Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2018 - Organizational Culture and Climate

The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work
and Organizational Psychology

Organizational Culture and Climate
Contributors: Neal M. Ashkanasy & Alana B. Dorris

Book Title: The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology
Chapter Title: "Organizational Culture and Climate"
Pub. Date: 2018
Access Date: January 30, 2018
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: 55 City Road
Print ISBN: 9781446207239
Online ISBN: 9781473914964
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473914964.n10
Print pages: 187-205
©2018 SAGE Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of
the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
Contact SAGE Publications at http://www.sagepub.com.Contact SAGE Publications at
Organizational Culture and Climate

Neal M. AshkanasyAlana B. Dorris
Introduction
For decades, researchers have typically managed to confuse the terms ‘organizational culture’
and ‘organizational climate', including often using the terms interchangeably. In fact, although
the two terms are related, there are clear differences between them (Schneider & Barbera,
2014b). To put it simply, culture is a more intangible concept (involving embedded, agreed
upon values and beliefs of an organization's employees), while climate is more tangible and
fluctuates based on external factors in the environment. As such, an organization's culture is
made up of a set of shared assumptions (Ashforth, 1985), while climate consists of more
accessible elements such as behavior and attitude (Drexler, 1977; O'Driscoll & Evans 1988;
Moran & Volkwein, 1992). More directly still, culture can be defined as having to do with
‘understanding the systems of meanings, values, and attitudes’ (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, &
Peterson, 2000b, p. 8) and a focus on ‘judgments and values', while organizational climate
focuses more on ‘agreed perceptions of an organizational environment’ (Ashkanasy, 2007, p.
1028).
Both organizational culture and organizational climate have been central to the field of
industrial and organizational psychology since the early works of Lewin (1948, 1951). The
terms are dissected in detail in the second edition of the Handbook of Organizational Culture
and Climate, a manual representing many of the more recent developments in the field, and
edited by Ashkanasy, Wilderom, and Peterson (2011). As in this Handbook, and similar to
Ashkanasy and Jackson (2001), we recognize here the transcending and interrelated nature
of the constructs of both organizational culture and organizational climate. We also seek to
emphasize the need for a multilevel, dynamic view of both culture and climate, rather than the
stagnant and fragmented view so often presented in the literature.
We aim therefore to represent a view that connects past ideology, encompassing disciplines
such as anthropology, management, and psychology. Although written from a generally
psychological stance, this chapter also incorporates the traditional views of other disciplines,
as well as the postmodern perspectives found in the Handbook of Organization Studies
(Clegg, Hardy, & Nord, 1996). The chapter proceeds as follows: we first introduce readers to
the various definitions and ways of conceptualizing both culture and climate. In the next
section, we discuss the historic roots, theorists’ competing ontologies, and more recent
progressions in organizational culture and climate. We next discuss issues in measuring
culture and climate. We then emphasize the interconnectedness and complexity of
organizational culture, organizational climate, and organizational attitudes, behaviors, and
outcomes, specifically performance. Furthermore, we describe the global, international impact
of organizational culture and climate, and how it has manifested in countries around the
world. To conclude, we identify the perennial nature of organizational culture and climate
despite the evolvement and augmentation of our focus over time and discuss some potential
areas for future research.1
Defining and Conceptualizing Organizational Culture and Climate
In this, our opening discussion, we focus on the differing conceptualizations of organizational

culture and climate and how different researchers and practitioners conceptualize these
Page 2 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
terms. Interestingly, and despite competing definitions and epistemology, the underlying ideas
of organizational culture and climate continue to be among the most enduring and important
areas of empirical research in the field of organizational studies (e.g. see Adler, 1983; Schein,
1990a, 1990b; Denison, 1990; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Hatch, 1993; Hofstede, 1994). In
this section, therefore, we summarize some of these early theorists’ ideas and consider them
in more contemporary and dynamic, multilevel definitions and in the understanding of
organizational culture and climate.
The Ontological and Epistemological Basis of Culture and Climate
Ever since the terms organizational culture and climate were coined, there has been debate
over how they should be defined, measured, and understood. Although both terms are
considered organizational descriptors within the fields of organizational behavior and
psychology, it is important that the terms ‘organizational culture’ and ‘organizational climate’
be distinguished from each other.
In this regard, the definitions of both organizational climate and organizational culture reflect
three ontologies and three epistemologies. Considering ontology, the most common definition
for both comes from a structural realist perspective, which holds that an organization has
culture or has climate (rather than an organization is culture or is climate, see Schneider,
Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011). The alternative is to adopt a social
constructionist ontology, which holds that an organization is culture or is climate because
observers select events to group together (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). In another
ontological view, however, the concepts of culture and climate can be seen to be devices that
serve as linguistic conveniences (Alvesson, 2011).
Three epistemological approaches can also help us define both culture and climate. If we
adopt a deductive perspective, then we assume that researchers can learn by identifying the
dimensions that define culture that conform to a particularly theoretical conceptualization of
the construct (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). Conversely, an inductive approach holds that
informal knowledge can be made objective or explicit (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson,
2000b). These two epistemologies seem, however, to be at odds with the third, the radical
view, which holds that observers are more interested in producing constructs such as culture
and climate that reflect their own world view rather than in providing accuracy (Morgan, 1986,
1997).
Defining Culture and Climate
The term ‘climate’ and the study of organizational climate prefaced organizational culture.
Originally derived from field theory, climate research was created by Lewin (1948, 1951) to
represent social processes as part of a larger field (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). Lewin's
main interest in climate was to support democratic societies and to discredit the Fascist
societies of the 1930s and 1940s. Lewin emphasized context and related this to the Gestalt
theory. He argued in particular that context is critical to understanding individual and group
phenomena. According to Lewin (1948, 1951), climate could be defined by three categories:
autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. A climate context was created by one of three styles
of leadership; and climate was defined socially or in terms of the relationship between leaders
and followers due to the leader's behavior (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). Following Lewin,
Likert (1961) focused more attention on aggregation; aggregating individual attitudes that
created a climate. Rather than seeking to transform society from one style of leadership to

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
another, Lewin looked to transform societies on a smaller scale and in particular to transform
organizations by working with senior management. Lewin also focused more on the facets of
organizations: the job attributes leadership, attitudes, and social processes rather than the
construct of climate itself (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000b). Today, however, the
term is more likely to be understood as the ‘agreed perceptions of an organizational
environment’ (Ashkanasy, 2007, p. 1028).
Juxtaposed to the term culture, which we discuss next, these ‘perceived environmental factors
are subject to organizational control’ (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001, p. 399). Another distinction
from organizational culture is that organizational climate is a more tangible construct. As
such, organizational climate can be seen to have more of a behavioral focus, while the
organizational culture perspective tends to place the emphasis on underlying values and
assumptions (Schein, 1990a, 1990b). To explain further, organizational climate is thought to
link more closely with individual employee behavior and individual attributes, while
organizational culture focuses on less overtly expressed values, judgments, and assumptions.
Moreover, because climate has to do with people's perceptions of work environments, it is

most often measured at the individual level, although it points to the shared perceptions of
those individuals/employees (Schneider et al., 2011). Noting that organizational climate is
usually more observable and explicit than organizational culture, Gibbs and Cooper (2011)
commented that climate can often be seen as a ‘surface manifestation of an organization's
culture’ (p. 120). Researchers such as Ashkanasy et al. (2011), Hatch (2011), Jones and
James (1979), Joyce and Slocum (1982), Louis (1983), Middlemist and Hitt (1981), and Zohar
and Hofmann (2012) argue further that even today's definitions of the term are reductionist,
reducing the construct of climate into dimensions or attributes rather than studying it
holistically (e.g. see Martin, 2002).
In fact, while there has been debate over how the two terms should be defined; there has also
been debate over which one deserves the most attention in IO psychology. Organizational
climate began this competitive cycle by taking the forefront regarding research interest in the
1960s and 1970s. As various transitions occurred throughout the decade, however,
organizational culture tended to push organizational climate out of the spotlight so much so
that climate took center field in the 1980s, while only in more recent decades has
organizational climate re-emerged (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013).
Furthermore, what we would think of as a simple, elementary term, ‘culture', might still have
no universal, established meaning (Borowsky, 1994; Ortner, 1984). In this regard, one of the
reasons for the rise in interest in organizational culture in the 1980s may have been because
culture was believed to encompass the richness of an organization's surrounding better than
organizational climate (Schneider et al., 2013). Indeed, Alvesson (2011) stresses that culture
is really a comprehensive concept and may be understood from a variety of perspectives.
While anthropologists often view culture as a system of symbols and meanings rather than a
way of life; sociological culture researchers, such as Alvesson, see culture as something more
accessible and measurable, and thus emphasize values and norms over meaning and
symbolism.
Having said that, upper management does not just define one broadly shared organizational
culture as many once thought (and as many still perceive today, see Martin, 2002). Indeed,
definitions of culture vary from researcher to researcher. In the First Edition of the Handbook
of Organizational Culture and Climate, for example, Schein (2000) tried to help readers
understand the evolution of culture rather than the past view of culture as ‘stagnant’ by

