1 Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 91, No. 2, /06/$12.00 DOI: / When Organizational Climate Is Unambiguous, It Is Also Strong Marcus W. Dickson Wayne State University Christian J. Resick Florida International University Paul J. Hanges University of Maryland Several recent studies have addressed the topic of climate strength the degree to which there is agreement among an organization s members regarding the practices and policies as well as the shared values that characterize the organization. To further investigate antecedents of climate strength, the authors used data from the GLOBE Project, totaling 3,783 individuals from 123 organizations. The authors hypothesized that they would find greater climate strength in organizations with climates reflecting mechanistic as opposed to organic organizational forms. Although the authors did in fact find such a trend, they also unexpectedly uncovered significant and strong nonlinear effects, such that climates that are clearly mechanistic or clearly organic have strong climates, with weaker climates emerging for organizations with more ambiguous climates. These findings provide interesting new avenues to pursue in understanding the origins of climate strength. Keywords: organizational climate, climate strength, GLOBE Project Organizational climate is an inherently multilevel construct involving distinct perceptions and beliefs about an organization s physical and social environment. At the individual level, psychological climate refers to individuals perceptions of and the meanings they assign to their environment. As a higher level construct, organizational climate reflects beliefs about the organization s environment that are shared among members and to which members attach psychological meaning to help them make sense of their environment (L. A. James & James, 1989; L. R. James & Jones, 1974; Schneider, 1975; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Organizational climate research has traditionally focused on the mean of aggregated climate ratings of individual members. Although agreement among members perceptions is generally examined to determine whether members hold similar or shared perspectives regarding the organization s practices, until recently the amount of agreement has been an unattended scientific construct (Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, & Tordera, 2002, p. 465). Even though members of an organization may have similar perceptions and beliefs, variance among their perceptions may still Marcus W. Dickson, Wayne State University, Department of Psychology; Christian J. Resick, Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Paul J. Hanges, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland. Marcus W. Dickson and Paul J. Hanges received funding from the GLOBE Project while serving as Co-Principal Investigators (M.W.D. and P.J.H) and Research Assistant (M.W.D.) on that project. We thank Robert J. House and the GLOBE Project for use of the GLOBE measures and data in this project. We thank Ben Schneider, Rick Guzzo, Michele Gelfand, Edwin Locke, and Sheldon Zedeck for their suggestions on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marcus W. Dickson, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI exist, and this variance provides meaningful information about the strength of the organization s climate (Lindell & Brandt, 2000; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Strength of climate is important because it has been shown to relate to such important organizational outcomes as consistency of customer reports of customer service quality (Schneider et al., 2002), and it may mediate the relationship between mean climate ratings and a variety of individual and organizational outcomes (Lindell & Brandt, 2000). Few studies have examined the antecedents of climate strength, however, and additional research is needed to gain a better understanding of the factors that may facilitate the development of strong climates. Schneider and Reichers (1983) suggested that structural characteristics, the types of people within an organization, interaction patterns, and socialization practices all play a role in the emergence of organizational climates. These factors likely impact both perceptions of organizational climate and within-organization agreement concerning climate perceptions. Burns and Stalker s (1961) mechanistic organic model of organizational form provides a comprehensive perspective on organizational modes of operation that addresses structural characteristics, management practices, and employee interaction patterns. Moreover, aspects of organizational structure and form have also been linked to person organization (P-O) fit (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Turban & Keon, 1993) and types of socialization practices used by organizations (e.g., Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1998), which influence the types of people who join and remain with an organization along with their perceptions of their organization s environment. Together, these forces likely result in members of mechanistic and organic organizations developing different perceptions of how their organizations operate. Moreover, a key aspect of Burns and Stalker s (1961) characterization of organizations was that cooperation among organiza- 351
2 352 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES tion members has different bases depending on the organization s form. Burns and Stalker argued that in mechanistic organizations, people are able to work together effectively because they know and agree on what the rules are and what people are expected to do that is, mechanistic organizations by definition have a strong climate. In organic organizations, according to Burns and Stalker, the rules are much less clear, and there are likely to be few widely agreed upon appropriate behaviors that is, there is a weak climate. Further, Burns and Stalker contended that in organic organizations, people tend to agree about the overall goals of the organization, and this provides a basis for cooperation among members. The present study builds on this work and examines the relationship between organizational climates regarding mechanistic organic organizational forms and climate strength. We refer to mechanistic organic organizational climates as shared perceptions regarding policies, practices, and norms indicative of mechanistic or organic organizational forms. Using a measure of organizational climate regarding mechanistic organic forms allows us to examine within-organization agreement and perceptions of organizational form with a single scale. It also provides an approach to examine how perceptions of organizational form are related to agreement among members perceptions regarding that organizational form. Organizational Climate Shared perceptions are a distinguishing feature of organizational climates, which form an institutionalized normative system that guides member behavior (Schneider, 1983). Schneider (1975) defined organizational climate as psychologically meaningful molar [environmental] descriptions that people can agree characterize a system s practices and procedures (p. 474). As such, according to Reichers and Schneider (1990), organizational climate pertains to the shared perceptions of the way things are around here (p. 22) rather than being shared judgments about the way things should be. To form the organization-level construct, individual climate ratings are typically aggregated to form the unit-level construct, and this either explicitly or implicitly involves the use of composition models through which the theoretical rationale for the aggregation process is presented (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). Essentially, composition models address the definition of multilevel constructs by specifying the functional relationships among phenomena or constructs at different levels of analysis (e.g., individual, team, organizational) that reference essentially the same content but that are qualitatively different at different levels (Chan, 1998, p. 234). Building on previous research (see Brown, Kozlowski, & Hattrup, 1996; Rousseau, 1985), Chan (1998) proposed a five-level typology of composition models: (a) additive, (b) direct consensus, (c) referent shift, (d) dispersion, and (e) process. In the realm of climate research, composition models are strategies for operationalizing climate at aggregated levels of analysis as well as defining the theoretical relationships among climate at these different levels. Two distinct and important characteristics of organizational climate are the mean of the aggregate perceptions and the amount of agreement among members. The direct consensus and dispersion models provide the theoretical framework for addressing these characteristics of organizational climate (Schneider et al., 2002). In direct consensus models, higher level constructs represent the consensus among the lower level units. Direct consensus models have traditionally been used in organizational climate research, because an organizational climate is said to exist only to the extent that agreement among individual members exists (L. R. James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988). Within-organization agreement is therefore more than a statistical hurdle. It is an integral element in the definition of the group-level construct (Klein et al., 2001, p. 4). The unit of analysis for climate researchers, then, is typically the aggregate