0% found this document useful (0 votes)
115 views17 pages

Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate

This article discusses conceptual issues and measurement challenges in organizational climate research. It argues that the organization should be considered the unit of theory for the concept of organizational climate, while the individual remains the unit of theory for psychological climate. The article examines problems that can arise from inconsistencies between the units of theory, observation, and analysis in multilevel climate research. It encourages additional multilevel research on climate and related topics to improve validity and reliability.

Uploaded by

Andres Aranda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
115 views17 pages

Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate

This article discusses conceptual issues and measurement challenges in organizational climate research. It argues that the organization should be considered the unit of theory for the concept of organizational climate, while the individual remains the unit of theory for psychological climate. The article examines problems that can arise from inconsistencies between the units of theory, observation, and analysis in multilevel climate research. It encourages additional multilevel research on climate and related topics to improve validity and reliability.

Uploaded by

Andres Aranda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel

Research
Author(s): William H. Glick
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 601-616
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258140 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 23:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? Academy of Management Review, 1985, Vol. 10, No.3, 601-616.

Conceptualizing and Measuring


Organizational and Psychological Climate:
Pitfalls in Multilevel Research
WILLIAM H. GLICK
University of Texas-Austin
Organizational and psychological climate research has been plagued
by cross-level inference problems. This paper advocates treating the
organization as the unit of theory for organizational climate while
preserving the individual as the unit of theory for psychological
climate. It examines multilevel conceptual problems in climate
research and discusses strategiesfor improvingthe validity and assess-
ing the reliability of measurement. Additional multilevel research on
climate and other areas of organizational science, particularly organi-
zational culture, is encouraged.
Organizational climate research has a promi- out of attempts to understand organizational cli-
nent, if not glorious, history in organizational mate was criticized by Guion (1973), who empha-
science. "Organizationalclimate" has been loose- sized the unit of theory problem in organizational
ly used to refer to a broad class of organizational climate research. Was organizational climate to
and perceptual variables that reflect individual- be conceptualized as an individual or an organi-
organizational interactions (Howe, 1977) and zational attribute?
affect individuals' behavior in organizations Despite the appearance of several works on
(Field & Abelson, 1982; Jones & James, 1979; cross-level inference problems and units of the-
Schneider, 1975a). A person's environment as a ory and analysis in the organizational literature
determinant of behavior has been a cornerstone (Glick, 1980; Glick & Roberts, 1984; Mossholder
of the field dating back to Lewin's (1951) classic & Bedeian, 1983; Roberts & Burstein, 1980;
formulation of behavior as a function of the per- Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978), the unit of
son and his or her psychological environment: theory problem has not been resolved in climate
B =f(P, E). Over the years there has been an in- research.Many of the naturalpitfalls of multilevel
creasing concern not only with the psychologi- research are still evident in the inconsistencies
cal environmentLewin emphasized, but also with among the units of theory, observation, and
social, organizational, and situational influences analysis. These pitfalls are discussed in an
on behavior. "Organizationalclimate" was origi- attempt to develop an internally consistent con-
nally used to referto many of these environmental ceptualization of organizationalclimate as a class
influences (Argyris, 1958; Forehand & Gilmer, of organizational rather than psychological
1964; Guetzkow, Forehand, & James, 1962; characteristics. This position suggests that sev-
Leavitt, 1964). The conceptual morass that grew eral changes are necessary to improve validity
and reliability in organizationalclimate research.
The author wishes to thank Nina Gupta, G. Douglas Jenkins,
Jr., Lisa R. Berlinger, and George Huber, for their helpful The Concept of Organizational Climate
comments on an earlier version of this paper and Richard B.
Peterson for providing supplementary, unpublished data.
Numerous definitions have been offeredto clar-
Requests for reprints should be sent to William H. Glick, ify the concept of organizationalclimate (Argyris,
Department of Management, University of Texas, Austin, TX 1958; Guion, 1973; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974;
78712. Howe, 1977; James & Jones, 1974; Powell &

601

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Butterfield, 1978; Schneider, Parkington,& Bux- Multiple units of theory should be recognized
ton, 1980). These definitions arefrequentlyincon- in climate researchfor a number of reasons. First,
sistent with one another, however, and they fail psychological, subunit, and organizational cli-
to provide clear guidelines for measurement and mates may differ empirically. If there were only
theory building. The following discussion of the one unit of theory in climate research, then there
conceptualization of organizationalclimate helps would be no reason to adopt different labels for
to clarifyfive issues: the units of theory;the deter- organizational, subunit, and psychological cli-
minants of climate; the composition rules relat- mate. "Organizationalclimate" connotes an or-
ing organizational climate to psychological cli- ganizational unit of theory, it does not refer to
mate;the interpretationof perceptual agreement; the climate of an individual, workgroup,occupa-
and, the domain of climate dimensions. tion, department, or job. Researchers interested
in other types of climate should adopt appropri-
ate labels and units of theory and analysis (Howe,
Units of Theory 1977).
The appropriate units of theory in climate The argument for the organization as the unit
research have been debated for over a decade of theory for organizational climate is strength-
(Guion, 1973; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James, ened furtherby the common practice of aggregat-
1982; James &Jones, 1974; Mossholder &Bedeian, ing measures of psychological climate (Gavin &
1983; Powell & Butterfield, 1978). At first, the Howe, 1975; James, 1982; Jones & James, 1979;
organization was considered the natural unit of Schneider, 1975b). Aggregating these measures
theoryin organizationalclimate research(Argyris, makes sense only if inferences are to be made
1958; Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Leavitt, 1964; about an aggregateunit of theory, such as organi-
Litwin &Stringer,1968). The subsequently made zational climate. Aggregating psychological cli-
distinction between psychological and organiza- mate to make inferences about psychological cli-
tional climate suggested that different units of mate results in the fallacy of the wrong level
theory (individual and organizational)are appro- because the unit of analysis (aggregate)is incon-
priate for the two constructs (James & Jones, sistent with the unit of theory (individual) (Glick
1974). Researchers concerned with individual &Roberts,1984; Robertset al., 1978). Unfortuna-
perceptions focus on psychological climate, tely, it appears that some researcherswho aggre-
whereas organizational climate is investigated gate psychological climate measures are solely
when organizational attributes are of interest. A concerned with the individual as the unit of
third set of climate constructs, variously called theory, thereby making fallacious inferences
"subsystem"(Hellriegel&Slocum, 1974), "group" about psychological climate using the aggregate
(Howe, 1977), or "subunit" climate (Powell & unit of analysis James, 1982; Jones &James, 1979;
Butterfield, 1978), argues for individual, subunit, Joyce & Slocum, 1979; Schneider, 1975b).
and organizationalunits of theory, depending on Arguing that the units of analysis and theory
the climate construct of interest. must remain consistent does not imply, however,
Although the distinction between psychologi- that psychological climate is unrelated to organi-
cal and organizational climate is generally ac- zational characteristicsor that organizationalcli-
cepted in the literature (Drexler, 1977; James, mate is entirely independent of individual
1982; Powell & Butterfield, 1978; Roberts et al., characteristics. These cross-level relationships
1978), it has not extricated organizationalclimate should be examined with separate cross-level
research from its conceptual and methodological analyses for organizational and psychological
morass.For example, Jamesarguedthat "the con- climate (Glick & Roberts, 1984; Mossholder &
structs of interest in climate measurement are Bedeian, 1983). These analyses should employ
intrinsically psychological ... it is axiomatic that separatemeasures of organizational and psycho-
the [italics added] unit of theory be the indi- logical climate.
vidual" (1982, p. 220). This position negates the A word of caution, however, is necessary in
existence of organizational climate as a truly interpretingcross-level analyses of organizational
organizational property and is disputed below. and psychological climate. The influence of

