P F K S O N N F L PSYCFlOl OG’I

1976. 19. 371-392.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LlTWlN AND STRINGER

ORGANIZATION CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE:
AN EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL EXTENSION
OF THE SlMS AND LAFOLLETTE STUDY

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY’
Iowa State University*

T H Econcept of organizational climate has increasingly become the

focus of a wide variety of research studies. However, considerable
diversity is present in both the definitions and measurement techniques
of this concept. Johannesson (1973) reports that definitions of organi-
zational climate have proceeded along two lines: objective and per-
ceptual. James and Jones (1974) outlined three approaches to the
definition and measurement of organizational climate: multiple mea-
surement-organizational attribute: perceptual measurement-organiza-
tional attribute; and perceptual measurement-individual attribute. Ac-
cording to James and Jones. the multiple measurement-organizational
attribute approach regards organizational climate exclusively as a set
of organizational attributes or main effects measureable by a variety of
methods. Variables constituting organizational climate include size,
structure, systems complexity, levels of authority, etc. Studies repre-
sentative of this approach include Evan (l963), Lawrence and Lorsch,
(1967), Prien and Ronan (1971). and Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and
Turner ( 1 969). The perceptual measurement-organizational attribute
approach views climate as an organizational attribute or main effect,
but is measured via perceptual means. Studies representative of this
approach include Friedlander and Margulies (l969), Litwin and
Stringer (l968), Payne and Pheysey (1971), and Pritchard and Karasick
( 1 973). The perceptual measurement-individual attribute approach
views climate as a set of summary or global perceptions held by
individuals, as assessed via perceptual means. Studies representative of
this approach include Schneider (1972, 1973), Schneider and Bartlett
(1968). and Schneider and Hall (1972). As James and Jones (1974)
comment, these approaches to defining and measuring organizational
Address reprint request to Paul M. Muchinsky, Department of Psychology. Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa 5001 1.
* This study was made possible through a grant from the Graduate College of Iowa
State University.
Copyright @ 1976, by P F R I W N L L PSYCHOLOGY. INC.

37 1
312 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

climate are not mutually exclusive, but they do illustrate the diversity
which has arisen in the literature regarding the concept of organiza-
tional climate.
The perceptual approach to organizational climate seemingly has
generated the greatest amount of research. A major significant contri-
bution to the area of organizational climate was made by Litwin and
Stringer (1968). Their research was significant on both theoretical and
practical grounds. Their theoretical view of climate is one that is
commonly endorsed by contemporary researchers: climate refers to a
set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived di-
rectly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environ-
ment, and is assumed to influence motivation and behavior (Litwin
and Stringer, 1968, p.1.). Their practical contribution to the area was
the development of a 50 item organizational climate questionnnaire,
which has been utilized in a number of research studies. Sims and
LaFollette (1975) recently completed a study which explored the valid-
ity and reliability of the Litwin and Stringer (1968) organizational
climate questionnaire. Using factor analytic techniques, Sims and
LaFollette found “doubtful reliability and validity” for the original
questionnaire, and reported factor structures derived from adminis-
tering the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire to subjects in their study
to be more “meaningful and reliable.” Sims and LaFollette were
prompted to do their study because of the paucity of currently avail-
able evidence regarding the validity and reliability of organizational
climate questionnaires. The purpose of the present study was to extend
the research of Sirns and LaFollette, to see whether the factors derived
from their research could be replicated in another sample. More
importantly, it was hypothesized that since organizational climate
involves perceptions of a work environment, it is doubtful that a
common meaningful set of derived factors exist across different work
environments. As Schneider (1975) stated, climate is the result of an
organization’s practices and procedures, and differing organizational
practices and procedures should produce differing organizational cli-
mates. The purpose of this study was not to criticize the methodology
employed by Sims and LaFollette, nor to question the interpretation
of their specific results, but to extend the theoretical and practical
implications of organizational climate research based upon the data
from the two studies.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of employees of a large public utility. Re-
spondents covered a broad spectrum of occupations, including various
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 373

levels of management, telephone operators, telephone service repair-

men, PBX installers, technical, craft, and clerical personnel. The total
size of the organization (state-wide) was approximately 8000 employ-
ees. A random sample of 1 160 employees was drawn by selecting every
seventh employee from a computerized listing of all employees. The
Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnnaire (among
others) was mailed to the home of each employee. Subjects were
instructed that the study was sponsored by Iowa State University, was
not a company study, and their responses were completely con-
fidential. After one follow-up letter, 695 (60%) usable questionnaires
were returned. 48% of the respondents were male, 52% of the respond-
ents were female: their average age was 33 years and their average
tenure in the organization was 13 years.
Instrument
The organizational climate questionnaire used in this study was
designed by Litwin and Stringer (Form B) (1968). The questionnaire
consists of 50 statements about an organization. The respondent is
asked to reply to each item using a four-point Likert scale format:
definitely agree; inclined to agree; inclined to disagree; or definitely
disagree-as it applies to his organization.
The 50 item Litwin and Stringer (1968) questionnaire consists of
nine separate a priori scales which they defined as:
1. Structure (8 items)-the feeling that employees have about the
constraints in the group, how many rules, regulations, procedures
there are; is there an emphasis on “red tape” and going through
channels, or is there a loose and informal atmosphere.
2. Responsibility (7 items)-the feeling of being your own boss: not
having to double-check all your decisions; when you have a job to do,
knowing that it is your job.
3. Reward (6 items)-the feeling of being rewarded for a job well
done; emphasizing positive rewards rather than punishments, the per-
ceived fairness of the pay and promotion policies.
4. Risk ( 5 items)-the sense of riskiness and challenge in the job and
in the organization; is there an emphasis on taking calculated risks, o r
is playing it safe the best way to operate.
5 . Warmth ( 5 items)-the feeling of general good fellowship that
prevails in the work group atmosphere; the emphasis on being well-
liked; the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups.
6. Support (5 items)-the perceived helpfulness of the managers and
other employees in the group; emphasis on mutual support from
above and below.
7. Standards (6 items)-the perceived importance of implicit and
314 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