of individual climate ratings, with aggregation occurring only after sufficient within-organization agreement has been found. These organization-level climate scores are then examined in relation to other organizational processes, such as organizational performance and member satisfaction. Mean organizational climate ratings have been referred to as climate level (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002) or quality, reflecting the proximity of the organizational average to the positive end of the response scale (Lindell & Brandt, 2000). In the present study, however, we do not conceive of either the mechanistic or the organic end of the continuum as being inherently more positive. We thus refer to mean organizational climate ratings on the mechanistic organic continuum as climate direction or climate level, reflecting the degree to which the organization s policies and practices are reflective of mechanistic or organic organizational forms. When discussing other researchers work on climate strength, we use their original terms, reflecting dimensions with positive and negative end points. Climate Strength Although within-unit consensus is an important aspect of the higher level construct, researchers are unlikely to find perfect agreement among group or organization members. The amount of agreement found provides an indication of climate strength (Colquitt et al., 2002; Lindell & Brandt, 2000; Schneider et al., 2002), which addresses the degree to which there is agreement among an organization s members regarding the practices and policies characterizing that organization. The dispersion composition model provides the theoretical framework for examining climate strength. Here, the higher level construct is operationalized as the amount of agreement among the lower level units. Building on the concept of situational strength presented by Mischel (1976), Schneider et al. (2002) suggested that stronger climates should lead to greater consistency of behavior; they defined a strong climate as a place where events are perceived the same way and where expectations are clear (p. 221). Stronger climates reflect less ambiguity of organizational norms and practices, leading to more uniform perceptions and expectations among members. Evidence from several empirical studies suggests that climate strength serves to moderate the relationship between mean climate levels and outcomes. For example, Colquitt et al. (2002) found that climate strength was not directly related to organizational outcomes but, instead, moderated the relationship between procedural-justice climate level and both organizational performance and aggregated levels of employee absenteeism. Likewise, Gonzalez-Roma et al. (2002) found that strength of climate for innovation moderated the relationship between climate level and unit-level averages of work satisfaction and organizational com-
3 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 353 mitment, and strength of climate regarding goal orientation moderated relationships between climate level and organizational commitment. Moreover, Schneider et al. (2002) found that strength of service climate perceptions moderated the relationship between mean climate level and customer perceptions of service quality. In each of these studies, the relationships between mean climate level and the outcomes were stronger when climate strength was high. Schneider et al. (2002) also found that the interaction of climate level and climate strength (but not climate level or strength independently) was significantly related to service quality perceptions measured 3 years later. These authors relied on this result to suggest that continuity of climate may be a function of climate strength. Together, these findings suggest that in organizations with stronger climates, consensus among members regarding how the organization operates ultimately enhances the relationship between climate level and outcomes by leading to greater consistency and continuity of member behavior. Practically speaking, when organizational climates are strong, members have a similar understanding of the norms, practices, and expectations associated with climates relating to areas such as safety, service, ethics, and so forth. Following these three examples, those similar understandings then result in people taking the same types of safety precautions, delivering similar types of service to customers, or engaging in similar types of ethical practices. When climate norms, practices, and policies emphasize providing superior quality and performance, stronger climates are likely to facilitate superior performance throughout the organization. However, when climate norms and practices emphasize minimum standards or doing just enough to get by, stronger climates are unlikely to facilitate organizational success, and they may even hinder performance. Thus, a strong climate is likely to lead to a range of organizational benefits, as long as it is not a climate for mediocrity. There has been, however, little research to date on strong climates for poor or mediocre performance. One related exception is the study by Schneider et al. (2002), which showed that climate strength relates to consistency of reports of customer service even when the mean for customer service is low. Although empirical support for the moderator influence of climate strength has begun to accumulate, relatively few studies have empirically examined the factors that influence strong organizational climates. We suggest that climate strength is likely influenced by the same organizational forces thought to affect the creation of climates. On the basis of their integration of the climate literature, Schneider and Reichers (1983) summarized three organizational forces that contribute to organizational climate emergence. First, the structural perspective presented by Payne and Pugh (1976) suggests that objective characteristics of the organization s setting such as degree of rules and policies and centralization or decentralization of decision-making authority influence members perceptions of the work environment. Structural characteristics are discretionary stimuli (Hackman, 1992) that may lead to systematic variation in members climate perceptions, thereby influencing climate strength (Lindell & Brandt, 2000). Second, climate emerges from the perceptions of organizational members. The attraction selection attrition (ASA) model describes the process by which similar types of people are attracted to, selected by, and retained by organizations (Schneider, 1987). As a result of these processes, the people who remain with an organization tend to have similar personalities, values, and attitudes (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995), which influence the organization s environment. In addition, similar people also likely have similar ways of viewing the world, which leads to greater consensus regarding climate perceptions (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Finally, through interactions among members and organizational socialization processes, individuals learn to make sense of the work environment (Louis, 1980). Researchers have found that individuals develop similar perceptions of the work environment through social interactions among members (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2002; Klein et al., 2001; Rentsch, 1990). Burns and Stalker s (1961) concept of mechanistic organic organizational forms is a wide-ranging view on organizational operations, and it is currently the most prevalent distinction for describing fundamental differences in organizational structure (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003, p. 295). Each of the three factors that influence the emergence of organizational climates (and, likely, the climate strength as well) structural characteristics, interaction patterns, and the types of people who join and remain with an organization are likely influenced by aspects of organizational form as characterized by the mechanistic organic continuum. We therefore suggest that the mechanistic organic model can provide a meaningful perspective on organizations from which to examine antecedents of climate strength. Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Burns and Stalker (1961) described mechanistic organizations as being characterized by specialized differentiation between jobs; a clear understanding among employees and the organization as to what each employee is obliged to provide to the organization and what each employee has the right to expect from the organization; behavior that is governed by clear policies and rules; and a high level of emphasis on hierarchy and chain of command, with downward communication consisting primarily of instructions and upward communication consisting primarily of feedback. Organic organizations, conversely, are characterized by overlapping responsibilities, less specialization, and greater generalization among positions; the abandonment of the notion of specific responsibility (i.e., each employee has the responsibility to do whatever is most needed at any given time rather than having their responsibility limited to a narrow job description); behavior that is governed by a shared set of values and goals rather than instructions and rules; and a high level of emphasis on pushing decision-making authority down the hierarchy, so that downward communication may consist of advice, and upward communication may consist of reports of decisions made and outcomes.
