Kuenzi and Schminke 2009 Climate Review - JOM PDF

Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com
Assembling Fragments Into a Lens: A Review, Critique, and Proposed

Research Agenda for the Organizational Work Climate Literature
Maribeth Kuenzi and Marshall Schminke
Journal of Management 2009; 35; 634 originally published online Feb 6, 2009;
DOI: 10.1177/0149206308330559
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/634
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/634
Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Assembling Fragments Into a Lens: A Review,
Critique, and Proposed Research Agenda for
the Organizational Work Climate Literature†
Maribeth Kuenzi*
Department of Management and Organizations, Cox School of Business,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX
Marshall Schminke
Department of Management, College of Business Administration,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
Work climates exert an important influence on organizations and the people who work in them.
For more than half a century, scholars have sought to understand their antecedents and conse-
quences. However, in recent years, this literature has become fragmented and somewhat adrift.
This article attempts to remedy this by reviewing existing research related to organizational
work climates and providing a review and critique of the current state of knowledge. Furthermore,
the authors seek to assemble the individual pieces into a unified lens capable of identifying
overarching themes and challenges facing researchers. Finally, the authors turn this lens to the
future, so as to provide a clearer view of some promising avenues for research opportunities and
potential for reintegrating the field.
Keywords: organizational climate; work climate; psychological climate; organizational context;

work environment; person-situation interaction
†The authors would like to thank Mel Fugate for his helpful insights on this article.
*Corresponding author: Tel.: 214-768-3096; fax: 214-768-4099.
E-mail address: mkuenzi@cox.smu.edu

Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, June 2009 634-717
DOI: 10.1177/0149206308330559
© 2009 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
634

Kuenzi, Schminke / Organizational Work Climate 635
In recent years, management scholars have become increasingly interested in the impact
of organizational context on the work lives of organizational members. Organizational
context is important because it shapes the salience and meaning of organizational events for
members. Furthermore, person–situation interactions represent a core area of organizational
research, and it is impossible to understand this interaction without understanding the situa-
tion itself (Johns, 2006). One area that has received especially close attention is organiza-
tional work climates. Climate research examines the subjective perceptions of individuals
regarding their work environment and how these perceptions drive their behaviors and
attitudes (Schneider, 2000).
Research on work climates is important because it has implications for individual outcomes
including job attitudes (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002), organizational citizenship behav-
iors (OCBs) (Ehrhart, 2004), ethics (e.g., Martin & Cullen, 2006), safety (Clarke, 2006),
innovation (Anderson & West, 1998), and individual performance (McKay, Avery, & Morris,
2008), as well as broader work outcomes such as customer attitudes (Dietz, Pugh, & Wiley,
2004) and team performance (Colquitt et al., 2002). As such, work climates touch nearly
every aspect of organizational life.
However, although work climates have been linked to a broad range of outcomes, research
on climates is scattered throughout different literatures, and little sharing has occurred
between these streams of research. Our aim in this review is to collect the individual pieces
of this fragmented literature and to assemble these pieces into a lens through which scholars
might better view and understand past research related to organizational climate, the current
state of the literature, and future needs and opportunities in this research area.
A quality review seeks to answer two questions: What do we know about this construct,
and how do we know it? We address the “What do we know?” question in two ways. The
narrative portion of our review is organized around the role climate plays across studies
(i.e., antecedent, consequence, mediator, or moderator). To complement this narrative, we
also provide tabular summaries of studies organized by climate type (e.g., service, safety,
ethics, or justice). We address the “How do we know it?” question by examining the theory,
methods, measures, and analytical tools used in these studies. This portion of our review
allows us to identify and summarize issues that need to be resolved if researchers are to
continue to learn more.
To accomplish these goals, this article is organized into four sections. The first provides
a brief overview and history of organizational work climates. Building on this history, the
second clarifies what organizational work climate is and what it is not. The third section
examines the consequences and antecedents of work climates, the more complex role of climate
as a moderator and mediator of various relationships, and its influence as a moderator or
mediator of the relationships between other organizational variables. The final section draws
on our assessment of current methods, measures, and analytical tools as we outline implica-
tions for scholars involved in the field and present an agenda for future research.
Turning the Lens to the Past: An Overview of the Climate Literature
Organizational work climates have been a focus of the management literature for more
than half a century. When climate research first emerged, it seemed poised to provide the

636 Journal of Management / June 2009
answer to many important questions facing organizational science by providing a “needed

alternative to motivation theories as explanations for just about everything that happens to
people at work” (Schneider & Reichers, 1983: 20).
Global Climate
Initially, climate researchers were interested in a broad global conceptualization of work

climate and its influence on employees. The goals of these early climate researchers were
ambitious. Litwin and Stringer (1968), in their seminal work on climate, suggested that a
global climate model “hopes to provide a quantification, or, rather, a diagram of the total
situational variables—a diagram that is relevant to the analysis and prediction of the total
effects of the environment on groups of individuals” (p. 38). Therefore, in this early work,
climate was viewed as a molar construct that would allow researchers to examine broad-
based determinants of employee behaviors. This literature attempted to understand the total
situational influences in organizations and their effects on individuals. It also emerged as a
way to understand organizational outcomes and became a foundation for understanding
organizational effectiveness (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
However, this focus on climate as a global construct was plagued with difficulties from the
outset in at least three key areas. First, no consensus existed about how to define global climate
(Glick, 1985; James, 1982; James & Jones, 1974; James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988; Tagiuri &
Litwin, 1968), leading to ambiguity and imprecision regarding the construct. Second, research
involving global climates was criticized for lacking a strong theoretical base. In many cases,
this criticism was accurate, as many global climate dimensions were developed and added to
the mix without theoretical rationale (Schneider, 2000). Finally, methodological issues, such as
a lack of appropriate guidelines for aggregating individual climate perceptions to the group or
organizational level, created problems for early climate researchers (Glick, 1985). In all, chal-
lenges such as these led to global climate being challenged as a fuzzy and ambiguous construct
of questionable value to the literature (Guion, 1973). As a result, interest in work climate
declined as scholars turned their attention to other areas.
Facet-Specific Climates
However, recent theoretical and methodological developments such as the growing interest
in multilevel theorizing and modeling have renewed researchers’ interest in the impact of
organizational context on individuals in the workplace. This has rekindled interest in climate
research, reflected in a more than threefold increase in organizational climate articles published
in top management journals so far in this decade (2000-2008) compared to all of the 1990s. In
addition, hundreds of additional articles on climate have appeared in specialty journals such as
those devoted to ethics, leadership, entrepreneurship, and services management.
With this renewed interest, the focus of climate research has changed, as researchers have
switched their focus from global to facet-specific climates. This switch in focus was sug-
gested by Schneider (1975) as a way to deal with the confusion over definitional and

c onceptual issues with the global climate construct and to improve the validity of the climate
construct by focusing on specific strategic outcomes of organizations. Facet-specific cli-
mates differ from global climates in that they are related to a particular aspect of the organ-
izational context such as climates for justice (Naumann & Bennett, 2000), safety (Zohar,
2000), innovation (Anderson & West, 1998), ethics (Victor & Cullen, 1987, 1988), service
(Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998), and diversity (McKay et al., 2008). Because they represent
climates for specific aspects of the organizational environment, many of these facet-specific
climates may be present in a work setting at any given time.
This recent focus on facet-specific climates has increased our understanding of work
climates and their influence on employee and organization outcomes. However, it has come
at a cost as well. In addition to suffering from definitional, theoretical, and methodological
challenges of its own, facet-specific climate research has been almost entirely subsumed
under particular topical areas (e.g., literatures related specifically to service, ethics, justice,
or safety). Thus, rather than composing an increasingly strong and broad foundation for
understanding organizational climate, climate research has splintered, thereby fragmenting
our knowledge about and understanding of work climates.
We believe the work climate literature is in need of reevaluation and integration. We seek
to accomplish that here, by gathering the isolated shards of climate research into a central
location, organizing and arranging these pieces into a unified lens, and using that lens to
assess the past, present, and future of climate research. In doing so, we hope to provide an
assessment of the various climate literatures, offering guidelines for improvement where
possible and encouraging sharing between researchers studying various climate domains.
Defining the Construct
We begin this task by seeking a common definitional starting point. That is, we hope to
clarify what is meant by organizational climate. However, defining organizational work
climates is not an easy task. Schneider (1990) observed that defining work climate is like
trying to “nail Jell-O to the wall” (p. 1). One article identified 32 different definitions of work
climate in the literature (Verbeke, Volgering, & Hessels, 1998). In addition, scholars have
conceptualized climate across levels of analysis, defining it at the level of the individual, the
work unit, and the organization. Further complicating matters, the literature has often been
murky on the relationship between climate and related contextual factors such as culture.
The inconsistent use of the term organizational climate creates confusion for researchers:
(a) Are climates perceptual phenomena, or do they reflect objective characteristics of the
organization? (b) What is the appropriate level of analysis at which climate should be con-
ceptualized? (c) Which features of the organizational setting compose climate, versus related
contextual constructs such as culture? In addressing these issues, we adopt Schneider and
Reichers’s (1983) definition of organizational work climates as a set of shared perceptions
regarding the policies, practices, and procedures that an organization rewards, supports, and
expects. Our choice of definitions addresses each concern.

A perceptual construct. Schneider and Reichers’s (1983) definition identifies organiza-

tional climate as a perceptual phenomenon, rather than an objective characteristic of the
organization. Schneider (1990) notes that early climate researchers did not spend much time
haggling over definitions of climate or possible nuances between definitions. Such lack of
clarity quickly created problems for climate researchers and led early scholars to debate
whether the phenomenon reflected organizational conditions or individual perceptions
(Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968). Since this early work, a dominant approach has emerged in the
literature, with the majority of climate researchers treating climate as perceptual in nature
(James, 1982; James & Jones, 1974; James et al., 1988; Schneider, 1975, 2000).
A collective phenomenon. This definition identifies organization climate as a collective

phenomenon. As such, it addresses a second question facing climate researchers: whether
organizational climate should be treated as an individual-level construct or as a unit-level
construct (cf., Glick, 1985; James & Jones, 1974; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 2000).
Distinguishing between psychological and organizational climate helps to clarify this dis-
tinction. Psychological climate reflects an individual’s perceptions of the psychological
impact of the work environment on his or her own well-being (James & James, 1989).
Organizational climate represents shared perceptions among unit employees regarding their
perceptions of the work environment. When perceptions of a work unit’s employees are
aggregated (typically after establishing some adequate level of agreement exists between
employees), they reflect organizational climate. Thus, the origins of organizational climate
lie in individual perceptions; however, it is a property of the unit.
Distinct from culture. Finally, this definition establishes that climate involves organiza-
tional activities. In particular, it reflects policies, practices, and procedures and the extent to
which employees agree in their perception of those activities. As such, it allows scholars to
distinguish between organizational climate and related contextual factors such as organiza-
tional culture. Others have explored in depth the distinction between climate and culture
(e.g., Denison, 1996; Schneider, 1990; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, in press), so we will
not go into great detail here. However, for the purposes of this review, we view climate and
culture as related—but distinct—constructs.
Both climate and culture deal with the ways that individuals try to make sense of their envi-
ronments. Furthermore, both are learned through interaction among group members. Yet even
with these similarities, several reasons exist for viewing climate and culture as distinct. First,
organizational climate research has a much longer history than organizational culture research,
and each tends to reflect different academic roots. The culture literature stems from an anthro-
pological base, whereas climate stems from Lewinian psychology (Schneider, 1990). These
distinct ancestries have affected both the study and measurement of climate and culture.
Second, organizational culture generally encompasses deeper and different dimensions than
organizational climate (e.g., beliefs, myths). Culture research typically focuses on trying to
understand the underlying assumptions of the organization, often so deeply embedded as to be
unconscious, hidden, and taken for granted (Schein, 2004). Therefore, organizational culture
tends to exist at a higher level of abstraction than climate. By contrast, climate pertains more
to surface-level manifestations (i.e., how things are done). Finally, culture researchers tend to
emphasize the manifestation of the phenomena through its forms (e.g., artifacts, legends, and

symbols), which reveal shared values. Climate researchers emphasize the processes by which
these shared values are attended to (Moran & Volkwein, 1992).
In all, this definition of organizational work climate1 allows us to impose some initial
order on a disorderly literature. We can now turn our attention to examining the research that
has been conducted on organizational work climates. In turn, this allows us to address some
of the questions it raises.
Focusing the Lens: A Review of the Organizational

Climate Literature
Previous scholars have provided reviews of the general work climate literature (e.g.,
Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James & Jones, 1974;
Joyce & Slocum, 1979; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003; Schneider, 1975, 1990; Schneider
et al., in press; Zohar & Hofmann, in press). More recently, some have reviewed particular
facet-specific climates such as those for safety (Clarke, 2006) or ethics (Martin & Cullen, 2006).
However, none of these reviews has provided an integrated review across these multiple climate
types (i.e., both global and multiple facet-specific work climates). Nor do any of these reviews
distinguish between studies that have measured climate as organizational climate and those that
have measured climate as psychological climate. We do so here.
This review focuses on published empirical research relating to organizational work cli-
mates. We conducted a series of searches using Academic Search Premier, Business Source
Premier, PsychArticles, and PsychInfo databases. We first focused our search on top general
management journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Organization Science,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Strategic Management Journal).
Next, we identified specific research areas in which climate has played a role (e.g., justice,
ethics, diversity, safety, service). We asked experts in each domain to identify journals
focused on publishing work in these areas. Using this information, we searched for climate
research in these more specialized journals (e.g., Business Ethics Quarterly, Leadership
Quarterly, Social Justice Research, Journal of Service Research). We included articles in
which authors identified organizational climate as their construct of interest. This search
yielded a total of 241 studies. We then identified articles that not only theorized about
organizational climate but also operationalized climate as organizational, in that aggregated
perceptions of climate were employed. This process yielded 89 articles, which provide the
basis for our review. Table 1 presents a list of journals used for the review.
In this section, we provide a narrative review and synthesis of the climate literature across
both global and facet-specific domains. Four questions provide the foundation for our
review: (a) Do climates matter? Here, we explore what is known about consequences of
climate and its impact on various types of outcomes. (b) Where do climates come from? To
address this question we examine antecedents of climate, including individual-, unit-, and
organization-level effects. (c) Is it really this straightforward? In this section, we take a more
fine-grained view of the consequences of climate, moving beyond direct effects by focusing
on what is known about mediated and moderated effects of climate on outcomes. (d) What

Table 1
Journals Used in Work Climate Review
Academy of Management Journal
Administrative Science Quarterly
Business Ethics Quarterly
Group and Organizational Management
International Journal of Service Industrial Management
Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of Business and Psychology
Journal of Business Venturing
Journal of Management
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Service Research
The Leadership Quarterly
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Organization Science
Personnel Psychology
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
Social Justice Research
Strategic Management Journal
about the bigger picture? Finally, we explore the role played by climate in the broader
organizational literature, in particular its influence as a moderator or mediator of the rela-
tionships between other organizational variables. In all, our aim in this narrative portion of
our review is to provide a thorough review of what is known about the causes and conse-
quences of organizational work climate and to examine its relationship with other organiza-
tional constructs.
In addition to this narrative review, Tables 2 through 13 provide summary information for
each of the studies reviewed. Because many (if not most) climate researchers currently focus
on a particular type of climate (e.g., safety, innovation, justice), we organize the tables around
those types. The tables present information about each study, including the type of climate
examined, the instrument used to measure it, and whether that measure used an individual
referent (“My organization allows me to be innovative”) or a referent-shift approach (“My
organization encourages members to be innovative”). Furthermore, we enumerate variables
presented as antecedents or consequences of climate, moderators and mediators involved, and
a brief summary of key results. Our hope is that readers may benefit from observing the cli-
mate literature from these two distinct perspectives. One important note regarding the tables
is in order. They identify original sources for climate measures used in the studies. However,
measures are often modified from these originals. Thus, even studies based on the same meas-
ures are not necessarily directly comparable. Such variation has the potential to affect study
results and interpretations and conclusions based on those results. It is imperative that
researchers consult original works before making direct comparisons.
(text continues on p. 690)

Table 2
Diversity Climate Studies
Climate Domain,
Authors Type, & Measure Design / Sample Antecedents Consequences Moderators / Mediators Key Climate Results
McKay, RS mostly 6,130 employees from Sales Diversity climate as a Diversity climate
Avery, & Diversity climate 743 store units in performance moderator of the moderated racial-ethnic
Morris McKay et al. (2007, as 17 departments of relationship between differences (Blacks–
(2008) cited in McKay et al., a large U.S. retail mean racial-ethnic Whites and Hispanics–
2008) and own items organization differences and sales Whites) in mean
performance differences in sales
performance. Diversity
climate did not moderate
the male–female disparity
in sales performance.
Note: Climate measures may have been modified from original source; consult original works before making direct comparisons. RS = referent shift; IR = individual
referent.