602

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
within-organizationalattributeson disaggregated a clustering algorithm to group organizational
perceptualmeasures of organizationalclimate led memberswith similar climate scores. Thus, units
James (1982) to the erroneous conclusion that within organizations are empirically defined by
organizational climate is solely an individual perceptual agreement, and climate scores are
level phenomenon. A similar problem of hetero- aggregatedto the collective level. A conceptual
geneous sources of variance in items to be scaled problem is encountered, however, because indi-
was addressed by Cronbach (1951). He claimed viduals in some collectives may not be in the
that if items (disaggregatedperceptual measures) same job, work group, or department, or they
comprising a scale reflect multiple influences, may not interact with each other. Defining unit
the scale (aggregatedmeasure)can be used if there boundaries with the cluster analysis ignores the
is substantial common variance among the items more accepted criterion of selecting unit bound-
and the scaled score is valid and reliable. Thus, aries that reflect hypothesized interdependence
heterogeneous sources of variance in a scaled of elements within-units (Campbell,1958; Glick,
score is a measurement problem, and does not 1980). The unit of theory for collective climate
indicate the unit of theory for a construct. cannot be defined independently of the opera-
Although a strong case has been made for mul- tional definition, and its substantive interpreta-
tiple units of theory in climate research, the tion is questionable. The main argumentfor col-
appropriateunit(s) for a particular study are not lective climates is that high levels of perceptual
always apparent. Mossholder and Bedeian, cit- agreement may be obtained within-units to jus-
ing James (1982), defended the use of aggregated tify aggregation.Aggregation of perceptual mea-
psychological climate measures to assess the sures may be justified on other grounds also.
impactof situationalcharacteristicson "how indi- Acknowledging multiple units of theory and
viduals in general" (1983, pp. 551-552) describe analysis in climate researchis clearly appropriate.
the psychological climate in an organization. At a minimum, individual, subunit, and orga-
Although this appears to call for an organiza- nizational units of theory and analysis should be
tional unit of analysis to make inferences about recognized. Organizationaland subunit climates
an individual unit of theory, the actual units of provide the context in which psychological cli-
theory and analysis are both organizational in mate may be understood. Exclusive focus on the
this example. There is only between-, not within-, individual as the unit of theory in climate
organization variation in both the psychological researchis unlikely to be as informativeas a study
climate of "individuals in general"and the aggre- involving multiple units of theory.
gated psychological climate measures. Thus no
ecological fallacy is committed. By introducing Determinants of Climate
the phrase "individuals in general" as a modi- Understanding the determinants of climate is
fier of psychological climate, Mossholder and critical to clarifying climate constructs because
Bedeian (1983) and James (1982) are referring to the determinantsare an integralpartof the nomo-
an organizational level analog of psychological logical network (Roberts et al., 1978). Previous
climate that is different from both organizational attempts (James, 1982; Payne & Pugh, 1976) to
and psychological climate. Implicitly, they are explicate these determinantstypically employed
calling for multiple units of theory for climate. individual level analyses, thereby emphasizing
A second example of the difficulty in specify- psychological processes and perpetuating the
ing units of theory is provided by the recent work confusion over appropriate units of theory for
on collective climate (Joyce &Slocum, 1979,1982, climate. Individual level analyses are appropri-
1984). Although Joyce and Slocum (1984) have ate for studying psychological climate, but they
reported interesting data on determinants/corre- do not provide accurate estimates of organiza-
lates of collective climate, because of differences tional level processes (Glick & Roberts, 1984).
in the units of analysis it is not clear that these The evolution of climate, the process of organi-
results will parallel similar analyses for psycho- zational sense-making (Weick, 1979), and the
logical or organizational climate. The unit of social construction of reality (Berger&Luckman,
analysis in collective climate is defined by using 1966) may be viewed from a psychological

603

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
perspective, however, they also are dynamic Three methodologies for studying the determi-
social/organizational processes. Thus, sociologi- nants of climate appear quite promising: longitu-
cal or organizational perspectives and organiza- dinal studies of any kind; studies of newcomer
tional level analyses also are necessary for gain- socialization, a key stage in the development and
ing a full understanding of how these evolu- transmission of climates (Schneider & Reichers,
tionary processes impact organizational climate. 1983);and network analyses to map communica-
Several recent papers (Abbey &Dickson, 1983; tion and interaction patterns associated with dif-
Johnston, 1976; Joyce & Slocum, 1979, 1984; ferent climates (Jablin, 1980; Joyce & Slocum,
Poole & McPhee, 1983; Schneider & Reichers, 1984; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Network
1983) have contributedsignificantly to the under- analyses can be particularly useful in assessing
standingof the determinantsof psychological and the impact of social interaction and patterns of
organizational climate. Schneider and Reichers information and work flows on within-group
(1983) attribute the development of climates to consistency in measures of climate. These re-
threesources:common exposure of organizational search designs should explicate furtherthe social
members to the same objective structuralcharac- and organizationaldeterminantsof organizational
teristics; selection, attraction, and attrition of and psychological climate.
organizational members, resulting in a homoge-
neous set of members;and social interactionlead- Composition Rules
ing to shared meanings. Social interaction, the A third issue contributingto a lack of clarity in
third source of climates, reflects the symbolic the concept of organizational climate is the use
interactionistperspective that focuses on interac- of composition rules to define organizational
tions as the unit of theory and analysis. This per- climate. Compositionrules should be used to state
spective sets the development of organizational observed or predicted relationships between two
climate in a societal context and blurs the distinc- or more constructs with different units of theory
tions between organizationalclimate and organi- (Hannan,1971;Robertset al., 1978). Separatecon-
zational culture. tent theories arerequiredto define each construct,
None of the sources of climate suggested by but theorists are encouraged to extend their con-
Schneider and Reichers (1983) are limited to psy- tent theories by building a nomological net that
chological processes. "The climates of organiza- includes composition rules. If the same pattern
tions emerge out of the naturally occurring inter- of relations across units is postulated by the com-
actions of people" (Schneider et al., 1980, p. 254). position rules, it should be empirically verified
As an emergent property, organizational climate by comparing independent measures of the indi-
cannot be entirely reduced to its constituent ele- vidual and aggregate level constructs (Hannan,
ments at the individual level of analysis. Thus, 1971; Roberts et al., 1978). Empirical disconfir-
multiple units of theory are required. mation of a composition rule in a large sample of
Another complementary approach to the organizationsindicates that the composition rule
sources of climate is provided by Poole and is probably incorrect and the nomological net
McPhee's (1983) discussion of the structurational may be questioned. Disconfirmation, however,
perspective that focuses on patterns of intersub- does not negate the existence of either the indi-
jective meaning development. The structurational vidual or organizational level construct.
approach views climate as "a collective attitude, Severalresearchershave defined organizational
continually produced and reproduced by mem- climate as the average psychological climate in
bers' interactions" (Poole & McPhee, 1983, p. an organization when there is individual level
213). This is an explicitly dynamic perspective perceptual agreement (Gavin & Howe, 1975;
that emphasizes process and change. The need James, 1982; Joyce & Slocum, 1979). By this
for dynamic perspectives and longitudinal re- definition, organizational climate is high or low
searchis well recognized among climate research- for some organizations, but the construct does
ers (Abbey &Dickson, 1983; Johnston, 1976; Joyce not exist in those organizations lacking high lev-
& Slocum, 1979, 1982, 1984; Schneider & els of within-aggregateagreement.This is a ques-
Reichers, 1983). tionable theoretical position. Constructs should

