Organizational Culture Assessment

245

Behavioral Norms and Expectations A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

ROBERT A. COOKE

University of Illinois at Chicago DENISE M. ROUSSEAU Northwestern University

Organizational culture—the shared beliefs and values guiding the thinking and behavioral styles of members—traditionally has been assessed by qualitative methods. However, quantitative approaches such as culture surveys offer important advantages for both cross-sectional organizational research and data-based cultural change programs. The Organizational Culture Inventory, an instrument designed for such uses, profiles the culture of organizations and their subunits in terms of behavioral norms and expectations. Following a review of concepts relevant to culture (e.g., dominant cultures, subcultures, cultural direction, and intensity), this article presents the theoretical framework underlying the culture inventory. Data provided by members of diverse organizations are used to show that there is agreement within organizations, and significant differences across organizations, with respect to the norms and expectations measured by the inventory. At the same time, subcultural differences within organizations are shown to occur across hierarchical levels. Supplementary data on preferred norms indicate that members of different organizations agree that the ideal cultures for their firms would promote achievement-oriented, affiliative, humanistic, and self-actualizing thinking and behavioral styles. The implications of these findings are discussed for the use of the Organizational Culture Inventory in the context of research and change programs.

The emergence of culture as a concept relevant to organizations and their effectiveness has generated many as-yet-unresolved issues concerning the design, development, and study of organi- zations. Unanswered questions remain regarding the meaning and content of culture (Martin & Siehl, 1983; Louis, 1983), the methods by which it should be measured (Schein, 1984; Sashkin & Fullmer, 1985) and, more fundamentally, the feasibility of cultural change and the direction that it should take (Business Week, 1984: Uttal,

Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, September 1988 245-273 e 1988 Sage Publications, Inc.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

246

1983). While debates around these issues continue, culture has been accepted as a fact of organizational life by managers and has become an integral aspect of many organizational change programs. The concept of organizational culture is derived from research in

the field of organizational behavior characterized by the use of qualitative methods. To an extent the use of these methods derives from the issues of interest to scholars who have studied culture in organizations: symbolism, sense-making, and socialization (e.g., Louis, 1980; Martin & Siehl, 1983; Smircich, 1983)-issues involving unique individual perspectives highly amenable to qualitative study. Yet one of the most powerful strategies for organizational development is data-based change-an approach that generally relies on the use of quantitative measures (Huse & Cummings, 1985; Nadler, 1977).

Qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary ap- proaches to the study and assessment of organizational processes and attributes. The advantages of qualitative methods include the use of the focal unit’s own terms to describe itself, the intensive and in-depth information that can be obtained about a unit, and the amenability of the method for exploratory research on issues and processes about which little information exists. The advantages of quantitative methods include the ease of cross-sectional assess- ments and comparisons (across individuals, organizations, or sub- units), the replicability of the assessment in different units and by other researchers or organizational development professionals, and a common articulated frame of reference for interpreting the data. Although both methods share the potential for producing cumulative bodies of information for assessment and theory testing, quantitative approaches may be more practical for pur- poses of analyzing data-based change in organizations. The method described here is a quantitative approach to the

assessment of a specific aspect of organizational culture-the shared norms and expectations that guide the thinking and behavior of members. The measurement instrument to be discus- sed, the Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Lafferty, 1983, 1986), is designed to be used for intra- as well as interorganizational comparisons in research and for promoting cultural change through survey-guided organization development programs. This article reviews the general concepts of organizational culture, dominant cultures and subcultures, the attributes of &dquo;direction&dquo; and &dquo;in-

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

247

tensity,&dquo; and the theoretical framework underlying the culture inventory. It tests hypotheses that the norms and expectations measured by the inventory are perceived in consistent ways by members of specific organizations (and are therefore organizational rather than individual-level phenomena) but that subunit and hierarchical factors can lead to important differences in these perceptions. Differences across organizations with respect to their prevailing norms and expectations are also hypothesized about and tested for through the use of statistical techniques and case examples.

GENERAL NATURE OF CULTURE

Culture has been treated by anthropologists (Geertz, 1973; Wallace,1970) and organizational researchers (Smircich, 1983) as a set of cognitions shared by members of a social unit (Table 1). These cognitions are acquired through social learning and socialization processes exposing individuals to a variety of culture-bearing elements. These elements are the observable activities and inter- actions, communicated information, and artifacts that form the social experience. In organizations, the patterns of activities and interactions that members observe and carry out (e.g., decision making, communicating) constitute major elements of the system’s structure, making structure itself an important culture-bearing mechanism in organizations. Communication in such forms as stories, rumors, reported events, and role expectations convey normative information about the appropriateness and desirability of behaviors. Artifacts such as the physical plant, the equipment and resources used on the job (their quality and availability), and symbols that represent the organization or its members (such as logos and titles) have meaning and value attached to them that reinforce the way people behave and think. Culture-bearing elements are reinforcers of ways of thinking and behaving in the manner in which behaviorists use the term; reinforcers strengthen the connection between features in the environment and an individual’s responses.

