stimulated by this issue, Friedlander and
Margulies were concerned about it by studying both climate and indi-
vidual values as correlates of satisfaction, and Litwin and Stringer (1968;
although we did not emphasize this earlier) assessed the participants in
their eight-day experiment for their own needs of achievement, power,
and affiliation and then showed that the climates in which they worked
“brought out” those needs when the leadership fit their needs.
Frederiksen and colleagues continued this line of thinking in their
laboratory study of climate. They sought to further understand the role
of both the person and the situation on performance, this time via an
in-basket exercise. Their 2 × 2 design was made up of two climate treat-
ments: innovation versus rules (encouraging innovation and creativity
versus the following of rules, regulations, and standard procedures) and
global supervision versus detailed supervision (providing freedom in
how assignments are performed versus close guidance and instruction).
Using a sample of 260 administrators in the state of California, these
climates were manipulated for participants via the instructions given
44 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

for the in-basket exercise. For example, participants in the rules climate
condition received a memo from the supervisor describing the impor-
tance of minimizing internal conflicts through the application of rules
and procedures, commenting that “Rules are the distillation of years of
experience. Let’s know them and follow them!” In contrast, the supervi-
sor’s memo for participants in the innovation climate condition empha-
sized how stagnation can be prevented by seeking out new and better
ways of doing things, telling the participant, “Do it the old way only if
the old way is best!” Similarly, the global versus detailed supervision
conditions were distinguished in a memo from the supervisor respond-
ing to an attached cartoon. In the global detailed supervision condition,
the supervisor described the need to “give a subordinate concrete, con-
structive criticism on specific details,” whereas in the global supervi-
sion condition the supervisor emphasized giving a subordinate “plenty
of room for self-expression and plenty of opportunity to perform the
job in his own way.”
In an unusual analytic twist, Frederiksen and colleagues explored their
results not only from the vantage point of the dimensions of climate in-
dividually, but also from analyses that resulted from crossing the original
2 × 2 manipulations. So, they created what they called two conditions
that constituted “consistent climates,” one by crossing innovation and
global supervision (both of which encourage thinking and autonomy),
and a second one by crossing rules and detailed supervision (both of
which restrict freedom and ask for conformity). In addition, they created
“inconsistent climates” by crossing innovation with detailed supervision
and rules with global supervision. Their primary finding was that consis-
tent climates produced significantly higher levels of productivity than
inconsistent climates, with the case of detailed/innovation condition pro-
ducing the lowest levels of all. This unusual approach to analyses pitted
messages about one form of climate with messages about another form
of climate, consistent with the idea that in many settings people receive
conflicting messages about the expectations on them (e.g., be innovative
and cut costs, production at all costs and be safe). Unfortunately, this
approach to climate research has received inadequate attention over the
years (for exceptions, see empirical work by Zohar & Luria, 2004, and
the model of climate presented by Zohar & Hofmann, 2012).
A side note on the study by Frederiksen and colleagues is how they
defined climate:

The climate of an organization, as we conceive of it in this investigation,

is a set of expectations or understandings, held in common by most of the
members of an organization, as to a kind of uniformity in behavior that is
seen as appropriate in that organization; these expectations presumably
result from perceptions of uniformities in behavior on the part of the orga-
nization’s members, from overt or subtle declarations of policy on the part
of the leaders, from a uniform background or training and experience on
the part of the members, or from some combination of these. Ultimately,
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 45

the climate presumably results from manipulations of reinforcements or

sanctions by people in positions of power and through policies having to
do with selection and retention of personnel (p. 73).

A number of elements of this definition stand out. One is that it included

the idea of consensus, at least by most of the members of the organiza-
tion. Another is that although it emphasizes the role of those in power in
creating the climate, it also included two other drivers of climate: (1) be-
havioral norms, and (2) what was later labeled by Schneider (1987) as
Attraction–Selection–Attrition processes whereby organizations become
internally more homogeneous over time. Specifically, Frederiksen and col-
leagues referenced similarities in training and experience that influence
employee expectations, along with selection and retention decisions that
encourage uniformity. This definition is also an example of how early cli-
mate researchers tended to mix concepts that would later be more clearly
distinguished as either climate (e.g., policies) or culture (e.g., norms).
Pritchard and Karasick (1973). Pritchard and Karasick viewed cli-
mate as the “psychological atmosphere” of the organization, and defined
it in the following way:

A relatively enduring quality of an organization’s internal environment dis-

tinguishing it from other organizations; (a) which results from the behavior
and policies of members of the organization, especially top management;
(b) which is perceived by members of the organization; (c) which serves
as a basis for interpreting the situation; and (d) acts as a source of pressure
for directing activity (p. 126).

The thrust of their study was to examine differences in climate across

subunits (regional offices of an organization) and to test the relation-
ship between climate and both satisfaction in and performance of those
regional offices. They found that climate operated at both the larger or-
ganizational and regional subunit levels with the latter offices being not
significantly different on six of the eleven climate dimensions (indicat-
ing an overall organizational climate) and significantly different on the
other five (indicating subunit climates). See Table 2.3 for a complete
listing of the climate dimensions and summary of these findings. Their
results also revealed that individual level climate perceptions were more
strongly related to individual satisfaction than to individual performance.
However, in the prediction of unit effectiveness it was the variation in cli-
mate across the subunits that had much stronger relationships than were
found at the individual level. We will explore later this relationship be-
tween climate and satisfaction because it has been an issue of continual
debate. Suffice it to say here that they explained the stronger relationship
for climate and satisfaction at the individual level of analysis in terms
of climate having a more direct effect on satisfaction, whereas the rela-
tionship with performance was viewed as more indirect. Pritchard and
Karasick recommended that future research address the issue of causality
46 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

TABLE 2.3 Climate dimensions from Pritchard and Karasick (1973)

Significant Differences Across Regional Offices Within the Same Company?

Yes No

Decision Centralization Achievement

Flexibility and Innovation Autonomy
Level of Rewards Conflict vs. Cooperation
Status Polarization Performance-Reward Dependency
Structure Social Relations
Supportiveness

between climate and satisfaction and performance, in addition to exam-

ining patterns or configurations of climate factors and interactions be-
tween climate dimensions.
An important finding from the Pritchard and Karasick research effort
was that in studying unit climate and effectiveness they uncovered the
fact that some dimensions of climate are not useful for the prediction
of unit effectiveness. That is, they showed that for essentially half of the
dimensions of climate they assessed, there was not a significant main ef-
fect for unit on climate, meaning that there was a macro organizational
climate for those dimensions. The important conclusion from this finding
is that climate measures must reveal main effects at the level of analysis
of interest or there can be no relationships with outcomes of interest
at that level of analysis. In fact, there are at present no good rules for
writing climate survey items so that this goal will be achieved, although
Kozlowski and Klein (2000) did outline principles for aligning constructs
and measures in multilevel research that are relevant here. One caution
that has emerged: be sure to write items descriptive of policies, practices,
and procedures at the level of analysis at which results will be examined.
A corollary caution is to ensure items are written in ways that enhance
the probability of there being variance in responses to the items across
units (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001).
Payne and Mansfield (1973). There always existed an implicit hy-
pothesis that the structure and context of organizations had a role to
play in understanding organizational climate. Recall, for example, that in
the early writings of Gilmer (1961; Forehand & Gilmer, 1964) structural
issues like size of the corporation were thought to help determine the
climate of the organization. For several years in the 1960s and 1970s,
a group of researchers at Aston University did a number of large-scale
studies in which this hypothesis, among others, was empirically explored.
The studies were very influential in early climate thinking because they
were done on large samples of organizations and came to be known as
“the Aston Studies” (e.g., Pugh & Hickson, 1972; see Payne & Pugh, 1976
for a review).
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 47

The goal of the Payne and Mansfield (1973) study was to examine
the extent to which organizational structure (functional specialization,
formalization of role definition, lack of autonomy, and chief-executive’s
span of control) and context (organizational size, size of parent orga-
nization, age, workflow integration, and dependence) correlate with
organizational climate. Climate was measured with the Business Orga-
nizational Climate Index (BOCI), a measure developed by Payne and
Pheysey (1971) based on Stern’s (1967) Organization Climate Index (as
reviewed earlier, this was originally developed for assessing university
climate). This measure of climate had twenty subscales (see Table 2.4),
with seven to eight items measuring each dimension.
Payne and Mansfield studied fourteen companies, collecting data on
structure and context from the CEO of each, and data on climate from
employees across organizational levels. They found that the organizations
had significant differences in climate (i.e., main effects) on 18 of the
20 dimensions of climate. More importantly, they showed that across
the companies studied the contextual elements of size and dependence
in particular seemed to influence climate. In addition, they found that
climate perceptions varied across the organizational hierarchy, with in-
dividuals at higher levels tending to have a more positive view of the
organization’s climate.
This study is notable for several reasons. First, it revealed that organi-
zational climate appeared to be associated with not only perceptions of

TABLE 2.4 Climate dimensions from Payne and Mansfield (1973)

• Leaders’ psychological distance

• Questioning authority
• Egalitarianism
• Management concern for employee involvement
• Open-mindedness
• Emotional control
• Future orientation
• Scientific and technical orientation
• Intellectual orientation
• Job challenge
• Task orientation
• Industriousness
• Altruism
• Sociability
• Interpersonal aggression
• Rules orientation
• Administrative efficiency
• Conventionality
• Readiness to innovate
• Orientation to wider community
48 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

policies, practices, and procedures, but also with contextual issues such
as size and levels in the hierarchy. Second, and easily missed in our brief
reporting of their results, is the fact that most studies at this time tended
to study climate at the individual level of analysis, but Payne and Mans-
field explicitly stated their goal was to link the organizational structural
and contextual variables with aggregate perceptions of organizational
climate. Such research (assessing links between more tangible structural
variables and climate) enters the domain of macro models of organiza-
tional change (e.g.,  Burke  & Litwin, 1992), but such thinking has not
been fully developed. We hypothesize, perhaps obviously, that structural
and contextual variables influence climate through their effect on the
organization’s policies, practices, and procedures, but that is a hypothesis
that has received little attention in the literature. One early exception
is research by Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974), which we review next.
Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974). Lawler, Hall, and Oldham studied
both the hypothesized antecedents and consequences of organizational
climate among 291 research scientists in 21 research and development
departments. Based on their general definition of climate (“an employee’s
subjective impressions or perceptions of his organization,” p. 139), they
discussed climate as an intervening variable that is influenced by job at-
tributes and organizational structure and that climate in turn influences
outcome variables such as performance and satisfaction. They investi-
gated five dimensions of climate: competent/potent, responsible, practi-
cal, risk-oriented, and impulsive (see Table 2.5).
In terms of climate antecedents, they found that organizational struc-
ture (span of control, size, levels, tall/flat, levels from the top) was not as
strongly related to climate as administrative process—what we would call
policies, practices, and procedures. Thus, such administrative processes as
professional autonomy and the degree to which performance reviews
were tied to compensation were more strongly related to the climate
dimensions than were the structural variables. They argued that this find-
ing, in the context of the few other similar projects, suggested that the
actual activities and processes of organizations that have a more direct
effect on employees’ day-to-day organizational life were the more proxi-
mal antecedents of climate relative to more distal variables like structure.
They also showed that climate was related to an objective measure of
aggregated individual R&D department employee performance and a
director rating of administrative performance (but not of technical per-
formance), and also, interestingly, to aggregated satisfaction ratings (rated
by same source). This was interesting because, in an era when researchers
were struggling with levels of analysis issues in climate research, all of
these analyses were conducted at the unit level—even satisfaction was
aggregated to the department level. Furthermore, they proposed several
issues for future research that continue to be of interest to researchers
to this day, including additional determinants of climate (such as the
personality and values of supervisors and employees) and the causal rela-
tionship between climate and performance.
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 49

TABLE 2.5 Climate factors and items from Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974)

Factor 1: Competent/Potent Factor 4: Risk-Oriented

Inhibited-Uninhibited Daring-Cautious
Shallow-Deep Aggressive-Unaggressive
Unscientific-Scientific Cold-Warm
Impersonal-Personal Weak-Strong
Uncreative-Creative
Factor 5: Impulsive
Factor 2: Responsible Active-Passive
Irresponsible-Responsible Objective-Subjective
Moral-Amoral

Factor 3: Practical
Realistic-Idealistic
Unconventional-Conventional
Note: Italics indicate which side of the continuum was associated with high levels of the
factor.

Summary

To provide a summary of early research on climate, we turn to the com-

prehensive review written by Hellriegel and Slocum (1974). Although
we will refer to this and other major reviews from the time (e.g., James &
Jones, 1974; Schneider, 1975b) in the next section as we discuss the
major critiques of climate theory and research and the responses to those
critiques, our goal for now is to capture major themes of climate research
at the time, and the Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) article is notable for
its thoroughness in reviewing the 31 studies that had been conducted up
that point that had climate as a primary focus.
With regard to the measures of climate that had been developed,
the most common measures used in the studies reviewed by Hellriegel
and Slocum were those developed by Halpin and Croft (1963), Likert
(1967), and Litwin and Stringer (1968), although many of the studies
developed their own measures. Their analysis of the content of those
measures was based on Leavitt’s (1965) typology of organizations as
consisting of people, structure, task, and technology dimensions, and re-
vealed a heavy focus on the people dimension, followed by structure and
then task, with technology receiving almost no emphasis. They attributed
this overemphasis on people to climate scales being based on satisfaction
scales (an issue we return to in the next section) and possibly to the fact
that the primary developers of the scales were psychologists.
In their analysis of the research done on climate, Hellriegel and Slocum
(1974) categorized the studies they reviewed by whether they studied
climate as an independent, intervening, or dependent variable. With re-
gard to studying the outcomes of climate (i.e., climate as an independent
50 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

variable), they found a consistent relationship between climate and sat-

isfaction but less so with job performance. They concluded that “the
lack of consistent relationships between performance and organizational
climates” (p. 272) was likely due to the large variety of possible con-
tingencies on that relationship. There were fewer studies in the second
category (climate as an intervening variable), but they identified three
major categories of independent variables that had effects on satisfaction
or performance through their effects on climate: human relations train-
ing programs, leadership, and manager personality. Finally, there were a
number of studies in the last category (climate as a dependent variable),
which they grouped into those examining the effects of structure on
climate and those examining the effects of training programs. The struc-
tural variables studied included position in the hierarchy, degree of bu-
reaucratization, employee orientation to the environment, and degree of
decision-making discretion, whereas the research on training programs
tended to be focused on using climate as an indicator of the effectiveness
of organizational development interventions.
In their conclusion, Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) advocated for more
research on the fit between the climate and the environment, on modera-
tors of the relationship between climate and outcomes (i.e., differences
between static and dynamic environments), and on the link between cli-
mate and more objective criteria, as well as for more rigorous research in
general on the construct. To this list, we would add that although there
were examples of organization-level studies of climate at the time (or
at least organizational subunits, like offices or departments), those stud-
ies were outnumbered by those that studied climate at the individual
level. This discrepancy between the conceptualization of climate as an
organization-level construct in the earliest writings on climate and the
empirical study of climate at the individual level proved to be one of the
major challenges the field faced as it moved forward.

THE MID-1970S: MAJOR CRITIQUES

OF THE CLIMATE LITERATURE
AND THEIR RESOLUTION

Early critiques began showing up in the climate literature almost as

quickly as the field took off in the early 1970s. Perhaps the harshest
rebuke came from Guion (1973), who called climate “one of the fuzzi-
est concepts to come along in some time” (p. 121). (It is worth noting
that he also said the construct of climate “may be one of the most im-
portant to enter the thinking of industrial-organizational psychologists
in many years” [p. 120].) Two additional highly cited critiques came
from Johannesson (1973) and James and Jones (1974). Below we sum-
marize the major concerns voiced in these articles as well as in other
major reviews during the early 1970s. After presenting the issue that
received criticism, we then present a summary of replies to the critique.
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 51

For these replies, we relied heavily on major reviews from the era by
Hellriegel and Slocum (1974), Schneider (1975b), and Payne and col-
leagues (Payne, Fineman, & Wall, 1976; Payne & Pugh, 1976).

Lack of Clarity Regarding Climate as an Attribute

of the Individual or the Organization
Critique: This issue formed the foundation of Guion’s (1973) critique.
He argued that the original goal had been to focus on climate as an at-
tribute of an organization, and if this was to be the focus then measures
of that variable had to be at the organizational level of analysis and there
could be no variance within the data aggregated to form the more macro
climate index. Nevertheless, either because it was being studied by psy-
chologists, who tend to focus on individuals, or out of “methodological
convenience” because it is easier to study individuals than organizations,
studies of the construct had tended to focus on climate as an individual
perception. Powell and Butterfield (1978) summarized the problem in
this way: “The fact that many studies which were described as investiga-
tions of the organizational level variable of climate actually examined
the individual-level perceptions of climate indicates the state of confu-
sion over the proper unit of analysis in climate research” (p. 153). James
and Jones (1974) argued that the use of perceptual measures “introduces
variance which is a function of differences between individuals and is
not necessarily descriptive of organizations or situations” (p. 1103). Thus,
James and Jones argued, climate confounds the organizational character-
istic as a stimulus and the individual’s psychological process as a response.
Reply: Guion’s (1973) criticism that climate was studied at the indi-
vidual level more out of convenience than for sound theoretical reasons
had validity, and it forced climate researchers to more carefully think
through the appropriate level of analysis for their research. Responding
to Guion’s criticism, Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) pointed out that the
definitions of climate they used in their review specifically focused on
the organization and/or its subsystems. They further stated, “While the
bulk of the literature does consider organizational climate in terms of
its perceived attributes, it is difficult to discern how this could be inter-
preted as referring primarily to attributes of people” (p. 256). Powell and
Butterfield (1978), who were also critical of the number of studies of
climate at the individual level, made this observation: “Although the defi-
nition of OC [organizational climate] has changed over the last 15 years,
it nearly always has been regarded as a property of the organization, as its
name suggests” (p. 151).
An important beginning of the resolution of the levels of analysis
for climate research was proposed by James and Jones (1974). They
noted that it was necessary to distinguish between psychological cli-
mate (when climate is studied as an individual attribute) and organiza-
tional climate (when climate is studied as an organizational attribute).
52 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

Although some later researchers in this same era (e.g., Drexler, 1977)

questioned whether the construct of psychological climate was mean-
ingful given the large percentage of variance in climate perceptions ex-
plained by the organization, the research on climate continues to have
both psychological climate and organizational climate proponents. Ei-
ther way, Schneider (1975b) emphasized that for the study of organi-
zational (or subunit) climate it was important to frame climate survey
items in terms that were descriptive of activities at the level of analysis
of interest rather than anything about the individual and his or her feel-
ings or affect.

Lack of Validation of Organizational Climate

Against “Objective Measures”
Critique: Guion (1973) argued that to know whether perceptions of
climate were accurate, it was necessary to compare them against “an ob-
jective measure of the reality being perceived” (p. 122). James and Jones
(1974) allowed for the notion that consensus within the unit could also
be evidence for the validity of the climate measure but conceded that it
was not as strong as evidence relating perceptions of climate to objective
measures. Therefore, they advocated for dropping the requirement that
climate be measured perceptually, an idea that was also advocated in
later reviews by Payne and Pugh (1976) and Woodman and King (1978).
These authors mentioned specific examples of how this might be done,
including measures that presumably passed through fewer perceptual
lenses like organizational size, lateness, absenteeism, turnover, behavioral
descriptions of critical incidents, labor disputes, and accidents.
Reply: This critique was not useful because it implicitly proposed that
it is not what actually happens in a setting that is climate but that it is the
“objective” facets of the setting that are the climate of the setting. Clearly
this was a definitional issue, but the focus on the “objective” missed the
point that even the choice of what to focus on was a subjective decision
and, further, unless the activities of the setting that were tied to those ob-
jective indicators were also measured, the result would not be a climate
measure at all.
What is interesting about this criticism is that the examples cited in
terms of studies that had used objective measures of climate were often
not climate studies. For example, Evan (1963) is cited in multiple places
as an example of a study employing so-called objective indicators, but
his focus was on correlates of bureaucratic structure and the word “cli-
mate” was never used in his manuscript. Furthermore, most of the ex-
amples cited by Payne and Pugh (1976) and Woodman and King (1978)
as potential objective measures of climate (organizational size, lateness,
absenteeism, turnover, behavioral descriptions of critical incidents, labor
disputes, and accidents) would best be categorized as either predictors or
outcomes of climate, but not climate itself.
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 53

As noted earlier, at the core of this debate was the issue of whether cli-
mate was inherently a subjective perception or not. Litwin and Stringer
(1968) were among the earliest researchers to explicitly distinguish cli-
mate as a construct based on perceptions of other objective organiza-
tional variables like structure, management practices, and technology.
Although some subsequent authors, like James and Jones (1974), argued
that the requirement that climate be perceptual should be removed, oth-
ers disagreed. Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) made the following observa-
tion about the lack of “objective” measures of climate: “To the extent a
climate researcher has a strong interest in understanding and anticipating
the human component within organizations, it is probably desirable to
employ perceptual measures” (p. 260). Schneider (1975b) echoed this
view, noting that climate perceptions are the result of a cognitive process
in which individuals organize and provide structure to the information
they take in about their organization so that they can adapt to their envi-
ronment more effectively. Once those perceptual structures are formed,
they are not easily changed, and thus climate perceptions will not nec-
essarily have a direct correspondence to actual policies and procedures.
Thus, he concluded that climate perceptions are the result of a psycho-
logical process and not something that can be inferred based on the pres-
ence of external “objective” measures.

Lack of Uniqueness from Other Existing Research on

Important Organizational Variables
Critique: One of the major critiques from James and Jones (1974) was
that it was unclear whether climate added anything beyond other group
or organizational variables like organizational structure, processes, system
values and norms, leadership, and group processes. They specifically were
critical of Forehand and Gilmer’s (1964) definition of climate for being
too broad, noting that “almost any study focusing on organizational or
group characteristics would be included in the general area of organi-
zational climate. In this respect, organizational climate appears synony-
mous with organizational situation and seems to offer little more than a
semantically appealing but ‘catch-all’ term” (p. 1099).
Reply: James and Jones (1974) were correct about this and in fact the
issue has not been fully resolved. Clearly leadership style and practices
are part of and/or related to climate as are structure, systems, values,
norms, and group processes—and other variables as well. As we have
seen, definitional issues have plagued climate research from the earliest
days. Our take is that researchers and commentators sensed that there is
something “in the air” for people in a setting, that the something is being
perceived, that it likely has multiple interacting causes, and that it is dif-
ficult to wrap one’s arms around methodologically. Fortunately scholars
kept at it and practitioners found it useful (more on this later) so work
continued.
54 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

Marketing scholars speak about bundles of attributes that constitute

a product or service, and those bundles can be summarized with terms
that capture the meaning of those bundles for those experiencing them.
For example, the bundle of attributes that comprise a Cayenne (an SUV
by Porsche) yield a different impression and a different experience than
the bundle of attributes that constitute a CRV (an SUV by Honda). The
Cayenne is described as forceful, elegant, masculine, and so forth and the
CRV is described as cute, utilitarian, and affordable. We think of climate
as a construct that captures a particular configuration of attributes associ-
ated with human behavior in a setting. James and Jones were correct that
it is very difficult to delineate and measure the bundles of attributes that
make for different kinds of climate but we continue to believe that cli-
mate is the meaning attached to a bundle of attributes and that settings
differ in the climates they present to members based on how the bundle
is configured. This is a measurement issue with which we will deal more
directly later, but for now it is important to identify the fact that climate
is a packaging or a bundling of attributes and the meaning attached to
the bundle.

Overlap with Research on Job Attitudes,

Specifically Job Satisfaction
Critique: This issue of course fits with the just prior issue and the defi-
nition of climate. The proposed overlap between attitudes and climate
was a central issue for climate critics with Guion (1973), Johannesson
(1973), and James and Jones (1974) all emphasizing it. Guion likened
studying climate as individual perceptions to the “rediscovery of the
wheel” based on the idea that “perception can be used to infer attitude”
(p. 123). Johannesson (1973) empirically studied this issue by comparing
measures of climate and job attitudes. His argument was that affect can-
not be distinguished from description, specifically noting that the idea
that “feelings influence descriptions” is “the implicit assumption underly-
ing the job descriptive index (JDI) of satisfaction” (p. 119). Based on his
research findings, he concluded that climate added little beyond what
was already covered by measures of satisfaction. James and Jones (1974)
voiced similar concerns, although they did concede that “job satisfac-
tion and perceived climate may be dynamically related and still provide
somewhat different sources of related information” (p. 1107, italics in
original).
Reply: Of all the early criticisms of the climate literature, the one
that generated the most immediate reaction was this one. The responses
were both conceptual (e.g.,  Hellriegel  & Slocum, 1974; Payne, Fine-
man, & Wall, 1976; Schneider, 1975b) and empirical (e.g., Downey, Hell-
riegel, Phelps,  & Slocum, 1974; LaFollette  & Sims, 1975; Schneider  &
Snyder, 1975). Conceptually, it was argued that climate is a description
of the work environment in the organization or subunit. Satisfaction,
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 55

in contrast, is a personal evaluation of one’s job situation. Whereas cli-

mate is a direct perception of the situation, satisfaction as an evaluation
is filtered and processed by the individual according to some internal
standard (Schneider  & Snyder, 1975). The goal of climate measures is
to characterize the organization (or organizational subunit); the goal of
satisfaction measures is to characterize the individual’s affective state
(Schneider, 1975b).
Arguments along these lines led Payne and colleagues (1976) to con-
clude that “the concepts of organizational climate and job satisfaction are
different, and no amount of empirical similarity makes them conceptu-
ally the same” (p. 46). Going a step farther, Payne and colleagues (1976)
classified climate and satisfaction measures along three dimensions or
facets: the unit of analysis (i.e., level of analysis, individual, or organiza-
tional unit), the element of analysis (i.e., the referent of the items, job or
organizational unit), and the nature of the measurement (i.e., affective or
descriptive). They argued that climate and satisfaction would be related
the least when they differ on all these dimensions, and the relationships
found between the two could, at least in part, be attributed to the over-
lap of the measures on these dimensions.
Others argued that climate and satisfaction should be related, likely
because organizational climate affects individuals’ job satisfaction (Hell-
riegel  & Slocum, 1974; LaFollette  & Sims, 1975) or because of over-
lap in survey item content (Payne et al., 1976). Empirical investigations
supported the idea that climate and satisfaction were related but not
redundant. LaFollette and Sims (1975) found that individual-level cli-
mate perceptions were more strongly related to a measure of organiza-
tional practices than to satisfaction, and that the pattern of relationships
with performance differed such that satisfaction was more consistently
significantly related to performance than climate. Schneider and Snyder
(1975) argued for the distinction between the two concepts based on
their findings that (a) responses to two measures of satisfaction (includ-
ing the JDI) were more strongly related to each other than to climate;
(b)  employees tended to agree more within units on climate than sat-
isfaction; (c) the relationship between climate and satisfaction varied
across position in the organization; (d) neither climate nor satisfaction
were strongly related to productivity; and (e) satisfaction was more re-
lated to turnover than climate perceptions. In addition, they pointed out
that these findings were based on measures that were not developed spe-
cifically using the evaluation/description distinction as a criterion, and
thus future measures developed along those lines should result in even
greater distinctions between them. Downey and colleagues (1974) also
supported the climate-satisfaction distinction by showing that the rela-
tionship between the two was significantly affected (not only reduced in
magnitude, but often changing sign) after controlling for performance
and structure.
Going back to the original critiques by Guion (1973) and Johannesson
(1973), part of the issue was that the most common satisfaction measure
56 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

of that era and the one used by Johannesson (1973) was the JDI. The
JDI was developed by identifying those items that distinguished satisfied
from dissatisfied workers. It was not developed using a content validity
approach in which only items that specifically tap satisfaction would be
included in the measure. As a result, the measure could include items
that actually measure antecedents or outcomes of satisfaction. Research-
ers have demonstrated that a factor analysis of the JDI revealed two fac-
tors, one evaluative and one descriptive (Smith et al., 1974). Therefore,
the concerns about the overlap may have been more a result of the sat-
isfaction measure being used than the climate measure. In their conclu-
sion, LaFollette and Sims (1975) argued that just as other researchers
had been too quick to assume climate caused satisfaction, Johannesson
(1973) had been too quick to assume that they were redundant based on
correlational analyses.
It is useful to note that this issue of the overlap of satisfaction with
other related constructs is alive and well in the contemporary research
literature. Most prominently, Harrison, Newman, and Roth (2006; see
also Newman & Harrison, 2008) have proposed that all individual differ-
ence measures of job-related attitudes assess a common facet they refer
to as the A factor—A for attitude. They showed that measures designed
to assess job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement,
and employee engagement intercorrelate at about 0.70 and they claimed
this indicates they all assess a common factor. But some (e.g.,  Schnei-
der et al., 2011a) have not agreed that a 0.70 correlation indicates that
two constructs are the same, showing that height and weight are corre-
lated 0.70 but are obviously different features of physiology—with dif-
ferent implications for both antecedents and consequences. The debate
continues.

Mixed Findings for Climate’s Relationship

with Performance
Critique: The most thorough analysis of the relationship between cli-
mate and outcomes in early climate research was performed by Hell-
riegel and Slocum (1974). Although their very detailed and extensive
review revealed consistent relationships between climate and satisfac-
tion, they concluded that the results for performance were “not as easily
understood, or as persuasive” (p. 271). They reviewed a large number of
studies to that time and reported a wide variety of findings, including, for
example:

• The consistency of climate facets with each other was related to organi-
zational performance (Frederickson, 1966).
• Particular types of climate (e.g.,  high in supportiveness or emotional
control, low in dominance) were related to performance (Friedlander &
Greenberg, 1971; Hall & Lawler, 1969).
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 57

• Different types of climate were related to performance for employees in

different types of jobs at different levels in the organizational hierarchy
(Cawsey, 1973).
• Relatively few dimensions on an overall climate scale were related to
performance (Pritchard  & Karasick, 1973). Subsequent research rein-
forced this concern by finding no or weak relationships with perfor-
mance (LaFollette & Sims, 1975; Schneider & Snyder, 1975).

Reply: In response to this issue, Schneider (1975b) noted, “we have

not reached the stage of sophistication required to be able to specify
which kinds (dimensions) of practices and procedures are relevant for
understanding particular criteria in specific collectivities (work groups,
positions, functions, etc.)” (p. 471). Thus, Schneider (1975b) suggested
that there were two explanations for the inconsistent or lack of find-
ings for the relationship between climate and performance. One was that
measures of climate at the time (which captured what we will refer to
as molar climate) were too conceptually amorphous. Schneider pointed
out that the large number of dimensions of climate that had been un-
covered by climate researchers indicated a lack of focus of measurement,
leading him to advocate that “omnibus climate measures should not be
indiscriminately used in hopes of ‘finding something’ ” (p. 471). Instead,
he argued that decisions about what climate or climates to study should
be driven by the criterion of interest; climate correlates or predictors
should be conceptually and operationally linked to specific outcomes.
For example, if organizational turnover rates were the criterion of inter-
est then policies, practices, and procedures of the organization that might
be conceptually linked to turnover in companies should be the focus of
the survey items used. Pritchard and Karasick’s (1973) decision to focus
on the seven (of a possible eleven) dimensions of climate that were ex-
pected to show differences in organizational effectiveness was given as an
example of this approach. Schneider’s admonition to focus on a “climate
for something” led to the focused/strategic approach to climate, which
is the dominant approach used today and one that we will explore in
detail later.
The second explanation suggested by Schneider (1975b) for the in-
consistent findings between climate and performance was the level of
analysis used in particular studies. In the same way he proposed that the
content of climate should be driven by the criterion of interest, the level
of analysis of that criterion of interest should drive the decision of the
level of analysis at which the data should be collected and examined. For
example, if turnover rates in organizations were the criterion of interest
then the climate data must be aggregated to the company level of analy-
sis for predicting turnover rates. In addition, some variables may be more
relevant at one level of analysis than another. Once again, the study by
Pritchard and Karasick (1973) illustrates how the level of analysis can
make a difference in the climate-satisfaction relationship. In that study,
at the individual level of analysis, climate was more strongly related to
58 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

satisfaction than performance. However, at the subunit level of analysis,

climate was more weakly related to satisfaction and more strongly re-
lated to effectiveness.

Lack of Consensus in Ratings

of Organizational Climate
Critique: Although this issue was not a primary focus of climate’s stron-
gest critics, it did receive attention by many during this period. Payne
and Pugh (1976) highlighted several studies that found differences in cli-
mate perceptions across levels of the hierarchy, and they concluded that
“mean climate scores may have masked important variations” (p. 1167).
Johnston (1976) specifically addressed this issue in an interview study
of a small consulting firm where he found that there were two climates
based on the employees’ level of tenure in the company. He concluded
that “if there are multiple perceived climates, the measures used would
produce an average perceived climate that perhaps did not exist in any
of the subunits or levels of the organization” (p. 101). Building on the
previously mentioned criticism regarding climate’s relationship with
outcomes, Johnston also concluded that the finding of multiple climates
within one organization “may account for much of the failure of climate
studies to show a strong link between perceived climate and productiv-
ity” (p. 101).
Reply: Different from the issue of studying climate at the individual
versus the organizational level of analysis, this criticism had to do with
whether it was appropriate to study an overall organizational climate
if there were intra-organizational differences in climate perceptions. Al-
though some researchers tended to focus only on the organization as
a whole, other researchers specifically allowed for climate to exist at
multiple levels within organizations (e.g., group, department, subsystem,
etc.; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Schneider, 1975b). The main purpose
of Powell and Butterfield’s (1978) article on levels of analysis issues in
climate research was to argue that climate differences can exist at any
subsystem level. Their review produced findings of differences in climate
perceptions across a number of levels of analysis including organizational
level, line or staff position, department or subunit, biographical influ-
ences, personality characteristics, and tenure. They argued that the indi-
vidual was the lowest level subsystem and the organization was the most
macro subsystem, and climate can be a differentiating property of these
subsystems and all levels in between. In addition, they asserted that sub-
system climates may or may not be related, and that climate can operate
at different levels in different ways in different organizations. Subsequent
empirical research by Drexler (1977) using data from 6,996 individuals
in 1,256 groups from 21 organizations demonstrated that there was sig-
nificant variance explained by both the organization and subunit levels,
although the effect was larger for the organization level.
History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research 59

What emerged from this criticism and debate about where consensus
did or did not exist within organizations on climate perceptions was an
acknowledgement that climate could be studied at more than just the
organizational level of analysis and a general acceptance that the level
used in any particular piece of research needed to be empirically justi-
fied. Although the need for a homogeneity in climate perceptions had
been recognized since the mid-1960s (e.g., Forehand & Gilmer, 1964),
Guion (1973) was one of the first to advocate for a specific level of agree-
ment that had to exist prior to saying an organization (or subunit) had a
climate. He argued that agreement not significantly different than 100%
was needed for the mean to be a valid indicator. Payne and colleagues
(1976) cited Pace (1963) as the only researcher known at that time to
have applied a cutoff for consensus as part of a scoring procedure; he
used 66% agreement as a criterion. Payne and colleagues (1976) argued
that means with less than 100% agreement could still be valid, and even
a lack of agreement could be meaningful if it was linked to existing struc-
tural or political dimensions of the organization. This line of thinking laid
the groundwork for later work on the statistical standards for justifying
aggregation and analyses to identify the appropriateness of aggregation;
we will have much more to say about this later.

Summary

The decade of the 1970s was a critical time in the development of the cli-
mate construct. Just as quickly as the construct was adopted by the field
of industrial/organizational psychology, major critiques were published
from several different authors. For the most part, the major concerns
were about defining exactly what climate was and whether it offered
something unique to the field. Looking back, such critiques and the re-
sponses to them by climate researchers were vital for the future develop-
ment of research in the area. Climate researchers were forced to reflect
on how they were conceptualizing climate, whether their measurement
was consistent with their conceptualization, and how climate research
should proceed if it was to survive. A comparison of the responses to the
critiques of climate and contemporary research on the topic (which we
summarize in the next chapter), makes it clear that those responses were
setting the foundation for the field for years to come.

CONCLUSION

In some ways, research in the area of organizational climate was slow

to develop, especially considering it was almost two decades between
the classic studies of Lewin and colleagues in 1939 and when the con-
struct started to gain more attention in the late 1950s. The period from
the late 1950s through the mid-1960s and especially highly influential
60 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

publications by Argyris (1957, 1958), McGregor (1960), and Likert

(1961) laid the groundwork for the rise of the field of organizational
psychology and with that, research on the topic of organizational climate.
The rising interest in the role of the situation on organizational behavior
resulted in an explosion of research on organizational climate starting in
the late 1960s. However, the nature of that research was somewhat scat-
tered, and critics were quick to point out the shortcomings of that early
research. In our view, some of the problems that were identified in that
early research were a direct result of researchers moving away from some
of the foundational ideas from the decades prior. For instance, early writ-
ings on climate clearly communicated that the primary usefulness of the
climate construct was in understanding organizational effectiveness, but
early climate researchers tended to study it as an individual-level con-
struct, creating confusion about its overlap with other individual-level
variables like job satisfaction. Other problems were much-needed grow-
ing pains as the scope and measurement of the construct needed to be
refined and better articulated. By the close of the decade of the 1970s,
many of the major critiques had been addressed.
The downside of the controversies surrounding the climate construct
during the 1970s was that they turned off many researchers, and interest
in climate research declined to some degree (coinciding with a rise in
interest in organization culture to be addressed in later chapters). Never-
theless, some researchers persisted, and throughout the 1980s they con-
tinued to work out the resolution of some remaining conceptual (e.g., the
etiology of climate; Ashforth, 1985; Schneider  & Reichers, 1983) and
measurement (e.g., levels of analysis; Glick, 1985, 1988; James, Joyce, &
Slocum, 1988) issues, in addition to moving the field forward in new
ways to further develop the construct. We do not provide a separate re-
view of climate research in the 1980s, although we have provided a list-
ing of some of the major publications in the area from 1979 to 1989 in
Table 2.6 for interested readers and discuss many of them in the next
chapter. From our perspective, the contemporary study of climate began
around 1979–1980 with the publication of three highly influential and
highly cited articles: Jones and James (1979), Schneider, Parkington, &
Buxton (1980), and Zohar (1980).
The key distinction among these three articles was their concern with
describing the overall work environment, or the molar climate, versus cli-
mates with a specific focus (consistent with Schneider’s, 1975b, concep-
tualization). The goal of Jones and James’s (1979) article was to create
a “comprehensive measure of the perceived work environment” (p. 202)
that captured the aspects of the situation that had the most direct rel-
evance for the individual’s experience of the organizational environment.
That instrument became foundational for future research using the molar
climate approach to studying organizational climate, although Jones and
James viewed their measure as one of psychological climate (an emphasis
that James has continued throughout his research on climate). Although
not the first research articles on focused climates, the Schneider and col-
leagues (1980) article on service climate and the Zohar (1980) article on
TABLE 2.6 A sample of climate articles during the 1980s (1979-1989)

Article Brief Summary

Jones & James (1979) Development and validation of a measure of

psychological climate
Schneider, Parkington, & Service climate as a predictor of customer
Buxton (1980) perceptions of service quality
Zohar (1980) Development and validation of a measure of
safety climate
Welsch & LaVan (1981) Participative climate as a predictor of
organizational commitment
Burke & Descza (1982) Preferred organizational climates of Type
A individuals
Field & Abelson (1982) Theoretical model of organizational climate
James (1982) Discussion of how to assess agreement when
aggregating climate perceptions
Joyce & Slocum (1982) Discrepancy between organizational climate
and psychological climate
Schneider & Reichers (1983) Review of climate literature and theoretical
discussion of its etiology
Schnake (1983) The effects of controlling for job satisfaction on
the dimensionality of climate
Joyce & Slocum (1984) Study of collective climates, or climates defined
by where there is agreement among employees
Keenan & Newton (1984) Organizational climate as a predictor of
environmental frustration
Glick (1985) Discussion of multilevel conceptual and
methodological issues in climate research
Miceli & Near (1985) Organizational climate as a predictor of
whistleblowing
Ashforth (1985) Theoretical discussion of the formation of
organizational climate
Schneider & Bowen (1985) Service climate and perceptions of HR
practices related to customer perceptions of
quality
Angle & Perry (1986) Labor-management climate as a predictor
of dual commitment to the union and the
organization
James & Tetrick (1986) The nature of the causal relationship between
psychological climate and job satisfaction
Solomon (1986) Organizational climate differences between
public and private sector employees
Kozlowski & Hults (1987) Development and validation of the construct of
a technical updating climate
Victor & Cullen (1988) Multidimensionality and antecedents of ethical
work climate
Glick (1988) Response to James et al. (1988) emphasizing
climate as an organizational attribute

(Continued)
62 History of Organizational Climate Theory and Research

TABLE 2.6 A sample of climate articles during the 1980s (1979-1989)

(Continued)

Article Brief Summary

Jacofsky & Slocum (1988) Stability of collective climates over time

James, Joyce, & Slocum (1988) Response to Glick (1985) emphasizing the
individual as the basic unit of climate theory
Kozlowski & Doherty (1989) Focus on the relationship between leadership
and climate
James & James (1989) Support for a general factor of psychological
climate underlying other dimensions

safety climate proved to be the most influential in transitioning the field

to that approach. We will describe the research that was spurred by these
three articles, in addition to other research that is associated with the
contemporary study of climate, in the next chapter.

NOTE
1. For students in Ph.D. programs about to do their dissertations, the following
story might be of interest. The Schneider and Bartlett (1968, 1970) research
was actually supposed to be Schneider’s dissertation. We say “supposed to be”
because the research took six years to accomplish! The last publications asso-
ciated with the original ideas were published by Schneider in 1972 and 1975.
Midway through the second year of the research, it became clear it would
take “forever,” so Schneider proposed a new dissertation, a laboratory study
of leadership, which was subsequently also published (Schneider, 1970). This
dissertation took six months, not six years!
 CH APTER

3
Organizational Climate
Research: The Current
State of the Field
Having provided an in-depth review of the history of the climate con-
struct in the last chapter, we now turn to summarizing the current state
of research on organizational climate. Although the focus of this chapter
is how climate is studied today, we also attempt to make explicit connec-
tions between current research and the early writing and research on the
topic. In so doing, we can see how the field has evolved, what exciting
and interesting approaches to climate have emerged, and how some ideas
that continue to frame research on climate have their roots in what was
written about climate many decades prior. Our goal is to give the reader a
clear idea of how organizational climate is currently being studied while
also showing how we got to where we are.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the definition of organiza-
tional climate, including the key themes that are common in definitions
of climate and the working definition of climate that guides our own
research and writing. From there, we address issues of levels of analysis,
including how some study climate at the individual level (i.e., psycholog-
ical climate) and transitioning to how organizational climate researchers
grapple with justifying the study of climate at higher levels of analy-
sis than the individual. Within organizational climate research, there are
two primary approaches: molar climate and focused climate. We describe
the literature on both, and give a particular emphasis to some specific
focused climates that have received substantial recent attention. The

63
64 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

next topic we address is variability in climate perceptions, or climate

strength, and how it has become a more common topic in the literature,
studied both as a moderator of the effects of climate and as an important
predictor and outcome in its own right. The last sections of the chapter
describe different ways climate researchers have approached the topic,
including moderators of its effects, climate as a moderator, antecedents
of climate, climate as a mediator, and mediators of climate’s effects on
outcomes.

THE DEFINITION
OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

Our review of the history of the organizational climate literature in the

last chapter revealed extensive variability in the aspects of climate that
were emphasized in definitions of the construct. Some attributes of these
early definitions included, for example, that climate distinguishes organi-
zations from each other (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964), is relatively stable
over time (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Tagiuri,
1968a), is perceived by individuals within the organization (Litwin  &
Stringer, 1968; Pritchard  & Karasick, 1973; Tagiuri, 1968a), and influ-
ences individual worker behavior (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Litwin &
Stringer, 1968; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Tagiuri, 1968a). As we dis-
cussed in Chapter Two and build on in this chapter, the construct has
been refined, critiqued, and refined some more, resulting in clarification
on how these climates come about, the content (facets or dimensions)
of climate, climate’s psychological relevance to people, and the impor-
tance of climate for organizational effectiveness. In Table 3.1 are five key
themes that summarize these definitional issues in the literature—below

TABLE 3.1 Key themes in the definition of organizational climate

Theme 1: Organizational climate emerges through numerous mechanisms

including leadership, communication, training, and so forth.
Theme 2: It is not the mechanisms that are climate but rather the experiences
those produce and the meaning attached to them.
Theme 3: Organizational climate is a property not of individuals but of units/
organizations; it is based on shared experiences and shared meaning.
Theme 4: Shared experiences and the meaning attached to them emerge from
natural interaction in units/organizations; climate is shared in the natural course
of work and the interactions happening at and surrounding work.
Theme 5: Organizational climate is not an affective evaluation of the work
environment—it is not satisfaction—but rather a descriptive abstraction of
people’s experiences at work and the meaning attached to them.
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 65

we provide a more in-depth discussion of each theme and the way it

contributes to our definition of organizational climate.

Theme 1: Organizational Climate Emerges Through

Numerous Mechanisms Including Leadership,
Communication, Training, and So Forth
One theme from the many proposed definitions of climate over the
years has been that it is created and maintained through a number of
different mechanisms. Early on, Fleishman (1953) viewed leadership
climate as emerging not just from leaders’ behaviors, but also from the
expectations leaders had for subordinates. McGregor (1960) emphasized
how climate is based on the day-to-day behavior of managers, in addi-
tion to the policies, practices, structure, and general philosophy of the
organization. Litwin and Stringer (1968) emphasized leadership’s role in
climate as well, while also emphasizing the role of history and tradition,
as well as physical space. Frederiksen, Jensen, and Beaton (1972) brought
in even more possible mechanisms for the creation of climate, including
the behavioral norms of workers, both direct and indirect communica-
tions from management, the training and background of employees, the
organization’s reward system, and the policies surrounding selection and
retention. In our definition of climate, we refer to these various mech-
anisms and elements as the events, policies, practices, and procedures
employees experience and the behaviors they see being rewarded, sup-
ported, and expected.

Theme 2: It Is Not the Mechanisms That Are Climate

but Rather the Experiences Those Produce
and the Meaning Attached to Them
Although all of these mechanisms have been described as important in
establishing an organization’s climate, there has also been a consensus
that these individual pieces are not the equivalent of the climate itself.
For instance, Argyris (1958) pointed out that climate was the totality of
organizational life. Tagiuri (1968a) described it as a summary perception
of the quality of various pieces of the organization (e.g., its environment,
social system, or setting), and Evan (1968) as “the essential attributes
or character of an organizational system” (p. 110). Along the same lines,
Litwin (1968b) noted that climate is “the total pattern of expectancies
and incentive values that exist in a given organizational setting” (p. 172).
Pritchard and Karasick (1973) put it more simply by describing climate
as the “psychological atmosphere” (p. 126) of the organization. This idea
that climate is a way of summarizing the totality of the experience of
66 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

these individual pieces was framed by Schneider (1975b) in terms of

gestalt psychology. Consistent with the basic idea of the word gestalt
(meaning whole), Gestalt psychology proposed that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts. Similarly, Schneider proposed that employ-
ees attempt to create order from their experiences of the many cues in
their environment, that they “create perceptions of totalities consisting
of inferred as well as actual practices and procedures” (p. 449). Using the
terminology we used in the first chapter, we would describe climate as
an abstraction that captures the meaning employees attach to configura-
tions or bundles of experiences they have (James, James, & Ashe, 1990;
Reichers & Schneider, 1990).

Theme 3: Organizational Climate Is a Property Not of

Individuals but of Units/Organizations; It Is Based
on Shared Experiences and Shared Meaning
In addition to the idea of climate as a meaningful abstraction of experi-
ences by people, climate researchers have consistently emphasized that
climate is important beyond the individual level of those experiences. If
we return to the earliest climate research by Lewin, Lippitt, and White
(1939), climate was not approached as an individual-level variable, but as
something experienced by and shared in common by the whole group: the
social atmosphere of the group. Other notable early climate theorists had
a similar perspective. Argyris (1958) viewed climate as an organizational-
level variable and placed a heavy emphasis on how the organizational level
of analysis could not be reduced down to components at the individual
level. McGregor (1960), even when using the term psychological climate
to describe the climate of supervisor-subordinate relationships, empha-
sized that it was something that existed in the relationship and was co-
determined by both parties. He also expanded his discussion to include the
climate of groups and organizations. Gilmer (1961) emphasized climate
as something that characterized the organization as a whole, its personal-
ity or character, and later defined it in terms of “the set of characteristics
that describe an organization” (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964, p. 362). Tagiuri
(1968a) noted that climate is “interpreted in terms of shared meanings”
(p. 25), and along the same lines, Frederiksen and colleagues (1972) em-
phasized the shared nature of climate in their definition, viewing it as “a
set of expectations or understandings, held in common by most of the
members of an organization” (p. 73). Similarly, both Litwin and Stringer
(1968) and Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) viewed cli-
mate as a property of the organizational environment and not a property of
individuals. Pritchard and Karasick (1973) viewed climate as a “relatively
enduring quality of an organization’s internal environment” (p. 126). We
repeat here from the last chapter what Powell and Butterfield (1978) con-
cluded about organizational climate: “[It] nearly always has been regarded
as a property of the organization, as its name suggests” (p. 151).
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 67

Theme 4: Shared Experiences and the Meaning

Attached to Them Emerge from Natural Interaction
in Units/Organizations; Climate Is Shared in
the Natural Course of Work and the Interactions
Happening at and Surrounding Work
If climate is a property of an organization—or at a minimum a property
beyond the individual level of analysis—the question becomes one of
how this comes to be. In 1983, Schneider and Reichers expanded on
the general notion that climate is a shared property by discussing cli-
mate through the lens of symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934; Blumer,
1969). Perhaps most critical to the current discussion was this statement:
“. . . meaning (which includes perceptions, descriptions and evaluations)
does not reside in any particular thing in itself, nor does it reside in the
individual perceiver. Rather, the meanings of things arise from interac-
tions among people” (p. 30). This emphasis on the emergence of mean-
ing from social interaction distinguished organizational climate from an
approach that focused on organizational structure, which emphasized
the primary role of individuals’ common experiences of such organiza-
tional features as size, levels in the hierarchy, and so forth. A symbolic in-
teractionist approach also distinguished organizational climate from the
attraction-selection-attrition (ASA; Schneider, 1987) approach, which
emphasized the role of homogeneity in the types of people in organiza-
tions as the primary driver of climate and differences between settings.
Although not denying that these processes do affect climate, Schnei-
der and Reichers (1983) asserted that as individuals in the same work
unit interact and communicate about and share their experiences, they
“respond to, define, and interpret” (p. 33) the situation in ways that cre-
ate unique climates for the units/organizations in which the interaction
occurs.
To a large degree, subsequent research on organizational climate con-
tinued this emphasis on the unit level. Glick (1985) characterized it this
way: “Organizational climate is the result of sociological/organizational
processes. Thus, it should be conceptualized as an organizational phe-
nomenon not as a simple aggregation of psychological climate” (p. 605).
James, Joyce, and Slocum (1988), in response to Glick’s article, argued
the alternative view that the attribution of meaning requires the cogni-
tive appraisal by individuals, and that “it is individuals, and not organiza-
tions, that cognize” (p. 130). They therefore concluded that climate is
the result of a psychological process and is thus a psychological vari-
able; its basic unit of theory is the individual. Glick (1988) responded
by drawing on theory from anthropology and sociology (Geertz, 1973;
Krippendorf, 1971; Mayhew, 1980) to argue that meaning is not just a
property of individuals, but also emerges from natural social interactions
and systems and, as an emergent property of a social system, it cannot be
reduced down to its constituent elements. In other words, even though
68 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

individuals do cognitively process climate cues and attach meaning to

them, it is through the very natural process of sharing experiences and
meaning that these perceptions in organizations come to characterize the
larger groups in which people work and interact.

Theme 5: Organizational Climate Is Not an Affective

Evaluation of the Work Environment—It Is Not
Satisfaction—but Rather a Descriptive Abstraction
of People’s Experiences at Work and the Meaning
Attached to Them
The final element of climate definitions that we view as essential is that
climate is a description of how employees view their work environments,
not a personal affective evaluation of the work environment. The debates
over the relationship between climate and satisfaction in the 1970s that
we reviewed in the last chapter clarified that the descriptive-evaluative
distinction was important for ensuring the uniqueness of the climate con-
struct beyond the more traditional job satisfaction literature. Researchers
have generally been cognizant and supportive of this distinction, though
those who study climate through the individual lens of psychological cli-
mate (see James, Choi, Ko, McNeil, Minton, Wright, & Kim, 2008) are an
exception. They propose that at a minimum satisfaction and psychologi-
cal climate are most likely reciprocally related (James & Tetrick, 1986),
but this is an issue at the individual level of analysis and not relevant for
our discussion of organizational climate.
At the same time that climate is not an evaluative or attitudinal con-
struct, the idea that it is descriptive does not mean that it simply captures
the mere presence of the policies, practices, and procedures in organi-
zations. As we described in the last chapter, one early critique of the
climate construct by Guion (1973), James and Jones (1974), and others
was that it needed to be validated against “objective” (i.e., nonperceptual)
measures. As Schneider (1975b) and others emphasized, the perceptual
aspect of climate is critical to capturing the meaning employees attach
to the policies and practices in their organizations. As a result, there may
not be a perfect correlation between the presence of individual poli-
cies and practices and the climate that emerges from them (see Klein,
Conn, & Sorra, 2001, for an example of this) because there are a number
of variables that also influence how members of the unit assign meaning
to their experiences of those policies and practices.

Our Definition of Organizational Climate

In line with these key themes surrounding the conceptualization of cli-

mate, our definition of organizational climate is the following:
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 69

Organizational climate is the shared meaning organizational members attach

to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behav-
iors they see being rewarded, supported, and expected.

This definition integrates across the themes just illuminated and thus is
generally consistent with previous definitions of climate. In particular,
this definition makes explicit the central role of the meaning assigned by
people to their perceptions and experiences—the meaning is the climate.
It is useful to see how others have recently defined climate and com-
pare those definitions to ours—because not everyone agrees with ours!
Ashkanasy, Wilderom, and Peterson’s (2000a) Handbook of Organiza-
tional Culture and Climate reveals some examples of these differences.
In their introduction, Ashkanasy, Wilderom, and Peterson (2000b) noted
that the term climate “is currently being used to describe configurations
of attitudes and perceptions by organization members that, in combina-
tion, reflect a substantial part of the context of which they are a part and
within which they work” (p. 8). Wiley and Brooks (2000) also included
attitudes under the climate label. Michela and Burke (2000) stated, “Tra-
ditionally defined, organizational climate involves people’s perceptions
and experiences of the workplace in terms of warmth, trust, dynamism,
ambiguity, and other affect-laden dimensions” (p. 234). Thus, despite
the problems we have identified with this “affect-laden” view of climate
and efforts to move the field away from this perspective, the association
between climate and attitudes/affect persists. Although some authors
emphasize climate as an individual-level construct (i.e., psychological
climate), most recognize that it can still be shared and thus aggregated
to the unit level. Nevertheless, some de-emphasize the importance of
climate being shared across unit members and emphasize why it is not
shared. For instance, in Virtanen’s (2000) chapter, he writes, “climate
is based on individual perceptions that are transparent to individuals
themselves, but that they do not necessarily share with or reveal to other
members of the organization” (p. 349). This description is reminiscent
of Rousseau’s (1990a) earlier description of climate as deriving from
“the individual’s potentially idiosyncratic experience of the organization”
(p. 159) or perhaps even Ott’s (1989) view that climate is transient. That
some of these conceptions of organizational climate persist is discourag-
ing to us. We will explore some of the sources of these varying views
throughout the rest of this chapter.

Summary

Because the organizational climate construct has the potential for aston-
ishingly diverse meanings, it has had astonishingly different definitions—
when defined at all. All of these have been attempts to capture what
employees make of their global experience(s) of their surroundings—in
Lewin’s terminology, their life space—and, in turn, relate those shared
70 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

meanings to outcomes of interest. The themes we identified here repre-

sent both the key historically identified aspects of climate as well as the
key developments in clarifying the construct over the years. Before mov-
ing forward from the definition of climate to the latest advancements
in its measurement, we briefly return in the next section to an earlier
topic, psychological climate, that continues to receive research attention
despite persistent problems with its definition and measurement, as well
as drawing less interest from management because of its individual rather
than unit focus.

CLIMATE AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL:

PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE

To this day, two relatively distinct threads of research exist in the climate
literature: research on organizational climate that characterizes climate as
a shared, unit-level phenomenon, and research on psychological climate
that characterizes climate as an individual-level and personal perception.
Although one could argue that both have merit and should be able to
co-exist in the organizational research literature, there are some key dif-
ferences in how they are defined and studied that make that challenging.
As a quick reminder of the history of the climate construct that we
covered in the last chapter, the earliest roots of the climate literature
through the mid-1960s almost without fail characterized climate as a
property of the unit and its larger (organizational) environment. Such
a focus was consistent with the state of the field of what we now know
as organizational behavior (OB). Argyris (1957) and McGregor (1960)
had set a foundation for such thinking, and Bass’s book on Leadership,
Psychology, and Organizational Behavior in 1960 may be the first book
with OB in the title. As described in the last chapter, both he and Schein
(1965) subsequently released the first books with the title Organiza-
tional Psychology. So, “organization” was on people’s minds. In the mid
to late 1960s and early 1970s, however, climate became a focus for psy-
chologists interested in including the role of the environment in their
industrial psychology research. The predominant researchers of the time
were people trained in industrial psychology (it was not “officially” called
industrial/organizational psychology until 1973), and business schools
were hiring such people to come teach and do research. Not surprisingly,
as psychologists they tended to approach climate as an individual-level
variable because, at the time, industrial psychology was the study of in-
dividual differences. This focus on individuals in climate research was a
major criticism from Guion (1973) and others.
James and Jones (1974) first made the distinction between psycho-
logical and organizational climate, and initially it appeared that the
choice between the two was a decision that depended on the criterion
of interest. As described by Schneider (1975), “The choice of a unit for
analysis is then not an either-or problem but one of carefully defining
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 71

the problem and then making the choice” (pp. 469–470). Nevertheless,
as time passed through the 1980s, the differences in these approaches
became more and more apparent. The clearest summary of the differ-
ences can be found in the very illuminating exchanges between Glick
(1985, 1988) and James and colleagues (1988) that we described in the
last section. The basic argument by James and colleagues (1988; see also
James et al., 1990) was that climate is at its core an individual perception
because the attribution of meaning occurs within the individual’s cogni-
tions. Individuals may share in these perceptions, in which case there
may be a “shared psychological environment” (James et al., 1990, p. 62),
but aggregates of climate perceptions are merely that—aggregates—and
not a meaningful construction that exists separate from the individuals
themselves. Based on earlier work by Schneider and Reichers (1983),
Glick’s (1985, 1988) view was that climate emerges out of shared social
interactions, is a property of the system, and cannot be reduced to merely
being a mean of uniquely individual perceptions.
Our view is similar to Glick’s; even though climate is in fact an aggre-
gate, it emerges out of interactions among people, and there is no research
of which we are aware that teases out “pure” individual perceptions from
those that emerge out of natural interactions as we have described them.
The purest such research would have people work with others in a set-
ting but never speak to them and compare their perceptions to those of
people in the same settings who do speak with each other. Our predic-
tion is that those who do not speak with others will have less sharing
of their perceptions (there will be more variability around the mean)
and that those who do speak with each other may well have different
perceptions but will certainly show less variability around the mean. It
follows from this logic that we would further predict that the degree of
interaction with others that characterizes a work group and/or organiza-
tion will be a direct correlate of the variability around the mean (we later
report research to substantiate this hypothesis when we discuss climate
strength).
Perhaps of equal importance to keeping these two research ap-
proaches quite separate has been the focus on the different criteria used
as outcome variables for research in these domains. Psychological climate
researchers tend to focus on affective individual outcomes (well-being,
satisfaction, stress, job involvement, and so forth; see the meta-analyses
by Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003; and Parker, Baltes, Young, Huff,
Altmann, LaCost, & Roberts, 2003), whereas organizational climate re-
searchers focus on more external unit and organizational-level outcomes
(accident rates, customer satisfaction, and so forth; Kuenze & Schminke,
2009; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011b). Because of these differences
in how climate is conceptualized and assessed as well as the outcomes of
interest, there has been very little middle ground identified, and research
from both perspectives continues to this day (e.g., James et al., 2008).
We have several concerns about research on psychological climate.
One is that it is subject to many of the same criticisms that have been
72 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

leveled at climate research since the early 1970s. In particular, the em-
phasis on the individual’s personal perspective and the individual’s af-
fective processing of information leave open to question how much
psychological climate can be distinguished from other job attitudes. The
finding of a general psychological climate factor (PCg; James  & James,
1989) seems to suggest that much of the psychological climate literature
can be reduced to an individual’s general attitude toward his/her organi-
zation, similar to Harrison et al.’s (2006) “A” factor. Such overlap makes
it difficult to see the usefulness of a psychological climate construct sepa-
rate from research on individual attitudes toward work and working in
organizations. Research on psychological climate also diverges in many
ways from the early development of the construct by organizational re-
searchers (e.g., Argyris, 1958; Lewin et al., 1939; McGregor, 1960). They
clearly viewed climate as something beyond the individual and not lim-
ited to an individual’s peculiar assignment of meaning to what happens
around them. Climate for them was in the shared, common experience
of employees and was considered useful because of its ultimate effect on
organizational effectiveness. Even when individuals do not all agree, it
is not necessary to reduce climate to the individual level of analysis; in-
stead, researchers can take a dispersion approach (Chan, 1998) and focus
on the role of climate strength in addition to climate level. So our conclu-
sion is that climate is an attribute of the work unit (e.g., group, department,
or organization), and thus the appropriate level of theory and analysis for
climate research is the unit. Research on psychological climate has limited
usefulness for understanding organizational functioning and effective-
ness, the foci of the present book, so we will not consider it here.

MEASUREMENT AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Based on the definition of organizational climate we have presented,

along with some of the criticisms of climate research discussed earlier,
how then should researchers go about measuring organizational climate?
Glick (1985) provided some clear guidance on this front. He noted that
the goal is to ask descriptive questions that summarize the unit’s charac-
teristics rather than affective questions that reflect an individual’s unique
experiences. Further, he emphasized that the referent for the questions
should be specific, not generic, and should be aligned with the level of
theory (e.g.,  department, organization). These two issues go hand in
hand; by drawing individual respondents’ attention to what happens in
their setting and the common experience they most likely share with
their coworkers, their responses are less likely to reflect only their per-
sonal affect or opinion. In surveys of this sort, the frame of reference is
part of the item. For example an item to assess the support for service
might read: “In my work unit we have the resources necessary to deliver
excellent service.”
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 73

This approach to climate measurement is consistent with Chan’s

(1998) referent-shift consensus model in which the referent of the items
is the unit and the construct of interest is believed to be shared by unit
members. Perhaps not surprisingly, researchers who emphasize the in-
dividual as the primary unit of theory for climate research (Glisson  &
James, 2002; James et al., 2008) assert that the appropriate aggregation
model is Chan’s (1998) direct consensus model. Using that model, the
referent for measurement remains at the individual level (“I  have the
resources I need to deliver excellent service”) and if one wishes to ag-
gregate such psychological climate perceptions, the aggregation is of indi-
vidual personalized experiences. We have already discussed the problems
we see with this approach, and thus emphasize the importance for using
descriptive items with a unit referent to best capture a unit’s climate.
The importance of using the unit as the referent was verified by a meta-
analysis on justice climate conducted by Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter,
Horner, and Bernerth (2012). They showed that the corrected correlation
between justice climate and unit effectiveness was significantly stronger
when the referent for the justice climate items was the unit ( = .53)
versus the individual ( = .23).
When it comes to practical implications of measuring climate, one
important issue is the level of specificity in the climate items. When con-
ducting research on the overall climate in a work unit, it may not be
necessary to use many items because it is the gestalt meaning of the sim-
ilarly focused items that is the target of assessment. The idea, then, is that
a sampling of the broad issues associated with a particular climate can be
acceptable. When working with organizations, however, having specific
items within the broad construct has clear benefits. For example, there
may be items having to do with training, staffing, tools, equipment, space,
leader support, and so forth, all framed as facets of the unit’s resources
needed to deliver excellent service. Although organizations may be inter-
ested in their general level of climate, once they have that information,
they are also going to want to know particular areas to which they might
make changes to effectively improve their climate. And that is where
specificity in items can come in handy. By capturing a broad variety of
specific facets that may affect the unit’s climate and analyzing their re-
lationships with the overall climate and key outcomes, consultants can
provide organizations with specific information about areas that may be
better (or worse) to target for intervention. No one area is likely to make
THE difference, but that level of detail may help in narrowing the field
to the few areas that may provide the most effect.
Once data have been collected, climate researchers need to address
whether there is justification for aggregating individual-level data to the
appropriate unit level (consistent with the level of theory; Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Early climate researchers recognized the need for some
level of agreement prior to actual aggregation; as described previously,
Pace and Stern (1958) set the bar at two-thirds agreement and Guion
74 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

(1973) argued that there needed to be sufficient agreement such that it

was not significantly different from 100%.
The primary progress in clarifying the issue of consensus did not come
until the 1980s with the work of James and his colleagues (James, 1982;
James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and the development of the rWG(j) met-
ric. This statistic has become the most commonly reported indicator of
agreement for contemporary climate researchers in the organizational
sciences, usually coupled with intraclass correlations (usually ICC[1] and
often ICC[2] as well). Other less commonly used approaches for justi-
fying aggregation include statistics such as the average deviation (AD)
index (Burke, Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999) and aWG (Brown & Hauenstein,
2005), or WABA analyses (within and between analysis; Dansereau,
Alutto,  & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau  & Alutto, 1990). Although we
will discuss some of the highlights of the issues surrounding aggregation
statistics, Bliese (2000) and LeBreton and Senter (2008) are excellent
sources for more information.
One important distinction when discussing aggregation statistics is be-
tween interrater agreement and interrater reliability (Kozlowski & Hat-
trup, 1992). Interrater agreement addresses the extent to which raters
provide the same absolute ratings of climate. If all raters provide the
same rating, then there is perfect agreement and their scores are inter-
changeable with each other. Alternatively, interrater reliability addresses
the extent to which the rank ordering of the ratings is consistent across
raters (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Most measures that are
typically thought of as indicators of interrater reliability actually assess
both agreement and reliability (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). ICC(1) is one
such measure; it is interpreted as the percentage of variance that is ex-
plained by the unit. High ICC(1) scores will result when there is low
variability within units and lots of variability across units; however, it will
be negatively affected when either of those is not achieved (i.e., when
there is more variability within units or less variability across units).
ICC(2) as an index of the reliability of group means is also a measure of
interrater agreement and reliability and is closely related to ICC(1). Spe-
cifically, ICC(2) is related to ICC(1) as a function of group size (Bliese,
2000) such that the more respondents per group, the higher the ICC(2)
value will be.
There are a number of complexities that researchers will have to con-
sider when calculating and interpreting aggregation statistics. First, they
must determine which statistics to calculate. Although rWG(j), ICC(1), and
ICC(2) are probably the most common statistics reported in the industrial/
organizational (I/O) psychology and management literatures, there
is certainly disagreement on the issue of whether all of those are neces-
sary or whether other statistics may be better. For instance, George and
James (1993) have argued that within-group agreement is the primary
criterion that should be used for justifying aggregation, noting that “ag-
gregation per se is conditional on there being agreement within groups,
not differences across groups” (p. 799). A second issue is how to deal with
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 75

variability in within-unit response rates. In other words, some units will

have better response rates than others, and for those with lower rates,
questions may arise about whether the group is adequately represented
(receiving responses from five of eight unit members may be acceptable,
but what if it is five of 30 or 40 unit members?). Based on their analyses
related to this issue, Newman and Sin (2009) concluded that researchers
should attempt to understand the nature of the missing data and its ef-
fect on agreement statistics rather than deleting units with low response
rates. A third issue that emerges when calculating rWG(j) specifically that
has received recent attention is the choice of the null distribution against
which the results are framed. LeBreton and Senter (2008) pointed out
that the use of a uniform null distribution (i.e., an equal likelihood of all
response options being chosen) is only appropriate if responses are not
affected by any sort of cognitive or affective bias. Because that is not very
likely to occur, they recommended calculating rWG(j) in multiple ways
using distributions that reflect potential respondent biases (e.g.,  slight
skew, normal distribution, etc.). They provided a more detailed discus-
sion of these issues, including the expected variances using various re-
sponse scales, in their article.
Once researchers calculate these statistics, they must then interpret
them. Although there has been a tendency in the past to apply strict
cutoffs with aggregation statistics, there is growing recognition that such
cutoffs have been set based on arbitrary criteria (Lance, Butts, & Michels,
2006) and are overly simplistic (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Thus, rather
than setting a firm cutoff of 0.70 for rWG(j), for instance, LeBreton and
Senter (2008) have argued that it may be better to think of agreement as
existing along a continuum from no agreement (values of 0.00 to 0.30)
to moderate agreement (0.51 to 0.70) to very strong agreement (0.91
to 1.00), and that the acceptable level of agreement for any given study
should depend on the context of the research, the measures being used,
and a number of additional issues. Along similar lines, they suggest that
ICC(1) values should be interpreted as an effect size, with 0.01 being
a small effect, 0.10 a medium effect, and 0.25 a large effect. Although
ICC(2) is more straightforwardly interpreted in the same way as typical
internal consistency reliability values and thus similar cutoffs can be ap-
plied (typically 0.70; Klein et al., 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008), it is
not quite as straightforward as it may seem. ICC(2) values are strongly
affected by unit size, and it is particularly difficult to achieve adequate
ICC(2) levels when ICC(1) values are lower (Bliese, 1998, 2000; LeBre-
ton & Senter, 2008). Therefore, it is our experience that it is quite com-
mon to see climate research studying smaller units to have ICC(2) values
in the 0.40–0.60 range. As Bliese (2000) noted, there are many judgment
calls involved when interpreting aggregation statistics.
Of course, the complexities do not end there. Researchers could still
have to deal with nested data structures, contradictory results across the
various aggregation statistics, and variability in agreement across organi-
zational units. At the end of this section, we will return to these issues
76 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

and others as we try to offer some specific, practical tips to climate re-
searchers when faced with the challenges of aggregation and levels of
analysis issues. Before doing so, however, we wanted to take a step back
and encourage some self-reflection within the field of climate research.
We fear that the issue of data aggregation has become in some quar-
ters more important and received more attention than issues about the
conceptualization of climate and its role in predicting organizational
performance. Of course, such a focus on measurement is very much in
the blood of climate researchers as early climate researchers in the late
1960s and 1970s became distracted with measurement issues over more
substantive issues on the role of the organizational environment in orga-
nizational effectiveness. It might even be said that the levels of analysis
issue stultified climate research during the 1980s as scholars pursued the
statistical issues that they thought required solutions. This tendency led
to the following observation from Pettigrew (1990, p. 415): “The early
climate researchers were not comfortable wringing their hands and bit-
ing the carpet over definitional issues. They were more likely to be driven
by the maxim ‘if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist.’ So, off they went
to measure, and the . . . definitional issues emerged for them when they
had to make sense of the mass of data collected in such an atheoretical
fashion.” And try to make sense they did, culminating perhaps in the
Klein and Kozlowski (2000) volume on levels issues in organizational
research. Let us be clear: We are not saying that these developments have
been negative for the field, nor are we saying that organizational climate
research was the only arena in which levels issues emerged and required
attention. However, it was clearly climate research that played a major
role in bringing the data aggregation issue to the forefront and determin-
ing the effort lavished on the issue; therefore, this should be considered
an accomplishment of the climate field.
However, scholars in other areas of research, while concerned with
levels and data aggregation issues, have not let those issues dominate
their thinking and research. Having worked with colleagues from other
disciplines, it is interesting to compare the approaches taken to justifying
aggregation. In brief, it appears to be true that organizational researchers
require much more in the way of evidence to justify aggregation than is
common in other fields. For instance, in other areas of psychology besides
I/O psychology, or in the fields of public health and education, it is com-
mon to report the ICC(1) (based on a one-way ANOVA) and move for-
ward with the analyses. The logic is that if the ICC(1) is significant then
it has been demonstrated that there is enough between-unit variance
relative to within-unit variance (i.e., a large enough unit effect) to sup-
port the reasonableness of aggregation (a view contrary to that of George
and James, 1993, as discussed earlier in this section).
The question becomes, then, whether climate researchers should view
themselves as being on the cutting edge with regard to these issues or
whether the pendulum has swung too far and we as a field have gone too
far in our emphasis on aggregation statistics. In our view, we have wrung
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 77

our hands enough over the aggregation issue (or as we have sometimes
referred to it, the “aggravation” issue) to state that one should be suf-
ficiently sure of the reasonableness of data aggregation prior to doing it.
This approach to justifying the study of unit or organizational climate is
reasonable and avoids us continuing to be enamored with solving the ag-
gregation problem of how best to demonstrate adequate interrater agree-
ment and reliability that we have forgotten about the (more) important
substantive issues of the effects of organizational climate on organiza-
tional behavior and outcomes.
Our thinking on this issue leads us to propose some specific recom-
mendations for climate researchers (as well as for editors or reviewers
who may be faced with these issues):

• It is our view that researchers should pay more attention to developing

a strong theoretical justification (rather than just an analytical justifica-
tion) for the level of climate being studied. As we reported earlier, Pet-
tigrew (1990) clearly suggested that more attention should be paid to
the justification given for the level of theory in a particular effort and the
relationship of that level to the units being studied—and we agree! How
units within the organization are currently organized and structured, as
well as how the work within those units is accomplished, should be im-
portant elements in the conceptualization of the research.
• These issues are complex enough and our understanding of them mature
enough that we should avoid the simplistic application of cutoffs with
aggregation statistics. As outlined by LeBreton and Senter (2008), there
may be some contexts in which a lower standard (average rWG( j) values of
0.60 or higher) is reasonable, whereas there may be other contexts when
a higher bar (average rWG( j) values of 0.80 or higher) may make more
sense.
• Aggregation statistics that are not as strong as typically desired (e.g., av-
erage rWG( j) values of 0.70 or higher or ICC(1) values greater than 0.10)
should not mean that analyses at the unit level are inappropriate, espe-
cially if the level of theory and the units being analyzed are well-justified
(e.g.,  consistent with the way the organization is structured). Instead,
researchers should attempt to determine the cause of the “problem”
and potentially account for the variability in agreement in the analyses.
For instance, it might seem reasonable to conduct additional analyses in
which the units with low agreement are removed to see if their inclusion
has an impact. However, we concur with LeBreton and Senter (2008)
in discouraging the practice of completely dropping units with lower
within-unit agreement. Instead, agreement should be assessed based on
the overall pattern of agreement across all units in the dataset. If the vari-
ability in agreement is viewed as problematic or is conceptually of inter-
est, then the analyses can consider those. To that point, climate strength
can be included as a moderator of the effects of climate level (see sec-
tion on climate strength later in this chapter), thus considering level of
within-unit agreement as an additional important variable of interest.
• There may often be cases when climate is operating at multiple levels
of analysis, and thus there may not be a “correct” level of analysis, at
least from an analytic perspective (George & James, 1993). If there are
78 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

concerns about whether the unit climate being studied is dictated by is-
sues at higher levels of analysis, then it should be tested whether that is
indeed the case (if possible) by calculating ICC(1) values at both levels
(accounting for the nested structure). For example, if the theoretical
level of interest is the unit and ICC(1) values at the unit level are 0.10
or better and below 0.05 at the corporate level, then it would seem ap-
propriate to proceed with analyses at the unit level. If the ICC(1) for
the corporate level were to be higher (say, over 0.05), then the analy-
ses should likely account for the nested structure, and it may be worth
reconsidering the target level of analysis because the larger number of
respondents contributing to the corporate level should result in higher
ICC(2) values. See Zohar and Luria (2005) for an example of these
nested analyses, as well as Snijders and Bosker (1999) for a discussion of
how lower levels “inherit” upper level variance.
• In line with the idea that climate may operate at multiple levels of
analysis, the researcher should recognize that lower levels of within-
unit agreement do not mean that there is a complete lack of consensus.
Specifically, for certain kinds of climates, subclimates may be expected
within which for at least some of subgroups there may be quite sig-
nificant agreement. This might occur, for example, because of different
levels of both contact and familiarity between employee and supervisor,
or in units formed through merger of different organizational entities. By
anticipating these types of issues, pertinent variables can be included in
the data collection and proper multilevel analysis techniques employed
to best understand how climate operates in these situations. From a prac-
tical perspective, examining variability in agreement between and within
units in the organization can provide insights into why certain units are
functioning differently than others. In line with our discussion of the
practical usefulness of including specific items capturing the breadth of
climate, examination of within-group response distributions and agree-
ment statistics at the item level can provide insights into specific issues
may be useful targets for intervention (see Bliese, 2006, for an example
regarding ratings of work hours in military units).
• The issue of variability in within-unit sample size is complex, and re-
searchers should thoughtfully and thoroughly address it. Low response
rate units should not necessarily be discarded outright, but then again a
minimum standard for within-group response rate (perhaps 20%–30%?)
would seem reasonable. At the same time, if agreement is relatively high
among those respondents in a unit where the response rate is disappoint-
ing, and the choice of unit is well-justified, it is likely that those few re-
spondents are providing a meaningful representation of the views of the
unit. It may be useful to include within-unit response rate in preliminary
analyses to empirically evaluate potential effects on the results. Another
approach would be to try to understand the nature of the missing data
along the lines recommended by Newman and Sin (2009). Whatever the
approach, these issues should be addressed from both a conceptual and
analytical perspective to ensure that the decisions made are conceptually
meaningful, reasonable, and defensible.

Progress along these lines would help the climate literature provide more
balance between justifying the level of analysis and focusing on more
theoretical and more substantively interesting issues.
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 79

Summary

Data aggregation and levels of analysis issues occupied many organiza-

tional climate researchers for much of the 1980s. The issue is clear: If cli-
mate is shared meaning then some demonstration of the meaning being
shared is necessary. The problem has been that we seem to create new
indicators of sharedness with relative abandon and fret over the minutiae
of calculating and interpreting those indicators, and it is not necessarily
clear that these efforts have improved our research or our understanding
of climate. Further, in some cases it feels like researchers have become
more concerned with quantitatively demonstrating consensus than with
conceptually elaborating the research in the first place. Are we still, as
Pettigrew put it, measuring first and thinking later?

TYPES OF CLIMATE STUDIED: MOLAR

AND FOCUSED CLIMATES

As we outlined in Chapter Two, there have been two general catego-

ries of organizational climate research: the generic or molar climate ap-
proach and the focused or strategic climate approach. The molar climate
approach was an attempt to capture the generic or overall sense of the
experiences people had at work, while the focused approach obviously
focused on a specific issue or outcome. In what follows we provide read-
ers with an overview of the history of both approaches to the study of
climate and reach some conclusions about what we have learned from
them. Perhaps most interestingly we conclude that both approaches
have merit and that the focused climate approach might best be con-
ceptualized and studied as one that rests on the more molar climate
foundation.

Molar Climate

Although the earliest climate researchers were more likely to refer to a

specific type of climate (e.g., Lewin et al.’s, 1939, social climate; Fleish-
man’s, 1953, leadership climate; and McGregor’s, 1960, managerial cli-
mate), there was a shift in the late 1960s and early 1970s to trying to
capture the totality of an organization’s climate in all of its dimensions.
Examples can be found in Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) and Schnei-
der and Bartlett’s (1968, 1970) early climate measures, as noted ear-
lier. Campbell and colleagues’ (1970) review of the climate literature
reported four consistent dimensions of climate that had been found
across various studies to that time but implied that there was more work
needed to identify those dimensions that had not yet been discovered.
This shift from specific climates to climates that contained everything
but the kitchen sink (Schneider, 1975b) can at least in part be attrib-
uted to the fact that those doing this research were largely psychologists.
80 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

Thus, their implicit focus was on the assessment of those attributes of the
work environment associated with employees feeling good about where
they worked, coupled with the also implicit hypothesis that individuals
who experienced more of such a climate would be superior performers.
That emphasis on employees feeling good is what resulted in Hellriegel
and Slocum’s (1974) conclusion that there was an overemphasis on the
people dimension of organizations in climate research relative to other
dimensions like structure, task, and technology—not too surprising for a
bunch of psychologists!
Not all early climate researchers were convinced that a molar climate
approach was appropriate or desirable. Even Litwin and Stringer (1968),
whose scale was one of the most commonly used in early climate research
(and is still used today; see Burke, 2011), acknowledged that capturing
the entire content domain of climate may not be a reasonable enterprise,
noting that “Because of their subjective and perceptual nature, there may
be an infinite variety of organizational climates” (p. 45). Schneider and
Snyder (1975) framed the issue in terms of how climate was conceptual-
ized and questioned whether it made sense to think about organizational
climate in a generic sense separate from a particular focus (climate for
something) linked to a criterion of interest. They opined, “Unfortunately,
there appears to be a trend among several researchers to think of organi-
zational climate as being analogous to the concept of global job satisfac-
tion when, in fact, such a conceptualization may be illogical” (p. 327).
Schneider and Reichers (1983) were harsher in their assessment, as they
asserted, “To speak of organizational climate per se, without attaching a
referent is meaningless” (p. 21). Their criticism of this unfocused molar
approach was because it was too general to make “fine distinctions be-
tween units nor to correlate with any specific organizational criterion
(such as turnover) across units” (p. 22). Despite some of these concerns,
research on molar climate continued.
Taxonomies of molar climate. A  number of taxonomies of climate
were proposed as empirical research experienced its rise in the late 1960s
and 1970s. A  rough summary sketch of the results of a few such re-
search efforts is presented in Table 3.2 and summarized in more detail
in what follows. Litwin and Stringer (1968), for example, started with
six dimensions (structure, responsibility, risk, reward, warmth and sup-
port, and conflict) and then expanded to nine dimensions (splitting up
warmth and support into separate categories and adding standards and
identity) that reflected four broader categories (structure, challenge, re-
ward and support, and social inclusion). Schneider and Bartlett (1968,
1970) focused on six dimensions (managerial support, intra-agency con-
flict, managerial structure, new employee concern, agent independence,
and general satisfaction). Campbell and colleagues’ (1970) review found
four consistent dimensions across the climate literature of that time: in-
dividual autonomy; degree of structure imposed on the situation; reward
orientation; and consideration, warmth, and support. Payne and Pugh’s
(1976) review of the climate literature in general and particularly in the
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 81

TABLE 3.2 Concepts used in describing molar climate dimensions

Litwin & Schneider & Campbell Jones & James &

Stringer Bartlett et al. James James
Dimension Label (1968) (1968) (1970) (1979) (1989)

Structure/ X X* X* X
standards
Consideration/ X X* X*
Facilitation
Warmth X X X X
Support X X* X X* X*
Reward X X
Conflict/stress X X X
Autonomy/ X X X X
Independence
Satisfaction/spirit X X
Challenge/variety X X
Cooperation X X
Note: *indicates that the dimension label was accompanied by the word “leadership” or
“managerial”

UK and Europe led them to conceptualize climate in terms of risk-taking,

warmth, support, and innovativeness.
Some level of consolidation in the number of climate dimensions oc-
curred by the late 1970s because of research on psychological climate by
Jones and James (1979). One of the primary goals of their research was
to create a “comprehensive measure of the perceived work environment”
(p. 202) that captured the aspects of the situation that had the most di-
rect relevance for the individual’s experience of that environment. Their
assumption was that there were likely a relatively small set of dimen-
sions that could capture individuals’ experiences across multiple work
settings. To achieve their goal, they created a measure with 145 items
divided across 35 composites (or subscales). Those composites were sub-
jected to a factor analysis, resulting in six components that were generally
consistent across three samples: conflict and ambiguity; job challenge,
importance, and variety; leader facilitation and support; workgroup coop-
eration, friendliness, and warmth; professional and organizational esprit;
and job standards. James and James (1989) later built on this research
with a hierarchical model of a general psychological climate factor and
four major dimensions of climate (role stress and lack of harmony; job
challenge and autonomy; leadership support and facilitation; and work
group cooperation, friendliness, and warmth), each of which subsumed
between three and six more micro issues.
Ostroff (1993) organized the various climate dimensions that had
been identified in the literature into three categories: affective, cognitive,
and instrumental. The affective dimension was defined as those aspects
82 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

of climate related to interpersonal and social relationships among work-

ers and included participation, cooperation, warmth, and social rewards.
The cognitive dimension was defined as those aspects of climate related
to the self or individual involvement in work and included growth, inno-
vation, autonomy, and intrinsic rewards. Finally, the instrumental dimen-
sion was defined as those aspects of climate related to task involvement
and work processes and included achievement, hierarchy, structure, and
extrinsic rewards. Ostroff found these climate dimensions to be corre-
lated at a median level of 0.61 and also demonstrated that the climate
dimensions contributed independently to the prediction of individual
attitudes (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, adjustment, stress) and perfor-
mance independent from individual-level preferences, values, and beliefs.
A more recent development in the literature on molar climate has
been the work by Patterson and colleagues (2005) in developing the Or-
ganizational Climate Measure (OCM). The OCM was based on the com-
peting values framework (CVF; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Although
this model is more commonly associated with organizational culture (as
we will describe in detail in later chapters), Patterson and colleagues ar-
gued that the managerial ideologies and values of culture form the basis
for the decision-making and actions of management that lead to climate.
Thus, they reviewed past climate taxonomies and aligned the dimensions
of climate with the four quadrants of the CVF that result from crossing
the dimensions of flexibility versus control and internal versus external
orientation (described in terms of approaches for organizational effec-
tiveness: the human relations approach, the internal process approach,
the open systems approach, and the rational goal approach; Quinn  &
Rohrbaugh, 1983). The result of the survey development process was a
17-dimension measure; the dimensions and their descriptions organized
by the four quadrants of the CVF are shown in Table 3.3. The connection
of the OCM to the CVF suggests ready connections between climate and
culture, an issue we will focus on in depth in Chapter Six. In addition,
although the number of dimensions in the OCM may seem overwhelm-
ing, Patterson and colleagues did acknowledge that it might be useful
to focus on a subset of items that are most relevant for the work of
researchers or practitioners in a particular setting and vis-à-vis a specific
outcome.
Molar climate as a climate for well-being. Given the strong correla-
tions among most dimensions of molar climate (e.g., Ostroff, 1993), it
is perhaps best described as capturing the general sense employees have
about whether their organization provides a positive environment for
employees. Returning to Hellriegel and Slocum (1974), molar climate
can be thought of as how people-oriented the climate is, or consistent
with Burke, Borucki, and Hurley (1992), it could be labeled as the orga-
nization’s concern for employees or its climate for employee well-being.
Consistent with this view, James and colleagues (2008) described the
general factor underlying psychological climate dimensions (PCg) as “the
degree to which the environment is personally beneficial or detrimental
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 83

TABLE 3.3 Dimensions of the organizational climate measure (OCM; based

on Patterson et al., 2005)

Human Relations Model

• Autonomy (employees having a wide scope for how to perform their jobs)
• Integration (employees experiencing trust and respect)
• Involvement (employees having influence in decision-making)
• Supervisory Support (managers demonstrating concern and empathy for
employees)
• Training (the organization showing concern for employee development)
• Welfare (the organization valuing and caring for employees)
Internal Process Model
• Formalization (the organization having many rules and procedures)
• Tradition (the organization operating in a established way that rarely
changes)
Open Systems Model
• Innovation & Flexibility (employees and managers accepting new ideas and
being willing to change)
• Outward Focus (the organization prioritizing customers and being aware of
the marketplace)
• Reflexivity (employees and managers being open to evaluation and process
improvement)
Rational Goal Model
• Clarity of organizational goals (employees and managers clearly
understanding the direction and long-term plans of the organization)
• Efficiency (the organization being structured to maximize the effectiveness
of time and money)
• Effort (employees working hard and being enthusiastic about their work)
• Performance feedback (the organization measuring and providing feedback
on performance)
• Pressure to produce (managers communicating high expectations for
employees)
• Quality (the organization emphasizing the importance of quality for
organizational success)

to one’s sense of well-being” (p. 11). The question is, how useful is such a
generic view of climate, either theoretically or practically?
Theoretically, molar climate captures a number of constructs that have
very well-developed literatures on their own. For instance, James and
James’s (1989) taxonomy included role stress (role ambiguity, role con-
flict, role overload), job design (job challenge and variety, job autonomy,
and job importance), leadership (leader trust and support, leader goal
facilitation, and leader interaction facilitation), and work group processes
(work-group cooperation and work-group friendliness and warmth), all
of which have been the focus of decades of research in the I/O and OB
literatures. Assessing the general molar climate across these dimensions
84 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

simplifies things and gives a sense of employees’ overall view of their

organization, but by doing so important nuances and important distinc-
tions that have been discovered in those individual literatures are per-
haps glossed over. Thus, it is our sense that a sole focus on molar climate
leads to generic thinking and oversimplified theorizing.
From a practical perspective, Reichers and Schneider (1990) argued
that a sole focus on molar climate and its generic dimensions is not very
useful for promoting change in organizations toward the accomplish-
ment of specific strategic goals. Nevertheless, there are at least a few ways
that research on molar climate may have more of a practical impact. Re-
search in the area of service climate by Schneider, White, and Paul (1998)
investigated the extent to which the foundation issues of leadership, par-
ticipation, computer support, training, and inter-department service pro-
vide a context or foundation on which service climate can be built. The
support for their model indicates that an organization’s communication
of concern for employees through a positive molar climate facilitates
employees’ willingness to adopt a focus on specific strategic goals of their
organization (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009). It is important
to be clear that molar climate is not causally linked to focused or strategic
climates but that it provides a foundation such that employees are more
willing to adopt the strategic focus promoted by specific policies, prac-
tices, and procedures. That is, just because an organization shows support
for its employees does not mean the organization will effectively create
a climate toward the accomplishment of its strategic goals. At the same
time, the presence of such a foundation makes it more likely for manage-
ment to be able to build a strategic climate.
Molar climate dimensions in profile. A second way that molar climate
may offer more useful practical insights is through more fine-grained
analytic techniques involving the dimensions that constitute a molar cli-
mate. Most studies of climate use the dimensions one at a time in try-
ing to understand outcomes, usually in some form of multiple regression
analysis. An alternative has been suggested and this concerns the study
of the configuration of climate dimensions. Recent research by Schulte,
Ostroff, Shmulyian, and Kinicki (2009) suggested that not all dimen-
sions of climate need to be high for positive outcomes to occur. Although
they found that overall climate level (or climate elevation in their ter-
minology) was the primary predictor of internal outcomes (employee
attitudes, intentions to stay, and perceptions of service quality), it was
the configuration of climate that related to the external outcomes of
customer satisfaction and financial performance. In particular, organiza-
tional units with climates that emphasized both employee support and
service to customers had higher customer satisfaction than units that
emphasized service alone. In a second study, they showed that units with
climates that emphasized high levels of service to customers and moder-
ate levels of employee support had higher financial performance than
units that emphasized primarily employee support. What is interesting
about this line of research is that it was the two general approaches to
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 85

climate, molar and focused, that tended to separate out and distinguish
the climate shapes that were found. The utility of general climate for
well-being for predicting external outcomes was only found when ex-
amined in tandem with strategic climate. At the same time, the over-
all level of climate was almost redundant with employee attitudes (the
two were correlated at 0.86 in their first study and 0.73 in their second
study), harkening back to early critiques about whether climate can be
distinguished from job satisfaction (e.g., Guion, 1973). Nevertheless, this
research suggests that the examination of configurations of climate can
help organizational management understand how best to distribute its
limited resources to maximize its desired outcomes and, further, that the
creation of a climate for well-being may well pay off because it provides
a foundation on which a strategic climate may be built.
Summary. Molar climate research was a tactic adopted by early re-
searchers to try to capture the total meaning of organizations to people.
It seems that researchers took all of what they knew about contextual
issues that might be important to people at work and measured them
simultaneously, submitted those measures to factor analysis and, voilà,
a measure of the dimensions of molar climate was evident. There was
nothing inherently wrong in this approach, we suppose, except that (a)
it lacked a conceptual foundation and (b) did not correlate well directly
with important organizationally relevant outcomes. Later work suggested
that such a molar climate and its dimensions might represent a climate
for well-being and as such could serve as a foundation for more focused
work on climate, a topic to which we turn next.