explicit goals and performance standards: the emphasis on doing a

good job: the challenge represented in personal and group goals.
8. Conflict (4 items)-the feeling that managers and other workers
want to hear different opinions: the emphasis placed on getting prob-
lems out in the open, rather than smoothing them over or ignoring
them.
9. Identity (4 items)-the feeling that you belong to a company and
you are a valuable member of a working team; the importance placed
o n this kind of spirit (pp. 81-82).
Based upon their own research, Litwin and Stringer concluded that
seven of the nine scales showed good internal consistency, although
there was some problem of overlap among the scales (positive scale
intercorrelations). Sims and LaFollette (1975, p. 23) discuss in greater
detail the specific problems relating to the original nine scales.
Statistical Analysis
By design, the statistical analyses employed in this study were identi-
cal to those employed by Sims and LaFollette (1975). Identical analy-
ses were r u n to avoid the problem encountered i n previous factor
analytic research (Ash, 1954: Baehr, 1954: Wherry, 1954), whereby
differences in the findings could be attributed to different methods of
analysis. The subprogram FACTOR from the Statistical Package f o r
the Social Sciences ( S P S S ) (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1970) was used by
Sims and LaFollette (and thus used in the present study) to identify
the factor structure which was most representative of the data from the
organizational climate questionnaire. The method of factoring se-
lected was PA2, which replaces the main diagonal elements of the
correlation matrix with comrnunality estimates. Sirns and LaFollette
reported in their study that they used both orthogonal (Varimax) and
oblique (direct oblimin) rotations, but they did not stipulate exactly
where in the study the oblique rotation was employed. However, Sims
(1976) informed the author that the results actually reported in their
study were based only on orthogonal (Varimax) rotations. In the
present study orthogonal (Varimax) rotations were also employed.
Results
After examining the resultant factor structures, it was determined
that the factor structure which best represented the data from the
questionnaire was that of the six factor orthogonal rotation, which is
shown in Tables 1 through 6. Each factor is presented separately in the
table^.^
A complete listing of the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnaire
items is included in the Appendix.
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 375

TABLE I
Factor I: Interpersonal Milieu

L & S Item Factors Communal-

Number I I1 111 IV V VI ity
21 .3 1 -.06 .22 .28 .08 .I7 .46
27 .48 .04 .35 .29 .I7 .24 .56
29 .72 .04 .20 .I6 .09 .I8 .65
30 .72 .07 .20 .I9 .03 .I8 .66
32 .28 -.I I .27 .27 .05 .24 .43
Eipen Vrlue U I t u c t o r I I .44
Percentage o f Variance of Factor I 6.42
C u m u l e w c Percentage of Variancr of Factor I 6.42

I . lnterpersonal Milieu: This factor describes the interpersonal rela-

tions environment that is perceived to exist in the company: that is, the
type of atmopshere that prevails in the company.
11. Standards: This factor identifies the feeling that the organization
has established exacting standards of performance, placing emphasis
on high quality of performance.
111. General Affective Tone toward Management/Organization:
This factor identifies the way in which respondents perceive manage-
ment, where “management” represents the organizational “higher-
ups” and their concomitant image.
IV. Organizational Structure and Procedure: This factor identifies
the feelings people have about the way things get done within the
organization, involving clarity of procedures, red tape, and organiza-
tional structure.
V. Responsibility: This factor identifies the way the respondents feel
about who has the ultimate responsibility for getting the job done,
involving the frequency of double-checking, individual judgment, and
personal initiative.
VI. Organizational Identification: This factor describes the feelings
people have about being a part of the same organization, involving

TABLE 2
Factor II: Standards

L & S Item Factors Communal-

N urn ber I I1 Ill IV V v1 ity
37 .06 .74 .I5 .I6 .oo .20 .65
38 -.02 .73 - .05 .03 .01 -.01 .55
39 .02 .71 -.02 -.03 .03 .o I .63
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~

Figen Vxlueof Factor I I I 61

Percewtge of Vsriance of Factor I I 7.44
Percenf.tpe crr Variance OF Factor I 1
Cornul;~tive 13 86
376 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 3
Factor III: General Aflectiue Tone townrd ManagementlOrganizntion
L & S Item Factor Communal-
Number I 11 111 IV V VI ity
8 .09 -.04 .35 .27 .I7 .09 .32
16 -.01 .06 .59 .36 .02 .I0 .52
17 .I9 - .07 .65 .28 .I6 .I3 .62
18 .09 .04 .66 .37 .02 .06 .59
19 .27 -.21 .35 .34 .I5 .I5 .5 I
20 .I3 - .04 .54 .36 .o I .I5 .5 I
25 .20 -.03 .48 .28 .04 .I2 .56
28 .30 -.I5 .36 .22 .23 .20 .42
31 .40 -.04 .50 .26 .04 .26 .59
33 .I8 .I0 .58 .I7 .04 .I I .41
34 .35 --.06 .41 .33 .03 .27 .52
35 .2 I .04 .58 .20 .I5 .22 .53
36 .26 .09 .40 .23 .I2 .22 .47
40 .06 .30 p.32 -.I I .08 -.05 .36
41 .07 .20 .22 .I3 .03 .I3 .26
43 .I6 .o I .44 .I3 .07 .28 .39
45 .I4 - .05 .59 .I6 .I5 .30 .54

feelings of pride in the company, personal loyalty, and a team ap-

proach t o work.
T h e mean and standard deviation of each a priori scale is shown in
Table 7, as well a s the mean and standard deviation of each derived
factor, computed by summing the scores of the items loading most
significantly (the highest loading) on that factor and then dividing the