604

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
exist for the whole population or not exist at all. reportof low pressures might result from:a com-
The reliability of an aggregatedperceptual mea- parison with the spouse's experiences in a differ-
sure of organizational climate may vary across ent setting;fewer deadlines than co-workershave;
organizations as a function of the level of agree- or a compulsion to work that keeps the individ-
ment; however all organizations have an organi- ual from noticing the pressure. The substantive
zational climate that can be described as either interpretation of perceptual agreement in this
high or low on various dimensions. example is clearly tied to psychological and con-
Overreliance on composition rules to define textual factors for the individual and the particu-
organizational climate as a simple aggregate of lar dimension of psychological climate. Other
psychological climate negates the traditional cri- interpretationsmay be necessary for low percep-
teria of construct validity and measurement reli- tual agreement on perceived trust, supportive-
ability for organizationalclimate at the organiza- ness, or other dimensions of climate. These sub-
tional level of analysis. It also asserts that orga- stantive explanations can be used to identify
nizational and psychological climate have the sources of low perceptual agreement and add to
same dimensionality and the same patternof rela- an understanding of the determinants of psycho-
tionships with variables of interest (Hannan, logical climate.
1971; Roberts et al., 1978). If this assertion of Perceptual agreement on perceptual measures
homology were true, then the inclusion of per- of organizational climate, however, should be
ceived warmth or autonomy as dimensions of interpreted strictly in terms of measurement
psychological climate implies that these dimen- accuracy.If highly competitive marketconditions
sions also must capture important differences create an organizational climate with high pres-
among organizations. Similarly, if homology is sures to produce, accurate informants should
true, then the exclusion of productivity norms or describe the pressure to produce as high, regard-
the use of service-oriented procedures as psycho- less of the pressureexperienced by the individual.
logical climate dimensions rules out the possi- Accurate informants should report on the orga-
bility that they might be important dimensions nization's climate, not their psychological or
differentiating organizations. Neither of these work group climate. Thus, low perceptual agree-
assertions is likely to be true. Homology between ment on organizationalclimate measures reflects
constructs should be empirically confirmed individual level randomerrorand sources of bias.
or disconfirmed, not definitionally asserted When the perceptual measures are aggregatedto
(Hannan, 1971). the organizational level, however, many of the
Organizational climate is the result of socio- individual level random errors and sources of
logical/organizationalprocesses. Thus, it should bias will tend to cancel each other. Thus, unless
be conceptualized as an organizational pheno- individual level perceptual agreement is excep-
menon not as a simple aggregationof psycholo- tionally low, the aggregatedperceptual measure
gical climate. Nether should it be abandoned in of organizational climate may be reliable and
some organizations simply because a hypothe- valid. Methods for assessing and improving mea-
sized composition rule is disconfirmed. surement validity and reliability are presented
below.
Perceptual Agreement
Perceptual agreement among members in an
organization has received considerable attention Dimensionality of Climate
in empirical climate research (Abbey &Dickson, One of the more persistent problems with the
1983; Drexler, 1977; James, 1982; Jones & James, concept of climate is the specification of appro-
1979). Low perceptual agreement on psychologi- priate dimensions of organizational and/or psy-
cal climate measures should be attributedto both chological climate. Climate is a generic term refer-
random error and substantive factors. Although ring to a class of dimensions that many have
an individual's psychological climate may be argued is so broad and diverse as to make the
characterized by high pressures to produce, the concept useless (Guion, 1973; James & Jones,
individual may report very low pressures. The 1974; Johannesson, 1973). The multidimensional

605

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nature of climate allows it to encompass numer- anything to organizational behavior? Does
ous organizational or psychological dimensions, "climate" direct attention or guide research in a
but it also contributes to the general fuzziness of useful manner? The answer is a tentative yes.
the construct (Guion, 1973). Organizational, subunit, and psychological cli-
Organizationalclimate has been criticized for mate have been at the forefront of research con-
its overlap with characteristicssuch as structure, cerned with the intersection of organizationaland
technology, and formalization (James & Jones, individual behavior. In this context, the multidi-
1974); psychological climate has been criticized mensional nature of climate has been both an
for its conceptual overlap with satisfaction asset and a liability. The relationship between
(Guion, 1973; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Johan- individuals and organizations is inherently mul-
nesson, 1973). In response, empirical and theo- tidimensional, and abandoning climate is likely
retical argumentshave been made to distinguish to lead to unidimensional approaches such as
organizationalclimate from structure (Campbell, those that focus on just leadership or communi-
Dunnette, Lawler,&Weick, 1970; Lawler,Hall, & cation. Organizationaland psychological climate
Oldham, 1974; Payne & Mansfield, 1973; Payne should be retained as useful categories of vari-
& Pugh, 1976) and psychological climate from ables for multidimensional assessments of
satisfaction (LaFollette & Sims, 1975; Payne, individual-organizational relationships.
Fineman, & Wall, 1976; Powell & Butterfield, Despite the benefits of multidimensional
1978; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). Unfortunately, approaches, Occam's razor demands some par-
these distinctions still fail to define variablesthat simony. Saying that everythingis relatedto every-
are unique to the domain of climate. For example, thing else does not provide much of an expla-
leadership characteristics are tapped by climate nation. One approach to limiting the number of
scales such as leaders' psychological distance climate dimensions follows the personnel selec-
(Payne & Mansfield, 1973), managerial function tion practice of using criterion referenced vari-
(Schneider et al., 1980), leader facilitation and ables (Jones & James, 1979; Schneider, 1975a).
support (Jones & James, 1979), and managerial Researchersare encouragedto use climate dimen-
trust and consideration (Gavin & Howe, 1975). sions that are likely to influence or be associated
Communication characteristics are reflected in with the studys' criteriaof interest.This approach
climate dimensions such as open-mindedness is successfully adopted in Zohar's (1980) study
(Payne &Mansfield, 1973), boss and subordinate of safety climates and Schneider's work on cli-
information (Bass, Valenzi, Farrow, & Solomon, mates for service (Parkington&Schneider, 1979;
1975), warmth (Downey, Hellriegel, & Slocum, Schneider & Bowen, in press; Schneider et al.,
1975), and communication flow (Drexler, 1977). 1980). Schneider and Reichers (1983) extend this
Aspects of organizationaleffectiveness aretreated idea by arguingthat work settings have different
as climate dimensions such as competence/ climates for specific things such as safety, ser-
potence, risk orientation (Lawler et al., 1974), vice, production, security, and quality.
teller courtesy, and overall quality. (Schneider et Although criterion referencing provides some
al., 1980). Further,numerous constructsthat were focus in the selection of climate dimensions, cli-
originally considered to be independent of cli- mate remains a broad generic term. For some
mate more recently have appeared as climate organizational researchers (including the pres-
dimensions: for example, conflict and ambiguity ent author), this is tolerable given the necessity
(Jones &James, 1979), equity (James,1982), cen- for multidimensional approaches to investigate
trality (Joyce&Slocum, 1979), and reward orien- the intersection of organizational and individual
tation (Schneider, 1975a). behavior. For others, the lack of focus on a set of
Even this abbreviatedlisting of climate dimen- specific dimensions that are uniquely "climate
sions demonstrates their tremendous diversity. dimensions" may be grounds for abandoningthe
Indeed, climate seems to overlap with most con- concept. Whether climate flourishes or is aban-
structs in organizational behavior. Thus, one is doned as a label for this area of research, how-
left wondering, can the study of climate (orga- ever, the issues addressed in this paper remain
nizational, subunit, or psychological) contribute relevant to the study of the interaction of organi-