641
Table 3
642
Ethical Climate Studies
Climate Domain, Moderators /
Authors Type, & Measure Design / Sample Antecedents Consequences Mediators Key Climate Results
Ambrose, RS 304 employees from Job In general, fit between

Arnaud, & Ethical climate 73 firms satisfaction; employee moral
Schminke Victor & Cullen commitment; development and the
(2008) (1988) turnover ethical work climate is
intentions related to higher levels of
commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover
intentions. However, the
results vary by climate
type.
Cullen, RS Study 1 – 411 Professional Commitment Egoistic climate was
Parboteeah, Ethical climate employees from 7 versus negatively related to
& Victor Victor & Cullen departments of a nonprofessional organizational
(2003) (1988) local telephone workers commitment. Benevolent
company climate was positively
Study 2 – 139 related to organizational
accountants from commitment. A positive
4 accounting firms relationship between
commitment and
principled climate was
found only for
professional workers.
Neubaum, RS 304 employees from Firm size; New firms exhibited weaker
Mitchell, & Ethical climate 37 firms organizational instrumental climates and

Schminke Victor & Cullen newness; stronger independence
(2004) (1988) entrepreneurial climates. Smaller firms
orientation reflected stronger ethical
climates for caring, rules,
and law and code
climates. New firm status
(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
was marginally
significantly related to
weaker levels of caring,
rules, and law and code
climates. Firm age was
marginally related to
caring climate,
significantly related to law
and code climate, and not
related to rules climate. No
significant results for
entrepreneurial orientation.
Schminke, RS 269 individuals from Leader utilizer score Four of the five climate types
Ambrose, & Ethical climate 47 firms as a moderator of had a significant
Neubaum Victor & Cullen the relationship interaction between leader
(2005) (1988) between leader moral development and
moral development leader utilizer score. All
and ethical climate; five ethical climate types
organizational age had a significant
as a moderator of interaction between leader
the relationship moral development and
between leader company age. The
moral development influence of the leader’s
and ethical climate moral development was
stronger for high utilizing
leaders (those whose moral

actions were consistent
with their moral
reasoning). In addition, the
influence of the leader’s
moral development was
stronger in younger
organizations.
643
Note: Climate measures may have been modified from original source; consult original works before making direct comparisons. RS = referent shift; IR = indi-
vidual referent.
Table 4
644
Global Climate Studies
Gelade & Ivery IR 137 clusters of bank Human resource Branch cluster General climate as a General climate positively
(2003) General climate branches management performance mediator of the correlated with sales
Commercial factors (sales against relationship against target, staff
survey (staffing level, target, staff between human retention, clerical accuracy,
overtime, and retention, resource customer satisfaction, and
professional clerical management factors overall performance.
development) accuracy, and branch cluster Staffing level, overtime,
customer performance and professional
satisfaction, development were
and overall positively correlated with
performance) general climate. General
climate mediated 5 of the
15 human resource
management-cluster
performance models.
Glisson & IR 238 case managers Work attitudes; Positive climates were
James (2002) Positive climate from 33 child self- positively related to work
James & Sells welfare and perceptions attitudes. Culture and
(1981, as cited juvenile justice of service climate were found to be
in Glisson & case management quality; distinct constructs.
James, 2002) teams in 30 turnover
counties of a
southeastern state

Koene, IR 2,156 employees of Store managers’ Leader charisma and
Vogelaar, & Organizational 50 supermarket charismatic, consideration positively
Soeters climate stores of a large consideration related to all the climate
(2002) Items from Payne retail chain in the and initiating dimensions. Initiating
& Mansfield Netherlands structure structure was only
(continued)
Table 4 (continued)
(1973, as cited leadership positively related to the

in Koene et al., behaviors organization efficiency and
2002) and De readiness to innovate
Cock et al. dimensions. Charismatic
(1984, as cited leadership explained
in Koene et al., additional variance beyond
2002) the other two leader
behaviors’ general
communication dimension.
Lindell & Organizational 1,196 members of External Individual-level Climate consensus as Climate quality was correlated
Brandt climate 180 organizations contextual outcomes; a moderator of the with 21 of 45 of the
(2000) (leader) Stodgill variables; organizational- relationships external contextual
(1963, as cited internal level outcomes between climate variables and 45 of 90
in Lindell & structural quality and internal structural variables.
Brandt, 2000) variables individual- and Climate consensus was
and James organizational-level correlated with 6 of 45
(teamwork) outcomes; climate external contextual
James & James quality and climate variables and 16 of 90
(1989), Seers consensus as internal structural variables.
(1989, as cited mediators of the Climate quality was
in Lindell & correlations of correlated with 62 of 75
Brandt, 2000), organizational behavioral typicality
and Bales antecedents with variables and 21 of 75
(1950, as cited both individual- behavioral similarity

in Lindell & and organizational- variables. Climate
Brandt, 2000), level outcomes consensus was correlated
(role) Rizzo with 40 of 75 typical
et al. (1970, as behavior variables and 50
cited in Lindell of 75 behavioral similarity
& Brandt, 2000) variables. Climate quality
645
(continued)
Table 4 (continued)
646
and James & mediated many of the

James (1989), relationships between
(job organizational antecedents
characteristics) and outcomes.
Hackman &
Oldham (1976,
as cited in
Lindell &
Brandt, 2000)
Ostroff, Kinicki, IR 9307 employees in Response bias was present
& Clark Climate and work 71 hotels of a across multiple levels.
(2002) environment national U.S. hotel Authors suggest that
Developed items chain samples should be split in
half when cross-level
aggregate correlations are
computed to reduce
response bias problems that
arise from individual-level
method variance.
Patterson, Warr, RS 4,503 employees Job satisfaction as a Managers’ assessments of
& West Organizational from 39 mediator of the most aspects of their
(2004) climate manufacturing relationship company’s climate were
Patterson et al. companies between climate significantly more positive
(2003, as cited and productivity than nonmanagers.

in Patterson Managers’ perceptions of
et al., 2004) climate were not more
closely linked to company
production than
nonmanagers.
Note: Climate measures may have been modified from original source; consult original works before making direct comparisons. RS = referent shift, IR = individual
referent.
Table 5
Innovation/Creativity Climate Studies
Agrell & IR 124 employees in 17 Swedish version of TCI valid.

Gustafson Team climate for work teams from The participation and group
(1994) innovation 13 public and goals factors were retrieved
Anderson & West private in different orders for
(1998) organizations Swedish and English
participants.
Baer & Frese RS 47 midsized German Process Company Climates for initiative Climates for initiative and
(2003) Psychological companies innovations performance and psychological psychological safety were
safety climate (longitudinal safety as moderators positively related to
Frese et al. (1997, change in of the relationship company performance and
as cited in Baer return on between process moderated the relationship
& Frese, 2003) assets; firm innovations and between process
Climate for goal company innovations and firm
initiative achievement) performance performance. Strong
Edmondson climates for initiative and
(1999, as cited psychological safety were
in Baer & Frese, associated with a positive
2003) relation between process
innovativeness and
profitability. Low levels of
these climates were
associated with a negative
relationship between

process innovativeness and
return on assets.
Gilson & RS 144 service Engage in Members of teams that were
Shalley Climate supportive technicians and 11 creativity more engaged in creative
(2004) of creativity supervisors of 11 processes processes reported their
(continued)
647
Table 5 (continued)
648
Witt & teams in a U.K. team climate as more

Beorkren, company that supportive of creativity.
(1989, as cited maintains large
in Gilson & office equipment
Shalley, 2004)
González- RS 641 employees in 197 Climate strength as a Climate strength in innovation
Romá, Peiró, Innovation climate, work units from a moderator of the moderated the impact of
& Tordera support climate, regional public relationship between work units’ innovation
(2002) and goals health service unit climate and unit climate on average
orientation work satisfaction satisfaction and
climate and commitment commitment. Climate
Kopelman et al. strength in goals orientation
(1990, as cited moderated the influence of
in González- work units’ goal orientation
Romá et al., on commitment. Both
2002) and Koys moderated relationships are
& DeCotiis such that climate strength
(1991, as cited fosters the influence of the
in González- units’ climate.
Romá et al.,
2002)
Jung, Chow, & RS 32 companies from Transformational Organizational Support for innovation Transformational leadership
Wu (2003) Support for electronics and leadership innovation as a moderator of was positively related to
innovation telecom industry the relationship support for innovation.

Scott & Bruce between Support for innovation was
(1994, as cited transformational positively related to
in Jung et al., leadership and organization innovation.
2003) organization Support for innovation
innovation moderated the relationship
(continued)
Table 5 (continued)
between transformational
leadership and
organizational innovation
such that the relationship
was stronger when support
for innovation was high
rather than low.
King, de RS 22,696 employees Organizational Innovation climate as a Climate for innovation was
Chermont, Innovation climate from 131 U.K. performance moderator of the positively related to
West, Modified Anderson health care relationship between organizational performance.
Dawson, & & West (1998) organizations job demands and Innovation climate
Hebl (2007) and Patterson organizational moderated the relationship
et al. (2005) performance between work demands and
organizational performance
such that the relationship
was stronger in high
support for innovation
groups.
Klein, Conn, & RS 1,200 managers, Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation policies and
Sorra (2001) Implementation technology policies and effectiveness; policies and practices were positively
climate implementation practices innovation practices as related to implementation
Developed measure team members, effectiveness mediators of the climate. Management
and technology relationship between support positively related to
users in 39 management implementation climate -

manufacturing support and no mediation through
plants financial resource policies and practices.
availability and
implementation
climate;
(continued)
649
650
Table 5 (continued)
implementation
climate as a
mediator of the
implementation
policies and
practices and
implementation
effectiveness
Mathisen, RS 1,487 employees Team climate for innovation
Torsheim, & Team climate for from 195 teams model can be used as a
Einarsen innovation from a variety of team-level consensus
(2006) West (1990, as professions model of team climate for
cited in innovation. A considerable
Mathisen et al., portion of variance in the
2006) data was explained on the
team level. Four-factor
model displayed the best fit
at both the individual and
team levels. A second order
one-factor model also fit
well at both levels.
Pirola-Merlo & RS 54 research and Time-general Team climate for innovation

Mann (2004) Team climate for development teams creativity; accounted for recent team
innovation in 4 companies in recent team creativity above and
Anderson & West Australia member beyond individual
(1998) creativity; creativity. Failure to
(continued)
Table 5 (continued)
recent team account for aggregation

creativity across time can provide
misleading results that team
climate influences team
creativity directly rather
than individually through
individuals.
van der Vegt, RS 248 locations of a Higher Power distance as a Organizational tenure and
van der Innovative climate multinational demographic moderator of the functional background
Vliert, & Developed items company in 24 diversity relationship between (task-oriented attributes)
Huang countries (organization demographic were negatively related to
(2005) tenure, diversity and locations’ innovative
functional innovative climates climates in high-power
background, distance countries but
age, gender) positively related to
locations’ innovative
climate in low-power
distance countries. No
results were found for age
and gender (relations-

oriented attributes).
referent; TCI = team climate history.
651
Table 6
652
Involvement (Decision Making / Participative / Empowerment / Involvement / Self-Determination) Climate Studies
Chen, Lam, & IR 238 supervisor- Sense of Team-level empowerment was

Zhong (2007) Team subordinate dyads empowerment positively related to the
empowerment and 45 immediate individual’s sense of
climate supervisors of 45 empowerment.
Blanchard et al. teams of Chinese
(1995, as cited motor
in Chen et al., manufacturing
2007) industry
Maynard, IR 637 customer service Customer Team transition Resistance to empowerment
Mathieu, Resistance to engineers from satisfaction; processes as a climate (REC) was
Marsh, & empowerment 121 teams of a employee mediator of the negatively related to
Ruddy (2007) climate multinational satisfaction; relationship between customer satisfaction but
Kirkman et al. office equipment team resistance to not team performance.
(1996, as cited and technology performance; empowerment REC was negatively related
in Maynard organization transition climate (REC) and to transition processes,
et al., 2007) processes; customer action processes, and
action satisfaction and interpersonal processes.
processes; team performance; Only team transition
interpersonal team action processes fully mediated
processes processes as a the relationship between
mediator of the REC and customer
relationship between satisfaction. Interpersonal
REC and customer team processes partially

satisfaction and mediated the relationship
team performance; between REC and
team interpersonal employee satisfaction. REC
processes as a had a significant negative
mediator of the relationship beyond that
relationship between accounted for by
(continued)
Table 6 (continued)
REC and customer individual-level resistance

satisfaction; team variables.
interpersonal
processes as a
partial mediator of
the relationship
between REC and
employee
satisfaction
Richardson & RS 5 employees and 1 Transformational Unit Transformational leadership
Vandenberg Climate for manager from 167 leadership organizational was positively related to
(2005) involvement work units in 7 citizenship climate for involvement.
Vandenberg et al. U.S. organizations behavior; Climate for innovation is
(1999, as cited absenteeism; positively related to
in Richardson & voluntary organizational citizenship
Vandenberg, turnover behaviors and negatively
2005) related to absenteeism and
turnover (but turnover is
somewhat questionable).
Climate for innovation
fully mediated the
leadership and absenteeism
but only partially mediated

the relationship between
leadership and
organizational citizenship
behavior. When
“controlling for managerial
effects,” the relationship
(continued)
653
Table 6 (continued)
654
between climate for

innovation and turnover
became nonsignificant.
Siebert, Silver, RS 301 employees in 50 Work unit Psychological Empowerment climate was
& Randolph Empowerment project teams of performance; empowerment as a positively related to
(2004) climate manufacturers of psychological mediator of the psychological
Blanchard et al. high-tech office empowerment relationship between empowerment and work
(1995, as cited and printing empowerment unit performance.
in Siebert et al., equipment climate and job Psychological
2004) and satisfaction; empowerment fully
Randolph (1995, psychological mediated empowerment
as cited in empowerment as a climate on job satisfaction.
Siebert et al., mediator of the
2004) relationship between
empowerment
climate and
individual
performance
Tesluk, Farr, RS 252 employees and Trainees’ Unit climate for employee
Mathieu, & Climate for supervisors from generalization participation in decision
Vance (1995) participation in 88 units in 11 of knowledge; making was negatively
decision making suborganizations skills learned related to the amount of
Developed items in employee generalization of
Climate for bottom- involvement knowledge. Unit managers’

up decision (EI) training to attitudes and behaviors
making the core job with respect to EI and the
existence of a bottom-up
unit climate were unrelated
to generalization of
training. Suborganization
(continued)
Table 6 (continued)
climate of employee
participation in decision
making was negatively
related to the generalization
of EI training.
Suborganization managers'
attitudes and behaviors
toward EI process and
suborganization bottom-up
climate were unrelated to
training generalization.
Tesluk, Vance, RS 483 employees, first EI practices and Work-related Unit and district participative
& Mathieu Participative line supervisors supports; attitudes climate were positively
(1999) climate and managers district (extrinsic job related to individual work
Items adapted from from a large state managers’ satisfaction; attitudes and participation
Taylor & Bower department of attitudes intrinsic job in EI outcome variables.
(1972, as cited transportation regarding satisfaction; Unit and district
in Tesluk et al., participation organization participative climates
1999) and commitment; interact, indicating the
developed some organization importance of considering
cynicism; multiple levels within
belief in organizations. Individuals

improvability; in high unit participative
EI activity; climates in districts with
additional EI high participative climates
training) were more likely to be
involved in EI activities.
(continued)
655
656
Table 6 (continued)
IR 2,755 employees in Ownership Working in a participative

Climate of self- 215 work groups beliefs in work district climate seems to
determination from 33 stores in a groups buffer some of the negative
Own items large retail effects of working in a
organization nonparticipative unit.
Wagner, Climate for self-determination
Parker, & had a positive relationship
Christiansen with ownership beliefs.
(2003)
referent; EI = employee involvement.