Culture-based cognitions are akin to what Weick (1979) has labeled the &dquo;enacted environment.&dquo; Weick argues that individuals

develop an organized view of the world to reduce the equivocality and uncertainty of events. This organization is accomplished by constructing meanings for events through identifying patterns

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

248

TABLE 1

Culture Definitions

(e.g., x - y - z). The process of interpreting and attaching meanings to these patterns typically involves the efforts of two or more people, hence the origin of the term &dquo;social construction of reality.&dquo; These social constructions, often focusing on the behaviors and interpersonal styles that are expected and rewarded by the organization, exist prior to the entry of a new member into the system. Thus culture provides a premade and socially shared enacted environment to which the individual must accommodate in order to fit in and, in certain cases, to survive. Building on this cognitive view of culture, the assessment system proposed here derives from a definition of culture as &dquo;the ways of thinking, behaving, and believing that members of a social unit have in common.&dquo;

Different cultures in the same organization. If culture is the enacted environment members share, any organization can be

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

249

characterized not only by a dominant culture linked to its pre- dominant internal environment but by subcultures as well. Sub- cultures reflect enactments of the myriad distinct work and social environments within an organization. They are a natural byproduct of the tendency of organizations toward differentation by level and function.

By promoting subcultural differences, organizational differ- entiation also creates the opportunity for counter cultures to emerge. Counter cultures are ways of thinking and believing that are in direct conflict between subcultures, as in the classic sales versus production battles that characterize many business firms. Sales departments tend to be externally oriented, with an emphasis on rapid responses to customer demands. Production is generally internally focused and emphasizes technical efficiency, cost con- tainment, and gradual change. These conflicting subcultures, however, are not necessarily counter cultures. Sales and production units might still be well-integrated into the organization and accepting of its prevailing emphasis on, for example, profitability and individual growth. But if a unit of the organization resists these elements of the dominant culture by, for instance, rewarding members for getting along with each other at the expense of performance, a counter culture would exist. Counter cultures arise due to differentiation and insularity. Insularity, the key feature here, can be produced when a unit is protected from the pressures of the larger organization by a powerful unit leader, by geographic distance, or by some other boundary-creating feature. Counter cultures tend to continue as long as that boundary and the resulting sense of separateness and isolation exist.

Past research suggests that organizations can show a high degree of internal differentiation, both horizontally (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1973) and vertically (Tannenbaum, 1976), and that this differen- tiation is related to the thinking and behavioral styles of members of different levels and in different functional areas (Pavett & Lau, 1983). With respect to vertical differentiation, research has shown that thinking styles emphasizing gratification of higher-order needs characterize individuals at higher organizational levels, while an orientation toward security needs characterizes those at lower levels (Cooke & Rousseau, 1983a; Hall & Nougaim, 1968). Similar findings have resulted from studies focusing on horizontal or functional differentiation. For example, production staff are charac- terized by thinking styles emphasizing competition and power;

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

250

people in sales show similar tendencies but also think in terms of achievement and self-actualization (Cooke & Rousseau, 1983a). A question posed by these findings is whether thinking and behavioral styles are shaped by the demands of organizational roles or become characteristic of such roles because of the systematic selection of certain types of people. Although selection practices undoubtedly have an effect, culture factors, subunit norms, and the belief systems they reinforce potentially explain much of this variance in thinking and behavioral styles. To the extent that different behaviors are systematically rewarded by organizational subunits we can expect individual thinking styles to be linked to subcultures within the system.

Key attributes of culture: direction and intensity. Any culture in an organizational context has two key features pertinent to its assessment: direction and intensity. Direction refers to the actual content or substance of the culture, exemplified by (though not limited to) the values, behavioral norms, and thinking styles it emphasizes (Trice & Beyer, 1984). Intensity is the strength of this emphasis. Cultures that vary in direction support different be- havioral norms and thinking styles; cultures varying in intensity have different degrees of influence on organizational members.

Intensity is a function of several factors, including (1) the degree of consensus among unit members regarding what the culture emphasizes and (2) the strength of the connections among expec- tations, rewards, and behaviors. Through the use of individual-level measures, the intensity of an organization’s culture can be directly assessed through the level of agreement among members regarding its content. Consensus regarding the organization’s emphasis is associated with some sharing of beliefs and behavioral patterns (Van Maanen, 1976). For consensus to lead to a high degree of shared beliefs and behaviors, the second feature of intensity must also exist: a strong set of connections between expectations, rewards, and behaviors.

