PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1976. 29. 371-392.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LITWIN AND STRINGER ORGANIZATION CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE: AN EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL EXTENSION OF THE SIMS AND LAFOLLETTE STUDY
PAUL M. MUCHINSKY' Iowa State University"

THE concept of organizational climate has increasingly become the focus of a wide variety of research studies. However, considerable diversity is present in both the definitions and measurement techniques of this concept. Johannesson (1973) reports that definitions of organizational climate have proceeded along two lines: objective and perceptual. James and Jones (1974) outlined three approaches to the definition and measurement of organizational climate: multiple measurement-organizational attribute; perceptual measurement-organizational attribute; and perceptual measurement-individual attribute. According to James and Jones, the multiple measurement-organizational attribute approach regards organizational climate exclusively as a set of organizational attributes or main effects measureable by a variety of methods. Variables constituting organizational climate include size, structure, systems complexity, levels of authority, etc. Studies representative of this approach include Evan (1963), Lawrence and Lorsch, (1967), Prien and Ronan (1971), and Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner (1969). The perceptual measurement-organizational attribute approach views climate as an organizational attribute or main effect, but is measured via perceptual means. Studies representative of this approach include Friedlander and Margulies (1969), Litwin and Stringer (1968), Payne and Pheysey (1971), and Pritchard and Karasick (1973). The perceptual measurement-individual attribute approach views climate as a set of summary or global perceptions held by individuals, as assessed via perceptual means. Studies representative of this approach include Schneider (1972, 1973), Schneider and Bartlett (1968), and Schneider and Hall (1972). As James and Jones (1974) comment, these approaches to defining and measuring organizational
' Address reprint request to Paul M. Muchinsky, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. ' This study was made possible through a grant from the Graduate College of Iowa State University.
Copyright 1976. by PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC.

371

372

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

climate are not mutually exclusive, but they do illustrate the diversity which has arisen in the literature regarding the concept of organizational climate. The perceptual approach to organizational climate seemingly has generated the greatest amount of research. A major significant contribution to the area of organizational climate was made by Litwin and Stringer (1968). Their research was significant on both theoretical and practical grounds. Their theoretical view of climate is one that is commonly endorsed by contemporary researchers: climate refers to a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environment, and is assumed to influence motivation and behavior (Litwin and Stringer, 1968, p.I.). Their practical contribution to the area was the development of a 50 item organizational climate questionnnaire, which has been utilized in a number of research studies. Sims and LaFoIlette (1975) recently completed a study which explored the validity and reliability of the Litwin and Stringer (1968) organizational climate questionnaire. Using factor analytic techniques, Sims and LaFoIlette found "doubtful reliability and validity" for the original questionnaire, and reported factor structures derived from administering the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire to subjects in their study to be more "meaningful and reliable." Sims and LaFoIlette were prompted to do their study because of the paucity of currently available evidence regarding the validity and reliability of organizational climate questionnaires. The purpose of the present study was to extend the research of Sims and LaFoIlette, to see whether the factors derived from their research could be replicated in another sample. More importantly, it was hypothesized that since organizational climate involves perceptions of a work environment, it is doubtful that a common meaningful set of derived factors exist across different work environments. As Schneider (1975) stated, climate is the result of an organization's practices and procedures, and differing organizational practices and procedures should produce differing organizational climates. The purpose of this study was not to criticize the methodology employed by Sims and LaFoIlette, nor to question the interpretation of their specific results, but to extend the theoretical and practical implications of organizational climate research based upon the data from the two studies. Method Sample The sample consisted of employees of a large public utility. Respondents covered a broad spectrum of occupations, including various

PAUL M, MUCHINSKY

373

levels of management, telephone operators, telephone service repairmen, PBX installers, technical, craft, and clerical personnel. The total size of the organization (state-wide) was approximately 8000 employees. A random sample of 1160 employees was drawn by selecting every seventh employee from a computerized listing of all employees. The Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnnaire (among others) was mailed to the home of each employee. Subjects were instructed that the study was sponsored by Iowa State University, was not a company study, and their responses were completely confidential. After one follow-up letter, 695 (60%) usable questionnaires were returned. 48% of the respondents were male, 52% of the respondents were female; their average age was 33 years and their average tenure in the organization was 13 years. Instrument The organizational climate questionnaire used in this study was designed by Litwin and Stringer (Form B) (1968). The questionnaire consists of 50 statements about an organization. The respondent is asked to reply to each item using a four-point Likert scale format: definitely agree; inclined to agree; inclined to disagree; or definitely disagreeas it applies to his organization. The 50 item Litwin and Stringer (1968) questionnaire consists of nine separate a priori scales which they defined as: 1. Strueture (8 items)the feeling that employees have about the constraints in the group, how many rules, regulations, procedures there are; is there an emphasis on "red tape" and going through channels, or is there a loose and informal atmosphere. 2. Responsibility (7 items)the feeling of being your own boss: not having to double-check all your decisions; when you have a job to do, knowing that it is your job. 3. Reward (6 items)the feeling of being rewarded for a job well done; emphasizing positive rewards rather than punishments, the perceived fairness of the pay and promotion policies. 4. Risk (5 items)the sense of riskiness and challenge in the job and in the organization; is there an emphasis on taking calculated risks, or is playing it safe the best way to operate. 5. Warmth (5 items)the feeling of general good fellowship that prevails in the work group atmosphere; the emphasis on being wellliked; the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups. 6. Support (5 items)the perceived helpfulness of the managers and other employees in the group; emphasis on mutual support from above and below. 7. Standards (6 items)the perceived importance of implicit and