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
describing the forces that impact it: ‘(a) technological and physical changes in the external
environment, (b) changes in the internal dynamics of the social system, and (c) historical
circumstances’ (p. xxiv). Glisson and James (2002), in a similar way to Schein, share their
competing interpretations of the meaning of the term. While Schein (1985) defines
organizational culture as capturing organizational values, Glisson and James believe that
culture captures actions rather than the attitudes and values (or that culture encapsulates
employee behavior and the way of doing things in the office).
Past researchers have also defined culture in terms of its artifacts (symbols, myths,
metaphors, jargon, proverbs, slogans, and metaphors) that have come to mean the same
thing as the term ‘culture’ itself (Vilnai-Yavetz & Rafaeli, 2011; Alvesson, 2011). Wallace, Hunt,
and Richards (1999), for example, point out that these artifacts of culture do not define the
term but do facilitate a better understanding of organizational behavior. Ashkanasy et al.
(2011) specifically emphasize that ‘Language is typically seen as a part of organizational
culture-on equal footing with other cultural expressions’ (Alvesson, 2011, p. 18). Through this
statement, Ashkanasy argues that all elements of culture seem to be equally important.
Alternatively, Trice and Beyer (1993) define culture by emphasizing what it is not; and it is not
climate because researchers measuring climate use surveys and, unlike culture, ‘climate is
individually perceived and experienced’ (Schneider, 2000, p. xviii). Others have defined culture
more economically. In the mid-1980s, scholars began to see organizational culture as a
source of competitive advantage, especially Barney (1986), who linked organizational culture
to strategy (Peterson, 2011). In this view, the definition of culture is seen to be centered on
efficiency of transactions and reducing monitoring costs (Wallace et al., 1999). Researchers
from this perspective define culture as a ‘way to describe the transformation of a group of
individually competent hires into a functional whole that prefers some ways of handling
transactions over others’ (Peterson, 2011, p. 417).
Since the 1980s, the multifaceted nature of organizational culture has become more
recognized as well as the fluctuation of individual perceptions of an organization's culture. As
briefly mentioned in our earlier discussion of ontology, debate has tended to center around
whether an organization has culture or an organization is culture, which has led to different
methodology for measuring organizational culture (which we discuss in a later section).
Ashkanasy (2007) attempted to encapsulate the multifaceted nature of organizational culture
through his definition: ‘a focus on judgments and values, rather than perceived practices and
procedures’ (p. 1028).
To add to this, we can take a cue from the anthropologist Sahlins (1985), who emphasizes the
need to understand historical events and meanings in order to understand social phenomena
like ‘culture'. In the next section, therefore, we hope to ground readers in the philosophy
behind organizational culture and organizational climate.
The Philosophical Underpinnings of Organizational Culture and Climate
In order to understand culture and climate, it is important to look at past organizational

theories that helped shape the current ideologies associated with organizational culture and
organizational climate. The most widely cited model of organizational culture is Schein's
(2000), which divides culture into three levels: the artifacts – the outer layer, espoused beliefs
and values, and underlying assumptions (Schneider et al., 2013). Nonetheless, we believe it
is more instructive to examine in detail the various models and dimensions that researchers
have posited to help define culture and climate. To accomplish this, we first introduce some of

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
the different ways of thinking about organizational culture and climate in a broad sense. In
this regard, Glick (1985) and Schein (1985) frame organizational culture and climate in terms
of individual attitudes and how those attitudes combine to create a group, team, or
organizational level of culture or climate.
Alternatively, psychological climate (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988) and attraction-selection-
attribution (ASA) theories (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) frame
organizational culture and climate in terms of how they affect individual members’ perceptions
and attitudes. Other approaches (e.g. Schwartz, 1992), focus on the similarities among
individuals in a society based on values that create a shared culture, or consider the effects of
societal culture on attitudes and values and behaviors of members of the society (e.g.
Hofstede, 1986, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Leung et al., 2002).
Philosophical Underpinning of Organizational Culture
In this regard, we note that the principal debate among scholars of organizational culture
concerns whether culture should be seen from a functional (values) perspective or from a
symbolic or interpretivist (meanings) perspective. Stackman, Pinder, and Connor (2000), for
example, take a values perspective and argue that values facilitate our decisions, therefore
our behaviors. Another structured perspective is a rules- or practice-based framework as
posited by Helms Mills and Mills (2000). This differs from the values perspective in that it does
not imply a unity or pattern of beliefs. According to these authors, rules come about through
power dynamics that serve to create meaning. As such, and despite individual differences in
attitudes and values, rules create unity among organizational members. The alternative to the
values (aka functionalist) perspective on culture is the symbolic perspective (Vilnai-Yavetz &
Rafaeli, 2011), which holds that symbols are not just byproducts of culture, but instead
structure employees’ behavior and then are used by employees to make sense of their
surroundings. In this sense, symbols are reflections of, and therefore become,
representations of organizational culture and/or representations of organizational climate.
In relation to culture specifically, other researchers have looked at theories in terms of an

academic perspective (thinking of culture in terms of meaning) versus a practitioner's
perspective (thinking of culture in terms of economic gain). Following the practitioner's
perspective, for example, Barney (1986) argues for a resource-based view that interest in
organizational culture derives from managers wanting to regain power through indirect control
over scarce resources. According to his transaction cost theory, managers who might have
lost control over effectively monitoring their organization could regain indirect control and
reduce monitoring costs by creating strong norms and, in turn, creating a strong
organizational culture. This unique organizational culture allows for competitive advantage
and also relates to the competing values framework (CVF: Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
Some of the posited theories can be criticized for being overly reductionist, however. In
Hofstede's (1986) model of culture, for example, he summed the many dimensions of culture
such as integration, differentiation, fragmentation, and cultural strength into four critical
dimensions: (i) individualism; (ii) uncertainty avoidance; (iii) power distance; and (iv)
masculinity. Hofstede further identified twelve dimensions that represent discrete
organizational values related to managerial behavior that tap into organizational performance
(Wallace et al., 1999). Although Hofstede's view has been extensively used in subsequent
research, reviewers (e.g. see Smucker, 1982; Schooler, 1983) nonetheless continue to
question whether organizational cultural values can be interpreted from surveys alone and
whether Hofstede's cultural dimensions can remain pertinent over time.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
More recently, other researchers have offered valuable, but possibly fragmented perspectives
of culture. Vilnai-Yavetz and Rafaeli (2011), for example, present a model of organizational
culture that uses artifacts (the symbols, rituals, language, gestures) as its unit of analysis.
They do this through three dimensions that they believe make up the organizational culture
model: (i) instrumentality, where the artifact plays a direct role in achieving organizational
goals; (ii) aesthetics, where the artifact becomes part of the organizational experience; and (iii)
symbolism, where the artifact represents important value to organizational members.
Conversely, Vilnai-Yavetz and Rafaeli insist that these dimensions must be studied
symbiotically.
Martin (2002) also offers a three-perspective theory to culture and, although it may also be
considered a fragmented approach, all three perspectives of his theory can be studied
simultaneously. These broader perspectives include culture (integration), subcultures
(differentiation), and culture strength (fragmentation). On the other hand, opponents of the
fragmented view argue for culture to be considered as a whole. This is the ‘organizations have
cultures perspective’ (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 370, emphasis added). After Louis (1983)
criticized the limitations of the reductionist and fragmented view of culture as defined by parts
rather than as a whole, the organizational cultural school became more holistic, changing the
way society thought about culture (Wallace et al., 1999). Others have argued that ‘The
problem with the fragmented view of culture, however, is that it is not easily managed, nor
does it even fit into the frame of our understanding of what it means to organize’ (Ashkanasy
et al., 2011, p. 321).
These debates on organizational culture models eventually led to the development of the
Multiple Constituencies School, which included a range of perspectives with which culture can
be understood. Keeley (1983), for example, posited that culture is not all about concrete facts,
but rather is based on a set of assumptions and expectations. Hatch (2011, p. 321) even
argues for a new completely different approach to culture; one that does not see culture as
stagnant and fixed, but as an adaptive construct, constantly evolving.
Philosophical Underpinning of Organizational Climate
Similar to organizational culture, some researchers find organizational climate models to be

