Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire

Transcription

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
UMI
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Culture and Performance
I
Running head: Culture and Performance
An Empirical Investigation o f the Relationship between Organizational Culture
and Organizational Performance in a Large Public Sector Organization
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty o f
The George Washington University
Graduate School o f Education and Human Development
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree o f
Doctorate o f Education in Human Resource Development
Thomas E. Sawner
Dissertation Committee Chairman
Dr Marshall Sashkin
Professor o f Human Resource Development
UMI Number 9955794
Copyright 2000 by
Sawner, Thomas Edgar
All rights reserved.
UMI*
UMI Microform9955794
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
2
Abstract o f Dissertation
An Empirical Investigation o f the Relationship between Organizational Culture and
Organizational Performance in a Large Public Sector Organization
This study investigates the relationship between organizational culture and organizational
performance in a large military organization. Patterns o f organizational culture are increasingly
viewed as a critical factor for organizational success or failure and, as such, are the focus o f a
great deal o f study (Frederiksen 1966; Angle and Perry 1981; Denison 1983; Wilkins and Ouchi
1983; Cameron 1985; Reynolds 1986; Krakower 1987; Safford 1988; Tumipseed 1988;
Bettinger 1989; Byles, Aupperle et al. 1991; Calori and Samin 1991; Gordon and DiTomaso
1992; Lim 1995; Petty, Beadles et al. 1995; Coyler 1996). A key question, however, remains:
Which patterns relate to success and which to failure?
As part o f his theory o f action, Parsons (1960) identified four functions that are critical
for long term organizational survival: adaptation, goal attainment, integration o f activities and
maintenance o f the pattern o f activities.
Sashkin (1990) operationalized these functions as
managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork and building a strong shared culture.
Additionally, Sashkin included a fifth scale as part o f the goal-attainment function, a focus on
customer satisfaction,
now seen as
important for effective goal-attainment.
These
operationalized functions form the basis o f Sashkin’s (1990) Organizational Culture Assessment
Questionnaire (OCAQ) which was used to assess the culture o f the subject organizations.
Past studies (Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Coyler 1996) have examined and
identified a variety o f relationships between aspects o f organizational culture and organizational
performance.
However, these studies focused on private sector organizations and financial
measures were their primary indicator o f organizational performance.
generalizability o f such results to the public sector.
This limits the
3
The present study provides a comprehensive assessment o f the culture o f a major public
sector organization, the Air National Guard, and relates measures o f organizational culture to a
variety o f non-fiscal performance measures. Based on the literature and previous research (Deal
and Kennedy 1982; Denison 1990; Coyler 1996), it was hypothesized that organizational culture
(as measured by the OCAQ) would have a statistically significant relationship with non-fiscal
measures o f organizational performance.
The Air National Guard is composed o f 88 individual “Wings.”
A Wing is an
organizational designation denoting a stand-alone unit o f from 500 to 2500 personnel with a
specific mission focus. For each Wing, the five cultural scales from the OCAQ, as well as the
overall score, were correlated with the following set o f performance measures: organizational
inspection scores, personnel retention, and ground accident safety record. First, the correlations
between culture and measures o f performance for each Wing were determined.
Then, a
regression analysis was accomplished using the five OCAQ scores to predict performances
measures (inspections scores, retention, and safety).
Additionally, a factor analysis was
performed on the OCAQ data. Overall, it was hypothesized that there would be statistically
significant relationships between measures o f culture and organizational performance.
hypothesis was generally proven correct by the results o f the study.
This
DEDICATION
This is dedicated to the “Love o f my life”, Bettina S. Callaway, my wife.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It would be an unforgivable oversight not to acknowledge the tremendous support o f my
dissertation committee and my family. Two extended bouts o f cancer and the resulting surgery,
radiation, and chemotherapy made me wonder on more than a few occasions if this work would
be completed.
To my Committee: Dr Marshall Sashkin, Committee Chair, thank-you for your patience,
your help and the superb improvements you made to this research. To D r David Schwandt,
thank-you for developing such an outstanding program and for always insisting on excellence.
Finally, an extremely special thank-you to Dr James Belasco, my mentor, my friend and without
a doubt the most gifted teacher I have ever known. I sincerely believe you have never once had a
conversation that was not incredibly insightful. Thank-you for your unfailing support,
encouragement, feedback and for helping me uncover strengths I was not sure I possessed.
To my family: Without the non-stop support o f my wife Bettina and my children Annie
and T.J., not only would this dissertation have been impossible, but I would not have survived
cancer.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
2
4
5
6
9
10
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
Overview
Purpose o f the Study
Statement o f the Problem
Research Question and Hypotheses
S ignificance o f the Study
Assumptions o f the Study
Limitations o f the Study
Definition o f Terms
Research Design
11
11
12
12
14
1S
17
17
18
21
CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Organizational Culture
_
Culture Defined
Culture vs Climate
Theoretical Framework
Talcott Parsons and The General Theory o f Action
Summary o f Theoretical Framework
Study o f Culture in Organizations
Cultural Assessment
Summary o f Organizational Culture
Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
Summary o f Organizational Effectiveness
Culture and Effectiveness
Summary o f Culture and Effectiveness
Summary
22
22
22
22
22
25
25
38
38
39
42
43
46
49
50
52
53
CHAPTER HI - METHODOLOGY
Overview
Research Design
Site Selection
Sample and Population
Instrumentation
Cronbach’s alpha
Factor Analysis
54
54
54
55
56
56
58
60
7
Data Collection Procedure
Performance Indicators
Data Analysis
Summary
66
67
69
69
CHAPTER IV - RESULTS
Findings o f the Study
Correlation
Hypotheses
Regression Analysis
Personnel Retention
Inspection Results
Ground Safety Accident Results
Regression Summary
Summary
70
70
70
71
73
73
74
75
76
77
CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
Summary o f the Findings
Discussion o f the Findings
Personnel Retention
Inspection Results
__
Ground Safety Accident Rate
External Factors Affecting Performance
Summary o f Discussion o f the Findings
Relationship to the Literature
Practical Meaning
Implications for Future Research
Conclusion
79
79
80
80
81
81
82
84
84
85
86
90
93
94
96
REFERENCES
98
APPENDIX A
Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ)
106
APPENDIX B
OCAQ Data File
107
APPENDIX C
Response Percentage by Wing
108
APPENDIX D
Reliability Analysis Scale (alpha) Correlation Matrix and Item-Total Statistics
109
8
APPENDIX E
Pearson R Correlation Matrix - Individual OCAQ Questions/Total OCAQ Score
115
APPENDIX F
Biographical Data
122
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Parsons’s Four Elements o f Social Action........................................................................28
Table 2 - Parsons’s Pattern Variables.................................................................................................30
Table 3- Schein’s Underlying Dimensions o f Organizational Culture............................................34
Table 4 - Schein’s Categories o f Overt Cultural Phenomena...........................................................36
Table 5 - Models o f Organizational Effectiveness............................................................................ 47
Table 6 - Campbell’s List o f Effectiveness Criteria...........................................................................49
Table 7 - Schein’s Internal Integration T ask s................................................................................... 52
Table 8 - Cronbach’s alphas for OCAQ.............................................................................................. 58
Table 9 - Cronbach’s alpha on Deleted Questions. Teamwork S cale.............................................59
Table 10 - Factor Analysis o f OCAQ................................................................................................. 61
Table 11 - Factor Analysis o f Aggregate Wing OCAQ Data S e t.................................................... 64
Table 12 - Table o f Norms - Descriptive Statistics for OCAQ Scales and V ariables............... 68
Table 13 - Full Pearson Correlation M atrix...................................................................................... 70
Table 14 - Regression Analysis on Personnel Retention.................................................................. 74
Table 15 - Regression Analysis on Inspection R esults................................................................... 75
Table 16 - Regression Analysis on Ground Safety Accident R a te .................................................. 76
Table 17 - OCAQ Sub-Scale Associations.......................................................................................... 78
10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Factor Loading Plot for O C A Q ..................................................................................
Figure 2 - Factor Loading Plot for Aggregate Wing OCAQ D ata S e t....................................
11
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
Overview
This study
investigates
the
relationship
between
organizational
culture
and
organizational performance in a large military organization. Aspects o f organizational culture
are increasingly viewed as a critical factor for organizational success or failure and, as such, are
the focus o f a great deal o f study (Frederiksen 1966; Angle and Perry 1981; Denison 1983;
Wilkins and Ouchi 1983; Cameron 1985; Reynolds 1986; Krakower 1987; Safford 1988;
Tumipseed 1988; Bettinger 1989; Byles, Aupperle et al. 1991; Calori and Samin 1991; Gordon
and DiTomaso 1992; Lim 1995; Petty, Beadles et al. 1995; Coyler 1996).
A key question,
however, remains: Which aspects o f culture relate to success and failure?
As part o f his theory o f action, Parsons (1960) identified four functions that are critical
for long term organizational survival: adaptation, goal attainment, integration o f activities and
maintenance o f the pattern o f activities.
Sashkin (1990) operationalized these functions as
managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork and building a strong shared culture.
Additionally, Sashkin included a fifth scale as part o f the goal-attainment function, a focus on
customer satisfaction, now seen
as
important for effective goal-attainment.
These
operationalized functions form the basis o f Sashkin’s (1990) Organizational Culture Assessment
Questionnaire (OCAQ) which was used to assess the culture o f the subject organizations.
Past studies (Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Coyler 1996) have examined and
identified a variety o f relationships between aspects o f organizational culture and organizational
performance.
However, these studies focused on private sector organizations and financial
measures were their primary indicator o f organizational performance.
generalizability o f such results to the public sector.
This limits the
12
The present study provides a comprehensive assessment o f the culture o f a major public
sector organization, the Air National Guard, and relates measures o f organizational culture to a
variety o f non-fiscal performance measures. Based on the literature and previous research (Deal
and Kennedy 1982; Denison 1990; Coyler 1996), it was hypothesized that organizational culture
(as measured by the OCAQ) would have a statistically significant relationship with non-fiscal
measures o f organizational performance.
The purpose o f this study is to expand upon previous research and explore, through empirical
evidence, the relationship between culture and organizational performance in a public sector
organization. Specifically, this study will quantitatively examine whether there is a relationship
between certain culture attributes and specific non-financial operational measures o f
organizational performance. The research will assess whether organizations with cultures that
are rated high in the five areas perform differently than those with cultures rated low in these
same areas. While previous studies (Coyler 1996; Coyler 1997; Denison, 1989) have identified
relationships between culture and performance, these studies have been conducted in the private
sector and have relied primarily on financial data to measure performance.
Statement o f the Problem
Two problems are addressed by this research. The first question is "is there a relationship
between a certain type o f organizational culture and certain types o f organizational
performance?" Common sense assumptions and most research (Ellison, McDonald et al. 1969;
Denison 1983; Gordon 1985; Krakower 1987; Byies, Aupperle et al. 1991; Kotter and Heskett
1992; Marcoulides and Heck 1993; Petty, Beadles et al. 1995; Coyler 1996; Coyler 1997) would
13
seem to indicate yes; however, there are limited large scale public sector quantitative data to
substantiate this premise.
Second, and o f greater significance, in most studies to date, financial measures have been
used as the predominant measure o f organizational performance. As previously discussed, the
inherent paradox o f performance measurement is “performance for whom” (Blau and Meyer
1956/1971).
Denison (1990) points out the ability o f an organization’s leadership to skew
financial indicators to meet the needs o f a specific constituency (e.g., stockholders, bankers,
bond rating agencies, etc.).
He suggests, therefore, that the identification and use o f non-
financial measures would provide a more “balanced” indicator o f performance. Additionally,
within the public sector, traditional private sector financial indicators (earnings per share, sales,
and net profit) generally are neither possible to establish nor meaningful (no shares, no sales, no
profits) and, as such, do not provide an acceptable standard for measurement. Although some
public sector financial measures are possible, given the increasingly persuasive impact o f notfor-profit and governmental agencies, it is imperative that researchers validate non-financial
measures for the performance construct.
The specific procedural problem is to describe the relationship between organizational
culture and organizational performance in Air National Guard units.
This will be done by
relating quantitative data from Sashkin's organizational culture assessment questionnaire from
Air National Guard units with a series o f measures o f organizational performance for these same
units.
This study will use non-financial measures o f performance which meet Seashore et al.’s
(Seashore, Indik et al. 1960) criteria o f face validity, objectivity, high reliability, and relevance to
both individual and organizational performance.
These measures also meet Seashore and
14
Yuchtman’s (1967), criteria for “penultimate” measures: few in number, focused on output or
results, wholly caused by independent sets o f lesser performance variables and factorially
independent of one another.
This study is designed to extend our understanding o f the relationship between
organizational culture and organizational performance.
Specifically, it will explore the
relationships between measures o f culture in a large public sector organization and non-financial
effectiveness criteria as measured by organizational performance assessments, safety and injury
records, and personnel retention records.
Research Question and Hypotheses
The research question is as follows: “Is there a significant relationship between OCAQ
scores as a measure o f organizational culture and non-financial indicators o f organizational
performance?”
Each of the five OCAQ scores and the total OCAQ score, will be related to each o f the
individual performance indicators.
HI - There will be a significant positive relationship between managing change and:
a) inspection results, b) ground safety mishap rate, and c) unit personnel retention
H2 - There will be a significant positive relationship between achieving goals and:
H3 - There will be a significant positive relationship between coordinated teamwork and:
H4 - There will be a significant positive relationship between customer orientation and:
IS
H5 - There will be a significant positive relationship between cultural strength and:
H6 - There will be a significant positive relationship between the total o f all five cultural fields
and: a) inspection results, b) ground safety mishap rate, and c) unit personnel retention
Ho - (Null Hypothesis) - There will be no relationship between any o f the culture measures and
any of the performance measures.
Significance o f the Study
Although Denison (1983) found a significant correlation between financial success and
various cultural dimensions in the private sector, and Coyler’s (1996) study o f the impact o f
visionary leadership on organizational performance also found a significant correlation between
the cultural scales o f Sashkin’s Leadership Behavior Questionnaire and performance, others are
not convinced o f these relationships. In a study by Reynolds (1986), he argues that there is little
or no evidence that an association exists between organizational performance and culture, citing
follow-up studies o f a company deemed as “excellent” by a widely publicized researcher. Lim
(1995) also argues that the relationship between organizational culture and performance is not
well established and replications o f past studies using more quantitative methods are warranted.
Additionally, although there has been considerable research into this topic in the private
sector (Denison 1983; Gordon 1985; Byles, Aupperle et al. 1991; Gordon and DiTomaso 1992;
Kotter and Heskett 1992; Marcoulides and Heck 1993; Petty, Beadles et al. 1995; Coyler 1996;
Coyler 1997), much o f which would appear to have great applicability across a wide spectrum o f
organizational types, there have been, to date, few (Ellison, McDonald et al. 1969; Cameron
1985; Krakower 1987) large-scale quantitative studies that replicate the research in the public
sector. There would also appear to be serious generalizability issues with applicability o f this
16
research to the public sector, due to the fact that Denison, Colyer and virtually all o f the
previously cited researchers used a general set o f financial indicators as the measure o f
organizational effectiveness and performance. For the public sector, these indicators are either
absent or difficult to obtain and interpret in that context. O f the few large-scale quantitative
public sector studies that have been accomplished (Ellison, McDonald et al. 1969; Cameron
1985; Krakower 1987), all were in educational settings, used self-report o f participant
perceptions o f effectiveness criteria and, as such, are o f limited generalizability.
The lack o f public sector research does not mean that empirical performance measures
are absent or unobtainable in the public sector. For the Air National Guard, specific, common,
quantitative, non-financial performance measures have been established throughout the entire
organization. It would appear these measures could be used rather than financial data or selfreport perceptions o f organizational effectiveness both to validate previous research and to
provide concrete, non-financial measures o f performance.
There is a limited amount o f research (Denison 1983; Coyler 1996) using Parsons’
functional prerequisites as a measure o f organizational culture to demonstrate a relationship to
organizational effectiveness and efficiency.
This study adds to our understanding o f the
relationship between organizational culture and performance, using Parsons’ theoretical
constructs. Moreover, this study will add to the findings o f Denison and Coyler by providing
quantitative data from a public sector organization to test the relationship between culture and
performance.
The major reasons for the significance o f this study are three:
1)
17
It is among the first large-scale, quantitative study that clearly examines the
relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance using
non-financial performance indicators.
2)
It is one o f the first such studies conducted in the public sector in other than an
educational organization.
3)
This study adds to our understanding and contributes to the practical application o f
basic theory in the field o f organizational culture.
Assumptions o f the Study
This study will be firmly rooted in the functionalist paradigm and an objectivist point o f
view. As such, the worldview o f this study could be described as realist, positivitist, and largely
determinist and nomothetic. In essence the study seeks and expects rational explanations for the
activities o f the individuals in the subject organizations (Burell and Morgan 1992). Based on this
worldview, the study will employ a quantitative research methodology. Schein (1993) expressed
serious concerns about studying culture through a quantitative design. His main criticism is that
“one has to understand in depth the phenomena one is surveying, and I do not see that deeper
knowledge o f culture is going to come about using instruments that are based on organization
theories that never considered culture as an issue to be dealt with in the first place” (p.705). This
is not the case with this study or the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ)
(Sashkin 1990). The OCAQ is based directly on Parsons’ (Parsons, 1951) functional
prerequisites for organizational survival and was specifically designed to measure these in an
organization’s culture.
This study is subject to the following limitations:
18
1) Data for this study are archival. Although the measures o f performance were assessed for a
five-year period (1993-1998), the cultural measures were collected over a 12-month period
(1998). Relationships among the constructs may, however, need to be studied over a much
longer period o f time and examined using longitudinal analysis, to more folly determine
relationships and to completely assess the strength o f relationships identified.
2) Organizational culture is a deep, thick and complex phenomenon that researchers
continuously struggle to understand. The proposed design can determine whether culture
and performance are related.
However, understanding how performance and culture are
intertwined must be studied qualitatively using a case study. This study is not designed to
determine how to use organizational interventions to change culture. Rather, it is designed to
determine whether there is a relationship between culture and performance, using functional
performance indicators. The "how" is the next step for further investigation after this study
is completed.
Definition o f Terms
Culture has been defined by many more simply as the w ay things are generally done in a
given organization ((Deal and Kennedy 1982; Schein 1985/1992; Belasco 1991).
Schein
(1985/1992) offers a more formal definition. He defines culture as “A pattern o f shared basic
assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems o f external adaptation and internal
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to
new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”
(p. 12). Schein’s definition will be used for the purposes o f this study.
19
(OCAQ) - the OCAQ is a 30-question quantitative assessment instrument developed by
Sashkin (1990) based on Parson’s (1960) theory o f action. Parsons proposed four fundamental
factors for organizational survival.
Sashkin operationalized these factors into a five-scale
cultural assessment instrument. The five scales measured by the OCAQ are managing change,
achieving goals, coordinated teamwork, customer orientation, and overall cultural strength.
Organization Performance
How organizations determine their success. Performance is assessed in this research
through organizational inspection, safety, and personnel indicators.
Inspection Indicator
Latest Operational Readiness Inspection Rating - The Operational Readiness Inspection
(ORI) is an all-inclusive inspection o f an organization’s ability to carry out its assigned military
taskings. An inspection team (40-100 people) from the Major Command Headquarters conducts
the inspection during a period o f 6-10 days approximately every four years. During the ORI, the
unit is given a simulated wartime scenario, which approximates the maximum wartime tasking
rates the unit might be subjected to in a real conflict.
The data for this scale were obtained from the Standardization and Evaluation Directorate
at each Air Force major command. For each major command the Standardization and Evaluation
Directorate is responsible for administering the operational readiness inspection, following up to
insure any problems are solved and providing “lessons-leamed” feedback across the command.
Additionally, maintains an archive o f each unit’s score on the inspection.
A five tier rating scale (unsatisfactory to outstanding) score is given for each phase or
tasking during the inspection. The sum of these ratings is combined to produce an overall unit
20
rating. For the purposes o f this research, each unit’s rating was translated into a numerical score
(1 for unsatisfactory, 2 for marginal, 3 for satisfactory, 4 for excellent and S for outstanding).
Safety Indicators
Ground Mishap Rate: The accident rate for the unit measured by number o f ground
safety incidents during the previous five-year period.
The data for this scale was obtained from the Air Force Safety Center. Each unit has a
unit safety officer. Anytime there is an accident that results in an injury o r property damage, a
report detailing the incident is sent from the unit to the Safety Center by the unit safety officer.
The data for this scale is the sum o f the accidents reported by the unit safety officers for each unit
for the five-year period from 1993 to 1998.
Personnel Indicators
Unit Retention Rate: The rate o f personnel turnover in the unit per year. The scale is
determined by the percentage o f unit members that leave the unit per year.
This scale was calculated by comparing the full unit personnel file for each unit for the
years 1992-1998 and noting personnel changes. The full unit personnel files for each unit in the
Air National Guard were obtained from the master records at the Air Force Military Personnel
Center.
Specifically, a list was generated o f the social security numbers for every member o f each
unit at the end o f each year. These lists were compared to obtain a year by year total o f the
number o f changes by unit for each year o f the five-year study period. The five annual totals for
each unit were summed and divided by two to obtain the unit total.
Total unit manpower
authorizations are relatively stable, with few changes over the course o f the study.
The
adjustment o f each total (division o f each unit’s total by two) was required to obtain a true
21
turnover rate since the comparison o f changes included both missing social security numbers
(members no longer part o f the unit) and new social security numbers (new replacement
members).
Research Design
This quantitative study will assess the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational performance.
Data from Sashkin’s (Sashkin 1990) Organizational Culture
Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ), a 30-question quantitative assessment instrument based on
Parson’s (1960) theory o f action, will be used as the measure o f organizational culture.
Organizational performance will be assessed through three non-financial criteria:
inspection
scores, personnel retention, and safety. The organizations studied are drawn from the 88 Wings
o f the Air National Guard.
Pearson product moment correlations will be used to assess the
relationships between culture and performance. Then, a multiple regression analysis will be used
to determine the relative importance o f the culture elements measured by the OCAQ for
predicting performance.
Additionally, factor analysis o f OCAQ data will be performed to
examine the psychometric properties and dimensions o f the instrument.
22
CHAPTER 0 - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Three areas o f research are relevant for this investigation. The literature cited includes
historical perspectives, research and theories on (1) organizational culture, (2) organizational
effectiveness, and (3) the relationship between the two. This review summarizes and traces each
o f these areas. The current status o f knowledge and gaps in the research on this relationship are
also discussed.
Culture Defined
There has been much discussion regarding just what constitutes an organization’s culture.
Kluckhohn (1951) described culture as “a system of explicit and implicit designs for living”
(p.87).
As previously noted, the most widely referenced definition was written by Schein
(1985/1992). He defined organizational culture as:
A pattern o f shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems o f
external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems, (p. 12)
Others have defined culture more simply as “a system o f informal rules that spells out
how people are to behave most o f the time” (Deal and Kennedy 1982 p. 15) or as “the sum total
o f all the standard ways people are supposed to (and actually do) act” (Belasco 1991 p.202).
Culture vs Climate
To further cloud the issue, there has been an ongoing discussion regarding the difference
between organizational culture and organizational climate (Burke and Litwin 1992; Denison
23
1996). Burke and Litwin (1992) define climate in terms o f “perceptions that individuals have o f
how their local work unit is managed and how effectively they and their day-to-day colleagues
work together on the job” (p. 526). From this perspective, the researcher’s level o f analysis is
focused on the work unit and climate is perceived to be very much in the foreground o f an
individual’s perception. In contrast, Burke and Litwin (1992) defined culture as a much deeper
construct, as an “enduring set o f values and norms that underlie a social system” (p.526). As
such, “these underlying values and norms may n o t be entirely available to one’s consciousness”
but describe a meaning system that allows members o f that social system to attribute meanings
and values to the variety o f external and internal events that are experienced” (p. 526). They go
on to explain that climate is affected by culture and people’s perceptions define both, but at
different levels.
Based on these definitions, they propose that climate is the study o f daily
interactions and exchanges, while culture js the process o f organizational transformation and
fundamental changes in behaviors based on value shifts (Denison 1996).
Denison (1996), in a widely cited reference, provides perhaps the best discussion o f the
perceived differences between culture and clim ate and then explains why the two constructs have
essentially been merged. He explains that much o f the new quantitative culture research bears a
very strong resemblance to earlier research on organizational climate and appears to contradict
some o f the original foundations o f culture research. By examining the literature, he highlights
the many similarities and draws conclusions w ith implications for future research.
Denison
(1996) argues that “the primary difference between these two literatures is not a substantive
difference in the phenomena under investigation, but rather it is a difference in the perspective
taken on the phenomenon” (p.62l).
24
He goes on to explain that initially the study o f an organization’s culture implied
qualitative research methods, “I f researchers earned field notes, quotes, and presented qualitative
data to support an idea, they were studying culture” (p.621). However, “I f researchers carried
computer printouts and questionnaires and presented quantitative analysis to support their ideas,
then they were studying climate” (p. 621). He explains that, while the culture literature often
focused on how social contexts develop out o f interaction and the climate literature was more
likely to focus on the perception o f social contexts and their impacts, both literatures address a
similar generic construct, “the internal social psychological environment o f organizations and the
relationship of that environment to individual meaning and organizational adaptation” (p. 62S).
As a result, he states that “it is often difficult, if not impossible, to define the content o f the
domain o f culture or climate independent o f the interests o f individual theorists and researchers”
(p. 628) and suggests that this “becomes apparent when the content o f traditional climate
research is compared to the content o f recent culture studies” (p. 629).
Additionally, Denison states “that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
some of the current culture research from the earlier climate paradigm on the basis o f either the
substantive phenomenon o f the methods and epistemology” (p.644) since “Over time, the
underlying similarity o f the two research topics has led a number o f culture researchers to apply
a quantitative, comparative approach, whereas several climate researchers have studied the
evolution o f social contexts from a social constructionists point o f view that makes it difficult to
distinguish from culture research” (p. 645). From these comparisons, Denison concludes that
culture and climate are at best “differences in interpretation rather than differences in the
phenomenon” (p. 645) and that the central and common phenomenon is “the creation and
25
influence o f social contexts in organizations” (p. 646). For the purposes o f this research study,
the term culture will be used to describe the phenomenon to be studied.
