CULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The change process is relevant to both culture and climate. More attention has been devoted to the process of culture change than that of climate change in the literature. Yet, cul­ture should be more resistant to change than climate (Schein,

2000).

Culture Change

There is much controversy about whether organizational cul­ture can and should be consciously changed by management

(e.g., Harris & Ogbonna, 1999; Martin, 1985; Sathe & Davidson, 2000; Smircich, 1983). Opinions range from man­agement can and should change culture (Sathe & Davidson) to the manipulation of culture can only occur naturally and is not the consequence of management's direct intervention (Ogbonna. 1993). The value and appropriateness of dis­cussing cultural change depend on one's philosophical orien­tation.

Sathe and Davidson (2000) reviewed the cultural change literature and made observations about two key unresolved is­sues. The first pertains to whether a culture's fundamental as­sumptions or ideologies can be changed, and they concluded that, in fact, some values and beliefs can. This conclusion was supported by idiographic studies showing that cultural change programs resulted in changes in employee behaviors that were consistent with the desired culture (e.g., Langan-Fox & Tan, 1997; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998) and that cultural change pro-f grams resulted in corresponding changes in organizational systems, structure, and strategy (Ogbonna & Harris). These positive results, however, must be tempered by findings from case studies showing that employees' reactions to cul­tural change are not always what they seem. Ogbonna and Harris's case study revealed that some of the employees' be­havioral change actually represented resigned compliance rather than authentic change. Their results also indicated that value changes were not uniformly positive and ranged from rejection to reorientation.

Moreover. Gilmore, Shea, and Useem (1997) identified four key side effects or unintended consequences of culture-change initiatives based on their personal observations of cul­ture change across numerous organizations over the course of six years. These side effects include ambivalent authority (i.e., who is responsible for leading change and who decides what must change), polarized images (i.e., contrasting images of and comfort with the new and old ways of doing things can po­larize employees), disappointment and blame (i.e., initial suc­cess can give rise to resistance and disappointment, which is frequently followed by finger-pointing toward perceived mal­contents and scapegoats), and behavioral inversion (i.e., new values, beliefs, and behaviors are absorbed into old ones, making the old seem new and thus preserving the status quo without appearing to do so). All told, cultural change can change fundamental values, but management must be aware of negative side effects that are likely to occur. Planning for these side effects should be included in planning a cultural-change initiative.

Sathe and Davidson's (2000) second unresolved issue is associated with the decision of how best to refreeze (Lewin, 1951) or reinforce culture change. That is, should manage­ment use extrinsic and intrinsic forms of reinforcement, and

Culture and Climate Change 585

when should they be used? Sathe and Davidson conclude that both forms of reinforcement are needed at different points in the change process. This recommendation is consistent with Stajkovic and Luthans (1997) meta-analysis of organizational behavior modification (OB Mod) research, which revealed that behavioral changes aimed at increasing productivity resulted in a 17% increase in performance when desired be­haviors where specifically tied to contingent consequences. Furthermore, Sathe and Davidson also endorsed Luthans and Kreitner's (1985, p. 128) conclusion that

natural rewards are potentially the most powerful and univer­sally applicable reinforcers. In contrast to contrived rewards, they do not generally lead to satiation (people seldom get tired of compliments, attention, or recognition) and can be administered on a very contingent basis.

Climate Change

Little research has explicitly tested whether climates change in reaction to changes in practices (Schuster et al., 1997, is an exception), and no research that we are aware of has explic­itly examined the process of how climate perceptions change over time. Nevertheless, testable theoretical explanations have been offered about the change process in climate.

Climate is formed from the practices, policies, and proce­dures of the organization. Thus, a change in practices should result in a change in the content of climate (Kopelman et al., 1990) and force a reevaluation of the situation (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994). The employee is deemed to be a receiver of the communicative content of practices and procedures (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994; Rousseau, 1995). In making inter­pretations of these practices, either automatic or systematic processing of communications (Eagley & Chaiken, 1993; Feldman, 1981) will be evoked (Guzzo & Noonan, 1994). Automatic processing entails a superficial perception and assessment of signals. In contrast, systematic processing in­volves careful attention to stimuli, extensive evaluation of and comparison with present knowledge and belief, and the making of inferences about how all this might affect one's at­titudes and behaviors. Changes in practices and communica­tions are likely to trigger systematic processing as employees derive conscious explanations of the information (i.e., as they engage in sense-making; Guzzo & Noonan, 1994). Changes in particular practices (e.g., a change from a merit-based sys­tem to profit sharing, or adding a new practice such as teams) will evoke a process of reinterpreting what the organization expects.