374

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

explicit goals and performance standards; the emphasis on doing a good job; the challenge represented in personal and group goals. 8. Conflict (4 items)the feeling that managers and other workers want to hear different opinions; the emphasis placed on getting problems out in the open, rather than smoothing them over or ignoring them. 9. Identity (4 items)the feeling that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member of a working team; the importance placed on this kind of spirit (pp. 81-82). Based upon their own research, Litwin and Stringer concluded that seven of the nine scales showed good internal consistency, although there was some problem of overlap among the scales (positive scale intercorrelations). Sims and LaFolIette (1975, p. 23) discuss in greater detail the specific problems relating to the original nine scales. Statistical Analysis By design, the statistical analyses employed in this study were identical to those employed by Sims and LaFolIette (1975). Identical analyses were run to avoid the problem encountered in previous factor analytic research (Ash, 1954; Baehr, 1954; Wherry, 1954), whereby differences in the findings could be attributed to different methods of analysis. The subprogram FACTOR from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1970) was used by Sims and LaFolIette (and thus used in the present study) to identify the factor structure which was most representative of the data from the organizational climate questionnaire. The method of factoring selected was PA2, which replaces the main diagonal elements of the correlation matrix with communality estimates. Sims and LaFolIette reported in their study that they used both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (direct oblimin) rotations, but they did not stipulate exactly where in the study the oblique rotation was employed. However, Sims (1976) informed the author that the results actually reported in their study were based only on orthogonal (Varimax) rotations. In the present study orthogonal (Varimax) rotations were also employed. Results After examining the resultant factor structures, it was determined that the factor structure which best represented the data from the questionnaire was that of the six factor orthogonal rotation, which is shown in Tables 1 through 6. Each factor is presented separately in the tables.'
' A complete listing of the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnaire items is included in the Appendix.

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY TABLE I Factor I: Interpersonal Milieu L & S Item Number 21 Factors I .31 ,48 .72 .11 .28 II -.06 .04 .04 .07 -.11 III .22 .35 .20 .20 .27
1.44 6.42 6.42

375

CommunalIV .28 .29 .16 .19 .27 V .08 .17 .09 .03 .05 VI .17 .24 .18 .18 .24
ity

27
29 30 32

.46 .56 .65 .66 .43

Eigen Value of Faclor I Percentage oT Variance of Factor I Cumulative Percentage of Variance of Factor I

I. Interpersonal Milieu: This factor describes the interpersonal relations environment that is perceived to exist in the company; that is, the type of atmopshere that prevails in the company. II. Standards: This factor identifies the feeling that the organization has established exacting standards of performance, placing emphasis on high quality of performance. III. General Affective Tone toward Management/Organization: This factor identifies the way in which respondents perceive management, where "management" represents the organizational "higherups" and their concomitant image. IV. Organizational Structure and Procedure: This factor identifies the feelings people have about the way things get done within the organization, involving clarity of procedures, red tape, and organizational structure. V. Responsibility: This factor identifies the way the respondents feel about who has the ultimate responsibility for getting the job done, involving the frequency of double-checking, individual judgment, and personal initiative. VI. Organizational Identification: This factor describes the feelings people have about being a part of the same organization, involving
TABLE 2 Factor II: Standards L & S Item Number 37 38 39 1 .06 -.02 .02 II .74 .73 .11 Factors III IV .15 -.05 -.02 .16 .03 -.03
1.67 7.44 13.86

V .00 .01 .03

VI .20 -.01 .01

Communality .65 .55 .63

Eigen Valueof Factor II Percentage of Variance of Factor II Cumulative Percentage of Variance of Factor II

376

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 3 Factor III: General Affective Tone toward Management/Organization V ,17 ,02 ,16 ,02 ,15 ,01 ,04 ,23 ,04 ,04 ,03 ,15 ,12 ,08 ,03 ,07 ,15
18.05 11.91