Theoretical Framework
The concept o f culture is based on the foundational work o f Edward Tylor. In 1871, his
book, Primitive Culture, provided the first dear explanation o f the culture concept (Tylor
1871/1958). Anthropologists (Tylor 1871/1958; Kluckhohn 1951) began the study o f culture,
which focuses on shared values, beliefs, and assumptions, and are credited with first bringing to
the attention of those in work organizations the importance o f these shared meanings. W hile
some researchers such as Jaques (1952) studied culture in factories, this type o f research was not
common prior to 1980 (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Schein 1985/1992).
Talcott Parsons and The General Theory o f Action
Many theories o f organizational culture are grounded in the work o f Parsons (1937; 1951;
1951a; 1954; 1956; 1960; 1964; 1967). Through his General Theory o f Action, Parsons sought
to unify the field o f social science. Although open to criticism, his work has clearly been a major
influence on the field o f social science for many years.
A complete understanding o f his theory is well beyond the scope o f this review and
would in any case, be severely complicated in that Parsons made no attempt to present a foil
explanation in any single book or article. Rather, it is spread throughout over 170 books and
more than 50 years o f writings and research. However, this review would be incomplete without
a very basic explanation o f the major tenets o f his work that relate to this research.
The concept o f social action is perhaps best starting point for Parsons’s theory.
26
Rocher (1975) provides an excellent explanation o f what Parsons meant by the term “social
action”.
“Social action, in the sense in which he uses it, is all human behaviour (sic)
motivated and directed by the meanings which the actor discerns in the external
world, meanings o f which he takes account and to which he responds. So the
essential feature o f social action is the actor’s sensitivity to the meanings o f the
people and things about him, his perception o f these meanings and his reactions to
the messages they convey. ”(Rocher 1975, p.28-29)
Clearly, the search to understand these meanings and provide an explanation for the
resulting “actions” was a major focus o f Parsons’s work and the motivation behind his General
Theory o f Action.
Three aspects o f Parsons General Theory will be explored: the Elements o f Action, the
System o f Action and the Pattern Variables. The Elements o f Action are composed o f three
parts: the Actor and Action, the Situation o f Action, and the Orientation o f the Actor to the
Situation (Bluth 1982). Any attempt to gain a clear understanding o f the Elements o f Action is
handicapped without an explanation o f the meaning Parsons gave to each o f these terms.
Although each is commonly used in the field o f social science, Parsons’s use is specific, often
different, and distinctive enough to possibly cause confusion.
Bluth (1982) provides one o f the best explanations o f these terms.
From Parsons’s
perspective the “actor” is not a specific person, rather a theoretical term that connotes a system
or pattern of relationships with a specific orientation. Although this could be an individual, it
could also be generalized to a group, an organization, o r any other entity for which behaviors can
be analyzed for meaning.
In this manner, the term “action” refers to a relationship between systems rather than a
specific process that may be occurring. “The Situation o f Action”, as used by Parsons, is always
27
defined relative to the subjective point o f view o f the “actor”. Each actor’s environment is both
the physical world and the sum o f experience and knowledge that impact the actor’s orientation
to the physical world and to other actors and systems. From Parsons’s perspective, there can be
no “situation” independent o f an “actor”. Further, from an observer’s perspective, there will be
as many distinctive “situations” as there are actors, including the separate and distinct “situation”
taken from the perspective o f the observer (Bluth 1982).
“Orientation” is also defined from the point o f view o f the actor and is composed o f three
processes.
Parsons defined these three processes o f orientation as cognition, cathexis and
evaluation. Cognition defines how the actor recognizes an object, what it is, what it does and
how it can be used. Cathexis refers to the actor’s perception o f desire for an object, a “want” or
“not want” decision. Evaluation refers to what the actor intends to respond or make a choice
based on what was “seen” in the cognition mode and “desired” in the cathexis mode. Each o f
these three processes is viewed through the lens o f the actor’s “internalized cultural standards,”
that is the rules or systems o f meanings that have been accepted and internalized by the actor and
which give his actions a sense o f direction.
These three processes, inconjunction with the
internalized cultural standards, define the “Orientation o f the Actor to the Situation” (Bluth
1982).
With a Parsonian explanation o f these terms, Rocher asserts that “social action”, the
primary focus o f Parsons’s work, is made up o f four elements. These four elements are listed in
Table 1.
28
Table 1
Parsons’s Four Elements o f Social Action
A subject-actor, which can be an individual, a
group or a collectivity
A situation , comprising the physical and
social objects to which the actor relates
Symbols, by means o f which the actor relates
to the different elements o f the situation and
attributes meaning to them
Rules and values, which guide the orientation
o f action - the actor’s relations with the social
and non-social objects in his environment
1.
2.
3.
4.
(Rocher 1975), p.31
Thus, from Rocher’s perspective, Parsons’s Elements o f Action can be viewed as an actor
in a situation where the actor’s action is the outcome o f the actor’s perceptions o f the
environment viewed through the actors internalized cultural standards (rules and values)
(Rocher 1975).
The second aspect o f Parsons’s Theory o f Action to be discussed is the Systems o f
Action. Parsons proposed the following three “action” systems with in the “Systems o f Action”:
the social system, the culture system and the personality system (Parsons, 1951). The social
system refers to ways o f behaving, the culture system to systems o f meanings, and the
personality systems refer to systems o f motivation.
Within each o f these systems. Parsons
argued, there are four phases or aspects which have common theoretical characteristics
applicable to any type or level o f the action system. He labeled these four aspects as: adaptive,
goal-attainment, integrative, and latent pattern maintenance. Parsons (1960) argued that these
four aspects are “functional prerequisites,” and, as such, are critical functions required for system
survival. Based on his research, how these functions are embedded in an organization’s culture
29
and their effects on organizational performance become a critical factor for long term
organizational success.
In other words, an organization’s culture is a powerful force that
establishes and reinforces certain ways o f doing things so strongly that it can lead to
organizational success or failure.
Bluth (1982) again provides one o f the clearest and most detailed descriptions o f the four
functions.
She explains the adaptive function as those functions that deal with patterns o f
interchange with the external environment, the environmental interface. The goal-attainment
function deals with the definition and assignment o f power. Parsons (1967) described this as
“the capacity o f a system to mobilize resources to attain collective goals” (p.225). Integrative
refers to patterns and mechanisms o f social control, i.e., the rules.
The final function, and
perhaps the most critical, is latent pattern maintenance. Once a system has developed “patterns”
which allow it to survive as a system, a mechanism to “ pass-on” these patterns is absolutely
essential. This is the responsibility o f the latent pattern maintenance function.
It is by this
function that languages are learned, work and life skills passed on and the very fabric o f the
culture and social systems is maintained.
A major focus o f Parsons (1960) interest was directed at organizational survival. He
argued that the extent to which members o f an organization hold values that support the four
functions previously discussed largely determines the likelihood o f that organization’s survival.
For this reason, the pattern maintenance function was o f special importance, in Parsons’s view,
to the creation and reinforcement o f order to an actor’s system o f action.
Parsons’s felt that the basis o f order was in the structure of systems o f action and the
patterns o f values which have meaning to individual actors and the internalization o f these
patterns in the personality o f the actor, as well as, in society and culture (Rocher 1975). Parsons
30
stated that “The most fundamental theorem o f the theory o f action seems to me to be that the
structure o f systems o f action consists in institutionalized (in social and cultural systems) and/or
internalized (in personalities and organisms) patterns o f cultural meanings.”(Parsons 1964),
p.342. This theorem, fundamental to Parsons’s theory o f action, best explains the relationship
between individual and group perspectives in that both are guided by cultural patterns that are
fixed in the individual’s mind and in society. As such, the same patterns can be repeatedly found
in other actors and are institutionalized into culture and social structures (Rocher 1975).
The same cultural patterns that serve to structure systems o f action also force actors to
make choices, to chose one behavior over another to match the needs o f a specific situation.
These forced choices form the third aspect o f Parsons’s Theory o f Action, the Pattern Variables.
Bluth (1982) points out that the pattern variables are not themselves choices, rather they are
categories which Parsons used to identify^, separate, and classify the choices o f an actor in a
situation. Parsons identified six sets o f pattern variables or choices. They are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Parsons’s Pattern Variables
Affective
Universal ism
Quality
Specificity
Internal
Instrumental
(Bluth 1982), p.86-87
Affective Neutrality
Particularism
Performance
Diffuseness
External
Consummatory
Bluth (1982) defines the pattern variable o f affective/affective neutrality as the choice
between immediate gratification and restraint or control over the impulse for an immediate
response. Rocher (1975) explains it a little differently, as a choice between free expression in a
31
relationship and a setting aside o f individual feelings for the benefit o f an ends external to the
relationship itself.
Universalism/Particularism is explained as the choice between treating objects in
accordance with a general norm for that class o f objects o r based on a specific relationship to the
actor with a specific object within that class (Bluth 1982).
Quality/Performance is explained as the difference between what an object is and what it
does. This difference is completely determined by the point o f view which an actor takes toward
the object rather than by some characteristic o f the object itself.
Specificity/Diffuseness is defined as a choice in the scope o f significance o f the object or
how wide a range an actor will allow in response to an object. The choice is between a limited
range or scope or responses with an unlimited scope. The example used by Bluth (1982) is the
difference between a medical doctor’s focus on a patients medical problems and a parents usual
unlimited scope to consider any problem their child might present.
Internal/External is explained as the choice between a primacy o f individual private
interest or a focus on the larger interest o f the group, collective or society.
The final pattern variable set, Instrumental/Consummatory is explained as the choice
between viewing an object as a means to an end or as an end unto itself. Bluth view this as the
difference between viewing a friend solely as a friend or viewing the friend as a relationship
which could be used to gain advantage in some situation (Bluth 1982).
Parsons (Parsons and Shils 1951) maintained that the pattern variables were the essential
components o f any system o f action. He felt that they had great analytical generality and could
be applied equally to individual or collective situations, to the analysis o f groups or to describe
actions o f individual actors or social institutions (Rocher 1975).
32
Parsons related the first four o f these pattern variable sets to various o f the four functional
imperatives but felt the last two were a constant choice and therefore related to every situation.
The variables o f universalism/particularism and quality/performance pertained more to the
meaning an object has to the actor and the kind o f decision needed from the actor. The variables
o f diffuseness/specificity and affectivity/affectivity neutrality pertained more to the actor and
defined his relationship to the object (Rocher 1975). These four pattern variable relationships
once again fit with Parsons’s focus on the actor/situation relationship as central to the system o f
action.
Bluth (1982) provides a excellent summary o f how Parsons viewed the interactions o f
these three aspects o f the General Theory o f Action.
“The Functional Imperatives coupled with the Pattern Variables and the
System o f Action indicate what one would expect to find in a successful
system, regardless o f the content o f the values or the details o f behavior
systems. The General Theory o f Action is then used to analyze actual
systems to compare them to the expected configuration.
The analysis
should identify divergencies, anomalies, contradictions, and points o f
tension, while at the same time indicating directions that could be taken to
rectify these problems. The General Theory o f Action also provides a
means o f tracing the communications systems o f organizations and their
effectiveness. It is a template for the analysis o f change over time, and a
guide for assessing the consistency o f systems with each other.”
(Bluth 1982,p. 104)
33
Clearly, Parsons intended the general theory o f action as a very broad model at a
sufficiently high level o f generality to be applicable in all the sciences which focus on human
action in one form or another (Rocher 1975).
The major criticism o f Parsons centers on theoiy construction.
Habermas (1981)
expressed concerns specifically with Parsons’ theoretical development over time. He felt that
Parsons’ later system theory paradigm was in conflict with his earlier action theory paradigm.
Habermas (1981) concluded “Parsons lacked any adequate equivalent o f the concept o f a ‘life
world’ built up on the basis o f intersubjective communication” (p. 173). This, in Habermas’ view
led to unrealistic assumptions on Parsons’ part about the fit between an actors’ orientations and
the functional requirements o f systems, specifically that in a modem society, the “symbolic
worlds o f actors suffer distortion because o f their subordination to the rationalizing tendencies o f
money and power” (p. 173). As a result, Habermas asserted that Parsons’ cultural system must
fill the role o f the “life world” to link the personality system and social system, a role which
requires culture to occupy the “dubious position o f an entity supraordinate to the action system
but at the same time also composing its internal environment” (p. 185). From this, Habermas
concluded that “Parsons lacks the theoretical tools to explain the resistance o f distinctive or
unique culture patterns to functional imperatives” (p. 185).
The most recent and popular application o f Parson’s concepts to organizations is
attributed to Schein (1985/1992). Schein provides a formal definition o f culture and lists ten
major categories o f overt phenomena that are generally shared by a cultural grouping.
According to Schein the culture o f an organization is the “accumulated shared learning o f a
given group, covering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive elements o f the group members total
34
psychological functioning” (p. 10). As such, he like Parsons, asserts that culture is a major
determinant o f the behavior and actions o f the individuals that make up the organization.
Schein (1990) asserts that a key approach to understanding the “content” o f a culture is to
seek examples o f how the culture deals with universal issues faced by all societies. By “noting
anomalies and things that seem different, upsetting or difficult to understand” (Schein, p. 112) a
good “roadmap” o f what is going on can be obtained.
He suggests seven dimensions that
underlie and organization’s culture. These are listed in Table 3.
Table 3
Schein’s U nderlying Dimensions o f Organizational Culture
The organization’s relationship to its environment
2.
The nature o f human activity
3.
The nature o f reality and truth
4.
The nature o f time
The nature o f human nature
5.
The nature o f human relationships
6.
7.
Homogeneity vs. diversity
Schein 1990, p. 114
1.
Schein (1985/1992) was also one o f the first organizational scholars to suggest the
importance o f culture in the organizational context.
He felt that an understanding o f
organizational culture was so critical to a leader’s success that it may be that, “ ...th e only thing
o f real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent o f
leaders is their ability to understand and work with culture” (p. 12).
Schein (1985/1992) argues that an understanding o f culture is critical for multiple
reasons, but most critically as an aid to understanding the internal dynamics o f an organization.
For example, when viewed through the lens o f cultural differences, many “communication
35
failures” are more easily understood and resolved as intercuitural breakdowns. Furthermore, in
an era o f multi-national organizations and rapid global trade, an understanding o f the impact o f
cultural interactions can and does directly influence organizational success and perhaps even
survival. Perhaps most importantly, Schein points out that cultural awareness is critical because
an organization's culture is the primary source o f resistance to change.
Clearly, in today’s
environment o f ever-increasing organizational turbulence and near-constant evolution, this
understanding may be a critical factor for the success o f any change initiative.
Schein defines culture as:
A pattern o f shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it
solved its problems o f external adaptation and internal integration,
that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore,
to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think,
and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 12).
Schein’s ten categories o f overt phenomena_which are “shared or held in common” within a
given cultural grouping are listed in Table 4.
36
Table 4
Schein’s Categories o f Overt Cultural Phenomena
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Observed behavioral regularities when people interact: the language they use, the customs
and traditions that evolve, and the rituals they employ in a wide variety o f situations
Group norms: the implicit standards and values that evolve in working groups
Espoused values: the articulated, publicly announced principals and values that the group
claims to be trying to achieve.
Formal philosophy: the broad policies and ideological principles that guide a group’s
actions toward stockholders, employees, customers, and other stakeholders.
Rules of the game: the implicit rules for getting along in the organization, the “ropes” that
a newcomer must learn to become an accepted member.
Climate: the feeling that is conveyed in a group by the physical layout and the way in
which members o f the organization interact with each other, with customers, or with other
outsiders.
Embedded skills: the special competencies group members display in accomplishing
certain tasks, the ability to make certain things that gets passed on from generation to
generation without necessarily being articulated in writing.
Habits of thinking, mental models, and/or linguistic paradigms: the shared cognitive
frames that guide the perceptions, thought, and language used by the members o f a group
and are taught to new members in the early socialization process.
Shared meanings: the emergent understandings that are created by group members as they
interact with each other.
“Root metaphors” or integrating symbols: the ideas, feelings, and images groups develop
to characterize themselves, that may or may not be appreciated consciously, but that
become embodied in buildings, office layout, and other material artifacts o f the group.
Schein 1985/1992, pp. 9-10
The ten categories listed in Table 4 are in order o f depth, with phenomena listed first being
linked to the deepest levels o f culture. Schein was one o f the first to speak o f “levels” o f culture,
in which “level” refers to the degree to which the cultural phenomena are visible to the observer.
Overall, Schein groups them into three primary levels. He characterized these three levels as
artifacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts refer to all that one sees,
hears, and feels with a new group. The artifact level also includes visible products o f the group,
such as architecture, language, technology, products, style o f clothing, manners, published
values, etc. Schein says that these artifacts are easy to see but difficult to understand. Espoused
37
values refer to what members o f the organization say is the accepted “right” way o f doing the
organization’s business.
Basic assumptions refer to the deepest level o f culture.
These
assumptions come from the member’s core beliefs or values and will be so strongly held that
group members will find behavior based on any other premise inconceivable. Thus, values guide
actual behavior by defining how members think and feel about any given thing, task or situation
(Schein 1985/1992).
Hatch (1993) criticizes Schein’s model o f organizational culture for leaving gaps
regarding the importance o f symbols and processes to the assessment o f an organization’s
culture. She proposes a new model called cultural dynamics which proposes the processes o f
manifestation, realization, symbolization, and interpretation as the framework within which to
describe cultures. Hatch argues that while “Schein’s model continues to have relevance, it would
be more useful if it were combined with jd e a drawn from symbolic-interpretive perspective”
(Hatch, 1993, p. 658).
Lundberg (1988) developed a three-level model o f organizational culture similar to that
o f Schein (1985/1992).
His three levels are manifest (roughly comparable to Schein’s
“artifacts”), strategic (comparable to Schein’s “espoused values”), and core (comparable to
Schein’s “basic assumptions”). Although these two models, Schein’s and Lundberg’s, are not
identical, there is enough similarity to suggest that the three-level analytic approach to defining
organizational culture has both general acceptance and utility.
Other current key authors also argue that culture is a critical organizational construct and
fulfills a vital function within the organization (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Peters and Waterman
1982; Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett 1992).
Schwandt’s (1995) Organizational Learning
Model, employs Parsons’ General Theory o f Action as a lens to view change in the “social
38
system” through the learning process rather than the performance process and that change is
“related to the basic assumptions held by the organizational culture” (p.368).
As Schwandt
(199S) notes, this concept is identical to Schein’s discussion o f the importance o f cultural
patterns and basic assumptions in the organizational change process.
Summary o f Theoretical Framework
Schein (1985/1992) elaborates on Parsons in terms o f specific values (beliefs) that
characterize or “are” culture. These values may be especially useful for assessing the on-going
operation o f Parsons’ four functional prerequisites.
Where we find the closest connection
between Schein and Parsons is the function that Parsons (1960) labeled as latent pattern
maintenance, which is, in essence, what Schein refers to as culture. Within the latent pattern
maintenance function, we find norms, values, beliefs, and basic assumptions that determine and
direct how people carry out the other three functions o f adaptation, goal-attainment, and
integration. Schein provides added insight by specifying values and beliefs thus enabling us to
link specific values, beliefs, and assumptions to one or another o f Parsons' functions.
Study o f Culture in Organizations
Deal and Kennedy (1982) were among the first to study organizational culture in business
firms. In a six-month study, they profiled the “culture" of eighty companies and concluded that
“culture has a powerful influence throughout the organization; it affects practically everything from who gets promoted and what decisions are made, to how employees dress and what sports
they play. Because o f this impact, we think culture also has a major effect on the success of the
business” (p.4). Deal and Kennedy felt the relationship between culture and effectiveness was
due to what they called the “uncertainty” factor. They hypothesized that today’s workers, unlike
those o f prior generations, are filled with uncertainty about job, life values, ethics, and morality.
39
An organization with a strong culture removes many o f these uncertainties by providing
structure, standards and a value system within which to operate, thereby freeing energy for
productive purposes (Deal and Kennedy 1982).
In his study of 34 companies, Denison (1983) obtained results supportive o f Deal and
Kennedy’s assertion.
He found that “organizational culture has a close relationship to the
effectiveness o f these companies.
The quantitative results show that behavioral measures
gathered through survey research can be strong predictors o f the future financial performance o f
these organizations” (p.3).
Kotter and Heskett (1992) studied the cultural strength o f 207 firms in twenty-two
different U.S. industries. They used a cultural survey instrument to measure cultural strength
and compared this indice to three measures o f economic performance (average yearly increase in
net income, average yearly return on investment, and average yearly increase in stock price).
Their conclusion also supported Deal and Kennedy’s assertion o f a linkage between culture and
performance. However, Kotter and Haskett felt that based on their data, although there was a
positive relationship between strength o f corporate culture and long-term economic performance,
the relationship was only moderate. Although they readily admitted that their financial measures
o f performance were, “most vulnerable to accounting manipulations and can be distorted by
merger and acquisition activity” (p. 19), they went on to assert that “the statement “Strong
cultures create excellent performance” appears to be just plain wrong (p.21) (Kotter and Heskett
1992).
However, Collins and Porras’ (1994) in-depth qualitative study o f 34 visionary and non
visionary identified a clear linkage between visionary companies and organizational success.
One o f the key factors they identified during the study as distinguishing successful from less
40
successful companies was an “almost cult-like culture”(Collins and Porras 1994), clearly
supporting the relationship between a strong culture and strong organizational performance and
conflicting with the assertion o f Kotter and H eskett
Common throughout each o f these studies is a clear notion o f a relationship between
organizational culture and organizational performance. What is not so clear is the strength o f the
relationship, which cultural attributes contribute most to performance and how to reliably assess
culture and measure performance.
Cultural Assessment
While the definitions provided at the beginning o f this chapter help clarify the
organizational culture concept, as noted in the previous section, how to measure culture has been
an even more widely discussed topic than the proper definition, with much o f the debate
centering on preferences o f quantitative versus qualitative approaches. Kluckhohn (1951) was
one o f the first to describe a methodology for cultural measurement. His approach was that o f an
anthropologist in a qualitative search for specific traits, structures and shared patterns o f
behavior. Schein (1993) supports that approach, arguing that traditional scientific methods based
on formal interviews or questionnaire responses are inadequate for the task, leading to superficial
and possibly even invalid data. He proposes a “clinical approach,” deciphering an organization’s
culture while helping solve some problem or implement a desired organizational change.
In contrast, Potts (1990) warns o f the biases that lurk in all phases o f qualitative research
and Sykes (1990; 1991) makes a strong case that issues o f validity and reliability remain a
concern for a qualitative design. Others, however, (Eisner 1991; LeCompte and Preissle 1993)
support the premise that a qualitative design, especially in educational research, is the only way
to capture a full understanding o f an organization’s culture. Eisner (1991) goes so far as to state
41
that “all empirical phenomena is qualitative” (p.S) and, as such, should be studied through
qualitative inquiry.
Sutton (1993) frames the discussion regarding qualitative versus quantitative design as a
difference in the researcher’s view o f reality, positivist versus relativist. Lee (1992) agrees and
states that the two different approaches are based on different paradigms, and that “what research
discovers and how it is discovered depends on how the researcher engages in the phenomena
studied” (p.87). (LeCompte and Preissle 1993)) argue that both beliefs about the nature o f
reality are shared by researchers spanning each paradigm and that nothing precludes either
school o f thought from effectively using either approach. Seiber (1973) proposes an “integration
o f fieldwork and survey methods” (p. 1335) as the optimal strategy to overcome inherent
weaknesses in either approach.
Denison and Mishra (1989), in a widely cited study, used the sort of hybrid methodology
suggested by Seiber (1973). Case studies were followed by a quantitative survey to measure
cultural strength and its impact on organizational effectiveness (Denison and Mishra 1989).
(Hofstede, Neuijen et al. 1990), in a similar approach, used a series o f interviews paired with a
stratified random sample survey o f individuals in the target organizations to measure their
cultures. Cameron (1985) however, used a purely quantitative approach to determine cultural
type and its impact on effectiveness at 334 colleges and universities and argued that his approach
provided a clear, readily generalizable perspective on college cultures.
In a different type o f hybrid study, Hatch and Schultz (1996) propose the use o f multiple
paradigms to more completely understand an organization's culture. They assert that by crossing
paradigms between the functionalist and interpretivist paradigms, the cultural researcher will
better appreciate the contrasts and connections between the two and permit a more sophisticated
42
approach to the analysis and interpretation o f empirical data. The offer three case studies as
exemplars o f this assessment strategy.
Martin and Siehl (1983) recommend the study o f an organization's “counterculture” as
key to gaining a full understanding o f an organization’s culture.
They argue that in most
organizations, “a dominant culture and a counter culture exist in an uneasy symbiosis, taking
opposite positions on value issues that are critically important to each o f them” (Martin, 1983, p.
54) and that by collecting artifacts from both and determining what values they express a fuller
understanding o f the culture will result.
Clearly, each methodology offers strengths and vulnerabilities that must be understood by
the researcher.
Summary o f Organizational Culture
The framework for this study is the construct o f organizational culture and the theory o f
organizational effectiveness articulated by Parsons (1960), using added insights provided by
Schein (1985/1992). A careful analysis o f Schein in the context o f Parsons may enable us to
come up with a good measure o f organizational culture. His list o f seven dimensions underlying
organizational culture (Table 4) are a natural extension and relate closely to Parsons’s pattern
variables and link his focus on “assumptions, beliefs and values” with Parsons’s System o f
Action focus on the actor/situation relationship.
Saskin (1990) also adapts Parsons’s pattern
variables as they relate to the four functional prerequisites as the basis to measure organizational
culture and by extension organizational effectiveness. The Organizational Culture Assessment
Questionnaire (described in the instrumentation section) is the operationalization of Parsons’s
theory and a direct measure o f the four aspects o f the system o f action. Hatch’s (1993) process
oriented cultural dynamics model for assessing an organization’s culture is also a logical
43
extension o f Parsons’s focus on the actor-in-situation relationship from his theory o f action and
its use as an aid to understanding culture. Clearly, the work o f Parsons was foundational to
much o f the social science o f today and is still just as relevant as when published.
