NEW TRENDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE RESEARCH

1
NEW TRENDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE RESEARCH

• Vicente González-Romá
• University of Valencia
• Spain

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, May 31, 2007
2
OUTLINE

1. INTRODUCTION
2. INITIAL ISSUES
3. CLIMATE AS SHARED PERCPETIONS AND THE ROLE OF
   WITHIN-UNIT DISPERSION.
4. Composition models.
5. Paynes 3-dimension model
6. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence
7. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY
8. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.
9. Climate strengths influences.
10. Antecedents of climate strength
11. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
    PERCEPTIONS.
12. CONCLUSIONS

3
1. INTRODUCTION

• Organizational Climate classic topic in WOP, but
  nowadays there is interest in it
• Recent Handbooks
• Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., Peterson,
  M. F. (2000). Handbook of organizational culture
  and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
• Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S. Earley, P. C.
  (2001). The International handbook of
  organizational culture and climate. Chichester,
  England John Wiley Sons.
• Recent Meta-analyses (Parker et al., 2003, JOB
  Carr et al., 2003, JAP)
• According to PsycINFO, the number of published
  studies is increasing.

4
1. INTRODUCCIÓN
Number of articles in PsycINFO where
Organizational climate is the major point of
the article.
5
1. INTRODUCTION

• Aims
• To present a new line of research in
  organizational climate.
• To propose a conceptualization of climate as a
  configural unit property.
• To present some results on the relationships
  between within-unit dispersion in climate and
  team processes and outcomes.

6
2. INITIAL ISSUES.

• Climate employees perceptions of the social
  setting of which the person is a part (Rousseau,
  1988).
• In organizations, the social setting may be the
  work-team, the department, the organization ?
  distinct targets.
• Facets The content of climate perceptions
  clusters on groups of psychologically related
  events and meanings (support, innovation,
  service, safety, etc.).
• Climate can be operationalized at different
  levels of analysis
• Individual psychological climate.
• Higher-levels aggregate climate.

7
3. CLIMATE AS SHARED PERCPETIONS AND THE ROLE OF
WITHIN-UNIT DISPERSION.

• Climate at higher-levels (aggregate climate) is
  defined as shared perceptions.
• Within-unit agreement is a prerequisite for
  arguing that unit climate can be operationalized
  and that it exists.
• This approach
• restricts the conceptualization of climate
• has hidden the status of within-unit dispersion
  as a scientific construct.
• Recently ? A number of conceptual and theoretical
  proposals have contributed to extending the unit
  climate concept by highlighting the role of
  within-unit dispersion in climate perceptions.

8
3.1. Composition models.

• Specify the functional relationships among
  constructs operationalized at different levels of
  analysis (Chan, 1998 James, 1992).
• Chans (1998) typology additive, direct
  consensus, referent-shift consensus, dispersion,
  process models.
• In direct consensus and referent-shift consensus
  models ? within-unit agreement is a prerequisite
  for aggregation.
• Dispersion models within-unit agreement
  (dispersion) is the focal construct.
• Examples norm crystallization (Jackson, 1975),
  mental model sharedness (Mathieu et al., 2005),
  climate strength.

9
3.2. Paynes 3-dimension model.

• Payne (2000, 2001) proposed a 3-dimension model
  for analyzing organizational climate and culture.
  Dimensions
• 1. Pervasiveness range of defined and controlled
  beliefs and behaviors (narrow-wide)
• 2. Psychological intensity target constructs
  (shallow-deep).
• 3. Strength of consensus degree of agreement
  (low-high).

• Payne (2000) found in a sample of 56
  organizations that the degree of consensus in 17
  climate scales varied notably across
  organizations.

10
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.

• Dispersion Theory (TD, Brown Kozlowski, 1999)
  within-unit dispersion of individual-level
  constructs can be used for examining the degree
  of emergence of higher-level constructs.
• Within-unit dispersion comprises two dimensions
• 1. strength the degree of within-unit agreement
  of the individual-level construct
• 2. uniformity the pattern of the
  individual-level construct at the unit level.

11
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.
Four ideal dispersion types (Brown Kozlowski,
1999).
12
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.