606

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
zational/contextual characteristics and individ- pling individuals results in the fallacy of the
ual behavior. wrong level (Roberts et al., 1978), whereas the
use of small homogeneous samples of organiza-
Methodological Implications tions makes it impossible to assess adequately
The conceptualization of climate proposed the validity or reliability of organizational cli-
above calls for: recognizing multiple units of mate measures. Selecting homogeneous samples
theory;defining organizational,subunit, and psy- of organizations systematically reduces the
chological climates independently of one another; between-organizationvariance on dimensions of
studying the social and organizational determi- organizational climate, thereby resulting in un-
nants of climate over time; empirically testing realistically low estimates of the validity and reli-
composition rules; interpretingperceptual agree- ability of organizational climate measures. The
ment in terms of measurement accuracy for systematic reduction of between-organization
organizational climate measures, while explor- variancein small homogeneous samples also pre-
ing differentsubstantiveinterpretationsof percep- cludes the meaningful use of factor analysis to
tual agreement on psychological climate mea- validate empirically the presumed dimensional-
sures; and recognizing the benefits of diversity ity of organizational climate measures.
in climate dimensions. The primaryimplications Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) emphasized the
of this conceptualization are that organizational importance of studying climate in settings with
climate should be operationalized differently different technologies, managerial subsystems,
from psychological climate and that organiza- and external environments. Only three subse-
tional climate measures should be evaluated with quent studies (Ansari, Baumgartel, & Sullivan,
the standard criteria of validity and reliability 1982; Peterson, 1975; Zohar, 1980), however,
applied at the organizational level of analysis, sampled organizations representing different
not at the individual level as in most previous technologies or environments. These studies
research (James, 1982; Schneider et al., 1980). reported relatively strong relationships between
Severalstrategiesare suggested below for improv- organizational climate and other variables.
ing the validity and assessing the reliability of Formany researchers,the methodological limi-
organizationalclimate measures. The discussion tations of small homogeneous samples of organi-
applies to the assessment of any climate con- zations are outweighed by the practical difficul-
struct with an aggregateunit of theory including ties and expense of large random or even repre-
organizational,subunit, and workgroupclimates. sentativesamples of organizations.Unfortunately,
Most of the issues also apply to the use of percep- researchbased on small samples of similar orga-
tual measures from multiple raters to assess the nizations or subunits in a limited numberof orga-
characteristics of other targets such as organiza- nizations may have created an illusion of prog-
tional structure, organizational culture, perfor- ress without really increasing the understanding
mance, job applicant qualifications, and organi- of organizationalclimate. Representativesamples
zational technology. of organizations must be included in any future
empirical studies of organizational climate.
Improving Validity Multiple Methods. The importance of conver-
gent validity from multimethod assessments of
RepresentativeSamples of Organizations.If the organizational climate is repeatedly proclaimed
unit of theory for organizational climate is the in critiques of organizational climate research
organization,then the unit of observation should (Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Guion, 1973;
also be the organization. Failure to apply this Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James & Jones, 1974;
simple logic threatens the validity of organiza- Payne & Pugh, 1976). Although the construct of
tional climate studies that sample either individ- organizationalclimate can be tapped by examin-
uals (Gavin, 1975; La Follette & Sims, 1975) or a ing aggregated perceptions of organizational
limited number of similar departments in one or members, perceptions of outside constituents,
two organizations (Jones &James, 1979; Schnei- trained observer ratings, or archival records,
der &Bartlett,1968; Schneider et al., 1980). Sam- multimethod convergent validity has rarelybeen

607

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
studied (Payne & Pugh, 1976). Indeed, in non- informant characteristics that may bias percep-
educational settings, organizational climate has tual measures of organizational climate. For
been almost exclusively measured with aggre- example, hierarchical position (Payne & Mans-
gated perceptual measures from organizational field, 1973; Pheysey, Payne, & Pugh, 1971;
members.Three notable exceptions are Johnston Schneider, 1972; Schneider &Bartlett,1970), line
(1976), Schneider et al. (1980), and Schneider versus staff position (Gavin, 1975), and task ori-
and Bowen (in press). Johnston (1976) content entation (Johnston, 1974) of the informant have
analyzed in-depth interviews in a small single all been significantly associated with various
office firm. Schneider et al. (1980) found a high dimensions of organizational climate.
degree of correspondence between perceptual Identified sources of bias in aggregatedpercep-
measures of organizationalclimate from employ- tual measures are potentially controlled with
ees and customers in 23 branchesof a single bank. either sampling or statistical techniques (Ander-
Schneider and Bowen (in press) replicated this son, 1984; Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982; Seidler,
finding in 28 branches of another bank. Other, 1974). Rather than asking a random sample of
more diverse methodologies should be compared individuals to describe an organization'sclimate,
to assure convergent validity of commonly used Seidler (1974) advocates systematically selecting
perceptualassessments of organizationalclimate. the same types of key informants in all of the
Focused, Descriptive Questions. If organiza- sampled organizations. This sampling strategy
tional climate is assessed by perceptualmeasures, should hold the level of bias constant across
the accuracy and construct validity of these mea- organizations,and because knowledgeable infor-
sures can be improved by asking descriptive mants are selected, the accuracy of the organiza-
rather than affective questions (Guion, 1973; tional climate measure is increased.
Howe, 1977). Respondents should be treated as Alternatively, potential sources of bias can be
key informants(Bagozzi&Phillips, 1982; Seidler, measured and statistically controlled in analyses
1974) describing organizational characteristics, of organizational climate (McGranahan, 1976;
not as individual actors revealing their unique Seidler, 1974). The major limitation to either
experiences. Further, questions should focus on method of controlling sources of bias is that mea-
specific organizational units with recognized sures of these sources must be uncorrelated
boundaries, not an ambiguous "work envi- with the organizational climate true scores
ronment" (Howe, 1977; Schneider & Reichers, (McGranahan,1976; Seidler, 1976). For example,
1983). Organizationalclimate questionnaireitems although informant'seducational level may affect
should be directed towards the organization as a perceptionsof organizationalclimate, educational
whole; departmental "climate items should spe- level should not be statistically controlled
cifically ask about one's department" (Howe, because the mean level of education in organiza-
1977, p. 107). For example, using a seven-point tions is likely to ovary with the organizational
agree/disagree response format, organizational climate true score.
support for innovation might be tapped with the
statement, "This organization encourages em- Assessing Reliability
ployees to try new work methods," as opposed The conceptual morass surrounding organiza-
to a psychological support statement, "I am tional climate has been particularly bothersome
encouraged to try new work methods." in the assessment of measurement reliability.
Control Potential Sources of Bias. The validity Most reliability statistics reported in the litera-
of organizational climate measures can be fur- ture use the wrong unit of analysis (Bass et al.,
ther improved by identifying and controlling 1975; Drexler, 1977; Gavin & Howe, 1975; Howe,
potential sources of bias. Adopting the frame- 1977; James, Demaree, & Hater, 1980; Johannes-
work of generalizability theory (Cronbach,Raja- son, 1973; Joyce &Slocum, 1984; Payne &Mans-
ratnam,&Gleser, 1963; Shavelson &Webb, 1981), field, 1973; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). In using
multiple sources of measurement error can be aggregatedperceptual measures of organizational
conceptualized, assessed, and potentially con- climate, three organizationallevel indices of reli-
trolled. Previous research has identified several ability are of potential interest: interitem consis-

