the interdependence between the concepts of organizational culture and organizational climate
TRANSCRIPT
The interdependence between the concepts of organizational culture and
organizational climate: An empirical investigation
Mehmet Y. Yahyagil, Ph.D.
Bu çalışma için kullanılacak referans.
Yahyagil, M. Y. (2004). The Interdependence between the Concepts of Organizational
Culture and Organizational Climate: An Empirical Investigation, İstanbul University,
Journal of Business Administration, İstanbul, Vol. 33(1), 69-98.
2
ÖZET
Bu empirik çalışma örgüt kültürü ve örgüt iklimi kavramları arasındaki ilişkinin niteliğini, işletme
çalışanlarının algılamalarına dayalı olarak irdelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, söz konusu iki
kavram arasında karşılıklı etkileşime dayalı bir bağıntı olup, olmadığını incelemektedir. Litwin‟in
perspektifi doğrultusunda, yazar tarafından geliştirilen 20 maddelik Likert tipi iklim ölçeği ile gene
Wallach tarafından geliştirilen Örgüt Kültürü Endeksi kullanılarak deneklerin algılamalarına bağlı
olarak kavramsal unsurların tanımlamaları saptanmıştır. Bir sigorta şirketinin tüm çalışanları ile bir
tekstil firmasının fonksiyonel bir birimi olan satış bölümü çalışanları, homojenitenin (algılamalardaki
birlikteliğin) sağlanması ve kıyaslama yapılabilmesi için seçilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları belli ölçüde,
organizasyonların kendilerine özge unsurları dışında, temel kültürel nitelikleri ile bunlarla uyumlu
iklimsel özellikler arasında bir bağıntının varlığına işaret etmektedir. Bu iki kavram arasındaki
uyumun saptanması, işletmelerde değişim stratejilerinin uygulanmasından once ve verimliliğin
artırılması açısından organizasyonların tepe-yönetimleri ve insan kaynakları bölümleri için önemli
yarar sağlayabilecek niteliktedir.
Anahtar sözcükler: Örgüt kültürü, örgüt iklimi, kültür-iklim uyumu, keşfedici faktör analizi,
onaylayıcı faktör analizi
ABSTRACT
The objective of this empirical study is related to understanding the nature of the interdependence
between the concepts of organizational culture and climate through learning the perceptions of
organizational members. The study aims at finding out whether there is a match between the
dimensions of these concepts in terms of an organizational culture-climate fit. Wallach‟s
Organizational Culture Index (OCI) and a 20-item Likert scale (developed by the author based on the
Litwinian perspective) were employed to learn the perceptual descriptions of the participants. The
employees of an insurance company, and a functional unit (marketing department) of a textile
company were selected for the sake of homogeneity and making comparisons. Research findings, to
an extent, indicated that there was a match between certain cultural attributes and corresponding
climatic elements apart from the idiosyncratic features of the organizations. The assessment of
culture-climate (OC – OCT) fit is of help for both senior management of organizations and HR
3
departments to take necessary measures prior to the implementation of change strategies as well as the
betterment of organizational productivity.
Key words: Organizational culture, organizational climate, culture-climate fit, principal component
analysis, confirmatory factor analysis
The interdependence between the concepts of organizational culture and
organizational climate: An empirical investigation (*)
Organizational culture and climate have been, and still, are the central subjects of an ongoing
academic debate in the field of organization and management. The similarities as well as
dissimilarities between the concepts of organizational culture and climate are of importance in
organizational behavior literature (Ashkanasy, 2003; Martin, 2002; Cooper, Cartwright & Earley,
2001, Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001; Denison, 1996; Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Yet, the
shortcomings in defining the concepts of organizational culture (OC) and climate (OCT) have resulted
with a number of difficulties in the measurement process (Hofstede, 2000; Lewis, 2000). What could
be argued, as the most common remarks made by numerous scholars and academicians are about the
nature of association between these two concepts.
The objective of this empirical study is related to understanding the nature of the interdependence
between the concepts of organizational culture and climate through learning the perceptions of the
organizational members. In other words, the study aims at the whether there is a match between the
dimensions of these concepts in terms of (OC-OCT fit).
It can be rational approach for scholars to re-examine the relevant theoretical framework through
the lens of (OC-OCT Fit), while senior managers will find it beneficial to control the contextual
nature of organizational functioning. The assessment of the OC-OCT fit will be also helpful for
human resources personnel and organizational change agents prior to the introduction of any change
strategies in organizations.
In terms of the development of organization theory, almost all of the relevant data were based on
the findings of the studies mostly carried out in States, Canada, and European countries and in
Australia. The similar studies (Wah, 2001; Pun, 2001;Tang, Kim & O‟Donald, 2000;) that focused on
understanding the determinants of Chinese and Japanese work culture deserve attention.
In this respect, Turkey has an outstanding position in terms of her socio-economic as well as cultural
status that represents rather a cultural blend of East and West. The research findings may well be
considered as, in Ashkanasy‟s words, “an attempt for understanding the nature of and ambiguity
* The author is grateful to the support of The Young Executives and Businessmen‟s Association (GYIAD) for
getting in touch with a number of companies to conduct this project as a good example of the participation
between universities and industrials.
4
inherent in what cannot be known” (2003) not only in cultural terrain but also the interplay between
the concepts of OC and OCT. Hofstede (1998) identifies organizational culture “as assumed
characteristic of an entire organization, i.e. of a social system” (p.488), and he states that “climate is a
tactical; culture is a strategic, concern” (p.489). In other words, the concept of organizational culture
implies relatively a static formation that is rooted in values, beliefs, and assumptions to be accepted
by the members of organizations. It represents the idiosyncratic nature of organizations as social
systems. In turn, the concept of organizational climate implies more dynamic formation that is about
work environment, is observable, and is being shaped under the influence of the cultural
characteristics of organizations. That explains, in extent, why Denison (1996) concludes, “the culture
and climate literature actually addresses common phenomenon” (p.646).