Organizational Effectiveness
A variety o f terms, concepts and definitions have been employed with regard to
organizational performance (Campbell, Dunnette et al. 1970; Cameron and Whetten 1983). Like
culture, it is also difficult to find common ground for the concept o f organizational performance
(Yuchtman and Seashore 1967; Campbell 1977; Seashore 1983; Zammuto 1984).
Campbell
(1977) was able to identify thirty different commonly used effectiveness measures, a fact that
suggests there may be no universally accepted criteria. Adding additional confusion, much o f
the relevant literature (Denison 1983; Quinn and Cameron 1983; Faerman and Quinn 1985;
Lewin and Minton 1986; Coyler 1996) uses the term “effectiveness” interchangeably with the
term “performance.” For the purposes of this study, the terms will be considered equivalent.
Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum (1957) were among the first to study organizational
effectiveness using specific, quantitative measures. They described the common approaches o f
the day as generally referring to goal-attainment, with a focus on “productivity, net profit, the
extent to which the organization accomplishes its various missions, and the success o f the
organization in maintaining or expanding itself’ (p.534).
However, they proposed that
organizational effectiveness could better be defined as “the extent to which an organization as a
social system, given certain resources and means, fulfills its objectives without incapacitating its
means and resources” (p.535).
Seashore (Seashore, Indik et al. 1960) argued that the use o f a single criterion for
organizational performance is less valid than the use o f multiple criteria combined to represent
44
an “overall” or “net performance.” As they pointed out, this creates problems o f interaction
among the elements. For example, how does the research treat negatively correlated elements?
Moreover, the combined measure may not properly “reflect the values implied by the initial
choice o f elemental measures” (p. 195). Seashore et al. (1960) proposed that criteria for selection
o f performance variables should include the following: face validity (in reference to the purpose
o f the organization), objectivity, reliability, and relevancy to both individual and organizational
performance. Yuchtman (Yuchtman and Seashore 1967) in conjunction with Seashore proposed
two approaches to determining organizational effectiveness:
the “goal approach” o r the
“functional approach.” The goal approach focuses on attainment o f some formal objective that
meets the common purpose o f the organization.
The functional approach measures goal
attainment based on a broader relationship o f values to a larger social system.
In further research. Seashore (Seashore and Yuchtman 1967) stated that “organizations
seem to have many goals, not one, and that these goals are often conflicting, incompatible with
one another, changing in priorities and in realization over time” (p.378).
They proposed a
conceptual hierarchical framework o f goals, starting with short-term goals and with an “ultimate
criterion” o f the net performance o f the organization at the top o f their hierarchy. This ultimate
criterion would be either impossible to measure or measurable only over a very long span o f
time, possibly only by historians, and would focus on achieving formal objectives o f the
organization. In between, would be a series o f “penultimate” criteria, few in number, focused on
output or results, wholly caused by independent sets o f lesser performance variables and
factorially independent o f one another. Below, at the bottom o f the hierarchy, there would be a
large number o f interrelated “subsidiary” variables, representative o f short-term performance,
and responsive to environmental changes and changing phases o f organizational life. The basis
45
for the scheme devised by Seashore et al. is the assertion that “no one criterion (except the
unmeasurable ultimate criterion)
can reasonably be used
to
represent organizational
performance” (p.379).
Steers (1976) reviewed 17 studies on organizational effectiveness and found a wide
variance in proposed criteria. Only one, adaptability, was common to at least half the studies.
He concluded a better approach is to define effectiveness as an organization’s ability to acquire
and efficiently use available resources to achieve their often-divergent goals. Steers’ view is
consistent with that o f Seashore and Yuchtman.
Zammuto (1984) argues that because organizations have various, often-divergent goals,
no single model will work as a measure o f effectiveness.
Instead, he proposes a multiple
constituency model where criteria for effectiveness are based on the preferences o f multiple
constituencies for the outcomes o f organizational performance.
However, Zammuto (1984)
points out that, while this model improves on the goal and systems approaches, it opens the
question o f which constituent’s preferences should be weighed more heavily in determining
measures o f performance.
Hitt (1988) proposes that multiple constituencies and multiple
environments require multiple measures o f effectiveness and that an organization must specify
which “domain” and “constituency” is to be served by a particular measure. He also highlights,
as a serious concern, an over-reliance on financial data as the predominate performance measure.
Hitt argues that this myopic focus on financial data can, and frequently does, lead to major
organizational problems with little or no warning.
Denison (1983) explained some o f the problems caused by overuse o f financial data. He
said “organizations inevitably have an array o f stakeholders, and any particular measure o f
performance often tends to pit one against the other. Shareholders like dividends, but managers
regard dividends as costs and usually prefer profits, growth, and potential.
quarterly profits may compromise long-term investment” (p.35).
46
Concerns over
These and many similar
concerns led him to conclude that, as a result o f these trade-offs, the entire concept of financial
effectiveness is an inherent paradox.
W hether dealing with shareholders or multiple
constituencies, this same, often conflicting view o f exactly what constitutes effectiveness, for
whom, and in what context, is the inherent paradox in any proposed measure.
Lewin and Minton (1986) traced philosophies o f organizational performance from Taylor
in 1911 to Peters and Waterman in 1983. They concluded that empirical research has been
noncumulative and has not contributed to the development o f a unified theory o f organizational
performance. Lewin and Minton (1986) argue that different paradigms, organizational
paradoxes, and contradictory competing demands are obstacles to research leading to a universal
overarching theory o f organizational effectiveness, although many researchers appear intent on
continuing such a search.
Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
Many other researchers (Cameron 1980; Cummings 1983; Weick and Daft 1983)
continue to debate what are the most appropriate performance criteria to measure organizational
effectiveness. Cameron and Whetten (1983) state that "there cannot be one universal model o f
organizational effectiveness" (p.262). Based on the goals o f an organization, each organization
may choose different criteria o f performance to measure. Simon (1987) argues that what is
critical is the alignment o f organizational goals and performance measures, while Yuchtman
(Yuchtman and Seashore 1967) argue that an organization’s success in competing for resources
is the best “expression o f its overall effectiveness” (p.891).
47
Despite these differences, there are, however, patterns regarding what constitutes
organizational effectiveness that have emerged from the literature. A review o f the literature
suggests that there are at least four broad models or approaches: the “goal attainment” model;
the “open systems” model; the “internal decision process” model; and the “strategic
constituencies” model. These four models are defined in more detail in Table 5.
Table 5
Models o f Organizational Effectiveness
Goal attainment
or rational
systems model
Natural or open
systems model
Internal decision
process model
Strategic
constituencies
model
This model focuses on outputs or ends and equates effectiveness with the
accomplishment o f a specific set o f organizational objectives or goals
This model focuses on resource inputs o r means and interactions with
the external environment. Equilibrium and system balance is highly desired
and growth and stability are the primary measures o f system effectiveness.
This model focuses on acquisition and management o f information and
decision processes and view effectiveness as a function o f how well these
processes are accomplished.
This model focuses on internal and external stakeholder relationships
and view how well these stakeholders needs and desires are being met as
the best determinant o f organizational effectiveness.
Adapted from Cameron, 1981.
The four models are not mutually exclusive. Based upon how an organization's
management and employees define a particular performance measure, a measure o f effectiveness
could meet the criteria of more than one model, as demonstrated by Denison (1990). In his study
o f the relationship between corporate culture and financial performance in 34 firms, he argued
that financial performance measures were representative o f the rational goal systems model and
the natural open systems model. Similarly, the strategic constituencies model (Daft 1989), which
defines organizational performance as the organization's ability to satisfy the expectations of
48
those stakeholders upon whom it is critically dependent, has areas o f commonality with the other
three models.
Lack o f agreement on the definition o f organizational performance has generated a
plethora o f competing measures. Steers (1976) reviewed 17 different studies o f organizational
effectiveness and noted a general lack o f agreement among them.
Making note o f performance
criteria mentioned in two or more cases, the findings indicated that adaptability/flexibility was
mentioned in 59 percent o f the studies, productivity and job satisfaction in 3S and 29 percent
respectively. The other criteria were cited in less than 20 percent o f the studies. Organizational
and external environmental factors were also cited in many studies.
Campbell (1977) reviewed the literature and identified thirty criterion measures of
organizational effectiveness, summarized in Table 6 below. This list would appear to include all
variables that have been seriously proposedas measurement indices.
49
Table 6
Campbell's List o f Effectiveness Criteria
1.
2.
Overall effectiveness
Productivity
11.
12.
Motivation
Morale
21.
22.
3.
4.
5.
Efficiency
Profit
Quality
13.
14.
15.
Control
Conflict-cohesion
Flexibility/adaptation
23.
24.
25.
6.
Accidents
16
Planning & goal setting
26.
Managerial task skills
Information management &
communications
Readiness
Utilization o f environment
Evaluations by external
entities
Stability
7.
Growth
17.
Goal consensus
27.
Value o f human resource
8.
Absenteeism
18.
28.
9.
Turnover
19.
10
Job satisfaction
20.
Internalization
organizational goals
Role & norm
congruence
Managerial
interpersonal skills
Participation and shared
influence
Training & development
emphasis
Achievement emphasis
of
29.
30.
Campbell 1977, pp. 37-39.
Campbell (1977) went on to argue that no final definition or measure o f organizational
effectiveness can be given; rather, a particular conception may be useful in a certain
circumstance.
Summary o f Organizational Effectiveness
Although there is much discussion in the literature about how to define and measure
effectiveness, the accomplishment o f organizational goals appears to be the most common and
would appear to offer the greatest practical application.
Use o f multiple criteria which meet
Seashore and Yuchtman’s (1967) test o f being few in number, focused on output and wholly
independent from each other, offer the greatest possibility o f accurately depicting organizational
effectiveness. For this study, I will use the goal attainment/rational systems model and criteria
50
that correspond to Campbell’s criteria o f accidents, turnover, and evaluation by an external
entity.
Culture and Effectiveness
In 1983, Denison’s study o f the culture and performance o f 34 companies obtained
results supportive o f Deal and Kennedy’s assertion, stating that “organizational culture has a
close relationship to the effectiveness o f these companies.
Although Denison’s study used
financial measures o f performance which, by his own admission, were subject to variance
depending on the specific industry, the economic cycle and the organization’s specific financial
objectives,
nevertheless, his study found significant correlations between culture and
performance.
Colyer (1996, 1997) completed a similar study regarding the relationship between
organizational culture and organizational, performance with results supportive o f both the
Denison and Deal and Kennedy studies. Colyer used a mix o f self-report, financial and nonfinancial performance measures in a study o f 72 retail stores with the OCAQ as the measure of
organizational culture for each store.
She found that, when the manager’s leadership self-
perception was in agreement with the perceptions o f others, then there were “many and
significant relationships” (p.2) between the OCAQ total culture score and organizational
performance measures (Coyler 1997) and concluded that “organizational culture appears to be
even more strongly related to performance than does leadership”(p.3).
Parsons’ (1960) notion o f organizational effectiveness was the effective operation o f the
four functional prerequisites, with each function playing a key role in shaping an organization’s
culture. The organizational culture, in turn, speeds an organization’s adaptation to a changing
external environment.
This is an especially critical role if an organization is to succeed in
51
today’s complex, multinational global economy. (Peters and Waterman 1982) concluded from
their study o f “excellent” companies that, “W ithout exception, the dominance and coherence of
culture proved to be an essential quality o f the excellent companies” (p.75).
Schein adapts Parsons’ model in such a way as to link effectiveness to specific value
positions. Schein (1985/1992) focused extensively on this role o f an organization’s culture as
the key mechanism in allowing the group to adapt, perform and survive. Like Parsons, Schein
felt the problem o f organizational survival was the major factor shaping a group’s culture. The
core mission, primary tasks and basic reason for organizational existence, generally revolve
around this issue. From Schein’s perspective, a key factor for organizational survival is a shared
set o f assumptions about operational goals to meet the group’s mission as well as shared
assumptions about the means to achieve these goals. Shared assumptions about both “the what”
and “the how” are critical if an organization is to perform well enough to survive in the long
term. From this perspective, a group’s culture provides stability, meaning, and predictability in
the present based on decisions that proved effective for the group in the past and, as such,
directly impact performance.
In addition to adaptation to the external environment, a second major role that culture
plays is in managing the internal relationships among group members, what Parsons (1960)
referred to as “integration.”
This role is critical to successful group performance (Schein,
1985/1992). Schein developed a list o f six key tasks that a group must successfully perform to
accomplish their primary mission. These tasks are listed in Table 7.
52
Table 7
Schein’s Internal Integration Tasks
1.
Create a common language and conceptual categories
2.
Define group boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion
3.
Distribute power and status
4.
Develop norms o f intimacy, friendship, and love
5.
Define and allocate rewards and punishments
6.
Explain the unexplainable - ideology and religion
(
Schein 1985/1992, pp.70-71
These internal adaptation functions- are critical to group performance.
If they are not
settled, group members will be insecure and unable to perform with any clear understanding o f
what is going on and, therefore, will be unable to properly focus on mission performance.
Summary o f Culture and Effectiveness
Parsons (1951) argues that, o f the three systems in his Theory o f Action, the cultural
system is the most abstract and overarching.
The cultural system establishes meaning for
specific actions critical to the organization’s survival by institutionalizing them in the social
system and internalizing them in the personality system.
Within an organization, this is
accomplished through the pattern maintenance function, which passes on ways o f doing things
necessary for the organizational survival, along with the values and beliefs that support these
action patterns. Thus, values and beliefs about change and about goals will directly affect the
organization’s goal-attainment and adaptation functions and, as such, affects organizational
performance.
53
Schein’s specification o f values, linked to various o f the performance criteria
discussed previously, as well as to effective operation o f Parsons’ four functions, provides the
crucial link in the structure and plan o f the proposed investigation.
Summary
This chapter presented a review o f the literature in three areas o f research and theory relevant
to this study: (1) organizational culture, (2) organizational effectiveness, and (3) the relationship
between the two.
The review o f organizational culture began with a definition o f culture and a discussion o f
the differences between culture and climate. Then, the theoretical framework for the concept o f
culture was provided, with a primary focus on the work o f Parsons. His general theory o f action
was discussed followed by a discussion o f Schein and his ten categories o f overt phenomena
generally shared by a cultural grouping. Next, a review o f the literature related to the study o f
culture in organizations was provided, followed by a discussion o f literature focused on how to
measure or assess culture.
The second section o f this review focused on research and theory regarding organizational
effectiveness. A discussion o f Campbell’s thirty commonly used effectiveness measures was
provided, as well as a discussion o f the problems associated with using financial data as a
measure o f effectiveness.
Finally, a review o f four models o f organizational effectiveness
proposed by Cameron was provided.
In the third section o f this literature review, a discussion o f research focused on the
relationship between the constructs o f culture and effectiveness was provided. Chapter Three
will provide an explanation o f the methodology used for this study to expand and extend the
findings of research presented in this chapter.
54
CHAPTER m - METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose o f this chapter is to discuss the research design, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis.
This chapter describes the methodology used to examine the
relationship between measures o f culture and measures o f organizational effectiveness. Culture
was determined by the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire and effectiveness by
three independent measures o f unit performance. A discussion o f the psychometric properties o f
the survey instrument is also included.
Research Design
This was a quantitative study to determine whether relationships exist between the
constructs o f organizational culture and organizational performance. Culture was assessed using
Sashkin’s (1990) OCAQ. Organizational performance was measured based on last major unit
inspection, safety mishap rate and personnel retention rates. The first analysis effort involved
correlating culture measures with measures o f performance. Then, a multiple regression analysis
was used to determine the relative importance o f the culture elements measured by the OCAQ
for predicting performance.
Additionally, factor analysis o f OCAQ data was performed to
examine the psychometric properties and dimensions o f the instrument.
The design o f the research corresponds to (Campbell and Stanley 1963) discussion o f
correlation and causation. That is, as Campbell and Stanley point out, correlational studies imply
nothing with regard to causation. Their utility is in determining whether causal experimental
research designs might be justified. When no association exists between two variables, there can
be no causal effect between them. However, when significant associations do exist, there is good
reason to proceed with further and more rigorous research studies.
55
Site Selection
In 1992, the Air National Guard embarked on a journey to establish a culture o f quality
leadership throughout the organization. Composed o f approximately 110,000 members in over
600 units in all 54 States and Territories, each Air National Guard unit simultaneously operates
as an independent unit and as a member o f the overall organization. Units range in size from
small, 15-25 person geographically separated units (GSUs), autonomous but loosely attached to a
W ing or State headquarters, to large, 1500+ person Wings. These individual Air National Guard
units are located from Guam to Puerto Rico and are in every State and Territory. Individual unit
members range from the youngest 18 year old Airman to senior Colonels approaching retirement
at age 60.
As is frequently the case in a large organization, there is wide variation in both
performance and culture for these Wings. Although almost every one is deemed fully capable of
responding to its war-time requirement, internal performance measures and externally evaluated
large-scale unit operational readiness inspections indicate substantial variance in the range o f
inspection scores between Wings judged outstanding and those rated marginal.
Always seeking to improve organizational effectiveness, the leadership o f the Air
National Guard was very interested in the impact o f culture on organizational performance.
Beginning in 1996, the Air National Guard began an annual administration o f Sashkin’s
Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire. Survey results were provided to each unit
Commander as an aid in focusing organizational energy and as an insight into each specific
unit’s organizational culture.
56
Sample and Population
The subjects o f this study are the 110,000 men and women o f the Air National Guard
located in 88 Wings, in locations from Guam to Puerto Rico. Each W ing is composed o f at least
1500 individuals and is normally further divided into four functional groups; operations, support,
maintenance, and medical. Twenty-eight thousand six hundred fifty (28,650) individuals from
74 Wings responded to the OCAQ survey. A copy o f the survey data set is at Attachment B. A
copy o f the survey response percentage by Wing is at Attachment C.
Measurements
The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ) (Sashkin 1990) will be
used to assess the culture o f each unit. This instrument was selected because o f its theoretical
foundation, that is. Parsons (1951) Theory o f Action, and its use in past research (Coyler 1996).
The OCAQ was designed to measure Parsons’ (1960) four critical functions, adaptation, goalattainment, integration, and pattem-maintenance. Sashkin (1990) operationalizes these functions
as managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork and building a strong shared
culture. Additionally, Sashkin included a fifth scale on the OCAQ as part o f the goal-attainment
function, a focus on customer satisfaction, now seen as important for effective goal-attainment.
A copy o f the instrument is at Attachment A.
In addition, OCAQ data have been collected throughout the Air National Guard since
1996 and thus offer a convenient archival data source for use in the proposed study. The OCAQ
is a 30-item questionnaire. Unit members answer the 30 statements on a Likert-type five-point
scale. Each statement is rated either completely true, mostly true, partly true, slightly true, or not
true, depending on how representative it is believed to be o f their organization. The answer to
each statement is related to one o f the five scales measured by the instrument and contributes to
57
the specific scale score. The five scales are managing change, achieving goals, coordinated
teamwork, customer orientation, and overall cultural strength. The “managing change” scale
reflects how well an organization is able to adapt to and deal with changes in its environment.
“Achieving goals” measures the extent to which an organization is effective in achieving goals,
the extent that there are coherent and aligned goals and the degree to which shared values
support organizational improvement. “Coordinated teamwork” is the measure o f the extent to
which the efforts o f individuals and groups within the organization are tied together, coordinated,
and sequenced so that everyone’s work efforts fit together effectively. “Customer orientation”
assesses the extent to which organizational activities are directed toward identifying and meeting
the needs o f clients and customers.
“Cultural strength” is a measure o f the extent to which
members of the organization agree on the values and the extent to which certain core values are
present (Sashkin 1990).
To assess the psychometric properties o f the survey instrument, Cronbach’s alpha and a
factor analysis on the entire data set was accomplished. Additionally, a second factor analysis
was accomplished using the aggregate o f each Wing’s data as the unit o f analysis.
The results
are shown in Table 8 through Table 13. Table 14 provides a table o f norms, descriptive statistics
about each o f the OCAQ sub-scales, the total OCAQ score and each o f the three performance
variables.
58
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha (6 variables, 28,650 cases) for each o f the scales is as follows:
Table 8
Cronbach’s alpha for OCAQ
Scale
Cronbach’s alpha
Managing Change
0.763644
Achieving Goals
0.607683
Coordinated Teamwork
0.378367 (0.642003)*
Customer Orientation
0.555083
Cultural Strength
0.600080
* Cronbach alpha o f modified scale
Further analysis on the Coordinated Teamwork scale using an “alpha if delete” function
revealed a Cronbach’s alpha for the scale o f 0.642003 when Q13 was removed. Based on this
finding, the responses for this question were removed from the scale. A complete listing o f each
question's impact is in Table 9.
59
Table 9
Cronbach’s alpha on Deleted Questions. Teamwork Scale
Includes Q3, 8, 13, 18, 23, & 28
Alpha if delete
Cronbach's alpha
(on 6 variables, 28648 cases)
0.378367
Removed Q3
0.169273
Removed Q8
0.417255
Removed Q13
0.642003
Removed Q18
0.189215
Removed Q23
0.156193
Removed Q28
0.156335
A reliability analysis scale (alpha) correlation matrix between questions and listing of
item-total statistics is included in Appendix D. A Pearson R correlation matrix for each OCAQ
survey item with the total OCAQ score is included in Appendix E.
60
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis (rotated VARIMAX loading matrix with an Eigen value o f 1) on the
entire OCAQ data set (individual records) was accomplished and produced the loading shown in
Table 10.
Table 10
Factor Analysis of Individual OCAQ Data Set
Rotated Loading Matrix ( VARIMAX, Gamma = 1.0000)
Q26
Q24
Q29
Q21
Q30
Q17
Q27
Q28
Q19
Q14
Q18
Q23
Q9
Q12
Q10
Q ll
Q20
Q2
Q4
Q13
QI5
Q1
Q16
Q3
Q22
Q6
Q7
Q5
Q8
Q25
1
2
3
0.761
0.750
0.749
0.728
0.708
0.697
0.695
0.693
0.672
-0.669
0.647
0.635
0.621
0.618
0.615
0.611
0.606
0.590
0.582
-0.577
-0.576
0.561
0.243
0.223
0.051
0.179
-0.223
-0.427
0.015
-0.416
0.159
0.116
0.242
0.109
0.241
0.234
0.193
0.237
-0.034
-0.016
0.190
0.251
0.227
0.237
0.227
0.225
-0.107
0.252
0.208
-0.121
-0.091
0.275
0.694
0.690
0.672
0.632
0.121
-0.149
0.478
0.388
0.105
0.124
0.202
0.149
0.328
0.325
0.187
0.219
0.066
-0.180
0.284
0.376
_ 0.386
0.422
0.466
0.411
-0.055
0.368
0.402
-0.224
-0.331
0.333
0.072
0.041
0.242
-0.167
-0.616
-0.573
-0.521
0.026
"Variance" Explained by Rotated Components
1
10.007
2
3.068
3
3.001
61
62
Percent o f Total Variance Explained
1
33.357
2
10.226
3
10.002
An analysis o f the three factors indicated strong relationships between the scales o f
managing change and customer orientation for the first factor, although all five o f the scales are
represented in the loading. The second factor was much smaller and centered on the change
scale. The third factor was smaller still and uninterpretable as to relationship to a specific scale.
The factor-loading plot is in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Factor Loading Plot for Individual OCAQ Data Set
Factor Loadings Plot
1.0
0-5
022
CO
cC
O
020
0.0
(14,
-
0-5
115
05
o--
63
A factor analysis was repeated using the item scores for each w ing rather than the
individual scores across Wings. The rational for doing this was that W ing scores might be a
more appropriate level o f analysis than the individual scores, that is, that the aggregate Wing is
more representative, where as the factor analysis using all o f the individual data disregards the
Wing level o f analysis. A disadvantage o f this second analysis is the great reduction in N
(28,650 individual records vs 72 wings). In fact, to have optimal reliability, an N o f at least 150
would be more appropriate rather than the actual N o f 72. Nonetheless there are justifications for
performing the analysis with this limitation. Since there are more than tw o items for each sub
scale (there are 6), while not ideal, it does provide a further exploration o f the factor structure o f
the OCAQ. The factor analysis (rotated VARIMAX loading matrix with an Eigen value of 1) for
the aggregate Wing OCAQ data set (Wing records) was therefore accomplished and produced
the loading shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Factor Analysis o f Aggregate Wing OCAQ Data Set
Rotated Loading Matrix ( VARIMAX, Gamma = 1.0000)
Q17
Q9
Q10
Q30
Q26
Q2
Q4
Q ll
Q12
Qi
Q14
Q15
Q21
Q13
Q29
Q28
Q27
Q23
Q18
Q19
Q7
Q5
Q8
Q6
Q20
Q25
Q16
Q22
Q3
Q24
1
2
0.966
0.958
0.931
0.928
0.923
0.921
0.906
0.902
0.899
0.898
-0.897
-0.892
0.887
-0.869
0.858
0.858
0.849
0.775
0.773
0.765
-0.659
-0.612
-0.052
0.170
0.365
-0.263
0.315
0.043
0.315
-0.050
-0.069
0.017
0.019
-0.106
-0.203
0.231
-0.065
-0.083
-0.160
0.169
-0.031
0.117
-0.330
0.152
-0.294
-0.180
-0.281
-0.317
-0.270
-0.348
0.569
0.453
0.879
0.819
-0.745
0.740
0.554
0.170
0.457
0.028
3
0.161
0.114
0.114
0.174
0.070
0.032
0.132
0.212
0.219
0.207
0.004
0.171
0.193
-0.023
0.282
0.278
0.229
0.466
0.439
0.189
0.088
-0.475
0.006
0.364
0.024
0.190
0.686
0.948
0.766
-0.034
4
-0.026
0.044
-0.117
-0.044
0.157
-0.031
0.070
-0.034
-0.084
0.092
-0.150
0.101
0.091
-0.060
0.131
0.027
0.199
-0.107
0.005
0.232
0.092
0.239
0.023
0.066
0.142
-0.081
0.100
-0.023
0.130
-0.869
Variance" Explained by Rotated Components
1
16.893
2
4.437
3
3.323
4
1.112
64
65
Percent o f Total Variance Explained
1
56.309
2
14.789
4
3.708
3
11.078
An analysis of the four factors indicated strong relationships between the scales o f goal
attainment and customer orientation for the first factor, although all five o f the scales are
represented in the loading. The second factor was much smaller and centered on the change and
cultural strength scales. The third and fourth factors were smaller still and uninterpretable as to
relationship to a specific scale. The factor-loading plot is in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Factor Loading Plot for Aggregate W ing OCAQ Data Set
Factor Loadings Plot
FACTOR(I)
FACTOR(2)
FACTOR^)
FACTOR(4)
FACTOR(I)
FACTOR(2)
FACTOR (3)
FACTOR(4)
66
Although several o f the scales were strongly represented, neither the individual nor the
unit factor analysis supported the five scales as separate dimensions o f culture. This means that
the most meaningful statistical tests will be on the total culture score rather than on a single
dimension, although, based on the Cronbach alpha’s, the individual dimensions hang together
well as scales.