Focused Climates

Although Schneider’s (1975b) essay on climate is perhaps the most often

cited as beginning the push toward studying climate with a particular
focus, the conceptual roots of the idea go further back. We already men-
tioned these in the previous chapter, but it may be instructive to sum-
marize the various instances of this notion of focus for climate research
and practice here in one place. Starting with the earliest pioneers in the
field, there is evidence of interest in specific climates; for instance, Lewin
and colleagues (1939) studied the social climate created by various lev-
els of participation by leaders, Fleishman (1953) was interested in how
the leadership climate affected the extent to which training was trans-
ferred to the job, and McGregor (1960) described how the Theory X or
Theory Y assumptions of management create a managerial climate for
the supervisor-subordinate relationship. In addition, Argyris (1957) used
the term “human relations climate,” and in his 1958 paper, discussed
how management can create the particular climate it desires by hiring
the “right type” of employees who would contribute to such a climate.
Christie and Merton (1958, as cited in Tagiuri, 1968a) discussed a cli-
mate of values, and Pelz and Andrews (1966) focused on productive
86 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

climates. Among the chapters in the Bradford (1964) edited book on

T-Groups can be found references to a climate of permissiveness and
inquiry, a climate for trust formation, defensive climates, and defense-
reductive climates. Pace (1968), when discussing how climates can be
focused on a particular criterion of interest, noted a variety of climates
that researchers could study, including “the climate for research, the cli-
mate for profit, the climate for innovation, the climate for happiness, the
climate for learning, or the climate for productivity” (p. 144). As a final
example, Frederiksen and colleagues (1972) studied two specific types
of climate: innovation versus rules (what we might call a climate for in-
novation), and global supervision versus detailed supervision (what we
might call a climate for autonomy).
In 1975, Schneider made the most concerted argument for the ben-
efits of the focused climate perspective, describing how a number of the
criticisms of the climate construct are resolved when climate has a focus.
For instance, when climate has a focus, it is less similar to attitudinal
measures because the questions are more clearly a description of what
is going on in the organization with regard to a specific strategic goal,
and less about the individual’s personal level of affect toward the organi-
zation. Furthermore, whereas research on molar climate can sometimes
come across as a compilation of various other organizational and group
processes, studying focused climates creates a stronger distinction be-
tween the climate literature and those other literatures. The questions in
focused climate studies involve how those processes (e.g., leadership or
teamwork) relate to a particular strategic outcome, which also narrows
the dimensions of climate to those that are most relevant for predic-
tion of the outcome of interest—and are perhaps most useful in practice.
Finally, the relationship between climate and outcomes is substantially
strengthened. Instead of trying to link the general positive or negative
response individuals have about their organization to specific outcomes,
climate items are created that ask about the policies and procedures as
they relate to those specific outcomes. As a result, the relationships be-
tween focused climate and those outcomes are generally stronger, both
conceptually and empirically—and practically more useful, too, because
of their specificity.
Perhaps an example or two will make the issue more tangible. A molar
climate item representing the support dimension might read: “The man-
ager of my unit provides us the support we need to do our work.” An
item focused on a specific outcome, also representing support, might
read: “The manager of my unit provides us with the tools, equipment,
and resources we need to provide excellent service to customers.” So,
the item goes from molar generic “support” to focused specific kinds of
support. As a result, the responses give more information about how the
employees perceive that the organization is addressing specific strategic
objectives, rather than how they are being treated in general.
At its core, the focused climate concept is about alignment. If the
various facets of the organization in terms of its policies, practices,
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 87

procedures, reward systems, and so on, send a consistent message about

a particular issue of interest (e.g., fairness, ethics) or outcome (e.g., ser-
vice quality, safety), then employees have a greater chance of receiving a
clear message about what is valued in the organization (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004). In other words, it is not one single practice or policy that makes
the difference, but instead the alignment of many practices and policies
that sends a gestalt message to employees about what is important to the
organization’s success. Because of this alignment, employees will be more
likely to behave in ways that are consistent with that climate, resulting in
improved outcomes.
The two focused climates with the most developed literatures are
service climate and safety climate. In addition to those two, a number
of other focused climates have been proposed and studied in the litera-
ture. Examples include climate for innovation (Abbey & Dickson, 1983;
Anderson  & West, 1998; King, de Chermont, West, Dawson,  & Hebl,
2007), justice climate (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Ehrhart, 2004;
Naumann & Bennett, 2000), ethical climate (Mayer, Kuenzi, & Green-
baum, 2009; Victor  & Cullen, 1987, 1988), diversity climate (Herd-
man  & McMilan-Capehart, 2010; McKay, Avery,  & Morris, 2008; Mor
Barak, Cherin,  & Berkman, 1998), climate for initiative (Baer  & Frese,
2003; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010), equal opportunity climate
(Walsh, Matthews, Tuller, Parks,  & McDonald, 2010), climate for sex-
ual harassment (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand,  & Magley, 1997;
Gettman & Gelfand, 2007), climate for transfer of training (Rouiller &
Goldstein, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanaugh, 1995), climate for
burnout (Moliner, Martinez-Tur, Peiró, Ramos, & Cropanzano, 2005), cli-
mate for industrial relations (Dastmalchian, 2008), emotional climate
(Levine, 2010), leadership climate (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Schyns & Van
Veldhoven, 2010), and technical updating climate (Kozlowski & Hults,
1987). Although we do not provide a review of the literature on each
of these specific focused climates, we have selected a few as exemplars
and provide a more in-depth review of them below. In addition, we draw
from the literatures on some of these specific focused climates as we dis-
cuss some of the major themes in climate research throughout the rest
of this chapter.
Before doing so, we make some more general observations about the
literature on focused climates. One issue that we have emphasized in
previous writings (Schneider, Ehrhart,  & Macey, 2011a, 2011b) is that
focused climates can be divided into two general categories of strate-
gic climates and process climates. Strategic climates involve the extent
to which the organization’s environment emphasizes a specific strategic
outcome that can usually be measured by external criteria. Examples
include service climate, safety climate, or innovation climate. Process cli-
mates, in contrast, are focused instead on internal processes that occur
in organizations as a part of daily organizational functioning. Exam-
ples include procedural justice climate and ethical climate. Kuenzi and
Schminke (2009) have also categorized various focused climates. They
88 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

used Katz and Kahn’s (1966) types of motivational patterns to create

four general categories of focused climates: climates focused on behav-
ioral guidance (e.g., ethics and justice), climates focused on involvement
(e.g., participation, support, and empowerment), climates focused on de-
velopment (e.g., innovation and creativity), and climates focused on core
operations (e.g., service and safety).
Regardless of whose classification scheme one adopts, these attempts
at organizing the focused climate literature should be useful to better
understand how focused climates can function in different ways and
toward different processes and outcomes in organizations. For instance,
we have argued that process climates like fairness and ethics and diver-
sity may contribute to employees’ perceptions of the molar climate for
well-being, which in turn form a foundation for strategic climates that
are more proximal predictors of key organizational outcomes (Schneider
et al., 2011a). In other words, policies and practices in organizations cre-
ate the process climates that serve as a foundation on which the policies
and practices necessary for strategic climates can be built. This makes
process climates mediators in producing important organizational out-
comes as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 is another variation on what we noted earlier with regard
to molar climate serving as a foundation for strategic climates. We pro-
posed there that molar climates might represent a climate for well-being
and that such a climate could offer a foundation on which organizations
might build a strategic climate. Recall that this climate for well-being
was not the cause of strategic climate but a foundation on which such
a climate might be built. Figure 3.1 proposes that process-focused cli-
mates (like fairness and ethics and diversity) similarly offer a foundation
on which more strategic climates can be built—the process climates do
not cause the strategic climates but provide a (receptive) foundation on
which they can be built. In other words, when employees experience

Strategic
climates:

Policies and * Service

practices that * Safety
* Innovation
produce
Process strategic
climates: climates
Policies and * Fairness
practices that * Ethics
* Diversity
produce
process
climates

Figure 3.1 The mediating role of process climates in producing strategic

outcomes
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 89

their environment as fair and ethical and as valuing diversity, they may
be more receptive to management’s attempts to create and maintain a
strategic focus for employee effort and behavior.
To give some insight into how research on focused climates has de-
veloped over the years, we next give a brief overview of research on
four focused climates—two strategic (service and safety) and two process
(justice and diversity)—that have arguably received the most research
attention.
Service climate. The first research explicitly on service climate from
the employee’s perspective was by Schneider, Parkington, and Buxton
(1980). However, two prior studies by Schneider laid the groundwork
for that 1980 study. One was Schneider (1973), in which service climate
was studied from the customer’s perspective, with customer account
switching being one of the primary outcomes of interest. The second
was a paper by Parkington and Schneider (1979); though it was not
framed as a climate study, one of the primary variables was employees’
views of management’s service orientation, and held many similarities to
contemporary focused climate measures. They found that the larger the
discrepancy between employees’ service orientation and employees’ per-
ceptions of management’s service orientation (in effect, the fit between
the employees’ service orientation and the service climate), the more
employees reported role ambiguity and role conflict.
Those studies formed the foundation for the research by Schneider
and colleagues (1980), which examined the usefulness of employees’
perceptions of service-related practices and procedures (i.e., service cli-
mate) for predicting customer perceptions of service quality in a sample
of 23 bank branches. Their research included three primary dimensions
of service climate: managerial function (the extent to which manage-
ment emphasized service through its planning and goal setting), effort
rewarded (the extent to which employee efforts to deliver quality ser-
vice were rewarded), and an emphasis on retaining customers (the ex-
tent to which there were active efforts within the branches to retain its
customers). At the branch level of analysis, correlations between these
dimensions of service climate and customer perceptions of service qual-
ity ranged from 0.54 to 0.71, providing strong support for the validity of
studying climate with a specific focus (in this case, service) for predicting
outcomes related to that focus (in this case, customer experiences of ser-
vice quality). This study also set the groundwork for later service climate
research by also investigating the extent to which employees reported
receiving support from the extra-branch systems within the banking
system as a whole. They found that personnel support and equipment/
supply support were two systems that were significantly related to cus-
tomer perceptions of service quality, although not as strongly as the
branch service climate dimensions (0.46 and 0.50, respectively). Later
research on service climate would characterize these support functions as
providing a critical foundation for the development of a service climate
(Schneider et al., 1998).
90 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

Another interesting finding by Schneider and colleagues (1980) was

that employee satisfaction, and particularly employee job satisfaction,
had weaker and for the most part nonsignificant relationships with cus-
tomer experiences of service quality compared to the service climate
dimensions. These findings point to the distinction between descriptive
reports of climate and affect-laden satisfaction scales, and to the stron-
ger validity for climate for predicting outcomes. Methodologically, this
research set the standard for much of the service climate research to
follow. First, items were worded with the branch or branch manager as
the referent. Second, scales for the dimensions of service climate were
aggregated to the branch level of analysis, and the service climate items
themselves all referenced service as a focus of the climate. Third, the au-
thors reported an analysis of variance across the branch level data reveal-
ing a significant branch effect, supporting their aggregation to the branch
level. Finally, the outcome data came from a different source (customer
experiences also aggregated to the branch level of analysis) than the pre-
dictor data (employee experiences of service climate).
Subsequent research by Schneider and colleagues replicated and ex-
tended these findings. For instance, Schneider and Bowen (1985) were
able to replicate both the role stress findings from Parkington and Schnei-
der (1979) and the service climate findings from Schneider and col-
leagues (1980) for the dimensions of branch management and customer
attention/retention. They were also able to show that human resource
practices, and in particular the removal of obstacles that prevent work-
ers from performing effectively (or work facilitation), were significantly
related to customer service outcomes. Schneider and colleagues (1998)
explicitly labeled work facilitation (including leadership, participation,
computer support, and training) and interdepartment service as founda-
tion issues that serve as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the
presence of a service climate. They were able to show that those founda-
tion issues had indirect effects on customer perceptions of service quality
through their relationship with service climate. In addition, using a cross-
lagged panel analysis, they showed that not only does service climate
seem to have a causal effect on customer perceptions of service quality,
but customer perceptions of service quality also have a reciprocal effect
on service climate.
Following up with a study of grocery store departments, Schneider,
Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, and Niles-Jolly (2005) found support for a me-
diated path model with service leadership predicting service climate,
which then predicted customer-focused organizational citizenship be-
havior (OCB), which then predicted customer satisfaction, which then
predicted unit sales. Their research indicated that, along with a focused
climate (in their case, service climate), focused leadership (in their case,
service leadership) was important to establish a service climate. In ad-
dition, the inclusion of customer-focused OCB demonstrated that it
is through the behaviors of employees, specifically their efforts to go
above and beyond the call of duty, that service climate has its effects
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 91

on customer satisfaction and, ultimately, sales. More recently, Schneider,

Macey, Lee, and Young (2009) extended some of these key findings to
the organizational level of analysis. On a sample of 44 companies over a
three-year lag, they demonstrated that organizational service climate was
related to customer satisfaction, and that service climate had an indirect
effect on company financial performance (market value) through cus-
tomer satisfaction.
One might get the impression that only Schneider and his colleagues
have studied this relationship, but that would be incorrect. Numerous
other researchers have contributed to the service climate literature and,
at least in what has been published, the link between service climate and
customer experiences/satisfaction appears robust and reliable (Cooil,
Aksoy, Keiningham,  & Marytott, 2009; Dean, 2004; Yagil, 2008). Re-
search on this connection between service climate and customer experi-
ences and satisfaction was labeled as “linkage research” by Wiley (1996),
and he has extended the linkage idea to all manner of links between
employee survey data and outcomes of interest in and to companies. For
example, in a recent book, Wiley (2010) revealed not only links between
employee surveys and customer satisfaction, but also to employee turn-
over and to corporate performance. Other research has examined the
strength of service climate’s relationship to service performance relative
to other variables. For instance, Way, Sturman, and Raab (2010) con-
trasted the effects of job satisfaction and service climate on supervisor
ratings of group service performance behaviors (group task performance
and OCB) vis-à-vis service quality. They found a significantly weaker
connection between job satisfaction and job performance than for ser-
vice climate and job performance. In addition, Liao and Chuang (2004)
found that service climate predicted individual-level service performance
above and beyond the personality of service providers. Research exam-
ining the antecedents of service climate has expanded the leadership
variables shown to predict service climate to include transformational
leadership (Liao & Chuang, 2007) and servant leadership (Walumbwa,
Peterson, Avolio, & Hartnell, 2010). Further research has revealed that
service climate fully mediates the effects of organizational resources
and work engagement on employee performance and customer loyalty
(Salanova, Agut,  & Peiró, 2005), and that service climate mediates the
relationship between high performance work practices and service per-
formance (Chuang & Liao, 2010).
A meta-analysis by Hong, Liao, Hu, and Jiang (2013) provides a nice
summary of some of the key findings in the service climate literature
and reinforces many of the themes we have emphasized up to this point.
In terms of antecedents, they showed that both leadership and human
resources (HR) practices (in line with the foundation issues discussed
above) predicted service climate, with the important twist that service-
oriented leadership and service-oriented HR practices were stronger pre-
dictors than more general versions of either antecedent. Service climate
was found to predict service performance (including task performance
92 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

and OCB) as well as employee attitudes, which subsequently predicted

customer satisfaction and financial outcomes (although they found a di-
rect path from service climate to financial outcomes as well). Finally, the
type of service moderated the relationship between service climate and
outcomes, such that there was a stronger relationship for personal ser-
vices (e.g., salons or restaurants) than nonpersonal services (e.g., banking
or insurance).
In sum, service climate at both the unit (e.g., bank branches, super-
market departments) and organization levels of analysis has repeatedly
revealed significant relationships with customer experiences/satisfaction
as well as unit and organizational performance and financial indicators.
There are also studies that show (a) service climate is a stronger predictor
of performance than is job satisfaction or service provider personality, (b)
service climate is a stronger predictor of customer satisfaction than are
indices of HR practices, and (c) service climate mediates the effects of
a number of organizational processes (e.g., leadership, engagement, high
performance work practices) on service-related outcomes. Thus, focus
seems to work in climate research; additional support for that conclusion
comes from the work on safety climate to be considered next.
Safety climate. Research on safety climate began with a study by
Zohar in 1980. Based on a review of the safety literature at the time,
he developed a 40-item measure that covered eight dimensions of local
safety practices: importance of safety training programs, management at-
titudes toward safety, effects of safe conduct on promotion, level of risk
at the workplace, effects of required work pace on safety, status of the
safety officer, effects of safe conduct on social status, and status of safety
committee. As in the service climate work, the focus of the items and di-
mensions was on the outcome of interest—in this case safety. So, it is not
the importance of training programs that is the issue but the importance
of safety training programs. On a sample of 20 factories across multiple
industries, Zohar showed that safety climate was significantly related to
the overall safety level across the factories based on independent ratings
of safe behavior by safety inspectors.
The literature on safety climate was relatively quiet for most of the
1980s and into the 1990s, with some exceptions in journals specifically
focused on safety issues (e.g.,  Brown  & Holmes, 1986; Dedobbeleer  &
Béland, 1991). However, as interest in multilevel issues was gaining mo-
mentum in the late 1990s, research on safety climate began to appear
in top journals in I/O psychology and management. For instance, Hof-
mann and Stetzer (1996) found that safety climate was related to both
individual-level unsafe behaviors and to the frequency of accidents at the
group level, and their later research revealed that higher levels of safety
climate were associated with increased tendencies to make internal at-
tributions about the causes of accidents (Hofmann  & Stetzer, 1998).
Shortly thereafter, Zohar (2000) demonstrated the link between safety
climate and objective measures of group-level injury rates, and Griffin
and Neal (2000) showed that safety knowledge and motivation mediate
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 93

the relationship between individual-level perceptions of safety climate

and two types of safety behavior (safety compliance and safety participa-
tion). These studies provided a strong foundation for the future study of
safety climate, and interest in the topic has increased considerably since
that time.
In much the same way that the relationship between service climate
and service-related outcomes has been consistently validated, the rela-
tionship between safety climate and safety outcomes (e.g.,  accidents,
injuries) has received consistent support as well. For instance, in their re-
cent meta-analysis, Christian, Bradley, Wallace, and Burke (2009) demon-
strated that group-level safety climate had a mean corrected correlation
of 0.39 with accidents and injuries. A subsequent meta-analysis by Beus
and colleagues (2010) also showed support for the predictive relation-
ship between safety climate and injuries and found that the strength of
the relationship for injuries predicting safety climate was slightly stron-
ger (a corrected correlation of 0.29 versus 0.24). Beus and colleagues
concluded that this finding demonstrates the dynamic nature of safety
climate, and how workers may recalibrate their perceptions of safety cli-
mate based on the occurrence of injuries. They observed that the stron-
ger relationship for injuries predicting safety climate could be because of
the direct link between the two, whereas the effects of safety climate on
injuries are likely mediated by safety behaviors. One additional finding
from these meta-analyses is worth noting. Both studies found that the
relationship with accidents and injuries was much stronger for unit-level
safety climate versus individual-level (or psychological) safety climate,
despite the fact that both studies found many more studies of psycholog-
ical climate than organizational climate (approximately twice as many in
the Christian et al., 2009, meta-analysis). This finding is consistent with
our emphasis throughout this book that climate is best conceptualized
as a unit-level variable.
Beyond the relationship between safety climate and accidents/injuries,
the construct has been studied in a variety of different ways and in relation
to a variety of other safety-related variables over the years. For example,
Probst, Brubaker, and Barsotti (2008) demonstrated that safety climate
is also related to the reporting of accidents, with underreporting being
much more likely in poor safety climates. Many different antecedents of
safety climate have been identified, including general transformational
leadership (Zohar, 2002; Zohar  & Tenne-Gazit, 2008), safety-specific
transformational leadership (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002), trans-
actional leadership (Zohar, 2002), the safety climate of higher organi-
zational levels (Zohar & Luria, 2005), and both management-employee
relations and organizational support (Wallace, Popp, & Mondore, 2006).
Safety climate has also been studied as a moderator on individual-level
relationships, including Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras’s (2003) re-
search demonstrating that leader-member exchange (LMX) resulted in
expanded safety citizenship role definitions when safety climate levels
were high, and Probst’s (2004) study showing that the negative effects of
94 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

job insecurity on safety outcomes were attenuated by safety climate. In

addition, the effects of safety climate at the unit level have been shown
to be strengthened when the complexity of the work was high (Hof-
mann & Mark, 2006).
Methodologically, safety climate research has been extended beyond
standard survey approaches to include the use of safety scripts (i.e., sce-
narios in which supervisors must report on their decisions at key points)
as a proxy for supervisory practices (Zohar & Luria, 2004) and to include
the role of communication and friendship networks in understanding
safety climate level and strength (Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008). Finally,
from a theoretical perspective, the safety climate literature (and particu-
larly Zohar’s work) has had a substantial effect on the larger literature
on organizational climate through the emphasis on the role of relative
priorities in establishing an organizational climate, the differential role
that policies, practices, and procedures play in climate research and prac-
tice, and in the interrelationships among climate and safety indicants
across levels of the organization (Zohar  & Hofmann, 2012; Zohar  &
Luria, 2005).
Justice climate. At the same time that the literatures on service cli-
mate and safety climate were experiencing sharp increases in attention
in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the literature on justice climate began
with research by Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin (1998) and Naumann
and Bennett (2000). Although Mossholder and colleagues (1998) did not
study climate per se, their research on procedural justice context formed
the basis for the future development of the area. They were able to dem-
onstrate that aggregated perceptions of the procedural justice context
predicted job satisfaction beyond the effects of individuals’ procedural
justice perceptions. Naumann and Bennett (2000) built on that work
and were the first to use the term “procedural justice climate,” defin-
ing it as “a distinct group-level cognition about how a work group as
a whole is treated” (p. 882). They were also among the first to study
climate strength, although they referred to it as procedural justice climate
agreement. They found that both work group cohesion and supervisor
visibility in demonstrating procedural justice predicted increased agree-
ment about procedural justice climate, and that the level of procedural
justice climate predicted individual-level helping behaviors beyond the
effects of individual procedural justice perceptions.
Since those initial studies, the literature on justice climate has ex-
panded greatly. Perhaps most notably, it has expanded beyond a focus
on procedural justice to include climates focused on distributive, inter-
personal, and informational justice (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2010; Liao &
Rupp, 2005; Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007; Simons & Rob-
erson, 2003). Research has revealed that the predictors of these vari-
ous justice climates include team size and team collectivism (Colquitt
et al., 2002), servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa, Hartnell, &
Oke, 2010), and leader personality (Mayer et al., 2007). In terms of out-
comes, justice climate has been shown to predict unit-level turnover and
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 95

customer satisfaction (Simons & Roberson, 2003), team performance and

absenteeism (Colquitt et al., 2002), and unit-level citizenship behavior
(Ehrhart, 2004). At the individual level, justice climate has been shown
to predict outcomes like job attitudes and individual citizenship behavior
(Liao & Rupp, 2005; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Walumbwa, Hartnell, &
Oke, 2010), with some of those effects being moderated by both in-
dividual (justice orientation; Liao  & Rupp, 2005) and structural attri-
butes (group power distance; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007). Finally,
the moderating effects of justice climate itself have been studied with
regard to individual justice perceptions predicting job attitudes (e.g., job
satisfaction and commitment; Mayer et al., 2007); individual work group
identification and professional commitment predicting employee silence
(i.e., withholding work-relevant information; Tangirala  & Ramanujam,
2008); and LMX differentiation at the store level predicting individual-
level attitudes and withdrawal behavior (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010).
Whitman and colleagues’ (2012) meta-analysis of the justice climate
literature provides a useful summary of the empirical findings on the
topic. They showed overall justice climate (collapsing across dimensions)
was significantly related to overall unit effectiveness as well as to each
of its components (attitudes, processes, performance, and withdrawal).
Furthermore, distributive justice climate had a stronger relationship with
performance outcomes (like customer satisfaction or productivity) than
either procedural or interactional justice climate, and that interactional
justice climate had a stronger relationship with unit process outcomes
(like cohesion and unit-level OCB) than either distributive justice cli-
mate or procedural justice climate. In terms of moderators, the relation-
ships with effectiveness were stronger for units with greater climate
strength, for units lower in the organizational hierarchy (teams versus
branches or organizations), and when a unit-level referent was used for
measuring justice climate.
Beyond empirical reviews of justice climate, a number of theoretical
and review articles and chapters have appeared over the years, includ-
ing those by Roberson and Colquitt (2005); Colquitt, Zapata-Phelan,
and Roberson (2005); Rupp, Bashshur, and Liao (2007a, 2007b); Li and
Cropanzano (2009); and Mayer and Kuenzi (2010). The level of inter-
est in justice climate demonstrated by the rapid pace of research on the
construct and the sizeable number of review articles (particularly relative
to other focus climates) is likely due to the field of organizational justice
being fairly large and relatively mature in its development, which has
resulted in an influx of justice researchers interested in issues related to
organizational climate. This development has been and will likely con-
tinue to be beneficial to the field of organizational climate, as the push
to better understand justice climate will further refine and develop our
understanding of organizational climate more generally. For instance,
Roberson and Colquitt (2005) developed a model specifying social net-
work characteristics that lead to justice climate, possible barriers that can
prevent the convergence of justice perceptions within a team, and how
96 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

different configurable patterns of justice can result as an alternative to a

consistent, shared team climate. Such rich, theoretical insights not only
are useful for research on justice climate, but also provide for thoughtful
insights of issues of relevance to the entire field.
Diversity climate. Although it has not received the same attention as
justice climate, research on diversity climate has received growing at-
tention and will likely continue to do so in the years to come. The early
influences on the development of the diversity climate construct were
Cox’s (1993) book in which he presented his interactional model of
cultural diversity, and Kossek and Zonia’s (1993) empirical research on
perceptions of diversity climate among university faculty. Other highly
cited early examples of diversity climate research include Mor Barak,
Cherin, and Berkman’s (1998) study of demographic differences in di-
versity climate perceptions of employees in an electronics company, and
Hicks-Clark and Iles’s (2000) study of the antecedents and outcomes of
diversity climate perceptions in a UK sample.
Despite the progress of early research on the topic, there were some
problems. One was that there was a tendency with the early scales to mix
the referent of the items, such that some would ask about the individual’s
own views and experiences, and others would ask about management
or the organization as a whole as the frame of reference. Furthermore,
those individually referenced items often asked about the individual’s
beliefs and attitudes, and not about the organization’s policies, practices,
and procedures. For example, Mor Barak and colleagues’ (1998) scale in-
cluded a personal dimension (in addition to the organization dimension)
with items like “I think diverse viewpoints add value” (personal diversity
value factor) and “I feel at ease with people from backgrounds others than
my own” (personal comfort factor). Another issue was the tendency for
early research to focus on individual perceptions of diversity climate (or
psychological diversity climate) with individual level correlates of those
perceptions rather than to aggregate the data to higher levels of analy-
sis. As a result, the research addressed how individuals perceived their
organization and how their demographic attributes or their other job
attitudes were related to those perceptions, but provided little insight
into the organizational climate for diversity, including how units differed
in diversity climate, how those shared perceptions came to develop, and
what the implications of a diversity climate were for organizational or
unit performance.
Some of the shortcomings of early diversity climate research have now
been addressed, particularly with regard to investigating diversity climate
at the unit level of analysis. For instance, McKay and colleagues (2008)
showed that White-Black and White-Hispanic differences in sales perfor-
mance were moderated by diversity climate. For Whites and Hispanics,
the gap found in sales performance in less supportive diversity climates
almost completely disappeared in more supportive diversity climates. In
addition, the gap between Whites and Blacks not only vanished in sup-
portive diversity climates relative to less supportive diversity climates,
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 97

but Blacks had higher sales performance than Whites did when the di-
versity climate was more supportive. Another study by the same authors
(McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009) examined the interaction between ag-
gregate employee perceptions of diversity climate and manager percep-
tions of diversity climate in predicting sales growth in retail stores. They
demonstrated that the highest sales growth was found for stores in which
both employees and managers reported that the diversity climate levels
were high. In a final example, also with a retail sample, McKay, Avery,
Liao, and Morris (2011) examined the effects of both diversity climate
and service climate on customer satisfaction. They showed that diver-
sity climate’s relationship with customer satisfaction was strongest when
both service climate levels and minority representation were high.
The research by McKay and colleagues has been important for the de-
velopment of our understanding of diversity climate beyond individual-
level perceptions. Of course, other researchers have also contributed to
this topic. For example, Pugh and colleagues (2008) showed in a bank
sample that the racial composition of the branch was related to the branch
diversity climate (or in other words, that branch diversity served as a signal
for the diversity climate) only when the diversity of the surrounding com-
munity was low. Another example is Herdman and McMilan-Capehart’s
(2010) study of the antecedents of diversity climate in a sample of hotels.
They found that the presence of diversity programs predicted diversity
climate, and that this relationship was moderated by both managerial
racio-ethnic diversity and managerial relational values, such that diversity
programs were more predictive of diversity climate when either of these
moderators was high. A  final example of research on diversity climate
comes from Gonzalez and DeNisi (2009), who showed in a restaurant
sample that racial/ethnic heterogeneity had a positive relationship with
restaurant-level performance outcomes when diversity climate levels
were high, but a negative relationship when diversity climate levels were
low. For gender diversity, performance was found to be highest when di-
versity climate levels were high and gender heterogeneity was at moderate
levels. What is most impressive about this research and that of McKay
and colleagues (2009, 2011) is the relationships that have been revealed
for diversity climate with unit-level customer satisfaction and financial
performance indicators. We think these results are important not only for
future research on diversity climate, but also for future work on all fo-
cused climates by demonstrating that organizations may benefit the most
when they pay attention to both the critical strategic and process climates
simultaneously.
Summary. The focused climate approach has become the dominant
approach to studying climate in the organizational sciences. Moving from
foundational work on service and safety climate, the focused climate con-
struct has now been applied to countless areas as a way of demonstrating
how the environment created by management can create a shared per-
ception throughout the group or organization about what the imperative
is of the unit and the processes that define it. As the use of the construct
98 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

has grown and been applied in different areas, new insights have been
gained about the various roles of climate in organizations and the vari-
ous arenas in which the concept of organizational climate may be ap-
plied, such as justice and diversity. At the same time, increased interest
in the climate construct has brought with it some applications that do
not necessarily align with the most commonly accepted definitions of
climate. For instance, there is a tendency in organizational research to
use the term climate whenever an individual level variable is aggregated
to the unit level of analysis without any effort to ensure that the con-
struct aligns with accepted definitions of climate. Despite the need for
more precision in the use of the climate label, we are excited about the
future possibilities for research on focused climates and particularly for
how multiple focused climates work simultaneously in organizations (cf.
Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009).

CLIMATE STRENGTH

A more recent development in the study of organizational climate re-

search has been to focus on variability in climate perceptions as a vari-
able in its own right. Whereas focused climate research addresses the
alignment of policies and practices around a specific process or outcome,
climate strength research assesses the extent to which the perceptions
of employees within a unit are aligned with each other. Although the
empirical study of climate strength did not emerge until the late 1990s,
the more general idea of studying variability in employee perceptions or
behavior has roots that go back a half century or more. For example, Katz
and Kahn (1966) discussed research on group cohesiveness by Seashore
(1954) that showed that employees’ reports on group cohesiveness cor-
related directly with observations of the variability of behavior within
the group. Furthermore, Seashore found that highly cohesive groups
were higher in performance when they accepted the organization’s goals.
In other words, when employees are aligned with each other within the
unit (they are cohesive), and the unit as a whole is aligned with the orga-
nization (they accept the organization’s goals), then productivity will be
high. Research by Mischel (1968, 1973) also formed a foundation for the
study of climate strength, particularly his idea that situations vary in the
extent to which they are weak or strong (see Meyer & Dalal, 2009; and
Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010, for recent extensions of Mischel’s work;
we will return to the idea of situational strength later in this chapter
when we discuss research on climate as a moderator).
In the climate literature, some of the earliest thinking related to the
concept of climate strength can be found in Evan (1968), who addressed
two implications of variability in climate perceptions. He noted that
when within-unit consensus about climate was lower, changing the cli-
mate should be easier. In addition, he suggested that in organizations
where between-unit variability on climate perceptions was high that
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 99

conflict levels are likely to be higher within that organization because its
units share less in their perceptions—they have less in common. At the
same time these early hints about the usefulness of focusing on variabil-
ity within units existed, there were people (like Guion, 1973) who ar-
gued that a climate construct without very great agreement within units
was not a viable construct. Although Payne and colleagues (1976) argued
that means with less than 100% agreement could still be valid and that
a lack of agreement could be meaningful, as we showed earlier climate
researchers devoted their energies to the design of measures that could
be defended in terms of aggregation. In other words, dispersion/variance
should be fought against since it would deny the usefulness of aggrega-
tion, and aggregation had to be defended! It took agreement on how to
defend aggregation before the study of dispersion/variability, in addition
to the study of aggregate means, became possible in climate research.
Contemporary thinking on climate strength has been influenced by
Chan’s (1998) inclusion of dispersion models as one of several possible
composition models in multilevel organizational research, which helped
researchers consider aggregate level concepts not only in terms of means,
but in terms of variability as well. Around that same time, empirical re-
search on climate strength began to appear with studies by Bliese and
Halverson (1998) on leadership climate consensus and by Naumann and
Bennett (2000) on procedural justice climate agreement. Perhaps most
influential was Lindell and Brandt’s (2000) study of what they referred to
as climate consensus in local emergency planning committees. Although
they also hypothesized main effects for climate strength, the more influ-
ential aspect of their paper was the proposition that the effects of climate
quality (or level) on outcomes would be moderated by climate strength,
such that the relationship would be stronger when climate strength was
stronger. The underlying idea for climate strength as a moderator is that
high consensus (low variability within units) provides for a more reliable
mean and with a more reliable mean, there should be greater validity
in relationship with outcomes. Although this idea became foundational
for subsequent climate strength research, Lindell and Brandt (2000) ac-
tually found little support for the moderating role of climate strength,
especially when predicting organizational-level outcomes. Some possible
reasons for failures to find such moderation effects for climate strength
will be explored later.
Despite this lukewarm empirical support for the importance of cli-
mate strength, interest in the concept has grown. Research on climate
strength has focused on molar climate, like Lindell and Brandt (2000;
see also González-Romá, Peiró,  & Tordera, 2002; and González-Romá,
Fortes-Ferreira, & Peiró, 2009), as well as a number of focused climates,
including procedural justice climate (e.g.,  Naumann  & Bennett, 2000;
Colquitt et al., 2002), service climate (e.g., Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subi-
rats, 2002), and safety climate (e.g., Zohar & Luria, 2004, 2005). Below,
we summarize some of the major research findings on the topic of cli-
mate strength.
100 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

Predictors of climate strength. One of the main goals of research on

climate strength has been to clarify what factors contribute to the de-
velopment of strong climates in work units; a summary of the findings
is presented in Table 3.4. For example, Colquitt and colleagues (2002)
found that team size and team diversity were negatively related to pro-
cedural justice climate strength, such that larger and more diverse teams
had weaker climates. Climates have also been found to be stronger when
within-unit social interaction was high (González-Romá et  al., 2002),
when the unit’s social networks were more dense (Roberson & William-
son, 2012; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008), when unit members performed
more sense-making activities (Roberson, 2006a), when units were more
interdependent and had higher group identification (Roberson, 2006b),
when units were more cohesive (Luria, 2008; Naumann  & Bennett,
2000), and when average unit tenure was higher (Beus, Bergman,  &
Payne, 2010). Of all the issues that might influence climate strength, the
most commonly studied has been leadership. Researchers have shown
that units have stronger climates when leaders are described as higher on
providing information (González-Romá et al., 2002), have more straight-
forward and less variable behavior patterns (Zohar & Luria, 2004), and
are more transformational (Luria, 2008; Zohar & Luria, 2004; Zohar &
Tenne-Gazit, 2008).
In summary, the take-home message from the research on the corre-
lates/antecedents of climate strength is clear: When work units interact
more, communicate more, and are more interdependent, and when lead-
ers communicate more and share a clear strategic vision for the work,
then the climate in those units will be stronger. These findings are con-
sistent with the idea from Bowen and Ostroff (2004) that consistency in
the message being sent is critical to how HR practices can have a positive
effect in organizations and what they wish to achieve.
Outcomes of climate strength. Climate strength has been found to
have both a direct effect on outcomes as well as a moderator effect on

TABLE 3.4 Research findings on the conditions that promote higher climate
strength

Climates tend to be stronger when:

• work units are smaller
• work units are more cohesive
• there is high within-unit social interaction
• there is a dense social network
• unit members engage in higher levels of sense making
• units are more interdependent
• average tenure in the unit is high
• leadership provides high levels of information
• leaders are more consistent in their behavior
• leaders are more transformational
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 101

the relationship between climate level and outcomes. Despite Lindell and
Brandt’s (2000) initial findings casting some doubt on the moderating ef-
fect of climate strength, other research has supported such a relationship,
at least in part. For instance, in a sample of automobile parts manufactur-
ing teams, Colquitt and colleagues (2002) found that procedural justice
climate strength moderated the relationship between procedural justice
climate and both performance and absenteeism outcomes. In a sample of
public health service work units, González-Romá and colleagues (2002)
found evidence that climate strength acted as a moderator of the ef-
fects of climate level on unit average levels of satisfaction and average
commitment in half of the interactions they tested. Similarly, Schneider
et al. (2002) found significant moderator effects predicting customer sat-
isfaction from service climate dimensions for a sample of bank branches,
although only for their managerial practices subscale of service climate.
As a final example, in a sample of bank branches González-Romá and
colleagues (2009) found generally strong support for the moderating role
of climate strength across employee-rated, supervisor-rated, and financial
indicators of performance.
Thus, while these studies indicate a trend supporting the moderating
role of climate strength in predicting outcomes, others have not found
support for this relationship (Dawson, González-Romá, Davis, & West,
2008; Lindell  & Brandt, 2000; Rafferty  & Jimmieson, 2010; Sowinski,
Fortmann,  & Lezotte, 2008; Zohar & Luria, 2004). In three of these
papers, significant main effects were found for climate strength. In So-
winski and colleagues (2008), a stronger service climate with regard to
their customer orientation subscale was associated with higher store
profitability, and a stronger service climate with regard to their means
emphasis subscale was associated with lower turnover. In Rafferty and
Jimmieson (2010), change information climate strength was significantly
correlated with the team-level stress and well-being outcomes they stud-
ied. In addition, in Dawson and colleagues (2008), a nonlinear relation-
ship was found between climate strength on the dimension of integration
and overall hospital performance, such that both high and low climate
strength resulted in lower performance relative to moderate climate
strength.
Toward an understanding of the varying findings for climate strength.
So what do we make of these varying findings? For one, we conclude that
climate strength can matter. When management sends a consistent and
clear message by its policies, practices, etc. about what it values, then
it creates a strong situation in which behavioral variability will be rela-
tively reduced (González-Romá et  al., 2009). As a result, employees’
expectations, reactions, and performance will be more consistent. In the
service domain, the consistency of employee performance will result
in less variability in the customer experience, which will then result in
stronger relationships between service climate and customer outcomes
(Schneider et  al., 2002). In the domain of procedural justice climate,
strength could mean that the treatment of employees is more consistent,
102 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

strengthening the relationship between procedural justice climate and

outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2002). It may also mean that process climates
that describe virtuous effects for individuals within the group (i.e., fair-
ness) lead to more frequent opportunities for the observation of those
very processes within the team, reinforcing the perception of the climate.
However, we have to be tentative in what we conclude because this
summary does not explain the lack of consistency in findings of mod-
erator effects across studies for climate strength, studies that have var-
ied according to the type of climate included, the industry studied, the
type of outcomes studied, and more. Explaining differences in findings is
likely tied to these differences in study design, but the explanation is not
straightforward. One issue that is likely crucial is that there needs to be
variability across units in their climate strength to find significant interac-
tion effects. Several of the studies that did not find support for strength as
a moderator seem to have had quite low variability in the level of agree-
ment across units (e.g., Dawson et al., 2008; Sowinski et al., 2008; Zohar &
Luria, 2004). As we noted earlier in this discussion, the focus has been
so much on reducing variability within units to support aggregation that
this is not surprising. The paradox of course is that by reducing within
unit variability, one decreases the probability of finding a moderator ef-
fect for strength! This is because moderators can only be found when
there is high variability in a variable across units—some units have to
have high consensus and others low consensus, but if measures are all
designed to produce high consensus then significant moderators will not
be found.
There may be similar issues that explain why climate strength has di-
rect effects in some circumstances but not in others. Lindell and Brandt
(2000) demonstrated that the relationship between climate level and
the maximum level of variability (i.e., the inverse of climate strength) is
nonlinear and in the shape of an upside down U (see their graph on page
335). What this means is that at the highest and lowest levels of climate
level, variability will be restrained—the only way to get a very high or
very low level of climate is if everyone agrees. In contrast, at intermedi-
ate levels of climate level, the maximum variability is at its highest, for
instance if half of the group reports very high levels of climate and the
other half reports very low levels. (Note that one can have high agree-
ment and moderate levels—it is possible for all employees to report that
the climate is so-so in any given area). So when discussing the relation-
ship between climate level and climate strength, it will likely vary across
samples depending on the range of climate levels represented. If very low
to moderate levels of climate are represented, then the relationship be-
tween climate level and climate strength will likely be negative (the low-
est levels will be very strong and the moderate levels will likely be weaker
on average). If moderate to very high levels of climate are represented,
then the relationship will likely be positive (the moderate levels will be
more likely to have weaker climate strength, with increasing strength as
the level gets more extremely positive). If climate level is in the middle
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 103

of the range, then the effects of level and strength are more likely to be
independent and probably more likely to show independent effects on
outcomes, in addition to increasing the potential for moderator effects.
This conclusion indicates that climate measures should be designed as
much as possible to eliminate very high and/or very low climate levels
because such scores decrease our ability to distinguish the effects of cli-
mate level and climate strength.
Multilevel climate strength research. One interesting issue that we
have not discussed to this point is the role of climate strength at multiple
levels of analysis. In most of the studies of climate strength, the level of
analysis is organizational subunits, such as work groups, bank branches, or
store locations. There are a few examples of studies of climate strength at
the organizational level, including Dickson, Resick, and Hanges’s (2006)
study of climate strength using data from organizations that participated
in the GLOBE study of cross-cultural leadership (House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), and Dawson and colleagues’ (2008) study of
climate strength in hospitals. However, research on climate strength does
not typically cut across these levels (e.g., simultaneously examining the
variability in branches and variability in banks).
One exception is research by Zohar and Luria (2005) on safety climate
strength. They studied three types of climate strength: agreement across
all individuals within the organization (organization climate strength),
agreement across all individuals within groups (group climate strength),
and agreement across groups within the organization (what they called
climate variability). Thus, they captured the dispersion in safety climate
perceptions at the organization level in two ways: one by looking at vari-
ability across individuals and one by looking at variability across groups. In
a sample of almost 4,000 workers nested within just over 400 groups in
36 manufacturing plants, they found that organizational climate strength
was positively related to group climate strength and climate variability,
indicating that when the organization’s top management communicates
a clear message with regard to safety, then supervisors of individual work
groups are able to pass along that message to their groups with clarity
and coherence (group climate strength) in a consistent way through-
out the organization (climate variability). Furthermore, they showed
that routinization-formalization moderated these relationships, such
that the effects of organizational climate strength were stronger when
routinization-formalization was higher due to the decreased range of dis-
cretionary behaviors available to supervisors at lower levels in the organi-
zation, and the resultant consistency across groups within an organization.
More research assessing climate strength across levels of analysis would
make a substantial contribution to our understanding of how climate de-
velops and has its effects in organizations. It may be, for example, that
sometimes it is good to have variability across subunits in an organization
(e.g.,  in the degree to which rules must be followed in an advertising
agency) and sometimes not (as in the issue of subunits following safety
practices). This is an issue in need of additional thinking and research.
104 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

Future research agenda on climate strength. In addition to developing

our understanding of climate strength at multiple levels of analysis, there
are a number of other areas for future research that might prove useful
for the study of climate strength. One area of interest would be the po-
tential negative effects of a strong climate. Studies of climate strength as
a moderator have tended to show that when climate level is low, a strong
climate is a bad thing for outcomes. That is, when climate is negative and
strength is high, all employees agree that it is a negative environment
and, for sure, bad things will follow. Recall that, at the same time, Daw-
son and colleagues (2008) have shown a nonlinear main effect of climate
strength on overall performance in hospitals, and they suggested that in
large organizations like hospitals, a strong climate may indicate that top
management is overly controlling and heavy-handed, limiting the discre-
tion and creativity lower-level employees have in performing their work.
Furthermore, a climate that is too strong could indicate that employees
are too homogeneous and therefore unable to respond to challenges in
innovative ways, which could hurt organizational performance. More re-
search exploring these issues is needed.
It is useful to note that research on strength, generically called re-
search on dispersion models, has also begun to appear in other areas,
most notably in leadership research on LMX (e.g., Henderson, Wayne,
Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Nishii & Mayer, 2009) and transforma-
tional leadership (e.g., Cole & Bedeian, 2007; Spitzmuller & Ilies, 2010).
Given the strong connections between leadership and climate, more re-
search linking agreement about leadership and climate strength would
be of interest. Finally, although researchers have started to focus more on
the optimal approaches for measuring climate strength and other disper-
sion approaches (see Roberson, Sturman,  & Simons, 2007), alternative
approaches would be worth considering. For instance, Payne (2000) dis-
cussed using focus groups to determine the strength of consensus among
employees about climate. A comparison of qualitative approaches along
those lines with quantitative approaches that have become more typical
in the literature might provide some insight about how employees per-
ceive and experience climate strength in their organizations. As we said
earlier, more research on these issues is warranted.
Summary. The study of climate strength has seen significant develop-
ment over the past decade. After the 15–20 years of work on defending
aggregation and striving to get dispersion low within units of analysis, cli-
mate researchers have looked back at the variance they tried to eliminate
as a potential variable of interest. Some progress has been made in un-
derstanding some of the conditions under which variability will be high
versus low (see Table 3.4), including in essence the consistency of the
message sent within a unit about what is important there. However, there
is a lack of good theory about when strength will behave as a moderator
as it is frequently conceptualized to be. Perhaps the best explanation of
failure for strength to be a moderator is that the variance in variability
across units is too low when for a moderator to be significant, variability
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 105

across the units being studied must be relatively high. Nevertheless, from
a practical vantage point, it is clear that a positive and strong climate is
usually superior to a weak climate—and definitely to a negative climate!

OTHER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF

CLIMATE–OUTCOME RELATIONSHIPS

In addition to climate strength, researchers have also been interested

in other potential moderators of the relationship between climate and
outcomes. Although empirical research along these lines has not been
common until the past 5–10 years, the idea that the effects of climate
would vary depending on the situation is not new. Some of the clearest
and most explicit early thinking along these lines was from Hellriegel and
Slocum (1974), who described the issue this way:

The evidence presented . . . suggests that most researchers have not speci-
fied the external environment impinging upon the subsystem, the type of
technology, or the possible interactions of these variables on the individu-
al’s perceptions of his climate. Thus, one might expect the climate in sub-
systems with simple and static environments to be different from that in
subsystems with dynamic and complex environments, and that the criteria
for success operating in these two environments might be considerably dif-
ferent. An effective climate in a simple and static environment may prove
to be dysfunctional in a dynamic and complex environment (p. 277).

In other words, the level of change and complexity in the organization’s

environment could act as a boundary condition or moderator for the ef-
fectiveness of climate, such that some climates will be more appropriate
for certain environments than others.
Another example of thinking along these lines can be found in the
service climate literature. Schneider (1994) suggested that the effective-
ness of service climate vis-à-vis customer satisfaction will depend on
the form of the service climate and its alignment with the organization’s
market segment. Thus, if the organization’s service climate emphasizes
fast and efficient service but customers expect high levels of personal
warmth and customization and do not care about the speed of the ser-
vice, then the climate will not be effective. Therefore, the market seg-
ment being served can act as a boundary condition on the effectiveness
of a specific type of climate (e.g., a service climate) that has developed
in the organization. Indeed, Schneider and Bowen (1995) suggested that
the cafeteria style of service for restaurants would not be effective for all
market segments—even though it is by far the most efficient way to feed
many people in a short period.
In one of the first empirical studies of a climate’s boundary conditions,
Dietz, Pugh, and Wiley (2004) investigated whether the frequency of
customer contact moderated the relationship between service climate
106 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

and customer satisfaction. In a study of 160 bank branches, they showed

that in branches where customers were more frequent visitors, the rela-
tionship between service climate and customer satisfaction was signifi-
cantly more positive than in those branches where customers visited less
frequently. In their research on grocery store departments, Mayer, Ehr-
hart, and Schneider (2009) found similar results to Dietz and colleagues
(2004) by demonstrating that the level of direct customer contact across
departments moderated the relationship between service climate and
customer satisfaction. In addition, Mayer and colleagues (2009) investi-
gated two other moderators: tangibility of the product and service em-
ployee interdependence. Their results revealed that service climate had
a significantly stronger positive relationship with customer satisfaction
when the product was less tangible (which increases the importance of
the quality of the service provided and thus the service climate) and
when the delivery of the service required more coordinated interaction
among employees (which increases the importance for service climate to
make sure all employees are on the same page and working together to-
ward the same goal of delivering high quality service). Finally, in a sample
of bank branches, Ehrhart, Witt, Schneider, and Perry (2011) examined
internal service (provided to branch employees by corporate support
units) as a moderator of the relationship between service climate and
service quality, finding that branches with lower internal service showed
weaker relationships between climate and service quality as compared
to branches with higher internal service. They concluded that internal
service “enables employees to provide service to external customers in
the way they are motivated to deliver it by the service climate they ex-
perience” (p. 428).
In another example from research on strategic climates but in the
domain of safety climate, Hofmann and Mark (2006) investigated the
complexity of the patients’ conditions as a moderator of the relationship
between safety climate and safety outcomes in hospitals. They showed
that safety climate was negatively related to nurses’ back injuries and
medication errors when patient complexity was high, but unrelated
when complexity was low. There seems to be a link between the findings
of this study and some of those on service climate described previously,
in that services are more complex when there is more frequent customer
contact, the product is less tangible, and more coordination is required.
This emphasis on complexity fits well with what Gutek (1995, 2000)
proposed happens in what she calls “service relationships.” Service rela-
tionships are more complex because they are characterized by frequent
contact, and frequent contact is associated with the purchase and delivery
of less tangible services—and less tangible services may require a team to
get it done well. Thus, one take-home message from this research is that
strategic climates matter more when complexity is higher.
It is not only in the area of strategic climate that boundary conditions
have been studied; there are several studies in the literature on process
climates that have also investigated possible moderators of the effects
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 107

of climate. For instance, we have already reviewed one study in the di-
versity climate literature earlier in this chapter along these lines; McKay
and colleagues (2011) showed that there was a three-way interaction
between diversity climate, service climate, and minority representation
predicting customer satisfaction, such that the strongest effects for diver-
sity climate were found when both service climate levels and minority
representation were high. Several studies have also examined moderators
of the effects of justice climate. Liao and Rupp’s (2005) research on the
cross-level relationship between justice climate and individual-level at-
titudes revealed that justice orientation (the extent to which individuals
value justice and pay attention to fairness issues) was a moderator of the
relationship between supervisor-focused procedural justice climate and
supervisory commitment and satisfaction. In a similar cross-level study,
Yang and colleagues (2007) demonstrated that work group power dis-
tance acted as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice
climate and individual level commitment and citizenship behavior, such
that the effects of procedural justice climate were stronger when group
power distance was low. In yet another cross-level study of justice cli-
mate, Spell and Arnold (2007) examined the relationship between two
types of justice climate: procedural justice climate and distributive jus-
tice climate. In their conceptualization, procedural justice climate acted
as a moderator of the relationship between distributive justice climate
and individual-level depression and anxiety. Indeed, their results showed
that a positive procedural justice climate buffered the potential negative
effects of distributive justice climate. McKay and colleagues’ (2011) and
Spell and Arnold’s (2007) studies are significant because they open the
door to studying the interaction between various types of climate when
predicting outcomes, an arena ripe for research because it is highly un-
usual for more than one kind of climate to be studied at any one time
(Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009).
In summary, it is fair to say that the links between climate and out-
comes, especially the links between focused climates and relevant out-
comes, have reached a level of robustness such that the conditions under
which those relationships are optimized have received increased concep-
tual and empirical attention. In addition, this attention has revealed that
the direct relationships between climate and outcome have boundary
conditions such that they are stronger under some conditions than under
others. What is very interesting about these findings is that the conditions
that maximize the relationship can be very useful to practitioners in (a)
deciding when and when not to promote a specific climate of seeming
interest, and (b) where to intervene to optimize the relationships of in-
terest. In the former case, it becomes clear for example from the Dietz
and colleagues’ (2004) and the Mayer and colleagues’ (2010) studies
that when customer contact is high between servers and served, then a
positive service climate is important for customer satisfaction. The prac-
tical advice follows: when customer contact is high and involves the close
interaction of server and served to produce what Gutek (2000) would
108 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

call a service relationship, then creating and maintaining a positive ser-

vice climate makes sense. In contrast, when the product is very tangible
and the interaction between the provider and customer is minimal, the
return on investment on building a service climate may be low.

CLIMATE ITSELF AS A MODERATOR VARIABLE

Although research has begun to investigate various moderators of the

relationship between climate and outcomes like customer satisfaction,
early climate research was more likely to view climate itself as a modera-
tor, usually of individual-level relationships. For instance, for Schneider
and Bartlett (1968, 1970) individual performance was driven by both
personal characteristics and the situation, but the emphasis amongst
psychologists of all kinds including I/O psychologists at that time had
been much more on the individual than on the situation. Therefore, they
sought to test whether climate acted to facilitate (or inhibit) the expres-
sion of individual differences in work performance, the idea being that 
when climate facilitated the display of individual differences—i.e., when
it was aligned with the individual characteristics necessary in a situation—
then performance would be superior. Schneider (1975b) later referred
to this possibility as a “climate for the display of individual differences”
(p. 454) and suggested that some climates may allow the best employees
to perform at their peak, thus increasing performance across the board.
Subsequent empirical research by Schneider and his colleagues (Parking-
ton & Schneider, 1979; Schneider & Bowen, 1985) could also be framed
in a similar way, in that it was proposed that individual employees’ ser-
vice orientations would be related to role stress if those orientations were
not aligned with perception of management’s service orientation. This
line of thinking is consistent with Mischel’s (1968) concept of situational
strength and his argument that personality would be most likely to pre-
dict behavior in situations that were relatively ambiguous or unstruc-
tured, or in other words, in what he called weak situations. Meyer, Dalal,
and colleagues (Meyer & Dalal, 2009; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010)
have recently extended this research to the organizational research lit-
erature and have shown that conscientiousness is not as strongly related
to performance when the situation (in terms of occupational norms) is
strong (Meyer, Dalal, & Bonaccio, 2009).
Although empirical research on climate as a moderator of individual-
level relationships is relatively rare, one recent example supporting this
idea is a study of service climate by Grizzle, Zablah, Brown, Mowen, and
Lee (2009) on a sample of employees in full-service restaurants. They
found that the relationship between individual employees’ customer
orientation and their actual customer-oriented behaviors was moderated
by service climate, such that they were significantly related when ser-
vice climate was high but not when it was low. Grizzle and colleagues
argued that when service climate levels are high, employees have the
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 109

opportunity to act on their customer orientation when serving custom-

ers; in other words, the situation is strong for the display of those in-
dividual differences if they exist. When service climate levels are low,
however, the environment limits the opportunities to act on one’s cus-
tomer orientation, weakening the relationship between customer orien-
tation and behavior. The primary theme in studies taking this approach
is that the context or environment plays a role in the degree to which
individual characteristics have the opportunity to influence performance.
When there is a fit (Parkington & Schneider, 1979; Schneider & Bowen,
1985) or synergy (Grizzle et al., 2009) between the individual and the
environment, then the relationship between individual attributes and
performance will be optimized.
Other researchers have examined climate as a moderator of the rela-
tionship between unit-level variables. Baer and Frese (2003) investigated
the role that climate for initiative and climate for psychological safety
played in the relationship between process innovation and firm effective-
ness in 47 mid-sized German companies. They found strong support for
their hypothesis that process innovation would be positively related to
firm performance (in terms of goal achievement and return on assets)
when climate for initiative and climate for psychological safety were
high. In contrast, firms with high levels of process innovation but with
low levels of climate for initiative or climate for psychological safety ac-
tually had worse performance than those firms who did not innovate at
all. Two other studies we described in the diversity climate section are
relevant here: McKay and colleagues’ (2008) study of diversity climate as
a moderator of racial-ethnic differences in sales performance, and McKay
and colleagues’ (2011) study of service climate and minority representa-
tion simultaneously moderating the relationship between diversity cli-
mate and customer satisfaction. As a final example, in a meta-analysis by
Burke, Chan-Serafin, Salvador, Smith, and Sarpy (2008), safety climate
was shown to moderate the relationship between safety training and in-
jury and accidents such that safety training had a greater effect in reduc-
ing accidents in a positive safety climate.
Not frequently acknowledged in research on moderator (or interac-
tion) effects is the notion that increased insights in the variables of inter-
est (the predictors and the hypothesized moderators) may be obtained
when reversing the role of these variables. That is, because the predictors
and the hypothesized moderators are statistically equal in the quantita-
tive analyses, the variables labeled as predictor and moderator can be
switched, allowing for a different framing of the results. This notion can
be applied to the studies just reviewed. For example, with regard to the
findings by Baer and Frese (2003), reversing the predictor and moderator
would lead to the conclusion that climate (for initiative or for psycho-
logical safety) has a strong positive relationship with firm performance
when the level of innovation is high, but no relationship when innovation
is low. Thus, similar to the studies described in the previous section on
service climate, these particular climates appear to be more important for
110 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

innovative companies than those that are not as innovative. The Burke
and colleagues (2008) findings can also be re-interpreted in a similar way,
such that safety climate has a stronger effect on safety outcomes when
safety training is implemented in organizations. Thus, building a safety
climate will make more of a difference in organizations that have the
proper supports in place to ensure that employees have the knowledge
and skills they need to actually put into practice the strategic goals being
promoted by top management.
Thus, we have begun to think about research in which climate itself
is studied as a moderator as no different from research in which modera-
tors of the relationship between climate and outcomes are investigated.
Therefore, in the previous section of the chapter, customer contact was
studied as a moderator of the climate–customer satisfaction relationship
with positive findings. It turns out, using our logic here, that those same
findings also revealed that the relationship between customer contact
and customer satisfaction is moderated by the service climate such that
high customer contact yields customer satisfaction most when a positive
service climate exists. That finding cautions organizations desiring more
traffic to be very careful about what they wish for because increasing
traffic will only pay off for them when they improve service climate!

ADDITIONAL APPROACHES TO STUDYING

CLIMATE: ANTECEDENTS AND MEDIATORS

The last several sections have focused on moderated effects (either of cli-
mate’s relationship with outcomes or with climate itself as the modera-
tor), but before wrapping up this chapter we want to emphasize some of
the other ways climate has typically been studied, specifically with regard
to antecedents of climate and how climate mediates the effects of other
variables on organizational effectiveness, as well as how other variables
may mediate climate’s effects on outcomes.
Leadership and climate. As we found when reviewing the history of
the climate literature in the previous chapter, the earliest conceptual-
izations of climate by organizational scholars were focused on how cli-
mate influences organizational effectiveness. One theme that received
a particularly heavy emphasis in those early years was that leaders are
crucial to the development and maintenance of organizational climate.
In effect, the proposal was that the effect leaders have through their
behavior on unit effectiveness was mediated by the climates those be-
haviors created in their units. For Lewin and colleagues (1939), it was
the democratic/participative style of the leader that created a social cli-
mate in the boys’ groups, and this climate then led to the boys’ behavior
in terms of cooperation, smiling, and positive attitudes. For Fleishman
(1953) it was the foreman’s boss who created a leadership climate based
on his expectations of the foreman; that climate then was the primary
driver of the foreman’s behavior and his unit’s effectiveness. McGregor
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 111

(1960) viewed leaders as creating managerial climates for their relation-

ships with subordinates based on their Theory X or Theory Y philosophy.
These managerial climates then affected employees’ goal accomplish-
ment and satisfaction. Even though Likert (1961) did not use the term
climate, he did discuss how leaders create an atmosphere within which
all of the group’s activities took place and which served as both a source
of support and a basis for the group’s goal accomplishment efforts. As
a final example, in Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) experimental study of
leadership climate, leader behavior was manipulated to produce certain
climates within the simulated work groups, which subsequently affected
the group’s satisfaction, innovation, and productivity.
Given this early emphasis on leadership in the climate literature, it is
somewhat surprising to find that the role of leaders in creating climate
has not received more research attention. Despite the fact that research-
ers like Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) were expressing the need for
more theoretical and empirical attention to the linkages between lead-
ership and climate in the late 1980s, almost 20 years later Zohar and
Tenne-Gazit (2008) declared that “the notion of leadership as a climate
antecedent has hardly changed over the past 50 years . . . although this
has resulted in limited empirical work” (p. 745).
Nevertheless, there are several exceptions, and the literature on lead-
ership and climate has developed in recent years from a number of dif-
ferent perspectives. Some examples include transformational leadership
as an antecedent to safety climate (Zohar, 2002; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit,
2008), leader goal orientation as an antecedent to the goal-oriented cli-
mate in work groups (Dragoni, 2005), servant leadership as an antecedent
to procedural justice climate and subsequently unit-level organizational
citizenship behavior (Ehrhart, 2004), and management support as an an-
tecedent of the climate for technology implementation (Klein, Conn, &
Sorra, 2001). Although most studies tend to focus on leader behavior,
some studies have also included the role of leader personality. Salvaggio,
Schneider, Nishii, Mayer, Ramesh, and Lyon (2007) showed that the rela-
tionship between managers’ core self-evaluations and the service climate
in their units was fully mediated by the managers’ service orientation.
In addition, Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and Goldstein (2007) investigated
the influence of leaders’ Big Five personality attributes on the procedural
justice climates of their units, showing that leaders who are higher on
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and lower on Neuroticism would
create more positive procedural justice climates. That such little research
exists exploring the role of personality and climate is surprising given
the findings by Holland (1997) on the role of personality and interests in
creating unique environments across different occupational types.
One trend in the literature has been to adopt a focused leadership ap-
proach to couple with the focused climate of interest. In other words, if
we want to best understand how a climate is created that sends a message
to employees about the importance of a specific strategic imperative, then
perhaps it is most useful to explore the behaviors performed by leaders
112 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

that are also focused on communicating the importance of that specific

strategic imperative. Research along these lines includes Schneider and
colleagues’ (2005) study of service leadership as a proximal antecedent
to service climate, and Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway’s (2002) research
on safety-specific transformational leadership as a proximal antecedent
to safety climate. One possibility that emerges from research from this
perspective is that perhaps focused leadership is needed for building a
focused climate, whereas generic (or molar) leadership may be more in-
fluential in influencing the more general climate for well-being (or molar
climate) experienced by employees. Including all of these issues simul-
taneously in one study would be an interesting extension of research on
the relationship between leadership and climate.
The explanations given for why leadership has an effect on organi-
zational climate also sheds some light on the distinction between the
general and focused approaches to leadership and climate. When discuss-
ing general leadership, the focus is usually on such issues as the leader’s
concern for their subordinate’s well-being, the prioritization of subor-
dinate concerns, increased levels of communication, and consistency of
behavior (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Zohar, 2002; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008).
These issues are often characterized as increasing the social exchange
relationship between leaders and subordinates and the motivation for
subordinates to support the leader’s values and priorities. However, lead-
ership that is more specifically focused is then needed to communicate
to subordinates where their increased motivation should be targeted.
Leaders do this by explicitly stating their goals and priorities, role model-
ing the behaviors they expect subordinates to perform, and reinforcing
the desired behaviors of subordinates through rewards and recognition
(e.g., Barling et al., 2002; Dragoni, 2005; Schneider et al., 2005). Hong
and colleagues’ (2013) meta-analysis on service climate suggests that al-
though both general and focused leadership are important predictors of
climate, the effects of focused leadership are stronger, likely because of
their immediate link to the content of the focused climate.
One issue that has not received much attention is how the role of
leadership changes across levels of the organization. There is literature
in several areas that points to the differences in leadership across organi-
zational levels. For instance, research has shown that the types of skills
required of leaders change as they move up the organizational hierarchy
(Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro,  & Reiter-Palmon, 2000). Shamir
(1995) has described how charismatic leadership differs depending on
whether the leader is up close (e.g., an immediate supervisor) versus at
a distance (e.g., the CEO). Furthermore, there is an entire literature on
executive leadership that focuses specifically on leadership at the highest
levels of the organization (e.g.,  Zaccaro, 2001). Researchers have dis-
cussed trickle-down or domino effects for leadership in organizations,
such that the leadership styles of higher level leaders influences those of
lower-level leaders (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Mayer, Kuenzi,
Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009). In the climate literature, the best
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 113

example of research that addresses this issue of research across levels is

Zohar and Luria (2005). They asserted that because direct supervisors
provide frequent and immediate outcomes to subordinates, that they
play a more proximal role in the development of climate at the work
group level and have more of an effect on employee safety behavior than
upper-level management. What they suggest is that the actions that af-
fect employees’ perceptions of an organization’s overall climate are dif-
ferent in focus and immediacy from the issues that affect employees’
perceptions of the climate of their more immediate work group. In turn,
the behaviors performed by management to create climates at each of
these levels likely differ, yet such differences have not been clarified well
in the literature.
Additional antecedents of climate: Foundation issues. In addition to
the research on the effects of leadership on climate and the mediated ef-
fects of leadership through climate on various organizational processes or
outcomes, climate researchers have investigated other antecedents of cli-
mate and their potential effects on organizational effectiveness through
their relationships with climate. As we described previously, a frequent
approach of this sort combines the concept of molar climate with fo-
cused climates. In this approach, the generic (or molar) climate is con-
ceptualized as a foundation on which the focused climate can be built
and the focused climate is the proximal correlate of the focused outcome
of interest and thus the mediator between the generic climate and the
outcome. Schneider and colleagues (1998) called the generic climate
“work facilitation” and proposed that work facilitation does not cause the
service climate but provides a foundation on which such a climate can be
built. Salanova, Agut, and Peiró (2005) used a similar approach to show
that service climate fully mediated the effects of organizational resources
and work engagement on employee performance and customer loyalty.
With a focus on safety Wallace, Popp, and Mondore (2006) conceptual-
ized and assessed two “foundation climates,” managerial support and or-
ganizational rewards, and showed how they were only indirectly related
to occupational accidents through their relationships with safety climate.
The theory and research surrounding generic, foundation, work fa-
cilitation, or worker well-being climates are important for a number of
reasons. Theoretically, they provide one possible explanation for the in-
consistency found in the validity of climate–outcome relationships be-
fore the more focused approach existed. That is, there exists variability
in validity for molar climate approaches, but when combined with a fo-
cused climate perspective, the variability may be more easily understood
by considering molar climate as a more distal predictor that has its effect
on outcomes through the mediator of focused climate. Practically, this is
important because it clearly suggests that just implementing a molar cli-
mate (e.g., for well-being) is not likely to have the intended effect unless
the more focused strategic climate is also in place. The paradox is that
the more strategically focused climate is not likely to be in place if the
foundation issues associated with the molar climate are not there first!
114 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

We may conclude that both kinds of climate are needed as they support
and focus each other.
Mediators of climate’s effects on outcomes. Another way to discuss
climate and mediated effects is to focus on what variables help explain
the relationship between climate and outcomes. At the most basic level,
the idea behind studying climate is that the psychological context em-
ployees experience sends the message for the kinds of behaviors required
by the system to meet established goals and objectives. The problem is
that there is scant research on the behavior! That is, even when validity
evidence for climate is strong, it is validity for the climate predicting
outcomes and not climate predicting behavior. In one exception, Schnei-
der and colleagues (2005) proposed and found service-oriented organi-
zational citizenship behavior (OCB) performed by employees mediates
the relationship between service climate and customer satisfaction. Neal
and Griffin (2006), in an even more sophisticated effort using a multiple
mediator longitudinal design, showed that safety climate was positively
related to safety motivation, safety motivation was positively related to
safety behavior, and safety behavior was negatively related to accidents.
As a final example, Klein and colleagues (2001) found that the relation-
ship between implementation climate and innovation effectiveness was
mediated by implementation effectiveness. In other words, the way that
implementation climate influenced the overall effectiveness of the in-
novation being implemented was through employee implementation
behaviors.
Ehrhart and Raver (in press) provide an in-depth discussion of how
unit-level behavior plays a critical role in explaining how organizational
climate (as well as culture) has its effects on organizational performance.
Their review focuses not only on productive behaviors (like OCB), but
also counterproductive behaviors, in addition to highlighting the role of
motivation in explaining climate’s effects and the importance of estab-
lishing behavioral norms to ensure that the behavior is institutionalized
and thus more likely to continue to be performed in the future. More
research is needed to clarify the role of motivation, behavior, and norms
in mediating climate’s effect on organizational effectiveness.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have covered considerable territory in this chapter to bring readers

up to date on where the field is at present. In addition, the current state
of theory and research on organizational climate may certainly be classi-
fied as healthy. Some lingering issues have been resolved (aggregation and
levels of analysis) to the extent that researchers are now looking at lack of
consensus as a variable in its own right (via a focus on climate strength).
We have a definition of organizational climate that integrates across the
many themes that have characterized that work:
Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field 115

Organizational climate is the shared meaning organizational members attach

to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behav-
iors they see being rewarded, supported, and expected.

This definition is reflected in the kinds of measures that have been de-
veloped for assessing climate in that the focus on things that happen in
a setting (e.g., policies, rewards) has resulted in climate measures being
more descriptive than evaluative or affective. In addition, from a levels
of analysis perspective, it is clear from the definition that our focus is on
shared meaning and not individual personal experiences (or psychologi-
cal climate).
The primary approaches to studying organizational climate are the
molar climate and focused climate approaches. The molar climate ap-
proach, which generically assesses a climate for well-being, is perhaps
most useful when conceptualized as a foundation for the more strate-
gically focused climates that have been shown to yield validity when
studied against appropriately specific outcomes. Our detailed review of
two examples of strategically focused outcome climates—service and
safety—and two more process-oriented climates—justice and fairness—
revealed that a climate conceptualization of important issues in organi-
zations can be useful, providing insight into the numerous activities that
occur in settings, the shared experience of those activities that people
have, and the climate—the gestalt—they infer with regard to what those
experiences mean.
There has been growing interest among climate researchers on the
topic of climate strength. The paradox concerning research on climate
strength is that researchers spent decades trying to eliminate variance
within work units in climate perceptions and now we are going back
to study the differences in variance across settings for the role such dif-
ferences play. This role has been mostly conceptualized and studied as
a moderator of climate level–outcome relationships, but it has also re-
ceived some attention as a main effect. Some other boundary conditions
of the climate–outcome relationship were also identified (e.g., customer
contact as a moderator of the service climate–customer satisfaction link)
but more research on such possible moderators is surely needed. Indeed
more research on climate as a moderator of important other relationships
is also needed.
We began this summary and conclusion with the thought that climate
research is quite healthy, but we close with the thought that it is not time
to be sanguine. All of the research we reviewed was done using surveys
and, while such work is useful to be sure, there is little published cli-
mate literature using case/qualitative methods. We emphasize the word
“published” because we know that case methods are very often used by
practitioners and we wish/hope more of that would be published. Such
methods would help link the climate approach to the culture approach
and that would be a desirable outcome.
116 Organizational Climate Research: The Current State of the Field

The arena most in need of attention in the future in our estimation is

one identified so clearly by Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) in their exten-
sive review: the need to study multiple climates simultaneously. We still
do not know much about what happens when there is conflict between
climates (Frederiksen et  al., 1972; Schein, 1965; Zohar  & Hofmann,
2012)—say a climate for safety and a climate for productivity—but we
need to conceptualize the issue and study it, perhaps using qualitative
methods as an introduction to what the issues are. Such methods will be
discussed in more detail in the next section of the book on organizational
culture.
 CH APTER

4
Foundations of
Organizational Culture
In this chapter, we first present a brief review of the history of orga-
nizational culture research and then discuss: (1) various ways of con-
ceptualizing and understanding organizational culture, (2) defining
organizational culture, and (3) the methods used to study it. In the next
chapter, we will continue with (1) how culture is thought to develop
and is perpetuated, (2) how it is manifested, and (3) the degree to which
assessments of culture are associated with organizational effectiveness.
Before moving forward, it is important to provide some clarity on the
scope of what we are trying to accomplish in these chapters. We decided
to adopt a somewhat different approach for covering the literature on
organizational culture than the one used for reviewing organizational cli-
mate. With climate, we heavily emphasized the history of the evolution
and study of the construct and how that history has affected the way it
is studied by researchers today. It was important to deal with the his-
tory of the climate construct because that history has not received the
level of detailed attention that is necessary to fully understand where
the research has taken us—and its continuing controversies and is-
sues. In contrast, the history of the organizational culture construct has
been much more thoroughly documented elsewhere (for example, see
Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000b; Martin &
Frost, 1996; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Pettigrew, 1979; Smircich & Calas,
1987; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Therefore, we focus a bit less attention on
the history of organizational culture and more on the various issues that
characterize research in the area.
In what follows, we primarily focus on the literature in organizational
behavior and industrial/organizational psychology, based on our own

117
118 Foundations of Organizational Culture

backgrounds in those areas, and do not attempt to provide the perspec-

tive from other disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, or commu-
nication. In addition, given our emphasis on the relevance of the topics
of organizational culture and climate for organizational effectiveness, we
tend to focus on those issues that seem to have the most immediate
practical import for organizations, which means we do not explore in
depth some of the more philosophical debates on organizational culture
(e.g.,  Martin, Frost,  & O’Neill, 2006). Finally, the study of culture in
organizations could be seen as a subset of the more general literature on
culture, but that broader literature is outside the scope of this book; see
the sources we cited above for more depth on the roots of the organi-
zational culture literature. In short, although we acknowledge the depth
and breadth of the literature on organizational culture, as we mentioned
in Chapter One, our goal is not to provide an exhaustive review of that
literature but rather provide a focused discussion of the relevant theory
and research on the construct.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF RESEARCH

ON ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Pettigrew’s (1979) article in Administrative Science Quarterly is the most

commonly attributed starting point of contemporary organizational
culture research because of the immediate effect it had at the time he
presented it. Pettigrew, of course, was not the first to suggest that the
concept of culture could be applied to organizations (Alvesson & Berg,
1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Prominent earlier examples of such applica-
tion include research conducted as part of the Hawthorne studies on
the influence of social relations on worker behavior (Roethlisberger  &
Dickson, 1939), Whyte’s (1943, 1948) summaries of a Boston slum and
the restaurant industry (respectively), Gardner’s (1945) textbook apply-
ing a cultural perspective to organizations, the Tavistock School including
Jaque’s (1951) description of how social relations affected productiv-
ity at Glacier Metal Works, Selznick’s (1957) concept of organizational
character along with other work from the institutionalist school, Clark’s
(1970, 1972) research on the importance of organizational sagas in the
historical development of a college, and Turner’s (1971) book on organi-
zations as microcultures.
There are three interlocking reasons why Pettigrew’s (1979) article
was so effective and stimulated so much interest in the topic of organi-
zational culture. First, his presentation explicitly drew on anthropologi-
cal concepts and methods, providing organizational researchers who for
the most part were not already familiar with that field with an introduc-
tion to it and a demonstration of how it could be applied to the study
of organizations. Second, the study of organizations was entering an un-
precedented stage of growth and development in business schools in par-
ticular. Following the 1959 Carnegie Foundation’s conclusion in their
Foundations of Organizational Culture 119

study of business schools that the failure to teach more about human
behavior, especially leadership, was a disservice to students, there was a
quick growth in such courses and research in these schools. As a result,
by the late 1970s, the study of organizational behavior was not only com-
monly accepted, but also advancing rapidly. Third, management consul-
tants had discovered the importance of studying whole organizations and
the ways they were experienced by the people in them. Thus, a number
of consulting firms were already well under way in their studies of these
behavioral issues in organizations (e.g., Peters & Waterman, 1982) when
Pettigrew’s article appeared. In short, and tying these three reasons to-
gether, the article was an academically interesting cross-disciplinary ap-
plication to a receptive emerging emphasis on people in business schools
and to the world of business.
For the purposes of this book, it is imperative to highlight some of the
overlap between the histories of organizational climate and culture in
the I/O psychology and organizational behavior literatures as introduced
in Chapter Two. Several critical early climate articles also discussed or-
ganizational culture. For instance, Fleishman (1953) used the term “cul-
ture” to refer to the broader environment or social situation and seemed
to be primarily referring to the general norms for appropriate behavior
that existed in the organization. Argyris (1957) also seemed to equate
culture with behavioral norms, but rather than culture being the more
general construct, he viewed climate as encompassing both the formal
structures of the organization and what he called the “informal culture.”
Gilmer (1961, 1966) generally focused on climate, and when he did dis-
cuss culture, it was equated with climate. Unlike most climate literature,
however, he included as part of climate artifacts such as the way manag-
ers dress and the cars they drive—artifacts that would now clearly be
indicants of culture (Schein, 2010). When attempting to behaviorally
define the concept of climate, Evan (1968) contrasted it with organiza-
tional culture, which he defined as “the set of beliefs, values, and norms
that constitute blueprints for behavior” (p. 108)—not very different from
the typical contemporary conceptualization of organizational culture, as
we will see shortly. Evan concluded that culture was much broader rela-
tive to the concept of climate that was his focus. Finally, although they
did not specifically mention culture, Litwin and Stringer (1968) referred
to concepts usually associated with culture (history and tradition) or at
least artifacts of culture (spatial arrangements) as having their influence
on worker motivation and behavior through climate. In addition, they
described climate as having nonrational components that may be out
of the conscious awareness of workers, much like contemporary culture
researchers (e.g.,  Schein, 2010) refer to the deepest layers of culture
(e.g., underlying assumptions).
Other authors from the 1960s and 1970s that were more generally
concerned with the role of the environment in organizations also sug-
gested the importance of organizational culture (or related concepts). For
example, in Gellerman’s (1960) description of “company personality,”
120 Foundations of Organizational Culture

the term could easily have been replaced with “organizational culture.”
He noted how management’s attitudes “give the company a distinct at-
mosphere and philosophy of its own, making it a different kind of place
to work in than any other company” (p. 73). He described the company
personality as including traditions and assumptions that are rarely ques-
tioned or even put into words, as being unique, having a strong emotional
element, and providing the unwritten guidelines for evaluating effective-
ness. Furthermore, he discussed how executives who do not fit the com-
pany personality leave, how programs that do not fit with or that attempt
to change the organization’s personality are abandoned, and how out-
moded or inefficient methods continued to be used because they are tied
to the organization’s personality.
Another example comes from Likert (1961); although he did not use
the term “culture” specifically when discussing System 4 Management,
he did discuss at the work group level the effect of the group’s values, the
stability of its values, and the effect of the group’s behavioral norms on
the behavior of group members. Schein’s (1965) book on Organizational
Psychology foreshadowed many concepts that would be central to his
later (1985) model of organizational culture. For instance, he described
how leaders must adapt to their group’s norms, history, and tradition
to be successful, how socialization practices vary across types of orga-
nizations, and how values and norms form the core of an organization’s
identity and must be effectively communicated by leadership. Finally,
Katz and Kahn (1966, 1978) included many elements associated with
organizational culture to describe the social situation in organizations, in-
cluding norms, values, subcultures, taboos, folkways, and mores, and em-
phasized how the distinctive feeling of a group and its beliefs are passed
on to new members (i.e., through socialization). They also described how
the formal structures in organizations are reinterpreted by organizational
members into informal structures—what we would refer to as culture—
and how conflicts between these two (formal and informal structures)
can be problematic for organizations. When discussing the role of the
work group in organization change, they specifically focused on the idea
that change is more effective when the group as a whole and its norms
are addressed and not just individuals; in other words, the organization’s
culture must be accounted for when attempting change.
Against this backdrop, Pettigrew’s (1979) article pushed the construct
of organizational culture to the forefront, “legitimizing the very concept
of organization culture for the first time” (Alvesson & Berg, 1992, p. 15)
and showing how the concepts of beliefs, ideology, language, ritual, and
myth could be applied to the study of organizations. His article, which
described a longitudinal investigation of a British private boarding school,
opened the way for the study of the symbolic in organizational research,
viewing “man as a creator and manager of meaning” (p. 572, italics in origi-
nal). He emphasized that beyond the rational and instrumental side of
organizational life, an organization’s culture is the “expressive social tis-
sue around us that gives those tasks meaning. . . . Culture is the system
Foundations of Organizational Culture 121

of such publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given

group at a given time” (p. 574). This emphasis on the expressive and the
symbolic had a great attraction for organizational researchers tired of the
emphasis on rational, bureaucratic models (Trice & Beyer, 1993).
Pettigrew made several other important points that are worth high-
lighting. One is that he did not view culture as a unitary concept, but as a
collection of concepts including “symbol, language, ideology, belief, ritual,
and myth” (p. 574). This view has implications for any research conclu-
sions on the entirety of an organization’s culture, as opposed to more
limited aspects of it. Another point is that Pettigrew viewed culture as
evolving over time; as organizational members address the problems they
face, the culture influences or constrains their actions, but the culture is
also influenced by their actions. Thus, “man creates culture and culture
creates man” (p. 577). A final point is that Pettigrew was concerned with
the functional role of culture in terms of integration, control, and com-
mitment, and particularly highlighted the role of the “entrepreneur” or
founder in gaining commitment and creating behavioral norms through
the communication of the leader’s vision. Although it was not a focus
in his 1979 article, Pettigrew later communicated his concern for the
relationships among culture, strategy, and change in his edited book The
Management of Strategic Change (1987b), noting in the introduction his
interest in understanding the role of the “inner context” of organizations
in strategic competitiveness (Pettigrew, 1987a). We will have more to say
on the relationship between culture, strategy, and change later.
After the publication of Pettigrew’s (1979) article, the literature on
organizational culture greatly expanded among both academics and prac-
titioners. Multiple causes have been identified for the rapid ascent and
widespread popularity of the concept. Alvesson and Berg (1992) placed
those causes into three general categories: the general societal and busi-
ness context at the time, the effective marketing of organizational culture
by both academics and consultants, and the dissatisfaction among some
academics with more traditional perspectives on organizations. From an
economic or business perspective, the US economy struggled throughout
the 1970s, while at the same time Japan ascended as an economic force
based on a very different model of business and management than the
US. As a result, some of the most influential books about culture spe-
cifically addressed the challenge from Japan with such titles as Theory Z:
How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (Ouchi, 1981)
and The Art of Japanese Management: Applications for American Executives
(Pascale & Athos, 1982). More generally, changes in technology resulted
in increased rates of change and new organizational forms in organiza-
tions, and the shift in the US from a manufacturing economy to a service
economy created a need to focus more on organizational culture both
as a social glue to keep the organization focused on its core values and
a control mechanism to ensure high levels of quality (Alvesson, 1993;
Alvesson & Berg, 1992). As a society, the general cultural fragmentation
and weakening of the nuclear family in the US moved individuals to look
122 Foundations of Organizational Culture

to their workplace as a source of meaning, identity, and community (Al-

vesson & Berg, 1992; Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985a).
Against this backdrop, the timing for the message of “pop manage-
ment” books on culture was perfect. There were four books (Deal & Ken-
nedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos, 1982; Peters and Waterman,
1982) that were published in the US within just a couple of years that are
most commonly cited as being particularly influential in marketing the
concept of organizational culture and its implications for organizations
(Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Perhaps the most popu-
lar of them was Peters and Waterman’s (1982) In Search of Excellence:
Lessons from American’s Best-Run Companies. Their book summarized
research on the attributes that distinguished 62 “excellent” companies,
which they defined as “continuously innovative big companies” (p. 13),
from less excellent companies. Among other findings, they emphasized
the need for a strong culture that was externally oriented to be adaptable
to the organization’s environment. Two of the other books, both of which
were mentioned above, focused on how US companies could learn from
Japanese management practices. Ouchi (1981) advocated for a specific,
“clan” culture, characterized by trust, long-term employment, and close
personal relationships, that he found evidence of in Japan. Pascale and
Athos (1982) focused on the McKinsey 7-S framework (strategy, struc-
ture, systems, staff, style, skills, and superordinate goals) that they had de-
veloped with Peters and Waterman, and isolated four of those (the “soft”
dimensions of skills, style, staff, and superordinate goals) for which the
contrast between American and Japanese management was most clear
and thus where the focus of American managers was most needed. The
final book in this set of four was by Deal and Kennedy (1982). Interest-
ingly it was the only one of them that was explicitly a book on organiza-
tional culture, with the title Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of
Corporate Life. They made the case for strong culture as the critical fac-
tor for organizational success and outlined how managers can diagnose,
manage, and change their company’s culture.
One common thread among these books was their emphasis on the
symbolic aspects of organizational life and the importance of creating
shared values throughout all levels of the organization. Furthermore,
they argued that if organizational leadership managed these elements
effectively, then the organization’s culture could be a source of com-
petitive advantage, differentiating it from its competitors and resulting in
improved organizational effectiveness and productivity. The effect was
swift, and attention to and discussion of cultural issues became the norm
both in organizational management and in the business media (Trice &
Beyer, 1993).
The academic interest in organizational culture mirrored the interest
among practitioners. Part of this interest was because it had become so
popular among practitioners, and thus those academics who wanted to
be relevant to business or who viewed themselves as serving the needs
of management for knowledge and insight (who Alvesson & Berg, 1992,
Foundations of Organizational Culture 123

referred to as academic pragmatics) shifted their focus to the topic as

well. For others, organizational culture garnered interest because it of-
fered a way to bridge the micro and macro levels of organizational be-
havior and strategic management (Alvesson, 2002). For still others, the
interest in culture grew out of dissatisfaction with the dominant positiv-
ist paradigm in organizational research (at least in the US and the UK)
that emphasized the structural and objective aspects of organizational
life, usually studied with quantitative methods summarized in “sterile”
(Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 31) research reports. Culture, in contrast, opened
the door to the qualitative study of the expressive side of organizational
life, the “drama, excitement, and high emotion that characterizes much
of what happens daily in organizations” (Trice  & Beyer, 1993, p. 31).
Meyerson (1991b) described it this way: “. . . culture was the code word
for the subjective side of organizational life  .  .  . its study represented
an ontological rebellion against the dominant functionalist or ‘scientific’
paradigm” (p. 256). Ashkanasy and colleagues (2000b) linked the rise
of organizational culture with distaste for what some organizational
scholars saw as an infatuation with technical minutiae in the climate
literature, and the inability of climate to adequately represent the depth
and richness of organizational life and its many manifestations and influ-
ences. Of course, part of what Ashkanasy and colleagues were referring to
was that the climate literature of the late 1970s and through the middle
1980s was dominated by measurement-oriented psychologists, whereas
the study of culture integrated the field of cultural anthropology with
organizational studies, appealing to a broader audience across multiple
fields (e.g.,  sociology, organizational theory, anthropology). As a result,
the study of organizational culture was a dominant theme of the 1980s
and much of the 1990s, whereas the construct of organizational climate
received relatively less attention.
Examples of the extent of the interest in organizational culture
throughout the 1980s have been well documented by Trice and Beyer
(1993) and include five conferences on culture-related issues in a year
and half across 1983 and 1984, three books based on the proceedings of
those conferences (e.g., Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985b),
four special issues on culture in various journals (e.g., Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly and Organizational Dynamics in 1983), two organizational
culture textbooks published in 1985 (Sathe, 1985; Schein, 1985), mul-
tiple other books and edited books in the years following (e.g.,  Frost,
Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991; Ott, 1989), the establishment
of the Standing Committee on Organizational Symbolism in 1980, 19
doctoral dissertations on culture between 1980 and 1985, and the publi-
cation of more than 400 articles between 1979 and 1981 with the word
“myth” in the title or abstract.
In addition to a focus on organizational culture itself, much of the
discussion/debate during this time (and perhaps even to this day) was on
how culture should be studied from both theoretical and methodologi-
cal perspectives. Martin, Frost, and O’Neill (2006) summarized three
124 Foundations of Organizational Culture

primary debates: (1) between those advocating the study of culture as

an over-arching, all-inclusive organizational construct versus those em-
phasizing the presence of multiple cultures/sub cultures in organizations
(and later, versus those focusing on the ambiguity and inconsistency in
culture); (2) between those using quantitative methods to study culture
and those using qualitative methods; and (3) between those who studied
organizational culture as a way to improve managerial and organizational
effectiveness (managerialists) and those interested in advocating for
workers at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy who they viewed
as being controlled and manipulated by management (critical theorists).
We explore many of these issues in detail in subsequent sections, but the
point for now is that organizational culture was a hot topic during the
1980s and well into the 1990s, with many heated debates and strong
stances taken on a variety of positions, creating a vibrant yet fragmented
landscape. For some, like Miner (2002), these debates resulted in a “state
of chaos” where “stridency of protestation becomes the major criterion
for fleeting acceptance” (p. 613). Others, like Alvesson and Berg (1992),
viewed this “chaos” in a more positive way, concluding that “the multi-
tude of perspectives, definitions and theories existing in the field, and
the loose coupling of these concepts to each other, is a strong theoretical
advantage when it comes to research on cultural phenomena in organi-
zations. In fact, culture is as rich as life itself, and simply reducing it to
a rigid framework or precise and absolute definitions would seriously
reduce its inborn complexity” (p. 48).
Somewhere around the late 1990s or early 2000s, a shift seems to have
occurred in organizational culture research. It is not that organizational
culture was suddenly viewed as inconsequential or uninteresting. Instead,
as noted by Alvesson (2011), “Culture has become firmly anchored as
one important aspect of, or element in, organizations and management.
It is therefore viewed as a cornerstone in any broad understanding of
organization and management” (p. 12). The problem, some asserted,
was that it had perhaps become too mainstream and too routinized. As
Martin and colleagues (2006) described it, “Culture has become a part
of the hegemony within organizational theory and practice. This quix-
otic victory had the paradoxical effect of ‘deaden-ing’ culture’s effect on
open inquiry” (p. 744). Thus, although no one would say the concept of
organizational culture was irrelevant, fewer academics were making it
the primary focus of their research, perhaps because they had “run out
of steam and fresh conversation topics or arguments around organiza-
tional culture” (Alvesson, 2011, p. 11). Relevant for this book, Alvesson
(2011) compared the fall of interest in climate in the 1980s due to the
popularity in culture with the more recent fall of interest in culture due
to the popularity of the allied topics of identity (e.g.,  Whetten, 2006)
and discourse analysis (e.g., Phillips & Hardy, 2002). As a side note, this
shift away from a primary focus on organizational culture occurred at the
same time that there was a considerable renewal of interest in the field
of organizational climate, with more than three times as many articles on
Foundations of Organizational Culture 125

climate published in top management journals between 2000 and 2008

as there were in the 1990s (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009).

APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Having briefly summarized from whence cometh the contemporary

thinking and research on organizational culture, it is tempting to jump
directly into how culture has been defined. However, the definitions do
not make much sense without having a full understanding of the differ-
ent ways researchers have conceptualized and understood the concept.
In addition, obviously, how culture is understood will interact with how
it is studied. Thus, we follow our overview of history in the last section
with discussions of approaches to understanding organizational culture,
definitions of organizational culture, and methods for studying organiza-
tional culture in this and the following sections.
At the most general level, perhaps the best way to distinguish ap-
proaches to understanding or conceptualizing culture is to contrast
those that focus on culture as something organizations have versus those
that describe culture as something organizations are (Smircich, 1983).
From the “organizations have cultures” perspective (or the objectivist-
functionalist view; Alvesson, 1993), researchers view culture as an or-
ganizational variable or attribute that is affected by and affects other
organizational variables. The interest is usually functionalist, trying to
understand how culture is linked to outcomes and effectiveness and
thus how it can be changed to make the organization more efficient and
more productive (Davey  & Symon, 2001). Alvesson (1993) described
this approach in terms of its technical interest, such that the goal is the
development of understanding and knowledge of causal relationships
to manipulate or control them to achieve desired outcomes (see also
O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). In this approach, organizational culture is
often described in terms of its usefulness for achieving high levels of
employee commitment and communicating the values of management
so employees will be more likely to perform the behaviors that will be
optimal for achieving organizational goals (Alvesson, 2002).
In contrast, from the “organizations are cultures” perspective (or the
subjectivist-interpretive view; Alvesson, 1993), the researcher’s goal is to
understand, to “discover what being part of an organization means to peo-
ple and the processes by which it is understood and enacted” (Davey &
Symon, 2001, p. 124). Cameron and Ettington (1988) described the goal
of this perspective as illuminating “nonrational, taken-for-granted, un-
derlying assumptions that drive organizational behavior and the shared
interpretive schemas of organizational members” (pp.  365–366). Cul-
ture, from this perspective, is a root metaphor (Smircich, 1983), such
that “organizational culture is not just another piece of the puzzle, it
is the puzzle” (Pacanowsky  & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983, p.  146). The
126 Foundations of Organizational Culture

interest of researchers operating from this perspective is usually practical-

hermeneutic (describing and understanding how meaning is created in
organizations) or emancipatory (critically analyzing those aspects of or-
ganizations that limit personal autonomy; Alvesson, 2002). Symbolism
often takes a central role in research from this perspective, as researchers
attempt to understand the symbolic meaning organizational members
draw from the rituals, myths, stories, and legends they encounter in orga-
nizational life (Alvesson, 2002; Frost et al., 1985a).
Another highly cited scheme for classifying different ways to un-
derstand culture is Martin’s (1992, 2002) framework in which she dis-
tinguishes among the integration, differentiation, and fragmentation
perspectives. In integration studies, researchers emphasize organization-
wide consensus, clarity, and consistency among various cultural mani-
festations, and ignore conflict and ambiguity within the organization.
Martin (2002) observed that integration studies tend to focus on mana-
gerial or professional employees and not lower-level employees, and tend
to emphasize that even when conflict or ambiguity may appear at more
superficial levels, consensus can be found at deeper levels (e.g., assump-
tions). According to Martin, when conflict or ambiguity are encountered
or described in integration studies, they are viewed as a problem or short-
fall that requires fixing to restore consistency. The second perspective on
organizational culture identified by Martin is differentiation, in which
inconsistent interpretations of cultural phenomena are emphasized be-
cause they represent the real world of organizations and are not just in
need of fixing. Inconsistency across occupational, functional, and/or level
subcultures is often the focus, but the subcultures are viewed as hav-
ing consensus within themselves. Conflict among subcultures is often,
but not necessarily, the focus of differentiation studies; however, subcul-
tures can also be viewed as mutually reinforcing or independent. Mar-
tin’s (2002) final perspective is the fragmentation perspective, in which
ambiguity is the primary focus. Ambiguity is embraced and viewed as
a normal part of organizational life. Fragmentation studies often focus
on irony, paradox, and tension, and include multiple perspectives that
can change across time and emerge in unknown ways and for unknown
reasons. Although the differentiation perspective also allows for the pos-
sibility of conflict, ambiguity in that perspective is viewed as a byproduct
of differences among subcultures.
Martin’s framework is useful, although there appears to have been
some confusion about whether these different perspectives represent dif-
ferent lenses to view an organization’s culture or whether they are cul-
ture types, such that some organizational cultures are integrated, others
are differentiated, and others are fragmented. Another issue and possible
point of contention is that Martin wrote about the integration perspec-
tive in ways that often seem as though she is establishing a straw man
to be shot down to extol the virtues of the other two perspectives. To
be fair, Martin was transparent about how she found it “very difficult
to present the integration view in an even-handed way” (p. 121). The
Foundations of Organizational Culture 127

most controversial aspect of Martin’s framework, however, is the frag-

mentation perspective. Multiple authors (e.g., Alvesson, 1993; Alvesson,
2002; Payne, 2001; Schein, 1991; Trice, 1991) have questioned whether
“the essence of any culture is pervasive ambiguity” (Martin et al., 2006,
p. 732). Some, like Schein (1991), argued that “if there is no consensus
or if there is conflict or if things are ambiguous, then, by definition, that
group does not have a culture in regard to those things” (p. 248). Others,
like Alvesson (2002), acknowledged that ambiguity is inherent in culture,
but concluded that it is “not something about which most researchers
are concerned on the level of the collective” (p. 163). Part of the confu-
sion may be due to Martin’s (2002) examples of the fragmentation per-
spective that seem to illustrate consensus among employees about the
presence of ambiguity in the organization, thereby appearing to mix the
integration and fragmentation perspectives.
As Trice (1991) observed, the paradoxes, contradictions, and inconsis-
tencies that are central to the fragmentation perspective certainly exist in
organizational life, but at the same time, individuals in organizations do
tend to share some commonalities in their experiences, perceptions, and
assumptions, without which organizations would be unable to function
in the coordinated ways that are typically required. Thinking along these
lines is represented in Martin’s (2002) advocacy for a “three-perspective
theory of culture” in which all three perspectives are used to analyze
organizations simultaneously. We would characterize this approach as
studying the macro general culture, the specific subcultures that might
exist, and culture strength at the same time. We agree with Martin that
such broad and multifaceted, multilevel thinking could lead to interesting
advancements for the field, but we are unaware at this writing of stud-
ies taking all three approaches simultaneously to describing an organiza-
tion, how organizations may differ in the way the three perspectives are
manifested, and the subsequent implications for organizational effective-
ness. We return to the ideas of subcultures and culture strength in later
sections.
This high-level overview of approaches to understanding culture has
certainly not been exhaustive, and thus we thought it might be helpful to
pass along Alvesson’s (2002) eight metaphors for how culture has been
conceptualized, which we provide in Table 4.1 with a brief summary of
each. This list gives a flavor for the variety of ways that culture has been
conceptualized over the years. In addition, Alvesson (2002) provided five
dimensions on which culture research consistent with these metaphors
can be contrasted. The first, functionalism versus nonfunctionalism, dis-
tinguishes those approaches that view culture as promoting organiza-
tional effectiveness and the social good as opposed to those approaches
in which culture serves no function or serves only the good of man-
agement to the harm of lower-level employees. The second, objectivism
versus subjectivism, contrasts those who view culture as rooted in the ob-
jective systems and structures of organizations with those who view cul-
ture as being constructed in the minds and consciousness of employees.
128 Foundations of Organizational Culture

In the third dimension, cognition versus emotion, culture researchers em-

phasize either employees’ rational motives for goal-oriented behavior or
the affective side of organizational life. The fourth dimension, free will
versus determinism, addresses whether management can control culture,
whether employees can also influence culture, or whether culture deter-
mines the behavior of all those who are part of it. The final dimension,
pro-management versus anti-management (or managerial versus critical po-
litical interests in the language of Martin et al., 2006) contrasts research-
ers who uncritically adopt managers’ problems as their own (Smircich,
1985) with those who reveal how the culture advocated by management
limits the freedom and expression of those with less power. As a whole,
Alvesson’s (2002) metaphors and the five dimensions that distinguish
them remind us of the variety of culture research that may not fit cleanly
into a handful of categories.
Now that the reader has some sense for how researchers across vari-
ous traditions have approached understanding organizational culture, we
will wrap up this section with two final points. The first is to echo Louis’s
(1985) stance that the concept of culture is likely too large or compre-
hensive for any one lens to fully capture it. Her take is summarized quite
well by this quote:

Current efforts to understand organizational culture are analogous to the

Sufi story of the blind men’s effort to decipher the elephant. Many are
interested; some pursue one end of the beast, others pursue another. For
instance, some are concerned with the origins of workplace culture, others

TABLE 4.1 Metaphors for conceptualizing organizational culture based on

Alvesson (2002)

1. Culture as exchange-regulator: Culture acts to indirectly control employee

behavior through shared social knowledge of the exchange relationship
between employees and the organization.
2. Culture as compass: Culture provides employees with a shared set of values
that guides their goal-directed behavior toward effectiveness.
3. Culture as social glue: Culture as shared beliefs and norms that bring
employees together in harmony and consensus.
4. Culture as sacred cow: Culture as core values that employees emotionally
identify with, are committed to, and ultimately view as sacred.
5. Culture as affect-regulator: Culture as a means to communicate rules for
appropriate emotional expressions as a means of management control of
employees.
6. Culture as disorder: Culture as a jungle of ambiguity, characterized by
uncertainty, contradiction, and confusion.
7. Culture as blinders: Culture is rooted in the unconscious with limited access
by individuals and or understanding of its effects.
8. Culture as world-closure: Culture as a management-created social reality that
restricts employees’ freedom and runs counter to their interests.
Foundations of Organizational Culture 129

with stories as evidence of that culture. Most proceed as if the single focus
pursued were the sum total and the definitive focus. Almost no one has
discussed the possibility that the beast is larger than any one focus. As a
result, differing approaches are rejected rather than reconciled through ap-
preciation of the differences among the issues they address . . . The issues
are too vast, the subject too complex, and the territory too extensive for
any one investigator or investigation to do it justice overall (pp. 82–83).

It seems that much of the discussion around how best to understand

culture could be settled if researchers avoided making claims to under-
standing culture in its entirety and were more specific about the aspect of
culture they were addressing. More progress could be made by attempt-
ing to learn from others’ conceptualizations of culture and ways to study
it at least by acknowledging that other approaches exist and no single
approach will fully address all of the interesting issues and questions sur-
rounding the topic of organizational culture.
The second and final point has to do with the practical value of these
intense, sometimes heated, and often quite lengthy discussions of how
culture should be understood and studied. As Alvesson and Berg (1992)
stated, “there is little evidence today that anyone has had any real success
in applying the culture concept at a practical level” (p. 182). Martin and
Frost (1996) reached a similar conclusion:

This academic battle about methodology and theory shows some consid-
erable indifference to the fates of actual people in real organizations . . .
even differentiation research, ostensibly so concerned about the fate of
the disadvantaged and oppressed, contributes little so far to understand-
ing how to make people’s organizational lives better. Outside academia,
in corporations the stakes are high. Managers do not generally care about
the hair splitting disputes of academics, but they do care, deeply, about the
considerable expense and unwanted consequences of ill-thought-out cul-
tural change interventions. Many executives, consultants, and lower-level
employees dismiss culture as ‘yesterday’s fad,’ and predictably have turned
elsewhere to find another ‘quick fix’ for corporate ills (p. 608).

It is not that the academic discussions about the nature of organizational

culture and how it might best be conceptualized and studied have not
yielded useful insights. The issue is whether the research on culture has
also infiltrated the practical realm to make a real difference in people’s
day-to-day lives. The reasons are likely many—including our guess
that the shallow embracing of an unspecified, loosely articulated “cul-
ture” early in the history of the application of culture to organizational
performance caused many culture researchers to eschew the practical
completely—but the answer seems pretty clear that the effect from a
formal research perspective has been somewhat limited.
The best response to this concern that we have identified in the lit-
erature was offered by Denison (2001). He outlined five lessons (sum-
marized in Table 4.2) for making culture more relevant to the change
130 Foundations of Organizational Culture

TABLE 4.2 Denison’s (2001) lessons learned for translating organizational

culture research into practice

1. Take the “native’s point of view” seriously by understanding their day-to-day

concerns, even if they are instrumental- or results-focused.
2. Create a systems perspective by moving the primary focus away from the
deepest levels of culture to how the different levels of culture are linked
together, allowing practitioners to start with the outer levels of culture that
may be easier to address initially.
3. Provide a benchmark or frame of reference for data while also
acknowledging uniqueness. Comparing organizations’ values or behavioral
norms can provide some insights that can then be discussed in terms of a
particular organization’s unique context.
4. Focus on performance implications to better make the argument that culture
issues are important; otherwise, it may be difficult to even get your foot in
the door.
5. Highlight symbols and contradictions to better understand how the
organization has dealt with problems of internal integration and external
adaptation and how different groups in the organizations may view those
issues differently.

process, although we would argue that his points could be applied

broadly to making culture more relevant for all practitioners. Although
these lessons represent a compromise position between many of the dif-
ferences we have described in this section, some culture researchers will
certainly cringe at some or all of these suggestions. Our argument above
all else is that thinking along these lines is needed to come up with new
and creative ideas to better translate the rich conceptual literature on
organizational culture to practitioners who live in it and work with it on
a daily basis. Perhaps a unifying definition of what culture is would help
but that, like agreement on ways to understand it, has been elusive.

DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Part of the problem with [defining] culture is that it is not just a concept
but the source of a family of concepts (Pettigrew, 1979), and it is not just
a family of concepts but also a frame of reference or root metaphor for
organizational analysis (Pettigrew, 1979; Smircich, 1983; Morgan, 1986).
However, some progress has been made, and most scholars now agree that
organizational culture is a phenomenon that involves beliefs and behavior;
exists at a variety of different levels in organizations; and manifests itself
in a wide range of features of organizational life such as structures, control
and reward systems, symbols, myths, and human resource practices (Pet-
tigrew, 1990, pp. 414–415).

Given the vast array of approaches for conceptualizing and under-

standing culture just reviewed, it is not surprising that a wide variety
Foundations of Organizational Culture 131

of definitions of organizational culture have been introduced in the lit-

erature. Cameron and Ettington (1988) reported 18 different definitions
from the literature between 1982 and 1986, and Verbeke, Volgering, and
Hessels (1998) reported 54 different definitions from 1960 to 1993.
Thus, it is easy to see why Van Maanen (1988) described culture as a
“catchall idea . . . stimulating, productive, yet fuzzy” (p. 3).
Despite this proliferation of definitions, commonalities have been
identified. We doubt that any of these elements would find unanimous
agreement by culture researchers; given the large variety of viewpoints
and the disagreements that exist in the field, any expectation of consen-
sus would be naïve. Below we attempt to capture what we see as the
most commonly identified characteristics and functions of organizational
culture (also summarized in Table 4.3), drawing from a variety of sources
that have attempted a similar summary (e.g.,  Alvesson, 2002; Martin,
2002; Ott, 1989; Schein, 1991, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993). In addition,
we identify contrary views or points of contention with regard to each.

• Organizational culture is shared. Most definitions of culture include the

idea that it is shared. What is shared varies, and may include beliefs,
values, perceptions, understandings, behaviors, norms, interpretations,
ideologies, assumptions, and so forth. Whichever facet is highlighted
by a particular commentator, what is common is that culture is some-
thing that characterizes the organization and reflects the organizational
members’ common experience. Those who disagree with the neces-
sity of culture to be shared are those with a differentiation perspective,
who emphasize differences among subcultures (although commonality
within those subcultures), or those with a fragmentation perspective,
who emphasize ambiguity and contradictions (Martin, 2002).
• Organizational culture is stable. Culture tends to be stable over time.
Despite any number of changes that may occur in the organization’s
environment, certain elements continue. If the culture did not endure or
provide continuity, then it would not have many of the functions schol-
ars say it has—it would not form a central role in its members’ identities,
it would not have pervasive effects to the extent it does on the behavior

TABLE 4.3 The attributes of organizational culture

• Organizational culture is shared.

• Organizational culture is stable.
• Organizational culture has depth.
• Organizational culture is symbolic, expressive, and subjective.
• Organizational culture is grounded in history and tradition.
• Organizational culture is transmitted to new members.
• Organizational culture provides order and rules to organizational existence.
• Organizational culture has breadth.
• Organizational culture is a source of collective identity and commitment.
• Organizational culture is unique.
132 Foundations of Organizational Culture

and functioning of individuals and groups, and so forth. At the same

time, there is a recognition that culture can be always evolving due to
changes in the organization’s environment, its people, and the technol-
ogy it uses, to name just a few. Can these both be true? Yes, depending
on a variety of factors such as the period, the level of analysis (organiza-
tion, department, or the individual), and the level/form of culture that
is of interest. We return to this last issue in the next section and devote
considerable space to the issue of organizational change in later chapters.
• Organizational culture has depth. Depth here refers to the relative tan-
gibility and awareness of the cultural elements of interest. Many defi-
nitions of culture emphasize that culture often operates outside the
consciousness of employees; that it is taken for granted by organizational
members. Although members’ thoughts and actions are affected by the
organization’s culture, they are not necessarily able to articulate why.
The point of distinction in the culture literature seems to be whether
only the deepest levels of culture (basic assumptions and values) are the
“true” culture or whether culture encompasses all levels from the deep-
est to the most superficial or artifactual (e.g., paintings and posters on
the walls of companies; Schein, 1991).
• Organizational culture is symbolic, expressive, and subjective. The central
commonality among definitions that emphasize the symbolic aspect of
culture concerns the meanings that are interpreted from various experi-
ences and structures within the organization. As members share com-
mon experiences, personal and social sense-making processes result in
a system of socially shared understandings. Researchers who emphasize
these interpretive processes celebrate the idea that culture provides an
avenue by which to include the expressive elements of organizational
life that are seen as closer to the reality of members’ everyday experi-
ences (Martin, 2002). The emphasis here tends to be on the outer layers
of culture, or artifacts that are then interpreted by members, rather than
the values and assumptions that make up the deeper levels of culture
(Alvesson, 2002).
• Organizational culture is grounded in history and tradition. The culture
of an organization is the outcome of its past and the way the organiza-
tion has effectively handled various challenges over time. The values and
norms that are emphasized in the culture are heavily influenced by what
has been reinforced in the past; in other words, those approaches, be-
haviors, and ways of thinking that are associated with past success tend
to be repeated (Schein, 2010). Although not a particularly controversial
point, some authors do argue that other factors external to the orga-
nization (e.g., practices characteristic of particular industries; Dickson,
BeShears, & Gupta, 2004) have more of an influence on the organiza-
tion’s culture than is often recognized.
• Organizational culture is transmitted to new members. The literature on
socialization focuses on how members learn the culture of their new
organization. The transmission of cultural elements helps to explain how
the culture remains stable and how newcomers come to share in the
values and beliefs that currently exist in the organization. Although most
discussions of socialization focus on how it functions to create shared
values and beliefs, some scholars have varied from this theme to em-
phasize how new members can influence the organization’s culture or
Foundations of Organizational Culture 133

how there may be ambiguity or even contradictions for new members

in the messages they receive when entering the organization. We devote
considerable space to socialization processes in the next chapter.
• Organizational culture provides order and rules to organizational existence.
Scholars have offered a variety of explanations for this attribute of cul-
ture, with some emphasizing the decreased cognitive load that results
from employees having shared understandings of how things work and
function (e.g.,  Krefting  & Frost, 1985), and others emphasizing that
order and rules help employees cope with their insecurities and uncer-
tainties (e.g., Trice & Beyer, 1993). In either case, a function of culture
is to clarify what is expected of employees and what is considered ap-
propriate as employees go about their daily work lives (O’Reilly & Chat-
man, 1996). In fact, some culture researchers have made rules a primary
focus of their definitions of culture, distinguishing between formal and
informal rules, and describing how even though individuals create rules,
they also come to be viewed as independent structures in the organiza-
tion (Helms Mills & Mills, 2000).
• Organizational culture has breadth. As noted by Schein (2010), “Culture
is pervasive and influences all aspects of how an organization deals with
its primary task, its various environments, and its internal operations”
(p. 17). This characteristic is particularly crucial for those who view or-
ganizations as cultures, as that perspective implies that all of organiza-
tional life can be included in cultural studies. Of course, the downside
to being overly inclusive is that the concept can become an ambigu-
ous catchall, lacking clarity in its definition. As described by Alvesson
(2002), “Culture is  .  .  . a tricky concept as it is easily used to cover
everything and consequently nothing” (p. 3). Readers will recall a simi-
lar issue being raised in our discussion of macro-organizational climate.
There we noted that prior to a focused climate approach (“climate for
something”), generic or macro climate research contained dimensions of
climate particular to each researcher’s interpretation.
• Organizational culture is a source of collective identity and commitment.
Due to the shared values, beliefs, and basic assumptions among most
members of a culture (or subculture), members’ individual identities
become intertwined with the group’s identity as a whole. Furthermore,
that identity results in an emotional connection to the culture and a
commitment to the group. The sense of identity contributes to the sta-
bility of the culture (Schein, 2010) and can help clarify the boundaries
of the culture (Ott, 1989). Of course, some authors (e.g., Martin, 2002)
have noted that viewing culture this way may not account for those
groups who are marginalized within the organization or who simply do
not identify as strongly with the culture.
• Organizational culture is unique. A  final characteristic of culture that
is often emphasized is its uniqueness. As described by Trice and Beyer
(1993), “a particular culture will be based in the unique history of a
particular group of people coping with a unique set of physical, social,
political, and economic circumstances” (p. 6). In other words, no two
cultures are alike because each has its own founding, people, challenges,
successes, and so on that have created the culture as it stands today.
This view by researchers is matched by individuals within the culture
who take pride in the fact that their organization is not like any other
134 Foundations of Organizational Culture

(Martin, 2002). Those who disagree with this view argue that certain
cultural elements, stories, and rituals are held in common across similar
organizations, a phenomenon labeled by Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and
Sitkin (1983) as the “uniqueness paradox.” A  counterargument would
be that despite overlap across cultures due to any number of factors
(including similar competition, economic conditions, occupational cul-
tures, industry, nation, and so forth), the particular combination of el-
ements that makes up any one culture is not likely to be duplicated
elsewhere.

In sum, the attributes attributed to organizational culture are many

and varied so it is not surprising that definitions of organizational cul-
ture are similarly many and varied. As long lists of different definitions
of organizational culture have been summarized elsewhere (e.g., Cam-
eron & Ettington, 1988; Martin, 2002), we will not replicate them here.
However, we thought it would be helpful for readers to see examples of
definitions that have been provided over the years to get a sense for the
variety of ways the construct has been defined and the ways in which the
issues just reviewed are part of them. Here are a few:

• “A  set of common understandings for organizing actions and language

and other symbolic vehicles for expressing common understandings”
(Louis, 1980, p. 227).
• “A pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization’s mem-
bers” (Schwartz & Davis, 1981, p. 33).
• “A  general constellation of beliefs, mores, value systems, behavioral
norms and ways of doing business that are unique to each corporation”
(Turnstall, 1983, p. 1).
• “The set of important understandings (often unstated) that members of
a community share in common” (Sathe, 1983, p. 6).
• “A shared and learned world of experiences, meanings, values, and un-
derstandings which inform people and which are expressed, repro-
duced, and communicated partly in the symbolic form” (Alvesson, 1993,
pp. 2–3).

Even in this short list of definitions, the authors vary in whether they
emphasize culture as something that is shared, something that is sym-
bolic, something that is unique, something that is assumed or unstated, or
something that is behavioral. Recognizing this diversity in definitions and
approaches to culture, we think it would be helpful to pick one definition
to frame how we discuss culture in what follows. For that definition, we
rely on one of the most highly cited authors on organizational culture,
Edgar Schein, who defined culture as follows:

Organizational culture is “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by

[an organization] as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, there-
fore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel
in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2010, p. 18).
Foundations of Organizational Culture 135

LEVELS OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL FORMS

We now shift from discussing how organizational culture has been con-
ceptualized and defined to consideration of the lenses through which
organizational culture is studied. We frame this section in terms of two
topics that are prevalent in the culture literature: (1) the level of the
phenomenon—how deep culture resides in the psychology of an organi-
zation’s members—and, relatedly, (2) the forms that organizational cul-
ture takes—how a culture manifests itself to its members.

Levels of Organizational Culture

A central issue for culture researchers is how deep in the psychology of

members it is studied. When researchers discuss levels of culture, they
are typically referring to the extent to which the cultural content stud-
ied is objectively viewable even by outsiders versus content not being
consciously available even to insiders. Those things that can be accessed
quite easily, perhaps just by looking around an organization, constitute
the outermost levels of culture. Cultural information that requires more
digging constitutes deeper layers or levels, until a core is reached that
represents the very basic understandings of organizational members
that may be so taken-for-granted and ingrained that they are outside of
conscious awareness and cannot easily be articulated. These levels are
linked, in that “more objective elements become vehicles for transmis-
sion of less tangible, more subjective facets of culture” (Rousseau, 1990a,
pp. 157–158).
Numerous scholars have commented on the number of levels that
exist for organizational culture, and the number of such generally ranges
from two to five. Some examples of those who identify two levels include
espoused values versus values-in-use (Ott, 1989), ideologies versus ob-
servable entities (Trice & Beyer, 1993; Beyer, Hannah, & Milton, 2000),
observable manifestations versus underlying, interpreted meanings (Ko-
pelman, Brief,  & Guzzo, 1990), or espoused versus enacted content
themes (Siehl  & Martin, 1990). In these the obvious distinction is be-
tween what one can objectively identify (what is observable or espoused)
and what is “really” going on at a deeper level.
The most commonly referred to framework on the levels of culture
is the one proposed by Schein (1985, 1992, 2004, 2010) involving three
levels of organizational culture: artifacts, espoused values and beliefs,
and underlying assumptions. Artifacts are those elements that are read-
ily accessible by outsiders but the meaning of which is not clear with-
out further investigation. Examples may include how people dress, how
the workspace is organized, the company’s logo, stories, rituals, language,
and architecture. Although many of these may objectively look the same
across organizations, the meanings they have for people may be quite
different. Therefore, a common approach to culture research is to start
136 Foundations of Organizational Culture

with artifacts and then investigate their symbolic meaning to employees.

Many of the cultural forms we summarize later in this section would be
at this level of culture.
The next level of culture identified by Schein is espoused values. These
are the values stated by management that may or may not be consistent
with the values that are actually communicated through the actions of
those within the organization; the latter are the values in use. The reasons
for this disconnect may be because they represent management’s aspira-
tions for what they want to become (Schein, 2010), because they are
influenced by employees’ impressions of management and social desir-
ability biases (Siehl & Martin, 1990), or simply because employees are not
aware that their behavior is inconsistent with the values management has
espoused (Ott, 1989). Katz and Kahn (1966) had earlier captured this no-
tion of espoused values versus values in use this way: “The stated purposes
of an organization as given by its by-laws or in the reports of its leaders
can be misleading. Such statements of objectives may idealize, rationalize,
distort, omit, or even conceal some essential aspects of the functioning
of the organization” (p. 15). This challenge of ascertaining what is really
occurring in organizations is why qualitative researchers, and particularly
ethnographers, discuss the importance of “penetrating the front” of the
organization to get beyond the biases and facades that can be intertwined
in the espoused values. The ultimate goal is to capture the underlying
assumptions of the organization’s culture, which is Schein’s third level.
Underlying assumptions, the deepest level of culture, dictate how or-
ganizational members go about their day-to-day work lives, and they are
so ingrained that they cannot necessarily be articulated. Once certain
beliefs and values become reinforced enough through the organization’s
success, they become taken-for-granted assumptions that provide a com-
mon, perhaps subconscious, mental framework shared by organizational
members that guides the way they think and how they behave. For Schein
(2010) this is the real culture: “the essence of a culture lies in the pattern
of basic underlying assumptions, and after you understand those, you can
easily understand the other more surface levels and deal appropriately
with them” (p. 32). Thus, to truly understand an organization’s culture
and the meaning of the artifacts and espoused values, one must gain in-
sight into the organization’s most basic assumptions. Whether culture
researchers have adequately addressed these deeper levels of culture is of
course a source of some debate (Barley, 1991).
Although Schein’s three interconnected levels are the most commonly
cited, other frameworks have been suggested, many of which build on
Schein’s work. For instance, Sathe (1985) also proposed three levels of
culture: shared behavior patterns, shared rationalizations and justifica-
tions, and shared beliefs and values. Ott (1989) discussed four levels of
culture: artifacts, patterns of behavior, beliefs and values, and basic un-
derlying assumptions. In addition, Lundberg (1990) described the three
levels: the manifest level, the strategic beliefs level, and the core level
(values and assumptions).
Foundations of Organizational Culture 137

Another conceptualization that we have found particularly helpful

in understanding both the concept and the content of culture was pre-
sented by Rousseau (1990a). She proposed five layers of culture: artifacts,
patterns of behavior, behavioral norms, values, and fundamental assump-
tions. Although the artifacts, values, and fundamental assumptions align
with Schein’s (2010) model, Rousseau’s introduction of patterns of be-
havior (how members interact and coordinate to solve organizational
problems) and behavioral norms (beliefs about acceptable and unaccept-
able behavior) is useful. Schein (2010) voiced skepticism about whether
behavior should be considered a cultural manifestation, but Rousseau’s
(1990a) inclusion of these layers is important because so many measures
of culture are largely focused on patterns of behavior and norms.
A third conceptualization we have found useful on the concept and
content of culture is an extension of Schein’s (1985) model proposed by
Hatch (1993) in what she referred to as the cultural dynamics model.
Hatch included cultural symbols as a fourth element beyond the three
levels originally conceptualized in Schein’s model to make a stronger
connection with the symbolic-interpretive perspective on culture. More
importantly, instead of focusing on Schein’s levels independently, Hatch
shifted the focus to the dynamic processes that occur in the relation-
ships among the different levels. She proposed four processes: manifes-
tation (linking assumptions and values), realization (linking values and
artifacts), symbolization (linking artifacts and symbols), and interpreta-
tion (linking symbols and assumptions). Hatch emphasized that these
processes were not unidirectional. That is, although assumptions can
manifest to values, values are realized in artifacts, and artifacts are given
symbolic meaning, the processes can also be reversed. In other words,
management’s espousal of new values can influence assumptions, or the
introduction of new artifacts can result in a change in values to realign
with the new artifacts. We highlight Hatch’s model because although we
find Schein’s approach to be quite useful in understanding and commu-
nicating about the levels at which organizational culture exists, Hatch’s
processes provide insights into the interplay between and among the lev-
els and particularly how the influence of one level on another can be
bi-directional. This point will be relevant when we turn to the topic of
organizational change later in the book.

Forms of Organizational Culture

As researchers consider the levels at which organizational culture exists,

they face a choice between studying the whole organization (and the
numerous levels of its culture) versus studying specific manifestations of
the organization’s culture in depth. Along these lines, Martin and Frost
(1996) distinguished between generalist studies, which are more apt to
provide a description of a culture as a whole including a variety of cul-
tural manifestations, and specialist studies, which have a singular focus on
138 Foundations of Organizational Culture

a particular cultural manifestation. With regard to the latter approach, a

number of cultural forms or foci for research have been identified in the
organizational culture literature, most of which approach the study of
culture at the artifact level.
And what are these so-called cultural manifestations? Although we
will not attempt an exhaustive list, some include language, jargon, myths,
stories, legends, folklore, jokes, slogans, rituals, rites, ceremonies, celebra-
tions, traditions, heroes, behavioral norms, rules, taboos, dress, and physi-
cal arrangements. Trice and Beyer (1993) organized these various cultural
forms into four general categories. Symbols are somewhat of an overarch-
ing category, in that the other cultural forms can be studied in terms
of their symbolic meaning for organizational members. Trice and Beyer
noted that research on symbols has generally focused on how objects,
settings, and performers/functionaries can act as symbols of the deeper
meanings for people. Language is a cultural form that encompasses jar-
gon, slang, gestures, signals, signs, songs, humor, jokes, gossip, rumor,
metaphors, proverbs, and slogans. The narratives category includes sto-
ries, legends, sagas, and myths. Finally, their fourth category was practices,
which included rituals, taboos, ceremonials, and rites (including rites of
passage, degradation, enhancement, renewal, conflict reduction, and in-
tegration). We will discuss the role these various cultural forms play in
more detail as we move through our discussion of organizational culture
and the ways it is studied.
Readers who perhaps wondered why we began the chapters on cul-
ture with conceptual and definitional issues instead of research on the
topic should now understand that the study of organizational culture is
a very complex issue. It is complex because of the variety of ways it has
been conceptualized, the levels at which it exists, and the variety of man-
ifestations that might characterize it. Indeed, the same manifestations or
forms across organizations may take on different meanings and, as Hatch
(1993) has so cogently noted, what seems to underlie culture in the way
of basic assumptions may in fact be subject to alteration through changes
in espoused and enacted values and/or the behavioral norms proposed
by Rousseau (1990a). Given these complexities we can now move on
to the methods used for the study of organizational culture that attempt
to address these complexities in ways that make culture more tangible.

METHODS FOR STUDYING

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The method used for studying culture is perhaps the most contentious
issue in the field. We earlier showed, of course, that the way culture is
understood is also very contentious, and it is clear that the two issues—
understanding culture and studying it—are inextricably intertwined.
Prior to getting into the sources of disagreement on this topic, we thought
it would be useful to set the stage by discussing why culture is difficult
Foundations of Organizational Culture 139

to study and the conditions under which it may be most accessible. Pet-
tigrew (1990) provided seven issues that capture why organizational cul-
ture is difficult to study (and change):

1. The levels issue (it is difficult to study deeply held beliefs and assumptions)
2. The pervasiveness issue (organizational culture encompasses a broad
number of interlocking organizational elements)
3. The implicitness issue (organizational culture is taken for granted and
rarely explicitly acknowledged and discussed)
4. The imprinting issue (culture has deep ties to the history of the organization)
5. The political issue (cultural issues are tied to differences in power or
status in the organization)
6. The plurality issue (organizations rarely have a single culture, but in-
stead have multiple subcultures)
7. The interdependency issue (culture is interconnected with a broad num-
ber of other issues both internal and external to the organization).

With all of these challenges facing culture researchers, it is not very sur-
prising that there is debate over how best to approach the study of orga-
nizational culture, and as we will see, many of the tensions can be traced
back to these challenges.
Differences in perspective about how culture should be studied are
confounded with the epistemological approaches outlined previously.
That is, in Smircich’s (1983) terminology, researchers who view organi-
zations as cultures tend to (almost exclusively) use qualitative methods,
whereas researchers who view organizations as having cultures are more
likely to use quantitative methods (although qualitative approaches
are common as well). Several factors distinguish these two general ap-
proaches and contribute to the choice of method. Trice and Beyer (1993)
emphasized that culture can be studied under the presumption that it has
distinctive and unique elements or as having universal elements. Those
who emphasize organizations as being cultures tend to highlight the dis-
tinctiveness of each individual organization’s cultural manifestations and
history, which typically results in the use of qualitative methods, whereas
those who view organizations as having cultures emphasize those ele-
ments that can be studied and compared across multiple organizations,
which typically results in the use of quantitative methods. A  related
issue is the emphasis on describing culture from the insider’s perspec-
tive (i.e., an emic approach) versus applying a more general framework
across multiple cultures (i.e., an etic approach). (Note that Trice and
Beyer [1993] emphasized that both perspectives have value.) Because of
the emphasis on taking the insider’s perspective, those who view organi-
zations as cultures tend to conduct inductive research, using qualitative
methods to provide thick descriptions of what occurs in the organization
(Sackmann, 2001). Those who view organizations as having cultures are
more likely to use deductive approaches that require testing a previ-
ously devised conceptualization of the important cultural elements in
an organization or across organizations; those who view organizations
140 Foundations of Organizational Culture

as cultures question whether such frameworks are actually valid in the

settings to which they are being applied (Schein, 2010). Another issue is
the level of culture that can be assessed with different methods. The goal
of researchers who view organizations as cultures is to “penetrate the
front” of organizations and better understand the deeper structures of the
organization. They argue that quantitative research cannot access these
deeper levels and question whether culture surveys are asking the right
questions in the first place (Martin & Frost, 1996). We do not know of
any claims by researchers from the organizations have cultures perspec-
tive that they are capturing the deeper layers of culture with quantitative
methods, although they may not always be clear about what outer layer
of culture (e.g.,  artifacts, behavioral norms, espoused values) they are
measuring in their research.
One interesting aspect of this debate is that qualitative researchers
seem to object much more strongly to quantitative research than quan-
titative researchers do to qualitative research. For instance, Ott (1989)
stated, “The organizational culture perspective does not believe that
quantitative, experimental-type, logical-positivist, scientific research
is especially useful for studying organizations” (p. 2). Martin and Frost
(1996) were also heavily critical of quantitative approaches, as dem-
onstrated here: “Because such a superficial focus cannot ‘penetrate the
front’ of people’s desire to present themselves in a favourable light, it
is far inferior to the depth made accessible by long-term participant-
observation” (p. 607). Schein’s (2000) critique of quantitative measures
of culture was that they “force researchers to cast their theoretical nets
too narrowly” (p. xxvii). He has also leveled more serious concerns about
whether quantitative approaches to studying culture are even ethical
(Schein, 1985, 2010).
Negative evaluations of and objections to qualitative research are much
more difficult to find; quantitative researchers are more likely to simply
not acknowledge qualitative research or to offer counterarguments to
the objections of qualitative researchers by describing how quantitative
research can have value as well (e.g., Denison, 2001). The primary ex-
planation for this difference goes back to the roots of the contemporary
study of organizational culture. For those academics who viewed orga-
nizations as cultures and performed qualitative research, the study of
culture offered a way to rebel against the dominant positivist paradigm
(Meyerson, 1991b), and thus the tensions over how best to study cul-
ture were embedded in a larger epistemological battle. For qualitative
researchers, it seems the quantitative study of culture represents an in-
fringement on turf that they had hoped could be a safe haven from an
objectivist-functionalist perspective on methods. Quantitative research-
ers, in contrast, may be less likely to recognize this turf war and less likely
to view the work of qualitative researchers as a threat to themselves.
Of course, the discussion thus far has been somewhat overly sim-
plified, and there is more nuance than a simple dichotomy between
qualitative and quantitative research. In particular, there is much more
Foundations of Organizational Culture 141

variability in qualitative culture research than is commonly recognized

or acknowledged by quantitative culture researchers. Schein (1990) used
five categories for characterizing research on organizational culture (note
that all but the first are qualitative): survey research, analytical descrip-
tive, ethnographic, historical, and clinical descriptive. Davey and Symon
(2001) noted that qualitative research on organizational culture could
generally (but not always) be divided into two categories: psychological
perspectives that tend to be positivist and functionalist in their approach,
and anthropological/sociological perspectives that tend to take a more
subjective, interpretive approach. Louis (1985) described how qualita-
tive methods might be used to compare across settings (an approach
more commonly associated with quantitative researchers) if the goal of
the research is knowledge of culture in general rather than knowledge of
a specific setting. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985) divided empirical qualita-
tive studies of culture into the categories of holistic studies (typically
field observation studies that include all manifestations of culture) and
semiotic studies (studies of communication via signs and symbols). And
Martin and Frost (1996) described splits between those qualitative cul-
ture researchers who advocated pure ethnography (long-term with thick
description) and those performing “smash and grab” ethnographs that use
interviews or other short-term approaches. Therefore, although we tend
to be a bit simplistic in much of our discussion to make some general
points and comparisons, we want to at least acknowledge that there is
considerable nuance that we are overlooking in thinking about this cen-
tral issue as a simple dichotomy.
Moving beyond some of the splits and disagreements, some authors
have noted the strengths and weaknesses of each method depending on
the researcher’s goal (e.g., Rousseau, 1990a), and that is the position we
take on this issue. In Table 4.4 we provide a summary of what might be
considered the pros and cons of each approach beginning with qualita-
tive research.
One way to take advantage of the strengths of both approaches (and
to avoid some of the weaknesses of using either approach exclusively) is
to use multiple methods, and that is the point reached by many authors
who have addressed this issue. For instance, Rousseau (1990a) distin-
guished between public and private research methods and data analysis,
noting that richer insights can result when quantitative methods are cou-
pled with qualitative analysis or when qualitative methods are coupled
with quantitative analysis. Reichers and Schneider (1990) framed the
issue in terms of capturing generic culture versus particularistic mani-
festations of culture. They advocated for conducting in-depth interviews
prior to survey data collection, and using the information from those in-
terviews to develop organization-specific questions to capture particular-
istic issues. Those questions could then be added to a survey with more
generic questions that could be used across organizations for comparison
purposes. Another approach, described by Sackmann (2001) would be
to alternate between qualitative, inductive approaches and quantitative,
TABLE 4.4 The pros and cons of qualitative and quantitative research
methods for studying organizational culture

Qualitative Research

Pros Cons
• Provides a detailed description of • Less likely to be theoretically driven
an organization’s culture
• Gives the “insider perspective” of • Less useful for comparing cultures
what an organization’s culture because of emphasis on uniqueness
is like of each individual culture and an
absence of common issues studied
• More likely to study culture over • Difficult to obtain input from
time all members of an organization
without long, intensive ethnographic
approaches
• Can be used to study deeper • Relies on subjective judgments of
layers of culture, getting past any extent to which organization is
misleading biases or fronts put up characterized by a general culture
by organizational members versus subcultures and the extent
• Allows for unexpected findings to which there is agreement in the
culture

Quantitative Research

Pros Cons
• Allows for comparisons of culture • Less likely to study culture over
across settings time; most studies are “snapshots” of
the organization
• Better suited to show how culture • Not as useful for studying deeper
is related to effectiveness outcomes levels of culture (although some
have argued this is possible if layers
of culture are aligned; Ashkanasy,
Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000)
• Better suited to testing theory • Difficult to judge if questions being
asked are appropriate to and/or
relevant for a particular culture
• Can survey all employees in the • Difficult to evaluate influence of any
organization across levels and presentational biases on employee
departments responses
• Can statistically test for presence • Less likely to identify unexpected
of subcultures and for level of information about the culture that
agreement in culture does not fit within the researcher’s
prior framework
Foundations of Organizational Culture 143

deductive approaches. One suggested option would be to develop theo-

retical models earlier in the research project using qualitative methods
and then to shift to quantitative methods to test those models in later
stages of the research project (see Sackmann, 1991).
Yet another example of such an approach is Sutton and Rafa-
eli’s (1988) study of the effects of employee emotional expression on
customer behavior. Using data collected through the observation of
employee-customer interactions, they first performed statistical analyses
to test the hypotheses they had developed based on prior theory and
research. When they encountered a surprising relationship counter to
their initial predictions, they performed a follow-up qualitative, induc-
tive study in which they spent a day as a clerk in the organization, inter-
viewed management, conducted a workshop with customers, and visited
different stores. The insights gained from this qualitative study were used
to re-analyze the data from their quantitative study, which then clari-
fied the initially unexpected finding. Unfortunately, this example of re-
search blending quantitative and qualitative methods is much rarer than
it should be. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that research along these lines
may be more common moving forward than has been in the past, espe-
cially as the benefits of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods have
been acknowledged by authors who have been some of the strongest
critics of quantitative approaches.
For example, Martin (2002) has advocated for the use of hybrid re-
search designs, noting how quantitative and qualitative approaches can
reinforce (or triangulate) the findings of the other or reveal insights by
looking at the same issue in different ways, which can then lead to a
richer and more complex understanding of the research subject. Despite
his strong words against culture surveys elsewhere (Schein, 1985, 2010),
Schein (2000) presented a more balanced stance in his commentary for
the first edition of the Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
describing the “ideal research design” as measuring present and desired
norms using surveys and then following up with group interviews to dis-
cuss the discrepancies between the two, thus revealing the underlying
assumptions present in the organization. Note that this approach is in
the opposite order of that suggested by Reichers and Schneider (1990);
our view is that the usefulness of starting with qualitative and moving to
quantitative versus quantitative then qualitative is up for debate and is
likely dictated by the goals of the research. Whichever path is taken, the
outcome is likely to be stronger (i.e., yield a richer portrait) when mul-
tiple methods are used than when either approach is used alone.
In the rest of the book, we will revisit the issue of the method used
for culture research at several points. In particular, in Chapter Five we
describe in some detail quantitative research that has been done on the
relationships between organizational culture and organizational effec-
tiveness, as well as the responses to this line of research by those pre-
ferring qualitative methods in line with the organizations are cultures
144 Foundations of Organizational Culture

perspective. In addition, in Chapter Seven we return to practical is-

sues surrounding the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods
(including descriptions of specific quantitative instruments) as part of
conducting a cultural inquiry.

SUMMARY: ON UNDERSTANDING AND

STUDYING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

At this point, readers will certainly be feeling that understanding, defin-

ing, and assessing organizational culture is complex indeed. The reason
for this conclusion is that these are very complex issues with which re-
searchers deal! There are different levels of culture, different possible
methods for assessing these different levels, and the likely conclusion is
that all of these are appropriate and relevant depending on the question
of interest. Perhaps the best portrayal of this conclusion was proposed by
Martin (2002), who argued that organizational culture in organizations
is simultaneously integrated, differentiated, and fragmented—depending
on at what levels and forms one is looking and for what reasons.
In short there is no one best way to understand and study organiza-
tional culture, and the focus for such study is not predetermined since
it depends on the purpose for which a specific study of culture is being
done. The organizational culture metaphor is vague with regard to what
its elements might be but informative in identifying that the ways orga-
nizations are experienced by people in them will likely vary across both
levels within an organization and between organizations. The ways in
which those differences will be manifested is not known until the com-
parisons are made—and to what those differences may in turn be related
is a question of interest, particularly to those who believe organizations
have cultures (Smircich, 1983).
In the next chapter, we continue the discussion of organizational cul-
ture, switching to the ways in which organizational culture is thought
to emerge and be transmitted over time and the consequences of such
emergence for the strength of a culture and the relationship of culture
with organizational effectiveness.
 CH APTER

5
The Emergence,
Effectiveness, and
Change of
Organizational Cultures
In this chapter, we address the issues of how organizational culture de-
velops and is transmitted in organizations and the role of organizational
culture in organizational effectiveness. We then consider organizational
culture change, which serves as a review of the materials that precede
it because, as we will see, to change an organization’s culture may re-
quire consideration of why and how it develops in the first place, how it
is transmitted, and the effectiveness of organizations and their cultures.
Although there are clear links between some of the material discussed in
this chapter and the organizational climate literature discussed in Chap-
ters Two and Three, we generally refrain from explicitly making those
connections until Chapter Six, which is entirely focused on the integra-
tion of the concepts of organizational climate and culture.

THE EMERGENCE OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

There have been a variety of proposals for why cultures develop in orga-
nizations. Some authors (e.g., Krefting & Frost, 1985) have discussed or-
ganizational culture as functioning at the collective level in organizations
in similar ways as individual level cognitive schemas. The emphasis is on

145
146 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

how the shared understandings that are part of culture are useful be-
cause as collective schemas they reduce the complexity inherent in orga-
nizational life by reducing ambiguity and making life in an organization
less complex. Such schemas emerge from and thus facilitate interactions
among workers, as individuals can communicate more easily and better
anticipate others’ actions when the underlying assumptions that guide
their thoughts and behaviors are shared. Other authors, like Trice and
Beyer (1993), have taken this to another level by suggesting that culture
is necessary to cope with the chaos that is always threatening. Their per-
spective is that the social order created by organizational culture allows
members to avoid being overwhelmed by their fear of uncertainty and
constant change, and thus be able to focus on functioning effectively in
their day-to-day lives. Whether the basis for the development of culture
is to reduce complexity or to cope with the fear of chaos, organizational
cultures serve a very functional purpose in how individuals understand
their organizations and work with their fellow workers within those
organizations.
Whatever the reasons may be for why culture develops, the more in-
teresting question in our opinion is how the specific content of any given
organization’s culture comes to be and the ways that content is mani-
fested. Thus, in the rest of this section, we focus on the following issues:
(1) the primary origins of the organization’s culture in the founder of the
organization; (2) the learnings and experiences of members as carriers of
the culture; (3) the importance of context in an organization’s culture,
especially the national culture in which the organization exists and the
industry in which the organization operates; and (4) the importance of
the organization’s people in creating and maintaining its culture, as ar-
ticulated by the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model.

Founder Influences

Although others have emphasized the role of the founder (e.g.,  Ott,
1989; Trice & Beyer, 1993), Schein has perhaps written most persuasively
and specifically about the critical influence the founder has on the forma-
tion of organizational culture. In fact, one of Schein’s earliest articles on
the topic was entitled “The role of the founder in creating organizational
culture,” which was published as part of a special issue on organizational
culture in Organizational Dynamics in 1983. In the article, Schein sum-
marized the primary foundations of organizational culture in this way:
“The ultimate organizational culture will always reflect the complex in-
teraction between (1) the assumptions and theories that founders bring
to the group initially and (2) what the group learns subsequently from
its own experiences” (p. 14).1 We will address the second issue shortly,
but as for founders, Schein argued that they play a unique role as they
are the ones who have the idea that forms the basis for the new company,
and they also have strong, usually implicit, assumptions about how best
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 147

to bring that idea to fruition based on their own characteristics and past
experiences. The founder then goes about communicating those assump-
tions or beliefs through various actions he or she takes, actions Schein
referred to as embedding mechanisms. Although Schein initially listed
them in one block and described some as playing a more important role
than others play, he later formalized the distinction between primary and
secondary embedding mechanisms, such that the primary mechanisms
create the culture and the secondary mechanisms reinforce the messages
sent by the primary mechanisms (Schein, 2010).
Schein’s (2010) culture embedding mechanisms are summarized in
Table 5.1. We will focus more on these mechanisms as we discuss the role
of leadership in organizational culture/climate change and as we address
the integration of the climate and culture literatures in Chapter Six. The
main point here is that founders communicate their values and beliefs
through these mechanisms—what they pay attention to, how they react
to crises, to what they allocate scarce resources, how they personally be-
have and serve as role models, the behaviors they reward, and with whom
they surround themselves. Because of founders’ unique role in establish-
ing the organization, they will have a particularly strong impact on the
formation of the organization’s culture at its earliest stages. And although
their impact on the culture may diminish over time as they retire and/or
give up direct control of the organization to others, founders will tend to
bring others into the organization, and specifically onto the management
team, that are like themselves in terms of beliefs, values, outlook, back-
ground, personality, and even theories on how to succeed (Ott, 1989). As
a result, the culture that founders initially create is likely to persist even
though they are not present as the new leaders use the embedding mech-
anisms in consistent ways to communicate similar values and beliefs.

TABLE 5.1 Culture embedding mechanisms (Schein, 2010, p. 236;

used by permission)

Primary embedding mechanisms

• What leaders pay attention to, measure, and control on a regular basis
• How leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises
• How leaders allocate resources
• Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching
• How leaders allocate rewards and status
• How leaders recruit, select, promote, and excommunicate
Secondary articulation and reinforcement mechanisms
• Organizational design and structure
• Organizational systems and procedures
• Rites and rituals of the organization
• Design of physical space, facades, and buildings
• Stories about important events and people
• Formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds, and charters
148 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

Although there is a consensus about the importance of the founder

across the literature on organizational culture, there is some disagree-
ment about the role of the founder relative to other factors that influence
culture. For example, Martin, Sitkin, and Boehm (1985) argued that the
cognitive biases of salience and attribution result in the founder being
credited with more influence than is deserved, and that other factors,
like the organization’s stage in its life cycle, likely have as much of an
impact on the development of the organization’s culture as the founder.
Others have voiced similar objections, with Trice and Beyer (1993) not-
ing that “organizations do not automatically build their cultures around
the ideologies and values of the founders” (p. 269), and Alvesson (1993)
pointing out that “the influence of founders on organizational culture
cannot be assumed” (p. 87). We agree that the role of founders and lead-
ers in general may be over-romanticized (in line with the work of Meindl
and his colleagues with regard to leadership; Meindl, 1990, 1993, 1995;
Meindl  & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich,  & Dukerich, 1985), but the
opposite perspective—that organizational culture would develop in the
same way regardless of the founder—is untenable. It seems to us that
the founder plays a critical and prominent role in the development of or-
ganizational culture, which is not to say the process is always intentional
or that there is a perfect correspondence between the founder’s values
and the values that develop in the organization (Martin & Siehl, 1983).
Rather, there are multiple influences simultaneously at work, including
the founder and other factors that are highlighted next, none of which is
THE single driver of organization culture. Instead, it is the unique blend
of all of them and how they evolve over time that make an organization’s
culture what it is (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).

Member Experiences and Learnings

Although founders influence culture by offering solutions to problems

that are infused with their own values and beliefs, those solutions are
not accepted blindly by followers as important; the proposed solutions
must work prior to followers assuming their importance as a foundation
for what the organization becomes as a culture. As described by Schein
(1983), the leader’s influence gets the group moving in a certain direc-
tion, but it is only when the solutions offered by the leader are useful that
the elements become implicitly and perhaps explicitly accepted by the
group and ultimately part of the group’s culture. Thus, the second source
of an organization’s culture is the collective learning and reinforcement
process that takes place over time.
Schein (1983, 2010) divided the learning process into aspects that ad-
dress problems of external adaptation and aspects that address problems
related to internal integration. Problems of external adaptation essen-
tially address why the organization exists, what its goals are, and what
it must do to continue to exist. Schein (2010) argued that organizations
primarily rely on positive problem solving to address external adaptation;
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 149

they try different solutions to problems, discard those that do not work,
and continue those that do work. As certain approaches continue to have
success, they become more and more ingrained in the organization as the
“right” way to do things, to the point that they become unquestioned as-
sumptions that implicitly guide life in the organization. As long as those
approaches continue to work, organizational members will continue to
approach problem solving in a similar way.
Schein’s (1983, 2010) second category of learning processes addresses
internal integration, or how the group interacts and functions as it goes
about solving the problems of external adaptation. Internal integration is
driven by anxiety avoidance, in that members need to feel some level of
security and comfort to focus on external adaptation and survival. Thus,
the group develops such characteristics as a shared language, common
understandings of power and status issues, norms for peer relationships,
and consensus on what rewards versus punishments accrue to effective
and ineffective behavior. Whether it be problems of external adaptation
or internal integration, individuals will continue to behave in ways that
have resulted in success in the past, such that “culture ultimately reflects
the group’s effort to cope and learn; it is the residue of that learning
process” (Schein, 2010, p. 91). These early experiences and learnings will
likely differ from one organization to another as they form the founda-
tions for an organization’s early culture.
We do not want to give the impression that this is a perfectly efficient
system, such that individuals adapt as soon as solutions no longer work,
leaving old norms behind and developing new ones. Unfortunately, that
is not how it works; individuals typically persist in the ways that have
been effective long after they may have stopped being effective precisely
because they were rewarded in the past for such assumptions, beliefs,
and behaviors. That is the effect of culture. Behaviors that were highly
functional at one point, and likely for a long time, now may be performed
“for reasons that are incomprehensible to outsiders and in ways that are
incongruent with formal decree” (Van Maanen  & Barley, 1985, p. 37).
Alternatively, as Miller (1990, p. 3) put it:

Many outstanding organizations have followed such paths of deadly

momentum—time-bomb trajectories of attitudes, policies, and events that
lead to falling sales, plummeting profits, even bankruptcy. These companies
extend and amplify the strategies to which they credit their success [lead-
ing to their decline].

How cultures might change to avoid such inefficiencies is the focus of a

later section of this chapter.

The Larger Environment of the Organization

The third category of origins of organizational culture is the organization’s

environment, and we specifically highlight the culture of the broader
150 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

society and the industry within which the organization functions as two
of the primary environmental influences. The general argument here is
that each organization’s culture is influenced by its environment, and the
society and industry are two of the strongest environmental influences on
an organization. Although we focus on these two, we acknowledge other
extra-organizational influences on organizational culture such as these
highlighted by Trice and Beyer (1993): transnational cultures (ideologies
that transcend national boundaries like science, capitalism, or Protestant-
ism), regional cultures (within-country variability; see Ott’s, 1989, ex-
ample of two small towns in Pennsylvania that were 15 miles apart but
whose stories differed markedly when they attempted to attract garment
firms to their area), and other organizations’ cultures (when organiza-
tions are so heavily dependent on each other or work together so closely
that their cultures influence each other; Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).
National culture. With regard to societal culture, an organization is
not independent from the society in which it operates, and the assump-
tions that are shared throughout a society will inevitably influence the
organization’s culture, although the organizational culture should not be
considered a subculture of the national culture (Hofstede  & Peterson,
2000; Ott, 1989). That being said, the relationships between national
culture and organizational culture are not necessarily simple ones; as
Kwantes and Dickson (2011) concluded at the end of their chapter on
the topic, “The premise of a societal culture–organizational culture effect
appears simple; understanding the what, when, and how much of that
effect is anything but” (p. 509).
Some of the earliest focus on national culture was in comparing orga-
nizations in the US and Japan, with the understanding that differences
in how organizations operated were tied to differences in national cul-
tures (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale  & Athos, 1982; see analysis by Brannen  &
Kleinberg, 2000, for more detail). Hofstede’s (1980) work was highly
influential in this regard, as he demonstrated that organizations operating
in multiple countries developed both a common organizational culture
and unique subcultures in each country that aligned with that country’s
national culture (see the summary of these issues in Hofstede & Peter-
son, 2000). More recent research as part of the GLOBE study of culture
and leadership across 62 national cultures indicated that national culture
explained between 21% and 47% of the variance in the organizational
culture practice dimensions (Brodbeck, Hanges, Dickson, Gupta, & Dorf-
man, 2004), although others have noted that the relationships between
national culture and organizational practices are generally weaker than
the relationships with organizational values because practices are more
constrained by other environmental factors (Dickson, Aditya, & Chho-
kar, 2000). Furthermore, some authors, like Gerhart (2009), have argued
that the constraining role of national culture may be less than has been
suggested in the literature, allowing for more opportunities for differ-
entiation among organizations within a single society. Adding yet an-
other twist, the effect of national culture on organizational culture may
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 151

actually vary across national cultures, such that there is more of a range
of organizational cultures in loose cultures (e.g., the US) relative to more
constrained variability in tight cultures (e.g.,  Japan; Gelfand, Nishii,  &
Raver, 2006; Kwantes & Dickson, 2011).
Obviously, the issues surrounding the relationship between national
and organizational culture present a forest and trees paradox. That is,
when looked at from a high level, a forest contains seemingly undiffer-
entiated trees but on the ground, the differences among trees are clear.
Research clearly shows a main effect for national culture on organiza-
tional culture, but within national cultures, there is also a main effect
for organizational culture (Hofstede  & Peterson, 2000; House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).
Industry effects. In addition to societal culture, individual organiza-
tional cultures are shaped by the industry in which they operate (Gor-
don, 1991). Deal and Kennedy (1982) described the industry or business
environment as “the single greatest influence in shaping a corporate cul-
ture” (p. 13). Ott (1989) described three reasons why the nature of the
organization’s business has an effect on its culture, and thus why or-
ganizations within certain industries will tend to have similar cultures.
First, industry dictates the dominant professions of those working in the
organizations, and thus organizations in industries dominated by certain
professions will share numerous attributes. For example, research on oc-
cupations (e.g.,  Holland, 1997) tells us that the people who make up
different occupations have distinct personalities and values, and thus
the primary occupations in an industry and the unique characteristics of
those occupational members will influence the culture that develops in
those organizations. Note that the role of occupational cultures is typi-
cally discussed in terms of their effect on the development of organiza-
tional subcultures, a topic we discuss in more depth later in this chapter.
Ott’s (1989) second reason for the effects of industry on organiza-
tional culture was that the organization’s business drives the external
stakeholders with whom the organization must interact (e.g.,  custom-
ers, regulators). The characteristics of customers and their demands will
shape what makes the organization successful, and thus they define the
reinforcements the organization is likely to receive for its external adap-
tation accomplishments discussed earlier. For instance, Gordon (1991)
described how customer demands for reliability versus novelty would
shape the culture that forms within the organization. Thus, whether an
organization primarily works with artists, farmers, psychotherapists, or
the military will have an effect on what behaviors and practices are suc-
cessful in the organization, and thus the culture that develops over time.
Third, Ott (1989) highlighted two marketplace factors (taken from
Deal & Kennedy, 1982) that influence how organizational culture devel-
ops: risk and speed of feedback. Monopolies develop different cultures
than organizations with many competitors (risk), and online retail com-
panies develop different cultures than companies in the oil or aerospace
industries (speed of feedback). Other factors related to industry may
152 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

include the historical development of the industry, its dominant tech-

nologies, the rate of environmental change, or its societal expectations
(Gordon, 1991; Trice & Beyer, 1993).
Somewhat surprisingly, when Brodbeck and colleagues (2004) ana-
lyzed the GLOBE study data to compare the effects of national cul-
ture and industry on organizational culture, they found that industry had
relatively small effects (0%–11% of variance explained across the orga-
nizational practices) relative to the larger effects described previously
for national culture. Nevertheless, what they did find was that industry
interacted with national culture for four of the nine organizational prac-
tices they studied. Specifically, there were stronger relationships between
national culture and organizational culture for the telecommunications
and food industries than for firms in the financial sector. Brodbeck and
colleagues (2004) attributed this difference to industry differences in the
sensitivity to global market norms, with the financial industry being most
sensitive to those norms and thus the least likely to develop industry-
specific cultural practices. These findings should not be taken to mean
that industry does not matter; the GLOBE study was designed to focus
on those areas where there were differences across societies and not
necessarily the variance that might exist in the critical factors that dif-
ferentiate industries. What it does tell us is that the external influences
on organizational culture are multiple and often interacting; complexity
cannot be ignored.

The ASA Model

In stark contrast to models for understanding the emergence of organi-

zational culture based on primarily contextual influences is a framework
developed by Schneider (1987) that rests on the personal characteristics
of those in an organization. Thus, unlike most models of organizational
culture that have emphasized the influence of the situation on individu-
als, the ASA model placed individuals in the central role of influence,
and argued that situations are created by the nature of the people within
them. Specifically, Schneider contended that individuals within organiza-
tions become more homogeneous in terms of their values and personal-
ity through the processes of attraction, selection, and attrition. In other
words, those individuals who are attracted to certain organizations (and
their cultures) will be more homogeneous than the applicant pool in
general; those individuals who are selected will be more similar to the
current employees and fit better with the current culture than those em-
ployees who are not selected; and finally, those employees who stay with
the organization and who do not voluntarily or involuntarily leave the
organization will be more similar to each other and the typical employee
than those who leave.
The ASA framework (Schneider, 1987) proposed that these processes
start with the founder, who is likely to surround him or herself with
similar individuals who agree with his/her vision for the company. The
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 153

personality and values of the founder and those individuals form the
foundation of the organization’s culture. Over time, the culture is per-
petuated because the employees who remain throughout the ASA pro-
cesses will be those that tend to share the organization’s core values and
will tend to have homogeneous personalities. Those individuals will tend
to share the same assumptions and will agree with and be likely to con-
tinue the various cultural forms that exist in the organization. So rather
than treating culture as something that exists separately from the people
within it, the ASA model emphasized that the culture exists because of
the people within it, and as long as nothing prevents the ASA cycle from
continuing, the organization will continue to be homogeneous (if not
increasingly so), and the culture will stay relatively the same. Schneider
is not the only individual to place such an emphasis on the influence in-
dividuals have on organizational culture; Alvesson (1993) made a similar
argument as illustrated by this quote: “People are thus culture creators
and are not simply transferring and adapting meaning mechanistically.
But they are also cultural products (Löfgren, 1982); they are formed by
culture, as well as by reproducing and forming it” (p. 81).

Summary

After reading this section, it becomes clear to readers that what is

blithely called “the culture” of an organization emerges out of numerous
interrelated and multilevel interacting streams. From the emphasis on
a single individual (the founder) to consideration of broader environ-
mental effects (e.g.,  national culture and industry), it is apparent that
culture emergence can vary dramatically across organizations because of
all of these interacting elements. Organizational culture is not simple be-
cause if it was then everyone would get it right—whatever “right” means.
Clearly the sense one has of an organization merely by wandering around
in it and making observations makes it clear that organizations can vary
greatly in the beliefs and values and basic assumptions by which they
operate and that these, in turn, are manifest in a great number of ways.
This complexity in what an organizational culture is and its correspond-
ing causes makes trying to change an organization a daunting task, as we
will see when we discuss culture change later in this chapter. For now,
it is sufficient to appreciate the many layers and ways in which culture
emerges and understand that like all living systems the drama is in the
details that underlie what we think we see.

SOCIALIZATION AND THE PERPETUATION

OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

No matter the sources of an organization’s culture, it must be passed

on to new employees to ensure its usefulness and existence over time.
Van Maanen (1976) defined socialization as “the processes by which
154 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

members learn the cultural values, norms, beliefs, assumptions, and re-
quired behaviors that permit them to participate as effective members
of an organization” (p. 89). This process is so critical to the construct of
organizational culture that it is at times included as part of its defini-
tion. For instance, Van Maanen and Barley (1985) described culture in
terms of strategies developed by members to solve problems that are
“remembered and passed on to new members” (p. 33). Beres and Port-
wood (1979) also made the perpetuation of organization culture central
to their definition of culture: “A cognitive frame of reference and a pat-
tern of behavior transmitted to members of a group from the previous
generations of the group” (p. 171). Finally, Schein (2010), as one of the
most well-known and highly cited authors on organizational culture, in-
cluded the passing of culture to new members in his definition, noting
how culture is “taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think, and feel” (p. 18).
Some of the earliest organizational culture research focused on the
issue of socialization. The Hawthorne studies, which have had a tremen-
dous effect on the development of the fields of organizational behav-
ior and industrial/organizational psychology, have provided some of the
earliest documentation of newcomer socialization processes. As part of
the famous bank wiring room observations (Roethlisberger & Dickson,
1939), employees were described as “binging” (punching in the shoul-
ders) newcomers who were thought to be rate-busters as they wired the
boards for use by operators in companies. Thus, the existing employees
sent a clear message about the group’s shared values and what were the
acceptable behavioral norms.
Other early discussions of employee socialization include Parsons
(1951), who discussed the importance for the newcomer to learn the
necessary knowledge to perform well in his/her new role. Note that this
information was not narrowly defined in terms of task knowledge, but in-
stead included information in the social and political arenas that is typi-
cally also the domain of organizational culture. Another early example
comes from Etzioni (1961), who focused on the need for new employees
to understand the sources of power required to take action in their orga-
nization for them to function effectively. Finally, in describing their open
system theory of organizations, Katz and Kahn (1966) observed the fol-
lowing: “Just as a society has a cultural heritage, so social organizations
possess distinctive patterns of collective feeling and beliefs passed along
to new group members” (p. 66).
One reason why socialization was the focus of early culture research
and continues to be included in the very definition of culture itself is
that socialization is central to our understanding of why culture remains
stable over time and has such strong effects on organizational members.
Van Maanen and Barley (1985) perhaps summarized the issue best when
they observed, “Cultures endure only to the degree that their content
is transmitted from one generation to the next” (p. 35). As we observe
cultures being carried on over the successive generations in organizations
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 155

even as members come and go, we cannot help but wonder about the
processes that explain how that transmission—and the stability that
follows—occurs. Another perspective for why there is such interest in
socialization processes is that they are anything but simple and straight-
forward. As described by Louis (1990), “Cultural knowledge is tacit,
contextual, informal, unofficial, shared, emergent. Together these char-
acteristics make teaching or otherwise transmitting local cultures to
newcomers problematic” (p. 89). Being socialized into a culture is more
than being able to recite its history; it entails participation in deeply held
assumptions about work and relationships that both existing and new
members may not be able to articulate. Thus, it is both the importance
of the issue and its complexity that has made socialization such a critical
topic for organizational culture researchers.
It is one thing to discuss the academic vantage point on the interesting
topic of socialization but it is also important to understand the meaning
of socialization and the purpose it serves from the vantage point of the
newcomer. The primary mechanism most often discussed as underlying
the process of socialization is uncertainty reduction. In their model of
socialization, Saks and Ashforth (1997) placed uncertainty reduction at
the center, arguing that the information that comes from various organi-
zational, group, and individual factors and actors serves to both reduce
the uncertainty experienced by newcomers and increase their learning
across the various content domains covered by socialization. As uncer-
tainty and anxiety decrease and learning increases, there are proximal
outcomes such as higher role clarity, higher perceptions of fit, and in-
creased social integration, which then lead to more distal outcomes such
as a stronger culture, higher cohesion, and improved effectiveness at
the individual, group, and organizational levels. As we discussed earlier,
one reason why organizational culture itself exists is its role of reduc-
ing complexity, streamlining cognitive processing, and providing shared
understandings of language and acceptable behavior (Krefting  & Frost,
1985; Trice & Beyer, 1993). These benefits of organizational culture can
be seen as newcomers enter the organization and try to understand it.
At first, the amount of information is overwhelming, whether it is about
their job, their peers, or the organization as a whole, and the assumptions
that guide the language and behavior of current organizational members
are not readily apparent. However, as newcomers go through the social-
ization process, they learn the information they need from a variety of
sources, which helps them to develop mental models for how to function
in their job, role, group, and organization. Their status as full members of
the organization can be identified by when the very assumptions of their
coworkers that were so foreign to the newcomers initially are so fully
accepted that they become the newcomers’ own assumptions, operating
outside of conscious awareness.
At this point, it is important to clarify that the literature on organiza-
tional socialization has developed in such a way that it is distinct from
the literature on organizational culture. In fact, some discussions of the
156 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

topic of socialization do not directly mention organizational culture at

all (e.g.,  Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo,  & Tucker, 2007). With that
in mind, it would be beyond the scope of this book to try to provide a
thorough review of the socialization literature. Instead, we will highlight
some of the primary topics that have been addressed in this literature
with an emphasis on those that are most relevant for our discussion of
organizational culture.

Stages of Socialization

The idea that newcomers proceed through stages of socialization has its
roots in the anthropological work on rites of passage. Of all the forms of
organizational culture discussed in the last chapter (e.g., language, stories,
jokes, traditions, heroes, behavioral norms, rules, taboos, dress), rites of
passage are the most relevant for the socialization process in that they
mark the newcomer’s progression from outsider to full member of the
organization. Trice and Beyer (1993) based their summary of the rites of
passage on the work of Van Gennep (1908/1960), who discussed rites of
separation, rites of transition, and rites of incorporation. The goal of rites
of separation is to provide a clear break from the old and entry into the
new. The most commonly cited example of this rite is the entry of a new
recruit into the military. The recruit’s old clothes are replaced by the stan-
dard, military-issued uniform, the recruit’s hair is cut short to conform to
military regulations, and the recruit is subject to severe consequences if
his/her behavior does not fall in line with the group. The next rites of pas-
sage are rites of transition. In most organizations, this phase involves going
through a training or orientation process to learn how the organization and
their job work, which may include bonding experiences to bring together
the group of new hires or “up-ending experiences” to demonstrate to new
employees the problems with their previous ways of thinking and what
they still have to learn. Once again, military boot camp provides a very
vivid example of this phase, but any organization’s training or orientation
for new employees (e.g., Van Maanen’s, 1991, discussion of the University
of Disneyland, now called Disney University) would fit as well. The final
rites of passage are the rites of incorporation. These rites typically involve
the new employees beginning work in their new roles, perhaps with some
sort of graduation ceremony or party (or even something as small as being
issued permanent identification badges; McDonald, 1991) to mark their
shift from trainees to regular employees. This phase is also marked by
learning “the way things really are” in contrast to how they might have
been described in orientation. Although not all of these rites may be fully
incorporated in all organizations, they are likely to be found in some form
or fashion in most socialization processes (perhaps in abbreviated or in-
formal forms in many cases; Trice & Beyer, 1993).
In contemporary research on organizational socialization, various
models have been proposed for the stages of socialization. Ashforth,
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 157

Sluss, and Harrison (2007) asserted that there are four stages that are
generally agreed upon across models. The first stage is anticipation. This
stage occurs prior to organizational entry and includes the expectations
that the individual develops about the organization as well as the infor-
mation the organization communicates about itself (whether accurate
or not). The second stage is encounter, which addresses the individual’s
entry into the organization and the comparison of his or her actual ex-
periences with the expectations developed during the anticipation stage.
Louis (1980) highlighted the surprises that occur at this point, and the
importance of the individual’s affective reactions to the met and unmet
expectations the individual encounters. Next is the third stage, adjust-
ment, in which the individual overcomes the surprise or shock of the
initial encounter and goes through the process of making sense of their
experiences (Louis, 1980) and becoming integrated into the organiza-
tion. This phase includes the individual’s own efforts to learn about the
organization as well as the organization’s efforts (training, mentoring,
etc.) designed to aid in the socialization process. The final stage, stabili-
zation, is when the individual becomes a full member of the organiza-
tion, including all the indicators that the shift from outsider to insider
is complete.
The experiences newcomers have are, of course, of the levels and
forms of organizational culture described earlier—the values, beliefs,
norms, and behaviors that characterize an organization. In addition, those
experiences may happen due to explicit interventions (classroom train-
ing, formal meetings with a supervisor or mentor) or implicitly (partici-
pating in discussions at lunch with new colleagues). It is to the tactics of
socialization that we turn next.

Socialization Tactics

Building on the above, one area of particular interest among socializa-

tion researchers has been the tactics the organization uses to socialize
its employees. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) presented a model of six
tactics, each operating on a bipolar continuum. These tactics were col-
lective versus individual (whether newcomers are socialized as a group
or separately as individuals), formal versus informal (whether the ac-
tivities for newcomers occur separately from current employees, e.g., in
classes, or on the job in the presence of current employees), sequential
versus random (whether or not there is a clear, step-by-step progression
through the phases of the socialization process), fixed versus variable
(whether the timetable for the socialization process is set or open), serial
versus disjunctive (whether or not the newcomer has assistance during
socialization from current employees or a mentor), and investiture versus
divestiture (whether the organization is accepting of the employee and
his/her characteristics or desires to have the employee separate from his/
her pre-entry identity).
158 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

Jones (1986) proposed these socialization tactics might be clustered

into two main domains: individualized socialization (individual, infor-
mal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divesture) and institutionalized
socialization (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture).
In general, institutionalized practices have been found to be positively
associated with higher job satisfaction, self-efficacy, intentions to remain,
role clarity, social acceptance, job performance, organizational commit-
ment, and lower rates of turnover (Bauer et  al., 2007). There is some
evidence, however, that individualized tactics may be more related to the
levels of innovation displayed by new employees (e.g., Allen & Meyer,
1990; Jones, 1986).
Precisely how organizations communicate and perpetuate their cul-
ture during the stages of socialization and/or using these tactics has not
been a primary focus of research in this area, but some insights have
emerged. During the anticipation stage, organizations can use institu-
tionalized forms of communication about their culture through their
marketing, website, or news releases (Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey,  &
Edwards, 2000). This information allows employees to make a pre-
liminary judgment about whether they might be a good fit with the
organization and its culture. Once individuals enter the organization,
management can attempt to perpetuate its culture by explicitly rein-
forcing behaviors that are consistent with the organization’s beliefs and
values, or by influencing those beliefs and values directly through the
individualized justifications that are provided for why things are done
the way they are done (Sathe, 1985). Culture-relevant information is
also communicated explicitly and implicitly through rites of passage,
stories and sagas, organizational jargon and language, and any of the
other symbolic cultural forms discussed previously (Ott, 1989; Trice &
Beyer, 1993). Finally, the organization can perpetuate its culture by re-
moving those individuals who deviate from the organization’s norms
and values. As noted by Ott (1989), “The departure of people who do
not buy into the organizational culture transmits important symbolic
messages about cultural expectations and the price of ‘deviance’ to all
who remain” (p. 93).

Individual Proactive Socialization

The above literature primarily focuses on what the organization does to

foster socialization, but the individual can also take a proactive role dur-
ing this process. As Bell and Staw (1989) described it, much of the early
socialization literature had treated newcomers using a sculpture meta-
phor rather than a sculptor metaphor. In other words, newcomers were
treated as malleable subjects of the organization’s socialization efforts
to be sculpted to its culture, rather than as active, independently think-
ing participants creating their own sculpture. As literature on proactive
socialization behavior has increased in recent years (see Bindl & Parker,
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 159

2010, for a review), there has been a rise in research specifically focusing
on the role of proactivity during the socialization process.
The basic notion of this research is that as newcomers face the novelty
of their new organizational context, they play a proactive role in try-
ing to overcome their anxiety, stress, perceived lack of control, and per-
ceived lack of information or knowledge (Ashford & Black, 1996; Crant,
2000; Griffin, Colella,  & Goparaju, 2000; Miller  & Jablin, 1991; Mor-
rison, 1993). Miller and Jablin (1991) described the types of newcomer
proactive behaviors as overt/covert questions, direct/indirect questions,
third parties, testing limits, disguising conversation, observation, and sur-
veillance. In a similar vein, Ashford and Black (1996) discussed them
in terms of information-seeking, feedback-seeking, relationship-building,
general socializing, networking, job-change negotiating, and positive
framing. Through such proactive tactics, a newcomer learns more about
his/her job, role, and most importantly for this book, the culture of his/
her new organization.

What Is Learned and from Whom?

It is obviously one thing to discuss the stages of socialization and the

tactics, both personal and organizational, by which socialization happens,
but it is another thing to explore who does the socialization besides the
newcomer and what constitutes the learnings associated with the new
role. Drawing on the work of Feldman (1981) and Fisher (1986), Ostroff
and Kozlowski (1992) studied four content areas of learning during so-
cialization: task (how to perform the assigned job), role (clarifying the
individual’s authority, responsibility, and expectations), group (how the
group interacts and what its norms are), and organization (the culture, in-
cluding politics, values, mission, and leadership). Subsequent research by
Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner (1994) focused on more
specific areas of learning during socialization; of their six dimensions, one
could be considered in the task domain (performance proficiency) and
one in the group domain (social), but the other four would be considered
in the organizational domain (politics, language, organizational goals/
values, and history). These latter four dimensions shed light on the spe-
cific areas of organizational culture that are the particular focus for learn-
ing during socialization. One interesting finding by Ostroff and Kozlowski
(1992) was that learning about the organization was actually less impor-
tant than learning about the task, role, and group in the earliest stages
of socialization. What this indicates is that the newcomer is likely to be
more focused on those issues that immediately affect him/her (those that
are more closely associated with the job itself ) before issues involving the
more macro organizational culture become more salient.
In addition to the content of what is learned, the sources of that in-
formation are also relevant. Although researchers have presented a va-
riety of sources of information during socialization, Cooper-Thomas
160 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

and Anderson (2006) proposed five general categories. Three can be

grouped as organizational colleagues, including coworkers, supervisor,
and mentor. The other two sources are organizationally sanctioned infor-
mation sources: formal socialization programs (including training) and
organizational literature. In their model, Cooper-Thomas and Anderson
(2006) placed these sources on the following continuum ranging from
most control to least control: organizational literature, formal socializa-
tion programs, mentor, supervisor, and coworkers. Those sources that are
less controlled by the organization and more “natural” are likely to be
more useful, which is consistent with research evidence (Louis, Posner, &
Powell, 1983; Nelson & Quick, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). These
distinctions have particular relevance for the organizational culture liter-
ature. The level of control the organization has over each source is going
to be related to the types of messages that are communicated about the
organization’s culture, and whether they are consistent with manage-
ment’s desired portrayal of the culture versus the “true” culture that ex-
ists in the organization. Furthermore, if there are significant subcultures
in the organization (which we discuss in more depth in the next section),
the portrayal of “the” organization’s culture may vary significantly across
these sources depending on the subculture with which the target of so-
cialization is most familiar.

