Date post: | 20-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | denison-consulting |
View: | 504 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Contrasting Culture Strength and Climate Strength: Perspectives from Leading Experts
Jennifer ChatmanUniversity of California, Berkeley
Daniel DenisonIMD & Denison Consulting
Maribeth KuenziSouthern Methodist University
Benjamin SchneiderCEB Valtera
Strength – A Long History
Different conceptualizations and operationalizations
Today’s Purpose◦ Discuss the Challenges and Controversies◦ Future Research◦ Implications for Practice
2
Jennifer Chatman
Cortese Distinguished Professor of ManagementHaas School of BusinessUniversity of California, Berkeley
4
Psychologists have defined strong situations as those that induce uniform behavior, and are distinctive and observable (Kelley, 1967; Mischel, 1977)
We disagree.◦ Example: A transparent or opaque HR system could constitute an
equally strong situation, but the content of the norm would be different (transparency norm in first case, lack of candor and secrecy in the second)
◦ A culture’s strength is independent of it’s distinctiveness Secrecy at Apple – induces uniform behavior, unmistakable Agree to disagree at Intel, challenging the status quo at Aligent – norm
fosters highly variant, non-uniform behavior – do people agree about the value of “agree to disagree,” or do they disagree about everything including this norm?
Jenny ChatmanCulture Strength
Observers could misinterpret behavioral variation associated with norms like “challenging the status quo” or “agreeing to disagree” as a sign of weaker, less agreed-upon group norms, when in fact, the norm is strong but behavioral manifestations of the norm are highly variable.
Implications for culture research:◦ Relying on outsiders’ evaluations of culture content or strength can be
a problem (Kotter & Heskett, 1992)
◦ Norm can be deemed strong simply if members interpret it similarly and conform to it regularly (rather than it being distinctive or uniform), that is, people behaving non-uniformly is not necessarily evidence of a weak culture. Important distinction between uniformity and conformity.
Jenny Chatman: A Key Insight about Culture Strength
Strength in Culture & Climate Research
Daniel Denison
International Institute for Management DevelopmentLausanne, Switzerland
AdaptabilityPattern..Trends..Market
Translating the demands of the
business environment into action
“Are we listeningto the marketplace?”
MissionDirection..Purpose..Blueprint
Defining a meaningful long-term direction for the organization
“Do we know where we are going?”
InvolvementCommitment..Ownership
Responsibility
Building human capability, ownership, and responsibility
“Are our people alignedand engaged?“
ConsistencySystems…Structures…
Processes
Defining the valuesand systems that are the basis of a strong culture
“Does our systemcreate leverage?”
Dan Denison
9© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin Schneider - Climate Strength Research Paradox
Rests on a presumption of strength being a moderator, not a main effect—main effects are presumed to be a function of the level of the climate of interest, not variability in the climate of interest.
• Necessary to think this way since a negative climate can also be a strong one.
• Yet, some research on culture strength shows a positive relationship between strength and performance. – Likely due to the fact that strength was a perceptual variable and not a
statistical variable, and – The more positive a culture is the more likely people are to believe others
share their perception Rests on the presumption of variability since a moderator requires high variance
• Within units (teams, functions, departments. branches, etc.)• Between units in the variability within
10© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin SchneiderClimate Strength Focus
Unit level climate strength as a moderator of climate level relationship.
Specifically, climate strength as a moderator of the service climate level –customer satisfaction level relationship.
Maribeth Kuenzi, Ph. D.
Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Management and OrganizationEdwin L. Cox School of BusinessSouthern Methodist University
11
Question 1
How strength is defined and how it is measured varies, how do you define strength in your research? What are the “roots” of your view of the construct and what presumptions does it rest on?
12
Culture Strength – A Combination of Agreement and Intensity About Norms Definition of strong culture:
◦ One in which members both agree about the relative importance or lack of importance of a specific set of norms and feel intensity about one or a few highly important norms.
◦ Intensity aspect is where culture strength and content need to be considered together
Strength is a combination of:
◦ Agreement – the extent to which members of a group or organization agreeabout norms.
◦ Intensity – the extent to which members care about those norms.