Table 7
Justice Climate Studies
Colquitt, Noe, RS 88 working teams in Climate level: Team PJC level positively related to
& Jackson Procedural justice 6 automobile Team size; team performance; team performance and
(2002) climate (PJC) manufacturing demographic team negatively related to
Colquitt (2001) plants diversity; team absenteeism absenteeism. PJC strength
collectivism not related to team
Climate strength: performance and
Team size; team absenteeism when
demographic controlling for level. PJC
diversity; team level and team performance
collectivism and team absenteeism
moderated by climate
strength. Climate level was
more strongly related to
both outcomes in teams
with higher climate
strength. Team size
negatively related to
climate level. Collectivism
positively related to climate
level. Team diversity not
climate level. Team size
and team diversity

negatively related to
climate strength. Team
collectivism not
climate strength.
(continued)
657
Table 7 (continued)
658
Dietz, RS 250 independent Plant workplace PJC did not predict plant
Robinson, PJC plants of U.S. aggression workplace aggression.
Folger, Developed measure public service
Baron, & organization
Schulz
(2003)
Ehrhart (2004) RS 120 departments of Servant leadership Unit helping PJC as a mediator of Servant leadership was
PJC grocery store organizational the relationship positively related to PJC.
Colquitt (2001) chains citizenship between servant PJC was positively related
behavior; con- leadership and to unit-level organizational
scientiousness organizational citizenship behaviors. PJC
organizational citizenship behavior mediated the relationship
citizenship between servant leadership
behaviors and organizational
citizenship behavior but
varied whether it fully or
partially mediated this
relationship.
Liao & Rupp IR Work groups from Organizational Justice orientation as a OPJC positively related to
(2005) Organization- various industries commitment; moderator of the organization commitment
focused and organizations satisfaction relationships and organization
procedural with between the 6 citizenship behavior
justice (OPJC), organization; justice climates and beyond the effect of
informational citizenship 6 outcomes individual justice but not

justice (OIFJC), directed at (commitment, satisfaction. SPJC
interpersonal organization; satisfaction and positively related to
justice climates supervisor organizational commitment and
(INJCs), commitment; citizenship satisfaction directed at the
supervisor- satisfaction behaviors directed at supervisor. OIFJC
with supervisor;
citizenship
(continued)
Table 7 (continued)
focused directed at organization, positively related to

procedural supervisor commitment citizenship directed at the
justice (SPJC), satisfaction and organization. SINJC
informational citizenship behavior positively related to
justice, directed at organization commitment
interpersonal supervisor) and satisfaction toward
justice (SINJC) supervisor after controlling
climates for individual justice.
Byrne (1999, as Justice orientation only
cited in Liao & moderated the relationships
Rupp, 2005) between SPJC and
supervisor commitment and
supervisor satisfaction.
Nonhypothesized cross-foci
effects were found such
that at the individual level
of analysis supervisor-
focused justice predicted
organization-directed
outcomes more frequently
than organization-focused
predicted supervisor-
directed outcomes. At the
group level, only

informational justice
climate (IFJC) had some
cross-level effects (OIFJC
predicted all three
supervisor-focused
outcomes).
(continued)
659
Table 7 (continued)
660
Mayer, Nishii, RS 3445 employees in Leader Justice climate as a When run separately: Leader
Schneider, & PJC, IFJC, INJC 383 departments agreeableness; moderator between agreeableness was
Goldstein Colquitt (2001) from stores in an leader individual justice positively related to IFJC,
(2007) East Coast grocery conscientiousness; and job satisfaction PJC, and INJC. Leader
store chain leader and commitment conscientiousness was
neuroticism; positively related to PJC.
leader Leader neuroticism was
extroversion negatively related to PJC,
IFJC, and IPJC. Leader
extroversion nonsignificant.
The relationship between
individual interpersonal and
informational justice
perceptions depends on the
related justice climate such
that the relationships
increase in strength when
justice climates are high.
Mossholder, RS 323 nonsupervisory Job satisfaction; PJC was positively related to
Bennett, & PJC employees in 53 organizational job satisfaction.
Martin Developed measure branches of large commitment
(1998) savings and loan
Naumann & RS 34 branches of Demographic Individual PJC was positively related to
Bennett PJC 2 banks similarity; group helping work group cohesion and

(2000) Moorman (1991, cohesion; behaviors; supervisor visibility. None
as cited in supervisor organizational of the demographic
Naumann & visibility as commitment as heterogeneity indexes was
Bennett, 2000) antecedents consequences significant. PJC was
of climate of climate positively related to helping
strength level behavior and explained
(continued)
Table 7 (continued)
unique variance beyond

individual justice.
Naumann & RS 34 bank branches Group helping Group helping PJC was positively related to
Bennett PJC behavior behavior as a group helping behavior.
(2002) Moorman (1991) mediator of the Group helping behavior
relationship between fully mediated the
PJC and perceived relationship between PJC
work group and perceived work group
performance performance.
Simons & IR 4,359 employees in Discretionary Employee attitudes Aggregated justice perceptions
Roberson INJC and PJC 783 departments at service about their affect organization-level
(2005) Niehoff & Morman 97 hotel properties behavior supervisor as a outcomes mediated by
(1993, as cited in United States (aggregated to mediator of the affective, cognitive, and
in Simons & and Canada work area); relationship between behavioral mechanisms.
Roberson, 2005) intent to interpersonal justice INJC and PJC had a
remain; and organizational positive impact on
affective commitment organizational commitment
commitment; and ultimately turnover
satisfaction intentions and discretionary
with service behaviors at the
supervisor all individual and department
at the group level.
level
Spell & Arnold IR 483 employees and PJC as a moderator of PJC moderated the

(2007) Procedural justice 56 managers from the relationship relationship between DJC
collective 56 work groups in between DJC and and both depression and
perceptions a variety of both depression and anxiety. Higher levels of
(PJC) organizations anxiety; IJC as a PJC served to buffer the
Distributive justice moderator of the negative relationship
collective relationship between between DJC and both
depression and anxiety. IJC
661
(continued)
Table 7 (continued)
662
perceptions DJC and both did not moderate these

(DJC) depression and relationships.
Interactional anxiety; organization
justice collective structure as a
perceptions moderator of the
(IJC) relationship between
Colquitt (2001) PJC and both
depression and
anxiety
Tangirala & RS 606 frontline nurses Employee silence PJC as a moderator of Employee silence was
Ramanujam PJC in 30 nursing the relationship negatively associated with
(2008) Niehoff & departments from between employee PJC. PJC moderated the
Moorman a large Midwestern silence and relationship between
(1993) hospital outcomes (work employee silence and work
group identification, group identification and
professional professional commitment.
commitment, The relationships were
individual stronger in work groups
procedural justice with higher PJC.
perceptions,
perceived
supervisory status)
Walumbwa, RS 212 bank employees Contingent Satisfaction with PJC as a mediator of CRT leader behavior was
Wu, & Orwa PJC in 42 work units in reward supervisor; the relationship positively related to PJC

(2008) Colquitt (2001) 6 banks in the transactional organizational between CRT and PJC strength. PJC and
Midwest United (CRT) commitment; leadership and PJC strength positively
States leadership individual satisfaction with related to satisfaction with
organizational supervisor, supervisor, organizational
citizenship organization commitment, and
behavior commitment, and organizational citizenship
(continued)
Table 7 (continued)
organizational behavior. PJC mediated the

citizenship behavior; relationship between CRT
PJC strength as a leadership and satisfaction
mediator of the with supervisor, and
relationship between organizational
CRT leadership and commitment. PJC partially
satisfaction with mediated the relationship
supervisor, between CRT leadership
organization and organizational
commitment, and citizenship behavior. PJC
organizational strength mediated the
citizenship behavior relationship between CRT
leadership and satisfaction
with supervisor, and
organizational
commitment.
Yang, RS 280 employees and Organizational Power distance as a PJC has a positive incremental
Mossholder, PJC 56 supervisors in commitment; moderator the impact on organizational
& Peng Moorman (1991) 56 groups from 34 individual relationship between commitment and OCBO
(2007) Taiwanese organization- PJC and above individual PJ. Power
organizations in directed organizational distance moderated the
manufacturing and citizenship commitment, and above relationships such
service industries behavior OCBO that the relationship was

(OCBO) stronger in groups
characterized by low power
distance.
referent.
663
Table 8
664
Leadership Climate Studies
G. Chen & RS 2,585 soldiers in 86 Collective Role clarity as a Role clarity fully mediated the
Bliese (2002) Leadership climate combat units efficacy; mediator of the cross-level relationship
Marlowe (1986, as self-efficacy relationship between between upper-level
cited in Chen & upper-level leadership and self-efficacy.
Bliese, 2002) leadership climate Psychological strain fully
and self-efficacy; mediated the cross-level
psychological strain relationship between lower-
as a mediator of the level leadership climate and
relationship between self-efficacy. Upper-level
lower-level leadership was more
leadership climate closely coupled to
and self-efficacy collective self-efficacy than
to self-efficacy. Upper-level
leadership was positively
related to collective self-
efficacy; lower-level
leadership was not.
G. Chen, RS 445 employees, 62 LMX and team LMX and team empowerment
Kirkman, Leadership climate team leaders, 31 empowerment as a fully mediated the
Kanfer, Kirkman & Rosen external mangers mediator of the relationship between
Allen, & (1999, as cited from 31 stores of a relationship between leadership climate and
Rosen (2007) in G. Chen Fortune 500 leadership climate individual empowerment.
et al., 2007) company and individual Leadership climate

empowerment; moderated the LMX-
leadership climate individual empowerment
as a moderator of relationship. LMX related
the relationship more positively to
between quality of individual empowerment as
(continued)
Table 8 (continued)
LMX and individual leadership climate

empowerment increased. Leadership
climate predicted team
empowerment more
strongly than LMX.
referent.

665
666
Table 9
Learning and Transfer Climate Studies
Tracey & Tews RS Study 1 - 32 graduate Training Measure met validity criteria.
(2005) General training business students investment Job support and managerial
climate Study 2 - 246 support dimensions
Developed own restaurant positively related to
measure managers (38 training investment. Job
units) support dimension added
explanatory variance above
turnover.

referent.
Table 10
Political Climate Studies
Darr & Johns RS 626 tenure-track Intradepartmental Departmental task and Task and relationship conflict
(2004) Political climate professors in 124 task and relationship conflict positively related to
Developed own academic relationship as mediators of the political climate. Role
measure departments in 6 conflict; relationship between conflict positively related to
full-service paradigm paradigm political climate.
Canadian development; development and Departmental task and
universities department political climate relationship conflict
level rank partially mediated the
heterogeneity relationship between role
conflict and political
climate. There were no
significant results at the
macrolevel (rank
heterogeneity).

referent.
667
Table 11
668
Safety Climate Studies
DeJoy, Schaffer, RS 2,208 employees of a Organizational Safety climate as a Safety policies and programs
Wilson, Safety climate large national climate; safety mediator of the exerted strongest effect on
Vandenberg, retail chain in 21 policies and relationship between safety climate, followed by
& Butts different locations programs; work situation organizational climates of
(2004) environmental factors (safety communication and
conditions policies and support. Most effects of
(potential programs, work situation factors on
hazards) organizational perceived safety were
climate, and direct. Mediation role of
environmental safety climate was limited;
factors) and it partially mediated the
perceived safety relationship between safety
policies and programs and
perceived safety.
Hofmann & RS 1,127 nurses in 81 Nurse back Patient complexity as a Safety climate was negatively
Mark (2006) Safety climate general medical- injuries; moderator of the related to nurse back injury,
Zohar (1980) surgical nursing needle- relationship between medication errors, and
units in 42 sticks; safety climate and patient urinary tract
hospitals in the medication the outcomes (back infections and positively
United States errors; injuries, needle- related to patient
patient sticks, medication satisfaction, patient
urinary tract errors, and urinary perceptions of nurse
infections; tract infections) responsiveness, and nurse

patient satisfaction. Patient
satisfaction; complexity moderated the
patient safety climate-back injury
perceptions and safety climate-
of nurse medication error
relationships such that
(continued)
Table 11 (continued)
responsiveness; safety climate had a

nurse stronger, negative
satisfaction relationship when units had
more complex patients.
Hofmann, RS 94 individuals in Safety climate as a Relationship between leader-
Morgeson, & Safety climate 24 military moderator of the member exchange and
Gerras Revised Zohar transportation units relationship between safety citizenship role
(2003) (1980) LMX and individual definitions was moderated
safety citizenship by safety climate. This
role definitions relationship was strong and
positive in work groups
with a positive safety
climate, but much weaker
and nonsignificant in
poorer safety climates.
Hofmann & RS 222 employees in Unsafe behaviors; Safety climate was associated
Stetzer Safety climate 21 teams at a number of with unsafe behaviors such
(1996) Modified Zohar Midwestern accidents that teams that perceived
(1980) chemical higher safety climates
processing plant reported fewer unsafe
behaviors. In addition,
safety climate was
significantly associated
with fewer accidents over 3

years prior.
Hofmann & RS Study 1 - 1,420 Safety com- Safety climate as a Safety climate positively
Stetzer Modified Zohar workers in 159 munications; moderator between related to internal causal
(1998) (1980) utility teams with causal the relationship of attributions. Contrary to
supervisors attributions informational cues expectations, safety climate
(continued)
669
670
Study 2 - 653 utility and attributions; mediated the relationship

workers from 82 safety between safety
groups with communication as a communication and
supervisors mediator of the attributions.
safety climate and
attributions
Katz-Navon, RS 632 employees in 47 Patient safety Safety priority A curvilinear relationship
Naveh, & Safety climate medical units in 3 (treatment dimension as a emerged between safety
Stern (2005) Hofmann & Stetzer hospitals in Israel error); unit moderator of the procedures safety climate
(1998); Zohar safety curvilinear dimension and treatment
(2000); O'Reilly performance relationship between errors and the perceived
(1980, as cited safety procedures priority of safety moderated
in Katz-Navon dimension and this relationship. The low-
et al., 2005) safety performance; priority curves were steeper
safety priority than those in the high
dimension as a priority curve. At
moderator of the intermediate levels of
curvilinear safety procedures, there
relationship between was no significant
safety information difference between the
flow dimension and numbers of treatment errors
safety performance for high and low safety
priority. In addition,

perceived priority of safety
also moderated the
relationship between the
way employees interpreted
their managers' safety
practices and treatment
(continued)
errors. When safety priority

was high, there was no
significant difference
between the number of
treatment errors for high
and low managerial safety
practices. Perceived
managerial safety
dimension positively
related to unit safety
performance.
Naveh, Katz- RS First phase - 241 Treatment Managerial safety Safety procedure suitability
Navon, & Safety climate hospital staff errors; practices as a was negatively related to
Stern (2005) Adapted Brunsson members priority of moderator of the treatment errors and safety
et al. (2000, as Second phase - 218 safety relationship between information flow was
cited in Naveh hospital staff safety climate positively related to
et al., 2005) and members (safety procedures treatment errors. Both of
own items suitability and safety these relationships were
information flow) moderated by managerial
and treatment errors; safety practices such that
priority of safety as there were fewer treatment
a partial mediator of errors when safety practices
the relationship are high rather than low.
between safety Safety information flow

climate (safety had a negative effect on
procedures priority of safety, and
suitability and safety safety procedures were
information flow) positively related to priority
and rate of treatment of safety. Priority of safety
errors partially mediated the
(continued)
671
672
relationship between safety

climate (safety information
flow and safety procedures
suitability) and rate of
treatment errors.
Neal & Griffin RS 33 work groups in Lagged effect on Safety climate was positively
(2006) Australian hospital individual related to safety motivation.
safety
motivation
Probst (2004) RS 136 employees in Safety Safety climate as Safety climate was positively
Safety climate 14 work groups of compliance; moderator of the related to safety
Neal et al. (2000, a manufacturing accidents and relationship between compliance and safety
as cited in organization in the injuries; safety job insecurity and knowledge. Safety climate
Probst, 2004) Pacific Northwest, knowledge; safety outcomes was negatively related to
United States near misses (safety knowledge, accidents, near misses, and
compliance, workplace injuries. Safety
accidents, and climate moderated the
injuries) relationship between job
insecurity and safety
outcomes (safety
knowledge, compliance,
accidents, near misses,
injuries).
Probst, RS 1,390 employees Experienced More positive safety climates

Brubaker, & Safety climate from 38 employee were related to fewer
Barsotti Items from a contracting injuries; experienced injuries. There
(2008) funded project companies for a underreporting were higher rates of
by the National new of injuries underreporting of injuries
(continued)
Institute for semiconductor by poor safety climate

Occupational plant in the Pacific organizations.
Safety and Northwest, United
Health States
Smith-Crowe, RS Sample 1 - 133 Safety Transfer of safety Results consistent with
Burke, & Transfer of safety hazardous waste performance training climate as a hypothesis that the
Landis training climate workers and 51 moderator of the relationship between safety
(2003) Own open-ended supervisors in 2 relationship between knowledge and safety
questions organizations safety knowledge performance should be
Sample 2 - 613 first- and safety stronger in organizations
line supervisors performance with more supportive
and hazardous transfer of safety training
waste workers climates.
C. Wallace & RS 254 employees from Promotion Promotion and Group safety climate
Chen (2006) Safety climate 50 work groups in regulatory regulatory focus as negatively predicted
Modified Zohar a large U.S. focus; mediators of the promotion focus and
(2000) southeastern prevention relationship between positively predicted
university regulatory group safety climate prevention focus.
focus and production Promotion and regulatory
performance and focus partially mediated the
safety performance relationship between group
safety climate and safety
performance. Promotion
and regulatory focus fully

mediated the relationship
between group safety
climate and production
performance.
J. C. Wallace, RS 9429 delivery drivers Organizational Group accident Safety climate as a Safety climate was negatively
Popp, & Safety climate from 253 work support rate mediator of the related to accident rates.
(continued)
673
674
Mondore Adapted Zohar groups in a large climate; relationship between Organizational support
(2006) (2000) multinational management management climate was positively
Organizational shipping and employee employee relations related to safety climate
support climate transportation relations climate and and negatively related to
Eisenberger et al. company climate accidents; safety accidents. Management
(1986, as cited climate as a employee relations climate
in J. C. Wallace mediator of the was positively related to
et al., 2006) relationship between safety climate and
Management organizational negatively related
employee support climate and accidents. Safety climate
relations climate accidents fully mediated the
Lucias (1994, as relationship between
cited in J. C. management-employee
Wallace et al., relations and accidents and
2006) organizational support and
accidents.
Zohar (1980) RS 20 factories from Safety program Perceptions of management
Safety climate different industries effectiveness attitudes about safety and
Developed measure in Israel perceptions regarding
relevance of safety in
general were the two
dimensions most highly
correlated with program
effectiveness.

