Organizational Climate Scale

1. Introduction:

Organisational climate is defined as the shared perceptions, feelings and attitudes

that organisational members have about the fundamental elements of the organisation,
which reflect the established norms, values and attitudes of the organisations culture and
influences individuals behaviour positively or negatively.
(Gerber (2003) and Moran and Volkwein (1992)).

Researchers agree that certain characteristics describe organizational climate and

differentiate it from other concepts. These characteristics are as follows:

Climate is generally considered to be a molar construct that can change over time.

It is perceived by and shared among organisational members, which can result in

consensus among individuals.

It consists of global impressions of the organisation that members form through

interacting with each other and organisational policies, structures and processes.

Climate perceptions are descriptions of environmental events and conditions rather than
evaluations of them.

The climate construct is multidimensional.

It refers to the feeling of an organisation.

Climate can potentially influence an individuals behaviour.

The interactive approach builds on the structural and perceptual approaches and
combines the objectivism of the structural approach and the subjectivism of the
perceptual approach (Ashforth, 1985). The underlying assumption of the interactive
approach is that organisational climate is the result of the interaction of individuals in
response to their situation, which results in the shared agreement of organisational
members (Moran & Volkwein, 1992). This approach provides a link between the
structural and the perceptual approaches because it acknowledges that meaning is formed
when the individual intentionally interacts with objects and people because it provides
meaning for him or her.

The approaches discussed above fail to take into consideration the influence that
organisational culture has on the perceptions of individuals and on how they interact with
one another.

The final approach is referred to as the cultural approach. This approach does not
focus on the formal properties of organisations, nor does it concern itself with the
subjective psychological characteristics of the individual and how that individual
combines these two approaches. According to the cultural approach, organisational
climate is shaped by individuals within a group who interact and share the same abstract
frame of reference, organisational culture, as they learn to deal with the organisations
demands (Moran & Volkwein, 1992). This approach emphasises the interaction of
individuals as a source of climate, a view it shares with the interactive approach above.
However, the cultural approach includes the role of organisational culture as a key factor
in the development of organisational climate.

2. History:

Classical organisation theory dominated management thinking during the first half
of the twentieth century. Its organisations can be traced back to the ideas of Adam Smith
who is the Wealth of Nations showed, as early as 1776, how division of labour could
improve productivity of pin makers a hundred fold or more. However it was only in the
early 1900s that men like Fredrick, W. Taylor, Henry Fayol and Max Weber developed
the full philosophy of the classical theory. The classical approach to organisation design
was based on (a) Full decision of labour (b) Rigid hierarchy and (c) Standardization of
labour to reach its objectives. The idea was to lower costs by using unskilled repetitive
labour that could be trained easily to do a small part of a job (Taylor, 1911). The said
approach did result in substantial increase in economic productivity. As it turned out,
however, these gains often involved considerable human cost. Because of excessive
division of labour and over dependence on rules, procedure and hierarchy, the workers
became isolated from his fellow workers and felt alienated. The result was higher
turnover, absenteeism and decline in quality of products. It took the academicians and
practitioners of management sometime to recognize the nature and severity of the
problem. Roethlisberger and Dickson, offered a behavioural interpretation of
management based on their findings from the famous Hawthorne studies. They stressed
the importance of individual differences, informal group interactions and participation in
decision-making. A little later, Mc Gregor Doogles (1960) warned that, Practically all
the means of need satisfaction which workers today obtain from their jobs. In other
words, the popular personnel device of the time such as vacations and insurance benefits,
were satisfaction to be derived off the job. A few years later, Argris, C. (1964) concluded
that poor organisational design established a basic incongruence between formal
organisation and the workers drive for self-actualization. Argyris maintained that
organisation tent to ignore the potential of people and fail to encourage self-development
in areas that are meaningful to people. By not encouraging responsibility and innovation,
organisations fall to develop and utilize the full potential of the whole man. Organisation
has become modern and a complex entity. It consists of many individuals who are
working in different functions and roles where they are engaged in the pursuit of some
overall goals or a set of goals. Every organisation is operated in terms of a set of policies
and norms, which are sometimes clearly laid down while at other times are in the form of
traditions and conventions. To plan, co-ordinate and control its various activities, an
organisation requires managers who, in their day-to-day interactions, reflect a variety of
leadership styles and skills in dealing with their subordinates (Astin, A.W., Holland). The
sum total of these and many other such activities creates an internal 5 environment within
each organisation, which accounts for its uniqueness and identify members of an
organisation who work within and are continuously influenced by this internal
environment which is also called organisational culture or organisational climate (Badin,
Irwin.J. 1974). Each organisation deals with its members in a variety of ways in the
course of their employment to obtain their co-operation in achieving organisational
objectives. The management of an organisation must satisfy various needs of the
employees, through action such as allocation of resources, rewards and punishment,
pattern of communication, mode of decision making, style of leadership, and so on. An
organisation influences the feelings, attitudes and behaviors of its members. In the course
of time, such actions by the management acquire an enduring quality and result in
creating unique organisational culture (or) climate. As viewed by Baumgartel (1971),
organisational climate is a product of leadership practice, communication practice and
enduring systematic characteristics of the working relationship among persons, and
division of any particular organisation. Like an individual organisation too has its own
unique identity or Personality, which according to Insel and Moos (1974), exerts
directional influence on behaviour.
3. Dimensions of organizational climate:

In one of the studies, dimensions were made by looking at four different models
of organizational climate.

Following are the 4 models and their dimensions:

1. The Human Relations Model-

employee welfarethe extent to which the organization values and cares for
employees (e.g., Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Guest, 1998).

autonomydesigning jobs in ways which give employees wide scope to enact

work (e.g., Cherns, 1976; Klein, 1991).

participationemployees have considerable influence over decision-making (e.g.,

Miller & Monge, 1986; Hollander & Offerman, 1990; Heller, Pusi, Strauss, &
Wilpert, 1998).

communicationthe free sharing of information throughout the organization

(e.g., Callan, 1993; Hargie & Tourish, 2000).

emphasis on traininga concern with developing employee skills (e.g., Gattiker,

1995; Morrow, Jarrett, & Rupinski, 1997).

integrationthe extent of interdepartmental trust and cooperation (e.g., Lawrence

& Lorsch, 1967; Nauta & Sanders, 2000).

supervisory supportthe extent to which employees experience support and

understanding from their immediate supervisor (e.g., Cummins, 1990;
Eisenberger et al., 2002).

2. Internal Process Model-

 formalizationa concern with formal rules and procedures (e.g., Pugh, Hickson,
Hinings, & Turner, 1968; Hall, 1991).

traditionthe extent to which established ways of doing things are valued (e.g.,
Coch & French, 1948).

3. Open Systems Model-

flexibilityan orientation toward change (e.g., Garrahan & Stewart, 1992; King
& Anderson, 1995).

innovationthe extent of encouragement and support for new ideas and

innovative approaches (e.g., West & Farr, 1990).

outward focusthe extent to which the organization is responsive to the needs of

the customer and the marketplace in general (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982; West &
Farr, 1990).

reflexivitya concern with reviewing and reflecting upon objectives, strategies,

and work processes, in order to adapt to the wider environment (West, 1996,
2000).

4. Rational Goal Model-

clarity of organizational goalsa concern with clearly defining the goals of the
organization (e.g., Locke, 1991).

efforthow hard people in organizations work towards achieving goals (e.g.,

McCaol, Hinsz, & McCaol, 1987).

efficiencythe degree of importance placed on employee efficiency and

productivity at work (e.g., Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993).

qualitythe emphasis given to quality procedures (e.g., Deming, 1986; Hackman

& Wageman, 1995).
 pressure to producethe extent of pressure for employees to meet targets (e.g.,
Taira, 1996).

performance feedbackthe measurement and feedback of job performance (e.g.,

Annett, 1969; Kopelmann, 1986).