Since the total score is the strongest measure o f culture, correlations and
regression analysis between total score and the performance measures will be the primary focus
o f discussions in chapters 4 and S.
Data Collection Procedure
The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ) was provided to the
Quality Advisor o f each unit o f the Air National Guard in a completely paperless electronic
version.
The survey program was designed for maximum system flexibility and could be
executed from the unit’s local area network, floppy diskettes, a stand-alone computer kiosk, or
any combination o f these options and was designed to run on Windows 3.1/95/NT computer
systems.
Extensive instructions were provided to each unit survey administrator (Appendix A),
as well as, an electronic and telephonic help line. Individual anonymity was ensured by the
electronic format and lack o f any information that could specifically identify an individual.
When an individual completed the questionnaire, the
individuals survey information
automatically flowed into the central data file.
Most Air National Guard members are “Traditional Guardsmen” with full time civilian
employment in addition to their Air National Guard duties.
The only period when all unit
members are physically at the unit is during a “Unit Training Assembly” (UTA). These UTAs
occur over a weekend, once each month and all unit members are required to attend.
To
maximize participation in the OCAQ, unit administrators were allowed two UTA weekends to
67
administer the survey. Upon completion o f the survey within the unit, the consolidated unit
database was electronically forwarded to the central survey administrator.
Performance Indicators
Detailed definitions for each o f the three performance measures are provided in Chapter
1. The measure of operational readiness inspection (ORI) is an all-inclusive inspection o f an
organization’s ability to carry out its assigned military taskings. The measure o f ground mishap
rate is the accident rate for the unit measured by number o f ground safety incidents during the
previous five-year period. The measure o f unit retention rate is the rate o f personnel turnover in
the unit per year. The scale is determined by the percentage o f unit members that leave the unit
per year. Performance data for the measures o f unit turnover and ORI score were obtained
directly from Headquarters Air National Guard archival data. Data for the measure o f accident
rate were obtained from the Air force Safety Center. Table 12 provides a table o f norms for each
o f the five OCAQ sub-scales, the total OCAQ score and each o f the three performance variables.
68
Table 12
Table of Norms - Descriptive Statistics for OCAQ Scales and Performance Variables
Turnover
N o f cases
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mean
Standard Dev
Variance
88
318.000
1243.000
925.000
682.648
186.833
34906.691
Achieving Goals
N o f cases
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mean
Standard Dev
Variance
73
16.542
21.383
4.842
19.325
0.822
0.676
Ground
Accidents
69
1.000
45.000
44.000
7.681
8.107
65.720
Teamwork
72
15.083
19.000
3.917
17.619
0.733
0.538
O R IR esu lts
88
2.000
5.000
3.000
3.818
0.635
0.403
Customer
Orientation
73
17.687
24.000
6.312
20.273
0.907
0.824
Managing
Change
73
18.847
28.000
9.153
22.295
1.166
1.360
Cultural Strength
73
16.946
18.707
1.761
17.947
0.314
0.099
Total OCAQ Score
N o f cases
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mean
Standard Dev
Variance
70
85.598
101.825
16.227
97.203
3.216
10.340
Data for the performance variables of turnover and ground accidents is normally
distributed. Data for the performance variable of Inspections Score (ORI Results) is skewed
69
toward upper end o f range, but is normally distributed within the four categories rather than five.
Data for each o f the OCAQ sub-scales and the overall OCAQ score is normally distributed.
Data Analysis
Pearson correlation was used to examine culture-performance relationships. Significance
was set at the .05 level.
Additionally, multiple regression was used to analyze relationships
between performance and the set o f culture measures.
As previously discussed, Cronbach’s
alpha and factor analysis was used to define and determine the dimensionality o f the OCAQ.
Summary
This chapter described the methodology used to examine the relationship between the
measures o f organizational culture and measures o f organizational effectiveness. Specifically, an
explanation o f the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire and a discussion of its
psychometric properties were provided. _ A discussion o f the site selection and sample
population, as well as the specific statistical analysis that would be accomplished (Pearson
product moment correlation, multiple regression analysis, Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis)
was also provided. Chapter Four will provide the results o f these analyses.
70
CHAPTER IV - RESULTS
Findings o f the Study
The research question for this study is as follows: “Is there a significant relationship
between OCAQ scores as a measure o f organizational culture and non-financial indicators o f
organizational performance?”
This question was addressed by completing Pearson product
moment correlations between OCAQ scores (five scales and total) and each o f the three
performance indicators.
Correlation
Full correlation results and probabilities are shown in Table 13.
Table 13
Full Pearson Correlation Matrix
Inspection Results
Ground Safety Mishap Rate Personnel Retention
Managing Change
.311**
-.529***
-.196
Achieving Goals
.302**
-.411***
-.174
Coordinated Teamwork
.305**
-.455***
-.189
Customer Orientation
.223
-.371***
-.144
Cultural Strength
.194
-.346**
-.168
Total Culture Score
.303**
-.479***
-.226*
*p<05, **p<01, ***p< 005
71
Hypotheses
Specific hypotheses, correlation results and probabilities are as follows:
HI - There will be a significant relationship between managing change and:
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between the scale o f managing
change and the performance measures o f inspection results (p< .01) and the unit ground safety
mishap rate (p<.005).
However, the results did not support the hypothesis o f a significant
relationship between the scale o f managing change and personnel retention.
H2 - There will be a significant relationship between achieving goals and:
As noted in Table 13, a significantrelationship was found between achieving goals and
all three performance indicators. The results support the hypothesis o f a significant relationship
between the scale of achieving goals and inspection results (p<.01), ground safety mishap rate
(p<01).
However, the results did not support the hypothesis o f a significant relationship
between the scale of achieving goals and personnel retention.
H3 - There will be a significant relationship between coordinated teamwork and:
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between the scale o f
coordinated teamwork and the performance measures o f inspection results (p< 01) and the unit
ground safety mishap rate (p<.005). However, the results did not support the hypothesis o f a
significant relationship between the scale o f coordinated teamwork and the measure o f personnel
retention.
72
H4 - There will be a significant relationship between customer orientation and:
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between the scale o f customer
orientation and the performance measure o f unit ground safety mishap rate (p< 005). However,
the results did not support the hypothesis o f a significant relationship between the scale o f
customer orientation and the measures o f inspection results and personnel retention.
H5 - There will be a significant relationship between cultural strength and:
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between the scale o f cultural
strength and the performance measures o f unit ground safety mishap rate (p< 01). However, the
results did not support the hypothesis o f a.significant relationship between the scale o f cultural
strength and the measures o f inspection results and personnel retention.
H6 - There will be a significant relationship between the total o f all five cultural fields and:
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between the total o f all five
cultural scales and all three o f the performance measures. The results support the hypothesis o f a
significant relationship between the total o f all five cultural scales and the performance measures
o f inspection results (p<.01), ground safety mishap rate (p<005), and personnel retention (p<05).
Ho - (Null Hypothesis) —There will be no relationship between any o f the culture measures and
any o f the performance measures.
73
As noted in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between three o f the five
culture scales (as well as the total culture score) and the measure o f inspection results.
A
significant relationship was also found between all five o f the culture measures (as well as the
total culture score) and the measure o f unit ground safety mishap rate. A significant relationship
was also found between the total culture score and the measure o f personnel retention. Thus, in
ten o f the eighteen correlations and for each o f the measures and the total culture score,
significant relationships were observed.
Although not statistically significant, in each o f the
remaining eight cases, the observed correlation was in the expected direction.
From these
results, it is reasonable to reject the null hypothesis o f no relationship between the measures of
culture and measures o f performance.
Regression Analysis
Regression analyses were performed with each o f the performance measures as
dependent variable and the five culture scales as the independent variables.
The results are
reported in Tables 14-16 and the discussion that follows each o f these tables.
Personnel Retention
A regression analysis with personnel retention as the dependent variable and the five
OCAQ scale scores as the independent variables was performed. The results are shown in Table
14. As can be seen from the table, this regression shows no significant results and a Multiple R
o f .226.
74
Table 14
Dep Var: Personnel Retention N: 70 Multiple R: 0.226 Squared multiple R: 0.0S1
Adjusted squared multiple R: 0.000 Standard error o f estimate: 193.941
Effect
Coefficient
Std Error
Std C oef
2552.773
1488.704
0.000
CHANGE
-6.935
55.175
-0.041
GOALS
-5.867
63.528
TEAMWORK
-42.992
CUSTOMER
STRENGTH
CONSTANT
Tolerance
t
P(2 Tail)
1.715
0.091
0.133
-0.126
0.900
-0.024
0.210
-0.092
0.927
94.746
-0.164
0.110
-0.454
0.651
29.940
54.646
0.140
0.222
.548
0.586
-81.629
98.903
0.132
0.565
-0.825
0.412
■
Analysis o f Variance
Source
Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square
Regression
Residual
134215.435
5 26843.087
F-ratio
0.714
P
0.615
2482465.440 66 37613.113
Although a Multiple R o f .226 is significant as noted in Table 13, none o f the individual
scales were found to be significant in the regression analysis.
Inspection Results
A regression analysis with inspection results as the dependent variable and the five OCAQ
scale scores as the independent variables was performed. The results are shown in Table 15. As
can be seen from the table, this regression shows no significant results and a Multiple R o f .330.
75
Table 15
Dep Var: ORI_RESULTS N: 72 Multiple R: 0.330 Squared multiple R: 0.109
Effect
Coefficient
CONSTANT
AVGMANCHG
AVGACHGLS
AVGTE AMWK1
AVGCUSTOR
AVGCULTSTR
-1.572
0.147
0.055
0.164
-0.183
0.104
Std Error
4.604
0.171
0.196
0.293
0.169
0.306
S tdC oef
0.000
0.275
0.071
0.197
-0.267
0.052
Tolerance
-0.341
0.133
0.210
0.110
0.222
0.565
t
0.734
0.863
0.282
0.560
-1.083
0.339
P(2Tail)
0.391
0.779
0.577
0.283
0.736
Source
Sum-of-Squares d f Mean-Square
Regression
Residual
2.909
23.744
5
66
0.582
0.360
F-ratio
1.617
P
0.168
A regression analysis with ground safety accident rate as the dependent variable and the five
OCAQ scale scores as the independent variables was performed. The results are shown in Table
16. As can be seen from the table, this regression shows significant results (p = .006) and a
Multiple R of .526.
76
Table 16
Dep Var: Ground Safety Accident Rate N: SS Multiple R: 0.S26 Squared multiple R: 0.276
Effect
Coefficient
Std Error
Std Coef
Tolerance
t
P(2 Tail)
140.750
61.629
0.000
•
2.284
0.027
CHANGE
-3.945
2.263
-0.600
0.125
-1.743
0.088
GOALS
-0.646
2.698
-0.065
0.198
-0.239
0.812
TEAMWORK
-1.449
4.006
-0.138
0.102
-0.362
0.719
CUSTOMER
3.053
2.331
0.363
0.192
1.310
0.196
STRENGTH
-3.892
4.186
-0.154
0.541
-0.930
0.357
CONSTANT
Source
Sum-of-Squares
df
Mean-Square
Regression
1032.411
5
206.482
Residual
2703.298
49
55.169
F-ratio
3.743
P
0 . 0*
Regression Summary
For each o f the performance measures, the regression analysis identified a relationship
between the cultural scales and the performance measure.
However, only for the dependent
variable o f ground safety accident rate was the measure statistically significant (p=.006).
77
Summary
This chapter presented correlation and regression analysis results examining and testing
the relationships between several dimensions o f organizational culture and several measures o f
Overall, the results shown in this chapter strongly support the
hypothesized relationships between measures o f culture and performance outcomes. While some
culture scale measures appear closely related to one or more o f the performance measures, the
overall culture score was significantly related to all three. For the 55 wings for which data w ere
complete, overall culture score was significantly related to each o f the three performance
outcomes. In addition, most o f the culture sub-dimensions were significantly and substantially
related to the performance outcomes.
Close examination o f the results in Tables 14-16 suggests that certain o f the sub-scales
are more closely related to one or another o f the performance outcomes. Specifically, culture
strength and achieving goals appear to be most closely related to personnel retention as indicated
in Tables 13 and 14.
Furthermore, teamwork, achieving goals and managing change most
strongly related to inspection results as indicated in Tables 13 and IS. Finally, an examination o f
Tables 13 and 16 suggests that while all o f the culture sub-scales significantly relate to the
ground safety accident rate, managing change and teamwork are particularly strongly related.
These associations are shown in Table 17.
78
QC AO Sub-scale Associations
Table 17
Personnel Retention
<— >
Cultural Strength and Achieving Goals
Inspection Results
<— >
Teamwork and Managing Change
<— >
Managing Change and Teamwork
In summary, these results strongly support the hypothesis o f a relationship between
organizational culture as measured by the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire
(Sashkin, 1990) and the three measures o f organizational effectiveness (inspection results,
ground safety accident record and personnel retention) selected for this study. Chapter Five will
explore in more detail possible explanations o f these results.
79
CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
This study was designed to examine possible relationships between the constructs o f
organizational culture and organizational performance. It was exploratory in nature and focused
on specific aspects o f each construct. Organizational culture was measured based on Sashldn’s
(1990) operationalization o f Parsons (1960) four functional prerequisites for organizational
survival (adaptation, goal-attainment, integration, and pattem-maintenance). Sashkin (1990)
operationalized these functions as managing change, achieving goals, coordinating teamwork
and building a strong shared culture. Additionally, Sashkin included a fifth scale as part o f the
goal-attainment function, a focus on customer satisfaction, now seen as important for effective
goal-attainment.
Organizational performance was measured by criteria that correspond to
Campbell’s (1977) criteria o f accident rate, organizational turnover, and inspection by an
external agency. Use o f these performance measures meets Seashore and Yuchtman’s (1967)
test for the use o f multiple criteria o f being few in number, focused on output and wholly
independent from each other. In their view, this offers the greatest possibility for accurately
depicting organizational performance.
Seventy-three Wings o f the Air National Guard were studied to determine whether a
significant relationship exists between culture and performance. The results strongly support the
hypothesis o f a relationship between organizational culture as measured by the Organizational
Culture Assessment Questionnaire (Sashkin, 1990) and the three measures o f organizational
effectiveness (inspection results, ground safety accident record and personnel retention) selected
for this study.
80
The purpose o f this study was to expand upon previous research and explore, through
empirical evidence,
the relationship between culture
and
Specifically, this study quantitatively examined whether there is a relationship between certain
culture attributes and specific non-financial operational measures o f organizational performance.
Most previous studies (Denison 1983; Gordon 1985; Byles, Aupperle et al. 1991; Gordon and
DiTomaso 1992; Kotter and H eskett 1992; Marcoulides and H eck 1993; Petty, Beadles et al.
1995; Coyler 1996; 1997) have assessed organizational culture using qualitative methods. This
has limited the breath, scope and generalizability o f the research. There have been very few
studies (Coyler 1996) that related performance to culture in a quantitative manner. Moreover,
the limited quantitative research (Denison 1983) that has been accomplished, generally tended to
use self-report perceptions o f performance or surrogate measures rather than empirical
performance data, opening the findings to concerns o f sam e source comparative data and
questions o f construct validity.
This research study assesses whether organizations with cultures that are rated high in the
five scales measured by the OCAQ perform differently from those with cultures rated low in
these same areas in relation to three empirical non-financial measures o f organizational
performance.
Summary o f the Findings
At first glance, this study might appear to have been conducted in a single organization, the
Air National Guard. However, due to the independent nature o f the Air National Guard units
that make up this study, the study is actually based on data from 73 separate and independent
organizations (28,656 individual responses), all in the same business and subject to many o f the
same external environmental factors.
81
As a result, this study represents one of the largest
coherent studies which has ever been done o f the relationship between an organization’s culture
and the performance o f that organization. These results further validate Colyer’s (1997) findings
and extend her results to the non-profit sector.
As noted in Chapter 4, significant relationships were found between each of the three
performance measures (inspection results, ground safety accident rate and personnel retention)
and the total culture score. Additionally, for nine o f the fifteen correlated tests for the culture
sub-scales, as well as for each o f the performance measures and the total culture score,
significant relationships were found.
What is more, although not statistically significant, the
observed correlations were consistently in the predicted direction for all o f the remaining six
correlations. With respect to the performance measure o f inspection results, three o f the five
sub-scales (managing change, achieving .goals, and coordinated teamwork) had significant
correlations. Concerning the performance measure o f ground safety accident rate, all five o f the
sub-scales yielded significant correlations. For the performance measure o f personnel retention,
two o f the five culture sub-scales (achieving goals and cultural strength) showed a significant
relationship.
Discussion o f the Findings
Overall, the findings o f this study strongly support the hypothesis o f a significant relationship
between the construct of organizational culture and organizational performance.
Personnel Retention
Personnel retention or turnover showed the weakest correlation with culture.
A
significant relationship was observed between the overall cultural score and the scales of
achieving goals and cultural strength. The correlational relationship between turnover and the
82
cultural scales o f managing change, coordinated teamwork, and customer orientation did not
reach the level required for statistical significance.
A step-wise regression o f personnel retention using the five cultural scales yielded only
weak and non-significant relationships, with cultural strength as the only retained variable
(multiple R = .193, p=. 104). This weak correlation is consistent with the limited data available
from exit interviews (Udreit 1999) with individuals leaving the Air National Guard. Reasons
cited for leaving a unit w ere numerous and varied widely, ranging from better job opportunities
in the private sector, to relocation o f a spouse, to a need for higher pay or a promotion
opportunity, to a desire to retrain in a new career field.
Seldom are factors cited (in exit
interviews) that could be identified with organizational culture. However, it is significant to note
that several units widely known for having major organizational problems, with very poor
retention, and in the midst o f major internal turbulence, chose not to participate in the present
research. Additionally, one unit almost universally acclaimed as the most outstanding in the Air
National Guard, likewise did not participate. It is reasonable to suggest that had these units
participated, the observed correlations might have been more pronounced, given the potential
outlier data.
In summary, although the performance measure “personnel retention” showed the
weakest overall relationship to culture, there was, nonetheless a significant relationship (r = -.23,
p<05).
Furthermore, while not large, this relationship is within the range that would be
considered o f practical importance (Guion 1990).
Inspection Results
Inspection results showed weak relationships with culture that were nonetheless
consistently significant.
A significant relationship was observed between the overall cultural
83
score and the scales o f managing change, achieving goals and coordinated teamwork.
The
correlational relationship between inspection results and the cultural scales o f customer
orientation and cultural strength did not reach the level required for statistical significance.
The step-wise regression o f inspection results using the five cultural scales yielded a
weak but significant relationship, with teamwork as the only retained variable (multiple R = .259
p=.028).
These unit operational readiness inspections are conducted by an outside higher
headquarters team o f approximately 60 individuals over a period o f 10 to 14 days and are
designed to push the unit to the limit o f its performance capability. Units may spend 18 to 24
months preparing and frequently go to exorbitant lengths seeking to maximize their performance.
Thus it is not surprising that the cultural scale o f teamwork would be most highly correlated with
inspection scores.
As with the unit turnover, a review o f the units that did not choose to complete the
Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire is worth consideration.
Following an
operational readiness inspection, the unit receives a score on its overall performance.
These
scores correspond to a five tier rating scale (unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, excellent, and
outstanding). During the five years reflected in the data for this survey, o f the 88 units within the
Air National Guard, two units were rated unsatisfactory, two were rated marginal and 10 were
rated outstanding.
None o f the four units scoring in the lowest two categories chose to
participate in this research. Additionally, three o f the ten rated outstanding did not participate.
This may well have restricted the range o f the OCAQ scale and total scores, since only three o f
the five tiers and as such, units on the extreme ends o f the performance scale were not included.
Nonetheless, despite these missing data, statistically significant correlational relationships were
84
observed. Had OCAQ data for every unit been available, it is reasonable to suggest that the
relationships obtained might well have been even stronger.
The performance measure o f ground safety accident rate showed the strongest
correlational relationship (r=-.479, p<.005). A significant relationship was observed between the
overall cultural score as well as each individual sub-scale (managing change, achieving goals,
coordinated teamwork, customer orientation and cultural strength).
A step-wise regression o f ground accident rates using the five cultural scales confirmed
this strong relationship, highlighting the sub-scales o f managing change and cultural strength as
retained variables (multiple R = .497, p=.002) with a Multiple R for the full regression o f .526.
From an accident perspective, it is not difficult to understand the relationship between the
sub-scales o f managing change and cultural strength.
Accidents frequently occur in new or
previously unknown circumstances. Thus, individuals in units rated higher on managing change
should adapt better to these new circumstances and have few er accidents. Many accidents can
also be traced to individual violations o f established organizational rules or standards o f conduct.
In organizations with a higher score on the cultural strength sub-scale, it is more likely that
individuals would be less prone to violate these standards, thereby reducing accident rates.
External Factors Affecting Performance
There is another factor that would appear to have greatly influenced the strength o f the
correlational relationship for each o f the selected performance measures. It is clear from exit
interviews that many factors other than organizational culture influence an individual’s decision
to separate from an Air National Guard unit. As previously noted, the external environment
exerts a major influence on an individual’s decision to stay o r leave a unit. This matches the low
85
Multiple R and R Squared observed for the regression analysis o f unit retention (Squared
Multiple R = .051). External environmental impacts are less significant but still a factor for the
performance measure o f inspection results.
Although units seek to minimize the impact o f
outside factors, it is difficult if not impossible to completely avoid the impact o f weather, the
health o f key individuals, supply channel parts shortages and many other external variables. The
external environment would appear to be even less a factor for the performance measure o f
ground accident rate. Although factors such as weather clearly impact accidents, many o f the
factors which appear highly related to turnover, such as the availability o f higher paying jobs o f
the economy in general, would appear to play little to no part in accident rates. This matches
with the substantially higher Multiple R (.526) and Squared Multiple R (.276) observed o f the
full regression analysis o f the ground safety accident rate.
In summary, there are a variety o f environmental factors that could and likely do affect
the relationship between organizational culture and the performance measures o f inspection
results, ground safety, and personnel retention.
However, clearly a number o f important
conclusions can be drawn from the relationship of the various culture sub-scales to ground safety
accident rates.
Summary o f Discussion o f the Findings
As noted above, all three o f the performance outcome measures were significantly related
with one or more o f the aspects o f organizational culture. Moreover, these relationships were
generally as might have been predicted from Parsons’ Theory o f Action (Parsons, 1951) and
consistent with Schwandt’s Organizational Learning Model (Schwandt, 1995). Specifically, I
found that personnel retention was most clearly related to overall culture score and secondarily
(though not significantly) to culture strength, that inspection results was most clearly related to
86
overall culture score and secondarily to teamwork (significantly), and the ground safety accident
rate was most clearly related to the overall culture score with secondary and significant
relationships to each o f the five sub-scale scores, but m ost clearly and strongly related to
managing change and culture strength (as shown by backward step-wise regression Multiple R o f
.497).
A variety o f environmental factors doubtless affected these results and some were
discussed above. In addition, the results may have been attenuated by the removal from the
sample o f extremes, that is both several o f the very worst and very best units as objectively
measured by the performance measures, failed to provide OCAQ data to be included within the
final sample. This is one o f the hazards o f applied research. Outside of the laboratory, in the
real world o f organizations, variables can not be as tightly controlled as in a purely experimental
setting. This was the case for this study. Participation in the OCAQ survey was voluntary and
the decision completely at the discretion o f the unit commander. However, in this study the lack
o f some of the highest scoring units and all o f the worst can only hurt the strength o f the
relationships. This probably restricted the range of the data, which can only make the results an
even more conservative depiction o f the actual strength o f the relationships.
The results in summary a) show general support for each hypothesis and sub-hypothesis,
b) identify areas which deserve further research investigation as the more proximate, since they
are the strongest factors and c) might well have been even stronger had the complete population
been included in the analysis.
Relationship to the Literature
The findings o f this study are consistent and provide further support for past models and
studies that hypothesized a strong relationship between an organization’s culture and the
87
performance o f that organization. Deal and Kennedy (1982) profiled the “culture” o f eighty
companies and concluded that “culture has a powerful influence throughout the organization; it
affects practically everything.... Because o f this impact, we think culture also has a major effect
on the success o f the business” (p.4).
The findings o f this study strongly support their
conclusion.
In 1983, Denison’s study o f the culture and performance o f 34 companies obtained
results supportive o f Deal and Kennedy’s assertion, stating that “organizational culture has a
close relationship to the effectiveness o f these companies.
Although Denison’s study used
financial measures o f performance which, by his own admission, were subject to variance
depending on the specific industry, the economic cycle and the organization’s specific financial
objectives, nevertheless,
his study found significant correlations between culture and
performance. The findings o f this study are consistent with Denison’s without the variance o f
conflicting financial organizational goals or the limits o f a small sample size.
The findings o f this study also provide further and larger scale validation o f the results
obtained by Colyer (1996,1997) regarding the relationship between organizational culture and
Colyer used a mix o f self-report, financial and non-financial
performance measures in a study of 72 retail stores with the OCAQ as the measure o f
organizational culture for each store.
She found that, when the manager’s leadership self
perception was in agreement with the perceptions o f others, then there were “many and
significant relationships” (p.2) between the OCAQ total culture score and organizational
performance measures (Coyler 1997) and concluded that “organizational culture appears to be
even more strongly related to performance than does leadership”(p.3). Although this study did
88
not attempt to relate leadership to performance, it does support and expand Colyer’s findings o f
the relationship between culture and performance.