4 354 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES It is important to note that the mechanistic and organic forms are not seen as pure forms, and Burns and Stalker themselves recognized that most organizations would have some degree of both forms. Thus, many researchers have treated the mechanistic organic distinction as a continuum, which is congruent with Burns and Stalker s original descriptions. An often overlooked aspect of Burns and Stalker s (1961) work is their suggestion that cooperation among organization members has different bases depending on the form of the organization. Burns and Stalker argued that in mechanistic organizations, people are able to work together effectively because they all know and agree on what the rules are and what people do that is, they agree on the organization s climate. In organic organizations, the rules are much less clear, and there are likely to be few widely agreed upon appropriate behaviors, because individuals are freer to resolve problems in the ways they see fit. Burns and Stalker went on to suggest that members of organic organizations are still able to function together effectively because they agree on the overall goals of the organization, even without agreeing on rules of behavior. To date, however, differences in within-organization agreement in relation to mechanistic organic forms have not been examined. In mechanistic organizations, organizational practices are more clearly articulated, formalized policies and practices govern behavior, and decision making is more centralized. Thus, there are fewer environmental stimuli that are open for discretionary interpretation, which should increase the consistency of the perceptions and meaning shared among members and facilitate the emergence of stronger climates. In contrast, there are greater amounts of discretionary stimuli in organic organizations because of the lack of formalization and the decentralization of authority, which may lead to greater variability among members perceptions. This does not mean that there will be a lack of agreement in organic organizations. In fact, some level of agreement should exist among the members of organic organizations regarding their perceptions of the organization s practices and how the organization operates. As noted previously, this agreement is necessary for an organizational climate to exist. We are, however, suggesting that in organic organizations, there is likely to be somewhat greater variability among members climate perceptions, because the organization s practices are less formalized. In contrast, there is likely to be somewhat less variability among members perceptions of how the organization operates in mechanistic organizations, because fewer discretionary stimuli exist. Thus, our conclusion from the literature is that although organizational climates will exist in both mechanistic and organic organizations, there will be greater within-organization agreement and, thus, stronger climates in mechanistic organizations than in organic organizations. Ambrose and Schminke (2003) expanded on the importance of within-organization agreement, contending that organizational structure and form is a shared phenomenon (p. 298). In the same way that shared perceptions of an organization s practices, policies, and routines provide a system of institutionalized beliefs regarding how the organization operates as well as the norms and expectations of behavior (i.e., organizational climate; Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schneider, 1975, 1983), shared perceptions about organizational structure and form compose a type of organizational climate reflecting mechanistic or organic organizational forms. To our knowledge, mechanistic organic organizational forms were first described as a distinct type of organizational climate by Csoka (1975), who examined mechanistic and organic organizational climates as moderators of the relationship between leader motivation measured with the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale (Fiedler, 1967) and performance. Csoka found that high-lpc leaders were most effective in organic climates, whereas low-lpc leaders were most effective in mechanistic climates. In addition, Ashforth et al. (1998) found differences in the socialization tactics used by mechanistic and organic organizations, and these differences may also affect agreement among members climate perceptions. Through socialization activities, newcomers acquire knowledge of the accepted behaviors, values, and norms necessary to become a functioning member of the organization (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In their review article, Ashforth et al. (1998) found that mechanistic rather than organic organizations are more likely to use more structured and institutionalized socialization practices and are also more likely to encourage newcomers to accept established norms and processes (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1997; Jones, 1986). Institutionalized socialization efforts should help mechanistic organizations to establish and maintain consistency in organizational practices and behavior, leading to less ambiguity of organizational events, greater consensus among members climate perceptions, and ultimately stronger climates in mechanistic organizations. In summary, then, organizational form influences many salient environmental features, including management practices, socialization activities, and the types of people who fit an organization. Because mechanistic organizational forms are designed to reduce ambiguity, we suggest that there should be less variability among members climate perceptions and, thus, stronger climates in mechanistic organizations, and we present the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Climate strength is related to climate perceptions regarding organizational form such that greater climate strength is found in organizations with more mechanistic climates. Research in the area of P-O fit has found that people tend to be attracted to, selected by, and remain with organizations in which they fit, and they are also likely to leave organizations with which there is misfit (see Kristof, 1996; Schneider et al., 1995). One type of fit with an organization involves the congruence between (a) an individual s personality and values and (b) the organization s structural characteristics (e.g., Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Turban & Keon, 1993). Moreover, congruence between organizational culture values and individual values is a commonly used gauge of P-O fit (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; O Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Individuals who are attracted to, join, and remain with organic organizations likely have preferences for working in organizations with organic practices, and they likely share values favoring more fluid and less structured organizational forms. Likewise, those individuals who join and stay in mechanistic organizations likely prefer working for organizations with mechanistic practices and have similar values favoring more structured and less fluid organizational forms. This is especially likely to be the case in mechanistic organizations given the institutionalized socialization practices that are used in them, because
5 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 355 more structured socialization tactics have been related to shifts in new members values toward greater consistency with those values espoused by the organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001). The institutionalized socialization practices used by mechanistic organizations will likely encourage members to value more mechanistic forms. As a result of fit with various aspects of the organization and the processes of attraction, selection, and attrition, an organization becomes relatively homogeneous in terms of the personal characteristics (e.g., personality, values, attitudes) of its members (Schneider, 1987), and it comes to develop a unique profile of shared personality traits and values that distinguish it from other organizations (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998). The characteristics of the people who remain with the organization are interrelated with the environmental norms and practices that evolve as climates emerge from the organization s members as they interact with one another and try to find ways to work together (Schneider, 1987). Moreover, similarity among individuals may provide a basis for common understanding (Engle & Lord, 1997, p. 991), increasing the likelihood that members will interpret behavior and environmental forces similarly (Schneider, 1987; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). The relationships between the types of climates in organizations (i.e., shared understandings of policies and practices) and the types of values that members of organizations share are likely to be reciprocal. For example, Schneider and Reichers (1983) contended that one factor leading to the etiology of climates is the types of characteristics of the people in organizations. At the same time, characteristics of organizations influence organizational fit, and fit subsequently influences the types of organizations that people join, stay with, or leave. In situations in which members shared values are reflective of the organization s practices, there is likely to be less variability among members perceptions regarding how the organization operates because of the combination of (a) organizational practices providing environmental cues; (b) congruence between shared values and organizational practices, further reducing environmental ambiguity concerning how the organization operates; and (c) people having similar values interpreting the environment in similar ways. For example, when organizational practices are highly standardized and decision making is centralized, there will likely be greater agreement among members as to how the organization operates if members of that organization value standardization and centralization than if members values are ambiguous regarding preferences for organizational structure, which could be the case in younger organizations or in organizations undergoing restructuring, downsizing, or change initiatives. As such, we suggest that climates will be stronger (i.e., there will be less variability in members perceptions) when members shared values are consistent with organizational practices than when shared values are not congruent with organizational practices. Further, we suggest that in a mechanistic organic framework, climate strength will be most strongly related to climate direction (i.e., mechanistic or organic) when members share mechanistic values. We advance the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2: Climate direction is most strongly related to climate strength when members share mechanistic values. Hypothesis 3: Direction of shared values interacts with climate direction such that climates are stronger in organizations in which members shared values are congruent with the organization s climate, and climates are weaker when shared values and climates are not congruent. Method Data for this study were originally collected as part