L & S Item Number 8 16 17 18 19 20 25

Factor I .09 -.01 ,19 ,09 ,27 ,13 ,20 ,30 ,40 ,18 ,35 ,21 ,26 ,06 ,07 ,16 ,14

II
-,04 ,06 -,07 ,04 -,21 -,04 -,03 -,15 -,04 ,10 -,06 ,04 ,09 ,30 ,20 ,01 -,05

III ,35 ,59 ,65 ,66 ,35 ,54 ,48 ,36 ,50 ,58 ,41 ,58 ,40 -,32 ,22 ,44 .59

IV .27 ,36 ,28 ,37 ,34 ,36 ,28 ,22 ,26 ,17 ,33 ,20 ,23 ,11 ,13 ,13 ,16

VI ,09 ,10 ,13 ,06 ,15 ,15 ,12 ,20 ,26 ,11 ,27 ,22 ,22 -,05 ,13 ,28 ,30

Communality ,32 ,52 ,62 ,59 ,51 ,51 ,56 ,42 ,59 ,47 ,52 ,53 ,47 ,36 ,26 ,39 ,54

28
31 33 34 35 36 40 41 43 45

Eigen Value of Factor 111 Percentageof Variance of Factor III Cumulative Percentage of Variance of Factor III

feelings of pride in the company, personal loyalty, and a team approach to work. The mean and standard deviation of each a priori scale is shown in Table 7, as well as the mean and standard deviation of each derived factor, computed by summing the scores of the items loading most significantly (the highest loading) on that factor and then dividing the
TABLE 4 Factor IV: Organizational Structure and Procedures L & S Item Number 1 Factor I ,05 ,09 ,11 ,12 ,15 ,07 ,10 ,16 ,16 ,10 II ,14 ,04 ,06 -,14 -,14 ,04 ,10 -,03 ,05 -,01 III ,26 ,17 ,25 ,14 ,23 ,23 ,17 ,20 ,10 ,26 IV ,59 ,59 ,51 ,47 ,41 ,56 ,47 ,48 ,47 ,32 V ,08 ,08 ,09 ,06 -,03 ,00 ,02 -,02 -,03 -,04
2.4,1 10.83 42.74

VI ,11 ,12 ,20 ,08 ,19 ,06 ,08 ,21 ,16 ,14

Communality ,49 ,41 ,42 ,33 ,33 ,39 ,29 ,47 ,39 ,40

2
3 4

5
6 7 14 15 24

Eigen Value of Factor IV Pcrcentageaf Variance of Factor IV Cumulative Percentage of Variance of Factor IV

PAUL M, MUCHINSKY TABLE 5 Factor V: Responsibility L & S Item Number 9 10 II 12 13 23 44 Factor 1 ,01 ,04 ,17 -,01 -,02 ,05 ,00 II -,09 -,01 ,00 ,06 ,06 ,08 ,15 III ,06 ,07 ,15 ,28 -,03 ,17 -,06 IV ,14 ,04 ,13 -,07 -,03 ,08 -,11 V ,33 ,61 ,46 ,34 ,55 ,21 ,21
1,20 5.35 48,09

377

CommunalVI ,11 ,02 ,03 ,16 ,00 ,00 ,06

ity

,28 ,39 ,28 ,29 ,36 ,45 ,17

Kigen Value of Factor V Percentage of Vyriance of Factor V Cutnulative Percentage of Variance of Factor V

sum by the number of items used in the summation. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) reliabilities of the a priori scales and derived factors are also shown in the table, as well as the split-half reliabilities of the a priori scales and derived factors as reported by Sims and LaFollette (1975). A comparison of the reliabilities between the present study and the Sims and LaFollette study yield almost identical findings. Both studies found that the same four a priori scales (Responsibility, Risk, Standards, and Conflict) have reliabilities below an acceptable level. Also as Sims and LaFollette found, the derived climate factors have higher reliabilities overall than do the original a priori climate scales developed by Litwin and Stringer. Factor IH, Affective toward Management, Factor IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures, and Factor VI, Organizational Identification have very high reliabilities of .91, .82, and .82, respectively, which exceed the computed reliability of any of the a priori scales. Factor I, Interpersonal Milieu, has a satisfactory reliability of .75, while Factors II (Standards) and V (Responsibility) have lower reliabilities. As can be
TABLE 6 Factor VI: Organizational Identification L & S Item Number 42 47 48 49 50 Factor I ,22 ,22 ,17 ,23 ,19 II ,10 ,13 ,14 ,02 -,03 III ,24 ,27 ,34 ,30 ,40 IV ,29 ,22 ,35 ,28 ,29 V ,02 ,15 ,08 ,05 ,00
1.48 6.60 54.69