Furthermore, constructs may shift levels over time (Dansereau, Yammarino. & Kohles, 1999). Changes in the set

586 Organizational Culture and Climate

of practices may initially cause discord and disagreement among individuals in an organization. Hence a previously ho­mogenous group with shared perceptions that lead to an orga­nizational climate may lose their agreement with a change in practices, thereby enabling a focus on psychological climates only. Thus, a change in practice may not produce the desired change in climate content unless the process of the changed practices is delivered in an effective manner (e.g., they evoke salience, understand ability, visibility, and so forth; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). In addition, climate change is likely to fail if we do not take into consideration the underlying cultural assumptions (Schein, 2000). As noted by Reichers and Schnieder (1990), a climate survey may not yield sufficient data about the inner workings of an organization and is un­likely to be a good source of information for promoting change toward a new focus or strategic objective. In promot­ing climate change, it may be necessary to examine underly­ing cultural assumptions through other methodologies (e.g., qualitative study, attributional analysis) to determine whether the desired climate change is consistent with underlying cul­tural assumptions and to derive more information about the organization's functioning.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

We believe that the definitional distinction between what and why highlighted initially is a useful one because it indicates the interrelationship between the two constructs of culture and cli­mate as well as their differences. Researchers, theorists, and practitioners are urged to attend more carefully to whether they are referring to climate or culture and to whether they are referring to psychological or organizational climate (as de­fined previously) in an effort to help to reduce the emerging confusion between the two constructs. Although culture and climate are similar and interrelated in that they both focus on the creation and impact of social contexts, maintaining a dis­tinction between them is important if we are to understand dif­ferent aspects of the social context and shared meaning and perceptions that develop in organizational life. At the same time, we argue that there is much to be learned by examining the two streams of research simultaneously rather than ap­proaching each as a separate body of literature.

Much theory and research has addressed the layers of cul­ture, how employees and new members learn about the cul­ture, and how culture can be changed. Yet culture research, although theoretically strong in the notion of shared meaning, has done little in the way of empirically measuring or deter­mining the extent to which shared meaning exists, nor does it

have a strong tradition in defining the dimensions of culture or of developing categories of culture (Schein, 2000). In con­trast, in climate research, much attention has been devoted to content or delineating different types of climates and the types of organizational practices, policies, and goals that lead to these types of climate, but very little attention in climate has been devoted to process or how shared interpretations of climate emerge. Some of the difference in emphasis in cul­ture and climate work is likely due to measurement tech­niques that have dominated these research areas. Climate's tradition of survey research is deductive and requires that content of climate be specified a priori, whereas culture's tra­dition of observational techniques, qualitative studies, and case studies is more inductive and allows for the emergence of cultural properties but not for robust comparisons with other organizations (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, et al, 2000). Our understanding of climate could be advanced if we used the qualitative and quantitative techniques from culture research to examine the deeper values and assumptions that help lead to climate (Schein, 2000; Schneider, 2000). Similarly, cli­mate researchers could learn from culture researchers about studying the change process, while culture researchers could borrow from the strong measurement tradition, particularly about aggregation and agreement, inherent in climate re­search (Dennison, 1996; Schneider, 2000) to examine shared meaning.

Research is also needed to test many of the linkages specified in Figure 22.1, both within and between levels. Theorists and researchers are urged to take a multilevel perspective in examining culture and climate. In particular, a much-neglected area of research is the emergence from the individual level to higher levels in the formation of culture and climate. Research is needed to explore how these con­structs emerge in organizations.

We also specified that the structural context and set of orga­nizational practices, policies, and procedures are the mediat­ing mechanism between culture and climate. Future research is needed to test this notion. For example, research could assess cultural values and assumptions; actual practices as reported by managers, HR directors, and written documents; and em­ployee perceptions of these practices to test the linkages spec­ified in Figure 22.1. Related research should test alignment among culture, practices, and climate. For example, climates inconsistent with culture may result when practices are not consistent with culture or are not delivered in a way that creates a strong situation that allows for the formation of shared per­ceptions. Additional research is needed to determine both how alignment-based strength is fostered and its relation­ship to agreement-based and system-based strength in the emergence and impact of culture and climate.