of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program, and the data were not originally designed to focus on the mechanistic organic distinction or on climate strength. GLOBE is a longterm, multiphase project in which collaborators across multiple cultures are investigating the ways in which societal and organizational cultures relate to leadership and organizational practices. As of the beginning of 2004, GLOBE s team of approximately 180 social scientists from around the world had collected data from 62 countries. Additional details regarding the GLOBE Project s data collection and scale development efforts have been provided by House and his colleagues (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Hanges & Dickson, 2004; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; House et al., 1999). Participants Respondents to the GLOBE survey were middle managers from organizations in one of three industries: financial services, food services, or telecommunications. Approximately one half of the participants within each organization completed scales designed to assess organizational perceptions. For the present study, data from 6,271 participants in 780 organizations located in 48 different countries who completed the organizationally focused scales were available for analysis. After elimination of (a) cases in which organizational or industry membership were missing and (b) organizations with fewer than 15 respondents, the final data set included 3,783 individuals from 123 organizations (financial services, n 49; food services, n 42; telecommunications, n 32) in 35 countries. The average number of respondents per organization was 31 (range ). Previous research has demonstrated that response bias may exist across multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Ostroff, Kinicki, & Clark, 2002). To mitigate these effects, we randomly assigned participants from each organization to either a climate group or a values group. A total of 1,889 participants (M 15.4 per organization) were assigned to the climate group, and responses from these participants were aggregated to compute the organizational mechanistic organic climate-level score. A total of 1,894 participants (M 15.4 per organization) were assigned to the values group, and responses from these participants were aggregated to compute the organizational mechanistic organic values score. Organizational climate strength was calculated across the entire sample of participants from each organization who responded to the organizational-level scales, reducing (but not eliminating) the potential for same-source bias. Measures The scales we used from the GLOBE Project had two separate foci: current organizational policies and practices (34 items) and organizational values (41 items). To assess current policies and practices, respondents were asked to describe what currently happens in their organization by responding to a 7-point scale. To assess values, respondents were asked to describe the way they believe things should be in their organization, also using a 7-point scale (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). We worked from this pool of items to construct scales that addressed the degree to which an organization s climate (i.e., current policies and practices) could be characterized as more mechanistic or more organic and the degree to which shared values could be characterized as more mechanistic or more organic. Below, we briefly describe that process.
6 356 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES Scale construction. Because GLOBE s items were not initially designed to measure the mechanistic organic continuum, 11 trained industrial/organizational psychology graduate students were asked to identify items tapping into the mechanistic organic construct. The raters were trained in the meaning of the mechanistic organic distinction, and they were also given written descriptions of mechanistic and organic organizations taken from Burns and Stalker (1961). Relying on these written descriptions, the raters then evaluated the 34 organizational policies and practices items and 41 organizational values items from the GLOBE questionnaire as to each item s usefulness for distinguishing between organizations along the mechanistic organic continuum. Items for which there was at least 70% agreement among raters were retained. As a result, an initial 6-item mechanistic organic climate scale and an initial 9-item mechanistic organic values scale were constructed. Factor analysis led to dropping one item from the values scale. For both scales, higher scores indicate more mechanistic organizational forms, and lower scores indicate more organic organizational forms. Internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) were estimated to be.81 for the climate scale and.67 for the values scale. Sample items from the two scales are presented in the Appendix. (Details of the factor analysis and scale development procedures are available on request from M.W.D.) Data Aggregation Working within the framework of the direct consensus composition model, we then assessed within-organization agreement of responses to the climate scale to determine whether members held similar beliefs about the organizations policies and practices and, thus, whether a mechanistic organic organizational climate could be said to exist. We also examined the agreement among members values to determine whether members shared similar values regarding organizational modes of operation. We calculated index r wg(j) s (i.e., within-group interrater agreement for scales with j essentially parallel items; L. R. James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ICC(1) and ICC(2) to determine whether there was statistical evidence to justify aggregation of individual responses to create the organization-level constructs. For both the climate and values scales, an average r wg(j) (based on a uniform null distribution) was calculated across items for each organization. Across organizations, the average r wg(j) was.79 for the climate scale and.81 for the values scale when all participants within an organization were included. The average r wg(j) was also.79 for the climate scale when only those individuals assigned to the climate group were included, and it was.85 for the values scale when only those individuals assigned to the values group were included. The ICC(1) was.31 for both the climate scale and the values scale, and the ICC(2) was.93 for both the climate scale and the values scale, based on a k of (including all participants within an organization). Including only those individuals assigned to the climate group, ICC(1) was.30 and ICC(2) was.87 for the climate scale, based on a k of Including only those individuals assigned to the values group, ICC(1) was.31 and ICC(2) was.88 for the values scale, based on a k of The average r wg(j) estimates exceeded the general.70 rule-of-thumb cutoff (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Moreover, results of the one-way analysis of variance used to calculate the ICCs were significant for both the climate scale F(122, 3567) 14.83, p.01 (for all respondents), and F(122, 1683) 7.67, p.01 (for respondents from the climate group) and the values scale F(122, 3501) 15.08, p.01 (for all respondents), and F(122, 1683) 8.04, p.01 (for respondents from the values group). These analyses together provide evidence that agreement exists among members climate perceptions and values, and thus, they support the aggregation of the individual responses (see Klein et al., 2001, for a discussion of rules of thumb regarding justification of higher level constructs). It is interesting to note that these results differ slightly from the findings of Klein et al. (2001), who found that an organizational referent (e.g., In this organization ) led to increased within-unit agreement for descriptive (i.e., climate) items but reduced within-unit agreement for evaluative (i.e., values) items. In the present study, the levels of within-unit agreement for the descriptive and evaluative sets of items were virtually identical. Tests of Hypotheses In this study, climate direction was operationalized as the mean rating on the climate scale across all responding individuals within an organization. We operationalized climate strength as the within-organization standard deviation of climate ratings. This approach is consistent with the approaches used by Schneider et al. (2002) and Lindell and Brandt (2000). These authors have contended that although standard deviation is not a measure of agreement, it is an index of disagreement and a commonly used indicator of variability and, thus, a useful index for examining climate strength. We used hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting climate strength (within-organization standard deviation) to test specific hypotheses. In each of the analyses, the climate direction, shared values, and interaction terms were centered to assuage problems of multicollinearity, which are inherent when examining interactions using multiple regression techniques (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Both country-of-origin and industry effects were controlled for in all analyses because our focus was on examining interorganizational differences, not intersocietal or interindustry differences. People describe themselves or their own organizations against the backdrop of other people or organizations within their frame of reference (Dickson, Aditya, & Chhokar, 2000). Differences in societal cultures lead to different frames of reference for making social comparisons, which is a potential confound in studies in which scale responses are compared across cultures (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002). Societal culture differences can also mask differences that emerge when comparisons are made within a cultural frame of reference (e.g., Bajdo & Dickson, 2001). Therefore, organizations were dummy coded to represent country of origin, and these dummy codes were entered in the first block of the regression analyses. Industry forces could also have a direct effect on organizational form. In keeping with Gordon s (1991) assertion that differences between organizations are largely a result of differences between industries, we controlled for industry effects by entering dummy codes for industry into the second block of the hierarchical regression equations. Results Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations between the organizational climate and shared values variables. As expected, climate level was significantly and negatively related to climate strength (r.22, p.05), indicating that smaller within- Table 1 Correlation Table of Predictor and Criterion Variables Variable M SD M-O climate level a (.81) 2. M-O shared values a ** (.67) 3. Climate strength b *.09 Note. N 123. Reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. No reliability is shown for the climate strength measure because it is based on standard deviations. M-O mechanistic organic. a For both the climate level and the shared values scales, 1 indicates strongly organic climate, and 7 indicates strongly mechanistic climate. b A stronger climate is reflected by a lower within-organization standard deviation. * p.05. ** p.01.