608

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tency based on aggregates of raters; mean rater sample of observational units (organizations) is
reliability based on items; and mean rater reli- requiredto assure generalizabilityof any reliabil-
ability based on scale scores. All three indices ity statistic (Nunnally, 1978).
should exceed at least .6 to justify any use of the Although all of these assumptions are fre-
aggregatedperceptual measure. Computationand quently violated in organizational climate re-
interpretationof the first, aggregatelevel interitem search, violation of only the first two assump-
scale reliability is relatively straightforward tions is unavoidable. Despite violation of these
(Schneider et al., 1980). Mean rater reliability, two assumptions, however, ICC(l,k) is still the
however, is much more controversial. The only best aggregatelevel mean raterreliability statistic.
organizationalclimate study to employ organiza- Both nonrandomselection of ratersand heteroge-
tional level mean rater reliability dismissed this neity of variances violate the assumptions of all
statistic as being inflated (Jones & James, 1979). other reliability statistics for aggregatedpercep-
An Organizational Level Reliability Statistic. tual measures reported in the literature.Random
The assessment of mean rater reliability has selection of ratersalso must be assumed for aggre-
received considerable attention in the psycho- gate level interitem reliability statistics. Thus,
metric literature (Algina, 1978; Anderson, 1984; slightly higher values of ICC(1,k) should be
Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982; Bartko, 1976, 1978; requiredto demonstratereliability for aggregated
Ebel, 1951; Guilford, 1954; James, 1982; Lord & perceptual measures of organizational climate
Novick, 1968; Shrout&Fleiss, 1979;Winer,1971). compared to other applications of ICC(1,k).
When different raters observe each organization ControversySurrounding ICC(1,k).ICC(1,k)is
(target), a frequently advocated index of mean an appropriateorganizationallevel reliability sta-
rater reliability is a Spearman-Brown formula tistic for organizational climate measures when
based on the intraclass correlation from a one- each organization (target) is observed by differ-
way analysis of variance (Algina, 1978; Ebel, ent individuals (raters).The appropriateness of
1951;Guilford,1954; Lord&Novick, 1968; Shrout this statistic, however, has not gone unchallenged
& Fleiss, 1979; Winer, 1971). Shrout and Fleiss (Bartko,1976; James, 1982; Jones &James, 1979).
(1979, p. 426) provide the following formula for The critique of ICC(1,k)centers on three issues:
estimating this index of reliability (see also, the unit of theory of organizationalclimate, reli-
Winer, 1971), ability of single ratingsversus aggregatedratings,
ICC(1,k) = (BMS-WMIS)/BMS and test length. The first issue was treated above;
where, organizationalclimate should be conceptualized
k is the number of individuals (raters)in each as an organizationalcharacteristic.Thus, ICC(1,k)
organization, is appropriate.
BMS is the mean squares between organiza- When deciding whether or not to use a scaled
tions, (aggregated)perceptualmeasure,scale (aggregated
WMSis the mean squareswithin organizations. measure) reliability should be a major criterion,
Shrout and Fleiss (1979) differentiate this not item (individual rater)reliability. Some crit-
intraclass correlation from two other forms, ics (Bartko, 1976; James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni,
ICC(2,k)and ICC(3,k),that require observation of 1978; Jones & James, 1979) of ICC(1,k)have not
all organizations (targets) by all raters and are maintained this distinction and have argued
generally inappropriate for organizational for either an individual level intraclass correla-
research. tion based on a one-way analysis of variance-
ICC(l,k) should be interpreted as the lower labeled ICC(1,1)by Shrout and Fleiss (1979) and
bound estimate of the mean rater reliability of ICC(1)by James (1982)-or the individual level
the aggregated score (Algina, 1978; Shrout & eta-squared, _q2. Although James (1982) did not
Fleiss, 1979; Winer, 1971). This intraclass corre- completely rejectICC(l,k)as a reliability statistic,
lation assumes random selection of raters,homo- he advocated using the individual level intraclass
geneity of variance within organizations, and correlation, ICC(1,1), to assess interrater agree-
equal numbers of individual raters in each orga- ment as the primarycriterion for aggregatingper-
nization (target). Furthermore, a large random ceptual measures of organizational climate. He

609

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
argued that some minimum (but unspecified) ual level -q2which approximates ICC(1,1) in large
level of interrater agreement should be obtained samples. Aggregation bias should have been
prior to adopting a measure of organizational assessed in terms of ICC(l,k) because Drexler
climate. Contrary to these arguments, ICC(1,1) is (1977) was concerned with whether an aggregated
interpreted as the reliability of a single rater, not perceptual measure adequately assessed organi-
the reliability of the aggregated perceptual mea- zational climate. Thus, James (1982) and others
sure (Algina, 1978; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Winer, who cited Drexler (1977) committed the fallacy
1971). Organizational level reliability, not indi- of the wrong level by interpreting either the indi-
vidual level agreement, is the relevant criterion vidual or work group level -r2as an index of reli-
for deciding whether to adopt an organizational ability at the organizational level of analysis.
climate measure. Individual level -q2for Drexler's (1977) data was
The third critique of ICC(l,k) is that it is overly estimated for purposes of illustration by James
optimistic for deciding whether perceptual mea- (1982) using a few simplifying assumptions.
sures should be aggregated to measure organiza- Based on his review of indices of perceptual
tional climate (Jones & James, 1979). As argued agreement in other studies, James (1982) calcu-
above, the decision to use a measure of organiza- lated an upper bound of .213 and a median of
tional climate should be based on the reliability .137 as estimates of the individual level _rj2for
of the aggregated measure, not individual level Drexler's (1977) data. Using these estimates of _q2,
perceptual agreement. Although increasing the it is possible to calculate ICC(l,k) for Drexler's
number of raters generally increases ICC(l,k) and (1977) controversial data set. With 6,996 indivi-
results in unreasonable estimates of individual duals in 21 organizations, estimated reliability of
level perceptual agreement (Jones &James, 1979), the aggregated perceptual measures of organiza-
this increase is attributable to actual increases in tional climate is .989 and .982 based on James's
the reliability of the aggregated measure (Algina, (1982) two estimates of q2. Thus, the correct con-
1978; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Winer, 1971). clusion is that Drexler's (1977) aggregated per-
Increasing the length of any test or measurement ceptual measures are indeed reliable measures of
instrument generally will increase its reliability organizational climate.
(Nunnally, 1978). Thus, ICC(l,k) is appropriate
for deciding whether aggregated perceptions pro- Reliability in Other Studies of Organizational
vide a consistent measure of organizational Climate
climate.
The reliability of aggregated perceptual mea-
Reliability of sures of organizational climate in published stud-
Organizational Climate Measures ies is important for interpreting these studies.
Unfortunately, recent reviews (James, 1982; James
Reliability in the Drexler Study
et al., 1978; James & Sells, 1981; Jones & James,
James (1982) correctly identified an ecological 1979) focus on individual level perceptual agree-
fallacy in Drexler's (1977) claim that organiza- ment rather than reliability. James (1982) calcu-
tional membership predicted 42.2 percent of the lated a measure of individual level perceptual
variation in individuals' climate scores. Drexler's agreement for 13 published studies and found
(1977) analyses actually showed that 42.2 per- generally low levels of agreement ranging from
cent of the variation in aggregated workgroup cli- .00 to .50, with a median of .13. The following
mate scores was accounted for by organization. describes an attempt to calculate aggregate level
Drexler's conclusions have been uncritically cited mean rater reliability, ICC(1,k), rather than
by several authors as evidence that organizational ICC(1,1), for the 13 studies examined by James
climate can be reliably measured (Jones & James, (1982). Organizational level reliability statistics
1979; Roberts et al., 1978; Schneider et al., 1980; are then calculated for three additional studies
Woodman & King, 1978). Unfortunately, James (Ansari et al., 1982; Peterson, 1975; Zohar, 1980)
(1982) did not clarify the issue. He assessed aggre- that sampled organizations rather than depart-
gation bias in Drexler (1977) in terms of individ- ments within organizations.