The lack of relationship between culture and performance may be due to the failure to take into account the mediating mechanisms specified in Figure 22.1. Although a few studies have demonstrated relationships between climate and organi­zational performance, much more work is needed in this area. For example, there is emerging work on the link between HRM practices and organizational performance (e.g., Becker & Huselid, 1998) with assumed mediators of climate and col­lective attributes of employees, but little work has explicitly tested these relationships. Indeed, some of the contradictory findings of organizational practice-outcome relationships may be due to fact that organizational climate did not emerge (e.g., due to poor agreement-based or alignment-based strength) and hence expected relationship between practices and outcomes were not realized. Thus, multilevel research is needed to deter­mine the emergence and strength of climate from practices and its relationship to collective attributes and performance. ^PFinally, there is a lack of longitudinal research that tests reciprocal relationships among constructs and across levels. For example, organizational outcomes can have a reciprocal relationship with climate (Schneider et al, 1998). Research is needed to determine how the other feedback loops contained in Figure 22.1 operate to more fully understand relationships among culture, climate, and the effective func­tioning of organizations.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Attitudinal and normative vari­ables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 41-57.

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization.

) New York: Wiley.

Ashforth, B, E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review, 10, 837-847.

Ashkanasy, N. M„ Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. (2000). Question­naire measures of organizational culture. In N. M Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of orga­nizational culture & climate (pp. 131-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M.. & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Introduction. In N. M Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N„ & Sinha, I. B. P. (1999). Organizational culture and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 501-526.

Barley, S. R., Meyer. G. W., & Gash, D. C. (1988). Cultures of cul­ture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 24-60.

References 587

Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11, 656-665.

Bates, K. A., Amundson, S. D., Schroeder, R. G., & Morris, W. T. (1995). The crucial interrelationship between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture. Management Science, 41, 1565-1580.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid. M. A. (1998). High performance work sys­tems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and manager­ial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 16, 43-101.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory; research and methods in organizations (pp. 512-556). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borucki, C. C, & Burke, M. I. (1999). An examination of service-related antecedents to retail store performance. Journal of Orga­nizational Behavior, 20, 943-962.

Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53, 451-487.

Buenger, V., Daft, R. L„ Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. (1996). Com­peting values in organizations: Contextual influences and struc­tural consequences. Organization Science, 7, 557-576.

Burke, W. W„ & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organiza­tional performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-545.

Cameron. K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutes of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 604-632.

Campbell, J. P.. Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III. & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Casey, C. (1999). "Come, join our family": Discipline and integra­tion in corporate organizational culture. Human Relations. 52, 155-178.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of com­position models. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83, 234-246.

Chang. F. S, & Weibe, H. A. (1996). The ideal culture profile for total quality management: A competing values perspective. Engineering Management Journal, 8, 19-26.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selec­tion and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Christensen, E. W., & Gordon, G. G. (1999). An exploration of in­dustry, culture, and revenue growth. Organization Studies, 20, 397-422.

Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: Implications for the development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 185-198.

588 Organizational Culture and Climate

Cogliser, C. C, & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 487-511.

Cooke, R. A.. & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). Organizational Culture In­ventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.

Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: The relia­bility and validity of the organizational culture inventory. Psy­chology Reports, 72, 1299-1330.

Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the organizational cul­ture inventory to understand the operating cultures of organiza­tions. In N. M Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate (pp. 147— 162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corner, P. D., Kinicki, A. J., & Keats, B. W. (1994). Integrating or-m ganizational and individual information processing perspectives on choice. Organization Science, 5, 294-308.

Dansereau, F., Alluto, I. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. I., & Kohles. J. C. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some impli­cations for theory building. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 346-357.

Day, D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1995). Personality similarity and work-related outcomes among African-American nursing personnel: A test of the supplementary model of person-environment congru­ence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 55-70.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

DeLisi, P. S. (1990). Lessons from the stell axe: Culture, technol­ogy, and organizational change. Sloan Management Review, 32, 83-93.

De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 113-126.

Dennison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

Dennison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organiza­tional culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21, 619-654.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230-251.

Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Feldman, J. M. (1981). Perception, cognition, and the organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 128-138.