TABLE 4
Factor IV: Organizational Structure and Procedures

L & S Item Factor Cornmunal-

N um ber I II Ill IV V VI ity
I .05 .I4 .26 .59 .08 .I I .49
2 .09 .04 .I1 .59 .08 .I2 .4 1
3 .II .06 .25 .5 I .09 .20 .42
4 .I2 -.I4 .I4 .47 .06 .08 .33
5 .I5 -.I4 .23 .4 I -.03 .I9 .33
6 .07 .04 .23 .56 .OO .06 .39
7 .I0 .I0 .I7 .47 .02 .08 .29
14 .I6 - .03 .20 .48 -.02 .2 I .47
15 .I6 .05 .I0 .47 - .03 .I6 .39
24 .I0 -.01 .26 .32 -.04 .I4 .40

Eigen Value of Factor IV 2.41

Percentage o i V a r i a n c e o f F x r n r IV 10.83
Cumulative Percentage o r Voriance or Factor 1V 42.14
 PAUL M . MUCHINSKY 377

TABLE 5
Factor V: Responsibility

L & S Item Factor Comrnunal-

Number 1 I1 111 IV V VI ity
9 .01 -.09 .06 .I4 .33 .I I .28
10 .04 -.Ol .07 .04 .61 .02 .39
II .I1 .00 .I5 .I3 .46 .03 .28
I2 -.Ol .06 .28 -.07 .34 .I6 .29
13 - .02 .06 -.03 -.03 .55 .oo .36
23 .05 .on .I1 .08 .21 .00 .45
44 .00 .I5 -.06 -_I I .2 I .06 .I7

Eigen V a l u e o l t a c t o r V I.20
Psicrnlagco l Variance of t a c t o r V 5 35
Cumulativc Percentage 01 Variance 01 Pactor V 48 09

sum by the number of items used in the summation. Internal con-

sistency (coefficient alpha) reliabilities of the a priori scales and de-
rived factors are also shown in the table, as well as the split-half
reliabilities of the a priori scales and derived factors as reported by
Sims and LaFollette ( 1 975). A comparison of the reliabilities between
the present study and the Sims and LaFollette study yield almost
identical findings. Both studies found that the same four a priori scales
(Responsibility, Risk, Standards, and Conflict) have reliabilities below
an acceptable level. Also as Sims and LaFollette found, the derived
climate factors have higher reliabilities overall than do the original a
priori climate scales developed by Litwin and Stringer. Factor I l l .
Affective toward Management, Factor IV, Organizational Structure
and Procedures, and Factor VI, Organizational Identification have
very high reliabilities of .9 1, .82, and .82, respectively, which exceed
the computed reliability of any of the a priori scales. Factor I, Inter-
personal Milieu, has a satisfactory reliability of .75, while Factors I1
(Standards) and V (Responsibility) have lower reliabilities. As can be

TABLE 6
Factor VI: Organizaiional Identification

L & S Item Factor Comrnunal-

Number I I1 111 IV V VI ity
42 .22 .I0 .24 .29 .02 .45 .44
47 .22 .I3 .27 .22 .I5 .64 .65
48 .I7 .I4 .34 .35 .08 .60 .7 I
49 .23 .02 .30 .28 .05 .58 .58
50 .I9 -.03 .40 .29 .oo .42 .52
Etgcn Vrlue 01 Faclur VI I .48
Percentage of Variance of t a c l u r VI 6.60
Cumulative Percentage uf Variance o f Factor VI 54.69
378 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 7
Internal Consistency Reliubilities. Means, and Standard Deviations of the Organizational
Climate A Priori Scales and the Derived Climate Factors

S & L"
A Priori Scales Reliabilities Reliabilities Mean S.D.
- ~

1. Structure .79 .77 2.43 .93

2. Responsibility .34 .46 2.42 .88
3. Reward .67 .8 I 2.29 .87
4. Risk .I2 .47 2.47 .84
5. Warmth .76 .8 I 2.69 .8 I
6. Support .69 .77 2.56 .83
7. Standards .37 .49 2.98 .8 I
8. Conflict .2 I .o I 2.34 .84
9. Identity .79 .8 I 2.19 .79
Derived Fartors
I . Interpersonal Milieu .75 2.98 .80
I I . Standards .54 3.00 .8 I
I l l . Alfective Tone toward Mgt./Org. .9 I 2.35 .86
IV. Organirational Structure and Procedures .82 2.49 .93
V . Responsibility .56 2.38 .86
V I . Organizational Identification ,112 2.81 .79
Derived Fartors (Sims & LaFollette)
I . Affective Tone toward People .92 2.55 .58
I I . Affective Tone toward Management .82 2.48 .5 I
I l l . Policy and Promotion Clarity .69 2.3 I .68
IV. Job Pressure and Standards .58 2.56 .46
V . Openness of Upward Communication .69 2.38 .73
V I . Risk in Decision Making .45 2.3 I .58