Summary

From the newcomer’s vantage point, socialization is all about coping

with the new environment—absorbing, learning, and exploring. He or
she does this to reduce ambiguity and stress, and to learn to become a
part of their new world. At the same time, organizations both implicitly
and explicitly define for newcomers what it is they will learn and from
whom they will learn it. In addition, this learning occurs in stages with
first issues surrounding the task and the local job environment and later
issues surrounding the larger organization and its history. From an or-
ganizational culture vantage point, it is the transmission of the existing
culture to newcomers that yields stability of the culture over time, and
consistency in how the organization is experienced and the behavioral
norms that characterize it.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Much of the interest in the construct of organizational culture in the

early 1980s by US researchers and practitioners concerned its potential
effect on the bottom line. As US companies struggled to keep up with
the quality products emerging from Japanese manufacturing, copying the
Japanese quality-oriented culture seemed to offer promise for reducing
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 161

the gap in quality and ultimately organizational effectiveness (Ouchi,

1981; Pascale  & Athos, 1982). Early practitioner-focused publications
(e.g.,  Deal  & Kennedy, 1982; Peters  & Waterman, 1982) were popular
because of the potential they offered for leveraging culture as a way to
improve organizational effectiveness. However, the results of practi-
tioners’ efforts to change organizational culture were largely disappointing
with thinking on the topic shifting to recognition that culture change is
not easy and certainly not a quick fix (Burke, 2011). This led some to
wonder if culture change to improve organizational effectiveness was
even possible at all (Siehl & Martin, 1990). Obviously, proponents of the
link between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness fall
into Smircich’s (1983) organizations have cultures school of thought.
That is, the reason to study organizations and their cultures is to under-
stand differences among them and to establish a link to organizational
effectiveness and not just to study organizational culture in the abstract
(like the organizations are cultures school). The logic behind this sup-
posed linkage is worth exploring.
Drawing on the writings of Kotter and Heskett (1992) and Denison
and Mishra (1995), we highlight three reasons why this relationship be-
tween organizational culture and organizational effectiveness is thought
to exist. The first is goal alignment, meaning that the organization’s cul-
ture can be a vehicle for communicating and accomplishing organiza-
tional goals. When there is a strong culture, there is clarity for employees
in where and how they should prioritize their energy and effort; every-
one is on the same page. More broadly speaking, all the systems in the
organization should also be aligned because they emerge from and are
infused with the organization’s core values. That is, following Schein
(2010), only those processes that are initially effective and later consis-
tent with the organization’s culture will become part of the organiza-
tion’s cultural fabric.
Second, organizational culture can be a tool for management to in-
formally influence or even control employee behavior without introduc-
ing the more negative consequences that typically accompany numerous
formal rules and bureaucracy. Denison and Mishra (1995) referred to this
informal influence on employees as consistency or normative integra-
tion. In other words, employees know how they are supposed to behave
and handle certain situations based on the core values of the organiza-
tion that have been communicated to them since they were newcomers,
rather than a set of formal procedures that has been laid out in numbing
detail.
The third reason why culture is thought to affect performance is
the increased effort and motivation that a strong human-oriented cul-
ture elicits from employees. That is, as described by Kotter and Heskett
(1992), much of the early work on organizational culture focused on the
humanistic values that are part of the culture with writers such as Ouchi
(1981), Pascale and Athos (1982), and Peters and Waterman (1982),
emphasizing issues such as participation in decision making, recognition
162 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

of employee contributions, or support for employee well-being. Deni-

son and Mishra (1995) described how increased involvement increases
employee ownership and responsibility, which subsequently results in
higher levels of commitment and autonomy as well as higher quality de-
cisions. In addition, part of the effect of an organization’s culture is that
it clarifies the organization’s mission or direction (Denison  & Mishra,
1995). By clarifying the importance of their work, employees experience
increased levels of personal meaning, which yields higher levels of com-
mitment and loyalty.
Recent reviews of research attempting to link organizational cul-
ture and effectiveness have been modestly encouraging. For example, in
Wilderom, Glunk, and Maslowski’s (2000) review, they identified ten
studies that best represented the empirical literature on the relation-
ship between organizational culture and organizational performance.
Although the studies did show some support for a culture-performance
relationship, a number of concerns about the operationalizations of both
culture and performance, as well as various study design issues, led the
authors to conclude that the ambiguous and less than convincing findings
had resulted in little progress being made on the topic. In a follow-up
review of the decade after the Wilderom and colleagues (2000) review,
Sackmann (2011) identified 55 studies that examined the direct link be-
tween culture and performance. She was much more optimistic about
the support for this relationship, concluding that it “seems to exist across
industries and nations with somewhat similar trends regarding culture
dimensions and culture types” (p. 212) and that cultures that are more
“open-, adaptive-, outside-, customer-, mission- or goal-, achievement-,
competitive-, people-, innovative-, and quality-oriented” (p. 217) will
have higher performance.
More support for the relationship between organizational culture and
performance can be found in Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki’s (2011) meta-
analysis of this relationship based on the competing values framework
(CVF; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). As we introduced in Chapter Two,
the CVF is captured by a 2X2 framework created by crossing two bipolar
dimensions: flexibility versus stability in structure, and an internal versus
an external focus. The four resulting culture types are labeled clan (inter-
nal and flexible), adhocracy (external and flexible), market (external and
stable), and hierarchy (internal and stable). Clan cultures tend to focus
on affiliation and trust, adhocracy cultures on growth and innovation,
market cultures on competition and achievement, and hierarchy cultures
on structure and control. A summary description of each of these culture
types in terms of levels of culture (e.g., assumptions, beliefs, values, and
artifacts) is shown in Table 5.2 (from Hartnell et al., 2011; and based on
Quinn & Kimberly, 1984). Hartnell and colleagues coded studies using a
variety of measures of culture according to the CVF and then analyzed
the relationships between the CVF and three criteria of organizational
effectiveness (employee attitudes, operational performance, and financial
performance). In addition to finding that clan cultures had the strongest
TABLE 5.2 A summary of the competing values framework from Hartnell et al. (2011)

Culture Effectiveness
Type Assumptions Beliefs Values Artifacts (behaviors) Criteria

Clan Human People behave appropriately Attachment, affiliation, Teamwork, Employee

affiliation when they have trust in, collaboration, trust, and participation, employee satisfaction and
loyalty to, and membership in support involvement, and open commitment
the organization. communication
Adhocracy Change People behave appropriately Growth, stimulation, Risk-taking, creativity, Innovation
when they understand the variety, autonomy, and and adaptability
importance and impact of attention to detail
the task.
Market Achievement People behave appropriately Communication, Gathering customer Increased market
when they have clear competition, and competitor share, profit,
objectives and are rewarded competence, and information, goal-setting, product quality,
based on their achievements. achievement planning, task focus, and productivity
competitiveness, and
aggressiveness
Hierarchy Stability People behave appropriately Communication, Conformity and Efficiency,
when they have clear routinization, predictability timeliness,
roles and procedures are formalization, and and smooth
formally defined by rules and consistency functioning
regulations.
From Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the
competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677–694, Figure 2, p. 679. Copyright © 2011 by the
American Psychological Association and reprinted with permission.
164 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

relationships with employee attitudes and quality of products and ser-

vices and market cultures had the strongest relationships with innovation
and financial effectiveness, they showed that all four culture types were
moderately positively correlated with each other and suggested that the
four culture types may be complementary rather than competing. In
other words, it may be best to be strong across multiple areas to take
advantage of the synergistic effects of the culture types across multiple
outcomes.
Despite the generally optimistic conclusions described previously,
there is still much resistance to the idea that there should be a direct
relationship between organizational culture and organizational perfor-
mance. One concern is that the evidence is based on quantitative mea-
sures of culture, which as we have already described, tend to focus on the
outer layers of culture (e.g., behavioral norms, espoused values) but may
be less useful in penetrating culture’s deeper layers (Alvesson  & Berg,
1992). Thus, researchers like Saffold (1988), Siehl and Martin (1990),
and Alvesson (2002) have bemoaned the simplicity of this research and
how it ignores the complexity of the variety of forms and levels by which
culture may be manifested in an organization’s performance—as well as
the very definition of organizational performance. Included in this lack of
complexity is that an overall integrated strong culture is assumed and the
presence of multiple subcultures is ignored. In other words, the literature
on the link between organizational culture and organizational perfor-
mance has essentially proposed a direct relationship between the two
when there may be numerous boundary conditions on that relationship.
Two possible boundary conditions on the link between culture and
effectiveness are the presence of organizational subcultures and the
strength of the culture. The literature on these topics is extensive, and
we cover each in subsequent sections of this chapter. At this point, we
simply note that the two issues are closely related in that fewer subcul-
tures should result in a stronger organizational culture, and similar to
the climate literature, we would expect stronger relationships between
organizational culture and organizational effectiveness when organiza-
tional culture is stronger. Another possible boundary condition concerns
the fact that it is more than likely the case that the impact of certain
elements of culture on performance will vary across contexts. Drawing
a parallel to the findings on leadership in the GLOBE research (House
et al., 2004), even if certain elements of culture are universally effective,
it is likely that there are just as many or more that vary in their effec-
tiveness across national cultures or industries (see Sørensen, 2002, for
evidence of industry characteristics as a moderator). Recent literature
has suggested that another possible boundary condition for the effects
of specific culture dimensions (e.g., consistency) is the presence of high
levels of other culture dimensions (e.g.,  involvement, adaptability, and
mission; Kotrba, Gillespie, Schmidt, Smerek, Ritchie, & Denison, 2012);
in other words, having a consistent culture may only be beneficial when
the rest of the culture’s content is positive.
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 165

Relevant for the discussion of the boundary conditions of the rela-

tionship between organizational culture and performance is Cooke and
Szumal’s (2000) discussion of why organizations with “negative” cultures
can still be effective. They provide two reasons for this occurrence: the
defensive misattribution of success and the culture bypass. The defen-
sive misattribution of success captures the idea that “organizations that
enjoy strong franchises, munificent environments, extensive patents and
copyrights, and/or massive financial resources are likely to perform quite
adequately, at least in the short term” (Cooke & Szumal, 2000, p. 160).
The presence of these conditions makes it possible for organizations to
implement ineffective systems and structures that lead to a negative cul-
ture without negative consequences, and in fact, they may attribute their
success to their negative culture without realizing their success occurred
in spite of their culture. The second explanation, the culture bypass, cap-
tures those organizations that essentially create systems and technolo-
gies that minimize the effect of culture on outcomes, allowing for the
possibility that negative cultures can develop without the organization
suffering the deleterious consequences typically associated with them.
One example of this could be fast-food restaurants, in which “highly ef-
ficient technologies for operations at the store . . . level have been devel-
oped to maintain control, promote consistency, and reduce the need for
a highly skilled or expensive workforce” (Cooke & Szumal, 2000, p. 161).
In both of these cases, Cooke and Szumal (2000) argued (and we agree)
that more positive cultures would still be beneficial for organizational
effectiveness.
On the topic of effectiveness, a wide variety of performance measures
have been used in this linkage research. Our review of the literature on
this relationship since 2000 revealed some of this variety with outcomes
including objective financial measures of performance (e.g., Denison, Nie-
minen,  & Kotrba, 2012; Gregory, Harris, Armenakis,  & Shook, 2009;
Kotrba et  al., 2012; Lee  & Yu, 2004), customer satisfaction (e.g.,  Gil-
lespie, Denison, Haaland, Smerek,  & Neale, 2008), goal achievement
(e.g., Xenikou & Simosi, 2006), and top management reports (e.g., Chan,
Shaffer, & Snape, 2004; Glisson, Schoenwald, Kelleher, Landsverk, Hoag-
wood, Mayberg,  & Green, 2008), as well as less traditional outcomes
like the percentage of women in management (Bajdo & Dickson, 2001)
and the odds of children receiving mental health care (Glisson & Green,
2006). Such diversity is encouraging in terms of demonstrating the ef-
fects of organizational culture on a variety of organizational performance
and functioning indicators. At the same time, some concerns have been
voiced in the literature with regard to the lack of theoretical justification
for why the particular measures chosen should be the ones that culture is
linked to or impacts the most (Wilderom et al., 2000), as well as the lack
of acknowledgement that certain aspects of culture can have positive ef-
fects on some outcomes and negative effects on others (Saffold, 1988).
In our view, the preferred approach would be to identify those elements
of culture that are most relevant for specific outcomes in the same way
166 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

that the climate literature has taken on a more strategic focus (we build
on this point when we discuss the integration of these perspectives in
Chapter Six). Along the same lines, it seems imperative to show how
culture has its effects; in other words, identifying the possible mediat-
ing mechanisms for culture’s relationship with performance is critical.
For example, Gregory and colleagues (2009) demonstrated in a hospital
setting that employee attitudes and physician attitudes mediated the re-
lationship between organizational culture and the outcomes of control-
lable expenses and patient satisfaction. Other potential examples that
we will come back to later include climate or specific employee behavior.
Arguments along these lines led Pettigrew (1990) to conclude that
“culture does not provide a direct explanation of performance; it is only
one component of a much more complex set of relationships that the
process of competition contains” (p. 430). In light of the compelling ar-
guments for approaching the climate-performance relationship in more
complex ways than a simple direct relationship, what are some of the
alternative perspectives that could add more insight into how culture
has its effects? In Table 5.3, we provide a list of alternative perspectives
that have been offered in the literature that address at least some of
the criticisms described above. In her review, Sackmann (2011) provided

TABLE 5.3 Alternative perspectives on the relationship between culture and

effectiveness

• Mediated relationships: What are the mechanisms that explain how culture
has its influence on organizational performance?
• Moderated relationships: What are the environmental variables (national
culture, industry, etc.) that explain when culture will have more or less of an
effect?
• Configurational perspectives: What is the right mix of cultural dimensions to
produce the desired outcomes?
• Nonlinear relationships: Is there such a thing as too much of certain cultural
traits or dimensions?
• Reciprocal relationships: What is the effect of culture on organizational
performance versus the effect of organizational performance on culture?
• Fit or alignment perspectives: What other aspects of the organization (structure,
strategy, HR practices, and climate) must culture be aligned with to maximize
performance outcomes?
• Culture strength perspective: Does the strength of the culture have direct or
interactive effects on performance? Does the extent to which the culture
is shared across individuals or subcultures affect the culture-performance
relationship?
• Negative cultures: What cultural manifestations are the most detrimental to
performance?
• Adaptive cultures: Is it possible to have a culture that is flexible enough to
adapt to changing environmental conditions while also maintaining a set of
constant core values—perhaps, indeed, the core value of change itself ?
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 167

examples of culture-performance studies that examined the link in terms

of indirect or mediated effects, nonlinear effects, moderated or inter-
active effects, and reciprocal effects. Although some of these studies
focused on individual performance and others had design limitations,
we are encouraged that researchers have begun to take a more complex
perspective on how culture is related to organizational performance in
line with Saffold’s (1988) admonition that “a more sophisticated under-
standing of the tie between culture and organizational outcomes must be
developed” (p. 546).
Before closing this section, we want to return to the point that some
authors, particularly those from the organizations are cultures perspec-
tive, question the nature of this research on organizational effectiveness as
a whole. For instance, Siehl and Martin (1990) voiced their concern that
not only does a focus on the relationship between organizational culture
and performance distract researchers away from other more innovative or
more in-depth investigations of culture, but it may also have pernicious ef-
fects for employees, particularly women and minorities, by taking a mana-
gerialist perspective that promotes the control of employees’ thoughts
and emotions. Others, like Alvesson and Berg (1992), have voiced a per-
haps more moderate perspective that although culture is “clearly relevant
for the functioning of organizations and is of crucial importance in un-
derstanding corporate management, influences on people, etc.” (p. 186),
quantitative studies like those reviewed by Wilderom et al. (2000) and
Sackmann (2011) reduce culture to just another organizational variable.
In a similar way, Alvesson (1993) concluded that “. . . the goal of promot-
ing effectiveness tends to rule out complicated research designs and ‘deep’
thinking” (p. 6). At the same time, research ignoring culture’s link to effec-
tiveness (largely from the organizations are cultures perspective), has had
little practical effect on organizations (Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Martin &
Frost, 1996), as noted earlier. So what are researchers to do?
We propose that there are some key steps researchers could take that
would balance the concerns for lack of depth and lack of practicality. For
researchers from the organizations have cultures perspective, and specifi-
cally those that use quantitative measures of culture, it would be useful
to more regularly acknowledge that their measures do not capture the
full organizational culture in all of its levels, depth, and complexity, but
only specific facets or layers of that culture. Accordingly, conclusions from
research on organizational culture and effectiveness should be explicit
about what can and cannot be concluded based on the research designs
used. Furthermore, arguments made about changing organizational cul-
ture based on a quantitative survey research project are specious at best.
Performing research that supplements quantitative methods with qualita-
tive research would be the ideal extension, allowing researchers to not only
draw conclusions about broad relationships that exist but also to clarify
those findings with more specific details and perhaps contradictions. See
Denison and Mishra (1995) for an excellent example of the insights that
can be gained from mixing quantitative and qualitative methods.
168 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

For researchers from the organizations that are cultures perspective,

tough decisions must be made about standing by principles and main-
taining a critical, anti-managerialist perspective versus acknowledging
managers’ concerns and integrating culture’s connection to effectiveness
in their research. Furthermore, collaborating with culture researchers
who tend to use quantitative methods could result in mutual enlighten-
ment and potentially much more effective research than either could
perform alone. Martin (2002) calls such studies “hybrid” because they
use both qualitative and quantitative methods. In her description of the
ways in which such hybrid studies can be conducted and the results
that can emerge, she reports on a study by Martin, Su, and Beckman
(1997). The results of this study of a small publishing company were
informative because both the survey data used and the qualitative in-
formation gathered revealed evidence for all three of Martin’s (2002)
perspectives in different though related ways. Martin (2002) provided
an extensive discussion of qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid research
paradigms and a very instructive evaluation of each, along with the pos-
sibilities and learnings that might emerge from those who use the hybrid
approach (see her Chapter Seven: “To Count or Not to Count”). She
was particularly emphatic about the use of the hybrid approach for ex-
ploring “empty spaces” in the research on organizational culture, a topic
we return to in our later attempt to integrate the climate and culture
literatures and approaches. Especially for researchers interested in the
linkage between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness
it would seem to be true that the hybrid model is potentially the most
useful. This is because not only might such a link be established, but
also the underlying cultural manifestations that yield the link will be
identified and thus be useful in proposed actions to actually enhance
effectiveness.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUBCULTURES

As we noted in the previous section, one issue that might prevent or

inhibit the establishment of a link between culture and effectiveness
is the presence of subcultures in organizations. That is, if there is no
“culture” but many subcultures, what is the independent variable in
the hoped-for link? Van Maanen and Barley (1985) defined an orga-
nizational subculture as “a subset of an organization’s members who
interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct
group within the organization, share a set of problems commonly de-
fined to be the problems of all [in the group], and routinely take action
on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group” (p. 38).
That is, as has been highlighted by Martin (2002) in her description of
the differentiation perspective, all aspects of organizational culture are
not necessarily shared throughout an organization. Instead, subsets of
organizational members may share perceptions and values that differ
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 169

from other groups or the organization as a whole. Martin and colleagues

(2006) portrayed differentiation studies as sharing three characteristics:
“(1) interpretations of manifestations are inconsistent; (2) consensus
occurs only within subcultural boundaries; and (3) clarity exists only
within subcultures” (p. 730).
Martin and Siehl (1983) identified three types of subcultures that
may be found in organizations. The first, an enhancing subculture, exists
when a certain subgroup within the organization identifies more strongly
and is “more fervent” about the organization’s core values than is found
elsewhere in the organization. The second type of subculture is an or-
thogonal subculture. In this case, the subculture both accepts the organi-
zation’s core values and identifies with a separate set of values that does
not conflict with those of the organization (such as those of an occupa-
tional group). The third example is a countercultural subculture. In this
case, the subculture shares a set of values that is directly contradictory to
the values of the core or dominant culture.
There are many examples of subcultures in the literature, mostly
based on qualitative research. For instance, Gregory (1983) investigated
subcultures within Silicon Valley from a “native” perspective, finding a
variety of distinctions among workers such as by department (engineer-
ing versus marketing versus sales), by the type of product being worked
on (hardware versus software), and by the broader occupational commu-
nity (engineers versus scientists), all of which may also share some values
and perspectives with each other. In a fascinating example, Martin and
Siehl (1983) described the countercultural subculture created within a
division of GM headed by John DeLorean. They first identified three
core values at GM (respecting authority, fitting in, and being loyal) and
then analyzed how DeLorean both ridiculed these values and articulated
an alternative set of values in contradiction to the core values of the gen-
eral GM culture. DeLorean successfully violated these cultural norms by
developing a series of cars in the 1960s for the Pontiac division of GM
(the GTO muscle car, the Firebird, and the Grand Prix) that were com-
pletely different from anything else GM had.
Van Maanen (1991), who conducted some of the most significant
early work on cultural socialization reviewed earlier, discussed the insider
culture of Disneyland, where he identified both a general subculture dif-
ference between supervisors and line staff, as well as a hierarchy among
employees based on specialized, differentiated skills. At the top of the
hierarchy were the ambassadors and tour guides, followed by “skilled”
ride operators, all other ride operators, “sweepers,” and food and con-
cessions workers. These levels shared macro-cultural experiences and
perspectives but differed significantly on some others. In a similar vein,
Bartunek and Moch (1991) related their findings of organizational sub-
cultures in a commercial bakery. They found differences between top
management (who tended to emphasize control), plant managers (who
emphasized their responsibility for all plant-level decision making), line
employees (who passively expected others to make change and improve
170 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

conditions), and machinists (who had a primarily competitive view of

other employees driven by differences in union membership).
A final example of these subcultural differences in organizations is of
interest because of its use of the hybrid research model described earlier
(see Martin, 2002). In their study of an urban police department, Jermier,
Slocum, Fry, and Gaines (1991) performed cluster analysis on survey
data and discovered five subcultures. Using information from their quali-
tative observational work, they illustrated the differences among these
subcultures across a number of variables such as commitment, rank, as-
signment, shift, tenure, and work performance. Their findings revealed
that only one of the subcultures was closely aligned with the “official”
culture of the police department, whereas the other four shared some
aspects of the official culture but contradicted it in other ways.
These examples indicate how subcultures may be a result of a vertical
“slice” of the organization, such as a department, division, geographic lo-
cation, or a horizontal “slice” that cuts across units, such as by job or level
in the organization (Louis, 1985). They also demonstrate some of the fac-
tors that drive subculture development. Van Maanen and Barley (1985)
described several such possible factors including “physical proximity, the
sharing of common tasks or status, dependencies in the workflow, de-
mands made by some members on others, and even accidents of history”
(p. 37). Based on these factors, individuals interact more regularly, share
similar problems, develop collective understandings, and create a shared
interpretive or sense-making system that drives the normative behavior
in the subculture. Trice and Beyer (1993) identified similar factors (dif-
ferential interactions, shared experiences) as well as personal characteris-
tics (such as similarity in age, ethnicity, or education) that help to create
social cohesion among individuals that forms a foundation for the devel-
opment of a subculture. Subcultures can also develop based on a number
of other issues, such as a merger or acquisition or shared mistreatment
that brings various groups together (Trice & Beyer, 1993).
One important distinction that has been made in terms of the types of
subcultures is between those that exist within the boundaries of the or-
ganization versus those that cut across or transcend organizations (Louis,
1985; Trice & Beyer, 1993). With regard to the latter, Louis (1985) has
discussed how organizational subcultures may exist due to broader dif-
ferences that exist outside the organization that then act as “feeder cul-
tures” (Louis, 1985) to the organization’s subcultures. Abrahamson and
Fombrun’s (1994) concept of macrocultures captures a similar line of
thinking. Schein (1996) described three transcendent organizational
subcultures, or subcultures to be expected across all or most organiza-
tions: the operator subculture (comprised of line employees who must
use specific technology to perform the work collaboratively with other
operators), the engineering subculture (comprised of employees who de-
sign the technology and focus on creating elegant and precise solutions
to problems), and the executive subculture (comprised of top manage-
ment whose primary focus is on the financial issues that are of interest to
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 171

shareholders, boards, and the markets). He depicted the operator culture

as developing locally based on the technologies and processes used to
perform the work, and thus could be considered organization-specific,
whereas the engineering and executive cultures cut across organizations
due to the similar nature of the problems faced and the educational
background of the employees, resulting in cross-organization occupa-
tional communities or subcultures.
The presence of occupational subcultures has perhaps received the
most attention in the literature on subcultures. In many ways, how occu-
pational subcultures develop and persist is a duplication of the processes
that contribute to macro-culture (Trice  & Beyer, 1993; Van Maanen  &
Barley, 1984). For instance, occupational members experience socializa-
tion processes, including various rites and rituals, to mark the transition
from an outsider to a member of the occupation. Occupational members
may have to meet certain educational requirements and/or demonstrate
required knowledge through licensing examinations. Much like organi-
zation cultures, occupational cultures are also manifested in a variety
of similar forms, such as language, jargon, myths, stories, traditions, and
rules, which can be perpetuated through professional associations or
unions that act as the gatekeepers for the occupational group. One key
difference from organizational cultures is that occupational subcultures
form more based on the commonality of experiences of the members
and less so based on specific leader or founder behaviors. The “embedding
mechanism” of occupational subcultures is commonality of experiences;
the experiences are common, and it is not a question of what works or
fails to work to produce effectiveness, as we have described occurring
with the overall organizational culture.
In much the same way that organizational cultures exist as a function
of the individuals that make them up, occupational cultures reflect the
individuals within them. For example, as a precursor to the organiza-
tional attraction processes in the initial stages of the ASA model (Schnei-
der, 1987), individuals are attracted to certain occupations. Holland’s
(1997) work on career environments provides the clearest evidence of
how certain types of individuals tend to be attracted to certain occupa-
tions, and it is the common values and characteristics of those individuals
that create the occupation’s culture. By way of example, consider two of
Holland’s (1997) six career environments, the Artistic Career Environ-
ment (e.g., advertising agencies, ballet companies) and the Realistic Ca-
reer Environment (e.g., accounting firms, manufacturing organizations),
and the kinds of people one would expect to find in them. Holland has
documented that certain traits (shown in Table 5.4) characterize people
in these two kinds of career environments. Along these lines, one can
easily imagine the differences that would exist in the two different occu-
pational subcultures. The occupational cultures represented in an orga-
nization and the relative influence and status that different occupations
have within the organization will have a strong influence on the general
organizational culture that emerges.
172 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

TABLE 5.4 Personality types in artistic and realistic careers

(based on Holland, 1997)

Realistic Types Artistic Types

Conforming Complicated
Dogmatic Disorderly
Hardheaded Expressive
Inflexible Imaginative
Natural Intellectual
Normal Introspective
Practical Precise
Realistic Intuitive
Robust Open
Self-effacing Original

At this point, we have discussed a number of different subcultures

that may exist in organizations. How these different subcultures function
in organizations is complex because they can intersect, overlap, and coex-
ist simultaneously. For instance, certain individuals may share a particular
job in the organization, come from a similar occupational background,
have similar education or training, and be of a similar demographic
(e.g., gender and/or ethnic group). One can see how these confluences
of characteristics and attributes may naturally emerge in organizations
especially when viewed through the lens of the ASA model (Schnei-
der, 1987). In addition, such discussions highlight the overlap between
the literatures on organizational culture and organizational identity (for
more on this overlap, see Fiol, Hatch, & Golden-Biddle, 1998; Hatch &
Schultz, 1997, 2000; Kreiner, 2011; and Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).
Before moving forward, it is important to note that there is a tension
in the organizational culture literature as to whether it is more appro-
priate to study organizations as having a singular general culture or as
many unique subcultures. The nature of this tension and which of these
perspectives is dominant is unclear. Some have characterized these as
warring perspectives, with the dominant (or integrated) culture perspec-
tive as the standard that was being challenged by the disenfranchised
and marginalized researchers who preferred to focus on subcultures
(Martin & Frost, 1996). Others viewed the landscape much differently,
noting, “few scholars doubt the presence of subcultures in organizations,
but some doubt that organizations have organization wide umbrella cul-
tures” (Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 13). As these perspectives have evolved,
the answer seems to be much less of an either/or but a both/and (Martin,
2002; Trice & Beyer, 1993). In other words, the answer to the question
of whether organizations have a general culture or subcultures is in most
cases “yes.” There are certainly cases when an organization can have a
single general culture and no identifiable subcultures, and perhaps also
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 173

cases when there are such distinct separate subcultures that no clear gen-
eral, shared culture can be identified (e.g., a conglomerate with distinct,
independent business units). However, in most cases, especially in larger
organizations, there are likely to be cultural elements shared across all
employees while simultaneously cultural elements that are distinct in
individual subcultures.
In our view, Van Maanen and Barley (1985) offered the most useful
way to think about the simultaneous existence of a general organiza-
tional culture and its subcultures. They described the subcultures of an
organization as circles in a Venn diagram. The area of overlap among all
of the circles can be viewed as the organizational culture. When there are
high levels of overlap among the circles and very little areas that are not
shared, then the organization is best characterized as having a general in-
tegrated culture with little differentiation within it. However, if the area
of overlap among the circles is relatively small compared to the space
that is not within overlapping circles, then a subculture lens will be ap-
propriate, with perhaps only a few elements that could truly be viewed
as shared across the entire organization. Where most organizations likely
exist is somewhere in between, with some elements that are relatively
homogeneous across subcultures and other elements in which there is
much differentiation.
Van Maanen and Barley (1985) identified some of the conditions that
may directly result in an organization’s placement on that general con-
tinuum. For instance, an organization may be more likely to have a uni-
tary culture when it is small with dense social ties, when it faces a crisis,
or when organizational members all come from a strong occupational
culture. We are reminded here of the point we made earlier with regard
to national culture and industry influences on organizational culture. In
that case, we recalled the forest and trees metaphor suggesting that one
may view the forest from on high and find little differentiation but when
one gets closer to the trees then there is obviously differentiation in the
kinds of trees in the forest. We see a similar metaphor being appropriate
in the case of subcultures in organizations. That is, depending on the issue
being studied and the comparative frame of reference, the presence of
subcultures may be more or less apparent.

CULTURE STRENGTH

The idea of culture strength is closely related to discussions about organi-

zational culture and organizational effectiveness as well as about or-
ganizational subcultures. When distinguishing between culture content
and culture strength, there is a shift from describing the assumptions, val-
ues, beliefs, and norms in the organization to describing how much agree-
ment, acceptance, or penetration those assumptions, values, beliefs, and
norms have in the organization. The idea of culture strength is related to
both the differentiation perspective and the fragmentation perspective
174 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

in Martin’s (2002) framework. The differentiation perspective empha-

sizes the existence of subcultures in the organization. When an organiza-
tion has sharply distinct subcultures with few common elements shared
among them, then the overall culture strength for the organization will
be low (although it may be high in each individual subculture). When
the subcultures have more shared elements and fewer elements in isola-
tion and/or direct conflict, then the overall culture strength for the orga-
nization will be high.
In the fragmentation perspective, the focus on ambiguity in the cul-
ture seems to align well with the idea that individuals in the organiza-
tion may not agree about the content of the culture (i.e., low culture
strength). However, there are aspects of the fragmentation perspective
that are distinct from the idea of culture strength. Although there can be
ambiguity in the extent to which people view the organization’s culture
(resulting in low culture strength), there can also be shared perceptions
about the ambiguity that is part of employees’ daily organizational ex-
periences (resulting in high culture strength on the issue of ambiguity).
For instance, the loose structure among hospital social workers studied
by Meyerson (1991a) created a great deal of “structural ambiguity,” but
there seemed to be a clear consensus among the social workers about
the nature of the structure and the presence of that ambiguity. As an-
other example, Feldman (1991) described the lack of clarity about the
organizational goals within the Department of Energy, but at the same
time, the workers were “clear . . . that the organization was not doing a
very good job at whatever it was supposed to be doing” (p. 149). Thus,
we would consider the employee perceptions of ambiguity to be an issue
of the content of the culture, whereas variability (or consensus) about
the presence of ambiguity (or any other content) would be an issue of
culture strength.
Researchers have acknowledged since at least the mid-1980s that
there are a variety of ways to think about culture strength. Louis (1985)
and Saffold (1988) used the term “cultural penetration” to capture what
is often referred to as culture strength. They described the following four
types of cultural penetration or strength (the first three from Louis, 1985,
and the last one from Saffold, 1988):

• Sociological penetration is probably the most commonly implied meaning

of culture strength; it refers to the extent to which the culture is shared
across the members of the organization as a whole, including across vari-
ous groups or subcultures in the organization (horizontal penetration)
and across layers of the organizational hierarchy (vertical integration).
This type of strength has also been described in terms of cultural consen-
sus (versus dissensus; Trice & Beyer, 1993), strength of consensus (Payne,
2000, 2001), crystallization (Mannix, Thatcher, & Jehn, 2001), and value
congruence (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989, 1991).
• Psychological penetration involves how deeply individuals in the organiza-
tion hold the assumptions, values, and beliefs that make up their organi-
zation’s culture. This type of strength has also been described in terms of
psychological intensity (Mannix et al., 2001; Payne, 2000, 2001).
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 175

• Historical penetration introduces the element of time and involves how

long the culture has consistently existed within the organization. Im-
plied in this type of strength is the effectiveness of socialization efforts
in passing along the culture to new members.
• Artifactual penetration captures the extent to which the more deeply
held assumptions values are manifested in the outer layers of the organi-
zation’s culture (i.e., in its artifacts). In this case, the stronger the culture,
the more likely it will be to have penetrated throughout all aspects of
the organization including those most observable in the form of pictures,
displays of various awards and honors, and so forth.

Other, related conceptualizations of strength focus more on the

breadth of assumptions or values that are impacted by the culture. For
instance, Sathe (1985) discussed strength in terms of how many assump-
tions there are (Sathe, 1985), and Payne (2000, 2001) included the di-
mension of pervasiveness in his model of culture to capture the “range
of beliefs and behaviors that the culture attempts to define and control”
(Payne, 2000, p. 167). Despite the variety of ways culture strength has
been conceptualized, our take is that the most commonly implied mean-
ing of culture strength is in terms of the “sharedness” of culture percep-
tions, and thus most of our discussion will focus on strength from that
perspective.
Before moving forward with that discussion, we wanted to highlight
another closely related idea to culture strength: cultural alignment, which
is sometimes referred to as cultural congruence (Cameron & Ettington,
1988) or fit (Kotter  & Heskett, 1992). There are at least two types of
alignment that can be discussed with regard to organizational culture:
the alignment among internal elements within the organization and the
alignment between the internal elements and the external environment.
In Schein’s (2010) writings, this distinction was discussed in terms of
internal integration and external adaptation; Saffold (1988) framed these
as elemental coherence and strategic fit. Our purpose in mentioning the
issue of alignment here is to clarify that it is a related but separate issue
from culture strength. Although some authors treat the two as almost
interchangeable (especially with regard to internal alignment; see Deal &
Kennedy, 1982), the two are distinct in important ways. Most notably,
internal cultural alignment is likely a precursor to a strong culture, such
that the more aligned the various structures, processes, and communi-
cations within the organization are, the more likely that members will
agree about the nature of the organization’s culture (e.g., what is valued
in the organization). It is likely best to think of external alignment as
a separate issue; an organization can have high internal alignment and
a strong culture, but it may or may not be a good fit with the external
environment and the demands of the marketplace.
Having clarified at least some of the conceptual issues regarding
culture strength, we now turn to some of the key findings on the
topic and the implications of culture strength for organizational effec-
tiveness and change. A starting point is the relationship between culture
strength and organizational performance. Although it is difficult to make
176 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

broad generalizations about research in this area because of the variety of

operationalizations of culture strength that have been used (Wilderom
et  al., 2000), there is some evidence that culture strength is related
to organizational effectiveness. Some of the strongest evidence comes
from research by Denison (1990) and Gordon and DiTomaso (1992).
They both used measures of variability (variance and standard devia-
tion, respectively) in employee responses to survey items to operational-
ize culture strength and found that stronger cultures were significantly
associated with better organizational performance (based on objective
indicators of performance like return on investment [ROI] and growth
in assets), at least in the short term (roughly the next 2–4 years after
measuring culture strength).
Kotter and Heskett (1992) used a direct measurement of perceived
organizational culture strength in their research by collecting reports of
organizations’ culture strength from officers of other organizations in the
same industry. They found a positive relationship between this perceived
culture strength and performance as measured by ROI, although the cor-
relation was relatively weak (r = 0.31). Sørensen (2002) used the cul-
ture strength data from Kotter and Heskett (1992) with the additional
outcome of operating cash flow, and found a significant zero-order cor-
relation of similar magnitude (r = 0.29). We suspect that some of the re-
lationship found in these studies is due to a bias in the respondents who
provided the data used for assessing culture strength. In the Kotter and
Heskett data, respondents were reporting on the culture strength of their
known competitors. The financial accomplishments of known competi-
tors are also of course known. Implicitly people may be likely to believe
that a financially successful company must have a strong culture so they
report that company A (successful) has a strong culture while company
B (less successful) is said to have a weak culture.
Even if this measurement issue did not influence the positive find-
ings for culture strength from Kotter and Heskett (1992) and Sørensen
(2002), there are some reasons that a direct relationship between culture
strength and performance is likely an oversimplification of the effects
culture strength can have for organizations (much in the same way that
a direct relationship for the content of culture is likely oversimplified).
One issue is that it is obviously possible to have a strong culture that
leads to ineffectiveness. However, as Kotter and Heskett (1992) have
argued, this case would be rare because such organizations would be
unlikely to survive for very long. A more likely issue is that the simple
presence of a strong culture does not mean it is the optimal culture for
organizational success. This argument was made by Kotter and Heskett
(1992) and was the reason they went beyond a simple “strong culture”
argument to explore “strategically appropriate” cultures, or those that fit
the environmental demands the organization faces. Along similar lines,
Sørensen (2002) argued that a strong culture will not be universally
beneficial, and specifically that industry volatility will moderate the ef-
fects of culture strength on organizational performance. In support of
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 177

this line of thinking, he found that a strong culture was beneficial under
stable environmental conditions, but the benefits decreased as industry
volatility increased. Thus, he concluded that strong cultures will not be
as able to perform the exploratory learning (discovering new ways of
doing things) or benefit when such learning does occur, preventing the
occurrence of the broader-based organizational change that is required
in a volatile environment. In line with these findings, Lee and Yu (2004)
found that culture strength was related to organizational performance
in manufacturing and insurance firms, but not hospitals, suggesting that
industry characteristics might moderate the effects of culture strength.
The literature described above has implications for the role of culture
strength in organizational change, a topic that has been of much interest
to culture researchers over the years (as we discuss in the next section).
In line with Sørensen’s (2002) findings, some authors have argued that
a strong culture can be problematic for change, and that ambiguity in a
culture can make change easier. Sathe (1985) suggested that organiza-
tional change involves replacing old assumptions with new ones, which
will be harder to do for organizations with stronger cultures, especially
if a large-scale change effort is contemplated. Thus, organizations with
weaker cultures are actually better targets for change as they will en-
counter less resistance to change from their employees. Other authors
like Kotter and Heskett (1992) and Flynn and Chatman (2001) have
offered an alternative perspective. Kotter and Heskett (1992) proposed
the idea of adaptive cultures, which are cultures with a strong “core”
but are flexible otherwise. Specifically, they argued that an organization
would maximize its likelihood for sustained success when it is willing to
adapt all aspects of its functioning to achieve its core goal of simultane-
ously satisfying the interests of customers, employees, and shareholders.
When adaptability and flexibility are the primary cultural values, a strong
culture is not necessarily detrimental to change. Similarly, in an insightful
article on the relationship between strong cultures and innovation, Flynn
and Chatman (2001) argued that a strong culture does not necessarily
impede innovation, but instead it depends on the content of the cul-
ture that is strong. Specifically, they distinguished between conformity, in
terms of forces that encourage agreement and harmony, and uniformity,
which translates into exact consistency of the attitudes and behaviors of
organizational members. Thus, a strong culture can emphasize cultural
content such as creativity and risk-taking that form the foundation for
innovation without resulting in uniformity.
Although there has been progress in theory and research on culture
strength, the literature on the topic is still limited. Going back to Schein’s
(1991, p. 248) quote that “if things are ambiguous, then, by definition,
that group does not have a culture,” it is not clear how much consen-
sus around a certain element is necessary for it to be “culture.” Alvesson
(2002) has criticized the concept of culture strength, noting that “to sug-
gest that cultures can be measured on the single dimension of ‘strength’
deprives the concept of analytic and interpretive capacity: culture is a
178 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

complex web of meanings, not a bundle of muscles” (p. 49). His point
is well taken, and it is certainly possible for a culture to be strong with
regard to certain content and weak with regard to others. Much in the
same way that we emphasized the need for specificity in the dimensions
of culture that might predict organizational effectiveness, there is a need
for focus on specific areas of culture and their strength rather than at-
tempting to make general conclusions that may or may not apply across
the culture as a whole. In fact, it may be a certain configuration of culture
strength, strong in some areas but weak in others, that is optimal for or-
ganizational effectiveness.
Finally, the focus in the literature on culture strength has primarily
been on the consensus or agreement about culture. Not only are there
different types of consensus (e.g., agreement within subcultures but lack
of consensus across subcultures versus a more general lack of consen-
sus across all organizational members), there are also a number of other
conceptualizations of culture strength, as outlined above, that have not
received much attention in the literature. More work is needed on these
other types of strength and how they may integrate together to influence
organizational functioning and outcomes.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE CHANGE

Organizational change, broadly conceptualized, has been of long-term

interest to industrial/organizational psychologists, organizational devel-
opment specialists, and management consultants. For example, by 1961
there was sufficient material on organizational change for what has since
become an iconic edited book of readings, The Planning of Change: Read-
ings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences (Bennis, Benne,  & Chin, 1961;
the very same Warren Bennis of more contemporary leadership fame).
The book outlined the learnings to that time from such efforts as the
Training Group Movement (T-Groups) that emerged first in the field of
education and then expanded to business and industry. T-Groups were
based initially on the writings of Kurt Lewin (1951) and the work he
did during World War II to change people’s attitudes using the vehicle
of groups. The authors in the edited volume read like a who’s who in
the history of the study of organizational change: Robert Merton, Alvin
Gouldner, Ronald Lippitt, Talcott Parson, Dorwin Cartwright, Herbert
Kelman, Herbert Shephard, and Douglas McGregor. The Journal of Ap-
plied Behavioral Science, devoted to reporting on research concerning or-
ganizational change, published its first issue in March 1965 and is still
going strong today.
Our point is not to review the literature on organizational change
(see Burke, 2011, for an excellent review) but to make the reader aware
of the fact that change in organizations has been a long-term concern
in general and that the approaches to change based on thinking about
organizational culture may make a significant contribution to ways of
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 179

conceptualizing it. Morgan (2006, p. 138) put the usefulness of a culture

framework for understanding organizations and their change this way:

There can be little doubt that the culture metaphor offers a fresh way of
thinking about organizations. It shows that the challenge of creating new
forms of organization and management is very much a challenge of cul-
tural change. It is a challenge of transforming the mind-sets, visions, para-
digms, images, metaphors, beliefs and shared meanings that sustain existing
business realities and of creating a detailed language and code of behavior
through which the desired new reality can be lived on a daily basis.

We agree. Our perspective is that consideration of the ways organiza-

tional culture emerges in organizations and is maintained over time and
the central role of leadership in that emergence and maintenance are the
keys to understanding organizational change as well.
The extent to which organizational culture can and does change has
been a pervasive issue in the culture literature. As we noted in Chapter
Four, a recurring theme in the definition of culture is that it is relatively
consistent, stable, and even static over time, thereby suggesting that it is
difficult to change. For example, when describing their attempts to change
culture, Deal and Kennedy (1982) noted, “In time, we came to recognize
that culture is the barrier to change. The stronger the culture, the harder
it is to change. Culture causes organizational inertia; it’s the brake that
resists change because this is precisely what culture should do—protect
the organization from willy-nilly responses to fads and short-term fluc-
tuations” (p. 159). In fact if a major reason for people to have a sense of
the culture in which they work (or live) is to reduce ambiguity about the
rules and their roles, then it is clear what change will lead to—ambigu-
ity! Perhaps most importantly we typically enter existing organizations
to study their cultures after those cultures have already developed—with
the emphasis on the word developed. When we get to work in and study
and try to change organizational culture we always must remember that
it is the way it is because of the process of trying alternatives and keep-
ing the ones that succeeded; in other words, it worked. Organizational
culture can appear rigid, static, consistent, and stable to consultants and
managers who underestimate the changes that got the organization to
where it is and, because of its successes, found that culture useful. It is
wise to have this developmental framework in mind so that the difficul-
ties associated with planned culture change will be expected.
Most of the literature has recognized that cultures do change in some
form or fashion since they evolved to get where they are. All cultures
change, but after the initial burst of evolution the changes are usu-
ally slower; cultures look like they are rigid and static precisely when
someone wants them to change. That is, under “normal” circumstances
stability is good because it provides the consistency in rules and roles
people need to be aware of what is expected of them and to what they
should direct their energies and competencies. When someone wants
180 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

engagement and competencies to be directed in new ways—they want

people to have an altered set of what is expected of them—then the
issue of culture change emerges. Until the question of change emerges,
no one thinks people are resisting change because they are doing pre-
cisely what is expected of them.
To our way of thinking, issues of culture change are no different from
the issues we have previously discussed with regard to the growth and
development of cultures, their maintenance over time, and the import of
leaders in making these happen. So, what results in change are the same
actions on the part of leaders that embed culture in the first place. In
what follows, we first illuminate the stages of culture emergence in orga-
nizations through the typical organizational life cycle and then address
the specific issue of leadership and culture change.

Organizational Culture: Stability

and Natural Evolution
We have already highlighted that it is common for researchers to describe
culture as generally stable such that it can provide decreased cognitive
load (Krefting  & Frost, 1985) and reduced uncertainty (Trice  & Beyer,
1993) for organizational members. Along those lines, Schein (2010) em-
phasized, “Culture is something that survives even when some mem-
bers of the organization depart. Culture is hard to change because group
members value stability in that it provides meaning and predictability”
(p. 16). Similarly, Ott (1989) emphasized the stability of culture while
recognizing that it does evolve over time, albeit slowly.
Others place a heavier emphasis on the dynamic nature of culture.
For instance, Hatch (2000) argued that culture changes continuously as
new artifacts are introduced and given meaning, and as fundamental as-
sumptions become manifest in new artifacts. She concluded that “culture
never stops changing; rather, it is in continuous dynamic flux” (p. 259).
Markus (2000) described a similar perspective: “Rather than approach-
ing OC [organizational culture] as a naturally inert structure in which
change requires explanation, however, I approach OC as a dynamic sys-
tem in a natural state of flux such that stability requires explanation”
(p. 297). From his view, culture is “day in and day out being shaped and
reshaped through dynamic processes” (p. 300). Thus, there is a tension in
the literature between the emphases on culture stability versus change.
That tension is captured by this quote from Trice and Beyer (1993):
“While cultures create continuity and persist across generations of mem-
bers, they are not static, but dynamic. Cultures continually change” (p. 7).
One middle ground position on stability and change in organizations
involves consideration of the life cycles of organizations. From this per-
spective, an organization’s culture will naturally evolve as it goes through
the various life stages organizations tend to experience and its members
cope with the issues that they confront at each stage. Examples in the
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 181

culture literature integrating the ideas of organizational life cycles and

culture include Payne’s (2001) description of the four stages of organiza-
tional culture development (conception, conversion, consolidation, and
collapse), and Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) connection of their work on
the competing values framework to organizational life cycles by suggest-
ing that organizations typically move through the types in the framework
in a certain order (starting with adhocracy and then moving through the
clan, hierarchy, and market types).
Schein (2010) dedicated considerable space to the discussion of how
organizational cultures are affected by their stage in the life cycle. He de-
scribed three general stages that organizations experience: founding and
early growth, midlife, and maturity and decline. As we have previously
discussed with regard to the sources of culture, Schein (2010) noted that
in the earliest stages of the organization the culture is largely driven by
the founder’s values that he/she infuses into the culture through the vari-
ous embedding mechanisms he or she enacts. At the same time, the cul-
ture must adapt to the various environmental challenges it faces as well
as the growth it experiences. It is in this very early stage that the core
values of the corporation become more fixed as it copes with the variety
of challenges such new companies encounter. In the absence of a major
crisis, the core organizational values begin to be fixed relatively quickly
and are unlikely to change drastically during this stage. However, those
values may take on different forms or manifestations in different parts of
the organization depending on what has worked best to deal effectively
with the challenges members have faced and the kinds of people re-
cruited to deal with those challenges. For instance, the more functionally/
occupationally oriented new people are, the more likely there is to be
differentiation and the formation of subcultures within an organization.
Schein (2010) marked entry into midlife by the shift from the original
founders to the next generation of management of the organization. At
this point, the culture is much more likely to be taken for granted by
members, such that what were once the founder’s values have become
the organization’s values. At the same time, the values may be weakened
due to the founder no longer being as active as early in the organiza-
tion’s life cycle. Indeed he or she may no longer even be present, possibly
resulting in some disorientation and conflict within the organization as
new executives come aboard and try to have an impact. Although Schein
(2010) explicitly did not associate the midlife stage with size or time (see
Flamholtz & Randle, 2011, for a size/sales/revenue perspective on orga-
nizational life cycles), he did acknowledge that it is likely that organiza-
tions in midlife will begin to see the formation of subcultures associated
with such size-related factors as functional differentiation, geographical
decentralization, and/or divisionalization. Thus, there are increased chal-
lenges related to keeping the different subcultures on the same page and
working toward the organization’s common goals in a coordinated way,
while perhaps at the same time allowing for some variation in cultural
elements across subcultures.
182 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

In Schein’s (2010) last stage, organizational maturity and potential

decline, the organization’s culture is at its strongest and the basic as-
sumptions are the most deeply embedded. Schein (2010) noted that at
this stage, there could be a marked distinction between the assumptions
that guide how the organization really operates and the espoused val-
ues the organization’s management says guide the organization. That is,
management perhaps becomes aware of where it needs to be going into
the future and espouses certain perspectives, but those of course lag well
behind where the organization’s functional operating basic assumptions
and values are. Unfortunately, the challenges associated with such strong
cultures and disconnects between levels of manifest and operational val-
ues and culture often make planned culture change nearly impossible.
If the organization cannot change but the environment does, then the
organization will likely decline until a crisis motivates change or the or-
ganization dies.
In a related example, Martin (2002) reported two qualitative studies
on the evolution of culture in organizations applying her three frame-
works as a vehicle. In brief, very early in an organization she viewed frag-
mented cultures as being most common because everything is new and
the processes involved in embedding culture have not yet begun to have
an effect. Then, she noted, as the organization grows and develops and
experiences success, there will be a shared sense of who the organization
is and how it functions, yielding a more integrated vantage point on the
culture. She noted that in her case studies, the integration perspective
could sometimes emerge in the face of a crisis such that the necessity for
people to work together intensely and for long hours to overcome the
crisis helps form a more integrated view of the culture. Success in cop-
ing with problems can lead to further success requiring differentiation
as connected to functional/occupational differentiation. Then, as new
leaders are introduced and try to implement (or embed) new goals and
strategies, there can be a return to fragmentation with those accompany-
ing the new leadership approaching things from different vantage points
than those who have been in the company for a while. Martin (2002) did
caution that her view is not a stage model of cultural evolution over time
but that all three perspectives can be simultaneously active at any stage,
and it is the presence of relatively momentary events that determine
increased activation/presence of one of the perspectives. She put it this
way (p. 148): “The three perspectives view of cultural change is based
on the premise that at any one point in time, all three perspectives are
relevant. This approach then is not the same as views of cultural change
that assume that a culture passes from one perspective to another, one
at a time.”
So are cultures stable or dynamic? The answer is probably both. Katz
and Kahn (1966) and more recently Leana and Barry (2000) have noted
how the most effective organizations balance the need for stability with
the need for change and adaptability. In many cases, it likely depends on
the lens and level through which one examines culture. Change will be
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 183

more apparent at the outer layers of culture, as artifacts may come and go
over time. However, the deeper assumptions of the organization’s culture
are less likely to change. In addition, there are likely some cultural values
that change over time, especially as the organization grows and differen-
tiates itself, while at the same time there are values that are almost per-
fectly consistent over time. It may be the case that the subset of general
values that is common across subcultures of the organization remains
relatively constant and identifiable, while those features unique to indi-
vidual subcultures are more dynamic. Change may be more apparent in
smaller subunits of the organization; because they have fewer members,
their subcultures will be more influenced when some members leave
and new members introduce new values based on their national culture,
occupational culture, experiences in other organizations, and so forth.
Units focused more externally will likely be more dynamic as they will
be more vulnerable to various environmental influences than those units
primarily focused internally. However, even for those aspects of organiza-
tions that do appear to be relatively constant, that consistency requires
refreshing and reinforcement, which is the crux of what Hatch (2000)
and Markus (2000) suggested.
What we like about the life cycle model of cultural evolution and
Martin’s (2002) perspective is that they raise several cautions about or-
ganizational change that have not been central to that literature. The
most important caution is that change will require different approaches
as a function of where in the life cycle an organization is. It is useful to
invoke Martin’s three perspectives view and understand that changing
an integrated culture will be different from changing one in which there
is great differentiation and/or fragmentation. Aldrich and Ruef (2006) in
their book on organizational evolution considered this issue when they
looked at different theories of how organizations change over time. They
put it this way: “Institutional and ecological theories [of organization
change] have generally taken an integrative perspective . . . The theories
have treated organizational forms and their surrounding environments
as unitary objects, containing a single view of what is legitimate. In this
respect, the fragmentation and differentiation views, carried to their ex-
treme, contain a major challenge to the ecological and institutional [orga-
nization change] perspectives, for how can organizations be institutions
if they have multiple or ambiguous cultures?” (p. 130). The answer is that
they certainly can be when it is acknowledged that multiple subcultures
can overlap in ways that produce an “institution,” keeping in mind that
both the subcultures and their overlap can change over time across dif-
ferent stages of the organizational life cycle.

The Persistence of Organizational Culture

Paradoxically, perhaps the most important point to make about under-

standing culture change is that cultures are maintained and persist over
184 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

time. Although strong cultures can have positive consequences for orga-
nizations, the stronger the culture, the more difficult it will be to change.
Moreover, although we suggested above that subcultures might be easier
to change than the overall organizational culture, it is the case that orga-
nizational change in an organization with multiple strong subcultures will
require change efforts targeted toward each of those subcultures. Con-
sider the issue of two companies involved in a merger/acquisition. The
two organizations may be seen as subcultures of the future organization
and truly integrating the two cultures, perhaps in the hopes of producing
a new and unique integrated culture, would be a massive undertaking.
Reger (2006), for example, reported that GE has done numerous
successful acquisitions, each of which was accompanied by a culture di-
agnosis of the firm under consideration. In one case, GE Capital was
intending to acquire a British company, and the two met to clarify GE’s
expectations of how this would proceed. “The discussion surfaced some
key differences [in culture], which prompted GE to look more closely
at the target’s culture. Its conclusion: Walk away despite the favorable
financials” (Reger, 2006, p. 124). Reger’s book (2006) is one of the more
comprehensive treatments of the issues and processes in mergers and
acquisitions, and it details the approaches used successfully by IBM to
produce the integration with PriceWaterhouseCoopers Consulting that
was a significant part of the final change at IBM from a products to a
service company. We are especially appreciative of their effort to display
in detail many if not all of the cultural issues that, taken together, require
attention when change is contemplated. See Table 5.5 for a reproduction
of their table and note how many issues (called “business practices” in the
table) require attention when considering organizational culture change.
We believe that the organizational change literature in general has
proceeded without a full appreciation of the ways by which cultures
are perpetuated in organizations and thus take a surface/simplistic ap-
proach to change. Morgan (2006, p. 145) put it this way: “Traditionally
the change process has been conceptualized as a problem of changing
technologies, structures, and the abilities and motivations of employees.
Although this is in part correct, effective change also depends on changes
in the images and values that guide action.” In short, if we are going to
change an organization’s culture, it is imperative to understand the many
levels and forms that culture takes in organizations and the fact that the
most mundane of everyday activities that occur have symbolic meaning
for those who experience them and participate in them. It is the last item
in Reger’s (2006) list of “business practices,” leadership, to which we turn
next for ways to understand culture change

Leadership and Organizational Culture Change

One continuing question within the literature on organizational culture

change has been the extent to which leaders can move their cultures in
TABLE 5.5 Issues that constitute organizational culture and require attention
when change is contemplated (from Reger, 2006)

Decision processes/ • Who are the decision makers and for what specific
governance types of decisions? What is the role of staff
functions in decision making?
• Is consensus preferred, and if so, among whom? Do
people expect to “vote” on certain decisions?
• What decisions are made centrally? Locally?
• Once made, who ensures the decisions are
fulfilled?
• What drives governance (for example, regulations,
organization’s history)? Are some topics more
sensitive; if so, which ones and why?
Financial/investments • How are funding decisions made?
• Is information shared openly, or held closely
among a few leaders?
• Who is involved in budgeting and other financial
plans?
• What happens when results exceed, or fall short, of
expectations?
• What is the relative importance of financial results
to other areas such as customer satisfaction, brand
image, and employee satisfaction?
Problem solving • How are exceptions handled? How are they
perceived?
• When determining solution alternatives, is it better
to identify and discuss all options, or only the best
ones?
• Who needs to be involved in what types of
problems?
• How much planning is needed before action
should be taken?
• How are people expected to handle conflicts?
Processes • To what degree are employees expected to follow
processes versus exercise their own judgment? Are
some roles allowed more latitude, and if so, under
what circumstances?
• Are some processes and circumstances handled
differently, and if so, who decides?
• Who needs to get involved with what aspects of
processes as they are being executed?
Accountability, • How are measures used throughout the organization?
monitoring • How should people respond to measures?
• What rewards and recognition are given to people
who meet or exceed specific objectives? Which
objectives?
• What happens when people fail to meet
objectives?

(Continued)
186 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

TABLE 5.5 Issues that constitute organizational culture and require attention
when change
TABLE is contemplated (from Reger, 2006)
5.5 (Continued)

Priorities • How are employees expected to view customers?

The market? The organization’s mission?
• When handling global issues, do local or global
answers rule?
• How are priorities identified and reinforced?
• Is it best to focus on the long term or short term?
Nature of the • How important are interpersonal relationships, and
relationship how should they be nurtured?
• How important are titles, and how should people
interact across different organizational levels?
• How should teamwork and individual work be
applied?
• When working outside the company—such as
with customers, vendors, alliance partners, and
so on, what is the orientation and expected
relationship?
People decisions • How is work assigned? Who makes the decisions?
• What is the hiring strategy (for example, promote
from within, “best and brightest,” diversity)?
• What is the preference for tenure vs. “new eyes”?
• How are employees developed (for example,
training, mentoring, apprenticeship)?
Policies • To what degree are employees expected to follow
policies versus exercise their judgments?
• Who can exercise judgment and when?
• Do the policies apply differently in various
circumstances, and if so, who decides?
Leadership process, • Are leaders primarily people managers, or are they
approach, and style also involved in the hands-on work of their groups?
• How should they interact with subordinates, peers,
and superiors?
• How are leaders expected to communicate?
How often and through what processes and
communication media?
• How much openness is expected, and on what
topics?
• What power is invested, and in what leadership
positions?
Reger, Sara J. Moulton. Can Two Rights Make a Wrong? 1st Edition, © 2006, p. 98–100.
Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ

a certain direction within the context of attempts to improve organiza-

tional effectiveness. Often framed in terms of whether a culture can be
“managed,” this question is more specific than whether culture changes
at all; even though cultures may change due to a variety of reasons (as
we discussed above), the role of leadership in initiating and guiding those
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 187

changes is a topic of much dispute. In this section, we present some of the

main issues that are disputed and summarize the primary points of view.
It may be easiest to think of this issue as a continuum with more
extreme views at either end and more contingencies discussed in the
middle. The two extreme views are, on the one hand, that leaders cannot
influence culture and, on the other hand, that leaders can easily change
culture. As an example of the perspective that leaders have no or very
little effect on culture, Meek (1988) put it quite simply, “leaders do not
create culture, it emerges from the collective social interaction of groups
and communities” (p. 459). Alvesson and Berg (1992) asserted that from
a symbolic management perspective, leaders cannot change culture. As
they stated, “a corporate culture cannot be forced upon a collective, nor
can it be controlled or manipulated at will. A true strategic change pro-
gramme does not impose anything, but makes people aware of and il-
luminates certain aspects of the culture in which they exist” (p. 168). As
another example, Martin and Siehl (1983) questioned whether manag-
ers could have any influence on culture, and if they did, characterized
the level of influence as very limited: “It may be that cultures cannot
be straightforwardly created or managed by individuals. Instead, cultures
may simply exist and managers may capitalize on cultural effects they
perceive as positive or minimize those perceived as negative. Perhaps
the most that can be expected is that a manager can slightly modify the
trajectory of a culture, rather than exert major control over the direction
of its development” (p. 53).
On the other end of the continuum are those authors who perhaps
oversimplify the ease with which culture can be changed. For example,
Tichy (1982) described culture as a strategic variable that can be ma-
nipulated by managers through “role modeling, jargon, myths, rituals as
well as the use of the human resource systems of selection, development,
assessment, and rewards to shape and mold corporate culture” (p. 12).
Other authors have reduced culture change to a series of straightfor-
ward steps (e.g.,  Turnstall, 1983), although many of these do include
warnings about the difficulty of culture change and the time required to
achieve successful change (e.g., Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Deal & Ken-
nedy, 1982).
Some have suggested that the differences along this continuum are
an issue of the definition of culture that is used. For instance, Martin
(1985) stated, “If they choose a relatively superficial definition of cul-
ture, or if they focus on a relatively limited scope of change, then they
are more likely to echo the pragmatists’ conclusion that culture can in-
deed be managed. The authors who define culture in unusually deep
or broad terms, and who contemplate massive cultural changes, are less
sanguine about attempts to control the trajectory of a culture’s evolu-
tion” (p. 96). In many ways, this issue reduces to the organizations are
cultures perspective versus the organizations have cultures perspective
that we discussed previously (Smircich, 1983). If culture is treated as a
variable along the lines of other organizational variables that researchers
188 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

study and leaders attempt to influence, then culture change may seem
like an easily attainable goal. Such a goal would particularly be the case
when culture is defined in terms of its outer layers, such that norms or es-
poused values are the target for management’s change efforts, rather than
deeper level of beliefs and basic assumptions. Alternatively, if cultures are
viewed as subsuming everything that occurs internally in the organiza-
tion (i.e., organizations are cultures), then any attempt by organizational
leaders to change the whole culture in a meaningful way would seem to
have a small likelihood of success. Furthermore, many from this perspec-
tive approach culture with a concern for the treatment of individuals
with less power within the organization, and thus view culture change as
an unethical attempt by management to impose their values and will on
employees (Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Smircich, 1985).
As a middle ground, the ability of leaders to change culture could be
viewed from a contingency perspective, with the level of influence vary-
ing depending upon a variety of issues (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008).
For instance, Louis (1985) suggested that managers’ ability to change
culture will depend on the stage in the organization’s life cycle (young
versus mature), the level of the organization (subunit versus whole orga-
nization), the presence of a clear need for change (crisis), and the leader’s
ability to communicate a clear need for change and vision for the future.
Lundberg (1985) took a similar perspective, outlining four major condi-
tions that provide an appropriate time for leaders to try to make change
(we show these in Table 5.6). The presence of these conditions will pre-
dict both whether change will be attempted by leaders and whether it
will be successful. The gist of this perspective is that culture change can

TABLE 5.6 Conditions suggesting that leaders pursue culture change (based
on Lundberg, 1985)

1. External enabling conditions. This issue concerns both the presence of

threats in the external environment and the extent to which the organization
fits with its external environment, with a moderate level of fit to be
optimally motivating for a leader to initiate culture change.
2. Internal permitting conditions. This captures whether the organization
has the internal resources, readiness, and coordination that permit capable
leadership to make a culture change effort successful.
3. Precipitating pressures. These may come from performance demands or
stakeholders and can originate in changes in organizational size (growth or
decrement) or in a crisis (real or perceived) that causes uncertainty for the
organization; crises and ambiguity are good conditions for leaders to initiate
change efforts because people are attuned to alleviating both crises and
ambiguity.
4. Triggering events. These are the most proximal condition for culture change.
These may include major changes in the organization’s environment,
technological breakthroughs, or unexpected departures in the top
management team.
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 189

occur, but the conditions have to be right, where right means the orga-
nization is ready for change. If the situation is not right, then the culture
change effort will fail because the parties required to get involved will
not see the import of participating to make the change happen.
One of the contingencies suggested by Louis (1985) that has received
particular attention in the organizational culture literature is the orga-
nization’s stage in its life cycle. Previously, we discussed the topic of life
cycles at length with regard to the evolution of organizational culture
over time, acknowledging that organizational cultures do tend to change
across their life span. The question here is at what points in their life
cycle are cultures more susceptible to management’s change efforts.
Siehl (1985) argued that the best condition for changing culture may be
during the transition from the entrepreneurial stage to the formalization
and growth stage (which would parallel the transition from the found-
ing and early growth stage to the midlife stage using Schein’s, 2010,
terminology). This is an opportune time because the requirements for
continuing the growth and development of the organization will require
different skill sets on the part of leadership. Of course, this need may
not be generally seen by everyone, so once again the importance of com-
munication to all employees about where the organization is and where
it needs to be becomes clear. Siehl (1985) noted that if the organization
has been relatively successful, change might be more difficult and limited
to the outer layers of culture. Alternatively, if the organization has been
struggling or there exists widespread dissatisfaction with the organiza-
tion and its culture, deeper change may be possible.
Similar to Siehl (1985), Schein (2010) provided an in-depth discus-
sion of the effect of the organization’s stage in its life cycle on lead-
ership’s attempts at culture change, and specifically how organizations
can overcome the difficulties of culture change at the midlife stage. One
option he highlighted was that the promotion of “hybrids” into key lead-
ership positions could increase the likelihood for culture change. He de-
fined hybrids as “insiders whose own assumptions are better adapted to
the new external realities” (p. 279). Such individuals have lived in and
know the current culture and therefore are palatable as leaders to current
employees. Although they have lived with the existing culture, there are
aspects of their background or experience sufficient to also somewhat
differentiate them from the current culture, providing them with insights
on how the organization will need to change to continue to be successful.
Another option described by Schein (2010) for leading culture change at
the midlife stage is through management’s decisions about new employ-
ees. The opportunity for change will increase as more employees enter
the organization whose values are consistent with the desired culture, es-
pecially if they displace those employees who most strongly identify with
the old culture (consistent with the ASA model; Schneider, 1987). Yet
another option for organizations in the midlife stage is for management
to encourage change through the support or facilitation of a particular
subculture. In this approach, the leadership of the organization attempts
190 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

to exploit the inevitable development of subcultures and the diversity

that they bring to guide the organization’s overall culture. Change can be
facilitated by pushing the development of the organization’s culture to
be more like that of a particular subculture by, for example, promoting
individuals from that subculture to higher levels of management. As the
organization moves from midlife to the later stages of its life cycle, its
culture becomes more and more deeply ingrained; as a result, the alter-
native tactics available to leaders to make change become more extreme.
Schein (2010) suggested several, including turnarounds, mergers/acquisi-
tions, or destruction and rebirth (i.e., through bankruptcy proceedings).
Related to the contingency perspective is the idea that there are many
influences on culture, and leaders are just one (Alvesson  & Svenings-
son, 2008). In this view, many of the issues mentioned as contingencies
above could also be thought of as competing influences on culture. As
examples, Louis (1983) cited changes to the setting or new technologies,
and Dyer (1985) mentioned unanticipated crises and leadership changes.
The point is that there are other factors that have the potential to yield
culture change, and the presence of those other factors competes with
top management’s goals and the direction it may want to take the cul-
ture. Thus, as suggested by Martin and Siehl (1983), top management
may be more inclined to try to influence the effects of these other influ-
ences rather than to attempt a complete overhaul of the culture. Along
the same lines, Krefting and Frost (1985) suggested that because top
management’s ability to control culture (and all of the other factors that
constitute and influence culture) is limited in the short term, the culture
change attempts might actually result in outcomes that are undesirable.
Thus, they highlight the risk in even attempting culture change, sug-
gesting that the downside is not simply the status quo, but instead is
actually an even worse situation than the organization originally faced.
This is because change can yield great ambiguity for people, resulting in
a loss of sense of place, the very thing culture is thought to provide. As
another alternative, change can be adopted at different paces in different
places in an organization depending on the focus of such change, again
yielding ambiguity. Schneider and Macey were personally involved in a
very interesting culture change process wherein the outcome of the diag-
nosis preceding change itself was to note the features of the culture that
people said should NOT be changed. People explicitly said they wished
to retain the history of the firm that gave it uniqueness in its business.
Leaders, understanding the importance of retaining such anchors for the
culture, were able to think about portraying the change as adding to the
history rather than a replacement for it.
When leaders understand that the changes they envision must be con-
sidered for their meaningfulness and symbolism, then they understand
what culture is and they can diagnose beforehand with some accuracy
the symbolic as well as practical consequences of what they do. To use
Morgan’s (2006) idea, culture is a holographic not a mechanistic con-
struct. As such, it has hundreds of components, each interacting with
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 191

another across forms and levels, and it is when leaders understand this
level of interaction and systems-wide interrelationship that the possibil-
ity exists that they can proceed with the initiatives that can eventuate
in change. They can initiate change and watch it happen, always under-
standing that they can never control all facets of it.
The source material for most if not all of this section on leadership and
organizational change has been primarily theoretical. Although leader-
ship has regularly been linked with organizational culture, especially in
the literatures on transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass  &
Bass, 2008; Hartnell  & Walumbwa, 2011), empirical research on the
topic has been relatively paltry relative to the theoretical literature. Nev-
ertheless, there has been some empirical research suggesting that leaders’
values and behaviors are related to their organizations’ cultures, imply-
ing that leaders can and do change culture. For example, in a sample of
26 Israeli companies, Berson, Oreg, and Dvir (2008) found that chief
executive officer (CEO) values were related to relevant aspects of or-
ganizational culture, so that the value of self-direction was related to an
innovative culture, the value of security was related to a bureaucratic
culture, and the value of benevolence was related to a supportive culture.
In another example, Tsui, Zhang, Wang, Xin, and Wu (2006) used a mix
of quantitative and qualitative methodologies to explore the relationship
between the strength of CEO leadership behavior and the strength of the
organizational culture in China. In addition to finding that strong leader-
ship was generally coupled with a strong culture, their data revealed a
number of environmental variables that restrained the influence of lead-
ers on culture, including degree of control by the parent company, the
age of the organization, and the size of the organization, so that leader-
ship was more closely linked with culture when the organizational had
more autonomy, was younger, and was smaller. In combination, these two
studies show that CEOs can influence culture, but consistent with the
contingency perspective, the extent of their effect may be limited by a
number of other factors. In addition, it may be possible that the culture
is influencing the leader and his/her values and behavior; as Alvesson
(1993) has observed with regard to leaders that “it is possible to be at the
same time a product of a culture, to be constrained by it, and to some
degree to be able to change or at least modify it” (p. 90). Thus, although
empirical work along these lines has provided interesting insights into
the relationship between leadership and organizational culture, such re-
search is limited; there is still much to be done.
To wrap up this overview of the literature on the relationship between
leadership and culture change, our view is that culture change is ex-
traordinarily difficult, and leaders must be prepared for challenges should
they attempt it. We see two almost opposite perspectives that perhaps
represent the best alternatives for leaders intent on achieving organiza-
tional culture change. One is the idea of an adaptive culture from Kotter
and Heskett (1992). As described previously, they argued that organiza-
tions can maintain consistent, core values of serving the needs of their
192 Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change

stakeholders (i.e., customers, employees, and shareholders) while being

flexible in how those ideals are manifested. Of course, saying this and
doing this are two different things. However, the idea that leaders can
build a culture that will adapt to changing circumstances without losing
its core values is an attractive one. On the opposite end of the spectrum
is Schein’s (2000) admonition that “management should seek not to
change culture, but to change effectiveness” (p. xxix). Given the time and
difficulty associated with culture change, leaders who understand that or-
ganizations can naturally evolve and change, and who understand that
what they do in the way of embedding mechanisms always has symbolic
meaning, can approach change with a long time horizon. Using Schein’s
more limited emphasis on effectiveness, the organization can focus on
the aspects of its culture that are the most aligned with effectiveness and
try to build on those in hopes that even small changes can yield eventu-
ally large consequences in terms of culture.

SUMMARY: THE EMERGENCE, EFFECTIVENESS,

AND CHANGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURES

Organizational cultures, as is true also of all cultures, serve the purpose

of reducing ambiguity for the members of the culture. Especially when
cultures are strong, people’s roles and the rules by which they operate
are taken for granted and may not even be available to consciousness.
As such, cultures are implicit unquestioned guidelines for organizational
life. However, cultures do not usually exist in their full-blown form when
we get to study them or work in them. Cultures emerge from a process
that is, in our estimation, best described by Schein’s (2010) explication
of the culture embedding mechanisms under the control of founders. In
brief, Schein argued that to what the founder devotes scarce resources
determines the values and beliefs taken on by those with whom he or
she works early on, and that this is especially true for the actions taken
that are shown to be useful for organizational growth and development.
These early actions result in various learnings and experiences that be-
come embedded in the way decisions are made and problems are solved
to further reinforce the culture begun by founder behavior.
The organization’s culture then is transmitted to newcomers through
formal and informal socialization practices in organizations, and the re-
sult of such socialization practices is further deepening and strengthening
of the culture of the organization. Because the cultural manifestations
that are experienced and passed on to future generations of employees
are those that have been proven effective, organizational culture should
hypothetically be related to organizational effectiveness. There is some
evidence that this is true, but it is not clear whether studying the direct
link between organizational culture and effectiveness is a viable approach
to understanding this complex relationship. Such a direct link is unlikely
Emergence, Effectiveness, and Change 193

if the specific facets of organizational culture that might be important

for effectiveness vary from setting to setting. Furthermore, weak organi-
zational cultures—cultures in which there is not shared understanding—
might also moderate the relationship between culture and effectiveness.
One explanation for weak cultures is that organizations may frequently
contain subcultures resulting from occupational differences and other
possible differences (organizational level, demographic composition, and
so forth) across people in an organization. It is important to take into ac-
count these and other potential contingencies in exploring the relation-
ship between culture and effectiveness.
Whether or not there is a simple, direct link between organizational
culture and effectiveness, there is no doubt that organizational culture
has important implications for the effectiveness of organizations and
thus needs to be taken into account in any change program. Many of the
issues involved in changing culture are the same as when culture is cre-
ated, implying that those who fail to appreciate why cultures exist and
how they form will fail at organizational culture change. They will fail
because they will not grasp the holographic (Morgan, 2006) nature of
organizational culture and will rather focus on artifacts and immediately
tangible issues as if changing them will change an organization’s culture.
Even when organizations understand the conditions most likely to result
in effective culture change and the role of leadership at various stages of
an organization’s life cycle in effecting change, culture change will never
be quick, straightforward, or easy.

NOTE
1. Schein later added “new beliefs, values, and assumptions brought in by new
members and leaders” (2004, p. 225).
This page intentionally left blank
 CH APTER

6
Integrating
Organizational
Climate and
Organizational Culture
This chapter is about integrating the climate and culture approaches to
understanding the organizational context in which people work. The
previous chapters have dealt in detail with the history of research on
climate and culture, the various conceptualizations of the two constructs,
and the validity of the constructs with regard to being correlates of vari-
ous indices of organizational effectiveness. Occasionally we noted how
one of the constructs was similar to or different from the other, but by
and large we avoided such comparisons preferring to present each in
their more or less pure form—the way they have tended to exist in the
literature. Now that readers have the prior chapters as background in-
formation, in this chapter we switch to discussing the two constructs
simultaneously. We do this to better understand their shared attributes
and the potential for the combination of the two to make additional
contributions to organizational theory, research, and practice. In what
follows we assume the reader has the details of the prior chapters, so to
speak, so we do not include as many of the citations to the work of others
as we included earlier.
The chapter unfolds by first noting how infrequently connections are
made between these two constructs. Then we explicitly identify a series
of similarities and differences between the constructs. Next, we develop
the idea that climate researchers might profit from culture research

195
196 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

approaches, then we reverse the issue by identifying how culture re-

searchers might benefit from climate approaches. We then consider ways
the two constructs have been and might be integrated into a common
research paradigm, and we conclude the chapter by discussing how an
integrated framework sheds light on the always perplexing issue of orga-
nizational change.

ON THE RELATIVE ABSENCE OF THE

INTEGRATION OF CLIMATE AND CULTURE

In the earliest years of the study of organizational context and environ-

mental variation, simultaneous discussions of climate and culture were
relatively rare and largely inconsistent. Some authors viewed culture as
a broader construct than climate (e.g.,  Evan, 1968; Fleishman, 1953),
some viewed climate as broader than culture (Argyris, 1958), and some
used the terms interchangeably (Katz & Kahn, 1966). As the literatures
on both topics developed, commentaries on the relationship between
climate and culture remained relatively uncommon, leading multiple re-
searchers to observe how the fields have existed on parallel tracks with
little explicit conceptual overlap (e.g., Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson,
2000b; Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Of course, there have been excep-
tions, perhaps most notably by Denison (1996), and such exceptions have
seemingly become more common in recent years, including handbook
chapters by Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad (2012) and Zohar and
Hofmann (2012), and a number of publications in the mental health ser-
vices literature (e.g., Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006a, 2006b; Glisson & Green,
2006; Glisson, Schoenwald, Kelleher, Landsverk, Hoagwood, Mayberg, &
Green, 2008). However, given the now considerable accumulation of re-
search on each construct over the last three to four decades, the little
progress that has been made on their integration is quite disappointing.
Even in the very popular recent editions of the Handbook of Organiza-
tional Culture and Climate (Ashkanasy, Wilderom,  & Peterson, 2000a,
2011), it is difficult to find examples of bridges being built between the
two research areas. Instead, there are chapters on culture and, to a lesser
degree, chapters on climate, but very few examples that could truly be
labeled as chapters on culture and climate.
Over the years, there has been at least some degree of tension between
researchers on these topics, largely due to their differing approaches to
studying and understanding organizations, and perhaps also due to dif-
ferences in their popularity. We observed earlier that climate research-
ers have been much more willing to acknowledge the value of culture
research than the other way around. For instance, Trice and Beyer (1993)
dismissed climate as only reflective of individuals’ experiences of their
organizations and lacking unique indicators. Others have seemed to simi-
larly downplay the role of climate, labeling it as “transient” (Ott, 1989),
“idiosyncratic” (Rousseau, 1990a), “superficial” (Alvesson & Berg, 1992),
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 197

or aligning it with the physical layout or appearance of the organization

(Schein, 2000, 2010). We disagree with all of these characterizations of
climate research, and it is easy to see in our coverage of the climate con-
struct in previous chapters that these descriptions are not in alignment
with the definitions and validity of contemporary climate research. Our
position is that both constructs and their histories bring unique perspec-
tives to essentially the same table and not only are both useful inde-
pendently, but the two literatures can grow and develop by examining
the contributions of each to the other. As Schein (2000) put it, “[T]o
understand what goes on in organizations and why it happens in the way
it does, one needs several concepts. Climate and culture, if each is care-
fully defined, then become two crucial building blocks for organizational
description and analysis” (pp. xxiv–xxv, italics in original).
Before moving forward with our discussion of the similarities and dif-
ferences between the two constructs, it is important to emphasize what
has hopefully been clear from our discussions to this point. That is, there
are inconsistencies in definitions and modes of study within the work in
each arena depending on who is doing the research. Sometimes research-
ers discuss and study culture and climate in ways that are very similar and
other times in ways that are quite different. Thus, we will attempt to cap-
ture the various perspectives that are used to study both constructs and
to be specific in our discussion about to which approach we are referring
so that the proposed integration can become clear. Our goal is to illumi-
nate what Pettigrew (1990) said over two decades ago as he summarized
the edited volume by Schneider: “The clear message from this book is
that climate and culture are complex, multidimensional, and multilevel
constructs. They are systemic constructs that come alive when they are
studied in a holistic fashion and when they are linked to key themes or
problems of organizational functioning” (p. 421). We attempt in what
follows to display the similarities and the differences in approaches and
to lay the foundation for the ways each may benefit from knowledge of
the other.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL

CLIMATE AND CULTURE

There are many similarities between the constructs of organizational cli-

mate and organizational culture. This overlap has resulted in some re-
searchers treating the two terms as interchangeable (e.g., Markus, 2000)
or so similar that “it is possible to claim that climate is a way of measuring
culture” (Payne, 2000). Although we think there are important distinc-
tions between the two, we want to first acknowledge some of the key sim-
ilarities in the thinking about and research perspectives on organizational
climate and culture: (1) the focus on a macro view of the organizational
context and attempts to understand how that context emerges for the
participants there; (2) the focus on context rather than the individuals in
198 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

the context; (3) the focus on sharedness of experiences; (4) the role of
meaning; (5) the role of leadership; (6) the issues of strength and align-
ment; and (7) the relationship with organizational effectiveness. These
are displayed in Table 6.1 and elaborated on in what follows.

The Focus on a Macro View of the

Organizational Context
Climate and culture attempt to grapple with the total effects of the con-
text on people and their behavior. In contrast to much of the thinking
and research in industrial/organizational psychology and organizational
behavior, climate and culture approaches work with the bundle of at-
tributes people experience rather than those attributes one at a time.
Climate and culture approaches do not focus on pay for performance, or
performance management systems, or job attributes, or co-worker sup-
port, or management fairness; instead, they focus on all of these simulta-
neously and explore from whence they cometh and their consequences.
Both constructs are seen to emerge for people through many different
channels of information and experiences, with such information directly
or indirectly reflecting and suggesting the implications of the larger con-
text for people.

The Focus on Context and Not on Individuals

Similarly, a common thread that runs through the constructs of organi-

zational climate and culture is that they both focus on the organizational
environment or context (Denison, 1996). Although the idea of measur-
ing and understanding the organizational environment may seem like old
hat these days, with multilevel theorizing and analysis becoming the rule

TABLE 6.1 Similarities in climate and culture theory and research

• The focus on a macro view of the organizational context and attempts to

understand how that context emerges as it is for the participants there
• The focus on the context in which people work rather than on the individual
attributes of people there
• The focus on sharedness of experiences of people rather than the individual
differences among them
• The centrality of the meaning of the context for people and their subsequent
behavior
• The role of leaders and leadership in creating the context and the meaning
attached to it
• The issues of strength and alignment as important in understanding climate
and culture effects
• The relationship of climate and culture to organizational effectiveness
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 199

rather than the exception, the role of the environment in understand-

ing individual behavior was the major issue that gave rise to the litera-
tures on organizational climate and culture (Schneider, 1985). Climate
and culture researchers have taken very different approaches (for the
most part) in studying these environments, but at the core, the issue both
groups are trying to understand is very similar.

The Focus on Sharedness in Experiences

Another key similarity between organizational climate and culture is that

they tend to be shared, and as such, they tend to operate at the unit
level of analysis rather than the individual level. Almost all definitions
of climate and culture, either explicitly or implicitly, include the idea
that they capture elements of the organization about which there are
shared perceptions, meanings, and/or understandings. Of course, as we
have already highlighted in the chapters on culture, not all researchers
embrace the idea that culture is shared, especially across the organization
as a whole (Martin, 2002). Along similar lines in the climate literature,
there is the idea that climates can be low in strength, indicating there
is not a consensus and suggesting, in fact, the presence of subclimates
and/or fragmented climates (though one does not see those terms used).
Even in these cases, it is conceptually difficult to move away from the
“sharedness” of climate and culture among employees as an essential
attribute of these constructs. For culture, when there are elements for
which there is not a shared culture across the entire organization, there
are likely subcultures within which there are shared perceptions or un-
derstandings. With regard to the ambiguity in cultures that yields the
fragmentation perspective, many of the examples Martin (2002) tended
to cite are situations in which there is likely, and somewhat paradoxically,
consensus about the fact that there is ambiguity in the workplace. As for
climate, researchers have not done a good job of clarifying when, why,
and under what circumstances climates may be low or high in strength
(for an exception see Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). In particular, lack of cli-
mate strength may be a function of temporary issues (e.g., a new super-
visor, a new chief executive officer, or a merger), the implementation of
new work processes (e.g., via new information technology), or ambiguity
in what the future is likely to bring. We acknowledge that there may
be situations when elements of climate and culture are not shared, but
overall, the perceptions and understandings that make up climate and
culture require that there be “sharedness” as a fundamental attribute for
the constructs to have meaning beyond an individual’s own experiences.

The Centrality of the Meaning of the Context

For both organizational climate and culture researchers, meaning plays

a central role in how the constructs are defined and the ways by which
200 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

they affect employees. This emphasis has been more explicit in the cul-
ture literature, as researchers have commonly discussed the processes
through which the outer layers (or artifacts) in the organization are in-
terpreted and come to have socially shared meanings by the organiza-
tion’s members. In the culture literature, this is discussed in terms of the
values, beliefs, and basic assumptions by which the organization exists.
Indeed, this meaning is revealed in myths and stories and transmitted to
newcomers through socialization practices.
In the climate literature, discussions of meaning are not as common,
and the link to meaning has not always been made explicit. Nevertheless,
from the early stages in the development of the climate construct, mean-
ing has taken on an important role. For instance, Schneider (1975b) placed
climate as an intervening variable between the policies and practices of
the organization and the resulting employee behavior. Climate was criti-
cal to understanding employee behavior because it captured the meaning
the various policies and practices held for employees. From a Gestalt psy-
chology perspective, Schneider outlined how workers organize and assign
meaning to patterns or bundles of individual cues in their organization,
and how the organization’s climate develops out of the shared experi-
ences and sense-making processes among employees. Thus, conceptually
climate is not the policies, practices, and procedures themselves, but the
shared meaning that is assigned to them by the organization’s employees.
Paradoxically, the measurement of climate has focused on the policies,
practices, and procedures far more than the more macro meaning as-
signed to them. Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2011a) showed how the
typical measure of such policies, practices, and procedures could also in-
clude the more macro meaning of the work environment for employees.
Zohar and Hofmann (2012) built on this logic to argue that the basis
for organizational climate is organizational employees’ identification of
“the overall pattern and signals sent by this complex web of rules and
policies across competing domains” (p. 7). In fact, they portray climate
as an intermediate layer of culture that captures the perceptions of the
enacted values and priorities of management. They described it this way:
“Once the implicit priorities and enacted values associated with each
climate domain are combined or integrated, their joint meaning can be
considered as forming an interim layer of culture whose specification
should make it easier to map observable artifacts with basic assumptions
and core values” (pp. 29–30). Thus, the meaning-making process takes on
a central role in their perspective on climate.

The Role of Leaders and Leadership

For the most part, leaders are viewed as playing a critical role in both
organizational climate and culture. In organizational climate research,
the importance of leaders has been taken for granted to the point that
researchers have only recently begun to directly study their influence
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 201

on climate. In the organizational culture literature, the importance of

the founder has taken center stage, with some controversy about the
extent to which leaders influence culture once the organization has de-
veloped and the culture has been firmly established. Although the role
that leaders play and the nature of the discussion about leadership may
differ some between the two fields, it is clear from both literatures that
leadership is closely intertwined with both. Perhaps the best illustration
of this overlap is from Schein’s writings on culture embedding mecha-
nisms. For many years, he has discussed embedding mechanisms as the
way leaders “reinforce the adoption of their own beliefs, values” (Schein,
2010, p. 235) and “teach their organizations how to perceive, think, feel,
and behave based on their own conscious and unconscious convictions”
(Schein, 2010, p. 236). Although in his earlier work those mechanisms
were described as the “mechanisms for culture embedding and reinforce-
ment” (Schein, 1985, p. 224), in the more recent editions of his book,
Schein described them as creating “what would typically be called the
‘climate’ of the organization” (Schein, 2010, p. 236). Thus, not only is
leadership a critical component of both climate and culture, but leaders
influence both climate and culture through similar mechanisms—what
they do, to what they assign valued resources, and so forth. Later in the
chapter, we discuss the implications this has for integrating research on
climate and culture and specifically for understanding how climate and
culture influence each other.