Despite the fact that the interdependence between the concepts of OC and OCT is of vital
importance for both, theoretical and practical reasons, “most researchers have ignored the similarities
and differences between organizational climate and organizational culture” (Fey & Beamish, 2001,
p.855). In this regard, a great part of the studies (Denison & Mishra, 1995, p.204; Kotter & Hesket,
1992, p.11; Pettigrew, 1990, p.415; Deal and Kennedy, 1982, p.5), examined the relationship between
overall performance of organizations and organizational culture. Another part of the studies focused
on the examination of the association, not only between OC, OCT, and also relevant organizational
issues such as person-environment fit, creativity, innovation or managerial values (Fey & Beamish,
2001; Kirsh, 2000; Wallace, Hunts & Richards, 1999; Amabile, 1999; Ahmed, 1998; Verbeke,
Volgering & Hessels, 1998; O‟Reilly, 1991).
The Concepts of Organizational culture and Climate
Organizational Culture
According to Reichers and Schneider (1990), following Smircich (1983), there have been two
distinct approaches to the definition of culture. While the first approach treats organizational culture
as “something an organization is, the second one accepts culture as something an organization has”
(1990, p.22). Although almost all of the academicians agree upon the second approach including
Schein (1992), Killman (1985), and Hofstede (2000), the concept of culture has not yet been clearly
defined and accepted.
In the light of functionalist approach, the development of organizational culture is related to the
capability of organizations in solving their” external adaptation and internal integration problems,”
and the development of culture is “identical to the process of group formation” (Schein, 1992, pp.51-
52). In a similar manner, Hofstede states, “one can only define culture for a group of people…
5
organizational culture is that which distinguishes the members of one organization from other people”
(2000, p.135; 1991, p.262).
It would also be beneficial to emphasize the study of Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels (1998),
which was based on the study of Sackmann (1991). Sackmann proposes three perspectives as
conceptual variations of organizational culture: „holistic, variable and cognitive.‟
Marcoulides and Heck (1993) introduce organizational culture as “… consisting of three
interrelated dimensions: a socio-cultural system of the perceived functioning of the organization‟s
strategies and practices, an organizational value system and the collective beliefs of the individuals
working in the organization” (p.209).
In his widely accepted and well-known definition, Schein (1992) defines culture as: “A pattern of
shared basic assumptions that the organization learned as it solved its problems of external adoption
and internal integration, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in
relation to those problems” (p.12).
Furthermore, Schein (1992) suggested that organizational culture is composed of three levels as
artifacts (the visible level), values (not observable, at the mid-level) and basic assumptions (at the core
of the formation). For Hofstede (1990), levels (or in his words) manifestations of culture have four
categories -from top to deepest- as symbols, heroes, rituals, and values. He claims that symbols,
heroes and rituals are considered as practices and are visible part of the cultures while values
constitute its invisible part (1998, p.2).
It would be also essential to mention about the 3-perspective theory suggested by Martin (2002) as
“integration, differentiation and fragmentation.” While the integration approach accepts
organizational culture as a shared and unambiguous phenomenon, the differentiation approach
suggests that there are a number of subcultures in organizations. The last approach defines
organizational culture as purely ambiguous and not even known by the members of organizations.
In this brief review of the concept of organizational culture, though not cited here, the author
would like to put emphasis on the critics of Ashkanasy (2003) on the richness as well as the
complexity of cultural terrain regarding the study of Martin (2002).
Organizational Climate
Organizational climate is, broadly speaking, related to the work atmosphere that covers ways and
methods undertaken by organizational members for organizational functioning. It has been widely
defined as the shared perceptions of employees regarding organizational functioning and practices. If
the concept of climate were analyzed at an individual level, it would be named “psychological
climate”. “When aggregated the concept is called organizational climate” (Isaksen, Lauer, Ekvall &
Britz, 2000-01, p.172).
6
Chinho Lin (1999) defines organizational culture as the shared assumptions and values by group
members and climate as the shared perceptions about organizational conditions. Lin (1999) bases his
definitions on Litwin and Stringer‟s (1968) organizational climate questionnaire. This well-known
measurement device covers nine dimensions of the concept of organizational climate: structure,
responsibility, reward, risk taking, support, warmth, standards, conflict and identity.
Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996) define four dimensions of organizational climate as „nature of
interpersonal relationships, nature of hierarchy, nature of work and focus on support and rewards‟.
Though there is an ongoing debate among scholars to the relevance of the dimensions regarding the
concept of organizational climate, these dimensions are considered as the overall perception of
organizational operations and practices shared by members of the organization.
According to Taguiri and Litwin (1968) climate is “the relatively enduring quality of the total
environment that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be
described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization”
(p.25). Moran and Volkwein (1992) examined the OCT by making four different approaches which
were named as cultural, perceptual, structural and interactive are, in fact, complementary depending
upon the viewpoint of researchers. In turn, Schein‟s definition of the climate concept is “the feeling
that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the way in which members of the organization
interact with each other, with customers or with other outsiders” (1992, p.9).
The interdependence between the concepts of culture and climate
Most of the scholars like McMurray (2003), Johnson (2000), Ahmed (1998), Denison (1996),
Schein (1992), Kopelman, Brief and Guzzo (1990) and many others cited or not in this paper, have all
indicated the association between these two concepts. The difficulty that is not only involved in
explaining these two concepts, but apart from methodological issues for measuring the concepts, there
is also the problem of overlapping issues for deciding which conceptual dimension belongs to which
concept.
Denison (1996) who explained the differences as well as the similarities in the culture and climate
literature, and clearly explained the association between these two concepts in terms of the definition
of phenomena, their epistemology and methodology and their theoretical foundations. Furthermore,
Denison (1996) gives an example of overlapping conceptual dimensions in the relevant literature in
relation to the use of risk-taking dimension as a dimension of OCT as Litwin and Stringer (1968)
suggest, or like Chatman (1989) who accepted very same dimension (risk-taking) as a part of OC.
As academicians and researchers, all we can say there is blurred but a potential link (Wallace,
Hunt, Richards, 1999) between these two concepts. In this article measurements were based on
perceptual descriptions of the members of organizations by means of making a quantitative approach.