seen in Table 7, the reliabilities of the derived factors in this study are
higher than the reliabilities of the derived factors in the Sims and
LaFollette study.
To compare the a priori scales and the derived factors of the
organizational climate questionnaire, a cross-classification matrix was
prepared and is shown in Table 8. In this table the derived factors are
shown along the horizontal axis and the a priori scales are along the
vertical axis. T h e items which loaded most signficantly (the highest
loading) on a particular factor were arrayed in the column represent-
ing that factor. T h e particular items were placed in the rows which
correspond to the a priori scales in which Litwin a n d Stringer had
originally placed the items. T h e numbers refer to the original scale
items as listed by Litwin and Stringer.
It is this presentation of the data that best illustrates the difference
between the results of the Sims and LaFollette (1975, p. 30) study and
the present study. In this study o n e factor (Factor I l l , General Affec-
tive T o n e toward Management/Organization) appears t o be a general
factor, containing 17 items drawn from seven of the a priori scales,
 TABLE 8
Cross Classification of Organizational Climate A Priori Scales and Derioed Climate Factors

Derived Factors Org.

Original A Interp. Milieu Standards Affect. Mgt. Org. Str. & Proceds. Responsibility ldent
Priori Scales I II Ill IV V VI
Structure
I .2,3,4,5,6,7,8 8 I .2.3.4.5,6,7
Responsibility
9,10,1 1,12,13,14.15 14.15 9.10,l 1.12.13
Reward
16,17,18,19,20,21 21 16,17,18.19,20 3
Risk
-
22,23,24,25,26 25 24 23
Warmth
27,28,29.30,3 I 27,29,30 28.3 I
Support
32,33,34,35,36 32 33,34,35.36
Standards
37,38,39,40,4 1,42 37,38,39 40.4 I 42
Conflirr
43,44,45.46 43.45 44
Identity
47.48,49,50
380 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

with most of the items coming from the Reward and Support scales.
This single factor accounted for 18.05% of the variance in the ques-
tionnaire. Both the Sims and LaFollette study and the present study
identified six factors underlying the Litwin and Stringer questionnaire.
However, with the exception of the factor Affective Tone toward
Management which was common to both studies and a factor relating
to job standards, the remaining factors between the two studies are
quite different. Sims and LaFollette reported a second large general
factor, Affective Tone toward Other People in the Organization,
which was not evidenced in this study. In the Sims and LaFollette
study, their six factors accounted for 44.40% of the total variance,
while in the present study the six factors accounted for 54.69% of the
total variance.
A very pronounced difference between the two studies involves the
“spread” of the items across Table 8. Sims and LaFollette (p. 30)
report a wide dispersion of items across the a priori scales, indicating a
lack of correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived
factors. Sims and LaFollette commented that if there were a high
degree of correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived
factors (which they did not get in their study), one would expect to see
a “clustering” appearance of the items in the table, with each derived
factor having the great majority of items corresponding to one or two
of the a priori scales. In the present study the items did cluster to a
high degree (with the exception of Factor Ill). Factor I, Interpersonal
Milieu, consisted of items mainly from the Warmth scale. Factor 11,
Standards, consisted of items only from the Standards scale. Factor
IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures, consisted of items
mainly from the Structure scale. Factor V, Responsibility, consisted of
items mainly from the Responsibility scale. Factor VI, Organizational
Identification, consisted of items mainly from the Identity scale. In
short, there was a high degree of correspondence between the a priori
scales and the derived factors in this study.
To verify this conclusion, correlations were computed to determine
the relationships between the a priori scales and the derived factors.
The correlation matrix is shown in Table 9. Factor I, Interpersonal
Milieu, correlates very highly (.90) with the Warmth scale. Factor 11,
Standards, correlates very highly (.95) with the Standards scale. Fac-
tor I l l , Affective Tone toward Management (the large general factor),
correlates highly with several scales: Reward (.9l), Support (.89),
Warmth (.77), and Identity (.7 I). Factor IV, Organizational Structure
and Procedures, correlates very highly (.95) with the Structure scale.
Factor V, Responsibility, correlates highly (.8 1) with the Responsibil-
ity scale. Factor VI, Organizational Identification, correlates very highly
 TABLE 9
Correlations of Organizational Climate A Priori Scales With Organizational Climate Factors

Derived Factors
Organizational
Interpersonal Affective Tone Structure and Organizational
Milieub Standards" toward Mgt./Org.b Proceduresb Responsibilitya Identificationb
A Priori Scales I I1 Ill IV V v1
Structureb .48 -.I6 .68 .95 .I3 .55
Responsibility" .30 -.I5 .43 .42 .81 .36
Rewardb .63 - .23 .9 1 .65 .22 .65
Risk" .30 -.I2 .45 .33 .38 .33
Warmthb .90 - .22 .77 .52 .I8 .64
Supportb .65 -.21 .89 .60 .20 .69
Standards" - .05 .95 - .07 .00 -.I2 .I3
"1s) (.031) (N/S) ( ,002 )
Conflict" .15 -.I I .36 .I0 .I5 .22
(.003 )" (.007)
Identityb .60 -.I3 .7 I 39 .I7 .98
N = 695
= Scales o r Factors with reliabilities 5 .56.
' = Scales o r factors with reliahililier 2 .7S.
c = Numhers in parentheses indicate level of significance Otherwise, the correlation is significant
at the .Wl level.