This study is also consistent with the findings o f Sashkin, Rosenbach and Mueller (1994)
in their study o f the relationship between culture, leadership and performance among 33 district
bank managers in the National Australia Bank Group (Sashkin, Rosenbach et al. 1994). They
found significant relationships between culture, as measured by the OCAQ, and supervisor’s
ratings o f the managers based on “key performance objectives” derived from key result areas in
the bank’s strategic plan. Based on this and other assessments, each manager was assigned to
one o f four “performance quartiles.
OCAQ scores differed significantly between managers
assigned to the top two quartiles and the bottom two.
A regression analysis o f culture on
performance yielded a multiple R squared o f .371, p = .033. This compares closely with the
results from this study o f the regression o f culture on ground safety accident rates (multiple R
squared o f .276, p = .006). It is reasonable to assume that the comparison would have been even
closer had the safety data been grouped by quartile, further validating the relationship between
culture and performance.
This study also provides further confirmation o f the validity o f cultural strength (Denison
and Mishra 1989) as a valid measure o f performance. Denison and Mishra surveyed 969 CEO’s
in the Midwest for perceptions o f organizational culture and performance using four culture
dimensions
(involvement,
consistency,
adaptability,
and
mission)
and
six subjective
effectiveness measures (new product development, sales growth, market share, cash flow, return
on assets and overall performance). Each CEO was asked to rate (on a Likert type scale) how his
or her organization was performing in each cultural and performance dimension. They found
significant relationships to each culture dimension with the mission scale, a measure o f the
89
CEO’s perception o f the strength o f the shared purpose and direction o f the organization, to be
the strongest of the four predictors, with the strongest predictions being o f market share and
overall performance. This is consistent with Krakower’s (1987) findings in a study o f more than
3400 college administrators, faculty and trustees that cultural strength is clearly related to
perceptions o f organizational performance.
Kotter and Haskett (1992) are widely quoted as concluding from their study o f cultural
strength and the financial performance o f 207 firms in 22 industries “that there is a positive
relationship between strength o f corporate culture and long-term economic performance” (p.2i).
However, what is not so widely quoted is their statement that this relationship is only a modest
one and that “The statement that ‘Strong cultures create excellent performance’ appears to be just
plain wrong” (Kotter and Heskett 1992 p. 21). This is consistent with the findings observed in
this study, of a significant but moderate relationship between cultural strength and two o f the
three performance measures used in this study. Only for the sub-scale o f achieving goals was a
significant relationship observed for all three performance indicators.
In a 1994 follow-up study o f 764 organizations, Denison and Mishra, once again
collected CEO perceptions o f four organizational culture dimensions (involvement, consistency,
adaptability, and mission).
In this study (Denison and Mishra 1994) they found that all four
culture scales were significant predictors o f both subjective effectiveness criteria (quality,
employee satisfaction, and overall performance) and objective criteria (retum-on-assets and sales
growth). Although they did not sum their four scales, it is reasonable to assume that if they had,
the relationship o f the combined culture score to performance would have been even stronger.
As has been previously stated, for the subject study, the total culture score was a much better
predictor than any o f the sub-scales for each o f the three performance measures.
90
Denison and Mishra acknowledged that a reliance on CEO perceptions o f each firm’s
cultural and performance dimensions was a major limitation for both their 1989 and 1994
studies. Additionally, they were concerned that although the breath o f their study was excellent,
the obvious lack o f depth was a major limitation. They recommended that future research on the
relationship between organizational culture and performance “must begin to include research
designs that incorporate both (their emphasis) breath and depth” (Denison and M ishra 1989).
This study does exactly that and supports their findings with both breath and depth, as well as
with non-financial, non-self report performance measures.
In summary, the results o f this study add strength and support to a wide range o f prior
research findings related to culture and performance and thus contributes to expanding the body
o f research literature on the relationship between organizational culture and effectiveness.
Practical Meaning
Collins and Porras (1994) conducted a qualitative study o f 34 “visionary” and “less
visionary” comparison companies. During the period o f their study data, (1926-1990), visionary
companies from their study out-performed the general market by a factor o f fifteen and out
performed the less visionary but nonetheless highly successful comparison companies by a factor
o f six.
Most o f their findings dealt with differences in organizational values and focus.
Specifically, one o f the key differences between the visionary and comparison companies they
discovered during their research was the creation o f a “cult like culture” in visionary
organizations.
These results provide overwhelming evidence for the extreme competitive
advantage available to a leader that can create a “visionary” company (Collins and Porras 1994).
If there is to be practical meaning and application to this study, the Collins and Porras study
91
certainly highlights the implications o f how certain organizational cultures lead to vastly higher
performance outcomes.
Schein (1992) has stated that creating culture may be the only important thing that leaders
do.
Deal and Kennedy (1982) wrote that “values are the bedrock o f any corporate culture,
provide guidelines for day-to-day behavior and that often companies succeed because employees
can identify, embrace and act on the values o f the organization” (p.21).
It is the role o f
leadership to align, articulate, model and champion the values perceived to be most appropriate
for the organization.
This is the essence o f leadership and the key to building a cohesive
organizational culture. Given the demonstrated strength o f the relationships between culture and
performance observed in this study, creation o f culture must be considered a critical
organizational task and as such should be given a high priority if the organization is to remain
competitive.
For this study, statistically significant relationships were observed between the overall
cultural score and all three performance measures used for this study. Moreover, statistically
significant relationships were also observed between most o f the performance measures and
certain o f the OCAQ scales. It is especially noteworthy that a significant relationship with all
three o f the performance variables was observed with the OCAQ sub-scale o f goal attainment.
This matches previous research and practice (Folz 1993; Belasco 1996; Collins and Porras 1994)
about the extreme importance o f clear and aligned goals for peak organizational performance.
However, as noted in the regression analysis, the multiple R squared for the performance
measures o f turnover and inspections scores was low (turnover = .05, inspections = .11) and the
multiple R squared for ground safety was .276. A variable that accounts for no more than 5% o f
the variance, as is the case for OCAQ and the variable o f turnover, is clearly o f little practical
92
significance. In the case o f inspection scores, the OCAQ results accounted for about 11% o f the
variance. This is a borderline result: that is, in many circumstances a variable accounting for
fully 10% o f the variance would be considered o f practical use, while in other circumstances, it
would not. Only the ground safety score shows a relationship to OCAQ so strong as to indicate
the OCAQ could be o f substantial practical significance for improving ground safety.
Overall, these results do limit the practical significance and usefulness o f the OCAQ as a
predictor for organizational turnover and for inspection results.
However, even if the relationships obtained were strong enough to have practical
significance only for the ground safety accident rate, that relationship alone is o f crucial
importance. This is because valid predictors o f safety performance are often lacking. Too often
safety becomes an issue only after a major accident. The results o f this study not only validate
the hypothesized relationship between culture and performance, they provide a tool for the unit
commander that is potentially predictive of safety performance.
Based on culture scores, a
commander may be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the number o f ground accidents
likely to occur during the next five years.
This provides an early warning tripwire.
If the
cultural factors suggest that a high number of accidents is likely, the commander can shift the
organization’s focus, increase training, promote increased safety awareness, tighten enforcement
o f safety standards or many other activities designed to decrease accidents. On a deeper level,
the commander may elect to take actions to improve the unit culture. On the other hand, if the
cultural factors indicate a lower accident probability, the commander can focus organizational
energy on some other area deemed important.
In a broader context, the relationships observed between each o f the three performance
measures and the overall cultural score and sub-scales validates the OCAQ as an organizational
diagnostic tool.
93
Too often during organizational assessments using qualitative methodology
interpretations are biased due to small sample size, consultant skill or divergence in opinion
about the true meaning. The OCAQ offers an accurate quantitative tool which can be rapidly
administered to the entire organization with easy to understand scales.
A low score o n an
individual sub-scale provides a very focused topic for an organizational intervention, minimizing
the risk and cost o f an inappropriate engagement.
Within the Air National Guard, this broader context is the one that is providing an
invaluable tool for unit commanders. Many commanders are using the five scales o f the OCAQ
as a diagnostic tool for specific organizational interventions. O f special note is the adaptability
to change sub-scale. It has been used by several commanders to judge their unit’s readiness for
large-scale organizational change due to a pending major mission realignment.
In a similar
fashion, the goal attainment scale has been_used to assess a unit’s cultural readiness to begin the
extensive operational readiness inspection preparation process.
This study was subject to the following limitations:
1) Data for this study are archival. Although the measures o f performance were assessed for a
five-year period (1993-1998), the cultural measures were collected over a 12-month period
(1998). Relationships among the constructs may, however, need to be studied over a much
longer period o f time and examined using longitudinal analysis, to more fully determine
relationships and to completely assess the strength o f relationships identified.
2) Organizational culture is a deep, thick and complex phenomenon that researchers
continuously struggle to understand. The proposed design can determine whether culture
and performance are related.
However, understanding how performance and culture are
94
intertwined must be studied qualitatively using a case study. This study is not designed to
determine how to use organizational interventions to change culture. Rather, it is designed to
determine whether there is a relationship between culture and performance, using functional
performance indicators. The "how" is the next step for further investigation after this study
is completed.
3) Participation in the OCAQ by each wing was voluntary. Only seventy (70) o f the eightyeighty (88) wings chose to participate. Review o f the non-participating wings score for the
dependent variable o f inspection score indicated that none o f the wings that received a score
o f unsatisfactory and three wings with a score o f outstanding chose not to participate in the
survey. Only one wing with a score o f marginal chose to participate. Clearly, this restricted
the variation for this dependent variable.
Implications for Future Research
Further study regarding the relationships between the sub-scales in the OCAQ and
specific demographic data from the study population would add to our understanding o f how
culture affects specific sub-groups within an organization. This could be especially significant
for the study o f how culture impacts organizational turnover. It is quite possible that there is a
much stronger relationship for some specific demographic sectors than for the population as a
whole.
Moreover, it is likely that external environmental factors play a significant role in the
relationship between culture and certain performance measures. Thus, future research is needed
to more fully explore this relationship.
Additionally, this study explored the relationship
between culture and only three o f the 30 organizational effectiveness indices proposed by
Campbell (1977) as variables worthy o f serious study. Although the three performance measures
95
selected provide the best objective, non-financial indices from the list, an expanded study o f the
same depth and breath but incorporating a wider or different selection o f these measures would
greatly enhance our understanding o f this relationship.
Future research is also needed to validate the findings o f this study in the private sector
using non-financial and non-self-report perceptions as measures o f performance. This study
provided a broad and deep view o f cultural and performance relationships in predominately
autonomous divisions o f a large organization, it was nonetheless, a public-sector military
organization. A case for the generalizability o f this study can reasonably be argued; however, a
replication in a similarly large, multi-national private sector organization or industry would
significantly strengthen the argument.
Although this study identified a relationship between organizational culture and certain
organizational performance measures, how to change or improve the cultural factors that make
up the sub-scales was not a part o f this study. Much research into how to optimally change a
culture is still needed. It would be especially useful to include units that were outliers for the
performance measures, especially those that chose not to participate in the OCAQ survey, and to
simultaneously conduct qualitative research in a hybrid design on the same units (similar to
Denison’s quantitative plus case study design). A study o f this magnitude using non-financial
and hard, objective performance measures would significantly increase our understanding o f the
culture and performance relationship.
Finally, this study focused on determining if there was a relationship between culture and
performance. Now that the relationship has been confirmed, a study o f how the relationships
actually come into being, are created, constructed, and operate is needed.
Thus, various
qualitative investigations should be undertaken to begin to examine how the relationship between
96
culture and performance actually happens and not ju st repeat the determination that such a
relationship does indeed exist.
Conclusion
This was an exploratory study that examined the relationship between the constructs o f
organizational culture and organizational performance. The specific procedural problem was to
describe the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance in Air
National Guard units using quantitative data from Sashkin's organizational culture assessment
questionnaire from Air National Guard units with a series o f measures o f organizational
performance for these same units.
Two problems were addressed by this research. The first was "to determine if there is a
relationship between a certain type o f organizational culture and certain types of organizational
performance?" Second, and o f greater significance, was how to best measure performance. In
most studies to date, financial measures or self-report o f perceptions o f effectiveness have been
used as the predominant measure o f organizational performance.
The results o f this study confirmed that there is a significant relationship between
organizational culture and organizational performance using non-financial and non-self-report
perceptions o f effectiveness. The relationship to certain performance measures does, however,
appear to be strongly influenced by a variety o f external environmental factors.
As has been stated by many, the study o f organizational culture is a complex, thick topic,
affected by many internal and external variables, many o f which are difficult if not impossible to
completely measure o r assess. How culture impacts performance, and exactly what the causal
factors are, is certainly the result o f many complex interactions. Although there is still much
research needed to fully understand the construct o f organizational culture and its influence on
97
performance, this study provides a major validation o f the relationship with non-financial,
objective measures o f performance.
As such, it is a major step forward that confirms and
extends with a more in-depth, robust design the findings o f previous related studies o f this
relationship.
98
References
Angle, H. L. and J. L. Perry (1981). “An empirical assessment o f organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 26(1): 1-14.
Belasco, J. A. (1991). Teaching the elephant to dance. New York, Penguin Books.
Belasco, J. A. (1996). Getting and maintaining focus: The interlock performance agreement
process. San Diego, Management Development Associates: 4.
Bettinger, C. (1989). “Use corporate culture to trigger high performance.” Journal o f Business
Strategy 10(21: 38-42.
Blau, P. M. and M. W. Meyer (1956/1971). Bureaucracy in modem society. N ew York, Random
House.
Bluth, B. J. (1982). Parson's general theory o f action. Granada Hills, CA, NBS.
Bureil, G. and G. Morgan (1992). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Heinemann.
Burke, W. W. and G. H. Litwin (1992). “A causal model o f organizational performance and
change.” Journal o f Management 18(3): 523-545.
Byles, C. M., K. E. Aupperle, et al. (1991). “Organizational culture and performance.” Journal of
Managerial Issues 3(4): 512-527.
Calori, R. and P. Samin (1991). “Corporate culture and economic performance: A french study.”
Organizational Studies 12(1): 49-74.
Cameron, K. (1980). “Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness.”
Organizational Dynamics 9: 66-80:
Cameron, K. (1985). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: Relationships to effectiveness.
Chicago, IL, National Institution o f Education.
99
Cameron, K. S. and D. A. Whetten (1983). Preface. Organizational effectiveness: A comparison
o f multiple models. K. S. Cameron and D. A. Whetten. New York, Academic Press: xixiv.
Cameron, K. S. and D. A. Whetten (1983). Some conclusions about organizational effectiveness.
Organizational effectiveness: A comparison o f multiple models. K. S. Cameron and D.
A. Whetten. New York, Academic Press: 261-275.
Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Co.
Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature o f organizational effectiveness. New perspectives on
organizational effectiveness. P. S. Goodman and J. M. Pennings. San Francisco, JosseyBass: 13-55.
Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, et al. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and
effectiveness. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Collins, J. C. and J. I. Porras (1994). Built to last. New York, HarperCollins.
Coyler, S. L. (1996). An empirical investigation o f self and other perceptions o f visionary
leadership as related to organizational performance. School o f Education and Human
Development. Washington, D.C., The George Washington University: 147.
Coyler, S. L. (1997). The relationship between culture and organizational performance: An
extension o f a study o f leadership and performance.
Cummings, L. L. (1983). Organizational effectiveness and organizational behavior: A critical
perspective. Organizational effectiveness A comparison o f multiple models. K. S.
Cameron and D. A. Whetten. New York, Academic Press: 187-203.
Daft, R. L. (1989). Organization theory and design. St Paul, West Publishing Company.
100
Deal, T. E. and A. A. Kennedy (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals o f corporate life.
Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Denison, D. R. (1983). The climate, culture and effectiveness o f work organizations: A study o f
organizational behavior and financial performance, The University o f Michigan: 344.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York, John
Wiley and Sons.
Denison, D. R. (1996). “W hat is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native's point o f view on a decade o f paradigm wars.” Academy o f
Management Review 21(3): 619-654.
Denison, D. R. and A. K. Mishra(1989). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness:
A theory and some preliminary empirical evidence. 49th Annual Meeting o f the
Academy o f Management, Washington D.C., Academy o f Management.
Denison, D. R. and A. K. Mishra (1994). “Toward a theory o f organizational culture and
effectiveness.” Organizational Science 5(3): 1-20.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eve. New York, Macmillian Publishing Co.
Ellison, R. L., B. W. McDonald, et al. (1969). Relationship o f organizational characteristics to
measures o f scientific performance. American Psychological Association, American
Psychological Association.
Faerman, S. R. and R. E. Quinn (1985). “Effectiveness: The perspective from organizational
theory.” The Review o f Higher Education 9(1): 83-100.
Folz, D. (1993). “A culture o f high performance.” Executive Excellence 10(2): 17.
Frederiksen, N. (1966). Some effects o f organizational climates on administrative performance.
American Psychological Association, New York.
101
Georgopoulos, B. S. and A. S. Tannenbaum (1957). “A study o f organizational effectiveness.”
American Sociological Review 22(5): 534-540.
Gordon, G. G. (1985). The relationship o f corporate culture to industry sector and corporate
performance. Gaining control o f the corporate culture. R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton and
R. Serpa. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 103-125.
Gordon, G. G. and N. DiTomaso (1992). “Predicting corporate performance from organizational
culture.” Journal o f Management Studies 29(6): 783-798.
Guion, R. M. (1990). Personnel assessment, selection, and placement. Handbook o f industrial
and organizational psychology. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA,
Consulting Psychologists Press. 2: p. 327-398.
Habermas, J. (1981). “Talcott parsons: problems o f theory construction.” Social Inquiry 51:
173-196.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). “The dynamics o f organizational culture.” Academy o f Management 18(4):
657-690.
Hatch, M. J. and M. Schultz (1996). “Living with multiple paradigms: The case o f paradigm
interplay in organizational culture studies.” Academy o f Management 21(2): 529-557.
Hitt, M. A (1988). “The measuring o f organizational effectiveness: Multiple domains and
constituencies.” Management International Review 28(2): 28-40.
Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, et al. (1990). “Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and
quantitative study across twenty cases.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 286-326.
Jaques, E. (1952). The changing culture o f a factory. New York, The Dryden Press.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study o f culture. The policy sciences. D. Lemer and H. H. Lasswell.
Stanford, California, Stanford University Press: 86-101.
102
Kotter, J. P. and J. L. Heskett (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, The Free
Press.
Krakower, J. (1987). Organizational culture and performance. Association for the Study o f
Higher Education. San Diego, CA.
LeCompte, M. and J. Preissle (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. New York, Academic Press, Inc.
Lee, J. S. K. (1992). “Quantitative versus qualitative research methods - Two approaches to
organization studies.” Asia Pacific Journal o f Management 9(1): 87-94.
Lewin, A. Y. and J. W. Minton (1986). “Determining organizational effectiveness: Another
look, and an agenda for research.” Management Science 32(5): 514-538.
Lim, B. (1995). “Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link.”
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 16(5): 16-21.
Lundberg, C. C. (1988). “Working with culture.” Journal o f Organizational Change Management
1(2): 38-47.
Marcoulides, G. A. and R. H. Heck (1993). “Organizational culture and performance: Proposing
and testing a model.” Organizational Science 4(2): 209-225.
Martin, J. and C. Siehl (1983). “Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy
symbiosis.” Organizational Dynamics 12(2): 52-64.
Parsons, T. (1937). The structure o f social action: A study in social theory with special reference
to a group o f recent european writers. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Parsons, T. and E. A. Shils, Eds. (1951). Toward a general theory o f action. Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press.
Parsons, T. (1951a). The social system. Glencoe, IL, The Free Press.
103
Parsons, T. (1954). Essavs in sociological theory. Glencoe, IL, The Free Press.
Parsons, T. and N. J. Smelser (1956). Economy and society: A study in the integration o f
economic and social theory. Glencoe, IL, The Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modem societies. Glencoe, IL, The Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1964). The point o f view o f the author. The social theories o f Talcott Parsons: a
critical examination. M. Black. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall: 363.
Parsons, T. (1967). Sociological theory and modern society. New York, The Free Press.
Peters, T. J. and R. H. J. Waterman (1982). In search o f excellence. New York, Harper & Row.
Petty, M. M., N. A. Beadles, et al. (1995). “Relationships between organizational culture and
organizational performance.” Psychological Reports 76(2): 483-492.
Potts, D. (1990). “Bias lurks in all phases o f qualitative research.” Marketing News 24(18): 1213.
Quinn, R. E. and K. Cameron (1983). “Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria o f
effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence.” The Institute o f Management Sciences
25(1): 33-51.
Reynolds, P. D. (1986). “Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance:
A preliminary report.” Journal o f Management Studies 23(3): 333-345.
Rocher, G. (1975). Talcott parsons and american sociology. Ney York, Barnes and Noble.
Safford, G. S. (1988). “Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond
"strong" culture.” Academy o f Management Review 13(4): 546-558.
Sashkin, M. (1990). Organizational culture assessment questionnaire, Ducochon Press: 14.
104
Sashkin, M., W. E. Rosenbach, et al. (1994). Leadership, culture, and performance: An
exploration o f relationships. Annual Meeting o f the American Educational Research
Association, Brisbane, Australia.
Schein, E. H. (1985/1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). “Organizational culture.” American Psychologist 45(2): 109-119.
Schein, E. K (1993). “Legitimating clinical research in the study o f organizational culture.”
Journal o f Counseling and Development 71(6): 703-708.
Seashore, S. E. (1983). A framework for an integrated model o f organizational effectiveness.
Organizational effectiveness: A comparison o f multiple models. K. S. Cameron and D.
A. Whetten. New York, Academic Press: 55-70.
Seashore, S. E., B. P. Indik, et al. (I960). “Relationships among criteria o f job performance.”
Journal o f Applied Psychology 44(31: 195-202.
Seashore, S. E. and E. Yuchtman (1967). “Factorial analysis o f organizational performance.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 12(3): 377-395.
Seiber, S. D. (1973). “The integration o f fieldwork and survey methods.” American Journal o f
Sociology 78/61: 1335-1359.
Simon, S. E. (1987). “Productivity, efficiency and effectiveness: Simple indicators o f agency
performance.” Journal o f Rehabilitation Administration 11(1): 4-10.
Steers, R. M. (1976). “When is an organization effective? A process approach to understanding
effectiveness.” Organizational Dynamics 22: 50-56.
Sutton, B. (1993). “The rationale for qualitative research: A review o f principles and theoretical
foundations.” Library Quarterly 63(4): 411-430.
105
Sykes, W. (1990). “Validity and reliability on qualitative market research: A review o f the
literature.” Journal o f the Market Research Society 32(3): 289-328.
Sykes, W. (1991). “Taking stock: Issues from the literature on validity and reliability in
qualitative research.” Journal o f the Market Research Society 33(1): 3-17.
Tumipseed, D. L. (1988). “An integrated, interactive model o f organizational climate, culture
and effectiveness.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 9(5): 17-21.
Tylor, E. B. (1871/1958). The origins o f culture. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers.
Udreit, C. W. (1999). Air national guard exit interview information.
Weick, K. E. and R. L. Daft (1983). The effectiveness o f interpretation systems. Organizational
effectiveness: A comparison o f multiple models. K. S. Cameron and D. A Whetten.
New York, Academic Press: 71-93.
106
Appendix A
Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ)*
© 1990, Dr Marshall Sashkin
* The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ) is copyright © 1990 Dr
Marshall Sashkin and no further reproduction in any format is authorized without the written
permission o f the copyright holder, Dr Sashkin.
Developed by M a n h a ll Sashkin, PhJD.
Introduction
There has been a lot o f ta lk in recent years about "organizational culture" and the
importance of a "strong" culture, the dangers of a "weak" culture, and the type or
variety of cultures or cu ltu ral pattern s th a t exist o r m ig h t exist. The Organizational
Culture Assessm ent Q uestionnaire (OCAQ) was developed to help people identify and
understand th e n a tu re o f the culture in th eir own organinzation, as a first step in
identifying problem s an d defining the sort of culture th ey w ant (and the sort of
culture that will help deal w ith organizational problems).
The OCAQ is b u ilt firm ly on a base of over fifty years o f research and theory in the
sociology of organizations. The d ata obtained by m eans o f th e OCAQ can be used not
only to help u n d erstan d y o u r organization’s culture, b u t to identify and find ways to
deal with culture-based organizational problems. All th is will be explained in the
Interpretation section of th is booklet.
But it is especially im p o rtan t th a t you understand th a t th e OCAQ does not measure
anything about you, personally. T hat is, this questionnaire is about the ways th a t
people in your organization t hink and act. It is not intended th a t you respond in
terms of how you, personally, t hink or act. T he aim is to understand your
organization, n o t your own, personal behavior or ideas.
For this reason, you will have to try to "distance" yourself a b it when you answer
the question th a t follow. No m atter w hat you th in k or how you, personally, act, you
must try to step back an d consider how people in your organization generally think
and act. The m ore objective you can be in answering th e questions on the OCAQ, the
more useful will be th e results. O f course, it is always interesting to see our own
scores as they com pare w ith th e "average" or w ith th e scores o f one’s colleagues, but
please remember th a t th e OCAQ scores are m eaningful only m aggregate, that is,
when averaged for th e organization for, perhaps, a division o r departm ent).
The better everyone does in providing accurate descriptions, thy. more useful will be
the OCAQ results.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions
This questionnaire measures the ways that people in your organization generally think and act.
The questions ask you to describe, as best you can, how people typically behave and the sorts of
things they generally believe about the organization and how it operates.
In giving your answers, the tenn "organization" is used to mean the largest unit o r p a n o f the
whole organization that you relate to directly in your normal work activities. This m ight be the
entire organization or it m ight be a division or some other relatively "whole" p a n o f the larger
organization. This would not, however, normally be a small unit such as a work group; try your
best to give answers that you think apply to the largest pan of the organization that you deal with
directly on a d ay -to -d ay basis.