Direction, the content of the culture, is the way in which members enact their environment. There are innumerable ways to describe the content of a culture; the approach presented here emphasizes individual cognitions regarding appropriate ways of thinking and behaving within an organizational unit. It is distinct from measures of individual perceptions of organizational charac- teristics and attributes-the typical content of organizational cli- mate surveys (Table 2). Climate, rather than culture, reflects

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

251

TABLE 2

Climate Definitions

perceptions of organizational structures and how it feels to be a member of the organization. In contrast, beliefs regarding how to behave are aspects of culture.

MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS AND EXPECTATIONS

The Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI; Cooke & Lafferty, 1983) was designed as part of a self-scoring, multilevel diagnostic system for individual change and organizational development (see Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987, for discussion of the links across assessment levels). The OCI parallels and is complementary to the Life Styles Inventory (Lafferty, 1973), a management development inventory that measures the self-perceptions of individuals with

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

252

respect to 12 thinking styles that are causally related to such outcomes as managerial effectiveness, quality of interpersonal relations, and individual well-being (e.g., Cooke & Rousseau, 1983b). Based on these 12 styles, the culture inventory assesses the ways in which organizational members are expected to think and behave in relation both to their tasks and to other people. This dual focus is consistent with consulting and change-oriented per- spectives that define culture in terms of &dquo;the shared values and beliefs that dictate the way managers and subordinates behave toward each other and their work&dquo; (Shtogren, 1984).

THE CULTURAL STYLES

The OCI is based on a configuration or circumplicial model of interpersonal and task-related styles (Conte & Plutchik, 1981; Wiggins, 1979). These 12 distinct but interrelated styles are placed around a circumplex, with their proximity reflecting their expected degree of association. The 12 styles are (1) Humanistic-Helpful, (2) Affiliative, (3) Approval, (4) Conventional, (5) Dependent, (6) Avoidance, (7) Oppositional, (8) Power, (9) Competitive, (10) Competence/Perfectionistic, (11) Achievement, and (12) Self- Actualizing (see Figure 1).

The styles measured by the OCI were identified and positioned around the circumplex on the basis of the interpersonal personality system proposed by Leary (1957) and research on personality by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1953), Rogers (1961), Horney (1954), and others. Developmental work was especially influenced by research on human needs (e.g., Maslow, 1954) and the growing body of literature on leadership styles (e.g., Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1959; Stodgill, 1963). Research on the hier- archical structuring of needs prompted a distinction between thinking styles directed toward the fulfillment of higher-order &dquo;satisfaction&dquo; needs versus those directed toward lower-order

&dquo;security&dquo; needs (see Figure 1). Similarly, the leadership literature prompted a distinction between styles reflecting a concern for &dquo;people&dquo; versus those concerned with &dquo;tasks.&dquo; Though these styles have been used primarily to reflect the

thinking and behavioral tendencies of individuals, both qualitative and quantitative evidence suggest that they also reflect the direction or content of certain organizational norms and expectations. Qualitative evidence has been provided by many managers, super- visors, and professionals who have completed the Life Styles

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

253

NOTE: Copyright 1986 by Human Synergistics, Inc. Reprnted by permission.

Figure 1: Organizational Culture Inventory Circumplex.

Inventory during organizational or management development programs. Respondents have often asked if they should answer in terms of their behavior on the job or with respect to their nonwork lives. The implication here is that their job-related thinking and behavior are shaped by organizational norms and, therefore, differ from their personal styles in other, possibly less constraining, environments. Similarly, a substantial number of respondents, while reviewing their Life Styles results have asserted that the dominant thinking styles reflected in their profiles are those that are

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

254

necessary for success or survival in their particular organizations. Various respondents have commented that their profiles would have been different if they had answered in terms of a position with a previous employer, their roles within other (nonwork) organi- zations, or their family situation.

Quantitative support for the effects of organizational factors on thinking styles is provided by both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. For example, the thinking styles of managers of a major food wholesale and retail organization were assessed over a 15-year period and then analyzed statistically. The findings show that changes in thinking styles occurred over that period and were consistent with (and attributed to) a long-term management development program designed to modify the organization and promote changes at the individual level (Carillon, 1982). And, as noted above, comparative studies have shown that managers in organizations with different technologies or in different functional areas-for example, sales, production, research and development, personnel management and training-tend to exhibit systematically different personal orientations (Cooke & Rousseau, 1983a). These differences can be attributed to the different structures, goal- orientations, technologies, and subenvironments characterizing these different functional areas (Lawrence & Lorsch,1973) as well as to differences in the thinking styles of individuals attracted tothese specialties.