reductionist. Jones and James (1979) reduce climate into six dimensions: (i) leadership
facilitation and support; (ii) workgroup cooperation, friendliness, and warmth; (iii) conflict and
ambiguity; (iv) professional and organizational esprit; (v) job challenge, importance, and
variety; and (vi) mutual trust. What some would call a reductionist approach to measuring and
understanding organizational culture and climate can be linked as far back as to Lewin, who,
in the 1940s, first coined the term ‘organizational climate’ based on elements of Gestalt
psychology. This, however, is a field of psychology that represents the very opposite of
reductionist, in that it looks at behavior as a whole rather than its parts.
Organizational climate also emerged out of the study of field theory to represent social
processes as part of a larger field (Lewin, 1948, 1951). Like the James and Jones model, the
linkage research model (Schneider, 2000), focuses on the most common work climate
dimensions related to customer satisfaction and performance. These are identified as
customer orientation, quality emphasis, involvement, empowerment, employee training,
informational/knowledge, and teamwork/cooperation, as well as overall satisfaction and
employee retention (Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Yet Carr, Schmidt, Ford, and DeShon (2003),
explain that, traditionally, climate research has focused on broad perceptions or molar

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
models, rather than on specific climates, considered to be a more focused approach to

conceptualizing and measuring climate. In summary, researchers seem to vary in their
opinions on whether broader is better. While some no longer see the need for a traditional
approach and favor the more focused models, others, like Schulte, Ostroff, Shmulyian, &
Kinicki (2009), find focused models limiting in that they do not look at the entire social-
psychological situation.
Finally, we note that some scholars complain that there has been a neglect of the multilevel
theory of climate to date. For instance, Yammarino and Dansereau (2011) posit that we have
not looked at how organizational climate generalizes across organizational levels like teams.
And yet, researchers such as Schneider and colleagues emphasize that we must not focus on
a single climate and are proponents of the multilevel theory of climate, unlike James and
McIntyre (1996), who argue for a general factor of climate. To address the multilevel nature of
culture and climate, Yammarino and Dansereau (2011) propose four broad levels of analysis:
the individual, group, organization, and society. They emphasize the adaptability of their
approach for all levels of analysis: individual perceptions of culture and climate, team or group
level as well as societal. Their method of analysis also allows for cross-level analysis and
more internal consistency, but they insist that tools of measurement must also align with
whatever analysis put in place.
Other researchers (e.g. see Chan, 2014; Fischer, 2007; Linstead, 2011; Schneider & Barbera,
2014c) claim that a multilevel theory of culture and climate, while necessary for understanding
these phenomena, is not sufficient. Instead, they argue for a unifying theory, a combined
model of organizational culture and organizational climate. There is also a need for post-
postmodern paradigms according to Linstead (1993). These models take internal processes
into account and cover more relevant themes of organizational culture and climate. For
organizational culture, some of these internal processes consist of aesthetics (Vilnai-Yavetz &
Rafaeli, 2011), gossip (van Iterson, Waddington, & Michelson, 2011), and sustainable futures
(Russell & McIntosh, 2011).
Measuring Organizational Culture and Climate
Measuring Organizational Culture
One of the major issues, especially in studies of organizational culture, is whether to adopt a
qualitative or a quantitative approach, Martin (1992) argues that relying solely on quantitative
(survey) assessment of culture results in mono-method bias. She argues for a multimethod
measurement approach that taps into Schein's (1985) three-level typology, including both
qualitative and quantitative measures (Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000). Moreover,
qualitative approaches address multilevel issues in both organizational culture and climate,
and, as such, are represented in grounded theory and process-oriented and anthropological
approaches.
Moreover, Yammarino and Dansereau (2011) argue that the new multilevel approaches are
suited for those that prefer either the methodological or theoretical approach. In general,
multilevel methods in culture and climate consist of various methodological issues that have a
corresponding quantitative or qualitative approach or both. For instance, complex systems
change uses simulation as the quantitative approach and grounded theory and process
methods as the qualitative approach.
At this point, having discussed at length the philosophical underpinnings of organizational

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
culture and climate and qualitative approaches to researching culture, we next address
means of quantifying and operationalizing culture and climate. Despite the distinction
between organizational culture and climate, there is particular overlap in the methods of
measurement. For instance, questionnaires measuring ‘cultural intensity’ have often been
used to measure both organizational culture and climate. While Payne (2000) examined the
overlap between this measure and the two constructs, he also addressed the biases and
limitations to this type of measurement, which included misspecification, aggregation bias,
cross-level fallacy, and contextual fallacies.
In particular, Payne (2000) sees the questionnaire approach as having problems in respect to
level of analysis. Individual organizational members’ responses may not correspond to
organizational-level responses, the aggregation of responses may have artificially induced an
observed outcome, the relationships at one level may be inappropriately assumed to hold at
other levels, and the effect of contextual factors on observed relationships may have been
ignored (Chan, 2014; Rousseau, 1985). These quantitative measures are more limited in
terms of observable accessible levels of climate and culture.
Nonetheless, and despite these ostensible drawbacks, quantitative methods such as survey
methods may still be useful for organizational climate and culture research (Schneider &
Barbera, 2014c). They provide us with the opportunity to replicate and to perform cross-
sectional comparative studies. They also give us a starting point for interpreting data and help
in evaluating and beginning organizational change. Quantitative methods are also capable of
helping us reach deeper levels, through, for example, measurement of behavior and attitudes
determined by perception (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). The main issue seems to be finding
the appropriate means of assessment for various levels of climate and culture.
Regarding organizational culture, as we have already discussed, one of the debates around
measurement has centered on its definition, and, in particular, the view that ‘Organizations
have culture’ versus the theoretical approach concerned with separating more effective
organizations from less effective ones through comparing traits (Sackmann, 2011). Indeed,
and as Sackmann points out, owing to an underlying concern with an organization's bottom
line, this theoretical perspective has tended to dominate this discourse, especially in survey
approaches such as Hofstede's (1986). As such, while early research studying culture
focused on a more emic approach and qualitative case studies and self-reports from
employees to gage organizational culture, more recent approaches focus on more
standardized, quantitative methods, using surveys classified into typing or profile scales
(Ashkanasy et al., 2000).
Typing surveys
Typing survey methods categorize organizations into various discrete categories or ‘types'.
The benefits are that managers may be able to understand better how to enact their goals of
change, and that typing surveys also prove useful in tracking cultural change (Ashkanasy &
Holmes, 1995). Typing instruments vary from Harrison's (1975) early measure of
‘organizational ideology', which was subsequently adapted by Handy (1979) in line with
Schein's (1985) definition, to Margerison's (1979) method and Glaser's (1983) instrument.
While typing is helpful because it gives a global description of an organization's culture, it can
also be ambiguous because it relies on metaphors that are often only vaguely defined.
Additionally, there are other limitations to typing instruments. Not all organizations can be
boxed neatly into a specific type or category, however, and the very meaning of typing implies
fixed, discrete categories. This opposes the very definition of organizational culture as