• In climate research, the role of dispersion
  dimensions as scientific constructs has been
  neglected for a long time.
• Researchers have recently begun to study the role
  of climate strength (the degree of within-unit
  agreement in climate perceptions)
• Bliese Halverson, 1998 Lindell Brandt, 2000
  Schneider et al., 2002 González-Romá et al.,
  2002, 2005 Colquitt et al. Zohar Luria, 2004,
  2005 Moliner et al., 2005.
• Lack of studies about uniformity.
• Chan (1998) refers to the absence of
  multimodality (i.e. subgroups) as a prerequisite
  for composition in dispersion models.

13
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.

• Factors to explain this situation
• Predominance of the integration perspective
  unit climate as shared perceptions.
• A number of factors in real work units promote
  convergence of climate perceptions (ASA
  processes, socialization, social interaction,
  leadership).
• However, there are non-uniform climates.

14
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.
Observed non-uniform climates
15
3.3. Dispersion theory and forms of emergence.

• We know very little about this type of climates.
• What factors promote these patterns of climate
  perceptions?
• Demographic diversity
• Leader-member interaction
• What are their influences on unit processes and
  outcomes?
• Conflict
• Communication
• Performance

16
3.4. Summary.

• To promote research on these issues we need a
  broader conceptualization of unit climate.
• The conceptual and theoretical contributions
  presented above call for the consideration of
  within-unit dispersion in climate perceptions.

17
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY .

• Unit climate the pattern of employees
  perceptions of their unit.

18
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY

• Assumption climate may emerge as a
  configurational property adopting different
  shapes, following a compilation process of
  emergence not only as a shared property
  following a composition process of emergence.
• Kozlowski Klein (2000) 3 types of unit-level
  constructs
• Global unit properties originate and are
  manifest at the unit level (unit size, unit
  function) single-level phenomena.
• Shared unit properties originate at lower
  levels, but are manifest as higher-level
  phenomena describe the characteristics that are
  common to the members of a unit.
• Configural unit properties originate at lower
  levels, but are manifest as higher-level
  phenomena capture the pattern of
  individual-level phenomena within a unit.

19
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY

• Kozlowski Klein (2000) 2 reference types of
  emergence
• Composition the type and amount of
  individual-level phenomena (cognition,
  perception, affect, behavior) are similar for all
  unit members.
• Compilation either the amount or type of
  individual-level phenomena is different, or both
  the amount and type are different.

20
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY

• If climate is conceptualized as a configural unit
  property, the pattern of strong similarity that
  has dominated research in the field is one of the
  possible observable patterns.
• A given phenomenon or construct domain does not
  necessarily have to exhibit a universal form of
  emergence that is, a given emergent phenomenon
  may be the results of composition processes in
  one situation and of compilation processes in
  another (Kozlowski Klein, 2000, p. 59).

21
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY

• Implications
• All units have climate as a higher-level
  property.
• To describe unit climate, we have to consider
• Uniformity
• Strength
• Localization
• Other contributions in this direction
• Lindell, M. K. Brandt, C. J. (2000, JAP)
  Dissensus does not imply that climate does not
  exists.
• Ostroff, Kinicki Tamkins (2003) variability in
  fundamental elements may not necessarily lead to
  lack of emergence of a higher-level property.
• Roberson, Q. M. Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared
  and configural justice A social network model of
  justice in teams. Academy of Management Review,
  3, 595-607.

22
4. CLIMATE AS A CONFIGURAL UNIT PROPERTY

• Research questions
• What factors contribute to shaping work-units
  climate?
• What are the consequences of different climate
  configurations?

By studying climate strengths role in the unit
climate-unit outcomes relationship, recent
empirical research has begun to pay attention to
the pattern of climate perceptions within work
units.
23
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
24
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
González-Romá et al.s (2005) study
25
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
González-Romá et al.s (2005) study

• The moderator influence of climate strength is
  based on Mischels (1973) concept of situational
  strength
• the degree of ambiguity presented in the context
• STRONG SITUATIONS
• Lead persons to interpret events in a similar way
• Induce uniform expectancies regarding the most
  appropriate behavior
• Behavioral variability will be small
• Behavior is more predictable