13
Strong Culture
Vacuous Beliefs Weak Culture
Warring Factions
Intensity
AgreementHigh Low
High
Low
2
4
6
9
2
4
6
9
Most Uncharacteristic Most Characteristic
Number of items per category
1 2 3 4 5 9876
Allocate 54 descriptors of culture (e.g., results-oriented, risk-taking, integrity) across 9 categories from most characteristic to least characteristic
Allocate 54 descriptors of culture (e.g., results-oriented, risk-taking, integrity) across 9 categories from most characteristic to least characteristic
Diagnosing Culture Using The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)
(Chatman, 1989; 1991; O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991; Chatman & Jehn, 1994; Caldwell, Chatman & O’Reilly, 2008; Chatman, Caldwell, O’Reilly & Doerr, 2012)
Diagnosing Culture Using The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)
(Chatman, 1989; 1991; O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991; Chatman & Jehn, 1994; Caldwell, Chatman & O’Reilly, 2008; Chatman, Caldwell, O’Reilly & Doerr, 2012)
12
Innovative
Collaborative
Results‐Oriented
Integrity
Customer (Patient)‐Oriented
Detail‐Oriented
Transparency
• Frequent experimentation in all realms• Actively encourages risk‐taking and creative thought and action• Acts quickly and frequently scans for new opportunities• Rewards teamwork and cooperation• Discourages internal competition• Establishes low levels of aggression and conflict
• Sets and achieves concrete, aggressive performance goals• Favors action over calmness or contemplation
• Sets high ethical standards for all organizational members• Thinks and behaves with honesty and integrity
• Focuses on defining the customer and what the customer expects/desires• Spends a great deal of time listening to and interacting with customers• Pays close attention to what the market demands
• Maintains vigilance about performance specs, product quality, and analytical precision• “Dots every i and crosses every t”
• Shares information between individuals and units to best benefit the organization as a whole
• Discourages “political” behavior (activity intended to benefit one individual at the expense of the group)
Jenny Chatman: Typical Organizational Culture Norms
Innovative Collaborative Results-Oriented Integrity Customer-
OrientedDetail-
Oriented Transparency People-Oriented
All Companies(N=32) 5.24 4.24 6.19 6.28 6.21 5.40 4.45 4.71
All Hardware(N=18) 5.38 5.04 6.30 6.23 6.20 5.47 4.42 4.51
All Software(N=14) 5.06 5.51 6.04 6.33 6.24 5.31 4.49 4.96
Your Company* 6.59 ** 5.21 6.15 6.10 5.97 5.99 ** 3.60 ** 4.44 **
*Data on Your Company are based on survey responses from 53 current US employees as of Fall 2009.** Statistically significant at the level of 10% (p < 0.1).
SAMPLE Organizational Culture Comparison: One Company vs. All Participating CompaniesSAMPLE Organizational Culture Comparison: One Company vs. All Participating Companies
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Average: All Companies
Average: Hardware
Average: Software
Your Company
18© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin Schneider Operationalize; roots
Operationalize: Standard deviation in unit members’ perceptions.
Roots: – Schneider and Bartlett (1970) worked on the issue via multi-dimension/multi-
rater approach anticipating the use of ICC and rwg
– Worked for years to get rid of variability within units so could legitimate aggregation. Then asked the question: What about the lingering variability within units?
Presumption: Unit climate requires a certain amount of consensus/agreement before it can be considered a unit attribute.
Maribeth KuenziWhat is Climate Strength?
Within-unit agreement/variability in perceptions of organizational climate◦ AD index (Burke et al., 1999) reversed in sign
◦ Coefficient of variation (Allison, 1978) - standard deviation of climate perceptions divided by mean level and reversed in sign
◦ Standard deviation
Types of climate strength? (Ostroff et al., 2003)◦ Agreement-based
◦ System-based
◦ Alignment-based
19
Question 2
In your opinion, what are the pros and cons of these different approaches to the construct? How can we learn from differing perspectives and bridge these camps of organizational research?
20
Can be appliedto any measure
Potential to create theory and method defining areas
where normative integration is most
important
Atheoretical.A methodological definition
of a content domain
Integration of what?No theory contrasting
diversity and integration
Pro
Con
Variance NormativeScores Integration
Dan DenisonAssessing “Strength”
Culture content is frequently confounded with culture strength:◦ Identifying culture in terms of content presumes that norms are viewed
similarly enough among members that they can be accurately represented as a single unified profile (e.g., weak culture can only be amenable to “meta” content descriptions such as “the culture is fragmented.” (Martin, 1992; Saffold, 1983).
◦ Strong and weak cultures do not have equivalently identifiable content: Strong culture organization can intensely value being results-oriented but an
equivalently low emphasis on being results oriented in a weak culture may derive either from lack of shared intensity about the norm (e.g., people don’t believe it’s important) or a lack of consensus about it (e.g., some in the organization value while others do not).
It is still possible and essential to differentiate between content and strength; culture strength should be assessed distinctly from content!
Jenny Chatman
23© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin SchneiderPros and Cons
Pros: Anytime conceptually meaningful operationalizations are used we can learn from them—perceptions, standard deviations, rwg, or what have you.
Cons: It would be useful to have several studies in which the different forms of strength are simultaneously studied.
Maribeth KuenziPros and Cons of Climate Strength
Interesting to consider asking about climate strength rather than relying solely on a statistical method
If we look at climate strength at the organizational-level, how do we differentiate this from culture strength?