In this sense, Wallach‟s OCI is a very typical instrument to measure OC at surface level to understand
7
the dominant quality of OC at three dimensions as bureaucratic, supportive and innovative. Wallach
(1983) operationalized each cultural dimension in such a manner that respondents are able to rate 24
cultural attributes according to their perceptions of the organization where they work.
Since each three basic cultural dimension consists of 8 adjective traits, a certain composition of
cultural traits indicates one of three main dimensions. While particular cultural attributes such as
sociability, personal freedom, harmony, openness, and encouragement represent supportive type of
culture; risk-taking, result-oriented, creative, challenging and enterprising are the attributes of
innovative type of culture. All of these cultural attributes as Shadur et al. (1999) underlined “appear to
resonate throughout the literature on organizational climate and culture, with Hofstede, Nueijin,
Ohayv, and Sanders (1990) noting that the three dimensions of the OCI have some overlap with the
practice dimensions (i.e., conventions, habits, mores) of their multidimensional model of
organizational culture.”
The climate questionnaire that is developed by the author (see figure 1), and administrated in this
study consists of ten dimensions, which are related to daily organizational practices regarding degree
of formalization, the use of communication channels, availability of managerial support, emphasis on
risk taking and teamwork as well as other areas of managerial issues. What is initially expected, is if
there were an interdependence between OC and OCT, it is likely to be depicted empirically by using
these measurement instruments (i.e. the climate questionnaire and Wallach‟s OCI).
In summary, most of the scholars like McMurray (2003), Johnson (2000), Ahmed (1998), Denison
(1996), Schein (1992), Kopelman, Brief and Guzzo (1990) and many others cited or not in this paper,
have all indicated the association between these two concepts. The key point is that these two
concepts exist in work settings, and they “are not distinct from each other as commonly believed”
(Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001, p.402). What the author believes, the argument should not be on the
relationship between the concepts of OC and OCT, but on the nature of the interdependence between
the conceptual dimensions.
Method
Research Objective
It is to explain the nature of the interrelationship between the dimensions of the concepts of
organizational culture (OC) and organizational climate (OCT) for the assessment of the OC-OCT fit.
Research design
The design of the study is explanatory, and analytical in nature. It is a comparative study that
enables the researcher to interpret the results more efficiently.
Sample and procedure
8
The study was performed in two well-known organizations situated in İstanbul, Turkey. The first
company (hereafter company A) operates in service sector nearly for two years, and it is an insurance
company financed by one the biggest private banks of Turkey. There were a total of 73 employees
(senior staff excluded) at the time of data collection period. The sample frame covered all of (73)
these employees. The data was collected in August and September‟03, and a total of 41 responses
yielded a response rate of 56.2%.
The company B is a big-scale organization, operating in textile sector for nearly 10 years, and has
a number of sales agents both at home and outside. It has 5 main divisions and the „marketing
department‟ as a functional unit, was included only in the sample. There were 50 employees and all of
them responded. The key reason of this selection is related to the homogeneity of a single department
as suggested by Hofstede‟s (1998) words; “theoretically it is obvious that in order to be a meaningful
subject for the study of its organizational culture, a unit should be reasonably homogeneous with
regard to the cultural characteristics studied…” (p.1).
Measurement devices
Two different instruments are employed for this study:
1) The organizational climate questionnaire: This is 6-point Likert scale ranging from „totally
agree‟ (6) to „totally disagree‟ (1). It comprised 26 items that relate to 10 dimensions of the concept of
organizational climate (20 items), and also contains 6 items about socio-demographics. Figure 1
displays the detailed description of the measurement instrument regarding the conceptual dimensions
of organizational climate.
The measurement instrument is developed (see Figure 1) by the author and based mainly on both
Litwin and Stringer‟s (1968) Organizational Climate Questionnaire, and the study of Schneider, Brief
and Guzzo (1996) as well as other leading scholars‟ studies (Kirsh, 2000: Fey & Beamish, 2001;
Jones & James, 1979). Each of the measurement devices that were developed by above cited scholars
have differing number of conceptual elements (up to 50 items) depending upon both their own
perspectives and the complexity of measurement.
Thus, 10 conceptual dimensions, which were operationalized in this study, selected according to
both the frequency of their usage and the importance given by above cited scholars and the
author. The final design of the questionnaire (see Figure 1) is based on the results of three different
studies (Yahyagil, 2003; Dikmen & Yahyagil, 2001; Yahyagil, 2001) conducted in Turkey. The factor
and reliability analyses that were performed in regard to these studies indicated validity and reliability
of this measurement instrument. The translation of the 20 items of the climate questionnaire is also
given in Appendix 1 as for complimentary information.
Litwin & Stringer Schneider, Brief Fey & Jones & Kirsh
& Guzzo Beamish James
9
. .
1- Formalization (TOTFORM) Q.1 Frm.1 x x x x
Q.8 Frm.2 x x
Q.11 Frm.3 x x x
2- Support (TOTSUPPRT)
Q.3 Spt.1 x x x x
Q.13 Spt.2 x x x x
3- Nature of Work (TOTWNATR)
Q.6 Wnt.1 x x
Q.12 Wnt.2 x x x
4- Reward (TOTREWRD)
Q.4 Rwd.1 x x x
Q.18 Rwd.2 x x x x
5- Interpersonal (TOTINTPR)
Relations
Q.10 Int.1 x x x x x
Q.15 Int.2 x x x x x
6-Risk Taking (TOTRISK)
Q.14 Rsk.1 x x x
7- Communication (TOTCOM)
Q.2 Com.1 x
Q.16 Com.2 x x x
8- Innovation (TOTINNOV)
Q.9 Inv.1 x x
Q.19 Inv.2 x
9- Decision Making (TOTDCSM)
Q.5 Decm.1 x x x
Q.20 Decm.2 x x
10- Team – work (TOTTEAM)
Q.7 Tmw.1 x x x
Q.17 Tmw.2 .