CommunalVI ,45 ,64 ,60 ,58 ,42

ity

,44 ,65 ,71 ,58 ,52

Eigen Value of Factor VI Percenlage of Variance of Factor VI Cumulaiive Percentyge of Variance of Factor VI

378

PERSONNEL

PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 7 Internal Consistency Reliabilities. Means, and Standard Deviations of the Organizational Climate A Priori Scales and the Derived Climate Factors A Priori Scales S&L" 1Reliabilities .79 .34 .67 .12 .76 .69 .37 .21 .79

Reliabilities .77 .46 .81 .47 .81 .77 .49 .01 .81 .75 .54 .91 .82 .56 .82

Mean 2.43 2.42 2.29 2.47 2.69 2.56 2.98 2.34 2.79 2.98 3.00 2.35 2.49 2.38 2.81 2.55 2.48 2.31 2.56 2.38 2.31

S.D. .93 .88 .87 .84 .81 .83 .81 .84 .79 .80 .81 .86 .93 .86 .79 .58 .51 .68 .46 .73 .58

1. Structure 2. Responsibility 3. Reward 4. Risk 5. Warmth 6. Support 7. Standards 8. Conflict 9. Identity Derived Factors I. Interpersonal Milieu 11. Standards III. AfTective Tone toward Mgt./Org. IV. Organizational Structure and Procedures V. Responsibility VI. Organizational Identification Derived Factors (Sims & LaFoIlette) 1. Affective Tone toward People 11. Affective Tone toward Management III. Policy and Promotion Clarity IV. Job Pressure and Standards V. Openness of Upward Communication VI. Risk in Decision Making
Splil-half reliabililies reported by Sims and LaFollelle.

.92 .82 .69 .58 .69 .45

seen in Table 7, the reliabilities of the derived factors in this study are higher than the reliabilities of the derived factors in the Sims and LaFoIlette study. To compare the a priori scales and the derived factors of the organizational climate questionnaire, a cross-classification matrix was prepared and is shown in Table 8. In this table the derived factors are shown along the horizontal axis and the a priori scales are along the vertical axis. The items which loaded most signficantly (the highest loading) on a particular factor were arrayed in the column representing that factor. The particular items were placed in the rows which correspond to the a priori scales in which Litwin and Stringer had originally placed the items. The numbers refer to the original scale items as listed by Litwin and Stringer. It is this presentation of the data that best illustrates the difference between the results of the Sims and LaFoIlette (1975, p. 30) study and the present study. In this study one factor (Factor III, General AfTective Tone toward Management/Organization) appears to be a general factor, containing 17 items drawn from seven of the a priori scales.

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

379

oo'

o o.

a
<^ oo i

o'
; g <N

380

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

with most of the items coming from the Reward and Support scales. This single factor accounted for 18.05% of the variance in the questionnaire. Both the Sims and LaFoIlette study and the present study identified six factors underlying the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire. However, with the exception of the factor AfTective Tone toward Management which was common to both studies and a factor relating to job standards, the remaining factors between the two studies are quite difTerent. Sims and LaFoIlette reported a second large general factor, AfTective Tone toward Other People in the Organization, which was not evidenced in this study. In the Sims and LaFoIlette study, their six factors accounted for 44.40% of the total variance, while in the present study the six factors accounted for 54.69% of the total variance. A very pronounced difTerence between the two studies involves the "spread" of the items across Table 8. Sims and LaFoIlette (p. 30) report a wide dispersion of items across the a priori scales, indicating a lack of correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived factors. Sims and LaFoIlette commented that if there were a high degree of correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived factors (which they did not get in their study), one would expect to see a "clustering" appearance of the items in the table, with each derived factor having the great majority of items corresponding to one or two of the a priori scales. In the present study the items did cluster to a high degree (with the exception of Factor III). Factor I, Interpersonal Milieu, consisted of items mainly from the Warmth scale. Factor II, Standards, consisted of items only from the Standards scale. Factor IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures, consisted of items mainly from the Structure scale. Factor V, Responsibility, consisted of items mainly from the Responsibility scale. Factor VI, Organizational Identification, consisted of items mainly from the Identity scale. In short, there was a high degree of correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived factors in this study. To verify this conclusion, correlations were computed to determine the relationships between the a priori scales and the derived factors. The correlation matrix is shown in Table 9. Factor I, Interpersonal Milieu, correlates very highly (.90) with the Warmth scale. Factor II, Standards, correlates very highly (.95) with the Standards scale. Factor III, AfTective Tone toward Management (the large general factor), correlates highly with several scales: Reward (.91), Support (.89), Warmth (.77), and Identity (.71). Factor IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures, correlates very highly (.95) with the Structure scale. Factor V, Responsibility, correlates highly (.81) with the Responsibility scale. Factor VI, Organizational Identification, correlates very highly