Zohar (2000) RS 534 production Behavior- Safety climate perceptions can
Group-level safety workers in 53 dependent develop at the subunit level.
climate work groups in a injury Climate perceptions
Developed group manufacturing rates in predicted microaccidents.
level measure company organizational
subunits;
(continued)
behavior
dependent
injury of
individual
group
members
Zohar (2002) RS 411 production Leadership style Behavior- Safety climate as a Transformational leadership
Group-level safety workers in 42 (transformational, dependent mediator of the and constructive leadership
climate work groups of a laissez-faire, injury relationship between were positively related to
Zohar (2000) metal processing corrective, leadership style and preventive action
plant in Israel constructive) injury; assigned dimension. Corrective and
safety priority as a laissez-faire leadership
moderator of the were negatively related to
relationship between climate prioritization
leadership style and dimension. Preventive
safety climate action dimension fully
mediated the relationship
between leadership style
(only transformational
leadership and contingent
reward) and injury rate.
Safety priority assigned by
superiors moderated the

leadership style and safety
climate, with the form of
the interaction depending
on the leadership
dimension.
(continued)
675
676
Zohar & Luria RS 2,024 soldiers in 81 Transformational Safety behavior Transformational Transformational leadership
(2004) Group-level safety platoons doing leadership; leadership as a and supervisory pattern
climate their compulsory orientation of moderator of the orientation were positively
Based on Zohar military service supervisor relationship between related to safety climate
(2000) patterns, pattern orientation and level. Script simplicity and
variability; safety climate level; transformational leadership
pattern transformational were positively related to
simplicity leadership as a climate strength, and
moderator of the transformational leadership
relationship between moderated the simplicity-
simplicity and safety strength relationship. Script
climate strength; variability was negatively
transformational related and
leadership as a transformational leadership
moderator of the positively related to climate
relationship between strength, and
variability and transformational leadership
climate strength; moderated the variability-
climate strength as a strength relationship.
moderator of the Safety climate level
relationship between partially mediated the
safety climate level relationship between
and behavior supervisory orientation and
dependent injury; behavior dependent injury.

safety climate level
as a mediator of the
supervisory
orientation and
(continued)
behavior dependent
injury
Zohar & Luria RS 3952 production Org climate Climate Group-level safety Relationship between
(2005) Group-level safety workers in 401 strength; variability climate as a organization-level safety
climate work groups in 36 organization mediator of the climate and safety behavior
Developed items manufacturing routine relationship between was fully mediated by
some based on plants in metal, formalization; org-level safety group-level climate.
Zohar (2000) food, plastics and organizational climate and safety Routinization moderated the
Org-level safety chemical climate routine behavior; relationship between
climate industries formalization routinization as a organizational and group
Developed items moderator of the climate level. Routinization
relationship between moderated the relationship
org climate level between organizational
and group climate climate strength and group
level; routinization climate strength.
as a moderator of Organizational climate
the relationship strength was negatively
between org climate related to between-group
strength and group climate variability.
climate strength Organizational formalization
was negatively related to
between-group climate
variability. Organizational

climate strength and
formalization interacted to
predict climate variability.
referent; LMX = leader–member exchange.
677
Table 12
678
Service Climate Studies
Andrews & IR 221 employees and Owner value of Negative correlation between
Rogelberg Service climate 35 small business service climate owner service values and
(2001) Adapted Schneider owners service climate.
& Bowen
(1985) and
Rogelberg,
Barnes-Farrell,
& Creamer
(1999, as cited
in Andrews &
Rogelberg,
2001)
Borucki & RS Varied by analysis but Importance of Sales personnel Importance of service to
Burke (1999) Service climate employees from service to service management was positively
Burke et al. (1992) 594 stores of a management performance; related to service climate.
large national (top indirectly In general, service climate
retail organization management, store engenders service-oriented
store financial sales personnel behaviors,
management, performance which in turn may affect
and immediate store performance.
management)
Burke, Borucki, RS 18,457 sales Support for two-factor higher
& Hurley Service climate employees from order service climate.

(1992) Developed own 567 stores of a
measure national retail
organization
Burke, RS Study 1 - 33,097 Variance; The majority of the
Rupinski, Service climate sales employees in internal relationships were negative,
Dunlap, & Burke et al. (1992) 537 retail stores consistency; and the magnitude of the
(continued)
Davison Study 2 - 31,611 relationships relationships was small.

(1996) customers from of personnel For stores meeting
564 retail stores service agreement cutoffs, the
performance observed satisfaction-
and performance correlations
employee varied substantially. Their
satisfaction findings indicate that the
with human independence assumption
resource of current distributional
policies validity generalization /
meta-analytic procedures
may be tenable to these
variables.
de Jong, de RS 939 employees from Tolerance Customer Service type as a Tolerance for self-
Ruyter, & Self-managing T1 and 730 at T2, for self- perceived moderator of the management and flexibility
Lemmink teams service 568 employees management; service relationship between of team members positively
(2004) climate from 36 flexibility of quality; share service climate and affected self-managing
Developed items nonroutine service team members; of customer; customer perceived team climate. Self-
based on teams and 917 interteam sales service quality managing team service
Schneider et al. from 25 routine support; productivity climate was positively
(1992, as cited service teams, 957 intrateam affected by interteam
in de Jong et al., customers of 36 support; all support and intrateam
2004) and nonroutine service of these at the support. Group level
Peccei & teams and 577 group level analysis did not

Rosenthal from 25 routine also significantly explain
(1997, 2001, as service teams additional variance in
cited in de Jong employees’ perceptions of
et al., 2004) self-managing team service
climate. Nonroutine service
tasks had a positive impact
(continued)
679
680
on climate perceptions. At
group level, self-managing
team service climate at T1
positively affected
customer perceived quality
and share of customer at
T2. At group level, self-
managing team service
climate at T1 negatively
affected sales productivity
at T2.
de Jong, de RS 157 service engineers Tolerance-of-self- Customer Self-managing team service
Ruyter, & Self-managing in 26 teams, 672 management; perceived climate was positively
Lemmink teams (SMTs) customers inter-team service related to customer-
(2005) service climate communication; quality; perceived service quality.
Developed items team norms; service No relationship with service
based on team goal productivity productivity measures.
Schneider et al. setting Tolerance-of-self-
(1992) and management inter-team
Peccei & communication, and team
Rosenthal norms positively affected
(1997, 2001) self-managing team service
climate, but not team goal
setting. Organizational and

group factors had a
significant cross-level
influence on individual
employee perceptions
of self-managing team
service climate.
(continued)
Dietz, Pugh, & RS 2,616 employees and Customer Frequency of customer Correlations between branch-
Wiley (2004) Service climate 17,480 residential satisfaction contact as a targeted service climate and
Items from customers from moderator of the customer satisfaction was
employee 160 retail bank relationship between significantly stronger than
opinion survey branches branch employees' organization-targeted
perspective on service climate and
branch-targeted customer satisfaction with
service climate and branch service. Frequency
customer of employee contact
satisfaction moderated the relationship
between branch service
climate and customer
satisfaction. For branches
with a relatively high
frequency of contact, the
branch employees’
perspective on branch-
targeted service climate and
customer satisfaction with
branch service was positive
and significant.
Hui, Chiu, Yu, RS 511 employees from Service climate as a When service climate was
Cheng, & Service climate 55 service teams moderator of the poor, supervisors

Tse (2007) Schneider et al. in various relationship between displaying effective
(1998) industries effective leadership leadership enhanced
and employee employee service quality.
service quality When service climate was
positive, the supervisor’s
effective leadership did not
(continued)
681
682
make a difference in the

service to external
customers, but was
associated with low service
quality to internal
customers.
Johnson (1996) RS 538 employees and Customer All service climate dimensions
Service climate 7,944 customers satisfaction were related to at least one
Performance across 57 branches (personal facet of customer
Research of a large bank contact and satisfaction. Seeking and
Associates, Inc. nonpersonal sharing information about
& Questar Data contact) customer needs and
Systems, Inc. expectations, training and
(1998, as cited delivery quality service,
in Johnson, and rewarding and
1996) recognizing excellent
service were most
highly related to
satisfaction with service
quality.
Liao & Chuang RS 257 employees, Employee Store-level service Service climate was positively
(2004) Service climate 44 managers, and service climate as a related to individual-level
Schneider et al. 1,993 customers performance moderator of the employee service
(1998) from 25 family relationship between performance. No significant

franchise personality and results for service climate
restaurants employee service as a moderator between
performance at the personality and employee
individual level service performance at the
individual level.
(continued)
Salanova, Agut, RS 342 employees from Customer loyalty Customer Service climate as a Results suggest a full
& Peiró Service climate 114 service units loyalty mediator of the mediation model in which
(2005) Schneider et al. from hotel front relationship between organizational resources
(1998) desks or organization and work engagement
restaurants resources and predicted service climate,
employee which in turn predicted
performance; employee performance and
service climate as a then customer loyalty.
mediator of the There was a potential
relationship between reciprocal effect between
work engagement service climate and
and employee customer loyalty.
performance;
engagement as a
mediator of the
organization
resources and
service climate;
employee
performance as a
mediator of the
service climate and

customer loyalty
Salvaggio, RS 1,486 employees and Service quality Service quality Service quality orientation
Schneider, Service climate 145 managers in orientation orientation as a was positively associated
Nishii, Schneider et al. grocery store mediator of the with service climate.
Mayer, (1998) departments relationship between Service quality orientation
(continued)
683
684
Ramesh & manager's fully mediated the

Lyon (2007) personality and relationship between core
service climate self-evaluations and service
climate.
Schneider & RS 142 employees and Employee Employee morale and branch
Bowen Climate for service 968 customers perceptions of administration customer
(1985) Developed own from 28 branches human scales were consistently
items of an Atlantic resource related to employee human
coast bank practices resource perceptions.
Patterns of correlations
between employee and
customer perceptions of
certain aspects of the
climate for service.
Schneider, RS 56 departments of a Service climate as a Service climate fully mediated
Ehrhart, Service climate supermarket chain partial mediator of the relationship between
Mayer, Saltz, Schneider et al. in the Eastern the relationship service leadership behavior
& Niles-Jolly (1998) United States between service and department-level
(2005) leadership behavior customer-focused
and department- organizational citizenship
level customer- behavior. Customer-
focused focused organizational
organizational citizenship behaviors fully
citizenship behavior; mediated the relationship

customer-focused between service climate
organizational and customer satisfaction.
citizenship
behaviors as a
partial mediator of
the relationship
(continued)
between service
climate and
customer
satisfaction
Schneider, RS Employees and Foundation issues Customer The presence of foundation
White, & Service climate customers from (work perceptions issues does seem to provide
Paul (1998) Developed measure 126 branches of a facilitation, of service a basis for a climate for
large northeastern interdepartment quality service. Although not
bank service) directly tested,
organizations paying
attention to their customers’
expectations and needs
were most likely to create
conditions yielding a
climate for service. This
yields behaviors that result
in customer perceptions of
service quality.
Schneider, RS 194 bank branches Climate strength as a Climate strength moderated
Salvaggio, & Service climate (2,134 employees moderator of the the relationship between
Subirats Schneider et al. in 1990, 3,100 relationship between managerial practices for 4
(2002) (1998) customers from service climate and of the 5 service quality
1990, and 1,900 customer scales (in the predictive

customers from satisfaction relationships) such that
1993) when climate strength was
stronger the relationships
were enhanced.
referent.
685
Table 13
686
Support and Affective Climate Studies
Bachrach & RS 1,110 fire fighters Postincident unit Postincident unit control and
Bamberger Supervisory from 144 engine control and supervisory support
(2007) support climate ladder companies supervisory support climates moderated the
Caplan et al. (1975, climates as relationship between work-
as cited in moderators of the related critical incidents
Bachrach & relationship between and anxiety and stress.
Bamberger, work-related critical Critical incident
2007) incidents and involvement was positively
Control climate postevent negative related to posttraumatic
Adapted Bachrach emotional states; distress, and this effect
et al. (1990, as postincident unit diminished as a function of
cited in control and unit-level supervisory
Bachrach & supervisory support support climate. Control
Bamberger, climates as climate moderated the
2007) moderators of the posttraumatic distress-
relationship between negative emotional states
intensity of (anxiety and stress)
involvement in relationship. The stronger
work-related critical the control climate, the
incident and weaker the link between
posttraumatic posttraumatic distress and
distress; negative emotional states.
postincident unit

control and
supervisory support
climates as
moderators of the
posttraumatic
(continued)
distress and negative

emotional states
Bachrach, IR 1,247 nonexempt Proportion of Supportive Unit support Shared perceptions of unit
Bamberger, Unit-level peer employees in racially relations relationship as a support had a positive
& Vashdi support climate 34 work units of different others with racially moderator of the effect on the relative
(2005) Modified Caplan New York state dissimilar relationship between prevalence of supportive
et al. (1975, as peers proportion of relations with dissimilar
cited in racially different peers. Unit-level support
Bachrach et al., others in work unit climate moderated the
2005) and prevalence of relationship between
supportive proportion of racially
relationships with dissimilar others in the
dissimilar peers work unit and prevalence
of supportive relations with
relatively dissimilar peers.
A stronger support climate
weakened the inverse
association between the
proportion of racially
dissimilar peers in a unit
and the relative prevalence
of supportive relations with
dissimilar peers.
Collins & Smith RS 136 technology Commitment- Social climates as a Commitment-based human

(2006) Social climate companies from based human mediator of the resource practices were
(trust) Mayer & 6 high-tech resource relationship between positively related to the
Davis (1999, as industries practices commitment-based organizational social
cited in Collins human resource climate. The relationship
& Smith, 2006), practices and firm between commitment-
(cooperation) performance; based human resource
practices and knowledge
687
(continued)
688
Chatman & knowledge exchange and combination

Flynn (2001, as exchange and was partially mediated
cited in Collins combination as a through social climates.
& Smith, 2006), mediator of the Knowledge exchange and
(shared codes relationship between combination partially
and language) social climates and mediated the effects of
Nahapiet & firm performance social climates on firm
Ghoshal (1997, (revenue from new performance.
as cited in products and
Collins & services and one-
Smith, 2006) year sales growth)
Gamero, IR Longitudinal sample Relationship conflict as Relationship conflict fully
González- Affective climate of 156 teams a mediator of the mediated the relationship
Romá, & Segura & (724 respondents relationship between between task conflict and
Peiró (2008) Gonzalez-Roma at Time 1 and task climate and tension climate and
(2003, as cited 686 at Time 2) affective climate enthusiasm climate.
in Gamero et al., in branches of
2008) 3 savings banks
in Spain
Gelade & RS and IR 26,109 employees Commitment; Climate positively related to
Young Support climate from 1,407 indirectly commitment. Branches
(2005) Developed items branches of customer with higher climate scores
Team climate 4 retail banks satisfaction ultimately have higher
Developed items and sales customer satisfaction and

Job enablers stronger sales.
Developed items
Pirola-Merlo, RS 313 employees plus Obstacles Team Transformational and There was a negative
Härtel, Team climate leaders from performance facilitative relationship between
Mann, & Anderson & West 53 research and leadership as a obstacles and team climate.
Hirst (2002) (1998) development teams moderator of the Team climate was
(continued)
relationship between positively associated with

obstacles and team team performance. Team
climate; team climate mediated the
climate as a relationship between
mediator of the leadership and team
relationship between performance.
leadership and team
performance
Schmit & IR 5,085 employees Affect Climate appraisals were
Allscheid Support climate from 160 offices associated with an
(1995) From attitude in a nationwide underlying emotional
survey security systems response. Management
company support and service support
dimensions were the most
strongly related to affect.
Smith, Collins, RS 72 technology firms Firm’s Knowledge creation Climate for risk taking and
& Clark Climates for risk knowledge capability as a teamwork were positively
(2005) taking and creation mediator of the related to knowledge
teamwork capability relationship between creation capability.
O’Reilly, Chatman, climate and number Knowledge creation
& Caldwell of new products and capability mediated the
(1991, as cited services relationship between
in Smith et al., climates for risk taking and
2005) teamwork and number of
new products and services.
Tse, RS 215 employees and Affective climate as a Affective climate moderated

Dasborough, Affective climate 215 managers moderator of the the relationship between
& Ashkanasy Choi et al. (2003, from 36 branches relationship between LMX and workplace
(2008) as cited in Tse of a large LMX and friendships such that the
et al., 2008) Australian bank workplace relationship was stronger
friendship when affective climate was
strong.
689
referent; LMX = leader–member exchange.
Question 1: Do Climates Matter? Consequences of Climate
We begin with the question of whether work climates matter. That is, do they exert mean-
ingful influences on organizational outcomes? For the purposes of our review, we identify
two main groups of outcomes: those reflecting global outcomes and those reflecting facet-
specific outcomes. Global outcomes are those that reflect a broad-based construct such as
organizational commitment or work unit performance. Facet-specific outcomes are those
tied to particular facets of climate such as safety or service or innovation, which reflect
outcomes that are narrower in their focus, such as accident rates or customer complaints or
innovation effectiveness.
For organizational purposes, we further divide global and facet-specific outcomes into
more manageable subgroups. We identify two categories of global outcomes: those operation-
alized at the individual level and those operationalized at the unit level (e.g., team, group,
department, or organization). We do the same with facet-specific outcomes. However, because
of the number of facet-specific outcomes that emerged in our review, we first organize these
based on the motivational patterns reflected by the facet-specific climates to which they are
tied. Within each of these groups, we identify both individual- and unit-level outcomes.
Global outcomes—individual level. Individual-level global outcomes examined in the

climate literature include variables such as job attitudes and individual behaviors. Among the
most widely studied outcomes of climate are global individual outcomes such as job atti-
tudes like job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. A variety of
climates have been related to each of these attitudes. For example, climate for participation
(Tesluk, Vance, & Mathieu, 1999), justice climate (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Mossholder, Bennett,
& Martin, 1998; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007), and empowerment climate (Maynard,
Mathieu, Marsh, & Ruddy, 2007) have been related to higher levels of satisfaction. More
general organizational climates have also been linked to job satisfaction. Glisson and James
(2002) combined dimensions of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and role conflict
to form a measure of climate described as broadly negative or positive, and Schneider and
Snyder (1975) examined a general climate they termed agency climate. Both were posi-
tively related to satisfaction.
In addition, studies suggest similar relationships between a variety of climate types and
organizational commitment. Positive ethical climates (Cullen, Parboteeah, & Victor, 2003),
as well as climates for participation (Tesluk et al., 1999), justice (Liao & Rupp, 2005;
Simons & Roberson, 2005; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008), and support (Gelade & Young,
2005), have all been positively linked to organizational commitment.
Finally, facet-specific climates have been shown to affect withdrawal cognitions and
behaviors such as turnover intentions and absenteeism. Climate for justice (Simons &
Roberson, 2005) has been associated with lower turnover intentions. Likewise, higher levels
of involvement climate (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005) and service climate (Schneider &
Bowen, 1985) have each been related to decreased absenteeism.
Climates have also been related to other individual global outcomes reflecting individual
behaviors such as OCBs and individual performance. For instance, higher levels of various justice
climates predict higher levels of individual OCBs (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Naumann & Bennett,