Figure 1 The conceptual dimensions of organizational climate questionnaire
2. The second measurement instrument is Organizational Culture Index (OCI)
originally developed by Wallach (1983). This instrument measures three major cultural
dimensions as bureaucracy, innovation, and support. This is a well-known 4-point Likert
scale that includes 24 items ranging from „does not describe my organization‟ to „describes
my organization most of the time‟. It is, in fact, a 24-item adjectival trait questionnaire
10
ranging from 0 to 3. This instrument (see Yahyagil, 2004) especially preferred for this study
-on purpose- simply it creates the cultural profile of an organization based on perceptual
descriptions of the members of organization.
Research Findings
The results of the analyses for climate questionnaire indicated a reliability coefficient
value (C. alpha) of (0.94) for Company A, and (0.87) for Company B respectively. In turn,
the reliability coefficient value (C. alpha) of Wallach‟s OCI is (0.82) for Company A, and
(0.68) for Company B. All the values indicated statistically satisfactory results for both
measurement instruments. All of the following research findings were presented in a
comparative manner.
Table 1
Analysis of demographic data for Company A and B
Sub-scale Company A Company B
Gender
Male (21) 51% (30) 60%
Female (20) 49% (20) 40%
Average age group (26-35) 73.1% (26-35) 70%
Education level
Some college - 40%
University 100% 60%
Average length of service 2 years (2-6 years) 56%
____________________________________________________________________
Since the responses of the participants reflected their perceptions in relation to the daily business
practices, a descriptive analysis was performed for understanding and comparing the general climatic
features of both organizations. The mean values that were calculated at item level yielded statistically
meaningful results due to the fact the both measurement instruments employed in this study are
measuring at interval level (Sekeran, 2000, p.190; pp.197-198). The major climatic characteristic of
both companies were related mainly to openness for new ideas and changes, teamwork as well as
having a challenging nature of work as given in Table 2.
Table 2
The differences in the mean values for top 10 climatic elements
Climatic elements_________________ Company A Company B
11
challenging nature of work 4.93 5.65
management welcomes new ideas and changes 4.56 5.12
emphasis given to teamwork 4.44 4.84
new and original ideas to receive consideration 4.32 4.38
warm relations between peers and superiors 4.29 4.46
Easy going work atmosphere 4.21 3.80
ability for involvement in decision-making process 4.05 4.04
accessibility to information on job flow 3.98 4.24
hierarchical distance should be kept 3.90 4.78
risk taking encouraged 3.37 4.10
In accordance with the differences at item level, the results of independent t-test analyses produced
significant differences (p<0.05) between Company A and Company B (formalization: t = 2.223, df=
88, p = 0.029), (support: t = 2.638, df= 89, p = 0.010), (reward: t = 2.380, df= 88, p = 0.019), (the
nature of work: t = 3.126, df= 88, p = 0.002) and (risk taking: t = 2.279, df= 89, p = 0.025).
In regard to assessing the cultural dimensions, 8 elements of each major cultural
dimension were calculated individually, and then, their averages were computed to
understand the differences in cultural dimensions of both organizations as this type of
analysis preferred in similar studies (Lok & Crawford, 1999; Reigle, 2001). As it is quite
obvious (See Table 3), though there was no clearly distinguishable formation of any cultural
dimension for Company A, the participants of both companies perceive their organization as
being more innovative.
Table 3
The differences in the mean values for cultural dimensions
Major Cultural dimensions Company A Company B
Bureaucratic 14.46 15.63
Innovative 16.61 19.08
Supportive _____ 15.05 16.35
Furthermore, an independent t-test was used to assess whether there are differences between the
major cultural dimensions of two organizations. The t-test results confirmed that there was a
significant difference (t = 3.440, df= 89, p = 0.001) for innovative culture dimension only.
Then, a set of factor analyses was performed separately for both organizations. Principal
component analyses were conducted using a criterion of eigenvalues greater than one, followed by the
12
varimax rotation to identify the conceptual dimensions of organizational climate. The reason for
performing principal component analyses is “to establish which linear components exist within the
data and how a particular variable might contribute to that component (Field, 2000, p.433). This is, in
fact, why this type of analysis is known as exploratory factor analysis “without prior specification of
number of factors and their loadings” (Kim & Mueller, 1978, p.84). Although, there has been and still
is an academic debate regarding the appropriate sample size for conducting factor analysis, recent
developments in the field of statistics indicated that “if a factor has four or more loadings greater than
0.60 then it is reliable regardless of sample size” (Field, 2000, p.443).
The factor analysis of 20-item climate questionnaire (Appendix 2) that was conducted for
Company A resulted with a KMO value of (0.810) at a high significance value (p<0.001). The factor
analysis extracted 4 factors. The analysis accounted for 71.2% of the common variance.
The first factor that consists of 6 items, accounting for 23% of the variance, represents a
combination of communication-flow, support, teamwork, and warm work atmosphere. Second factor
covers 6 items, accounting for 20.4% of the variance, as minimum level of bureaucracy, innovation,
teamwork, relations between peers and superiors, and encouragement for involvement in decision-
making process. Third one had 5 items, accounting for 19.2% of the variance, consists of reward and
recognition, risk taking, involvement in decision-making, and managerial support. Finally fourth
factor is a combination of formalization and challenging nature of work.
The factor analysis of 20-item climate questionnaire for company B resulted with a KMO value of
(0.689) at a very high significance value (p<0.001). The factor analysis (See Appendix 2) extracted 6
factors. The analysis accounted for 70.5% of the common variance.
The first factor that consists of 6 items, accounting for 15.4% of the variance, represents a
combination of teamwork, innovation, involvement in decision-making process, the nature of work
and support. The next largest factor had 5 items, accounting for 14.7% of the variance, related to
decision making, open-communication, interpersonal relations and support. Third factor that consisted
of 2 items included both of the items in relation to the dimension of formalization. Fourth factor could
be labeled as reward mechanism and the fifth one represents „innovation and risk taking‟ dimensions
along with formalization (minimum bureaucracy) quite meaningfully. The last factor consists of two
climatic elements as the nature of work and teamwork.
The second set of factor analyses were also performed in relation to the 24 item Wallach‟s OCI
(See Appendix: 3) for both companies. Principal component analyses were conducted using a
criterion of eigenvalues greater than one, followed by the varimax rotation to identify the conceptual
dimensions of organizational culture.
