Outcomes of Climate

Antecedents of Climate

A comprehensive treatment of the factors that create climate is largely lacking in the literature. Much more attention has been directed toward studying the outcomes of climate, rather than how climate develops or the features that create climate (Dennison, 1996). The organizational context and organizational practices are two potentially important an­tecedent variables can be gleaned from the literature.

Based on an extensive review of research, Payne and Pugh (1976) proposed a model indicating how organizational cli­mate was produced from organizational context (e.g., pur­pose, size, resources, technology) and structure (hierarchy, authority system, structuring of role activities). However, re­search evidence has only modestly supported this model (e.g., A. P. Jones & James, 1979; Payne & Pugh, 1976). Nev­ertheless, given more recent developments in the conceptual­ization of climate around a specific strategic focus, it is likely that structural aspects may yet be important antecedents of climate. For example, technical, structural, and reward sys­tems have been related to a climate for technical updating (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987). Vertical differentiation has been proposed as an important factor influencing organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), and contextual vari­ables such as size, differentiation, and centralization may be related to the number of subclimates that might be found in organizations.

Little research has examined the relationship between ac­tual practices, policies, and procedures and measures of cli­mate. This is surprising because (a) definitions of climate clearly indicate that climate is based on these practices, poli­cies, procedures, and routines; (b) organizational practices are believed to at least partially influence organizational productivity and effectiveness (Kopelman et al., 1990); and (c) climate, as a cumulative construct, suggests that an organization's practices and policies for a particular type of climate may be more predictive of organizational outcomes than focusing on the determinants of climates themselves (Klein & Sorra, 1996). It is widely believed that practices, policies, and procedures—particularly human resource man­agement practices—create the foundation for particular types of climate to develop (e.g., Klein & Sorra, 1996; Schneider, 1990), yet little research has tested this notion and climate is rarely studied as an outcome variable (Kopelman et al., 1990).

Furthermore, the beliefs, values, and role of top management have been proposed as important direct or indirect factors in­fluencing organizational climate (e.g., Ostroff & Bowen 2000). Additional issues pertaining to the formation of climate are addressed later in the climate emergence section.

Outcomes of Climate

A wide variety of global climate dimensions (e.g., participa­tion, cooperation) and climates-for (e.g., for service) have been related to various attitudinal and performance-based outcomes. By far, the most studied group of climate out­comes includes those experienced by individuals in the work­place, although some work has examined relationships between group or organizational climate and group or organi­zational outcomes.

Individual-Level Outcomes

Two types of studies have typically been conducted to examine the impact of climate on individual outcomes: (a) individual-level studies examining relations between psychological climate perceptions and individual outcomes and (b) cross-level studies whereby aggregated unit or organizational cli­mate scores are assigned to individuals and relationships to individual outcomes are examined. Empirical research has demonstrated relationships between overall climate (or global dimensions of psychological climate) and satisfaction (e.g., Johnson & Mclntye, 1998), performance (e.g., Pritchard & Karasick, 1973), stress (e.g., Day & Bedeian, 1995; Feldt, Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2000; Hemingway & Smith, 1999), involvement (Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell, 1999), role-ambiguity stressors (Hemingway & Smith, 1999), and leader-member exchange relationships (e.g., Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2000). Individual perceptions of climates-for have also been related to affective and behavioral outcomes. For example, cli­mate for technical updating has been related to commitment, satisfaction, and performance (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987), climate for justice to commitment and to helping behaviors (Naumann & Bennett, 2000), and climate for tolerance of sex­ual harassment to reports of harassment incidents (Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996). Cross-level studies have shown that unit or organizational climate is related to performance (Litwin & Stringer, 1968), helping behavior (Naumann & Bennett, 2000), accidents (e.g., Zohar, 2000), satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions, absenteeism, and involve­ment (e.g., Jackofsky & Slocum, 1988; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Ostroff, 1993b). Furthermore, the extent of agreement on over­all climate has been related both to individual outcomes and to similarity in outcomes among organizational members (Lindell & Brandt, 2000).

Subunit- and Organizational-Level Outcomes

Climate for service has been the most consistently examined climate-for at the unit and organizational levels, with studies showing relationships to customer satisfaction ratings (e.g., Johnson, 1996); customer perceptions of service quality (e.g., Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider, Parkington, & Buxton, 1980; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998); and em­ployee perceptions of service performance, which in turn are related to financial performance (e.g., Borucki & Burke, 1999). In addition, group-level climate for safety, as indexed through perceptions of supervisory actions of safety prac­tices, has been related to objectively measured injuries (Zohar, 2000). Global climate dimensions have been related to organizational effectiveness (e.g., Lindell & Brandt. 2000; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993), total quality management out­comes (Lin, Madu, & Kuei, 1999), and unit-level effective-i ness and satisfaction (e.g., Pritchard & Karasick, 1973).

Summary

Despite the now-widely accepted definition of climate as a summary perception or summated meaning that people attach to particular features of the work setting, and the shift in cli­mate from a largely generic, molar concept to one centered around a specific target or outcome, much work is needed in this area. While early research focused on links between cli­mate and key organizational variables, for many years, inves­tigations of climate have been largely based on solving methodological and definitional issues. Only recently have substantive climate investigations been gaining momentum. We believe the emerging research on "strategic climates" is a step in the right direction, but only a few climates-for have been empirically studied, and relatively little work has been conducted at the organizational level with only a narrow range of organizational outcomes studied.

More work is needed in specifying and testing theories that relate strategic climates to specific, commensurate out­comes. Similarly, it is generally acknowledged that multiple types of climate exist within an organization (e.g., Schneider & Snyder, 1975) and that organizations operate in multiple Performance domains (e.g., Cameron, 1978). Yet, the work on climates-for has almost exclusively examined one climate for something at a time. It may be fruitful to simultaneously ex­amine multiple climates-for such as a climate for employee Justice, a climate for efficiency, and a climate for customer service. Different configurations of climates are likely to be "elated to effectiveness outcomes in different performance domains, and different configurations of climates may be elated to more global indicators of effectiveness, such as Market-based performance. Furthermore, work is also needed

Relationship Between Culture and Climate 575

to determine the relative importance of global versus strategic climate dimensions for different sets of outcomes. For exam­ple, it may be that global dimensions are more relevant for individual-level attitudes and outcomes whereas strategic dimensions are important for both individual behaviors and indices of organizational effectiveness.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 690