james & james_1974_organizational climate_ a review of theory and research

Psychological Bulletin1974, Vol. 81, No. 12, 1096-1112

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE:A REVIEW OF THEORY AND RESEARCH *

LAWRENCE R. JAMES 2 AND ALLAN P. JONES

Institute of Behavioral ResearchTexas Christian University

Previous organizational climate research, definitions, and measurement ap-proaches are reviewed and differentiated into three categories, namely, amultiple measurement-organizational attribute approach, a perceptual measure-ment-organizational attribute approach, and a perceptual measurement-indi-vidual attribute approach. Similarities and differences between these approachesare discussed in an attempt to address a number of theoretical and psycho-metric concerns. A major focus is the extent to which organizational climateduplicates other organizational and individual domains. Recommendationsare made for future research which include a rationale for differentiatingbetween organizational climate and psychological or individual climate and anemphasis upon the distinction between level of measurement and level ofexplanation as related to future definitions of climate.

Organizational climate research occupies apopular position in current industrial andorganizational psychology. However, concep-tual and operational definitions, measurementtechniques, and ensuing results are highly di-verse and even contradictory. Such diversityand contradiction recently prompted Guion(1973) to conclude that organizational cli-mate represents a "fuzzy" concept. In fact,it would appear that the concept is even morediffuse now than it was when Forehand and

1 Support for this project was provided underOffice of Naval Research Contract N00014-72-A-0179-0001, Office of Naval Research Project RR042-08-01 NR170-743, and by the Bureau of Medicineand Surgery, Department of the Navy, under Re-search Work Unit SI 524 002-501SDX5F. Opinionsexpressed are those of the authors and are not tobe construed as necessarily reflecting the officialview or endorsement of the Department of theNavy.

Senior authorship was assigned randomly sincethought, work, and writing responsibility wereequally divided. During a portion of the time spenton preparation of the manuscript, the first authorwas a National Research Council Postdoctoral Re-search Fellow at the Navy Medical NeuropsychiatricResearch Unit, San Diego, California.

The authors wish to thank S. B. Sells, E. K.Gunderson, William S. Maynard, Robert L. Ellison,Lee B. Murdy, and Blair McDonald for their help-ful suggestions and advice.

2 Requests for reprints should be sent to LawrenceR. James, Institute of Behavioral Research, TexasChristian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129.

Gilmer (1964) reviewed the organizationalclimate literature approximately 10 years ago.In an attempt to gain order and directionfrom such diversity, this article reviewsthe major conceptualizations, definitions, andmeasurement approaches regarding organiza-tional climate, considers the implications ofsome of the research, and provides recom-mendations for future climate research.

The goal of this article is to review the majortheoretical concerns and relevant research re-lated to organizational climate. Rather thanattempting to present an exhaustive review ofthe organizational climate literature, this re-view focuses on articles which appear to pin-point most clearly the major theoretical issuesand which deal predominantly with organiza-tional climate in industrial or business orga-nizations. Even though the review is focused,it is felt to be representative of major areasof concern to researchers in organizationalclimate.

The following review is organized in termsof what initially appeared to be three separatebut not mutually exclusive approaches todefining and measuring organizational cli-mate. The authors have designated these ap-proaches as the "multiple measurement-orga-nizational attribute approach" which regardsorganizational climate exclusively as a set oforganizational attributes or main effects mea-surable by a variety of methods; the "percep-

1096

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE 1097

tual measurement-organizational attribute ap-proach" which views organizational climateas a set of perceptual variables which are stillseen as organizational main effects; and the"perceptual measurement-individual attributeapproach" which views organizational climateas perceptual and as an individual attribute.Each of these approaches is reviewed, fol-lowed by conclusions and recommendationsfor future research.

MULTIPLE MEASUREMENT-ORGANIZATIONALATTRIBUTE APPROACH

Representative of the multiple measurement-organizational attribute approach is the defini-nition of organizational climate as a

set of characteristics that describe an organizationand that (a) distinguish the organization from otherorganizations, (6) are relatively enduring over time,and (c) influence the behavior of people in the orga-nization [Forehand & Gilmer, 1964, p. 362].

Forehand and Gilmer postulated that the ef-fect of organizational climate on individualbehavior could be seen in terms of the defini-tion of stimuli presented to individual mem-bers, the constraints placed upon the individ-ual's freedom of choice regarding behavior,and the reward or punishment process. Di-mensions of organizational variation whichwere included in organizational climate were:size, structure, systems complexity, leadershipstyle, and goal directions. Suggested designsfor investigating organizational climate in-cluded field studies and experimental studies.Acceptable measurement procedures includedindividual perception and objective indicessuch as structure. Forehand and Gilmer statedthat the measurement of organizational cli-mate at the organizational level rests on theassumption that an internally consistent andhomogeneous set of measurements for orga-nizational climate exists for at least organiza-tional subunits and that these measurementsare relatively permanent over time.

The definition of organizational climatepresented by Forehand and Gilmer (1964) isso encompassing that it is difficult to see howtheir description of organizational climate isother than a rather broad-spectrum approachto those organizational attributes which otherauthors (Hall, Haas, & Johnson, 1967; Pugh,

Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968) have re-ferred to as components of situational vari-ance or structure. This concern becomes muchmore apparent if one refers to the presenta-tion of some of those situational variancecomponents contained in Figure 1. Interrela-tionships are not specified in this figure sinceit is presented within the context of an opensystem model (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Thecomponents were derived from numerous at-tempts to identify important components foran organizational model or to construct suchan organizational model (Burns & Stalker,1961; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick,1970; Hall et al., 1967; House & Rizzo,1972a; Indik, 1968; James, 1973; Katz &Kahn, 1966; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Pugh,Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969; Sells,1968).

The major components of situational vari-ance in an organizational model could includethe organizational context, structure, systemvalues and norms, process, and physical envi-ronment as well as the various subsystem(e.g., department) and subgroup (e.g., work-group) contexts, structures, system valuesand norms, processes, and physical environ-ments. In this presentation, the componentsof the total organization, the subsystem, andthe subgroup were combined for brevity. Ina more complete presentation, the componentsand variables within the components would beviewed as independent variables which addi-tively interact to produce the dependent mea-sures or criteria at the individual, group, sub-system, and organizational levels. Finally, afull organizational model would also includethe sociocultural environment and individualcharacteristics.

The criticism that a definition of organiza-tional climate focusing on a global inclusionof organizational characteristics makes nonew contribution to organizational theorydoes not apply only to Forehand and Gilmer(1964). For example, Frederiksen3 con-ducted a laboratory experiment on middle

3 N. Frederiksen. Administrative Performance inRelation to Organizational Climate. Paper presentedat a symposium on "Measuring managerial effective-ness." American Psychological Association, SanFrancisco, September 1968.