In certain organizations, including those in which all members perform similar tasks, the thinking styles of members vary greatly. Thus averaging of thinking styles within organizations to represent an organization characteristic is not necessarily justified. Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau (1978) propose two criteria for using aggregated individual data as organizational variables: low within-group vari- ation in the variable and significant between-group differences in the averaged scores. These criteria are not always met; not all organizations have intensive, consistent effects on their members. New organizations or those undergoing rapid changes need not have an intense, well-defined culture. Nevertheless, studies based on the Life Styles Inventory suggest that certain thinking styles may prevail in particular organizations, represent the interpersonal relationships with the system, and result from organizational norms and expectations that are perceived in consistent ways by members.

These 12 styles, therefore, were incorporated into the OCI in an attempt to measure the direction and intensity of organizational

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

255

norms and expectations. The inventory was not designed to sample the entire domain of interpersonal and task-related styles that might be promoted by an organization, nor to exhaustively tap the variety of socially derived cognitions that constitute culture. Instead, it is intended to enable respondents to clarify their own experiences of their organization’s culture with respect to these specific styles, to compare their perceptions to the aggregated perceptions of co-workers, and to understand how their own thinking styles might be affected by organizational norms.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND HYPOTHESES

Numerous hypotheses can be inferred from the discussion above. While three have been selected for the purposes of the present study, an important methodological issue must first be addressed-that is, whether there is consistency within organi- zations in members’ perceptions of organizational norms and expectations as measured by the culture inventory. Although the intensity of cultures will vary across organizations, it is nevertheless anticipated thatthere will be some basic consensus among members regarding what is expected in their particular organizations. More fundamentally, lack of support for this expectation would indicate that the inventory is not effectively measuring organizational culture. Culture, by definition, reflects ways of thinking and believing that members have in common, and norms are shared expectations relevant to all members. Thus perceptual agreement must be demonstrated prior to testing any hypotheses through the use of the Organizational Culture Inventory. Once this meth- odological issue is addressed, the following are tested:

Hypothesis 1. There are significant differences across organizations in the direction of their cultures with respect to norms and expectations.

This hypothesis follows from the discussion of the impact that organizational environments, technologies, and goals can have on the dominant culture of organizations. These expected differences in direction can also be attributed to factors discussed in qualitative studies of the emergence of organizational cultures (including the personal philosophies of founders and leaders).

Hypothesis 2. Within and across organizations, there are systematic differences in the perceived norms and expectations across hier- archical levels.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

256

While most empirical studies of subcultures have focused on differences across functional units (horizontally defined sub- cultures), the present research will explore differences associated with vertical differentiation. Such differences might not be pre- dicted if the focus of this research were shared values, goals, or philosophies rather than norms. For example, if centralized control is valued throughout the organization, members at the top of the organization may believe they should adopt power-oriented styles, while those at the bottom may be expected to behave in dependent ways.

Hypothesis 3. There will be consensus across organizations regarding the behavioral norms and expectations that members believe to be ideal. Those norms will be in the direction of Achievement, Self- Actualization, Humanistic-Helpful, and Affiliative styles.

Although the actual norms and expectations members experi- ence are hypothesized to differ across organizations and levels, we expect that individuals in different situations hold similar beliefs regarding the types of behavioral norms that would lead to personal satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. This shared ideal results, in part, from the impact that organizational research has had on managerial training and expectations. Research supports the importance of clear goals, opportunities for self-expression and development, and the value of cooperation to the quality of work life (see Schneider, 1985, pp. 598-602). Moreover, research on satisfaction and human needs arising out of Maslow’s work supports the importance of higher-order need gratification (self-expression, achievement, supportive social relations) to individual satisfaction and well-being (Cooke & Rousseau, 1983b; Maslow, 1954; Hall & Nougaim, 1968). We expect those cultural styles supportive of higher-order need gratification and quality of work life to be selected as ideal. Therefore, the cultural styles of Achievement, Self-Actualization, Humanistic-Helpful, and Affiliative described below should be described as &dquo;ideal&dquo; by participants in this study.

METHOD

RESPONDENTS

The OCI has been used to assess cultural norms in a wide array of

organizations, including heavy manufacturing and high technology

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

257

firms, research and development laboratories, schools and univer- sities, government agencies, and volunteer organizations. Approx- imately 20,000 people in over a hundred firms, agencies, and associations have completed the OCI. The data reported here reflect three types of samples:

(1) approximately 1,800 individuals whose OCI scores are used to establish a normed &dquo;benchmark&dquo; profile. Data provided by a subgroup of this sample (n = 661) were used to assess the psycho- metric properties of the inventory (including reliability and factor structure) and to test the effect of organizational level on OCI scores.

(2) a descriptive sample of selected organizations used here to illustrate distinct cultural patterns observed using the OCI. Data from three organizations and 1,085 individuals are presented.