The factor analysis of 24-item OCI for Company A resulted with a KMO value of (0.625) at a very
high significance value (p<0.001). The factor analysis extracted 5 factors. The analysis accounted for
72.8% of the common variance.
13
The first factor that consists of 6 items, accounting for 23.1% of the variance, indicated supportive
cultural dimension along with two elements of innovative culture dimension. Second factor,
accounting for 18.1% of the variance, includes 6 items out of 8 in relation to bureaucratic culture
dimension. Third factor covers half of the items of innovative culture dimension, and accounts for
16.4% of the variance. The next two factors consist of a total of 5 items and represent a combination
of all of three-culture dimensions.
The factor analysis of 24-item OCI for Company B resulted with a KMO value of (0.587) at a very
high significance value (p<0.001). The factor analysis extracted 7 factors, and accounted for 68.6% of
the common variance.
Though general structure of 7 factors did not represent a homogeneous distribution as compare to
Company A, the first factor, accounts for 17.4% of the variance, consists of 6 items out of 8
supportive culture dimension and 3 items in relation to the innovative culture dimension. Second
largest factor is a blend of three dimensions, and accounts for 10.2% of the variance. Third factor,
accounts for 10.1% of the variance, indicates innovative culture dimension while the fourth factor,
accounts for 9.2% of the variance, represents bureaucratic dimension. The fifth factor is composed of
cultural elements of hierarchical and safe. The sixth one includes two elements of bureaucratic culture
and one element of supportive culture. Since the last factor that contains only cultural element of
cautious, might be eliminated.
The overall results of the principal component analyses of Wallach‟s OCI indicated greater
homogeneity for Company A similar to the results of the factor analyses of climate questionnaire. The
most important indicator was the conformity between the perceptions of the participants regarding the
characteristics of cultural and climatic nature of both organizations. The results of the analyses, which
were able to indicate that the respondents perceive their organizations as more innovative and
supportive than bureaucratic in terms of both climatic and cultural dimensions, were in fact, important
empirical evidence. That is because of the fact that this similarity implies conformity between cultural
and climatic elements of both organizations.
In terms of the explanation of the nature of the interdependence between the conceptual
dimensions of culture and climate, two more analyses were performed. The first set of analyses was
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In terms of EFA, the aim is to test researcher's assumption that any
research variable may be associated with any factor through the reduction of the number of variables.
In contrast, the second set of analyses was confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) which aims at testing
the researcher‟s hypothesis that is to determine a relationship between observed (indicator) variables
and their underlying dimensions called factors, or latent variables.
All of the basic conceptual (10 climatic and 3 cultural) dimensions (not the individual items) were
entered to run an exploratory factor analysis by using a criterion of eigenvalues greater than one. The
result indicated KMO value of (0.866) at (p < .001). Though the analysis extracted 2 factors
14
accounted for 56.5% of the common variance, the third factor‟s initial eigenvalue was exactly 1.000
(see Appendix 4 for the scree plot). Consequently, the researcher specified the number of factors (e.i.
3 factors) to be extracted for running another exploratory factor analysis. This very analysis indicated
KMO value as (.870) at (p< .001).
Three factors explained 64.4% of the common variance. The result was of interest in terms of the
separation of three cultural dimensions as associated with corresponding climatic elements
meaningfully (see Appendix 5). While the first factor consisted of supportive culture and 8 basic
climatic dimensions, the second factor was composed of innovative culture and risk taking as the
unique climatic element. The third factor included one of the basic climatic dimensions, namely,
decision-making along with bureaucratic culture type with a negative sign.
Then, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed and all of the basic conceptual (10
climatic and 3 cultural) dimensions (not the individual items) were entered. Since CFA seeks to
determine if the number of factors and the loadings of measured (indicator) variables on them
conform to what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory (Kim & Mueller, 1978, p.55), the
number of factors to be extracted was specified as 3 factors (See Table 4) based on the result of
previous factor analysis.
The goodness of fit test indicated good model fit (chi-square = 53.451, df = 42, p = .111).
As it is known, the test value should be non-significant (i.e. p > .05) and chi-square value
should be high (George and Mallery, 2001) regarding the outcomes of this test. Furthermore,
the results indicated the interdependence specified a priori exist between observed values and
their underlying latent constructs. Since the components share common variance following
nonorthogonal rotation (promax), total amount of variance, which was satisfactory, explained
by three factors. Structure matrix (see Table 4) clearly indicated the correlations between
factors as well as factors and basic cultural and climatic dimensions.
Table 4
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Structure Matrix
Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3
TOTSUPRT ,787 ,280 ,383
SUPPORTIVE cult ,785 ,524 ,309
TOTCOM ,760 ,371 ,405 TOTFORM ,717 ,334 TOTINTPR ,716 ,181 ,437 TOTINNOV ,680 ,506 ,455
TOTREWRD ,675 ,332 ,188 TOTTEAM ,674 ,307 ,296
TOTWNATR ,663 ,341 ,302
15
INNOVATIVE cult ,417 ,997 ,266
TOTDECSM ,608 ,348 ,823 TOTRISK ,504 ,425 ,554
BUREAUCR cult -,311
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
The interpretations were based on pattern matrix (see Appendix 6) that provides partial
correlations between basic conceptual dimensions and factors after rotation. While the first factor
indicated high degree of correlations between the majorities of climatic dimensions with supportive
culture, second factor includes only innovative type of culture with an extremely large loading, and
therefore, it should be interpreted as an independent component. In contrast, third factor included
bureaucratic culture dimension with a negative sign meaningfully together with two basic climatic
dimensions namely, decision-making and risk taking. The overlaps among basic dimensions represent
the quality of interdependence between the concepts of organizational culture and climate especially
in the light of general characteristics of two organizations.
The most striking result of the analysis was the meaningful composition of all of the climatic
dimensions together with supportive culture dimension (i.e. managerial support and openness of
communication channels) within the first factor. Formalization had very high component loading in
the first factor, and implied a -duality embodying both coercive and enabling elements- as Shadur et
al. (1999) underlined in their study on employee perceptions of organizational climate. Second factor
could only be labeled as innovative culture and third factor included bureaucratic culture and 2 basic
climatic dimensions. Bureaucratic culture that has a negative component loading was clearly
differentiated from both (supportive and innovative) cultural dimensions.