610

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reliability Within Organizations. Unfortuna- absence of multiple organization studies. Three
tely, a meaningful ICC(l,k) can be calculated for studies (Ansari et al., 1982; Peterson, 1975; Zohar,
only 3 of the 13 studies reviewed by James (1982). 1980) assessed organizational climate in samples
It is impossible to calculate ICC(l,k) from inter- of organizations with diverse technologies. Ansari
rater correlations (Schneider, 1972; Schneider & et al. (1982) assessed the organizational climate
Bartlett, 1970; Schneider & Snyder, 1975) or the of 28 diverse organizations using 411 key infor-
number of significant individual level F-ratios mants. Reliability was enhanced by including
for separate climate scales (Payne & Mansfield, only top or mid-level managers, thereby partially
1973). Other studies were eliminated because of controlling informant characteristics. Further, all
a lack of individual level statistics (Drexler, 1977) questions were focused on organizational level
or small sample sizes of less than five organi- characteristics. Ansari et al. (1982) reported
zations/departments (Gavin & Howe, 1975; Howe, organizational level mean interitem correlations
1977; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Payne & Pheysey, of .57, .70, and .44 for the climate scales, achie-
1971; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Schneider, vement-orientation, relations-orientation, and
1972). Unfortunately, the remaining three stud- structure-orientation, respectively. These values
ies (Bass et al., 1975; James et al., 1980; Jones & yield, organizational level scale reliabilities
James, 1979) were based on medium sized (19 to (Spearman-Brown formula) of .799, .921, and
223) but relatively homogeneous samples of .702. Ansari et al. (1982) also reported some
departments, not organizations. Therefore, the organizational level evidence of convergent and
estimated ICC(lk) presented below probably discriminant validity among the three scales.
would be much higher in a random sample of Peterson (1975) sampled 15 organizations rep-
organizations. Other assumptions of aggregate resenting all three types of Thompson's (1967)
level reliability statistics also were violated in technology. Key informant characteristics were
these studies, suggesting caution in interpreting held partially constant by selecting only profes-
the ICC(l,k) reported below. If _q2 was the only sional, technical, and managerial personnel. The
published statistic, mean squares were computed 1,023 informants were not evenly distributed
by setting the total sum of squares equal to an across organizations. Questions in two of the four
arbitrary constant. These mean squares then were scales appear to have focused on organizational
used to calculate ICC(l.k). climate rather than psychological or work group
Bass et al. (1975) reported individual level eta climates (extrinsic motivation and organizational
coefficients capturing work group differences on style versus intrinsic motivation and leadership
31 climate variables in three separate samples. style). Thus, Peterson's (1975) study followed
For this study, 93 ICC(l,k) were calculated, with most, but not all, of the methodological sugges-
a range of .134 to .973 and a median of .745. tions presented above. Estimated organizational
James et al. (1980) presented an _q2 of .26 for inter- level mean rater reliabilities, ICC(l,k), for the
departmental conflict in a single organization, four scales are .989, .991, .987, and .965 for ex-
yielding an ICCGl,k) of .512. Jones and James trinsic motivation, organizational style, intrinsic
(1979) calculated 18 ICC(l,k)'s, ranging from .55 motivation, and leadership style, respectively.
to .91, with a median value of .71, for three levels Thus, all four scales were very reliable measures
of aggregation and six dimensions of climate. of organizational climate.
Further, an average ship level ICC(l,k) of .85 Zohar (1980) sampled 20 plants in separate
was reported for the two climate dimensions that firms from a national directory of large firms in
were specified, a priori, as focusing on ship level Israel. The firms represented chemical, metal, and
issues rather than individual or workgroup is- food industries. Key informant characteristics
sues. Although some of these ICC(l,k) values in- were held constant; a stratified random sample
dicate substantial unreliability, most organiza- of 20 production workers was taken in each plant.
tional climate scales appear to be moderately re- All questions focused on organizational climate
liable. for safety. Thus, with the exception of using
Reliability Across Multiple Organizations. A multiple methods, Zohar's (1980) study followed
major limitation of James's (1982) review is the all of the suggestions for improving validity. Esti-

