SPSYCHOLOGICAL AND ON IZATIONAL CUMATE:DIESINSAND RELATINSI'

K0

A. P. INES L . R. JAMES

REPWIINO 77-12

N(AVAL HEALTH RESEARCH CENTERSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92152

a NAVAL MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND

BhEThESDA1 MARYLAND

Psychological and Organizational Climate: Dimensions and Relationships

Allan P. JonesNaval Health Research Center

San Diego, California 92152

and

Lawrence R. JamesInstitute of Behavioral Research

Texas Christian UniversityFort Worth, Texas 76129

In collaboration withJohn R. Bruni, Chris W. Hornick, and Saul B. Sells

Institute of Behavioral ResearchTexas Christian UniversityFort Worth, Texas 76129

, \ t ~ l II .... ..............................

. .... ..........

Report Number 77-12,

supported by the Naval Medical Research and Development Command, Department of the Navy,

under Research Work Unit MF5.524.022-0007.

The views presented in this paper are those af the authors.

No endorsement by the Department of the Navy has been given or should be inferred.

,li:,!l . llll~iI .qw, -,,., . .......

Abstract

The present study represented an attempt to develop a comprehensive measure of psychological climate and to

investigate the appropriateness of aggregating psychological climate scores to describe subun ir organizational

climate. Theoretical assumptions underlying the two constructs were reviewed, and relationships with various

situational, positional, and individual variables were posited as indices of construct validity. Analyses indicated

that: (a) five of six psychological climate dimensions found for 4,315 U. S. Navy enlisted men were generalizable

to comparison samples of firemen (n - 398) and health care managers (n - 504); (b) aggregating psychological climate

scores to describe subunit climates was appropriate for homogeneous subunits (e.g., divisions); (c) subunit climates

were significanLly related to division context, structure, and personnel composition, while psychological climate

appeared more related to individual resources and position variables- and (d) subunit climate, structure, context,

and personnel composition measures were significant predictors of division performance criteria. Results were

interpreted relative to the theoretical properties of climste and prior research on structure and context.

I

Psychological and Organizational Climate: Dimensions and Relationships

Several recent articles and reviews have attested to the current popularity of climate research and, more

important, have offered suggestions for future theoretical and empirical efforts (cf. Campbell, Ifunnette, Iawler, &

Weick, i070, Guion, 1973; Ilellreigel 6 Sloctim, 1974; James 6 Jones, 1974; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975a;

Howe 6 Gavin, Note I). The strongest, most frequent recommendation was for a clear, explicit description of the

conceptual properties of climate that identified variables relevant to measuring tbe construct and specified rela-

tionships with various situational end individual attrihutes, As a first step in this process, James and Jones

(1974) suggested that a distinction be made between climate as an individual, perceptual attribute (psychological

climate) and climate as a situational attribute (organizational climate). In light of this distinction, certain of

the recommendations in the above articles appeared especially relevant.

Regarding psychological climate, for example, it was recommended that the focus of perceptual measurement be

descriptive, that measures include task as well as person and social characteristics, and that studies investigate

the direct and interactive influences of situational and individual attributes upon climate perceptions. With

respect to organizational climate, it was suggested that a further differentiation be made between organizational

climate and subunit climate (e g., workgroup climate, division climate, etc.), with the former term reserved for

descriptions of the total organization. This suggzstion was particularly important given the popular procedure of

basing subunit and organizational climate measures on aggregated psychological climate scores, and was consistent

with a recommendation that criteria be developed to assess the appropriateness of such aggregation. Finally, it

was saggested that research on each of the levels of climate (including psychological climate) should incorporate

longitudinal as well as cross-sectional designs and should explore the construct validity of climate in terms of

relationships with a variety of situational and individual characteristics, and with performance by individuals,

subunits, and organizations.

The present study addressed a subset of the above recommendations concerning needs for theoretical development

and empirical research. The objectives of the study were: (a) to develop a comprehensive measure of psychological

climate; (b) to investigate the appropriateness of aggregating psychological climate scores to describe subunit and

organicational climate; (c) to investigate the construct validity of psychological and subunit climate scores in

terms of relationships with selected situational and individual variables; and (d) to explore relationships between

subunit climate szores and subunit performance.

The theoretical basis for the development of the psychological climate measure is presented below. Included

in this presentation is a comparison of assumptions for psychological climate and for climate' treated as a situa-

tional attribute. This comparison is then used to explore the appropriateness of aggregating psychological climate

scores to describe the climate at various levels of the organization, including the total organization. A brief

overview of probable relationships between psychological and subunit climate and selected situationlal, individual,

and subunit performance variables is also presented. Finally, a specific statement of the research strategy is

2

.. . . ...... ...... . .. . . . ...'.. ... ...... .... . . . . .- s -

prov ided

heo ret I a Proertl Underiy Pays iica I_- iramty

In the Iiterature descrih Ing cl imat e as an Individual perceptual attribute, LI-ere appeared o be certain

common assumptions regarding properties of the construct. Before discussing suh assumptions, however, it must be

noted that, while the authors .ited below stressed psychological or perceptual attributes of climate, most of them

specifically used the term "organivational climate." Thus, describing their work as psychological climate repre-

sents an Interpretive liberty.

1. One of the most common assumptions was that psychological climate represents a perceptually based, psycho-

logically processed description of the situation, where the individual filteis, interprets, and structures perceived

situational attributes. For example, Schneider (1975a) described climate as a set of macro perceptions which

reflected processes of concept formation an.] abstraction based on micro perceptions about specific organizational

conditions, events, and experiences. Campbell and 1-.aty (Note 2) expressed similar ideas of perceptual filtering,

summation, and cognitive structuring. Ittvison. Proshansky, RivIlin, and Winkel (1974) suggested that the individual

organizes perceptions of the environment into an abstract "cognitive map" that serves to guide future predictions

and behavior. This cognitive map refers to the individual's internalized representation of the situation and

reflects an inherently inseparable combination of perceptual arid cognitive processes.

The above authors stressed the descrtktive, cognitive nature of psychological climate, divorcing it from the

affective, evaluative aspects that would render it tautological with job-related attitudes such as satisfaction,

At a conceptual ,evel, authors in both the climate (cf. James & Jones, 1974, 1976; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Payne,

Fineman, & Wall, 1976) and Job satisfaction literature (cf. Locke, 1976) carefully distinguished between perceptual/

cognitive representations of the situation and affective/evaluative reactions to that situation. Although empirical

findings have been somewhat mixed, recent research has tended to support this distinction between psychological

climate and satisfaction (La Follette 6 Sims, 1975; Schneider 6 Snyder, 1975). It shculd be noted that dynamic

in. rrelatlonships were generally assumed anu often found in climate-satisfaction studies (cf. Hellreigel & Slocum,

1974).

2. Another coannon asauimptlun regarding psychological climate was that a limited number of dimensions can

characterize a large nd varied group of social environments. Insel and Moos (1974) p-oposed three such dimen-

sions--relationship, personal development, and system maintenance. Campbell et al. (1970) isolated four dimensions

as comon to a number of empirical climate studies in organizations. These dimensions (individual autonomy; degrce

of structu'e imposed on the situation; reward orientation; and consideration, warmth, and spport) were supported

by subsequent factor analytic studies of perceptual data (Sims 6 La Follette, 1975; Waters, Roach, 1, Bathie, 1974),

althtugh it was noted that a communality of items might have contributed to such results and that the number of

dimensions was perhaps too few. In this respect, Payne and Pugh (1976) added a fifth dimension, orientation toward

development and progressiveneas and several authors noted that specific dimrenions might be needed to describe

particular situations.

The major divergence from the idea of a common core of dimensions appeared when Schn.ider (1975a) postulated

that the question of dimension salience was relevant only In tire context of a particular criterion, lie viewed

organizations aubunits and wor!'groups) as having many climates (e.g., climates for creativity, motivation, etc.)

and concluded that thu term climate "should refer to an area of research rather than a const.ruct with a par cular

set of dimensions." Schneider's viewpoint represents a serious divergence requiring empirical examination.

I

I3. Another important assumption was that psychological climate represents an intervening variable in a model

of organizational functioning. The intervening nature of psychological climate is inherent in the concept of a

cognitive map, whereby the individual transforms situational stimuli into perceived situational Influences (i.e.,

perceptions of how the situation influences the individual). Such perceived influences (e.g., ambiguity, warmth,

progressiveness, etc.) are employed to achieve a "fit" with the situation by "apprehending order" and "gauging

appropriateness of behavior" (Ittelson et al., 1974; Schneider, 1975a). Thus, psychological climate acts as an

internalized, psychological representation of the situation that guides future attitudes and behaviors (Campbell

et al., 1970; Ittelson et al., 1974; James & Jones, 1974).

4. There also appeared to be considerable agreement that the situational variables that are most related to

psychological climate arc those with relatively direct and immediate ties to individual experience. For example,

it was pointed out that characteristics that are conceptually more distal or remote from individual experience

require more complex, intervening linkages to be related to individual perceptions and behavior (Indik, 1968; Jeesor

& Jessor, 1973; James & Jones, 1976). In a similar vein, Lawler, Hall, and Oldham (1974) argued that perceptions

of climate were more related to relatively immediate characteristics such as organizational and subsystem processes

than to structural attributes.

In summary, certain common assumptions appeared to underlie treatments of climate as a psycholog.:l, percep-

tually based attribute, namely, that psychological climate: (a) is primarily descriptive; (b) involves a psycho-

logical processing, abstracting, and structuring of perceived situati-nal attributes into an internalized represen-

tation (or cognitive map) that reflects influences of the situation; (c) is multidimensional, with a central core

of dimensions (although specific dimensions might be added to describe particular situations); (d) tends to be most

closely related to situational characteristics that have relatively direct and immediate ties to individual exper-

ience; and (e) occupies an intervening role in a model of organizational functioning, where the point of interven-

tion is within the individual. Based on these assumptions, it was concluded that psychological climate refers to

the individual's internalized representations of situational conditions within the organization and its subunits,

tends to emphasize conditions that are relatively immediate to individual experience, and reflects a cognitive

transformation and structuring of these conditions into perceived situational influences.

Implications for Measurement of Psychological Climate

The foregoing discussion of assumptions appears to have important implications for measuring psychological

climate. The assumptions that psychological climate is primarily descriptive, represents a psychologica. transfor-

mation of perceived situational characteristics into perceived situational influences, and is most closely related

to situational attributes that are relatively proximal to individual experience indicate that empirical indices of

psychological climate might be based on perceptions of such proximal attributes. Previous reviews and research

(Hellreigel & Slocum, 1974; Indik, 1968; James & Jones, 1974, 19;6; Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975a; Sells,

1963, 1968a) have suggested a variety of relevant situational attributes, including: (a) job or role characteric-

tics such as job variety and challenge, job pressures, and role ambiguity: (b) leadership characteristics and

behavior such as support, goal emphasis, and initiation of structure; (c) workgroup and social environment charac-

teristics such as friendlir.esa and cooperation; and (d) certain subunit and organizational characteristics with

relatively direct ties to individual experience (e.g., management awareness of employee needs, fairness of the

reward process, etc.). Thus, the empirical exploration of relationships among perceptions of these various attrib-

utes would siem important in developing a measure of psychological climate.

4

*'

Assumptions Under lA1ipS,. 1timte -a 2 Situational Attribute

Many of the assumptions regarding psychological climate appeared to have relatively direct parallels in treat-

ments of climate as a situational attribute. First, such treatments assumed that climate describes situational

conditions (Payne 6 Pugh, 1976) and secoud, that this description is multidimensional with what appears to be a

common core of dimensions (Injel 6 Moos, 1974). The caution by Schneider (1975a) is important, howevet, because

some dimensions of climate may be more appropriately interpreted at levels below the total organization. For

example, cooperation and friendI ineas may vary across different subunits and tlus might be interpreted most enan-

ingfully at the subunit and workgroup levels of analysis. Third, the variables that are most closely related to

workgroup, subunit, and organizational climate are those proximal situational variables that are psychologically

important to individuals in the situation (Payne 6 Pugh, 1976).

There has been considerable agreement also that climate treated as a situational attribute represents an

intervening variable in an orgcnizational model. Insel and Moos (1974) characterized organizational environments

as having "personalities" that exert directional influences on behavior, while Ittelson et al. (1974) pointed out

that environments possess a "demand character" that not only describes the immediate sensory stimuli of tile situa-

tion but also encompasses a social and symbolic meaning. In a related vein, Payne and Mansfield (1973) described

organizational climate as a conceptual linkage between oiganizational and individual levels of analysis. From this

perspective, climate intervenes between specific situational attributes or events and individual perceptions,

attitudes, and behavior (Payne & Pugh, 1976) and has often been viewed (albeit implicitly) as a summary description

of how the situation influences individuals. Hellreigel and Slocum (1974) referred to climate as a set of organ-

Izational or subsystem attributes that may be induced from the way an organization or its subsystems deal with its

members. For example, relatively specific situational attributes such as unstructured role prescriptions, unclear

reward contingencies, and nondirective leadership might be transformed into the set of situational influences

referred to as a conflicting and ambiguol climate. This transformation of specific situational attributes into

situational influences is further evident in the names given to most climate dimensions (e.g., autonomy, consider-

atim , warmth, etc.).

In summary, theoretical treatments of climate as a situational attribute (i.e., organizational or subunit

climate) suggested that it: (a) is primarily descriptive or organizational and subunit situations; (b) is multi-

dimensional with what appears to be a central core of dimensions (although specific dimensions might be added to

describe particular situations or popuations); (c) tends to reflect primarily aspects of the organizational and/or

subunit environment that are most proximally related to individual experience and behavior; and (d) indicates an

intervening variable I a model of organizational functioning where the point of intervention lies between the

relatively specific cliracteristics and events of the situation and the individual and represents a transformation

of situational attributes into situational influences. Based on these assumptions, therefore, it appears that

climate as a situational attribute describes a set of situational influences within the or.nizjation and its sub-

nits,1ends t aAiAe those conditions that are relatively immediate to indlvitual exerienceand reflctsrelatonshi p _mong situational c'haracteristics in terms of theway the situation influencesjponl.

The basic differences between climate as a psychological attribute and climate as a situational variable appear

to lie In the assumptions concerning interven-ng variables, especially in terms of the point of intervention. For

psychological climate, the point of intervention lies within the Individual, thus the transformation of speciftc

situational attributes into perceived aito.itional influences reflects the characteristics of the individual as a

4

petti-c'Ivtr and its a cogntil Ilv' prot'sillor, lor c i mtite viewed ma sttti itial a tttribhute, hiowever , the po int it

I Ittilt Vi'tt to It I it' Su title 11 the InitlV I 'I til I ThIA. tile t 'I raOrMVII 4 titit itonal tilt* uentt decrit'e otnly thvi sit tint ioni,

alIt itougilt the ti"t, I -Ind tl rsite I ciiial alt eim1t it's il thle m itutat ton as w-I I its other ttppropr tlt%- at I r ibutta stich amS

st ruc tint I, tt'chio I) ivaje I. id I, rooess vvid 1 abIvs ate Iluditted in tilt, diesittrpt ion.

Manyl, oirgaitiza~tttinal rtesel reters have' songht to develiop mieilstirt's oif thelt, s ltso ittttitionit intI tienlcs tel rred

zatittia I or sutihtiit tierfitilnit Fotr examplec, tiIliate litas beenit divosit i a it drect tredIit-tot tof var ioust c-riteyria

ot- ON 1 oderatort Ii vetta Il liretl ctt'r-t-r Ilition reci I ontahipm (cf. tamphbel 1 t al . .1970. James &i Joinsti 197bi;

Paynei Puight, 19 7(1) . lt Temst. IIpI it aproachi- to netit- I itt stin i or i'tgitt nit tonai ti itiate hias been by aggri'-

hiplu plsvihoiog lii c fiimltV s cotrest

110 Vat imia t, fo r alggregaiiting pasyct-l ItIcii i tIiltet tsoe to lese rtIhe' atiuti t or, o rgai Itt Ionat clitmate

appeatrs toi rest pr ittarit ly on t he comnal ity of iitsimpt lon I iia ntler t~'i ng tilt, two vottistrue t8 O (f mtajtor impioitatntce are'

tile assttmtt t I11ti tihat hothi cust rue ts dese r tHe a ti lt tonal infI u-'iiCC 4111n0 retirement stomtethling motre than t staip 1e

Itimt tog tit rt'lit ively speiti to sttat tonalia it tthttes. This tilt emipliias till destriptiont anti tralnsiornat ltit of

mpt'c it tIc a tu ittinai att r ibitest intot HIt ua ttol lii inttt'nces appe ars to protv ie lie ha stic i-ot-t'p tnia linkage he tween

the two eoncepta. Ill other words, to tile extenit that Individuals perceive p) "'t Iilitar aspects oif tilt, situiation that

atefe ftte I its slt tiat lootili Infiuences, I t appearsm rea sonablIe to Itpo a eiillondt'n t bet ween oi igaitat iollal

I antit o subunit) tl i uiat es atnd thte pert eil~ Sit tliit Iont inlotuences wi i foirmi paytho tog tal cli itit

Thie use of aggregatetd psychlo logica citIe imtt e sco res tl misure subuit or o rgaiti ItiIotto a it ri4ut es reqires.

Ihowever, t hat tite aggregteti scores meantingfullIy represent the sit tilt ion.' A commtoni strategy to assure suich repro-

son tativlv eS otes hstai Ipuioilkd t hat agrtie t mts t extst amtong percIteivers he fore aiggregat ion Is lustt i ed onl tile

bits thait perceptuatl igreemtit Implites a ctommon it tiational Influence (cf, Guilti, 1973, I usel &t Moos, 1974; Jitmes

&t Jones * 1974; Selite idot 197,ti).

Varitous atiehods avye heeoti so d to ami sis p r ep tit itagrteement, iii Itil i g iiiffe renct's In mn pe rcetp tiotns a ss

ttfft'rt'tt Sittiat ions1 or treatmients, interrater retliabiIlity' within it sligle grotip, -ad eor rt'litt t ons lutmongp the per-

cetions kii individuals Occupying ii ftetint orkatiztitotial lvels. lttgli intlices oi Iterrat er rel Iablt I ii' or ta-

1ist teal power ctonnot e that tile perceptions primarily rvilv itti f ftreciaciross atltiat untanitd thuts imll perteti-

tna agureemetnt whoereas wi thin iuatitIotn v artiance imtiO ii atack of pertetIia agreemet E mp iria nices of

st atisticat pitwor (eta-sqtired , omega-sartdi) tir interrtter retliability (liiirilelasst'itcrrel atiotn) have genterallIy

beetn low to modierate, vatryitng betweeti .06t antd .35 (ltams , Valtiit Farrow. & Stolomont 1975; Si-hneider.* 197Sa.

Campbll &Ii Beaty, Note 2) . Conivertedt ttt Spearmiin-llrowii citimtt t M t rteliabillity lt the mean (aiggregatedl) scoire

IK'telI, 1951). % v,tlines have vitrtid be tweeti . 70 antI .91 (Schnit Iter , 197'a ). * tll tr titat y whent matny Ini iividthin artie

Inivoiilvedit, tggre~t i ilt at ross relaiIvely lit, t C ropt'Ittia I itiliv itit Ipt'rcepitins ighpt at ill y tl d hi estimt es of Ithe

reli ability tift te mia.ti * Itnesttint tip this prite etitre as in Ine oftt' itpotrt'eli til a greement.

Ant hlir potetia Ind ttex ofi thle rep resei at ivt'nesm (anditihits atiprop rtatien oss) ii aggrega t ii psychIto icle I iI-

m14t s tcori's cointernus thet ilegret' toi whtIi Vatr Iioius ci mate-re lit et, alitn t 1itna meatisa dl tie r froim sihitt ito sub-ti

utiIt o'r f roiim Idv Iidualt t o Idltital F o r example eicen t revItewa stigges tedit t 'ti volit (ttli' v*pt gois. e t c. )

andt tatit i tt' (s ize *i'irt, ceaition it deiIs~t i ma~k Iing spattiit co'tn t rttl, tc i-.) irt' imti t he laIttttttialI vii rIiltlea

liat lilt itetict orgati n itionil o tr sititint it t'ill tvt t ',14 utmes Jiontes * 1476 I 'iytie 4t ltPgh, 1976). These' antit ithlter nt thota

(1 twak , 1961 . Mhoney & F~romi , 1974 ;Scot. , 197 5) , howeve r , haye i' qui*H toned whet tie t. many conltIext iiil t rti I ure

measures tire ili'ito igfui when useId to dtescribe' orgatn talt lons8 01 votisitIng tit letertenkllioil subuiiiitts with ivary ing toalm,

techlolgies, siubgroup s1eoi4, and so (orth. Thu~s , to thte extiuit tit vcII iate ref In- si var Iit ttons Iii such varir tis,

aggregai Ioin ofI pe rc eptions aic omg subuinitsH withi e.roeeu coilt ext or s mtr c t u ii at( r ibne li18would aipear' ques-

Itionable.

percept ions of cililatals o hove been shown to reflect dif erenc'S it' Ororgi lt lotial Posit it)" 8110l-il 10 iii i-

chicol level aind Job type (HPIi Irelgel & Slocum, 1974 -,Johnston. 1974, lonelA Jat-'0. fi Birunt , 1475t P'Ayne & Miist hldil,

1973; Schneiiier & Snyder, N75, Stone 6 Porter, 1975) . Newmani (1975) demonst rated thitt 0orgiii At tonsl posit Ioll

(uni~tlno I dlvisHIonl, depa~iirtment , workigroup , and hie rarchiclc It-ve 1) iccoliilted f or more v ar i nce iil tit i ae pe rceip-

tios tilan did personal chatractei st ivs (age, Hex, noimber kit iiepindeiltH. ehicit ton, ald ttenlire) . Hei .-onu1dedl t hat

,;Itt e nl posit ions were, auict to d if itiren t expe r i encell Mid tha posi1151t llnal diiIfe rouc s we're mo10re imiportianit thani

pe rsonal haroc t r1 Ititc S i thet devei lopmlenlt of tile I niliv iduoaI's pe'rceptu t - cogni tlvi' map oif thie organl1itional11

a it Ilai tIoll.

Con clusi ons that ditffeore'nl td1 rgniat ional Ilittont011 exple r ience dilfcrol t Hit oatlotia Iif Itucucis have Impor0 talit

Imipl icat ilns for tle~ alggregaitori of payi'io logii'ol cl imate' scorles. That i,;, althoughl mlany studiv, 114 i' p (v il,

1975; Pr itchalrd & Karaslck, 147); Scllnoelici, 1975b1; Schneider & Snyider , 1975) halve Sholwn that cimat percept lilions ul

vu~ry by orgai zatloll or sublsystem. it Is dubiious whether, Indiv idual iores~ riepriesent oil the vat 11111 posit ions

within it het.,rogeneous organlizat ion or subsysitem (Payne & Mansf iel d. 1973). Furthermore, heteropi'nel tit f p108Itt li,

by limiting c'ommunaliIty olf experienuce for di terelt inii diualMs limitsi probable interpi'ru'clver aigrieemeint and pro-

v ideH a poltent ial explanation for some lof thev low to moderate ind11ice's ill literrater retliability aint statis8t ical

power re'portedt earl ier, 'Thiu. it aippeairs that 115yi'lo lopI cal cliImate scores sholid be agpgregaited only for rela i ve'ly

hlomogeneous olrganlizaiona 1 un1iiitsH.

Anot her factor rel ated to1 ag rce1eent onl ci' ivIste pe'rceptin ac118 i'ross memiber ofil Organiaon o71118ir sulbun its reftectsa

SLhe inflftue nce$ Of Ini vidual 1 ihIlr lit erlab c s on t tie pe4'rceptuial proceis. For exampl1e. p reviou 115stuid Iies havey Cshoiwn

that cl imate perceplti1on1s coiviry with it vitlet y of Individual chirzict cr8isios li1ildtng personltity littribuites

cogit~ive styles, ability, adaptability (Johnston, 1974; Kerr & Schrelsham, 1974; Schuler. 1975; Vannoy, 1965).

alienat ion from culturail norms (Blood & litulin, 1967-; lullin & loolid, 1968), andi need sitrength (Hait'man & t~awler,

1971; Hackmlan & Oldham, 1975; Pritchard & Karaslck, 1973; Steers, 1975), as; well as aige, race, Hex, and1 Intell igence

(Ielireigel & Slocum, 1974). Trherefore, to thle extent that all olrganilzat ion or Its subunits cointainl a wi de range of

indivldilal characteristics, a greater diversity ilf percept ions might be expected.

A final index of thle appropriateness of usin~g aggregated psycholtogical cl imaute scores as sitilatbonat mleasulres.

woiuld aipelltr to be tile' empirical demonstrtat ion thitt suhiit oppregotcd sc'ores wveri meaningfully a1nd1 1lrcdti'tibly re Ilated

tol various situaltionllt measures and to organi zationaat or individual criteria. In other words, the raob na111e for

us8ingp aggregated per'ceptualt data is eulcld tol tile' extentI that it Is p11411hsIbe to estaitix 11 tile' 'onsut rict val idit y

(if tile aggregated scores by empirically demonstrated ultillity In predict'bing andli understaning olrganizattioa 1 an11 dl~

subunit funlctioninlg.

In sumay, the assumledl correspondence between situational inlf luences and1 individa 111111 etp. jun oft tho~se'

inifluences appeared Itl prov ide at logical basis filt uing aggregated psycholoial l climlatei' oe H' to11 represenit shlared

situiatioinal Inifluences . the11r falctors (differeinces ill position11, techilolY , type iif .1h, et',) 'ont ibuhite to 14

I ~ ~~~~heterogenity of inftlueinces llcrosllii d Iaidua Is or suibuit s, holweverl', requring' l an cnpjrical demonat rat111of tit'llarid

76

It i s itl ci" I i I, ItIittltI I iN, itii agl i t~t ivn I Il I t tlV I Ik it , tt I ' M I. kiil t it t (M11 1 I ti l l' 04i siiii It tiil i 'i Ink't t. lii

ittIl ' li ' t ti cV r l itj I' Vt I 1 tt hIp~', I Ipl irIrv It 18Ii t aIo s cIliliI I t'sa It ,it via I lt I, Inipit I ititli' I .ilt'ti I I 'ig c ( Ina I Ittu I ia

I S U4i t, I' tt' t 18I ti _t lit' Ciuuib I git t I, aIvtd iitiiliv l\ 1 'r'l't l Ica I d li'tiii l'tiiin I t' C I It t ii 01 olt

t it i i iiI>

X i 1st Vvji ta l mi t oitt I, \'. i xt lc itgI It tixitt t'il tI p l g a Iu'tt wh t i ltlt I tsI tid~i I tll vitt I(i' t'It' I' i tl I litcres Itai s it I tki

tou I n.I It 1, .1i1d lIt kttli. Soit ' .I I " i t Iti 1 1(it I I ' I en It I ait) wI ii -Iso I'O~t it t'tI witt oi' I lowiit t's ctta' t't s I z'tIro l i Ce ta I o I p 1

-111011 , tile I I I, til 1t' S ksil I ,IcaI 18n1 'sut'' t I WI CI re til I V 11118k!i Iv sio tl Iw lt it l t slit I t tititit ant Itir a ll.14 lo I tit I eve Is (RefISit tI i l i I1'swI't ti 1iulu ivt'e o ol %itpo i olV rab e u e rvIvv n te v r e IIcs

l ii I I ntho v tlt Ii 1iwlr liI l k'i t Ii tY t ilt I. t' 1 I lilt Forehani I , Ii it; i iS tl~ ti I Iillli 11 11 Ciii' toil 19 t' tiC llit'iu &Ct'ns ,

ntt Lt't U tt si iar1 1974' PIt'vtlt (t'. & KasfI I lt'9 1, 1966).N Itlg w Ia t'Xi' o r I t ig L t'ler s ii Portert titalernac

Iit'lait rI , wti 5 it l I be as she tat t V't w t 8i 1 I I-O I t ; l in' 1 ne e t ki ll l.i l 111w I ' 1V s it' C1i It ll illl~ t tral 111 u tYt. k

Iltv I' I c's ii lpo lo Is npt' I' 'i I trt Ii it'lt Cii I I ttm ' s bei s o a I sy te . ia t ' Ci t bi ittlttt PCill 1,1 slbi i ntp y lo l i it I a t iitan i

I ive It 11V I O I11 (cC I-i . J Ist' & I o'nk' I ) . lt w isttI t t loi I t a t io 'til t th Ilor voll l x ni . l t tiIre tvInit o g ivi t p tilt,l Its

wol' II lit' o ne W ih gC1 I1 O y t ittr''C Iti tct t ite r tablls o l' t t', V I by ONt Vt Cit't It- nkuagti tin tn t C h i v oh It's We I ni1

1It),kl itvwas tipit' o t's ami guti t a -su ul 11Y it co i ranI t rit I t bea itas rkip sx woli r to tutit jobs vr s ted i 1

toe sntiltuun

sa~itylipandmotIva Ing itWZI V\~k''t0I HI t le V W~n ll e les tmphsts ,itkitfivinevandmor le s drvo

slbuli gal, ltiogl te tl~litSWW 1011"t~tlV olltoogeswetiils, epe td llhae or, apbl, ete

trlnt 4'n i n w ~ v igir lv l i ib~i lromlie

Oltt Iigta I procesaing of Iastin t oanal alt ribtites.

St ra~y I tile lPreseiit Researchi

Detk 'vpiltiti0 a ltIYrICPiiioa tet lititi- .eiatrv - fTe divelIopment Of at mVAu ure it fpm yttlog icat cl imate Itwo lv i'd

tiree ateups.* Foll Iowing a comprt'itii vi' rev Iew titt hie it luraiLtire (cf , .tanir & J;o tie , 1974 , 197b; J lts e mte , J ih 6

Horn ick, Note 3; t1onesm, James, Btrunt I orn irk, & SelIts, Note 4), measures of a variety of perct'ited sittatjovial

atr inttea withI rut at ielv dirtict tLies to int lvittia I experience we're constructed and admtnistered to a saMpIE of

U. S. Navy enlisHIted men.* Setond , Itiese men sort's were compotnelt 1analIyzred and tile resuitnLg -omponeii I were usmed ats

Ini el c It' of py00tvolIal c I him Ic *. ITh ird , cotmponent soltoutins wi're compa red 'cross two addititonal Itypesv of 0 rgiintI-

zat Ion to assess dimensiotn genleral ittbitty and the potent ial for at common coil' of dttiii'tons,

Aa~eja io ot~s~tmoojttm ciImae sciri's, Witthit t Iii Navy aimptle i, psycho logiiil climate scores were aggre-

g~l it ,it it esc rIibe subun it anit or gait ti onal I lItuit .t '[ile re.presenitat iveness of cacti level of tiggre. 'it ion was

umpil teallk assessed onl tile basis of; (at) signifileant dil fert'nci's In suboitt meant psyctiologlcal climate scorces,

(bi) indices of statist ical power and intt'rrater reliSabilily, (e) est imati's of the relitability of ttile mean scores,

and Wd) representat iveness tof ottitr climate-i ci itetd asituatilonal ma~ires (o..,st riture) . As treated later, the

d1iLt~ a sgg.'iitvid tthat aggregatiton stiiulId het rest r i,'ted to ftil level of ttil t' a lest (atid most homtogeneous) subunlit

s t iid ikI .

Citstrctvtidtvtfp~cho~t~ca ci~ae ad sbun t iate measures. 'fie cotnstruct valliitty of the pay-

choitlugicual and sitiiunit c Ii tti'~ scores wits assesseut by relIat invg sueh tiueas. c to measutres it subuit cotnt ext atid

atruteture' and to mteasurt's of Indlividtual resource's anti posit itit variables (for psyctiological ci imute) avid persontnt'l

cutiilt'ositin (fot aubuitit cli tte).

Ipreit Ic Lon itf- stIubttt te jive trni li'i'Iat ttnsis of salti onalI at t r ibo Lis ( init'lutdintg subuniit climiate)

w ith uiiittili it pe'r formuinci' were I ives ti gutcttv tis wiig stibti it cliiiti's I, 51 rilcItire, 1' Iate.' and pe rsonntel compitsit Iion

measures to preif subunit perftirmantce,

Mtthod

Suinjtihe

Ttie t. S. Navy sample i'com ittif male, enlisted personnel (it - 4,315) oin 20 ships operat ing in) ttit At lant ic

dud PaciIfic Oceans dotring ttie lattt'r halif tif 1973. TIie stips Incluided two aircraft carriers witht crews oft approx-

limately 4,000 men, and four classt's of destroyer witth crews avotrnging between 225 and 375 men. Ships were organized

ili tout' or more dtepartments , ve responsible for at major set of dties (te.g. , engieerivng, operat ions, supply,

weaponts) iiDepartmeunts were fiirthier stubd ivied into divitalons; for example, tile Engineinlg liepartactit consisted it

divi stons concerned w ith ttie matin prottuilsitn tinit, boi lets, eleLVcteal systems, and so forth, ile total pussilei

suttnitt sample wats 105 departmeitts and 281 div is itns,

Indivdual sunlIing itit cart tera was limitedi to tin-aviution pursotileI avid sI rat if ted by depar taunt anid diti-

sio; dust roye rs were sump leid tilt a1 100% basis, tnd ividtial questionaire, data were collected in group seasiitns

during the first weeks, of deplotyment,. Responses were tot; Ined frottf 76% of tile avuti tui- e men on kiat rityera and 45',',

of Liii mien fin sampled divisions on cart lets (90"f of tile dist ribted qukest ioniiores) . Age (Nl w 2, 8 years) and time

in Itie Navy QM - 4.8 years) ild Iituit that Miost. respotnifents were, in tue it first enl istmeiit. Leve is ranged from It-I,

tile lowest enlisted pay rate, to F-9, thle highiest enlisted grade; mean education was 12' yciira.

Twot adifIt iiota sampiles were stuidci to iti'xplore tle geni' tol tabilIl o tf tilt psychiitlogit'll I t 1t u iiea~tsu Ok,

sample consist ed of 398 noate firemen below Ot rink tof district chief lin two decpart aelis In the soutthwest Utn ited

S Ftis* i re' stnt Ions coipi seid %)I one to fur compin Ii's 01 fouur men retIit qui'st itnna Irris we t v dmin11i'rid t

grups of ii to Iii persons. Oatit were' obtained f rom 72% kit eligil Ii'i'pOndi'ntit Thi' avi'ragie aliW was III Y0111 14 mean

tuor, was 11I.I vierst 41 tit tbeIhi sampl ic hd como I'tM on ,le ovr more ye'ar s ,I en It 'g

A tecond comparlson sampl e cuons Iisted tit W4 e'xempt emplIoyees til at Pr ivate healIth catre pro ram, rangin~g rom toup

reg ionalI Manogvtnn to fi rs t -liIni' supe rv iso rs l' outee ii n t tu ina I arns (e' g., nuritOK, d ati a pom Ming. acumun t -

In g) andl 42 mi'pitrat e I l t Itin (tie Iud Ittg sevien larg e bomp ItalIs) we i' repreisenteid. Quest ionna ires we'r e adm In stvered

by mail, wit h it 74% unab~le retIurn ratte. Fenamlem', primarilyv nurt lp supe'rv isors , re'pri'sented 52x tit flei sample.j ~Me'an age was 42 years. approximatel y ha If the am AIcI PRPiSi'ssiit a enII gv ~'it ptofei'5tonal degree.

IndtVtdUil.ee Mea'isuri's

Isy chII-0, icAaj ci I mat i' qkTstonn-atir. The tpsveho Iog i 1 r II ma t viquist I onalI re (adm InIsat v red t o il t 'rei' m m-

1)1 Os) eon s I nt ii of1 14 5 1 t emm thbat ivse r lI'd reiat I veIy mpie I f i c a spies t'a-f thle wu rk sa kt tion . The it ems repri'-

si'ni i' 15 a pli rt I empu It i's. matnv oft %h tcli had bei'n shown by previous research to be Int ernal ly eons istent, psy-

e ho I "p 1 ll v meatin opIu measure's of thi' wor k vnvtIronmli'-ni (seei' le 1). tacht compos it e eonms teC l ti to i'ven

It. cas *I't w lii d. st i'm and t','ret t o tI ye Seal I's ti'sons's. (onpos Iten were scotred by summing across relevant item

rva,-iss's tyir lances we,,' siti lar).

Jo 'ri role' c aehte i'measure's Iinc ludeid rolei amb igitty, rote c'unfict (Htousie 6 Rizzo, 197 2a, Kahn, Wuolfe, Quitn,

iiuek. & i Rosviit a , 19~64, iIettmn & iiunt., 197!'). autnot y (Campi' it et at., 1 I970Z lackmani 6 iawler, 1971; Turner 6

Lawrnne, li4t'). t okk varitety. task idi'nt ity, Job challeinge (Forehand & CIW er, 1464, llackman % Lawler, 1971; Porter

L awler,' 10). and opportuntities I or growth and advancement (1tur.,,berg, 1966; Hiouse' 6 Rizzo , 197 2it, 19721)) Other

mi'asuries ref I e'd job pre'ssure and mtandatrds of performance (lOUsi' 6 RI rio, I1972a, Sce[ls, 1463. MIMIa)

I., ',ucr related measures Included support, interact ion fael i tot Ion, goal emphasis, and work inititat Ion

(iowe'r? & Si'ashore, 19b6, Campbell et t,., 1970; lialpin, 1966; House & Kerr, 1973; L~ikert, 1961; Litwin & Stringer,

1081; Taytor, 1471), as well a s measir-es of the leader'sa ability to plait and coorditnate activitites and influence

super iors (IHousea 6 Ker r, 1 473). Al so Inclu tded wiere measures cc ftcc t lg con f idene and trust betwee'n aupoi'rIso r and

subordinate's (Flaeks, 1969; Jones et al, , 1975; Sells, 1968au; Wood, 1974).

Mteasu res ofI thle woi, gicoup eonvironmen t Include! eclope ror ton, f riendl1inesas, pr ide , and workgroup Iniagke (II taU

1954, Farr is, 1971; Hlackman 6 Lawler, 1971I; Hlall, 1971; Steiner, 1972), Finally, variables primartly related to

large'r subunits and the' total organizsat ion Included organizatiounal level ambigui ty zind conflI t, (Rizzo, Housev, 6

Urltzman, 1970), communleat Ion patterns (Sells, 1968h; Shaw, 1971), consIstency and fairness of organitzitlonal

polics and reward polici's and rewardt processes (Iiavcman & Lawler, 1971; Porter & L~awler, 1968;i Vroom, 1964),

e'sprit (Friedlander & Margulis. 196i9; Halpin 6 Croft, 1963; Litwin & Stringer, 1968), and professional and organi-

zatlonal Identification (Farris, 197 1).

*itiulrsuc measures. Mleasuries ot Individual character st ics and resources were obtained for the Navy

sample c. rese measures inctlude'd agi', marital status, years (if formal educat ion, IntellIigene (Navy Ge'neral class I-

fleat ion 'lust or OCTI senri's), number of grades failted tin mchool, size of preen) istment home town (1-point sciti

ranging f rom small town to I argi' city), number of rooms in cblIdhond hiouse (1-point seal e rainging Irom four or I iwter

rooms to 11 or more) , and t brve compost Irs measuring, Ego Needs (three i tems reflectinog needs for, recognit ion and

approval, x -,59). Si'1 -Fsteem (four Items reflectinog se If-confidence, and sel f-rated ability, tx- .54), andt Pre-

enl istment dlisciplinary record (t bree Iteis reflIeel log school and dtiscipl ine problemts, ti -. 6)

PusIt on ar abls~ In an earlicr art icIi', Heirman and Hit 1in (1972) suggested Jt,.t var labI i' prImarily con-

103

r :-A

trolLt.d by the organization (e.g., size, technology, etc.) are situational and thus nay be distinguished from vari-

ables such as age or education which are brought into the situation by the individual and are relatively independent

of organizational control. In attempting to apply this distinction, however, they found that the classification of

some variables (e.g., tenure, hierarchical level) wo- arbitrary because such variables were mutually controlled iv

both tlie individual and the organization. Thus, in the present study, variables which reflected mutual organiza-

tional and individual influences were considered separately as a third category. Because such variables are typ-

itally related to tae individual's position or status in the organization, they were referred to as "position

variables."

Position mea-;ures obtained from the Navy sample included self-report measures of tenure, level or pay -rade,

num't.r of men supervised, number of advanced or technical training schools (A or B schools) completed, and number

of functional or other training schools completed. In addition, measures of job specialty were obtained from ship

records and grouped into four types--unskilled, requiring little training; medium level mechanical; clerical and low

level technical; and high level skilled (Orr, 1960; Seymour, Gunderson, & Vallacher, 1973).

Organizational and Subunit Situational Measures

Although situational measures were obtained from the Navy sample for ships, departments, and divisions, analy-

ses were restricted to the subunit level for reasons discussed later. Thus, situational measures are described only

for the 'evels at which subsequent analyses were conducted (i.e., departments and divisions).

Subunit structure measures. Measures of the anatomical aspects of subunit structure were obtained from ship

records. These measures included; size--the number of men in the division/department; speialization--the number

of separate occupational titles in the division/department; configuration/shape--the number of a-tual ranks between

the lowest ad highest ranking enlisted men in the division/department; and configuration/span of centrol--a atio

of the number of enlisted supervisory personnel (E-6 or above) to the number of men below that rank (a high score

reflected a low span of control).

As shown in Table 2, operational aspects of subunit structure were measured by 21 questionnaire items (4- or

5-point Likert scales) derived from interviews with Navy personnel and from the research :'.terature (James & Jones,

1976; Inkson, Pugh. & llickson, 1970; Pugh, Hickson, Ilinings, & Turner, 1968). Questionnaires were administered

during the first weeks of deployment; responses were obtained from the heads of 91 departments and 224 divisions.

A principal components analysis of the 21 items yielded seven components with eigenvalues > 1.0. The seven

components were: (a) General Centralization of Decision Making, (b) General Standareization of Procedures, (c)

Interdependence with Other Work Units, (d) Formalization of the Role Structure, (e) Centralization of Work Alloca-

tion iad Scheduling, (f) Formalization of Communication, and (g) a unique component reflecting Standardization of

Procedures for Expending Funds, Separate analyses for departments and divisions yielded similar results. Component

scores (M 50, SD = 10) were calculated for each department and division by a direct solution method (see Hlarman,

1967, p, 349).

Internal consistency estimates of reliability were based on items with loadings > 11.401. Except for Formali-

zation of Communication (a =

.27) and the one item component for Standardization of Expenditures, alpha varied from

.52 (Interdependence with Other Work Units) to .72 (General Centralization of Decision Making) and was considered

acceptable given the limited timber of items. The Formalization of Communication and Standalization of Expenditure

components were deleted from remaining analyses.

Cotest.mesures. Context measures (also based upon questionnaire data from the 3115 division and department

li

heads) Included technology and emphasis on various goals, as well as personnel. habitability, anti equipment

resources. Technology was measured by n 4-item Cumposi te (range *4 to 19). A high score reflected at nonrout ine,

complex techno logy where success was difficult to e-valuate and subject to uncertainty (cf. liage & Aiker, 1969; M'ohr,

1971; 1'errow, 1967;, Pugh, Hickson, HinIngsi, & Turner, 1909; Woodward, 1965). CoeftIcient. alpha was only .44, but

sign ificant 'Lem intercorrelat ions suggested that they sampled ont. conceptual area (Jaomes 6 Eli scii 1973).

The emphasis p1 i-eed on various goals was measu red fin terms of two cirmponenit scores.* Foucr-po lit, i.ke rt typo

Items were constructed to measure nine major division and department goals as defitned by Navy personnel. Components

analyses o: these items yielded two components (X 1.0, 42%' of trace): (a) Emphasis on Miorale, reflecting the

emphasis on impruving morale, developing new procedures arid programs, promotion of personnel, and doing better than

other divistis/departments aboard ship (Lt .62); sod (b) Emphasis L-. Following Standardizted Procedures, ret ect og

the emphasis on following standardized procedures, rel tabli [ts of performaree, and overall effect iveness (it .51).

Component scores 0i - 50, SI) -10) were computed for each department and division by a direct solut ion methoud

(Harman, 196?).

other context measures included single, 5-point, questionnaire items for: (a1) conidition of woirk equipmient;

(b) availability of funds and supplties for work; (c) oval lab iii .y of funds for habi1tahility improvements; andi (d)

personnel resources within the div is Ion/department.

Subunit criteria, The primary measures of subunit p~erformancrie were developed through a mult istage process.

First, interviews With naval officers and ship commanders generated eight aspects of effect ive division performance:

(1) Quality of Work, (2) Adherence to Planned Maintenance Schedules * (3) Read iness to Fu I ill Comit ments, (4)

Performance under Pressure, (5) Efficiency, (6) Cooperation with Other D~ivisions, (7) Safety, and (8) I.cadership

Ability of Enlistedl Supervisors. Following identification and definition of these dimensions, officers were askd

to suggest three statements describing levels of performance (i.e., poor, adequate, superior) for each dimen!Lsion.

The resulting 24 statements were randomly mixed (Arvey & Htoyle, 1974). Uoch department hevad rated subordinate

divisions on eachi statement by indicat ii.g whether the division performed-. (a) better thant, (b) equal to, or (c)

below the performanice :evel described in Lte statement (Cf . Blanz & Ghiselli , 1972). Scores on each of the eight

dimensions were calculated by summing tihe appropr iate rat ings where at "bet ter than" rating was scored ats a 3,

''equal to' coeeived at 2, a ad ''worse thain'' received a I1. (The Gurt man sea)l ing procedure recomroridcii by Ma ~nz and

tGhiselli provided no improvement over the above approach.)

Additional criteria included ratilogs by division head% concerning problems caiisod by the use of drugs and

alcohol (4-point scaie varying from frequent to nonexistent) and frequency of request to transf. from the divisioin

(3-poinit scale ranging from niany requests to no requests).

Criterion data were collected at the end of each s~iip' a deployment period (five to seven mouths after the

context , structure, andi Individutal q1iestionnaire data). Data were Obt ained frosi 160 divisions,, ropeSeor ug 19

Mllis arid all division typeos. Deospite' attemupts to Obitain (intt for all divisions, some iif lire dilvisioi and dleparit-

menot head s had been noat oil from Ltre Shi p ne ar thle eiiii of the c raise and thirI rep 1a c cient a lackedi suffiIcitent

observations to provide tim ratings.

Resu 1t s

Resulo 1 sur presented uts follows: (a) ilmens ions of pay chnlogical C limoate, (h ) c ompar ison cii those dimscio uns

orcross samplesm, (c ) agreement aiid reopresen tatlye ness arnaIy ses for uigrrego toi ea twrc, (d) cor rveites Of psychlof. lI

and division climate, arid (e) proditior Of division criteria.

12

Dimensions of psychological climate. A principal components analysis of the 35 a priori composites was con-

ducted on the Navy sample (see Table 3). Reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) for these composites ranged from

.44 to .81 and were consid,red acceptable because alpha is a function of the number of Items in the composite and

tends to be conservative (Lord 6 Novtck, 1968). Similar values were found for the other samples.

Six components with eigunvalues > 1.0 were found (59% of trace). Following varimax rotation, the first com-

ponent reflected perceived conflict in organizational goals and objectives, combined with ambiguity of organiza-

tional structure and roles, a Jack of interdepartmental cooperation, and poor communication from management. Also

included were poor planning, inefficient job design, a lack of awareness of employee needs and problems, and a lack

of fairness and objectivity of the reward process. This component was labelled "Conflict and Ambiguity."

The second component reflected a job perceived as challenging, important to the Navy, and involving a variety

of duties, including dealing with other people. The job was seen as providing autonomy and feedback, and demanding

high standards of quality and performance. This component was designated "Job Challenge, Importance, and Variety."

The third component, "Leader Facilitation and Support," reflected leader behavior such as the extent to which

the leader was perceived as helping to accomplish work goals by means of scheduling activities, planning, etc.. as

well as the extent to which he was seen as facilitating interpersonal relationships and providing personal support.

The fourth component, "Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliness, and Warmth," generally described relationships

amoo'g group members and their pride in the workgroup. Only composites describing the workgroup loaded on this

component. The fifth component, "Professional and Organizational Esprit," reflected perceived external image and

desirable growth potential offered by the job and by the Navy. Also included were perceptions of an open atmosphre

to express one's feelings and thoughts, confidence in the leader, and consistently applied organizational policies,

combined with non-conflicting role expectations and reduced job pressure.

The sixth and final component had loadings for only three composites. This component, "Job Standards,"

reflected the degree to which the job was seen as having rigid standards of quality and accuracy. combined with

* inadequate time, manpower, training, and resources ti complete the task. Also reflected were a perceived lack of

* confidence and trust by supervisors and management personnel. Scores for the six components (M - 50, SD - 10) were

computed by a direct solution method (Harman, 1967).

Comparison of psychological climate dimensions across samples, Psychological climate components from the Navy

sample were compared to components derived from the other two samples (James, Stebbings, lartman, & Jones, in press;

Jones & James, Note 5), Each comparison sample also yielded six components with eigenvalues > 1.0 (62.8% of trace

for firemen, 66.8% for health care managers). As indicated in Table 4, five of the six components--Leadership

Facilitation and Support; Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliness, and Warmth; Conflict and Ambiguity; Profe,sional and

Organizational Esprit; and Job Challenge, Importance, and Variety--were similar across the three samples.2

The sixth component tended to be somewhat less generalizable. For health care managers, this component

appeared to represent a finer breakdown of the Challenge, Importance, and Variety Component, with loadings by Job

Importance (.70), Job Challenge (.58), and Job Standards (.40). Both latter variables, however, also had loadings

> 1.401 on components similar to the five mentioned previously for the Navy sample. The sixth component for the

firemen appetred to reflect mutual trust, with loadings by Confidence and Trust in Subordinates (.68) and in the

Leader (.50).

Aggregation of psychological climate scores. As discussed earlier, the use of aggregated (i.e., mean) psycho-

logical climate scores to describe organizational and/or subunit climates required an empirical demonstration that

13

-

various criteria were met. Suggested analyses included the demonstration of differences in perceptions across

different situations, an assessment of the reliability of the aggregated score, and a demonstration of the construct

validity of the aggregated score. In the present study, these analyses were conducted for each of the six psycho-

logical climate componerts. A subset of the Navy sample was used and aggregated scores were constructed 'or 223

divisions, 97 departments, and 20 ships (3,693 individuals). Only divisions with psychological climate data for six

or more persons were included in these and subsequent analyses.

Between group differences in perception were Lssessed by means oL separate one-way ANOVAs computed for each

climate component, where each division represented a treatment cell and individual scores on the component were the

dependent variable. Similar analyses were run for departments and ships. All resulting F ratios were significant.

As described in Ebel (1951), the ANOVA results were converted to intraclass correlation coefficients as esti-

mates of statistical power and interrater reliability (McNemar, 1969). These values were relatively low, however.

Median intraclass correlations were approximately .12 for divisions, .06 for departments, and .02 for ships. Only

the values for divisions were within the range of power estimates reported in earlier studies. The reliability of

each aggregated (mean) score was then measured by applying Spearman-Brown (S. B.) estimates to the intraclass cor-

relation, where the harmonic mean tor the appropriate organizational level (e.g., division) was used as the adjust-

ing factor (Cuilford, 1954). The resulting estimates were considerably higher, with medians of approximately .68

for divisions and .71 for departments and ships.

The S. B. estimates indicated stability for the aggregated scores, but appeared to be somewhat fallible indi-

cators of perceptual agreement where larger sample sizes were involved (e.g., departments and ships). This conclu-

sion was further supported when department context and structure measures were compared with division context and

structure scores (see Table 5). Department scores were added to the appropriate divisio cats records (i.e., all

divisions within a department received the same department score) and correlated with division scores (n - 205

divisions). Except for size and the two configuration variables, relationships were low or nonsignificant. indi-

cating considerable intradepartment heterogeneity for context and structure measures. In other words, the majority

of department context and structure scores did not appear to meaningfully describe their respective divisions. Such

results coincided with the information provided by the incraclass correlations (rather than the S. B. estimates)

that departments (and ships) consisted of heterogeneous subunits.

The Mecning of the aggregated score was further addressed by exploring relationships of psychological and

subunit climate scores with various situational, individual, and position variables. Based on the results described

above and because divisions were the most homogeneous aubunits in terms of technology, function, personnel composi-

tion, etc., the remainder ot the study focused on the division as the most meaningful organizational subunit. Thus,

the division was the highest level of organizational subunit used in the remaining analyses and psychological cli-

mate scores were aggregated only to the division level.

Correlates of atcholosjicai climate. Correlations with Psychological climate were based on a sample of 3,726

sailors for whom all data were available. No differences were found between the total sample and this reduced

sample in terms of psychological climate, individual resource, or position variable scores. Each man in a particu-

lar division was assigned that division's context and structure s, ores and these scores were correlated with his

individual scores (see Table 6). In the interests of brevity, only significant correlations were reported (complete

analyseh art available from the authors).

Relationships between psychological climate and diviaiton context and structure scores were low and generally

14

'!

.. .. .. .. ..... ' - '' ....- - . . . . .. ,. . .. . . .. .. . .. . ..... .. ... ...*.--. ..'-. 11 -t ,: 'i i ' i '

'

nonsignificant. Only the Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliness, and Warmth component showed any consistent pattern

of relationship with these measures and then only in terms of low correlations with size-related variables (e.g.,

size, span of control, number of levels). The pattern of relationships between psyc'io-ogical climate and individual

resource and position variables was somewhat stronger, although correlations were again low except for the Job

Challenge, Importance. and Variety measure. This component was positively related to age, time in the Navy, hier-

archical level, number of men supervised, number of other training schools, and self-esteem, but was negatively

related to assignment to unskilled jobs. Such correlations appeared to reflect an increased responsibility and

challenge associated with promotion. Individual resources and position variables were also related to Workgroup

Cooperation, Friendliness, and Warmth and to Professional and Organizational Fsprit. Higher scores on the latter

component were generally found for the older, less educated sailors in the relatively unskilled jobs.

The major interest of the present study was identifying relationships with psychological and division climate.

home knowledge of relationships among the various nonclimate domains was essential to fully interpret these find-

ings, however. In the interests of brevity, such nonclimate interrelationships are presented in summary only. In

general terms: (a) relr.tionships among division context variables were generally low or nonsignificant; (b) corre-

lations among anatomical structure measures were generally significant but moderate, operational structure measures

represented uncorrelated components, and relationships between anatomical and operational structure measures were

generally low and nonsignificant; (c) with the exception of the four job-type measures, relationships among the

position vaciablEs were significant and greater than I1.401; (d) relationships among individual resource measures

were low but significant; (e) relatiorships between division context and structure measures tended to be low,

although nonroutine technology and higher rated personnel resources were associated with smaller division sizes and

low role formalization; (f) relationships between position variables and individual rescurce measures were low to

moderate, where significant relationships among tenure, number of men supervised, hierarchical level, and training

reflected general patterns of promotion in the military; and (g) relationships of division context and structure

with position variables and individual resource measures tended to be low or nonsignificant, although divisions with

higher levels of technology tended to have mor intelligent men In more highly trained job specialties.

Correlates of division climate. In order to study the correlates of division climate, a typology of division

climate was developed and the resulting climate types were correlated with the nonclimate variable domains. The

division climate typology was obtained by clustering divisions with similar profiles on the six division climate

scores. The profile analysis was simplified, however, because the divisions represented certain existing (formal)

types based on homogeneity of function or task. Twelve types were represented (e.g., Navigation, Deck Maintenance,

Electronics, Communication, etc.) and divisions within each type tended to have similar climate profiles (e.g., the

climate profiles for all Deck Maintenance divisions across the 20 ships were similar). Furthermore, the vectors of

mean division climate scores, were visibly similar for some of the 12 functional types. Thus, it appeared that the

functional types might be further collapsed on the basis of similarities in climate score profiles.

Both an a priori grouping and a hierarchical clustering of the 12 functional types (Ward & Hook, 1963) sug-

gested seven meaningful climate clusters (a separate hierarchical clustering of the 223 separate divisions corrob-

orated this conclusion). Finally, a multiple dtscrimtinant analysis (MDA) was conducted with the seven clusters as

partitioning variables and the division clinate scores (n - 223) as dependent variables. The MDA results supported

the division climate typology and demonstrated that 78% of the variance in the discriminant space was attributable

to between group differences, based on significant discriminant fuctions and the multivarlate analog of iti'

15

-7

1(atsuoka, 1970). An average of 72% of the c~imate score variance was included in the diseriminant space.' Thus,

the seven division climate types appeared to 1rovide a meaningful basis for the remaining analyses addressing

division climate.

Each of the seven division clusters was described and named on the basis of differences between the climate

mean of the division cluster and the grand means for all divisions (see Table 7). For example, Cluster I was named

"Cooperative and Friendly" bec~use of comparatively high scores on Workgroup Cooperation, Friendliners, and Warmth.

This cluster consisted of divisions concerned with navigation, antisubmarine wirfare, and gunnery duties. Cluster

2, labelled "Conflicting and Ambiguous" because of a comparatively higher mean on Conflict and Ambiguity and a low

mean score on Job Standards, was comprised of divisions concerned with missiles, nuclear weapons, fire control for

the weapons system, and divisions concerned with maintenance and repair of the ship's electrical, air conditioning,

and life support systems. The means for Cluster 3 (Communications and Intelligence Divisions) suggested an unin-

volving atmosphere which had relatively high, rigidly adhered to job standards. This cluster was interpreted as an

"Alienating and Constrictive" division climate. Cluster 4 (Boilers and Main Propulsion Divisions) had a lower mean

on the workgroup climate component, connoting an "Uncooperative and Unfriendly" climate. Comparatively lower means

on Job Challenge, importance, and Variety, Leadership Facilitation and Support, and Workgroup Cooperation, Friend-

liness, and Warmth suggested that Cluster 5 (Deck Maintenance) described a "Monotonous, Cold, and Unsupportive"

climate.

Cluster 6 reflected jobs that were challenging, important, multifaceted, and flexible, in conjunction with a

cooperative, friendly, and warm workgroup atmosphere. Such a profile suggested an enriched and warm work environ-

.eot. A low mean on organizational esprit, however, indicated that ,hese divisions (primarily concerned with

sophisticated electronics) did not provide opportunities that compared favorably with other organizations, espe-

cially civilian occupations. This cluster was therefore labelled "Enriched and Warm Work Environment/Organization-

ally Uninvolving." In contrast, Cluster 7 (Supply Division) suggested a climate that was "Organizationally Involv-

ing" with high esprit and identification with the Navy and the ship, connoting a climate that compared favorably

with alternatives, As discussed later, however, both Clusters 6 and 7 appeared to be influenced by the nature of

their personel and may thus be somewhat idiosyncratic.

Relationships between division climate and other variable domains were examined by means of an MDA. The seven

division climate clusters provided the partitioning variables, and division context, structure, and aggregated

positlan variables and individual resource scores served as dependent variables. Individual resource and position

variables were aggregated only if the resulting scores appeared meaningful at the division level of analysis. Such

aggregated variables were viewed as situational attributes representing the personnel composition of the division.

Finally, whenever variables evidenced substantial conceptual and statistical overlap (e.g., age and tenure), only

one was included.

The resulting MDA produced four significant discriminant functions (p < .05, Bartlett's V statistic). The

first function accounted for 56.09% of the between cluster variance, the second 21.61%, the third 11.47%, and the

fourth 5.07%. The multivariate analog of w 2

for the four functions was .91. (Separate MDAs for each of the non-

climate domains provided w2s of .38 for division context, .67 for division structure, .62 for aggregated pomition

variables, and .55 for aggregated individual resources.)

The first function discriminated most clearly between Clusters I and 6 and Clusters 4 and 5. Enriched and Warm

Work Environment/Organizationally Uninvolving climtes and, to a leeser extent, Cooperative and Friendly climates

164

j-

had a mc -e Intelligent and highly trained personnel composition than the Monotonous. Cold, and Unsupportive, and to

some extent, Uncooperative and Unfriendly climates. In addition, the latter two climates were more specialived

(i.e., more jobs per division) than the enriched and warm climates, but less specialized than the Cooperative and

Friendly climates. These results were consistent with the characteristics of the divisions comprising the climate

clusters; for example, Electronics and Navigation Divisions required advanced, technical training, while Deck Main-

tenance, Hollets. and Machinery Divisions did not require the same combination of technical training and personnel

intelligence.

The second discriminant tunction most clearly identified the Organizationally Involving climate cluster. A

defining variable for this function was tenure, partly reflecting the somewhat idiosyncratic nature of the cluster.

The divisions comprising this cluster (Supply) contained several foreign-born individuals who had enlisted in the

Navy as stewards because such assignment was seen as preferable to organizations and careers available in their own

country. Thus, an above average percentage of these individuals had reenlisted. Supply Divisions were also the

most structurally specialized of the divisions studied, providing a variety of personnel services (ship's store,

food service, barber, laundry, etc.., each of which required a certain amount of special training.

The third discriminant function differentiated most distinctly between the Uncooperative and Unfriendly and the

Monotonous, Cold, and Unsupportiv,, climates. The latter (i.e., Deck Maintenance Divisions) had comparatively flat-

ter division configurations, larger spans of control, less formalization of roles, and better work equipment than

the termer. Moreover, Deck Maintenance Divisions had the lowest average tenure and training of all divisions

studied.

The last discriminant function indicated that a Conflicting and Ambiguous division climate (e.g., Missile and

Nuclear Weapons Divisions), and to a lesser extent an Enriched and Warm Work Environment/Organizationally Uninvolv-

ing climate, had comparatively higher degrees of interdependence with other divisions, more nonroutine and complex

technologies, higher ratings of personnel, and more formal education. Lower overall standardization of procedures

and a higher emphasis on morale were also indicated. These latter variables, however, had nonsignificant univariate

F ratios and thus were interpreted with caution.

In summary, the psychological climate measures had generally low relationships with variables reflecting

division context and structure as well aa individual resources and position, although many of these variables dif-

ferenttated among the division climate clusters. This contrast in results reflected both theoretical and statisti-

cal factors discussed later.

Prediction of division criteria. Division performance ratings cvidenced a moderate positive leniency (range

I to 9, M - 6.34 to 7.41, SD - 1.10 to 1.60). Also indicated were few requests for transfer and infrequent problems

with drugs and alcohol. Except for the safety rating, criterion intercorrelations were significant, positive, and

of moderate magnitude (see Table 8). While not indicating large amounts of "hal,,," the correlations did suggest the

possibility of a more parsimonious composite criterion. Thus, a unit-weighted criterion composite excluding satety

S("0 - .94) was constructed for subsequent validity analyses.

For cross-validation purposes, the 160 divisions with criterion data were randomly separated into two sub-

samples (after stratification by ship type and number of divisions with data); all divisions iroe a ship were placed

in the same subsample. This provided "true" cross-validation samples (on - 84 and 1/) where the two subsamples w'r,-

independent (i.e., from different ships).

initial predict ive validites ior v'acli subsample tre reported in labli 4I. lr i cto s inclided all the division

17

I,]

• ~ I i

context m ruc1 1re an aggregat ed pas it io aiid ind iv ldiia resource var iablevs emplIoyed in tile MDA for dv is ion

lI ma. t e. Va lid itl f iitor thliset var iables were ca Xcii ted as p rodoCt-niomeni car rt a ttons.M A .4mitniwait more' comple x

proicedu~re wits neded to calculate the vailidit ies for the xviii division ciiatt' cluisters. Trhe validity coefrfic'itt

to r the ctm na t t clusxtersni wits based on a unit -we igifted rvlg rex oii prce.doirtc (cf. WaIine'r , 1976; Wa iner & Tli Issui,

1976) whereby a correl at ion wats comiputed betwectiit a in it-weiglitt'i composi te of t div ision ci mate clciust ers (repre-

senitetd by dummy varilablIes) and the cr itetri4on. The formul a fr the proceduire wits pregented by G~uil ford and Frucht ur

(1973) and lemiem and E.iltstiii (1973). It Is Important toi not' that tile hinitial and i'ross-val idttli s were idtent ical

becatlt (If tit' list, (If unlit-we-ights and thu intclttsioii of all climhate' clustters whei. calculating thu valiltits.

ilet ('rossi-va lit les for the niinclIimatt' doma is a,-e rteported tit Tablec 10. Ihese --rnss-va il t lem Wert-e al ci-

lated ats follotws. only variables in each domain which had significant Iniltil vaii d it les in tile other s.ample were

inlc IUdtd in t hese analysts . P'redic'tors we're at antlardid cbied 1(1 uInlito at anit -weigh ted vompitsite$ then car re lated

withi th l i e1r ion. For example , lie cross-valid ity for dilv ision context for Sample RI was base'd on Emphasis on

Morale, con~ditioun of equipment.* rat ing of personnel., and avatlability of fundst and suppli es for work nee'ds. all t

which had significant ialtial validities iii Sample A. The overall croa-validity reported in Table' 10 was basted on

all variables used to compute the crosti-val idit its for tht reported salisample.

The crass-validities (also, predict ive valid itiles) were, with tote except ion. significeant and at least modlerate

in magnitude. Among the noticlimate domains, the variables ilt greatest interest Wert, those with significant predic-

tive valid it ies for both sul'samples. For examiple, th lito'nte'xt variables withb ii galt icant valiiti es for bath

Eamples Wert, thle ratilog oh perrorne I and t let ova ilability of fundts and suppl lea for work. In terms of persotnnelI

composition, all the aggregated indliv idual resiurt'e and positi1on var lablitu except tenure tontrnibuted to prediction

in both samples. The rAvlat itnsfilp betw~een the c'limate clusters and the criterion was assessed ili terms of the mean

crier ion scores for eachi climate cluster. 'Ihe Enr ichted anid Warm Work Enivironimett /orguinitzati lanaI ly Uninva lv iig and

Cooperative and Friendly climates received the highest criterion scores, while the Monuotontius. Cold, and Unsapportiv'

climate received the lowest.

Dliscuss ion

Thc distcuiioni of results is presented tin terms of four basic issues: (at) the d'-'eloPMent of a mseasuire ofl

psychological cl imate, (b) the cotstriat validity of the psychoilogical climate. measure, (0) the use oit aggregated

psychological cllinuate scores to describe subunit and organizational climates, and (d the construct validity of

subunit climate measuires. When interpreting the finditigs of the present study, howtever. certain ldio)svncrat'ies of

thle U. S. Navy sample should be noted. For example, decisions regarding personnel selection, training, assignment,

promotion, pay, and so forth tended to be outside the immediate jurisdiction of the ship. Enlistment contracts were

for designated terms, with high turnover after thle first enlistment. Further, although the data demonstrated var-

ianhce In many aspects of context and structure, -,.ips have relatively formal, mechanistic structures compared to

many othier Organizations. many context and structure charac'teristics are' determined by levels atl commandi above the

ships. Such factors might datmpen relationships among structure, c'ontext, indivitdual resources, position variables,

and subunit and psychbological climate, thus reducing generalizability of results.

RDeel'a nentf a psycOi~aAk cimaemaue In regard to the psychological climate measure, findings were

strengthened by thle use Of Multiple, dlivergent sampies (i.e., military/civilion, aanaerial/niiisauageri.ii , large/

small subunits). For example, assumptions that psychological cl imate represenuted molt idimensitinal descript ions ot

the sitiuat ion and that at common core of tdimens ions applied ac'ross organizations were supported by thle simi loritv "I

OPP.

coliotitt H ac rolss samp Ilt . Sticth ft jl a1rit y ais tO Itgued f or compone'nt s taility an 'd genev' a izabihlitv.

The compollllnents L hotsoleb appea101redt pstycholIog.icallly O al ttp.I ulI, we're l ac k ing lit stattati ical comp ' lexty., and

ret I oc.ted it 1st Iltc t joillm il1mg var l olls organ Iit Lit' 11 I vveIi' 1I xi I anal Ion. One,. lomponon I. desc r ibed t ask and roleii

chatrac teoristlcs, 4, muc otd reliIcc tvtd workgr-oup taspc ts, a thi rd donc rib~t leIcade'rsiIp chit racteriast c and two vom-

ponttts generalIly rot I ci d Hubmitt andk orgait io nal attLiIbutem. Stich riesults muggi'sttid that wolrk entv iroomet

pe0looep ti oto are not en t irel givpoba I or dt Iuso but re'flct or gaiz at Iional atid conooital dintstict Ionm ia. TIS inteor-

proLa Limot was bolsi tred by othIor tii dngm (Mowdl v, p~ortLe'r, 6 Dtikbin, 1474) thatt Iworkgr olip perctions 111 (itill at t ituades

i iicred f root thbose aibot t ho total organi,'.4at toil. Colivor so Iy , l'olsipt-intitm r t' ic i tig I th total 0 rgao iz7a ii On a i tt ill[

ltlikilgS by vm-ar le g descrlblng leiader- mid t ask or rult chairacteri1sticos. Slich I ittd ingo Were colisi stit WiLIitte

by potbhsis that charactLur isticsH at mol)re mac41ro 11rgixalt io il1evils we re lii ked to i ttdivita e 14 xpeien1411 ito term~ls

oft inft li'nvca o0 il tore Immeitdiate aspec ts HSuch its thos ot 1f thei task, role c, and so, f or th.

Tlbe psy cholIog.i cal elI init t componenit s gene ral 5' rt i I t'cti dimt'nsimoa ret ed L ii i t he IIt eratu re'. Wo rkg rotip

Coopo rat ltt, Fr i odit iness , ittid WairthI was 81111 tirt to d illlolts ltttabel le d lIvahi $pi i t (Movert, 1968) . liait 41 vs.

C toa skorkinltg He Iat l ooipts k'rhortitoit, 1969), 1llt lmatcy (FrlIod l.Ildir & Mtrpgitl Iis , 1969) , Soc itI Retlt I11m0o (i'r Itcha~rd

1. iasI islk, 197 1) . ad Frientd I -tnfr Ictoilv (i1ltw~ I o t t,. 1974) . Cotif hI t antd Aibigtitty was rut It'ctt'd .as c11111 it

by L it wl it and St r inger 0(168) , Sl'Ollte'ider itnd Bart lI' vt (146(8) , and1 fir it chard antd Katras IcA ( 197 1) , will I c am ilgtki ty w14A

reft Ikccttd (althItughltiegatlivo-ly) by St cllctltr'o (Camilbol I vt al.. 1970;1 litwiti &l Strintger, 1968. Pi'rtcttrI & Kairasick,

197 t; Selltit, Iol'% 6Hart I ett,. 19 08),. Org.iI /it IonatI CI ar I t y (Oyver , 1968) , No rtiat ive ('ont "o I (P ayilt' I Phoysey . 197 1)

Fl ft'lt li'e trgilI iZILtI oltlit Str~uctulro (Wt term et i'%_ 1Y74) , jiitl ,fI EI iciotcy andl Clart ty of Ptirposte (Thornton , 1969) .

S 111111ar comtpa4raility wa4s ei dent t or JIob tin 11 n ge, Imtiportne and110 1411''l'it LVatid Puotsat1 i and11141111 ~ralIr L tn

Leade110r sip Faclitato a1nd 441 Supo1r t h owever , was5 11111i dilr'c tl viiettrh Ii z al aIt hough~l mos1t StuitIes 14110 r

tpora t'll mv11 or mtore 1 c~ldtrsh ip ditiv101 isi. For exam~le i, Sclnoidir 41111 Itill loet 1 ii ( ment8) ioned1101 Matiger 114 Stpport,

mtid Catphol e t ill. (1970) dis~cussied Colnsaillratioll.1 Watrtilt. and Su~lport . Waters vt al. (1974) metwLioned Clo'se'

S111p4ratte 1leadoershtipl fac to lra-- A 11 tios , p roduct ton I '411l5iphs 1 Tr ist , and11 C%1111 ris II I i. Illtr111cI411,twi'

re'vea1 tld that most t 01thlt f~ll'L 11rm 4 rol ths othe 111'r Si id I s wi'rv repre'setelttd as5 a prir c llIompos~l5iteis It, t it, p rosclt

51tlidy, ldivi.ltilop. t hat I tt' Leade'rshtip Facilitio md1 411 Stippolrt Iiom~polnnt tilghtI reft ol a 11'rt, abstIrac t v.1 rtlblei

represettI ttp. re 1lit ionips i 11 moigl) it 4llInlbi'r ~lit151'L aspect 1f leadei' p.

ConitIructL va i 111v of the ')schIt lc I lilat v' invluiSlro. it was5 stuggite I'l .4rlir th11 at .111 lpm 1114i'i iliviato

represotits alt1 Individtial processing ,'t stltlit l'mti data al411 O111 i relu'ts both the sittliati and1.411 titi' i1di(viiII4I41

lTe pr oat'ht st utl v, howevter, gont' nl y faild t~ o identl it y nretti onshltips hi't weet'I paY c 111op.Ic .tl biua t.O 141111 s11111Iit

l'liilet'y mitt1 strtlcittre. atlt~lip.I ldtii't0Illivi ill IOHvc'hltgll ci iliti wt'ri lou1011 across divislions. A partiatl vxplan1-

I Sills. 111115, ps~yc'hologicl ci limtei 81111411 ho mlore i' It1v relt' edtt to 1rov'tss vai ab les 111,1t to vcol ex I or .t111clr,

In (act , iliroeptii0t of Sticht prllt'05505 were r4 ilocteV ill ai ofv thell a1141 priori omposi1111 1, Ill tit, paicitolg 1111

ti lo, 14n1d str4111 lt-ilgill- titoN hee irciolls 1111411 IS tIlS I Illthor t'4'l1lOtt'll trol01 irlt1 l it's ti 11'011tx il111 8 lklettli','

14l

Such reasoning 118aggeit 'd that th hin fluent -t of mtjuhuit v ontcxt and s t riuetUre upot. pmychio og i en cli 111 CLe~ ar illd1-

rect and thus retlat ionshi psi generAlIly would not be expiected ito he laurge (note the fourth generlt hypothes is).

'The Niamel realsontig suggesKteid thatt pos~ition1 vartiahbles and tidiv idual reoorcdl should he more highly retlat ed to

psycholtog ical CliImatec because difFeret pos it imin are expec ted ot have diffe rent or ganizaut ional exspe rienc es and thtim

di!Ffervnt psychologihat cl imateis. Miore'over , it has heeni su'ggested thalt indiv idual resourcies 101 tllence entry into

var ioll , it Ions (lierman , Ibliointm, & Ibi I n , 1975; Newman, 1975) . The dtina provided some support fFor these- expec'tia-

lion4, especlialty inl regard ito Job Challenge, Import ance, and Variety, which Wits pos itively retlated to correlates

of i erarchlicalI level (egage.* training, tenlure * men suapervised. and self -esteem) atid, ri'f ected perhaps the

respolls tl I lity and1, challenlge inherent Ill suiper vi sory posit ions. Als~o reftetciid was t he t r,'nll for men in mo10re tech-

nicat Jobs to hi' l~ii mmtci nlorc rapidly.

other 'or reltionH between psychl og ical cIi mith' * position vallr hIes, and hid lvidtklut reson rces wer e coos idir-

ably1 l ower anld of til lioli itficant , althbough certa in patterns wert, Indicated. For example, more technlicallty

trained , in tellligi' l t illra tendedl to pe rvelve more cople rat lon, fri endliIne ss, and warmth in the ir workgtroup, while

at thll same1 time' per'e ivlng thet Navy as not Prov idlog calri'i'l that coilmlri'd lovorabh y with civiltian organliut. ions.

rue suggest tloll t iil posit toll1 vart1 b Illm accealie for11 m11 o r1 i I psycho logival cI lia ti vartance than ti diiul

rvsi'8 ci'is (le rnm it i, 1, 1 97 !;t Newmian, 1 915) wit s geli NI I y not supporte .i t'osttIon vair lbls and individuial

ri'Holrc-es tietlded correlations11 with psKYchologIkal Cli iat 111.1t wir,' siilar In pattern 111,1 mllglititIi. It iN l ikely,.

holwe'ver., that ths fl'indin1,1 gs nt leteid c'erta in sample cilaract eri tic it'sal welt as5 the Facet that pllsit Ion var 'ibles

repirt' Mill hothI sit 1t iona 101, an ind lvidia ll~ i-c t r I Hics. For example.' p romot ion to at higher leivelI require ri' t

'1cIF lid tim min paly grildi' and, tim lit Inlllilln age. Ill it similar vviil, Htectl 1,110r vartolls Lypes oF traiig

t1l.'le id upon11 tilt, atItaIinm1e1n lt 01 it k-rtiti tes isolries. Finiv , tl, limple1111 inlude (,liil 111y elite id piersonlno', t 1111

11111 itg the vartmi kil mo1ult,1 181 varijl1esM, i'HII ilty IV , hos riela1teid to p08 itii.

c ,r I t 111.i Q t, Imct ' H M . Thei leel oF exp lanat ion argumnent als p'lro'vIiddi I ..S lilli i

ixplailtto tol r the gi'm'raily sighiti lait relt.t onlships i111111 l'etWi',' (liViill Viinciltt' 4111d1 iliViIlll '0lit'\tI ill1,

struc'ture'. That i.,. livls 1,11 cll 11.1, rk tcti'd it situat '01101 Itt r llite 'i 1111ilt' wats i'xili'Otel tO beV mill highlY

re'lateid tOl p I'i' v irtj h Ies than to di l it cm111 'it ext and, HI rm ,l ri' ( ill tilt- other hand1,1, thil '15' ,I alggrega ti'd

Thus11. i1lt ij,'ati loI.r lggri'gatio 1.11Wia ill majolr fImportance.

i111 1 juctl'1ll c' 11,1ic1 RHl'llit ci 11110,' .millvsis ,'l~ity Ith tiii Lio ,1 evel wits b'ased ill n uverial I Icrs,

111),1 lt (a)t titlma plrolt i nallilr o . i 111111 i'liks 111 ghiir I i've 18I Ifcp1 I loo t 1111 I o' 111 or It Fl et lg agg rlga t ed ,lv Oill-

I Ol 1 ,I I '8 I 1111.110 t 01s V.,11S 10. ( 1 11 i bl~e I W i tllI v s " ll -'lt 1. 11 . -ii t i (e rg. ll t r0t niv ts o~.it-d st 1 ,oa il k.rt 1, 1 tc' k " rt

11101111 lgli II 1,11 S ll'lll ltl'OWI k-st 111111is ald l tvIll i or tit,' av, riag.' nklt-'r lot ratvr 1'im i'r r M al I 70 ill 1 1iit. Thei

conte,1111 ittrkl till' per1111 .- r "1', I-t i il'orl'. 1111 Z"I g 11 1 ll, while1 titv110. ' 111'l,'l'Ptlil for 01.11l ,1 I t -I I li

o~llm t 10 t Vl II. I p0111 it 1 r Ia V,01118 I hi' Ik 1.1 I v li 1 Important Im tI Ill ti l ii 111tll ki till' 11010 111 l ''lr.'itO'

2'0

and with the division performance criteria. lin terms of such relationships. Monotonous, Cold, and Unsupportlve

climates were associated with large spans of control and large division sizes, low interdeperence with other dlvi-

Atons, relatlye y rout iu and noncomplex technologies, and lower average intelligence, education, training, and

tentre. Furthermore, the dlvisinot$ In this cluster (e.g., Deck Mn! .t,nance) had the lowest overall ratings on the

criteria. Similarly, Uncooperative and Unfriendly climates (e.g., Boiler Divisions) were related to comparatively

large spans ol control, tall conf igurations, low interdependence, and low average tenure, education, anti trainlng,

Criterion ratings also tended to he below average.

In co:. rast, Enriched aid Warm Work Environment/Orgaiizatilonally Uninvolving climates (Electronics Divisions)

tended to have comp'ratively nunroutine, complex technologies, flat configu'-ions, low specialization, small divi-

sion sizes, and high average intelligence, education, and training (but not tenure). Cooperative and 'rlendly

climates (e.g., Navigation Divisions) had the lowest average span of control of all climates studied and were

further claracterized by high averages on intelligence and training as well as above average criterion ratings,

Such results at least partially supported the hypothesis that comparatively large subunit sizes and tall con-

figurations were related to uncooperative and unfriendly workgroup interrelationships (Payne & Mansfield, 1973;

Porter & Lawler, 1965), unsupportive leadership, communication difficulties (Payne & Pheysey, 1971), reduced group

involvement, and lens harmonious interpersonal relationships (Pheysey, Paylte, & Pugh, 1971). Also supported were

hypotheses that the above forms of anatomical structure, when combined with routine technology and specialization

(a0.o related to size and tall conliguration), were associated with low task complexity, variety, challenge, and

importance (Hackman 6 Lawler, 1971; lackman & Oldham, 1975; Woodward, 1965), monotony (Blood & Hu-in, 1967; ultn &

Blood, 1968); and reduced autonomy (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964). Finally, climates related to higher levels of ana-

tomical strucrure (i.e., large size, tall configuration, and high specialization), and. to a lesser extent routine

technology, tended to be associated with low subunit criterion scores, whereas the opposite was true for climates

reflecting low levels of anatomical structure and nonroutine technology.

Of further interest were findings that small spans of control, often linked to mechanistic structures, were

associated with warm and enriched climates, whereas large spans of control, o ' n lir ked to organic structures, were

associated with cold and monotonous climates. Such findings reflected the - ire ot the divisions comprising the

above climates. For example, divisions with warm and enriched climates tended to he more technologically advanced,

smaller, and comprised of individuals at highet pay grades. These results appeared to support suggestions that

appropriate spans of control depend upon such factors as technology, job, and personnel characteristics and that no

one span of control is ideal for all situations (cf. House & Miner, 1969).

With respect to the remaining climtate clusters, Conflicting and Ambiguous climates (e.g., Missiles, Nuclear

Weapons) were characterized by comparatively high interdependencies with other divisions and by nonroutine, complex

technologies. A partial explanation of these results was provided by Corwin (1969) who noted that increased inter-

dependencies and interactions among organizational units increased the probability for organizational conflict, and

by House (1971) who hypothesized that nonroutine jobs tended to be inherently ambiguous. On the other hand, Con-

flicting and Ambiguous climates were not associated with such measures as low role formalization, decentralized

decision making, and low standardization as suggested by Hickson (1966), House (1971), House and Rizzo (1972a). and

Pheysey et al. (1971). In fact, a high level of standardization was indicated for these divisions.

Alienating and Constrictive climates (e.g., Communications and Intelligence Divisions) were most closely

related to personnel compositions with high average scores on intelligence and training, although small division

A21i

I - .... U '

mit.i, and tow special iz1at toll were Also Indicated. In ctiitr ant, th tirganttat it t IInvolIv ing k I I ml it (St.pIt V

D)iv Intioon) cons ist ed of per Kolitict I with Itinger ave rage t otre buiit I'I Iiiow sve rag Iw ri ittg alld tilt ei I Igelliv .' Larpi

div igion sizeis , high splec tal iza.t tilt%, high role tormal izat ion, rout tile tkichilotigls, and belo'w avtrai' t ritirioli

8s00rem were it I so Ind hat kid. These resul1. t , wil, i oomh I idt W it It t host' I tit t.h t t lie It hhe and Warmt Work. liy I roniunt/

tOrgant z.it t Ional Ity Ulnlinvu Iit itg ell ilt vv clistevr., Itliatei thalt tllVolvtg tit "Miti-M Were' posit ivilv riltitod ito rouit lt't

t'i'Iiilog tel itind high levels of anatouti al mt nrii ' r, Whereas Iln tivo lv lg el imistuv were relatted to 11,ilootin jt ich-

nloigies and low levels oit ainitomnitl st riittie. ti ali Ip..'tm iti p'rgoilI' vomplos II.tioll ar' tloplortait inl tinti'r

pret jug theme f indlitgm, howe'ver. rhAt. is, UtilIi~lVlilig Ci tm41teN lii led to provide relai ve'I. iiuteI I I gent lilt1 t r itInel

W d ivid ualI withI c'aree'rs that c ompaired I uvoralIy to c tv i I n ot-ia tt iolls wil le Itil' tuppoHit v' appea redi to i' Ik hi ciaHe

lot' iinvolv ing ki Imatkii (which. its nt itl earlie'r , In.'icliiitid svi-ra foreigni-horn tiliv idital for wlionm thi' Navv pit.-

v ided at comparativlyeIy advantdgiiOl carver~ic I. ~..ip lilt s Iitit ther vntimi e th.' iceed to clls iter pi'imilllii' cmpostI-

tlolls whelk interp.ret i og relatIIo ipstl antoiig; meas rex tit sihuin it vI i mate v~ ontest *n Stit srt. ictre ( I'.1ilv i &'ughtil476)

i ntsimma ry itI appea red that ie di vi si on -'I Inmat e ' is tci s (and thtil tile, kiv itka on . Itwa t e i',ir es w.' rt

ret at odI to bo0th situaitional ankd pi'rsonnel charactei t ii tin pii'd Ittalle and meant ugl kit Ways, Exci-ept I or the itivas-

tires ofI olierat jotilla striictitre, retat tonshiipA weri genia Ity as hyl.o.t ho's i.evd . Soich I toi tgs appeateil to arpoi, I or

the const roCt Vaii ity tit aggregated psycho logicl I It iai 81,01.8 imeusid to i tli'8ci t stilinit c illat t, whenl tile K1olon1Its

are' ret. ivei I" lmogelleokiH.

Itnllj~.'tt oIs. 'The preseil Ht iitv hait a llimibir ol tolitc.1ciouis I'll ftot iie resi'.iicl ivolving psychllotogic.ti 'iild/oi

s tlitiiilI t ic I iniat t e. Aviolg t hli't, was t i, I I kd I ug oi I1 'it lhlllion iiri I 1' 111 wins toils t hiait chiiric t v'ir I ?,it d il %, idloi I lit' ri' ,p

tto ns (isy chi. tug i ca it l iia to') acrs i t It iversi s41Iat lit Ios . Sti it vnullI It s imp, I tid tIhat I uIars 1111 niou5 oaset o I ni miis buols

niaY dome srt illt f f vren t 41t tt tIo[ils, aIi t oghI add t Ii illa t , no re N pi' I I I oi iiiis is lllt gllt lie ni'vtiid t ,o Noes't I lit cer, 111

I (IIosvllit, ik% tems t1 i'a'll s it oiat iiiuIli At Ho i mpor t ait twas t lie' I I1, IldIlig t lii. t Ii'. tit o IuggrI g~jt tii paychiI (,F tc.1I I c i Imu

scores kir profi les 01t aggregat ed soi'es to ilesir lilt- sut ti at 1011,11 tilt Illtillci's Wa wap;liopr , aton '111 lor ia t Iat lv'I

Iltmogoiills swlilnits antId thlat thi'se t,nllid iti be it lower11 I i'iA M th Il' irgall i .at ioll. Ill at ri a~tei Vi i, *It

appearei i'th Iat tile. ft ouct to nal tyvpe kii diiv is ion wila .i more Important taci't M1 it s oi'tat i t hail wais t ili, sut' nid 111,1tc

organizat ion. lIn other wortis, Climates ill simttar iItvtsioiis4 I row i Ierent ships wk'ri' iri al like tihain were' %-I toiltvs

inI dilspa ra v diis Hions f rom the same shill. Si 11111.11' remso t t we rie ltid tilt-icon teixst 1111 u' rpeit tonial sirtori ' r. ScI

ftnki gs have numerous implichuto1115il tir fuiture iorgaiizat iona Irelsearih'ill intl'iiv lopmeot plropgI'IlH, suggiist ilig t hat

at tentiton shou0ldi be' ilt'used tilt ii a t iveil' himogittu in itt s rathler 111,11 Iac.gv'r subun11it s and total 0 rgani aut tois.

tint' if the nmst Iipllortant I indiilgs If tis study Wall that division it imti' alpi.red it prov ideit iiiiiuiiiliul

I linkage betweii sittout tonal ittIributes 41.c consilitext and stilttir.' iand stilillii i'ritertu. ll~t Is, diviit'nl

itia 'ref Itcted situttional di f Iireunci' tllot appi'.rod to I ..rt ria how siich nlistir,'H yen'i tlptrit tiilli I iF Ait lHt1'

sit tia t Ional i uit tiitlit-es oil saki it pi'r I trmi nte. HegardnItlg ps~o' 'l Itg i.' 'AI imniat c. .10 t ili, othei'r hid.1 iv isioill tll-

iext tlit strtic tare aipplearedi to lit' sevieral ste'ps riuovi'd Ironi itiiiv itia Ilt''it lolls .ifd lth mi d tI lly tilt irvil lu19

vauriables suchi ais proi'esses ind div isio hill Iimate ,' * tiiiver. * Psvt'hOlog iiat cI tiia~t i i' ii to 1tit iiit i-ollpl i'x

relat toush ipH amonxg positionlal andi itl ividiia I chanatt'r ist its as9 wt' I is sitI liilill i',iti is. Ili'lin'io si ttli.'

vitil ind Post ivtiVaiabltes aidi theiir votes lilt ilii' format itol il q.vlilli~ -I iiti. SttIt, stutitt's willI I iki'Iv

ht'ni'i it I u'.im tile ill' lou lll iii ihbtect ivi' lv lleitn'lip ...t. iss Variale is to-tip~lu Iiii re Itt It'l5ills, withi liyhll tgicit

stibtintit , and~ iirgaunIteit IionlI'I litt'.

otaiAI l pt 'It V.4 it I..hst III' vioweaI t %It t' viiit M It 8p aldIt1w Iu -. I t It, , ai litvvxw t Im it I ' Itld I tI I t:i t

pt ov Ittae I s I~t or iat.ixI Inl Iet att liii. I'll8 xls tiod, tuIltWk't - -i ,u 0) I 'I - IM ;IIiVttprt I V I I'llii :reII IA-Vst tot

I It ItIte oIeSell -Iit nd IuIt 111I Itt' thevI t1d I, ItI itlit I vuntin I c: li. Ii tt 1 ,t1 o.tI- Its ol mttitn I andl pqytoolglc

fi11111.1

Referent Not ems

I.ttw, I; , ~Cav III J IF. tOr init I otia c Ii fit e: A revitew mui tit It I ton (Teetnit t I ReIpor t No 7 4-021

tor t Col I is,1 COi C(. Ior nto StiLe, itivermity, Iiidiitritit Pmyetiotogivi Assneiation oft Cctorado. 14t,4.

2,;Ipi t*I I.*& tatv, E. V. t.spi tn1tit toti 1 I e I m it te Its tlt eatoir vmetit anti re1at tontiltp to wkiroiw ~qpIk! IIItttIjkji Pi11per p -usut t d at t.hi' Metn ofugi tie Anetvi' i iii' toloiigtel Assoittiton, Wtisitngtoi, I.C

Amoits, A. 1'.. tames, L. H., & tborodtik, c. W. ttrj~aqnt:'t tonal cli mite ev e to sh tj)bo- t tune~i t toIn A,

preiniter st f ity (1k.01tint tl tettor t No. 7 1-th) . Fort Witr tht, TX.:'fexas Chr is tian UiIve'rsitvy Inst itut e Ill

l0Ietiotra I Researeti, 1911.

4. .ittii', A. tP., Jatmesi, L,. R., Briit, J. R.. 11torniek, C. W.,* & Set tsi S. HI. tis ehuinjtevat eltite: t)tntMe118s0o1ns

in~ rlatonlttys(Teetiten 1I Rellort. No. 7" ).Fort North, TX.* Texas Christ tan Univers ity , hist i uL' ot

BeihavioralI Research, 1475.

5, Joines, A. P'., &Jaines, L.. R. tkin ton of_ Iljtiiipl~ea el m ;nt nnonj ft rettiutn ('T'~I~eical Report No. 75-9),

For t Wotrt It, TX, Texatt Chr Ist tan tolvers Ity , I nst nIx ttMhlti~tiiraI Research, 197.

24

References

Arvey, R. D., & Iloyle, J. C. A Guttman approach to the development of behaviorally based rating scales for systems

analysts and programmer/analysts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 61-68.

Bass, B. M., Valenzi, E. R., Farrow, D. L., & Solomon, R. J. Management styles associated with organizational,

task, personal, and interpersonal contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 720-729.

Blanz, F., & Chiselli, E. E. The mixed standard scale: A new rating system. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25,

185-199.

Blau, P. M. Cooperation and competition in a bureaucracy. American Journal of Sociology, 1954. 59, 530-535.

Blood, M. R., & Hulin, C. L. Al.-enation, environmental characteristics, and worker responses. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1967, 51, 28 -290.

Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four factor theory of leadership.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11, 238-263.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K. E, Jr. Managerial behavior, performance, and

effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Corwin, R. C. Patterns of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 507-519.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 407-424.

Farris, G. F. A predictive study of turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 311-328.

Flacks, R. Protest or conform: Some social psychological perspectives on legitimacy. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 1969, 5, 127-149.

Forehand, G., & Gilmer, B. V. H. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological

Bulletin, 1964, 62, 361-382.

Friedlander, R., & Margulis, N. Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value systems upon Job

satisfaction. Personnel Psycho-ogy, 1969, 22, 171-183.

Gavin, J. Organizational climate as a function of personal and organizational variables. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1975, 60, 135-139.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

Guilford, J. P, & Fruchter, B. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Colon, R. M. A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 120-125.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., Ill. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology

Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286.

lackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975,

60, 159-170.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1969, 14, 366-376.

Hall, D. A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 50-76.

Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administration. New York: MacMillan, 1966.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, 191,3.

Hannan, M. T. Problems of aggregation. In II. M. Blalock (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences. Chicago: ' L

Aldine-Atherton, 1971.

25

. IVIA

Harman, H1. Ii. Modern factor anijt (2nd ed.). ChIcago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

HielIIriegel1, ). , & SlIocum, J . W. , J r. 0.,ganizational climate: Measures, research, and contingencies. Acad-emy o f

Man!mentJournal, 1974, 17, 255-280.

Herman, J. B. , Dunham, R. B. , & lul in, C. L. OrpanIzk.1ionaI stricture, demographic characteristics, and employee

responses. EryniKation;A Behjaviojr ajndy kmanPu.rfcrmanc e, 1975, 13, 206-232.

Herman, J. Bi., & Kuhin, C. L,. Studying organizational attitudes from individual and organizational frames of

reference. or anizational Behavior and Human P'erformance, 1972, 8, 84-108.

Herzberg, F. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Press, 1966.

Hickson, D. J1. A convergence in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 111, 229-237.

Horn, J. L. , & Knapp, J. R. Thirty wrongs dto not make a right. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 502-50'-.

House, R. J1, A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, LiA-338.

House, g. J., & Kerr, S. Organizational Iadependence, leader behavior, and managerial practices: A replicated

study. Journal of App Led Pscology, 1973, 58, 173-180.

House, R. J. , & Miner, J. B. Merging management and behavior theory: The interaction between span of control and

group size. Administrative Science_ Qurteri), 1969, 14, 451-464.

thouse, R. J., & Rizzo, J1. R. Kole conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational

behavior. O0~raizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505. (a)

House, R. J. , & Rizzo, J. R. Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation.

Jou,,rnal of Ayp4dPyhlg,1972, 56, 388-396. (b)

Hulin, C. L., & Blood, H. R. Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker responses.Pscogcl

Blei,1968, 69, 41-55.

Indik, B. P. Thre scope of the problem and some suggestions toward a solution. In B. P. Indik & F. W. Berrien

(Eds.), People, groups,_and organizations.. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968.

lnkson, J. Ht. K., Pugh, 0. S,, & Hickson, D. J. Organization context and structure: An abbreviated replication.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, -5, 318-329.

Inset, P. M., & Moos, K. HT. Psychological environments: Expanding the scope of human ecology. Aeia

P~yhol~'~t,1974, 29, 179-188.

Ittelson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivllo, L. G., & Winkel, G. H. Anntroduction to environmenta psychlo -

Hew York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.

James, L. R., & Ellison, R. L.. Criterion composites for scientific creativity. Personnel. Psyclltllq, 1973, 26,

147-161.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Pyhlgcllultn

1974, 81, 1096-1112.__ ________I

James, L. K.. & Jlones, A. P. organizational structure: A review of structural dimensions and their conceptual

relationships with individual attitudes and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Promance,196

16, 74-113.

James, L.. R., Stebbins, Ml. W., Hartman, F. A., 6 Jones, A. P. An examination of the relationship,- between

psychological cl imate and a VIE model for work motivation. PersoInne 1 1'vcholoy inl press.

.lessor, R., 6 Jessor, S. The perceivedl environment In behanvioral science. Amer ican- Behav ioral- Sc Ien tis 1973,

-16, 801-828.

26 1

Johnston, J. R., Jr. Some personality correlates of the relationships between individuals and organizations.

Journal of Aplied Ps choloy, 1974, 59, 623-632.

Jones, A. P., James, L. R., & Bruni, J. R. Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as

moderated by job involvement. Journal of AppliLdPsychology, 1975, 60, 146-149.

Kahn, R.,Nlolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., & Rosenthal, R. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and

ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Katzenmeyer, W. C., & Stenner, A. J. Strategic use of random subh;ample replication and a coefficient of factor

replicability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 19-29.

Kerr, S., & Schriesham, C. Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria - an update of Korman's

1966 review. PersonnelPychology, 1974, 27, 555-568.

La Follette, W. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? O!r d.zational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 257-278.

Lawler, r. E., Ill, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. Organizational climate: Relationship to organizational structure,

process, and performance. Orghanizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 11, 139-155.

Lichtman, C. M., & Hunt, R. G. Personality and organization theory: A review of some conceptual literature.

Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 271-294.

Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Litwak, E. Models of bureaucracy which permit conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 1961, 67, 177-184.

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

Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), lhandbook of industrial and

oranzationalp lo. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Hahoney, T. A., & Frost, P. J. The role of technology in models of organizational effectiveness. Ogn izat iona

Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, l1, 122-138,

HcNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.

Meyer, II. It. Achievement motivation and industrial climate. In R. Taguiri & G. Litwin (Eds.), Oranizational

climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1968.

"ohr, L. B. Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administiative Science u erl, 1971, 1lb,

444-459.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, I.. W., & Dubin, R. Unit performance, situational factors, and employee attitudes in

spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and iuman Performance, 1974, .2, 231-248.

Mulaik, S. A. The foundations of factor anaiy-is. New York: HcGraw-llill, 1972.

Newman, J. E. Understanding the organizational structure - job attitude relationship through perceptions of ihe

work environment. Or lnizational Behavior and luman Performance, 1975, 14, 371-397.

Nicewandei, W. A., & Wood, D. A. Comments on "A general canonical correlation index". _sychological2 Bullt in,

1974, 81, 92-94.

Nicewander, W. A., & Wood, 1). A. On the mathematical bases of the general canonical correlation index: Rejoinder

to Miller. _Psyc.holniJcal Ilulletin, 1975, 82, 210-212.

Orr, I). B. A new method for clustering jobs. .lurnal ofApli ed I'y ' y, .100, .4, 44-49.

27 4

ii

Payne, R. ,., Fineman, S., & Wall, T. D. Organizational climate and lob satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis.

OrFanizationaL Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 45-62.

Payne, R. L., & Mansfield, R. Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational structure,

context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 515-526.

Payne, R. L., & Pheysey, D. C. G. G. Stern's organizational climate index: A reconceptualization and application

to business organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 77-98.

Payne, R. L., & Pugh, D. S. Organizational structure and climate. In M. 1). Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.

Perrow, C. A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32,

194-209.

Pheysey, D. C., Payne, R. L., & Pugh, 1). S. Influence of structure at organizational and group levels.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 61-73.

Porter, .. W., & Lawler, E. E., 1ll. Propertie!s of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job

behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 23-51.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., Ill. Mans erial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL.: Richard D. Irwin. 1968.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., 1I, & Hackman, J. R. Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. The effect of organizational climate on managerial job performance and Job

satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 126-146.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, 1. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. Dimensions of organizational structure. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1968, 13, 65-105.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. The context of organizational structure. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 94-114.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, F. 1. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-163.

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

Schneider, B. Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational realities revisited. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 459-465. (b)

Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. Individual differences and organizational climate I: The research plan and

questionnaire development. Personnel Ps cholo , 1968, 21, 323-333.

Schneider, B., & Snyder. R. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 318-328.

Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction, and performance: A partial reconcilation. Journal of Applied

Psycholotjy, 1975, 60, 683-687.

Scott, W. R. Organiz-tional structure. Annual Review of Socio_' )75.

Sells, S. B. An interactionist looks at the environment. Americ. _ychologist, 1963, 18, 696-702.

Sells, S. B. The nature of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & C. 11. litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate:

Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1968. (a)

Sells, S. B. General theoretical problems related to organizational taxonomy: A model solution. in H. P. Indik &

F. K. Berrien (Eds.), Peo groups and organizations. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968. (b)

28

Seymour, G., Gunderson, E. K. E., & Vallacher, R. Clustering 34 occupotional groups by personality dimensions.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 267-284.

Shaw, M. E. Group dynamics: The psycholpWof small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Sims, H. P., & La Follette, W. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organization climate questionnaire.

Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 19-38.

Steers, R. M. Task-goal attributes, n Achievement, and supervisory performance. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 1975, 13, 392-403.

Steiner, 1. D. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Stone, E. F., & Porter, L. W. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A multivariate study. Journal rf Applied

Psychology, 1975, 60, 57-64.

Tatsuoka, M. M. Discriminant analysis: The study of group differences. Champaign, IL.: Institute for Personality

and Ability Testing, 1970.

Taylor, J. C. An empirical examination of a four-factor theory of leadership using smallest space analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 249-266.

Thornton, G. C., III. 1he dimensions of organizational climate of office situations. .Experimental Publication

System, 1969, 2, (Manuscript No. 057A).

Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. Industcial Jobs and the workers. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Vannoy, J. S. Generality of cognitive complexity-simplicity as a personality construct. Journal of Pernonality

and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 385-396.

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Wainer, H. Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don't make no nevermind. Psychological Bulletin, 1976,

83, 213-217.

Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. Three steps toward robust regression. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 9-34.

Ward, J. H., & Hook, M. E. Application of an hierarchical grouping procedure to a problem of grouping profiles.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1963, 23, 69-81.

Waters, L. K., Roach, D., & Batlis, N. Organizational climate dimensions and job-related attitudes. Personnel

Psycholog, 1974, 27, 465-476.

Wood, 1). Effect of worker orientation differences on job attitude correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974,

59, 54-60.

Woodward, J. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

29

291

Footnotes

Support for this project was provided under Office of Naval Research Contracts N00014-72-A-0179-OO01, and

NO0014-76-C-0008, Office of Naval Research Project RR042-O-OI-NRI7O-743, and by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery,

Department of the Navy, under Research Work Unit 51 524 0O2-5015DX5F. The views presented in this paper are those

of the authors. No endorsement by the Department of the Navy has been given or should be inferred.

Senior authorship was assigned randomly because thought, work, and writing responsibility were equally divided.

The authors wish to thank Clifford Abe, Mark C. Butler, Bill Curtis, Robert L. Ellison, E. K. Eric Gunderson,

Joseph Schneider, and John W. Slocum, Jr. for their helpful suggestions and advice. The authors also wish to thank

Janell Johnston and Gloria M. Lynch for their editoripl assistance in manuscript preparation.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Allan P. Jones, Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, California

92152.

'Two points should be discussed regarding the uses of aggregated scores. First is the form of aggregation.

Most frequently used are mean perception scores. As discussed by Payne et al. (1976), the mean score appears to

provide a legitimate situational descriptor as long as the perceptual referent is the situation and not the indivi-

dual. Second, aggregated and individual scores will be functionally dependent on each other thus limiting the

researcher's ability to simultaneously investigate psychological and subunit or organizational climate (cf. Hannan,

1971).

2Sampling distributions are not available for coefficients of congruence, thus significance tests would not be

conducted. Mulaik (1972), however, pointed out that it is a common practice to accept two factors as equivalent if

the index of factor similarity is .90 or greater. On the other hand, this practice, or subjective criterion, Is

generally employed only after a least squares approximation (i.e.. Procrustes rotation) of one factor pattern from

the other. Otherwise, the coefficients of congruence may underestimate the actual degree of factor similarity. Due

to recent queations regarding Procrustes rotations (Horn & Knapp, 1974; Katzenmeyer & Stenner, 1975), such a proce-

dure was not employed in the present study. Rather, the component structures provided by the vartmax rotations were

compardd. Although a point-estimate for equivalence could not be provided, .90 appeared somewhat conservative.

3The multivariate analog of 2 provides an estimate of the proportion of variance in the discriminant space

attributable to group differences. It Is usually not, however, an index of redundancy or the proportion of variance

in the dependent variables attributable to group differences. Procedures for assessing redundancy are unclear at

the present time (cf. Nicewander & Wood, 1974, 1975). Thus, the proportion, .72, reflects the average amount of

variance of the dependent variables accounted for by the discriminant space, based on the sum of the squared corre-

lations between the dependent variables and the significant discriminant functions divided by the number of vari-

ables (cf. Nicewander & Wood, 1975).

4The context scores, the operational structure scores, and the two global ratings (requests for transfer and

use of drugs and alcohol) were all provided by the division head, thus experimental dependence may have contributed

to the predictive validities. However, the magnitude of the predictive validities for thv context-global rating

criteria (same rater) were approximately equal to the median predictive validities for the context-performance

rating criteria (different raters). A simila result was also found for operational structure. Thus, spurious

relationships based on experimental dependence were not I0dicated.

30

Table I

Climate Related Variables Arranged by Four Categories

Job and Role Characteristics

Role Ambiguity - The extent to which a task is unclear in its demands, criteria, or relationships with

other tack@.

Role Conflict - The presence of pressures for conflicting or mutually exclusive behaviors.

lob Autonomy - The ability of a person in a given job to determine the nature of the tasks or

problems facing him and to arrive at a course of action.

Job Variety - The degree to which the job calla for the individual to engage in a wide range of

behaviors or to use a variety of equipment in his work.

Job Importance - The extent to which the person feels his job makes a meaningful contribution and it

important to the organizstion.

Job Feedback - The extent to which an individual is aware of how well he is performing on his job.

Job Challenge - The extent to which a job gives the individual a chance to use his skills and

abilitles,

Job Pressure - The extent to which there is inadequate time, manpower, training . or resources to

complete assigned tasks.

Efficiency of Job Design - The extent to which job behaviors and job design lead to organizationally valued goals.

Job Standards - The extent to which the job demands rigid adherence tt- exacting standards of quality

and accuracy.

Opportunities to Deal with Others - The extent to which th task requires or provides opportunities to interact with other

persons.

Characteristics of Leadership

Leader Support - The extent

to which the leader is aware of and responsive to the needs of his

subordinates. Behavior #hich enhances someone else's feelings of personal worth

and importance.

Goal Emphasis - Behavior which stimulates personal involvement in meeting group goals. Leader

emphasizes high standards of performance and sets an example by working hard

himself.

Work Facilitation - Behavior which helps achieve goal attainment. Includes such activities as scheduling.

coordinating, planning, and providing resources.

Interaction Facilitation - Behavior which encourages the development of close, mutually satisfying relationships

within the group.

Planning and Coordination - Supervisor's ability to plan and coordinate the group's activities so that maximum

performance is possible.

Upward Interaction - The degree to which a supervisor is successful in his interactions with higher levels

of comand.

Confidence and Trust-IP - Group members' feelings of trust and confidence in the aulervisor.

Confidence and Trust-DOWN - The degree to which supervisors trust the performance and judgments of subordinates.

31

31 j- ~ r-. - -- ~- ---- -.

ICA a- 0

00 10 o 0 004 W C 0

'w m. m01ai t

A4 U '4 0

C 4.4

14 id 0to to4 0.0

0 C N to 00 -90 C41 C C. C* 0

'4 0 to ol

0 -0 WO 1.. 4. 6 0 r In-

to t 4- C 00 M4 0 A w

41 A C W 0 U - 31 0 1 0

> - m al -. 4 4- fa 4- to 0 I00 a 0 w C

W4 '44. 14 O

4-~ ~ 1 c 1

0) C tC C 0 -A 0 4.

c ~ m '4 0 . 0.

14 Ad4

.0 m U m

- '. 0 C ' 0 C. C c C C . .0 ~ ~~~ u u . ~ 0 0 0 ~

f- g 40 0 1 "0

goU 0 0 to 0 0 0 0-

Q ~ - ' (10 01 CUA0CL 0 . C 0 C 0) 0 0 C -) c 0 -Uh C5 r. U 4- m '4 w $ 0 0) 0 '-. W a) M 4

0A w- 00 00. U0 0 0 w a* t 0 00 > W W0 '4 x 9: U 0 K C) '4 4a) w 0) '4 N 0 4) a) 0)'4 0r 0) U 0 '4 0 0 v 0 '4 "a4 mV -0 c- 0 - '

0. C. '4 ~ - 0 4 0' aU C O O 4 a.

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4- 4. 19 a- A F4.4U0 ' * - - C C ' o 'C o o 0 0 ~ 4- 0 0 0 C C .0 0 0 - C C -E

U 0- C 0'0 - ' 0 0 ' . 0 0 - '.!-d4 0 0 4- 4 o C 0 0 04. C* '

A 4. A C'

toC. 0 .0 a. 0 . 0 . 0. -

'4 U 0 04 '4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 '

* ~~ ~ -l (o a '4 C U C C 0 C 0 0 C C 0 4- C 0 0 U 0 040 0 C 0 0~

CU 0 - 0 u M 1

0 0$00 0 0. 0 0H) 0 L0d 0)

w 0 l

0 CL4 t 0

4- 00 c 0 w0 -

W 0 C- m 0

u4 0 0 44

32P.

Table 2

Principal Components for Items Reflecting Four Proposed Dimensions of Operational Structure

Component Loadings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h2

Variables

Formalization

1. Job responsibilities are defined .35 .75

2. Activities specified in writing .84 .73

3. Emphasis on written communication .79 .72

4. Must follow chain of command .59 .58

Standardization

5. Procedures for and frequency of inspections .48 .42

6. Reporting performance .57 .37

7. Procedures for discipline .48 .42

8. Initiating of meetings and formal activities .74 .57

9. Expenditure of funds .87 .79

10. Training personnel .59 .46

Interdependence

11. Depend on other units for resources .70 .51

12. Consider other units' needs in preparing .70 .52

work schedules

13. Joint decision making bearing on own act .70 .56

Centralization of Decision Making

14. Determine own budgeta .52 .40

15. Allocate work .82 .74

16. Determine work schtdule .80 .74

17. Adopt new program or policy .67 .47

18. Set standards of performance .70 .53

19. Set overall goals .77 .61

20. Autonomy in making decisions .66 .52

21. Determine methods for goalb and activities .48 .34

Note. Proportion of trace accounte; for = .56; only loadings 1 1.401 are reported;

n - 315 divisions and departments.

aHigh scores reflect high centralization.

33

Table 3

Principal Components of Psychological Climate for U. S. Navy Enlisted Personnel

Component loadings5

No. of1 2 3 4 5 6 h' Alpha I tms

Compos I t es

lob or Role

1. Role Ambiguity .48 -. 44 .62 .62 6

2. Role lonf I let -. 49 .59 .58 6

3, lob Autonomy .52 .66 .68 4

4. .lob Variety .59 .68

5. Job Import.anc e .68 .6s .5 4

n .lob Feedback .46 .51 .55 .52 3

7. Job tha lenge .7 .69 .77 4

8, Job Pressure -.53 .40 .59 .54 6

9. Ettivienvy of lob Design -. 46 .47 .46 5

I0. Job Standards .42 .54 .60 .52 5

II. Opportunitv tor Dealing with otners .54 .13 .47 2

l.eadvrmh ip

12, Support .72 .78 .81 5

13. Coal Emphasis .72 .69 .62 4

14. Work Facilitation .80 .79 .73 5

15. Interaction Facilitation .77 .73 .70 4

lb. Planning and Coordination .61 .65 .5b 3

17. Upward Interaction .50 .48 .50 .47 2

18. Confidence and Trust - UP .61 .4Q .50 2

19. Coil idence and Ttusi - D0WN -.40 .54 .52 5

Workgroup

2 0, Cooperat ion .75 .74 .73 4

21. Friendliness and Warmth .72 .65 .61 3

22. Reputat ion for Effectiveness .59 .58 .54 1

23. Workgroup Esprit de Corps .64 .61 .69 4

Subsystem and Organizat ion

24. Openness of Expression .64 .64 .69 5

25. Organizational Communication - DOWN -.55 .62 .68 4

26. Interdepartmental Cooperation -.57 .17 .Sh '

27, Conflict of Organizational Goals and Objectives .66 .57 ,55

28. Ambiguity of Organizational Structure .66 .58 .44 I

29, Consistent Applications of Organizational Policies -.47 .45 .4b .47 4

30. Organizational Esprit de Corps .6b .hl .61 6

31. Professional Esprit de Corps .79 .67 .67 S

32. Planning and Effectiveness -.53 .5h .54 5

33. Fairness and Objectiveness of tie' Reward Process -.51 .40 .53 2

34. Opportunities for Growth and Advancement .57 .62 .61 7

35. Awareness of Employee Needs and Problems -.41 .52 .54 .56 3

Note. n - 4,315.

aOnly Loadings 1±V.401 are reported.

14

0~*

r-4 m 41 N C4AO C.4

04 0 -

U) 0 1.CU ( 0 w% 0 1 N 0

u. aCh4 0 r ,44C . 0 en-H 00 4 '- -. 00 u- 0o ~A 0 40.( I 0 ) .

0. C.) 4 I C1 IA N -

4.44

0 w4

.4 41~4.a~0

.0~~1 z-U (,4

o( r4~ 4. d-

~~a.,CU~CO -4 a) -aO

'.44

0u

35

Table 5

Correlations Between Department and Division Context and Structure

Department/Division

Variables Correlations

Context

I. Emphasis on Morale .15*

2. Emphasis on Following Standardized Procedures .06

3. Technology .13

4. Funds for Habitability .03

5. Condition of Equipment .23**

6. Rating of Personnel .23**

7. Funda and Supplies for Work .23**

Structure

8. Size of Department (Division)

9. Specialization - Jobs/Department (Division) .11

10. Configuration - Span of Control .64**

11. Configuration - Number of Levels .64**

12. General Centralization .21*

13. General Standardization -.01

14. Interdependence .14*

15. Formalization of Roles .16*

16. Centralization of Work .07

Note. n - 205 divisions with both department and division data.

< .05.

**i < .01.

36

CI

0. 04C

(0 0

4 m :m

32

x

04 "- m

(0'.' 440'4"'.~~'l 'N ( 0 1 4' .'

0L v

In.44.,

04-04 I CL

0410

0

>4>

44 0(". 0 - - C 0) 4 0 - w- > 0 v -%

w (0 z44040w v l

040

33

14

$43

41 4-40 'o 13

&j 4

I 4444N 4

'044

4.4

-4 4-to

)-4

'0 43 (

(4- 44044'H ( ~ -4

0 >

-4CW '-3' 0 0I

co I. +) g) 0 "'0 II -A V44

43 &4 -4 ' 40 mH (4 43 00 4

+i 'H W (4 CL.

w0 43 03 >i (

(.i40 0 0 0 43-4~~4 mi u04' 4 -

r- 90( 0m 4

43 410 -4 (4 41 InI-4e3l,' -4 , 0 43(4

1034 - 43 -. - - -(-Q0~ --44L'H~~~~ M4( W 4 L 3 I43~~L (4w 44 ( .1 (Li~~~ C0 +U '0 4

0 (4 43 v-I w- 43W3 . U U 4

43 .0 '4-' 44 40 44 0 43 '. 4

0 II 4 >~ 38

'H Li .4 (4 Li U

0l 11

ooK

.,I~ Nf N c

.r.1~~ ON C) een o l

co ome

,r4

co f -O -1t N t0 L41 I N - .

.3--4 a) u n ' D e(V 1- -64 -t 0 4 -4

.3-4 w4

-4-

.0 ~0H 0

44 0 % ''0 0 N

C0 A 4L 4 en eU en IM

44 4 4 m r (

z 'K 'K 'K 'K 'K 'K 'K

(U .4 44 od 0' W4 j -P&

o I - .4 A Nj -4 - N e

-6 a

C39

......... ......

Table 9

Predictive Validities for a Composite Division Criterion for Two Subsamples

Predictive Validities

Sample A Sample B

Predictors (n 76) (n - 84)

Division Context

1. Emphasis on Morale .23* .02

2, Emphasis on Standard Procedures .07 .01

3. Technology .10 .05

4. Funds for Habitability -.02 -.13

5. Condition of Equipment .37** .16

6. Rating of Personnel ,36** .52**

7. Funds and Supplies for Work .23* .36**

Division Structure

8. Size of Division -.23* -.22*

9. Specialization - Jobs/Division -.10 -. 23*

10. Configuration - Span of Control .21 .11

11. Configuration - Number of Levels -.06 .11

12. General Centralization .05 -.06

13. General Standardization .10 -.09

14. Interdependence .12 .07

15. Formalization of Roles .12 .08

16. Centralization of Work -.08 -.03

Division Climate

-7. Climate Clusters .41** .39**

Position Variables

18. Time in Navy .33** .10

19. Number of Advanced Training Schools .46** .52**

20. Number of Other Training Schools and Courses .54** .25*

Individual Resources

21. Years of Formal Education .32** .35**

22. Intellectual Aptitude .37** .33**

*L1 < .05.

**p < .01.

40

1 _______

Table 10

Cross-Validities for a Composite Division Criterion

'3ased on Unit-Weighted Predictors

Cross-Validities

Sample A Sample BPredictor Domains (n= 76) (n 84)

Division Context .41** .43**

Division Structure .21 .22*

Climate Clusters .41** .39**

Position Variables .55** .37**

Individual Resources *39** 39**

Overall .60** .55**

• < .05.

< .01.

41

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS______________________________________ BEFORECOMPLETINGFORM

1.GOVT ACCESSIO O.SRiPETS CATALOG NUMBER

4. TLE (nd ubtile)5. TYPE OF REPORT A PECRIO0 COVERED

IPsychological and Organizational climate: G. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

32imensions and Relationships,7.-A1HORb) -~~'---- . CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(@)

Allan P. JonesLawrence R./Jame&/

Ik"Y~UMNG W'NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 0.PORMEEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

11. CONITRORING AGENCY NAME AN ADDRESS difeeZ fImCnrlijOfc)I.SCRT LS.(fti eo

Bureau of Medicine & Surgery UnclassifiedDepartment of the Navy / -'DECL ASSI F C ATION/ DOWNGRADIN GWashington, D. C. 20372 1SCHEDULE

16, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different fromi Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveres aide It nec.eary and Identify by block numiber)

Psychological Climate0rganizatijnal Climate InteractionPerceived Climat ! StructureSituational Variance Context

20. ARSTRA CT (Continue an roveroo old* it necessary and Identify by block number)'->The present study represented an attempt to develop a comprehensive meas- Jure of psychological climate and to investigate the appropriateness of aggre-gating psychological climate scores to describe subuitit or organizational cli-mate. Theoretical assumptions underlying the two constructs were reviewed, an,relationships with various situational, positional, and individual variableswere posited as indices of construct validity. Analyses indicated that: N4fi!ve of six psychological climate dimtpnsions found for 4,315 U. S. Navy en-listed men were generalizable to comparison samples of firemen (a-398) and -

DD I JAN 73 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 6513I OBSOLETE UCASFES/N 102014-601SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data EInteted)

UNCLASSIFIED

.,L..iJ0ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) A

20. ABSTRACT

health care managers (n- 504); Z.)-aggregating psychological climate scores

to describe subunit climates was appropriate for homogeneous subunits (e.g.,

divisions); (*4-.subunit climates were significantly related to division con-

text, structure, and personnel composition, while psychological climate ap-

peared more related to ind4'idual resources and position variables; and tI3

subunit climate, structure, context, and personnel composition measures were

significant predictors of division performance criteria. Results were in-

terpreted relative to the theoretical properties of climate and prior research

on structure and context.

S

Ii

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIls PAGE(Wlwhn Dana Mntered)