Feldt, T, Kinnunen, U„ & Mauno, S. (2000). A mediational model of sense of coherence in the work context: A one-year follow-up study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 461-476.

Fink, E. L., & Chen, S. S. (1995). Agalileo analysis of organizational climate. Human Communication Research, 21, 494-521.

Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources (pp. 101-145). Greenwich, CT: IAI Press.

Fiske, S. T, & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.

Fitzgerald, L. F, Drasgow, E, Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. I., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 578-589.

Gardner, B. B. (1945). Human relations in industry. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin.

George, G„ Sleeth, R. G., & Siders, M. A. (1999). Organizing cul­ture: Leader roles, behaviors, and reinforcement mechanisms. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 545-560.

George, J. R., & Bishop, L. K. (1971). Relationship of organiza­tional structure and teacher personality characteristics to orga­nizational climate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 467-

475.

Gilmore, T N., Shea, G. P., & Useem, M. (1997). Side effects of corporate cultural transformations. Journal of Applied Behav­ioral Science, 33, 174-189.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research. Acad­emy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.

Glick, W. H. (1988). Organizations are not central tendencies: Shad-owboxing in the dark, round 2 [Response]. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 13, 133-137.

Gonzalez-Roma, V., Peiro, J. M„ Lloret, S.₍ & Zornoza, A. (1999). The validity of collective climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 25-40.

Griffin, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (1997). Modeling organizational processes across hierarchical levels: Climate, leadership, and group process in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behav­ior, 75,731-744.

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

Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human resource practices as communications and the psychological contract, Human Resource Management, 33, 447-462.

Harris, L. C, & Ogbonna, E. (1999). Developing a market oriented culture: A critical evaluation. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 177-196.

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Acad­emy of Management Review, 18, 657-693.

Hatch, M. J. (2000). The cultural dynamics of organizing and change. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture <£ climate (pp. 245-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hellriegel, D., & S)ocum. J. W. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and contingencies. Academy of Management Review, 77,255-280.

Hemingway, M. A., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Organizational climate and occupational stressors as predictors of withdrawal behav­iours and injuries in nurses. Journal of Occupational and Orga­nizational Psychology, 72, 285-299.

Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture:

Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19, 477-492. ; Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990).

Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative

study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,

286-316. Hofmann, D. A.. & Stetzer, A. (3996). Across-level investigation of

factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel

Psychology, 49, 307-340. Howard, L. W. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a ^presentation of organizational cultures. International Journal ^^f Organizational Analysis, 6, 231-250. Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. R, & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational

influences on sexual harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sex-i ual harassment in the workplace (pp. 127-150). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. Jackofsky, E. E, & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988). A longitudinal study of

climates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 319-334. James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment

perceptions: Explorations in the measurement of meaning. Jour­nal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739-751. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual

agreement. Journal of'AppliedPsychology, 67, 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R, G.. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating

within-group inierrater reliability with and without response

bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

es, L. R„ Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psy-:hological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31, 783-813. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review ^; of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112. James, L. R., Joyce, W. E, & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, ^; 13, 129-132,

Johnson, J. W. (1996). Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 49, 831-852.

Johnson, J. J., & Mclntye, C. L. (1998). Organizational culture and climate correlates of job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 82, 843-850.

Jones, A. P.. & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimen­sions and relationships of individual and aggregated work envi­ronment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 201-250.

References 589

Jones, O. (2000). Scientific management, culture and control: A first-hand account of Taylorism in practice. Human Relations. 53,631-653.

Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1984). Collective climate: Agree­ment as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organization. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721-742.

Katz, D., & Kahn. R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organiza­tions. New York: Wiley.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton.

Kelman, H. C, & Hamilton, V. C. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kilduff, M„ & Corley. K. G. (2000). Organizational culture from a network perspective. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & cli­mate (pp. 211-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F, Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M. A., Hofmann, D. A., James, L. R., Yammarino, F J., & Bligh, M. C. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 512-556). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F, & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.

Klein, K. J., Cohn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agree­ment in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3-16.

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation and implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055-1088.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P.. & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B. Schnieder (Ed.), Orga­nizational climate and culture (pp. 282-318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W, J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 721-742.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, princi­ples, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (pp. 351-389). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kozlowksi. S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein. K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal,

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 770