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
something continuous and forever evolving. Lastly, why should cultures need to be similar
anyway? Schein (1985) believes that this kind of typing betrays the very meaning of what it
means to be a culture, what it means to be unique (Ashkanasy et al., 2000).
Profiling surveys
Profiling surveys constitute by far the most dominant survey methods used in studies of both
organizational culture and climate. The simplest profiling method is descriptive profiling, which
measures values but does not attach significance to them. A profile simply shows at what
intensity each value is held by an aggregate of employees. First developed in the late 1970s,
the earliest instrument, the Management Value Inventory (see Ashkanasy et al., 2000) focuses
on task versus social and security versus risk as dimensions. Reynolds (1986) developed a
similar instrument that describes culture according to the affective and expressive dimensions.
Harris and Moran (1984) later created a survey to measure dimensions such as leadership
and communication in determining effectiveness. Another effectiveness profiling scale by
Woodcock (1989), focuses on management and what management must do to achieve
organizational effectiveness. The last value profile instrument is that of fit profiling. It posits
that the greater the alignment between values of employees and management, the greater
the extent of organizational success or effectiveness.
Our interest in multilevel approaches may stem back to traditional organizational theorists
such as Louis (1983), who studied culture implicitly without cultural components and argued
that all elements must be considered as a whole to be meaningful. Two multidimensional
measures of organizational culture include the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) and the
Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI).
The OCP is a quantitative, descriptive profiling questionnaire that measures organizational

culture based on 10 dimensions of behavior and organizational norms (Ashkanasy et al.,
2000). These dimensions are taken by summarizing the main theoretical dimensions in the
organizational literature, and identifying 10 dimensions of culture: leadership, structure,
innovation, job performance, planning, communication, environment, humanistic workplace,
development of the individual, and socialization on entry. The OCP is one example of a
multidimensional profiling survey. Although a wide range of literature makes this instrument
comprehensive for most qualitative researchers, giving a more extensive picture of an
individual organization, the instrument still has yet to integrate other qualitative information
about the organizational sample.
The OCI (Cooke & Lafferty, 1987), like the OCP, is a quantitative multilevel instrument. It
measures 12 sets of behavioral norms that correspond with three categories of organizational
cultures: constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive. The 12 sets of norms
describe thinking and behavioral styles and distinguish between two major dimensions:
between a concern for people and a concern for task. The second dimension distinguishes an
aim to fulfill higher-level satisfaction needs versus lower-level, more basic security and
protection needs. The scores are plotted on a ‘circumplex', which is a circular diagram and
shows distance between the behavioral norms (Cooke & Szumal, 2000). The OCI looks at
currently operating organizational cultures, as well as the best cultures for organizations or
ideal profiles. It gives useful insight into an organization's functioning by serving as a thinking
and behavioral style for employees to fit into and meet expectations of (Ashkanasy & Jackson,
2001). One of the limitations of the OCI, however, is that constructive and defensive norms for
effectiveness of organizations vary widely depending on where in the world the organization is
located. Culture works in relation to resources and demands, which influence individuals,

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
groups, and organizations, as well as the overall organizational success.
Measuring Organizational Climate
While culture scholars often use multiple methods, including surveys and qualitative case
studies, climate researchers tend to focus solely on survey methods for assessment of
organizational climate (Schneider et al., 2011). Researchers have tended to focus on the
causes of climate (assessments of job attributes, leadership behaviors, social–interpersonal
relationships, facets of the reward system) rather than the actual measures of climate itself.
Climate questionnaires can be generalized, for example, covering a range of different

organizational types and settings (e.g. Furnham & Gunter, 1993) or focused on specific
organizations such as schools and colleges (Stern, 1980). Other questionnaires hone in on
types of climates such as measuring safety climate (Zohar, 1980) and service climate
(Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992). Traditional climate pedagogy focuses on individual
differences, almost completely ignoring the term ‘culture’ (Schneider et al., 2013).
At the same time, organizational climate has often been confused and might even have
become lost within the broad area of organizational culture (Pettigrew, 1990). The proliferating
debate concerns whether organizational climate is defined by an employee's individual
experience or as an organizational trait. Despite most research honing in on individual
differences in the 1970s, within the field of IO psychology, studies focusing on aggregate data
tend to be more common. In fact, Glick (1985) was one of the first to insist climate surveys
assess more than just individual experience, but the level of functioning of an organization.
As we discussed under the topic of philosophical underpinnings, some of the main issues in
looking at climate are levels and focus. Should we study climate at the individual or
organizational level? Should we focus in on molar climate (a general measure of climate) or
molecular climate (measuring more specific aspects of climate)? One problem with the molar
conceptual measurement approach to climate is it does not have high validity and tends to
yield variable results. Schneider (1975) proposed that instead of focusing on either just molar
climate or molecular climate, that we look at aligning the climate measure with the particular
predicted outcome.
Early research on molar climate (Schneider, 1975) concentrated on measuring a generic

factor of climate by using six to ten dimensions at the individual level. The more recent
referent-shift consensus model developed by Chan (1998) also uses survey items about traits
of organization instead of individual targeted questions. Referent-shift consensus refers to the
level at which aggregated individual responses yield agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
The average deviation index is one assessment method that derives from the referent-shift
consensus model (Burke, Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999).
In climate measures, it is common to include a measure of inter-rater agreement, within-group

inter-rater reliability, between-group inter-rater reliability, and appropriate wording of climate
survey items that must reflect the appropriate level of analysis (Ashkanasy & Nicholson, 2003;
Schneider et al., 2013). Other issues of interest include climate strength; that is, looking at the
level of agreement in climate assessment.
A more recent issue in climate measurement concerns the need to study organizational
climate across multiple levels of analysis. In this regard, there has been little theory and
research on multiple climates (Chan, 2014; Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). Past research has

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
instead focused on solely studying organizational subunits (Schneider et al., 2013). Zohar
and Luria (2005), in a study of safety climate, were among the first to research organizational
climate at multilevels. Although assessing organizational climate from a multilevel framework
can become complex, the approach seems to be applicable to studies of performance,
attitudes, and behavior.
Despite the focus on both strategic and process climates, the problem has always been
researchers’ failure to integrate these into a broader measure of organizational climate.
Likewise, many climate questionnaires ask for agreement or disagreement rather than
focusing on how people share decisions and treat each other.
Martin (1995) defines an integrated climate as a measurement that shows a collective

agreement of responses. In the past, cluster analysis has been used as a measure of
organizational climate, however, researchers have tended to prefer the differentiated
perspective because of a history of failing to find consensus in climate research. This
perspective is most commonly used in measuring climate, and looks at the differences across
different parts of an organization rather than the integrated one that systematically analyzes
the different parts that often consist of teams, levels, and subgroups.
Finally, we note that one of the more popular areas of research is based on a linkage model
(Wiley & Brooks, 2000). Defined as a body of research involving integrating and correlating
data collected from employees with data in other key organizational databases (Wiley, 1996),
linkage research links elements of the organizational environment with organizational
outcomes such as performance. Through linkage research, we look at organizational climate
and how it helps form high performing organizations versus lower-performing ones.
Dimensions for organizational effectiveness in the Wiley and Brooks approach include
customer orientation, quality emphasis, and empowerment. In particular, organizational
climate measurement within the linkage framework is associated with its relationship to
organizational effectiveness (Wallace et al., 1999). Clearly, linkage research as an area of
organizational climate has implications for employee-based organizational measurements.
A Gradation between Measures of Organization Culture and Climate
Figure 9.1 presents in graphical form the gradation between measures of organization culture
and climate. The left side of the diagram represents the ‘pure’ side of organizational culture,
where culture is represented in terms of artifacts, values, beliefs, and deeply held
assumptions. Such approaches are represented in Ashforth's (1985) focus on shared
assumptions, Martin's (2002) fragmented cultural perspectives and Vilnai-Yavetz and Rafaeli's
(2011) concept of culture as artifacts. Research approaches at this end of the spectrum tend
to be ethnographic in nature. As we move toward the right side of the diagram, however,
culture is seen to take on a more tangible form, as, for example, represented in Harris and
Moran's (1984) model of leadership and communication and Harrison's (1995) organizational
ideology. The dominant research approach here is typing. Moving further to the right,
Woodcock's (1989) effectiveness profiling method and Cameron and Quinn's (1999)
Competing Values Framework, while forms of typing, can also be seen to be a form of
dimensional profiling. This is further evident in the Ashkanasy et al. (2000) Organizational
Culture Profile, Denison's (1990) Organizational Culture and Effectiveness profile, and Cooke
and Szumal's (2000) Organizational Culture Inventory. Finally, on the far right of the figure, we
find the more ‘pure’ approach to measuring organizational climate, including measures of
specific culture types such as safety or service (Furnham & Gunter, 1993) and climate of fear
(Ashkanasy & Nicholson, 2003).