Of course, it is impossible for anyone to know exactly what others think and believe about a wide
range of issues; the aim here is to identify a rough, general consensus o f ideas and beliefs that
people in your organization share and that affect the way they behave. Please be as accurate as
possible in describing the behaviors and attitudes o f yourself and other m em bers o f the
organization. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers should indicate what actually
happens as you and others view it, not what you believe should happen or how you think people
should see things.
Use the following response key:
C T = Comoletelv True:
This statement definitely applies to the w ay people
think and act in my organization most o r all of the
time.
M T = M ostly True:
This statement applies to the wav people think and
act in my organization much of the time.
FT = Partly True:
This statement applies occasionally to the w ay people
in my organization think and act.
ST = Slightly True:
This statement seldom applies to the way people in
my organization think and act.
N T = Not True:
This statement does not apply at all to the way people
in my organization think and act.
Copyright C 1990. Manfeail Siihfcw. Pb-D.
1.
This organization clearly demonstrates that it can adapt to changing conditions as needed.
2.
In this organization people have/nearly defined goals.
3.
In this organization the compLferw' of^eople's roles and tasks is
managers have given u p t r y in g t u ^ w d i n a t e with one another
inevitable a high degree
4.
This organization
5.
People in this or
to change or
6.
People y
impose
8.
inalized attention to all its c li^ fl^ ip i customers,
are rather than trying
,believe in accepting one ano
ing to cope with conditions
ition agree that there is no
outside (e.g., EPA, OSHA
7.
:at that most
accepted as
ition people try to do their
little pressure to strive for specific
this organization believed i^&$ing everyone do his or her "own thing."
9.
This organization is flexible and MjaRcy respond to problems o f customers, government
agencies, or other stakeholders anaxdncerned parties.
10 .
This organization has dev
behavior.
11.
When changes are ndcc&ary, everyone in this organization has a clear idea o f what sorts
of activities are an tf^ sen b t acceptable.
12 .
In this organ,
organization
stable pattern of shared values, beliefs, and norms of
individual action is channeled into achieving the goals of the total
j than goals o f individual managers.
13.
In this organization management believes in making sure that everything happens
according to the plans made at higher levels (vice-presidents and president).
14.
This organization concentrates on new products and services for which customer demand
can be developed.
15.
People in this organization rely on one another to understand what is really happening and
why.
Copynjht O 1990, M anhill
PhJJ.
16.
In this organization the pressure to m aintain the status quo is so great that i f major
changes were required for the organization to survive, it might not.
17.
People in this organization deal effectively with problems that involve defining and
attaining goals.
18.
People in this organization clearly understand their job assignments and how these relate
to the job assignments o f others in the n$feanization with whom they must work.
19.
This organization develops products
and market strengths.
20 .
In this organization people
facts.
21 .
In this organization pel
important factors
22 .
Most people i:
one with anot,
23 .
People
cooper;
24 .
In this organization people agree that when e^berimfcnting with new products o r services
we must first make sure that these are thingtraftfgfer customers and clients need and want.
25 .
It is accepted in this organization that peopt^usually have their own ways o f seeing and
making sense of situations.
26 .
In this organization we believe h N n ^ th g our outside stakeholders (customers, suppliers,
etc.) into valued allies.
^
27 .
Taking action to attain nepS^KoaK is valued in this organization more than maintaining the
status quo.
28 .
Making sure that mabq^cfs at all levels coordinate effectively is seen as the responsibility
of all the managers involved, not just as the responsibility of top executives.
29 .
People in this organization believe that listening to what clients and customers have to say
is critical if we are to reach our goals.
30 .
In this organization everyone strongly believes in a set o f shared basic values about how
people should work together to solve common problems and reach shared objectives.
extensions of existing product lines
support their views and beHi
they can influence, controlt/
environment.
on have their own goals that,
concrete
(Be positively with
ay not be compatible
nization believe in working qscettyer collaborativeiy, preferring
petition.
Gopyngbt C 1990. Marshall Sashkio. Ph.D.
Organisational Culture A sscssm cut Q uestionnaire
Response Form
03
06
CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
CT
CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
10 CT
CT
015 CT
Q13 CT
Q ll CT
Q19 CT
020 CT
Q23 CT
Q24 CT
025 CT
Q28 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Q29 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Q30 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
016 CT
021 CT
Q26 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Q5
Q27 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Instructions: Circle the letters that best reflea your judgment of the extent to which each
statement is true in your organization. Use the following key:
CT =
MT =
PT =
ST =
NT =
Completely True
Mostly True
Partly True
Slightly True
Not True
Copyright O 1990. Manfcall Sufckia. PhJ>.
Scoring Form
Strength
Chiage
«5
«4
*3
*2
*1
=3
-2
=1
Q6 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=1
=2
=3
=4
=5
Q ll CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
=4
=3
=2
=1
Q16 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=1
=2
=3
=4
=5
017 CT =5
=5
=4
=3
=2
=1
Q22 C ^ l
MT =2
PT =3
ST =4
NT =5
Q23 CT
MT
FT
ST
NT
=5
=4
=3
-2
=1
Q27 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Q28 CT
MT
FT
ST
NT
CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
Q2 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
Q1 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=4
Instructions:
Q10 CT
QS CT *1
M r *2
Q7 CT
013 CT =1
=5
=4
=3
*2
=1
CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
•14 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
*i
*2
*3
=4
=5
Q15 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=1
Q20 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
*1
-2
=3
*5
-3
=2
*1
Q19 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
=4
=3
=2
=1
Q24 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
=3
=2
=1
Q25 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
=5
Q29 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
*5
=4
=3
=2
=1
Q30 CT
MT
PT
ST
NT
*5
s4
=4
=3
=2
=1
x4
=3
=2
=1
=4
=3
=4
=5
s4
*3
=2
=1
=4
=5
=5
=4
=3
*2
=1
For each question, circle the number next to the letters you circled on the
Response Form. Then add up the five numbers in each column and place the
total in the box at the bottom of the column. These are your five OCAQ scores.
Copyright C 1990. Minfe&ll Sm>1u«
Interpretation
The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ) is based on the work of Dr. Talcott
Parsons, a sociologist at Harvard. Parsons developed a framework and theory of action in social
systems. He argued that all organizations must carry out four crucial functions if they are to survive
for any substantial length of time. We have labelled these four functions managing change,
achieving goals, coordinating teamwork, and building a strong culture. One aspect of the way in
which organizations achieve their goals is especially important, yet often neglected. This factor has
been made into a separate, fifth scale: customer orientation.
Each of the functions is supported (or, in some organizations, hampered) by the values and beliefs
that are shared by the organization’s members. These values and beliefs are powerful forces for
organizational effectiveness—or for organizational failure. They are, however, most often unstated
and unspoken; they are sometimes even actively concealed. But how can such abstract things as
values and beliefs determine whether an organization fails or prospers?
Take, for example, the effectiveness with which an organization is able to deal with and manage
changes in its environment—competition, technological changes, government rules and regulations,
etc. If people in the organization believe that they can have little effect on or control over the
environment, then they are not likely to invest much time or effort in trying to do so. In a purely
objective sense it may be that an organization can actually do very little to affect its environment.
Still, when organization members share a strong belief that they can have some effect on their
environment they are likely to invest their energies in efforts that just might have some positive
payoff. If they believe instead that they can’t have any impact, then it isn’t relevant whether or not
that’s really true; they won’t try. And, the result can be disastrous for the organization.
Each of the five functional areas will be examined. We will be looking for values and beliefs that
help or hinder the organizational performance of these crucial functions.
Managing Change. This area of action concerns how well the organization is able to adapt to and
deal effectively with changes in its environment. All organizations are open, to some extent, to
influences from their environments; that is what it means when we refer to organizations as "open
systems.' This fact has become even more obvious today, in times o f rapid technological and social
change, than it was in the past. In earlier times it was possible to ignore the organization’s
environment and the effects it had on the organization; this is no longer possible.
We have already mentioned an especially important belief that seems to support managing change
effectively: the belief that one is able to affect the environment (whether or not such a belief is truly
justified). The opposite is also true: belief that it is impossible to have any effect on the environment
is likely to hinder the effective management of change, since sensible people who believe they can
have little impact on their environment will probably not spend much time or energy trying to do so.
Scale I of the OCAQ assesses the degree to which respondents see the organization as effective in
Copyright O 1996 by Manhall Saahkin, Ph.D.
Orgaiuzatioiul Cuhun AsxtOM tM t^wsdovttin
Pag* 9
adapting to and managing change. The specific items ask about actual success in dealing with change
and about the presence (or absence) o f the sort o f positive values just described.
Achieving Goals. All organizations must achieve some aims or goals for clients or customers.
Indeed, the role o f the client or customer is so important that we have developed a separate scale to
measure customer orientation. Having a clear focus on explicit goals has been proven repeatedly to
have a very strong relationship to actual success and achievement. Goal achievement is also facilitated
when the goals o f the organization's members are "in line" or aligned with one another and with the
overall goals o f the organization.
What values or beliefs, then, can help an organization to achieve its goals? In terms o f values,
organizational achievement is supported by the basic value or need to achieve. That is, when
organization members share the belief that it is important to be doing and achieving, this will help the
organization to attain its goals. Quite a lot of basic and applied research has shown that performance
is greater when people have a "need* to achieve, and that this need or belief can actually be learned
as an adult. Another positive value is that o f improving, in quality as well as performance; the
Japanese call this "Kaizen," the belief in a constant and never-ending search for improvement.
The goal achievement function is measured by Scale II o f the OCAQ, which asks respondents to
describe how-effective the organization is in achieving goals, the extent to which there are coherent
and shared (aligned) goals, and the degree to which shared values support improvement and
achievement rather than the status quo.
Coordinated Teamwork. Long term organizational survival depends on how well the efforts of
individuals and groups within the organization are tied together, coordinated and sequenced so that
people’s work efforts fit together effectively. Because work efforts must “connect" and fit to form
a whole, it is obviously ineffective when everyone believes it's OK to "do your own thing." What
is less obvious is that it can be equally counterproductive to attempt to have everything carefully
planned from the top, down to the smallest detail. With work and the world becoming more and
more complex, what is needed are more effective ways of meeting unpredictable coordination
demands, ways for organization members to "mutually adjust" their actions to take into account
unplanned and unpredicted circumstances.
Thus, in terms o f the values and beliefs that support effective coordination, the value o f collaboration
and the belief that "we are in this together" (and must, therefore, work together to achieve common
task goals) are important. In contrast, an especially unhelpful value is that o f competition to see who
can "do the best," independent of others. O f course, effective organizations do not simply ignore
competition; they value competition, not internally but with other organizations. Within their own,
internal cultures effective organizations typically emphasize the value o f teamwork and cooperation.
OCAQ Scale III assesses the extent to which an organization is effective in coordinating the work of
individuals and groups. This scale also gets at the extent to which the shared value o f collaboration
is present.
Copyright © 1996 by Manhall Sashkin, Ph.D.
Organhiitiomal C uban A s tn m n t f t i r a t w i i h
Pag* 10
Customer Orientation. Earlier we noted that this aspect o f organizational achievement is so important
that it merits separate treatment and assessment. The organizational sociologist Charles Ferrow has
examined the nature o f organizational goals. Hie observes that while organizations often have specific
product or service goals-a standard o f quality o r a type o f product or service for which the
organization is known—the crucial question is whether these internally-derived and defined goals match
or fit with what clients or customers want o f the organization. No matter how strong the culture and
no matter how well the other functions are performed, if no one wants what the organization produces
or does, then the organization is not likely to prosper.
The values that support an effective customer orientation function are not simply an overriding belief
in die importance of the client o r customer. Certain beliefs are associated with more and with less
effective customer orientation strategies. For example, in some organizations people believe that the
organization should create new products and then try to develop customer demand. A rather different
strategy is based on the belief that new products or services should be natural extensions o f existing
product or service lines. It is the latter and not the former belief that supports effective customer
orientation.
Scale IV of the OCAQ assesses the extent to which organizational activities are directed toward
identifying and meeting the needs and goals o f clients and customers. The scale also examines the
extent to which basic and strategic values that support an effective customer orientation are present.
Cultural Strength. All organizations have a "culture, ’ formed out o f the pattern o f values and beliefs
shared by some, most, or all o f the organization’s members. You can think o f culture as a sort of
a "fabric;" when there are many different values and beliefs, some shared by many people in the
organization and some shared by only a few, then the fabric is a sort of loose-knit weave, perhaps
supported by a few critical, strong "warp" threads. However, when a certain group o f values and
beliefs is strongly shared by most or all o f the organization’s members, then the resultant cultural
fabric is more like a tightly-knit broadcloth, with a clearly visible design. The former sort o f culture
is inherently "weaker" than the latter; it is less likely to direct or channel the actions o f organization
members. When the organization is faced with crises and must draw on all of its human and physical
resources, then a loose-knit, "weak" culture will be less functional in helping the organization to
survive. A strong culture will provide greater stability o f organizational functioning.
It is important to remember that stability is not the same as effectiveness. It is not necessarily true
that a "strong" culture, in which everyone strongly adheres to a clear set of common values and
beliefs, will inevitably help an organization to survive and be effective. Whether a strong culture is
also a good culture, helping the organization to function and survive in the long run, depends on the
sort o f values and beliefs that form the cultural fabric. When the culture is based on values that do
not support the functions of managing change, organizational achievement, customer orientation, and
coordinated teamwork-or when the values actually work against the effective performance o f these
functions—then a "strong" culture might actually hamper organizational survival. Or, to more aptly
continue the fabric metaphor, the culture will become a shroud rather than a suit.
Copyright O 1996 by Manhall Suhkin. Ph.D.
Organnatioaal Cu&urt A ssesm nt Qtesdoamalre
Page II
Scale V o f die OCAQ assesses the strength of the organization's culture, asking respondents to report
on the extent to which people agree on values and examining the extent to which certain 'meta-values”
are present, such as the belief that people should support their views with facts. Remember, an
organization can conceivably rate high on this scale and low on all the otters, and that would indicate
the most negative condition possible: a strong but dysfunctional organizational culture.
Scale Scores. Each of the five OCAQ scales has six items, with each item score ranging from 1 (low
or poor) to 5 (high or good). Thus, scale scores can range from a low of 6 to a high of 30, and the
OCAQ total score can be as low as 30 or as high as ISO. We are still in the process of developing
norms for the OCAQ, but some tentative survey results are shown below.
Achieving
Goals
Coordinated
Teamwork
Customer
Orientation
Cultural
Strength
Total
Mean 19.9
a
4.34
18.0
2.89
18.2
3.02
18.6
3.00
17.8
2.29
91.8
II
Mean 21.6
20.2
20.6
21.4
18.7
102.6
in
Mean 22.6
23.0
•22.0
21.7
20.6
109.8
IV
Mean 21.3
18.6
20.3
21.6
19.0
100.7
V
Mean 22.6
18.0
19.5
20.8
17.9
98.8
Managing
Change
I
11.1
i = Hospital administrators, medical center (N = 12)
n = Major division of a Fortune SO financial services firm (N*1683)
m = Averages for the 32 regional divisions of National Australia Bank (N=231)
IV = Fire Service Executives in training sessions at the National Fire Academy (N—30)
v = Association Staff (501c3) (N*23)
Table 1
Sample OCAQ Results
OCAQ Norms
Combining the above and other results, a table of norms can be developed as follows, showing
what scores on each scale are high and what sorts of scores are low. Of course, the norms that
follow should be seen as suggestive, not as absolutely defining what is high and what is low.
Copyright O 1996 by Manhall Sashkin, Ph.D.
Orxaxaatioital CuMurt A nn m w t QutstiomMatrt
Page 12
Managing
Change
Achieving
Goals
Coordinated Customer
Teamwork
Orientation
Cultural
Strength
Total
very high
30
28-30
28-30
25-30
26-30
119 +
high
26-29
23-27
24-27
21-24
22-25
108-118
average
19-25
16-22
18-23
15-20
17-21
87-107
low
15-18
11-15
14-17
11-14
13-16
76-86
very low
6-14
6-10
6-13
6-10
6-12
30-75
Table 2
OCAQ Norms
What Do the Scores Mean?
The data that have been obtained (summarized in the chart above) are based on relatively small
samples in a limited number of organizations. Suggesting what specific numbers actually
"mean” is risky. Still, you can probably get some feeling for what sort o f numbers are "high”
and what might be considered "low" from looking at Table 2. But, more important, the items
that make up the scales provide concrete directions about what you might actually do (and,
sometimes, about what to avoid or stop doing) to improve your organization’s culture, to make
it both stronger and more effective.
Most of us like to have clear indicators but it requires more than a numerical scale to really
understand an organization’s culture in a way that allows you to do something about it.
Understanding Your Organization^ Culture
The OCAQ is intended as a diagnostic aid, a first step in building better functioning
organizations and strengthening and improving organizational cultures. Although the OCAQ can
help you begin to see how well the crucial functions are currently working in your own
organization, this is just a beginning. The OCAQ cannot tell you how a certain condition came
about. To learn that you must go further, examining each of the critical functions to identify
in detail the dynamics and causes of good or inadequate operation. OCAQ data, can providing
an "outline" that can be used as a starting point for an in-depth culture assessment. It will be
up to you, however, to fill in that outline with concrete details and examples.
Copyright O 1996 by Manhall Sashkin, Ph.D.
Organizational Cuture Assessment Questionnaire
Pago 13
With respect to managing change you can ask how the organization (or yo u r part o f it) has
changed over the past year o r so, adapting to forces o r changes in the environment. Think about
a few specific examples o f such changes, even i f they are very small, to see if you can identify
a pattern or some undedying "rules" that seem to apply. Think about your own personal
reaction to the need for change, and about the assumptions others hold about change. Do people
in your organization (or your division, department, o r w ork group) avoid o r ignore the need for
change? Do people generally think that its better to try to keep things as they are for as long
as possible? Do most people in the organization assume that there’s little they can do about the
need for change? Try to look at these questions in the context o f a specific, actual change that
occurred.
Next, you might list the top two or three key goals o f your organization, not ju st in ideal terms
but in terms o f actual achievements. Be specific and concrete; you are trying to identify what
the real goals are, not just what the "public image” says about organizational achievements.
Think about a specific example, a goal that was achieved. Was there widespread recognition
of and pride expressed in the achievement? D id many people seem to feel that their personal
goals were achieved as part of the organizational achievement? Is progress and achievement
recognized and celebrated often? Look for the values and beliefs that support o r fail to support
organizational achievement.
Extending this line of thought, try to look-at organizational goals from the viewpoint o f your
organization’s clients or customers. W hat do your customers or those you serve really want and
need? Make a short list and try to determine whether the organization is actually meeting these
desires. Next, think o f a specific interaction involving a client, a customer, or anyone who is
served by the organization. Was the aim to sell that person on what the organization has to
offer, or was it to find out what that individual actually needed? W hat sort o f priority attention
is given to customer problems and concerns? Do people believe that custom ers’ problems are
of great importance? Does their behavior demonstrate such a belief? Do organization members
show, by the way they act, that they really value feedback, that is, by actually listening to clients
and customers?
Now, try to describe the most important ways that work activities are coordinated. For
example, are team meetings the basic approach to coordinating the work activities o f the
individual members o f your work unit? Or, is coordination accomplished primarily through
one-to-one meetings between a supervisor and each o f that person’s subordinates? Are
inter-departmental meetings common? Do department heads meet with their peers? Are
inter-department liaisons used? Again, try to think in terms o f specific, concrete examples.
Look, too, toward the underlying values: is competition more common than cooperation? Is
there any value attached to cooperative o r collaborative activities? Do people find it hard to
coordinate because they are really competing with one another? Or, is it more common to see
people working together to achieve common goals? A re people rewarded more for individual
actions or is it common to see a whole team share in recognition o f its achievement?
Copyright Q 1996 by Marshall Sashkin. Ph.D.
Organizational Cukurt Atusm ont & ititkm uain
Fage 14
Finally, consider the strength o f your organization's culture. If you really think about it, can
you identify a clear set o f five to ten things—priorities, goals, ways o f working together,
etc.—that most people in die organization would say are really important? Or, does it appear
that most people don't agree on these things, having their own personal views? If you have been
able to clearly define patterns of managing change, o f organizational achievement, and of
coordinating teams, then you should be able to tell whether or not there is a strong, shared
culture and what the specific values and beliefs are that form the foundations o f the culture that
exists. Values and beliefs are identified by patterns of action and behavior, not by statements
and assertions.
Now T hat I've Identified th e Problem s, W hat Do I Do To Solve Them?
Building a better, more functional organizational culture, one that provides a solid foundation
for organizational effectiveness, is a slow and difficult process. There are no quick fix solutions
to the problem of improving an ineffective culture. There are, however, solutions. To start
with, they all require a strong commitment to improvement, from top-level managers. If you’re
working with a part of an organization — a division, for example — this means the executives
who head up the division, not necessarily those at the top of the entire organization. The toplevel managers of the organizational unit under consideration should then lead the development
of a shared vision of what can be, of what impossible. The OCAQ can then provide organization
members with baseline data, information that shows clearly the discrepancies between the way
things are and they way they should be. Once the existing patterns of culture are unfrozen,
through concrete, data-based awareness, it is possible for managers and administrators to become
leaders. They do so by taking on leadership roles. This means first developing and articulating
a vision. Then, leaders work with employees at all levels to use feedback data (such as provided
by the OCAQ) to plan and implement actions that move the organization in the direction of that
vision. A vision must include appropriate and functionally effective values and beliefs, the sort
of values and beliefs that facilitate positive organizational functioning (and that are assessed by
the OCAQ).
It is best to start at the top, working with the top executive group to develop a shared
organizational philosophy and the sort of policies and programs that can serve as vehicles for
putting that philosophy into action. Improvement can, however, occur at the division,
department, or even the work group level. The key is having someone in a formal leadership
position who is willing to commit the time and energy to take a real leadership role. Dr. Edgar
Schein, a well-known organizational psychologist and one of the most highly regarded
organization development practitioners in the United States, has said that it may well be that the
only really important thing that leaders do is to create effective organizational cultures. It is our
view that once a focused commitment has been made by an authority figure (at whatever level
of the organization), it is possible to change cultures, to define and inculcate new and more
productive beliefs and values, and to revitalize organizations.
Copyright O 1996 by Marshall Sashkin. Ph.D.
107
Appendix B
OCAQ Data File1
1 Performance data was obtained from all 88 Wings within the Air National Guard for the measures of personnel
retention and inspection results. Ground safety accident results were only available for 55 Wings.
C:\Program FilesXSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnah.SYD
W1NG_DESIG HQ.DESIGS V5YTOTTUR V5YAVQASG V_RESP_SU AVGMANCH AVGACHGLS AVGCORDT
19.586
1 101ARW
22989
20270
1525.200
174.000
HQME
655.000
16.542
2 102FW
18.865
17.937
HQMA
791.000
1524.800
96.000
18.870
3 103FW
HQCT
1425.000
277.000
21.523
19.498
627.000
19.902
4 104FW
23.070
20.084
HQMA
1612.800
214.000
734.000
HQNY
19.465
5 105AW
22467
790.000
20.196
672.000
1861.800
HQNY
18.606
6 106RQW
21.355
19.127
535.000
1326.800
251.000
19.703
7 107ARW
1024.200
22797
HQNY
476.000
350.000
20220
19.060
8 108ARW
22020
19.452
882.000
1828.600
449.000
HQNJ
19.528
9 109AW
22216
19.825
HQNY
1315.000
505.000
371.000
18.336
10 110FW
20.422
19.433
HQMI
499.000
1188.400
443.000
20.107
11 111FW
22659
HQPA
1272.000
384.000
20.492
644.000
12 113WG
.
.
.
.
803.000
1619.400
HQDC
13 114FW
HQSD
20.272
23.336
20.640
447.000
1173.200
405.000
14 115FW
19.421
20.030
559.000
1454.200
21.782
HQWI
133.000
19.652
15 116BW
22358
19.925
HQGA
1243.000
1751.000
604.000
20.102
16 117ARW
20.762
HQAL
688.000
1449.800
147.000
23.102
17 118AW
.
.
.
.
HQTN
753.000
1591.800
20.218
18 119FW
20.632
1286.200
23.559
HQND
518.000
1026.000
19.011
19 120FW
21.708
19.934
HQMT
1208.600
525.000
274.000
.
20 121ARW
.
.
.
909.000
1914.000
HQOH
19.274
21 122FW
22135
20.166
HQIN
572.000
1252.600
475.000
19.603
HQKY
22574
20.196
22 123AW
555.000
1383.400
537.000
18.240
23 124WG
21.320
19.152
676.000
1424.000
125.000
HQID
.
24 125FW
.
.
.
1962.200
HQFL
1031.000
17.000
25 126ARW
28.000
20.000
798.000
1551.400
1.000
HQIL
16.775
26 127WG
18.847
18.060
HQMI
965.000
-2031.400
386.000
19.414
27 128ARW
20.412
1109.400
22532
HQWI
435.000
515.000
18.325
28 129RQW
20.706
19.286
HQCA
924.000
1616.600
419.000
19.102
19.907
29 130AW
HQWV
431.000
1083.800
246.000
21.732
.
30 131FW
2088.400
.
HQMO
1014.000
19.739
31 132FW
20.179
532.000
1175.800
22520
HQIA
736.000
.
.
.
.
32 133AW
HQMN
686.000
1585.800
20.431
33 134ARW
23.484
20.739
HQTN
702.000
1523.000
153.000
18.904
34 136AW
52000
19.519
HQTX
824.000
1408.000
21.231
20.427
35 137AW
20.669
HQOK
748.000
1561.400
779.000
23.291
19.123
36 138FW
22207
19.488
HQOK
678.000
1370.600
285.000
19.429
37 139AW
22644
19.984
HQMO
371.000
1096.000
679.000
19.222
20.017
38 140WG
22171
HQCO
1019.000
1702.400
117.000
19.931
39 141ARW
20.693
HQWA
1014.000
1575.200
22803
466.000
19.259
19.957
40 142FW
1727.200
22146
HQOR
839.000
487.000
18.448
17.897
41 143AW
HQRI
674.000
1662.800
20.368
87.000
20.095
22470
20.269
42 144 FW
HQCA
556.000
1129.000
621.000
19.224
43 145AW
20.019
836.000
1833.000
737.000
21.931
HQNC
19.653
19.823
44 146AW
1611.400
HQCA
874.000
300.000
22523
18.256
21.197
19.363
45 147FW
803.000
1526.600
HQTX
289.000
18.138
18.719
46 148FW
1188.800
20.990
HQMN
446.000
196.000
47 149FW
.