Factor correlation matrix obtained from CFA (see Appendix 7) as well as the correlation analyses
(see Appendix 8) indicated meaningful associations among basic conceptual dimensions. No
correlation was found between bureaucratic cultural dimension and climatic elements, in contrast,
quite significant correlations were traced among the innovative and supportive cultural dimensions
and climatic variables.
Discussion and conclusions
The research question of this study was to explain the nature of the interdependence between the
concepts of organizational culture and climate. The examination focused on whether there was
statistically significant interaction between the components of culture and climate concepts, and if this
were the case what was its nature?
In the light of statistical analyses, though there were differences between two organizations (as a
matter of fact, it was not the objective of this study), the participants perceived their organizations
more innovative and supportive in cultural sense than being bureaucratic. The respondents viewed
their work environments as characterized by giving priorities to openness to changes, innovation,
16
teamwork, interpersonal relations, and involvement in decision-making process. All of these climatic
elements were in line with the innovative and supportive cultural characteristics of both organizations.
The results of this study provided empirical evidence that there was interdependence existed
between the cultural characteristics of organizations and their climatic medium. Regardless of the
idiosyncratic nature of the cultural formation of organizations, the interaction among cultural and
climatic elements logically, tends to create a suitable work platform for organizational functioning.
This conformity between cultural characteristics of organizations and their climatic elements
implies the culture-climate fit. In regard to the organizational behavior literature, it is the core (beliefs,
assumptions and values) of culture concept that make organizational member to learn the ways and
methods of organizational functioning mechanism. In other words, culture-climate fit implies the level
of conformity not only in the minds of organizational members, but also in their perceptions and their
behaviors. This is related to the complex liaisons among cognitive, structural, and perceptual
perspectives as underlined by Verbeke, Volgering and Hessels (1998) who used principal component
analyses for the exploration of the conceptual expansion between organizational culture and climate.
The research data, firstly, implied the importance of the creation of supportive work atmosphere
for organizations to function in line with modern managerial principles. In sense, the nature of the
work was of importance for climatic formation. Secondly, although the culture of innovation had
relatively lesser level of relation with climatic variables in compare to supportive culture that was
because innovative culture requires considerably different type of formation in terms of focusing on
the enhancement of the creative abilities of organizational members. This implied that innovative type
of culture requires much higher degree of freedom and autonomy for introducing, discussing and
practicing new and even awkward ideas (see, Ahmed, 1998; Amabile et al.1996) in organizations.
The author developed a conceptual model (see Table 5) based on the component plot of the
confirmatory factor analysis to explain the organizational culture-climate fit.
Table 5
The Conceptual Model of Organizational Culture-Climate Fit
17
(*) Denotes basic climatic dimensions represented by “TOT‟s”
(**) Denotes basic cultural dimensions
The conceptual model of culture and climate fit visualized the interdependence between these
concepts. The spatial location of bureaucratic culture as one of the basic conceptual dimensions
indicated its different nature in compare to supportive and innovative dimensions.
The principles of modern management are the key issues for managers to develop and maintain a
work environment, which has two major priorities as its organizational objectives: 1. the achievement
of organizational goals, 2. to recognize the achievement of employees in accordance with Lewin‟s
(1963) definition, if a worker is a function of work environment, then, managers primarily have to
focus on the cultural characteristics) of any organization. „Culture‟ is the nucleus of all social systems
(i.e. nations, communities, or organizations) that stands for a base, and forms and shapes the work
environment.
The culture of an organization encompasses the values, beliefs, and paradigms of the members of
an organization. Although founders and leaders do affect the formation of an organization‟s cultural
system, this particular subject is beyond the aim of this paper. What should be also underlined is the
importance of person-organization fit. This topic is the responsibility of human resources department.
The realization of this fitness by human resources managers is essential because of the idiosyncratic
nature of organizations. Organizational culture should correspond to the most appropriate work
environment (climate), in order to function properly for maximum organizational efficiency.
In the light of the relevant theoretical framework and the above discussion, the major empirical
evidence derived from this study indicated three facts: 1. bureaucratic nature of organizations should
be kept at a level to help business channels to function simultaneously,
1.0
0.8 TOTSUPPRT * Supportive culture **
TOTCOM * TOTINTPR * TOTFORM *
TOTREWRD * *TOTINNOV
0.6 TOTTEAM * TOTWNATR *
0.1
**Innovative culture *TOTRISK
*TOTDECSM
0.0
- 2.0 **Bureaucratic culture
- 3.0
18
2. supportive culture or, in other words, the provision of managerial support to the members of
organization is a must, and 3. the emphasis ought to be put on personal freedom to become more
creative. These three factors make more innovative organization, by means of enabling as well as
encouraging the employees of an organization to take risks, to make business decisions independently,
and to be able to share all the resources and the amount of knowledge with others.
The conceptual model of organizational culture-climate (OC – OCT) fit (see Table 5) may be of
help to examine organizations through a culture-climate fit, sharing the interdependence between
these two formations. When senior managers of an organization value certain cultural attributes, then
they may expect the members of the organization to respond positively to this value system for
performing daily organizational activities, of course, other managerial issues such as leadership types
need to be taken into consideration.
As a final point, the author would like to stress the importance of organizational culture and
organizational climate (OC-OCT) fit in relation to two issues, which deserve the attention of both top-
management of organizations and the managers of human resources departments. Senior staff of any
organization ought to put emphasis on analysis of the cultural profiles of organizations prior to
implementation of any business or change strategy by considering organizational objectives.
This issue gains importance for instance, when a traditional company, which gives a decision for, the
implementation of e-business might fail in the transformation of a traditional organization into a
modern organization.
The reason is related to fact that no organization might be successful in implementing such radical
changes in its business strategies only by hiring experts and professionals for the use of an effective
network system. What is essential is to match the existing cultural structure of organizations with its
work environment in accordance with the requirements of proposed changes as in the implementation
of e-business in a traditional company. Similarly, in terms of person-organization fit, human resources
activities should focus on the selection of employees, arrangement of development and training
programs for sustaining the appropriate organizational culture for the creation of the most suitable
work environment.