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Figure 9.1 The culture–climate continuum
The Enduring Relevance of Organizational Culture and Climate
Since the terms organizational culture and organizational climate were created many decades
ago, various sub-concepts have become of particular interest and relevance, not replacing
these original terms but deepening our understanding and appreciation for the timeless
nature of these two areas within the field of organizational research. In fact, by nature,
humans are social animals, one point that proves just how timeless organizational culture and
climate are. As such, our lives can be symbolic of the socialization process. Linstead (2011), in
his chapter on organizational culture in the wider context of organizations and society, implies
that we may now be dealing with a ‘post post-culture'. Calás and Smircich (1999) point out in
a similar vein that organizational culture literature boils down to three major themes: (i)
anthropological; (ii) sociological paradigm; or (iii) epistemological interest. More recent topics
of relevance concern discourse and identity, both for culture (Alvesson, 2011) and climate
(Whetten & Foreman, 2014); positive loaded cultures and climates (Gibbs & Cooper, 2011);
error management and organizational culture (Keith and Frese, 2011); and macroculture
(Hodgkinson and Healey, 2011).
One interesting aspect of culture that has recently appeared in the literature is the role of
gossip. In this regard, van Iterson, Waddington, and Michelson (2011) point to the need to
study gossip as an element of organizational culture because it is ubiquitous in organizational
and social life, and affects organizational culture differently to formal or even informal
communication and expression (e.g. storytelling). Although some critics have trivialized the
need to study gossip as an indicator of organizational culture, Deal and Kennedy (1982)
argue that this reveals the ‘underlife’ of organizations, and can be too easily neglected. As
such, despite being hidden in the fringes of organizational life, gossip is the medium by which
employees often transmit news, attitudes, and judgments. Consequently, it may be critical to
understanding the operations of an organization. van Iterson and his colleagues argue in

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
particular that gossip transcends organizational levels and should be looked at in terms of its
relationship with organizational consequences, both bad and good.
Sustainability is another recent topic taking a role in changing organizational culture (Howard-
Grenville, Bertels, & Lahneman, 2014; Russell & McIntosh, 2011). Russell and McIntosh
emphasize in particular the nature of relationships between organizations and nature. These
authors argue that, in order for organizations to partake in worldwide initiatives to face today's
increasing environmental, economic, and social issues, organizations must make sure
sustainability is one of their underlying values and assumptions (i.e. within Schein's [1985]
model of culture). In this regard, Russell and McIntosh differentiate reactive and
accommodative organizations. Reactive organizations are those that fail to consider issues of
sustainability versus defensive organizations, where some action is taken in lieu of legislation
(Roome, 1992). Accommodative organizations on the other hand are proactive in responding
to sustainability issues.
Other issues studied in relation to organizational culture and climate include building a
climate and culture of quality, innovation, and technology, as well as including elements of
organizational change (Michela & Burke, 2000). These issues are in alignment with Calás and
Smircich's (1999) argument that we need to move beyond just postmodernism and to engage
organizational culture and climate in relation to real-world concerns. Researchers are also
seeking to create more holistic models for interpreting and analyzing organizational culture
and climate. For example, Hatch (1993) combines Schein's (1985) theory of culture (cultural
assumptions manifest as values that manifest in artifacts) with a symbolic view to create an
interpretive perspective that looks at the dynamics of organizational culture and how
organizational members maintain, respond to, and change their cultures (Hatch, 2011).
Finally, we note that culture and climate have traditionally sought to improve our
understanding of the relationship between culture and performance (Wilderom, Glunk, &
Maslowski, 2000), looking at a broader view of culture, specifically multiple cultures and the
surrounding contextual factors (social, economic, political, see Schneider et al., 2013).
In general, recent research into organizational culture and climate has explored the interplay
between the different paradigms (e.g. see Schneider & Barbera, 2014b). We note the
increasing complexity of the interrelations between new topics with organizational culture and
climate as well as how research is situationally, level, and focus dependent (Ashkanasy &
Jackson, 2001). We reiterate just how complex and interrelated all these concepts of
organizational behavior are in the following section, and then point to how organizational
culture and climate issues have transcended national boundaries and more recently been
seen and studied in terms of their international impact.
Organizational Culture, Organizational Climate, and Organizational Outcomes
From the very beginning of research in this field, there has been a close relationship between
organizational culture and climate. Molloy, Ployhart, & Wright (2011) originally wrote of the
difficulty in crossing levels of analysis of organizational culture and organizational climate.
Reichers and Schneider (1990) likewise insisted the two are parallel but not overlapping by
any means. Nonetheless, and as Schein (2000) points out, both concepts are crucial to the
field of organizational behavior and crucial building blocks for organizational analysis.
Schneider et al. (2011) agree in particular with the view that climate and culture reinforce each
other. The Competing Values Framework (Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011; Quinn & Rohrbaugh,
1983) serves as a framework to integrate both organizational culture and climate, although

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
critics yearn for further integration of the two. It seems to be that each field omits a critical
component that the other may incorporate. To further explain, Schein (1985) examined
organizational life cycles in his exploration of organizational culture, but all literature on
organizational climate seems to omit this exploration, owing to its more quantitative orientation
focusing on surveys instead of case studies.
Possibly, organizational change, an increasingly important topic of relevance, may be the key
to helping to integrate both organizational culture and climate. In this regard, the term ‘culture’
may have received far more credit than perhaps it should have. For instance, Baker et al.
(2007) referred to the report in relation to the 2005 BP Texas City catastrophe as a ‘safety
culture’ rather than ‘safety climate'. Here, the term ‘culture’ seems to be a safer term to use
insofar as organizations appear to believe it covers a broader umbrella of topics and themes
than organizational climate.
Nevertheless, as Schneider and Barbera (2014b) emphasize, the two terms are inextricably
linked. Both concepts try to make a difference to human well-being and organizational
performance as well as to incorporate a focus on social-organizational processes.
Organizational culture and organizational climate are ‘reflective of the work environment and
can be either positive or negative’ (Ashkanasy and Härtel, 2014, p. 136). Research
methodologies for both are becoming more sophisticated, as researchers now test new,
innovative hypotheses originating from theories based on earlier research and existing
frameworks. One of these more sophisticated designs can be seen in the work of Tsui, Wang,
and Xin (2006), who developed five dimensions of culture, forming four organizational culture
types, which then relate to performance measures based on questionnaire questions
(Sackmann, 2011). In actuality, there is empirical support for both a direct and indirect link
between organizational culture and performance. There are many different organizational
culture measures, dimensions, or types and we will introduce a few popular ones to describe
ways of measuring performance financially and non-financially. For instance, the OCI, as
discussed in the earlier section on profiling surveys, can be used to measure performance
through individual outcome measures such as (i) role clarity; (ii) communication quality; (iii) fit
with organization; (iv) behavioral conformity; and (v) job satisfaction. Examples of
organizational outcome measures related to organizational culture include (i) quality of
products/services; (ii) commitment to customer service; (iii) organizational adaptability; (iv)
turnover; and (v) quality of workplace (see Sackmann, 2011, p. 197, Figure 12.1). Another
measure of organizational culture, the Competing Values Scale (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)
may be used to measure indicators of performance such as (i) employee productivity and (ii)
return on equity. Financial measures may also be used to gage an organization's bottom line
as an indicator of organizational performance. Like non-financial measures of performance,
financial measures of performance also link to organizational culture and include earnings
before interest and taxes (EBIT), return on investment, return on equity, debt-equity ratio,
sales measures, budget, and controllable expenses costs to name a few (Sackmann, 2011).
Moreover, and like organizational culture, climate is also related to organizational performance
and/or effectiveness outcomes. There are key dimensions of each team climate such as
domain-specific climates like a climate for safety (a strong organizational emphasis on
employee well-being and safety) or a climate for service (a strong emphasis on putting
customers first) (West & Ritcher, 2011). Teams that encourage positive climates, such as
employee support, trust, and safety, are likely to have more positive performance or
effectiveness outcomes. Team climate is based on social interaction among group members
(e.g. Schneider & Reichers, 1983) and this helps make sense of complex and ambiguous
information in the workplace, often leading to more positive organizational outcomes.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Organizational culture and climate can also both have positive and negative implications for
organizational performance. Ashkanasy and Härtel (2014), for example, write about the effect
of positive and negative affective climates and cultures on an organization's performance
outcomes. Healthy workplaces for instance, are associated with a positive affective
organizational climate, often defined by shared goals and organizational identification. Team
climates, specifically, have been shown to have positive and negative effects, just as do
positive culture and leadership. Over-demanding expectations from management can yield
negative organizational consequences in terms of performance, while similarly underutilization
of work–family policies because of culture or climate may throw off work–family balance,
negatively impacting employees and, in turn, negatively effecting the organization's bottom
line (Duxbury & Gover, 2011).
The linkage research model, in fact, is a result of a meta-analysis consisting of about 20