1288.400
HQTX
738.000
18.804
19.524
48 150FW
21.415
HQNM
555.000
1230.000
393.000
19.285
49 151ARW
21.914
19.557
849.000
1775.000
522.000
HQUT
50 152AW
.
.
.
.
HQNV
634.000
1227.400
51 153AW
.
.
.
HQWY
599.000
1162.800
19.381
19.964
52 154WG
22446
910.000
2755.800
HQHI
742000
20.120
20.600
53 155ARW
1114.200
470.000
375.000
23.232
HQNE
54 156FW
1621.000
.
.
.
HQPR
596.000
19.375
55 157ARW
22342
19.8221
HQNH
532.000
1107.600
698.000
01/24/00 13:11:28
1/14
C:\Program FilesXSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
AVGCUSTOR AVGCULTST
18.707
21.374
17.448
17.687
17.596
19.108
18.271
20.201
18.200
20.480
17.952
19.219
18.143
20.291
17.958
20.272
17.903
20.431
17.817
18.438
18.117
20.589
AVGTOT
STDEVTOT
102.925
12.582
88.479
15.715
96.596
14.661
101.528
13.737
100.808
14.661
96.259
14.594
101.154
13.580
12.736
98.762
99.903
13.633
94.447
13.852
101.964
13.766
.
12.013
13.079
14.418
14.567
VARTOT
158.312
246.968
214.937
188.701
214.944
212.977
184.412
162.209
185.850
191.886
189.497
MMTOT
53.000
55.000
57.000
54.000
54.000
58.000
54.000
54.000
54.000
55.000
55.000
.
.
144.310
171.052
207.892
212.185
64.000
57.000
49.000
55.000
MAXTOT V5YRGSJCAP
127.000
0.002
0.018
122.000
0.006
129.000
125.000
0.004
135.000
0.009
129.000
0.002
130.000
0.009
128.000
130.000
0.002
0.009
126.000
134.000
•
0.010
133.000
0.001
134.000
133.000
0.002
134.000
-
21.760
19.586
20.023
20.252
17.953
18.090
18.126
18.000
103.960
98.910
100.084
102.218
.
.
.
.
.
-
20.628
19.770
18.271
17.785
103.308
98.208
12.302
13.101
151.343
171.638
62.000
52.000
132.000
124.000
.
.
.
.
.
.
20.194
20.471
19.056
17.762
18.268
17.352
99.531
101.112
95.120
14.440
13.083
14.006
208.511
171.159
196.155
53.000
58.000
59.000
131.000
131.000
120.000
0.001
0.002
0.007
0.003
.
.
.
24.000
17.927
20.423
19.174
19.951
17.000
16.946
17.905
17.613
18.098
106.000
88.554
100.685
95.105
98.789
.
.
16.032
12.487
14.925
13.108
257.037
155.916
222.750
171.833
-
.
-
106.000
41.000
62.000
54.000
59.000
106.000
129.000
128.000
131.000
127.000
•
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.022
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.000
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
20.071
18.064
100.573
13.995
195.853
47.000
134.000
•
.
.
.
-
•
0.001
20.850
19.212
21.005
20.418
20.402
19.974
20.903
20.567
20.103
21.063
19.900
21.320
19.173
18.531
18.046
17.308
18.149
18.253
17.956
17.855
17.957
17.579
18.046
18.122
17.954
18.083
17.772
17.929
103.549
96.173
103.542
99.488
100.414
99.239
102.288
99.507
94.862
102.019
99.027
101.403
95.761
94.306
13.623
16.145
13.069
14.747
13.904
14.502
12.980
14.337
12.854
13.520
14.514
13.294
15.229
13.623
185.578
260.656
170.788
217.469
193.320
210.322
168.489
205.559
165.213
182.780
210.649
176.730
231.912
185.598
53.000
56.000
57.000
60.000
51.000
53.000
56.000
54.000
61.000
48.000
55.000
64.000
57.000
66.000
134.000
123.000
137.000
128.000
134.000
129.000
130.000
133.000
124.000
129.000
132.000
132.000
127.000
118.000
.
.
-
-
19.573
20.435
17.725
17.552
97.041
98.743
14.203
13.077
201.723
171.020
130.000
132.000
.
.
.
.
.
52.000
52.000
■ -
.
•
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
20.515
20.808
17.980
18.109
100.286
102.869
14.001
11.603
196.040
134.638
50.000
66.000
132.000
128.000
.
.
.
.
.
-
•
20.663
17.867
100.070
13.104
171.724
58.000
132.000
01/24/00 13:11:29
-
0.018
0.001
0.014
0.004
0.002
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.007
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.002
-
0.020
0.001
•
0.005
0.004
0.001
2/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged FinaH.SYD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
V5YCP1X V5YCP110X V5YRTOTGSI OM_RESULT AVGTEAMW SCOROCAQ1 WMG.DESIG
100.799 101ARW
18.144
4.000
4.902
3.000
4.990
85.875 102FW
15.333
3.000
4.911
4.115
27.000
94.354 103FW
4.000
17.256
4.684
9.000
4.968
17.841
.
99.285 104FW
5.000
5.000
5.000
98.510 105AW
17.899
5.000
4.312
7.000
4.981
93.888 106RQW
12.000
16.757
3.000
4.548
4.955
98.894 107ARW
17.960
2.000
4.000
4.902
4.990
17.370
95.713 108ARW
5.000
16.000
4.956
4.563
17.471
97.719 109AW
3.000
3.000
4.989
4.886
91.713 110FW
16.700
3.000
4.537
11.000
4.954
99.685 111FW
18.214
4.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
. 113WG
17.000
4.948
4.475
18.504
101.825 114FW
4.000
4.957
1.000
4.996
96.466 115FW
17.586
4.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
96.447 116BW
17.300
3.000
4.000
4.914
4.991
18.565
100.020 117ARW
.
5.000
5.000
5.000
.
. 118AW
4.000
5.000
5.000
18.360
101.016 119FW
4.000
4.961
1.000
4.996
17.453
95.726 120FW
2.000
4.000
4.917
4.992
.
. 121ARW
4.000
4.634
14.000
4.963
17.846
3.000
97.211 122FW
4.984
4.000
4.840
.
98.948 123AW
17.958
3.000
5.000
5.000
92.648 124WG
16.680
4.000
4.996
4.965
1.000
.
. 125FW
4.000
4.924
3.000
4.992
105.000 126ARW
19.000
3.000
4.000
4.990
4.903
85.598 127WG
15.083
3.000
3.892
45.000
4.889
18.004
98.278 128ARW
4.000
6.000
4.973
4.730
16.524
91.054 129RQW
2.000
4.000
4.994
4.938
17.500
96.382 130AW
4.000
4.977
4.769
5.000
. 131FW
4.000
1.000
4.998
4.976
.
98.317 132FW
17.925
3.000
5.000
5.000
2.000
.
. 133AW
4.000
4.994
4.937
18.444
101.244 134ARW
4.000
5.000
5.000
17.115
93.769 136AW
3.000
4.911
25.000
4.112
18.565
101.438 137AW
4.000
4.994
4.936
2.000
17.225
97.225 138FW
4.000
4.307
19.000
4.931
17.641
98.071 139AW
3.000
4.818
4.000
4.982
96.904 140WG
17.635
4.000
4.912
3.000
4.991
99.707 141ARW
18.376
4.460
17.000
3.000
4.946
17.703
97.237 142FW
4.000
4.986
4.855
5.000
92.736 143AW
15.770
4.000
4.943
4.429
19.000
18.259
100.010 144FW
4.646
8.000
4.000
4.965
17.665
96.673 145AW
3.000
4.000
4.918
4.992
17.720
99.300 146AW
4.994
4.938
2.000
4.000
16.871
93.573 147FW
2.000
4.934
4.000
4.993
16.491
93.763 148FW
4.000
4.958
1.000
4.996
. 149FW
.
4.000
4.969
4.690
8.000
94.662 150FW
17.145
4.878
3.000
4.000
4.988
.
96.653 151ARW
17.317
4.000
5.000
5.000
.
- 152AW
4.000
4.022
24.000
4.902
4.957
.
. 153AW
1.000
4.000
4.996
95.886 154WG
17.370
3.000
5.000
5.000
18.357
100.627 155ARW
4.000
4.731
6.000
4.973
2.000
.
. 156FW
4.784
7.000
4.978
97.944 157ARW
17.696
4.955
4.000
1.000
4.995
01/24/00 13:11:29
Q1
4.115
3.021
3.736
3.930
3.978
3.705
4.049
3.802
3.881
3.361
3.974
.
4.096
3.902
3.934
4.143
.
4.163
3.770
.
3.844
3.964
3.864
.
.
3.256
3.872
3.403
3.858
.
3.913
.
4.037
3.731
4.131
3.944
3.990
3.765
3.955
3.911
3.770
4.000
3.794
4.003
3.616
3.763
3.712
3.903
.
3.737
4.115
3.862
3/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Q2
3.609
2.833
3.365
3.584
3.616
3.291
3.646
3.487
3.563
3.099
3.719
3.586
3.052
3.282
3.621
3.623
3.422
3.689
3.507
3.584
3.713
3.677
.
.
3.835
3.669
3.536
3.687
3.745
3.496
09
08
3.678
Z823
3.260
3.416
3.547
3.215
3.517
3.343
3.615
3.077
3.641
OS
2.695
3.208
2.668
2.738
2.600
2.789
Z583
Z674
2.609
Z930
Z474
OS
3.983
3.875
4.105
4.383
4.062
4.020
4.080
3.942
4.049
4.117
4.018
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z440
Z910
Z853
2.850
3.227
3.722
3.656
3.816
3.906
3.383
3.499
3.728
04
03
Q7
Z454
Z969
Z744
3.033
Z770
3.016
Z711
Z774
Z798
3.176
Z612
3.603
3.635
3.780
3.907
3.806
3.821
3.731
3.738
3.532
3.810
3.628
3.862
Z792
3.238
3.710
3.753
3.394
3.566
3.510
3.654
3.102
3.659
3.662
3.602
3.503
3.946
3.884
3.271
3.369
3.408
Z185
Z662
Z625
2.490
4.052
4.113
4.056
4.102
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.305
4.084
2.638
Z774
3.619
3.635
3.737
3.416
3.770
3.555
Z477
Z657
3.582
3.398
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
3.575
3.577
3.256
3.606
3.696
3.456
3.497
3.556
3.296
Z558
Z579
Z752
4.158
4.084
4.056
2.699
Z771
Z808
3.745
3.704
3.760
3.562
3.690
3.208
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.899
3.505
3.223
3.496
3.013
3.759
3.369
3.423
2.959
3.544
3.104
3.443
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.643
3.680
3.489
2.584
4.249
Z858
3.798
3.531
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.600
3.288
3.784
3.547
3.558
3.478
3.631
3.386
3.483
3.765
3.434
3.540
3.295
3.333
3.874
3.558
3.789
3.400
3.667
3.678
3.765
3.491
2.598
3.448
3.650
3.353
3.424
3.491
3.674
3.231
3.728
3.470
3.585
3.443
3.730
3.573
3.379
3.644
3.402
3.547
3.175
3.281
2.437
2.519
2.321
2.747
Z570
2.478
Z465
Z499
Z471
Z461
Z589
2.510
2.848
3.000
4.385
4.058
4.107
4.035
4.172
4.235
4.160
3.924
3.057
3.908
4.099
3.797
4.146
4.167
Z704
3.096
2.648
Z656
Z695
Z783
Z721
2.635
2.402
Z651
Z779
2.553
Z884
Z921
3.793
3.923
3.638
3.467
3.672
3.583
3.746
3.540
Z977
3.684
3.828
3.490
3.728
3.579
3.807
3.365
3.906
3.653
3.661
3.513
3.690
3.678
3.575
3.787
3.539
3.807
3.374
3.325
.
.
.
*
3.483
3.552
3.369
3.403
.
3.328
3.588
.
-
Z935
Z637
2.792
Z752
Z575
Z584
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.614
4.177
4.011
3.967
Z966
Z850
3.006
Z715
3.440
3.652
3.620
3.663
Z878
3.633
3.189
3.484
.
.
.
.
4.036
3.851
Z799
Z622
3.692
3.400
3.430
3.643
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z459
2.565
3.888
4.296
Z528
Z728
3.478
3.560
3.526
3.763
2.527
.
.
3.515
3.725
3.347
4.008
3.491
3.667
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.473
4.029
Z595
3.521
3.669
3.483
3.456
01/24/00 13:11:30
4/14
C:\Program Files\SYSTAT 8.0\Merged Final 1.S YD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q10
3.730
2.542
3.069
3.458
3.504
3.108
3.480
3.245
3.428
2.941
3.555
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Q11
3.356
2.781
3.105
3.477
3.357
3.159
3.389
3.256
3.373
2.914
3.560
Q13
^.iZD
2.604
2.242
2.243
2.297
2.371
2.260
2.390
2.391
2.734
2.279
Q12
3.471
2.677
3.354
3.388
3.292
3.100
3.306
3.167
3.382
2.896
3.523
Q15
2.408
Z896
Z570
Z547
Z619
Z677
Z517
Z655
Z468
Z930
Z372
Q16
3.914
3.042
3.765
4.075
3.865
3.753
4.097
3.788
3.862
3.813
3.810
Q17
3.724
Z833
3Z67
3.472
3.504
3.163
3.511
3.323
3.410
Z993
3.622
3.728
3.744
3.814
4.150
3.849
3.451
3.455
3.626
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.807
3.406
3.331
3.449
3.580
3.211
3.209
3.469
3.659
3.286
3.294
3.401
2.136
2.444
2.319
2.197
Z437
Z992
Z720
Z844
Z153
Z624
Z615
Z361
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.704
3.263
3.442
3.263
3.428
3.190
2.267
2.482
Z601
Z752
Z403
Z580
4.198
3.693
3.665
3.285
.
.
.
.
-
3.299
3.461
2.904
3.293
3.436
2.984
2.320
2.216
2.472
Z440
Z495
Z648
3.735
3.801
3.872
3.476
3.520
3.168
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.972
Z408
Z535
2.407
3.207
2.707
3.146
Z659
Z839
Z478
Z868
Z528
.
.
.
Z535
3.877
3.478
.
3.347
3.532
3.048
.
2.619
3.353
3.003
3.260
2.640
3.359
2.938
3.354
.
Z627
3.299
3.023
3.321
-
.
.
2.651
Z642
Z928
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.269
3.928
3.420
3.463
Z772
3.441
3.076
3.411
3.447
3.354
3.334
Z255
Z706
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.652
3.173
3.694
3.400
3.436
3.478
3.585
3.373
3.575
3.565
3.341
3.483
3.017
3.140
3.452
3.019
3.628
3.267
3.308
3.270
3.415
3.293
3.552
3.501
3.259
3.413
3.089
3.061
3.570
3.115
3.620
3.207
3.283
3.252
3.394
3.419
3.425
3.614
3.266
3.570
3.070
2.930
Z319
2.404
2.104
Z263
Z343
2.339
Z235
Z235
Z126
2.010
Z354
Z120
Z576
Z474
2.489
Z865
Z484
Z575
Z697
2.922
Z707
2.802
Z782
2.622
Z729
2.590
Z993
2.956
Z474
2.673
Z299
Z474
Z536
Z626
Z394
Z375
Z379
Z333
Z627
Z317
Z798
Z763
4.274
3.731
3.951
3.635
3.959
3.948
3.906
3.726
2.690
3.560
3.779
3.730
3.695
3.921
3.615
3.250
3.685
3.540
3.470
3.409
3.533
3.470
3.494
3.676
3.353
3.610
3.175
3.193
.
.
.
3.181
3.353
Z870
Z719
Z641
Z455
3.654
3.577
3.338
3.477
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z737
Z699
Z427
Z507
3.511
4.059
3.444
3.587
.
.
.
.
Z648
Z355
3.676
3.529
47
.
.
48
49
3.300
3.437
3.221
3.296
Z379
Z215
50
51
52
53
54
.
.
-
.
.
.
55
Q14
2.506
3.510
Z834
Z654
Z592
Z789
Z589
Z844
Z685
3.126
Z589
3.450
3.544
3.349
3.435
3.325
3.413
Z460
2.243
.
3.464
3.337
3.364
2.126
01/24/00 13:11:31
5/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged RnaH.SYD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q18
3.644
3.000
3.375
3.322
3.601
3.203
3.560
3.370
3.434
3.113
3.674
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q19
3.575
2.698
3.032
3.202
3.316
3.024
3.320
3.192
3.180
2.847
3.326
Q20
3.638
3.448
3.502
3.407
3.299
3.402
3.360
3.245
3.333
3.043
3.398
021
3.626
3.062
3.314
3.444
3.466
3.203
3.491
3.292
3.428
3.014
3.570
022
2.741
2.312
2.823
2.841
2.905
2.952
3.109
2.858
3.049
3.199
3.099
023
3.615
2.687
3.412
3.439
3.411
3.100
3.483
3.273
3.492
3.023
3.630
024
3.805
2.833
3.329
3.579
3.578
3.355
3.586
3.468
3.535
3.052
3.625
025
2.569
2.531
2.585
2.692
2.691
2.761
2.726
2.680
2.606
2.919
2.729
3.891
3.248
3.313
3.565
3.867
3.451
3.348
3.415
2.356
2.752
2.743
2.694
.
.
.
.
.
3.919
3.617
3.429
3.701
3.593
3.053
3.095
3.190
3.568
3.256
3.402
3.299
3.807
3.353
3.414
3.524
2.852
2.932
2.977
3.197
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.732
3.442
3.362
3.281
3.418
3.307
3.632
3.394
3.294
3.036
3.669
3.398
3.623
3.365
2597
2.628
.
.
.
.
.
3.579
3.533
3.216
3.316
3.262
3.016
3.383
3.432
3.200
3.455
3.554
3.200
2.907
3.000
2.984
3.467
3.507
3.184
3.562
3.614
3.320
2533
2727
2520
.
.
.
.
.
2.852
3.247
2.890
3.297
3.104
3.276
3.172
3.378
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.723
2.965
2.730
2.866
2.801
3.534
3.141
3.398
2.990
3.612
3.172
3.537
2.648
2654
2639
2691
.
26
27
28
29
30
3.016
3.551
3.270
3.537
.
.
31
32
33
3.534
3.249
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
3.563
3.250
3.702
3.537
3.473
3.400
3.676
3.485
3.460
3.757
3.422
3.560
3.318
3.298
3.274
3.077
3.353
3.284
3.305
3.035
3.272
3.148
3.368
3.440
3.186
3.607
2.987
3.079
3.156
3.231
3.447
3.488
3.355
3.096
3.272
3.388
3.851
3.615
3.252
3.677
3.195
3.439
3.526
3.327
3.657
3.495
3.517
3.348
3.465
3.509
3.586
3.641
3.383
3.613
3.341
3.201
3.415
3.212
3.177
2.768
3.054
2.991
3.136
2.866
2.310
2.781
3.068
2.710
2.861
3.026
3.570
3.231
3.750
3.344
3.401
3.426
3.599
3.621
3.356
3.651
3.414
3.650
3.119
3.000
3.770
3.212
3.680
3.642
3.515
3.409
3.627
3.592
3.402
3.728
3.490
3.803
3.275
3.219
2674
2404
2.646
2537
2613
2670
2671
2433
2264
2480
2719
2427
2715
2789
.
.
3.402
3.588
3.112
3.285
3.318
3.276
3.300
3.529
2.908
2.824
3.344
3.443
3412.000
3.520
2626
2414
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
3.289
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
-
2.972
3.472
3.101
3.488
.
.
.
.
.
3.465
3.110
3.414
3.447
2704
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.532
3.603
3.233
3.275
3.481
3.267
3.487
3.552
2.828
3.219
3.575
3.595
3.532
3.656
2540
2653
.
.
3.365
3.511
3.605
2.778
3.587
3.693
2.446
.
3.536
•
01/24/00 13:11:31
6/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Final 1.SYD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
026
3.994
3.083
3.498
3.762
3.739
3.514
3.691
3.582
3.703
3.203
3.727
027
3.586
2.917
3.318
3.584
3.377
3.084
3.420
3.284
3.385
2.973
3.531
.
.
4.072
3.459
3.559
3.714
3.637
3.173
3.377
3.340
VAR00027S
030
3.667
2.823
3.202
3.430
3.487
3.215
3.477
3.323
3.471
3.054
3.589
028
3.695
Z958
3.408
3.551
3.457
3.211
3.497
3.482
3.428
3.041
3.625
029
3.948
3.031
3.415
3.654
3.692
3.442
3.714
3.607
3.780
3.235
3.745
.
.
3.805
3.398
3.400
3.537
4.074
3.436
3.571
3.667
3.884
3.391
3.350
3.707
.
.
.
.
.
3.807
3.504
3.533
3.230
3.570
3.423
3.718
3.558
3.671
3.350
.
.
.
.
3.644
3.717
3.424
3.324
3.325
3.040
3.448
3.518
3.640
3.606
3.721
3.288
3.501
3.530
3.184
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.813
3.507
3.124
3.480
3.044
3.682
3.256
3.533
2.813
3.507
3.096
3.488
.
.
.
3.499
.
3.098
3.724
3.270
3.602
2.790
3.353
3.003
3.293
.
.
-
3.653
3.323
3.499
3.654
.
.
.
.
.
3.800
3.365
3.818
3.832
3.698
3.643
3.786
3.771
3.713
3.860
3.617
3.983
3.417
3.325
3.489
2.942
3.512
3.404
3.368
3.304
3.432
3.474
3.333
3.609
3.324
3.693
3.116
3.053
3.644
3.154
3.685
3.477
3.429
3.548
3.589
3.567
3.379
3.720
3.351
3.667
3.281
3.123
3.889
3.462
3.854
3.793
3.639
3.661
3.768
3.777
3.598
3.842
3.555
3.990
3.464
3.281
3.637
3.308
3.742
3.607
3.446
3.513
3.613
3.511
3.506
3.668
3.426
3.657
3.219
3.105
.
.
.
3.491
3.729
3.094
3.438
3.338
3.474
3.420
3.728
3.265
3.517
.
* .
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.656
3.776
3.318
3.448
3.429
3.592
3.633
3.749
3.498
3.573
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.834
3.628
3.596
3.815
3.563
01/24/00 13:11:32
7/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged RnaH.SYD
W1NG.DESIG
158FW
159FW
161ARW
162FW
163ARW
164AW
165AW
166AW
167AW
168ARW
169FW
171ARW
172AW
173FW
174FW
175WG
176WG
177FW
178FW
179AW
180FW
181FW
182AW
183FW
184BW
185FW
186ARW
187FW
188FW
189AW
190ARW
192FW
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88 193SOW
HQ_DESK5$ V5YTOTTUR V5YAVGASG V_RESPjSU AVGMANCH AVGACHGLS AVGCORDT
19.731
19.953
23.000
253.000
1196.000
513.000
HQVT
1815.200
.
•
•
•
829.000
HQLA
18.000
19.069
21.451
102.000
1435.400
724.000
HQAZ
22.362
19.670
19.644
309.000
1842.400
667.000
HQAZ
19.858
20.358
22.782
358.000
1717.600
937.000
HQCA
19.297
20.181
22.118
441.000
504.000
1242.600
HQTN
18.996
19.713
21.771
279.000
1981.800
1092.000
HQGA
18.532
19.155
21.040
1163.200
427.000
439.000
HQDE
19.519
19.948
22.235
439.000
1384.200
533.000
HQWV
19.634
19.780
22.976
82.000
807.800
457.000
HQAK
20.125
20.504
23.015
665.000
1531.200
597.000
HQSC
1793.600
.
806.000
HQPA
20.140
20.545
23.308
1824.600
429.000
860.000
HQMS
19.658
19.837
23.089
202.000
537.600
318.000
HQOR
22.933
20.200
20.700
30.000
1594.600
621.000
HQNY
18.827
19.677
21.644
371.000
2170.600
935.000
HQMD
1359.600
.
•
622.000
HQAK
20.947
20.400
23.398
508.000
1142.200
416.000
HQNJ
1596.400
.
•
757.000
HQOH
19.973
20.066
22.668
331.000
1089.000
464.000
HQOH
18.794
19.420
21.916
476.000
572.000
1481.200
HQOH
19.651
19.899
22.386
1265.200
415.000
612.000
HQIN
19.387
20.159
22.454
491.000
1351.200
756.000
HQIL
.
1259.800
558.000
HQIL
18.956
19.726
22.037
758.000
1526.200
760.000
HQKS
20.077
19.333
22.295
-1292.200
78.000
539.000
HQIA
21.333
21.383
24.565
1308.200
441.000
525.000
HQMS
19.379
20.178
22.411
219.000
1712.400
947.000
HQAL
20.000
21.000
22.000
3.000
1207.400
579.000
HOAR
19.113
20.105
21.878
541.000
1312.000
603.000
HOAR
20.164
19.164
22.829
146.000
1070.200
519.000
HQKS
19.985
19.792
22.823
1460.600
130.000
788.000
HQVA
19.875
20.310
22.737
2154.400
562.000
873.000
HQPA
J
01/24/00 13:11:33
8/14
C:\Program RlesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
AVGCUSTOR AVGCULTST
17.905
56
20.462
.
57
18.029
58
19.529
18.006
20.505
59
18.011
20.341
60
17.921
61
20.102
18.147
19.860
62
17.525
63
20.262
18.114
64
20.194
17.573
65
20.902
18.224
66
20.638
.
67
18.359
68
21.112
18.188
69
20.193
18.600
20.767
70
17.960
71
19.617
.
72
18.004
73
20.612
.
74
18.208
21.079
75
17.788
76
19.996
18.145
77
20.265
17.916
78
20.075
79
17.889
80
19.521
18.038
81
21.038
18.503
82
21.830
17.680
83
20.210
17.667
84
21.000
18.072
20.166
85
18.452
86
20.103
17.585
87
21.523
18.053
88
21.201
AVGYOT
101.051
STDEVTOT
14.072
.