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

381

.t!<c > O2

o o.

ai.

ure

np;
o

N C

>
'

-in

< s
o

^O iA>

I
^ ^

' u VI Al ra

ill

TJ

382

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(.98) with the Identity scale. Two a priori scales. Risk and Conflict, do not correlate highly with any derived factor, due in part to their very low reliabilities. In summary, a relatively high degree of correspondence was evidenced between the a priori scales and the derived factors, a finding not evidenced in the Sims and LaFolIette study. Table 10 presents the intercorrelations of the derived organizational climate factors. Four factors appear to be interrelated: Factor I, Interpersonal Milieu; Factor III, Affective Tone toward Management: Factor IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures; and Factor VI, Organizational Identification. Two factors appear to be more independent: Factor II, Standards; and Factor V, Responsibility. Factors II and V also have the lowest reliabilities of the derived factors, which may explain their low intercorrelations. The overall pattern of the intercorrelations of the six factors is similar to the results obtained by Sims and LaFolIette (1975, p. 35). Discussion There are several major similarities and differences between the results of this study and the Sims and LaFolIette study. First the similarities will be addressed. Both studies found nearly the identical results for the reliability of the nine a priori Litwin and Stringer organizational climate scales. The results from the Sims and LaFolIette study and the present study both indicated that five scales (Structure, Reward, Warmth, Support, and Identity) had reasonably satisfactory reliabilities, and both studies indicated that the remaining four scales (Responsibility, Risk, Standards, and Conflict) had less than satisfactory reliabilities. In particular, the Conflict scale had the lowest reliability, and even Litwin and Stringer suggested that the scale be dropped from the questionnaire. In brief, the results from the Sims and LaFolIette study and the present study were in high agreement regarding the reliability of the nine a priori climate scales. In addition to the present research, three other studies have factor analyzed the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnaire (Meyer, 1968; Downey, Hellriegel, Phelps, and Slocum, 1974; Sims and LaFolIette, 1975). In each of the four studies the investigators found six factors underlying the questionnaire. Meyer (1968) referred to his factors as Constraining Conformity, Responsibility, Standards, Reward, Organizational Clarity, and Friendly, Team Spirit. Downey et al. (1974) referred to their factors as Decision Making, Warmth, Risk, Openness, Rewards, and Structure. Sims and LaFolIette (1975) referred to their factors as Afl"ective Tone toward Other People, Aflective Tone toward Management, Policy and Promotion Clarity,

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

383

o
CL

00

HO

5^
I I I I

vO

I" - I
. > N U ^ N

i<O

(So

384

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Job Pressure and Standards, Openness of Upward Communication, and Risk in Decision Making. While the name given to a factor is primarily a matter of subjective judgment (thereby limiting the ability to make accurate comparisons across studies), some factors do appear to be common to the several studies. A factor dealing with the type of interpersonal atmosphere which prevails in the organization is evidenced in the factors Friendly, Team Spirit (Meyer), Warmth (Downey et al.), Affective Tone toward People (Sims and LaFollette), and Interpersonal Milieu (Muchinsky). Similarly, a factor dealing with the importance of doing a good job is evidenced by the factors Standards (Meyer), Job Pressure and Standards (Sims and LaFollette), and Standards (Muchinsky). However, the existence of such a factor appears absent in the Downey et al. study. Also, a factor dealing with rewards is evidenced by the factors Reward (Meyer), Rewards (Downey et al.), and to lesser degrees by Policy and Promotion Clarity (Sims and LaFollette), and Affective Tone toward Management (Muchinsky). Other factors appear common to only two studies, as Responsibility (Meyer, Muchinsky), while other factors appear to be unique to a specific study, as Constraining Conformity (Meyer) and Openness of Upward Communication (Sims and LaFollette). In short, some factors appear to be common across studies, some factors appear to be specific to certain studies, while other factors appear to have fuzzy inter-study relationships. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) commented on the basis of reviewing several climate studies that "a good deal of communality" seemed to exist across studies, "at least in the outward appearance of the factors" (p. 392). The present research suggests that when one digs beyond outward appearances, the amount of communality decreases. Again, it should be emphasized that accurate comparisons of factors on only a name and verbal description can be tenuous. Two of the four studies (the present study, Sims and LaFollette) can be examined in greater detail because much more data are available for comparison. Both studies identified a factor involving the way people perceive management, with the present author giving it the same name as employed by Sims and LaFollette, Affective Tone toward Management. This was a large general factor accounting for 8.1% of the variance in the Sims and LaFollette study and 18% of the variance in the present study. Yet the specific items that comprise this factor were not identical in both studies. In fact, several of the items included in this factor in the present study were included in a different factor identified by Sims and LaFollette, Affective Tone toward People. The largest factor identified by Sims and LaFollette was the factor Affective Tone toward People, accounting for 24.2% of the