published qualitative and quantitative studies summarized by Wiley (1996). These studies
were carried out in a variety of settings, including banking, insurance, retail, utilities, fast food,
and business services. Wiley's (1996) model suggests that the more organizational or
leadership practices exist in a work environment, the more productive the workforce, which
then leads to increased customer satisfaction and stronger long-term organizational
performance. We can specifically look at the model that shows how customer results
(responsive service, product quality, overall satisfaction, customer retention) lead to business
performance over time (sales growth, market share, productivity, long-term profitability), which
leads to leadership practices (customer orientation, quality emphasis, employee training,
involvement/empowerment), which then leads to employee results (information/knowledge,
teamwork/cooperation, overall satisfaction, employee retention), which then cycles back once
again to work characteristics that lead to customer results, business performance, leadership
practices, and back to employee results again.
Properly designed employee-based measures of the work environment and organizational

climate, such as linkage research models, are known to be tools to identify areas that need
improved organizational development. Linkage research has helped identify implications for
organizational leadership to improve work climate that in turn, improve organizational success.
Organizations should make customer service a top priority, as well as employee and
supervisor input and involvement, proper training for employees to perform job requirements;
and leadership must provide a vision for the future of the organization to provide direction for
the organization and information on how individuals play into organizational success, and
lastly, prioritize cooperation and teamwork within the organizational environment (Wiley &
Brooks, 2000).
In general, despite the established link between organizational culture, organizational climate,
and business performance, there seems to have been more literature on the linkages
between identity, change, leadership, emotion, and organizational culture and climate
(Ashkanasy et al., 2011). One important topic that has more recently emerged for both climate
and culture emphasizes positive organizational scholarship, which includes the banning of the
expressions such as ‘organizational change’ or ‘cultural change’ (Kreiner, 2011). In effect,
researchers of both organizational culture and organizational climate seem to be advocating a
multiple perspectives approach.
The Global Reach of Organizational Culture and Climate
In order to assess the international impact of organizational climate and culture, it is

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
imperative to utilize multiple perspectives and to acknowledge the intricate nature of the
relationships between culture and climate and their components within organizational
behavior. Sackmann (2011) described the findings from 55 studies, where 33 research teams
studied organizational culture and climate and their effects on organizational performance in
different countries around the world. Of these studies, 16 were conducted in Germany, the
UK, the Netherlands, Greece, Sweden, and Norway and 13 in Hong Kong, China, India,
Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia, as well as studies in Australia, Turkey, Israel,
Russia, South Africa, and the United States. Indeed, interest in organizational culture and
climate derived originally from studies of why Japanese organizations had such great
economic success through their management techniques in the early 1980s (Brannen &
Kleinberg, 2000).
So, the question that arises at this point is: what has led to this increasing international impact
and use of globally distributed teams and organizations? Kara and Zellmer-Bruhn (2011)
blame the global impact of organizational culture and climate on the insistent pressure
worldwide for increased skill diversity, expertise, technology advancements, and
internationalization of business. In particular, Leung and Peterson (2010) argue in this regard
that constant advancement in globalization technology has decreased the dependency on
long-term expatriates. As such, it can be seen that the multilevel perspective, which considers
factors at individual, organizational, institutional, and national levels, is giving researchers a
more complete picture of the role of organizational culture and climate in the success of
globally distributed teams and culture and climate's impact internationally (Kara & Zellmer-
Bruhn, 2011).
Hofstede (1991) described how organizations in Eastern societies such as Japan, Korea, and
Thailand, where cultures center around Confucian values, have positive, dynamic, and future-
oriented cultures, while Western societies such as Australia, America, the UK, and Canada
tend to associate with negative values (Denison, Xin, Guidroz, & Zhang, 2011). Denison and
his colleagues argue in particular that it is important we learn from other cultures like China
and pay attention to the cultural traits that may play a role in their success in the creation of
global firms. Thus, although Western societies may not be interested in China's emphasis on
communism, the Confucian perspective remains a key theme of Chinese global enterprises
and something culture researchers should be open to learning about.
One theory that embraces a global view of values and culture is the Theory of Cultural Values
(Schwartz, 1999, 2004, 2006). Schwartz refers to East Asian cultures as embedded cultures,
where individuals are viewed as embedded within a collective of people versus autonomy
cultures like Australia where individuals are viewed as independent and unique. As such,
individuals in cultures functioning on high embeddedness tend take responsibility for one
another. The other issue facing organizations worldwide is egalitarian organizations where all
power is deemed equal among individual members versus hierarchical systems with well-
defined roles.
The last cultural orientation defined by Schwartz (1999, 2004, 2006) is mastery, encouraging
self-assertion, ambition versus harmony. This is also a part of Confucian values where
individuals are encouraged to take the world for what it is and to live in unity with their
environment. Through Schwartz's theory, managers can better lead their organizations and
researchers can consider values of different societies, and values of their organizations, within
the framework of their nation's values and the local formally accepted values. Within this view,
just because a particular cultural value is comfortable does not mean it necessarily leads to
organizational success via successful organizational climate and culture.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
In other words, Western cultures’ employees have often suffered from role overload and role
stress (Sagiv, Schwartz, & Arieli, 2011). It is no surprise then that globally distributed teams
and firms face a variety of challenges. In regard to globally distributed team effectiveness, the
challenges fall into three categories: (i) group process challenges; (ii) technology challenges;
and (iii) member challenges. There is lack of face-to-face communication, incorrect
interpretation of communication, and need for self-management skills. Other issues concern
the important role of macrofactors that globally distributed teams deal with rather than simply
the microfactors such as task complexity (Kara & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2011).
Additionally, cultures vary significantly in terms of the roles of men and women. It becomes
even more complicated for international organizations. For instance, some international
organizations are concerned about assigning women to countries in Asia who may view
women managers as incompetent (Punnett, 2011). Actually, Ralston, Gustafon, Elsass,
Cheung, & Terpstra (1992) doubt that international companies and globally distributed teams
can develop a single cohesive culture. Conversely, other researchers have more optimism
than this and believe organizations can have extraordinary outcomes by integrating value
profiles of other cultures effectively. In fact, the Schwartz framework itself can help
practitioners find which value profiles they can integrate effectively into their own
organizations, even at the local and national value levels (Sagiv et al., 2011). This would seem
to trump Ralston et al.'s (1992) doubts regarding creation of a cohesive organizational culture
or climate.
To this day, regardless of national, local, organizational, team, or individual values, all
organizations face similar issues and aim for successful organizational performance that is
directly linked to organizational culture and organizational climate. The GLOBE (Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness: House et al., 2004) project has shown
us that national cultures impact organizational culture as well as the fact that societal culture
has a stronger effect on organizational outcomes than the organizational culture itself
(Schneider et al., 2013).
Future Research Directions
Arising from the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the field of organizational culture and
climate research offers a multiplicity of opportunities for future research. For example, while
culture and climate are seen to be critical in organizational change, and especially in mergers
and acquisitions (Ashkanasy & Holmes, 1995), the specific functions of culture/climate
dimensions in this regard continue to be little understood (Kreiner, 2011). In particular, we do
not really understand the role played by specific culture components in organizational
change. Moreover, while we understand the importance of cultural adaptability and the need
for environmental fit, the specific role culture and climates play in determining relevant
organizational aims are also little understood. Thus, while we know that a positive climate is
conducive to organizational performance (Härtel & Ashkanasy, 2011; Schneider & Reichers,
1983), the question still remains as to whether a culture/climate can be too positive, resulting
in over-confidence and hubris. There is also considerable scope to improve our understanding
of the global aspects of culture and climate. For example, House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges,
& Sully de Luque (2013) recently demonstrated that national culture determines the way CEO
effectiveness is evaluated.
A consistent theme throughout this chapter has been the need to consider culture and climate
at multiple levels. As Yammarino and Dansereau (2011) point out, culture/climate and their
effects vary both within and across levels of analysis. What happens in teams, for example, is

