Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Emerald Article: AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CULTURE AND EFFECTIVENESS David L. Turnipseed

Article information:

To cite this document: David L. Turnipseed, (1988),"AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CUL EFFECTIVENESS", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 5 pp. 17 - 21 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053644 Downloaded on: 26-01-2013 Citations: This document has been cited by 5 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1910 times since 2008. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

David L. Turnipseed, (1988),"AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CULTURE AND EFFECT Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 5 pp. 17 - 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053644

David L. Turnipseed, (1988),"AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CULTURE AND EFFECT Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 5 pp. 17 - 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053644

David L. Turnipseed, (1988),"AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CULTURE AND EFFECT Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 5 pp. 17 - 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053644

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

AN INTEGRATED, INTERACTIVE MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE, CULTURE AND EFFECTIVENESS

by David L. Turnipseed
Georgia Southern College, USA The concept of organisation climate is a relatively recently identified factor of organisations which has enjoyed much academic and popular attention over the past several years. Unfortunately, climate has sometimes been confused w i t h , or used synonymously w i t h , culture: there is, however, a clear and important distinction. Culture may be defined as the shared beliefs, values and assumptions that exist in an organisation[1]. Climate is a bit more evasive, and is defined as those attributes which may be perceived about an organisation, and w h i c h may be induced from the manner by which the organisation deals w i t h its members and environments[2]. Climate exists within the culture, and is a much more dynamic and fluid construct. Climate may be shaped by the culture, and may simultaneously exert shaping forces upon the culture. Some authors suggest that climate is only the view of the organisation's members, rather than a unique organisational attribute. However, most academicians agree that organisations differ by their climates[3] and their culture[4,5].

Recent literature has shown a direct link between culture and effectiveness[5,6,7,8], but far less attention has been given to the influence of climate. Guion[9] wrote that the family of constructs implied by the term organisation climate may be one of the most important to capture the attention of industrial and organisational psychologists in many years. Cameron[10] stated that the concept of effectiveness is implicitly linked to almost all organisational research. Yet attempts to tie climate and effectiveness directly together have lagged[11]. This article presents an integrated, interactive model showing the relationship between climate, culture and other variables, and organisation effectiveness.

Current expenditure per student Student/teacher ratio Cost of instruction Drop-out rate Local revenue for education

LEA funds Percentage economically deprived Assessed property Financial index Attendance rate

Source:[12]. Table I.

The Model
Basic to any model are clear and valid definitions of the component parts. This model is based on the definitions of culture and climate as set out above. Effectiveness is defined as formal organisational goal attainment, and is a totally different concept from efficiency, which refers to an optimal input/output ratio. The Example Organisation This model uses a state school system and two of its school districts as examples. The school system (at the state level) set out formal organisational goals for its 126 districts, and also developed effectiveness criteria. The individual school districts operate semiautonomously under a district superintendent who in turn has individual school principals under him.

Effectiveness Criteria The state system's measure of effectiveness was the composite of each district's students' scores on an essential skills test that measured reading, spelling, language and maths skills. Using the scores from this test, which was given each year, the Education Cabinet ranked the school districts from most to least effective. First-order Determinants of Effectiveness As a major project, the state school system Office of Research and Planning identified a number of factors that determine the effectiveness of the districts as measured by the scores on the essential skills test. These factors are shown in Table I. Basic Model Based on the determinants of effectiveness which were identified by the school system, a basic model of effectiveness can be developed that depicts the relationship between effectiveness (the composite results on the essential skills test) and these determining factors. This basic model is depicted in Figure 1.

Determinants of School System Effectiveness

LODJ 9,5 1988 17

This model shows the entire organisation existing within its culture. Culture influences the organisation's goals, and thus its measures of effectiveness (meeting those goals). It also influences the organisation's climate. The chosen goals of the organisation interact with and exert an influence on the culture and the climate. Culture is a fairly stable long-term construct, while climate is dynamic and may change often and rapidly, or it may change slowly. In any organisation, there are certain identifiable factors (structural, financial, market and other general business conditions) that affect that organisation's ability to be effective. However, these economic and business conditions cannot capture the entire phenomenon of effectiveness: if this were possible, all organisations with the same goals and facing the same business conditions would be equally effective. The pervasive construct of climate is an additional factor that is a determinant of effectiveness. Climate may be conceptualised as the organisational mood: it is affected by events and characteristics of the organisation, and it in turn exerts a strong influence on the behaviour of the organisation's members and on the culture. Climate is influenced by the prevailing economic and business environment, as well as by the criteria of effectiveness. Also, socialisation, structure, managerial convergence, standards, the reward structure, behavioural norms, physical conditions, atmosphere, and management policies and behaviour exert a formative influence on climate. The organisation's culture, effectiveness criteria, structure, financial, market, general business factors, and the determinants of its climate are often significantly influenced by the relevant external environment.