7 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 357 organization standard deviations on members climate perceptions were found in organizations with more mechanistic climates. Additionally, shared values were significantly and positively related to climate level (r.55, p.01), indicating that the values shared among members of an organization regarding how the organization should be organized were positively related to shared member perceptions of the organization s current practices. Hypothesis 1 suggested that climate strength would be greater in organizations with more mechanistic climates. To test this hypothesis, we first entered dummy codes for country of origin into the first block of the regression equations and found that country-oforigin effects explained a significant amount of variance in climate strength, R 2.43, F(34, 88) 1.99, p.01. We then entered dummy codes for industry effects into the second block and found that industry explained a significant amount of variance in climate strength, and we also found a significant increment in the F ratio (F inc ), after controlling for society effects, R 2.06, F inc (2, 86) 4.98, p.01. After controlling for both country-of-origin and industry effects, mechanistic organic climate level accounted for a significant increase in explained variance, R 2.04, F inc (1, 85) 6.57, p.05, though Cohen (1988) would refer to this as a small effect. The partial correlation between mechanistic organic climate level and climate strength was negative (partial r.27, p.05). Consistent with predictions, there was greater within-organization agreement regarding climate perceptions (indicating stronger organizational climates) in organizations whose climates reflected more mechanistic organizational practices. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. The results of the series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses used to test this hypothesis are summarized in Table 2. The linear relationship between climate level and climate strength is shown in Figure 1. To test Hypothesis 2, we examined the correlation between climate direction and climate strength. The resulting significant Figure 1. Linear relationship between mechanistic organic climate level and climate strength. Climate strength is reflected by a lower withinorganization standard deviation. negative correlation (r.22, p.05) indicates that greater climate strength (as indicated by smaller standard deviations) tends to co-occur with scores on the climate measure that are more mechanistic. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported. Hypothesis 3 suggested that climate direction and type of shared values have interactive influences on climate strength. After controlling for both country-of-origin and industry effects, we entered mechanistic organic climate level and shared values simultaneously into the third step of the regression equation, followed by the Climate Shared Values interaction term in the fourth step. The interaction term explained a significant amount of incremental Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing Hypothesized Relationships With Climate Strength 95% CI Hypothesis and step Predictor variable a,b R 2 c F/F inc df b Lower bound Upper bound 1 1 Country of origin ** 34, 88 2 Industry ** 2, 86 3 M-O climate * 1, 85.31* Country of origin ** 34, 88 2 Industry ** 2, ** 1, 84 M-O climate.37** M-O values ** 1, 83 M-O climate.41** M-O values Climate Values.50** Note. N 123. Climate strength is reflected by a lower within-organization standard deviation. CI confidence internal around regression weights; M-O mechanistic organic. a Climate and values variables are centered. b Lower climate and values scores reflect the organic end of the continuum; higher scores reflect the mechanistic end of the continuum. c Values for the country-of-origin variable are Fs; all other values are F inc s (i.e., incremental changes from the initial F). * p.05. ** p.01.
8 358 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES variance in climate strength, R 2.09, F inc (1, 83) 20.40, p.01. To further examine this relationship, we split organizations into tertiles on the basis of their shared mechanistic organic values scores to represent organizations whose members shared organic values, mechanistic values, or ambivalent values. We then reran the hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine whether the categorical shared values grouping moderated the relationship between climate level and climate strength. The interaction term again explained significant incremental variance in climate strength, R 2.12, F inc (1, 83) 29.55, p.01, Separate regression equations were then calculated for each group. For organizations whose members shared organic values, climate level was positively related to climate strength (partial r.62, p.01). This finding indicates that when members shared values emphasizing organic forms, there was less variability among climate perceptions when climates were characterized as more organic, and climate perceptions became more variable as climates became more mechanistic. For organizations whose members shared mechanistic values (partial r.29, ns) and whose values were more ambivalent (partial r.27, ns), no relationship was found between climate level and climate strength. Contrary to our hypothesis, the strongest relationships were actually found in organization in which members shared organic values as opposed to mechanistic values. Thus, we conclude that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Figure 2 displays a plot of the regression equations for each of the three groups. Post Hoc Analyses Although the Climate Level Shared Values interaction term explained a larger amount of variance in climate strength than did climate level alone, the size of the effect was still only moderate in nature (see Cohen, 1988, for a discussion of effect sizes), leaving a large amount of unexplained variance. Given the moderate effect size associated with the interaction and Lubinski and Humphreys s (1990) caution that moderator effects uncovered using hierarchical multiple regression analyses may be spurious and actually represent nonlinear relationships between predictors and criterion variables, we conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis to further examine the relationship between climate level and climate strength. Lubinski and Humphreys suggested that researchers examine the incremental variance accounted for after entering quadratic terms for both predictors and moderators into the hierarchical regression analyses to determine whether nonlinear relationships exist. Shepperd (1991) added that it is particularly important to test for nonlinear relationships when predictor variables are highly correlated. In the present study, the predictor (climate level) and moderator (shared values) variables were moderately to highly correlated (r.55), and inspection of the scatter plot of the data points suggested the possibility of a nonlinear relationship. Thus, we tested for nonlinear effects. Following the suggestion of Lubinski and Humphreys (1990), we entered the quadratic terms for both the predictor and the moderator into the regression equation. The block of quadratic terms explained significant incremental variance in climate strength, R 2.12, F inc (2, 81) 18.86, p.01. In addition, once the quadratic terms were entered, the beta weight for the linear interaction term was no longer significant. These findings suggest that the relationship between mechanistic organic climate level and climate strength is nonlinear in nature and that the linear interaction of climate level and shared values does not adequately capture this relationship. Examination of the regression coefficients and partial correlations revealed that the incremental variance was a result of the quadratic climate term (partial r.51, p.01), but the quadratic shared-values term was not significantly related to climate strength (partial r.08, ns). We followed this analysis by examining the incremental predictability of the quadratic climate term without the shared-values moderator or linear interaction terms. After the removal of these effects, the quadratic term accounted for substantive variance after controlling for society effects, industry effects, and the linear trend, R 2.21, F inc (1, 84) 69.68, p.01, partial r.67, p.01. These results are summarized in Table 3, and a graph of the linear and nonlinear trends is shown in Figure 3. In general, greater climate strength was found when climates were clearly perceived as being more visibly reflective of either mechanistic or organic forms, whereas less agreement was found in organizations whose average climate ratings were toward the center of the continuum, indicating a less clearly mechanistic or organic organizational climate. Discussion There are three primary outcomes of interest from the present study, two relating to climate strength and one relating to the ASA model and the organizational fit literature: 1. Strongest climates did in fact appear in mechanistic organizations; Figure 2. Linear relationship between mechanistic organic climate level and climate strength by type of shared values. Climate strength is reflected by a lower within-organization standard deviation. 1 We recognize that two concerns about examining categorical moderators are (a) spurious significant findings and (b) loss of statistical power. Neither concern appears to be merited here. Specifically, because we found significance using both continuous and categorical operationalizations of the shared values variable, the two concerns appear to be reduced in this study.