W
m
382 PEKSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(.98) with the Identity scale. T w o a priori scales, Risk and Conflict, d o
not correlate highly with any derived factor, d u e in part t o their very
low reliabilities. In summary. a relatively high degree of correspon-
dence was evidenced between the a priori scales and the derived
factors, a finding not evidenced in the Sims and LaFollette study.
Table 10 presents the intercorrelations of the derived organizational
climate factors. Four factors appear t o be interrelated: Factor I ,
Interpersonal Milieu; Factor 111, Affective Tone toward Manage-
ment: Factor IV, Organizational Structure and Procedures: a n d Fac-
tor V I , Organizational Identification. T w o factors appear t o be more
independent: Factor 11, Standards; a n d Factor V, Responsibility. Fac-
tors I 1 and V also have the lowest reliabilities of the derived factors,
which may explain their low intercorrelations. T h e overall pattern of
the intercorrelations of the six factors is similar to the results obtained
by Sims and LaFollette (1975, p. 35).
Discussion
There are several major similarities and differences between the
result5 of this study and the Sims and LaFollette study. First the
similarities will be addressed.
Both studies found nearly the identical results for the reliability of
the nine a priori Litwin and Stringer organizational climate scales. T h e
results from the Sims and LaFollette study and the present study both
indicated that five scales (Structure, Reward, Warmth, Support, a n d
Identity) had reasonably satisfactory reliabilities, and both studies
indicated that the remaining four scales (Responsibility, Risk, Stand-
ards, and Conflict) had less than satisfactory reliabilities. In particular,
the Conflict scale had the lowest reliability, and even Litwin and
Stringer quggested that the scale be dropped from the questionnaire. In
brief, the results from the Sims and LaFollette study and the present
study were in high agreement regarding the reliability of the nine a
priori climate scales.
In addition to the present research, three other studies have factor
analyred the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnaire
(Meyer, 1968: Downey, Hellriegel, Phelps, and Slocum, 1974; Sims
and LaFollette, 1975). In each of the four studies the investigators
found six factors underlying the questionnaire. Meyer (1968) referred
to his factors as Constraining Conformity, Responsibility, Standards,
Reward. Organizational Clarity, and Friendly, Team Spirit. Downey
et al. (1974) referred to their factors as Decision Making, Warmth,
Risk, Openness, Rewards, a n d Structure. Sims and LaFollette (1975)
referred t o their factors as Affective T o n e toward Other People,
Affective Tone toward Management, Policy and Promotion Clarity,
 T A B L E 10
Intercorrelufions of Organizurional Climate Furfors

Interpersonal Affective Org. Structure 2

Milieu Standards T o n e Mgt. & Procedures Responsibility Org. Indent.
I 11 Ill IV V VI
I. Interpersonal Milieu (.75)"
T
11. Standards -.I7 3
(34) C
I l l . Affective T o n e toward Mgt./Org. .64 -.22 (.91) 0
IV. Organizational Structure a n d .48 -.I3 .65 (32) s
Procedures
V. Responsibility .I5 -.I5 .28 .07 (.56)
5x
VI. Organizational Identification .60 - .09 .70 .58 .I6 (32) .
i

N = 695
* Numbers in parentheses are reliability coelficients (coefficient alpha)

w
M
w
384 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Job Pressure and Standards, Openness of Upward Communication,

and Risk in Decision Making. While the name given t o a factor is
primarily a matter of subjective judgment (thereby limiting the ability
to make accurate comparisons across studies), some factors d o appear
t o be common to the several studies. A factor dealing with the type of
interpersonal atmosphere which prevails in the organization is evi-
denced in the factors Friendly, Team Spirit (Meyer), Warmth
(Downey et al.), Affective Tone toward People (Sims and LaFollette),
and Interpersonal Milieu (Muchinsky). Similarly, a factor dealing
with the importance of doing a good j o b is evidenced by the factors
Standards (Meyer), J o b Pressure and Standards (Sims and LaFol-
lette), and Standards (Muchinsky). However, the existence of such a
factor appears absent in the Downey et al. study. Also, a factor dealing
with rewards is evidenced by the factors Reward (Meyer), Rewards
(Downey et al.), and to lesser degrees by Policy and Promotion Clarity
(Sims and LaFollette), and Affective Tone toward Management
(Muchinsky). Other factors appear common to only two studies, as
Responsibility (Meyer, Muchinsky), while other factors appear to be
unique to a specific study, as Constraining Conformity (Meyer) and
Openness of Upward Communication (Sims and LaFollette). In short,
some factors appear to be common across studies, some factors appear
to be specific to certain studies, while other factors appear t o have
fuzzy inter-study relationships. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and
Weick ( I 970) commented on the basis of reviewing several climate
studies that “a good deal of communality” seemed to exist across
studies, “at least in the outward appearance of the factors” (p. 392).
The present research suggests that when one digs beyond outward
appearances, the amount of communality decreases. Again, it should
be emphasized that accurate comparisons of factors on only a name
and verbal description can be tenuous.
Two of the four studies (the present study, Sims and LaFollette) can
be examined in greater detail because much more data are available
for comparison. Both studies identified a factor involving the way
people perceive management, with the present author giving it the
same name as employed by Sims and LaFollette, Affective Tone
toward Management. This was a large general factor accounting for
8.1% of the variance in the Sims and LaFollette study and 18% of the
variance in the present study. Yet the specific items that comprise this
factor were not identical in both studies. In fact, several of the items
included in this factor in the present study were included in a different
factor identified by Sims and LaFollette, Affective Tone toward
People. T h e largest factor identified by Sims and LaFollette was the
factor Affective T o n e toward People, accounting for 24.2% of the
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 385