19
References:
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and Climate for Innovation. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 1(1), 30-43.
Amabile, T.M.; Conti, R. Coon, H.; Lazenby, J & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Jopurnal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Anderson, Ones, Sinangil & Viswesvaran (Eds.), s.
398-414. (Volume 2:Organizational Psychology), Sage Publications.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003), Organizational culture: Mapping the Terrain. Personnel Psychology, 56(1),
254-257.
Chatman, J.A. & Jehn, K.A. 1994. Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and
organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37, 522-553.
Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S. & Earley, C. P. (2001). The international handbook of organizational
culture and climate. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Deal, T.E. & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
20
Denison, D. R. & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Towards a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture, and Organizational
climate? Academy of Management Review, 21, 619-655.
Dikmen; C. & Yahyagil, M.Y. (2001). 9.Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizyon Sempozyumu
Bildiriler: (Proceedings of 9.National Symposium of Management and Organization) (ss.885-905)
Istanbul Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi (24-26.Mayıs.2001).
Fey, C. F. & Paul, W. B. (2001). Organizational climate similarity and performance: International
joint ventures in Russia. Organizational Studies, 22, 853-882.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics (using SPSS for windows), Sage Publications
Hofstede G., Neujen B., Ohavy D.D. & Sanders G. 1990, Measuring organizational cultures,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No: 2, s.286-316.
Hofstede, G.: Bond, M.H. & Luk, C.(1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A
methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organizational Studies,14 (4), 483-503.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subculture: An empirical approach. Journal of
Management Studies, 35(1), 1-12.
Hofstede, G. (2000). Organizational culture: siren or sea cow? A reply to Dianne Lewis. Strategic
Change, 9, 135-137.
Hofstede, G. 2001, Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research,
International Mangement of Cross Cultural Management, Vol.1, No: 1, s. 11-30.
Isaksen, S.G.; Lauer, K.J.; Ekwall, G. & Britz, A., (2000-01), Perception of the worst and best
climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook
questionnaire, Creativity Research Journal, 13, 171-184.
Johnson, J.J. (2000). Differences in supervisor and non-supervisor perceptions quality culture and
organizational climate. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 119-129.
21
Jones, A.P. & James, L.R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual
and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
23, 201-250.
Kilmann, R. H.; Saxton, M. J. & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Kim, J. & Mueller, C.W. (1978) Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues, Sage
Publications, University Paper Series No:07-014.
Kirsh, B. (2000). Organizational culture, climate and person-environment fit: Relationship with
employment outcomes for mental health consumers. Work, 14, 109-122.
Kopelman,R.E., Brrief, A.P. & Guzzo, R. A. (1990) The Role of Climate & Culture in
Productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.) Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
(pp.282-318)
Kotter, J. P & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance, New York: The Free Press.
Lewis, D. (2000). The usefulness of the organizational culture concept: a response to Gert Jan
Hofstede‟s comments. Strategic Change, 9:2, 139-141.
Lin, C. (1999). “The Association between Organizational Climate and Quality Management Practices:
An Empirical Study on Small and Medium-sized Manufacturing Companies in Taiwan”, Total
Quality Management, 10(6), 863-869.
Litwin, G. H. & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational culture,
subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(7), 365-379.
Marcoulides, G. A. & Heck, R.N. (1993) Organizational culture and performance:
proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), pp.209-25
22
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications
McMurray, A.J. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and organizational culture.
Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 3(1-2), 1-9.
Moran, E.T. & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational
climate. Human Relations, 45(1), 19-46.
O'Reilly, C. A.; Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3),
487-516.
Pettigrew, A.M.; (1990) “Organizational climate and culture ”In B. Schneider (Ed.) Organizational
Climate and culture, Jossey-Bass Publishers, (pp. 413-433)
Pun, K.F. (2001). “Cultural influences on total quality management adoption in Chinese
enterprises: An empirical study.” Total Quality Management, 12(3), 323-353.
Reichers, A. E. & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture: s. 5-39. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sackman, S. A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collective mind. Newbury
Park, CA Sage.
Sekeran, U. (2000). Research methods for business (A skill building approach), (3rd
.ed.) John Wiley
& Sons
Shadur, M.A., Kienzle, R. & Rodwell, J.J. (1999). The relationship between organizational
climate and employee perceptions of involvement. Group and Organization Management,
24, 479-504.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. (2nd
ed.), San Francisco.
Schneider, B.; Brief, A. & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a Climate & Culture for Sustainable
Organizational Change, Organizational Dynamics, 24, 6-20.
23
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. & Smith, B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel
Psychology, 48(1), 742-3.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G.H. (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press
Tang, T.L.; Kim, J.K. & O‟Donald, A. (2000). Perceptions of Japanese organizational culture-
Employees in non-unionized Japanese owned and unionized US-owned automobile plants. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 535-559.
Verbeke, W.; Volgering, M. & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion within the
field of organizational behavior: Organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of
Management Studies, 35(3), 303-329.
Wah, S S. (2001). Chinese cultural values and their implication to Chinese management. Singapore
Management Review, 23(2), 75-84.
Wallace, J., Hunt, J. & Richards, C. (1999). The relationship between organizational culture,
organizational climate and managerial values. The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 12(7), 548-564.
Wallach, E. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match, Training and Development
Journal, 2, 28-36.
Yahyagil, M.Y. (2001). KOBİ‟lerde bilgisayar teknolojileri uygulamaları: (The Application of IT In
SME’s: Managerial attitudes in SME’s and employee perceptions of organizational climate in
relation to the implementation of e-commerce in a manufacturing company), Istanbul, The Publication
of Istanbul Chamber of Commerce, ITO Publication no: 26.
Yahyagil, M.Y. (2003). “The Employee Perceptions Of Organizational Climate And Its Relationship
With Job Satisfaction In An Private Healthcare Organization”, (2003) The Proceedings Of
International Conference On Challenging The Frontiers In Global Business & Technology,
24
(Eds. N.Delener & C.Chao) pp.1339-1349. A Publication Of Global Business And Technology
Association.