1098 LAWRENCE R. JAMES AND ALLAN P. JONES

ESS

rtPH

o u u o cj

§O

BHen

bo.S

oo:0o

OJ

2"o

e n tra

lizat

ion

N OJen O

nfig

urat

ion

oO

;cia

lizat

ion

ain

IT3

gPH

OH

inda

rdiz

atio

»en

S3

T3So

so

rmal

izat

ion

o

en

& •

3t/3

OOJug

T3Ga •

<urt

hH

LU

ES

AN

D N

OR

MS

>SY

STE

MS

Con

form

ity

Rat

iona

lity

Pre

dict

abili

tyIm

pers

onal

ityL

oyal

tyR

ecip

roci

tyn

of C

omm

and

•s6

Adh

eren

ce t

oan

) O

rien

tatio

n

Soao

O

u0

1-3

rogr

amm

ed)

App

roac

hes

CX

Prog

ram

med

beB

"oen

to P

robl

em

•ac

VIR

ON

ME

NT

aPH

.a1

5scd

s1PH

f

gc/3

4-1

I

Prot

ectio

nPe

rson

nel 8

Rem

oten

e

1

1

0l-l

1

Con

fine

men

t

•n

itric

tions

an

<U

tt81

e D

eman

dsE

ndur

anc

1en73

1e11 '

I

I'

oO

I


management in which the proposed climatevariables of "closeness of supervision" and"rules and regulations" were varied. Resultsof the study demonstrated that: (a) perform-ance (e.g., an In-Basket test) was more pre-dictable for subjects in an innovative climate;(b) performance was higher for subjects inconsistent climates (e.g., innovation and au-tonomy or rules and close supervision);and (c) subjects in different climates useddifferent methods to solve problems.

A second experimental study (Litwin &Stringer,' 1968) separated 45 students intothree simulated business firms with differentclimates, namely, (a) an authoritarian-structured business, (b) a democratic-friendlybusiness, and (c) an achieving business. A re-search staff member acted as president ofeach firm and was responsible for establish-ing a climate by employing the appropriate"leadership style." Subjects in the achievingbusiness had superior performance on busi-ness games, while subjects in the democratic-friendly business were more satisfied withtheir jobs. Second, the subjects' perceptionsof their experimental climate were in agree-ment with the actual conditions (Campbellet al., 1970).

Neither of these efforts appeared to gain byincluding the concept of organizational cli-mate. In the Frederiksen study, both treat-ment factors are more appropriately andsimply considered under other concepts. Therules and regulations treatment can be con-sidered as formalization of structure (exist-ence of rules) and control process (enforce-ment of rules), while closeness of supervisionis a leadership process variable. In the Litwinand Stringer study, the assumed variableunder study was leadership style which againis a leadership process. Therefore, althoughperceptions of the experimental situationagreed with the actual situation, the inclu-sion of perception added little but an alter-native measurement of the experimentallymanipulated situational variables.

From a more general standpoint, studieswhich may be included under the multiplemeasurement-organizational attribute ap-proach are determined simply by one's defini-tion of organizational climate. Using Fore-

hand and Gilmer's broad definition, the fol-lowing areas of study would be appropriate:studies of organizational models and taxono-mies (e.g., Hall et al., 1967; Indik, 1968;Katz & Kahn, 1966; Sells, 1963, 1968),organizational context (e.g., Lawrence &Lorsch, 1967; Pugh et al., 1969; Woodward,196S), and organizational structure (e.g.,Porter & Lawler, 1965; Pugh et al., 1968;Thomas & Fink, 1963). In addition, thisbroad definition would encompass systemvalues and norms (Katz & Kahn, 1966) aswell as studies on the different facets of orga-nizational and subgroup processes such asleadership, conflict, reward, communication,and control. In fact, almost any study focus-ing on organizational or group characteristicswould be included in the general area of orga-nizational climate. In this respect, organiza-tional climate appears synonymous with orga-nizational situation and seems to offer littlemore than a semantically appealing but"catch-all" term. In a field already repletewith broad, complex, and frequently mis-understood definitions, the need for yet an-other sweepingly defined term is questionable.However, as shown below, there exist sev-eral other definitions of and approaches toorganizational climate.

PERCEPTUAL MEASUREMENTS—•ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTE

APPROACH

Campbell et al. (1970) identified four gen-eral categories of the organizational situation,which are (a) structural properties, (b) en-vironmental characteristics, (c) organizationalclimate, and (d) formal role characteristics.Organizational climate was defined as:

a set of attributes specific to a particular organiza-tion that may be induced from the way the orga-nization deals with its members and its environment.For the individual member within an organization,climate takes the form of a set of attitudes andexpectancies which describe the organization in termsof both static characteristics (such as degree of au-tonomy) and behavior-outcome and outcome-outcomecontingencies [p. 390].

Of particular interest in the Campbell et al.(1970) review was that while the authorsstated that the critical elements of organiza-


tional climate were individual perceptions ofthe organization and that it was these percep-tions which governed his behavior, climateitself was viewed as a situational variable ororganizational main effect. In a. later paper,Campbell and Beaty4 stressed that organiza-tional climate was a description of the orga-nizational situation and as such must containa significant portion of the between-groupvariance.

Campbell et al. (1970), in a review andsynthesis of four studies (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Litwin & Stringer,1968; Schneider & Bartlett, 1968),5 identi-fied the following dimensions of organizationalclimate and the factors or variables on whichthey were based:

1. Individual autonomy—based on the fac-tors of individual responsibility, agent inde-pendence, rules orientation, and opportunitiesfor exercising individual initiative.

2. The degree of structure imposed uponthe position—based on the factors of struc-ture, managerial structure, and closeness ofsupervision.

3. Reward orientation—based on the fac-tors of reward, general satisfaction, promotion-achievement orientation, and being profitminded and sales oriented.

4. Consideration, warmth, and support—based on the factors of managerial support,nurturance of subordinates, and warmth andsupport.

As pointed out by the authors, the similar-ity of items in the studies and the resultingfew factors probably indicated that the listof dimensions was still incomplete, with manyfactors of organizational climate still to bedetermined.

The emphasis on the perceptual nature oforganizational climate raised several questionswhich Campbell et al. (1970) considered rele-vant. A major issue concerned the importance

*J. P. Campbell and E. E. Beaty. OrganizationalClimate: Its Measurement and Relationship to WorkGroup Performance. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Psychological Association,Washington, D. C., September 1971.