variance in their study. However, no such analogous large general

factor was identified in this study; the closest factor conceptually was
Interpersonal Milieu, accounting for 6.42% of the variance. In short,
Sims and LaFollette reported that two large general factors, Affective
Tone toward People and Affective Tone toward Management, ac-
counted collectively for 72% of the total explainable variance in their
study. The present study identified one large general factor which
accounted for 33% of the total explainable variance.
The factor Job Pressure and Standards (Sims and LaFollette) is
close to the factor Standards in the present study, being composed of
similar items. However, other .factors are composed of completely
different items, or items that have only a marginal overlap. While it is
clear that the specific factors identified in the Sims and LaFollette
study and the present study have some items in common, there exist
even greater substantial differences between the two resulting factor
structures. It should be kept in mind that the present study employed
the same statistical analyses as those utilized by Sims and LaFollette,
so that any differences in the results that did occur can not be attri-
buted to methodological differences.
Since differences in the data did occur which cannot be attributed to
methodological differences between the two studies, the question
arises as to the reasons for the discrepant results. I n somewhat of a
similar study, Baehr (1954) administered the SRA Employee Inven-
tory to two groups of employees. Baehr factor analyzed the data and
found four factors to be common to both groups of employees: I n -
tegration in the Organization; Job Satisfaction; Immediate Super-
vision; and Friendliness and Cooperation of Fellow Employees. How-
ever, Baehr also found factors that were specific to each group. I n
explaining the reason for the specific factors, Baehr identified system-
atic differences in the sample characteristics of the two groups. The
first group was composed of junior executives, private secretaries, and
stenographers, working in the national office of a merchandising or-
ganization. These employees were not unionized, and held (in Baehr’s
opinion) “high status” jobs. The second group was composed of
factory workers and routine clerical workers, working in a branch
plant of a manufacturing organization. These employees were union-
ized, and held (in Baehr’s opinion) “low status” jobs. Thus the reason
for the obtained differences in the specific factors were attributable to
differences residing within characteristics of the sample. In essense the
data were not drawn from two samples of the same population, but
two different populations.
It seems highly plausible that the differences between the Sims and
LaFollette study and the present study are due to factors similar to
386 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

those encountered in Baehr’s two groups of employees. As in Baehr’s

study, some similarities or factors common to both the Sims and
LaFollette study and the present study were found. F o r example, both
studies found a factor relating t o j o b standards. Sims and LaFollette
conducted their study in a medical center, and the present study
involved employees working for a public utility. Both organizations
undoubtedly exhort the need for high standards of performance due to
the nature of t h e services they perform, in one case the medical
profession and in the other telephone communication. However, dif-
ferences between the two organizations were also found. Sims a n d
LaFollette identified a factor involving the openness of upward com-
munication. All of their subjects were physically located in one com-
plex, thereby possibly accentuating the importance of upward com-
munication in one large centrally located bureaucratic organization.
Such a factor was not evidenced in the present study, perhaps due to
the fact that the subjects were physically located through-out an entire
state. Being highly decentralized, the importance of upward communi-
cation may not be as great. The present study identified a factor
involving organizational identity, a sense of belonging to a parent
organization. Since by law competing telephone companies cannot
exist, all the employees were working for the only organization of its
type within the state. Sims a n d LaFollette did not clearly identify a
single factor relating to organizational identity, which may be d u e t o
the fact that the subjects in their study (nurses, therapists, dieticians,
etc.) could readily be employed by numerous other medical related
organizations. In summary, while some common factors did emerge
between the two studies, the specific factors unique t o each study
appear to be explainable d u e t o differences in the characteristics of
each respective sample, as these differences represent the basic dis-
crepency between the two organizations in terms of their differing
work practices. procedures, and goals.
Another major difference in the results between the two studies
involves the relationships between the a priori scales and the derived
factors. Sims and LaFollette found little correspondence between their
derived factors a n d the original Litwin a n d Stringer a priori scales,
while the present study found a reasonably high degree of correspon-
dence between the derived factors and the a priori scales. Of the two
other studies that factor analyzed the Litwin and Stringer question-
naire, Meyer (1968) did not report any data o n the relationship be-
tween his derived factors and the a priori scales, a n d Downey et al.
(1974) reported on only 15 of the 50 items in the questionnaire. O n the
basis of their finding, Sims a n d LaFollette made the statement that
blind acceptance of previously developed (a priori) scales can be mis-
leading and should be avoided. T h e present author is in total agree-
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 387

ment with that statement. However, Sims and LaFollette go on to say

that the factors derived through their own research appear to be
“meaningful and reliable,” with the tacit implication or suggestion
that it would not be misleading to use the factors they identified as
climate scales in future research, It is with that suggestion that the
present author takes exception. For the most part the factors identified
by Sims and LaFollette were not replicated in this study. Therefore the
“meaningfulness” of the Sims and LaFollette factors are more situa-
tional in nature, in their case specific to a medical center organization.
In the present study a fairly high degree of correspondence was ob-
tained between the a priori scales and the derived factors. Therefore,
just on the basis of this study alone, the a priori Litwin and Stringer
climate scales would receive a fairly positive verdict, with some ob-
vious exceptions that the Conflict scale, for example, has extremely
low (.01) reliability. The fact that there was a fairly high degree of
relationship between the a priori scales and the derived factors in this
study in no way influences the quality of the findings, in the sense that
the factors derived i n this study are not more “meaningful” than those
found by Sims and LaFollette. What the findings do suggest is that it
may be very difficult to arrive at some “standardized” climate inven-
tory that will manifest high scale validity and reliability across many
different organizations. The factors identified by Sims and LaFollette
may be “meaningful” for a medical center organization, and the
factors identified in this study may be meaningful for a public utility
organization, but the two sets of factors are considerably different. It
would be as inappropriate to routinely employ the factors identified in
this study in different types of organizations as it would be in-
appropriate to routinely employ the factors identified in the Sims and
LaFollette study in different types of organizations. Sims and LaFol-
lette state that current climate questionnaires are a long way from
manifesting consistent reliability and validity as found in the Job
Description Index (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969). While that
statement is certainly accurate, it appears doubtful that any specific
climate questionnaire will one day manifest the reliability and validity
found in the JDI. Since climate is typically defined as perceptions of a
work environment, it may well be that different types of organizations
have relatively unique work environments. Thus it may be possible to
develop a valid and reliable climate questionnaire for use in homoge-
nous organizations as medical centers or public utilities, but it appears
unlikely that the validity and reliability of specific climate scales will
stand up when applied across different types (or heterogeneous) or-
ganizations. The practical implication of this statement would involve
the administration and routine factor analysis of a climate question-
naire when the type of organization of interest has not been examined
388 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

in the past. While this procedure may not bode well for practitioners
interested in the climate of their own organizations, it would be as
misleading to blindly accept the derived factors from previous climate
studies based upon different types of organizations as it would be to
blindly accept the Litwin and Stringer a priori scales. Schneider (1975)
referenced this same problem from a conceptual perspective, sugges-
ting that rather than trying to identify an omnibus climate, we should
focus our attention on identifying various climates that exist, and their
antecedent causes.
Campbell et al. (1970) identified four factors that seem to be com-
mon to most climate studies: (1) Individual Autonomy; (2) The De-
gree of Structure Imposed Upon the Position; ( 3 ) Reward Orientation;
and (4) Consideration, Warmth, and Support. With the exception
of Reward Orientation, those factors were also identified in this
study. If any systematic attempts are to be made to develop a
climate questionnaire that will not have validity and reliability just
specific to certain homogenous organizations, constructing such an
instrument around these four factors would seem a logical place to
start. While the resulting instrument may be overly general in its
content, it may be preferable to the procedure of having to routinely
factor analyze existing climate questionnaires to identify factors pre-
sent in any given organization. Sims and LaFollette commented that
they slightly reworded certain climate questions to fit the medical
center environment, thereby increasing the immediate relevance and
appropriateness of the questionnaire for their sample. In the quest to
develop a psychometrically sound standardized climate questionnaire
applicable to a broad range or organizations, the specificity and sub-
sequent relevance of reworded items would have to be sacrificed. At
the present time the consequences of the trade-off between specific
climate questionnaires geared for one type of organization versus a
more general climate questionnaire applicable to many types of organ-
izations is unclear. What is clear, however, is that dependent upon our
objectives, something will have to be sacrificed, and we can’t have it
both ways. Such a suggestion appears consistent with Schneider’s
(1975) statement that climates would be identified dependent upon our
criterion of interest.

APPENDIX
The Litwin and Stringer Organization Climate Questionnaire (Form B )

Structure
I . The jobs in this Organization are clearly defined and logically
structured.
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 389

2. In this Organization it is sometimes unclear who has the formal

authority to make a decision.
3. The policies and organization structure of the Organization have
been clearly explained.
4. Red-tape is kept to a minimum in this Organization.
5. Excessive rules, administrative details, and red-tape make it diffi-
cult for new and original ideas to receive consideration.
6. Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack of organization and
planning.
7. I n some of the projects I’ve been on, I haven’t been sure exactly
who my boss was.
8. Our management isn’t so concerned about formal organization
and authority, but concentrates instead on getting the right people
together to do the job.
Responsibility
9. We don’t rely too heavily on individual judgment in this Organiza-
tion; almost everything is double-checked.
10. Around here management resents your checking everything with
them: if you think you’ve got the right approach you just go
ahead.
1 1 . Supervision in this Organization is mainly a matter of setting
guidelines for your subordinates; you let them take responsibility
for the job.
12. You won’t get ahead in this Organization unless you stick your
neck out and try things on your own sometimes.
13. Our philosophy emphasizes that people should solve their prob-
lems by themselves.
14. There are an awful lot of excuses around here when somebody
makes a mistake.
15. One of the problems in this Organization is that individuals won’t
take responsibility.
Reward
16. We have a promotion system here that helps the best man to rise
to the top.
17. In this Organization the rewards and encouragements you get
usually outweigh the threats and the criticism.
18. I n this Organization people are rewarded in proportion to the
excellence of their job performance.
19. There is a great deal of criticism in this Organization.
20. There is not enough reward and recognition given in this Organi-
zation for doing good work.
21. If you make a mistake in this Organization you will be punished.
390 PEKSONNLL PSYCHOLOGY

R isk
22. The philosophy of our management is that in the long run we get
ahead fastest by playing it slow, safe, and sure.
23. Our business has been built up by taking calculated risks at the
right time.
24. Decision making in this Organization is too cautious from max-
i m u m effectiveness.
25. Our management is willing to take a chance on a good idea.
26. We have to take some pretty big risks occasionally to keep ahead
of the competition in the business we’re in.
Warmth
27. A friendly atmosphere prevails among the people in this Organiza-
tion.
28. This Organization is characterized by a relaxed, easy-going work-
ing climate.
29. It’s very hard to get to know people in this Organization.
30. People in this Organimtion tend to be cool and aloof toward each
other.
31. There IS a lot of warmth in the relationships between management
and workers in this Organization.
Support
32. You don’t get much sympathy from higher-ups in this Organiza-
tion if you make a mistake.
33. Management makes an effort to talk with you about your career
asp i rations within the 0rga n i za t i o n .
34. People in this Organization don’t really trust each other enough.
35. The philosophy of our management emphasizes the human fac-
tor, hoN people feel, etc.
36. When I am on a difficult assignment I can usually count on getting
assistance from my boss and co-workers.
Standards
37. I n this Organization we set very high standards for performance.
38. Our management believes that no job is so well done that it
couldn’t be done better.
39. Around here there is a feeling of pressure to continually improve
our personal and group performance.
40. Management believes that if the people are happy, productivity
will take care of itself.
41. To get ahead in this Organization it’s more important to get along
than it is to be a high producer.
 PAUL M. MUCHINSKY 39 1

42. In this Organization people don’t seem to take much pride in their
performance.
Conflict
43. T h e best way to make a good impression around here is to steer
clear of open arguments and disagreements.
44. T h e attitude of o u r management is that conflict between com-
peting units and individuals can be very healthy.
45. We are encouraged to speak o u r minds, even if it means dis-
agreeing with o u r superiors.
46. In management meetings the goal is to arrive a t a decision as
smoothly a n d quickly a s possible.

Identity
47. People are proud of belonging t o this Organization.
48. I feel that I am a member of a well functioning team.
49. As far as I can see, there isn’t very much personal loyalty to the
company.
SO. In this Organization people pretty much look out for their own
interests.
REFERENCES
Ash, P. T h e S R A Employee Inventory-A statistical analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOL-
OGY, 1954. 7. 337-364.
Baehr. M . E. A factorial study of the S R A Employee Inventory. P E R S O N N EPsuctloL-
L
VGY. 1954. 7, 319-336.
Campbell, J . P., Dunnette. M . D.. Lawler, E. E.. a n d Weick, K . E., Jr. Managerial
belrauior. performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1970.
Downey, H . K., Hellriegel, D., Phelps. M.. a n d Slocum, J . W.. Jr. Organizational
climate a n d j o b satisfaction: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research,
1974. 2, 233-248.
Evan. W . M . Indices of hierarchical structure o f organizations. Management Science,
1963, 9. 468-477.
Friedlander, F. a n d Margulies, N . Multiple impacts of organizational climate a n d
individual systems upon j o b satisfaction. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY.1969. 22.
I7 1-1 83.
James, L. R . a n d Jones, A . P. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research.
Psychological Bulletin. 1974, 8 I , 1096- 1 1 12.
Johannesson. R . E. S o m e problems in the measurement o f organizational climate.
OrganizationaL Bebauior and Human Performance, 1973, 10. 118-144.
Lawrence. P. R . a n d Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment. Boston: Division of
Research, G r a d u a t e School o f Business Administration. Harvard University. 1967.
Litwin, G . H . a n d Stringer. R . A . . Jr. Mutioation and organizationaf ciimate. Boston:
Division of Research, G r a d u a t e School o f Business Administration, Harvard Univer-
sity, 1968.
Meyer, H . H . Achievement motivation a n d industrial climates. In R . T a p i r i a n d G . H .
Litwin (Eds.). Organizational climate: Explorations o f a concept. Boston: Division of
Research. G r a d u a t e School of Business Administration, Harvard University. 1968.
392 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Nie, N.. Bent. D.. and Hull, C. Statistical package for the social sciences ( S P S S ) . New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Payne. R. L. and Pheysey. D. C . G . G . Stern’s organizational climate index: A recon-
ceptualization and application t o business organizations. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 197 I , 6. 77-98.
Prien, E. P. and Ronan. W . W. An analysis of organization characteristics. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human PerJormance. 197 I , 6, 2 15-234.
Pritchard. R . D. and Karasick, 9. W. The effects of organizational climate on manage-
rial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
jormance, 1973. 9, 126-146.
Pugh, D. S . . Hickson, D. R.. Hinings, C . R., and Turner, C. The context of organiza-
tional structure. Administrufiue Science Quarterly. 1969, 14, 94-1 14.
Schneider, 8. Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational real-
ities. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1972, 56, 21 1-217.
Schneider. B. The perception of organizational climate: The customer’s view. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1973. 51. 248-256.
Schneider. B. Organizational climates: An essay. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1975. 28,
447-419.
Schneider, B. and Bartlett, C. J. Individual differences and organizational climate I: The
research plan and questionnaire development. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 1968. 21,
323-333.
Schneider. B.. and Hall. D. T. Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A study
of Roman Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1972, 56.
447-455.
Sims. H. P.. Jr. Personal communication. March 18, 1976.
Sims. H. P., Jr. and LaFollette. W. R. A n assessment of the Litwin and Stringer
organi7ation climate questionnaire. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1975. 28. 19-38.
Smith. P. C.. Kendall, M., and Hulin. C . L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirenient: A strategy for rhe study ofattirudes. Chicago: Rand McNally and Com-
pany, 1969.
Wherry, R . J . An orthogonal re-rotation of the Baehr a n d Ash studies of the SRA
Employee Inventory. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 1954. 7, 365-380.