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
reflected in both individual and organizational levels of analysis. As such, studies that address
these variables across levels hold potential to provide new insights into the nature and extent
of culture and climate. In this regard, Ashkanasy (2003) pointed out that emotions extend
across all levels of analysis, including at the organizational level. In this instance, the idea of
affective culture and climate (Härtel & Ashkanasy 2011; Ashkanasy & Härtel, 2014) could well
propagate across all levels of organizational analysis. Research in this area to date, however,
still remains to be done.
Conclusion
Clearly, based on the vibrancy of current research in organizational culture and climate,
research in these fields is not going out of fashion any time soon. In fact, the global impact
and global implications, as well as the expansion of innovative topics, prove to us that these
concepts are very much in vogue and leading-edge. We have moved on over the last few
decades from addressing the meaning and values employees of an organization have in
relation to their experience, to looking at the interwoven relationship of these concepts with
other areas of organizational behavior through multiple perspectives.
Note
1. A more recent handbook (Schneider & Barbera, 2014a) was published as this chapter was
being finalized. This volume takes a generally even more psychological approach than the
Sage Handbooks that form the basis of this chapter, which provide specific applications to
various facts of IO psychology, including leadership, justice, counterproductive behavior, and
sustainability.
References
Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management: Issues to be faced. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 13, 7–45.
Alvesson, M. (2011). Organizational culture: Meaning, discourse, and identity. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
(pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 837–47.
Ashkanasy, N . M . (2003). Emotions in Organizations: A Multi-level Perspective. I n F.
Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and
Strategy (Research in Multilevel Issues, Vol. 2, pp. 9–54). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Organizational climate. In S. R. Clegg & J. R. Bailey (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies (Vol. 3, pp. 1028–30). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N . M ., Broadfoot, L., & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures of
organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 131–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Härtel, C. E. J. (2014). Emotional climate and culture: The good, the bad,
and the ugly. In B. Schneider & K. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate (pp. 136–52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Holmes, S. (1995). Perceptions of organizational ideology following

merger: A longitudinal study of merging accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society, 20, 19–34.
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work
and Organizational Psychology. Volume 2: Organizational Psychology ( p p . 398–415).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Climate of fear in organizational settings:
Construct definition, measurement, and a test of theory. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55,
24–9.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. E. P., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.) (2000a). The Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2000b). Introduction. In N. M.
Culture and Climate (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. E. P., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.) (2011). The Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition.
Baker, J., Bowman, F., Erwin, G., Gordon, S., Hendershot, D., Leveson, N., Priest, S.,
Rosenthal, I., Tebo, P., Wiegmann, D., & Wilson, L. (2007). The report of the BP US refineries
independent safety review panel. BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–65.
Borowsky, R. (Ed.) (1994) Assessing Cultural Anthropology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Brannen, M. Y. & Kleinberg, J. (2000). Images of Japanese management and the
development of organizational culture theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate ( p p . 387–400).
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for
estimating inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68.
Calás, M. B. & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 649–72.
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: The
Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A
meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605–19.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at
different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 234–46.
Chan, D. (2014). Multilevel and aggregation issues in climate and culture research. In B.
Schneider & K. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate
(pp. 484–95). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of Organization Studies.
Cooke, R. A. & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). The Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI). Plymouth,
MI: Human Synergistics.
Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the organizational culture inventory to understand
the operating cultures of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate ( p p . 147–62).

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. Chichester: Wiley.
Denison, D., Xin, K., Guidroz, A. M., & Zhang, L. (2011). Corporate culture in Chinese
organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook
of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Drexler, J. A. (1977). Organizational climate: Its homogeneity within organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62, 38–42.
Duxbury, L. & Gover, L. (2011). Exploring the link between organizational culture and work–
family conflict. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Fischer, M. (2007). Culture and cultural analysis as experimental systems. Cultural
Anthropology, 22, 1–65.
Furnham, A. & Gunter, B. (1993). Corporate culture: Definition, diagnosis and change. In C.
L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 233–61). Chichester: Wiley.
Gibbs, P. C. & Cooper, Cary L. (2011). Fostering a positive organizational culture and climate
in an economic downturn. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),
The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Glaser, R. (1983). The Corporate Culture Survey. Bryn Mawr, PA: Organizational Design and
Development.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate:
Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–16.
Glisson, C. & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human
service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 767–94.
Gordon, G. & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational
culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 783–98.
Handy, C. (1979). Gods of Management. London: Pan.
Harris, P. R. & Moran, R. T. (1984). Managing Cultural Differences. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.
Harrison, R. (1975). Diagnosing organization ideology. In J. Jones & P. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The
1975 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators (pp. 101–7). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Harrison, R. (1995). The Collected Papers of Roger Harrison. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Härtel, C., & Ashkanasy, N. (2011). Healthy human cultures as positive work environments. In
N . M . Ashkanasy, C . P . M . Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Hartnell, C. A. & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture: Toward integrating a multilevel framework. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management

Review, 18, 657–76.
Hatch, M. J. (2011). Material and meaning in the dynamics of organizational culture and
identity with implications for the leadership of organizational change. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.
P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate (pp. 341–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Helms Mills, J. C. H. & Mills, A. J. (2000). Rules, sensemaking, formative contexts, and
discourse in the gendering of organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom,
& M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 55–70).
Hofstede, G. (1986). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance
for Survival. London: Harper Collins.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations,
2nd edition
. London: Sage.
Hodgkinson, G. P. & Healey, M. P. (2011). Interorganizational macrocultures: A multilevel
critique. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of
Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 291–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. F. (2013).
Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and
Effectiveness in 24 Countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Howard-Grenville, J., Bertels, S., & Lahneman, B. (2014). Sustainability: How it shapes
organizational culture and climate. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 257–75). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize.
Academy of Management Review, 13, 129–32.
James, L. R. & McIntyre, M. D. (1996). Perceptions of organizational climate. In K. R. Murphy
(Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 416–50). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Jones, A. P. & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of
individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 23, 201–50.
Joyce, W. F. & Slocum, J. W. (1982). Climate discrepancy: Refining the concepts of
psychological and organizational climate. Human Relations, 35, 951–72.
Kara, A. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2011). The role of organizational culture and underlying
ideologies in the success of globally distributed teams. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Keeley, M. (1983). Values in organizational theory and management education. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 376–86.
Keith, N. & Frese, M. (2011). Enhancing firm performance and innovativeness through error

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
management culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The