5 R. Taguiri. Comments on Organizational Cli-mate. Paper presented at a conference on organiza-tional climate. Foundation for Research on HumanBehavior, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966.

of the actual situation versus the perceivedsituation in determining behavior and atti-tudes in organizations. A second question con-cerned relationships between objective andperceptual factors, especially in terms of thedeterminants and accuracy of such percep-tions. In an attempt to answer, these ques-tions, Campbell et al. (1970) postulated thatdifferent levels of situational and individualvariation operated at different levels of expla-nation. This notion was based on Indik's(196S) linkage model which stated that thelinkage between an objective, independentorganizational variable (size) and a depen-dent variable (participation in an organiza-tion) is mediated by two sets of processes,namely, the organizational processes relatedto size (amount of communication, taskspecialization) and the psychological processesof the members (felt attraction, satisfactionwith performance). Organizational climatewas viewed as a situationally determined psy-chological process in which organizationalclimate variables were considered to be eithercausative or moderator factors for perform-ance and attitudes. The point of moderationwas either between objective situational char-acteristics or processes and behavior, or be-tween individual characteristics and behavior.

Campbell and Beaty (see Footnote 4) de-fined organizational climate as "a summaryvariable intended to represent . . . percep-tual filtering, structuring, and description ofnumerous stimuli impinging on him from thedomain we so casually refer to as 'the situa-tion' [p. 1 ]." Organizational climate was con-sidered a perceptual measure that describedthe organization and was different from atti-tudinal, evaluative, and need satisfaction vari-ables. Moreover, perceptions of organiza-tional climate were thought, as "an articleof faith," to influence the valences attachedto certain outcomes, the instrumentalities forthese outcomes, and expectations for variousstrategies to achieve these outcomes. An orga-nizational climate study of salaried personnelin a manufacturing plant indicated that (a)subjects had more finely differentiated percep-tions of their job climate than of their totalorganization's climate, (b) a significant por-tion of climate variance was attributable tosubunit differences (rather than individual


differences in perceptions), and (c) climateperceptions were significantly, but not highly,related to measures of work group perform-ance. Seven dimensions of organizational cli-mate that were common to both overallorganization and the work group were: taskstructure, reward/performance relationship,decision centralization, achievement emphasis,training and development emphasis, securityversus risk, and openness versus defensiveness.

Pritchard and Karasick (1973) also re-defined organizational climate based upon anumber of previous definitions (Gellerman,1959; Georgopoules, 1965; Gilmer, 1966;Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Taguiri, 1968)6:

Organizational climate is a relatively enduring qualityof an organization's internal environment distin-guishing it from other organizations; (a) which re-sults from the behavior and policies of members oforganizations, especially top management; (&) whichis perceived by members of the organization; (c)which serves as a basis for interpreting the situation;and (d) acts as a source of pressure for directingactivity [p. 126].

Pritchard and Karasick used a portion ofCampbell's organizational climate question-naire to study the climate perceptions of 76managers from two organizations. Resultsdemonstrated that perceptions of organiza-tional climate were influenced by both theoverall organization and its subunits, that cli-mate scores correlated with individual satis-faction and subunit performance (but notindividual performance), and that some di-mensions of organizational climate moderatedthe individual characteristics—performanceand satisfaction relationships.

The reviews and studies discussed in thissection have stipulated that organizational cli-mate should be measured perceptually. How-ever, while the need for differentiating be-tween different levels of explanation for astructural variable such as span of controland an organizational climate dimension suchas perceived autonomy is somewhat evident,many of the dimensions cited as organiza-tional climate are not clearly distinct from

6 H. Meyer. Differences in Organizational Climatein Outstanding and Average Sales Offices: A Sum-mary Report. ' Behavioral Research Service andPublic Relations Personnel Service, General ElectricCompany, 1967.

other variables which fit into categories suchas organizational structure, process, and sys-tem values and norms. For example, if onedisregards the constraints of perceptual mea-surement in the four factors of organizationalclimate presented by Campbell et al. (1970),it would appear that the degree of "individualautonomy" and the degree of "structure im-posed upon position" could be measuredequally well by objective variables for formali-zation, standardization, and specialization ofstructure, and by observable measures ofleadership, control, and decision-making proc-esses. The dimension of "consideration,warmth, and support" appears to be a func-tion of leadership and group process whichare also amenable to outside measurement.The "reward orientation" dimension appearsto be confounded by including both situa-tional components (organizational promotion-achievement orientation and being profit- orsales-minded) measurable by procedures otherthan perception and measures such as satis-faction, typically viewed as individual notsituational properties.

The same general criticism could be appliedto the Campbell and Beaty (see Footnote 4)and Pritchard and Karasick (1973) studies.Dimensions such as "task structure," "deci-sion centralization," and "training develop-ment emphasis" have obvious corollaries onthe objective side of measurement. Dimen-sions such as "achievement emphasis," "secu-rity versus risk," and "openness versus defen-siveness" also appear to be amenable to bothobjective and observational measurement. Afactor such as "perceived reward/performancerelationships" is questionable as an organiza-tional attribute because it refers directly toexpectancy theory in motivation and thus isattitudinal rather than situational.

Observations such as the above led Guion(1973) to conclude that the stipulation ofperceptual measurement of organizational cli-mate appeared to be "more a function ofmethodological convenience than a deliberateintention to move to a new construct . . .[p. 121]." However, although the terminol-ogy and definitions of the perceptual measure-ment-organizational attribute approach haveemphasized organizational climate as anorganizational attribute and situational des-


cription, in each case organizational climatehas also been considered as something aboveand beyond a measurement of the organiza-tional situation. Campbell et al. regardedorganizational climate at the individual levelas including individual differences in percep-tions and attitudes; Campbell and Beaty re-garded it as a perceptual filtering; andPritchard and Karasick described it as a setof organizational expectations.

The additions above to a purely descriptivemeasurement of the organizational situationdemonstrated the emphasis placed on the"psychological process" in the linkage model(Indik, 1965) described earlier. Additionssuch as these prompted Guion (1973) to con-clude that climate researchers were confusedas to whether climate was an organizationalattribute or an individual attribute. If con-sidered an organizational attribute but mea-sured perceptually, then Guion concluded thatthe accuracy of perception should be vali-dated against objective, external measures ofthe situation or at least validated againstconsensus of perceptions.

In other words, if a situational variable isto be used to describe climate and the vari-able may be measured objectively as well asperceptually; the use of an accumulated mea-sure of individual perceptions (e.g., mean,mode, etc. of the group) may be validatedby demonstrating a substantial relationshipbetween the objective and perceptual mea-sures of that variable (i.e., accuracy of per-ception). On the other hand, for situationalvariables which are more amenable to subjec-tive measurement, a demonstration of smallwithin-group variance (e.g., consensus of per-ception) has been used to validate the useof accumulated perception as a measure ofthat variable. It should be noted that al-though accuracy would imply consensus, theobverse is not necessarily true since individ-uals may share inaccurate perceptions of thesituation. However, the extent to which theindividual's perceptions (whether accurate orinaccurate) are shared and supported byothers in the organization has been shown tobe an important situational influence (Blau,1960; Davis, Spaeth, & Huson, 1961). Thereis also considerable evidence that the individ-ual tests the accuracy of his own perception

against the perceptions of others in the samesituation (Asch, 1958; Kelley & Thibaut,1969; Shaw, 1971). For example, the situa-tional influence on individual behavior andperformance may be somewhat different whenthere is group consensus than when there is adiversity of perception by others. In the lattercase, the individual is more likely to relyupon himself for validation than to conformto the group perceptions. However, a demon-stration of consensus of perception should notnegate a concern for accuracy since objec-tive measures of organizational attributes areneeded to determine the accuracy of percep-tion, the antecedents of perception, and rela-tionships between accuracy and future statesof behavior (Guion, 1973).