2000; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2007). In addition, involvement climate has been
shown to be positively related to OCBs (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005). We also identified one
study directly linking organizational climates to individual effort and performance. McKay et al.
(2008) found a positive relationship between diversity climate and sales performance. They found
that racial-ethnic disparities disfavoring Hispanics and Blacks were lower in stores with prodiver-
sity climates than those with less supportive diversity climates.
Overall, strong relationships between organizational work climates and job attitudes have
emerged in the literature. Climates that are generally viewed as positive (e.g., those that are
fair, supportive, ethical, participative) have emerged as reliable predictors of positive atti-
tudes. The link between climate and employee behaviors like individual OCBs and with-
drawal is also well established. However, the relationships between climate and individual
performance are less well understood. More work is needed in this area before conclusive
results can be drawn.
Global outcomes—unit level. Recently, scholars have exhibited a growing interest in under-
standing the relationship between climate and global outcomes at levels of analysis above the
individual. For example, several studies have linked climate with measures of organizational
performance. Baer and Frese (2003) found that climates for initiative and psychological safety
help in the innovation process and are positively related to organizational outcomes such as
financial performance (return on assets) and firm goal achievement. Empowerment climate has
been related positively to work unit performance that reflects quality, cost, schedule, and over-
all performance of projects (Siebert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). Service climate has also been
linked to organizational performance. In a study of bank branches, Gelade and Young (2005)
found service climate to be positively related to sales performance (actual branch sales as a
percentage of target sales). Finally, Patterson, Warr, and West (2004) found that 8 of the 17
dimensions of their general organizational climate measure (training, welfare, supervisory sup-
port, effort, innovation and flexibility, quality, performance feedback, and formalization) were
positively related to company productivity.
In addition, several studies have examined the link between climate and global outcomes
at the level of the work unit. For example, Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, and Hirst (2002)
found that team climate was positively related to team performance. Colquitt et al. (2002)
also found a positive relationship between procedural justice climate and team performance,
as well as a negative relationship between procedural justice climate and team absenteeism.
Ehrhart (2004) further examined the effects of procedural justice climate on unit-level OCBs
and found that when team members collectively felt fairly treated, they were more likely to
exhibit OCBs. Last, Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, and Niles-Jolly (2005) found that a
positive service climate also led to increased department OCBs.
Facet-specific outcomes. In addition to global outcomes, considerable research has explored

the link between climate and more focused, facet-specific outcomes. Most of this research
explores the impact of facet-specific climates on directly related facet-specific outcomes
(e.g., the relationship between safety climate and safety outcomes such as accident rates).
Numerous facet-specific climates have been explored in the literature. Therefore, to
facilitate our review, we organize these into smaller groups before considering the individ-
ual- and unit-level outcomes related to each. Drawing on Litwin and Stringer’s (1968)

o bservation that the climate construct allows scholars to analyze “the determinants of moti-
vated behavior in actual, complex social situations” (p. 29), we organize these climate types
into four categories based on their differing motivational impacts on effectiveness.
Katz and Kahn (1966) identify four types of motivational patterns that produce the behav-
iors required for organizations to be effective. These include legal compliance (relating to
policy issues aimed at guiding appropriate behavior within the organization), instrumental
satisfaction (relating to rewards and identifying with and seeking approval from leaders and
coworkers), self-expression (satisfaction from accomplishments and the expressions of tal-
ents and abilities), and internalized values (incorporating organizational goals or subgoals as
reflecting values or self-concept). We use these four motivational patterns as the basis for
categorizing the various facet-specific climates, based on the type of motivation they activate
within individuals and groups. We label these as climates focused on behavioral guidance,
involvement, development, and core operations, respectively. Within each, we examine facet-
specific outcomes at both the individual level and the unit level.
Climates focused on behavioral guidance include climates such as ethics, justice, and
political activity. Much research relating ethical and political climates to facet-specific indi-
vidual outcomes has been conducted at the level of psychological climates. However, none
of the articles we reviewed on organizational climate examined facet-specific individual
outcomes. We did find two studies that examined unit-level outcomes of these facet-specific
climates. Simons and Roberson (2005) examined the effects of procedural and interpersonal
justice climate perceptions on unit-level guest satisfaction, finding that these justice climate
types ultimately affected discretionary service behaviors at the department level. However,
Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, and Schulz (2003) examined the impact of procedural jus-
tice climate on unit-level workplace aggression and found that it did not significantly affect
workplace aggression.
Climates focused on involvement include climates for participation, support, group affect,
cooperation, and empowerment and against sexual harassment. Studies have shown these
facet-specific climates to be related to individual outcomes associated with each climate
type. For example, Bachrach, Bamberger, and Vashdi (2005) examined the effects of unit
support climate (“shared perception that coworkers in a given work unit can be expected to
provide both emotional and instrumental support”; p. 623) and found that shared perceptions
of unit support had a positive effect on the relative prevalence of supportive relations with
dissimilar peers. Similarly, group affective climate (“overall interaction pattern or shared
positive perception among members and the atmosphere that characterizes the interactions
within a team”; p. 199) has been shown to increase workplace friendships (Tse, Dasborough,
& Ashkanasy, 2008). Tesluk et al. (1999) examined participative climate (a climate that sup-
ports employee participation in work planning, decision making, and on-the-job problem
solving) and found that unit and district participative climate was related to participation in
employee involvement. Finally, empowerment climate (“shared perception regarding the
extent to which a group makes use of structures, policies, and practices to support employees’
access to power”; p. 205) has been linked to a sense of empowerment in employees (Z. Chen,
Lam, & Zhong, 2007).
Two studies have linked facet-specific climates focused on involvement to associated
unit-level outcomes. Climates for risk taking (i.e., climate that “encourages employees to test

and exchange unusual knowledge and ideas”; p. 350) and teamwork were positively related
to knowledge creation capability in the unit. In addition, G. Chen and Bliese (2002) found
that leadership climate was positively related to collective efficacy.
Climates focused on development encompass climates for innovation, creativity, and
training. The psychological climate literature has examined several individual outcomes
associated with these climate types, but we were not able to identify any facet-specific
organizational climates of this type linked to related individual outcomes. However, studies
have linked climates focused on development to related unit-level outcomes. Jung, Chow,
and Wu (2003) found that support for innovation was positively related to organizational
innovation. In addition, Pirola-Merlo and Mann (2004) found that team climate for innova-
tion was positively related to team creativity. Finally, in their development of a training cli-
mate measure, Tracey and Tews (2005) show that training climate is related to training
investment.
Last, climates focused on core operations reflect specific operational goals of the organi-
zation. They include climates such as service and safety. Climates for each of these have
been linked to related individual outcomes. For instance, research has shown that percep-
tions of safety climate are positively associated with safety compliance and negatively asso-
ciated with safety incidences such as accidents, near misses, treatment errors, patient
problems, and unsafe behaviors (e.g., Hofmann & Mark, 2006; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996;
Katz-Navon, Naveh, & Stern, 2005; Probst, 2004; Probst, Brubaker, & Barsotti, 2008;
Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, 2003; Zohar, 2000). Related to service, Liao and Chuang
(2004) found that service climate is positively related to individual-level employee service
performance.
The majority of climate studies that have examined unit-level outcomes in this climate
category can be found in the service climate literature, in which various unit-level measures
of service quality represent facet-specific outcomes. For example, Johnson (1996) examined
the effects of service climate on specific facets of customer satisfaction. He found that all of
his service climate dimensions were related to at least one facet of customer satisfaction.
Seeking and sharing information about customer needs and expectations, training and deliv-
ery quality service, and rewarding and recognizing excellent service were the most highly
related to satisfaction with service quality. Other researchers have shown similar results,
indicating that service climate is related to customer satisfaction (Dietz et al., 2004; Gelade
& Young, 2005). Finally, Borucki and Burke’s (1999) study of the effects of service climate
demonstrated that for face-to-face service encounters, service climate is predictive of sales
personnel service performance. Overall, service climate has been broadly shown to relate to
unit-level outcomes closely associated with the facet-specific climate type.
Do climates matter? A summary. In general, organizational work climates have been

consistently linked to a variety of important organizational outcomes. At the individual level,
work climates have been reliably associated with employee attitudes such as satisfaction,
commitment, and turnover intentions and behaviors such as absenteeism and OCBs. In addi-
tion, and perhaps not surprising, direct relationships between facet-specific climates (e.g.,
climates for ethics, safety, or innovation) have demonstrated strong relationships with paral-
lel facet-specific outcomes (e.g., unethical behavior, safety violation rates, and innovation

events). This makes sense not only intuitively but also statistically. As Campbell (1990) notes,
when the latent structure underlying both the predictor and outcome are similar, correlations
between variables will be stronger.
In all, there is little doubt that climates matter and that they do so on numerous fronts:
global individual outcomes, global unit-level outcomes, facet-specific individual outcomes,
and facet-specific unit-level outcomes. However, the literature also reveals that facet-specific
individual outcomes are understudied in organizational climate research. In many cases,
these outcomes have remained the focus of psychological climate researchers. Furthermore,
many facet-specific climates appear to exert an important impact on related but distinct
outcomes as well (e.g., cooperation climate with learning outcomes), suggesting that climate
research should not limit itself to studies exploring the link between facet-specific climates
and facet-specific outcomes.
Question 2: Where Do Climates Come From? Antecedents of Climate
The previous section demonstrates that climates exert broad influences on important
individual and work unit outcomes. We now turn to the question of where they come from.
To do this, we review the literature exploring individual, group, and organizational anteced-
ents of various climate types.
Individual-level antecedents. Little research has examined the impact of individual-level

characteristics of employees, such as gender, age, education, position level, and tenure on
organizational climate. The majority of work examining these types of variables has explored
their impact on psychological climate (e.g., Forte, 2004; Hershberger, Lichtenstein, & Knox,
1994; Mayhew, Grunwald, & Dey, 2006; Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995). However, a
few studies have examined individual-level antecedents of organizational climate. Darr and
Johns (2004) found role, task, and relationship conflict to be positively related to political
climate. Schminke, Ambrose, and Neubaum (2005) found that the cognitive moral develop-
ment of both employees and leaders, as well as the extent to which leaders used their highest
level of moral development, influenced several ethical climate types. Similarly, Cullen et al.
(2003) also found a relationship between individual commitment and ethical climate.
Group-level antecedents. Many studies have examined the impact of group, team, or
department factors on work climates. (For simplicity, we refer to these simply as group-level
antecedents.) For instance, Colquitt et al. (2002) found that team size and team collectivism
were significant predictors of procedural justice climate. They found that team size was
negatively related to procedural justice climate, and team collectivism was positively related
to procedural justice climate. However, team diversity was not significantly related to proce-
dural justice climate. In another study of the impact of group composition on climate, de
Jong, de Ruyter, and Lemmink (2004, 2005) found that team tenure negatively affects self-
managed team (SMT) service climate. Darr and Johns (2004) found no effect of rank hetero-
geneity (Blau index of rank of faculty members in department) on political climate.

Other studies have examined intragroup processes and the interactions between group
members as predictors of climate. For instance, Gilson and Shalley (2004) found that mem-
bers of teams that were more engaged in creative processes reported a team climate more
supportive of creativity. Research also demonstrates a positive relationship between
intrateam support, flexibility, and SMT service climate but no relationship between team
goal setting and SMT service climate (de Jong et al., 2004, 2005).
Several scholars have examined the role of leadership as an antecedent of climate. For
example, researchers have examined the influence of individual characteristics of leaders.
Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and Goldstein (2007) examined the effect of leader personality on
types of justice climates. They found that personality traits such as agreeableness and con-
scientiousness were positively related, and neuroticism was negatively related, to various
justice climates. Koene, Vogelaar, and Soeters (2002) found that leader consideration related
positively to all of their organizational climate dimensions.
Additionally, different leadership styles and behavior have been found to be related to
work climates. Transformational leadership has been shown to be positively related to sup-
port for innovation (Jung et al., 2003) as well as safety climate (Zohar & Luria, 2004).
Shared leadership (Ehrhart, 2004) has been positively related to procedural justice climate.
Koene et al. (2002) found that charismatic leadership was positively related to their organi-
zational climate dimensions. Contingent reward transactional leadership has been positively
related to procedural justice climate (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Furthermore, Naumann and
Bennett (2000) found that supervisor visibility was positively associated with the develop-
ment of procedural justice climate.
Organizational-level antecedents. In addition to individual-level and group-level anteced-

ents, the literature has also examined the impact of broad organization-level antecedents—
including other climates—on work climates. Among the most prevalent of these
organization-level antecedents is the degree of managerial or institutional emphasis on poli-
cies that support various climates. For example, Borucki and Burke (1999) found that impor-
tance of service to management is positively related to service climate dimensions of concern
for employees and concern for customers. Klein, Conn, and Sorra (2001) examined what
they termed implementation climate, the importance of innovation implementation within
the organization. They found that financial resource availability and management support for
technology implementation led to a strong implementation climate. In the service literature,
service quality orientation has been positively related to service climate (Salvaggio et al.,
2007). Finally, commitment to human resource practices has been shown to be positively
related to organization social climate (Collins & Smith, 2006).
Other researchers have examined how the characteristics of the firm itself and its govern-
ance systems are related to work climates. Neubaum, Mitchell, and Schminke (2004) exam-
ined the impact of firm newness and entrepreneurial orientation on the ethical climate of
firms. They found that firm newness and firm size each exhibited significant impact on a
variety of ethical climate dimensions. Schminke et al. (2005) also showed firm age to have
an effect on the emergence of ethical climate.
Finally, we consider preliminary evidence suggesting that some work climates may serve
as antecedents for other climates. For example, DeJoy, Schaffer, Wilson, Vandenberg, and

Butts (2004) examined organizational factors that determine safety climate. Their results
indicate that safety policies and programs had the largest observed positive correlation with
safety climate, followed by two additional organizational climates: communication and
organizational support of safety. Expanding on this idea, other studies have considered the
potential mutual influences of global and specific climates on each other. Using such a
framework, Schneider et al. (1998) found that foundational climates specific to service
(interdepartmental service and work facilitation) are related to organizational out-
comes through facet-specific service climate. J. C. Wallace, Popp, and Mondore (2006) also
found similar results. They demonstrate that two foundational climates related to safety
(management–employee relations to climate and organizational support regarding safety
climate) were related to safety climate, which in turn is related to fewer accident rates. In all,
we see great potential in exploring the impact of work climates on other work climates. We
revisit this issue later.
Where do climates come from? A summary. We know considerably less about the ante-
cedents of work climates than we do about their consequences. However, although establish-
ing consistent links between individual member characteristics and various work climates
has been elusive, other relationships appear to be clearer. For example, much of the research
we reviewed has focused on group-level antecedents such as leadership and group composi-
tion (e.g., heterogeneity, interdependence). Results indicate that leader behavior does have
considerable potential to affect climates. Leaders serve as interpretive filters of relevant
organizational processes and practices for all group members, thus contributing to common
climate perceptions (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). This is consistent with the evidence from
our review that the type of group interaction can affect climate perceptions and that manage-
rial and institutional emphasis of policies appears to influence climate as well. Finally, pre-
liminary evidence suggests firm characteristics may influence the development of work
climates, but research in this area is in its infancy.
Question 3: Is It Really This Straightforward? Mediating and Moderating Effects
Our review of the literature related to Question 1 revealed that climate exerts a meaning-
ful impact on a variety of individual and organizational outcomes. More recently, researchers
have taken a more fine-grained view of these influences. This work moves beyond examin-
ing straightforward main effects of climate on outcomes. It explores the numerous mediating
and moderating effects that may come into play when trying to understand the impact of
climate on outcomes.
Mediating effects. A wide range of mediators of climate–outcome relationships has

emerged in the literature. For the purposes of this review, we have clustered mediators into
three types: process variables, behaviors, and practices.
Several studies have examined the extent to which the quality of various organizational
processes mediates the relationship between climate and outcomes. Maynard et al. (2007)

