Organizational culture

Factor analysis of a Competing Values Framework instrument

Christian D. Helfrich, MPH, PhDImplementation Research CoordinatorIschemic Heart Disease Quality Improvement Research Initiative

Background

Organizational culture Within organizations and groups,

individuals share common beliefs, assumptions and values that create powerful behavioral norms (James et al. 1990).

These norms are taught to new members and guide members’ actions and interactions (Barker 1993).

Background

Competing values framework (CVF)

A dominant organizational culture model

Linked to patient satisfaction (Meterko et al 2004), physician and nurse turnover (Mohr et al 2005) and adoption of QI activities (Shortell et al 1995)

All VHA employees surveyed in 2004

Competing Values Framework

Flexibility Control

Internal

Team Culture Cohesion Morale Human resource development Mutual support

Hierarchical Culture Clear lines of authority over

organizational processes Respect for formal hierarchy Adherence to rules Stability and predictability

External

Entrepreneurial Culture Flexibility and creativity Acquisition of resources Responding to changes in external

environment Growth and entrepreneurship

Rational Culture Clarity of tasks Planning and productivity Efficiency Measurable outcomes

Specific Aims To validate an instrument based on the

Competing Values Framework among non-managers Conduct item analysis to determine subscale

reliability and assess the convergent / divergent qualities of the subscales

Conduct exploratory factor analysis to determine if emergent factor solutions (i.e., emergent subscales) match conventional subscales

Conduct confirmatory factor analysis to compare model fit between emergent and conventional subscales

Methods

Design Cross-sectional, observational study

Analysis Item analysis

Cronbach’s alpha Item-rest correlation Item-to-scale correlation

Factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis

Data

2004 All Employee Survey (AES) Employee-level survey 14 items based on CVF subscales ~52% response rate among 200k

employees (n = 102,118) Sample: non-supervisory

employees n = 71,776

Questions so far?

Results - Respondents

Female 61.8% Tenure at VHA

Age < 6 months 3.6%< 20 years 0.4% 6 month - 1 year 6.1%20 - 29 5.1% 1 - 3 years 15.3%30 - 39 15.9% 4 - 5 years 8.9%40 - 49 32.9% 6 - 10 years 13.2%50 - 59 37.6% 11 - 20 years 29.8%>= 60 8.0% > 20 years 23.2%

Race / EthnicityHispanic 7.4%White 68.4%African American 20.4%Native American / Alaskan Native3.1%Asian 5.6%Pacific Islander 1.3%Missing 1.1%

Results – Item analysis

Item analysis: see Table 1

Culture scatter plots, facility-level

(mean)groupCulture

(mean)entrepreneurialCulture

(mean)bureaucraticCulture

(mean)rationalCulture

2

3

4

2 3 4

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.5 3 3.5 4

2.5

3

3.5

4

2.5 3 3.5 4

3

3.5

4

3 3.5 4

Results - EFA

Exploratory factor analysis: see Table 2

Results - CFA

Confirmatory factor analysis: see Table 3

Discussion - External validity The CVF as a model, or the CVF

instrument, may not generalize To VHA To non-managers Or to the combination of both

Need for measurement equivalence / invariance analysis (ME/I) Among supervisory levels Over time

Discussion – Internal Validity Measurement error in original instrument Modifications made to the survey used in VHA

Wording of individual items was adapted; primarily four items

VHA instrument had two fewer items than the original 16-item scale

Used normative (Likert) scales versus ipsative scales Terms such as “bureaucratic” and “innovative”

likely carry normative connotations for lay readers

Most original CVF items consist of two declarative statements

Items within subscale were organized across four organizational domains: institutional characteristics, institutional leader, institutional “glue” and institutional emphases

Discussion – Construct Validity Possible poor construct validity

for the four CVF culture types Three of four subscales may reflect

single underlying factor One subscale may reflect multiple

underlying factors

Conclusions CVF instrument did not perform as

predicted in a population of non-managers from VHA

May suggest caution in drawing inferences based on aggregated CVF scales when applied to populations where they have not been validated, such as non-managers

Importance of validating organizational culture instruments in each new context they are used

Questions