611

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
disciplinary bases-climate, developed primarily
mated organizational level mean rater reliability, from the Lewinian social psychological frame-
ICC(1,k), was .981. work, compared with the anthropological and
In contrast with James's (1982) conclusion, symbolic interactionist roots of culture. Climate
these analyses show that most perceptual mea- research tends to be nomothetic, using quantita-
sures of organizational climate are sufficiently tive techniques to describe phenomena at a given
reliable to justify aggregation. There are two rea- time from an external perspective. Culture re-
sons for the dramatic difference between the search, however, is primarily idiographic (Martin,
median value of .13 calculated by James (1982) Feldman, Hatch, &Sitkin, 1983), employing quali-
and the median value of .97 for the multiple orga- tative methods to explain dynamic processes
nization studies. First, the .97 value is an organi- (Jelinek, Smircich, & Hirsch, 1983; Pettigrew,
zational level mean rater reliability statistic rather 1979) from both external and participant/native
than a measure of individual level perceptual views (Gregory, 1983).
agreement. Organizational level reliability, not Despite the radical methodological differences,
individual level agreement, is the appropriate cri- many issues discussed in terms of organizational
terion for deciding whether to adopt an organiza- climate are being discussed by culture research-
tional level measure. ers. The unit of theory problem is evident in
The second reason for the difference between Riley's (1983) argument for recognizing multiple
James's (1982) value of .13 and the present .97 subcultures and countercultures in organizations.
lies with the research designs. To emphasize this Barley (1983) traces the unit of theory problem
point, ICC(1,1), the measure of individual level to the debate in anthropology between Good-
perceptual agreement advocated by James (1982), enough's (1981) interpretation of culture as a psy-
was calculated for Peterson (1975) and Zohar chological phenomenon and Geertz's (1973) treat-
(1980). These values are .563, .615, .519, and .288 ment of cultural meanings as social, not indivi-
for Peterson's (1975) four scales, and .720 for dual. Several authors have appropriately resolved
Zohar's (1980) climate for safety. These measures this debate by adopting multiple units of theory
of individual level perceptual agreement are con- for culture (Smircich, 1983; Smith & Simmons,
siderably higher than the median value of .13 1983; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983). Distinctive terms
presented by James (1982) because several steps for organizational, subunit (subculture), and occu-
were taken to improve the validity of the organi- pational culture have been adopted (Barley,
zational level measures. Thus, the controversy 1983); however, culture research still lacks sepa-
over the use of aggregated perceptual measures rate labels for individual or work group cultural
should be shifted from selecting an index of reli- phenomena.
ability to the more important issue of validity. Most culture research focuses on the dynamic
processes creating and changing organizational
Implications for Organizational Culture
cultures. Compared with climate, the determi-
As interest in organizational climate began to nants of culture have been thoroughly investi-
wane, other researchers began investigating a very gated. As evidenced by the strong similarities
similar topic, organizational culture, with radi- between the recent work on the determinants of
cally different methods. Pettigrew defined organi- climate (Poole & McPhee, 1983; Schneider &
zational culture as "the system of . . . publicly Reichers, 1983) and culture (Hirsch & Andrews,
and collectively accepted meanings operating for 1983; Pettigrew, 1979; Pondy, 1983; Riley, 1983;
a given group at a given time. This system of Smith & Simmons, 1983), cross-fertilization
terms, forms, categories, and images interprets a would be mutually beneficial. The minor sub-
people's own situation to themselves" (1979, p. stantive differences between culture and climate
574). Like climate, culture is a broad class of may prove to be more apparent than real.
organizational and psychological variables that A third common issue for culture and climate
reflect individuals' interactions in an organiza- researchers is the level of perceptual agreement.
tional setting. The primary differences appear to Although culture researchers fail to assess per-
be methodological, stemming from the different ceptual agreement with quantitative measures,

612

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
low agreement is apparent when inconsistencies paper advocates defining organizational climate
occur in organizational stories or the local cul- as a generic term for a broad class of organiza-
ture is difficult to discern. Low agreement indi- tional, rather than psychological, variables that
cates a weak organizational culture (Deal & describe the organizational context for indivi-
Kennedy, 1982). Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) ad- duals' actions. Thus, futureresearchshould focus
vanced the contingency hypothesis that increas- on organizational, rather than individual, units
ing transaction costs will enhance the relation- of analysis in assessing and improving the valid-
ship between strength of the organizational cul- ity and reliability of organizational climate
ture and organizational performance. A similar measures.
hypothesis might be asserted for the level of The multilevel issues discussed in this paper
perceptual agreement in climate measures. are not unique to climate and culture. Similar
Conclusion problems have been observed in other areas of
organizational science, such as leadership, job
Despite the centralrole of social, organizational, design, organizationaltechnology and design, cor-
and situational influences in organizational porate philanthropy, equity theory, and partici-
behavior, conceptual and methodological prob- pation in decision making (Glick&Roberts,1984;
lems appear to have reduced climate research to Mossholder & Bedeian, 1983). Unfortunately,
a trickle. At one time climate research was at the most important problems in organizational sci-
frontier of research on environmental influences ence potentially involve multilevel problems.
on individuals, but it seems to have encountered Thus, organizationalscientists are encouraged to
numerous pitfalls of multilevel research. If pay attention to multilevel issues and avoid the
researchers fail to resolve the conceptual issues conceptual and methodological pitfalls that have
raised in this paper, climate may not remain a plagued the short and occasionally glorious his-
viable research topic or managerial tool. This tory of climate.

References
Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983) R&Dwork climate and Bass, B. M., Valenzi, E. R., Farrow, D. L., & Solomon, R. J.,
innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management (1975) Management styles associated with organizational,
Journal,26, 362-368. task, personal, and interpersonal contingencies. Journal of
Algina, J. (1978) Comment on Bartko's "On various intra- Applied Psychology, 60, 720-729.
class correlation reliability coefficients." Psychological Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966) The social construction of
Bulletin, 85, 135-138. reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden
Anderson, J.C. (1984) On multiple informant assessment of City, NY: Doubleday.
constructvalidityfor propertiesof marketingorganizations. Campbell, D. T. (1958) Common fate, similarity, and other
Workingpaper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social
Ansari, M. A., Baumgartel,H., &Sullivan, G. (1982) The per- entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
sonal orientation-organizationalclimate fit and manage- Campbell, J. P., Dunette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K.
rial success. Human Relations, 35, 1159-1178. E., Jr. (1970) Managerial behavior, performance, and
Argyris,C. (1958) Some problems in conceptualizing organi- effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
zational climate: A case study of a bank. Administrative Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
Science Quarterly,2, 501-520. ture of tests. Psychometrika,16, 297-334.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) Representing and Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963) Theory
testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly,27, 459-489. British Journalof Statistical Psychology, 16, 137-163.
Barley, S. R. (1983) Semiotics and the study of occupational Dandridge, T., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. (1980) Organizational
and organizationalcultures. Administrative Science Quar- symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis.
terly, 28, 393-413. Academy of ManagementReview, 5, 248-256.
Bartko,J. J. (1976) On various intraclass correlationreliabil- Deal, T. R., & Kennedy, A. E. (1982) Corporate cultures.
ity coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762-765. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartko,J. J. (1978) Reply to Algina. Psychological Bulletin, Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W.,Jr. (1975) Con-
85, 139-140. gruence between individual needs, organizational climate,

613

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
job satisfaction, and performance. Academy of Manage- Howe, J. G. (1977) Group climate: An exploratory analysis of
ment Journal,18, 149-155. construct validity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 19, 106-125.
Drexler,J. A., Jr.(1977) Organizationalclimate:Its homogene-
ity within organizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, Jablin, F. M. (1980) Organizational communication theory
62, 38-42. and research: An overview of communication climate and
network research. Communications Yearbook. 4, 327-347.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Psychometrika,16, 407-424. James, L. R. (1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of percep-
tual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-
Field, R. H. G., &Abelson, M. A. (1982) Climate:A reconcep- 229.
tualization and proposed model. Human Relations, 35, James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974) Organizational climate: A
181-201. review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81,
Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. V. H. (1964) Environmental 1096-1112.
variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psycho- James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981) Psychological climate: Theo-
logical Bulletin, 62, 228-240. retical perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnus-
Gavin, J. F. (1975) Organizationalclimate as a function of son (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interac-
personal and organizationalvariables.Journalof Applied tional perspective, (pp. 275-295). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Psychology, 60, 135-139. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Hater, J. J. (1980) A statistical
Gavin,J.R., &Howe, J.G. (1975) Psychological climate:Some rationale for relating situational variables and individual
theoretical and empirical considerations. Behavioral differences. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
Science, 20, 228-240. mance, 25, 354-364.

Geertz, D. (1973) The interpretationof cultures. New York: James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978)
Basic Books. Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social
learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel
Glick,W. H. (1980) Problemsin cross level inference. In K. H. Psychology, 31, 781-813.
Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds.), New directions for metho-
dology of social and behavioralscience: Aggregationissues Jelinek, M., Smircich, L., & Hirsch, P. (1983) Introduction: A
in organizational science (Vol. 6, pp. 17-30). San Fran- code of many colors. Administrative Science Quarterly,
cisco: Jossey-Bass. 28, 331-338.