found that team transition processes fully mediate the relationship between resistance to
empowerment climate (REC) and customer satisfaction. Furthermore, they found that inter-
personal team processes partially mediate the relationship between REC and employee sat-
isfaction. G. Chen and Bliese (2002) found that psychological strain fully mediated the
cross-level relationship between lower level leadership climate and self-efficacy. Darr and
Johns (2004) showed that departmental task and relationship conflict partially mediate the
relationship between role conflict and political climate. Also examining relationship conflict,
Gamero, González-Romá, and Peiró (2008) found that it fully mediated the relationship
between task conflict and tension climate and enthusiasm climate.
Several behavioral factors have been shown to mediate the relationship between climate
and outcomes. Studies have explored the mediating role of OCBs (Naumann & Bennett,
2000; Schneider et al., 2005), employee performance (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005),
behaviors specific to a climate (e.g., service quality behaviors with service climate; Salvaggio
et al., 2007), and knowledge creation with innovation climate (Smith, Collins, & Clark,
2005). For example, Naumann and Bennett (2000) found that group helping behavior medi-
ated the relationship between procedural justice climate and perceived group performance
(e.g., productivity, accuracy, dependability). Similarly, Schneider et al. (2005) found OCBs
mediated the relationship between safety climate and customer satisfaction. Salanova et al.
(2005) found that the relationship between service climate and customer loyalty was par-
tially mediated by customers’ appraisal employee performance.
Finally, organizational practices have been used as mediating variables. These include policies
and procedures (Klein, Conn, & Sorra, 2001), role clarity (G. Chen & Bliese, 2002), and priorities
of goals (Naveh, Katz-Navon, & Stern, 2005). For example, G. Chen and Bliese (2002) found
role clarity fully mediated the cross-level relationship between upper-level leadership climate and
self-efficacy. Likewise, Naveh et al. (2005) demonstrated a priority of safety partially mediated
the relationship between safety climate and rate of treatment errors in hospitals.
Moderating effects. In an attempt to explore boundary conditions of the impact of climate on

outcomes, researchers have begun to examine the role of moderators of climate-to-outcome
relationships. Several have emerged in the literature.
One of the most studied moderators of the impact of work climate on outcomes has been
climate strength (Colquitt et al., 2002; González-Romá, Peiró, & Tordera, 2002; Lindell &
Brandt, 2000; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Climate strength reflects the degree of
agreement between unit members with respect to their climate perceptions (Lindell & Brandt,
2000). As such, it reflects the degree of variation in individual perceptions around the average
climate score. Evidence suggests climate strength plays an important moderating role in the
relationship between a variety of climate types and outcomes. For example, González-Romá
et al. (2002) found that strength of innovation climate moderated the relationship between level
of innovation climate and job satisfaction and commitment. Similarly, strength of goals orien-
tation climate moderated the relationship between level of goals orientation climate and com-
mitment. Colquitt et al. (2002) suggests procedural justice climate strength moderates the
relationship between level of procedural justice climate and both team performance and team
absenteeism. In addition, Schneider et al. (2002) found strength of service climate moderated
the relationship between service climate level and customer satisfaction experiences. Finally,

Lindell and Brandt (2000) demonstrated some support for climate strength moderating the
relationship between 15 climate types and a range of attitudes and behaviors.
Researchers have also examined how individual characteristics of employees and leaders
interact with climate to influence outcomes. For example, Liao and Rupp (2005) examined
whether individual differences in justice orientation interacted with six types of justice climates
to predict individual-level outcomes. Their results indicate justice orientation only moder-
ated the relationship between one of the climates (supervisor procedural justice climate)
and supervisor commitment and supervisor satisfaction. Similarly, Ambrose, Arnaud, and
Schminke (2008) demonstrated that the fit between an individual’s cognitive moral develop-
ment and the ethical environment influences job attitudes. As such, individual moral develop-
ment serves to moderate the relationship between climate and job attitudes.
Researchers have also examined moderators in the form of environmental characteristics.
The majority of these moderators have been examined in the safety climate literature. Here,
variables such as priority of safety (Katz-Navon et al., 2005; Naveh et al., 2005; Zohar,
2002), managerial practices (Naveh et al., 2005), routinization (Zohar & Luria, 2005), and
patient complexity (Hofmann & Mark, 2006) have been shown to moderate the relationship
between safety climate and other variables. In the service literature, Dietz et al. (2004) exam-
ined boundary conditions for service climate effects and found the more relevant and proxi-
mal the target of the service climate, the stronger the relationship was between service
climate and customer attitudes. In addition, the amount of contact between employees and
customers moderated the relationship between service climate and customer attitudes.
Yang et al. (2007) examined the moderating effect of culture, in the form of power dis-
tance, on the relationship between climate and outcomes. They found that group power
distance moderates the relationship between procedural justice climate and organizational
commitment and OCBs such that the relationship was stronger in groups characterized by a
smaller power distance values.
Finally, research points to even greater potential complexity in the manner in which mod-
erators influence the relationship between climate and outcomes. In particular, one type of
climate may serve to moderate the relationship between another type of climate and out-
comes. For example, Spell and Arnold (2007) showed that distributive justice climate and
procedural justice climate interact to maintain employee mental health by influencing anxi-
ety and depression. Higher levels of procedural justice collective perceptions appear to
“buffer” the negative relationship between collective perceptions of distributive justice and
health-related outcomes such as anxiety and depression.
Is it really this straightforward? A summary. From recent research, a more fine-grained

picture of the relationship between climate and outcomes is emerging. By learning more about
the variables that mediate the relationship between climate and outcomes, we are gaining an
increasingly accurate view of the processes by which climate influences those outcomes.
Similarly, we are coming to understand the important moderating effects that climate strength,
leadership, the environment, culture, and even other types of climate exert on the relationship
between climate and outcomes. Research has demonstrated conclusively that climate matters.
However, it appears to matter in more complicated ways than scholars originally envisioned,
and work in this area is beginning to uncover important details about how.

A closing note. A final note is in order before leaving this section. We have summarized
research exploring mediating and moderating effects that exist between climate and out-
comes. However, a similar question arises with respect to the relationship between climate
and its antecedents. Although we know of no research exploring mediating effects of this
relationship, a few studies have examined moderators. For example, van der Vegt, van der
Vliert, and Huang (2005) examined the relationship between demographic diversity, power
distance, and innovative climates. They found that the benefits of demographic diversity on
innovation climate appear to be culturally bound. Specifically, a positive relationship was
found between demographic diversity (e.g., tenure, functional background, age, and gender)
and innovation climate in low-power distance countries and for task-oriented diversity, whereas
in high-power distance countries location-level tenure and functional background diversity
were negatively related to the innovation climates. Similarly, Schminke et al. (2005) discovered
that both organizational age and the extent to which a leader fully used his or her moral devel-
opment capacity moderated the relationship between moral development of leaders and the
emergence of ethical climate types. Likewise, Cullen et al. (2003) found that professional sta-
tus moderated the relationship between commitment and ethical climate. In all, research exam-
ining mediators and moderators of the relationship between climate antecedents and climate is
scarce. However, these studies suggest these “upstream” relationships involving climate may
be more complicated than originally considered, as well.
Question 4: What About the Bigger Picture? Climate as a Moderator

and Mediator of Other Organizational Relationships
Finally, we turn our attention to the role played by climate in the broader organizational
literature. In particular, we examine the moderating and mediating impact climates exert on
the relationships between other organizational variables.
Climate as a moderator. As the pervasive impact of climate has become better under-
stood, researchers have examined its role in influencing the relationships between other
organizational variables. Most commonly, climate has been viewed as a moderator of the
relationship between various organizational- or unit-level performance measures and the
antecedents to those variables. Examples include the relationship between antecedents and
sales performance (McKay et al., 2008), organization innovation (Jung et al., 2003), safety
outcomes (Probst et al., 2008), service outcomes (Hui, Chui, Yu, Cheng, & Tse, 2007; Liao
& Chuang, 2004), and organization performance (Baer & Frese, 2003; King, de Chermont,
West, Dawson, & Hebl, 2007). Jung et al. (2003) provide an example of this work, as a cli-
mate of support for innovation moderated the relationship between transformational leader-
ship and organization innovation such that the relationship is stronger when support for
innovation is high. Similarly, King et al. (2007) found innovation climate alleviated the
negative effects of work demands on organizational performance. Their results demonstrated
that the negative relationship between work demands (defined as the collective total of per-
ceptions of insufficient time and energy to meet the demands of work) and performance is
lessened in organizations supportive of innovation.

Various climates have also served as moderators of relationships between antecedents and
individual outcomes related to health and well-being, such as depression and anxiety (Spell
& Arnold, 2007), work stress (Bachrach & Bamberger, 2007), workplace friendship (Tse et al.,
2008), and individual safety (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Smith-Crowe et al.,
2003). For example, the relationship between leader–member exchange and safety citizen-
ship role definitions was stronger and positive in work groups with a positive safety climate
but nonsignificant in poorer safety climates (Hofmann et al., 2003). Similarly, procedural
justice climate moderated the relationship between distributive justice climate and both
depression and anxiety. Higher levels of procedural justice climate were found to buffer the
negative relationship between distributive justice climate and both depression and anxiety
(Spell & Arnold, 2007).
Finally, one study has examined the interactions between individual-level perceptions and
climate perceptions of various constructs such as justice (Mayer et al., 2007). Mayer et al.
(2007) found that the relationship between individual interpersonal and informational justice
perceptions depends on the related justice climate such that the relationships increase in
strength when justice climates are high.
Climate as a mediator. Climate has also been shown to play an important mediating role
between other organizational variables. The most common of these has been to mediate the
relationship between leadership types and outcomes such as OCBs (Ehrhart, 2004; Schneider
et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008) and safety outcomes (Zohar, 2002). For example,
Walumbwa et al. (2008) found procedural justice climate mediated the relationship between
contingent reward leader behavior and supervisor satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and OCBs. Similarly, Zohar (2002) found a preventive action safety climate dimension fully
mediated the relationship between leadership style (transformational leadership and contin-
gent reward) and injury rate.
In addition, climate has served as a mediator of variables reflecting supervisory cues and
outcomes (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1998; J. C. Wallace et al., 2006; Zohar & Luria, 2004). For
instance, Zohar and Luria (2004) found safety climate partially mediated the relationship
between supervisory orientation and behavior-dependent injury. Likewise, Hofmann and
Stetzer (1998) showed safety climate mediated the relationship between safety communica-
tion and attributions made regarding safety.
Finally, climate has been studied as a mediator between performance and its various
antecedents (Gelade & Ivery, 2003; Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Salanova et al.,
2005). For instance, Salanova et al. (2005) found support for a fully mediated model in
which organizational resources and work engagement predicted service climate, which in
turn predicted employee performance and finally customer loyalty. Similarly, Gelade and
Ivery (2003) found that a general measure of organizational climate mediated the relation-
ship between several human resource management factors and branch performance.
What about the bigger picture? A summary. Research on the role played by climate in
shaping the relationship between other organizational variables has only recently begun to
receive attention. However, it appears to hold great potential for helping scholars understand
relationships not previously considered to be climate issues. Research involving climate as

a moderator has shown climate may be critical in establishing boundary conditions for
important organizational processes. Research conceptualizing climate as a mediator has
begun to shed light on its role in facilitating the processes by which organizational activities
translate to outcomes. Although this evidence is still limited, it appears promising. It reiter-
ates the importance of considering the broader context in which organizational phenomena
emerge. Perhaps more important, it reiterates the importance of this issue not just for climate
scholars but for those interested in organizational issues of all types. Context matters and
climate represents a critical aspect of that context.
Turning the Lens to the Future: Where Do We Go From Here?
Our review of the work climate literature confirms that researchers have made significant
progress in understanding organizational work climates, their antecedents, their consequences,
and their larger role in the organizational literature. However, our review of the theory, meth-
ods, measures, and analytical tools used in these studies reveals a number of challenges facing
climate researchers. This raises the question of where climate researchers should go from here.
Below, we address three major matters facing researchers who aim to advance the climate
literature: (1) clearing up confusion regarding the climate construct and its measurement,
(2) focusing on theory, and (3) identifying potential avenues for future research.
1. Clear Up Confusion Regarding the Climate Construct and Its Measurement
Our review of the climate literature reveals that researchers have not always been precise
in conceptualizing and operationalizing organizational climate. Additional care is required
on two fronts.
Psychological climate versus organizational climate. Earlier, we distinguished between

psychological climate (individual perceptions of the work environment) and organizational
climate (collective perceptions of the work environment). Empirical research often stumbles
on this issue as authors frequently fail to distinguish which climate they are examining.
Furthermore, even in cases in which a study establishes organizational climate as the construct
of theoretical interest, it is often inappropriately operationalized as psychological climate.
The early stages of our review uncovered more than 100 articles that theorized about orga-
nizational climate but actually measured psychological climate.
In most cases, it is impossible to deduce an author’s motives for operationalizing organi-
zational climate at the psychological level. The decision may be a pragmatic one, based on
how data can be collected (Was it impossible to survey multiple respondents from different
work groups?), on how the data can be coded (Was the researcher prevented from identifying
respondents at the level of the work group?), or on the degree of agreement between unit
members (Did low agreement preclude aggregation of individual data into unit scores?).
Although most researchers can sympathize with challenges of this sort, most would also
agree such limitations do not represent strong reasons for operationalizing organizational
climate at the psychological level, if organizational climate is indeed the construct of

interest. Rather, the research question or theoretical foundation for the study should drive the
choice of climate measures. If the focus is organizational climate, unit-level constructs
should be crafted from individual-level responses. If psychological climate is of interest,
individual-level constructs are appropriate.
The issue here is more than a conceptual one. The choice has the potential to influence
empirical results. For example, Ostroff and Rothausen (1997) found different levels of
person–environment fit when they examined individual perceptions versus aggregated per-
ceptions of climate. Thus, researchers need to consider carefully their research question in
deciding whether it is more appropriate to examine psychological or organizational climate.
Following that, they need to adopt theoretical foundations consistent with that level of analysis.
Finally, researchers need to be clear in explaining both.
How should organizational climate be measured? Another recurring challenge in the climate
literature relates to problems in measuring work climate. Several issues arise here.
First, when measuring organizational climate, most researchers operate under the assump-
tion (sometimes explicit but more often not) that composition models represent the most
appropriate path for specifying how psychological climate relates to organizational climate.
Composition models identify “the functional relationships among phenomenon or constructs
at different levels of analysis (e.g., individual level, team level, and organizational level) that
reference essentially the same construct but that are qualitatively different at different levels
(Hannan, 1971)” (Chan, 1998: 234).
As a result, climate measures rest first on individuals’ perceptions of their work environ-
ment. However, these perceptions may be measured in two different ways. Respondents may
be asked about the climate from their own perspective. For example, an item might ask a
respondent to agree or disagree with a statement such as “I typically wear a uniform or pro-
tective gear on the job” (Klein, Conn, Smith, and Sorra, 2001). Alternatively, a respondent
might be asked about the work unit in general. For example, an item might ask whether
“employees typically wear uniforms or protective gear on the job” (Klein, Conn, Smith et
al., 2001). This latter framing is known as a referent shift approach (Chan, 1998).
The work climate literature has not been consistent in how organizational climate is meas-
ured, with respect to individual referent or referent shift perspectives. Our review reveals that
across types of climate as well as within types of climate, a standard has not yet emerged. The
underlying issue is that research demonstrates that how climate is measured may have a sig-
nificant impact on results. For instance, Klein, Conn, Smith et al. (2001) found that using a
group referent in items, versus an “I” or “me” referent, resulted in greater within-group agree-
ment and more between-group variability. We encourage climate researchers to address their
measurement choices—and their rationale for them—explicitly in their work.
We also uncovered methodological issues related to specific items used to measure work
climates. One of the most notable issues is that no consensus appears to exist with respect to
the contextual factors referenced by items. For instance, measures of safety climate tend to
ask about practices related to safety (e.g., following safety rules, hazards at work), and meas-
ures of justice climate tend to ask about practices related to fairness (e.g., being treated fairly,
outcomes being distributed fairly). However, the dominant ethical climate measure (Victor
& Cullen, 1988) does not ask about ethical practices or activities. Rather, items query

respondents about conditions that are likely to set the stage for ethical action (e.g., “our
major concern is what is best for the other person”; “in this company, people are expected to
follow their own personal and moral beliefs”). Such discrepancies present significant chal-
lenges to researchers attempting to integrate multiple climates into a single study and to
understand their relative impacts and importance. Based on our preferred definition of cli-
mate, we recommend that measures ask about policies, practices, and procedures as the
elements in the environment that constitute climate (Schneider & Reichers, 1983).
A second concern regarding specific climate items is inconsistency with respect to whether
they ask individuals to provide a descriptive or affective evaluation of the work environment.
Schneider and Snyder (1975) suggest that people may share similar perceptions but differ in
their affective evaluations of the same event. In other words, individuals may share the same
perceptions as to “how things are done” but may differ in how they feel about how things are
done. They suggest climate items be written such that they ask individuals how they perceive
the environment, or to provide a description of the environment, rather than making an affec-
tive evaluation of it. Doing so not only provides consistency across climate measures but also
serves to keep climate measures distinct from other constructs that ask participants to report
how they feel about how things are, such as job satisfaction.
It is also important that climate items reflect a correct focus on the intended level of
analysis. Zohar (2000) observed that items in the original safety climate measure (Zohar,
1980) tapped more than one level, thus introducing ambiguity into the measure with respect
to the intended level of analysis. This observation has led to the development of a specific
group-level measure of safety climate that focuses on group-level perceptions only, rather
than group and organizational perceptions simultaneously. For those researchers modifying
existing scales to create climate measures, care must be taken to ensure that the items have
a clear, singular focus on the intended level of analysis.
The dimensionality of climate measures is another issue worthy of attention. Scholars
disagree about whether climates should be conceptualized as unidimensional or multidimen-
sional and, if multidimensional, how many dimensions exist and how those are differenti-
ated. For example, service climate has been shown to have anywhere from two (Borucki &
Burke, 1999) to four dimensions (Schneider et al., 1998). Researchers have been remiss in
reconciling the conflicting images of dimensionality that have emerged from within many
facet-specific climate domains. Multidimensionality also raises an additional challenge in
that it increases the extent to which climate subdimensions overlap with those present in
another climate, such as between health and well-being climate and safety climate.
Considerably more work is needed to sort out the dimensionality of work climates and to add
precision to assessing the appropriate dimensionality of climates at both the within-climate
and between-climate levels.
A final concern regarding specific climate items involves weak evidence of psychometric
validity. Many measures being used in the facet-specific climate areas have not been for-
mally validated. Doing so could help to clarify dimensions of the various climate types and
aid in assessing the generalizability of the results across studies. Both of these improvements
would serve to enhance the quality of climate research appearing in top journals.
Because our preferred definition of organizational climate requires aggregation of indi-
viduals’ perceptions of climate, our final measurement concern relates to aggregation issues.