9 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 359 Table 3 Exploratory Analyses Examining Nonlinear Relationships With Climate Strength 95% CI Analysis and step Predictor variables a,b R 2 c F/F inc df b Lower bound Upper bound Nonlinearity and moderation 1 Country of origin ** 34, 88 2 Industry ** 2, ** 1, 84 M-O climate.37** M-O values ** 1, 83 M-O climate.41** M-O values Climate Values.50** ** 2, 81 M-O climate.42** M-O values Climate Values M-O climate quadratic.61** M-O values quadratic Nonlinearity 1 Country of origin ** 34, 88 2 Industry ** 2, 86 3 M-O climate * 1, 85.31* ** 1, 84 M-O climate.39** M-O climate quadratic.65** Note. N 123. Climate strength is reflected by a lower within-organization standard deviation. CI confidence internal around regression weights; M-O mechanistic organic. a Climate and values variables are centered. b Lower climate and values scores reflect the organic end of the continuum; higher scores reflect the mechanistic end of the continuum. c Values for the country-of-origin variable are Fs; all other values are F inc s (i.e., incremental changes from the initial F). * p.05. ** p climates are strongest at the extremes of the mechanistic organic continuum, where they are most noticeably defined, and they are weakest in the middle of continuum, where organizational practices are more ambiguous, resulting in climate perceptions that are less obviously delineated; and 3. in most cases, organizations climates are congruent with the shared values of their members, and climates are stronger when they are congruent (this is consistent with the argument that people seek out organizations in which they fit ). Below, we address each of these primary findings in turn. Climate Is Stronger in Mechanistic Organizations Figure 3. Linear and nonlinear relationships between mechanistic organic climate level and climate strength. Climate strength is reflected by a lower within-organization standard deviation. Our original hypothesis that climates are stronger in mechanistic organizations was supported. As described earlier, this makes intuitive sense in that mechanistic organizations have formally stated rules and expectations, and this should facilitate agreement among organization members in their descriptions of the organization. Mechanistic organizations are, by nature, more formalized and structured than organic organizations, and the way things are is open to less discretionary interpretation. The more structured socialization practices (Ashforth et al., 1998) and directive patterns of communication between supervisors and subordinates (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989) that are found in mechanistic organizations are also likely to further reinforce the salience
10 360 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES of environmental features for members. Additionally, Burns and Stalker s (1961) assertion that members of mechanistic organizations can work together because everyone knows the rules and knows what everyone else does relates to agreement among policies and practices. Together, these forces are likely to affect members perceptions and beliefs about the organization as well as the amount of agreement among members, which led us to hypothesize that greater climate strength would be found in more mechanistic organizations. We concur with the interpretation of Schneider et al. (2002) regarding climate strength and customer service perceptions in light of this finding when the rules and expectations in an organization are clear, customers are likely to experience similar interactions with the organization, regardless of which employee(s) provide them with service. When the climate is weak (i.e., the rules and expectations are not clear), however, customers experiences will be highly varied depending on which employee(s) provide them with service. Climate Is Also Strong at the Extremes Although the linear relationships between climate direction and climate strength and between climate direction and climate strength moderated by shared values were statistically significant, the sizes of the effects were small to moderate smaller than we had expected. This led us to explore the quadratic relationship between climate level and climate strength, where we found a much larger effect. In general, these findings suggest that organizational climates are likely to be stronger as the direction of aggregated climate ratings becomes more extreme. The ends of the rating scales tend to reflect organizational practices that are more salient and distinct, which likely leads to greater agreement among members perceptions and beliefs regarding how things are done around here. When aggregate climate ratings are more reflective of the middle points of the rating scale, the organization s practices are perhaps less clearly articulated, leading to less clarity and, thus, less agreement among members perceptions and beliefs. Specifically, the lack of formalization in organic organizations does not necessarily indicate that environmental characteristics are less salient to members. Rather, our findings suggest that the lack of rules and formal structure can be a salient feature of the environment, facilitating agreement among members as to how things are in the organization. In other words, it is possible to have a strong organic climate in which there is consensus that the environment is characterized by informality and ambiguity. For example, a climate for innovation that supports thinking outside the box can still be a strong climate; members may think and act in unique and unconventional ways yet still agree that the organization s policies and practices encourage such unconventional behavior. As a result, members consistently evaluate their organization s climate using the ends of the rating scale and not the middle ratings. Likewise, an organization may have a strong climate for service in which all members agree on the goal of providing excellent service, hold shared perceptions that providing good service is important, and, thus, collectively provide excellent service without having strict rules that govern service delivery (e.g., Nordstrom, where employees were authorized to do whatever was necessary to satisfy the customer, up to a certain dollar value, without having to consult management). Essentially, these findings suggest that when unambiguous expectations of performance and conduct emerge in an organization, people are more likely to agree about what the organization s climate is like and to use the extremes of a rating scale to evaluate their organization s climate. Moreover, these unambiguous expectations may form as a result of strict rules, rigid structures, and centralized authority (i.e., in mechanistic organizations) or even in more decentralized and fluid environments (i.e., in organic organizations). Climates and Shared Values Are Generally Congruent We found support for our hypothesis that shared values moderated the relationship between climate level and climate strength, though in an unexpected manner. Greater agreement among members climate perceptions was found when members shared values regarding modes of operation were congruent with the practices of the organization, regardless of whether the organization was characterized as mechanistic or organic. Namely, when members shared mechanistic values, climate strength was greater when policies and practices reflected mechanistic organizational forms and became more varied as climates became more organic. Likewise, when members shared organic values, climate strength was greater when policies and practices reflected organic organizational forms and weakened as climates became more mechanistic. When members values did not clearly favor mechanistic or organic forms, there was virtually no relationship between climate level and climate strength. These findings appear to be supportive of Schneider and colleagues (e.g., Schneider, 1987; Schneider & Reichers, 1983) contention that climate arises from the types of people in organizations. The correlation between shared values and climate level suggests that climates were more distinct when members shared values were congruent with policies and practices ingrained in the organization s climate. Further, climate strength was greater in organizations with more distinct climates. Individuals who share similar values likely view the world and its workings in similar ways, leading to a climate that is more distinct, which then leads to stronger agreement among members. Additionally, the findings regarding the relationship between shared values and climate level also appear to be supportive of propositions set forth by ASA theory (Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 1995). First, we found substantial agreement among members values regarding modes of organizational operation as indicated by the r wg(j) and ICC results. These findings are congruent with other empirical evidence that organizations tend to become increasingly homogeneous (Giberson et al., 2005; Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Jones, 1998; Schneider et al., 1998) through people with similar characteristics (e.g., values) being attracted to, selected by, and remaining with similar types of organizations and through socialization practices that encourage fit. Second, as noted above, the types of values shared by the organization s members were then correlated with the type of climate in the organization, meaning that organizations whose members shared organic values tended to have climates at the organic end of the continuum, with a similar pattern holding for organizations whose members shared mechanistic values. This finding appears to be supportive of ASA theory s contention that members characteristics come to be reflected in the behavior of organizations (i.e., the practices and