The above are, of course, empirical prob-lems but would indicate the need to considerrelationships between perception and the ob-jective situation as well as the appropriatenessof perceptual information to describe an or-ganizational attribute. Perception has beendefined as "the meaningful interpretation ofsensations as representatives of external ob-jects. . . . Perceptions are the sole internalrepresentatives of external objects—the mind'sreflection of matter [Cohen, 1969, p. 6]."However, perceptual responses may be af-fected by such processes as: (a) selectivity ofstimuli, (b) organization of stimulus patterns,(c) frequency of previous experience withstimulus patterns and responses, (d) rein-forcement history, (e) conditions prevalent atthe moments of perception, and (/) indicatorsor measurement procedures of perception(Secord & Backman, 1964). Thus, percep-tion is an internal representation of externalobjects and is subject to influence by severalindividual differences.

It is interesting, also, to compare percep-tion to attitude. Campbell and Beaty (seeFootnote 4) described attitude as an "affec-tive evaluation of some object" (e.g., Money isevil.), while perceived organizational climatewas defined as a "description of the currentorganizational state vis-a-vis some facet of thesituation" (e.g., The general level of finan-cial rewards in this organization is about thesame as for similar organizations.). Job satis-faction was differentiated from both of theabove and was described as a "comparison of


the degree of attainment of some job outcomewith the individual's need for it" (e.g., Mysalary is inadequate.). Schneider7 also dif-ferentiated between organizational climate andjob satisfaction, seeing organizational climateas the beliefs people hold about an organiza-tion, while job satisfaction was conceived ofas an evaluative reaction to the organization(e.g., satisfied/not satisfied, good/bad, just/unjust) based upon an interaction betweenthe job environment and personal needs andvalues. Unfortunately, the distinctions abovebetween organizational climate, attitudes, andjob satisfaction (often viewed as a job atti-tude) are based on a somewhat questionablestatic model. For example, current attitudinaltheory seems to agree upon a three-com-ponent model (Fishbein, 1967; Katz, 1960;Rosenberg & Abelson, 1960) including: (a)a cognitive component or a person's beliefs ordisbeliefs about the properties of an object;(b) an affective component which concernslike/dislike, good/bad, etc., and that is capa-ble of arousing affect; and (c) a behavioralcomponent because the attitude represents apredisposition to respond in a particular waytoward a specified set of objects. It is possi-ble for a belief, or perception, to exist with-out the remaining two components of atti-tudes (Rokeach, 1968); however, it is morecommonly assumed that beliefs are related toat least affect (Johannesson, 1973; Robinson,Athanasiou, & Head, 1969). Thus, a dynamicmodel involving feedback from experiences,rewards, etc., points out that perceptions areaffected by individual differences including,but not limited to, the affective componentsof attitudes.

Returning to the perceptual definition oforganizational climate, it would seem that thereliance on perceptual measurement may beinterpreted as meaning that organizationalclimate includes not only descriptions of situ-ational characteristics, but also individualdifferences in perception and attitudes. This issomewhat confusing if one wishes to employorganizational climate as an organizational

attribute or main effect, since the use of per-ceptual measurement introduces variancewhich is a function of differences betweenindividuals and is not necessarily descriptiveof organizations or situations. Therefore, theaccuracy and/or consensus of perception mustbe verified if accumulated perceptual organi-zational climate measures are used to describeorganizational attributes (Guion, 1973).

Johannesson (1973) recently addressed thequestion of accuracy and/or consensus of per-ception when he investigated relationshipsbetween perceptually measured organizationalclimate and variables from the job attitudeliterature. This author examined the relation-ships between organizational climate clusterscores and cluster scores based upon the SRA(Science Research Associates) Employee In-ventory and the Job Description Index(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). It was as-sumed that the organizational climate clusterswould be related to the job attitude clustersbecause of similarities in items and measure-ment and because of the dynamic relationshipbetween perceptions and attitudes discussedpreviously. Results of the study demonstratedthat "by and large, organizational climate asmeasured in this study failed to add new ordifferent variance to commonly identified sat-isfaction factors [p. 141]."

The relationships between perceived or-ganizational climate and job attitudes foundby Johannesson have been seen as indicatingthat perceived organizational climate is morea function of individual attributes than oforganizational attributes (Guion, 1973). How-ever, it may also be the case that both per-ceived organizational climate and job atti-tudes covary because of similar differences insituations, and that ascertaining only therelationships between organizational climateand job attitudes may lead to erroneous con-clusions. For example, James and Hornick8

demonstrated that perceived organizationalclimate was significantly related to objective

7B. Schneider. The Perceived Environment: Orga-nizational Climate. Paper presented at a symposiumon "Redefining organizations by means of multi-variate techniques." Midwestern Psychological Asso-ciation, Chicago, May 1973.

8L. R. James & C. W. Hornick. An Analysis ofCriteria, Situational Data, Organizational Climateand Individual Characteristics: Results of a PilotStudy. Paper presented at a symposium on "Orga-nizational analysis: Models, methods and criteria."American Psychological Association, Montreal, August1973.


situational measures (organizational size mea-sures and job type), individual characteristicmeasures (education, socioeconomic status,intelligence, race, and time in service), andjob attitude measures including significantmultiple correlations with the Job Descrip-tion Index. Jones,9 using the same data,demonstrated significant differences in organi-zational climate between organizations (e.g.,ships). Campbell and Beaty (see Footnote 4)also demonstrated differences in perceivedorganizational climate across subunits.Finally, Herman and Hulin (1972) demon-strated that differences in job attitude mea-sures (satisfaction and some perceived envi-ronment items) were more highly accountedfor by organizational structural groupingsthan by individual characteristics, althoughthe number of individual characteristic varia-bles was quite limited (e.g., age, tenure, andeducation). These studies demonstrated thatthe degree to which perceived climate is basedupon individual differences in job attitudes(or vice versa) rather than differences in sit-uations requires additional empirical valida-tion of the accuracy and/or consensus or theorganizational climate data.