The Issues of Strength and Alignment

Both organizational climate and culture researchers have been concerned

with the related ideas of strength and alignment. In the climate literature,
strength is discussed primarily in terms of the extent to which there is
consensus about the climate, which is assessed with an index of variabil-
ity such as the standard deviation. Culture researchers have proposed
a number of additional ways to think about culture strength, such as
the different types of penetration described by Louis (1985) and Saffold
(1988) or the idea of pervasiveness described by Payne (2000). Denison
and Neale (2000) have taken the approach of directly asking employees
about strength issues rather than calculating some index of agreement or
consensus. For example, survey respondents are asked about the extent to
which the internal organization is integrated towards goal achievement
(coordination/integration), employees agree with each other and are able
to resolve differences (agreement), and there is a shared set of values that
employees can identify with (core values). Whatever the approach, there
is a common idea in both literatures that organizations (or units within
them) may vary in the extent to which people agree about the climate
or culture.
On a related front, both literatures also discuss the idea of internal
alignment. Climate researchers frame this in terms of the gestalt that is
202 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

created through the implied messages sent through the organization’s

policies, practices, procedures, and reward systems (Schneider, 1975b). For
instance, employees get the message that service is a priority for the orga-
nization when management creates alignment in the ways it communi-
cates the importance of service, rewards service quality, hires individuals
based on their ability to provide quality service, provides support systems
that are needed to deliver quality service, and so on. When these are
aligned, a climate for service will result. In the culture literature, there are
similar discussions of alignment across various organizational structures
and processes or across the layers of culture (Schein, 2010). As described
by Schein (2010), it is when the outer layers of culture are experienced
as not being in alignment that the deeper underlying assumptions are
most revealed. That is, when what management says and what employ-
ees actually do are not aligned, this gives insight into the deeper-level
assumptions that explain how these contradictions have come to exist.

The Relationship with Organizational Effectiveness

A final general similarity we highlight is that both organizational climate

and culture are presumed to be related to organizational effectiveness.
Such a link is certainly controversial in the culture literature, as we have
discussed in the preceding chapters. What seems to be controversial is
not the general idea that the culture of an organization will have im-
plications for its effectiveness, but rather treating culture as yet another
predictor of organizational performance and attempting to empirically
demonstrate that link. Thus, even those who take the perspective that
organizations are cultures would likely agree that the underlying assump-
tions and the unique history that undergird the various cultural manifes-
tations in an organization have implications for how employees behave
and subsequently how the organization as a whole performs. Whether
that should be a primary topic of research or whether such a focus fa-
vors the goals of management over employees with relatively less power
are separate issues about which there is more disagreement. With regard
to climate, the relationship with effectiveness has been more common,
perhaps because of the tendency for I/O psychologists to take a more
functionalist perspective. The controversy in the climate literature has
been more about whether general (i.e., molar) measures or specific (i.e.,
focused) measures of climate best predict effectiveness.

Summary

Over time, the literatures on climate and culture have come to have more
in common than was true earlier in their histories. The early differences
were likely due to the disciplinary influences from which they emerged
and the resultant similarities are likely due to their common interest
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 203

in the implications of the macro organizational context for the people

within them. For climate, a focus on effectiveness was there from the be-
ginning but so was a focus on individual experiences—now both climate
research and culture research focus on effectiveness and on the context
rather than the individual. Reichers and Schneider (1990) claimed that
climate and culture were two ways of approaching the influence of con-
text on behavior but that they were traveling down parallel, nonoverlap-
ping tracks. The more recent literatures we have summarized suggest
that there is now much more overlap, especially when focusing on spe-
cific segments of either literature. For instance, recent research using sur-
veys to study the outer layers of organizational culture (like behavioral
norms) has a considerable overlap with climate research focusing on em-
ployees’ general perceptions of the molar climate of their organization.
However, culture approaches that do not use surveys and/or that focus
on the deeper assumptions of culture have less in common with climate
approaches that are focused on specific organizational strategies or pro-
cesses. We focus more on these areas of distinction in the next section.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL

CLIMATE AND CULTURE

Despite the commonality between the constructs of organizational cli-

mate and culture, there are important distinctions between them as well.
Our intention here is not to review all differences between them but
rather, based partially on Denison (1996), to highlight what we consider
to be the critical differences: (1) their theoretical roots and research
methodology, (2) the breadth of their operationalizations, (3) the aware-
ness of climate and culture by organizational members, (4) their malle-
ability or receptiveness to change attempts, and (5) their strategic focus.
These points of distinction are summarized in Table 6.2 and detailed
below. Furthermore, this material provides the foundation for our later
section on what the two fields can learn from each other and how re-
search on the two can be integrated.

Theoretical Roots and Methodology

As has been clear in our discussion of the climate and culture literatures,
researchers in these areas have historically approached the study of the
organizational environment from different theoretical traditions. Organi-
zational climate research was begun by industrial psychologists, who ap-
proached organizations with an emphasis on individuals and how best to
predict individuals’ performance in their jobs. Thus, they struggled early
on with how to study an organizational-level variable using individual-
level perception data. In addition, their psychological tradition led them
to use survey methods to assign numbers to the various dimensions of
204 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

TABLE 6.2 Differences in climate and culture theory and research

• Theoretical roots and methodology, with climate emerging from psychology and
its focus on attitude surveys and culture from anthropology with its focus on
case/qualitative studies
• Breadth with which the constructs are operationalized, with culture including
more levels of inferred and observable variables and climate focusing on the
observables almost exclusively
• Awareness of the culture/climate by employees in the organization; culture
has different levels with the deepest levels below consciousness, whereas for
climate, the variables are observables
• Malleability, or the relative ease with which climate might be changeable
compared to the difficulties inherent in changing the many levels of culture
• The strategic focus of climate research, with much less evidence for such a
focus in the culture literature

climate and subject those scores to statistical analyses so that compari-

sons could be made across people or units. In contrast, organizational
culture research was rooted in anthropological traditions where the em-
phasis was on providing in-depth understanding of social groups from an
insider’s perspective. Qualitative methods, preferably along the lines of
ethnography, were needed to provide the desired depth and insight into
comprehensively describing single cultures. In addition, part of the early
organizational culture tradition was a clear disapproval of and distancing
from the dominant logical positivist tradition as well as what was seen as
a management bias for corporate success at the expense of people.

Breadth

There are clear differences between organizational climate and culture

thinking and research in the range of organizational variables included.
Organizational culture is most definitely the broader of the two, par-
ticularly when the organizations are cultures perspective is considered.
Because in this view the culture of an organization as a whole is stud-
ied, everything that occurs within the organization is on the table to be
the subject of cultural analysis, and the focus is on how organizational
members experience the various facets of their organization and assign
meaning to them. In terms of Schein’s (2010) levels of culture, the deep-
est layers of culture (the basic assumptions) will be manifested in every-
thing that occurs in the organization in some form or fashion, from the
pictures on the wall to the color of those walls and from the furnishings
of the executive suite to the behavior of its occupant. Of course, fully
capturing the breadth of the manifestations of culture is a large task,
and thus the focus tends to be on single organizations, making between-
organization comparisons difficult.
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 205

Organizational climate research tends to be narrower in its focus, al-

though there is some variability within the field in this regard. Molar cli-
mate researchers are interested in dimensions of the overall environment
as perceived by employees, and thus they tend to include all aspects of
the organizational environment that are considered most relevant to
employees. Focused climate researchers are more narrowly interested in
the environment as it relates to a specific process or strategic outcome.
Thus, for something like diversity climate, the interest may be only in
those processes and procedures that directly relate to what management
does to support diversity. Some strategic climates may be broader in their
approach because so many aspects of the organization send messages
about management’s strategic priorities; nevertheless, the focus on poli-
cies, practices, procedures, and reward systems that is typical in climate
research is still much more focused on strategic- and process-relevant
observables than the typical breadth of culture research.

Awareness

Organizational culture, at its deepest levels, functions outside the con-

scious awareness of organizational members. Additionally, what mem-
bers report as being the espoused values of their organization may differ
from the values in use that they experience. Accordingly, Schein (2010)
advocated for a clinical approach for understanding a culture that in-
volves an outsider conducting focus groups with employees to try to
identify what the “true” culture of the organization is beyond what em-
ployees may immediately experience. Alternatively, climate has been
viewed as something that is based in employees’ shared perceptions of
what happens to them and around them. As employees experience the
various policies, practices, and procedures of the organization and as they
interact with other employees, working together and communicating
about their experiences at work, they (typically) come to agree about
what the organization’s priorities are and what it is like to work for that
organization. Because it operates within the conscious awareness of em-
ployees, climate can be viewed as “both the manifestation of culture . . .
and the data on which culture comes to be inferred and understood”
(Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p. 24). Thus, we agree with Alvesson and
Berg (1992) that “climate is comparatively close to experience . . . and
readily accessible,” although we disagree that it is therefore “superficial”
(p. 88). Organizational climate captures the meaning employees infer
from the policies, practices, and procedures of the organization, includ-
ing assessments of the alignment between espoused values and enacted
values that provide important insights to the organization’s underlying
values and beliefs (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). Although climate does not
directly address employees’ deeply held assumptions, it is anything but
superficial.
206 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

Malleability

As described in the last chapter, it is fairly well established that organiza-

tional culture is difficult to change (e.g., Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Deal &
Kennedy, 1982; Martin  & Siehl, 1983; Schein, 2010). In contrast, in the
climate literature, it is taken for granted that the climate of an organization
can be changed, but there are not many explicit discussions of how easily it
can be changed or how to go about doing so. Somewhat surprisingly, culture
researchers have been more likely to address the issue of changing organiza-
tional climate, although their conclusion has often been to treat climate as
so malleable (or transient; Ott, 1989) that it can be easily dismissed. Along
these lines, Cameron and Ettington (1988) described how climate’s focus
on attitudes and perceptions explains why it “may change more quickly
than organizational culture” (p. 362). Although contemporary conceptual-
izations of climate do not include job attitudes, we do agree that climate is
likely more malleable than culture. The question is just how malleable is it.
We would object to any characterization of climate as being easily
manipulated by management or quickly changed. Such a view simply
does not align with any of our experiences in working with organizations
and trying to influence the shared perceptions and meanings employees
hold about the strategic focus of their organization, the process climate in
which they work, and/or the molar climate for well-being in which they
work. If climate was simply the policies, practices, and procedures of the
organization, then perhaps it could be viewed as relatively easily changed
(although even then there would be a number of challenges). However,
climate is not simply those things; climate is the meaning those carry as
a gestalt for the organization’s employees. Even if the organization could
swiftly implement drastic changes to its operating procedures and day-to-
day practices, it would take time for employees to recognize and accept
the new priorities of management. Given that it is much more likely for
management to take a piecemeal approach, changing a policy here and a
reward system there, getting employees to buy in to the new climate that
management is trying to create would be difficult and take time. Work on
information processing tells us that once humans establish an image of
what something is, it takes a great deal of counter-information to bring
about change (Lord & Hanges, 1987). Thus, while we agree that climate
is more malleable than culture, such an acknowledgement by no means
should be interpreted as implying that climate is easy to change. Paradoxi-
cally, management seeks “culture change” by contracting with consultants
when it is more likely that “climate change” is needed as a stepping-stone
to embarking on the more difficult culture change (Burke, 2011).

Strategic Focus
Since Schneider (1975b) advocated that climate research should have a
particular focus—that it should be a climate “for something”—research
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 207

in the field has more and more shifted in that direction, to the point
that most research on climate in top management and organizational
psychology journals uses a focused climate approach. Schneider’s point
was that if one wants to predict particular organizational outcomes, one
should identify those aspects of the organizational environment that
will be most relevant for predicting those outcomes. Therefore, for in-
stance, if the goal were to improve service quality and customer satis-
faction one would study the service climate, including all aspects of the
organization’s practices and procedures that relate to the delivery of
service.
Organizational culture researchers, in contrast, have largely avoided
studying culture in such a focused way. One reason is that the focus of
culture is typically quite broad and inclusive, and issues related to a spe-
cific strategy are viewed as only one small piece of a larger puzzle. For
instance, there are discussions of fit with environment (Kotter  & Hes-
kett, 1992) or external alignment (Schein, 2010), but those are usually
addressed in broad terms and may include a number of specific strate-
gic imperatives. Another reason for the lack of a specific strategic focus
in culture research is the view that having such a focus is taking on a
managerial perspective for how to lead the organization to achieve its
strategic goals, which is often equated with management attempting to
control and limit the autonomy of their employees for their personal gain
(Siehl & Martin, 1990). Whether this has actually been the case in climate
research is questionable. For example, Denison (1996), a consultant on
issues of both organizational climate and culture, has described climate
researchers’ ability to balance both sides of this issue, noting that “they
seldom contest the managerial creation of organizational contexts, but
they often represent the interests and perspectives of the non-managerial
employees who operate within that context” (p. 639).
In any case, there are some exceptions within the culture literature
on the issue of strategic focus that should be noted. Among qualitative
studies of culture, research by Ogbonna and his colleagues (Ogbonna &
Harris, 1998, 2002; Ogbonna  & Wilkinson, 1990) has focused on the
implementation of change programs within the grocery industry in the
UK. Among other issues, one focus of those change programs was creat-
ing a more customer-friendly environment in the stores, and they out-
lined some of the challenges that were faced in attempting to change
some of the organization’s values with regard to customer service. Other
examples can be found within the quantitative research on organiza-
tional culture, especially when the culture survey has a dimension that
suggests a strategic focus. For instance, O’Reilly and colleagues’ (1991)
Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) includes the dimension of innova-
tion, and the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (Denison & Neale,
2000) includes a dimension of customer focus within the cultural trait
of adaptability. Although the primary focus of these instruments is not
innovation or service, respectively, their inclusion does represent some
common ground with the literature on strategic climates.
208 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

Summary

Although the concepts of organizational climate and culture have grown

in similarity over time, the two are not synonymous, nor can climate be
dismissed as just another artifact of culture. In our view, there are still key
differences when it comes to their historical roots and research method-
ology, breadth, awareness by organizational members, malleability, and
strategic focus. These five areas do not represent all possible differences
between organizational climate and culture, but we believe they do cap-
ture some of the fundamental differences between the two, in addition
to suggesting some areas where each field could learn from the other. We
explore this idea in more detail in the next two sections.

WHAT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

RESEARCHERS COULD LEARN FROM
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH

We first tackle the question of what organizational climate researchers

could learn from thinking and research on organizational culture. This
discussion is particularly relevant to the topic of focused climates, and
especially strategic climates, which have the least amount of overlap with
culture research. We highlight seven areas in Table 6.3 that have typically
been within the domain of organizational culture research that would
enhance the conceptual underpinnings of climate research and practice:
(1) the deeper psychology of organizations, (2) breadth, (3) socialization,
(4) the external environment, (5) development and change, (6) qualita-
tive methods, and (7) passion and richness.

TABLE 6.3 What climate researchers could learn from culture research

• A focus on the deeper psychology of organizations rather than only focus on

immediately observable policies, practices, and behavior
• A focus on the breadth of variables of potential influence on climate,
including myths, stories, architectural design, and so forth
• A focus on socialization to the organization and how new employees learn
about the organization’s climate
• A focus on the larger external environment in which the organization
functions, including national culture, technology segment, and the nature of
the larger economy
• A focus on development and change, both of which are almost nonexistent in
the climate literature
• A focus on more qualitative methods that would capture an increased range of
important variables for understanding organizational climate
• A focus on passion and richness rather than just observable behaviors because
certain process and strategic climates create not only appropriate behaviors,
but also meaningful feelings of engagement
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 209

The Deeper Psychology of Organizations

Organizational climate researchers have done an excellent job of show-

ing how climate, especially strategically focused climates, are reliably, sig-
nificantly, and practically related to a variety of indices of organizational
effectiveness. In addition, because such measures have focused on ob-
servable policies, practices, procedures, and behavior the research has also
demonstrated likely antecedents to these focused climates. Thus, from
the leadership practices focused on creating a safety climate (Zohar  &
Luria, 2005) to the internal service quality needed to support those who
work with customers and subsequent customer satisfaction (Schneider,
White, & Paul, 1998), likely sets of drivers of strategic climates have been
identified. These efforts, however, have perhaps only scratched the sur-
face of the range of levels and factors that yield the foundation for orga-
nizational climates, particularly strategic climates.
Incorporating issues that have typically been the domain of culture
researchers, such as beliefs and values, would provide additional insights
for climate researchers. Along these lines, Ehrhart and Raver (in press)
have suggested that Schein’s (2010) category of assumptions about ex-
ternal adaptation (e.g., mission and strategy, goals, means, measurement,
and correction) might be most relevant for understand the foundation
for strategic climates, whereas assumptions about internal integration
(e.g., language, group boundaries, the distribution of power and status,
and relationship norms) might be most relevant for process and molar
climates. Along similar lines, it would be useful for climate researchers
to study the assumptions that underlie the particular climate of interest,
possibly disentangling those that support the climate, those that detract
from it, and those that may have relatively little effect or are neutral.
Perhaps most relevant to this issue is the work of Zohar and Hofmann
(2012). Their model provides a step in the right direction by rethinking
climate as shared perceptions of enacted values and arguing that the con-
trast of those perceptions with espoused values creates insights into the
values and beliefs that underlie the organization’s climate and culture.
We discuss their model in more depth later in this chapter, but the motto
for this approach to climate would be “deeper is better.”

Breadth

Organizational climate has typically focused on the policies, practices,

procedures, and reward systems in organizations, but climate research
does not need to be limited to those areas or facets of organizational
behavior. Climate research could expand to investigate the interplay be-
tween these facets of climate and issues that have typically been the
domain of culture research, such as myths, stories, rituals, and history.
Other artifacts of the organization, such as employee dress, arrangement
of space, geographic dispersion of the organization, and the posters on
210 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

the walls, are likely correlates of the presence of focused climates within
organizations. Much like Schein (2010) differentiated between the pri-
mary and secondary embedding mechanisms through which leaders
influence culture/climate, perhaps climate researchers need to differenti-
ate between the primary sources of climate information (the traditional
policies, practices, procedures, and reward and expectations systems) and
secondary sources (more indirect indicators such as stories, posters, and
the arrangement of space).
As we write this, it becomes clear that climate researchers who accept
the definition of climate to include “behaviors that get rewarded, sup-
ported, and expected” have focused on reward systems but less so on the
support or expectations. We have long been aware of the literature on
positive organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison,  &
Sowa, 1986), and that research would clearly be helpful to include in
future climate studies. And Eden’s (2003) work on expectations would
seem to be a natural for inclusion in climate research. For example, we are
unaware of any climate surveys that ask employees about what they are
expected to do. Such questions could rest on the same foundation of val-
ues and basic assumptions we are suggesting should be incorporated into
climate research, laying a rich foundation for future thinking and research.

Socialization

How organizational members learn about the organization’s culture and

pass it on to future generations of employees through socialization pro-
cesses has received extensive attention in the culture literature, but little
is known about how these processes occur with regard to climate and
how new employees learn about the strategic goals toward which they
should be focusing their energy. For instance, how do new employees
come to learn about their organization’s safety climate, and how long
does it take before they become adequately familiar with the safety cli-
mate prior to it actually affecting their job behavior? How much of the
organization’s climate is communicated through formal versus informal
socialization mechanisms? Such research might investigate the role that
the organization’s climate plays in the employment brand of the organi-
zation, how and on what bases the organization selects its new employ-
ees, and whether employees decide to stay with the organization over
time (i.e., based on their fit with the strategic climate).

The External Environment

Organization culture researchers have generally been much more con-

cerned with the role of the organization’s external context than have
climate researchers. For instance, culture researchers are more likely to
discuss the effect of issues like national culture, occupational culture,
the state of the economy, industry, and so on as correlates of internal
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 211

organizational culture. Furthermore, they have focused on how the orga-

nization’s culture fits with the demands placed on the organization by its
environment (e.g., Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Schein, 2010). Although re-
search on strategic climate has investigated the extent to which a certain
strategic imperative is communicated and established throughout the
organization, climate researchers typically do not discuss whether this is
actually the right strategic focus for the organization. Perhaps these is-
sues have been too macro for researchers who have typically come from
a more psychological background. Regardless of the cause, an increased
attention to these features of the external environment would be benefi-
cial for climate research and might yield important connections with the
literature on strategic management (we explore this issue in more depth
later in this chapter; see also Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2012).

Development and Change

Organizational culture researchers have expended much energy into un-

derstanding how culture develops and how (or if ) it changes, but these
topics have received very little attention in the climate literature (Os-
troff et al., 2012; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). There are many
perspectives on how climates emerge and become shared phenomena,
including structuralist explanations, ASA processes, social interaction,
sense-making, and leadership (Ostroff et al., 2012; Zohar & Hofmann,
2012), but longitudinal research examining these mechanisms with a
specific focus on climate emergence and durability of climate are rare.
A likely reason is that the preferred methodology for climate researchers
has been survey research, and the type of access and data required for
extensive longitudinal investigations of climate development and change
are hard to come by. The issue of methodology will be explored in more
detail next, but the critical issue for now is that little is known about the
factors that are critical in the development of particular focused climate.
Of course, a central issue in the development of culture emerged
with Schein’s (1985) explication of what he called culture embedding
mechanisms. The implicit suggestion in his more recent writing (Schein,
2010) in which he has suggested these are perhaps best thought of as
climate-embedding mechanisms is that we need to begin studying the
development—and perhaps change—of process and outcome climates.
Such studies, grounded in the “embedding” logic would provide a firm
conceptual foundation for climate research as well as suggest potentially
fruitful approaches to organizational climate change.

Qualitative Methods

The integration of qualitative methods would likely be necessary for

climate researchers to address at least some of the issues raised above.
Doing so would also bring climate researchers closer to the organizational
212 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

phenomena they study. As described by Denison (1996), “Climate re-

searchers often have seemed inextricably (and inexplicably?) wedded to
a limited form of contact with the organizations that they study: the
collection of questionnaire data, the sine qua non of climate research
(Trice  & Beyer, 1993). This approach may require some contact with
a research site (at least by mail), but it seldom requires direct contact
with the social psychological phenomena that are the primary objects of
study” (p. 643). Although we would not expect or want climate research-
ers to completely abandon their quantitative survey mindset, we do
think that openness to mixed methods would be beneficial for the field.
Small steps could include conducting interviews prior to surveys to bet-
ter understand the issues within an organization and perhaps to tailor the
surveys appropriately. A good example of such work is the development
of the service climate measure by Schneider and his colleagues (Schnei-
der, Wheeler,  & Cox, 1992) that has subsequently been used in many
studies of service climate (Hong et al., 2013). Schneider and colleagues
had notes from 100 focus groups they had conducted with branch bank
employees across several banks questioning participants about the kinds
of experiences they had with regard to their branch’s focus on service to
customers. They content-analyzed those notes and produced a set of con-
textual descriptions that suggested a strong “passion for service” in those
describing their experiences. The issues that emerged formed the foun-
dation for the later service climate measure (e.g., Schneider et al., 1998).
Alternatively, qualitative methods could be used after survey data are
analyzed to help explain the results and raise questions for future re-
search. One area that could benefit from this approach is research on
climate strength. Although much progress has been made in integrating
the idea of dispersion in climate research, we do not know much about
why certain units are low in strength; a follow-up study using qualitative
methods could help address those questions.

Passion and Richness

One of the issues that made the concept of organization culture so at-
tractive, particularly for those from the organizations are cultures mold,
was that it offered a way to add richness to our understanding of organi-
zations and to capture the passion and emotion experienced by workers.
Although such “touchy-feely” issues may sound to some climate research-
ers as being outside the bounds of serious scientific research, the fact of
the matter is that employees do feel a passion (or what some may refer
to as engagement; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005) about service or safety
or innovation when they are in climates reflecting those strategies. Nev-
ertheless, climate research does not do a good job of capturing or under-
standing that passion. This may be because of the issue raised by Denison
(1996) that climate researchers tend to be too disconnected from the
organizations they study to understand the full range of the experiences
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 213

of employees. Perhaps by taking on some of the recommendations above,

such as including a broader range of organizational variables or a mix of
quantitative and qualitative methods, climate research can begin to bet-
ter understand the passion that is central to the climates they study.

WHAT ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

RESEARCHERS COULD LEARN FROM
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE RESEARCH

We now turn the tables and address what organizational culture re-
searchers could learn from research on organizational climate. This sec-
tion is a little more challenging because there is such variability in culture
research, particularly with regard to the qualitative versus quantitative
methods used to study culture. Therefore, we have attempted to identify
those issues that apply to research on organizational culture in general,
and when they apply to only portions of the culture literature, to be clear
about those distinctions. As summarized in Table 6.4, we propose six
areas that have typically been the domain of organizational climate re-
search that could be useful to culture research: (1) focus on effectiveness,
(2) strategic focus, (3) mediators and moderators, (4) mixed methods,
(5) levels of analysis, and (6) relevancy.

Focus on Effectiveness

A focus on organizational effectiveness has been a central idea in cli-

mate research from the very beginning. For example, work on service

TABLE 6.4 What culture researchers could learn from climate research

• An increased focus on effectiveness, however it may be defined, to demonstrate

the practical value of culture for organizations
• The development of a strategic focus for culture to demonstrate how specific
elements of culture contribute to the achievement of the organization’s
strategic goals
• The inclusion of mediators and moderators in the relationship of culture with
organizational effectiveness to better capture the complexity of how culture
has its effect in organizations and on organizational effectiveness
• The increased use of mixed methods to better capitalize on the strengths of
both quantitative and qualitative approaches
• The demonstration of appropriate levels of analysis by using statistical tests to
show which levels are important for outcomes at different levels of analysis,
keeping in mind that it could be multiple levels that have an influence
• An increased attention to relevancy so that culture research can have more
effect by paying more attention to the issues that organizational leaders care
most about
214 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

climate was stimulated by the idea that internal reports by employees of

what happens in their organizations would predict customer reports of
the quality of service they received (Schneider, Bowen, Ehrhart, & Hol-
combe, 2000). Although some culture researchers, particularly those who
use surveys to study culture, have investigated the relationship between
culture and organizational effectiveness (see reviews by Sackmann, 2011;
and Wilderom et al., 2000), there continues to be an apparent general
distaste for studying the relationship between culture and performance,
especially financial performance. Some researchers are concerned about
reducing culture to “just another predictor” of performance, and others
note that by focusing on effectiveness, researchers adopt manager’s pri-
orities as their own, ignoring the plight of those with less power in orga-
nizations. However, one result of this hesitancy to focus on effectiveness
is that culture research overall (though, of course, not the idea of culture)
has had limited practical effect on organizations (Alvesson & Berg, 1992;
Denison, 1996; Martin & Frost, 1996). An increased focus on the validity
of culture assessments for effectiveness would increase the effect that
culture research could have. And for those researchers who may object to
pure financial outcomes, a broader view of effectiveness to include issues
related to diversity/inclusion or employee well-being may offer a middle
ground that would still have practical value for organizations; research on
the competing values framework (CVF) discussed earlier (e.g., Hartnell
et al., 2011) is a good example of this possibility.

Strategic Focus

Building on the previous point, part of climate’s success in understanding

organizational effectiveness has come from its focus on those aspects of
the organization related to specific strategic imperatives. As we reviewed
earlier, a large variety of strategic climates have been studied, providing
insight into the internal issues that organizations face when attempting
to achieve their strategic goals. Integrating such a strategic focus into
culture research would help to show how culture links to effectiveness
(even if not in very straightforward ways), and would aid in increasing
the practical effect of culture research. Organizational culture is such a
broad construct that it is already necessary for researchers to specify a
particular piece or manifestation of culture that will be their focus. In-
cluding strategic issues as one of those areas of focus would seem to have
the potential to add a number of practical and theoretical insights. Several
examples of possible strategic cultures were described in the second edi-
tion of Ashkanasy et al.’s (2011) Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate, including work-family culture (Duxbury & Grover, 2011), error
management culture (Keith & Frese, 2011), and the cultures of sustain-
able organizations (Russell & McIntosh, 2011), and there has also been
some empirical literature on the topic of ethical culture (Schaubroeck,
Hannah, Avolio, Kozlowski, Lord, Treviño, Dimotakis, & Peng, 2012). The
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 215

challenge is to differentiate clearly what is unique about these focused

cultures relative to their climate counterparts, rather than measuring cli-
mate but using a culture label. For instance, in Chapter Seven, we discuss
the work of an independent review panel done at BP after the 2005 di-
saster in the Gulf of Mexico, which employed a safety climate measure
relabeled as a safety culture measure. In contrast, Hudson (2007) pro-
vided an excellent example of safety culture thinking that builds on the
frameworks of both organizational culture and organizational climate to
produce a rich portrait of safety in the gas and oil industry. We encourage
additional research along these integrative lines.

Mediators and Moderators

Climate researchers have established strong relationships between cli-

mate (especially strategic climates) and organizational outcomes and,
more recently, researchers have moved to better understand the complex
nature of those relationships. For instance, researchers have examined
the conditions under which climate is more strongly (or weakly) related
to outcomes, as well as the specific employee behaviors that mediate cli-
mate’s relationship with outcomes (see summaries by Kuenzi & Schminke,
2009; and Schneider et al., 2011b). The culture literature that does focus
on organizational effectiveness, typically involving culture surveys, is not
as well developed in this regard. There are some exceptions, of course,
including Sørensen’s (2002) work on industry volatility as a moderator of
the effects of culture strength and Kotrba et al.’s (2012) study of cultural
consistency as a moderator of the effects of other culture dimensions, as
well as Gregory et al.’s (2009) research on employee attitudes as a me-
diator of culture’s effects on outcomes. Nevertheless, the general lack of
studies on the moderators or mediators of culture’s effects on outcomes
is somewhat surprising given that culture is likely a more distal predic-
tor of organizational effectiveness than climate. In other words, there are
likely numerous mechanisms through which organizational culture ulti-
mately has its effects on organizational performance that have not been
addressed. Then again, the empirical study of climate’s relationship with
organizational effectiveness has been in existence longer and thus has
had a bit of a head start on culture research in that regard. More thinking
about culture’s relationship with organizational effectiveness in terms of
moderators and mediators consistent with the complexity of culture and
its various manifestations is needed.

Mixed Methods

Survey research has clearly dominated climate research, but there is a di-
vide among culture researchers as to whether surveys are an appropriate
method to study culture. In the same way that we advocated for climate
216 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

researchers to integrate more qualitative methods in their studies, we

would advocate for qualitative culture researchers to be more open to
the quantitative methods that characterize climate research and some
culture research. Doing so would allow for empirical tests of some of
the assumptions that are made in qualitative research and would pro-
vide tests of the existence of relationships suggested in case studies or
ethnographies. One example of such research is that by Siehl and Martin
(1988), who used information from interviews and observation to create
survey measures of typical culture concepts like company jargon, organi-
zational stories, and tacit knowledge. They then showed that familiarity
with these manifestations of an organization’s culture was significantly
related to tenure in the organization. Other examples of the applica-
tion of mixed methods include Jermier et  al. (1991), who subjected
quantitative data to cluster analysis to identify subcultures in a police
organization and supplemented these results with qualitative data from
interviews with police officers. In a similar vein, Denison and Mishra
(1995) used case studies to form the bases for a series of hypotheses that
they then tested using survey data. This type of integration of the survey
methods championed by climate researchers (and some culture research-
ers) with more typical qualitative culture research can provide additional
insights beyond what would be found with either alone.

Levels of Analysis

Climate researchers have dedicated much energy to clarifying levels of

analysis issues and developing statistical techniques to judge the appro-
priateness of using a specific level of analysis in a given piece of research.
The extent to which culture is shared seems to be more of an assumption
in much of the culture literature. Even in alternative perspectives such as
differentiation or fragmentation (Martin, 2002), the existence of subcul-
tures or the ambiguity of cultural elements is rarely put to any sort of for-
mal test. Culture researchers from these perspectives have been accused
of only highlighting the cultural elements that best fit the story they want
to tell (Martin et al., 2006); it would seem that employing quantitative
methods and applying statistical tests to ensure that data analyses are
conducted at the appropriate level(s) of analysis would help clarify some
of these issues. Researchers could then judge the extent to which there is
agreement across the organization as a whole, whether and where there
are subcultures within the organization, and the extent to which there is
confusion or disagreement on the constructs of interest to the researcher.
For example, in the same vein as Jermier et  al. (1991), it would be
interesting to have data from a more comprehensive culture survey
(e.g.,  the Denison measure) and submit those data to cluster analysis
(Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011)
or better yet, latent class modeling (Nylund, Asparouhov,  & Muthén,
2007), asking the question: at what levels and in what ways do groupings
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 217

of similar responses occur? Such analyses would be useful because they

deal with profiles of attributes rather than one attribute one at a time,
which fits the idea that the whole organization in its many manifesta-
tions is of interest. Groupings of employees might emerge in terms of
occupation, racial/ethnic identity, level in the organization, and so forth.
The researcher can examine the groupings to determine if they make
sense conceptually and can also make comparisons between different
numbers of groupings to determine what fits the data the best (including
the possibility that only one grouping—the entire organization—exists).
We will have more to say about this potential in Chapter Seven.

Relevancy

We would be hesitant to bring up the issue of relevancy if it had not al-

ready been raised by top researchers in the field of organizational culture
(Alvesson  & Berg, 1992; Denison, 1996; Martin  & Frost, 1996). There
is considerable discussion about what organizational culture should and
should not include and how it should and should not be studied, but
relatively little attention on how the literature on organizational culture
can be used to affect how organizations function and the decision making
of leadership (see Schein, 2010, for a notable exception). There is such
a strong sentiment among some culture researchers to avoid making cul-
ture just another tool for management that research is in danger of not
being of use at all to employees at any level. A middle ground is needed.
Understanding management’s priorities and attempting to find common
ground with their goals may provide a foot in the door to allow for more
effect. Demonstrating a relationship with effectiveness, which as pre-
viously noted has been a strength of climate research, is one example
of a way to get the attention of organizational management (Denison,
2001). Such efforts do not have to result in a complete rejection of the
core values that have dominated some lines of culture research. Take the
literature on diversity climate as an example, which has empirically dem-
onstrated the benefits of a diversity climate not only for the employees
themselves, but also for the organization as a whole (McKay et al., 2009).
In other words, instead of an “either-or” issue, it has become a “both-and”
proposition. More creative thinking on how to demonstrate the impor-
tance of the critical issues of interest to culture researchers across mul-
tiple stakeholder groups in organizations is needed.

TOWARD INTEGRATING ORGANIZATIONAL

CLIMATE AND CULTURE

Having discussed how climate and culture are similar and different and
what researchers in the two fields can learn from each other, the next
step is to discuss how the two can be integrated into our thinking and
218 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

research on organizations. The earliest example we could identify in

which climate and culture were discussed in an integrative fashion is
found in Litwin and Stringer (1968). Although they did not explicitly
use the term “culture,” they did describe how “certain factors such as
history and tradition, leadership style, spatial arrangements, etc. do in-
fluence, through climate, the motivation and behavior of individuals”
(p. 39). These relationships were not developed in depth, but they do
indicate a view that the deeper layers of culture (history and tradition)
and its manifestations (spatial arrangements) influence workers through
climate. More recent discussions of how climate and culture may work
together as part of organizational life have framed the relationship be-
tween the two in various ways. For instance, Kopelman et  al. (1990)
depicted culture as providing an organizational context, such that or-
ganizational culture influenced the HRM practices that formed the
foundation for climate, which subsequently was related to employee
cognitive and affective states, behavior, and ultimately productivity. In
another example, Moran and Volkwein (1992) drew from Schneider
and Reichers (1983) in describing climate as the result of a process by
which interacting individuals respond to various situational contingen-
cies in their environment. As part of that process, organizational culture,
operating primarily at the deeper level of basic assumptions, manifests
its influence on the internal environment and informs and enhances or
constrains the climate formation process.
Denison (1996) has provided one of the more in-depth discussions of
the relationship between climate and culture. Although he comprehen-
sively described several areas of contrast between the two literatures in
terms of epistemology, point of view, methodology, level of analysis, tem-
poral orientation, theoretical foundations, and discipline, his main point
was to highlight the areas of convergence across the two literatures:

Both perspectives . . . could be regarded as examining the internal social

psychological environment of organizations and the relationship of that
environment to individual meaning and organizational adaptation. Both
perspectives entertain the possibility of a shared, holistic, collectively
defined social context that emerges over time as organizations struggle
with the joint problems of adaptation, individual meaning, and social
integration (p. 625).

Thus, he concluded that the two constructs address the same phenom-
enon, and it is only the differences in the research traditions that separate
the two.
Although we do agree that at a broad level the two constructs are
addressing the same issue (the organizational environment or context),
our view is not entirely overlapping with that of Denison. Historically,
the roots of both constructs are in the idea that the environment ex-
perienced by workers will have substantial influence on their collective
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 219

attitudes and behaviors, in addition to the effects on the organization’s

overall performance. Denison’s view seems to be that, by focusing on
the differences between climate and culture, we have been distracted
from the more fundamental goal of deepening our understanding of the
organizational context. Our view is that the two constructs are more dif-
ferent than is acknowledged by Denison, and that the differences have
been critical in providing distinctive insights into the organizational en-
vironment. At the same time, we share the common goal of seeing more
integration between the two areas as being very useful, although little
progress has been made toward that goal. By acknowledging the differ-
ences between the two constructs and how they are studied, our hope is
that we can better understand how each area can learn from the other
and move forward with renewed energy and insight.
Three recent frameworks that have been proposed in the literature in
fact do help move toward the goal of the integration of the climate and
culture literatures. Below we provide a brief overview of each, noting the
specific qualities that distinguish it from the others and thus how each
adds to both our understanding and potential integration of both culture
and climate.

Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2011b)

In one of our own recent handbook chapters, we proposed the “climcult

framework” as one way to integrate the literatures of organizational cli-
mate and culture (see Figure 6.1). Noting the general lack of a strategic
emphasis in the culture literature, we focused on the extent to which
the organization’s culture communicates the priority of employee well-
being. As such, we viewed culture as taking on two roles. The first is to
provide a foundation for strategic climates. A positive culture that values
employees will not automatically result in the strategic climate or foci
needed for success in the marketplace. At the same time, however, it is
a necessary precursor for the successful implementation of strategic im-
peratives. That is, logically we believe that if employees do not view their
organization as caring about them and attempting to fulfill their needs,
then, following the social exchange model (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005) they will be unlikely to put forth maximum energy in
attaining the organization’s strategic goals. The second role for a culture
of well-being is to create a positive environment that is attractive for
both future and current employees. When the organization supports its
employees, it will be able to retain talent and become an employer of
choice through the positive reputation or employer image the organiza-
tion develops.
In our model, we positioned leadership as critical for both culture and
climate, such that culture is driven by the positive values about people
that are espoused and enacted by organizational leaders, and climate is
220 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

Success in
Positive competing
Culture of
values for and
well-being
Leadership about people retaining
simultaneously talent
Organizational
values people
effectiveness
and promotes
strategy Success
Policies, Strategically
in the
practices and relevant
competitive
procedures climate(s)
marketplace

Figure 6.1 Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey’s (2011b) “climcult” model

From Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W.A. (2011b). Perspectives on
organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology: Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 373–414).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Figure 12.1, p. 405. Copyright
© 2011 by the American Psychological Association and reprinted with permission.

driven by the policies, practices, and procedures leaders create in embed-

ding simultaneously their climate, their culture, and by clear implication,
their strategic foci. For simplicity’s sake we did not include the mecha-
nisms by which climate and culture lead to success or feedback loops in
the model, although we have shown in our own research that unit-level
behavior is a mediator of the relationship between climate and outcomes
(Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-Jolly, 2005) and that outcomes
have a reciprocal relationship with climate (Schneider et al., 1998).
The focus in the climcult model is on strategic climates because they
have the immediate effect on the organization’s ability to implement
effective strategies for competing in the marketplace. But it has become
conceptually clear to us that the kind of well-being we see as a necessary
foundation for strategic climates includes a focus on process climates
(e.g., justice) as well. So, although these were not a focus of the “climcult”
model, in our other writings (Schneider et al., 2011a) we have discussed
how those climates can contribute to a foundation for strategic climates
as well, and thus we would position them between the culture of well-
being and strategic climate.

Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad (2012)

This handbook chapter was an updated version of Ostroff, Kinicki, and

Tamkins (2003) in which the authors provided an overview of both the
climate and culture constructs as well as a model that integrates both.
They viewed climate and culture as both focusing on the shared mean-
ings of the organizational context, with climate focusing on perceptions
of what happens in organizations (behaviors, support, and expectations)
and culture focusing on why those things happen (basic assumptions
 Industry and Leadership
business
environment
Organizational Organizational
culture Organizational Collective
National Culture Organizational outcomes
-Artifacts structure and attitudes and
climate -Effectiveness
-Values practices behaviors
Vision, strategy, and -Efficiency
organizational goals -Assumptions

Founder’s values Alignment between culture, structure, practices, climate

Learning Emergent
processes Processes

Sense-making
Background and
demographic
characteristics Individual values
Psychological Attitudes and
and social cognitive Performance
climate behavior
Attraction to and processes
selection by
organization

Figure 6.2 Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad’s (2012) multilevel model of organizational culture and climate. Used by permission.
222 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

values, and beliefs). In an interesting conceptual move, they emphasized

that policies, practices, and procedures (practices, for short) are neither
climate nor culture, but instead the linking mechanism between the two.
These practices are manifestations of the deeper assumptions and values
of culture and form the basis for climate as organizational members per-
ceive, interpret, and assign meaning to them.
The framework of Ostroff and colleagues (2012) is shown in
Figure 6.2; there are several aspects of it worth noting. The first is that
the relationship between culture and climate is mediated by organiza-
tional structures and practices, neither of which is thus viewed as within
the realms of culture or climate. Leadership is depicted as influencing
each of these facets of the context, and the alignment among them is
specifically mentioned within the model. The outcome of organizational
climate is the collective attitudes and behaviors of workers and, ulti-
mately, organizational effectiveness and efficiency. The model thus fo-
cuses on what we have called the molar climate and does not depict
either process or outcome strategic climates. A noteworthy part of the
model is its multilevel portrayal of both the individual and organizational
levels of analyses and how the two influence each other. Feedback loops
are also included, indicating how climate or outcomes can also influence
organizational culture.

Zohar and Hofmann (2012)

In Zohar and Hofmann’s (2012) climate and culture handbook chapter,

there is considerable emphasis placed on the deepest layers of organiza-
tional culture and the difference between core values, representing the
organization’s moral criteria for the right way to act, and basic assump-
tions, emerging out of the organization’s history of successes and fail-
ures. These deeper layers of culture are manifested in the outer layers
of culture that include the organization’s priorities, policies, practices,
norms, and artifacts. Climate, in contrast, is viewed as a shared, global as-
sessment of the relative priorities of management. Employees are seen as
coping with a complex organizational context, perceiving and integrat-
ing across the various policies and practices to decipher what behaviors
are most likely to be rewarded. Three complex assessments are required
by employees: (1) the relative priorities management places on strate-
gic goals, (2) the relative alignment between management’s espousals
and enactments (i.e., their words and their deeds), and (3) the internal
consistency among the various policies, practices, and procedures expe-
rienced across levels of the organization. In their framework (shown in
Figure 6.3), climate perceptions summarize the meaning of the artifacts
of culture into pattern-level information on the enacted values and prior-
ities of management and provide insight into the deeper level core values
and assumptions that underlie multiple process and outcome climates.
What we like about this model is the explicit acknowledgement of the
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 223

Deep Layer of Culture

Basic assumptions emerging Core values dictating what is

from past successes solving the right way to do things
external adaptation & within organization
internal integration

Espoused priorities, policies, practices,

norms and artifacts

A comparison between the espoused vs. enacted values/priorities

reveals gaps which inform employees about true
underlying (enacted) Basic Assumptions and Core Values

Multifaceted sense-making and symbolic interaction results in shared, gestalt perceptions regarding the
behaviors that are expected, valued and rewarded. These perceptions provide a summary of the
enacted values and priorities

Safety Quality Innovation Cost-Control

Climate Climate Climate Climate

Enacted practices, norms and artifacts by local

Local management
managers provide cues that employees use to discern
discretion
overall climate perceptions

Figure 6.3 Zohar & Hofmann’s (2012) model of organizational climate and

culture, Fig. 20.1 Graphic Description of the Theoretical Model, p. 662.
From Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. H. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. In S.W. J.
Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(pp. 643–666). © Copyright Oxford University Press; by permission of Oxford University
Press.

challenges employees face in deciphering the context in which they are

immersed and the simultaneous vision it provides for management of
the wide variety of issues to which it must attend to create and maintain
specific strategic climates.
There are several other areas to highlight in Zohar and Hofmann’s
model. One is that the model explicitly takes into account the layers
of culture and their different roles in relation to climate. Another is
that the model focuses specifically on strategic climates; other types
of climate are not included, which is consistent with Zohar and Hof-
mann’s definition of climate as a shared perception of the relative pri-
ority among competing strategic imperatives. Their framework also
places a heavy emphasis on the distinction between what is enacted
224 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

and what is espoused. In fact, they specifically contrasted their model

of culture, which has enacted values as the intermediate layer, with
Schein’s (2010) layers of culture, which have espoused values as the
intermediate layer. Thus they described their model as a bottom-up
model based on employee’s perceptions of what actually happens (or
what is enacted) versus Schein’s top-down model based on manage-
ment’s stated philosophies or priorities (or what is espoused). Finally,
Zohar and Hofmann presented a multilevel model of the organiza-
tion by contrasting local and work unit enactment of values with top
management’s espousals. By doing this, they introduced a kind of gaps
model that has not received much attention in either climate or culture
thinking and research and which offers a fresh and exciting potential
for future research.

General Conclusions

Each of these models provides a unique contribution to understanding

how climate and culture relate to each other and how together they may
influence organizational outcomes. We were tempted to try to integrate
the models but quickly realized that such a massive, overly complicated
model would do little to move the fields forward. Given the complexity
of the issues, it is likely more effective to develop models that address
specific issues and areas for integration, rather than searching for THE
singular model of climate and culture. Looking across the three models,
we reach the following conclusions:

• Climate and culture are related to each other but, at the same time, they
are conceptually distinct and play unique roles in understanding em-
ployees’ experiences of the organization and the organization’s strategic
priorities and overall effectiveness.
• Organizational culture is a deeper-level construct, particularly with re-
gard to the basic assumptions and values at its core, that forms the foun-
dation for the climate of the organization.
• There are a number of reciprocal relationships between climate and cul-
ture and between organizational outcomes and climate and culture. For
instance, although culture is more typically thought of as influencing cli-
mate, climate can influence the deeper layers of culture. In addition, cli-
mate and culture are typically thought of as affecting key organizational
outcomes, but those outcomes can influence both climate and culture.
• There are likely multiple paths through which culture and climate influ-
ence organizational effectiveness. Two such paths are through a general
support for employee well-being and through specific strategies related
to desired outcomes.
• Climate and culture have implications that span multiple levels of analy-
sis, including the individual, the unit (group, department, etc.), and the
organization as a whole.
• We gain new insights into how organizations influence employees’ ex-
periences and meanings when we separate the layers or elements of
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 225

organizational culture rather than portraying culture as an overall undif-

ferentiated entity.
• Alignment issues are core to discussions of the relationship between cli-
mate and culture and between climate and culture and organizational
effectiveness. These may include the general alignment among culture,
climate, leadership, and the organization’s practices, or between the or-
ganization’s espoused and enacted values and priorities.

It is encouraging to see such clear steps toward the integration of cli-

mate and culture in understanding the organizational environment, and
we look forward to the research that is stimulated by these and future
related models. We explore some of the issues in these models in more
depth in the next sections on competitive advantage and organizational
change.

CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

It is probably obvious by now that our approach to climate and culture is

oriented towards helping organizations be more effective than they have
been in the past. Perhaps more importantly we see climate and culture
as potential keys to competitive advantage—not only being better than
in the past, but also being more effective than the competition. Achiev-
ing this kind of effectiveness requires attention both to the people issues
(molar climate and a culture supporting well-being) and to the process
and strategic foci (focused climates) that give employees clues about the
true priorities of management. In this section, we delve into the literature
on the resource-based theory of organizational effectiveness to provide
more detail on how organizational climate and culture are related to
competitive advantage.
The resource-based theory of organizations is concerned with how
the various resources controlled by organizations are linked to sustained
competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Barney defined resources to in-
clude “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
information, knowledge, etc. controlled by a firm that enable the firm
to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and
effectiveness” (p. 101). Thus, resources are described very broadly and
the exact bundle of resources that are relevant will depend on the or-
ganization’s specific marketplace. Resources can be more tangible, such
as financial or physical capital, or intangible, such as human or organiza-
tional capital (Barney & Arikan, 2001). In our discussion, the focus is on
the intangible resources of organizational climate and culture and how
they can be utilized for competitive advantage.
According to Barney (1991), a resource will result in competitive ad-
vantage when it has four attributes. The first is that it must be valuable.
In other words, it must in some way contribute to increased efficiency
226 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

or effectiveness for the organization. If the resource fails to add value,

then it will not create competitive advantage. Second, it must be rare,
such that it is not common among competing companies. If everyone
has access to the resource, then it will be unlikely to create competitive
advantage. Third, it must be inimitable or at a minimum very difficult
to imitate. If other organizations can easily imitate the resource and its
use, then any competitive advantage will at best be short-term and not
sustainable. The fourth attribute Barney described is that the resource
must be nonsubstitutable. In other words, if a competitor can introduce
a substitute for the resource that has the same value, then having the
resource will not create a competitive advantage.
In 1986, Barney made the argument that organizational culture can
provide a competitive advantage for some organizations based on the
first three criteria above. With regard to value, he suggested that some
firms’ cultures allow them to perform in ways that result in levels of
economic performance that would not be possible without their culture.
For instance, an organization’s level of innovation, the competencies of
its employees, and its focus on the customer are all issues tied to its cul-
ture that have important economic consequences for the organization.
At the same time, Barney emphasized that not all organizations’ cultures
will have a positive economic effect, and in fact, some cultures can have
negative consequences for the productivity of the firm.
Barney then noted how some cultures are likely rare based on the
unique circumstances of their founding and events in their history, as
well as in the unique set of personalities that make up the employees and
management there. Once again, Barney pointed out that not all cultures
will be rare, and there are factors that could result in high levels of simi-
larity among the cultures of some organizations. For example, the nature
of the industry in which organizations operate and even the national cul-
ture in which they function could limit the variability in the assumptions
and values of those organizational cultures.
With regard to the third factor, inimitability, Barney described how
path dependency, causal ambiguity, and social complexity lead to cul-
tures being difficult to imitate. Path dependency refers to the develop-
ment of the resource and the perhaps unique historical conditions that
contributed to the organization’s ability to obtain and effectively use the
resource. Applied to culture, the same history that can make a culture
rare can also make it difficult to imitate; as Barney put it, “history defies
easy imitation” (p. 661). Causal ambiguity refers to the difficulty other
firms have imitating a resource if it is unclear exactly which resources the
firm controls and how they are intertwined and collectively contribute
to the firm’s competitive advantage. For many of the same reasons that
individuals within the organization may find it difficult to describe the
deep-level assumptions that drive their culture, other organizations will
likely also find it difficult to determine exactly what aspects of an orga-
nization’s culture and in what combinations are most relevant for creat-
ing value. Finally, social complexity refers to the difficulty in imitating
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 227

resources derived from complex social interactions as well as physical

resources that require complex social relations for the resource to be
fully exploited. To imitate a culture, managers must be able to effectively
lead culture change; however, the complexity of organizational culture
described in the last chapter suggests that it is very difficult to manage
and change. Based on these factors, Barney concluded that organizational
culture had the potential to provide sustained competitive advantage for
at least some organizations.
We should note that Barney’s perspective on competitive advantage
through organizational culture was actually quite deterministic, in that
he proposed that cultures that did not provide a competitive advantage
would likely never do so. That is, if a firm’s culture did not provide for
competitive advantage, then attempting to change it would be unlikely
to result in competitive advantage. If the organization could change its
culture to be like another organization’s culture, then it would not nec-
essarily provide an advantage, but would just make that culture less rare
and thus not tied to competitive advantage. In addition, if culture were so
easily changed, then other organizations would likely do the same, once
again removing the competitive advantage. Successful change would re-
quire a culture primed for change and management with the skills to do
so, a combination that Barney argued to be valuable, rare, and inimitable
in and of itself. Thus for most organizations without a rare, inimitable
culture that is currently providing value, or without a culture that would
allow for change to create value and competitive advantage, management
must rely on other means to differentiate themselves from competitors
and gain sustained competitive advantage.
Although the concept of organizational culture has been discussed
with regard to resource-based theory and competitive advantage, there
has not been any discussion of which we are aware on these topics with
regard to organizational climate. We propose that the concept of stra-
tegic organizational climate, working hand-in-hand with organizational
culture, may offer organizations a useful perspective for the creation of
competitive advantage. A strategic climate can be thought of as a bun-
dle of resources, a resource itself, or a strategy for managing resources.
However it is conceptualized, strategic organizational climate fits well
with the four attributes of competitive advantage from Barney (1991).
In terms of value, there is the large literature we earlier reviewed showing
that various strategic climates have robust relationships with their re-
spective strategic outcomes. With regard to rarity, what is rare in the case
of strategic climate is the combination of the various policies, practices,
and procedures that create the overall gestalt for employees that signals
to them that there exists a particular management priority. It is easy for
organizations to institute a single policy or practice, but what is rare is to
bundle them together in a coordinated mutually reinforcing way.
Strategic climates are also difficult to imitate. Each of the three rea-
sons for inimitability applies to strategic climates. With regard to path
dependency, the particular practices and procedures that make up a
228 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

strategic climate are likely shaped by the organization’s unique history

and culture. So, as we noted earlier, strategic climates can only exist when
they rest on firm foundations to support them, and this is where the role
of the larger organization’s molar culture comes into play. That is, ser-
vice policies and practices cannot exist in an organization if they are not
aligned with the deeper culture of the organization or if management
espouses one set of values but enacts another. The second element, causal
ambiguity, is relevant because the tactics for the creation of a strategic
climate are ambiguous and difficult to identify precisely because they are
bundles of reinforcing practices, not one or a few individual practices. In
much of human resource management and I/O psychology research and
practice, unfortunately, the focus is on individual practices—the much-
sought-after “silver bullet”—and the silver bullet approach to competi-
tive advantage is not causally ambiguous. Moreover, the practices must
be aligned with the larger organizational culture to be effective, making
the causal nature of the climate even more difficult to discern. With re-
gard to social complexity, part of the value of a strategic climate is that it
yields a common perspective for employees and acts as a kind of glue by
coordinating the common focus of their behavior towards shared strate-
gic priorities. So it is not just the presence of the policies and practices,
but rather it is the shared interpretation and perceptions and thus the
coordinated behaviors that ultimately constitute the climate (which, of
course, are supported by the social complexity implied by the culture
construct).
Finally, a strategic climate is not easily substitutable to achieve the
same long-term advantages. Short-term approaches may provide some
immediate results, but those approaches will probably not match what
climate and culture provide in the long term. The extensive literatures on
both climate and culture (that require an entire book just as an introduc-
tion to them!) would not exist if there were easily available substitutes
for them. These are complex issues; seeking simple replacements is a
fool’s errand.
Based on this analysis, we conclude that strategic climates developed
in cultures that support and are aligned with them fit the criteria for pro-
viding a basis for competitive advantage to organizations. Although both
organizational climate and culture have potential for sustained competi-
tive advantage, we argue that strategic climates may offer the more use-
ful starting point for organizations. As we asserted in the last section,
climate addresses the issues (policies, practices, procedures, and rewards)
over which managers have more direct control, and strategic climate is
likely more malleable and more proximally linked to the organization’s
strategic goals than culture. Enacting such a climate should, through rep-
etition and success, reinforce the basic assumptions and values for a sus-
tainable organizational culture. Thus, the challenge is one of determining
where competitive advantage looks to be possible in the marketplace,
assessing the likelihood that the elements necessary for the creation of
a strategic climate exist, and then evaluating the degree to which the
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 229

existing culture will be supportive of and serve as a firm foundation for

the strategic climate. We delve deeper into the issue of organizational
change and the practical steps that build from this discussion in the next
section and in the final chapter.

CLIMATE, CULTURE,
AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Building on our discussion of competitive advantage and as we begin

to transition towards the more practical implications of organizational
climate and culture, it is important to consider the role of climate and
culture in organizational change, and specifically, whether climate or cul-
ture should be the focus of organizational change efforts. The founda-
tion of any discussion of this topic is the idea that culture and climate
are reciprocally related. For instance, Reichers and Schneider (1990)
viewed culture and climate as “reciprocal processes, the one causing the
other in an endless cycle over time. In this manner, climate . . . is both
the manifestation of culture . . . and the data on which culture comes
to be inferred and understood” (p. 24). In this way of thinking, climate
can be viewed as an outcome of culture, and specifically an outcome of
the values and assumptions of the deeper layers of culture. The policies,
practices, and procedures that form the basis for climate are initiated by
leaders who are both influenced by those values and assumptions and
who potentially at its inception embedded those values and assumptions
in the organization’s culture. This direction of causation is the most com-
mon one found in the literature that discusses how climate and culture
relate to each other.
The reverse direction of causality—climate as a cause of culture—is
less commonly discussed, likely because culture is viewed as deeper and
more stable, and thus it is easier to think of culture as influencing the
more observable aspects of the organization than how it is influenced by
them. It is our view that culture does change, albeit slowly, and the influ-
ence of climate on culture can be found in the creation of culture and the
evolutionary changes in culture that occur over time. From the beginning
of the organization, the leader’s values are communicated to employees
through the policies, practices, procedures, and reward systems that he or
she enacts as the organization copes with the problems it confronts. This
process of enactment occurs through Schein’s (2010) primary and sec-
ondary embedding mechanisms. Schein’s acknowledgement that these
mechanisms would best be thought of as creating climate opens the no-
tion that the climate suggests by inference what the basic assumptions
and values of the organization are. In other words, how organizations
cope with the ongoing issues and challenges (and thus the climate that
is created in the organization) serves as a signal as to what is valued by
management. Furthermore, those practices that are successful are rein-
forced by repetition over time, yielding a subconscious connection to
230 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

effectiveness, which in turn yields basic assumptions about how organi-

zational members should behave to be successful in the future.
A helpful parallel to thinking about climate and culture change may
be to think about the individual level relationship between behaviors
and beliefs or values (Sathe  & Davidson, 2000; Schneider, 2000). Like
culture, beliefs exist at a deeper level and are more stable than behavior,
which is analogous to climate. Although it is possible to change beliefs,
it is quite difficult. What is more effective, as was shown in the very
early attitude change studies at Yale University (Hovland, Janis, & Kelly,
1953), is to change behavior, which then triggers a rethinking of one’s
deeply held attitudes and beliefs. Along these lines but in the context of
discussing culture change, Sathe and Davidson 2000) suggested that the
“shock” of a positive reinforcement might help to unfreeze the norms of
the organization and cause individuals to bring their beliefs and values to
a conscious level for possible reconsideration. The example they give is
a “Mistake of the Month” award to reinforce risk-taking and innovation.
Essentially, what they were arguing is to focus first on the climate of the
organization to create behavioral change, with the idea that over time
through repetition the culture will be affected as well.
A similar approach was advocated by Michela and Burke (2000; see
also Burke, 2011) in discussing how to create a culture for quality and in-
novation. They borrowed from the quality management literature to dis-
cuss the importance of three areas for producing culture change: training,
measurement, and rewards. Although they did not discuss climate, clear
connections can be made between the three areas they mentioned and
Schein’s (2010) embedding mechanisms (that create climate) and the
policies and practices that form the bases of climate perceptions. They
noted that if behavior can be changed and employees experience it as
beneficial, then value change will follow, and then one can conclude that
culture has changed. Thus, in essence they advocated for changing climate
first to change behavior and then to ultimately change values and culture.
From our perspective, it seems that the most fruitful approach to
change would be to start with climate rather than culture. As we argued
earlier, much of what organizational leaders want to do when they dis-
cuss culture change is to change the climate of the organization rather
than the culture. Leaders typically are interested in reaching a goal or in-
creasing effectiveness, and they want to implement tactics in their orga-
nizations to help them achieve their strategic objectives. Culture change
in and of itself would be rather nonsensical because it would require
direct attention to basic assumptions and values, upending all of what
the organization stands for and is. By metaphor, it would be like deciding
to destroy the house and its foundation when one is unhappy with the
way the living room looks and feels! Moran and Volkwein (1992) stated
it this way: “.  .  . since climate operates at a more accessible level than
culture, it is the more malleable and, hence, the more appropriate level
at which to target short-term interventions aimed at producing positive
organizational change” (p. 16).
Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture 231

At the same time, that does not mean that culture issues can be ig-
nored. The success of attempting to change or build a new climate is
directly tied to the alignment of the change with the underlying assump-
tions of the culture. As Schein (2000) put it, “Climate can be changed
only to the degree that the desired climate is congruent with the under-
lying assumptions” (p. xxix). Along similar lines, Hatch’s (1993, 2000)
cultural dynamics model included the idea that how artifacts are inter-
preted is affected by the underlying assumptions of the current culture,
and the tendency is to confirm the current assumptions. Based on this
logic, attempts to change climate first may be complicated by how that
climate is interpreted through the lens of the current assumptions of the
culture. For instance, trying to build a service climate can be interpreted
as just a temporary effort that should not be taken seriously if past efforts
at change, especially change to a service climate, have been short-lived or
not properly administered (see Ogbonna & Harris, 2002, for a case study
illustrating this point). Or in a culture with poor labor-management rela-
tions, such efforts could be taken as a means to make more money for
management that will not be passed on to line employees (and thus will
be less likely to be implemented).
Therefore, what leaders must do is evaluate the extent to which the
culture either supports or inhibits the desired changes in climate (Schein,
2000). If certain cultural assumptions will be obstacles for building the
desired climate and thus for achieving the organization’s strategic priori-
ties, then leaders must make the hard decision of whether pursuing cul-
ture change is a worthwhile endeavor given the time and energy it would
require. In brief, without alignment between the desired climate and the
underlying culture, the potential for successful change will be limited.
One last point: the Zohar and Hofmann (2012) model of the com-
plexities and challenges employees face in an organization as they at-
tempt to decipher its priorities is a useful model to have in mind when
thinking about change. The model makes it obvious that organizational
change requires clear and focused reasons and approaches so that em-
ployees can decipher how the proposed changes fit with their existing
conceptualizations of the priorities. This means that the new practices
put in place must be thought through very carefully for both the in-
tended and unintended consequences they will imply especially with re-
gard to the issue of espoused values versus enacted values.

CONCLUSION

As we noted at the beginning of the chapter, there are a number of simi-

larities and differences between organizational climate and culture. As a
result, there are numerous ways that supporters of each might learn from
one another to enrich their understanding of the larger organizational
context. Some recent thinking reveals how climate and culture might be
integrated by emphasizing the potential reciprocal relationships between
232 Integrating Organizational Climate and Organizational Culture

the two constructs. In light of resource-based theory, a combined strate-

gic climate/organizational culture approach to the achievement of orga-
nizational goals might just yield competitive advantage for firms that try
it. Thus, there are a number of actions that organizations can take when
pursuing organizational change to benefit from a strategically focused
and culturally aligned climate. Thinking along these lines raises a number
of practical issues for the application of climate and culture in organiza-
tions, some of which we pursue in more depth in the next chapter.
 CH APTER

7
Thoughts for
Practitioners on
Organizational
Cultural Inquiry
This chapter is about the critical issue of cultural inquiry—ways to di-
agnose and understand where an organization is and what it stands for.
Although we see inquiries into the organization’s culture as the neces-
sary first step when thinking about organizational change, the chapter
is not about change per se (see Chapters Five and Six for more explicit
discussions of organizational change). We discuss here the different
conceptual and methodological vantage points from which to approach
cultural inquiry and detail the issues that require consideration along
with their implications. Although our primary focus is on issues relevant
to practitioners, we believe that these issues are relevant to researchers
as well.
In the preceding chapters, we have discussed the distinctions between
organizational culture and climate as well as related constructs such as
alignment and strategy. We depart in this chapter from these important
but more academic distinctions and focus instead on how practitioners
address issues of culture and climate in their organizations or in those
with whom they consult. Our goal here is to emphasize both the practical
context in which culture and climate are investigated in organizations and
how they are used—i.e., leveraged or changed—within a management
framework to achieve particular organizational ends. We discuss culture
from the perspectives of the key stakeholder (typically the executive)

233
234 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

and the practitioner whose role is to diagnose and potentially support the
organization in any cultural inquiry and/or change effort. Because the
term “culture” is most commonly used in the world of practice, we pri-
marily use that terminology when discussing issues related to organiza-
tional culture and climate in a broad sense. When the distinction between
culture and climate is important, we are more explicit.
The chapter begins by reviewing what culture means to key orga-
nizational stakeholders. We follow with a presentation of the critical
issues that surface when the practitioner pursues cultural inquiry and
then an elaboration of a basic framework for evaluating alternative meth-
ods to fulfill that purpose. Throughout, we emphasize how the choice
among the inquiry methods presented can determine the practitioner’s
success in communicating with and having an influence on major stake-
holders. To aid practitioners in making the choice of inquiry method, we
present in considerable detail a variety of issues or questions that should
be considered so that a thoughtful decision can be made.

WHY EXECUTIVES CARE:

STRATEGY, LEADERSHIP,
AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

In Chapter Five, we highlighted the implications of organizational cul-

ture for organizational performance, and then in Chapter Six, we further
argued that competitive advantage follows from a focus on strategic cli-
mate and culture. This is not new information to executives even though
it may provide a new perspective on research for some academics. Con-
temporary executives strongly believe that culture is an essential condi-
tion that determines their likelihood of success. Lou Gerstner (2002)
devoted one-fifth of his memoir as chief executive of IBM to organiza-
tional culture, and has been often quoted as saying “Culture is every-
thing.” In context, what Gerstner was writing about in his description
of the transformation he led at IBM was that, even with all the assets
he would otherwise need in place to achieve his goals—and in fact to
survive—he would need to lead several hundred thousand employees
through “wrenching” culture change. In light of our discussion in the last
chapter about the relative lack of a strategic emphasis in the literature on
organizational culture, it is noteworthy that Gerstner’s entire positioning
of culture is in the context of strategy, which in his way of thinking is a
direct consequence of what he calls personal leadership.
Through what they read, their conversations with other executives,
and confirmed by their own observations and experience, executives be-
lieve that their strategies can only be achieved to the extent that there is
alignment around how to achieve that strategy. Their perspective is that
the implementation of strategy requires all employees to both accept
and commit to a common course of action. Culture, in this view, is what
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 235

emerges from the aligned purpose of individual and team actions, with
both in turn aligned with the organization’s strategic goals (e.g.,  Kap-
lan & Norton, 2001). Strategically focused cultures are characterized by
institutionalized systems (particularly including measurement systems)
that implicitly (culture) and explicitly (climate) direct the intentions
and efforts of all involved. The concept of culture in everyday execu-
tive use includes all of these concepts—strategy, leadership, climate, and
what we have been calling “culture”—and they are not distinguishable.
We recall here the remarks of Weick (1985) who argued that it is dif-
ficult to distinguish strategy from culture in successful organizations. He
proposed that strategy is what the organization wants to do, culture is
the process by which it can happen, and when they are aligned, they are
indistinguishable.
This way of thinking is very well positioned by Kaplan and Norton
(2001) in their description of the practical steps needed to create what
they call a “strategy-focused organization.” In their view, strategic focus
follows from the following principles:

• Articulating the strategy into operational terms

• Aligning what people do to the strategy
• Creating a “mindset” where everyone sees strategy as part of their job
• Continually reinforcing strategy
• Making change the responsibility of executive leadership.

From this perspective, culture emerges as a concept of interest simply

because of the assumption that something needs to be changed, perhaps
especially in people’s mindsets that would otherwise hinder achievement
of the strategy.1 What is clear is that this change in mindset will only
happen when executive leadership does the things necessary to articu-
late the strategy, align people with it, and continuously reinforce it. The
somewhat hidden message in what Kaplan and Norton (2001) described
is that even though we often focus on the fact that what needs to be
changed is resistant, embedded, and implicit, once a change has been
made for the better, we very much want the new norms to become resis-
tant, embedded, and implicit for them to be preserved. Thus, not often
stated is the idea that culture is a concept of interest with regard to not
only resistance to change, but also when the discussion turns to preserv-
ing that which is good or “great” about the institution. In any case, Kap-
lan and Norton (2001) clearly assumed that the desired culture follows
when leaders directly or indirectly initiate and/or sustain the conditions
and activities that align individuals to implement a particular plan of ac-
tion, with the plan itself reflecting a particular strategy.
It is out of the actions required to pursue a strategy that culture
emerges. As Schein (2010) suggested, culture represents the “accumu-
lated learning” that allows both adaptation to the external environment
and the opportunity for internal efficiency, such that successful lessons
236 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

need not be continually relearned. Macey, Schneider, Barbera, and Young

(2009) proposed that culture effectively provides a substitute for leader-
ship (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) in the sense that what is known and transmit-
ted within the group reinforces leadership messages and can substitute
in the short term for leader time and effort. Similarly, we have stated
that what leaders want is to create a self-sustaining culture, one in which
individuals model and reinforce the behaviors that have driven success
(Schneider et al., 2011b). Almost twenty years earlier, Kotter and Heskett
(1992) implied as much in their description of firms where employees’
productive efforts could be channeled in a unified direction because of
the unwritten rules and common understanding about what is impor-
tant, and in particular, where team members encourage those new to the
team to follow the practices of others in the group. We note later that
although there is an allure to substituting a focus on leadership for at-
tention to culture or climate, there are challenges and risks in doing so.
When organizations sense that the existing culture is no longer serv-
ing them effectively, the issue of the necessity for change emerges. So a
culture that was once appropriate to the leader’s purpose can outlive its
usefulness and require change. In this chapter, we confront the issues in-
volved in diagnosing where an organization is and where it might require
change.

THE BASES FOR CULTURAL

DIAGNOSIS AND CHANGE

In Chapter Five, we presented Lundberg’s (1985) conditions for when

leaders are likely to initiate culture change. Here, we build on his sugges-
tions to consider what might lead an executive (i.e., a sponsor) to pur-
sue “cultural inquiry,” with such inquiry serving to provide the evidence
and foundation to use as a basis for actual change. In what follows, we
consider the three conditions under which cultural inquiry is required:
precipitating events, changes in strategic goals, and a need to know where
one is before initiating actual change. Before doing so, however, it is im-
portant to acknowledge that the first stage of the diagnostic process is to
determine the reasons behind the need for a cultural inquiry. The initial
meeting with the organization sponsor is a critical event in framing the
cultural inquiry, particularly as it frames the later discussions as to the
outcomes expected from the inquiry effort. Invariably, that initial con-
versation includes a discussion of what the sponsor sees as the present
state of the firm and the reasons behind the need for change. From the
very first exploratory conversation, regardless of its level of formality or
its context, the initial discussions with the organization are intended to
gather sufficient information to understand the motivation and expecta-
tions of management and to establish a framework for subsequent con-
versations and methods of inquiry.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 237

Precipitating Events Lead to Inquiry

The interests of executives in organizational culture often follow from

some precipitating event, specific problem, or concern. These occur-
rences draw executives’ attention to culture and represent the drama
around which efforts to change emerge. “Culture” is often the explana-
tion for poor performance, whether expressed in poor financials or in
specific events embarrassing to the firm. Such events are detailed daily
in the popular press: Profit shortfalls at J. C. Penney are explained as a
cultural issue (“It is all because of the legacy of Mr. Penney’s ways”), legal
difficulties regarding women at Wal-Mart are described as a result of the
culture (“Wal-Mart is a male-dominated culture”), and ethical lapses at
any number of firms that hit the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
The New York Times are explained as a consequence of culture (“The
winner-take-all culture is what led to these lapses”). Indeed, later we
highlight how a cultural inquiry was the centerpiece of an investigation
in response to personal injuries and death in the 2005 disaster at the BP
Texas City refinery. Thus, cultural inquiry can follow these kinds of in-
cidents because of the very serious need to investigate why such events
have occurred and to provide a foundation on which to establish a course
of action that will ameliorate additional possible negative consequences
and ensure they will not happen again.
Cultural inquiry is particularly relevant in mergers and acquisitions out
of concern for opposing value systems and the anticipation of conflict and
displaced energy to deal with gaps between the parties involved in the
proposed integration (Weber, 1996). Indeed, hopefully there has been at
least a brief reflection on organizational culture issues in the due-diligence
process as the buyer considers the risks inherent in a merger or acquisi-
tion strategy. As Schein (2010) suggested, if left on their own the different
cultures that are parties to a merger or acquisition will evolve in some
way, most likely with one culture—usually the acquirer—dominating the
other. Forced executive change creates significant disruption as well, which
points to the importance of leadership both in driving culture transforma-
tion and in preserving what is good in the culture and what is likely to be
important to success in the future.

Changes in Goals Lead to Identifying Gaps

and the Readiness for Change
Regardless of whether there are specific precipitating events, organiza-
tions in their everyday lives continually confront the setting or revising
of strategic goals in response to the marketplace, customer input, and
so forth, which invites if not requires change. In such circumstances, or-
ganizational development practitioners typically collaborate with those
who have a central stakeholder interest to consider the range of possible
238 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

issues that must be addressed to identify and possibly close the gaps be-
tween current and future desired states. Culture frameworks provide a
useful starting point in these efforts because leaders willingly accept the
premise that the existing culture—which arguably would be resistant to
change—must be a focus of the change effort and that envisioning the
future organizational culture is one way to identify the gaps that should
be the focus of change efforts.
Cultural inquiry can also be used to diagnose the very readiness of the
organization to embark upon change (see the recent review on change
readiness by Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). So, not only can
diagnosis yield where the gaps are between the present and the required
future states but the degree to which the organization is ready to fill
those gaps. Are people aware of the need for change? Are people flexible
enough to change? Are people so committed to the present state that
change is viewed as unnecessary and possibly even harmful? Answers to
these kinds of questions can prove very useful when the actual change
effort is begun.

Leveraging Culture for Success Requires

Knowing Where You Are
Our focus here on cultural inquiry rests on a fundamental assumption:
It is wise to know where you are before beginning to change. The point
is that if culture change will be seen as a lever for success, as it usually
is, then knowing where you are is the best way to identify the changes
necessary. So, for example, in the culture assessment process that Schein
(2010) described, the artifacts, espoused values, and assumptions of the
culture are identified, and that information forms the foundation for un-
derstanding how the culture will serve as an aid or a hindrance to the
organization accomplishing its strategic goals.
A recent pre-IPO filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(Workday, 2012) spoke directly to the importance of culture in achieving
success:

Leverage our Unique Culture. We believe that building and maintaining a

remarkable culture benefits our customers and employees, who together
form the Workday Community. Engaged and loyal employees provide high
levels of customer satisfaction, leading to greater adoption of our applica-
tions and recommendations to potential customers. We believe that this
culture is the foundation for the successful execution of our strategy and,
as a result, is a critical requirement for our growth agenda.

Culture is thus regarded as a prized possession, and as such something

to be both cherished and preserved. It is an asset. Like other assets, it can
be a source of competitive advantage, as we have detailed in Chapter
Six. But like any other asset, its value is not in its potential but in its use,
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 239

and that value is continually subject to risk. It is this way of thinking that
leads the organization to seek methods for identifying and preserving
what is unique and important. And it is under these conditions that a
practitioner can lead a client into a conversation about the various means
by which a company can ensure fit (or alignment) between the culture
and the organization’s long-term strategy.
The leveraging of culture for organizational success extends beyond
the walls of the organization. Management consulting firms specializing
in corporate branding and communication rely heavily on their under-
standing of culture to guide their analysis and recommendations. More-
over, brand specialists emphasize the view that the brand image supports
management efforts to establish and maintain organizational culture and
that the two act in reciprocity. As part of their work, it is not atypical
for consultants in this field to use cultural inquiry methods to identify
issues that might prevent success in building a brand or to identify what
can be leveraged to facilitate a brand’s success. As they market their ser-
vices, brand consultants emphasize the importance of brand image on
employee recruitment, engagement, and commitment as well as the im-
portance of the brand in the marketplace.

Summary

There are many reasons why executives may decide to undertake a cul-
tural inquiry. Inquiry may be beneficial when precipitating events occur
that make executives aware of the role of culture in organizational per-
formance, as well as when shifts in strategic goals make it necessary to
identify readiness for change and/or gaps between where an organiza-
tion is and where it strategically needs to be in the future. In the same
way, attempts to leverage the culture for its potential benefits require a
foundational knowledge of the current state of the organization’s culture.
With such knowledge in hand, executive leadership can construct tactics
to promote the strategically oriented growth of the organization going
forward.

TALENT MANAGEMENT
AND CULTURAL INQUIRY

Before moving forward with the specifics of conducting a cultural in-

quiry, we first want to emphasize the important relationship between
cultural inquiry and talent management. Practitioners who work with
climate and culture issues, especially the issues of climate and culture
change, are sensitive to many features of life in organizations: structure,
reporting relationships, conflicts between sales and production, customer
focus, and so forth. Executives, too, are sensitive to the variety of param-
eters and issues that cumulate to characterize an organization and its
240 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

style or ways—or its culture. But practitioners of a more humane orien-

tation have an additional—and to our mind’s eye, important—focus on
the human resources practices of the organization. The alignment or fit
of the talent management practices with where the organization needs to
be in the future must be a focus of thought and inquiry.
Human resource executives are chartered with the responsibility of
implementing talent management practices that sustain and build the
culture to support organizational strategy and to fill gaps in the talent re-
quired to move forward. For example, through recruitment practices, the
organization seeks to define a value proposition that will attract the kinds
of talent that are necessary for its success. Through selection practices, it
chooses those who will work best in the planned strategic environment.
At the more senior executive ranks, the match between the person and
the environment is generally regarded as an absolute must, and executive
failure is often blamed on the simple lack of fit between individuals and
the organizational culture or the subculture they join within the organi-
zation. Similarly, socialization practices are explicitly intended to protect
the vital elements of the culture so unintended change does not occur.
Although unintended changes occur frequently, sometimes due to in-
advertent cultural slippage and sometimes as a result of some perturba-
tions in the larger marketplace, we focus here on a potential major cause
of cultural slippage: the talent recruited by, selected, socialized, and man-
aged in an organization. For example, even elements of the US financial
collapse of 2007–2008 are blamed on deviations from the previously
successful organizational cultures in those organizations by new talent
in the financial world. That new talent brought personal predilections
and a different mindset, resulting in the violation of long-standing guide-
lines and principles and ultimately to the collapse of the entire sector.
Flamholtz and Randle (2011) detailed how AIG’s management made
missteps and displayed a failure to adhere to core cultural elements that
led to the near collapse of the firm. Specifically, AIG brought into the
company new kinds of risk-takers that did not adhere to the core values
of AIG that had produced the effectiveness that made it so important in
the world of finance, and the consequences were far-reaching.
Of course, it is possible to attract and retain people with too much
similarity to the culture as revealed by the fact that American car compa-
nies retained their core values by continuously hiring people with similar
predilections and were thus unable to adapt to changes in the market-
place (Miller, 1990). These seemingly conflicting concerns—the need for
change and the need to preserve—heighten management sensitivity to
organizational culture, but this sensitivity must include the nature of the
talent in the organization. Thus, while culture is viewed as an asset and
in need of preservation, in times requiring change, culture and existing
talent can also be an anchor to movement. This idea is similar to what
we discussed in Chapter Five in terms of bringing in hybrids (i.e., those
who are familiar with at least part of the culture but who also have an
outsider perspective) or facilitating the rise of certain subcultures that
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 241

carry cultural characteristics in line with the overall organization’s de-

sired culture. Transformation is critical when the issue of culture change
becomes salient, as does the need for an inquiry into talent management
and other HR processes as a basis for changes that may be required—and
practices that might be retained.

THE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK FOR

CULTURAL INQUIRY AND DIAGNOSIS

Change initiated without cultural inquiry as a foundation can be a wasted

effort, for it might be directed at incorrect or even irrelevant issues and/
or in inappropriate hierarchies of importance. Cultural inquiry is there-
fore an essential part of a transformational process because it provides
both descriptive and evaluative information about existing corporate as-
sets and this information serves as the very foundation for change. The
practitioner faces the choice of how to best approach the task of cultural
inquiry given not only the diagnostic purpose but also in anticipation of
how the results of the inquiry will be communicated and used in the or-
ganization change context. We hasten to add that because the final work
product of the inquiry will reflect the observational or measurement
framework suggested and/or imposed by the practitioner, we devote con-
siderable space to precisely that issue: the measurement framework for
describing and differentiating cultures.
Across methods for cultural inquiry, when a scale of measurement
(whether nominal, ordinal, or interval) is imposed on the data gathered,
it becomes possible to both cumulate the observations and to differenti-
ate cultures. The choice of measurement scale(s) used to capture judg-
ments or ratings is distinct from the content being measured (although
some measurement scales may be better suited for some content than
others). For example, employees may respond to survey items regarding
leadership using a five-point Likert scale, but that scale might be one
of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree), effectiveness (highly
ineffective to highly effective), or importance (unimportant to highly
important), among many other options. In a quantitative study, the lead-
ership dimension “score” may be the simple arithmetic average of scale
values for the relevant items, whereas in a qualitative study the metric
may be a simple count of the number of times the theme of leadership
emerges in a series of interview transcripts. In addition, the nature of
the question asked and measurement scale used will also affect whether
the respondent is guided to supply a description of their experiences
in the organization or an evaluation of how they think the organiza-
tion is performing with regard to certain criteria (an issue that has been
addressed in much depth in the climate literature; see Chapter Two).
Of course, the two are not completely independent because describing
an organization as bureaucratic would typically imply a negative evalu-
ation and describing it as innovative would typically imply a positive
242 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

evaluation. The critical point we want to make is that the interpretation

of the data depends on the way the data are measured.
The validity of the interpretation of the data also depends on the
knowledge and perspective of the sources used to provide the data. Sim-
ply put, there is a different level of expertise, knowledge, and/or experi-
ence needed to supply data with reference to some very specific criteria
than to report general observations or experiences as an organizational
member. For example, not all employees may be in a position to rate the
efficiency of a business operation or the degree of innovation in products
or services. However, employees with less tenure or who have less knowl-
edge of the organization’s history may be an excellent source of infor-
mation about the organization’s culture because its unique aspects have
not become as “taken for granted” as they have with more experienced
employees. In the end, the quality of the data about the organization’s
culture will depend upon both the nature of the data and its source.
The description of organizational culture invariably leads to some
form of summarization and/or reduction of the data. One common ap-
proach is to classify the data into categories or themes. This classification
basis may be chosen a priori or determined inductively in a way that is
indigenous to a specific organizational environment. Dimensions of cul-
ture can represent themes such as leadership, structure, communication,
HR practices, and so on (Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000). These
dimensions or constructs along which the culture is described serve the
same purpose as a set of factors or dimensions used to describe personal-
ity in that a common set of dimensions can be applicable across organiza-
tions and settings. For example, a given culture can be described as being
more or less bureaucratic than another or more or less service-oriented
or innovative, and so forth. The basis for differentiation of organizations
on these cultural dimensions is variable-centric in that the comparison
is with reference to particular constructs or dimensions, each of which
is considered separately, although the dimensions may or may not be
correlated.
Another approach for summarizing cultural data is to describe a pro-
file across dimensions considered simultaneously (Jung, Scott, Davies,
Bower, Whalley, McNally, & Mannion, 2009). Presentation of results by
profile is common among many of the quantitative measures we will de-
scribe later (although it is much more common in the culture literature
than the climate literature; see Schulte, Ostroff, Shmulyian, and Kinicki,
2009, for an exception using a profile approach when studying climate).
Profile shapes are often labeled as organization “types” and interpreted
metaphorically with attributes descriptive of how one might describe
people, particularly in terms of dysfunctional syndromes. Flamholtz and
Randle (2011), for example, described various profiles such as The Arro-
gant Company, The Gambler, The Paranoid Corporation, and so on, each
of which had a different profile of culture dimensions. The scale values
on each dimension provide the basis for profile shape, and it is the shape
of the profile rather than single dimension scores one at a time that is
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 243

of interest. We will have more to say about profiles or types versus the
presentation of data by dimension later.
Another way cultures can be compared is based on strength. One
legacy of the popular management press in the 1980s and 1990s is the
notion that organizational performance follows from strong cultures
(e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). In Chapters Three
and Five, we discussed at length what climate and culture strength, re-
spectively, are and how they differ from other related concepts such as fit
and alignment. We also indicated that the challenge with a strong culture
is that it is difficult to change precisely because there is good agreement
on “who we are and what we stand for.” Of course, strength may vary
across different areas of the organization or across different dimensions,
and it is possible to have a strong culture for change (or as Kotter & Hes-
kett, 1992, called it, an adaptive culture) that must receive continuous at-
tention, be reinforced, and have the assets and scarce resources required
for periodic realignments and disjunctures (Burke, 2011). Thus, properly
documenting the areas of relative strength and weakness across the orga-
nization’s culture can be an important outcome of cultural inquiry. One
particular challenge for doing so is that the method used to describe the
culture places limitations on how culture strength can be defined. When
using quantitative measures, statistical procedures can be used to assess
relative strength by examining variability (see Chapter Three), in con-
trast to qualitative data inferences of strength that are more judgmental
but that may provide more flexibility in how strength is conceptualized
(see Chapter Five).
Although the approaches addressed thus far are the most common
ways of understanding and comparing cultures, there are other ap-
proaches as well. One less utilized approach is to discuss cultures in terms
of their dynamic properties or their trajectories over time. As Yammarino
and Dansereau (2011) described, process approaches and the grounded
theory method can lead to an understanding of how culture processes
unfold over time. While we regard culture as relatively stable and en-
during (consistent with Schein, 2010, and others), they can also evolve
over time, perhaps quickly in some areas while in other areas not at all.
Longitudinal frameworks allow cultures to not only be compared with
the change trajectories in other organizations, but also internally to the
organization’s own culture in the past. Another approach is to have or-
ganizational members describe the dimensions or attributes of a culture
in terms of salience or personal importance, as when employees evaluate
a particular characteristic such as “informal” as more or less desirable or
important for them to consider when evaluating a potential employment
opportunity. We will later describe one such approach in our discussion
of quantitative methods of cultural inquiry.
Of course, as we have alluded to, one of the major aspects of the mea-
surement framework is the method to be used, and whether the cultural
inquiry will follow a qualitative, quantitative, or a blended approach.
This choice reflects the need to balance depth with practicality and the
244 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

bases for differentiation from other companies as we have just described.

Most importantly, the practitioner who chooses to rely on either or both
approaches needs to recognize the assumptions that guide the inquiry
approach chosen. For example, qualitative methods are most appropri-
ate for description in language of the organization, or in other words, to
create an indigenous typology. On the other hand, there are numerous
commercial products, services, and frameworks for diagnosing culture
using quantitative surveys, although not surprisingly, some may be better
for certain purposes and contexts than others. A combination of qualita-
tive and quantitative approaches perhaps deployed in an iterative fashion
may be ideal; we return to this idea at the end of the chapter. Impor-
tantly, the practitioner will need to determine that mix based on certain
practical constraints, which include not only time and resources, but also
personal expertise in qualitative research and exposure to subject matter
experts (SMEs).
In the sections that follow, we provide an in-depth discussion of a
number of qualitative and quantitative approaches that might be used
for cultural inquiry. We begin with qualitative approaches because the
choice of quantitative technique may be informed by qualitative re-
search outcomes.

QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
TO CULTURAL DIAGNOSIS

We have deliberately chosen to limit our discussion of qualitative ap-

proaches to those that can be implemented as part of a diagnostic
strategy within a relatively short time frame and that do not require
total  immersion in the work environment. Thus, we do not consider
here ethnographic approaches, which are characterized by both exten-
sive time commitments and personal presence, nor do we consider the
role of the practitioner as an active change agent because our focus is
entirely on the nature of qualitative inquiry itself and the outcomes/
reports from it rather than any resulting change per se. The techniques
common to action research strategies provide a convenient starting point
for how qualitative data can be gathered and evaluated. Three examples
of such approaches will be briefly highlighted here: Appreciative Inquiry,
Cooperative Inquiry, and Narrative Inquiry. Our goal is to share the key
features and commonalities across these approaches as an introduction
to possible methods for conducting qualitative cultural inquiry. We sup-
ply citations to key sources on each of these approaches so that inter-
ested readers can find more detailed information about them if they are
interested.
As the label suggests, Appreciative Inquiry focuses on what works and
should be emphasized as strength in the culture rather than what is bro-
ken or needs to be fixed. Such an approach has the benefit of overcoming
resistance from participants and helping to build trust (Schall, Ospina,
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 245

Godsoe, & Dodge, 2004). The technique used typically is one of asking
questions in a group setting about positive experiences with respect to
a specific theme or topic, such as experiencing the feeling of dignity and
respect, having a project run efficiently, and so on. The product of these
sessions is a list of “provocative propositions” (Hammond, 1996) that are
derived from shared experiences or stories that are both inspirational and
grounded in the history and traditions of the firm.
As outlined by Heron and Reason (2006), Cooperative Inquiry empha-
sizes the dual role of researcher and observer. Participants work through
a multiphased approach that involves (1) deciding on what is important
to explore and how to best record their experiences, (2) exploring new
ways of doing things and reporting their experiences doing so at increas-
ing levels of immersion, and (3) sharing their experiences and reconsider-
ing their initial ideas and thoughts through the lens of their experiences.
One critical distinction between Cooperative Inquiry and other qualita-
tive approaches is its unique placement of the researcher as a participant
in the process both with respect to what is studied and how.
In Narrative Inquiry (Clandinin  & Connelly, 2000), the emphasis is
on constructing stories that place the participant (and inquirer) within
boundaries of time, social context, and place. Critical to this approach
is the notion that the observer or inquirer enters into a process not at
the beginning of participant’s experiences but at some other point in
time. The narrative or story is something that can be told retrospectively
through an interview but can also reflect what is experienced as it un-
folds during the course of the research effort. The product of the inquiry
is a conversion of the experiences and stories to text that can then be
analyzed according to different frames of reference.
What is common to these approaches is the emphasis on (1) the re-
porting of experiences that people (employees or other observers) share,
and (2) a relatively balanced perspective on those experiences that avoids
a singular focus on the negative or what needs to be changed and includes
an exploration of future possibilities. The value of these approaches is
that they fulfill the practical goal of developing a story line or narrative
that describes the culture with sufficient fidelity that stakeholders and
researchers can reliably agree. Thus, the qualitative techniques that are
most appropriate for cultural inquiry are those that elicit narratives that
capture the richness inherent in employees’ or other stakeholders’ expe-
riences. These narratives can be collected in a variety of ways, including
structured or semistructured interviews or structured written descrip-
tions with appropriate instructions provided.
It should be obvious that as the inquiry unfolds the practitioner makes
choices about what fits or does not fit the eventual storyline. Some infor-
mation is discarded or ignored, and other information and perspectives
are highlighted. The choice of what to ignore or classify as irrelevant
is obviously critical, and this is a challenge with qualitative approaches,
regardless of who might be involved in making those choices. Fortu-
nately, this dilemma can be resolved at least in part by ensuring that
246 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

the narratives that are captured or reported meet several criteria. Bor-
rowing from the logic of the three approaches to inquiry above, these
criteria might include (1) completeness (the narrative must have social
and physical context), (2) an explicit reference in time (the narratives
must be anchored at a relative point in time in the narrator’s personal
history with the organization), and (3) an evaluative frame of reference
(the narrative should have an explicit link to what made the experience
positively or negatively salient to the narrator).
Gundry and Rousseau (1994) described a particularly insightful use of
a qualitative approach for cultural inquiry in which they asked organiza-
tion newcomers to relate formative events that were meaningful to them
in understanding “what it is like to work here.” They followed a modi-
fied critical-incident approach (Flanagan, 1954) by asking newcomers to
describe what made an impression on them when they first joined the
company, who was involved, when it occurred, and the message that they
understood from the event. This general approach can be easily modified
to extend beyond the early stages of the employment period; we have
found in our own work that individuals remember these events long into
their careers, which is obviously telling of the effect such events have on
organizational newcomers.
We next discuss three particular challenges to collecting qualitative
culture data. The first is the question of data sufficiency. It is particu-
larly difficult to know when the body of narratives or observations has
adequately covered the cultural domain. In large part, the question is
who to involve as participants in the inquiry. The second challenge con-
cerns the way in which interviews are conducted, including whether
the focus is on individuals or groups. The third significant issue is how
the data points are categorized and analyzed to make the most effective
use of the information.

Who to Involve

A critical decision in qualitative approaches to cultural inquiry is who to

involve as active participants or storytellers. The practitioner will face re-
source and time trade-offs as well as the practical implications of internal
politics when requesting access to subject matter experts. It is often very
difficult—even with the highest form of organizational sponsorship—to
gain ready access to executive time. Moreover, the sequencing of indi-
vidual interviews with firms is itself a practical issue. For example, it may
be necessary to interview a given senior executive before contacting or
interviewing his or her direct reports. Of course, such constraints are
themselves indicators of culture as well.
Most importantly, the practitioner should recognize that subcultures
often form at different levels of the organization, and that access at some
levels of the organization may require more complete sampling and rep-
resentation. That is, the culture as experienced by senior leaders may be
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 247

very different from that experienced by middle managers, professionals,

support staff, or other groups. There are a number of other possible issues
that differentiate subcultures (as we reviewed in Chapter Five), many of
which may not be readily apparent. The challenge is to determine the
criteria to be used in identifying which subcultures are of the most rela-
tive importance and then to ensure that members of those subcultures
are adequately represented in the inquiry.

Determining the Format to Be Used

From a practical standpoint, the choice of individual or group interview

format is largely driven by timing, accessibility, and costs. There are con-
siderable benefits to conducting focus groups, as it is often the case that
the act of participating—hearing others’ stories—in a group setting stim-
ulates both participation and recall. In addition, it can be argued that
diagnostic interviews should be conducted in group settings as culture
is something that is shared (Schein, 2010). However, we have found in
practice that at the executive level within the organization, individual
interviews may be necessary to obtain the desired breadth and depth of
information.
Assuming that at least part of the cultural inquiry takes place in
groups, additional decisions must be made concerning how those groups
should be composed. The consultant will have to decide whether the
groups should be segmented by levels of management or by subcultures,
or should be mixed. Unfortunately, there is no one right way to compose
focus groups; the approach will depend on the exact situation in the
specific organization. If the only goal is to identify the shared cultural
aspects that cut across all employees, and especially if there are already
norms for open communication across layers of the organization, then
mixing groups by including individuals across levels and subcultures may
not be problematic. However, such an approach may not uncover in-
depth information about individual subcultures and it may result in only
hearing the dominant voices of management (thus providing an idealized
view of the culture rather than its true character), especially when open
communication is not the norm. The main point here is to thoroughly
think through the goals of the inquiry and the nature of the organization
when making decisions about these issues.

Analyzing Qualitative Data

Analyzing qualitative data implies the imposition of a structure on the

information gathered, which can be narratives (i.e., the text recorded)
and/or the evaluation of narratives by the stakeholders and/or researcher.
The structure ideally follows inductively from the data, although it is cer-
tainly the case that the process can be an iterative one that evolves over
248 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

multiple phases of data collection and from multiple sources. The work
of Schneider, Wheeler, and Cox (1992) in which focus group data were
content analyzed as a basis for later service climate measures (as dis-
cussed in Chapter Six) fits this iterative paradigm. The inductive model
builds upon the choices of words used by participants rather than a struc-
ture imposed by the researcher. It should be apparent that one significant
benefit of inductive approaches is that the expression of culture is in the
language of the people and, thus, the firm.
Generally, two forms of analysis can be applied to narrative data. The
first is simple categorization of the topics discussed. Frequency of topic
area suggests what is salient and most relevant to the description of cul-
ture. Also, narratives can be coded for valence. Gundry and Rousseau
(1994), for example, classified narratives collected in the form of critical
incidents as positive, neutral, or negative in valence. Sentiment scoring—
the equivalent of valence coding—is a key feature of text analytics soft-
ware that allows narratives to be coded at various levels, including an
entire narrative or even at the within-sentence phrase level.
One particular challenge of qualitative approaches arises when the
volume of data (or narratives) is larger than can economically and/or
practically be managed and analyzed. Computerized software tech-
niques of narrative analysis are becoming broadly available and reflect
advancements in text analytics, which were developed mostly within
the field of computational linguistics but have been more broadly ap-
plied, for instance, in studies of customer satisfaction (see Shanahan,
Qu, & Wiebe, 2006). These techniques presume the ability to develop
a linguistic structure to be analyzed, or in other words, the key words,
terms, or expressions that can be categorized and interpreted for senti-
ment. What may be most valuable is the ability to rapidly and iteratively
update the categories to which text can be assigned, counted, and evalu-
ated. The field of computational linguistics is evolving quickly, and the
methods in this field open new possibilities for streamlined analysis of
qualitative data. Such techniques can be used to “score” transcripts from
focus groups or individual interviews, narratives that research partici-
pants are asked to write, or responses to open-ended questions that are
frequently part of quantitative survey approaches. They can also be used
to analyze organizational documents; for example, many organizations
maintain active blogs that can be rich information sources for qualitative
analysis.

Summary

Qualitative approaches to inquiry can provide richly detailed insights into

organizational culture. They are best considered as the reporting of stories
or narratives which describe experiences of people within a given period
and which provide information on the specific messages or meanings at-
tached to those experiences. The challenges facing the practitioner include
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 249

who should participate as the storytellers in the research effort and the
collection, management, and analysis of the qualitative inquiry data.

QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES
TO CULTURAL DIAGNOSIS

We now turn to the use of quantitative approaches for cultural diagnosis

and inquiry. In Chapter Four we detailed some of the pros and cons of
qualitative vs. quantitative approaches to data gathering, including how
quantitative surveys may be more cost effective and allow for a broader
sampling of the organization while sacrificing some of the richness and
depth of information that qualitative approaches provide. With those
distinctions in mind, we begin by providing several examples of survey
instruments used to assess culture or climate, which reveal subtle and not
so subtle differences among them. We then evaluate their strengths and
weaknesses on a number of different dimensions, along with a consider-
ation of the specific issues and implications around the choice of approach.

Examples of Quantitative Measures of

Culture and Climate
Our choice of which measures to include here was based on a number of
factors. We wanted to highlight those surveys that were generally better
known and commonly used but that also represented a range of forms of
the genre as well as different measurement and conceptual frameworks
that may have differential value to the practitioner depending on the
particular problem, issue, or outcome of salience to a company. We fol-
low our description of four quantitatively based culture surveys with one
example of a very specific implementation of a strategic climate survey.
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). The OCAI
is based on the competing values framework (CVF; Quinn & Rohrbaugh,
1983) as introduced in previous chapters and described in considerable
detail by Cameron and Quinn (2011). The data collection approach for
the OCAI is unique. Respondents are given six questions, which are la-
beled dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management
of employees, organization glue, strategic emphases, and the criteria for
success (Cameron  & Quinn, 2011). The items seem to capture a mix
of behavioral norms and values of both employees and management.
For each question, there are four alternatives that represent one of the
four different overall organizational values or styles of the CVF: clan,
adhocracy, hierarchy, and market. As described previously, these styles
represent different quadrants formed by the crossing of two dimensions:
(1)  flexibility and discretion vs. stability and control, and (2) internal
focus and integration vs. external focus and differentiation. The resulting
2 × 2 matrix is represented in Figure 7.1.
250 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

FLEXIBILITY and DISCRETION

EXTERNAL FOCUS and DIFFERENTIATION

CLAN ADHOCRACY

INTERNAL FOCUS and INTEGRATION

• Family-type • Dynamic and
organizations enterpreneur
• Commitment to organizations
employees • Cutting-edge
• Participation and output
teamwork • Innovation

HIERARCHY MARKET
• Formalized and • Competitive
structured organizations
organizations • Increasing
• Smooth market share
functioning • Productivity
• Stability

STABILITY and CONTROL

Figure 7.1 The competing values framework (source: Cameron & Quinn, 1999)

As an example of an item from the OCAI, here is one of the four

alternatives within the set describing dominant characteristics that is
aligned with the clan culture: “This organization is a very personal place.
It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of personal informa-
tion and features” (Cameron, 2008, p. 442). Within each of the six sets
of questions, respondents must assign a total of 100 points to the four
alternatives presented, and the accumulation of points across the six sets
provides evidence for which of the four styles predominates in an organi-
zation. Users can plot the organization’s profile to show the overall scores
across the four dimensions. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011),
the average scores across all respondents in an organization can be ana-
lyzed in six different ways: (1) a comparison across the dimensions to see
which is the current dominant type of the organization, (2) a compari-
son of the current and preferred scores, (3) the strength of the culture
based on how high the score was for the dominant type, (4) the align-
ment of scores across different subgroups within the organization, (5) a
comparison of the scores relative to the benchmark data that have been
found with other organizations and industries, and (6) a comparison of
the scores with the trends that have been identified using the instrument.
The measurement model for the OCAI is significantly different from
the approaches we will review shortly. The basis for comparison is the
organization itself; scores are based on the total points allocated to each
type, not on any comparison with other organizations with an absolute
response scale.2 In other words, the scores tell us how dominant a certain
type is within an organization, but not how the organization’s scores
compare with other organizations. In addition, the measurement does
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 251

not yield dimension scores, but rather a characterization of how similar

the focal organization is to the ideal types of the four styles. At the most
simplistic level, the style with the highest score is interpreted as that or-
ganization’s cultural type; interpretations that are more complicated take
into account the overall pattern of scores across the four types (Cam-
eron & Quinn, 2011). Although we describe later variations on this ap-
proach that effectively treat the four styles as dimensions or themes with
raw scores for each, the scoring described above represents the original
scoring of the OCAI.
With regard to research evidence for this measure, Cameron and
Quinn (2011) have suggested that the four types are associated with
different outcome effectiveness criteria: clan with employee satisfac-
tion and commitment, adhocracy with innovation, market with product
quality, productivity, and market share, and hierarchy with efficiency and
timeliness. Thus, the typology translates to effectiveness with respect to
specific criteria of organizational success. Also important is that orga-
nizational effectiveness is conceptualized as a broad, multidimensional
construct, such that the “ideal” profile for an organization will vary de-
pending on the criteria of interest. The number of published studies
using the OCAI is fairly limited, but for a sample of studies providing
validity evidence for the CVF and different versions of the OCAI, see
Cameron and Freeman (1991), Quinn and Spreitzer (1991), and more
recently, Gregory et  al. (2009). For a broader test of the CVF, see the
meta-analysis by Hartnell et al. (2011). In addition to meta-analytically
testing the relationships between the different dimensions of the CVF
with various effectiveness criteria (which we reviewed in Chapter Five),
Hartnell and colleagues (2011) also examined the internal structure of
the framework. Their results showed the four dimensions of the model
were generally positively related to each other (average correlation of
0.54), raising questions about the extent to which the culture types are
independent or competing.
Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS). The cultural
framework represented in the DOCS (Denison, 1990; Denison & Neale,
2000) uses the same underlying dimensions as the CVF, in that it com-
bines the ideas of flexibility versus stability and internal orientation
versus external orientation. The four resulting dimensions are the fol-
lowing (based on Denison, 1990; Denison Nieminen,  & Kotrba, 2012;
Gillespie, Denison, Haaland, Smerek, & Neale, 2008; Kotrba, Gillespie,
Schmidt, Smerek, Ritchie,  & Denison, 2012): involvement (the extent
to which employees have input in decision-making, a team orientation,
and a sense of ownership in the organization), consistency (the extent to
which beliefs and values are aligned with policies and practices and the
system is coordinated and integrated), adaptability (the extent to which
the organization’s internal structures are flexible meeting the demands
of the external environment, and particularly to customers), and mis-
sion (the extent to which the organization has a shared sense of purpose
and management communicates a clear vision and direction). Each of
252 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

these broad dimensions is further segmented into three subdimensions

(see Figure 7.2), including capability development, team orientation, and
empowerment (for involvement); coordination/integration, agreement,
and core values (for consistency); creating change, customer focus, and
organizational learning (for adaptability); and strategic direction, goals
and objectives, and vision (for mission). One feature that distinguishes
the DOCS from the CVF is that the dimensions are not portrayed as
competing. Denison (1990) described it this way: “Instead of arguing,
however, that the classification of an organization’s culture must be an
either/or type of decision, this framework assumes that an effective cul-
ture must provide all of these elements . . . the reconciliation of conflict-
ing demands is the essence of an effective organizational culture” (p. 14).
The DOCS is a 60-item survey where respondents provide ratings on
a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The survey
measures the series of four dimensions mentioned earlier based on the
management practices incumbents report they experience. Some sample
items include the following: (1) for capability development, “There is

External Focus
Stra
ional Direc tegic
TY nizat
ILI Orga arning tio
Inten n &
M
I
B Le t SS
TA

IO
cu er
AP

Go jec
Fo tom

N
AD

als tive
b
s
s
Cu

& s
Chan ng

Visio
ge
i
Creat

Flexible Beliefs and Stable

Assumptions
Integ nation &
Empo

n
ratio
werm

rdi
Coo
ent

t
O
rie Tea en
nt m em
IN

at re
Ag
VO

io
NC

n
LV

EM
TE

Cap
EN Deve ability Core s IS
T lopm Valu
e
ONS
ent C

Internal Focus

Figure 7.2 The Denison Organizational Culture Framework

© Denison Consulting. All Rights Reserved. Used by permission.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 253

continuous investment in the skills of employees”; (2) for team orienta-

tion, “Cooperation across different parts of the organization is actively
encouraged”; and (3) for empowerment, “Decisions are usually made
where the best information is available.” Items such as these are quite
similar to items found in traditional employee surveys, particularly re-
garding content related to leadership and strategy. For example, one
item on the DOCS is “Our strategy leads other organizations to change
the way they compete in the industry.” A similar item in the Mayflower
Group3 employee opinion survey Core Item set (Johnson, 1996) is: “My
company is making the changes necessary to compete effectively.”
Despite such similarities between the DOCS and other employee
opinion surveys, there are significant differences in how team and orga-
nizational scores are presented in reports provided to management. In
particular, DOCS scores are presented in percentile form by compar-
ing organizational responses to selected benchmarks (e.g., by industry).
The more conventional form of reporting employee survey results is in
terms of percentages (in particular, the percentage responding favorably,
neutral, or unfavorably) or by presenting raw scores side-by-side with
various possible benchmarks (“Best Companies to Work For,” “Fortune
500 Most Admired Companies,” etc.). In brief, then, the data reported
for the DOCS emphasize relative scores that are benchmarked, rather
than raw scores. For reporting purposes, these scores are plotted on a cir-
cumplex (see Figure 7.2), such that the placement of the subdimensions
reflects their nesting within each dimension, and the organization of the
dimensions and subdimensions reflects their relationship to the oppos-
ing themes of flexibility versus stability and internal orientation versus
external orientation.
Although the instrument has primarily been used outside of aca-
demia, Denison and his colleagues have been rigorous in documenting
the psychometrics and validity of their approach, much of which has
been published in the organizational research literature or is easily acces-
sible from their website (www.DenisonConsulting.com). For example,
Denison et al. (2012) summarized the research they have done in 160
companies on the reliability and validity of the measure. The scales all
have internal consistency reliability estimates of 0.70 and higher, the
subscales are intercorrelated (about 0.60 on average across companies),
and the subscales also reveal statistically significant validity coefficients
against employees’ ratings of outcomes like sales growth (average r of
0.26), profits (average r of 0.25), and quality (average r of 0.36). They
also reported support for the nested structure of the instrument via con-
firmatory factor analysis and evidence for the aggregation of the scale to
the organizational level of analysis. Other support for the validity of the
DOCS (which we also briefly addressed in Chapter Five) can be found in
Gillespie and colleagues (2008) and Kotrba and colleagues (2012), with
additional evidence for the cross-cultural generalizability of the instru-
ment presented in Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2003) and Fey and
Denison (2003).
254 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

Organizational Culture Inventory® (OCI®). The OCI is offered by

Human Synergistics, Inc., a consulting firm offering multiple solutions for
individual and organizational assessment purposes. The survey consists
of 120 items representing 12 different behavioral patterns or norms. The
survey originated in the authors’ earlier research with an individually
focused assessment instrument, the Life Styles Inventory™ (Cooke  &
Szumal, 1993). The 12 norms of the OCI reflect two fundamental di-
mensions of organizational life: a concern for people and/or a concern
for tasks. In addition, the norms are differentiated by whether they fulfill
higher-order satisfaction needs versus lower-order security needs. A cir-
cumplex model is used to depict how the twelve norms cluster within
three broader organizational culture styles or types (see Figure  7.3):
Constructive (a focus on both people and tasks with a goal to fulfill
higher-order needs), Passive/Defensive (a focus on people with the goal
of maintaining security), and Aggressive/Defensive (a focus on tasks with
the goal of maintaining security). Each of the three general styles cap-
tures four behavioral norms: (1) Constructive cultures include Achieve-
ment, Self-Actualizing, Humanistic-Encouraging, and Affiliative norms;
(2) Passive/Defensive cultures include Approval, Conventional, Depen-
dent, and Avoidance norms; and (3) Aggressive/Defensive cultures in-
clude Oppositional, Power, Competitive, and Perfectionistic norms. The
norms separated by 180 degrees on the circumplex appear to represent
opposites (e.g., Achievement vs. Dependent).
Sample items for the OCI reported in Balthazard, Cooke,  and Pot-
ter (2006) included the following: “help others grow and develop”
(Humanistic-Encouraging norm); “work on self-set goals” (Achievement
norm); “rules more important than ideas” (Conventional norm); “do
what is expected” (Dependent norm); “look for mistakes” (Oppositional
norm); and “never make a mistake” (Perfectionistic norm). Respondents
rate each item using a five-point scale based on the extent to which it
is expected or required in their organizations (1 = not at all and 5 = to
a very great extent). The fundamental dimensions of the OCI are quite
similar in orientation to widely used measures of leadership, an issue we
return to later. Like the DOCS, the scores for each style are reported
in percentile terms and are associated theoretically with organizational,
team, and personal effectiveness.
Some evidence for the reliability, within-unit agreement, test-retest
reliability, and validity of the OCI can be found in such sources as Cooke
and Rousseau (1988) and Cooke and Szumal (1993). In addition, Rous-
seau (1990b) found in a sample of fund-raising organizations that the
passive/defensive behavioral norms were significantly, negatively related
to dollar amounts of funds raised, but the positive relationships between
the constructive norms and funds raised were not significant. Cooke and
Szumal (2000) summarized the research that has been accomplished
with the OCI predicting group and organizational outcomes. They
showed that constructive norms related consistently positively to team-
work, quality of work relations, product/service quality, and customer
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 255

ACTION NEED
S A TI SF S
CONSTRU
CT I
12 VE
ST
YL
CTUALIZING 1 ES
11 SELF-A HU
EN
T ENC MAN
M OU IST
VE RA I
IE GI C-
A CH NG
C
TI

AF
2
S

FI
NI

10

LIA
TIO

TIV
FEC

PEOP
PER
IENTATION
S T Y LE S

LE ORIENTATION
COMPETITIVE

APPROVAL
3
9
T AS K O R
ENSIVE
DEF

L
NA
TIO
E/

PO

ES
SIV

EN
WE

YL
8 NV
R
ES

ST
CO
GR

OP VE
AG

PO T
SI
SI T EN
EN

IO ND
NA
L DE
PE
EF
7 AVOIDANCE 5 E /D
S SI V
6 PA

SECURITY NEEDS

Figure 7.3 The OCI circumplex

Note: The OCI measures culture along the 12 circumplex styles in terms of shared
behavioral norms (i.e., the extent to which each style is expected or implicitly required
of members); the Ideal version of the OCI measures culture in terms of values and beliefs
(i.e., the extent to which members believe the styles will lead to goal attainment and
effectiveness).
Source: The OCI style names, survey items, and Circumplex are reproduced with
permission from the Organizational Culture Inventory by R.A. Cooke and J.C. Lafferty.
Copyright © 1987 by Human Synergistics International.

satisfaction; passive/defensive norms related negatively but weakly to the

same outcomes; and aggressive/defensive norms related negatively but
weakly to teamwork and quality of work relations but not to the other
dimensions. Balthazard and colleagues (2006) also summarized OCI
data from a sample of over 60,000 respondents collected over 3.5 years
256 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

at Human Synergistics. They reported correlations between the OCI and

what they called performance drivers (including fit, satisfaction, quality,
and turnover intentions, among others). Although most correlations were
statistically significant, the drivers were from the same source as the cul-
ture measures, and analyses were conducted at the individual level. Addi-
tional work on the OCI includes research by Xenikou and Simosi (2006)
investigating the relationship between the achievement and humanistic
norms and organizational performance, as well as research by Glisson and
colleagues in the mental health field on a variation of the OCI (Glisson &
James, 2002; Glisson & Green, 2006).
Organization Culture Profile (OCP). One of the most commonly
referenced cultural assessment tools in the academic literature was de-
veloped by O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991). In their paradigm,
participants sort 54 values or attributes (reproduced in Table 7.1) from
most to least characteristic of their organization (or “fully” to “not at all”)
according to the following Q-sort distribution: 2-4-6-9-12-9-6-4-2. Ex-
amples of the values assessed by the measure include adaptability, stabil-
ity, and informality. Some of the characteristics represent attributes of
employment, including working long hours, high pay for good perfor-
mance, and security of employment. It seems common in the literature
for an individual study to conduct exploratory factor analysis to create
dimensions, and thus there appears to be no set number of dimensions
captured by the OCP. For example, O’Reilly and colleagues (1991) found
seven dimensions (innovation, stability, respect for people, outcome ori-
entation, attention to detail, team orientation, and aggressiveness), Chat-
man and Jehn (1994) found a similar factor structure but used the label
“easy-going” instead of “aggressiveness,” and Lee and Yu (2004) found five
factors, labeled as innovation, supportive, team, humanistic orientation,
and task orientation.

TABLE 7.1 Items in the organizational culture profile (OCP; O’Reilly et al.,
1991)

1. Flexibility
2. Adaptability
3. Stability
4. Predictability
5. Being innovative
6. Being quick to take advantage of opportunities
7. A willingness to experiment
8. Risk taking
9. Being careful
10. Autonomy
11. Being rule oriented

(Continued)
TABLE 7.1 Items in the organizational culture profile (OCP; O’Reilly et al.,
1991)
TABLE 7.1 (Continued)

12. Being analytical

13. Paying attention to detail
14. Being precise
15. Being team oriented
16. Sharing information freely
17. Emphasizing a single culture throughout the organization
18. Being people oriented
19. Fairness
20. Respect for the individual’s right
21. Tolerance
22. Informality
23. Being easy going
24. Being calm
25. Being supportive
26. Being aggressive
27. Decisiveness
28. Action orientation
29. Taking initiative
30. Being reflective
31. Achievement orientation
32. Being demanding
33. Taking individual responsibility
34. Having high expectations for performance
35. Opportunities for professional growth
36. High pay for good performance
37. Security of employment
38. Offers praise for good performance
39. Low level of conflict
40. Confronting conflict directly
41. Developing friends at work
42. Fitting in
43. Working in collaboration with others
44. Enthusiasm for the job
45. Working long hours
46. Not being constrained by many rules
47. An emphasis on quality
48. Being distinctive-different from others
49. Having a good reputation
50. Being socially responsible
51. Being results oriented
52. Having a clear guiding philosophy
53. Being competitive
54. Being highly organized
Reproduced with permission of the ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT.
258 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

The value statements in the original research were drawn from ex-
tant culture research and were selected as relevant for describing orga-
nizational culture as well as personal values. This reflected O’Reilly and
colleagues’ (1991) purpose of measuring person-organization fit. For ex-
ample, in the original validation research (Chatman, 1991), incumbents
reported on their accounting firms, and applicants to those firms reported
their preferences. Data from following those applicants longitudinally
revealed that the better the fit between an applicant and the firm they
join, the more likely they were to be satisfied, to stay with the firm, and
to perform at high levels.
When used as designed in the forced distribution Q-sort format, the
OCP also yields values scores that are reflective of a within-organization
comparison, similar to the results from the classic form of the OCAI
described earlier (i.e., ipsative measurement). That is, scores that sug-
gest that the organization is characterized by stronger values on one
dimension than on other dimensions do not have a frame of reference
outside the organization being studied. Consequently some researchers
have used the 54 value orientations from the original instrument to cre-
ate conventional Likert-scale questionnaires (Sarros, Gray, Dentsten, &
Cooper, 2005), so that it is easier to compare one organization’s scores
to another (because each organization has a score for each dimension on
the same response scale).
The values that are sorted or rated in these efforts by incumbents can
also be labeled as employment attributes as they clearly define the em-
ployment proposition that characterizes a firm. As such it is possible, as
in the original OCP, to ask potential employees to rate these employment
attributes (or values) as to their desirability in a possible employing firm.
Lundby, Lee, and Macey (2012) found that rankings of similar attributes
by incumbents and by potential employees can be used as a basis for
identifying different patterns or segments of potential employees. This
form of analysis lends itself particularly well to identifying the messages
that the company is perceived to deliver and what potential employees
are seeking. Those areas where matches exist suggest the levers that can
be used for attracting talent that is a good match for the organizational
culture. Furthermore, the approach lends itself well to identifying areas
where improper messaging is likely to be deleterious to the employment
brand.
With regard to research evidence for the OCP, the strongest evidence
has been for the implications of the fit between individual preferences
and the organization’s culture, with results from O’Reilly and colleagues
(1991) and Chatman (1991) showing that fit was a significant predic-
tor of newcomer adjustment, commitment, and turnover. In addition,
the test-retest reliability correlation with a 10–12 month gap between
administrations was found to be 0.78 (Chatman, 1991). Although the
majority of studies using the OCP have tended to focus on individual
outcomes, one example of an organization-level study is Lee and Yu
(2004). They found that culture strength—measured by the extent to
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 259

which organization respondents fit a common cultural model—was cor-

related with return on assets in manufacturing firms and growth in an-
nual premiums in insurance firms. Nevertheless, the overall pattern of
results for predicting organizational performance was mixed.
Anatomy of a strategically focused culture/climate survey. In contrast
to the four measures described above that capture an organization’s gen-
eral culture, in this section we address how a customized survey can be
developed for an organization that wants to address a targeted strategic
area. Although we continue with the use of the “culture” term due to its
accepted use in organizational settings, the type of survey we discuss here
is more in line with climate surveys that ask about employee perceptions
of strategically focused policies, practices, and procedures. In addition to
providing an illustration of a customized culture/climate survey, the ex-
ample illustrates several important principles that can inform practice as
to the critical issues in framing and assessing a cultural diagnostic effort.
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, there is often a precipitating
event that leads to a cultural inquiry; in this case, the impetus of the study
was the March 23, 2005, explosion at the Texas City Refinery owned and
operated by BP, which resulted in 15 deaths and more than 170 injuries.
In response to the urging of the US Chemical and Safety Board, BP com-
missioned an independent review panel, chaired by former Secretary of
State James Baker, to investigate the effectiveness of BP’s safety practices
and safety culture. Following their detailed and lengthy investigation, the
panel prepared a report that is publicly available and is rich in the de-
tail of the methodology and findings (Baker, 2007). As such, it is a use-
ful resource for identifying how culture measures can be used to guide
decision-making and likewise points to issues that create challenges for
interpretation.
As part of its investigation, the panel conducted a comprehensive “cul-
ture” survey. The content of the survey was quite similar to the safety cli-
mate surveys we described in Chapter Three (e.g., the work by Zohar &
Luria, 2005). The survey questions tapped themes such as “process safety
reporting,” “safety values/commitment to process safety,” “procedures
and equipment,” “empowerment,” “safety training,” and “supervisory in-
volvement and support.” Employees responded using a five-point Likert
scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Example items
included “Operational pressures do not lead to cutting corners where
process safety is concerned,” and “Refinery management puts a high pri-
ority on process safety through actions and not just empty slogans.”
In drawing their conclusions, the writers of the report highlighted
overall trends as well as differences by employment category and facil-
ity. The data were presented in terms of the percentages of people who
responded “strongly disagree” or “disagree” to the individual items. The
report described the panel’s approach to interpreting the data:

The Panel believes, however, that response rates to a survey related to pro-
cess safety, which involves potentially catastrophic accidents, should be
260 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

viewed differently from workforce surveys generally. To some extent this is

intuitive . . . the Panel believes that it should use more stringent criteria, or
effectively “raise the bar,” in its evaluation of the process safety culture sur-
vey data . . . The Panel generally viewed positive response rates greater than
80 percent and negative response rates less than 20 percent as indicating
an overall positive perception of the process safety culture . . . However,
the Panel tended to view negative response rates approaching or exceeding
20 percent as deserving of increased attention and focus from BP manage-
ment. (Baker, 2007, p. 10, italics added)

Noteworthy here is that the standards by which the safety culture at BP

was judged were seemingly arbitrarily drawn though they may have been
supported by good judgment. This highlights the fact inherent in all diag-
nostics: some conclusions must be drawn from the observations, records,
and findings, and those inferences are thus open to interpretation. One
significant challenge facing the practitioner then is how to advise stake-
holders about the meaning or interpretation of survey results.
Another important observation of the Baker investigation is the em-
phasis on accountability for the survey findings. Specifically, despite the
finding that “BP has not provided effective leadership on or established
appropriate operational expectations regarding process safety perfor-
mance” (p. xii), the writers were specific in noting that senior executives,
while not directly and personally responsible for what happened at the
local operating management level, were certainly responsible for a failure
to affect BP safety culture through establishing safety as a core value. The
critical point here is that culture assessments should lead to actionable
outcomes—as in the Baker report. To re-emphasize the point, cultural di-
agnosis is done for a purpose. The practitioner’s choice of method greatly
determines how well that purpose will be satisfied.
Summary and comparison. The OCAI, DOCS, and OCI represent
broader approaches to describing fundamental organizational culture
and are therefore less suited for assessing strategic culture or climate.
The framework upon which each measurement model is built links in a
different way to organizational effectiveness. The OCAI is unique in that
each of the “types” underlying the competing values framework is tied
to specific organizational success criteria (e.g., the clan type is specifically
linked to employee commitment and motivation, and the adhocracy type
is specifically linked to innovation). The DOCS references key dimen-
sions that are not evaluative, but reflect dimensions or themes on which
better performing organizations tend to score higher. The OCI prescrip-
tively connects behavior patterns to styles that are more evaluative than
descriptive in context (e.g., proactive vs. inactive) and therefore is tied to
organizational effectiveness, albeit indirectly.
The OCP uniquely describes organizational culture in terms of the
attributes that differentiate organizations based on preferred work envi-
ronments. These attributes or characteristics are useful descriptions even
if their measurement is relative. Beyond scholarly interests in measuring
P-O fit, the approach is a useful one for identifying how organizational
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 261

culture plays out in the employee value proposition and thus has unique
practical value for both employee image and branding purposes.
All four of these approaches differ considerably from the survey de-
scribed in the Baker report, which does not address general issues but is
focused on a specifically focused strategic culture/climate. Although the
information provided cannot definitively speak to the drivers or founda-
tions of climate (in this case, safety climate), for its intended purpose it
represents a very unique and insightful example of how a precise char-
acterization of a strategic climate can yield findings specific to the issue
of interest. We propose that the combination of a more general culture
measure (or molar climate measure, such as the OCM; Patterson et al.,
2005) with a focused climate measure may provide practitioners with
the information they need on the environmental elements most relevant
for a specific strategic outcome of interest as well as the more general
cultural issues that define the general tone of the organization and that
underlie the strategic culture/climate (in line with our recommendations
for more work integrating culture and climate). We return to this idea
shortly.

Criteria for Selecting a Quantitative

Approach to Cultural Inquiry
We reviewed these specific examples of quantitative measures because
of the differences they reflect in approach, content, and measurement.
The differences represented by these measures give rise to a number
of issues and concerns that the practitioner must resolve in choosing a
model or framework for cultural inquiry. We consider seven such issues
in this section: (1) the clarity and sufficiency of the approach chosen,
(2) a focus on the dimensions assessed by the approach versus the de-
gree to which the data are presented in profile form and/or as typolo-
gies, (3) the stakeholders who participate as respondents to the surveys
used, (4) the scoring and benchmarking of the inquiry method(s) used,
(5) whether ideal states of the firm as well as the firm’s current state
are assessed, (6) the degree to which subcultures are identified through
inquiry, and (7) inquiry vis-à-vis leadership versus inquiry vis-à-vis cul-
ture. Note that we could have also presented these issues as a series of
questions the practitioner must ask and answer so that the choices made
address as many concerns as possible. While at first glance it may seem
a bit overwhelming to consider all of the issues we present, it will serve
the practitioner well to have a position on each one of these issues so that
later application of the inquiry process will rest on a carefully thought
out choice process rather than an off-hand decision without consider-
ation of these issues. Based on our experience, each of these decisions
matters a great deal with regard to the confidence one can place in the
results of assessment, and they provide a firm foundation on which future
use of the evidence generated can rest.
262 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

Clarity and sufficiency of the assessment method chosen. Within the

world of practice, the “language” of organizational culture generally falls
within one of three categories. In the first, culture is described in terms
of the goal or target that is deemed the strategic end state to be achieved.
So, stakeholders speak of a culture for innovation, efficiency, etc. Sec-
ond, discussions of culture are at times focused on processes or styles,
for example, a culture of collaboration or teamwork, that are thought
to enable the attainment of more strategically focused outcomes. Third,
cultures are described by what employees or other stakeholders value
(e.g., autonomy, empowerment). Each of these three orientations takes
the practitioner along a different path in terms of the problems, issues, or
concerns that can be addressed or identified.
The soft edges in the stakeholder’s interpretation or understanding of
organizational culture result in part from a lack of precision in the words
used to describe culture as well as the lack of a clear specification of what
they are trying to achieve. “Innovation” is a term that exemplifies the
potential for confusion. To Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000), the
cultural dimensions of innovation represented the organization’s prefer-
ence for risk and the extent to which the organization supports innova-
tive or creative efforts. Similarly, Flamholtz and Randle (2011, p. 33)
described the dimension of “commitment to change and innovation” as
“how a company views, embraces, and reacts to change and innovation.”
The conceptual challenge here is that the same nomenclature is used
to describe the culture itself and the criterion by which organizational
effectiveness is evaluated. That is, in some cases the taxonomic catego-
ries used for classification connote positive or negative valence, thus con-
founding cultural description and evaluation. Fortunately, this problem
can be resolved if the focus of the culture measurement is on what can
be observed as process or behavior. We believe this is important because
the cultural characterizations provided through the approach to inquiry
are the basis for stakeholders to both understand and frame their plans.
Labels that focus on process are more actionable than those that focus
on outcomes; process leads to and is not at all isomorphic with outcomes.
The practitioner also cares about the labels simply because careful mes-
saging avoids communication and interpretation difficulties.
The implication here is that there are certain key dimensions or fac-
tors that are essential to creating a climate or culture for particular stra-
tegic purposes. In past chapters, we described this in terms of culture or
molar climate forming the foundation for strategic climate; however, for
practitioners, the issue is framed differently. Their concern is whether the
inquiry leads to the identification of the support mechanisms required
for employees to engage in the behaviors associated with the achieve-
ment of a particular strategy as well as the identification of the barriers
preventing those behaviors. This raises the question of whether a cultural
diagnosis can be complete without measurement of the foundational
issues that must also be addressed before a strategic culture or climate
can be realized. In other words, and returning to the Baker (2007) report
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 263

on safety climate, it is one thing to encourage new policies and prac-

tices and processes to promote safety, but it is another thing to address
whether a foundation exists of a more basic cultural nature regarding,
for example, worker trust in management, worker sense of personal sup-
port from local leadership, the appropriate equipment and technology
being available to do the job, and so forth. Our clear impression is that
neither the foundation nor the strategic focus alone can do the job; it is
in the combination of the two that both process and strategic goals can
be accomplished.
A focus on cultural dimensions versus profiles/typologies. In this sec-
tion, we focus on the issues the practitioner must consider when decid-
ing whether to take a “dimensions” approach to culture versus a “type”
approach to culture. Before moving forward, it is worth restating that
cultures are distinctive only to the extent that they are different from
others. Without that distinction, organizational culture cannot be useful
as an explanatory concept for differences in organizational performance
nor can it be leveraged for competitive advantage. And this point is very
important: In the simplest terms, doing what others are doing, no mat-
ter how good they are doing it, will not differentiate an organization
from others and thus will not yield competitive advantage. To understand
these differences between organizations and their cultures, the practitio-
ner can focus either on individual dimensions of culture or on cultural
profiles or types.
Dimensions. Generally, the labels used for culture dimensions vary
considerably across the models used by practitioners and reflect the dis-
similarities in what is of interest to the practitioner. In some frameworks,
the labels represent areas of possible strategic focus (e.g., the “customer
focus” dimension in the DOCS), and for others the labels are descriptive
of broad organizational styles such as “perfectionistic” or “competitive”
(e.g.,  Boglarsky  & Kwantes, 2004), or specific organization (“trust”) or
job (“challenge”) characteristics. Whatever the case may be, the tendency
when dimension-level data is available is to emphasize the individual
components of culture rather than the overall pattern of dimensions or
variables across the organization, which is why the former could be con-
sidered a variable-centric approach and the latter could be considered an
organization-centric approach.
In any given culture measure, the dimensions have typically been de-
rived through some form of statistical analysis of culture survey data or
through qualitative data collection and analysis. Each dimension score is
usually represented by a series of items shown to be statistically linked
to each other, and the name of the dimension is based on the similarity
the researcher finds in the items that define it. For example, the fac-
tor “strategic direction and intent” in the DOCS represents items such
as “There is a clear mission that gives meaning and direction to work.”
Other dimensions in this and similar frameworks include themes such
as goal setting, customer focus, empowerment, and so forth. Importantly,
standardized approaches such as represented in the DOCS and OCAI
264 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

reflect a set of assumptions about how cultures can be described and how
different organizations can be compared or contrasted.
The interpretation of dimension scores often focuses on those dimen-
sions with the lowest scores, with the assumption that those are the
areas that need the most attention from management. Such an approach
makes little sense, however, in the absence of a clear relationship to ex-
ternal criteria. We have experienced numerous instances in which the
evidence indicates that a company that scores relatively high on a dimen-
sion should invest even more time, effort, and money to make improve-
ments in that domain because that dimension is the key driver of the
outcome of interest. Thus, an examination of how the dimensions relate
to key outcomes should be a central part of the interpretation of quanti-
tative culture dimension data.
The organization-as-individual metaphor as in the OCP (Chatman,
1991) is relevant to this discussion of dimensions, as a dimension seems
both more easily interpretable and suggestive of the types of people
needed to achieve alignment and promote strategically salient achieve-
ments. For instance, if the company is seen as “innovative” and people
who seek employment there desire a company that is innovative, then
the alignment issue is seemingly more straightforward. But the use
of a single dimension in communicating with stakeholders runs the
risk of misunderstanding the emergent characteristics of the organiza-
tional culture. In other words, culture is a function of many personal
and contextual variables in interaction over time and emerges out of
the mix of people and context in interaction. What is critical for the
practitioner (and stakeholder) to recognize is the overall set of dimen-
sional differences in the cultural description that differentiates where
the organization is today versus what is deemed necessary for success
in the future.
Typologies/Profiles. Typologies address the limitations to treating di-
mensions independently by considering a number of dimensions of cul-
ture simultaneously—think a profile of dimension scores. For example,
the “Arrogant Company” described by Flamholtz and Randle (2011) is
characterized by a certain pattern of attributes: lack of customer ori-
entation, the inappropriate acceptance of untested assumptions, and a
reluctance to change. Along these lines, a type represents a specific com-
bination of distinguishing dimensions. If the profile or type is dominated
by a single characteristic or dimension, then the dominant underlying
dimension becomes isomorphic with the organizational description. So,
for example, if the dominant characteristic of the organization is a con-
cern for people, then the label “humanistic orientation” seemingly ap-
plies. As we described earlier, this is the approach used with the OCAI
(Cameron  & Quinn, 2011). But it can be more difficult to provide an
accurate or even reasonable characterization of a profile that is charac-
terized by high scores on many key dimensions, or a profile consisting of
low, medium, and high values across several different areas, especially as
the number of dimensions under consideration increases.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 265

Nevertheless, despite such difficulties, typologies tend to resonate with

stakeholders because they seem relatively easy to grasp. Profiles fit corpo-
rate lore or well-known published anecdotes. That is why popular man-
agement self-help books invariably mention many different dimensions
of organizational functioning implying a profile of attributes or dimen-
sions. Profiles represent specific combinations or patterns of character-
istics, and it is those patterns in shape and level that link differentially
to organizational effectiveness. And that is the key point. If competitive
advantage follows from the unique blend of cultural elements, then that
mix is represented by a recipe captured in the typology. The difficult part
is knowing just which parts of that recipe can or should be changed
and which are less critical. So when comparing any two cultures, the
similarity of shape in cultural profile may not be a sufficient indicator
of predicting equivalent success (or failure). It is very possible that the
pinch of whatever spice your grandmother used in her secret recipe but
never told you about may not be captured at all.
That organizations can be profiled along multiple dimensions suggests
why studies of dimensional correlates of organizational performance
can show inconsistent patterns across research investigations. That is,
the focus on the correlates of single cultural dimensions, one at a time,
against various performance criteria does not capture the likelihood that
it is unique composite profiles of numerous cultural dimensions studied
simultaneously that may represent the source of superior organizational
performance (or, in the opposite, represent dysfunctional “syndromes”).
Thus, we believe that empirically derived typologies have value in un-
derstanding the existing patterns of relevant cultural attributes and are
particularly valuable in identifying the critical issues requiring further
attention. In addition, profiles of attributes (and their labels) can be used
for commercial purposes regarding general brand image as well as the
image of the company as an employer. Finally, profiles of attributes can
be compared to other organizations’ profiles, but rather than trying to
make the cultures more similar, approaches to change can be identified
that might maximally differentiate a client organization from competi-
tors to increase competitive advantage.
To illustrate the point that it is the configuration of cultural elements
that leads to cultural interpretation, consider the hypothetical profile of
a firm represented in Figure 7.4. The dimensions used in this example
are taken from Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000), although we
have made minor edits to the description to facilitate interpretation. The
profile describes an organization led by a visible and influential founder
(high on leadership) that provides extreme flexibility to its employees
(low on structure) in responding to the marketplace (high on market
facing). Risk is encouraged (high on innovation and risk preference),
and good bets are reinforced through fair and generous reward systems
tied transparently to performance measures (high on job performance).
There is also a high degree of concern and care for employees (high on
respect for people). We could describe this organization as an innovative,
266 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

ip en e ies ng g le t ry
nc ni on cin op en nt
ersh D riv ere enc
an icati F a Pe p m E
ad f g l on
Le lic
y Pr
e tin dP un ke
t
fo
r elo
Po sk on an m ar ct Dev t io
n
i C s m M e . a
dR d al Co sp di
v liz
an ar Go Re In cia
n R ew ar r So
o - e fo
ati ce Cl ty
n ov an o n uni
In r m is r t
rfo as po
Pe ph Op
E m
Figure 7.4 Dimension profile of a hypothetical firm

responsive, and market-facing company that depends on the innovative

contributions of its people for success, and we would conclude that what
makes this firm successful is the configuration or pattern of the cultural
elements. What would our impression of the culture be though, if score
on the job performance dimension was very low? Our entire interpreta-
tion of the culture would change! Now, we would be describing an orga-
nization where people run freely to do what they want, taking risks that
go unchecked—a fun place to work where there are no consequences for
taking risk. Thus our point: As with individual personalities, organization
cultures are complex, and the meaning we give to the interpretation of
one characteristic or attribute is necessarily within the framework of ev-
erything else we know about the organization.
Mixed approaches. The CVF represents one of the more distinctive
foundations for typing organizational cultures. Hartnell and colleagues
(2011) cleverly applied a dimension approach to the archetypes repre-
sented in the CVF. They reviewed the research literature on organiza-
tional culture and mapped the measures used in that literature to the
CVF dimensions. That is, they carefully reviewed studies of culture that
also had outcome effectiveness data and made judgments about how
the dimensions of those measured mapped onto the CVF typology. For
example, dimensions corresponding to the clan type included “Construc-
tive Culture” from the OCI, and “team orientation” from the OCP. So,
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 267

an organization with high scores on “team orientation” would have high

scores on a clan culture dimension score. Note that in doing this, a mea-
surement variable or dimensional construct (team orientation) was used
to characterize a type (in this case, clan). Thus, unlike the OCAI ap-
proach in which the organization’s foci are apportioned across the four
CVF types, Hartnell and colleagues created dimension scores for those
variables they determined to best fit the four types. In essence, they de-
parted from the within-organization base for comparison on dimension
scores (as noted earlier, technically an ipsative approach) implied by the
CVF and were therefore able to compare organizations across studies on
the four types now characterized by dimension scores.
Although these studies show that it is possible to move from an
organization-centric approach to a variable-centric approach, the ques-
tion arises as to whether such an effort is appropriate and meaningful.
That is, in efforts to capture an archetype (i.e., a pure rather than mixed
type in terms of salient characteristics), it is assumed that there is a psy-
chometric and conceptual equivalence of the construct to that type.
Nonetheless, typologies represent blends of characteristics, and efforts to
dimensionalize them represent a seemingly useful way of separating the
component parts in ways that lend the data useful to efforts for assessing
relative importance and relationships among the component parts. Along
these lines, Hartnell and colleagues (2011) found evidence across many
studies that the facets of the CVF have some distinctiveness in predicting
outcome effectiveness as they proposed (e.g., clan predicts job satisfac-
tion and commitment consistently better than does adhocracy). Of per-
haps more interest, they revealed that the dimensions of the CVF do not
compete even though they were derived as such (yielding the label the
“competing” values framework). What they showed is that organizations
that are superior on one dimension of the CVF also tend to be simulta-
neously superior on another, and the more superior they are the more
likely they are to also be effective on the set of multiple effectiveness
outcomes studied. In brief, it appears to be true that the good are good on
many features of organizational culture, and being good on many things,
complex as it is to achieve, gets reflected in success on many outcome
indices of effectiveness. Once again, competitive advantage seems to be
achievable by having a bundle of many good things happening simultane-
ously in a company.
Challenges in isolating types of cultures. It is critically important to note
that typologies such as those described in the management press are
abstractions and at best generic characterizations of particular cultures.
Because they are unique, the profiles cannot be parsed in some elemen-
tal way to simplify the relative contributions of the component parts,
because it is the mix or bundle of issues that produces the uniqueness
of the culture and the cause for success. We would suspect that pure
forms of a cultural archetype are unlikely to be found and that most
organizations represent a blend of more than one type. We think this
is true because effectiveness requires a certain level of accomplishment
268 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

on numerous dimensions of organizational behavior, and thus companies

that survive and prosper will be those that do multiple things well.
Given this conclusion, three challenges emerge. The first is whether it
is possible to identify a reasonably finite set of types that can be meaning-
fully distinguished. The “meaningfully” part is important, because if orga-
nizations tend to be blends of types, as suggested above, then it may be
the case that the differences between types is much fuzzier than theory
suggests. We find it curious that little work has been done to empiri-
cally identify types based on profile shape (for exceptions see Ketchen,
Thomas,  & Snow, 1993; Schulte et  al., 2009; and Tsui, Wang,  & Xin,
2006), particularly given the advances in latent class (mixture) model-
ing of the last decade (e.g., Nylund et al., 2007). On a related and sec-
ond point, the issue surfaces of assessing how similar one cultural profile
might be to another. Organizations may want to determine the extent
to which new profiles fit existing profiles—for example, to understand
the fit between new employees and the existing culture or the similarity
between the cultures of two organizations undergoing a merger. Third,
the question arises as to whether mixed types of cultural profiles can
be differentiated in terms of organizational performance. Again, if most
organizations are blends of types, then they may differ in the specific
blend and the implications for organizational performance are important
to understand.
As an example of empirical research addressing some of these issues,
Lee and Yu (2004) used Q-type factor analysis to identify four similar cul-
tural profiles using the OCP. While the authors did not label the resulting
profiles, our review of their results suggests profiles based on (1)  per-
formance orientation, (2) reputation and risk prevention, (3) flexibility
and people orientation, and (4) clarity of roles and responsibilities. Lee
and Yu found that while organizations did possess different profiles,
variation was more across industries than within industry, which reflects
the context effects we discussed in Chapter Five. While their results do
not speak to links between organizational effectiveness and profile shape,
such a comparison would seem a natural extension of their work.
Because the goal of the practitioner is ultimately to solve some im-
portant problem or address some particular issue, it is useful to illustrate
the challenge in understanding how dimensional and typology frame-
works inform management planning and decision-making. For example,
continuing with our focus on innovation, what is it about the culture of
an organization that might result in more innovative outcomes? Within
the competing values framework, the adhocracy culture is character-
ized by the behaviors that people would describe as risk-taking, such as
trying out new ideas that are fundamentally distinctive of a culture of
innovation (Cameron  & Quinn, 2011). The organizational dimensions
relevant to that type include flexibility, experimentation, decisiveness,
adaptability, and so on. Presumably then, the relevant metrics for assess-
ing whether the culture supports innovation would be variables measur-
ing such dimensions, and organizational leaders interested in achieving
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 269

higher levels of innovation would focus on improving those metrics. In

short, from the practitioner’s perspective, as we noted in discussing the
BP safety climate report (Baker, 2007), it may seem most appropriate
to directly measure the attributes that are critical to the outcome vari-
able of interest rather than focusing on a more abstract cultural type (in
this case, adhocracy). The danger, as we described above, is that other
variables critical to the profile could be overlooked, as could the way in
which the different dimensions combine within the type. Thus, it may be
most useful to simultaneously employ both a more abstract (molar) type
approach and a more specific, strategy-based dimension approach.
Summary. In sum, the practitioner faces a critical choice in how to both
measure and describe organizational culture. Culture can be described in
terms of individual dimensions and/or in terms of types/profiles. Before
initiating a cultural inquiry, the practitioner should carefully consider the
choice of assessment model and how the results of any inquiry will be
communicated and subsequently used. As we emphasized at the begin-
ning of this chapter, these considerations will be influenced by the origi-
nal charter derived from the first conversation(s) with the organizational
sponsors. The practitioner may find it helpful to play out in advance the
conversations that he or she will have with stakeholders and anticipate
the challenges stakeholders will have when interpreting equivocal results
(e.g., dimension scores that are generally middle-of-the-road for the or-
ganization or at similar levels across organizational units, or profiles that
point to a mixture of different styles or types). The practitioner may also
find that different examples of the same underlying framework may be
available that allow concepts to be framed in a more stakeholder-friendly
manner. For example, in one commercial adaptation of the CVF (see
competingvalues.com), the types clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy
are recast as collaborate, create, compete, and control. Of course, the
content and profiles of data being reported were collected from certain
stakeholders, which is our next issue for consideration.
Which stakeholders are the most appropriate respondents? The
question of who provides input into the description of culture is often
overlooked until it is too late. That is, once the data are collected they
represent whoever was chosen to respond. To some extent, the consult-
ing approach chosen dictates this choice. Cameron (2008), for example,
detailed how the OCAI can be used as part of a change initiative by
asking stakeholders to provide their views on both the current and the
future states (what the culture should look like at some future point
in time such as five years out). In Cameron’s recommended approach,
the stakeholders do not complete the survey instrument as individuals,
but collectively by consensus. This approach is consistent with Schein’s
(2010) recommendation that stakeholder observations be collected in
group settings as culture reflects shared assumptions.4 Similar to our ear-
lier discussion of how groups should be formed for performing qualita-
tive focus group research, this approach calls for very careful choice of
who should comprise the groups that are responding. Cameron (2008)
270 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

suggested that the relevant stakeholders are those who have a broad per-
spective of the organization’s culture, will be part of the change pro-
cess, and who are thus key to successful buy-in to change efforts that
might follow. Although the sample is clearly limited to a select subset of
the organization, the process should meet the criterion that all relevant
stakeholders see the participants as representative of the salient constitu-
encies. Therefore, management and all of the various functions should
participate, both back room and frontline people should be represented,
and there should be salient demographic representation.
Other organizations deploy survey administration more broadly. Deni-
son Consulting (www.DenisonConsulting.com) suggests that all employ-
ees who will be part of any action taken based on survey results should be
given the opportunity to complete surveys. They suggest surveying em-
ployees from all levels within the organization, based on the observation
that broad representation within the organization is likely to increase
acceptance and commitment, and that including all employees conveys
the view that all employees are valued. From a measurement perspective,
employees are often in the best position to describe the current state of
the organization where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
That being said, it is not uncommon in practice to administer an or-
ganizational assessment instrument to a subset of the population. In fact,
such an approach can serve as an introduction to the process and can be
useful in evaluating the subculture of a particular part or level within the
organization. Ray and Sanders (2008) administered the OCI to the entire
leadership team, from team supervisors to directors, of a healthcare orga-
nization, but focused their change efforts on the director level under the
premise that organizational change would be stimulated by the senior
leadership team’s efforts to initiate activity, thus serving as a model for
the transformation the team wished the rest of the organization to make.
The practitioners then segregated the data by level to identify differences
in perceptions that might exist as a guide for further discussion.
The I/O or organizational development (OD) practitioner can also
be considered a useful source of information. In our own work, we have
assembled diagnostic teams who produce organizational profiles of di-
mension scores that portray the organization’s culture by identifying
consensus emerging from discussion of aggregate information drawn
from multiple sources, including interviews, focus groups, and survey-
based measures from broad representative samples. Such an approach
recognizes that sometimes it is those individuals who are outside of the
organization’s culture but who have benefited from in-depth knowledge
of the culture through various means that can best articulate the nature
of the culture.
Scoring, benchmarks, and interpretation. Various proprietary ap-
proaches to scoring cultural assessment instruments exist, and there
are numerous ways to present the data. How the data are interpreted
will therefore be dependent on such scoring protocols. Some consult-
ing firms (e.g., Denison Consulting) report the relative standing of one
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 271

organization compared to others on the individual dimensions (i.e., a

norm-referenced approach). So, a company might be at the 90th per-
centile on one dimension and the 30th percentile on another. Standard-
ized scores can be difficult to interpret, however, if the actual dimension
scores are not reported. In other words, an organization can receive a
relatively low percentile score even when their raw score is relatively
high if other organizations tend to score highly on that dimension. In
addition, as we described previously when discussing the interpretation
of raw dimension scores, organizations tend to assume the lowest scores
are where their efforts should be focused, but those areas may not be the
most critical in terms of leading to key outcomes. The issue is the same
for benchmarked scores; a focus on the lowest percentile scores may not
be appropriate unless there is clear evidence that those dimensions are
related to external criteria of interest.
Stakeholders invariably ask whether a particular diagnostic finding that
emerges from a survey administration is good (or bad), and that request
can rarely be ignored. It may be obvious but one significant drawback to a
norm-referenced approach is that the score can only have meaning with
reference to the specific sample of companies in the benchmark database.
So, on balance, we see value in reporting norm-referenced data, but we
think the wisest course of action is to report both raw and compara-
tive (or benchmark) data, as is common practice in employee opinion
survey practice that assesses morale, employee attitudes, or employee
engagement.
Ideal versus current states. An alternative approach commonly used
by practitioners is to consider the gaps between the organization’s cur-
rent state and its ideal state by directly comparing where the organi-
zation is with reference to the cultural dimensions relative to where
stakeholders believe it should be. In the case study by Cameron (2008)
presented above, the stakeholders provided both current and future state
assessments of corporate culture. This is an approach commonly used by
practitioners, with the largest gaps indicating areas where action may be
appropriate. Gap analysis, as this is called, is a particularly convenient
way to evaluate the significance of the culture data profiled on different
dimensions and may replace the need for benchmarks. Most importantly,
identifying the largest gaps allows discussion to be targeted toward the
appropriate transformation efforts that may be required, particularly
when the dimensional content focuses on specific behaviors or processes.
From a practical standpoint, the most difficult task is ensuring that the
“future state” data is relevant and valid, since asking about the ideal state
of the organization presumes some level of knowledge that may not be
available or even relevant to certain stakeholder groups.
Despite their convenience, gap or difference scores have been criti-
cized on both measurement and interpretive grounds. Schneider and
White (2004) highlighted these in the context of service quality, con-
trasting perception measures versus those based on the difference be-
tween experience and expectations (not dissimilar to desired future
272 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

state). The major criticism of such difference scores is that expectations

of what should be true for a setting and/or what people see as the ideal
state are invariably elevated—people want the best or close to it. As such,
what “should be” or what would be “ideal” serve more or less as a con-
stant when calculating the difference score, and this paradoxically makes
the result less reliable than the plain old perception data. Based on the
academic evidence, one might never collect such “should” or “ideal” data,
but executives appreciate seeing gap scores because they seem to tangi-
bly reveal what requires attention. Because the gaps identified reflect the
perspective of the relevant stakeholders who were asked the questions in
the first place, one issue is whether the gaps are perceived similarly across
known or suspected subsets of employees—management versus labor,
different functional groupings, or even different demographic identity
groups. The degree to which the existence of such subcultures is salient
and/or requires identification is addressed next.
Identifying organizational subcultures. Quantitative approaches to
measuring culture have the particular advantage of providing a clear basis
by which different units or groups can be compared along dimensions of
interest. In the Baker (2007) BP investigation, the survey responses about
safety were compared across refineries to identify any differences in the
results. Identifying such differences could lead stakeholders to question
whether the presence of subcultures is good or bad. As noted by Martin
(2002), in discussions of subcultures, it is typical to focus on the con-
flict between them, and thus the presence of subcultures is viewed as a
source of tension in organizations. Nevertheless, the existence of subcul-
tures can also provide benefits to organizations. For example, Boisnier
and Chatman (2003) discussed how subcultures could allow a strong
organizational culture to retain sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing
environments. The contradictory values in play can thus allow for both
the stability and coordination within, say, a functional department of the
company—accounting versus advertising, for example—while allowing
for creativity and innovation. This speaks to the logic of the CVF but ex-
pressed as variability across subcultures as opposed to variability within
a single culture.
To the practitioner, the issue is one of determining whether the identi-
fiable heterogeneity in perspectives gathered through quantitative analy-
sis is attributable to differences across subcultures or to random variance
in the data. This can be informed with latent class modeling techniques
(Nylund et al., 2007), although we are not aware if this method has been
applied to the identification of organizational subcultures. Subsequent
questions to be asked include whether subgroups so identified are mean-
ingful and whether subgroup differences moderate the relationship be-
tween culture and organizational performance in a specific instance (see
Chapter Five for an extended discussion of subcultures).
Measuring leaders versus diagnosing cultures. At the beginning of
this chapter, we noted that stakeholder views of culture, climate, lead-
ership, and strategy go hand-in-hand, and at numerous points, we have
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 273

emphasized the important role of leaders in influencing the culture and

climate of the organization. In fact, in Chapter Six, we noted the im-
portance of leadership in creating an organization’s context, and how
people interpret that context is a common thread to both the culture
and climate perspectives. In addition, we emphasized Schein’s (2010)
primary embedding mechanisms (see Chapter Five, Table 5.1) for how
organizations can move their organizations in the direction needed to
meet their strategic goals. Because leaders play such a critical role in an
organization’s culture, it is possible that the measurement of culture can
be addressed in some respects merely through leadership assessment.
From a practitioner perspective, this raises the questions of whether
both leader assessment and culture diagnosis are necessary and what the
trade-offs might be in implementing a leader-focused assessment versus
an organizationally focused diagnostic. For example, it seems reasonable
to ask whether an intervention focused on building leadership compe-
tencies aligned with organizational values would be sufficient or perhaps
the most critical step in the cultural diagnostic/change process. Indeed,
the measures of group and organization-level safety climate measures
developed by Zohar and Luria (2005) begin with the stem “My direct
supervisor . . .” or “Top management in this company . . .” Although the
measurement of culture can be addressed to some extent through leader-
ship assessment, we believe that the two should be distinct. As practition-
ers evaluate an organizational context and make decisions about how
best to proceed, we think the following principles may be helpful with
regard to the roles of leader assessment, cultural inquiry, and how leaders
interface with culture:

• A focus on leader competencies will help guide actions and develop-

ment planning on culture change. The role of the leader is significant;
what the leader does to provide the resources, rewards, motivation, and
talent during organizational change is critical to both creating the strate-
gic climate and sustaining the desired culture.
• Leadership actions contribute to, but are not the sole determinants of,
employee behavior in organizations. The limited research on the rela-
tionship between leadership and organizational culture (see Chapter
Five) shows that other factors besides proximal leadership actions need
to be assessed in relative contribution to culture and culture change. In
practice, this means asking the question as to how others in the organiza-
tion, and not just leaders, support and facilitate the kinds of strategically
relevant behaviors required.
• Changes in leader behavior are typically a precursor to creating culture
change. Therefore, leaders who are not adaptable as identified through
leadership assessment are not suitable for leading larger culture change.
As Schein (2011) put it, climates can only be created by leaders “in what
circumstances that apply” (p. xii). Context will determine both bound-
ary conditions (who will be effective and how) and lag effects (how long
will the change take). When the demands of the situation do not match
the skills of the current leaders, then either those leaders need to be able
to change, or they may not be the best candidates to lead the change
274 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

that is required. Even Steve Jobs was forced to leave Apple when Apple
needed to be run by a manager and not just an inspirational design ge-
nius. This puts the practitioner in an awkward position to be sure, so it
is best to be aware at the outset of this possibility as an outcome of the
cultural inquiry.
• Efforts by some leaders to change their behavior to be more in line with a
desired culture and strategy, even if successful, may not be sufficient for
that culture to change. We unfortunately know little about what consti-
tutes a critical mass of leaders who themselves have to change to effect
organizational culture change, and little about which (if any) functional
leaders are the most critical to bringing about change. Based on our ex-
perience and our knowledge of relevant research literatures, we suggest
first that those who have the authority to dispense valuable resources are
most critical since the goals that receive the most resources send a clear
message about the culture. Second, as a total organizational issue, there
is a need for functional integration of the new strategy, which means
that heads of functional units must be aligned to produce the strength of
culture required for change to occur. Third, customer-contact staff must
be aligned to the strategic priorities, so their leaders must be part of the
critical mass.
• The leadership focus needs to address not only a cultural change relative
to a specific strategic goal but also the foundational elements of the cul-
ture that simultaneously balance the flexibility for change and the stabil-
ity necessary for the organization as a whole to retain what is good and
useful (Jonas, Fry, & Srivastra, 1990). Therefore, cultural inquiry should
take into account the leadership capabilities required across the broad
range of cultural demands in a given situation.
• Leaders affect culture and climate at different levels and in different ways.
At the executive level, leaders can influence culture primarily through
various forms of symbolic behavior (Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011); even
the allocation of scarce resources can be viewed as quite symbolic. At the
unit level, leaders can more directly influence the climate of the work
group because they have control over day-to-day interactions with those
who do the work. It is clear, then, that any intervention with the goal
of producing change must be evaluated for the level of culture that will
be affected, and then be aligned with the level of leadership involved to
yield maximum effectiveness
• The most effective leaders are those who empower their subordinates
as change agents, creating influence through others. Thus, the focus of
leader development should not only be on competencies that directly
relate to leading change but also include the competency to lead others
in the change process (Zaccaro, 1996).

Conclusion. There are many issues to take into account when con-
ducting a quantitative cultural inquiry. Perhaps the best take-home mes-
sage is that such an inquiry should not be undertaken without a thorough
diagnosis of the goals to be reached, an in-depth review of the options
that are available, and a systematic articulation of how the approach to
be used is linked to the ultimate goals of the process. Taking the time and
resources to address such issues during a cultural inquiry will come back
several-fold in the potential benefits to the organization.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 275

BLENDING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

CULTURAL INQUIRY: A CASE EXAMPLE

Having now outlined the issues to be considered in conducting both

qualitative and quantitative cultural inquiries, we now turn to how the
two methods might be combined. It is our view that blends of these
two approaches hold great value. In Chapter Four, we characterized the
pros and cons of qualitative and quantitative approaches; the beauty of
a blended approach is that it allows for the weaknesses of one approach
to be counterbalanced by the strengths of the other approach. We do not
go into the particulars of qualitative or quantitative approaches here to
avoid redundancy with the qualitative and quantitative sections in previ-
ous chapters, but instead focus on issues that should be taken into account
when attempting to optimally blend the two. In addition, we provide an
illustration of our own experiences in putting these ideas into action.
One weakness of quantitative approaches that we regularly see and
that is often highlighted by qualitative researchers is that the descrip-
tion of culture that is created by the practitioner through the diagnostic
process is both structured and bounded by survey content and thus rep-
resents the implicit assumptions of the practitioner. What we less often
see pointed out is that qualitative approaches are also not independent
of the language and experiences of the person observing the culture.
Thus, whether inquirers are using quantitative, qualitative, or blended
approaches, they should be aware that their background and experiences
affect the decisions made and the amount of structure imposed through-
out the inquiry process.
Another issue is the ordering of the methods used. As we mentioned in
Chapter Four when discussing methods for conducting culture research,
the practitioner can start with a qualitative approach followed by quan-
titative (Reichers & Schneider, 1990), start with a quantitative approach
followed by qualitative (Schein, 2000), or alternate back and forth in an
iterative fashion (Sackmann, 2001). The benefit of starting with a quali-
tative approach is that it can inform the practitioner about the issues
that are most salient for organizational members and should be included
in the organizational survey, as well as ensure that the survey is worded
in the language of organizational insiders. The benefit of starting with a
quantitative approach is that a survey can help identify the issues that
are most important based on the feedback of all organizational members,
and then focus groups and interviews can be used to gain clarification and
additional insights about those issues and why they exist. An alternat-
ing approach may be ideal but is also the most involved, expensive, and
time-consuming. Thus, each situation should be evaluated to determine
what approach will be the best fit and provide the inquirer with the best
information to move forward with organizational change efforts.
It is now hopefully clear that the practical study of culture in large
organizations is a complex undertaking. The problems that emerge in-
clude (1) the presence of subcultures and the level of access to SMEs to
276 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

accurately portray those subcultures; (2) the sheer footprint of a large

organization, placing significant demands on consultant availability and
the corresponding need to involve an entire research team rather than a
single consultant or two; (3) the practical barriers to accessing SMEs; and
(4) the need to balance and accommodate varying and even conflicting
data from different sources. It is unlikely to find a single case study that
fully exemplifies best practices addressing each of these challenges, but a
research effort led by two of the authors (Macey and Schneider) as part
of a consulting assignment provides a glimpse into grappling with these
practical issues.
The effort described here began when one of the consultants was con-
tacted by an executive (who we will call the executive sponsor) who had
been tasked with conducting a culture assessment. By way of context,
the company was a key player in an industry that could be characterized
as an oligopoly but also by significant volatility. As the consultants ini-
tially understood events, the concern for organizational culture was not
brought about by any particular precipitating event, but rather the gen-
eral interest of the executive team in identifying human cultural factors
that might affect competitive advantage. Thus, when the effort began, the
charter for the research effort was not fully articulated and only emerged
from a series of pre-project conversations and early observations about
the culture as the project unfolded.
Armed with comprehensive knowledge of the organization gathered
through several years of survey research, the consultants met with the
executive sponsor of the project and created a protocol for use in sub-
sequent interviews with other senior executives within the organization.
Some questions from the protocol included the following:

1. What are the distinguishing characteristics of the company’s culture,

those things that make the company unique when compared to other
companies? How has this contributed to the company’s success?
2. What has been lost over the years? What has changed for the better?
3. When choices have to be made, what gets the highest priority? Why?
4. How do people celebrate when things are going well?
5. How freely is feedback given? What gets someone ignored?
6. What is most important for new people to learn about the company to
be successful there?

As is typically the case, the consultants did not immediately gain easy ac-
cess to senior executives. Cultural inquiry is a sensitive topic, and despite
the working knowledge of the company and relationships with some of
its executives, it was nonetheless essential to establish credibility with
the sponsor to ensure continuing support. Working through the inter-
view protocol with the sponsor created the opportunity to build personal
familiarity and to create the necessary level of comfort and credibility.
Most importantly, these conversations also helped to more fully create
the working charter for the cultural inquiry, although it continued to
evolve throughout the early phases of the project.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 277

The interviews were then conducted over a several week period, re-
flecting the difficulties in scheduling senior executives because of their
prior commitments, travel schedules, etc. All interviews were conducted
in the offices of either C-suite level executives or members of the se-
nior management team reporting directly to them. Parenthetically, it is
worth noting that one of the most important messages a consultant needs
to convey is respect for the time of those interviewed both by creating
an agenda for the meeting at the beginning of the interview and then
progressing efficiently through the protocol. We have invariably found
that a demonstrated respect for the executive’s time typically results
in extended conversations beyond those times originally scheduled—as
was the case here. From a process perspective, we found it important to
follow up each interview with an immediate review of interview notes,
filling in details as needed and planning for any modifications to the pro-
tocol. Typically, these interviews were not recorded given the sensitivity
of the topic and the need to ensure confidentiality. While perhaps also
obvious, it is worth mentioning that the interview protocol was a living
document that necessarily changed, although it was important not to lose
sight of the original plan.
As the interviews proceeded, the authors began to recognize that the
culture of the organization was viewed quite differently at the C-suite
level when compared to the characterizations gathered from the man-
agement layer immediately below. The differences were not subtle, so
a series of focus groups was subsequently conducted across the many
geographically dispersed locations in the country. It is worth noting that
the choice to conduct a series of focus groups as opposed to further indi-
vidual interviews was driven by cost and efficiency considerations.
The use of focus groups necessitated expanding the consulting team
and highlights one difficulty in conducting such a cultural diagnosis: the
need to create an orientation mechanism by which the background infor-
mation essential to the study can be shared within the consulting team.
There is often a unique vocabulary and frame of reference used to de-
scribe events and parties within an organization, and without consider-
able familiarity with that vocabulary there is risk to the quality of data
that can be gathered through both direct interviews and focus groups.
The focus group interviews were similar to the individual interview pro-
tocols, but the frame of reference for these larger employee groups was
different. Some examples of the questions used to foster conversation
were as follows:
1. What makes the company unique? What makes it different from other
places you have worked? What one thing typifies the company for you?
2. What is it about the company that is important to preserve?
3. When difficult decisions are made, what do others in the company truly
value and believe?
4. What types of things do people typically get recognized or rewarded
for? What tends to get ignored?
5. Are there certain kinds of roles in the company that seem to be more
highly valued? Less valued?
278 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

Importantly, questions such as these are not as useful for gathering the
breadth of information that is needed as they are for starting the conversa-
tion and ensuring that the energy of the people in the room is maintained
and focused on the topic at hand. Obviously, it is essential to frame the
introduction to focus group meetings just as it is to frame the individual
conversations with sponsors, executives, or others. The protocol used by
the consultants was standardized and used as a point of departure for all
focus group meetings.
Simultaneous to the collection of focus group data, a sample of em-
ployees in the organization completed the DOCS. Combined with the
existing qualitative and quantitative data gathered through the regular
employee opinion survey process, the now larger consulting team was
faced with the task of synthesizing and providing an integrated perspec-
tive on all of these data. The synthesis was prepared both in narrative
form and in data displays used to synthesize the evaluations. Two key
observations regarding this synthesized reporting are worth noting. First,
the ratings were consensus judgments resulting from discussion of all
data and observations by the entire consulting team. Differences of
opinion were few but where they did exist, they were resolved through
discussion within the team. Of 11 dimensions that were used to charac-
terize the culture, complete consensus was obtained on 10. The report
indicated the one minor issue where there was a difference of opinion
within the consulting team. Second, the team provided its judgment as
to the direction in which the culture was seen as shifting. That is, the en-
tire pattern of data was examined with respect to where the culture was
seen as moving according to the observations provided by interview and
focus group participants as well as whatever supporting or corroborating
survey data were available.
At the end of the project, the consulting team provided three separate
reports to the executive sponsor and delivered an in-person presentation
to the chief human resources officer and the chief executive officer. First,
the executive interviews were summarized in a form to ensure individual
anonymity. A second summary report was provided based on the focus
group interviews. The third and most important report represented the
synthesis of the data from the individual interviews, the focus groups,
the DOCS surveys, and the existing relevant qualitative and quantitative
data from the earlier employee surveys. One particular value of the ap-
proach to integrated reporting was that each consensus view of the con-
sulting team could be supported by multiple qualitative and quantitative
data sources. Thus, the report provided to the organization was specific
in detail, characterized by the supporting observations that led to the
consensus ratings. Purely as a practical matter, the investment of time in
coming to consensus within the team resulted in a consulting deliverable
that was well received because it both acknowledged the views of the
executive team but also was grounded in multiple data points that served
to foster credibility of the effort and acceptance of the results. All told,
the individual interviews, the focus groups, and the culture survey had
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 279

been completed within approximately two months, with reporting and

feedback within a third month.
On a final note related to the theme of blending qualitative and quan-
titative methods, the particular mix used here was driven by the oppor-
tunity as it presented itself. Sponsors have ideas, too, about what kind of
diagnosis will work in their context, the sense of urgency to the diagno-
sis, and the available resources to complete the research. Thus, a greater
emphasis on qualitative research would have been outside reasonable
boundaries, while a greater emphasis on quantitative techniques would
have not provided the necessary voice to the executive team. A different
mix of the imperatives driving this research may very easily have led to a
different blend of techniques.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER

IN CONDUCTING A CULTURAL DIAGNOSIS

We have described the rationale for conducting a cultural diagnosis and

addressed the different strategies available to the practitioner for con-
ducting this form of applied research. Ultimately, the choice of approach
depends on what information is needed and how it is to be used. As a
summary of the key issues we have highlighted in this chapter, we there-
fore offer the following discussion points to guide the relevant choices:

1. A specific charter for the cultural inquiry is essential. There are a num-
ber of reasons why cultural inquiry is relevant to the practitioner and
the sponsoring stakeholders. Whether driven by a precipitating event
or sense of gap between desired and end states, executives know that
culture is both a lever and a potential hindrance to achieving their ob-
jectives. Any ambiguity in stakeholders’ interpretation or understanding
of organizational culture results in part from a lack of precision in the
words used to describe culture as well as the lack of a clear specification
of what they are trying to achieve.
2. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches to cultural inquiry
have merit. Ideally, the practitioner will choose elements of both ap-
proaches to ensure that the sponsor’s objectives are met. In fact, un-
less the practitioner chooses to execute an “out of the box” survey,
some elements of a qualitative approach are likely essential. Qualita-
tive approaches have particular value for working inductively and for
describing the culture in indigenous terms. Quantitative approaches
have the particular strength of permitting differentiation and com-
parison, in addition to lending themselves better to explorations of
culture strength.
3. The dimensions or themes that are chosen to describe organizational
culture should be articulated in a way that has meaning to stakeholders;
because culture is a shared phenomenon, the inquiry should produce a
work product that conveys that which is shared. This is not a matter of
choosing qualitative versus quantitative approaches to cultural diagno-
sis, but one of choosing the language with which to describe the culture
280 Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry

and/or climate. The choice of framework has implications for how the
cultural description will be interpreted by stakeholders.
4. The practitioner should carefully consider who would provide the eval-
uative frame of reference for the cultural description or observations.
Some methods are inherently evaluative by the nature of the dimen-
sions or themes that are reported. Other methods are descriptive and
perhaps neutral with respect to any criterion of effectiveness.
5. Convenience and availability of benchmarks can be an important con-
sideration in choosing an approach to cultural inquiry. However, there
are trade-offs in choosing particular methods. Certain quantitative ap-
proaches are based on standardized frameworks that use unique ter-
minology and proprietary perspectives. These standardized approaches
benefit from significant conceptual thinking and even empirical research
regarding linkages with organizational effectiveness criteria. One ben-
efit of such approaches that may seem most attractive is the availability
of benchmark information. However, the choice to use these models
must be weighed against the benefit of describing culture in the lan-
guage of the people who work there.
6. Although benchmark information may be helpful to have, cultural di-
agnosis does not require a specific external reference point. Qualified
stakeholders can evaluate whether the culture as diagnosed is consistent
with strategic intent; however, in such a case the link to organizational
effectiveness is implicit in the judgment of the stakeholder. The sub-
jectivity inherent in such evaluations can be hidden in the nomencla-
ture used to describe culture or embedded in the metrics (e.g.,  what
is “favorable” in a survey result). The practitioner should be cognizant
of these implicit assumptions and articulate them in discussions with
stakeholders.
7. The practitioner should guide stakeholders through the process of
thinking about how the cultural description can be interpreted and who
is qualified for making that evaluation. The choice of measurement op-
erations is important because the evaluative aspect of cultural diagnosis
is challenging. Who is to say that the culture is sufficiently innovative?
Or too bureaucratic? Comparison to external benchmarks seemingly
sidesteps that problem but only if it is assumed that the comparison
organizations are appropriate and that the relationship between cultural
dimensions and organizational effectiveness is consistent across organi-
zations. As a first step in the process, the practitioner should consider
how various outcomes of a cultural inquiry might be interpreted and
translated into next steps or at least discussion points with the relevant
stakeholders. Any lack of clarity around this point suggests that rethink-
ing the approach may be warranted.
8. The practitioner should consider the pattern of results in its entirety.
What is unique to a culture that translates to organizational effec-
tiveness may not be captured or articulated in individual dimension
scores, but rather, in the mix or configuration of elements that create
the uniqueness of that culture. Using a typology approach by profiling
across dimensions may be a powerful tool for capturing that uniqueness.
Cultures are not easily diagnosed and defined, and the simplification
achieved through dimensions may be inadequate to direct stakeholders’
attention to the balance that exists among cultural elements.
Thoughts for Practitioners on Organizational Cultural Inquiry 281

9. The existence of subcultures should be anticipated. This has implica-

tions for who should be involved in the cultural inquiry as to both the
depth and breadth of the process. Particular consideration should be
given to different hierarchical levels within the organization.
10. Leadership assessments may be a valuable supplement to a cultural
inquiry, but they should not be considered a replacement for it. In-
stead, the cultural inquiry should provide information on the leader-
ship competencies required for both creating the foundational culture
for change and for driving the change itself. Leadership assessment can
then be used to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the current
leadership team for accomplishing the organization’s change goals.

The practitioner has the choice of not one but many tools available for
conducting a cultural inquiry. We have stressed throughout this chapter
that the charter or purpose of the inquiry is what should drive those
choices, taking into account the tradeoffs that invariably make it difficult
to determine what is best. Our methods provide an approximation to
what we understand the culture to be, and within practical constraints,
the best approach is likely to embrace a combination of different strate-
gies as we have discussed here.

NOTES
1. A very interesting and readable book by Duhigg (2012) described how habits
(closely related to what we call climate and culture) dictate our individual
and organizational behavior. He detailed the research at the neuropsychologi-
cal level about why habits form and how they govern our lives—and are so
difficult to change.
2. The response scale used in the OCAI is referred to as an ipsative measure
(ipse = s/he or him or herself), in contrast to normative data, which have an
external frame of reference.
3. The Mayflower Group is a consortium of companies that share a set of items
for use in their employee survey processes. Because numerous companies are
involved (typically 25–40 companies) the database can be used by companies
to provide comparisons between themselves and other companies through
a process called benchmarking (see Johnson, 1996, for more information).
4. Note that the choice of a consensus-building process for responding to the
survey obviates the possibility of measuring culture strength directly because
the “score” for the evaluation process is a consensus (not average) rating.
This page intentionally left blank
 CH APTER

8
Summary and
Conclusion
Our reviews of the organizational climate and organizational culture
constructs have covered a great deal of ground, with many important his-
torical, conceptual, research, and practical details for each of these topics.
This chapter recaps our journey through these literatures, summarizing
the major conclusions in one place. We understand this is potentially
dangerous because, on one hand, so many interesting issues will not be
covered here, and on the other hand, readers who have just made their
way through the rest of the book may not find much new in this final
chapter. Despite these concerns, we hope that a presentation of the key
points all in one place will prove to be a useful reference—and interested
readers can return to issues of special import to them in the full chapters.
So, in what follows, we first discuss organizational climate, then organiza-
tional culture, and then the integration of the two that we suggest is the
most useful way to proceed in the future. We close with implications for
practitioners and directions for future research on the topics of organiza-
tional climate, organizational culture, and their integration.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

The history of the organizational climate construct is traced to the re-

search of Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) on the effects of leadership
on groups of 10-year-old boys performing various activities like model
airplane construction. One of their key findings was that the different
leadership styles (autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire) produced dif-
ferent “social climates” or “atmospheres” in the groups. Their focus on a

283
284 Summary and Conclusion

specific type of climate, on the group as a whole as the level of analysis,

and on the influential role of the leader laid important groundwork for
future climate research.
The period from the Lewin and colleagues (1939) study through the
mid-1960s marks the first era in the history of organizational climate.
Researchers during this time displayed a growing interest in the ways
employees experienced the environment, especially the social environ-
ment, of organizations. Climate was but one of several labels used to de-
scribe that experienced environment, with other terms like atmosphere
(Fiedler, 1962; Leavitt, 1958; Lewin et al., 1939; Likert, 1961; McGregor,
1960), character (Buchele, 1955; Gilmer, 1961), and even culture (Ar-
gyris, 1958; Fleishman, 1953; Katz  & Kahn, 1966; Schein, 1965) also
in the mix. Nevertheless, climate was the term that gained widespread
acceptance, and it became synonymous with the way the organizational
environment was experienced by employees. Other work that was par-
ticularly influential early on was that of Fleishman (1953) on leader-
ship climate, Argyris (1957) on human relations climate, and McGregor
(1960) on managerial climate. These authors discussed specific kinds of
climates and emphasized the role of leaders in creating them. They were
also very interested in the implications of an organization’s climate for its
effectiveness. These themes continue to this day.
Interest in the organizational environment was part of a larger move-
ment focusing on more macro issues at higher levels of analysis during
the 1960s, and a rise in empirical research marked the beginning of a new
era for the climate construct. With Tagiuri and Litwin’s (1968) compila-
tion of papers on climate from a conference at Harvard, and empirical re-
search by Litwin and Stringer (1968) and Schneider and Bartlett (1968,
1970), interest in climate by organizational researchers reached new lev-
els, and efforts to clarify the nature and measurement of the construct
became a collective priority. Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) provided an
influential review of the explosion of climate research that took place
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, classifying climate research into three
categories: (1) climate as an independent variable, emphasizing studies
exploring links to job satisfaction and, to some extent, job performance;
(2) climate as an intervening variable, exploring ways it mediated the
effects of such variables as leadership and human relations training pro-
grams on satisfaction and performance; and (3) climate as a dependent
variable, including the effects of structural variables on climate percep-
tions as well as the role of organizational development interventions on
changes in climate.
As empirical research on organizational climate exploded, critiques
of climate research became common—there was more to pick on! Most
notable and influential were critiques by Guion (1973), Johannesson
(1973), and James and Jones (1974). Replies came in the form of re-
views of the climate research by authors such as Hellriegel and Slocum
(1974), Schneider (1975b), and Payne and Pugh (1976). One primary
critique concerned the lack of clarity regarding climate as an attribute of
the individual or the organization (Guion, 1973), which forced climate
Summary and Conclusion 285

researchers to think more clearly about the level of analysis in their

research (Hellriegel  & Slocum, 1974) and to distinguish between psy-
chological climate at the individual level of analysis and organizational
climate at the organizational level of analysis (James  & Jones, 1974).
A second critique concerned the presumed overlap between climate and
job attitudes, especially job satisfaction (e.g., Johannesson, 1973). In re-
sponse, scholars such as Schneider (1975b) and Payne, Fineman, and Wall
(1976) emphasized the conceptual difference between descriptions and
evaluations of the work environment, and researchers like LaFollette and
Sims (1975) and Schneider and Snyder (1975) empirically demonstrated
the distinction between climate and satisfaction. The resulting concep-
tual and empirical clarity, along with the work on levels of analysis, re-
sulted in acceptance of the distinction between the description of the
work environment as climate and the affect/evaluation associated with
attitudes. A third critique of climate research involved the inconsistent
findings when climate was used as an independent variable in studies
of job performance (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974). Schneider (1975b)
responded that most climate measures were so broad that one would
not necessarily expect them to predict specific organizational outcomes,
and compounding this issue was that the level of analysis was frequently
neither clearly conceptualized nor communicated. As a result, he called
for research for climate with a focus on specific strategic goals linked to
the outcomes of interest, and for improved understanding of the appro-
priate level of analysis for climate as well as outcomes.
The work responding to the critiques of climate research laid the
foundation for the contemporary era of climate research, in which con-
siderable progress on central issues in climate research have been made
around (1) a definition of organizational climate that is useful both in
theory and practice, (2) the levels of analysis issue, (3) the focus of cli-
mate research, (4) climate strength and other boundary conditions of the
relationship between climate and outcomes, and (5) the antecedents of
climate and the mediators of climate’s relationship with outcomes.