PAUL M, MUCHINSKY

385

variance in their study. However, no such analogous large general factor was identified in this study; the closest factor conceptually was Interpersonal Milieu, accounting for 6,42% of the variance. In short, Sims and LaFollette reported that two large general factors. Affective Tone toward People and Affective Tone toward Management, accounted collectively for 72% of the total explainable variance in their study. The present study identified one large general factor which accounted for 33% of the total explainable variance. The factor Job Pressure and Standards (Sims and LaFollette) is close to the factor Standards in the present study, being composed of similar items. However, other factors are composed of completely different items, or items that have only a marginal overlap. While it is clear that the specific factors identified in the Sims and LaFollette study and the present study have some items in common, there exist even greater substantial differences between the two resulting factor structures. It should be kept in mind that the present study employed the same statistical analyses as those utilized by Sims and LaFollette, so that any differences in the results that did occur can not be attributed to methodological differences. Since differences in the data did occur which cannot be attributed to methodological differences between the two studies, the question arises as to the reasons for the discrepant results. In somewhat of a similar study, Baehr (1954) administered the SRA Employee Inventory to two groups of employees. Baehr factor analyzed the data and found four factors to be common to both groups of employees: Integration in the Organization; Job Satisfaction; Immediate Supervision; and Friendliness and Cooperation of Fellow Employees, However, Baehr also found factors that were specific to each group. In explaining the reason for the specific factors, Baehr identified systematic differences in the sample characteristics of the two groups. The first group was composed of junior executives, private secretaries, and stenographers, working in the national office of a merchandising organization. These employees were not unionized, and held (in Baehr's opinion) "high status" jobs. The second group was composed of factory workers and routine clerical workers, working in a branch plant of a manufacturing organization. These employees were unionized, and held (in Baehr's opinion) "low status" jobs. Thus the reason for the obtained differences in the specific factors were attributable to differences residing within characteristics of the sample. In essense the data were not drawn from two samples of the same population, but two different populations. It seems highly plausible that the differences between the Sims and LaFollette study and the present study are due to factors similar to

386

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

those encountered in Baehr's two groups of employees. As in Baehr's study, some similarities or factors common to both the Sims and LaFollette study and the present study were found. For example, both studies found a factor relating to job standards, Sims and LaFollette conducted their study in a medical center, and the present study involved employees working for a public utility. Both organizations undoubtedly exhort the need for high standards of performance due to the nature of the services they perform, in one case the medical profession and in the other telephone communication. However, differences between the two organizations were also found. Sims and LaFollette identified a factor involving the openness of upward communication. All of their subjects were physically located in one complex, thereby possibly accentuating the importance of upward communication in one large centrally located bureaucratic organization. Such a factor was not evidenced in the present study, perhaps due to the fact that the subjects were physically located through-out an entire state. Being highly decentralized, the importance of upward communication may not be as great. The present study identified a factor involving organizational identity, a sense of belonging to a parent organization. Since by law competing telephone companies cannot exist, all the employees were working for the only organization of its type within the state, Sims and LaFollette did not clearly identify a single factor relating to organizational identity, which may be due to the fact that the subjects in their study (nurses, therapists, dieticians, etc) could readily be employed by numerous other medical related organizations. In summary, while some common factors did emerge between the two studies, the specific factors unique to each study appear to be explainable due to differences in the characteristics of each respective sample, as these differences represent the basic discrepency between the two organizations in terms of their differing work practices, procedures, and goals. Another major difference in the results between the two studies involves the relationships between the a priori scales and the derived factors. Sims and LaFollette found little correspondence between their derived factors and the original Litwin and Stringer a priori scales, while the present study found a reasonably high degree of correspondence between the derived factors and the a priori scales. Of the two other studies that factor analyzed the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire, Meyer (1968) did not report any data on the relationship between his derived factors and the a priori scales, and Downey et al, (1974) reported on only 15 of the 50 items in the questionnaire. On the basis of their finding, Sims and LaFollette made the statement that blind acceptance of previously developed (a priori) scales can be misleading and should be avoided. The present author is in total agree-