26
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
González-Romá et al.s (2005) study
27
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
Bliese Halversons (1998) study Lack of
consensus ? Stressful work environments ?
Well-being
CLIMATE STRENGTH Leadership climate Peer relations
UNIT PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

28
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
Bliese Britts (2001) study
29
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.1. Climate
strengths influences.
Are other forms of relationship plausible?
The case of team innovation
30
5. RESEARCH ON CLIMATE STRENGTH.5.2. Antecedents
of climate strength.
Demographic diversity Leader-member
interaction Interaction among team
members Supervisors behavioral patterns
(simplicity, variability, visibility) Organization
al type (Mechanistic vs. Organic)
Climate strength
Naumann Bennett, 2000 Klein, Conn, Smith
Sorra (2001) Colquitt, Noe Jackson (2002),
González-Romá, Peiró Tordera (2002),
González-Romá West (2003), Zohar Luria (2004,
2005) Dickson, Resick Hanges, 2006.
31
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.1. Introduction.

• Lack of studies.
• Why are these studies necessary?
• Climate strength (CS) only conveys part of the
  information about climate configuration.
• The same CS value may show different forms.

32
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.1. Introduction.
Configurations with VAR (X) 2
33
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.1. Introduction.
Configurations with VAR (X) 1
34
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.1. Introduction.

• Research question What are the influences of
  uniform and non-uniform climate configurations on
  team processes and team outcomes?
• In this study we identified 3 levels for
  uniformity
• Uniform
• Non-uniform (2 sub-groups)
• Non-uniform (1 sub-group)

35
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.1. Introduction.

• Hypotheses
• Non-Uniform configurations
• More (task relationship) conflict and tension
• Less communication quality and optimism
• Considering that a given within-unit dispersion
  value may adopt different forms, the relationship
  between climate strength and team processes
  outcomes will depend on uniformity
• The relationship will be more dysfunctional when
  the configuration is non-uniform.

36
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.2. Method Sample.

• Teams 193 bank branches.
• Team size average 4.6 (SD 1.8)
• Subjects 846 team members.
• Response rate 95.4
• 55 men 2/3 between 25-45 years old.

37
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.2. Method Measures.

• Team climate 4 facets
• Support from the organization 4 items, a .81
• Innovation 4 items, a .78.
• Goal achievement 4 items, a .83.
• Enabling formalization 4 items, a .84.
• Climate strength Average Deviation Index
  (-1)

38
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.2. Method Measures.

• Uniformity in team climate configurations
• Uniform
• Non-uniform (2 sub-groups)
• Non-uniform (1 sub-group)
• 2 dummy variables (comparison group uniform)

39
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.2. Method Measures.

• Team Conflict
• Task 6 items, a .89
• Relationship 4 items, a .90
• Quality of communication 5 items, a .90
• Team mood
• Tension 6 items, a .90
• Optimism 6 items, a .91
• Aggregation at the team level was justified.

40
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.2. Method Analysis.

• Team level.
• Hierarchical regression analysis.
• Steps
• Average climate as a control
• Climate strength
• Dummies for uniformity
• Interaction term climate strength uniformity

41
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.3. Results.
SUPPORT
Non-uniform configurations Less communication
quality Less optimism More tension
42
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.3. Results.
GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
Non-uniform configurations Less optimism More
tension
43
6. A STUDY ON UNIFORMITY IN TEAM CLIMATE
PERCEPTIONS 6.3. Results.
INNOVATION
When the configuration is Non-uniform (2
sub-groups) Climate strength shows a
significant negative relationship with task and
relationship conflict.
Uniformity does not show significant
relationships for enabling formalization.
44
7. CONCLUSIONS

• To better understand the role of unit climate we
  need a broader conceptualization ? climate as
  configural unit property.
• Implications for research
• A new area of research focused on climate
  configurations. Lack of studies.
• Empirical evidence on climate strength ? models
  of unit climate should pay attention to
  within-unit dispersion.
• Do not remove units with low climate strength
  (ask why, reduced sample size, restriction of
  range)
• Implications for practice
• Climate surveys The mean is not enough (only at
  the extremes!).
• The SD may not be enough.
• The analysis of within-unit climate
  configurations yields a more detailed diagnosis.

45
Thank you very much Vicente.Glez-Roma_at_uv.es Univer
sity of Valencia