Many factors, both internal and external, affect the climate and culture of an organisation. . .
As the culture forms over time, it becomes stable and resistent to change. The climate, which is directly affected by a number of volatile factors is dynamic and, just as a mood, it changes in response to those factors. These changes in climate may enhance or impede effectiveness within a stable culture: however, over time, a climate moving in one general direction may also move the culture. Many factors, both internal and external, affect the climate and culture of the organisation and are, in turn, affected. Because of the great amount of interaction, and the uniqueness of each organisation's situation, investigation of climate and culture will probably remain somewhat subjective, and guided by rather loose procedures. However, a model such as the above can be generalised to a large number of organisations, and provides a framework within which to evaluate and understand the effects of climate and culture on organisational effectiveness.

This model does not include all the factors which influence effectiveness. An inspection of the 126 ranked school systems reveals some systems that are quite effective, yet their determinants closely match those of less effective systems. This phenomenon can be generalised to all organisations: structural, financial, market, and other visible and easily measurable factors often do not account for the ultimate effectiveness of an organisation. The basic model can be expanded to the model shown in Figure 2. LODJ 9,5 1988 18 The Integrated, Interactive Model Using the basic model of effectiveness, and including the climate and its determinants, and culture, an integrated model is obtained. The model is shown in Figure 3.

Most Effective: Value Decile Least Effective: Value Decile Source: [12].

Current Pupil/ Cost of Expen- Teacher Instruction diture Ratio 1715 5 21.6 3 1291.94 0.6

Dropout 6.1 2

LEA Funds 8.20 1

Economically Deprived 30.5 6

Financial Index 0.440 7

Attendance Rate 90.9 1

Assessed Property 80556 3

Local Revenue 15.1 5

Combined WES Scores 60.1 9

1737 6

20.9 5

1188.77 4

4.7 5

7.70 1

32.4 6

0.460 7

93.9 3

93116 6

18.5 6

48.4 1

Table II.

Preliminary Model Validation

Using the data from the example state school system, districts from the top and bottom of the ranked effectiveness scores were examined to find the greatest similarity in the effectiveness determinants and, simultaneously, the largest difference in effectiveness (test) scores. A close match in the determinants was found in a system in the ninth decile and a system in the first decile effectiveness ranking (see Table II). Having matched a very effective organisation and a very ineffective organisation along the ten effectiveness determinants, there remain some unexplained factors that account for the great difference (ninth to first decile) in effectiveness. This difference is hypothesised to be climate and culture. The organisation climate was tested by the use of a standardised test instrument, and culture was assessed by interview and other subjective investigations in the two subject districts. The Test Instrument The organisational climate of the subject districts was assessed via the Work Environment Scale[13], which is one of the social climate scales developed by Rudolph Moos at Stanford University, beginning in 1974. This Work Environment Scale (WES) measures three dimensions that capture the climate of the work setting: relationship, personal growth, and system maintenance and change. These three dimensions are comprised of ten subscales, as shown in Table III.
1. 2. 3. Involvement Peer cohesion Supervisor support

Effectiveness and the Determinants

Relationship

Dimension

The extent to which employees are concerned about and committed to their jobs. The extent to which employees are friendly and supportive of one another. The extent to w h i c h management is supportive of employees and encourages employees to be supportive of one another. Personal Growth Dimension

4.

Autonomy

The extent to w h i c h employees are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to make their own decisions. The degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency and getting the job done. The degree to which the pressure of work and time urgency dominate the job milieu. System Maintenance and System Change Dimension

5. 6.

Task orientation Work pressure

7.

Clarity

The extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies are communicated. The extent to which management uses rules and pressures to keep employees under control. The degree of emphasis on variety, change and new approaches. The extent to which the physical surroundings contribute to a pleasant work environment.

8.

Control

9.

Innovation

Although subjective in interpretation. . . climate and culture factors in the two organisations were. . .very different
The WES meets five important psychometric criteria: first, the overall item split is close to 50-50 to avoid items characteristic only of unusual work settings. Items in the scale correlate more highly with their own subscale than with any other, and each of the ten subscales has an approximately equal number of items scored true and false to control for acquiescence

10. Physical comfort Source: [14].

responses. The subscales have low to moderate intercorrelations, and each item and each subscale discriminates among work settings[14]. Teachers in the more effective and less effective districts were given the WES on a voluntary basis. A 78 per cent response was obtained in the more effective district, and 85 per cent in the less effective.