2nd edition
Kreiner, G. E. (2011) Organizational identity: Culture's conceptual cousin. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate,
2nd edition
LeBreton, J. M. & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about inter-rater reliability
and inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–52.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel De Carrasquel, S., Munoz, C., Hernandez, M., Murakami, F.,
Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., & Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for
universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.
Leung, K. & Peterson, M. F. (2010). Managing a globally distributed workforce: Social and
interpersonal issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), The APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 771–805). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts. New York, NY: Harper.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Harper.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Linstead, S. (1993). Deconstruction in the study of organizations. In J. Hassard, & M. Parker
(Eds.), Postmodernism and Organizations (pp. 49–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linstead, S. (2011). Organizational culture in a wider field: Is there a post post-culture? In N.
M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational
Culture and climate,
2nd edition
Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieu. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G.
Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational Symbolism (pp. 39–54). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Margerison, C. (1979). How to Assess Your Management Style. New York, NY: MCB Human
Resources.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Martin, J. (1995). Organizational culture. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of
Organizational Behavior (pp. 376–82). Oxford: Blackwell.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michela, J. L. & Burke, W. W. (2000). Organizational culture and climate in transformations for
quality and innovation. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Middlemist, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. (1981). Technology as a moderator of the relationship between
perceived work environment and subunit effectiveness, Human Relations, 6, 517–32.
Molloy, J. C., Ployhart, R. E., & Wright, P. M. (2011). The myth of ‘the’ macro-micro divide:
Bridging systems level and disciplinary divides. Journal of Management, 37, 587–609.
Moran, E. T. & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational
climate. Human Relations, 45, 19–47.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization,
2nd edition.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
O'Driscoll, M. P. & Evans, R. (1988). Organizational factors and perceptions of climate in three
psychiatric units. Human Relations, 41, 371–88.
Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 26, 126–66.
Payne, R. L. (2000). Climate and culture: How close can they get? In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.
M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate
Peterson, M. F. (2011). Organizational culture and organization theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.
Climate (pp. 413–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: Two constructs in search of a role.
In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 413–33). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Punnett, B. J. (2011). A global perspective on gender and organizational culture. In N. M.
Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Toward a
competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–77.
Ralston, D. A., Gustafon, D. J., Elsass, P. M., Cheung, F., & Terpstra, R. H. (1992). Eastern
values: A comparison of managers in the United States, Hong Kong, and the People's
Republic of China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 664–71.
Reichers, A. E. & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Reynolds, P . D . (1986). Organizational culture as related to industry, position and
performance: A preliminary report. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 333–45.
Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management systems. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 1, 11–24.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level
perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
Russell, S. V. & McIntosh, M. (2011). Changing organizational culture for sustainability. In N.
M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational
Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, &
M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 188–224).
Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S . H ., & Arieli, S. (2011). Personal values, national culture and
organizations: Insights applying the Schwartz value framework. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp.
515–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sahlins, M. (1985). Islands of History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990a). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–19.
Schein, E . H . (1990b). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan
Management Review, 25, 3–16.
Schein, E. H. (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.
Climate (pp. xxii–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 477–9.

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–53.
Schneider, B. (2000). Commentary – The psychological life of organizations I n N . M .
Culture and Climate (pp. xvii–xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B. & Barbera, K. M. (2014a). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, B. & Barbera, K. M. (2014b). Introduction and overview. In B. Schneider & K. M.
Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 3–20). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, B. & Barbera, K. M. (2014c). Summary and conclusion. In B. Schneider & K. M.
Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 679–87).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2011). Organizational climate research:
Achievements and the road ahead. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–88.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–73.
Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology,
36, 19–39.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. J. (1992). A passion for service: Using content
analysis to explicate service climate themes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 705–16.
Schooler, C. (1983). Book review of Culture's consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Contemporary Sociology, 12, 167.
Schulte, M., Ostroff, C., Shmulyian, S., & Kinicki, A. (2009). Organizational climate
configurations: Relationships to collective attitudes, customer satisfaction and financial
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 618–34.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.
Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H.
Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing Cultures, Dimensions of Culture in a
Comparative Perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden: Brill.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications.
Comparative Sociology, 5, 137–82.
Smucker, J. (1982). Geert Hofstede: Culture's consequences. Sociology, 9, 55–6.
Stackman, R. W., Pinder, C. C., & Connor, P. E. (2000). Values lost: Redirecting research on
values in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Stern, P. N. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and processes. Image, 12, 20–3.
Trice, H. M. & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Culture of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., & Xin, K. R. (2006). Organizational culture in China: An analysis of
culture dimensions and culture types. Management and Organization Review, 2, 345–76.
van Iterson, A., Waddington, K., & Michelson, G. (2011). Breaking the silence: The role of

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference
gossip in organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson

(Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,
2nd edition
Vilnai-Yavetz, I. & Rafaeli, A. (2011). Three dimensions of the tip of the iceberg: Designing the
work environment. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
2nd edition
Wallace, J., Hunt, J., & Richards, C. (1999). The relationship between organisational culture,
organizational climate and managerial values. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 12, 548–64.
West, M. A. & Richter, A. W. (2011). Team climate and effectiveness outcomes. In N. M.
Whetten, D. A. & Foreman, P. (2014). An organizational identity lens for organizational climate
scholarship. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate (pp. 679–87). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., & Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture as a predictor of
organizational performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),
The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 193–209). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wiley, J . W . (1996). Linking survey results to customer satisfaction and business
performance. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change
(pp. 330–59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wiley, J. W. & Brooks, S. (2000). The high performance organizational climate: How workers
describe top performing units. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 177–92). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Woodcock, M. (1989). Clarifying Organizational Values. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Yammarino, F. J. & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multilevel issues in organizational culture and
climate research. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied
implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102.
Zohar, D. & Hofmann, D. H. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. In S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 643–666).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zohar, D. & Luria, G. (2005). A multi-level model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships
between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 616–28.
organizational climate and culture

organizational climate
organizational culture
climate
organizational culture model
staff
organizational performance
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473914964.n10

Psychology
SAGE SAGE Reference

Psychology

Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2018 - Organizational Culture and Climate

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2018 - Organizational Culture and Climate

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work

and Organizational Psychology

Contributors: Neal M. Ashkanasy & Alana B. Dorris

Organizational Culture and Climate

Defining and Conceptualizing Organizational Culture and Climate

In this, our opening discussion, we focus on the differing conceptualizations of organizational

Page 2 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

The Ontological and Epistemological Basis of Culture and Climate

Defining Culture and Climate

Page 3 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Moreover, because climate has to do with people's perceptions of work environments, it is

Page 4 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Organizational Culture and Climate

In order to understand culture and climate, it is important to look at past organizational

Page 5 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Philosophical Underpinning of Organizational Culture

In relation to culture specifically, other researchers have looked at theories in terms of an

Page 6 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Philosophical Underpinning of Organizational Climate

Similar to organizational culture, some researchers find organizational climate models to be

Page 7 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

models, rather than on specific climates, considered to be a more focused approach to

Measuring Organizational Culture and Climate

Measuring Organizational Culture

At this point, having discussed at length the philosophical underpinnings of organizational

Page 8 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 9 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

The OCP is a quantitative, descriptive profiling questionnaire that measures organizational

Page 10 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

groups, and organizations, as well as the overall organizational success.

Measuring Organizational Climate

Climate questionnaires can be generalized, for example, covering a range of different

Early research on molar climate (Schneider, 1975) concentrated on measuring a generic

In climate measures, it is common to include a measure of inter-rater agreement, within-group

Page 11 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Martin (1995) defines an integrated climate as a measurement that shows a collective

A Gradation between Measures of Organization Culture and Climate

Page 12 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Figure 9.1 The culture–climate continuum

The Enduring Relevance of Organizational Culture and Climate

Page 13 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Organizational Culture, Organizational Climate, and Organizational Outcomes

Page 14 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 15 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

The linkage research model, in fact, is a result of a meta-analysis consisting of about 20

Properly designed employee-based measures of the work environment and organizational

The Global Reach of Organizational Culture and Climate

In order to assess the international impact of organizational climate and culture, it is

Page 16 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 17 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Future Research Directions

Page 18 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 19 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Ashkanasy, N. M. & Holmes, S. (1995). Perceptions of organizational ideology following

Page 20 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate ( p p . 147–62).

Page 21 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management

Page 22 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

management culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The

Page 23 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 24 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational

Page 25 of 27 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational