Implications and Research Directions

Emergent Process

Elemental content differs between culture and climate. For example, the cognitions, interpretations, and schemas are based around the policies, practices, procedures, and routines in climate (Schneider & Reichers, 1983), whereas in culture they are based on assumptions, ideologies, values, and arti­facts (Schein, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993). However, the in­teraction process of emergence shares common features across culture and climate. Both can be based on homogene­ity, communication, social interactions, and leadership.

A fruitful avenue for culture and climate research would be combining the research traditions of each (cf. Rentsch, 1990; Sparrow & Gaston, 1996). For example, if a researcher is in­terested in studying the service-oriented climate, from a quan­titative perspective, the description and shared nature of the climate can be delineated. From a qualitative culture-oriented perspective, the deeper meanings and values behind this descriptively based, shared climate can be discerned. Both qualitative and quantitative studies can examine the features

that led to the shared interpretation of a service-oriented climate.

Furthermore, in climate it has been argued that percep­tions must be similar to justify moving from individual-level perceptions to higher level climate. However, the notion of compilation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000} is based on the assumption that organizational practices, policies, procedures, the socialization process, the ASA process, and related processes are not so strong as to eliminate all meaningful differences in individual members' elemental characteristics such as their cognitions, perceptions, and behaviors. For ex­ample, some organizations may desire to build an organiza­tion that has some heterogeneity of employees in order to create flexibility or promote change (Schneider & Reichers. 1983) and may intentionally select individuals for their vary­ing idiosyncratic strengths (Kozlowski & Klein). Likewise, interactions among organizational members might result in Borne dissimilarity or polarization of employees (Kozlowski & Klein). Although too much variability in fundamental elements would indicate either a fragmented climate or cul­ture or no climate or culture at all, variability in fundamental elements may not necessarily lead to lack of emergence of shared properties. Different mental models can be compatible, fit together in a complementary way (Kozlowski & Klein), and create a complementarity whereby the whole is more than the sum of the parts (Milgrom & Roberts, 1995). This implies that a configural approach (Doty & Glick, 1994) might be ap­propriate in that it is the pattern of individual elements or cog­nitions in conjunction with interaction patterns that results in the emergence of shared meanings and perceptions. Emer­gence can be equifinal in that collective phenomena may emerge in different ways and with different profiles and pat-^ terns. Thus, heterogeneity in individual elements does not pre-" elude the emergence of a collective property (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Strength

The emergent property of organizational culture or climate can be strong or weak. The general notion of strong versus weak situations is largely derived from Mischel's (1973) such that situations are strong to the degree that "they lead all per­sons to construe the particular events the same way, induce uniform expectancies regarding the most appropriate re­sponse pattern, provide adequate incentives for the perfor­mance of that response pattern, and instill the skills necessary for its satisfactory construction and execution" (p. 276). Weak situations are ambiguously coded or not uniformly in­terpreted across individuals, do not generate uniform ex­pectancies concerning the desired behavior, do not offer

Emergence of Shared Meaning and Perceptions 583

sufficient incentives for its performance, or fail to provide the learning needed for behaving appropriately.

The terms strong culture and strong climate have emerged in the literature, but have not been defined in consistent ways. We delineate three aspects of strength that encompass strong situations: (a) agreement-based strength, dealing with the extent to which employees interpret and encode the organi­zational situation in the same way, that is, the extent of agree­ment on culture or climate; (b) system-based strength, pertaining to the notion that culture or climate is pervasive and all-encompassing throughout the entire domain of orga­nizational life, imposes strong expectations on employees, and attempts to induce uniform behaviors (e.g., strong social­ization programs, training, sanctions for behaving outside norms); and (c) alignment-based strength, referring to the congruence between culture and actual organizational prac­tices (e.g., Dennison, 1990; Smart & St. John, 1996) and between organizational practices and climate.

In the emergence of organizational climate, it is likely that the perspectives delineated previously (structure, homogene­ity, social interaction, and leadership) will influence the strength of the climate. Agreement-based strength is fostered when (a) practices are administered in a way that allows indi­viduals to interpret them similarly, (b) members are homoge­nous and thus predisposed to view the organization similarly, (c) shared interpretations are developed through social inter­actions, or (d) leaders serve as filters and communicators of practices, policies, and procedures to influence members to interpret situations the same way. Indeed, without agreement-based strength or a shared sense of the climate, linkages be­tween organizational climate and subsequent outcomes at the aggregate level are unlikely to be realized (see Figure 22.1). Yet, the emergence of climate and the fostering of agreement-based strength do not necessarily lead to align­ment-based strength. The climate that is perceived should be one that was intended through the set of practices. The prac­tices, policies, and procedures, when administered in a strong (e.g., salient, consistent, fair, valid) way, provide the elemen­tal content in the form of a cognitive representation of the cli­mate. To the extent that the homogeneity process is strong and the process of administering practices is strong, similar cognitive elements should form and shared perceptions of climate should emerge that are consistent with the intent of the practices (thereby creating alignment-based strength). However, to the extent that the homogeneity process is weak or that practices are not administered in a way to create a strong situation, social interaction and leadership processes can lead to the formation of shared perceptions of climates that may or may not be consistent with what was ultimately intended.

584 Organizational Culture and Climate

Finally, system-based strength is fostered when a set of practices is developed that is internally consistent and inten­sive. Internal consistency is achieved when the members of the set of practices reinforce and support one another around a specific focus. For example, if innovation is the strategic focus and value, all the practices should help build an inter­pretation of innovation and reinforce behaviors aligned with that focus. Intensity is achieved when the organization imple­ments a wide range of practices that pervade all aspects of organizational life. For example, some organizations adopt low-intensity HRM systems, utilizing a minimum of prac­tices. In contrast, high-performance HRM systems (e.g., Becker & Huselid, 1998; Lawler. 1992) are based on the premise that employee involvement and participation are cor-. nerstones of a productive workforce. These systems encom-* pass practices such as teams, expanding job duties, employee ownership, performance-sensitive pay, and rewards based on group or organizational performance. Such a system of prac­tices would be considered intense because it involves a wide range of practices requiring a great deal of participation on the part of employees and encompass the range of organiza­tional activities (Ostroff, 1995). Intense systems affect a large number of employees and are designed to induce a uniform set of behaviors among employees (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). When agreement-based strength is fostered in conjunction with alignment-based strength between the climate and prac­tices and in conjunction with system-based strength, an orga­nizational climate emerges that is consistent with what was intended by the practices. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the resulting climate is consistent with the strategic goals and culture. Alignment-based strength between culture and practices and a strong system-based culture with intense practices that induce and reward uniform values and behavior are also needed. When strength and alignment are achieved across culture and climate, expected relationships between climate and organizational outcomes are more likely to be realized.

Subcultures and Subclimates

Subcultures and subclimates can emerge throughout the or­ganization. Within-unit social interactions, communication, interdependencies, and different leadership processes can lead to the formation of emergence of a culture or climate within a group that may differ between groups in the same or­ganization (Hofstede, 1998).

Although some have argued that subcultures and climates can meaningfully exist when core values or perceptions are consistent with the organizational culture and climate, much work is needed in examining the implications of subunit

cultures and climates. For example, this raises the question of whether in today's large, diversified, geographically dispersed organizations, there can be such a thing as organizational culture and climate. Can shared meanings and perceptions de­velop across such an organization?

Furthermore, studies have documented different team- or group-level climates within an organization. However, few studies have examined the degree of climate consistency among groups within an organization, although Griffin and Mathieu (1997) showed that aggregated climate perceptions across hierarchical levels within an organization were related. Studies are needed that include multiple groups from multiple organizations to determine whether groups within an organi­zation are more similar to one another than groups across organizations.

Although the concept of countercultures implies a negative connotation, we argue that the effects of subcultures and sub­climates depend on the extent to which they are contradictory or in opposition to each other or the extent to which they com­plement one another and potentially form a complementarity. Clearly, if two subcultures or climates produce negativity, con­flict, politics, and negative competition between groups, the subcultures are not complementary or compatible and may be detrimental both to individual responses and to organizational outcomes. However, subclimates can exist simultaneously without creating conflict (0. Jones, 2000). For example, an innovation-based climate in one division may complement a quality-based climate in another division. If the organization's strategy is to provide high-quality service or products, but at the same time it also wants to explore entry into new markets, these two different climates may exist simultaneously in dif­ferent divisions and yet produce a complementarity at the or­ganizational level. Again, this suggests that patterns across multiple strategic climates should be investigated and that dif­ferent patterns of climates may be equifinal for organizational effectiveness.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 651