11 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 361 policies embodying mechanistic or organic organizational structures and rules). Limitations and Directions for Future Research There are, of course, a number of limitations to this study. First, data on objective organizational characteristics were not collected by GLOBE, and our findings are based exclusively on members climate perceptions. Examining objective organizational features such as structure; formalized policies and rules; and programs addressing rewards, promotions, socialization, and so forth along with climate perceptions will likely lead to greater insights into the antecedents of climate strength as well as mean climate directions. As such, future advances in climate strength research will likely come through the use of multimethod approaches that provide more comprehensive information about organizational environments. We were not initially looking for nonlinear relationships between climate level and climate strength these relationships were found during post hoc exploratory analyses. Future research in which nonlinear relationships are hypothesized a priori and tested for as such will help to clarify the present findings. Two additional issues regarding the nature of the data should be mentioned. First, the data are cross-sectional in nature, which limits our ability to draw conclusions about the causality of climate strength. Although the nonlinear trend seems to suggest that climate extremeness leads to climate strength, studies are needed that address the evolution and interaction of structural characteristics, ASA processes, and patterns of interaction among members and how these forces impact the types of beliefs and perceptions that members come to share, including the degree of consensus among those perceptions. Second, the relationships found could be somewhat inflated as a result of the presence of common-method variance, because both predictor and criterion were derived using a pencil-and-paper survey. Second, it is important to discuss the notion of reliability of responses and the pattern of findings in the current study. For ratings that fall at the center of a scale, responses may be more varied by nature, leading to lower scale reliabilities and less within-organization agreement. There are more combinations of scores that will yield a score falling in the center of the scale. For example, half of the items may be rated high and the other half low, or all items may be rated in the center of the scale. In contrast, for scores to fall at the scale extremes, all items need to be consistently rated as high or low. Thus, there is likely to be more variability around scores in the center of the scale. As a result, some of this variability may represent a statistical artifact. However, we contend that this variability more likely represents true variability in the organization s practices, providing meaningful information about climate strength. In the context of the present study, a score falling in the center of the scale could indicate that the organization has some practices that are organic and some that are mechanistic, that all of the organization s practices are somewhere between mechanistic and organic, or that the organization s practices are not very distinct. However, mean climate-level ratings at the extremes of the rating scale are likely attributable to practices that are more distinct and unambiguous, leading to less variability both across scale items and across the responses of individual member and, thus, greater climate strength. Future research using multimethod techniques that include objective organizational characteristics may help to address this issue. Implications and Conclusions This study extends the growing literature on organizational climate strength in a number of ways. First, we found that in general, climates were stronger in mechanistic organizations. This supports a variety of prior theory (particularly Burns & Stalker, 1961), and it also provides initial guidance to organizations seeking to gain the benefits that have been shown to result from strong climates (e.g., Schneider et al., 2002). Namely, the findings suggest that establishing defined policies, formalizing practices, and centralizing decision-making responsibility is likely to result in greater agreement among members regarding how the organization operates and the types of behaviors members should engage in, which in turn is likely to increase the consistency of member behavior and performance. These findings are likely to be especially helpful for organizations in which consistency across members is critical for success. That is, organizations will likely strengthen their climates regarding areas such as service, ethics, safety, and so forth by developing more mechanistic practices regarding those areas. Second, we show that the climates of organizations tend to be congruent with the values shared by the members of those organizations and that shared values moderate the climate-level climate-strength relationship. This is supportive of Schneider s (1987) ASA model in that it suggests that similar people seek out similar organizations, resulting in homogeneity in both values and perceptions. From a practical standpoint, climates are likely to be strengthened by selecting new members whose values are congruent with the values that are espoused by the organizations climates and cultures. For example, climates regarding safety are likely strengthened by bringing in new members who value the collective welfare of the organization s members and also value being meticulous in the way they approach their work. Finally, and perhaps most important, we show that agreement about climate is greatest when the mean climate level is more extreme and weakest when the climate is indistinct. In the context of the present study, this meant that climates were stronger when members perceived their organizations policies and practices as being more clearly mechanistic or organic in nature, and climates were weaker when members perceived their organization s policies and practices as less distinctly mechanistic or organic. We expect that this pattern of findings will be found for other types of organizational climates as well. For example, Ostroff s (1993) climate scale assesses nine dimensions of organizational climate (e.g., autonomy, innovation) using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (most people would strongly disagree) to 4(most people would strongly agree). We would expect to see stronger organizational climates for innovation (as an example) when average climate scores are near 0 (indicating that there is little ambiguity that the organization s practices encourage innovation) or near 4 (indicating that there is little ambiguity that the organization s practices encourage innovation). In contrast, we would expect to find weaker climates when average climate scores are toward the middle of the scale, indicating that the organization s practices regarding innovation are more ambiguous, not clearly encouraging or discouraging of innovation. Thus, when the prac-
12 362 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES tices and expectations that characterize various aspects of an organization s environment (e.g., service delivery, safety) are noticeable and distinct, there is likely to be greater agreement among members regarding those aspects of the organization. In other words, when climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organizational structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the dimensionality of Jones (1986) measures of organizational socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1998). Socialization and newcomer adjustment: The role of organizational context. Human Relations, 51, Bajdo, L., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and women s advancement in organizations: A cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles, 45, Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 16, Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination of the attraction selection attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42, Brown, K. G., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. (1996, August). Theory, issues, and recommendations in conceptualizing agreement as a construct in organizational research: The search for consensus regarding consensus. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Roger, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32, Csoka, L. S. (1975). Relationship between organizational climate and the situational favorableness dimension of Fiedler s contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, Den Hartog, D., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., & GLOBE Associates. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, Dickson, M. W., Aditya, R. N., & Chhokar, J. S. (2000). Definition and interpretation in cross-cultural organizational culture research: Some pointers from the GLOBE research program. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). The effects of leader personality on follower characteristics, organizational demographics, and organizational culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Gonzalez-Roma, V., Peiro, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Gordon, G. G. (1991). Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 16, Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp ). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE Culture and Leadership Scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp ), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership: Project GLOBE. In W. Mobley, J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp ). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perspectives: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r wg : An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13, Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers adjustment to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone
13 WHEN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS 363 in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent properties. 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. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, Lubinski, D., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Assessing spurious moderator effects : Illustrated substantively with the hypothesized ( synergistic ) relation between spatial and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Mischel, W. (1976). Towards a cognitive social model learning reconceptualization of personality. In N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Interactional psychology and personality (pp ). New York: Wiley. O Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Payne, R. L., & Pugh, S. S. (1976). Organizational structures and organizational climate. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp ). Chicago: Rand McNally. Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5 39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1 37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influences in the attraction selection attrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, Schneider, B. (1983). Work climates: An interactionist perspective. In N. W. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp ). New York: Praeger. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, Shepperd, J. A. (1991). Cautions in assessing spurious moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 110, Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 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 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (Appendix follows)
14 364 DICKSON, RESICK, AND HANGES Appendix Samples of Items Used in the Mechanistic Organic Scales A1 Organizational Climate Items 1. In this organization, job requirements and instruction are spelled out in detail (reverse coded). 1 strongly agree; 7 strongly disagree. 2. In this organization, a person s influence is based primarily on 1 one s ability and contribution to the organization; 7 the authority of one s position. 3. In this organization, subordinates are expected to (reverse coded) 1 obey without question; 7 question their boss. Organizational Values Items 1. In this organization, job requirements and instructions should be spelled out in detail (reverse coded). 1 strongly agree; 7 strongly disagree. 2. In this organization, a person s influence should be based primarily on (reverse coded) 1 one s ability and contribution to the organization; 7 the authority of one s position. 3. In this organization, orderliness and consistency should be stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation (reverse coded). 1 strongly agree; 7 strongly disagree. A1 Items are from the GLOBE Project s organizational culture scales, which were described by Hanges and Dickson (2004). Received December 12, 2002 Revision received May 4, 2005 Accepted May 4, 2005
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 88, No. 5, 836 851 0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.836 Which Comes First: Employee
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 93, No. 1, 84 94 0021-9010/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.84 Me or We? The Role of Personality and
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2011) 25 36 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, nc. 1998, Vol. 83, No. 6, 835-852 0021-9010/98/$3.00 Enhancing Role Breadth Self-Efficacy: The Roles of Job Enrichment
10.1177/0022427803253800 ARTICLE JOURNAL Terrill, Reisig OF / RESEARCH NEIGHBORHOOD IN CRIME CONTEXT AND DELINQUENCY AND USE OF FORCE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT AND POLICE USE OF FORCE WILLIAM TERRILL MICHAEL
Sample Review by Micro Editor I enjoyed reading this paper, which has a number of noteworthy strengths. Understanding the boundary conditions for the psychological and behavioral effects of transformational
PERSONALITY AND PERFORMANCE 9 Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? Murray R. Barrick, Michael K. Mount and Timothy A. Judge* As we
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Meeting Brief n May 2011 BUILDING A STRONGER EVIDENCE BASE FOR EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAMS NIHCM Foundation n May 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.....................................................
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 89, No. 6, 852 863 0022-3514/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1682 When Moderation Is
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 90, No. 5, 905 916 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905 No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional
Julie Arendt, Megan Lotts 155 What Liaisons Say about Themselves and What Faculty Say about Their Liaisons, a U.S. Survey Julie Arendt, Megan Lotts abstract: Liaison librarians and faculty in chemistry,
Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures Fourth Edition Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2003 This document is an official policy statement of the
Paper to be presented at the DRUID Academy 2012 on January 19-21 at University of Cambridge /The Moeller Centre Great Minds Think Alike, and Fools Seldom Differ: A Theory on the Moments of Firms' Performance
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams Steve W.J. Kozlowski and Daniel R. Ilgen Michigan State University SUMMARY Teams of people working together
Journal of Educational Administration 39,4 308 Received December 1999 Accepted March 2000 Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 4, 2001, pp. 308-331. # MCBUniversity Press, 0957-8234 The current
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 4661 I Want to, But I Also Need to : Start-Ups Resulting from Opportunity and Necessity Marco Caliendo Alexander S. Kritikos December 2009 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft
Journal of Safety Research 33 (2002) 259 276 www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Alison G. Vredenburgh* Vredenburgh
Valerie I. Sessa Robert Kaiser Jodi K. Taylor Richard J. Campbell EXECUTIVE SELECTION A RESEARCH REPORT ON WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN T CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP EXECUTIVE SELECTION A RESEARCH REPORT
Research report January 2010 CREATING AN ENGAGED WORKFORCE CREATING AN ENGAGED WORKFORCE FINDINGS FROM THE KINGSTON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT CONSORTIUM PROJECT This report has been written by: Kerstin Alfes,
JCMS 2006 Volume 44. Number 2. pp. 391 417 Who Has Power in the EU? The Commission, Council and Parliament in Legislative Decisionmaking* ROBERT THOMSON Trinity College, Dublin MADELEINE HOSLI Leiden University
Employee Engagement: What Do We Really Know? What Do We Need to Know to Take Action? A Collection of White Papers Employee Engagement: I WANT IT, what is it? Employee Engagement and Fairness in the Workplace
Understanding Student Differences RICHARD M. FELDER Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University REBECCA BRENT Education Designs, Inc. ABSTRACT Students have different levels of motivation,
4_Bukh 05-04-01 15.38 Sida 87 RE-EXAMINING THE CAUSE-AND- EFFECT PRINCIPLE OF THE BALANCED SCORECARD 1 4. Introduction Since the mid 1980 s accounting has attempted to turn strategic. In the area of strategically
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29 (2005), 374 388. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA. Copyright C 2005 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/05 SEXUAL ASSAULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS:
Volume 9, 2006 Approved April 2006 ISSN: 1523-4320 www.ala.org/aasl/slr Flexible Scheduling: Implementing an Innovation Joy McGregor, Senior Lecturer and Course Coordinator of Master of Education (Teacher