Glick, W. H., & Roberts, K. H. (1984) Hypothesized inter- Johannesson, R. E. (1973) Some problems in the measure-
dependence, assumed independence.Academy of Manage- ment of organizational climate. Organizational Behavior
ment Review, 9, 772-735. and Human Performance, 10, 118-144.

Goodenough, W. H. (1981) Culture, language, and society. Johnston, H. R., Jr. (1974) Some personality correlates of the
Menlo Park,CA: Benjamin/Cummings. relationships between individuals and organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 623-632.
Gregory,K. L. (1983) Native-view paradigms:Multiple cul-
turesand cultureconflicts in organizations.Administrative Johnston, H. R. (1976) A new conceptualization of source of
Science Quarterly,28, 359-376. organizational climate. Administrative Science Quarterly,
21, 95-103.
Guetzkow,H., Forehand,G.A., &James,B. J.(1962)An evalua-
tion of educational influence on executive judgement. Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979) Psychological climate:
Administrative Science Quarterly,1962, 6, 483-500. Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated
work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior
Guilford,J. P. (1954) Psychometric methods (2nd. ed.). New and Human Performance, 23, 201-250.
York:McGraw-Hill.
Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1979) Climates in orga-
Guion, R. M. (1973) A note on organizationalclimate. Orga- nizations. In S. Kerr (Ed.) Organizational behavior (pp.
nizational Behaviorand Human Performance,9, 120-125. 317-333). Columbus, OH: Grid.
Hannan, M. T. (1971) Aggregation and disaggregation in Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1982) Climate discrepancy:
sociology. Lexington, MA: Heath, Refining the concepts of psychological and organizational
Hellriegel, D.. & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1974) Organizational climate. Human Relations, 35, 951-972.
climate: Measures,research,and contingencies, Academy Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1984) Collective climate:
of ManagementJournal, 17, 255-280. Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in
Hirsch,P. M., &Andrews,J.A. Y. (1983)Ambushes,shootouts, organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721-
and knights of the roundtable:The language of corporate 742.
takeovers. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan,& T. C. LaFollette, W. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1975) Is satisfaction redun-
Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 145- dant with organizational climate? Organizational Behav-
156). Greenwich, CT:JAI. ior and Human Performance, 13, 257-278.

614

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lawler, E. E., III, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974) Organiza- Pondy, L. R. (1983) The role of metaphors and myths in orga-
tional climate: Relationship to organizational structure, nization and in the facilitation of change. In L. R. Pondy, P.
process, and performance. Organizational Behavior and J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational
Human Performance, 11, 139-155. symbolism (pp. 157-166). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Leavitt, H. J. (1964) Applied organizational change in industry: Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1983) A structurational analy-
Structural, technological, and humanistic approaches. In J. sis of organizational climate. In L. L. Putnam & M. E.
G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1122- Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An
1170). Chicago: Rand McNally. interpretive approach (pp. 195-219). Beverly Hills, CA:
Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science. New York: Sage.
Harper. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1978) The case for subsys-
Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968) Motivation and organiza- tem climate in organizations. Academy of Management
tional climate. Boston: Harvard University Press. Review, 3, 151-157.

Lord, C. F., & Novick, M. R. (1968) Statistical theories of Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973) The effect of organi-
mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. zational climate on managerial job performance and job
satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983) mance, 9, 126-146.
The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Admi- Riley, P. (1983) A structurationist account of political cultures.
nistrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 414-438.
McGranahan, D. A. (1976) Correcting for informant bias. Roberts, K. H., & Burstein, L. (Eds.). (1980) New directions for
American Sociological Review, 41, 176-179. methodology of social and behavioral science: Aggrega-
tion issues in organizational science (Vol. 6). San Francisco:
Mossholder, K. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1983) Cross-level infer- Jossey-Bass.
ence and organizational research: Perspectives on inter- Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978) Deve-
pretation and application. Academy of Management loping an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San
Review, 8, 547-558. Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New Schneider, B. (1972) Organizational climate: Individual pref-
York: McGraw-Hill. erence and organizational realities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 56, 211-217.
Parkington, J. J., & Schneider, B. (1979) Some correlates of
experienced job stress: A boundary role study. Academy Schneider, B. (1975a) Organizational climates: An essay.
of Management Journal, 22, 270-281. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.

Payne, R. L., & Mansfield, R. (1973) Relationships of percep- Schneider, B. (1975b) Organizational climate: Individual pref-
tions of organizational climate to organizational structure, erences and organizational realities revisited. Journal of
context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Applied Psychology, 60, 459-465.
Quarterly, 18, 515-526. Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. (1968) Individual differences
Payne, R. L., & Pheysey, D. C. (1971) G. G. Stern's organiza- and organizational climate I: The research plan and ques-
tional climate index: A reconceptualization and applica- tionnaire development. Personnel Psychology, 21, 323-
tion to business organizations. Organizational Behavior 333.
and Human Performance, 6, 77-98. Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. (1970) Individual differences
Payne, R. L., & Pugh, D. S. (1976) Organizational structure and organizational climate II: Measurement of organiza-
and climate. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of indus- tional climate by the multi-trait, multi-rater matrix. Per-
trial and organizational psychology (pp. 1125-1173). sonnel Psychology, 23, 493-512.
Chicago: Rand-McNally. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (in press) Replication and exten-
Payne, R. L., Fineman, S., & Wall, T. D. (1976) Organizational sion of employee and customer perceptions of service in
climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. banks. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983) On the etiology of
45-62. climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19-39.
Peterson, R. B. (1975) The interaction of technological pro- Schneider, B., & Snyder, R. (1975) Some relationships between
cess and perceived organizational climate in Norwegian job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 288-299. Applied Psychology, 60, 318-328.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979) On studying organizational cultures. Schneider, B., Parkington, J. J., & Buxton, V. M. (1980)
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581. Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks.
Pheysey, D. C., Payne, R. L., & Pugh, D. S. (1971) Influence of Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 252-267.
structure at organizational and group levels. Administrative Seidler, J. (1974) On using informants: A technique for col-
Science Quarterly, 16, 61-73. lecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error

615

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in organizational analysis. American Sociological Review, Weick, K. E. (1979) The social psychology of organizing (2nd
39, 816-831. ed4. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Seidler, J. (1976) Reply to McGranahan. American Sociologi- Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983) Efficient cultures:
cal Review, 41, 179-181. Exploring the relationship between culture and organiza-
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1981) Generalizability theory: tional performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,
1973-1980. British Journal of Mathematical and Statisti- 468-481.
cal Psychology, 34, 133-166. Winer, B. J. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) Intraclass correlations: design (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, Woodman, R. W., & King, D. C. (1978) Organizational climate:
86, 420-428. Science or folklore? Academy of Management Review, 3,
Smircich, L. (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational 816-826.
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358. Zohar, D. (1980) Safety climate in industrial organizations:
Smith, K. K., & Simmons, V. M. (1983) A Rumpelstiltskin Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied
organization: Metaphors on metaphors in field research. Psychology, 65, 96-102.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 377-392.
Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

William H. Glick is Assistant Professor of Manage-


ment at the University of Texas-Austin.

616

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:25:15 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like