PAUL M, MUCHINSKY

387

ment with that statement. However, Sims and LaFollette go on to say that the factors derived through their own research appear to be "meaningful and reliable," with the tacit implication or suggestion that it would not be misleading to use the factors they identified as climate scales in future research, It is with that suggestion that the present author takes exception. For the most part the factors identified by Sims and LaFollette were not replicated in this study. Therefore the "meaningfulness" of the Sims and LaFollette factors are more situational in nature, in their case specific to a medical center organization. In the present study a fairly high degree of correspondence was obtained between the a priori scales and the derived factors. Therefore, just on the basis of this study alone, the a priori Litwin and Stringer climate scales would receive a fairly positive verdict, with some obvious exceptions that the Conflict scale, for example, has extremely low (.01) reliability. The fact that there was a fairly high degree of relationship between the a priori scales and the derived factors in this study in no way influences the quality of the findings, in the sense that the factors derived in this study are not more "meaningful" than those found by Sims and LaFollette, What the findings do suggest is that it may be very difficult to arrive at some "standardized" climate inventory that will manifest high scale validity and reliability across many different organizations. The factors identified by Sims and LaFollette may be "meaningful" for a medical center organization, and the factors identified in this study may be meaningful for a public utility organization, but the two sets of factors are considerably different. It would be as inappropriate to routinely employ the factors identified in this study in different types of organizations as it would be inappropriate to routinely employ the factors identified in the Sims and LaFollette study in different types of organizations, Sims and LaFollette state that current climate questionnaires are a long way from manifesting consistent reliability and validity as found in the Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969). While that statement is certainly accurate, it appears doubtful that any specific climate questionnaire will one day manifest the reliability and validity found in the JDI. Since climate is typically defined as perceptions of a work environment, it may well be that different types of organizations have relatively unique work environments. Thus it may be possible to develop a valid and reliable climate questionnaire for use in homogenous organizations as medical centers or public utilities, but it appears unlikely that the validity and reliability of specific climate scales will stand up when applied across different types (or heterogeneous) organizations. The practical implication of this statement would involve the administration and routine factor analysis of a climate questionnaire when the type of organization of interest has not been examined

388

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

in the past. While this procedure may not bode well for practitioners interested in the climate of their own organizations, it would be as misleading to blindly accept the derived factors from previous climate studies based upon different types of organizations as it would be to blindly accept the Litwin and Stringer a priori scales. Schneider (1975) referenced this same problem from a conceptual perspective, suggesting that rather than trying to identify an omnibus climate, we should focus our attention on identifying various climates that exist, and their antecedent causes. Campbell et al. (1970) identified four factors that seem to be common to most climate studies: (1) Individual Autonomy; (2) The Degree of Structure Imposed Upon the Position; (3) Reward Orientation; and (4) Consideration, Warmth, and Support. With the exception of Reward Orientation, those factors were also identified in this study. If any systematic attempts are to be made to develop a climate questionnaire that will not have validity and reliability just specific to certain homogenous organizations, constructing such an instrument around these four factors would seem a logical place to start. While the resulting instrument may be overly general in its content, it may be preferable to the procedure of having to routinely factor analyze existing climate questionnaires to identify factors present in any given organization. Sims and LaFollette commented that they slightly reworded certain climate questions to fit the medical center environment, thereby increasing the immediate relevance and appropriateness of the questionnaire for their sample. In the quest to develop a psychometrically sound standardized climate questionnaire applicable to a broad range or organizations, the specificity and subsequent relevance of reworded items would have to be sacrificed. At the present time the consequences of the trade-off between specific climate questionnaires geared for one type of organization versus a more general climate questionnaire applicable to many types of organizations is unclear. What is clear, however, is that dependent upon our objectives, something will have to be sacrificed, and we can't have it both ways. Such a suggestion appears consistent with Schneider's (1975) statement that climates would be identified dependent upon our criterion of interest, APPENDIX The Litwin and Stringer Organization Climate Questionnaire {Form B) Structure 1. The jobs in this Organization are clearly defined and logically structured.

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY

389

2. In this Organization it is sometimes unclear who has the formal authority to make a decision. 3. The policies and organization structure of the Organization have been clearly explained. 4. Red-tape is kept to a minimum in this Organization. 5. Excessive rules, administrative details, and red-tape make it difficult for new and original ideas to receive consideration. 6. Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack of organization and planning. 7. In some of the projects I've been on, I haven't been sure exactly who my boss was. 8. Our management isn't so concerned about formal organization and authority, but concentrates instead on getting the right people together to do the job. Responsibility 9. We don't rely too heavily on individual judgment in this Organization; almost everything is double-checked. 10. Around here management resents your checking everything with them; if you think you've got the right approach you just go ahead. 11. Supervision in this Organization is mainly a matter of setting guidelines for your subordinates; you let them take responsibility for the job. 12. You won't get ahead in this Organization unless you stick your neck out and try things on your own sometimes. 13. Our philosophy emphasizes that people should solve their problems by themselves. 14. There are an awful lot of excuses around here when somebody makes a mistake. 15. One of the problems in this Organization is that individuals won't take responsibility. Reward 16. We have a promotion system here that helps the best man to rise to the top. 17. In this Organization the rewards and encouragements you get usually outweigh the threats and the criticism. 18. In this Organization people are rewarded in proportion to the excellence of their job performance. 19. There is a great deal of criticism in this Organization. 20. There is not enough reward and recognition given in this Organization for doing good work. 21. If you make a mistake in this Organization you will be punished.