The uniqueness of the variables and/orconstructs underlying perceived organizationalclimate has been questioned from anotherstandpoint. House and Rizzo (1972b) com-pared 19 Organization Description Question-naire climate scores with two role theoryscores (role ambiguity and role conflict), asatisfaction score, and five leadership scores(initiating structure, tolerance of freedom,consideration, production emphasis, and pre-dictive accuracy). Using an adaptation of themultitrait-multimethod matrix (Campbell &Fiske, 1959), these authors concluded thatmany Organization Description Questionnaireclimate scores measured the same constructsas the role, satisfaction, and leadership scores.

To summarize, the review of the percep-tual measurement-organizational attribute ap-proach has raised a number of conceptual and

9 A. P. Jones. Functioning of Organizational UnitsRelated to Differences in Perceived Climate andHabitabiKty. Paper presented at a symposium on"Organizational analysis: Models, methods and cri-teria." American Psychological Association, Montreal,August 1973.

empirical points. First, if perceived organiza-tional climate is to be used to measure anorganizational attribute, the accuracy of theperception should be considered. The questionof accuracy would appear to require multiplesources of situational measurement for valida-tion purposes. Moreover, the question of con-sensus or agreement among perceivers is alsomajor. The requirement for purely perceptualmeasurement does not permit a differentiationbetween such diverse but importantly differ-ent situations as: (a) inconsistent or capri-cious leader behavior, (b) leader behavioradapted to individual needs, (c) differences inperception caused by perceivers having differ-ent opportunities to observe leader behavior,(d) differences in perception related only toindividual characteristics, and (e) instrumenterror. Thus, it must again be stated that dif-ferent sources of measurement of organiza-tional climate are needed, thereby appearingto negate the requirement or stipulation forpurely perceptual measurement.

A recommendation for dropping the stipu-lation of perceptual measurement of organi-zational climate has support from severalother standpoints. The authors reviewed inthis section regarded perceived organizationalclimate as a psychological process interveningbetween organizational processes and depen-dent variables, and operating at a level of ex-planation different from organizational proc-esses such as "task specialization" or "amountof communication," or such situational com-ponents as organizational structure and "for-mal role characteristics" (Campbell et al.,1970). This conceptualization is rejected fortwo reasons. First, as already discussed, thereis both rational and empirical evidence todemonstrate that much of what is being mea-sured by questions regarding perception arevariables related to different levels of expla-nation such as the organizational, subsystem,or group context (e.g., goals), certain aspectsof structure (e.g., formalization), systemvalues and norms (e.g., impersonality), proc-ess (e.g., leadership), and role characteristics.Within similar situations, individual differ-ences in perceptions (e.g., lack of consensus)regarding these variables would appear to rep-resent not climate but other sources of vari-ance which may not be situational in nature.


Second, if organizational climate is seen asencompassing some situational variables suchas leadership, autonomy, and formalization,but not other situational variables such assize, shape, and span of control, the criterionfor differentiation is not at all clear. Level ofexplanation is not a viable criterion becausemeasures such as formalization are organiza-tional in the same sense as size, shape, andso on (Pugh et al., 1968).

Of additional concern is the possibility thatthe perceptual measurement-organizationalattribute approach may inherently include alogical inconsistency. On one hand it proposesto measure organizational attributes whichhave been shown to vary across levels of ex-planation (e.g., total organization, subsystemand group; or from a related standpoint,causal and process variables), while on theother hand it is considered a psychologicalprocess which operates at a level of explana-tion separate from objective organizationalcharacteristics and organizational processes.This seems to confound stimulus propertieswith response properties. Organizational at-tributes represent stimulus conditions (Fore-hand & Gilmer, 1964), while perceptuallymeasured organizational climate represents aset of responses to the organizational char-acteristics and processes. The psychologicalprocess level of explanation places emphasison the characteristics of responses, namelyindividual differences which may or may notbe congruent with stimulus conditions. Thus,it appears inconsistent to require the sameset of organizational climate data to be ac-curate measures of organizational stimuli andsimultaneously to be representative of theresponse-oriented psychological process levelof explanation.

PERCEPTUAL MEASUREMENT—INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTE APPROACH

Many of the features identifying this thirdapproach to climate were presented in a seriesof articles by Schneider and his associates(Schneider, 1972, 1973; Schneider & Bartlett,1968, 1970; Schneider & Hall, 1972).Schneider and Hall (1972) described organi-zational climate as a set of summary or globalperceptions held by individuals about theirorganizational environment. These summary

perceptions reflected an interaction betweenpersonal and organizational characteristics, inwhich the individual by forming climate per-ceptions, "acts as an information processor,using inputs from (a) the objective events inand characteristics of the organization and(b) characteristics (e.g., values, needs) ofthe perceiver [p. 447]." Climate took the"form of situation specific values" whichreflected "those aspects of the situationto which individuals attach importance[Schneider, 1973, p. 248]." The value or im-portance of organizational characteristics wasreflected by the selected events perceived andthe climate perceptions formed from such per-ceived events. Thus, organizational climatewas viewed as a summary evaluation ofevents based upon the interaction betweenactual events and the perception of thoseevents. In a later paper, Schneider (see Foot-note 7) described climate perceptions as theresults of a process of concept formation, notunlike instrumentality perceptions, based uponmacro-observations of the organization.

Climate was further conceptualized as an"intervening variable" because it was causedby discrete experiences (both organizationaland individual) and in turn caused later be-haviors. Because of its intervening and per-ceptual nature, organizational climate wasregarded as neither an independent variablesubject to manipulation nor an outcome cri-terion. Second, and of major importance, or-ganizational climate was seen as an individualattribute. For example:

The concept of climate in the present research mustbe described as personalistic; climate is an individualperception. There was no attempt to restrict theclimate definition to perceptions shared by membersof a workgroup or organization. As stated elsewhere[Schneider & Bartlett, 1970], "what is psychologi-cally important to the individual must be how heperceives his work environment, not how othersmight choose to describe it [p. 510] [Schneider,1973, p. 254]".

Schneider stated further (1973) that thedata collected should be appropriate for thelevel of explanation and that shared percep-tions of climate may be important for pre-dicting the behavior of many individuals.

Such a conceptualization of organizationalclimate bears many similarities to that pro^


vided in the previous approach. In bothschools of thought, organizational climate isseen as a summary perception or interveningvariable based upon the interaction betweenthe individual and the environment and isvery similar to the Indik (1965) or Campbellet al. (1970) concept of psychological proc-ess. The major point of differentiation be-tween the two schools, however, is the presentapproach's focus on organizational climate asan individual rather than an organizationalattribute. This is partly a function both ofthe level of explanation employed (e.g., pre-dicting individual behavior) and of the focusof measurement.