Many of the fundamental issues of how to aggregate have been resolved; however, some basic
issues remain unaddressed (Bliese, 2000; Klein, Conn, Smith et al., 2001). These include the
following: How many employees are needed for aggregation to reflect an accurate measure
of shared climate perceptions? To what extent does the total number of employees in the
social system matter when aggregating to the unit level? If conceptual aggregation exists at
the organizational level, how important is it that individuals from multiple departments par-
ticipate? To date, the literature offers no clear guidelines for answering these questions.
Therefore, it is important for researchers to address these questions explicitly when designing,
executing, and reporting results of studies, based on their particular research question.
Another issue related to aggregation is that of agreement. Climate researchers have typi-
cally conceptualized and measured climate using a consensus model, in which climate is
viewed as the average perception of work unit members (González-Romá et al., 2002;
Schneider et al., 2002). An underlying assumption of this perspective is that a high level of
agreement must exist among unit members for the climate construct to be meaningful. That
is, an acceptable level of agreement between unit members is a necessary precondition for
climate to exist. Because climate reflects shared perceptions of the work environment, a lack
of agreement indicates a lack of shared perceptions and thus a lack of climate. Thus, for
consensus model scholars, sufficient agreement is a precondition for allowing individual
responses to be aggregated into a unit-level climate measure. Several approaches exist for
determining what constitutes an acceptable level of agreement, such as rwg, Intraclass
Correlation—ICC (1), ICC (2)—and ADM.
In all, the literature does not appear to have settled on a “one best way” to deal with agree-
ment issues. Norms for demonstrating whether an appropriate level of agreement has been
reached have yet to emerge. This is not an issue we are able to solve in this setting, although
encouraging researchers to provide evidence from more than one index of agreement (e.g., rwg,
ICC, ADM) is likely a good start. We refer readers to articles such as Bliese (2000) and
LeBreton and Senter (2008) for a more in-depth treatment of this issue. However, we believe
it is an important one to have on the table as climate research matures.
2. Focus on Theory
Another pressing issue that emerged from our review is the lack of clear theoretical basis
for many of the climate types that have emerged in the literature. As a whole, empirical
research involving work climates has traditionally not demonstrated a strong theoretical
base. This weakness is longstanding; many of the earliest models of global climate reflected
little or no theoretical substance for their proposed structure. Schneider (2000) provides a
most accurate critique in noting that “[global] climate research has languished as an increas-
ingly large number of dimensions were added to its conceptualization, with new facets added
each time a researcher thought climate might be useful for understanding some interesting
phenomenon” (p. 5).
Unfortunately, more recently developed facet-specific climates suffer from a similar
theoretical limitation. Researchers often invoke theories developed to address the relation-
ship between individual-level constructs and simply assume those relationships hold at
higher levels of analysis as well. However, these individual-level constructs are not always

isomorphic with their higher level counterparts (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In such cases,
individual-level relationships cannot necessarily be expected to hold at the collective level.
Similarly, the relationships between climate and variables that surround it in a model have
not always been theoretically justified. Relationships between safety climate and factors
such as accident rates may be intuitive, but links to less clearly related outcomes (e.g., OCBs,
commitment) are less obvious and require sound theoretical justification. Furthermore, we
are excited about the expanding role climate appears to be playing in other organizational
literatures. However, in proposing mediating or moderating roles for climate, scholars
should provide theoretical grounding that goes beyond a general belief that context or envi-
ronment matters.
Thus, the challenge to climate scholars is twofold. They must identify which climate types
offer sound theoretical foundations for their existence. We encourage authors to consider
Edwards’s (2008) thought-provoking article on evaluating the quality of theory in a research
area as a guide. They must also seek a theoretical foundation for integrating existing theory and
models related to various climate types, including both global and facet specific. Researchers
should consider drawing on existing theory or developing new theory to establish a more sound
foundation for expanding climate research into new areas, as well as integrating existing work.
Elsewhere, we have proposed an initial attempt at doing so (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). But
the challenge here is large, and additional efforts are needed.
3. Future Research
As our review reveals, there has been a profusion of studies examining work climates in
organizations. Despite advances that have been made in understanding work climates and
their role in organizations, a number of critical issues still need to be examined. In this
section, we present a research agenda we believe outlines some of the most pressing—and
interesting—issues facing climate researchers.
Examine multiple climates simultaneously. Our review reveals that most of the facet-
specific climate literature contains studies that focus on only one specific climate type at a
time. There is little doubt that multiple climates exist in organizations. But what happens
when they exist simultaneously?
Many facet-specific climates have been shown to be related to a common set of outcomes
(e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) as well as reflecting a common set of
antecedents (e.g., leader behaviors, communication, work interdependence). It is therefore
reasonable to ask how they relate to one another and whether certain climates exert greater
relative impacts on outcomes than others. For example, Zohar (2000; Zohar & Luria, 2005)
suggests that organizations may have competing goals such as safety versus efficiency; there
may be a strong climate for safety that is weakened by a priority on efficiency. Researchers
have suggested that other climates may also compete. A climate for innovation could be
threatened by a climate for predictability (Anderson & West, 1998), or a climate for service
could be weakened by a climate for transaction efficiency (Schneider et al., 1998).
Interactive effects between climates, and especially between competing climates, present
a rich opportunity for scholars to understand how these contextual influences operate in

organizational settings. Overall, we suggest that exploring single climates in isolation is

unlikely to be the most productive path to creating a full and accurate understanding of how
work climates affect individual and collective outcomes within organizations. Indeed, Carr,
Schmidt, Ford, and Deshon (2003) suggest “that much could be gained by simultaneously
examining multiple climates such that different configurations of climate are likely to be
related to effectiveness of outcomes in different domains” (p. 614).
We agree with this assessment and suggest it might be applied to studies spanning global
and facet-specific climates. Both the global and facet-specific climate literatures have been
instrumental in adding to our understanding of work climate and organizational functioning.
However, despite the contributions of these two lines of research, each remains largely dis-
tinct from the other. Therefore, our knowledge remains fragmented, as each research stream
tells only a part of the story. Revisiting the global climate literature and integrating it with
the facet-specific climate literatures has the potential to reflect more accurately the way
individuals conceptualize and react to their work environments. Individuals react not only to
the specific climate aspects of the organizational setting but to more general climate forces
as well. Furthermore, such an integrated model has the potential to reunite climate research-
ers whose foci have shifted to specific, narrow aspects of organizational context.
Examine additional consequences and how they relate to the different climates. Many
climate types have been linked to various attitudinal outcomes. Facet-specific climates have
been related to specific behaviors related to the domain of the facet-specific climates (e.g.,
safety climate to safety-related outcomes such as number of accidents). However, there has
been less empirical research directly linking either global or facet-specific climates to more
global outcomes such as organizational performance. There has been some speculation in the
literature regarding how climate can affect organizational performance (e.g., through
increased cohesion in work groups and organizations, which in turn will improve organiza-
tional performance; e.g., Colquitt et al., 2002), but few empirical tests of these relation-
ships have been performed. Linking climate to organizational outcomes—either directly or
indirectly—would have the potential to broaden interest in climate research in significant
ways, such as those involved in questions of strategic and structural fit.
Furthermore, our review indicates that climate influences important individual and
organizational outcomes. However, the literature has been disorganized in establishing what
climates are most closely tied to which outcomes. It would be helpful to discover whether
an overarching model could tie outcomes to global and facet-specific climates in predictable
ways. For instance, as Carr et al. (2003) state,
determining which manifestation of climate is appropriate depends on the bandwidth of the out-
comes of interest. This means that individuals interested in predicting a specific outcome (e.g., safe
behavior) are best served by focusing on measuring perceptions of a specific climate (e.g., climate
for safety). Conversely, individuals interested in predicting broader outcomes (e.g., job performance
and withdrawal) are best served by the broader taxonomy of molar climate constructs. (p. 605)
Consistent with this, Ostroff et al. (2003) recently suggested that “more work is needed to
determine the relative importance of global versus [more focused] climate dimensions for
different sets of outcomes” (p. 575).

Consider climate formation and change. Our review includes many studies that examine
antecedents of work climates. However, that is not the same as asking the more foundational
question of how they are formed. Existing empirical and theoretical research on these fronts
is much thinner. One exception on the theoretical front is Schneider and Reichers (1983),
who describe three ways that climates can form. The first involves a symbolic interaction
approach where social interaction is thought to lead to shared meanings. The second involves
an attraction-selection-attrition process through which organizational homogeneity evolves.
The third is a structuralist approach, in which employees being exposed to the same policies,
procedures, and practices will create a climate. More recently, Roberson and Colquitt (2005)
have theorized about the relationship between climate formation and networks theory.
However, beyond these attempts, there is a paucity of theoretical work outlining the process
by which climates emerge and even fewer empirical tests of these or other theories address-
ing the issue.
Perhaps even more intriguing is the potential to examine the processes by which work
climates change. Any new strategic initiative on the part of an organization, whether involv-
ing safety or service or quality or ethics, requires as part of the implementation of that strat-
egy an understanding of the context in which it is to take place. Structural contingency
theory and the SARFIT model of strategic fit (Donaldson, 1987) suggest any such strategic
change will require a corresponding change in organizational policies, practices, and proce-
dures to accommodate and support the change. This implies a change in climate. It is surpris-
ing that our review failed to uncover a single study aimed at modeling and testing the
processes by which such changes in work climates emerge.
In addition, we need to consider the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between cli-
mate perceptions and the outcomes we examine, as certain outcomes (e.g., performance)
almost certainly reinforce climate perceptions (e.g., innovation). Having causal arrows
pointing in multiple directions is not a new idea for the climate literature; Litwin and
Stringer’s (1968) classic climate model contains an explicit feedback loop. However, we
found only one study that explores this type of relationship: Salanova et al. (2005) found a
reciprocal effect between service climate and customer loyalty.
Consider climate strength. Researchers have also begun to explore the multiple charac-
teristics of work climate such as climate level (the mean value of individual perceptions of
the climate) and climate strength (the degree of within-unit agreement among unit members’
climate perceptions). Better understanding climate strength holds great potential for our
work. However, it raises an additional set of tricky issues for climate researchers. For exam-
ple, because most climate strength research has focused on the work group or department as
the appropriate level of analysis, climate strength in this context has mainly focused on
within-group agreement, or agreement-based strength, within departments. However, when
researchers examine climate at the organizational level or as it relates to global climates, it
is less clear that a focus on within-group agreement is the appropriate descriptor of climate
strength. Speaking of organizational climate (as opposed to work-unit climate) as a meaning-
ful construct implies agreement about it across organizational units. A strong organizational
climate implies a common set of perceptions throughout the organization.

This suggests a finer grained consideration of climate strength and the agreement it
reflects. Existing work has already begun to drill more deeply into these questions. For
example, Ostroff et al. (2003) suggests three distinct types of climate strength: agreement-
based strength, system-based strength, and alignment-based strength. Agreement-based
strength is the extent to which employees in a unit interpret and encode organizational situ-
ations in the same way. System-based strength is the extent that the climate is pervasive
throughout the organizational life and induces uniform behaviors. Alignment-based strength
refers to the congruence between organizational practices and climate. Considering these
multiple dimensions of strength provides an attractive platform from which to build our
understanding of climate strength at the team, unit, or organizational level.
We view climate strength as an important and exciting branch on the tree of climate
research. The alternative, limiting our examination of climate to settings in which most
members agree, risks overlooking important insights related to the causes and consequences
of variation in those perceptions. For example, is it that a climate does not exist, or is it
that the climate is not strong? We endorse efforts to pursue the role of climate strength in the
literature.
Embrace multilevel modeling. The management literature has seen a steady increase in
multilevel research. Individuals and organizational units are interdependent (House,
Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995) and therefore create cross-level relationships and interde-
pendencies. As such, modeling and testing these multilevel effects represents a potentially
important item on the climate research agenda.
Multilevel modeling is not yet widespread in climate research. However, multilevel issues
have arisen among scholars in some areas of facet-specific climate research such as safety
climate (Zohar & Luria, 2005), justice climate (Liao & Rupp, 2005), and creativity climate
(Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004). We add a note of caution for researchers wishing to follow
this lead. This is an area in which researchers must be extraordinarily precise with respect to
theory and measurement issues raised earlier. They must be explicit in their choice of
organizational versus psychological climate as the focal construct. If the focus is organiza-
tional climate, they must attend to the question of level, identifying the team, department, or
overall organization as the appropriate level of aggregation. (For example, as our summary
tables reflect, although authors often discuss organizational climate, most operationalize it
at the work group level.) Theory must be crafted to fit the levels of analyses being examined.
If the anticipated effects would be expected to emerge at any relevant collective level (team,
group, department, or organization), theorizing should result in hypothesizing at the social
system level, a term that could encompass any of the organizational levels described here.
Perhaps most important, irrespective of the conceptual level at which the relationships are
theorized, the empirical level of analysis (e.g., measures) must correspond with the theory.
One theoretical perspective we believe holds special promise for understanding multilevel
issues in climate relates to “trickledown effects.” An emerging stream of research on trick-
ledown models provides some initial support that how managers are treated by their superi-
ors influences how they treat their own subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007;
Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), which in turn influences employee attitudes and
behavior. Based on a social learning perspective (Bandura, 1986), such an approach could

also examine how supervisors’ treatment affects not only individual employee reactions but
collective reactions represented in climate as well.
Address design issues. Finally, issues related to the design of climate studies, such as the
means by which climate data are collected, deserve additional attention. Surveys represent
the predominant methodology used in climate studies; researchers ask organizational mem-
bers about their perceptions regarding a specific climate and either antecedent or outcome
variables.
This methodology has several well-known limitations. First, it is susceptible to same-
source bias that can artificially inflate relationships. One means by which this concern may
be minimized is to use a split-sample approach, where groups are split into subgroups whose
responses can be used to separately measure variables in a relationship (e.g., Ostroff,
Kinicki, & Clark, 2002).
In addition, most climate studies do not survey all members of an organization or depart-
ment. Thus, questions arise about the representativeness of small samples, with respect to the
larger populations they represent. Some evidence suggests even small samples may do an
adequate job of capturing collective perceptions of climate. For example, Schneider et al.
(Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003; Schneider et al., 2002) have shown that five
random employees in a unit can be quite adequate. Furthermore, a recent article by Newman
and Sin (in press) suggests that “researchers discontinue the practice of dropping low-
response groups from analysis prior to estimating intraclass correlations.” These results are
encouraging. However, not all research questions involving climate are likely to be addressed
adequately with small group sample sizes. This represents another case in which the type of
research question must dictate the decision.
Finally, our review reveals that correlational designs continue to dominate climate
research. (See studies such as Gamero et al., 2008; Neal & Griffin, 2006; Pirola-Merlo &
Mann, 2004, for exceptions). Such designs do not allow researchers to provide strong tests
of causality between variables. We hope the next generation of climate research adopts
research designs capable of demonstrating stronger causal and theoretical results (e.g., lon-
gitudinal designs).
A View Through Other Lenses
Our review reveals that the work climate literature is robust and vibrant. In recent years, a
plethora of interesting and provocative research has graced the pages of top management and
specialty journals at an increasing rate. It is truly an exciting time to be a climate researcher.
The material presented in this review represents our impression of the climate literature,
what it has taught us, and the challenges faced by the field as we look ahead. However, to
supplement our impressions of research in the area, we asked three leading climate scholars
to lend their impressions of the state of the field as well. We did not ask them to critique our
review of the field, but rather, we asked them for brief summaries of what they view as the
most important issues facing scholars interested in organizational climate. Each was gra-
cious enough to comply.