Table III. WES Subscales and Dimensions Descriptions

LODJ 9,5 1988 19

Subscale Involvement Peer cohesion Supervisor support Autonomy Task orientation Work pressure Clarity Control Innovation Physical comfort
a b

More Effective District a 58 58 49 58 62 68 50 60 54 49

Results
Less Effective District b Difference 51 54 48 55 59 58 57 58 42 41 7 4 1 3 3 10 (7) 2 12 8 p>t 0.05 0.04 0.90 0.55 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.84 0.00 0.01

The Work Environment Scale results show that the more effective school district has a different climate profile from that of the less effective. Of the ten measured dimensions, nine were higher in the more effective system, and of these nine, six were significantly higher (see Table IV and Figure 4). Examination of the rules and regulations, socialisation, operational goals and other non-quantifiable factors revealed a quite different focus between the two organisations. The less effective district had much more detailed and confining rules and regulations, a different set of operational goals (bureaucratic compliance) and additional levels in the managerial hierarchy which were added at the discretion of the principals (this level consisted of team leaders, which was another layer of management). There was a group orientation (individual school or building floor) in the less effective organisation, whereas the more effective district had a district (or organisational) focus. The hiring procedures in the less effective system were centred at the school level under the control of the school principal, and in the more effective, at the district level and under the direct supervision of the superintendent. Evaluation in the more effective system stressed quality of instruction and innovation, and in the less effective, compliance with rules and regulations was the dominant factor. Relations between management (superintendent and principals) and employees (teachers) was also quite different, with the more effective system having much more supportive and informal manager-employee interaction. Small informal groups were the centre of social activity in the less effective district, whereas the more effective had a school level grouping. Although admittedly subjective in interpretation, the non-quantifiable climate and culture factors in the two organisations were, without question, very different. When evaluated with respect to the Work Environment Scale profile, these factors support the WES results.

N = 70. N = 49.

Table IV.
Work Environment Scale Results (Standardised Scores)

Conclusion
Although the results of this study do not provide total validation for the proposed model, they yield substantive support. Much support is given by the WES profile to the idea of climate being a measurable determinant of organisational effectiveness. The very different profiles of the more and less effective organisations can reasonably be interpreted as support for the proposition that climate is a contributor to effectiveness. The issue of climate is not whether it is good or bad, but how much it contributes to goal attainment. Because the concept of culture was assessed by nonquantifiable variables, a less strong argument can be made for the validity of the fit of culture in this model. The different cultures of the two organisations strongly affected their climates and their climates, in turn, affected their effectiveness. The construct of culture may remain a variable that must be assessed subjectively, but that does not do damage to the model, or reduce its utility.

LODJ 9,5 1988 20

Interview and Investigation In order to fully understand the climate and culture, and the causative and interactive processes, each of the levels of management in the two districts (the district superintendent, principals, assistant principals and team leaders) were interviewed. Major areas of interest were operational goals, socialisation, policy, rules and regulations, hiring practices, formal and informal groups, employee-management relations, evaluation of employees and major areas of operational emphasis. Handbooks, manuals, and other materials were obtained and evaluated with respect to their possible influence on the climate, and how they may have been influenced by the organisation's culture.

This model provides a complete framework for assessing, by any available means, the interactive relationship a m o n g climate, culture and effectiveness. The use of this model allows identification of factors that may be impeding the goal attainment of the organisation. Also, this approach can be used for planning organisation development attempts, and for predicting the effects of different types of intervention that may impact the organisation's culture on climate. Perhaps most importantly, the model depicts the pervasive, interactive nature of culture, climate and effectiveness.

Future Research
The framework provided by this model needs to be applied to other types of organisations including effective and ineffective examples of each and validation studies continued. Also, the model needs to be applied to for-profit business organisations to assess its generalisability across different effectiveness measures.

References 1. Johns, G., Organizational Behavior, Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois, 1988. 2. Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W., "Organization Climate: Measures and Contingencies", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, 1978, pp. 255-80. Muchinsky, P.M., Psychology Applied to Work, Dorsey Press, Chicago, 1987. Deal, T. and Kennedy, A., Corporate Cultures, AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1982. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., Jr., In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, 1982. Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M., "Theories of Organizational Culture", Organization Studies, Vol. 5, 1984, pp. 193-226. Schein, E.H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985. Ouchi, W., Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the, Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1981. Guion, R.M., "A Note on Organizational Climate", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9, 1973, pp. 120-25.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10. Cameron, K., "Construct Space and Subjectivity Problems in Organizational Effectiveness", Public Productivity Review, Vol. 8, 1981, pp. 105-21. 11. DeWitte, K. and DeCock, G., "Organizational Climate: Its Relationship with Managerial Activities and Communication Structures", The Psychology of Work and Organization, Elsevier Science Publishing, North Holland, 1986.

12. Kentucky State Department of Education, Office of Research and Planning, Report, 1985. 13. Moos, R.H., The Social Climate Scales: An Overview, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1974. 14. Moos, R.H., Work Environment Scale Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1986. LODJ 9,5 1988 21