24
Question 3
What are the major points of misunderstanding or confusion with this construct? What is most important for those interested in this construct to understand?
25
Strong culture increases consistency in performance (Sorensen, 2002):◦ Consensus & endorsing organizational values promotes social control◦ Goal clarity derived from strong culture reduces uncertainty◦ Motivation enhanced through feelings of freely chosen action
Strong cultures induce cognitive and behavioral uniformity (Nemeth & Staw, 1989)◦ Groups tolerate less deviation as cohesion among members intensifies (Kaplan et
al., 2009)◦ Strong norms induce people to choose (or affirm) dominant perspective (Forster
et al., 2005)
As such, strong culture organizations may be less able to modify behavior when environment changes (Sorensen, 2002), and are less likely to foster creativity (Nemeth & Staw, 1989)
BUT – what if strong culture emphasizes non-uniform behavior? Reason why culture can’t always be assessed by outsiders or subjectively
Jenny Chatman - Paradox: Strong Culture Increases Consistency But May Also Reduce Firm’s Ability to Adapt to Different Environments
28© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin SchneiderMisunderstandings and Confusion
Strength is a moderator, not a main effect
Studying strength presents a major paradox: Can study it only when there is poor consensus within units and differences in consensus between units
Maribeth KuenziPoints of Confusion with Climate Strength
Measurement of climate ◦ Measured differently◦ Referent makes a difference (Klein et al., 2001) I versus we Unit vs organization
◦ What percent of the group do we need to be able to calculate climate strength?◦ How do we deal with the issue that we require
agreement for aggregation?◦ Is there a lack of agreement because there is no
climate or a “negative” climate which is not reflected in measures?
29
Question 4
What are the gaps in culture or climate literature in terms of strength? What should future research in this area be focused on?
30
Maribeth KuenziFuture Research for Climate Strength
Operationalization and measurement of climate strength
Climates not existing or just not strong? Negative versus positive climates Interaction of climates and what role climate
strength plays in which becomes dominant Does the level (e.g., org versus unit) matter? Longitudinal research and climate change Darkside of strong climates
31
Strong culture is not necessarily a disadvantage in turbulent environments, in contrast to Sorensen, (2002)
Instead, whether culture strength is an advantage or disadvantage depends on culture content
Specifically firms with strong cultures that emphasize and foster innovation perform better, are more demonstrably innovative, and enjoy a stronger reputation than those that emphasize innovation less.
Back to Kotter and Heskett (1992) BUT with focused study in one industry and based on insider perceptions
Jenny Chatman - Results from current study of 60 of the largest high technology firms: Assessed culture in 2008 and predicted financial performance in 2011 (Chatman, O’Reilly, Caldwell & Doerr)
We were unable to find any studies that have used both methods. How can we tell the relative value if there is no research on the topic?
Our experience with reviewers on a recent paper on culture strength indicates that even at top journals, there are reviewers who will argue hard that “strength”can only be measured by variance scores.
One of our papers, currently under review shows that assessments of normative integration are actually better predictors of organizational outcomes
How do you study diversity when variance is the measure of strength?
Dan DenisonGaps
34© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin SchneiderGaps—Effects on External Perception Strength
Overall QualityWEC .38SEC .24
EfficiencyWEC .53SEC .31
SecurityWEC .40SEC .30
CompetenceWEC .32SEC .26
RelationshipWEC .31SEC .22 WEC = Weak Employee Climate
SEC = Strong Employee Climate
Question 5
How can practitioners benefit from this stream of research? What type of organizational initiatives could be most benefitted by this stream of research?
35
36© 2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.
Benjamin SchneiderUse of Strength Research
If lousy, be weak; if positive, be strong
Thomas’s English Muffin model: All in the nooks and crannies
For change, begin with climate
For change—keep what is truly valued and useful
Structural change is not enough: Change the nature of the people who gain entry—but not too different
Organizations have no choice about whether a culture forms or not, only whether norms support strategy and ultimately improve performance - or constrain it.
Culture is too important to leave to chance. Managers might usefully consider cultivating a culture in
which people agree and care about strategically relevant behaviors and innovation and adaptation over time.
Jenny ChatmanA Few Practical Implications
Be careful when you use the word “strength” with organizations. It has two meanings, so be clear which one you mean.
When organizations use the word “strength,” ask questions so that you are sure what they mean.
Be clear that normative integration around positive traits is most likely to impact effectiveness. Being consistently bad is worse than being randomly bad.
Dan DenisonGuidelines for Practice
Maribeth KuenziPractical Implications for Climate Strength Research
Provide guidance on….◦ benefits and shortcomings of strong climates◦ alignment of climates to goals◦ how to manage multiple climates◦ how to develop strong climates◦ how to change strong climates
39