Schneider and Bartlett (1968, 1970) con-structed the Agency Climate Questionnairefor assessing the organizational climate in lifeinsurance agencies. Factor analysis of 80 ques-tionnaire items provided the following sixfactors: managerial support, managerial struc-ture, concern for new employees, intra-agencyconflict, agent independence, and general sat-isfaction. Results of analyses on 228 agenciesfrom two companies demonstrated a lack ofagreement on agency climate among employeesin different hierarchical levels in the agencies(e.g., manager, assistant manager, andagents). A later study (Schneider, 1972) dem-onstrated that new agent expectations ofagency climate had low but significant corre-lations with the climate described by differentlevels of agency personnel, while new agentpreferences for climate were not significantlyrelated to the agency climate as described bydifferent levels of personnel. Schneider andHall (1972), in a study of the relationshipsbetween job climate, specific work activities,and perceived importance of work activitiesfor Roman Catholic diocesan priests, foundthat perceptions of work climate were signifi-cantly related to reported task activities al-though not necessarily to the importance ofthe task activities. The relationships betweenwork climate and task activities were mod-erated by position. The authors concludedthat climate represented a "summary evalu-ation" based on specific job behaviors. Fi-nally, Schneider (1973) investigated howcustomer perceptions of bank climate influ-enced customer behavior (switching accountsto another bank). Climate was again visual-

ized as a summary variable, intervening be-tween perceptions of "specific service-relatedevents" and account switching. Results dem-onstrated that the two items representingsummary perceptions (e.g., atmosphere iswarm and friendly, employees bend over back-wards) were more highly related to switch"intentions" than were perceptions of specificservice-related events (e.g., tellers do not helpeach other, high caliber people, employeesseem happy, employees treat all as equals).Second, the perceptions of specific eventswere more highly related to climate than toswitch intentions. Schneider (1972, p. 251)interpreted these results as providing "tenta-tive support for the hypothesis that sum-mary perceptions may be based on more spe-cific perceptions and that customer behaviormay be based more on summary perceptionsthan on less abstract perceptions."

Friedlander and Margulis (1969), employ-ing reasoning similar to Schneider, viewed therelationships between situational variablesand individual variables as dependent on theintervening variables of perceived organiza-tional climate. However, an important de-parture from Schneider was the theoreticaldifferentiation of organizational climate as asituational variable that exists and is assumedto affect the individual versus perceived or-ganizational climate, which is a function ofindividual characteristics as well as situationalcharacteristics. These authors used an adapta-tion of the Organizational Climate Descrip-tion Questionnaire (Halpin, 1966; Halpin &Croft, 1963) to measure perceived organiza-tional climate. The adapted questionnaire con-sisted of 64 descriptive statements comprisingeight dimensions. Four of the dimensionsdescribed member behaviors (disengagement,hindrance, esprit, and intimacy) while theother four described leadership behaviors(aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, andconsideration). Results demonstrated that dif-ferent sets of organizational climate compo-nents were related to different aspects ofsatisfaction, although such relationships weremoderated by the work values held by theemployees. A later study (Friedlander &Greenberg, 1971) found that perceived or-ganizational climate measures of supportive-ness (new worker treatment, support from


peers, and support from supervisors) corre-lated significantly with work effectiveness andbehavior for a sample of the hard-core unem-ployed.

The review above of the perceptual mea-surement-individual attribute approach is notexhaustive, but appears sufficiently represent-ative of the approach to serve as a basis forthe following critique. Although this schoolof thought assumes that situational and indi-vidual characteristics interact to produce athird set of perceptual, intervening variables,such an assumption does not mean that per-ceived climate is different from an individualattribute. Rather, the intervening variablesare individual attributes which provide abridge between the situation and behavior.The point is that the interaction, intervention,and perception, while perhaps distinct in aconceptual model, take place in the individualand therefore are individual attributes. Thisis clearly -seen both in Schneider's descriptionof organizational climate perception as aprocess of concept formation and in the pre-vious discussion on the dynamic relationshipsbetween perception and attitudes. Accuracyand/or consensus are not a question whenclimate is treated as an individual attributebecause it is the individual's perceptions thatare important, not the objective situation(Guion, 1973).

Many of the criticisms of organizationalclimate as a perceived organizational attri-bute are equally appropriate for climate as aperceived individual attribute. The Houseand Rizzo (1972b) demonstration that manyorganizational climate dimensions measure thesame constructs as well-known role and lead-ership factors is an example. Schneider's(1972) factors for managerial support andmanagerial structure are leadership factors,as are four of the organizational climate mea-sures in the Friedlander and Margulis (1969)study and at least one of the organizationalclimate measures in the Friedlander andGreenberg (1971) study. Moreover, Schneiderand Hall's (1972) work or job challenge fac-tor was certainly not new to the organiza-tional literature. It may also be the case thatsome of the organizational climate measurescould be measured objectively (e.g., agentindependence), although the relationships be-

tween the objective situation and the per-ceived situation were not investigated in thestudies above. Investigations of relationshipsbetween objective situational measures andperceived organizational climate would be abeneficial and a necessary addition to suchstudies since a major assumption made by theindividual attribute theorists is that the per-ceived situation is more important than theobjective situation in determining individualbehaviors. This may not always be the case.For example, Hackman and Lawler (1971)found that perceptions of job characteristicswere largely determined by objective job char-acteristics. In any event, the nature of theinteraction between the objective situationand the perceived situation needs a substan-tial amount of clarification.

The perceptual measurement-individual at-tribute approach to organizational climate hasbeen forcefully criticized by Johannesson(1973), who concluded that "assessing cli-mate via perceptual self-report measures mayresult in the replication of the work attitudeliterature [p. 1181" and by Guion (1973),who stated that the conceptualization of or-ganizational climate as an individual attributeamounted to a "rediscovery of the wheel."This should not be construed to mean thatthe idea of perceptual intervening variables isin question, but rather that the perceivedintervening variables have already been iden-tified and a new term such as climate is notneeded. However, as noted previously jobsatisfaction and perceived climate may bedynamically related and still provide some-what different sources of related information;for example, climate provides descriptive in-formation, often contaminated by satisfaction,while satisfaction provides actual evaluationsand reactions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Three approaches to conceptualizing andmeasuring organizational climate have beenreviewed. These approaches are: (a) the mul-tiple measurement-organizational attribute ap-proach, (£) the perceptual measurement-organizational attribute approach, and (c) theperceptual measurement-individual attributeapproach. With respect to these approaches,


a major concern is that many climate re-searchers appear to be more concerned withmeasurement techniques than with under-standing and explicating the underlying con-cepts or constructs they were attempting tomeasure. Only after the conceptual bound-aries of organizational climate are spelled outshould the measurement and operationaliza-tion become matters of major concern. Inother words, the definition should guide mea-surement rather than available tools and psy-chometric limitations serving to delimit thedefinition. As was made apparent by theprevious review, organizational climate re-searchers have adopted the latter approachfar more frequently than the former.