(3) &dquo;Ideal&dquo; profile descriptions obtained from 91 people in five firms who were asked to describe the thinking and behavioral styles that should be expected in their organization.

INSTRUMENTS

The Organizational Culture Inventory contains 120 items de- signed to produce 12 scales of 10 items each. Each item describes a behavior or personal style that might be expected of members in an organization. On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which each behavior helps people to &dquo;fit in&dquo; and &dquo;meet expectations&dquo; in their organization. The 12 scales and the culture patterns they reflect are described in Table 3, with repre- sentative items listed within parentheses.

The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the 12 scales (Table 4) are based on data provided by the above-mentioned subgroup of 661 respondents (526 members of 18 organizations using the OCI for organizational development and from 135 participants in executive development programs or graduate busi- ness programs). Results of a principal components factor analysis of the OCI indicate that three empirical factors underlie the 12 scales (Table 5):

People/Security Culture, with norms and expectations for Approval, Conventional, Dependent, and Avoidance styles (3, 4, 5, 6).

Satisfaction Culture, with norms and expectations for Achievement, Self-Actualization, Humanistic-Helpful, and Affiliative styles (11, 12, 1,2).

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

258

TABLE 3

The Cultural Styles

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

259

TABLE 3 Continued

TABLE 4

Organizational Culture Inventory Scales

NOTE: Scale scores presented in this and other tables were derived by averaging the responses to the ten items constituting each scale; these scores, therefore, have a po- tential range of 1.0 to 5 0. The scale scores shown in the figures that follow were derived by summing responses to the items and therefore range from 10 to 50.

Task/Security Culture, with norms and expectations for Oppositional, Power, Competitive, and Competence/Perfectionist styles (7, 8, 9, 10).

Three comparable factors have been identified in studies focus- ing on both the self-assessment and description by other versions of

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

260

TABLE 5

Rotated Factor Loadings for the Organizational Culture Inventory Scales

NOTE: N = 604.

the Life Styles Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, 1983a; Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987; Ware, Leak, & Perry, 1985).

As Table 4 indicates, the mean scores for the Satisfaction styles (Achievement, Self-Actualization, Humanistic-Helpful, and Affil- iative) are higher than the mean scores for the People/Security and Task/Security styles. Since the social desirability bias (i.e., the tendency to endorse positive or desirable items and descriptions) can operate on such responses, profiles are normatively scaled to correct for such bias.

RESULTS

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE (CONSISTENCY)

The data shown in Table 6 provide empirical support for within- organization perceptual agreement. The eta-squared statistics, measuring within-unit consistency in OCI scores, indicate that there is intraorganizational consensus regarding perceived norms and expectations. The amount of agreement, however, is not great

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

261

TABLE 6

Analysis of Variance for Culture Scales by Organization

NOTE: Individual N = 506 to 523; organization N = 18.

and varies across the cultural styles. For example, agreement is low for the Power styles (eta-squared equals .06) but relatively high for the Humanistic, Affiliative, and Dependent styles (.12, .12, and .13, respectively). The level of agreement observed here is consistent with that found for perceptual measures of other organizational characteristics (Md = .12, James & Sells, 1981). The median eta- squared value here is .11.

These results suggest that the culture inventory is measuring organizational-level phenomena. Again, however, agreement with- in organizations is moderate. This finding reflects the fact that the intensity of the cultures of the organizations in this sample varies; some of them have relatively strong cultures (with high consensus) while others have very weak cultures. Additionally, these results suggest that horizontal and vertical differences within organizations may be present.

HYPOTHESIS 1

The data in Table 6 also provide evidence that there are differences across organizations with respect to the directions (i.e., content) of their cultures. F-tests indicate that variance across organizations is greater than that within organizations along all 12 styles. Results confirm Hypothesis 1 and suggest that different behavioral norms across organizations can be effectively dis-

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

262

criminated by the OCI. To visually illustrate the wide variety of culture patterns observed using the OCI in survey feedback interventions, two very different organizational cultures are de- scribed here.

Two contrasting cultures: an illustration. In our research and for purposes of client feedback, we have constructed profiles of organizations and subunits based on the OCI. To illustrate the norms of an effective organization, we employ the profile of a not-for-profit service organization (Figure 2) judged to be &dquo;ex- cellent&dquo; (in terms of Peters and Waterman’s 1982 criteria) by its members (managers and employees) and clients. This nationwide organization has enjoyed a strong reputation as effective or responsive to community needs for decades. Respondents are top managers (N = 90) of geographically dispersed subunits, operating autonomously to a substantial degree. The actual profile its mem- bers reported during an executive development session reflects a strikingly satisfaction-oriented culture. Members of this organi- zation describe a very open and supportive environment charac- terized by teamwork, cooperation, personal development, and high performance goals. Clients experience a wide array of inno- vative programs designed to serve diverse and changing needs. The current executive level of the organization extols strong service- oriented values consistent with those expressed by the organi- zation’s founders many years ago.