Yahyagil, M.Y. (2004). “Denison örgüt kültürü ölçme aracının geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması:
Ampirik bir uygulama” (An empirical investigation: The Validity and reliability of The Turkish
version of Denison‟s organizational culture questionnaire), Yönetim, I.U. Isletme Iktisadı Enstitusu
Dergisi, No: 47 (Management, The journal of The Institute of Managerial Economics, The University
of Istanbul), pp.53-76.
Appendix 1
Organizational Climate Questionnaire (20 items / 6 point-Likert scale)
Q1) clearly defined jobs and business procedures
Q2) information given about organizational activities
Q3) getting assistance from top-management
Q4) reward in proportion to involvement in business strategies
Q5) involvement in decision-making process
Q6) challenging nature of work
Q7) emphasis given to teamwork
Q8) red-tape is kept to a minimum
Q9) new and original ideas to receive consideration
Q10) warm relations between peers and superiors
Q11) hierarchical procedures should be observed
Q12) motivating nature of work
Q13) availability of peer support
Q14) risk taking encouraged
Q15) easy-going work atmosphere
Q16) accessibility to information on job flow
Q17) no satisfactory team work
25
Q18) recognition in proportion to individual performance
Q19) management welcomes new ideas and changes
Q20) emphasis on involvement in decision-making process
Appendix 2
Factor Analyses of Climatic Variables for Both Companies
COMPANY A COMPANY B
Factor 1 Factor 1
Com.2 (.82) Tmw 1 (.83)
Int.2 (.73)
Inv.1 (.77)
Tmw.2 (.71) Dcm.1 (.69)
Wnt.2 (.68)
Wnt.2 (.59)
Int.1 (.62)
Int.1 (.56)
Frm.1 (.61)
Spt.1 (.42)
Com.1 (.58)
Factor 2
Factor 2 Dcm.2 (.83)
Decm.2 (.80)
Com.2 (.78)
Inv.1 (.80) Int.2 (.68)
Inv.2 (.78) Spt.2 (.59)
Tmw.1 (.64)
26
Int.1 (.60) Factor 3
Decm.2 (.55)
Frm.3 (.78)
Frm.1 (.74)
Factor 3
Rwd.2 (.78) Factor 4
Rısk (.69) Rwd.1 (.83)
Rwd.1 (.65)
Rwd.2 (.67)
Decm.1 (.62)
Com.1 (.65)
Spt.1 (.61)
Factor 5
Factor 4 Frm.2 (.80)
Frm.3 (.69)
Risk (.62)
Wnt.1 (.68)
Inv.2 (.61)
Factor 6 Wnt.1 (.70)
Tmw.2 (- .62)
Appendix 3
Factor Analyses of Cultural Variables for Both Companies
COMPANY A COMPANY B
Factor 1 Factor1 Stimulating .85 Stimulating .78 Safe .80 Personal freedom .75 Sociable .80 Sociable .72 Encouraging .74 Creative .64 Creative .74 Encouraging .60 Trusting .74 Equitable .58
Personal freedom .68
Relationships-oriented .58
Collaborative .57 Results-oriented -48
27
Equitable .55 Factor 2 Factor 2 Structured .85 Established, solid -71
Power-oriented .80 Trusting .71
Hierarchical .77 Risk taking .68 Procedural .76 Regulated .75 Factor 3
Established, solid .74 Enterprising .81
Challenging .78 Factor 3 Driving .66 Enterprising .84 Challenging .84 Factor 4 Driving .75 Regulated .77 Risk taking .73 Structured .66 Pressurized .62 Factor 4 Procedural .43
Results-oriented -79
Relationships-oriented .51 Factor 5
Hierarchical .84 Factor 5 Safe .58 Pressurized .82 Ordered .65 Factor 6 Cautious -52 Power-oriented .81 Ordered .64 Collaborative .54 Factor 7 Cautious .91
28
Appendix 4
The Scree plot for Principal Component Analysis
Scree Plot
Component Number
13121110987654321
Eig
enva
lue
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Appendix 5
Explorative Factor Analysis
Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3
TOTINTPR ,799 ,275 TOTSUPRT ,789 ,196 TOTCOM ,771 ,209
TOTFORM ,730 ,243 -,268 TOTTEAM ,723
SUPPORTIVE cult ,688 ,461
TOTWNATR ,632 ,314 TOTREWRD ,632 ,365 -,112 TOTINNOV ,532 ,494 ,318
INNOVATIVE cult ,118 ,905
TOTRISK ,300 ,541 ,487
29
BUREAUCR cult ,156 -,817
TOTDECSM ,539 ,205 ,555 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Appendix 6
Pattern Matrix of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Conceptual Dimensions
Factor Factor
Factor
1 2 3 TOTFORM ,886 -,399 TOTSUPRT ,830 -,129 TOTINTPR ,751 -,226 ,160
TOTREWRD ,734 -,157
SUPPORTIVE cult ,729 ,201
TOTCOM ,727 TOTTEAM ,690
TOTWNATR ,651 TOTINNOV ,502 ,217 ,159
INNOVATIVE cult 1,036
TOTDECSM ,291 ,689
BUREAUCR cult ,221 -,420
TOTRISK ,230 ,198 ,389 Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Cultural dimensions written in bold
Appendix 7 Factor Correlation Matrix of CFA
Factor 1 2 3
1 1,000 ,479 ,460 2 ,479 1,000 ,300 3 ,460 ,300 1,000
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
30
Appendix 8
The correlations between cultural and climatic dimensions
Dimensions
Totform
Totcom
Totsuprt
Totrewrd
Totdcsm
Totwnatr
Totteam
Totinnov
Totintpr
Totrisk
SUPPORTIVE
Culture
.53**
.58**
.62**
.56**
.39**
.49**
.66**
.63**
.54**
.38**
INNOVATIVE Culture
.27*
.31**
.23*
.30**
.31**
.30**
.28**
.48**
-
.35**
(*) Denotes significance level of .05
(**) Denotes significance level of .00