Michael Burke (personal communication, July 11, 2008) notes that the large body of
basic and applied work on situation perception places psychological and organizational cli-
mate research “at the forefront of both fundamental and applied contributions in psychol-
ogy.” He suggests the notion that climate perceptions are hierarchically arranged is of
particular importance to climate research (see Burke, Borucki, & Hurley, 1992; James et al.,
2008; James & James, 1989). He suggests this finding has important implications for both
research and practice, especially as it relates to being able to make meaningful overall
assessments of the work environment. He notes that extant research also supports the exist-
ence of a general (and generalizable) taxonomy of first-order climate dimensions (Burke,
Borucki, & Kaufman, 2002; James et al., 2008). Thus, an important direction for climate
research is to link facet-specific climates to these more general first-order climate dimen-
sions and hierarchical models of climate.
Benjamin Schneider (personal communication, July 9, 2008) notes four major issues fac-
ing climate scholars. First, he emphasizes that bandwidth issues exist everywhere, including
climate research. That is, researchers must conceptually match their climate assessments to
the outcomes in which they are interested. Second, he points to the usefulness of climate
strength as an emerging construct in the literature. It is especially relevant as research exam-
ines climates reflecting individual experiences (e.g., job satisfaction or work engagement),
in which we would expect to see less agreement among employees than in climates reflect-
ing observations of the external world (e.g., safety). Third, he encourages a focus on the
antecedents of both global and focal climates. Understanding antecedent factors such as
leadership practices, reward systems, and resources will provide researchers with better
leverage for influencing work climates and, in turn, our outcomes of interest. Finally, he
reiterates the critical role of reciprocal causation in climate research. Outcomes such as
service and safety influence climate and are influenced by it.
Dov Zohar (personal communication, September 3, 2008) observes that climate research
faces three especially important research challenges. First, climate research has been char-
acterized by conceptual ambiguity stemming largely from discriminant validity issues. He
notes that climate perceptions, unlike other aggregated, perception-based constructs, should
be comprehended and characterized as a unified whole. Climate perceptions should focus on
gestalt-like properties such as relative priorities between competing demands or misalign-
ment between espousals and enactments of key policies. Second, the multiplicity of organi-
zational climates represents a serious conceptual challenge. Employees have been shown to
develop multilevel climate perceptions resulting in concurrent group- and organization-level
climates. Furthermore, the idea of facet-specific climates implies the existence of multiple
climates in organizations. Coexisting climates are likely to interact and influence each other
in different ways. Multiclimate models should be developed, specifying the interactive effects
of concurrent climates on relevant outcome criteria. The third challenge concerns climate as
an emergent phenomenon. The qualification of climate as socially shared perceptions
requires the study of processes leading to the emergence and subsequent maintenance of
shared cognitions. Using the ideas of symbolic interaction and sensemaking as a conceptual
foundation, there is a need for developing empirical research focusing on specific processes
of climate emergence and modification.

Summary
These observations reiterate the vibrancy with which climate research continues and the
challenges facing researchers engaged in it. For more than 50 years, substantial research has
been conducted on organizational work climates, and we have learned a great deal from it.
In this review, we have identified major themes emerging from those findings. We have
enumerated some of the key problems related to climate research, such as lack of strong
theory, methodological concerns, and definitional issues. We have outlined a research agenda
for addressing these concerns, and we encourage researchers studying work climates to be
aware of these issues and design studies with solutions in mind.
Perhaps most important, our review noted that the climate literature has become increas-
ingly fragmented with the proliferation of research focused on facet-specific climates. Each of
these fragments provides a unique—although often limited—view into the world of work
climate. Our goal in this review has been to collect those fragments in one place, examine them
closely, and then piece them together in an organized fashion. By doing so, we hope to have
created a unified lens through which the field, and its future, might come into clearer view.
Notes
1. For the remainder of the article, we use the terms climate and organizational work climate interchangeably,
unless otherwise noted.
References
Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. 1994. The team climate inventory (TCI) and group innovation: A psychometric test on
a Swedish sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 143-151.
Ambrose, M., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. 2008. Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence
of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 323-333.
Anderson, N., & West, M. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the
team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 235-258.
Andrews, T., & Rogelberg, S. 2001. A new look at service climate: Its relationship with owner service values in
small business. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16: 119-132.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a
trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 191-201.
Bachrach, S., & Bamberger, P. 2007. 9/11 and New York City firefighters’ post hoc unit support and control cli-
mates: A context theory of the consequences of involvement in traumatic work-related events. Academy of
Management Journal, 50: 849-868.
Bachrach, S., Bamberger, P., & Vashdi, D. 2005. Diversity and homophily at work: Supportive relations among
white and African-American peers. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 619-644.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process
innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 45-68.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought & action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and
analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations:
512-556. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borucki, C., & Burke, M. 1999. An examination of service-related antecedents to retail store performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 20: 943-962.

Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. 1992. Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail service
environment: A multiple-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 717-729.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Kaufman, J. 2002. Contemporary perspectives on the study of psychological and
organizational climate: A commentary. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11: 325-340.
Burke, M. J., Rupinski, M. T., Dunlap, W. P., & Davison, H. K. 1996. Do situational variables act as substantive
causes of relationships between individual difference variables? Two large-scale tests of “common cause” mod-
els. Personnel Psychology, 49: 573-598.
Campbell, J. 1990. The Army selection and classification project (Project A). Personnel Psychology, 43: 231-239.
Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E., & Weick, K. 1970. Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carr, J., Schmidt, A., Ford, J., & Deshon, R. 2003. Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis
relating to molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88: 605-619.
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: 234-246.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective-efficacy:
Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 549-556.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. 2007. A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment,
and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 331-346.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. 2007. Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at
individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied
Clarke, S. 2006. The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 315-327.
Collins, C., & Smith, K. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the
performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 544-560.
Colquitt, J. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.
Colquitt, J., Noe, R., & Jackson, C. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice
climate. Personnel Psychology, 55: 83-109.
Cullen, J., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. 2003. The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment:
A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 127-141.
Darr, W., & Johns, G. 2004. Political decision-making climates: Theoretical processes and multi-level antecedents.
Human Relations, 57: 169-200.
de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. 2004. Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-
spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68: 18-35.
de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. 2005. Service climate in self-managing teams: Mapping the linkage of
team member perceptions and service performance outcomes in a business-to-business setting. Journal of
Management Studies, 8: 1593-1620.
DeJoy, D., Schaffer, B., Wilson, M., Vandenberg, R., & Butts, M. 2004. Creating safer workplaces: Assessing the
determinants and role of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research, 35: 81-90.
Denison, D. 1996. What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s
point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21: 610-654.
Dietz, J., Pugh, S. D., & Wiley, J. 2004. Service climate effects on customer attitudes: An examination of boundary
conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 81-92.
Dietz, J., Robinson, S., Folger, R., Baron, R., & Schulz, M. 2003. The impact of community violence and an organiza-
tion’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 317-326.
Donaldson, L. 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency
theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 1-24.
Edwards, J. R. 2008. Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of
Management Annals, 2: 167-230.
Ehrhart, M. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship
behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57: 61-94.

Forte, A. 2004. Antecedents of moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 51: 315-347.
Gamero, N., González-Romá, V., & Peiró, J. 2008. The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective
climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 47-69.
Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. 2003. The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational
performance. Personnel Psychology, 56: 383-404.
Gelade, G., & Young, S. 2005. Test of a service profit chain model in the retail banking sector. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 78: 1-22.
Gilson, L., & Shalley, C. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative
processes. Journal of Management, 304: 453-470.
Glick, W. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organization and psychological climate. Pitfalls in multilevel
research. Academy of Management Review, 10: 601-616.
Glisson, C., & James, L. 2002. The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human service teams. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23: 767-794.
González-Romá, V., Peiró, J., & Tordera, N. 2002. An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of
climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 956-970.
Guion, R. 1973. A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9: 120-125.
Hannan, M. T. 1971. Aggregation and disaggregation in sociology. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J., Jr. 1974. Organizational climate: Measures, research and contingencies. Academy of
Management Journal, 17: 255-280.
Hershberger, S., Lichtenstein, P., & Knox, S. 1994. Genetic and environmental influences on perceptions of orga-
nizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 24-33.
Hofmann, D., & Mark, D. 2006. An investigation of the relationship between safety climate and medication errors
as well as other nurse patient outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 59: 847-869.
Hofmann, D., Morgeson, F., & Gerras, S. 2003. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member
exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:
170-178.
Hofmann, D., & Stetzer, A. 1996. A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents.
Personnel Psychology, 49: 307-339.
Hofmann, D., & Stetzer, A. 1998. The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation:
Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 644-658.
House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro
and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 71-115.
Hui, C. H., Chiu, W. C. K., Yu, P. L. H., Cheng, K., & Tse, H. 2007. The effects of service climate and the effective
leadership behaviour of supervisors on frontline employee service quality: A multi-level analysis. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 151-172.
James, L. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:
214-224.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., et al. 2008. Organizational
and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational
James, L. A., & James, L. R. 1989. Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations in the measurement of
meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 739-751.
James, L., & Jones, A. 1974. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin,
18: 1096-1112.
James, L., Joyce, W., & Slocum, J. 1988. Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management
Review, 13: 129-132.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review,
31: 386-408.
Johnson, J. 1996. Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
49: 831-851.
Joyce, W., & Slocum, J. 1979. Climates in organizations. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior: 317-333.
Columbus, OH: Grid.

Jung, D., Chow, C., & Wu, A. 2003. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation:
Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 525-544.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Katz-Navon, T., Naveh, E., & Stern, Z. 2005. Safety climate in health care organizations: A multidimensional
approach. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1075-1089.
King, E. B., de Chermont, K., West, M., Dawson, J. F., & Hebl, M. 2007. How innovation can alleviate negative
consequences of demanding work contexts: The influence of climate for innovation on organizational outcomes.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 631-645.
Klein, K., Conn, A., Smith, B., & Sorra, J. 2001. Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement
in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 3-16.
Klein, K., Conn, A., & Sorra, J. 2001. Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86: 811-824.
Koene, B., Vogelaar, A., & Soeters, J. 2002. Leadership effects on organizational climate and financial performance:
Local leadership effect in chain organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 193-215.
Kozlowski, S., & Doherty, M. 1989. Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 546-553.
Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal,
and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. 2008, August. An integrated model of work climate. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.
Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815-852.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. 2004. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and
customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 41-58.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level
multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 242-256.
Lindell, M., & Brandt, C. 2000. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between
organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 331-348.
Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. 1968. Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Martin, K., & Cullen, J. 2006. Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Business Ethics, 69: 175-194.
Mathisen, G. E., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. 2006. The team-level model of climate for innovation: A two-level
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 23-35.
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. 2007. The precursors and products of justice climates: Group
leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60: 929-963.
Mayhew, M., Grunwald, H., & Dey, E. 2006. Breaking the silence: Achieving a positive campus climate for diver-
sity from the staff perspective. Research in Higher Education, 47: 63-88.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J., Marsh, W., & Ruddy, T. 2007. A multilevel investigation of the influences of employ-
ees’ resistance to empowerment. Human Performance, 20: 147-171.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. 2008. Mean racial-ethnic differences in employee sales performance:
The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology, 61: 349-374.
Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. 1992. The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate. Human
Relations, 45: 19-47.
Mossholder, K., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. 1998. A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19: 131-141.
Naumann, S., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel
model. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 881-889.
Naumann, S., & Bennett, N. 2002. The effects of procedural justice climate on work group performance. Small
Group Research, 33: 361-377.
Naveh, E., Katz-Navon, T., & Stern, Z. 2005. Treatment errors in healthcare: A safety climate approach. Management
Science, 51: 948-960.

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. 2006. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety
behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 946-953.
Neubaum, D., Mitchell, M., & Schminke, M. 2004. Firm newness, entrepreneurial orientation, and ethical climate.
Journal of Business Ethics, 52: 335-347.
Newman, D. A., & Sin, H. in press. How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity of
SDWG, CVWG, rWG, rWG(J), and ICC to systematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A., & Clark, M. 2002. Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of
analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 355-368.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A., & Tamkins, M. 2003. Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12): 565-593. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ostroff, C., & Rothausen, T. 1997. The moderating effect of tenure in person-environment fit: A field study in
educational organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70: 173-188.
Parker, C., Dipboye, R., & Jackson, S. 1995. Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents
and consequences. Journal of Management, 21: 891-912.
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. 2004. Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee
affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 193-216.
Patterson, M., West, M., Shackleton, V., Dawson, J., Lawthom, R., Matlis, S., et al. 2005. Validating the organiza-
tional climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26: 379-408.
Payne, R., & Pugh, D. 1976. Organizational structure and climate. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology: 1125-1172. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. 2002. How leaders influence the impact of affective events on
team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 561-581.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating
across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 235-257.
Probst, T. 2004. Safety and insecurity: Exploring the moderating effect of organizational safety climate. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 3-40.
Probst, T., Brubaker, T., & Barsotti, A. 2008. Organizational injury rate underreporting: The moderating effect of
organizational safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1147-1154.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership
into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 561-589.
Roberson, Q., & Colquitt, J. 2005. Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams.
Academy of Management Review, 30: 595-607.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. 2005. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee
performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:
1217-1227.
Salvaggio, A., Schneider, B., Nishii, L., Mayer, D., Ramesh, A., & Lyon, J. 2007. Manager personality, manager ser-
vice quality orientation, and service climate: Test of a model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1741-1750.
Schein, E. H. 2004. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M., & Neubaum, D. 2005. The effect of leader moral development on ethical climate and
employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 135-151.
Schmit, M., & Allscheid, S. 1995. Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: Making theoretical and empirical
connections. Personnel Psychology, 48: 521-536.
Schneider, B. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28: 447-479.
Schneider, B. 1990. Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. 2000. The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate: xvii-xxii. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. 1985. Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: Replication and exten-
sion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 423-433.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. J., & Macey, W. A. in press. Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In
S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. J., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. 2005. Understanding organizational links
in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1017-1032.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P., Smith, B., & Salvaggio, A. 2003. Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational
financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 836-850.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19-41.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A., & Subirats, E. 2002. Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal
Schneider, B., & Snyder R. 1975. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal
Schneider, B., White, S., & Paul, M. 1998. Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality:
Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 150-163.
Siebert, S., Silver, S., & Randolph, W. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of
empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 332-349.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. 2005. Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice
perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 432-443.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2005. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate
of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 346-357.
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M., & Landis, R. 2003. Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge-safety
performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 861-876.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. 2007. A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and employee
mental health. Journal of Management, 33: 724-751.
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. 1968. Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard Business
School.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. 2008. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural
justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61: 37-68.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and
abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59: 101-123.
Tesluk, P., Farr, J., Mathieu, J., & Vance, R. 1995. Generalization of employee involvement training to the job
setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 95: 607-632.
Tesluk, P., Vance, R., & Mathieu, J. 1999. Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work
environments. Group & Organization Management, 24: 271-299.
Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. 2005. Construct validity of a general training climate scale. Organizational Research
Methods, 8: 353-374.
Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2008. A multi-level analysis of team climate and interper-
sonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 42-53.
van der Vegt, G., van der Vliert, E., & Huang, X. 2005. Location-level links between diversity and innovative
climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1171-1182.
Verbeke, W., Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. 1998. Exploring the conceptual expansion within the field of organiza-
tional behaviour: Organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35: 303-330.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. 1987. A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations. In W. C. Frederick (Ed.),
Research in corporate social performance and policy: 51-71. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33: 101-125.
Wagner, S. H., Parker, C. P., & Christiansen, N. D. 2003. Employees that think and act like owners: Effects of owner-
ship beliefs and behaviors on organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56: 847-871.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. 2006. A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance.
Personnel Psychology, 59: 529-557.
Wallace, J. C., Popp, E., & Mondore, S. 2006. Safety climate as a mediator between foundation climates and occu-
pational accidents: A group-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 681-688.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. 2008. Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19: 251-265.

Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. 2007. Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An exami-
nation of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 681-692.
Zohar, D. 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied
Zohar, D. 2000. A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in
manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 587-596.
Zohar, D. 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 156-163.
Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. in press. Organizational culture and climate. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of
I/O psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. 2004. Climate as a socio-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as
proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 322-334.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. 2005. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross level relationships between organization
and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 616-628.

Kuenzi and Schminke 2009 Climate Review - JOM PDF

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

Kuenzi and Schminke 2009 Climate Review - JOM PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Management

Assembling Fragments Into a Lens: A Review, Critique, and Proposed

The online version of this article can be found at:

Southern Management Association

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Keywords: organizational climate; work climate; psychological climate; organizational context;

*Corresponding author: Tel.: 214-768-3096; fax: 214-768-4099.

E-mail address: mkuenzi@cox.smu.edu

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Turning the Lens to the Past: An Overview of the Climate Literature

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

answer to many important questions facing organizational science by providing a “needed

Initially, climate researchers were interested in a broad global conceptualization of work

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Defining the Construct

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

A perceptual construct. Schneider and Reichers’s (1983) definition identifies organiza-

A collective phenomenon. This definition identifies organization climate as a collective

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Focusing the Lens: A Review of the Organizational

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

(text continues on p. 690)

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Ambrose, RS 304 employees from Job In general, fit between

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

(1973, as cited leadership positively related to the

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

and James & mediated many of the

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Agrell & IR 124 employees in 17 Swedish version of TCI valid.

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Witt & teams in a U.K. team climate as more

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

recent team account for aggregation

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Chen, Lam, & IR 238 supervisor- Sense of Team-level empowerment was

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

REC and customer individual-level resistance

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

between climate for

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

IR 2,755 employees in Ownership Working in a participative

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

focused directed at organization, positively related to

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

unique variance beyond

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

perceptions DJC and both did not moderate these

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

organizational behavior. PJC mediated the

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

Downloaded from http://jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CENTRAL FLORIDA on November 28, 2009

LMX and individual leadership climate