4. Organizational Climate Scale: QIPM-

- Igor Dubina and Stuart Umpleby

Organizational climate for creativity and innovation (OCCI)

A Quality Improvement Priority Matrix (QIPM) is a relatively simple method for

collecting and processing data for decision-making. A QIPM questionnaire asks
employees to rate several features of an organization on two scales Importance and
Performance. That is, how important is that particular feature, and how effectively is the
organization currently performing on that feature. A QIPM is usually used in determining
priorities and for monitoring performance improvement (Dubina and Umpleby, 2006).
This model of Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation (OCCI)
includes 4 main categories and 17 factors (Dubina, 2009):
1. Conditions for creative initiatives
1.1. Safety and guaranties
1.2. Risk-tolerance
1.3. Freedom / Autonomy in decision-making
1.4. Resources
1.5. Workload pressure / Idea-time
1.6. Challenging work
2. Creative cooperation / Team work
2.1. Organization for creative team work
2.2. Teams openness for new ideas
2.3. Effectiveness of team work
2.4. Psychological atmosphere in workgroup
3. Management and organizational support for creative initiatives
3.1. Idea collection
3.2. Idea orientation (whether management encourages ideas directed to current
problem-solving or developing new opportunities for business)
3.3. Idea acceptance
3.4. Idea support
3.5. Idea reward
4. Creative ideas implementation
4.1. Organizational openness to change / Dynamism
 4.2. Innovation effectiveness.

To evaluate these 17 factors with a QIPM-type method, the authors developed a

questionnaire including the 17 corresponding items:
1. Safety for suggesting new ideas
2. Supervisory tolerance for risk and uncertainty
3. Employees freedom / autonomy in decision-making
4. Sufficient resources provided for elaborating new projects
5. Sufficient time provided for employees work on new projects
6. Challenging work
7. Supervisory encouragement to work cooperatively on new projects
8. Organizational openness to new ideas
9. Effectiveness of team work
10. Trust in the workgroup
11. An effective system for recognizing new ideas in an organization
12. Producing new ideas for trying new opportunities for business, not only for
current product development
13. Supervisory positive acceptance of employees creative suggestions
14. Supervisory encouragement of employees creative approach to doing work
15. Fair rewards for creative suggestions
16. Dynamism of an organization and its openness to changes
17. Effectiveness of creativity and innovation activities.

According to the general QIPM approach, respondents should evaluate these factors with
two 5 point scales: Importance scale (from 1 that is unimportant to 5 that is extremely
important) and Performance scale (from 1 that is very poor to 5 that is excellent). The
averaged estimates for each factor are used as coordinates in a diagram with the
Importance Performance axes and 4 quadrants (Improvement Priority Matrix) (Fig.1).

5
14

11 15

8 6
16 3
ance

9 13 17
7
erform

3
1 12
P

10

12 7
5
2 4

1
1 3 5
Importance

Figure 1. Estimates for climate factors in Improvement Priority Matrix

The factors of greatest interest for improvement are those that fall in the South-East
quadrant defined by high importance and low performance.

Uses:

This method may be used independently or in a complementary way for assessing climate
with the existing approaches in order to gain additional information about the work
environment for creativity and innovation. The measurement instrument is simple, and it
helps in finding an optimal sequence of steps to improve the work environment for
creativity and innovation. Repeated use of this method, about every 6 months or a year,
can provide an optimal strategy for managing employees creativity more systematically,
methodically, and relevantly to the specificity of an organization, its goals, and resources.

5. References:

1. Castro.M, Martins.N; (2010); The relationship between organisational climate and

employee satisfaction in a South African information and technology; South Africa
Journal of Industrial Psychology; AOSIS publishing;
http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/800/889.

2. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/30305/5/chapter1.pdf.

3. Patterson.M, West.M, Shackleton.V, Dawson.J, Lowthom.R, Matlis.S, Robinson.D,

Wallace.A; (2005); Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial
practices, productivity and innovation; Journal of Organizational Behavior;
http://www.cnr.it/benessere-organizzativo/docs/bibliografia/89.pdf.
4. Umpleby.S and Dubina.I, (2010); A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT APPROACH TO
ASSESSING AN ORGANIZATIONS CLIMATE FOR CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION; The George Washington University;
https://www.gwu.edu/.../2011%20Deming%20QIPM%20Dubina.doc.