As a first step in reconceptualization, it isrecommended that a differentiation be madebetween climate regarded as an organizationalattribute and climate regarded as an individualattribute. When regarded as an organizationalattribute, the term organizational climate ap-pears appropriate. When regarded as an indi-vidual attribute, it is recommended that anew designation such as "psychological cli-mate" be employed. With respect to the threeapproaches, the term organizational climatewould include the multiple measurement-or-ganizational attribute approach under whichthe perceptual measurement-organizationalattribute approach would be subsumed sinceit was recommended that the stipulation ofonly perceptual measurement be dropped. Theterm psychological climate would be appliedto the perceptual measurement-individual at-tribute approach. The term psychological cli-mate was selected because of the emphasisplaced on the intervening psychological proc-esses in the individual attribute approach.

A major advantage to differentiating be-tween organizational climate and psychologi-cal climate is the additional clarity permittedin both the definition and measurement ofclimate. This does not detract, however, fromthe fact that both organizational climate andpsychological climate are subject to serioustheoretical and methodological questions. Theremainder of this article focuses upon thesequestions and upon recommendations forfuture conceptualizations and research. Ques-tions and recommendations are presented

separately for organizational climate andpsychological climate.

With respect to organizational climate, thepresent authors feel that a definitive concep-tual statement of the nature of organizationalclimate is not possible at the current stageof research. One of the strongest recommenda-tions made by the present authors is thatconsiderable energy be directed toward thesystematic and thoughtful investigation ofconceptual bounds of organizational climate,so that researchers may ascertain the specificvariables, dimensions, and constructs to be in-cluded in the organizational climate domainand, more importantly, the ways such dimen-sions supersede or differ from other variables,dimensions, and constructs previously used tostudy situational characteristics. It is recom-mended that psychologists abandon the naiveand seemingly empty dichotomies of "organi-zational structure versus organizational cli-mate" and attempt to develop realistic andintegrative models of organizations. .Some in-sight into potential roads of development ofsuch models was provided by the Indik(1968) or Sells (1963) typologies of organi-zations which separated situational variablesinto a number of domains or components andaddressed several levels of explanation.

Of additional concern is the use of percep-tual measurement of organizational climate.As pointed out earlier, if perceptual measure-ment is to be used, variance in scores must beshown to be related to differences in situa-tions rather than differences in individuals.The distinction may be difficult to interpret inreal situations, however, since in any groupor organization there are likely to be differ-ences between individuals in terms of the ac-tual situation in which their role places themand therefore differences in their perceptionsof climate. Moreover, there is a great proba-bility that the fact of consensus or diversityof perception among the members of an or-ganization is itself a potential situational in-fluence capable of altering the climate ex-perienced by the individual. Therefore, it isrecommended that considerable attention bedirected to the development of objective mea-sures of organizational climate variables. Ifperceived measures are to be used as organi-


zational attributes, then it is strongly sug-gested that the accuracy of perceptions oforganizational climate be ascertained by de-termining their relationships to objective mea-sures, so that variance attributed to individualdifferences in perception can be separatedfrom variance attributed to the particularrole, task, or situation in which the individualresides.

In sum, organizational climate appears tohave been used primarily as a global conceptor summary category which tends to be tauto-logical in that it duplicates other situationalcharacteristics generally considered as con-text, structure, process, and so forth. Second,perceptual forms of measurement may also betautological with individual differences mea-sures. Thus, in most usages organizationalclimate would neither deserve a separate com-ponent in an organizational model nor qualifyas a construct because even the rudiments ofa nomological net are unidentified. On theother hand, there would appear to be othertypes of situational influences which might beappropriately considered organizational cli-mate and which may go beyond known situ-ational characteristics. One example of thistype of variable is the role of consensus ofperceptions of the environment and the influ-ence of consensus or lack of it upon behavior.Another example might be variables or di-mensions which represent a separate state ofevents stemming from interactions betweenknown situational characteristics but whichgo beyond a summary or composite measure-ment of these characteristics. Examples mightinclude organizational pressure on groups orindividuals or friendliness and warmth of thegroup environment. All of the examples aboveare amenable to multiple forms of measure-ment. Presently, however, the nature and roleof such situational and potential climate varia-bles remain to be discovered.

Many of the questions above and recom-mendations also apply to psychological cli-mate. However, psychological climate appearsto provide a step toward the formulation ofspecific theoretical statements regarding thenature of the intervening psychological proc-ess between the organizational situation andthe attitudes and behavior of individual mem-

bers of the organization. It is expected thatmany of the variables related to psychologicalclimate would be similar to organizationalclimate variables, although there would prob-ably be several differences in the operationali-zation of such variables depending upon thelevel of explanation (e.g., organization, sub-group or subsystem, and individual). As withorganizational climate, the question must beasked whether psychological climate is atruly explanatory construct or merely a globalconcept used for categorical purposes. First,something resembling psychological climatedoes appear to deserve a separate componentin an organizational model in order to en-compass the concepts of psychological proc-ess (Indik, 196S) or intervening variables(Friedlander & Margulis, 1969; Schneider,1972, 1973). Whether this intervening proc-ess is designated psychological climate, jobattitude, job satisfaction, etc., is still open toquestion. On the other hand, no attemptshave been made to develop a nomological netfor psychological climate and therefore thisterm does not as yet justify the use of theterm construct or family of constructs.

Research related to psychological climateneeds to address a number of issues of whichtwo appear paramount. The first of theserequires a systematic investigation of rela-tionships between psychological climate andorganizational climate, in which at least someorganizational climate variables are measurednonperceptually. Such investigation wouldgreatly enhance efforts toward an empiricalisolation of variables which vary more as afunction of individual attributes than organi-zational attributes. In other words, attentionmust be paid to determining the interactionbetween conditions of the organization andvarious individual characteristics which leadto a particular perceived or psychological cli-mate. Second, the distinction between organi-zational climate and psychological climatepermits the assessment of the differential im-portance of these two sets of variables inpredicting both individual attitudes and be-haviors and performance on an organizationalor group level. The second issue which psy-chological climate research needs to addressconcerns the relationship or differentiation


between psychological climate and known jobattitude variables. Although it appears possi-ble to distinguish conceptually between cogni-tive or perceptual domains and satisfaction oraffective domains, the actual extent of co-variance between these two domains withinand across organizational settings requiresfurther empirical research. In particular, re-search designed to investigate the relationshipsbetween psychological climate (or organiza-tional climate) and job attitudes (e.g., Jo-hannesson, 1973) needs the additional clari-fication provided by including objective sit-uational measures in the design,

In summary, the following recommenda-tions have been proposed for future climateresearch:

1. Theoretical and conceptual issues shouldserve to guide measurement and not be de-nned in terms of specific measurement tech-niques.