Defining Organizational Climate

One of the most important accomplishments in contemporary climate

research has been clarification of the definition of climate. We identified
five key themes that capture current thinking and are included as part of
the definition:

• Theme 1: Organizational climate emerges through numerous mecha-

nisms including leadership, communication, training, and so forth
• Theme 2: It is not the mechanisms that are climate but rather the experi-
ences those produce and the meaning attached to them
• Theme 3: Organizational climate is a property not of individuals but
of units/organizations; it is based on shared experiences and shared
meaning
286 Summary and Conclusion

• Theme 4: Shared experiences and the meaning attached to them emerge

from natural interaction in units/organizations; climate is shared in the
natural course of work and the interactions happening at and surround-
ing work
• Theme 5: Organizational climate is not an affective evaluation of the work
environment—it is not satisfaction—but rather a descriptive abstraction
of people’s experiences at work and the meaning attached to them.

Based on these themes, our definition of climate is:

Organizational climate is the shared meaning organizational members attach

to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behav-
iors they see being rewarded, supported, and expected.

This definition has both conceptual and practical usefulness. Conceptu-

ally it elucidates the many issues that yield experiences and serve as a basis
for shared meaning attached to those experiences. From an applied per-
spective, it informs practitioners that the measurement of climate must
include many practices, policies, procedures, etc., for the measure to cap-
ture the wide range of experiences that yield the climate of interest, and
this range of experiences can become the foci for organizational change.

The Levels of Analysis Issue

Our focus in this book has been on organizational climate and not psy-
chological climate. This focus, however, brings with it measurement chal-
lenges, including how to measure a unit-level (team, group, organization)
phenomenon based on the perceptions of individual employees. The de-
velopment of norms around writing climate items, aggregating individual-
level data to represent a higher-level unit and demonstrating within-unit
agreement represent a major accomplishment of climate research.
On the issue of item writing for example, Glick (1985) noted that cli-
mate items to be aggregated should be written so that respondents refer
to what they observe in the unit and not to their personal experiences
(what Chan, 1998, called the referent-shift model). For example, the
item “I am treated with consideration by my supervisor” would be inap-
propriate for aggregation to represent a unit-level score for leadership.
A more appropriate item would be “Our work group supervisor treats us
with consideration.” Meta-analytic work on justice climate by Whitman,
Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, and Bernerth (2012) has verified the stronger
validity for scales using the unit as the referent.
With regard to aggregation itself, Guion (1973) had proposed that un-
less there was 100% agreement for people in a unit, the unit score would
be meaningless. Later discussions on this topic recognized that perfect
agreement was unlikely to occur, but methods for assessing adequate
levels of agreement were needed (James, 1982). In contemporary cli-
mate research, it is most common to report several different statistics to
Summary and Conclusion 287

support aggregation, including rWG(j), ICC(1), and ICC(2). Although pre-

senting adequate statistical support for aggregation is necessary, it is also
important for researchers to make clear theoretical arguments for their
level of analysis. Research on the climates of units and/or organizations
brings with it many specific issues with which researchers must grapple
(LeBreton  & Senter, 2008), but the last several decades have brought
tremendous progress in this area and contributed to extensive multilevel
thinking and research throughout the fields of industrial/organizational
psychology and organizational behavior (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).

Molar Versus Focused Climate Research

Research on organizational climate can be divided into two major ap-

proaches: molar climate and focused climate. The goal of the molar cli-
mate approach is essentially to capture the entirety of the organizational
environment, and as such, typically assesses a wide variety of dimen-
sions, including conflict, job challenge, leader support, and workgroup
friendliness (adapted from Jones & James, 1979). Such assessments can
be thought of as measuring a climate for well-being. Our review of this
literature indicated that although there were inconsistencies in relation-
ships with outcomes, such a climate has demonstrated some usefulness
as a foundation for more strategically focused climates. That is, creating a
general positive environment for employees is an important first step in
focusing employees’ actions on achieving strategic goals.
The most common approach to studying climate at this writing is the
focused climate approach, derived from Schneider’s (1975b) proposal
that a climate “for something” would avoid many of the critiques of the
climate construct and should increase its predictive validity. The earli-
est work on focused climates involved service (Schneider, Parkington, &
Buxton, 1980) and safety (Zohar, 1980), but so many different types of
climate now exist in the literature that we (e.g., Schneider, Ehrhart, &
Macey, 2011a) have begun to distinguish between climates that are fo-
cused on the organization’s strategic performance-related outcomes (or
strategic climates) and those that are focused on processes internal to
the organization (or process climates). In both cases, the policies, prac-
tices, and procedures specific to the focus of interest are emphasized, but
process climates (such as justice and diversity) likely play a similar role
as molar climate in creating a positive organizational environment that
forms the foundation for strategic climates (such as service and safety).

Climate Strength and Other Boundary Conditions

Until the past decade or so, research on organizational climate empha-

sized the direct effects of climate level on outcomes. So, for instance, the
mean level of service climate was shown to predict customer experiences
(Schneider & White, 2004), mean levels of safety climate were shown to
288 Summary and Conclusion

predict injury rates (Zohar, 2000) and accidents (Zohar & Luria, 2005),
and so on. As the field has developed, climate has been studied in a num-
ber of new and interesting ways, including looking at not only mean
levels of climate, but within-unit variability in climate perceptions (or
climate strength).
Climate strength has most commonly been studied as a moderator
of the relationship between climate level and outcomes, such that the
relationship is predicted to be stronger when the climate is stronger
(e.g.,  Schneider, Salvaggio,  & Subirats, 2002). However, as research on
climate strength has accumulated, researchers are increasingly interested
in what makes a climate strong (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Research indi-
cates, for example, that higher levels of unit diversity (Colquitt, Noe, &
Jackson, 2002), unit social interaction (González-Romá, Peiró, & Tordera,
2002), or leadership focus on the strategic outcome of interest (Schnei-
der et al., 2002) result in higher levels of climate strength. The research
on climate strength has also been of considerable practical value, empha-
sizing the importance of a focus from many vantage points in the orga-
nization on the outcome of interest if those outcomes are to be achieved
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). An interesting finding is this regard is that in
Schneider et al. (2002), high variability within bank branches on service
climate was reflected in high variability in reports by bank branch cus-
tomers about their customer experiences.
Climate strength is not the only moderator that has been studied in cli-
mate research. As climate research has matured, researchers have begun to
identify the boundary conditions on strategic climate—strategic outcome
links. For example, Ehrhart, Witt, Schneider, and Perry (2011) found that
the level of internal service that those who work with customers receive
from support systems outside the unit moderated the service climate—
customer experience link across units. Thus, relevant variables outside the
unit of interest can be conceptualized and studied as potential moderators
because the climate–outcome link might not be the same regardless of
the context. As another example, Mayer, Ehrhart, and Schneider (2009)
showed that the degree of customer contact unit employees have acted
as a moderator of the relationship between service climate and customer
satisfaction with a more positive service climate only being important
when customer contact was high. So establishing a service climate may
be more critical for some types of services than others. Research on such
boundary conditions is critical because focused climates take a great deal
of time and energy to build, and it is important that those resources are
not wasted and that other features of the context are in place to ensure
that the optimal benefits of the climate can be achieved.

Antecedents and Mediators

We have said that climate serves as a framework of meaning shared by

people in settings and that they behave in ways that reflect that meaning.
Summary and Conclusion 289

In this way climate is not the proximal antecedent of a strategic out-

come of interest, but instead the proximal antecedent of some inter-
vening or mediating behavior. For example, Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer,
Saltz, and Niles-Jolly (2005) found that customer-focused organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) served as a mediator of the service climate—
customer experience link. We would propose that strategically relevant
behavior might serve as a mediator of such relationships in numerous set-
tings, although we would add that it is important that people in settings
have the competencies to enact those behaviors that the climate suggests
are important. They also must be motivated; research on safety climate
by Neal and Griffin (2006) suggests that the way climate elicits increased
strategically relevant behavior is by increasing employees’ motivation to
perform such behaviors.
Climate itself has also been studied as a mediator of the relationship
between other organizational variables and organizational effectiveness.
From the earliest days of climate research and thinking (e.g., Fleishman,
1953; Lewin et al., 1939; McGregor, 1960), leaders have been described
as playing a critical role in creating climates, such that climate acts as
a mechanism through which leaders have their influence. One of the
key findings on the relationship between leadership and organizational
climate has been to demonstrate that focused leadership (i.e., that spe-
cifically addresses the strategic outcome of interest) is more strongly re-
lated to a focused climate than general leadership behaviors (Hong, Liao,
Hu & Jiang, 2013). Thus, being supportive of employees may be useful
in laying the foundation for a focused climate, but behaviors that clearly
communicate and role model what the strategic priorities of employees
should be are required to specifically build a focused climate. In the same
way, research has shown that a number of other HR and support pro-
cesses serve as a foundation for focused climates (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró,
2005; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998; Wallace, Popp, & Mondore, 2006),
but when those processes are focused on a specific strategic outcome
of interest, their relationship with the focused climate will be stronger
(Hong et  al., 2013). Thus the picture emerges that general leadership
and HR processes lay the groundwork for a focused climate, but focused
leadership and HR processes are still needed to ensure that the focused
climate is established and subsequently that the specific employee be-
haviors desired by the organization are performed, ultimately leading to
strategic outcomes.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Pettigrew’s Administrative Science Quarterly article in 1979 marks the be-

ginning of contemporary scholarly interest in the topic of organizational
culture. Pettigrew formally introduced the anthropological study of cul-
tures to the organizational research literature, in stark contrast to the
individually focused psychological research of the time on organizational
290 Summary and Conclusion

climate. Factors that enhanced the effect of the Pettigrew article and that
contributed to the rise in interest in culture included increased focus on
the issues of the organizational environment and organizational behavior
by both academics and consultants, as well as the attribution of Japan’s
success in quality manufacturing to differences in organizational culture.
Nevertheless, it became apparent early on that there was little agreement
among academics about what the culture construct was, and scholars
studied different facets of it using different methodologies. The levels
of analysis issue that had dominated climate research for more than a
decade was not an issue in the culture literature, however, because it
was implicitly accepted that organizational culture permeated the entire
organization.

Understanding Organizational Culture

The primary distinction among approaches to understanding culture

has been between those who wrote of culture as something organi-
zations have versus those who considered culture as something orga-
nizations are (Smircich, 1983). From the organizations have cultures
perspective, culture is treated as a variable that affects important or-
ganizational outcomes, and thus the goal is often to change culture to
achieve results that are more functional. As such, research from this
perspective tends to align with the goals and concerns of organizations’
upper management. From the organizations are cultures perspective,
culture captures the totality of individuals’ experiences in organiza-
tions, with a particular emphasis on the creation of meaning through
the symbolism derived from various behavioral experiences and struc-
tural perceptions workers have in and of their organizations. The goal
of research from this perspective is to provide thorough descriptions of
what happens in an organization as a unique setting and, in many cases,
to represent the views of those who have less power in the organization
(Alvesson, 2002).
A second important framework for understanding culture was pro-
posed by Martin (1992, 2002). She described three general perspectives
that have been used in describing organizational culture. The integration
perspective presumes and describes culture in terms of consensus and
consistency that characterizes the whole; the differentiation perspec-
tive emphasizes inconsistencies and allows for the possibility of subcul-
tures within the organization within which there is consensus; and the
fragmentation perspective focuses on ambiguities in the organization’s
culture where there is tension and differences in perspective. Although
there is not complete consensus around these three perspectives (par-
ticularly with regard to whether it makes sense to study ambiguity as
culture), in her more recent writings, Martin (2002) has proposed that all
three perspectives can exist simultaneously. Thus, there are likely facets
of culture for which there is strong agreement across the organization,
Summary and Conclusion 291

other facets for which there are clear subcultures (e.g., by occupation or
level), and other facets of culture for which there is no consensus.

Defining Organizational Culture

In light of the various conceptualizations of organizational culture, it is

not surprising that a multitude of definitions for the construct have been
proposed. For instance, many researchers have proposed that culture is
shared, while others have emphasized the parts of culture that are not
shared. Some have described culture as stable while others have focused
on how culture is always changing and evolving. And some have talked
about how cultures are what make organizations unique; while others
have pointed out how cultures that are supposedly “unique” have many
commonalities with other “unique” cultures. Nevertheless, based on our
review and previous key reviews of the culture literature (e.g., Alvesson,
2002; Martin, 2002; Ott, 1989; Schein, 1991, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993),
we conclude that there is considerable consensus that culture is shared;
is stable; has depth; is symbolic, expressive, and subjective; is grounded
in history and tradition; is transmitted to new members; provides order
and rules to organizational existence; has breadth; is a source of collective
identity and commitment; and is unique. Although no definition captures
all of these elements, perhaps the most commonly cited definition of
culture and the one on which we relied the most is that of Schein (2010,
p. 18) in which he described organizational culture as “a pattern of shared
basic assumptions learned by [an organization] as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”
Culture is typically conceptualized as having multiple layers that are
distinguished by how accessible the cultural information is, particularly
to outsiders. The outer layers, or artifacts, are easily accessible and in-
clude a variety of cultural forms, including practices, language, narratives,
and symbols (Trice & Beyer, 1993). The challenge with this outer layer is
that the meaning of these artifacts is unclear and can actually have quite
different meanings in different organizations. The next layer of culture
described by Schein (2010) is espoused values. This level captures the
statements by management about what the organization’s core values
are. These espoused values tend to be aspirational and may or may not
represent the actual values of employees or be consistent with manage-
ment or employee behavior (i.e., their enacted values). To better under-
stand the true culture of the organization, according to Schein (2010),
one must go to the deepest level of culture, or the underlying assump-
tions. Over time, as the organization finds success in operating within the
artifacts and espoused values, these yield taken-for-granted assumptions
about how the organization should function, to the point that insiders
may not even be aware of the assumptions they hold. Of course, it is very
292 Summary and Conclusion

difficult to access this level of cultural information, and not all methods
for cultural inquiry will be able to do so. At the same time, to fully un-
derstand the organization and its culture, this information is critical, so a
consideration of ways to study culture is useful.

Studying Organizational Culture

The methods for studying culture can be grouped into two broad cat-
egories: qualitative and quantitative. Those using an organizations are
cultures approach tend to use qualitative methods, and those using an
organizations have cultures approach tend to use quantitative methods.
Of course, such broad categorizations and general statements oversim-
plify some of the nuance, including the range of qualitative methods
used by researchers and examples of research that cross over the typical
alignment between the culture conceptualization and method (e.g., ap-
proaching culture from an organizations have cultures conceptualization
but using qualitative methods as in Peters & Waterman, 1982).
There are a number of pros and cons associated with the use of quali-
tative versus quantitative methods. For instance, qualitative research can
provide rich and detailed information from an insider’s perspective that
can shed light on the deeper layers of culture, but it is less useful for com-
paring one organization’s culture to another. In addition, the time and
expense associated with qualitative efforts usually prevent the inclusion
of a broad sample of organizational members. In contrast, quantitative
research is better suited to comparing cultures and examining the rela-
tionship between culture assessments and measures of effectiveness, and
using quantitative surveys permits many employees across the organiza-
tion an opportunity to give their input. With quantitative approaches,
however, it is difficult to judge whether the questions being asked are
appropriate or relevant in a particular setting, and these approaches are
more limited as a vehicle for studying the deepest levels of culture.
Clearly, the best way to take advantage of the strengths of each ap-
proach is to use both. Such an approach could begin with focus groups
to determine the issues that should then be the focus of a broader
organization-wide survey, or it could start with a survey that is followed
with focus groups or interviews to clarify the meaning behind the survey
findings. There are other possibilities to consider that alternate back and
forth between the two methods, but the main point is that more is to be
gained by combining the methods than by using only one.

Organizational Culture Development

As one begins to decipher an organization’s culture, a critical issue is how

and why the culture developed the way it did. The literature has identi-
fied a number of influences on organizational culture, but likely none
Summary and Conclusion 293

has been discussed more than the founder. As emphasized by Schein

(1983, 2010), founders brings their assumptions and beliefs about how
the business should be run to the initial establishment of the organiza-
tion. They communicate those assumptions and beliefs, through primary
embedding mechanisms, which include what they pay attention to and
measure, how they react to crises, how they allocate resources, the behav-
iors they role model, what behaviors they reward, and the criteria they
use for selection and promotion. These are reinforced through secondary
mechanisms, such as the organizational structure, procedures, rites and
rituals, the design of the space, stories, and formal statements. Altogether,
these mechanisms send messages about the founder’s assumptions and
values, and over time, they become the assumptions and values at the
core of the organization’s culture and are established as the normative
way things are done in the organization.
Besides the founder, other factors influence the development of an
organization’s culture. One is the learning process that occurs as the or-
ganization encounters success (Schein, 1985, 2010). As the assumptions
and values of the founder and initial members are met with positive
results, those results serve to reinforce that how the organization is op-
erating is the right way to go about its business, including both how it
addresses issues of internal coordination and external adaptation (Schein,
2010). Other influences on organizational culture include the national
culture in which the organization is based (there are main effects for
national as well as organizational culture; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorf-
man,  & Gupta, 2004), the organization’s industry and its competitors
(less competition yields less innovation and change and more stability;
Ott, 1989), the occupational and professional subcultures that charac-
terize a company (e.g., physicians vs. nurses in hospitals; Gregory, 1983;
Schein, 1996), the stage of an organization’s life cycle (younger organiza-
tions can change rapidly while older organizations are more fixed in the
ways they function; Schein, 2010), or even the kinds of people who are
attracted to and who stay with an organization (firms in an industry that
emphasize mass-produced services attract and retain different personali-
ties than those that emphasize customization; Schneider, 1987). With so
many factors influencing culture through such various mechanisms, there
is no doubt that the development of culture is complex and should be
treated as such.

Organizational Culture Maintenance

In addition to the attraction and retention of specific kinds of people,

another important element in the maintenance of culture concerns the
socialization processes by which newcomers learn about the culture of
the organization—how to think about the organization and how to feel
about the organization. Socialization has been a central issue in the or-
ganizational culture literature, as it helps explain how culture remains
294 Summary and Conclusion

surprisingly stable even as new individuals enter the organization—the

new learn from the old. From the newcomer’s perspective, the primary
underlying mechanism that is operating during socialization is uncer-
tainty reduction, such that newcomers reduce the anxiety and ambiguity
that comes from entering a new setting because the socialization process
yields understanding of the new rules and norms. From the organiza-
tion’s perspective, the sooner new employees can “get up to speed” and
function effectively within the culture, the more efficient and productive
they will be.
The research literature on socialization is quite mature, although the
topic of organizational culture is often not an explicit focus of that re-
search. There is ample literature on the stages employees go through
to transition from outsiders to full members (Ashforth, Sluss,  & Har-
rison, 2007), the tactics used by organizations for socialization and the
extent to which they are institutionalized versus individualized (Jones,
1986), and the proactive role newcomers play in their own socialization
(Bindl & Parker, 2010). One additional topic in the socialization litera-
ture that is particularly important from an organizational culture per-
spective involves the sources of information used by newcomers during
socialization. Although it is tempting to think of socialization as a formal
process that is tightly controlled by management, which is only true for
some sources of cultural information, other sources are more informal,
potentially more helpful, and not necessarily aligned with the “official”
company line (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006).

Organizational Culture and

Organizational Effectiveness
Part of the interest in understanding culture development and mainte-
nance is to provide the underpinnings to the link between organizational
culture and organizational effectiveness. In fact, much of the energy
around the topic of organizational culture in the early 1980s was because
practitioners saw culture change as a way to improve their organization’s
performance, and to understand foci for change one had to understand
how the organization became what it was. Over time, some empirical
evidence has accumulated demonstrating that a more positive culture is
significantly linked with a variety of measures of organizational effective-
ness (see reviews by Hartnell, Ou,  & Kinicki, 2011; Sackmann, 2011;
Wilderom, Glunk, & Mazlowski, 2000). Although the idea that organiza-
tional culture is linked to organizational performance is not controversial
in and of itself, some have questioned whether research can demonstrate
such a complex relationship without reducing it to oversimplified terms
(e.g.,  Pettigrew, 1990; Siehl  & Martin, 1990). In our view, research on
the relationship between culture and organizational performance would
benefit from models that are more complex. Thus, it would be more the-
oretically interesting and practically useful to better understand how and
Summary and Conclusion 295

why specific aspects of culture and/or specific types of culture are related
to specific outcomes, along the lines of the competing values framework
(CVF; Hartnell et al., 2011), for example.
One of the clear challenges to demonstrating a direct relationship
between culture and organizational performance is that cultures under
investigation may not be best captured by a general overall culture rep-
resenting, in Martin’s (2002) terminology, the integrated view of culture.
When organizations have strong subcultures, in line with Martin’s (2002)
differentiation perspective, then the direct relationship between “the” or-
ganizational culture and performance may not exist. There is no doubt
that subcultures exist in most organizations, but the point of contention
is whether such subcultures should be the focus of investigation versus
those cultural issues that are shared across the entire organization. Un-
fortunately, there are no easy answers, and the reality is that each orga-
nization varies in the extent to which it is defined by an overall culture
versus subcultures, and even then, there may be variability depending on
the organizational performance issue of interest (e.g., employee turnover
rates for the organization as a whole vs. new pharmaceuticals emerging
from research and development).
Tightly coupled with the idea of subcultures is the idea of culture
strength, in that organizations with strong subcultures are less likely to
have a strong overall culture. The most common way that culture strength
is conceptualized is in terms of agreement, although culture strength has
also been conceptualized in terms of how strongly or deeply members
identify with the values and beliefs in the culture, or how aligned the
various elements of the culture are with each other (Louis, 1985; Saffold,
1988). The early literature on culture strength presumed that stronger
cultures were more effective perhaps because qualitative studies of cul-
ture associated strong cultures with more positive outcomes. Although
in general it may be better to have a strong culture than a weak culture,
the presence of a strong culture does not mean that the particular culture
is the best fit for success in the environment (Kotter & Heskett, 1992;
Sørensen, 2002). In fact, strength may be a barrier to change (Sathe,
1985). One exception is an adaptive culture in which the core values are
risk-taking, flexibility, and innovation, and the general belief is that the
organization must constantly be changing and improving (Kotter & Hes-
kett, 1992). A strong culture of this sort should make the organization
better able to adapt to the challenges it confronts and change as needed.

Organizational Culture Change

In the organizational culture literature, a key question is whether culture

changes, and if so, whether that change can be managed. Most of the
literature on organizational culture emphasizes its stability (Ott, 1989;
Schein, 2010); the fact that the culture persists despite changes in the
environment or to the people within it is one of the defining elements of
296 Summary and Conclusion

culture. At the same time, cultures do change, but the issue is whether
leaders can change culture in purposeful ways to be more in alignment
with what they desire. The opinions on this issue are quite varied. Some
have argued that leaders can have little to no effect on culture (Alves-
son & Berg, 1992; Martin & Siehl, 1983), whereas others have implied
that culture can rather easily be manipulated by management (e.g., Tichy,
1982; Turnstall, 1983). In our view, the question of whether culture can
change is best viewed from a contingency perspective, such that there
are times when leadership has the opportunity to have a strong influence
on organizational culture, and other times when such efforts are unlikely
to have tangible effects. For example, an important contingency is the
organization’s stage in its life cycle, with change being more likely and
thus possible earlier in the life cycle and generally more difficult once the
organization has matured (Burke, 2011; Schein, 2010).
Whatever the case may be, one thing is clear—culture change is not
an easy or straightforward enterprise. Leaders should be clear on the nu-
merous other competing influences on the culture (e.g.,  national cul-
ture, industry), be aware of when the circumstances are right for change
(e.g., when there is a sense among employees that change is necessary
for the organization to survive), and be focused on the specific outcomes
they wish to achieve so that all can observe the connections between
the changes attempted and the end goals. Perhaps most notably, and as
emphasized by Schein (2010), leaders should be very targeted in their
attempts to change culture. The initial focus should be on the issue that
is being addressed, the problem that needs to be fixed, and the goal of
the effort that is desired. Then leaders must ensure that they understand
the implications of the organization’s existing culture for their change ef-
forts, including which aspects of the culture may be leveraged to support
the change effort, which features of the culture are important to retain,
and which may be obstacles for the change process.

INTEGRATING ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATE AND CULTURE

A goal of this book and some of our other writing on climate and cul-
ture (Schneider, Ehrhart,  & Macey, 2011b, 2013) has been to set the
stage for and introduce ways of integrating across two constructs that
have emerged from such different academic disciplines. The relationship
between organizational climate and culture is not straightforward; al-
though the two concepts are both focused on the work environment that
employees experience in their organizations, and there is some overlap
in the content that is addressed by the two constructs, there are also
clear, and sometimes deep, differences. Contributing to the complexity in
understanding the relationship between climate and culture is the vari-
ability in how the constructs are conceptualized and studied in their es-
sentially separate literatures. Nevertheless, we have attempted to clarify
Summary and Conclusion 297

and encourage stronger relationships between the two in the hope that
each literature can profit from the strengths of the other so that there will
be more integration of the two constructs in both research and practice.

Common Ground

The commonalities between climate and culture begin with how both
constructs take a macro perspective in attempting to understand the cu-
mulative effect of organizational functioning on employees, including
both local level and higher-level effects on how people behave in their
organizations. There is also an emphasis on the shared experiences of
employees, whether across the entire organization or some smaller work
unit (climate) or subculture (culture) of it. Both constructs emphasize
the meaning that is created by various artifacts (in culture research) or
policies, practices, and procedures (in climate research); in other words,
it is not just what happens in the organization that matters, but how
employees make sense of those events and react to them that is critical.
Both literatures emphasize the role of leaders in creating and/or changing
the climate or culture. In addition, both literatures address the concept
of strength and acknowledge that there may not be complete agreement
about climate/culture, nor may the elements within the climate/culture
always align with each other. Finally, the idea that climate/culture has
important consequences for organizational effectiveness is critical to the-
ory and practice in both areas.

Different Ground

There are critical differences between the two literatures as well. Orga-
nizational climate developed in a psychological tradition that has tended
to emphasize quantitative methods; organizational culture has anthropo-
logical roots and has traditionally emphasized qualitative methods. The
scope of organizational culture is vast, and some would argue that there
is little that would not be considered cultural in organizational life; the
scope of organizational climate has evolved to be narrower, especially
within the focused climate literature. Organizational culture includes
deep layers that capture taken-for-granted assumptions employees make
about their work; organizational climate focuses on what is in employ-
ee’s conscious awareness as they experience their work environments.
Because of its depth and breadth, culture is very difficult to change; al-
though climate is not easy to change, it is more malleable than culture.
Finally, the climate literature has developed the idea that the climate
can have a specific focus, whether it is strategic outcomes or internal
processes; organizational culture researchers have generally not been in-
clined to investigate what aspects or foci of culture are most pertinent to
achieve particular strategic outcomes.
298 Summary and Conclusion

Learning and Integrated Grounds

Lessons to be learned. Building on these differences and looking forward

to the future of both topics, there are a number of lessons that each lit-
erature could learn from the other. By examining how culture has been
studied and written about, climate researchers might be more likely to
focus on how climate develops and changes over time, to understand the
possible foundations of climate in the history of the organization as it
developed, to take into account a broader variety of variables that act as a
source of climate information for employees, to investigate how climate
gets passed on to new employees through on-boarding and formal job
training, to seek a better understanding of how the external environment
influences climate, to integrate qualitative methods into their research
designs, and to inject more of the passion and richness that employees
experience as part of climate.
For culture researchers seeking to learn from the progress that has
been made in the climate literature, more emphasis on understand-
ing how culture is manifested in organizational performance would be
beneficial; the development of a more strategic outcome focus would
likely improve validity for culture assessments; the introduction of more
complexity (e.g., mediators and moderators) for how culture relates to
effectiveness would be realistic; utilizing statistical methods for under-
standing agreement/strength and subcultures in organizations would be
methodologically useful; and attempts to better address the concerns of
managers, particularly by aligning with literatures on leader emergence
and effectiveness, would prove beneficial in increasing the relevancy, ac-
ceptance, and effect of work on organizational culture to practitioners.
Integrated research efforts. In our opinion, the progress along the lines
of integration has been surprisingly limited despite the rich history of the
two constructs. Nevertheless, three recent frameworks may help push
the fields forward toward more integration. The first is our own “climcult”
framework (Schneider et al., 2011b), in which we emphasize how cul-
ture can both provide a foundation for strategic climates and create an
environment that improves the attraction, socialization, and retention of
key talent. Foundational to the climcult model is the idea that climate
and culture are reciprocally related and thus build on each other, and yet
seem to have relatively independent effects on unique aspects of organi-
zational effectiveness. That is, culture seems to be reflected more often
in well-being and commitment and OCB and turnover, while climate is
reflected in more specific strategic goal accomplishments. A second and
conceptually related framework is that of Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muham-
mad (2012). In their framework, culture is objectively manifested in the
policies, practices, and procedures that form the foundation for climate,
and the culture and climate work together to influence employees’ at-
titudes and behaviors, which then ultimately affect organizational per-
formance. The third approach is from Zohar and Hofmann (2012). Their
Summary and Conclusion 299

model is unique in characterizing climate as enacted values and priorities,

which are then contrasted with the cultural espoused values to provide
insight into the assumptions and core values that make up the deepest
layers of culture.
These three integrated models provide a very useful starting point for
a more complete understanding of what an integrated approach to cul-
ture and climate might yield. They inform us that the two constructs are
unique but also intertwined in their effect on employees and outcomes.
They generally show the deeper layers of culture as the foundation for
strategic climates, while acknowledging the potential reciprocal relation-
ship between the two. They shed light on a number of possible mecha-
nisms to explain the effects of both culture and climate on organizational
performance. And finally, they emphasize the importance of alignment
among climate, the various layers of culture, leadership, and the actual
policies and practices in organizations. By taking an integrative perspec-
tive and developing strategic climates that are aligned with the values
and assumptions of the culture, it is our argument that organizations can
provide a sustained competitive advantage that will be difficult for oth-
ers to beat.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although our discussion of organizational climate and culture has im-

plied a number of practical steps to be taken, we wanted to be explicit
about some of them here. First, we review issues we raised concerning
culture diagnosis in Chapter Seven and then summarize comments we
made throughout the book on the usefulness of the climate and culture
concepts to understanding organizations in practice.

Cultural Inquiry

A critical issue for practitioners is organizational change, but the first step
toward organizational change is a diagnosis of the existing culture, or
cultural inquiry. Some of the reasons for cultural inquiry involve specific
events like: (1) a major production failure, a lawsuit, or even a merger;
(2) a need for change in the strategic goals of the organization; and/or
(3) management deciding it simply wants information about where it
stands so that it can better leverage its culture for success. Cultural in-
quiry offers several options for assessment and the choice of the assess-
ment approach has implications for the type and validity of information
that is obtained. Thus, such issues as the dimensions of culture to be
assessed, how the questions are asked and the scale that is used for re-
sponding, and the extent to which the items in a survey are descriptive
versus evaluative will affect the interpretation of the data. In addition,
300 Summary and Conclusion

decisions about who will participate in the inquiry will have an effect on
data interpretation and the acceptance of the results. It follows that a key
question is whether qualitative and/or quantitative approaches will be
used; our view is that the ideal option is to mix qualitative and quantita-
tive methods when conducting a cultural inquiry.
Existing qualitative approaches include Appreciative Inquiry (Ham-
mond, 1996), Cooperative Inquiry (Heron & Reason, 2006), and Narra-
tive Inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), all of which involve working
with employees individually or in groups to gather information on their
experiences in the organization. The goal is rich inquiry with regard to
not just what is wrong with the organization, but its strengths as well,
and particularly on how those strengths can be built upon to achieve
future goals. How such qualitative data are coded, and by whom, are
important considerations, and this is especially true when such data are
gathered from groups of respondents.
There are a number of existing options available for using quantita-
tive methods in a cultural inquiry. Some of these include the Organi-
zational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI; Quinn  & Cameron,
2011), the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS; Denison &
Neale, 2000), the Organizational Culture Inventory® (OCI; Cooke  &
Szumal, 1993), and the Organization Culture Profile (OCP; O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). There are also climate-based alternatives,
which can be particularly useful for developing customized alternatives
focused on the organization’s specific policies, practices, and procedures
that are in place vis-à-vis strategic priorities; see the independent review
panel’s report on the explosion at one of BP’s Texas refineries for an ex-
ample (Baker, 2007).
Issues that need to be considered with regard to the choice of a survey
include the extent to which an instrument focuses on a strategic goal or
target of interest, the processes or styles that typify an organization, and
the values that employees in an organization hold (especially compared
to the values management espouses). A focus on culture dimensions (like
in the DOCS or the OCP) is useful for identifying specific issues that
may be targeted in organizational change efforts, whereas a focus on ty-
pologies (as in the OCAI) highlights how the interdependent parts of the
organization work together to create a whole (and may be more in line
with how executives talk and think about their organizations).
The presentation of data is also an issue, with some consulting firms
preferring percentiles against benchmark data, others providing percent-
ages of respondents in terms of raw scores (percent agreeing at various
scale points), and others using profiles of dimension scores. The point is
that there are a variety of options for the ways in which data will be pre-
sented, and practitioners would do well to know that these options exist.
Finally, one advantage of survey approaches is that they allow statistical
analyses to be conducted to identify subcultures. Therefore, the inquirer
may want to look for instruments that provide or readily allow for such
an analysis.
Summary and Conclusion 301

Organization Change

There are additional practical implications for our discussion of climate

and culture as an organization thinks about attempting to change. One
critical issue is what to change, and particularly whether culture change
should be attempted at all. The literature is replete with warnings about
the difficulties of changing culture, leading some to recommend avoiding
it if possible. For instance, Schein (2010) has argued that the focus should
be on improving performance and solving particular problems, and that
cultural inquiry is necessary to better understand what aspects of the cul-
ture can be leveraged and which ones may be barriers to meeting those
goals. Actually trying to change the culture should be attempted only if
necessary.
Another issue to consider is whether the climate or the culture should
be the focus of a change effort. We would argue that a focus on the poli-
cies, practices, and procedures that are the basis for both process- and
outcome-focused climates may be more fruitful. Of course, changing a
practice here or there will not change the climate; a new climate can
only be created by creating a system of aligned and reinforcing policies,
practices, and procedures and maintaining it over time through what is
rewarded, supported, and expected. Once progress has been made on
that front, and it becomes apparent to employees that management is
serious about a specific strategic imperative and the changes are ben-
eficial for organizational performance, the old assumptions will begin
to break down and be replaced by new assumptions, yielding culture
change.
If this process sounds easy and straightforward, then we have been
misleading, because it is anything but. Nevertheless, we hold that climate
change and the culture change that follows are possible if leadership
has carefully identified the processes that must be aligned to create the
new climate, is consistent in its implementation of the new policies and
procedures, and is willing to persevere through the pains of change that
will inevitably occur.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND CULTURE:

A RESEARCH AGENDA

We close the book with a listing of what we see as some of the most com-
pelling areas for future research on organizational climate and culture
separately, and on the integration of the two. We begin with what we see
as some important and interesting areas for organizational climate:

• Research on multiple climates. Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) have been

the strongest advocates of the simultaneous study of multiple climates.
This may include studying molar climates and focused climates simul-
taneously, or examining multiple focused climates (such as process
302 Summary and Conclusion

climates as the foundation for strategic climates, or the interaction

among multiple focused climates).
• Research on climate profiles. Although the application of profiles/
typologies is common in the culture literature, they have generally not
been applied to climate research (see Schulte, Ostroff, Shmulyian,  &
Kinicki, 2009, for an exception).
• Research on how climate (including level and strength) operates simul-
taneously across multiple levels of analysis. Zohar and Luria (2005) pro-
vided a wonderful example of how this can be done for safety climate.
• Research on the mediating mechanisms through which climate has
its effects. Work along these lines has grown, but there is still much to
be done.
• Research on the moderators of climate’s outcomes. Some research has
shown how the effects of climate may vary in different contexts, but
more work is needed.
• Research clarifying when climate strength matters and when it does not.
There are mixed findings for climate strength as a moderator of the ef-
fects of climate level and research is needed to better understand why
this is the case.
• Research clarifying the role of leadership in creating an organization’s
climate. This should include how the relevant leadership behaviors may
vary for molar versus focused climates, or across levels of analysis.
• Research on how leadership and climates simultaneously emerge in
complex organizations. This issue is in line with the growing body of re-
search on network dynamics and their effect on organizational effective-
ness outcomes such as adaptability, creativity, and learning (Uhl-Bien,
Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).
• Research on climate formation and development. We do not know much
about the sources of climate nor about the factors that affect their devel-
opment and change over time.
• Research on climate interventions. There is very little work on interven-
tions specifically developed to change strategic organizational climates
(for two exceptions, see Aarons, Ehrhart, & Dlugosz, 2012; and Zohar &
Luria, 2003). Such interventions would give organizations very practical
tools to help them build the climates necessary to achieve their strategic
goals.
• Research that blends quantitative and qualitative methods. Climate re-
search tends to be quantitative, but some issues could be clarified and
richness added by complementing quantitative methods with qualitative
approaches.
• Research on the effects of the external environment on organizational
climate. Studies should address how such issues as national culture or
industry have direct or moderating effects on climate.

Next, we turn to the topics that may be worth pursuing in future re-
search in the area of organizational culture:

• Research on multiple sources of culture (e.g., the founder, industry, and

national culture). Research could assess the relative effects of various
sources and how the strength of those effects changes over time.
• Research on socialization at the organizational level. Although research
on socialization has blossomed, most of it has focused on the individual
Summary and Conclusion 303

level of analysis; future research could address how differences in so-

cialization processes across organizations are associated with aspects of
organizational culture.
• Research on the mediators of culture’s relationship with organizational
performance. There are likely many mechanisms that explain how cul-
ture has its effects, but we do not know enough about what those are.
• Research on moderators of culture’s effects on organizational perfor-
mance. We need to know more about the conditions under which cul-
ture is likely to have its strongest and weakest effects.
• Research on the specific aspects of culture that are related to specific
performance outcomes. Research should move beyond studying the
general relationship between culture and outcomes and clarify which
aspects of culture are most important for which aspects of performance
(e.g., Hartnell et al., 2011, on the CVF).
• Research integrating the idea of an overall culture and subcultures. Or-
ganizations likely have some aspects of their culture that are shared
across most employees and others that differ across subcultures; research
should empirically investigate such multilevel differences.
• Research applying statistical techniques to demonstrate the presence of
subcultures and assessing the cultural strength. It is not that such re-
search does not exist, but it is not as common as it should be.
• Research on other types of culture strength besides agreement. Louis
(1985) and Saffold (1988) have clarified some of these possibilities,
but little research exists on them and particularly how they operate
simultaneously.
• Research on different types of cultural alignment. The concept of align-
ment is critical to understanding organizational culture, but the various
ways of thinking about it and its implications for performance have been
underexplored in empirical research.
• Research on stability and change in culture. Research could address what
aspects of culture are most likely to remain stable and which are most
likely to change at different points in the organization’s life cycle.
• Research blending qualitative and quantitative methods. Too often cul-
ture research only takes advantage of one or the other, thus missing in-
sights that could be gained from including both.

Finally, we summarize a number of directions for future research that

integrates aspects of both organizational climate and culture:

• Research on how organizational culture forms a foundation for orga-

nizational climate. Multiple models suggest that beliefs and values are
important for climate, but little research exists on the topic.
• Research on the independent outcomes of culture and climate. Some
outcomes may be best predicted by culture and others by climate; inte-
grative research could tease those apart.
• Research on how cultural variables affect climate. Research could inves-
tigate such cultural topics as rites of passage, dress, or myths and stories
within a climate framework.
• Research on socialization as it relates to climate. Socialization is typically
under the domain of culture, but we need to know the possible variety
of ways it applies to how employees learn about their organization’s
climate as well.
304 Summary and Conclusion

• Research on the strategic focus of culture. This could involve studying

the aspects of culture related to specific strategic climates, which aspects
of culture provide a foundation for what types of strategic climates, or
simply how dimensions of culture predict specific strategic outcomes.
• Research on how climate change affects culture and vice versa. The pro-
cesses are likely interconnected but distinct.

CONCLUSION

We have come a long way since the late 1930s when empirical research
on the human aspects of the organizational environment was just be-
ginning. Since then, researchers from both the organizational climate
and organizational culture traditions have made unique contributions to
our understanding of the complexities associated with organizations as
human systems. In both climate and culture traditions there has been
great excitement surrounding the pursuit of theory and data, especially
when the methods and approaches have proven valuable to both the
understanding and prediction of important group and organizational out-
comes. By bringing these two traditions together, having them learn from
each other, and integrating their insights, the future of both fields will be
bright indeed, and the organizations that researchers and practitioners
serve will figuratively and literally profit.
REFERENCES

Aarons, G.A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Dlugosz, L. R. (2012, April). Maximizing a stra-

tegic climate for the implementation of evidence-based practice. In M. G.
Ehrhart (Chair), Focused organizational climates: New directions and new
possibilities. Symposium conducted at the 27th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Aarons G.A., & Sawitzky A. C. (2006a). Organizational climate partially medi-
ates the effect of culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental
health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental
Health Services Research, 33(3), 289–301.
Aarons G.A., & Sawitzky A. C. (2006b). Organizational culture and climate and
mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psycho-
logical Services, 3(1), 61–72.
Abbey, A., & Dickson, J.W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semi-
conductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362–368.
Abrahamson, E. & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and con-
sequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 728–755.
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Aldrich, H. E.,  & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Oc-
cupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M. (2011). Organizational culture: Meaning, discourse, and identity.
In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Berg, P. O. (1992). Corporate culture and organizational symbol-
ism. New York: de Gruyter.
Alvesson, M. & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational culture: Cultural
change work in progress. New York: Routledge.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innova-
tion: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

305
306 References

Andrews, J. D.W. (1967). The achievement motive in two types of organizations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 163–168.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1986). Dual commitment and labor–management re-
lationship climates. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 31–50.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Bros.
Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in conceptualizing organizational climate:
A case study of a bank. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 501–520.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The
role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199–214.
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 834–847.
Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organiza-
tional contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review
of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 1–70). Sussex, En-
gland: Wiley.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures
of organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Pe-
terson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 131–146).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2000a). Handbook
of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ashkanasy N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2000b). Introduction. In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational culture and climate (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P.M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook
of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68.
Bajdo, L.,  & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and
women’s advancement in organizations: A cross-cultural examination. Sex
Roles, 45, 399–414.
Baker, J.A. (2007). The report of the BP US refineries independent safety review
panel. New York: CCPS.
Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A., & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dys-
functional organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form organi-
zational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21, 709–732.
Barley, S. R. (1991). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational
culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin
(Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 39–54). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C.,  & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a
model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational
safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488–496.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained com-
petitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–665.
References 307

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal

of Management, 17, 99–120.
Barney, J. B., & Arikan A.M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and im-
plications. In M.A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman,  & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook
of strategic management (pp. 124–188). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1991). Multiple constituencies and the quality
of working life: Intervention at FoodCom. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture
(pp. 104–114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bass B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York:
Harper.
Bass, B. M. (1965). Organizational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bass, B. M.,  & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B. J.,  & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 12(1), 73–87.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). New-
comer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic re-
view of antecedents, otucomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 707–721.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles
of personality and personal control on organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T.
Hall,  & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp.  232–251).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benne, K. D., Bradford, L. P.,  & Lippitt, R. (1964). The laboratory method. In
L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb,  & K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and labora-
tory method: Innovation in re-education (pp.15–44). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D.,  & Chin, R. (Eds.) (1961). The planning of change:
Readings in the applied behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Beres, M. E., & Portwood, J. D. (1979). Explaining cultural differences in the per-
ceived role of work: An intranational cross-cultural study. In G.W. England,
A. R. Negandhi,  & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organizational functioning in a cross-
cultural perspective (pp. 139–173). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and
firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–633.
Beus, J. M., Bergman, M. E., & Payne, S. C. (2010). The influence of organizational
tenure on safety climate strength: A first look. Accident Analysis and Preven-
tion, 42, 1431–1437.
Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., & Arthur, W. Jr. (2010). Safety climate
and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 713–727.
Beyer, J. M., Hannah, D. R.,  & Milton, L. P. (2000). Ties that bind: Culture and
attachment to organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 323–338).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
308 References

Bindl, U. K.,  & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking

and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group level correlations: A simu-
lation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliabil-
ity: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein  & S.W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp.  349–381). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D. (2006). Social climates: Drivers of soldier well-being and resilience.
In A. B. Adler, C.A. Castro, & T.W. Britt (Eds.), Military life: The psychology
of serving in peace and combat: Vol. 2. Operational stressors (pp. 213–234).
Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
Bliese, P. D. & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-
being: A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563–580.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boglarsky, C.A., & Kwantes, C.T. (2004). Ideal and actual culture: How different
is too different? Presented at the 65th Annual Conference of the Canadian
Psychological Association, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
Boisnier, A., & Chatman, J. (2003). Cultures and subcultures in dynamic orga-
nizations. In E. Mannix & R. Petersen (Eds.), The dynamic organization
(pp. 87–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bowen, D. E. & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance link-
ages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 29, 203–221.
Bradford, L. P. (1964). Membership and the learning process. In L. P. Bradford,
J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Inno-
vation in re-education (pp. 190–215). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (1964a). T-group theory and laboratory
method: Innovation in re-education (pp. 190–215). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (1964b). Two educational innovations.
In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and labora-
tory method: Innovation in re-education (pp. 1–14). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Brannen, M.Y., & Kleinberg, J. (2000). Images of Japanese management and the
development of organizational culture theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson, (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (pp. 387–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brodbeck, F. C., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M.W., Gupta, V., & Dorfman, P.W. (2004).
Societal culture and industrial sector influences on organizational culture. In
R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 654–668).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
References 309

Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M.A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An

alternative to the rWG indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165–184.
Brown, R. L.,  & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a factor-analytic procedure for
assessing the validity of an employee safety climate model. Accident Analy-
sis & Prevention, 18(6), 455–470.
Buchele, R. B. (1955). Company character and the effectiveness of personnel
management. Personnel, 31, 289–302.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C., & Hurley, A. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological
climate in a retail service environment: A multiple stakeholder perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 717–729.
Burke, M. J., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R., Smith, A., & Sarpy, S.A. (2008). The
role of national culture and organizational climate in safety training effective-
ness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 133–152.
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices
for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68.
Burke, R. J. & Descza, E. (1982). Preferred organizational climates of type A in-
dividuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(1), 50–59.
Burke, W.W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational perfor-
mance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P.W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000). The sources
and accuracy of job applicant’s beliefs about organizational culture.  Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1076–1085.
Cameron, K. S. (2008). A  process for changing organizational culture. In T. G.
Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development (pp.  429–446).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). The conceptual foundations of orga-
nizational culture. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research (Vol. 4, pp. 356–396). New York: Agathon.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence strength and type:
Relationships to effectiveness. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol.  5, pp. 23–58).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organiza-
tional culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, K. S.,  & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Wiley.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K. E. (1970). Manage-
rial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A.M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate percep-
tions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive
and affective states and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 605–619.
Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (Eds.) (1960). Group dynamics: Research and theory
(2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
310 References

Cawsey, T. (1973, April). The interaction of motivation and environment in the pre-
diction of performance potential and satisfaction in the life insurance industry in
Canada. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Midwest
Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content do-
main at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Chan, L. L., Shaffer, M.A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive
advantage: the impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and
human resource management practices on firm performance.  The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 17–35.
Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences.  Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 79(5), 730–743.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization
in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between indus-
try characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be?
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522–553.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in pre-
dicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549–556.
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C.,  & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace
safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127.
Christie, R.,  & Merton, R. K. (1958). Procedures for the sociological study of the
values climate of medical schools. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of
Applied Social Research.
Chuang, C-H., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in ser-
vice context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees and cus-
tomers. Personnel Psychology, 63, 153–196.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story
in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, and Swathmore. Chicago: Aldine.
Clark, B. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 17, 178–184.
Cole, M. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Leadership consensus as a cross-level con-
textual moderator of the emotional exhaustion-work commitment relation-
ship. Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), 447–462.
Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 58, 83–109.
Colquitt, J.A., Zapata-Phelan, C. P., & Roberson, Q. M. (2005). Justice in teams:
A review of fairness effects in collective contexts. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 24, pp. 53–94).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Keiningham, T. L., & Marytott, K. M. (2009). The relation-
ship of employee perceptions of organizational climate to business-unit
outcomes: An MLPS approach. Journal of Service Research, 11, 277–294.
References 311

Cooke, R.A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioural norms and expectations: a

quantitative approach to the assessment of organisational culture. Group
and Organization Studies, 13, 245–273.
Cooke, R.A.,  & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared
behavioral expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the
organizational culture inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299–1330.
Cooke, R.A., & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the organizational culture inventory
to understand the operating culture of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul-
ture and climate (pp. 147–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D.,  & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational socialization:
A new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM
practices in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492–516.
Cox, T. H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and
practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations.  Journal of Manage-
ment, 26(3), 435–462.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisci-
plinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Dansereau, F.,  & Alutto, J.A. (1990). Level-of-analysis issues in climate and
culture research. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture
(pp. 193–236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. (1984). Theory testing in organizational
behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dastmalchian, A. (2008). Industrial relations climate. In P. Blyton, N. Bacon,
J. Fiorito, & E. Heery (Eds.), Sage handbook of industrial relations ( pp. 548–571).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davey, K. M., & Symon, G. (2001). Recent approaches to the qualitative analy-
sis of organizational culture.  In C. L. Cooper, S. Cartwright,  & P. C. Ear-
ley (Eds.), The international handbook of organizational culture and climate
(pp. 123–142). New York: Wiley.
Dawson, J. F., González-Romá, V., Davis, A., & West, M. A. (2008). Organiza-
tional climate and climate strength in UK hospitals. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 89–111.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dean, A. (2004). Links between organizational and customer variables in service
delivery: Evidence, contradictions, and challenges. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 15, 332–350.
Dedobbeleer, N., & Béland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction
sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22(2), 97–103.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New
York: Wiley.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm
wars. Academy of Management Review, 21, 619–654.
Denison, D. R. (2001). Organizational culture: Can it be a key lever for driving
organizational change? In C. L. Cooper, S. Cartwright, & P. C. Earley (Eds.),
312 References

The international handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp.  347–

372). New York: Wiley.
Denison, D. R., Haaland, S., & Goelzer, P. (2003). Corporate culture and organi-
zational effectiveness: Is there a similar pattern around the world? Advances
in Global Leadership, 3, 205–227.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture
and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204–223.
Denison, D. R.,  & Neale, W. (2000). Denison organizational culture survey. Ann
Arbor, MI: Denison Consulting.
Denison, D. R., Nieminen, L.,  & Kotrba, L. (2012). Diagnosing organizational
cultures: A  conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness sur-
veys. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2012.713173.
Deutsch & Shea, Inc. (1958). Company Climate and Creativity. New York, NY.
Dickson, M.W., Aditya, R. N., & Chhokar, J. S. (2000). Definition and interpreta-
tion in cross-cultural organizational culture research: Some pointers from
the GLOBE research program.  In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate
(pp. 447–464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickson, M.W., Resick, C. J.,  & Hanges, P. J. (2006). When organizational cli-
mate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2),
351–364.
Dieterly, D., & Schneider, B. (1974). The effect of organizational environment on
perceived power and climate: A laboratory study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 11, 316–337.
Dietz, J., Pugh, S. D., & Wiley, J.W. (2004). Service climate effects on customer
attitudes: An examination of boundary conditions. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 81–92.
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps, M., & Slocum, J.W. (1974). Organizational
climate and job satisfaction: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Re-
search, 2, 233–248.
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. (1975). Congruence between in-
dividual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 149–155.
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in
organizational work groups: The role of leadership and multi-level climate
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084–1095.
Drexler, J.A. (1977). Organizational climate: Its homogeneity within organiza-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 38–42.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habits: Why we do what we do in life and business.
New York: Random House.
Dunnette, M. D. (1962). Personnel management. Annual Review of Psychology,
13, 285–314.
Dunnette, M. D.  & Campbell, J. P. (1966). Identification and enhancement of
managerial effectiveness: Part VI. Conclusions, implications and research
recommendations. Greensboro, NC: Richardson Foundation Survey Report.
Duxbury, L.  & Grover, L. (2011). Exploring the link between organizational
culture and work-family conflict. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, &
References 313

M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd

ed., pp. 271–290). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dyer, W. G. (1985). The cycle of cultural evolution in organizations. In R. H.
Kilmann, M. J. Saxton,  & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate
culture (pp. 200–209). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eden, D. (2003). Self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 91–122). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehrhart, K. H., Witt, L. A., Schneider, B., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Service employees
give as they get: Internal service as a moderator of the service climate–
service outcomes link. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 423–431.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents
of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57,
61–94.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Raver, J. L. (in press). The effects of organizational climate and
culture on productive and counterproductive behavior. In B. Schneider &
K.  Barbera (Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational climate and cul-
ture:  Antecedents, consequences, and practice. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S.,  & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Erdogan, B.,  & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader–member exchanges:
The buffering role of justice climate.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  95(6),
1104–1120.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A  comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York:
Free Press.
Evan, W. M. (1963). Indices of the hierarchical structure of industrial organiza-
tions. Management Science, 9, 468–477.
Evan, W. M. (1968). A  system model of organizational climate. In R. Tagi-
uri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept
(pp. 110–124). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.).
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Feldman, D.C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members.
Academy of Management Review, 6, 309–318.
Feldman, M. S. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Learning from stories and
metaphors. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Mar-
tin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 145–156). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Fey, C.,  & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness:
Can an American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14,
686–706.
Fiedler, F. E. (1962). Leader attitudes, group climate, and group creativity.  The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(5), 308–318.
Field, G., & Abelson, M. (1982). Climate: A reconceptualization and proposed
model. Human Relations, 35, 181–201.
Fiol, M., Hatch, M. J., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1998). Organizational culture and
identity: What’s the difference anyway? In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey, (Eds.),
314 References

Identity in organizations: Developing theory through conversations (pp. 56–59).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K.
Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource man-
agement (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAl Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997).
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test
of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 578–589.
Flamholtz, E. G.,  & Randle, Y. (2011). Corporate culture: The ultimate strategic
asset. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51,
327–358.
Fleishman, E.A. (1953). Leadership climate, human relations training and super-
visory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6, 205–222.
Flynn, F. J., & Chatman, J.A. (2001). Strong cultures and innovation: Oxymoron
or opportunity?  In C. L. Cooper, S. Cartwright,  & P. C. Earley (Eds.), The
international handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 263–287).
New York: Wiley.
Forehand, G.A. (1963). Assessment of innovative behavior. Partial criteria for
the assessment of executive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47,
206–213.
Forehand, G.A. (1968). On the interaction of persons and organizations. In R. Ta-
giuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept
(pp. 65–82). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Forehand, G.A., & Gilmer, B. v. H. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of
organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361–382.
Frederiksen, N. O. (1966). Some effects of organizational climates on adminis-
trative performance. Research memorandum RM-66-21. Washington, DC:
Educational Testing Services.
Frederiksen, N., Jensen, O.,  & Beaton, A. E. (1972). Prediction of organizational
behavior. New York: Pergamon.
Friedlander, F., & Greenberg, S. (1971). Effect of job attitudes, training, and orga-
nizational climate on performance of the hardcore unemployed. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 287–295.
Friedlander, F.,  & Margulies, N. (1969). Multiple impacts of organizational cli-
mate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction, Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 22, 171–183.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1985a). An
allegorical view of organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp.  13–
25). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1985b).
Organizational culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.) (1991).
Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gardner, B. (1945). Human relations in industry. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H.,  & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and impor-
tance of cultural tightness-looseness.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  91(6),
1225–1244.
References 315

Gellerman, S.W. (1959). The company personality. Management Review, 48,

60–76.
Gellerman, S.W. (1960). People, problems, and profits: The uses of psychology in
management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups re-
visited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application
of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798–804.
Georgopoulos, B. S. (1965). Normative structure variables and organizational be-
havior. Human Relations, 18, 115–170.
Gerhart, B. (2009).  How much does national culture constrain organizational
culture? Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 241–259.
Gerstner, Jr., L.V. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? Leading a great enter-
prise through dramatic change. New York: HarperCollins.
Gettman, H. J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2007). When the customer shouldn’t be king:
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment by clients and custom-
ers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 757–770.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1939). All or none versus graded response questionnaires. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 23, 405–413.
Gibb, J. R. (1964). Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb,  &
K. D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-
education (pp. 279–309). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gillespie, M.A., Denison, D. R., Haaland, S., Smerek, R., & Neale, W. S. (2008).
Linking organizational culture and customer satisfaction: Results from two
companies in different industries. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 17, 112–132.
Gilmer, B. v. H. (1960). Industrial psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 11,
323–350.
Gilmer, B. v. H. (1961). Industrial Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gilmer, B. v. H. (1966). Industrial Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psycho-
logical climate: Pitfalls of multilevel research. Academy of Management Re-
view, 10, 601–610.
Glick, W. H. (1988). Response: Organizations are not central tendencies: Shadow-
boxing in the dark, round 2. Academy of Management Review, 13, 133–137.
Glisson C., & Green P. (2006). The effects of organizational culture and climate
on the access to mental health care in child welfare and juvenile justice sys-
tems. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 33(4), 433–448.
Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate
in human service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 767–794.
Glisson, C., Schoenwald, S. K., Kelleher, K., Landsverk, J., Hoagwood, K. E.,
Mayberg, S., & Green, P. (2008). Therapist turnover and new program sus-
tainability in mental health clinics as a function of organizational culture,
climate, and service structure. Administration and Policy in Mental Health
and Mental Health Services Research, 35(1), 124–133.
Gonzalez, J.A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and di-
versity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21–40.
González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Team climate, cli-
mate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. Journal of Oc-
cupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 511–536.
316 References

González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M.,  & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the

antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 465–473.
Gordon, G. G. (1991). Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy
of Management Review. 18, 396–415.
Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from
organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 783–798.
Gregory, B.T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A.A.,  & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organiza-
tional culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organiza-
tional outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 673–679.
Gregory, K. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple culture and culture con-
flicts in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 359–376.
Griffin, A. E., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer and organizational
socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective.  Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 10(4), 453–474.
Griffin, M.A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for
linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(3), 347–358.
Grizzle, J.W., Zablah, A. R., Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., & Lee, J. M. (2009). Em-
ployee customer orientation in context: How the environment moderates
the influence of customer orientation on performance outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1227–1242.
Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 9, 120–125.
Gundry, L. K.,  & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Critical incidents in communicating
culture to newcomers: The meaning is the message. Human Relations, 47,
1063–1087.
Gutek, B.A. (1995). The dynamics of service: Reflections on the changing nature of
customer/provider interactions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B.A. (2000). Service relationships, pseudo-relationships, and service en-
counters. In Schwartz, T.A.,  & Iacobucci, D. (Eds.), Handbook of services
marketing and management (pp. 371–380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D., & Lawler, E. (1969). Unused potential in research development organi-
zations. Research Management, 12, 339–354.
Halpin, A.W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago:
Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago.
Hammond, S.A. (1996). The thin book of appreciative inquiry. Plano, TX: Thin
Book Publishing.
Hand, H., Richards, M., & Slocum, J. (1973). Organizational climate and the ef-
fectiveness of a human relations training program. Academy of Management
Journal, 16, 185–195.
Harrell, T.W. (1953). Industrial psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 215–238.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job at-
titudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and
time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 305–325.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y.,  & Kinicki A. (2011). Organizational culture and or-
ganizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing
values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 677–694.
References 317

Hartnell, C. A., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Transformational leadership and or-

ganizational culture: Toward integrating a multilevel framework. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 515–537). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 18, 657–693.
Hatch, M. J. (2000). The  cultural  dynamics of organizing and change. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. 245–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hatch, M. J.,  & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture,
identity, and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 356–365.
Hatch, M.J.,  & Schultz, M. (2000). Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational differ-
ences between identity, image, and culture in organizations. In M. Schultz, M.J.
Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputa-
tion, and the corporate brand (pp. 13–35). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, re-
search, and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 255–280.
Henderson, D.J., Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H.,  & Tetrick, L.E. (2008).
Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfill-
ment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208–1219.
Herdman, A. O., & McMilan-Capehart, A. (2010). Establishing a diversity pro-
gram is not enough: Exploring the determinants of diversity climate. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 25, 39–53.
Heron, J.,  & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research
‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook
of action research (pp. 179–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hicks-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on career
and organizational attitudes and perceptions. Personnel Review, 29, 324–346.
Hofmann, D.A., & Mark, B. (2006). An investigation of the relationship between
safety climate and medication errors as well as other nurse and patient out-
comes. Personnel Psychology, 59, 847–869.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator
of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific
citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
170–178.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influ-
encing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1998). The role of safety climate and communi-
cation in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative
events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644–658.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G.,  & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Culture: National values and organiza-
tional practices. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 401–414). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: PAR.
318 References

Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2013). Missing link in the service profit
chain: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and mod-
erators of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 237–267.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W.,  & Gupta, V. (2004). Cul-
ture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J.,  & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational
practices: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
56, 388–396.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Howe, J. G. (1977). Group climate: An exploratory analysis of construct validity.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 19(1), 106–125.
Hudson, P. (2007). Implementing safety culture in a major multi-national. Safety
Science, 45, 697–722.
Jackofsky, E. F., & Slocum, J.W. (1988). A longitudinal study of climates. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 9, 319–334.
Jaques, E. (1951). The changing culture of a factory. New York: Dryden Press.
James, L.A.,  & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions:
Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 74, 739–751.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright,
M.A., & Kim, K. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A re-
view of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17, 5–32.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interra-
ter reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 85–98.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations:
The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational cli-
mate and culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112.
James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J.W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not
cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13, 129–132.
James, L. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (1986). Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal
models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 71, 77–82.
Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J.W., Fry, L.W., & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational sub-
cultures in a soft bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and façade of an
official culture. Organization Science, 2, 170–194.
Johannesson, R. (1973). Some problems in the measurement of organizational
climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 118–145.
Johnson, R. H. (1996). Life in the consortium: The Mayflower Group. In A. I. Kraut
(Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 285–309).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
References 319

Johnston, H. R., Jr. (1976). A new conceptualization of source of organizational

climate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 95–103.
Jonas, H. S., Fry, R. E.,  & Srivastva, S. (1990). The office of the CEO: Under-
standing the executive experience. Academy of Management Executive, 4,
36–67.
Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and rela-
tionships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 201–250.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjust-
ments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.
Joyce, W. F.,  & Slocum, J. W. (1982). Climate discrepancy: Refining the con-
cepts of psychological and organizational climate. Human Relations, 35,
951–972.
Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J.W. (1984). Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for
defining aggregate climate in organizations. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 27, 721–742.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H.T. O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Man-
nion, R. (2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review
of the literature. Public Administration Review, 69, 1087–1096.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy focused organization: how bal-
anced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Publishing Corporation.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Katzell, R. A. (1957). Industrial psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 8,
237–268.
Keenan, A., & Newton , T. J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to
role stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychol-
ogy, 57, 57–65.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2011). Enhancing firm performance and innovativeness
through error management culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd
ed., pp. 137–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kendall, W. E. (1956). Industrial psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 7,
197–232.
Kerr, S.,  & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning
and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,
375–403.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configura-
tions and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 1276–1313.
King, E B., de Chermont, K., West, M., Dawson, J F.  & Hebl, M R. (2007).
How innovation can alleviate negative consequences of demanding work
contexts: The influence of climate for innovation on organizational
outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
631–645.
320 References

Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S.W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin,
M.A., Hofman, D.A., James, L. R., Yammarino, F. J., & Bligh, M. C. (2000).
Multilevel analytic techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continu-
ing questions. In K. J. Klein  & S.W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new direc-
tions (pp. 512–553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B.,  & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in
agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee
perceptions of the work environment . Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 3–16.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B.,  & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized
technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
811–824.
Klein K. J.,  & Kozlowski, S.W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1990). The role of climate and cul-
ture in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and cul-
ture (pp. 282–318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of
reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14, 61–81.
Kotrba, L. M., Gillespie, M.A., Schmidt, A.M., Smerek, R. E., Ritchie, S.A.,  &
Denison, D. R. (2012). Do consistent corporate cultures have better busi-
ness performance? Exploring the interaction effects. Human Relations, 65,
241–262.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
Free Press.
Kozlowski, S.W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). An integration of climate and lead-
ership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
546–553.
Kozlowski, S.W. J.,  & Hattrup, K. (1992). A  disagreement about within-group
agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167.
Kozlowski, S.W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical
updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539–563.
Kozlowski, S.W. J.,  & Klein, K. J. (2000). A  multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In
K. J. Klein & S.W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krefting, L. A.,  & Frost, P. J. (1985). Untangling webs, surfing waves, and
wildcatting: a multiple-metaphor perspective on managing organiza-
tional culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, &
J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp.  155–168). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Kreiner, G. E. (2011). Organizational identity: Culture’s conceptual cousin. In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of
References 321

organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 463–480). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Krippendorff, K. (1971). Communication and the genesis of structure. General
Systems, 16, 171–185.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review,
critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate
literature. Journal of Management, 35, 634–717.
Kwantes, C.T.,  & Dickson, M.W. (2011). Organizational culture in a societal
context: Lessons from GLOBE and beyond. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (2nd ed., pp. 494–514). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LaFollette, W. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1975). Is satisfaction redundant with climate?
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 118–144.
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly
reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research
Methods, 9, 202–220.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawler, E. E., Hall, D.T.,  & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate: Re-
lationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 11(1), 139–155.
Leana, C. R.,  & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous expe-
riences in organizational life.  Academy of Management Review,  25(4),
753–759.
Leavitt, H. J. (1958). Managerial psychology: An introduction to individuals, pairs,
and groups in organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, tech-
nological and humanistic approaches. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of Orga-
nizations (pp. 1144–1170). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Leavitt, H. J., & Bass, B. M. (1964). Organizational psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 15, 371–398.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about inter-
rater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods,
11, 815–852.
Lee, S. K. J., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 340–359.
Levine, E. L. (2010). Emotion and power (as social influence): Their impact on
organizational citizenship and counterproductive individual and organiza-
tional behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 4–17.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R.,  & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior
in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
271–299.
Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and
intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35, 564–599.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing
employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 47, 41–58.
322 References

Liao H.,  & Chuang A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate:
A  multilevel multi-source examination of transformational leadership in
building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1006–1019.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orienta-
tion on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 90, 242–256.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lindell, M., & Brandt, C. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as medi-
ators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 331–348.
Litwin, G. H. (1968a). Climate and behavior theory: An environmental perspec-
tive on theories of individual and organizational behavior. In R. Tagiuri &
G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 35–
61). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Litwin, G. H. (1968b). Climate and motivation: An experimental study. In R. Ta-
giuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept
(pp. 169–190). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Litwin, G. H.,  & Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
Löfgren, O. (1982). Kulturbygge och kulturkonfrontattion (‘Culture building and
culture confrontation’). In U. Hannerz, R. Liljeström, & O. Löfgren (Eds.)
Kultur och medvtande. Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.
Lord, R. G.,  & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A  control systems model of organizational
motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications. Behavioral
Science, 32, 161–178.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
226–250.
Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In L. R. Pondy,
P. J. Frost, G. Morgan  & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism
(pp. 39–54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Louis, M. R. (1985). An investigator’s guide to workplace culture. In P. J. Frost,
L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational
culture (pp. 73–93). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Louis, M. R. (1990). Acculturation in the work place: Newcomers as lay ethnogra-
phers. In Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 85–129).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z.,  & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability
and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology , 36,
857–866.
Lundberg, C. C. (1985). On the feasibility of cultural intervention in orga-
nizations. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  &
J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp.  169–185). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Lundberg, C. C. (1990). Surfacing organisational culture. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 5(4), 19–26.
References 323

Lundby, K., Lee, W. C., & Macey, W. H. (2012). Leadership essentials to attract,

engage, and retain global human talent. In W. H. Mobley, Y. Wang, & M. Li
(Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 7, pp. 251–270). Bingly, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing.
Luria G. (2008). Climate strength—How leaders form consensus. Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 42–53.
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S.A. (2009). Employee en-
gagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. New York:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Mannix, E.A., Thatcher, S.,  & Jehn, K.A. (2001). Does culture always flow
downstream? Linking group consensus and organizational culture. In C. L.
Cooper, S. Cartwright, & P. C. Earley (Eds.), The international handbook of
organizational culture and climate (pp. 289–306). New York: Wiley.
Markus, K.A. (2000). Twelve testable assertions about cultural dynamics
and reproduction of organizational change. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (pp. 297–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J. (1985). Can organizational culture be managed? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore,
M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture
(pp. 95–98). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness para-
dox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28, 438–453.
Martin, J., & Frost, P. J. (1996). The organizational culture war games: A struggle
for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord, (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 599–621). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., Frost, P. J.,  & O’Neill, O.A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond
struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, &
W. Nord (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 725–
753). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., & Siehl, C. J. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An
uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 52–64.
Martin, J., Sitkin, S. B.,  & Boehm, M. (1985). Founders and the elusiveness of
a cultural legacy. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, &
J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 99–124). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Martin, J., Su, S., & Beckman, C. (1997). Enacting shared values—Myth or real-
ity? A  context-specific values audit. Research Paper Number 1469. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
Mayer, D. M., Ehrhart, M. G., & Schneider, B. (2009). Service attribute boundary
conditions of the service climate—customer satisfaction link. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 1034–1050.
Mayer, D. M., & Kuenzi, M. (2010). Exploring the “black box” of justice climate:
What mechanisms link justice climate and outcomes? In E. Mullen, E. Man-
nix,  & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Fairness
(Vol. 13, pp. 331–346). London: Elsevier Science Press.
324 References

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2009). Making ethical climate a

mainstream management topic: A review, critique, and prescription for the
empirical research on ethical climate. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological
perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 181–213). Green-
wich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M.,  & Salvador, R. (2009).
How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
Mayer, D. M., Nishii, L. H., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H.W. (2007). The precur-
sors and products of fair climates: Group leader antecedents and employee
attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929–963.
Mayhew, B. H. (1980). Structuralism versus individualism: Part 1, shadowboxing
in the dark. Social Forces, 59, 335–375.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of industrial civilization. New York:
Macmillan.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of industrial civilization. Boston: Harvard
University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
McDonald, P. (1991). The Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee: Devel-
oping organizational culture in the short run. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture
(pp. 26–38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Liao, H., & Morris, M.A. (2011). Does diversity climate
lead to customer satisfaction? It depends on the service climate and business
unit demography. Organization Science, 22, 788–803.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M.A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences
in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate.
Personnel Psychology, 61, 349–374.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M.A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diver-
sity climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in
store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 767–791.
Mead, J. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization
Studies, 9(4), 453–473.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C.,  & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A  work values approach
to corporate culture: A  field test of the value congruence process and its
relationship to individual outcomes.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  74(3),
424–432.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and sat-
isfaction with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction.  Human
Relations, 44(5), 481–495.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom.
In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 12, pp. 159–203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meindl, J. R. (1993). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological ap-
proach. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 89–
118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory:
A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341.
References 325

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evalua-
tion of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1),
91–109.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.
Meyer, H. H. (1968). Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In R. Ta-
giuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept
(pp. 151–166). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Meyer, R. D.,  & Dalal, R. S. (2009). Situational strength as a means of concep-
tualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 2, 99–102.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S.,  & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A  meta-analytic investigation
into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientious-
ness–performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
1077–1102.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situ-
ational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36,
121–40.
Meyerson, D. E. (1991a). Acknowledging and uncovering ambiguities in cul-
tures. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin
(Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp.  254–270). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Meyerson, D. E. (1991b). “Normal” ambiguity? A  glimpse of an occupational
culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin
(Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp.  131–144). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and
perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decision. Personnel
Psychology, 38(3), 525–544.
Michael, J.A. (1961). High school climates and plans for entering college. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 25, 585–595.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding light on followers’
innovation implementation behavior: The role of transformational leader-
ship, commitment to change, and climate for initiative. Journal of Manage-
rial Psychology, 25, 408–429.
Michela, J. L.,  & Burke, W.W. (2000). Organizational culture and climate in
transformations for quality and innovation. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (pp. 225–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their
own downfall. New York: Harper Business.
Miller, V. D.,  & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational
entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process.  Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 16, 92–120.
Miner, J. B. (2002). Organizational behavior: Foundations, theories and analyses.
New York: Oxford.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of
personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.
326 References

Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., Ramos, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2005).
Relationships between organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit
level. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 99–116.
Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and per-
sonal dimensions of diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in em-
ployee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 82–104.
Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of
organizational climate. Human Relations, 45, 19–47.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, E.W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589.
Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of
procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–141.
Muchinsky, P.M. (1976). An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organization
climate questionnaire: An empirical and theoretical extension of the Sims
and LaFollette study. Personnel Psychology, 29, 371–392.
Muchinsky, P.M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to or-
ganizational climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,
20(4), 592–607.
Mumford, M. D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R.
(2000). Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. Leader-
ship Quarterly, 11, 87–114.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: De-
velopment and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 881–889.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M.A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety
climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual
and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946–953.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in
organizations: attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 12(6), 543–554.
Newman, D.A., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and
behavioral work engagement new and useful construct ‘wines’? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 31–35.
Newman, D.A., & Sin, H. P. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-
group agreement?: Sensitivity of SDWG, CVWG, rWG(J), rWG(J)*, and ICC to sys-
tematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 113–147.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turn-
over in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in
the diversity to turnover relationship.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  94(6),
1412–1426.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2007). Deciding on the number of
classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo
simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
14, 535–569.
Odiorne, G. S. (1960). Company growth and personnel administration. Personnel,
37, 32–41.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (1998). Managing organizational culture: Compli-
ance or genuine change? British Journal of Management, 9, 273–288.
References 327

Ogbonna, E.,  & Harris, L. C. (2002). Organizational culture: A  ten year, two-
phase study of change in the UK food retailing sector. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 39, 673–706.
Ogbonna, E., & Wilkinson, B. (1990). Corporate strategy and corporate culture:
The view from the checkout. Personnel Review, 19(4), 9–15.
O’Reilly, C. A.,  & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corpora-
tions, cults and commitment. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 157–200). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual
behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 56, 56–90.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2012). Organizational culture and
climate. In N.W. Schmitt  & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology,
Vol.  12: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 643–676).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and
climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology, Vol. 12: I/O psychology (pp. 565–593). New York: Wiley.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S.W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learn-
ing process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45(4),
849–874.
Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks-Cole.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese chal-
lenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ouchi, W. G. & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of
Sociology, 11, 457–483.
Pacanowsky, M. E.,  & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational commu-
nication as cultural performance.  Communications Monographs,  50(2),
126–147.
Pace, C. R. (1963). College and university environment scales: Technical manual.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Pace, C. R. (1968). The measurement of college environments. In R. Tagi-
uri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept
(pp. 129–147). Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Pace, C. R., & Stern, G. G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psycho-
logical characteristics of college environments.  Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 49(5), 269–277.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., LaCost, H.A., &
Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate percep-
tions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 389–416.
Parkington, J. J., & Schneider, B. (1979). Some correlates of experienced job stress:
a boundary role study. Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 270–281.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1982). The art of Japanese management. London: Penguin.
328 References

Patterson, M. G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Mait-
lis, S., Robinson, D. L., &Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational
climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity, and innova-
tion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408.
Payne, R. L. (2000). Climate and culture: How close can they get? In N. M. Ash-
kanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. 163–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Payne, R. L. (2001). A three dimensional framework for analyzing and assessing
culture/climate and its relevance for cultural change. In C. L. Cooper, S.
Cartwright,  & P. C. Earley (Eds.), The international handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. 107–122). New York: Wiley.
Payne, R. L., Fineman, S.,  & Wall, T. D. (1976). Organizational climate and job
satisfaction: A  conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 16, 45–62.
Payne, R. L.,  & Mansfield, R. (1973). Relationships of perceptions of organiza-
tional climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical posi-
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 515–526.
Payne, R. L., & Pheysey, D. C. (1971). G. G. Stern’s Organizational Climate Index:
A reconceptualization and application to business organizations. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 77–98.
Payne, R. L., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,
(pp. 1125–1173). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organization: Productive climates
for research and development. New York: Wiley.
Peters, T. J.,  & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York:
Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 24, 570–581.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987a). Introduction: Researching strategic change. In A. M.
Pettigrew (Ed.), The management of strategic change (pp. 1–13). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A. M. (Ed.) (1987b). The management of strategic change. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: Two constructs in
search of a role. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture
(pp. 413–434). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, L.W. (1966). Personnel management. Annual Review of Psychology, 17, 395–422.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D.A. (1978). The case for subsystem climates in or-
ganizations. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 151–157.
Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on
managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 9, 126–146.
Probst, T. (2004). Safety and insecurity: Exploring the moderating effect of orga-
nizational safety climate. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 3–40.
Probst, T., Brubaker, T.,  & Barsotti, A. (2008). Organizational under-reporting
of injury rates: An examination of the moderating effect of organizational
safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1147–1154.
References 329

Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley J.W. (2008). Looking inside and out:
The impact of employee and community demographic composition on or-
ganizational diversity climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1422–1428.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1972). Causal inference and the Aston studies. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 273–276.
Quinn, R. E.,  & Kimberly, J. R. (1984). Paradox, planning, and persever-
ance: Guidelines for managerial practice. In J. R. Kimberly  & R. E. Quinn
(Eds.), Managing organizational transitions (pp. 295–313). Homewood, IL:
DowJones-Irwin.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A special model of effectiveness criteria:
Toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manage-
ment Science, 29, 363–377.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing val-
ues culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational cul-
ture on quality of life. In R.W. Woodman, & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research
in organizational change and development (Vol. 5, pp. 115–142). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Team change climate: A group-level
analysis of the relationships among change information and change partici-
pation, role stressors, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organi-
zational Psychology, 19, 551–586.
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L.,  & Armenakis, A.A. (2013). Change readiness:
A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39, 110–135.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats:
Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 49, 433–458.
Ray, R., & Sanders, E. (2008). AHP cultural transformation: Driving positive or-
ganizational change. OD Practitioner, 40, 410–416.
Reger, S. J. M. (2006). Can two rights make a wrong? Insights from IBM’s tangible
culture approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of con-
structs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006a). Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking
in the emergence of justice climates. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 100, 177–192.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006b). Justice in teams: The effects of interdependence and
identification on referent choice and justice climate strength. Social Justice
Research, 19, 323–344.
Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J.A. (2005). Shared and configural justice: A social
network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30,
595–607.
Roberson, Q. M., Sturman, M. C., & Simons, T. L. (2007). Does the measure of
dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative per-
formance of dispersion indexes.  Organizational Research Methods,  10(4),
564–588.
Roberson, Q. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: The
role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 685–701.
330 References

Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). Management and morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Boston:
Harvard School.
Rouiller, J. Z., & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational
transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Develop-
ment Quarterly, 4, 377–390.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990a). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multi-
ple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture
(pp. 153–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990b). Normative beliefs in fund-raising organizations: Linking
culture to organizational performance and individual responses. Group  &
Organizational Studies, 15, 448–460.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M., & Liao, H. (2007a). Justice climate: Consideration of
source, target, type, specificity, and emergence. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yam-
marino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 439–459). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M., & Liao, H. (2007b). Justice climate past, present, and
future: Models of structure and emergence. In F. Dansereau  & F. J. Yam-
marino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 357–396). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier.
Russell, S. V., & McIntosh, M. (2011). Organizational change for sustainability.
In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 393–411). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sackmann, S.A. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 27(3), 295–317.
Sackmann, S.A. (2001). Cultural complexity in organizations: The value and
limitations of qualitative methodology and approaches. In C. L. Cooper, S.
Cartwright,  & P. C. Earley (Eds.), The international handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. 143–163). New York: Wiley.
Sackmann, S.A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (2nd ed., pp. 188–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saffold, G. S. (1988). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Mov-
ing beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Management Review, 13, 546–558.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense
of the past and present as a prologue for the future.  Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51(2), 234–279.
Salanova, M., Agut, S.,  & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources
and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The
mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.
Salas, E., Priest, H.A., Stagl, K. C., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2007). Work teams
in organizations: A  historical reflection and lessons learned. In L. Koppes
(Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 407–440). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salvaggio, A. N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L. H., Mayer, D. M., Ramesh, A., & Lyon, J. S.
(2007). Manager personality, manager service quality orientation, and ser-
vice climate: Test of a model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1741–1750.
References 331

Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Dentsten, I. L., & Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational cul-
ture profile revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Jour-
nal of Management, 30, 159–182.
Sathe, V. (1983). Implications of corporate culture: A manager’s guide to action.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 4–23.
Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Sathe, V., & Davidson, E. J. (2000). Toward a new conceptualization of culture
change.  In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom,  & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp.  279–296). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schall, E., Ospina, S., Godsoe, B., & Dodge, J. (2004). Appreciative narratives as
leadership research: Matching method to lens. In D. L. Cooperrider and M. Avi-
tal (Eds.), Advances in appreciative inquiry, Vol. 1: Constructive discourse and
human organization (pp. 147–170). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S.W. J., Lord, R. G., Tre-
viño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership
within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
1053–1078.
Schein, E. H. (1965). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lund-
berg,  & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp.  243–253).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996, Fall). Three cultures of management: The key to organiza-
tional learning. Sloan Management Review, 9–20.
Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. xxiii–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2011). Preface. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed.,
pp. xi–xiii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the prob-
lem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 529–540.
Schnake,  M. E.  (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affective re-
sponse in the measurement of organizational climate. Personnel Psychology,
36, 791–807.
Schneider, B. (1970). Relationships between various criteria of leadership in
small groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 253–261.
Schneider, B. (1972). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organi-
zational realities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 211–217.
332 References

Schneider, B. (1973). The perception of organizational climate: The customer’s

view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 248–256.
Schneider, B. (1975a). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and orga-
nizational realities revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(4), 459–465.
Schneider, B. (1975b). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology,
28, 447–479.
Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,
573–611.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40,
437–453.
Schneider, B. (1994). HRM-a service perspective: Toward a customer-focused
HRM. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5, 65–76.
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
C. P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul-
ture & climate (pp. xvii–xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. (1968). Individual differences and organizational
climate, I: The research plan and questionnaire development. Personnel Psy-
chology, 21, 323–333.
Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. (1970). Individual differences and organizational cli-
mate, II: Measurement of organizational climate by the multitrait-multirater
matrix. Personnel Psychology, 23, 493–512.
Schneider, B.,  & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of
service in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 423–433.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston, MA: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Ehrhart, M. G.,  & Holcombe, K. M. (2000). The
climate for service: Evolution of a construct. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (pp. 21–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G.,  & Macey, W.A. (2011a). Organizational climate
research: Achievements and the road ahead. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (2nd ed., pp. 29–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G.,  & Macey, W. A. (2011b). Perspectives on orga-
nizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of in-
dustrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 1. Building and developing the
organization (pp.  373–414). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W.A. (2012). A funny thing happened on
the way to the future: The focus on organizational competitive advantage
lost out. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 5, 96–101.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W.A. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005).
Understanding organization-customer links in service settings. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 1017–1032.
References 333

Schneider, B., & Hall, D.T. (1972). Towards specifying the concept of work cli-
mate: A study of Roman Catholic Diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 56, 447–455.
Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Lee, W. C.,  & Young, S. A. (2009). Organizational
service climate drivers of the American Customer Satisfaction Index
(ACSI) and financial and market performance. Journal of Service Research,
12, 3–14.
Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J.,  & Buxton, V. M. (1980). Employee and cus-
tomer perceptions of service in banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
252–267.
Schneider, B.,  & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel
Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new
direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 220–229.
Schneider, B., & Snyder, R.A. (1975). Some relationships between job satisfaction
and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318–328.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. F. (1992). A passion for service: Using con-
tent analysis to explicate service climate themes. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 705–716.
Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2004). Service quality: Research perspectives. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and cus-
tomer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 83, 150–163.
Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Shmulyian, S., & Kinicki, A. (2009). Organizational cli-
mate configurations: Relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfac-
tion, and financial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 618–634.
Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. 1981. Matching corporate culture and business strategy.
Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30–38.
Schyns, B., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2010). Group leadership climate and individ-
ual organizational commitment: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 9(2), 57–68.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for Social Research.
Sells, S. B. (1964). Personnel management. Annual Review of Psychology, 15,
399–420.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an explor-
atory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47.
Shanahan, J. G., Qu, Y., & Wiebe, J. (2006). Computing attitude and affect in text:
Theory and applications. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Siehl, C. (1985). After the founder: An opportunity to manage culture. In
P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Orga-
nizational culture (pp. 125–140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Siehl, C., & Martin, J. (1988). Measuring organizational culture: Mixing qualita-
tive and quantitative methods. In M. Jones, M. Moore, & R. Snyder (Eds.),
Inside organizations: Understanding the human dimension (pp.  79–104).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
334 References

Siehl, C., & Martin J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance?

In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp.  241–281).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simons, T.,  & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness:
The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443.
Sims, H. P., & LaFollette, W. (1975). An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer
organization climate questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 28(1), 19–38.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New
York: Appleton-Century.
Smircich L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.
Smircich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding orga-
nizations and ourselves? In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, &
J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 55–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smircich, L., & Calás, M. B. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment.
In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational communication (pp. 228–263). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. C., Smith, O.W.,  & Rollo, J. (1974). Factor structure for blacks and
whites of the job descriptive index and its discriminations of job satisfac-
tions among three groups of subjects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
99–100.
Snijders, T.A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Solomon, E. E. (1986). Private and public sector managers: An empirical inves-
tigation of job characteristics and organizational climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 247–259.
Sørensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70–91.
Sowinski, D. R., Fortmann, K.A., & Lezotte, D.V. (2008). Climate for service and
the moderating effects of climate strength on customer satisfaction, volun-
tary turnover, and profitability. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17, 73–88.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice
climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33,
724–751.
Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they [all] see my true self ? Leader’s re-
lational authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational lead-
ership.  European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,  19(3),
304–332.
Stern, G. G. (1967). People in context: The measurement of environmental interaction
in school and society. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in
education and industry. New York: Wiley.
Stogdill, R. M. (1968). Leadership: A  survey of the literature. I. Selected topics.
Greensboro, NC: Smith Richardson Foundation.
Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationships between displayed
emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy
of Management Journal, 31(3), 461–487.
References 335

Tagiuri, R. (1968a). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H.

Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 11–32).
Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Tagiuri, R. (1968b). Executive climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Or-
ganizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 225–241). Boston, MA:
Harvard University.
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.). (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of
a concept. Boston: Harvard University.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues:
The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology,
61, 37–68.
Tichy, N. M. (1982). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and
cultural keys. Organizational dynamics, 11(2), 59–80.
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanaugh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills
on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 239–252.
Trice, H. M. (1991). Comments and discussion. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture
(pp. 298–308). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., & Xin, K. R. (2006). Organizational culture in China: An
analysis of culture dimensions and culture types. Management and Organi-
zational Review, 2, 345–376.
Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z-X., Wang, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. (2006). Unpacking the
relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 113–137.
Turner, B. (1971). Exploring the industrial subculture. London: Macmillan.
Turnstall, W. B. (1983). Cultural transition at AT&T. Sloan Management Review,
25(1), 1–12.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 298–318.
Van Gennep, A. (1908/1960). Rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (original work published 1908).
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Eds.)
Handbook of work, organization and society (pp.  67–130). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost,
L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing orga-
nizational culture (pp. 58–76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Cultural con-
trol in organizations. In L. L. Cummings  & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287–365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Maanen, J.,  & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a
theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg,  & J. Martin
(Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
336 References

Van Maanen, J.,  & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational

socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1,
pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Verbeke, W., Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual ex-
pansion within the field of organizational behaviour: Organizational climate
and organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 303–329.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1987). A theory and measure of ethical climate in or-
ganizations. In W. C. Frederick (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance
and policy (Vol. 9, pp. 51–71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Victor, B.,  & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work cli-
mates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 101–125.
Virtanen, T. (2000). Commitment and the study of organizational climate and cul-
ture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational culture and climate (pp. 339–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Viteles, M. S. (1932). Industrial psychology. New York, NY: Norton.
Vroom, V. H., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Industrial social psychology.  Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 12, 413–446.
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K.,  & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psy-
chological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role
of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective.  Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4), 840–850.
Wallace, J. C., Popp, E., & Mondore, S. (2006). Safety climate as a mediator be-
tween foundation climates and occupational accidents: A group-level inves-
tigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 681–688.
Wallace, S. R., & Weitz, J. (1955). Industrial psychology. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 6, 217–250.
Walsh, B. M., Matthews, R.A. Tuller, M. D., Parks, K. M.,  & McDonald, D. P.
(2010). A multilevel model of the effects of equal opportunity climate on
job satisfaction in the military. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15, 191–207.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C.A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, proce-
dural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational
citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 95, 517–529.
Walumbwa, F. O., Peterson, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Hartnell, C.A. (2010). Relation-
ships of leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job
performance. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 937–963.
Way, S.A., Sturman, M. C., & Raab, C. (2010). What matters more? Contrasting
the effects of job satisfaction and service climate on hotel food and beverage
managers’ job performance. Cornell Hotel Quarterly, 51, 379–397.
Weber, K., & Dacin, M.T. (2011). The cultural construction of organizational life:
Introduction to the special issue. Organization Science, 22, 287–298.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate culture fit and performance in mergers and acquisi-
tions. Human Relations, 49, 1181–1202.
Weick, K. E. (1985). The significance of corporate culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F.
Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational cul-
ture (pp. 381–390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Welsch, L. P.,  & LaVan, H. (1981). Inter-relationships between organizational
commitment and job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior,
and organizational climate. Human Relations, 34(12), 1079–1089.
References 337

Whetten, D.A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept
of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219–234.
Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M.T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012).
Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the conse-
quences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97, 776–791.
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1948). Human relations in the restaurant industry. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., & Mazlowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture
as a predictor of organizational performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate (pp. 193–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wiley, J.W. (1996). Linking survey results to customer satisfaction and business
performance. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment
and change (pp. 350–369). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiley, J.W. (2010). Strategic employee surveys: Evidenced-based guidelines for driv-
ing organizational success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wiley, J.W.,  & Brooks, S. M. (2000). The high-performance organizational cli-
mate: How workers describe top-performing units.  In N. M. Ashkanasy,
C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational cul-
ture and climate (pp. 177–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodman, R.W., & King, D. C. (1978). Organizational climate: Science or folk-
lore? Academy of Management Review, 3, 816–826.
Workday, Inc. (2012). Form S-1 registration statement. Retrieved from http://www.
sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1327811/000119312512375787/d385110ds1.htm
Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational
leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(6), 566–579.
Yagil, D. (2008). The service providers. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multilevel issues in organizational cul-
ture and climate research. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom,  & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed.,
pp. 50–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K.W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and
group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 681–692.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1996). Models and theories of executive leadership: A  conceptual/
empirical review and integration. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Insti-
tute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical
analysis of success. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and ap-
plied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102.
Zohar, D. (2000). A  group level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of
group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 587–596.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and as-
signed priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(1), 75–92.
338 References

Zohar, D.,  & Hofmann, D.A. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. In
S.W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 643–666). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Zohar, D.,  & Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to
improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety
Research, 34, 567–577.
Zohar, D.,  & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as social-cognitive construction of su-
pervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 322–333.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multi-level model of safety climate: Cross-level
relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 90, 616–628.
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group in-
teraction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 93, 744–757.
AUTHOR INDEX

Italicized numbers refer to names in tables or figures.

Aarons, G. A. 196, 302 Athos, A. G. 121 – 2, 150, 161

Abbey, A. 87 Avery, D. R. 87, 97
Abelson, M. 61 Avolio, B. J. 91, 112, 214
Abrahamson, E. 170
Adkins, C. L. 174 Baer, M. 87, 109
Agut, S. 91, 113, 212, 289 Bajdo, L. 165
Aiman-Smith, L. 158 Baker, J. A. 259 – 63, 269, 272, 300
Aksoy, L. 91 Baltes, B. B. 71
Aldenderfer, M. S. 216 Balthazard, P. A. 254 – 5
Aldrich, H. E. 148, 150, 183 Barbera, K. M. 84, 236
Allen, N. J. 158 Bardes, M. 112
Altmann, R. A. 71 Barley, S. R. 136, 149, 154, 168,
Alutto, J. A. 74 170 – 1, 173
Alvesson, M. 4, 7, 117 – 18, 120 – 9, Barling, J. 93, 112
128, 131 – 4, 148, 153, 164, 167, Barnard, C. I. 26
177, 187 – 8, 190 – 1, 196, 205 – 6, Barney, J. B. 225 – 7
214, 217, 290 – 1, 296 Barry, B. 182
Anderson, N. 159 – 60, 294 Barsotti, A. 93
Anderson, N. R. 87 Bartlett, C. J. 38, 40 – 3, 42, 62, 79 – 80,
Andrews, F. M. 28, 85 – 6 81, 108, 284
Andrews, J. D. W. 36 Bartunek, J. M. 169
Angle, H. L. 61 Bashshur, M. 95
Argyris, C. 15 – 19, 23, 32 – 3, 60, 65 – 6, Bass, B. M. 31, 70, 112, 191
70, 72, 85, 119, 196, 284 Bass, R. 191
Arikan, A. M. 225 Bauer, T. N. 94 – 5, 156, 158
Armenakis, A. A. 165, 238 Beaton, A. E. 38, 43 – 5, 65
Arnold, T. J. 107 Bebb, M. 112
Arthur, W. Jr. 93 Beckman, C. 168
Ashe, D. K. 66 Bedeian, A. G. 104
Ashford, S. J. 159 Béland, F. 92
Ashforth, B. E. 60, 61, 156 – 7, 155, Bell, N. E. 158 – 9
294 Benne, K. D. 27 – 8, 178
Ashkanasy, N. M. 6 – 7, 69, 117, 123, Bennett, N. 87, 94 – 5, 99
142, 143, 196, 214, 242, 262, 265 Bennis, W. G. 178
Asparouhov, T. 216 Beres, M. E. 154

339
340 Author Index

Berg, P. O. 117 – 18, 120 – 4, 129, 164, Butts, M. M. 75

167, 187 – 8, 196, 205 – 6, 214, 217, Buxton, V. M. 60, 61, 89, 287
296
Bergman, M. E. 100 Cable, D. M. 158
Berkman, S. 87, 93, 96 Calás, M. B. 117
Bernerth, J. B. 73, 286 Caldwell, D. F. 256, 300
Berson, Y. 191 Caleo, S. 73, 286
BeShears, R. S. 132 Cameron, K. S. 125, 131, 134, 175,
Beus, J. M. 93, 100 181, 187, 206, 249 – 51, 250, 264,
Beyer, J. M. 7, 117 – 18, 121 – 3, 131, 268 – 71, 300
133, 135, 138 – 9, 146, 148, 150, Campbell, J. P. 32, 35 – 7, 43, 66,
152, 155 – 6, 158, 170 – 2, 174, 180, 79 – 80, 81
196, 212, 291 Carpenter, N. C. 73, 286
Bindl, U. K. 158 – 9, 294 Carr, J. Z. 71
Black, J. S. 159 Cartwright, D. 19, 178
Blashfield, R. K. 216 Cawsey, T. 57
Blau, P. M. 219 Chan, D. 72 – 3, 99
Bliese, P. D. 74 – 5, 78, 87, 99 Chan, L. L. 165
Blumer, H. 67 Chan-Serafin, S. 109 – 10
Bodner, T. 156 Chao, G. T. 159
Boehm, M. 148 Chatman, J. A. 125, 133, 177, 256,
Boglarsky, C. A. 263 258, 264, 272, 300
Boisnier, A. 272 Chen, G. 87
Bommer, W. H. 104 Cherin, D. A. 87, 96
Bonaccio, S. 108 Chin, R. 178
Borucki, C. 82 Choi, C. C. 68
Bosker, R. J. 78 Christian, M. S. 93
Bowen, D. E. 6, 61, 87, 90, 100, 105, Christie, R. 28, 85
108 – 9, 199, 214, 288 Chuang, A. 91
Bower, P. 242 Clandinin, D. J. 245, 300
Bradford, L. P. 27 – 8, 86 Clark, B. 118
Bradley, J. C. 93 Cole, M. S. 104
Brandt, C. 99, 101 – 2 Colella, A. 159
Brannen, M. Y. 150 Colquitt, J. A. 87, 94 – 5, 99 – 102,
Broadfoot, L. E. 142, 242, 262, 265 288
Brodbeck, F. C. 150, 152 Conn, A. B. 46, 68, 111
Brooks, S. M. 69 Connelly, F. M. 245, 300
Brown, R. D. 74 Connelly, M. S. 112
Brown, R. L. 92 Cooil, B. 91
Brown, T. J. 108 – 9 Cooke, R. A. 165, 254, 255, 300
Brubaker, T. 93 Cooper, B. 258
Buchele, R. B. 26 – 7, 284 Cooper-Thomas, H. D. 159 – 60, 294
Burke, C. S. 14 Cox, J. F. 212, 248
Burke, M. J. 74, 82, 93, 109 – 10 Cox, T. H., Jr. 96
Burke, R. J. 61 Crant, J. M. 159
Burke, W. W. 40, 48, 69, 80, 161, 178, Croft, Don 28 – 9, 43, 49
206, 230, 243, 296 Cropanzano, R. 87, 95, 219
Butterfield, D. A. 51, 58, 66 Cullen, J. B. 61, 87
Author Index 341

Dacin, M. T. 9 Eden, D. 210

Dalal, R. S. 98, 108 Edwards, J. R. 158
Dansereau, F. 243 Ehrhart, K. H. 106, 288
Dastmalchian, A. 87 Ehrhart, M. G. 1, 4 – 6, 14, 71, 87, 90,
Davey, K. M. 125, 141 94 – 5, 106, 111 – 12, 114, 143, 200,
Davidson, E. J. 230 209, 211, 214, 219 – 20, 220, 287 – 9,
Davies, H. T. O. 242 296, 302
Davis, A. 101 – 2 Ehrlich, S. B. 148
Davis, S. 134 Eisenberger, R. 210
Dawson, J. F. 87, 101 – 4 Erdogan, B. 94 – 5, 156
Deal, T. E. 7, 122, 151, 161, 175, 179, Ettington, D. R. 125, 131, 134, 175,
187, 206, 243 206
Dean, A. 91 Etzioni, A. 154
de Chermont, K. 87 Evan, W. M. 33 – 5, 52, 65, 98, 119,
Dedobbeleer, N. 92 196
DeLorean, J. 169 Everitt, B. S. 216
Demaree, R. G. 74
DeNisi, A. S. 97 Falkus, S. 142, 242, 262, 265
Denison, D. R. 7, 129 – 30, 130, 140, Feldman, D. C. 159
161 – 2, 164 – 5, 167, 176, 196, 198, Feldman, M. S. 134, 174
201, 203, 207, 212, 214, 216 – 19, Fiedler, F. E. 27, 284
251 – 3, 252, 300 Field, G. 61
Dentsten, I. L. 258 Fineman, S. 51, 54, 285
Descza, E. 61 Finkelstein, L. M. 74
DeShon, R. P. 71 Fiol, M. 172
Deutsch and Shea, Inc. 30 Fisher, C. D. 159
Dickson, J. W. 87 Fitzgerald, L. F. 87
Dickson, M. W. 103, 132, 150 – 1, 165 Flamholtz, E. G. 181, 240, 242, 262,
Dickson, W. J. 12, 26, 118, 154 264
Dieterly, D. 38 Flanagan, J. C. 246
Dietz, J. 105 – 7 Fleishman, E. A. 14 – 15, 24, 27, 30,
Dimotakis, N. 214 41, 65, 79, 85, 110, 119, 196, 284,
DiTomaso, N. 176 289
Dlugosz, L. R. 302 Flynn, F. J. 177
Dodge, J. 244 – 5 Fombrun, C. J. 170
Doherty, M. L. 62, 111 Ford, J. K. 71
Dorfman, P. W. 103, 150 – 1, 293 Forehand, G. A. 20 – 3, 27, 31, 33 – 4,
Downey, H. K. 38, 54 – 5 46, 53, 59, 64, 66
Dragoni, L. 111 – 12 Fortes-Ferreira, L. 99
Drasgow, F. 87 Fortmann, K. A. 101 – 2
Drexler, J. A. 39, 52, 58 Frederiksen, N. O. 38, 43 – 5, 56, 65 – 6,
Duhigg, C. 281 86, 116
Dukerich, J. M. 148 French, J. R. P., Jr. 26
Dunnette, M. D. 31 – 2, 35 – 7, 66 Frese, M. 87, 109, 214
Dusig, M. S. 74 Friedlander, F. 38, 43, 56
Duxbury, L. 214 Frost, P. J. 4, 117 – 18, 122 – 4, 126,
Dvir, T. 191 129, 133, 137, 140 – 1, 145, 155,
Dyer, W. G. 190 167, 172, 180, 190, 214, 217
342 Author Index

Fry, L. W. 170 Haaland, S. 165, 251

Fry, R. E. 274 Hall, D. T. 38, 48 – 9, 49, 56
Halpin, A. 28 – 9, 43, 49
Gaines, J. 170 Halverson, R. R. 99
Gardner, B. 118 Hammond, S. A. 245, 300
Gardner, P. D. 159 Hand, H. 38
Geertz, C. 67 Hanges, P. J. 103, 150 – 1, 206, 293
Gelfand, M. J. 87, 151 Hannah, D. R. 135
Gellerman, S. W. 36, 119 – 20 Hannah, S. T. 214
George, J. M. 74, 76 – 8 Hardy, C. 124
Georgopoulos, B. S. 26, 36 Harrell, T. W. 30
Gerhart, B. 150 Harris, L. C. 207, 231
Gerras, S. 93 Harris, S. G. 165
Gerstner, L. V., Jr. 234 Harrison, D. A. 56, 72
Gettman, H. J. 87 Harrison, S. H. 156 – 7, 294
Ghiselli, E. E. 11 Hartnell, C. A. 91, 162, 163, 191, 214,
Gibb, J. R. 27 – 8 251, 266 – 7, 274, 294 – 5, 303
Gillespie, M. A. 164 – 5, 251, 253 Hatch, M. J. 134, 137 – 8, 172, 180,
Gilmer, B. v. H. 20 – 3, 30 – 1, 33, 46, 183, 231
53, 59, 64, 66, 119, 284 Hattrup, K. 74
Glick, W. H. 60, 61 – 2, 67, 71 – 2, Hauenstein, N. M. A. 74
286 Hebl, M. R. 87
Glisson, C. 73, 165, 196, 256 Hellriegel, D. 38, 49 – 51, 53 – 6, 58, 80,
Glunk, U. 162, 294 82, 105, 284 – 5
Godsoe, B. 244 – 5 Helms Mills, J. C. 133
Golden-Biddle, K. 172 Henderson, D. J. 104
Goldstein, H. W. 111 Herdman, A. O. 87, 97
Goldstein, I. L. 87 Hermida, R. 98, 108
Goldstein, J. W. 94 Heron, J. 245, 300
Gonzalez, J. A. 97 Heskett, J. L. 161, 175 – 7, 191, 207,
González-Romá, V. 99 – 102, 288 211, 236, 243, 295
Goparaju, S. 159 Hessels, M. 131
Gordon, G. G. 151 – 2, 176 Hicks-Clarke, D. 96
Gouldner, A. 178 Hickson, D. J. 46
Gray, J. 258 Hoagwood, K. E. 165, 196
Green, P. 165, 196, 256 Hofmann, D. A. 44, 92 – 4, 106, 116,
Greenbaum, R. L. 87, 112 196, 200, 205, 209, 211, 222 – 4,
Greenberg, S. 38, 56 223, 231, 298 – 9
Gregory, B. T. 165 – 6, 169, 215, 251, Hofstede, G. 7, 150 – 1
293 Holcombe, K. M. 6, 214
Griffin, A. E. 159 Holland, J. L. 111, 151, 171, 172
Griffin, M. A. 92 – 3, 114, 289 Holmes, H. 92
Grizzle, J. W. 108 – 9 Hong, Y. 91, 112, 212, 289
Grover, L. 214 Horner, M. T. 73, 286
Guion, R. M. 50 – 2, 54 – 6, 59, 68, 70, House, R. J. 38, 103, 151, 164, 293
73 – 4, 85, 99, 284, 286 Hovland, C. I. 230
Gundry, L. K. 246, 248 Howe, J. G. 39
Gupta, V. 103, 132, 150 – 1, 293 Hu, J. 91, 289
Gutek, B. A. 106 – 8 Hudson, P. 215
Author Index 343

Huff, J. W. 71 Kelloway, E. K. 93, 112

Hulin, C. L. 87 Kelman, H. 178
Hults, B. M. 61, 87 Kendall, W. E. 30
Hunter, J. E. 41 Kennedy, A. A. 7, 122, 151, 161, 175,
Huntington, R. 210 179, 187, 206, 243
Hurley, A. 82 Kerr, S. 236
Hutchison, S. 210 Ketchen, D. J., Jr. 268
Kim, K. 68
Iles, P. 96 Kimberly, J. R. 162
Ilies, R. 104 King, D. C. 52
King, E. B. 87
Jablin, F. M. 159 Kinicki, A. J. 84, 162, 163, 196,
Jackson, C. L. 87, 288 220 – 2, 221, 242, 294, 298, 302
Jacofsky, E. F. 61 – 2 Klein, H. J. 159
Jacque, E. 118 Klein, K. J. 46, 68, 73, 75 – 6, 111, 114,
James, L. A. 62, 66, 72, 81, 83 287
James, L. R. 22, 49 – 54, 60, 61 – 2, Kleinberg, J. 150
66 – 8, 70 – 4, 76 – 8, 81, 81 – 3, 256, Ko, C. H. E. 68
284 – 7 Kopelman, R. E. 218
Janis, I. L. 230 Kossek, E. E. 96
Javidan, M. 103, 151, 293 Kotrba, L. M. 164 – 5, 215, 251, 253
Jehn, K. A. 174, 256 Kotter, J. P. 161, 175 – 7, 191, 207, 211,
Jensen, O. 38, 43 – 5, 65 236, 243, 295
Jermier, J. M. 170, 216, 236 Kozlowski, S. W. J. 46, 61 – 2, 73 – 4, 76,
Jiang, K. 91, 289 87, 111, 159 – 60, 214, 223, 287
Jimmieson, N. L. 101, 238 Krefting, L. A. 133, 145, 155, 180,
Johanneson, R. E. 50, 54 – 6, 284 – 5 190
Johnson, R. H. 253 Kreiner, G. E. 172
Johnston, H. R., Jr. 58 Krippendorf, K. 67
Jonas, H. S. 274 Kuenzi, M. 4, 9, 71, 87 – 8, 95, 98, 107,
Jones, A. P. 22, 49 – 54, 60, 61, 68, 70, 112, 116, 125, 215, 301 – 2
81, 81, 284 – 5, 287 Kwantes, C. T. 150 – 1, 263
Jones, G. R. 158, 294
Joyce, W. F. 61 – 2, 67 LaCost, H. A. 71
Jung, T. 242 Lafferty, J. C. 255
LaFollette, W. R. 39, 54 – 7, 285
Kahn, R. L. 19, 23, 25 – 6, 88, 98, 120, Lance, C. E. 75
136, 154, 182, 196, 284 Landau, S. 216
Kaplan, R. S. 235 Landsverk, J. 165, 196
Karasick, B. W. 38, 45 – 6, 46, 57, 64 – 6 Latham, G. P. 37
Katz, D. 19, 23, 25 – 6, 88, 98, 120, LaVan, H. 61
136, 154, 182, 196, 284 Lawler, E. E., III 26, 32, 35 – 7, 38,
Katzell, R. A. 30 48 – 9, 49, 56, 66
Kavanaugh, M. J. 87 Leana, C. R. 182
Keenan, A. 61 Leavitt, H. J. 16 – 17, 31, 49, 284
Keiningham, T. L. 91 LeBreton, J. M. 74 – 5, 77, 287
Keith, N. 214 Lee, J. M. 108 – 9
Kelleher, K. 165, 196 Lee, S. K. J. 165, 177, 256, 268
Kelley, H. H. 230 Lee, W. C. 91, 258
344 Author Index

Leese, M. 216 Markus, K. A. 180, 183, 197

Lewin, K. 13 – 14, 16, 21, 27, 32, 59, Martin, C. L. 94
66, 69 – 70, 72, 79, 85, 110, 178, Martin, J. 4, 7, 117 – 18, 122 – 4, 126 – 9,
283 – 4, 289 131 – 7, 140 – 1, 143 – 4, 148, 161,
Lezotte, D. V. 101 – 2 164, 167 – 70, 172, 174, 182 – 3, 187,
Li, A. 95 190, 199, 206 – 7, 214, 216 – 17, 272,
Liao, H. 91, 94 – 5, 97, 107, 289 290 – 1, 294 – 6
Likert, R. 19 – 20, 23, 26, 31 – 2, 49, 60, Martinez-Tur, V. 87
111, 120, 284 Marytott, K. M. 91
Lindell, M. 99, 101 – 2 Matthews, R. A. 87
Lippitt, R. 13 – 14, 27, 178, 283 Mayberg, S. 165, 196
Litwin, G. H. 33 – 5, 37 – 41, 38 – 9, 43, Mayer, D. M. 14, 87, 90, 94 – 5, 104,
48 – 9, 53, 64 – 6, 79 – 80, 81, 111, 106 – 7, 111 – 12, 220, 288 – 9
119, 218, 284 Mayhew, B. H. 67
Löfgren, O. 153 Mayo, E. 12, 26
Lord, R. G. 206, 214 Mazlowski, R. 162, 294
Loughlin, C. 93, 112 Mead, J. H. 67
Louis, M. R. 122 – 3, 128 – 9, 134, 141, Meek, V. L. 187
155, 157, 160, 170, 174, 188 – 90, Meglino, B. M. 174
201, 295, 303 Meindl, J. R. 148
Lundberg, C. C. 122 – 3, 136, 188, Merton, R. 28, 85, 178
188, 236 Meyer, H. H. 34 – 5
Lundby, K. 258 Meyer, J. P. 158
Luria, G. 44, 78, 93 – 4, 99 – 103, 113, Meyer, R. D. 98, 108
209, 259, 273, 288, 302 Meyerson, D. E. 123, 140, 174
Lyon, J. S. 111 Miceli, M. P. 61
Michael, J. A. 28
McDonald, D. P. 87, 156 Michaelis, B. 87
Macey, W. H. 1, 4 – 5, 65, 71, 84, 87, Michela, J. L. 69, 230
91, 190, 200, 211, 219 – 20, 220, Michels, L. C. 75
236, 258, 276, 287, 296 Miller, D. 149
McGregor, D. 16 – 19, 23 – 4, 32, 41, Miller, V. D. 159
60, 65 – 6, 70, 72, 79, 85, 110 – 11, Mills, A. J. 133
178, 284, 289 Milton, L. P. 135
McIntosh, M. 214 Miner, J. B. 124
McKay, P. F. 87, 96 – 7, 107, 109, 217 Minton, M. K. 68
McKelvey, B. 302 Mischel, W. 98, 108
McMilan-Capehart, A. 87, 97 Mishra, A. K. 161 – 2, 167, 216
McNally, R. 242 Mitchell, M. S. 219
McNeil, P. K. 68 Moch, M. K. 169
Magley, V. J. 87 Moliner, C. 87
Maier, N. 31 Mondore, S. 93, 113, 289
Mannion, R. 242 Moore, L. F. 122 – 3
Mannix, E. A. 174 Moran, E. T. 218, 230
Mansfield, R. 38, 46 – 8, 47 Mor Barak, M. E. 87, 96
Margulies, N. 38, 43 Morgan, G. 130, 179, 184, 190 – 1, 193
Marion, R. 302 Morgeson, F. 93
Mark, B. 94, 106 Morris, M. A. 87, 97
Marks, M. A. 112 Morrison, E. W. 159
Author Index 345

Mossholder, K. W. 94 – 5 Parks, K. M. 87
Mowen, J. C. 108 – 9 Parsons, T. 154, 178
Muchinsky, P. M. 39 Pascale, R. T. 121 – 2, 150, 161
Muhammad, R. H. 196, 220 – 2, 221, Patterson, M. G. 82, 83, 261
298 Paul, M. C. 84, 209, 289
Mulvey, P. W. 158 Payne, R. L. 38, 46 – 8, 47, 51 – 2, 54 – 5,
Mumford, M. D. 112 58 – 9, 80 – 1, 99, 104, 127, 174 – 5,
Murray, H. 28 181, 197, 201, 284 – 5
Muthén, B. 216 Payne, S. C. 93, 100
Peiró, J. M. 87, 91, 99, 113, 212,
Naumann, S. E. 87, 94 – 5, 99 288 – 9
Neal, A. 92 – 3, 114, 289 Pelz, D. C. 28, 85 – 6
Neale, W. S. 165, 201, 207, 251, 300 Peng, A. C. 214
Near, J. P. 61 Peng, T. K. 95
Nelson, D. L. 160 Perry, J. L. 61
Newman, D. A. 56, 75, 78 Perry, S. J. 106, 288
Newton, T. J. 61 Peters, T. J. 119, 122, 161, 292
Nieminen, L. 165, 251 Peterson, M. F. 6 – 7, 69, 117, 143,
Niles-Jolly, K. 14, 90, 220, 289 150 – 1, 196, 214
Nishii, L. H. 94, 104, 111, 151 Peterson, S. J. 91
Noe, R. A. 87, 288 Pettigrew, A. 76 – 7, 79, 117 – 21, 130,
Norton, D. P. 235 139, 166, 197, 289 – 90, 294
Nylund, K. L. 216, 268, 272 Phelps, M. 38, 54
Pheysey, D. C. 38
Odiorne, G. S. 31 Phillips, N. 124
O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. 125 Popp, E. 93, 113, 289
Ogbonna, E. 207, 231 Porter, L. W. 31
Oldham, G. R. 38, 48 – 9, 49 Portwood, J. D. 154
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. 159 Posner, B. Z. 160
O'Neill, O. A. 4, 117 – 18, 123 – 4 Potter, R. E. 254
Oreg, S. 191 Powell, G. N. 51, 58, 66, 160
O'Reilly, C. A. 125, 133, 207, 256, Priest, H. A. 14
256 – 7, 258, 300 Pritchard, R. D. 38, 45 – 6, 46, 57,
Ospina, S. 244 – 5 64 – 6
Ostroff, C. 81 – 2, 84, 87, 100, 159 – 60, Probst, T. 93 – 4
196, 199, 211, 220 – 2, 221, 242, Pugh, D. S. 46, 51 – 2, 58, 80 – 1, 284
288, 298, 302 Pugh, S. D. 97, 105 – 6
Ott, J. S. 69, 123, 131, 133, 135 – 6,
140, 146 – 7, 150 – 1, 158, 180, 196, Qu, Y. 248
206, 291, 293, 295 Quick, J. C. 160
Ou, A. Y. 162, 163, 294 Quinn, R. E. 82, 162, 181, 187,
Ouchi, W. G. 117, 121 – 2, 141, 150, 249 – 51, 250, 264, 268, 300
161
Raab, C. 91
Pacanowsky, M. E. 125 Rafaeli, A. 143
Pace, C. R. 28, 34, 59, 73, 86 Rafferty, A. E. 101, 238
Parker, C. P. 71 Ramanujam, R. 95
Parker, S. K. 158 – 9, 294 Ramesh, A. 111
Parkington, J. J. 60, 61, 89, 108 – 9, 287 Ramos, J. 87
346 Author Index

Randle, Y. 181, 240, 242, 262, 264 170, 175, 177, 180 – 2, 189 – 90,
Ravasi, D. 172 192 – 3, 197, 201 – 2, 204 – 7,
Raver, J. L. 114, 151, 209 209 – 11, 217, 224, 229 – 31, 235,
Ravlin, E. C. 174 237 – 8, 243, 247, 269, 273 – 5, 284,
Ray, R. 270 291, 293, 295 – 6, 301
Reason, P. 245, 300 Schmidt, A. M. 71, 164, 251
Reger, S. J. M. 184, 185 – 6 Schmidt, F. L. 41
Reichers, A. E. 6, 33, 60, 61, 66 – 7, Schminke, M. 4, 71, 87 – 8, 98, 107,
71, 80, 84, 141, 143, 196, 203, 205, 116, 125, 215, 301 – 2
218, 229, 275 Schnake, M. E. 61
Reiter-Palmon, R. 112 Schneider, B. 1, 3 – 6, 14 – 16, 21, 33,
Resick, C. J. 103 38, 40 – 3, 42, 45, 49, 51 – 8, 60,
Richards, M. 38 61, 62, 66 – 8, 70 – 1, 79 – 80, 81,
Ritchie, S. A. 164 84 – 91, 94, 99, 101, 105 – 9, 111 – 14,
Rizzo, J. R. 38 141, 143, 152 – 3, 171 – 2, 189 – 90,
Roberson, Q. 94 – 5, 100, 104 196 – 7, 199 – 200, 202 – 3, 205 – 7,
Roberts, J. E. 71 209, 211 – 12, 214 – 15, 218 – 20,
Roethlisberger, F. J. 12, 26, 118, 154 220, 229 – 30, 236, 248, 271, 275 – 6,
Rohrbaugh, J. 82, 162, 249 284 – 5, 287 – 9, 293, 296, 298
Roth, P. L. 56 Schoenwald, S. K. 165, 196
Rouiller, J. Z. 87 Schulte, M. 84, 242, 268, 302
Rousseau, D. M. 69, 135, 137 – 8, 141, Schultz, M. 172
196, 246, 248, 254 Schwartz, H. 134
Ruef, M. 148, 150, 183 Schyns, B. 87
Rupp, D. E. 94 – 5, 107 Scott, T. 242
Russell, S. V. 214 Seashore, S. E. 26
Sells, S. B. 31
Sackmann, S. A. 139, 141, 143, 162, Selznick, P. 118
166 – 7, 214, 275, 294 Senter, J. L. 74 – 5, 77, 287
Saffold, G. S. 164 – 5, 167, 174 – 5, 201, Shaffer, M. A. 165
295, 303 Shanahan, J. G. 248
Saks, A. M. 155 Shmulyian, S. 84, 242, 302
Salanova, M. 91, 113, 212, 289 Shook, C. L. 165
Salas, E. 14 Shore, L. M. 104
Saltz, J. L. 14, 90, 220, 289 Siehl, C. 135 – 6, 148, 161, 164, 167,
Salvador, R. 109 – 10, 112 169, 187, 189 – 90, 206 – 7, 216, 294,
Salvaggio, A. N. 99, 111, 288 296
Sanders, E. 270 Simons, T. 94 – 5
Sarpy, S. A. 109 – 10 Simons, T. L. 104
Sarros, J. C. 258 Simosi, M. 165, 256
Sathe, V. 123, 134, 136, 158, 175, Sims, D. E. 14
177, 230, 295 Sims, H. P. 39, 54 – 7
Sawitzky, A. C. 196 Sin, H. P. 75, 78
Schall, E. 244 – 5 Sitkin, S. B. 134, 148
Schaubroeck, J. M. 214 Skinner, B. F. 11
Schein, E. H. 2, 7, 23 – 5, 70, 116, Slocum, J. W., Jr. 38, 49 – 51, 53 – 6,
119 – 20, 123, 127, 131 – 7, 140 – 1, 58, 60, 61 – 2, 67, 80, 82, 105, 170,
143, 146 – 9, 147, 154, 157, 161, 284 – 5
Author Index 347

Sluss, D. M. 156 – 7, 294 Tordera, N. 288

Smerek, R. E. 164 – 5, 251 Tracey, J. B. 87
Smircich, L. 117, 125, 128, 130, 139, Treviño, L. K. 214
144, 161, 187 – 8, 290 Trice, H. M. 7, 117 – 18, 121 – 3, 127,
Smith, A. 109 – 10 131, 133, 135, 138 – 9, 146, 148,
Smith, D. B. 46 150, 152, 155 – 6, 158, 170 – 2, 174,
Smith, P. C. 56 180, 196, 212, 291
Snape, E. 165 Truxillo, D. M. 156
Snijders, T. A. B. 78 Tsui, A. S. 191, 268
Snow, C. C. 268 Tucker, J. S. 156
Snyder, R. A. 38, 54 – 5, 57, 80, 285 Tuller, M. D. 87
Solomon, E. E. 61 Turner, B. 118
Sonntag, K. 87 Turnstall, W. B. 134, 187, 296
Sørensen, J. B. 164, 176 – 7, 215, 295
Sorra, J. S. 46, 68, 111 Uhl-Bien, M. 302
Sowa, D. 210
Sowinski, D. R. 101 – 2 Van Gennep, A. 156
Spell, C. S. 107 Van Maanen, J. 131, 149, 153 – 4,
Spitzmuller, M. 104 156 – 7, 168 – 71, 173
Spreitzer, G. M. 251 Van Veldhoven, M. 87
Srivastva, S. 274 Verbeke, W. 131
Stagl, K. C. 14 Victor, B. 61, 87
Stahl. D. 216 Virtanen, T. 69
Staw, B. M. 158 – 9 Viteles, M. S. 17
Stegmaier, R. 87 Volgering, M. 131
Stern, G. 28, 73 Volkwein, J. F. 218, 230
Stetzer, A. 92 Vroom, V. H. 31
Stogdill, R. 14
Stringer, R. A. 34 – 5, 37 – 41, 38 – 9, 43, Waldman, D. A. 112
49, 53, 64 – 6, 79 – 80, 81, 111, 119, Wall, T. D. 51, 54, 285
218, 284 Wallace, J. C. 93, 113, 289
Sturman, M. C. 91, 104 Wallace, S. R., Jr. 30
Su, S. 168 Walsh, B. M. 87
Subirats, M. 99, 288 Walumbwa, F. O. 91, 94 – 5, 191, 274
Sutton, R. I. 143 Wang, H. 191, 268
Sveningsson, S. 188, 190 Waterman, R. H., Jr. 119, 122, 161,
Symon, G. 125, 141 292
Szumal, J. L. 165, 254, 300 Way, S. A. 91
Wayne, S. J. 104
Tagiuri, R. 28, 33 – 5, 64 – 6, 85, 284 Weber, K. 9
Tamkins, M. M. 220 Weber, Y. 237
Tangirala, S. 95 Weick, K. E. 32, 35 – 7, 66, 235
Tannenbaum, S. I. 87 Weitz, J. 30
Tenne-Gazit, O. 93 – 4, 100, 111 – 12 Welsch, L. P. 61
Tetrick, L. E. 61, 68, 104 West, M. 87
Thatcher, S. 174 West, M. A. 87, 101 – 2
Thomas, J. B. 268 Whalley, D. 242
Tichy, N. M. 187, 296 Wheeler, J. K. 212, 248
348 Author Index

Whetten, D. A. 124 Xenikou, A. 165, 256

White, R. K. 13 – 14, 66, 283, 287 Xin, K. R. 191, 268
White, S. S. 84, 209, 271, 289
Whitman, D. S. 73, 286 Yagil, D. 91
Whyte, W. F. 118 Yammarino, F. 74, 243
Wiebe, J. 248 Yang, J. 95, 107
Wilderom, C. P. M. 6–7, 69, 84, 117, 143, Young, S. A. 71, 84, 91, 236
162, 165, 167, 176, 196, 214, 294 Yu, K. 165, 177, 256, 258, 268
Wiley, J. W. 69, 91, 105 – 6
Wilkins, A. L. 117, 141 Zablah, A. R. 108 – 9
Wilkinson, B. 207 Zaccaro, S. J. 112, 274
Williamson, I. O. 100 Zander, A. 19
Witt, L. A. 106, 288 Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 95
Wolf, G. 74 Zhang, Z.-X. 191
Wolf, S. 159 Zohar, D. 44, 60, 61, 78, 92–4, 99–103,
Woodman, R. W. 52 111–13, 116, 196, 200, 205, 209, 211,
Workday, Inc. 238 222 – 4, 223, 231, 259, 273, 287 – 8,
Wright, M. A. 68 298 – 9, 302
Wu, J. B. 191 Zonia, S. C. 96
SUBJECT INDEX

Figures/tables/photos/illustrations are indicated by an italicized number.

absenteeism 52, 95, 101 anthropology 3, 67, 123, 204

accidents 92 – 3, 109, 113, 114, 259 APA Handbook of Industrial and
accumulated learning 235 – 6 Organizational Psychology 1
adaptability 163, 177, 182, 256; in the Appreciative Inquiry 244 – 5, 300
DOCS 164, 207, 251 – 2 artifacts 21, 119, 132, 135 – 7, 221;
adaptive cultures 166, 177, 191 – 2, penetration 175; the competing
243 values framework and 163
adhocracy 162 – 3, 249 – 51, 268 – 9 The Art of Japanese Management:
AD index see average deviation index Applications for American Executives
Administrative Science Quarterly 118, (Pascale & Athos) 121
123, 289 – 90 ASA model see Attraction-Selection-
Agency Climate Questionnaire 42 Attrition model
aggregation: 73 – 8, 286 – 7; climate assumptions 3 – 4; alignment and 202;
strength and 99, 102; statistics 75 – 7; ASA model and 153; change and
within-group agreement and 74 177, 183, 229 – 31; competitive
aggression 13, 15 advantage and 226; culture
agreement 59, 99; interrater 74; strength and 173 – 5; CVF and 163;
statistics 75, 78, 286 – 7; variability effectiveness and 202; of founders
in 75, 77 – 8, 102; within-group 74, 146 – 7; hybrid research design and
77; within-unit 75, 77 – 8, 99, 286; 143; of management 17 – 19, 24;
see also climate strength; culture organizational climate and 205,
strength 209, 218, 229 – 31; of organizational
AIG 240 culture 125, 132, 135 – 7, 149,
alignment 221 – 2, 225, 231, 299; 182, 220 – 4; organizational culture
focused climates and 86 – 7; goal definition and 2, 134; socialization
161; organizational climate and and 154 – 5
15 – 16, 105, 228; organizational Aston Studies 46
culture and 166, 175, 234 – 5, 303; atmosphere 25, 284; group 27;
strength and 98, 201 – 2; of talent organizational climate and 13,
management 240 17 – 20; psychological 45, 65
ambiguity, in culture 126 – 7 attitudes: A factor and 56, 72; change
analysis: cluster 170, 216; content in 230; diversity climate and
248; narrative 248; qualitative 96; justice climate and 95, 107;
247 – 8; see also levels of analysis organizational culture and 162 – 4,
Annual Review of Psychology 1, 30 – 1 166; as outcomes of organizational

349
350 Subject Index

climate 82, 84, 110, 221 – 2; overlap for 236 – 9; climate strength and 35,
with organizational climate 41, 98; competitive advantage and 227;
54 – 6, 69, 85, 285; psychological culture strength and 177, 184; CVF
climate and 72; service climate and and 163; in goals 237 – 8; leadership
91 – 2 and 21, 184 – 92, 229 – 31, 273 – 4,
Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) 296; life cycles and 180 – 3, 188 – 90;
model 16, 45, 67, 152 – 3, 171 – 2 organizational climate 16 – 17, 35,
autonomy 36, 46, 80 – 3, 162, 163 39, 73, 206, 211, 229 – 31, 301 – 2;
average deviation (AD) index 74 organizational culture 120, 129 – 32;
awareness 132, 205, 297 178 – 92, 229 – 31, 273 – 4, 295 – 6,
301; readiness 237 – 8; subcultures
basic assumptions see assumptions and 183 – 4, 189 – 90; symbolism and
behavioral norms see norms 184, 190 – 1; values and 191 – 2
behavior patterns: as a layer of change information climate 101
organizational culture 136 – 7; OCI character 20 – 1, 26 – 7, 31, 34, 65
and 254; chief executive officer (CEO) 112,
beliefs see values 191
benchmarks 130, 270 – 1, 280, 300; citizenship see organizational
DOCS and 253; OCAI and 250 citizenship behavior
BOCI see Business Organizational clan culture 122, 162 – 4, 249 – 51;
Climate Index 266 – 7
boundary conditions: organizational climate consensus 99; see also climate
climate 105–8, 287–8; organizational strength
culture 164–5, 273; see also climate–outcome relationships 113;
moderation boundary conditions 105 – 8
BP 215, 259 – 60, 272 climate see climate strength; burnout,
branding 239, 260 – 1 climate for; change information
breadth: culture strength and 175; climate; defensive climate; diversity
of organizational culture 133; of climate; emotional climate; equal
organizational climate research opportunity climate; ethical
209 – 10; of organizational culture climate; focused climates; goal-
versus organizational climate oriented climate; human relations;
204 – 5 implementation climate; industrial
bundles 66, 228, 267; of attributes 54, relations, climate for; initiative,
198; of resources 225, 227 climate for; innovation climate;
bureaucracy 161 justice climate; leadership climate;
bureaucratic culture 191 managerial climate; molar climate;
burnout: climate for 87 organizational climate; process
Business Organizational Climate climates; productive climates;
Index (BOCI) 47 psychological safety, climate for;
safety climate; service climate;
Can Two Rights Make a Wrong? sexual harassment, climate for;
(Reger) 184 – 6 social climate; strategic climates;
Carnegie Foundation 118 – 19 subclimates
causality 84, 90, 229 – 30 climate strength 98 – 105, 115, 199,
CEO see chief executive officer 201; aggregation and 99, 102;
change 40; adaptive cultures and 166, as boundary condition 287 – 8;
177, 191 – 2; assumptions and 177, change and 35, 98; climate level
183, 229 – 31; in attitudes 230; bases and 102 – 3; conflict and 98 – 9;
Subject Index 351

dispersion and 72, 99, 104; diversity molar climate and 80 – 1, 287;
and 100; focus groups and 104; organizational climate and 34,
future research agenda 104, 302; 35, 39 – 40, 41 – 2; organizational
group cohesiveness and 98, 100; culture and 126 – 7; role 89; among
justice climate and 94 – 5, 99 – 102; subcultures 126, 174, 272
leadership and 100; leadership consistency: in the DOCS 164, 215,
climate and 99; as a moderator 251 – 2; organizational culture and
77, 99, 100 – 2, 288; molar climate 126, 161, 222
and 99; multilevel 103; nonlinear constructive cultures: OCI and 254 – 6;
relationships 101, 102, 104; 266 – 7
outcomes of 100 – 1; predictors context 23; individuals versus 198 – 9;
of 100; qualitative research and macro view of 198; meaning of
104, 212; safety climate and 99, 199 – 200; organizational climate
103; service climate and 99, 101; and 47 – 8; procedural justice 94
standard deviation 201; varying cooperation 13, 110; molar climate
findings for 101 – 3 and 81 – 3
climate variability 103; see also Cooperative Inquiry 244 – 5, 300
climate strength critical incidents 246, 248
climcult framework 219 – 20, 298 – 9 cultural diagnosis 184, 190, 236 – 9,
cluster analysis 170, 216 272 – 4; considerations 279 – 81; see
College Characteristics Index 28 also cultural inquiry
commitment 56; clan culture and 251; cultural dynamics model 137, 231
climate strength and 101; CVF and cultural forms 137 – 8
163; involvement and 162; OCP cultural inquiry 233 – 4; blending
and 258; organizational climate and qualitative and quantitative 243 – 4,
82, 95, 107; organizational culture 275 – 9; charter for 269, 276, 279;
and 121, 125, 133; socialization and focus of 263 – 9; focus groups
158 in 247 – 8, 269 – 70, 275, 277 – 8;
communication: CVF and 163; interviews 245 – 7, 275 – 7; key points
focus groups and 247; leader 112; to consider in 279 – 81; leadership
networks 94; organizational climate assessments and 272 – 4, 281;
and 27 – 8, 31, 65; organizational measurement framework for 241 – 4;
culture and 242; socialization mergers and acquisitions and 237;
tactics and 158 precipitating events leading to 237;
company personality see personality qualitative approaches to 244 – 9,
competing values framework (CVF) 275 – 9; quantitative approach to
162 – 4, 214, 266 – 9; DOCS and 249 – 79; reasons for 236 – 9, 299;
251 – 2; OCAI and 249 – 51; OCM subcultures and 246 – 7; talent
and 82; organizational life cycles management and 239 – 41
and 181 cultural manifestations 126, 192; see
competitive advantage 122, 225 – 9, also cultural forms
265 cultural penetration 174 – 5
complexity: organizational climate culture see adaptive culture;
and 22, 94, 105, 106; organizational bureaucratic culture; clan culture;
culture and 145 – 6, 164, 215; social constructive cultures; culture
226 – 8 strength; defensive culture; error
computational linguistics 248 management culture; ethical
conflict: climate strength and 98 – 9; culture; feeder culture; informal
in mergers and acquisitions 237; culture; innovative culture; market
352 Subject Index

culture; national culture; negative diversity climate 87 – 9, 96 – 7, 106 – 7,

culture; organizational culture; 109, 205, 217
safety culture; subcultures; work- DOCS see Denison Organizational
family culture Culture Survey
culture embedding mechanisms 147,
181, 229 – 30; organizational climate education: climate research in 28 – 30;
and 201, 210 – 11 subcultures and 170 – 2
culture strength 173 – 8, 243, 295, 303; effectiveness 4, 224 – 5; benchmarks
alignment and 201 – 2; breadth and and 280; boundary conditions
175 and 105 – 8, 164 – 5; competitive
customer orientation 101, 108 – 9, 264 advantage and 225 – 6; culture
customer retention 89 – 90 strength and 175 – 8; CVF and
customer satisfaction: diversity 162 – 4, 251, 266 – 7; foundation
climate and 97; justice climate and issues and 113; innovation and
94 – 5; minority representation and 109; justice climate and 73, 95;
107; molar climate and 84 – 5; OCI leadership and 19, 110; leadership
and 254 – 5; service climate and climate and 15; managerial
90 – 2, 101, 105 – 6, 114, 207; text 32, 35 – 7; measurement of
analytics and 248 165; in negative cultures 165;
customer service 84 – 5, 90, 207 organizational climate and 2,
CVF see competing values framework 11 – 12, 45 – 6, 58, 72, 114, 202;
organizational culture and 2 – 3,
data: aggregation 73 – 8, 286 – 7; ideal 122, 124 – 5, 160 – 8, 202, 213 – 15,
versus future state 271 – 2; missing 294 – 5; organizational culture
75, 78; narrative 248; qualitative change and 192, 274; organizational
analysis of 247 – 8; structures, nested culture measures and 260; service
75 – 6, 78 climate and 105
defensive climate 28, 34, 86 emotional climate 87
defensive culture: OCI and 254 – 6 employees: attitudes 84 – 5, 92, 162 – 4,
Denison Consulting 253, 270 166; attributions made by 18;
Denison Organizational Culture concern for 41, 82 – 4; engagement
Survey (DOCS) 207, 251 – 3, 260, 56; interdependence 106; lower-
263 – 4, 278 level 104, 126 – 7; motivation 19,
Department of Energy 174 23, 39, 289; performance 48, 91,
development: capability 252 – 3; 101, 113; satisfaction 90, 163, 251;
leader 274; organizational 178, 237, socialization of 41, 153 – 60, 210;
270; organizational climate 211; support 84 – 5; surveys 91, 253, 271,
organizational culture 145 – 53, 181, 278; well-being 82, 162, 214, 219
211, 292 – 3; subculture 170 enacted values: espoused values versus
differentiation 126, 129, 131, 216; 135, 205, 223 – 5, 231, 291, 298 – 9;
cultural evolution and 182 – 3; organizational climate and 200,
culture strength and 173 – 4; 209, 222 – 3
functional/occupational 181 – 2; of engagement 56; service climate and
subcultures and 168 – 9, 247 91, 113
Disneyland 169 – 70 environment 32, 36 – 7, 39, 198 – 9
dispersion models 72, 99, 104 218 – 9, 284 – 5; career 171; external
diversity 214; cultural 96; gender 97; 105, 175, 188, 210 – 11, 302;
justice climate and 100; programs 97; internal 33, 45, 218; organizational
racial 97; see also diversity climate climate and 54 – 5, 60, 66, 68,
Subject Index 353

70 – 1, 81 – 2; organizational culture categories of 87 – 8; change and 301;

and 119 – 20, 149 – 52, 260; school climate strength and 99; focused
28 – 30 cultures versus 214 – 15; items 86;
equal opportunity climate 87 leadership and 90, 111 – 12; molar
error management culture 214 climate and 113 – 14, 202, 287;
espoused values 135 – 6, 182, 238, multiple 301 – 2; narrowness of 205;
291 – 2; enacted values versus 135, outcomes and 86, 107 – 8; process
205, 223 – 5, 231, 291, 298 – 9 87 – 8; strategic 87 – 8
ethical climate 87 – 9 focused leadership 90, 111 – 12
ethical culture 214 – 15 focus groups 205, 247 – 8, 269 – 70;
evolution: of culture 121, 180 – 3, 187, 277 – 8, 292; climate strength and
229 104
executive leadership 112; see also formal organization 15 – 16
executives foundation issues 84 – 5, 90, 113 – 14;
executives: CEO 112, 191; cultural diagnosis and 262 – 3
competent 15; human resource founder: influence on organizational
240; interviewing 246, 247, 277; culture 121, 146 – 8, 200 – 1, 293;
organizational culture and 191, values 147 – 8, 152 – 3, 181, 221
234 – 6, 274; personality of 21; as fragmentation 126 – 7, 131, 182 – 3,
sponsors 236, 276, 278; strategic 199, 216; culture strength and
focus and 234 – 5; subclimate 173 – 4
35; subculture 170 – 1; talent frame of reference 72, 96, 130, 258;
management and 239 – 40 evaluative 246, 280; for focus
experiences: awareness and 205; groups 277 – 8
meaning and 2, 65 – 6, 69; member functionalism 125, 141, 202
148 – 9; organizational climate as
abstraction of 2, 68; shared 66 – 8, gap analysis 271 – 2
132, 200, 245; sharedness in 199; gender diversity 97
up-ending 156 General Electric 30 – 1, 184
external adaptation 2, 130, 134, General Motors (GM) 169
148 – 9, 175, 209, 223 general psychological climate (PCg)
72, 82 – 3
feeder culture 170 gestalt 66, 73, 87, 115, 201 – 2, 206,
financial performance 4; climate 223, 227
strength and 101; CVF and 162 – 4; Gestalt psychology 3, 66, 200
diversity climate and 97; linkage Glacier Metal Works 118
research and 165; molar climate GLOBE study 103, 150, 152
and 84; organizational culture and goals: alignment of 161; changes in
214; service climate and 91 – 2 237 – 8; managerial climate and 19;
fit 21; ASA and 152; with company orientation 111; strategic 84, 207,
personality 120; cultural 175, 240, 210, 222, 234 – 5; Theory X and 18;
258, 268; with environment 50, Theory Y and 18
109, 175 – 6, 188, 207; person- goal-oriented climate 111
organization 258; socialization and groups: agreement within 74, 77;
158; with organizational climate atmosphere 13, 27, 66; climate 27;
38, 210; with strategy 239; talent climate strength 103; cohesion 94;
management and 240 cohesiveness 98; effective 18 – 19;
focused climates 34 – 5, 57, 60 – 2, identification 95, 100; interviews
85 – 98, 206 – 7; alignment and 86 – 7; 143, 247; norms 24, 120, 159;
354 Subject Index

power distance 95, 107; processes industrial/organizational (I/O)

53, 83; size 74; social interactions psychology 3, 5, 19, 37, 119;
within 100; see also focus groups Annual Review of Psychology and
30 – 1; competitive advantage and
habits 281 228; ICC and 74
Handbook of Organizational Culture Industrial Psychology (Gilmer) 20 – 2
and Climate (Ashkanasy, Wilderom & industrial relations: climate for 87
Peterson) 1, 69, 143, 196, 214 industry 221; effects on organizational
Hawthorne studies 12, 154 culture 151 – 2, 226; organizational
hierarchy 162–4, 249–51; culture climate and 302; volatility 176 – 7,
strength and 174; at Disneyland 169; 215
justice climate and 95; organizational informal culture 16, 119
climate and 47–8, 57, 58, 82 information: processing 206; sources
historical penetration 175 159 – 60
history: organizational climate and inimitability: competitive advantage
209, 227 – 8; of organizational and 226 – 8
climate 11 – 62, 283 – 5; initiative: climate for 87, 109
organizational culture and 118 – 25, injuries 92 – 3, 106, 109
132 – 3, 139, 202, 209, 226 innovation: culture strength and
HR see human resources 177; CVF and 162 – 4, 250 – 1;
human relations: orientation 14; implementation climate and 114;
training 24, 50 moderator variables and 109 – 10;
human relations climate 15, 85 organizational culture and 207,
human resources (HR): climate 230, 262, 268 – 9; perceived
strength and 100; focused climate organizational climate and 27; rules
and 289; service climate and 91 – 2; versus 43 – 5, 86; socialization and
talent management and 240 158; task completion and 24 – 5
The Human Side of Enterprise innovation climate 31, 44, 87 – 8,
(McGregor) 17 223
Human Synergistics 254 – 6 innovative culture 191
hybrid research design 143, 168, 170 inquiry see cultural inquiry
hybrids 189, 240 In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America's Best-Run Companies
IBM 184, 234 (Peters & Waterman) 122
ICC see intraclass correlations integration 126 – 7, 182; climate
identity: climate strength and 100; strength and 101; functional 274;
organizational culture and 124, 133, internal 2, 130, 134, 148 – 9, 175,
172; racial/ethnic 217 209, 223; of organizational culture
implementation climate 111, 114 with organizational climate 5,
individuals: climate as attribute 196 – 7, 217 – 25, 296 – 9
of 51 – 2; context versus 198 – 9; internal service 106, 209, 288
differences 11 – 12, 37, 70, 108 – 9; interpretation: of the OCAI 251; of
level of analysis 16, 48, 57 – 8; level quantitative culture measures 262,
of climate 68, 70 – 2; performance 264 – 6, 270 – 1
40 – 1, 45, 108; preferences 258 interrater agreement 74
indoctrination, systematic 24 interrater reliability 74
Industrial and Organizational interviews 245 – 47, 275 – 7
Psychology: Perspectives on Science intraclass correlations (ICC) 74 – 8,
and Practice 1 286 – 7
Subject Index 355

involvement: in the DOCS and 24, 39 – 40, 53, 65, 110 – 13,
251 – 2; molar climate and 82; 200 – 1, 219 – 21, 302; organizational
organizational culture and 162 culture and 24, 122, 200 – 1,
I/O psychology see industrial/ 219 – 21, 234 – 6, 237; organizational
organizational psychology culture as substitute for 235 – 6;
organizational culture change and
Japan 121 – 2, 150, 160 – 1 184 – 92, 229 – 31, 273 – 4, 296;
JDI see job descriptive index role of 200 – 1, 302; safety climate
job descriptive index (JDI) 54 – 6 and 93, 111 – 12, 209; servant 91,
job design 24, 83 94, 111; service 90, 112; service
job performance 49 – 50, 91, 284 – 5 climate and 84, 90 – 1, 111 – 12;
job satisfaction: justice climate and social climate and 13 – 14; strategic
94 – 5; overlap with climate 54 – 6, climates and 15; styles 112, 283 – 4;
85; service climate and 90 – 2 training 14 – 15, 24; transactional 93;
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science transformational 91, 93, 100, 104,
178 111 – 12, 191; values of 191 – 2, 229
justice climate 73, 87 – 8, 94 – 6, 107; leadership behavior description
climate strength and 99 – 102; questionnaire (LBDQ) 14, 41
distributive 94 – 5, 107; leadership leadership climate 14 – 15, 30 – 1, 85,
and 111; procedural 94 – 5, 107 87, 99, 110 – 13
Leadership, Psychology, and
language: cultural forms and 138; Organizational Behavior (Bass) 70
cultural inquiry and 244, 248, 275, learning 11; accumulated 235 – 6;
279 – 80 exploratory 177; integrating
latent class modeling 216, 268, 272 organizational culture and
LBDQ see leadership behavior organizational climate 298 – 9; from
description questionnaire organizational climate research
leader-member exchange (LMX) 213 – 17; organizational culture
93 – 5, 104 development and 148 – 9, 293; from
leader personality 94, 111 organizational culture research
leadership 65; assessment 272 – 4, 208 – 13; socialization and 155 – 6,
281; autocratic 13; behavior 159 – 60
14 – 15, 111, 191, 273 – 4; Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) 27
character and 27; charismatic levels of analysis 16, 46; climate
112, 191; climate strength and strength and 103; in diversity
100, 104; competencies 273 – 4, climate 96; individual 16, 48,
281; cross-cultural 103; culture 57 – 8, 68, 72 – 3, 222; learning from
embedding mechanisms and 147, organizational climate research
201; democratic 13; differences on 216 – 17; measurement of
by organizational level 112 – 13; organizational climate and 51 – 2,
directive 15; dispersion models and 72 – 9, 286 – 7; multiple 77 – 8, 103,
104; executive 112; focused 90, 224, 302; organizational 51, 59, 66,
111 – 12, 289; focused climate and 103, 222; in service climate 89 – 92;
111 – 12; justice climate and 94; subclimates and 21 – 2; theoretical
laissez-faire 13; molar climate and justification for 77; unit 72, 77 – 8,
81, 83, 112; motivation and 19 – 20; 98, 199, 224, 286 – 7
OCAI and 249; OCI and 254, 270; life cycles: organizational culture change
organizational climate change and and 183, 188–90; organizational
229 – 31; organizational climate culture and 180–2, 303
356 Subject Index

Life Styles Inventory 254 110 – 14, 215, 222, 288 – 9, 302;
linkage research 91, 165 organizational culture and 166 – 7,
LMX see leader-member exchange 215, 222, 303; safety climate and
longitudinal research 114, 120, 211, 92 – 3, 113 – 14; service climate and
243 90 – 1, 111, 113 – 14
LPC see Least Preferred Coworker mergers and acquisitions 184, 190,
237
malleability, of organizational culture mission: in the DOCS 251 – 2;
versus organizational climate 206 organizational culture and 162
The Management of Strategic Change moderation: climate strength and
(Pettigrew) 121 99 – 105, 302; culture strength and
managerial climate 18 – 19, 41, 85, 176 – 7; diversity climate and 96 – 7,
110 – 11 107, 109; justice climate and 95,
managerialists 124, 167 107; organizational climate and 27,
Managerial Psychology (Leavitt) 36, 40, 108 – 10, 215, 288 – 9, 302;
16 – 17 organizational culture and 166 – 7,
market culture 162 – 4, 249 – 51 215, 272, 303; safety climate and
marketing 54; of organizational 93, 103, 106, 109 – 10; service
culture 121 – 2 climate and 92, 105 – 6, 108 – 9
Mayflower Group 253, 281 molar climate 60, 79 – 85, 205, 222;
meaning: of artifacts 135 – 6, attitudes and 85; climate strength
222; molar climate and 85; and 99; as climate for well-being
organizational climate and 2 – 3, 54, 82 – 4; dimensions of 81; dimensions
65 – 9, 199 – 200, 206; organizational in profile 84 – 5; early research on
culture and 120 – 1, 132, 162, 79 – 80; focused climate versus 202,
180, 199 – 200; personal 162; 287; foundation issues and 84 – 5,
psychological climate and 71 – 2; 88, 113 – 14; future research on
shared 33, 66, 69, 79, 199 – 200, 301 – 2; items 86; leadership and 81,
220; symbolic 126, 136, 138, 184, 83, 112; measurement 60, 81 – 3;
192 narrowness of 205; organizational
measurement 20; of climate strength culture and 203, 209; process
102 – 3; of culture strength 176 – 8; climates and 88; taxonomies of
in early climate research 15, 27 – 9, 80 – 2; validity of 113
34, 39 – 43, 47; framework, for motivation 23, effects of leadership on
cultural inquiry 241 – 4; ipsative 19, 40, 112, 273; manager’s theories
258, 267, 281; of leadership 272 – 4; about 17 – 18; organizational climate
of molar climate 60, 81 – 3; objective and 37 – 40, 114; organizational
36, 52 – 3, 165; of organizational culture and 161; patterns of 87 – 8;
climate 57, 72 – 9, 200; of safety 92 – 3, 114
organizational climate versus job Motivation and Organizational Climate
attitudes 54 – 6; of organizational (Litwin & Stringer) 37 – 40
effectiveness 165; profile shapes
and 242 – 3; quantitative, of Narrative Inquiry 244 – 5, 300
organizational culture 167 – 8, narratives: analysis 248; cultural
249 – 61; of safety climate 92, 259, inquiry and 245, 248; cultural forms
273; of service climate 89, 212; and 138; data 247
specificity of 73 national culture 150 – 1, 164, 210 – 11,
mediation: focused climates and 88, 293; industry versus 152
113; organizational climate and negative culture 165 – 6
Subject Index 357

networks: communication 22, 94; 105 – 8, 287 – 8; breadth of 204 – 5,

effects of 302; friendship 94; social 209 – 10; as a bundle of attributes
95 – 6, 100 54; for burnout 87; causality and
newcomers 246, 293 – 4; fit and 258; 84, 90, 229 – 30; change 16 – 17, 35,
organizational culture and 132 – 3; 39, 73, 206, 211, 229 – 31, 301 – 2;
socialization of 153 – 60 change information 101; climcult
norms 24 – 6, 223; organizational framework and 219 – 20, 298 – 9;
climate and 36, 45, 114; commitment and 82, 95, 107;
organizational culture and 16, communication and 27 – 8, 31, 65;
119 – 20, 128, 137, 249, 254 – 6; competitive advantage and 225 – 9;
socialization and 153 – 4, 159 complexity and 22, 94, 105, 106;
conceptualizing 33 – 4; configuration
OB see organizational behavior of 23, 34, 54, 84 – 5; conflict and
objective measures 36, 52 – 3, 165 34, 35, 39 – 40, 41 – 2; consensus
OCAI see Organizational Culture 99; context and 47 – 8; critiques of
Assessment Instrument 50 – 9, 284 – 5; culture embedding
OCB see organizational citizenship mechanisms and 201, 210 – 11; CVF
behavior and 82; data aggregation and 76;
occupational subcultures 170 – 2 defensive 28, 34, 86; definition of
OCDQ see Organizational Climate 1 – 3, 33 – 4, 44 – 5, 64 – 70, 114 – 15,
Description Questionnaire 285 – 6; development 211, 302;
OCI see Organizational Culture dimensions of 42, 46, 47, 49, 81,
Inventory 83; dispersion and 72, 99, 104;
OCM see Organizational Climate effectiveness and 2, 11 – 12, 45 – 6,
Measure 58, 72, 114, 202; effects of 35;
OCP see Organizational Culture emotional 87; enacted values and
Profile 200, 209, 222 – 3; environment
OD see organizational development and 54 – 5, 60, 66, 68, 70 – 1, 81 – 2;
Ohio State Leadership projects 14 equal opportunity 87; ethical
organizational behavior (OB) 5, 19, 87 – 9; fit and 38, 210; formation
37, 70; growth of 118 – 19; strategic of 302; future research on 301 – 4;
management and 123 as a gestalt 66, 73, 87, 115, 201 – 2,
organizational change see change 206, 223, 227; goal-oriented 111;
organizational citizenship behavior hierarchy and 47 – 8, 57, 58, 82;
(OCB) 114, 298; customer-focused history and 209, 227 – 8; history
90; justice climate and 94 – 5, 107; from 1939 to mid-1960s 12 – 32,
safety climate and 93 – 4; service 283 – 4; history from 1960s to
climate and 90 – 2, 114 early-1970s 32 – 50, 284; history
organizational climate: as abstraction in 1980s 60 – 2; history in the
of experiences 2, 68; aggression and mid-1970s 50 – 9, 284 – 5; human
13, 15; alignment and 15 – 16, 105, relations 15, 85; implementation
201 – 2, 228; antecedents of 110 – 14, 111, 114; for industrial relations
288 – 9; articles on 38 – 9, 61 – 2; ASA 87; industry 302; for initiative 87,
model and 16, 45, 67; assumptions 109; innovation and 24 – 5, 43 – 5;
and 205, 209, 218, 229 – 31; integration with organizational
attitudes, overlap with 41, 54 – 6, culture 5, 196 – 7, 217 – 25, 296 – 9;
69, 85, 285; attitudinal outcomes interventions 302; job satisfaction
of 82, 84, 110, 221 – 2; awareness overlap with 54 – 6, 85; lack of
of 205, 297; boundary conditions consensus in ratings of 58 – 9; lack
358 Subject Index

of uniqueness of 53 – 4; leadership diversity climate; focused climates;

and 24, 39 – 40, 53, 65, 110 – 13, innovation climate; justice climate;
200 – 1, 219 – 21, 302; learning from leadership climate; managerial
organizational culture research climate; molar climate; process
208 – 13; learning from research climates; safety climate; service
on 213 – 17; levels of analysis and climate; strategic climates;
51 – 2, 72 – 9, 286 – 7; malleability of subclimates
206; meaning of 2 – 3, 54, 65 – 69, Organizational Climate Description
199 – 200, 206; measurement Questionnaire (OCDQ) 29, 43
of 15, 27 – 9, 34, 39 – 43, 47, 57, Organizational Climate Measure
72 – 9, 200; mediation and 110 – 14, (OCM) 82; dimensions of 83
215, 222, 288 – 9, 302; models of organizational culture 117 – 18;
220, 221, 223; moderation and adaptive 166, 177, 191 – 2, 243;
27, 36, 40, 108 – 10, 215, 288 – 9, adhocracy 162 – 3, 249 – 51,
302; motivation and 37 – 40, 114; 268 – 9; alignment and 166, 175,
multiple 301 – 2; across multiple 234 – 5, 303; ambiguity in 126 – 7;
levels of analysis 302; norms and anthropology and 3, 123, 204;
36, 45, 114; organizational culture artifacts of 21, 119, 132, 135 – 7,
differentiated from 203 – 8, 297; 221; ASA model and 152 – 3;
organizational culture similarities assumptions 2, 125, 132, 134 – 7,
with 197 – 203, 297; outcomes of 149, 182, 220; attitudes and 162 – 4,
2, 34 – 5, 46, 48 – 50, 56 – 8, 71, 222; 166; attributes of 131 – 4; awareness
passion and 212 – 13; perceptions of 132, 135, 205; behavior patterns
of 19, 27, 47 – 8, 113, 220 – 4; and 136 – 7; boundary conditions
performance and 55 – 8; perspective 164 – 5, 273; breadth of 133, 204 – 5;
on 41 – 2; practical implications bureaucratic 191; bypass 165;
of 299 – 301; productive 28, 85; causality and 229 – 30; change 120,
profiles 29, 302; for psychological 129 – 32; 178 – 92, 229 – 31, 273 – 4,
safety 109; qualitative research on 295 – 6, 301; change, bases for
115 – 16, 211 – 12, 302; quantitative 236 – 9; clan 122, 162 – 4, 249 – 51;
measures of 259 – 61; quantitative 266 – 7; climcult framework and
research on 32; referent for 29, 219 – 20, 298 – 9; collective learning
72 – 3, 90, 95 – 6, 286; relevancy and 148 – 9; commitment and 121,
of 217; richness and 212 – 13; 125, 133; communication and 242;
satisfaction and 43, 45 – 6, 48, competitive advantage and 122,
54 – 6, 68; sense-making and 200; 225 – 9, 265; complexity and 145 – 6,
for sexual harassment 87; social 164, 215; conceptualizations
13 – 14; socialization and 41, 210, of 125 – 30, 290 – 1; conflict and
303; strategic focus of 206 – 7; 126 – 7; constructive 254 – 6; 266 – 7;
structure and 46 – 8, 67; summary cultural dynamics model of 137,
of 283 – 9; survey items 29, 46, 52, 231; CVF and 162 – 4, 214, 249 – 50,
72; symbolic interactionism and 266 – 7, 268 – 9; defensive 254 – 6;
67; technical updating 87; themes definition of 1 – 3, 119 – 21, 130 – 4,
in 64 – 8, 285 – 6; training and 65, 291 – 2; depth of 132; development
73; for trust formation 28, 86; of 145 – 53, 181, 211, 292 – 3;
turnover and 55, 57; typologies diagnosing 236 – 9, 272 – 4, 279 – 81;
and 302; unit-level behavior and differentiation perspective of
114; validation 52 – 3; variability 126, 129, 131, 216; dimensions of
103; see also climate strength; 127 – 8, 263 – 4, 266 – 7; effectiveness
Subject Index 359

and 2 – 3, 122, 124 – 5, 160 – 8, and 184, 190; metaphors for

202, 213 – 15, 294 – 5; embedding conceptualizing 127 – 8; methods
mechanisms 147, 181, 201, 210 – 11, for studying 138 – 44, 292; mission
229 – 30; emergence of 145 – 53; and 162; models of 220, 221,
employee well-being and 162, 214, 223; moderation and 166 – 7, 215,
219; enacted values and 223 – 5; 272, 303; molar climate and 203,
environment and 119 – 20, 149 – 52, 209; motivation and 161; negative
260; error management 214; 165 – 6; newcomers and 132 – 3;
espoused values and 135 – 6, 182, norms and 16, 119 – 20, 128, 137,
205, 223 – 5, 238, 291 – 2; ethical 249, 254 – 6; organizational climate
214 – 15; evolution of 121, 180 – 3, differentiated from 203 – 8, 297;
187, 229; executives and 191, organizational climate similarities
234 – 6, 274; external adaptation with 197 – 203, 297; outcomes
and 2, 130, 134, 148 – 9, 175, and 2 – 3, 125, 155, 165 – 7, 214 – 5,
209, 223; financial performance 303 – 4; penetration of 174 – 5;
and 214; fit with 175, 240, 258, perceptions of 175; performance
268; focused 214 – 15; forms of and 129 – 30, 161 – 7, 202, 214 – 15,
137 – 8, 291; founder influences on 237, 303; perpetuation of 153 – 60;
121, 146 – 8, 152 – 3, 181, 200 – 1, persistence of 183 – 4; practical
293; future research on 302 – 4; implications of 299 – 301; in
hierarchy 162 – 4, 249 – 51; history practice 130; process climates and
and 118 – 25, 132 – 3, 139, 202, 209, 209; profiles 264 – 9; qualitative
226; hybrid research design 143, research on 123, 139 – 44, 167 – 8,
168; identity and 124, 133, 172; 182, 204; quantitative measures
individual preferences and 258; of 249 – 61; quantitative research
industry effects on 151 – 2, 226; on 139 – 44, 167 – 8, 215 – 6, 303;
informal 16, 119; innovation and relevancy of 129 – 30, 217; research
207, 230, 262, 268 – 9; innovative categories 140 – 1; rigidity of 179;
191; integration with organizational rules and 133, 161, 179; safety
climate 5, 196 – 7, 217 – 25, 296 – 9; 215, 259 – 60; sense-making and
integration perspective of 126 – 7, 132; sharedness of 131, 175, 199;
182; internal integration and 2, socialization and 132 – 3, 153 – 60,
130, 134, 148 – 9, 175, 209, 223; 210, 293 – 4, 302 – 3; sociology
involvement and 162; issues and 3; stability of 131 – 2, 180 – 3;
that constitute 185 – 6; layers of strategic climates and 209, 219 – 20,
223 – 4; leadership and 24, 122, 223, 304; strategic focus of 206 – 7,
200 – 1, 219 – 21, 234 – 6, 237; 304; structure and 26, 120, 174;
learning from organizational summary of 289 – 96; supportive
climate research 213 – 17; learning 191; surveys of 140 – 3, 249 – 61,
from research on 208 – 13; levels 300; of sustainable organizations
of 135 – 7; levels of analysis and 214; symbolism in 120 – 2, 126,
216 – 7; leveraging of 238 – 9; 132, 134; three-perspective theory
life cycles and 180 – 3, 189 – 90; of 127; transmission of 132 – 3;
maintenance 293 – 4; malleability turnover and 298; typologies
of 206; market 162 – 4, 249 – 51; 263 – 9, 280; uncertainty reduction
marketing of 121 – 2; meaning and and 155; uniqueness of 133 – 4,
120 – 1, 132, 162, 180, 199 – 200; 139, 190; work-family 214; see also
mediation and 166 – 7, 215, 222, cultural inquiry; culture strength;
303; mergers and acquisitions subcultures
360 Subject Index

Organizational Culture Assessment quality 89 – 90, 214; shared 168 – 9,

Instrument (OCAI) 249 – 51, 260, 174 – 5, 199, 205 – 6, 209; variability
263 – 4, 267, 269 – 70, 281 in 98 – 9
Organizational Culture Inventory performance: climate strength and
(OCI) 254 – 6, 260, 266 – 7, 270 101, 104; culture strength and
Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) 175 – 7, 258 – 9; CVF and 162 – 4;
207, 256 – 61, 264, 266 – 7, 268 diversity climate and 96 – 7; drivers
organizational development (OD) 255 – 6; evaluation 15; individual
178, 237, 270 36, 40 – 1, 45, 51, 108, 203; job
Organizational Dynamics 146 49 – 50, 91, 284 – 5; managerial
organizational effectiveness see 35 – 7; measurement of 165;
effectiveness organizational 25, 114, 162 – 5,
Organizational Psychology (Schein) 175 – 7; organizational climate and
23 – 5, 70, 120 55 – 8; organizational culture and
organizational structure see structure 129 – 30, 161 – 7, 202, 214 – 15,
outcomes 229, 303 – 4; of climate 237, 303; sales 96 – 7; service
strength 99 – 101; of cultural 91 – 2; team 95; see also financial
inquiry 236, 243, 280; CVF and performance
266 – 7; diversity climate and personality: Big Five 111; company
96 – 7; DOCS and 253; focus on 36, 119 – 20; leader 94, 111;
206 – 7; focused climate and 86 – 8, need-press model of 28; types, in
107 – 8, 113; justice climate and occupational subcultures 171 – 2
94 – 5; mediation and 114, 215; The Planning of Change: Readings
moderation and 215, 302; molar in the Applied Behavioral Sciences
climate and 84 – 5; OCAI and 251; (Bennis, Benne & Chin) 178
OCI and 254 – 5; OCP and 258 – 9; positive reinforcement 230
organizational climate and 2, practices, cultural forms and 138
34 – 5, 46, 48 – 50, 56 – 8, 71, 222; PriceWaterhouseCoopers Consulting
organizational culture and 2 – 3, 184
125, 155, 165 – 7, 214 – 5, 303 – 4; problem solving 20; external
organizational culture change and adaptation and 148 – 9
190; process-focused climate and procedural justice climate see justice
88; psychological climate and 71; climate
reciprocal relationships with 224; process climates 87 – 9, 102, 106 – 7; as
safety climate and 92 – 4, 106; foundations for strategic climates
service climate and 89 – 92; see also 88 – 9, 220, 287; organizational
climate–outcome relationships culture and 209
productive climates 28, 85
passion 212 – 13 productivity: Hawthorne studies and
PCg see general psychological climate 12
perceptions: diversity climate and product tangibility 106
96 – 7; homogeneity of 22, 59; profiles 217, 242 – 3, 300; climate 29,
individual 22, 45, 54 – 5, 71, 302; cultural 263 – 9; molar climate
96; justice climate and 94 – 6; 84 – 5; see also typologies
objective measures versus 52 – 3; Psychological Bulletin 22
of organizational climate 19, 27, psychological climate 18, 20 – 2, 51 – 2,
47 – 8, 113, 220 – 4; of organizational 60, 70 – 2, 221; dimensions of 81;
culture 175; safety climate and 93; general 72, 82 – 3; job attitudes and
service climate and 89; of service 72; satisfaction and 68
Subject Index 361

psychological penetration 174 resources 225 – 7; allocation of 147,

psychological safety: climate for 109 274; organizational 91, 113
response rates: within-unit 74 – 5, 78
Q-sort 256 – 8 return on assets 109, 258 – 9
qualitative research 4; climate return on investment (ROI) 108,
strength and 104, 212; on 176
organizational climate 115 – 16, richness 212 – 13, 302
211 – 12, 302; on organizational rites of passage 156
culture 123, 139 – 44, 167 – 8, 182, ROI see return on investment
204; on organizational subcultures role stress 83; service climate and
169; pros and cons of 142; see also 89 – 90, 108
cultural inquiry rules 21; cultural manifestations and
quantitative research 4; on 138; innovation versus 43 – 4, 86;
organizational climate 32; on organizational culture and 133, 161,
organizational culture 139 – 44, 179
167 – 8, 215 – 6, 303; pros and cons rWG(j) metric 74 – 5, 77, 286 – 7; see
of 142; see also cultural inquiry also agreement
questions: for cultural inquiry focus
groups 277 – 8; for cultural inquiry safety climate 23, 60 – 2, 92 – 4,
interviews 276; for measuring 223; climate strength and 99,
organizational climate 72; OCAI 103; leadership and 93, 111 – 12,
249 – 50 209; measures of 92, 259, 273;
mediation and 92 – 3, 113 – 14;
rareness: competitive advantage and moderation and 93, 103, 106,
226 – 7 109 – 10; organizational citizenship
referent: for organizational climate behavior and 93 – 4; outcomes 92 – 4,
items 29, 72 – 3, 90, 95 – 6, 286 106; strategic climates and 87 – 8
referent-shift consensus model 73, 286 safety culture 215, 259 – 60
recruitment 240 safety training 92, 109 – 10, 259
reinforcement: collective learning sales 90 – 1, 96 – 7, 253
and 148 – 9; mechanisms 147, 201; sample size, within-unit 78
positive 230; schedules 11 satisfaction 68; climate strength and
relevancy, of organizational culture 101; employee 90, 163, 251 (see
research 129 – 30, 217 also job satisfaction); justice climate
research: in education 28 – 30; and 94 – 5, 107; organizational
future 104, 301 – 4; history of climate and 43, 45 – 6, 48, 54 – 6,
organizational culture 118 – 25; 68; psychological climate and
hybrid designs of 143, 168, 170; 68; service climate and 90 – 1; of
integrated 298 – 9; learning from subordinates 19; see also customer
organizational culture 208 – 13; satisfaction
linkage 91, 165; longitudinal 114, school environments 28 – 30
120, 211, 243; mixed methods scientist-practitioner model 3
215 – 16; organizational culture, scoring: cultural inquiry and 270 – 1; of
categories of 140 – 1; survey 215 – 16; the OCAI 250 – 1; sentiment 248
symbolism in 120 – 1; see also Securities and Exchange Commission
qualitative research; quantitative 238
research selection 11 – 12, 23 – 4, 40 – 1, 240; see
resource-based theory of organizations also Attraction-Selection-Attrition
225 – 9 (ASA) model
362 Subject Index

sense-making: justice climate and 100; and 158; learning during 155 – 6,
organizational climate and 200; 159 – 60; norms and 153 – 4, 159;
organizational culture and 132; occupational subcultures and 171;
subcultures and 170 organizational climate and 41, 210,
service climate 60 – 2, 87, 89 – 92; 303; organizational culture and
climate strength and 99, 101; 132 – 3, 210, 293 – 4, 302 – 3; stages
customer satisfaction and 90 – 2, of 156 – 7; tactics 157 – 8; talent
101, 105 – 6, 114, 207; diversity management and 240; uncertainty
climate and 97, 107, 109; reduction and 155
foundation issues and 84, 90, 113; The Social Psychology of Organizations
HR and 91 – 2; internal service (Katz & Kahn) 25 – 6
and 106, 288; job satisfaction and Society for Industrial and
90 – 2; leadership and 84, 90 – 1, Organizational Psychology (SIOP) 1
111 – 12; measures 89 – 90, 212; sociological penetration 174
mediation and 90 – 1, 111, 113 – 14; sociology 3, 12, 67
moderation and 92, 105 – 6, 108 – 9; sponsor: of cultural inquiry 236, 276,
organizational citizenship behavior 278 – 9
and 90 – 2, 114; strategic climates stakeholders: adaptive cultures and
and 87 – 8 191 – 2; cultural inquiry and 237 – 8,
service orientation 89, 108, 111 262, 269 – 72, 279 – 80; external 151;
service performance 91 – 2 multiple 4, 217
service quality 91, 106, 202, 214; statistics: aggregation 74 – 7; agreement
customer perceptions of 89 – 90, 75, 78
214; gap scores and 271 – 2; molar strategic climates 15 – 16, 20, 23 – 4,
climate and 84, OCI and 254 – 5 34 – 5, 87; boundary conditions and
service relationships 106 – 8 106; breadth and 205; competitive
sexual harassment: climate for 87 advantage and 227 – 9; external
shared meanings 33, 66, 69, 79, environment and 211; focus of 214;
199 – 200, 220 leadership and 273; molar climates
sharedness: culture strength and and 84 – 5, 113 – 14; organizational
175; in experiences 199; of culture and 209, 219 – 20, 223, 304;
organizational culture 131 process climates and 88 – 9; survey
Silicon Valley 169 259 – 61
SIOP see Society for Industrial and strategic focus: executives and 234 – 5;
Organizational Psychology learning from organizational
situational strength 98, 108 climate research on 214 – 15; of
situational variables 30, 34, 36 organizational culture 304; of
situations 11 – 12, 36, 40 – 1, 60; organizational culture versus
interaction of person and 43; organizational climate 206 – 7; on
organizational 53; social 25, 119 – 20 surveys 259 – 60
SMEs see subject matter experts strategic management 123, 211
social climate 13 – 14 strength see climate strength; culture
social exchange 112, 219 strength; situational strength
social interactions: meaning and 67; stress: climate strength and 101; role
shared 71; climate strength and 100 83, 89 – 90, 108
social networks see networks structure 221; bureaucratic 52; nested
socialization 24 – 6, 153 – 60; culture data 75 – 6, 78; informal 21, 26, 120;
strength and 175; definition of loose 174; organizational climate
153 – 4; fit and 158; individual and 46 – 8, 67; of qualitative data
proactive 158 – 9; innovation 247 – 8
Subject Index 363

subclimates 35, 199; levels of analysis teams 19; alignment and 234 – 5;
and 21 – 2, 78 climate strength and 100 – 2; justice
subcultures 168 – 73, 199; conflict climate and 94 – 6; performance 95;
among 126, 272; cultural inquiry size 94, 100; stress 101
and 246 – 7, 270, 272, 281; culture technical updating climate 87
strength and 173 – 4; definition Texas City Refinery 259
of 168; development 170; T-Groups 27 – 8, 86, 178
differentiation and 126 – 7, 131, Theory X 17 – 18, 85, 111
168 – 9, 290; executive 170 – 1; Theory Y 17 – 18, 85, 111
future research on 303; levels of Theory Z: How American Business
analysis and 216; life cycle stages Can Meet the Japanese Challenge
and 181 – 2; occupational 170 – 2; (Ouchi) 121
organizational culture change and three-perspective theory of culture
183 – 4, 189 – 90; organizational 127
effectiveness and 164, 166, 295; training: climate for transfer of 87;
qualitative research on 142, human relations 24, 50; leadership
169 – 70; quantitative research and 14 – 15, 24; organizational climate
142, 216, 272 and 65, 73; safety 92, 109 – 10, 259;
subject matter experts (SMEs) 244, socialization and 156 – 7
246, 275 – 6 trust: clan cultures and 122, 162 – 3
substitutability: competitive trust formation: climate for 28, 86
advantage and 226 – 8 turnover: fit and 258; justice climate
supervision, global versus detailed and 94 – 5; linkage research and 91;
43 – 5, 86 organizational climate and 55, 57;
supervisor-subordinate relationship organizational culture and 298;
18, 66 service climate and 101
support: items, 86; from management typologies 263 – 9, 280; organizational
111, 113; molar climate and 84 – 5; climate and 302; see also profiles
organizational 93
supportive culture 191 uncertainty reduction 155
surveys 215 – 16; items on 29, 46, underlying assumptions see
52, 72; linkage research and 91; assumptions
of organizational culture 140 – 3, units: agreement within 75, 77 – 8,
249 – 61, 300; strategic focus of 99, 102; behavior 114, 220;
259 – 60; see also measurement effectiveness 45 – 6, 73, 95, 110;
sustainable organizations: cultures of level of analysis 72, 77 – 8, 98,
214 199, 224, 286 – 7; organizational
symbolic interactionism 67 citizenship behavior 94 – 5, 111,
symbolism: cultural dynamics 114; organizational climate and 2,
model and 137; cultural forms 66 – 7, 70, 72; referent 73, 95
and 138; leadership and 274; in
organizational culture 120 – 2, 126, validation: of organizational climate
132, 134; of organizational culture 52 – 3
change 184, 190 – 1 validity generalization 41
System 4 Management 20, 120 value: competitive advantage and
225 – 8
tactics: proactive 159; socialization values 137; in adaptive cultures 177;
157 – 8 behavior patterns and 230; CEO
talent management 239 – 41 191; climate of 28, 85; of climate
Tavistock School 118 strength 302; enacted versus
364 Subject Index

espoused 205, 223 – 5, 231, 298 – 9; see also climate strength, culture
espoused 135 – 6, 182, 238, 291 – 2; strength, intraclass correlations
founder 147 – 8, 152 – 3, 181, 221; Venn diagrams 173
layers of organizational culture and vision: of founders 152; of leaders
224; leader 191, 229; OCP 256 – 9; 100, 121, 188
organizational 36; organizational
cultural change and 191 – 2; shared WABA analyses 74
136; statements 258; see also well-being: climate for 82 – 4; climate
competing values framework strength outcomes and 101;
variability: climate 103; in agreement employee 82, 162, 214, 219
75, 77 – 8, 102; in perceptions 98 – 9; work environment see environment
in within-unit response rates 74 – 5; work facilitation 90, 113
in within-unit sample size 78; work-family culture 214