In contrast is the organizational profile provided by upper and middle management (n = 40) of a small geographically dispersed insurance company (Figure 3). Having undergone several reorgani- zations in recent years coupled with substantial turnover, this firm’s managers report an emphasis on security-oriented norms, in particular, Power and Dependence (Task/Security- and People/ Security-oriented styles, respectively). Discussions with respon- dents indicate that there are few rewards for innovation and risk taking and substantial punishments for failure, creating risk-averse behaviors in managers. The combination of ambiguity regarding how the formal struc-

ture currently operates and weak vertical communication seems to make members highly dependent on their immediate superiors. The absence of a human resource management system within the firm is believed by managers to contribute to poor employee training and few incentives for managers to develop their people, a possible explanation for low emphasis on Humanistic-Helpful and

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

263

NOTE: The numbers along the radials allow respondents to plot their raw scores for each style (obtained by summing their ten responses to the appropriate items) and, in doing so, convert these scores to percentile scores. From the inside outward, the concentric circles on the circumplex represent the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles for each cultural style. Copyright 1986 by Human Synergistics, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 2: Culture profile of an &dquo;excellent organization&dquo; (n=90).

Affiliative styles. We would predict high levels of experienced stress, reduced job satisfaction, and relatively high turnover for such a profile (all of which are present characteristics of this firm). Our experience with organizational assessments using the OCI

suggests that this security-oriented profile characterizes firms that emphasize reliability-that is, avoidance of mistakes, stability, and consistency with past practices-as opposed to high performance and growth. Such patterns are characteristic of accounting firms, especially the auditing function, and military organizations, in

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

264

Figure 3: Profile of an organization with security-oriented norms.

which reliability is crucial to success, as it is on aircraft carriers and in nuclear power plants, but less so for firms in which innovation and risk-taking are needed to maintain effectiveness.

In sum, behavioral norms can vary widely across firms as assessed by the OCI, and members are able to interpret their profiles and possible underlying causes in systematic and meaningful ways. Note that the profiles here illustrate the patterns that can give rise to the between-organization differences identified in testing Hy- pothesis 1. Both Figures 2 and 3 show substantial member agreement regarding behavioral norms and suggest in these two cases the existence of strong cultures, at least at the management level.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

265

TABLE 7

ANOVA of Culture Factors by Level

HYPOTHESIS 2

Hypothesis 2 predicted that different behavioral norms would exist across organizational levels. Using the three factor scores, an analysis of variance was conducted to test the effects of organi- zational level on norms as assessed by the OCI (see Table 7). Results indicate significant differences for the Task/Security (p < .05) and Satisfaction (p < .06). Task/Security generally increases across levels, perhaps because of the opportunity and pressure to use the power of one’s position to compete with others.

Hypothesis 2 predicted significant differences in behavioral norms across levels within organizations as well as across organi- zations. To test for intraorganizational differences, data from three organization levels of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were used (N =955). Results of an analysis of variance by level within the FAA’s Eastern Region contrasts air traffic controllers (N = 717) with supervisors (N = 196) and top managers (N = 42). Consistently, differences across levels are significant (p < .001). Satisfaction styles (Humanistic/Helpful, Affiliative, Achievement, and Self-Actual- ization) increase with hierarchical level, while mean scores on the remaining Task/ and People/Security styles decrease with level (Table 8). At the highest level, managers describe the behavioral norms as supporting goal accomplishment, self-expression, and teamwork. In contrast, controllers, at the bottom of the hierarchy, report that they are expected to avoid conflict, to refer decisions

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

266

TABLE 8

ANOVAs for FAA Culture Styles by Level

upward to superiors, and to behave in conventional ways. These data suggest that norms within the FAA are subcultural and hier- archical, as would be expected in a control-oriented organization.

HYPOTHESIS 3

Hypothesis 3 predicted that members of different organizations shared a common belief regarding the behavioral norms they considered to be ideal. During employee and management develop- ment sessions in five organizations, participants were asked to complete the OCI in terms of the behavioral norms they believed would be ideal for promoting both the effectiveness of their organization and their personal satisfaction. Organizations included two heavy manufacturing firms, one high technology manufac- turing firm, a bank, and a biomedical organization (N = 91). Respondents characterized the ideal organization (Figure 4) as high on Achievement, Self-Actualization, Humanistic-Helpful, and Affil- iative-the Satisfaction styles. Consistently, the People/ and Task/ Security styles were given low scores, though variance across organi- zations was greater for these styles than for the Satisfaction styles. The ideal profile respondents described is consistent with that predicted by Hypothesis 3.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

267

Figure 4: &dquo;Ideal&dquo; culture profile (n = 91).