390

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Risk 22, The philosophy of our management is that in the long run we get ahead fastest by playing it slow, safe, and sure. 23, Our business has been built up by taking calculated risks at the right time. 24, Decision making in this Organization is too cautious from maximum effectiveness. 25, Our management is willing to take a chance on a good idea, 26, We have to take some pretty big risks occasionally to keep ahead of the competition in the business we're in. Warmth 27, A friendly atmosphere prevails among the people in this Organization, 28, This Organization is characterized by a relaxed, easy-going working climate. 29, It's very hard to get to know people in this Organization. 30, People in this Organization tend to be cool and aloof toward each other, 31, There is a lot of warmth in the relationships between management and workers in this Organization, Support 32, You don't get much sympathy from higher-ups in this Organization if you make a mistake, 33, Management makes an effort to talk with you about your career aspirations within the Organization. 34, People in this Organization don't really trust each other enough, 35, The philosophy of our management emphasizes the human factor, how people feel, etc, 36, When I am on a difficult assignment I can usually count on getting assistance from my boss and co-workers. Standards 37, In this Organization we set very high standards for performance. 38, Our management believes that no job is so well done that it couldn't be done better. 39, Around here there is a feeling of pressure to continually improve our personal and group performance, 40, Management believes that if the people are happy, productivity will take care of itself, 41, To get ahead in this Organization it's more important to get along than it is to be a high producer.

PAUL M, MUCHINSKY

391

42. In this Organization people don't seem to take much pride in their performance. Conflict 43. The best way to make a good impression around here is to steer clear of open arguments and disagreements, 44. The attitude of our management is that confiict between competing units and individuals can be very healthy, 45. We are encouraged to speak our minds, even if it means disagreeing with our superiors. 46. In management meetings the goal is to arrive at a decision as smoothly and quickly as possible. Identity Al. People are proud of belonging to this Organization, 48. I feel that I am a member of a well functioning team, 49. As far as I can see, there isn't very much personal loyalty to the company. 50. In this Organization people pretty much look out for their own interests.
REFERENCES Ash, P, The SRA Employee InventoryA statistical analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1954. 7. 337-364, Baehr, M, E, A factorial study of the SRA Employee Inventory, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1954. 7, 319-336, Campbell. J, P,, Dunnette. M, D,, Lawler. E, E,, and Weick, K, E,, Jr, Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, Downey, H, K,. Hellriegel, D,. Phelps, M,, and Slocum, J, W,, Jr, Organizational climate and job satisfaction; A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 1974. 2, 233-248, Evan, W, M, Indices of hierarchical structure of organizations. Management Science, 1963, 9, 468-477, Friedlander, F, and Margulies. N, Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual systems upon job satisfaction. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 1969, 22, 171-183, James. L, R, and Jones. A, P, Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 1974,81, 1096-1112, Johannesson, R, E, Some problems in the measurement of organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 118-144, Lawrence. P, R, and Lorsch. J, W, Organization and environment. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967, Litwin, G, H, and Stringer, R, A,, Jr, Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Division of Research. Graduate School of Business Administration. Harvard University, 1968, Meyer, H, H, Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In R, Taguiri and G, H, Litwin (Eds,), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. 1968,

392

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Nie, N.. Bent, D., and Hull. C. Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Payne, R. L. and Pheysey. D. C. G. G. Stern's organizational climate index: A reconceptualization and application to business organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1971, 6, 77-98. Prien, E. P. and Ronan. W. W. An analysis of organization characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1971, 6, 215-234. Pritchard, R. D. and Karasick, B. W. The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1973, 9, 126-146. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. R., Hinings, C. R., and Turner, C. The context of organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 94-.114. Schneider, B. Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational realities. Journat of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 211-217. Schneider, B. The perception of organizational climate: The customer's view. Journat of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 248-256. Schneider, B. Organizational climates: An essay. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1975, 28, 447-479. Schneider, B. and Bartlett, C. J. Individual differences and organizational climate I: The research plan and questionnaire development. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 1968, 21, 323-333. Schneider, B., and Hall, D. T. Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A study of Roman Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1972, 56, 447-455. Sims. H. P., Jr. Personal communication. iVIarch 18, 1976. Sims, H. P., Jr. and LaFoliette, W. R. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organization climate questionnaire. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1975, 28, 19-38. Smith, P. C , Kendall, M., and Hulin, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1969. Wherry, R. J. An orthogonal re-rotation of the Baehr and Ash studies of the SRA Employee Inventory. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1954, 7, 365-380.