2. Organizational climate should be differ-entiated from psychological climate. Organi-zational climate refers to organizational at-tributes, main effects, or stimuli, whilepsychological climate refers to individualattributes, namely the intervening psycho-logical process whereby the individual trans-lates the interaction between perceived or-ganizational attributes and individual char-acteristics into a set of expectancies, attitudes,behaviors, etc.

3. With respect to organizational climate,the following recommendations appear needed:(a) to determine the conceptual bounds,variables, and dimensions relevant to theorganizational climate domain; (b) to inves-tigate the relationships between multiplesources of measurement of organizational cli-mate variables, both objective and subjective;(c) to determine the accuracy of perceptualorganizational climate measurements withrespect to objective organizational climatevariables; (d) to ascertain the role of con-sensus versus diversity of perception as asituational influence; (e) to develop realisticorganizational models for organizational analy-sis and to determine the position of organiza-tional climate in such models; (/) to ascertainappropriate levels of explanation for eachlevel of analysis for the data (e.g., can per-

ceptual measures be accumulated to representgroup, subsystem, or organizational levels ofexplanation); (g) to investigate relationshipsbetween measures of organizational climateand both individual behavior and attitudesand organizational performance.

4. With respect to psychological climate,the following recommendations appearneeded: (a) to determine the conceptualbounds, variables, and dimensions relevant tothe psychological climate domain; (b) toinvestigate the relationships between psycho-logical climate and organizational climate,particularly perceptually measured organiza-tional climate; (c) to investigate more fullythe relationships between psychological cli-mate and job attitude variables where dif-ferences in situational contexts are taken intoaccount; (d) to ascertain whether the conceptof an intervening psychological process ismeaningful in more sophisticated organiza-tional models; (e) to investigate the role ofpsychological climate as both a predictor ofindividual behaviors and attitudes and amoderator of the relationship between thesituation and individual behaviors and atti-tudes.

REFERENCES

Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon modifi-cation and distortion of judgments. In E. E. Mac-coby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.),Readings in social psychology. (3rd ed.) NewYork: Holt, 1958.

Blau, P. M. Structural effects. American SociologicalReview, 1960, 25, 178-193.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. The management ofinnovation. London: Tavistock, 1961.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent anddiscriminatory validation by the multitrait-multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56,81-105.

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

Cohen, J. Sensation and perception: Vision.-Chicago:Rand McNally, 1969.

Davis, J. A., Spaeth, J. L., & Huson, C. A tech-nique for analyzing the effects of group composi-tion. American Sociological Review, 1961, 26,215-225.

Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of be-havior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in atti-tude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley,1967. " :


Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. V. H, Environ-mental variation in studies of organizational be-havior. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 361-382.

Friedlander, R., & Greenberg, S. Effect on job atti-tudes, training, and organizational climate onperformance of the hardcore unemployed. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 287-29S.

Friedlander, R., & Margulis, N. Multiple impacts oforganizational climate and individual value systemsupon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 1969,22, 171-183.

Gellerman, S. The company personality. Manage-ment Review, 19S9, 48, 69-76.

Georgopoules, B. S. Normative structure variablesand organizational behavior. Human Relations,1965, 18, 155-169.

Gilmer, B. Industrial psychology. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1966.

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

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. Employeereactions to job characteristics. Journal of AppliedPsychology Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286.

Hall, R. H., Haas, J. E., & Johnson, N. J. Anexamination of the Blau-Scott and Etzioni typol-ogies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 12,118-139.

Halpin, A. W. Theory and research in administra-tion. New York: Macmillan, 1966.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. The organizational cli-mate of schools. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1963.

Herman, J. B., & Hulin, C. L. Studying organiza-tional attitudes from individual and organizationalframes of reference. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 1972, 8, 84-102.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict andambiguity as critical variables in a model oforganizational behavior. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505. (a)

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Toward the measure-ment of organizational practices: Scale develop-ment and validation. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 1972, 56, 388-396. (b)

Indik, B. P. Organization size and member participa-tion: Some empirical tests or alternative explana-tions. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 339-350.

Indik, B. P. The scope of the problem and somesuggestions toward a solution. In B. P. Indik &F. K. Berrien (Eds.), People, groups and organiza-tions. New York: Teachers College Press, 1968.

James, L. R. Criterion models and construct validityfor criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 75-83.

Johannesson, R. E. Some problems in the measure-ment of organizational climate. Organizational Be-havior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 118-144.

Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., &Rosenthal, R. Organizational stress: Studies inrole conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley1964.

Katz, D. The functional approach to the study ofattitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24,163-204.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The social psychology oforganizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Kelley, H., & Thibaut, J. Group problem solving.In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The hand-book of social psychology, IV. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Organization andenvironment. Boston: Division of Research, Har-vard Business School, 1967.

Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. Motivation and organiza-tional climate. Boston: Harvard University Press,1968.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., III. Properties oforganization structure in relation to job attitudesand job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965,64, 23-51.

Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. The effect oforganizational climate on managerial job perform-ance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 1973, 9, 126-146.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. 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.

Robinson, J., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. Measuresof occupational attitudes and occupational charac-teristics. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Survey ResearchCenter, Institute for Social Research, 1969.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Rosenberg, M., & Abelson, R. An analysis of cogni-tive balancing. In C. Hovland & M. Rosenberg(Eds.), Attitude organization and change. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960, 112-163.

Schneider, B. Organizational climate: Individualpreference and organizational realities. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1972, 56, 211-217.

Schneider, B. The perception of organizational cli-mate: The customer's view. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1973, 57, 248-256.

Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. Individual differencesand organizational climate I: The research planand questionnaire development. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 1968, 21, 323-333.

Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. Individual differencesand organizational climate II: Measurement oforganizational climate by the multi-trait, multi-rater matrix. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 493-512.

Schneider, B., & Hall, D. T. Toward specifying theconcept of work climate: A study of Roman Cath-olic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 1972, 56, 447^55.

Secord, P., & Backman, C. Social psychology. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1964.


Sells, S. B. An interactionist looks at the environ-ment. American Psychologist, 1963, 18, 696-702.

Sells, S. B. General theoretical problems related toorganizational taxonomy: A model solution. In B.P. Indik & F, K. Berrien (Eds.), People, groupsand organizations. New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1968.

Shaw, M. Group dynamics: The psychology of smallgroup behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Themeasurement of satisfaction in work and retire-

ment: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chi-cago: Rand McNally, 1969.

.Taguiri, R. The 'concept of organizational climate.In R. Taguiri & G. Litwin (Eds.), Organizationalclimate: Exploration of a concept. Boston: Har-vard University Press, 1968.

Thomas, E. J., & Fink, C. F. Effects of group size.Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 371-384.

Woodward, J. Industrial organizations, London:Oxford University Press, 1965.

(Received January 31, 1974)

james & james_1974_organizational climate_ a review of theory and research

Documents