DISCUSSION

Results of this study indicate that behavioral norms do vary across organizations and levels and in ways consistent with the focal organization’s management style as the illustrative profiles suggest. In contrast to the traditional use of qualitative assessments in the study of culture (e.g., Martin & Siehl, 1983), this research assessed behavioral norms quantitatively. Quantitative methods facilitate large-scale studies or organizations, replication, and triangulation of other forms of assessment. Results of the present study suggest that the behavioral norms and expectations are amenable to

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

268

quantitative assessment, which can supplement the qualitative study of more semiotic facets of organizational culture.

Beyond facilitating the research process, qualitative devices such as the OCI have important advantages for organization develop- ment interventions and other programs directed toward system- wide change. Culture interventions based solely on qualitative data collection techniques tend to be broad, and from the client’s perspective, possibly somewhat vague. One commentary on such programs by external change agents concludes that &dquo;corporate culture analysis give the outsiders such breathtaking latitude in outlining solutions to perceived problems that middle managers don’t have a clue as to the point of the study&dquo; (Holcomb, 1984, p. 63). By bringing more structure to assessment, survey instruments can reduce uncertainty on the part of the focal organization and possibly decrease resistance among members. Surveys also afford organization members the opportunity to generate their own &dquo;ideal&dquo; culture profiles by responding to the items in terms of &dquo;how things should be.&dquo; Ideal profiles can then be compared to actual profiles to identify specific dimensions along which change is necessary. Thus although the parameters for change are set by the instrument, specific directions for improvement within these para- meters can be identified by the people who must implement those changes.

From the perspective of a practitioner seeking to oversee or manage the change process, quantitative assessments of culture such as those made possible by the OCI offer other distinct advantages. The broader scope of participation made possible by structured questionnaires allows input from people across all levels and organizational subunits. The sensitivity of the OCI to differ- ences across subunits and levels, demonstrated here, offers specific information not readily available from more global assessments on features of corporate culture, especially subgroup norms and behavior patterns. The opportunity for extensive surveys enhances not only broad-scale participation but also the representativeness of the data obtained. In our experience, participants in culture assessments respond very favorably to the self-scoring feature of the OCI, which allows them to get immediate feedback on how they as individuals perceive the behavioral norms of their organi- zation or subunit. This feedback not only facilitates the process of debriefing participants but also involves them in discussion and interpretation of their profiles in comparison to those of other

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

269

respondents, a feature useful in both validating and making sense of the data the OCI provides. In this manner, cultural assessment and interpretation can be both public and participative, thereby promoting perceived legitimacy and commitment to change. A major part of the change process is the identification of the

type of changes desired, something which can be facilitated by asking members, especially key executives, to respond to the inventory in terms of the behaviors they believe critical to achieving the organization’s goals or desired future strategies. In this manner, the OCI can help managers articulate their vision of change, expressing it in terms of behaviors desired and needed from organization members. Yet no change can occur without a felt need for change on the part of those who must implement it. Asking members to compare their ideal organizational culture with their description of the current or actual one can reveal discrepancies that members are motivated to remedy. Thus the OCI can be used both to clarify the desired direction of culture change and to motivate members to accept and participate in change.

For both practitioners and researchers, the data presented here have implications for the nature of culture in organizations. Differences in the content of cultures across organizations are the primary emphasis of most popular and scholarly writings on organizational culture (e.g., Martin & Siehl, 1983; Uttal, 1983). In our research and organizational development work, the intensity of culture also appearsto be of critical importance. Our results suggest that organization members might have divergent views regarding acceptable behavior-especially across levels. Despite the popu- larity of the &dquo;corporate culture&dquo; concept, not all organizations have strong cultures. In particular, organizations in transition, strategic or structural, often have relatively flat profiles with no particular characteristic style. Rather than there being a particular type of culture characterizing transitions, we believe that the absence of strong or consistent norms is an attribute of change or instability. Frequent changes in top management also seem to be linked to weak cultures, suggesting that consistent direction from the top builds consistency in rewards and other structures promoting behavioral norms.

Another reason for the apparent absence of a strong culture in many organizations might be a tendency toward subculturalization. The development of subcultures occurs with differences in rewards, goals, and values across levels, functions, and units within the

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

270

organization. The within-organization analyses presented here, especially those focusing on the FAA, suggest that subcultures are the typical form in which cultural processes occur in organizations. It is possible that the widespread use of qualitative cultural assessment has emphasized generalities that appear characteristic of a dominant organizational culture when in fact subcultural differences in values, norms, and meanings are at least equally prevalent. Organizations with weak dominant cultures can be strongly subcultural. It might also be the case that qualitative methods, relying as they do on the researcher as measurement instrument, have been less subject to tests of consistency and consensus than is the case for quantitative measures.

The present study combined hypothesis testing with description, two research models that are not typically used together. Studying culture in organizations through an emphasis on behavior offers organizational scientists a link between the study of organizational culture and the sizable body of behavioral research in organizations. Current research on culture in organizations, though often cited as an outgrowth of anthropology rather than organizational behavior, is in fact part of a long-standing tradition in organizational research emphasizing the importance and assessment of situational or contextual factors (Rousseau, in press; Schneider, 1985). From this perspective, then, we would expect that knowledge generated from past research on contextual factors could be useful in the study of culture in organizations. Results of the present study suggest that a major component of organizational culture, behav- ioral norms, is characterized by patterns consistent with organi- zational theory and research.

REFERENCES

Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1970). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison. In W. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp.133-142). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Changing a corporate culture. (1984, May 14). Business Week. Campbell, J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E. III, & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial

behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carillon, J. W. (1982). Management development: 15 years of individual and

corporate growth. Staff Research Report. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Conte, H. R., & Plutchik, R. (1981). A circumplex model for interpersonal personality

traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 701-711. Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1983). Level V: Organizational cultural inventory-form

I. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

271

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1986). Level V: Organizational culture inventory-form III. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1983a). The factor structure of Level I: Life Styles Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 449-457.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1983b). Relationship of life events and personal orientations to symptoms of strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 446-458.

Cooke, R. A., Rousseau, D. M., & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). Thinking and behavioral styles: Consistency between self-descriptions and descriptions by others. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,815-823.

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Drexler, J. A. (1977). Organizational climate: Its homogeneity within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 361-382.

Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B.V.H. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 361-382.

Friedlander, R., & Margulies, N. (1969). Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22, 171-183.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an

organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 12-35.

Holcomb, B. (1984). Cooperating with the consultants. Savvy, 5(3), 61-66. Horney, K. (1954). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton. Huse, E., & Cummings, T. (1985). Organizational development and change. St. Paul,

MN: West.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112.

James, L. R., Hater, J. S., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31, 783-811.

James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1959). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Kroeber, A. I., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. New York: Vintage.

Lafferty, J. C. (1973). Level I: Life styles inventory self-description. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1973). Organization and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald.

Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly,25, 226-251.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

272

Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In L. R. Pondy, P. Frost, G. Morgan, and T. C. Dandridge (eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12 (Autumn), 52-64

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The

achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Moos, R. (N.D.) The Social Climate Scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press. Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based

methods. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese

challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical

level and functional speciality. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 170-177. Payne, R. L., Fineman, S., & Wall, T. D. (1976). Organizational climate and job

satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 45-62.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.

Robbins, S. R., & Duncan, R. B. (in press). The role of the CEO and top management in the creation and implementation of strategic vision. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers. JAI.

Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Contexts in attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,23, 54-540.

Rousseau, D. M. (in press). The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, New York: John Wiley.

Sashkin, M., & Fullmer, R. M. (1985). Measuring organizational excellence. Paper presented at the national meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.

Schein, E. (1984). Suppose we took culture seriously. Academy of Management Newsletter, Summer, 2-3, 7.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.

Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 573-612.

Schneider, B., & Hall, D. T. (1972). Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A Study of Roman Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 447-455.

Shtogren, J. A. (1984). Corporate culture: The sabertoothed caveat. Braniff, June, 30-32.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

273

Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire- Form XII. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Swartz, M., & Jordon D. (1980). Culture: An anthropological perspective. New York: John Wiley.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1976). Hierarchy in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and

rituals. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 653-669. Uttal, B. (1983, October 17). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.),

Handbook of work, organization, and society. Chicago: Rand McNally. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organization socialization.

Research on Organization Behavior, 1, 209-264. Wallace, A.F.C. (1970). Culture and personality. New York: Random House. Ware, M. E., Leak, G. K., & Perry, N. W. (1985). Life styles inventory: Evidence for its

factorial validity. Psychological Reports, 56, 963-968. Weick, K. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. In B. Straw (Ed.), Research in

organizational behavior, 21 (pp. 41-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The

interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.

Robert A. Cooke is Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago. He was previously an Associate Research Scientist at the University of Michigan and a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University. Cooke received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University in Organization Behavior. His research interest focuses on the determinants of system effectiveness at the individual, group, and organi- zational levels.

Denise M. Rousseau is Professor of Organization Behavior at Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University. She was pre- viously an Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan and at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey. Rousseau received her Ph.D. in In- dustrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. Her research focuses on the impact of culture, technology, and other organizational processes and variables on individuals.

at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on January 9, 2015gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.