96.078
100.188
101.349
99.619
98.487
96.513
100.009
100.866
102.505
16.201
14.426
14.406
15.303
14.042
14.435
13.629
12.383
13.556
.
.
103.464
100.965
103.200
97.725
.
103.360
13.733
16.171
10.788
14.606
.
12.412
.
.
101.994
97.914
100.345
99.992
.
98.129
100.782
107.615
99.858
101.667
99.335
100.712
101.708
102.176
12.540
14.184
12.992
12.994
-
14.428
13.595
11.864
14.783
8.505
14.563
12.503
13.169
13.429
VARTOT
198.009
.
262.469
208.120
207.528
234.173
197.186
208.368
185.762
153.327
183.765
188.595
261.506
116.372
213.324
154.046
.
157.242
201.199
168.796
168.837
.
208.171
184.822
140.756
218.544
72.333
21Z082
156.317
173.418
180.349
MMTOT
55.000
-
50.000
49.000
41.000
50.000
55.000
47.000
54.000
57.000
54.000
•
53.000
54.000
83.000
54.000
55.000
54.000
49.000
57.000
49.000
50.000
59.000
70.000
60.000
93.000
49.000
61.000
68.000
53.000
01/24/00 13:11:33
MAXTOT V5YRGSICAP
135.000
0.001
0.010
122.000
0.001
130.000
0.010
130.000
0.002
132.000
131.000
128.000
0.009
131.000
0.001
124.000
136.000
0.006
134.000
•
0.009
133.000
122.000
0.013
129.000
0.000
0.001
136.000
0.011
0.001
129.000
0.008
0.006
130.000
135.000
•
131.000
•
129.000
•
125.000
0.002
0.005
134.000
0.003
127.000
0.009
110.000
132.000
0.006
0.002
126.000
130.000
0.002
131.000
•
-
-
•
•
9/14
C:\Progtani Files\SYSTAT8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
V5YCP1X VSYCP110X V5YRTOTGS1 ORI.RESULT AVGTEAMW SCOROCAQ1 W IN6.0ESI6
98.783 158FW
17.684
1.000
5.000
4.958
4.996
- 159FW
18.000
4.000
4.504
4.950
161ARW
93.510
2.000
16.500
3.000
4.930
4.993
162FW
97.916
17.372
0.000
18.000
4.512
4.951
163ARW
100.065
18.314
3.000
4.000
4.913
4.991
164AW
97.324
.
17.887
4.000
5.000
5.000
96.485 165AW
.
17.300
4.000
5.000
5.000
94.194 166AW
16.836
3.000
10.000
4.957
4.570
97.795 167AW
3.000
17.733
5.000
5.000
98.817 168ARW
1.000
17.732
4.000
4.938
4.994
169FW
100.380
18.379
5.000
5.000
5.000
3.000
.
- 171ARW
11.000
4.693
4.969
101.393
172AW
4.000
18.516
.
5.000
5.000
98.663
173FW
17.535
5.000
4.000
4.535
4.953
100.800 174FW
4.000
18.300
21.000
4.342
4.934
95.299 175WG
17.251
1.000
5.000
4.977
4.998
2.000
.
- 176WG
4.000
4.926
4.993
101.215
177FW
18.801
13.000
4.000
4.943
4.431
1.000
3.000
• 178FW
4.969
4.997
99.897
179AW
17.970
4.000
9.000
4.587
4.959
180FW
95.691
17.197
9.000
4.000
4.696
4.970
98.024 181FW
.
3.000
17.578
5.000
5.000
97.699 182AW
17.866
5.000
5.000
5.000
3.000
.
. 183FW
5.000
5.000
95.807
184BW
17.404
.
3.000
5.000
5.000
185FW
98.603
3.000
17.897
3.000
4.884
4.988
5.000
.
• 186ARW
7.000
4.973
4.732
97.466
187FW
5.000
4.000
17.785
4.854
4.985
188FW
99.333
4.000
18.667
11.000
4.544
4.954
97.035 189AW
4.000
17.806
8.000
4.695
4.970
98.301 190ARW
2.000
17.753
3.000
4.907
4.991
3.000
17.817
.
• 192FW
5.000
5.000
193SOW
99.936
18.069
4.000
4.000
4.907
4.991
01/24/00 13:11:34
Q1
4.134
•
3.716
3.974
4.087
3.878
3.850
3.686
3.934
4.073
4.026
-
4.131
4.124
-
3.787
•
4.110
-
4.060
3.821
3.836
3.925
•
3.934
4.077
-
3.927
3.667
3.782
3.959
4.084
4.021
10/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
03
02
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
3.723
3.688
08
4.249
07
08
09
3.494
OS
2.482
.
.
-
-
-
3.275
3.492
3.584
3.435
3.405
3.454
3.513
3.959
3.579
2.853
2.686
2.602
2.574
2.846
2.527
2.622
2.817
2.501
4.078
4.091
4.181
4.093
4.044
3.745
4.014
4.159
4.248
Z696
3.023
Z773
Z723
Z877
Z548
Z 752
Z854
Z734
3.480
3.718
3.842
3.649
3.705
3.365
3.724
3.671
3.836
3.382
3.634
3.755
3.660
3.559
3.513
3.592
3.756
3.716
04
Z688
3.470
3.759
.
_
3.225
3.670
3.668
3.576
3.520
3.405
3.615
3.817
3.741
3.461
3.421
3.755
3.698
3.656
3.316
3.683
3.695
3.808
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
3.783
3.644
3.699
3.827
3.724
3.366
2.498
2.861
4.150
4.252
Z624
Z896
3.699
3.640
3.879
3.589
.
.
-
-
-
3.288
Z806
4.102
Z830
3.827
3.507
.
.
.
-
-
2.384
4.311
Z598
3.764
3.691
.
.
3.364
3.496
3.762
3.833
3.579
.
.
.
.
.
•
-
-
3.671
3.485
3.569
3.562
3.511
3.433
3.559
3.699
3.656
3.416
3.443
3.523
2.441
Z683
Z641
Z593
3.813
3.939
4.193
4.220
Z650
Z685
Z867
Z784
3.444
3.519
3.764
3.715
3.749
3.458
3.545
3.582
.
3.479
3.590
3.575
3.000
3.471
3.507
3.763
3.649
.
.
.
.
.
-
•
3.518
3.577
3.183
3.641
Z814
Z551
4.129
3.923
Z867
Z487
3.763
3.705
3.380
3.769
3.626
4.000
3.704
3.705
3.183
3.591
-
.
.
.
.
-
•
3.452
3.333
3.549
3.514
3.855
3.699
2.658
2.000
2.627
Z801
2.191
Z397
4.233
3.667
4.111
4.301
3.863
3.956
2.831
Z667
Z776
Z712
2.290
Z546
3.790
3.000
3.797
3.685
3.275
3.502
3.612
3.333
3.486
3.616
3.893
3.870
01/24/00 13:11:34
11/14
C:\Program Rles\SYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Q14
2.917
Q15
2.451
Q16
4.134
Q17
3.490
Q10
3.498
Q11
3.451
Q12
3.356
.
.
-
-
-
-
3.216
3.314
3.528
3.408
3.078
3.267
3.362
3.195
3.564
3.069
3.243
3.494
3.315
3.172
3.148
3.312
3.366
3.442
3.010
3.194
3.491
3.345
3.185
3.286
3.305
3.232
3.484
2.569
2.272
2.177
2395
2-445
2.319
2.214
2.049
2.125
2.990
2.673
2.649
2.683
2.577
2.796
2.599
2.439
2.577
2.804
2.625
2.373
2.531
2.643
2.518
2.487
2.634
2.492
3.794
3.867
4.003
3.730
3.727
3.386
3.895
3.756
3.973
3.108
3.450
3.590
3.447
3.313
3.330
3.462
3.439
3.562
Q13
2-269
.
.
.
-
-
-
3.516
3.183
2.019
2.302
2.402
2.554
2.411
2.644
3.916
4.045
3.657
3.436
3.657
3.356
3.540
3.510
.
.
.
.
-
.
•
-
3.232
3.178
3.156
2.426
2.763
2.580
3.744
3.283
.
.
.
.
.
-
•
•
3.551
3.594
2.146
2.622
2.344
4.130
3.715
3.614
3.568
3.296
3.395
3.330
.
.
.
-
-
•
•
3.402
3.258
3.294
3.383
3.486
3.265
3.272
3.265
2.097
2.223
2.320
2.293
2.553
2.685
2.663
2.786
2.411
2.513
2.622
2.491
3.792
3.679
3.913
3.894
3.610
3.403
3.443
3.505
-
.
-
-
3.187
3.321
3.135
3.333
2.322
2.179
2.747
2.308
2.586
2.346
3.897
3.513
3.372
3.615
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
3.274
3.333
3.275
3.336
3.603
3.445
3.215
3.333
3.201
3.110
3.504
3.511
2.393
2.333
2.299
2.411
2.168
2.240
2.658
3.000
2.811
2.678
2.305
2.504
2.594
3.000
2.599
2.623
2.137
2.347
3.849
4.000
3.760
3.993
3.519
3.781
3.452
3.333
3.381
3.507
3.802
3.614
.
3.215
3.500
3.329
3.000
3.296
3.432
3.672
3.605
-
01/24/00 13:11:34
12/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Q18
3.549
Q19
3.170
Q21
3.387
.
3.255
3.417
3.503
3.465
3.432
3.379
3.444
3.598
3.556
020
3.265
099
3.166
023
3.597
024
3.530
025
2.692
..
.
3.265
3.482
3.627
3.578
3.396
3.445
3.515
3.585
3.585
3.127
3.469
3.332
3.190
3.300
3.262
3.251
3.622
3.370
3.245
3.401
3.506
3.286
3.326
3.445
3.383
3.427
3.325
.
.
.
.
-
-
•
•
3.724
3.515
3.453
3.446
3.460
3.342
3.678
3.441
3.035
3.059
3.680
3.198
3.766
3.574
.
.
-
3.261
3.146
3.321
3.299
2.925
3.267
26 4 7
25 6 9
2687
2667
•
2450
24 5 2
2655
2711
2662
2615
2507
2333
2817
2678
2.153
2527
.
.
.
3.841
3.362
3.360
.
,
.
3.447
3.223
3.337
3.151
3.644
3.399
3.361
3.346
3.608
.
3.644
3.525
3.465
3.487
.
3.317
3.603
3.634
3.437
3.419
3.548
.
.
.
3.493
3.667
3.301
3.615
3.266
3.513
3.324
3.667
3.238
3.384
3.573
3.447
3.183
4.000
3.320
3.521
3.626
3.461
.
3.562
4.000
3.566
3.603
3.763
3.630
-
.
-
-
2.843
3.013
3.037
2.932
2.947
2.665
3.002
2.720
3.138
3.069
3.265
3.494
3.451
3.150
3.316
3.378
3.232
3.546
3.373
3.589
3.509
3.506
3.476
3.564
3.572
3.610
3.663
.
3.220
2.897
2.603
3.099
2.937
.
2.852
2.744
-
3.650
3.671
3.326
3.373
3.407
3.306
3.513
-
3.383
3.614
3.761
3.559
3.581
3.444
3.455
3.872
.
-
•
-
3.434
3.667
3.366
3.541
3.802
3.593
2.995
4.000
3.043
2.945
2.748
2.977
3.365
4.000
3.349
3.336
3.756
3.694
3.530
3.667
3.473
3.384
3.916
3.760
01/24/00 13:11:34
2.725
2.615
2.575
2.644
2.705
2342
2.818
22 6 8
27 1 4
13/14
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT8.0\Merged Rnall.SYD
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
026
3.644
027
3.308
026
3.379
.
.
.
3.118
3.320
3.516
3.274
3.264
3.297
3.383
3.573
3.465
3.225
3.485
3.596
3.510
3.392
3.393
3.433
3.549
3.605
3.382
3.647
3.714
3.628
3.661
3.672
3.667
3.817
3.732
3.186
3.366
3.556
3.478
3.458
3.434
3.442
3.232
3.629
3.876
3.663
3.687
3.416
.
3.539
3.770
3.745
3.637
3.621
3.696
3.636
4.024
3.770
Q2S
3.503
030
VAR00027S
3.518
-
*
.
3.881
3.718
3.507
3.441
3.715
3.351
.
.
.
.
3.534
3.270
3.399
3.531
3.334
.
.
.
.
.
.
3.687
3.510
3.715
3.744
3.634
.
.
.
.
.
3.958
3.693
3.684
3.546
3.659
3.353
3.400
3.334
3.710
3.483
3.463
3.497
3.912
3.655
3.696
3.589
3.695
3.445
3.470
3.446
.
.
.
.
3.573
3.859
3.252
3.564
3.323
3.436
3.455
3.833
3.346
3.513
.
.
.
.
.
3.694
3.667
3.584
3.699
3.985
3.941
3.311
3.667
3.240
3.384
3.679
3.578
3.443
3.667
3.390
3.425
3.840
3.653
3.635
4.000
3.608
3.527
3.985
3.922
3.411
3.333
3.414
3.397
3.809
3.717
-
01/24/00 13:11:34
14/14
108
Appendix C
Survey Response by Wing2
2 OCAQ data was obtained from 73 Wings, however for three of the Wings, the response rate was insufficient to
provide valid data. The data from these three Wings (OCAQ response rates of I, 3. and 30) was not used for this
study.
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\R esponse percentage.SYD
WING_DESIG| HQ.DESIGS V5YAVGASG V_RESP_SU RESPONSE
1525.200
174.000
0.114
1 101ARW
HOME
96.000
0.063
102FW
1524.800
2
HQMA
277.000
0.194
1425.000
3 103FW
HQCT
214.000
0.133
4 104FW
1612.800
HQMA
HQNY
1861.800
790.000
0.424
5 105AW
HQNY
1326.800
251.000
0.189
6 106RQW
1024.200
350.000
0.342
7 107ARW
HQNY
HQNJ
1828.600
449.000
0.246
8 108ARW
1315.000
371.000
9 109AW
HQNY
0.282
1188.400
443.000
0.373
10 110FW
HQMI
1272.000
384.000
0.302
11 111FW
HQPA
.
.
HQDC
1619.400
12 113WG
1173.200
405.000
0.345
13 114FW
HQSD
HQWI
133.000
0.091
14 115FW
1454.200
0.345
1751.000
604.000
15 116BW
HQGA
147.000
1449.800
0.101
16 117ARW
HQAL
.
17 118AW
1591.800
.
HQTN
1286.200
1026.000
0.798
18 119FW
HQND
0.227
1208.600
274.000
19 120FW
HQMT
1914.000
.
20 121ARW
HQOH
.
0.379
1252.600
475.000
21 122FW
HQIN
HQKY
537.000
0.388
1383.400
22 123AW
HQID
125.000
0.088
1424.000
23 124WG
1962.200
24 125FW
.
HQFL
1551.400
1.000
0.001
25 126ARW
HQIL
2031.400
386.000
0.190
HQMI
26 127WG
1109.400
515.000
0.464
27 128ARW
HQWI
1616.600
419.000
0.259
28 129RQW
HQCA
246.000
0.227
1083.800
29 130AW
HQWV
2088.400
.
.
30 131FW
HQMO
0.626
1175.800
736.000
31 132FW
HQIA
1585.800
.
.
32 133AW
HQMN
153.000
0.100
1523.000
33 134ARW
HQTN
52.000
0.037
1408.000
34 136AW
HQTX
0.499
1561.400
779.000
35 137AW
HQOK
0.208
1370.600
285.000
36 138FW
HQOK
1096.000
679.000
0.620
37 139AW
HQMO
0.069
1702.400
117.000
38 140WG
HQCO
0.296
1575.200
466.000
39 141ARW
HQWA
0.282
40 142FW
1727.200
487.000
HQOR
HQRI
1662.800
87.000
0.052
41 143AW
1129.000
621.000
0.550
HQCA
42 144FW
1833.000
737.000
0.402
43 145AW
HQNC
44 146AW
0.186
1611.400
300.000
HQCA
0.189
1526.600
289.000
45 147FW
HQTX
1188.800
196.000
0.165
46 148FW
HQMN
1288.400
47 149FW
.
.
HQTX
1230.000
393.000
0.320
48 150FW
HQNM
0.294
1775.000
522.000
HQUT
49 151ARW
1227.400
HQNV
.
.
50 152AW
1162.800
51 153AW
HQWY
.
.
742.000
0.269
HQHI
2755.800
52 154WG
375.000
0.337
1114.200
53 155ARW
HQNE
1621.000
54 156FW
HQPR
.
.
1107.600
698.000
0.630
HQNH
55 157ARW
01/24/00 13:00:24
C:\Program FilesVSYSTAT 8.0\R esponse percentage.SYO
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
WING.DESIG HQ_DESIG$ V5YAVGASG V_RESP_SU RESPONSE
0.212
253.000
158FW
1196.000
HQVT
159FW
HQLA
.
.
1815.200
102.000
0.071
1435.400
161ARW
HQAZ
0.168
309.000
162FW
1842.400
HQAZ
0.208
358.000
1717.600
163ARW
HQCA
0.355
441.000
164AW
1242.600
HQTN
0.141
16SAW
1981.800
279.000
HQGA
0.367
166AW
1163.200
427.000
HQOE
0.317
439.000
167AW
HQWV
1384.200
0.102
168ARW
807.800
82.000
HQAK
0.434
169FW
1531.200
665.000
HQSC
.
1793.600
171ARW
HQPA
0.235
429.000
172AW
1824.600
HQMS
0.376
202.000
173FW
537.600
HQOR
0.019
30.000
174FW
HQNY
1594.600
0.171
371.000
175WG
2170.600
HQMO
1359.600
.
.
176WG
HQAK
0.445
508.000
177FW
1142.200
HQNJ
178FW
1596.400
.
.
HQOH
0.304
1089.000
331.000
179AW
HQOH
0.321
476.000
180FW
1481.200
HQOH
0.328
415.000
181FW
1265.200
HQIN
0.363
491.000
182AW
1351.200
HQIL
183FW
1259.800
.
.
HQIL
0.497
758.000
1526.200
184BW
HQKS
0.060
78.000
185FW
1292.200
HQIA
0.337
1308.200
441.000
186ARW
HQMS
0.128
187FW
HQAL
1712.400
219.000
0.002
3.000
188FW
1207.400
HOAR
0.412
131ZOOO
541.000
189AW
HOAR
0.136
146.000
1070.200
190ARW
HQKS
0.089
192FW
1460.600
130.000
HQVA
0.261
2154.400
562.000
193SOW
HQPA
01/24/00 13:00:25
Appendix D
Reliability Analysis Scale (alpha) Correlation Matrix and Item-Total Statistics
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E ( ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Qi
Qi
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
QH
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.0000
.6305
.2875
.5183
-.4373
.2147
-.2719
-.0081
.5655
.5242
.5051
.5033
-.4316
-.4246
-.4321
.3610
.5418
.4736
.3784
.2900
.4692
.2218
.4956
.4676
-.1409
.4895
.4804
.4864
.5193
.5243
Q2
Q3
Q4
1.0000
.2919
.5558
-.4475
.1771
-.2743
-.0117
.5370
.5817
.5597
.5524
-.4459
-.4540
-.4412
.3030
.6004
.5435
.4069
.3117
.4935
.2399
.5191
.4844
-.1271
.4901
.4996
.5139
.5335
.5631
1.0000
.2716
-.2064
.4272
-.0488
.1839
.3027
.2989
.2930
.3069
-.2148
-.1724
-.2052
.4777
.3107
.2818
.1475
.0842
.2536
.3701
.3140
.2521
.0555
.2800
.2640
.3282
.3215
.3147
1.0000
-.5197
.1740
-.2886
-.0588
.6015
.5596
.5270
.5321
-.4237
-.4699
-.4474
.2946
.5605
.5029
.4007
.2921
.4791
.2211
.5233
.5003
-.1562
.5268
.4899
.5032
.5796
.5518
Q5
1.0000
-.1232
.3150
.1386
-.4757
-.5310
-.4820
-.5068
.3666
.3614
.4373
-.2407
-.4791
-.4427
-.3261
-.2494
-.4208
-.2230
-.5315
-.4177
.1756
-.4168
-.4209
-.4450
-.4646
-.5184
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (ALPHA)
Correlation Matrix
Q6
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.0000
.0256
.2199
.2110
.1741
.1739
.1662
-.1523
-.1107
-.1354
.4107
.1945
.1674
.0828
.0471
.1796
.2729
.1877
.1741
.0481
.2071
.1673
.1983
.2263
.1891
Q7
Q8
1.0000
.2281
-.3141
-.3224
-.2963
-3058
.2512
.2716
.2853
-.0679
-.3044
-.2855
-.2322
-.1877
-.2739
-.0423
-.3126
-.2599
.1459
-.2596
-.2527
-.2638
-.2792
-.3063
Q9
1.0000
-.0793
-.0766
-.0472
-.0549
.0175
.0904
.0851
.1817
-.0255
-.0171
-.0816
-.0532
-.0449
.1650
-.0412
-.0441
.1937
-.0200
-.0298
-.0197
-.0091
-.0321
Q10
1.0000
.6247
.5713
.5615
-.4615
-.4981
-.4638
.3362
.5912
.5160
.4179
.3149
.5169
2183
.5467
.5289
-.1604
.5599
.5223
.5187
.5938
.5712
1.0000
.6607
.6305
-.4652
-.4800
-.5038
.3076
.6270
.5478
.4305
.3385
.5411
.2665
.6016
.5192
-.1626
.5291
.5371
.5582
.5757
.6487
111
Correlation Matrix
Q ll
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.0000
.6433
-.4820
-.4763
-.4781
.3035
.6064
.5565
.4204
.3295
.5247
.2470
.5610
.5107
-.1558
.4992
.5116
.5445
.5550
.6027
Q16
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.0000
.3309
.2763
.1578
.0987
.2737
.4105
.3320
.2812
.0489
.3089
.3356
.3204
.3528
.3332
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
1.0000
-.5186
-.4839
-.4902
.3017
.6069
.5420
.4129
.3316
.5279
.2865
.6014
.5245
-.1505
.5227
.5514
.5812
.5762
.6141
1.0000
.4437
.4092
-.2284
-.4868
-.4445
-.3452
-.3122
-.4280
-.1362
-.4379
-.4316
.1482
-.4393
-.4136
-.4528
-.4584
-.4605
1.0000
.4396
-.1959
-.5094
-.4416
-.5092
-.3070
-.4665
-.1253
-.4386
-.5170
.1573
-.5101
-,4741
-.4474
-.5164
-.4863
1.0000
-.2265
-.5221
-.4761
-.3728
-.3275
-.4533
-.1717
-.5259
-.4500
.1940
-.4542
-.4478
-.4682
-.4890
-.5311
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
1.0000
.4656
.3446
.5223
.2293
.5576
.5039
-.1606
.5089
.4898
.5263
.5498
.5899
1.0000
.3564
.4629
.1261
.4146
.4834
-.1726
.4651
.4265
.4108
.4523
.4463
1.0000
.4334
.0481
.3321
.3590
-.1556
.3472
.3411
.3374
.3483
.3692
1.0000
.6217
.4735
.3624
.5719
.2588
.6130
.5550
-.1633
.5672
.5797
.5870
.6127
.6424
Correlation Matrix
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
1.0000
.1655
.5431
.5301
-.2142
.5421
.5255
.5367
.5537
.5697
1.0000
.2916
.1872
.1832
.1950
.2317
.2485
.2512
.2856
1.0000
.5747
-.1679
.5537
.5550
.5773
.6006
.6668
1.0000
-.2296
.6119
.5343
.5496
.6287
.5809
1.0000
-.2327
-.1860
-.1808
-.1887
-.1860
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.0000
.5913
.5750
.6624
.5919
1.0000
.6045
.6013
.5987
1.0000
.6703
.6491
LOOOO
.7092
1.0000
Q21
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
N o f Cases =
Item Means
Inter-item
Correlations
28629.0
Mean Minimum
3.3377 2.2951
Mean Minimum
.1593
-.5315
Maximum
4.0853
Maximum
.7092
Range Max/Min Variance
1.7902 1.7800
.1963
Range Max/Min Variance
1.2407 -1.3343
.1448
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - SCALE (ALPHA)
Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
Ql
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Scale
Corrected
Variance
Itemif Item
Total
Deleted Correlation
182.4074
180.4800
181.1221
179.7066
214.9185
186.1434
206.5062
195.0341
178.1877
176.7807
177.0875
177.1161
213.2439
215.5157
215.0024
179.8736
177.6237
179.4382
182.6945
185.9637
180.3487
184.4626
176.7197
179.2349
201.4897
179.2023
177.5296
176.2999
175.9967
175.6788
96.2242
96.5740
96.5307
96.6269
97.5478
96.0466
97.3964
96.4664
96.5148
96.7177
96.7970
96.8024
97.8368
97.4569
97.6273
96.3119
96.6591
96.6036
96.8577
96.7584
96.6538
97.1590
96.6713
96.5792
97.5091
96.4303
96.7396
96.6402
96.4470
96.6398
Reliability Coefficients
Alpha = .8494
.6296
.6600
.4776
.6273
-.5533
.3405
-.2907
.0648
.6681
.6911
.6699
.6775
-.5458
-.5672.
-.5624
.5018
.7246
.6495
.4902
.3779
.6382
.3990
.6896
.6445
-.1405
.6711
.6642
.6936
.7381
.7397
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.5131
.5553
.3592
.5219
.4310
.2665
.2073
.1692
.5721
.6201
.5780
.5925
.3829
.4574
.4154
.3884
.6213
.5183
.3956
.2571
.5095
.2917
.5920
.5428
.1679
.5746
.5318
.5788
.6655
.6676
.8387
.8373
.8414
.8375
.8704
.8459
.8639
.8543
.8361
.8350
.8355
.8354
.8681
.8709
.8703
.8405
.8349
.8370
.8413
.8447
.8376
.8440
.8350
.8370
.8587
.8365
.8358
.8347
.8338
.8336
30 items
Standardized item alpha = .8504
114
Appendix E
Pearson R Correlation Matrix —Individual OCAQ Questions/Total OCAQ Score
Pearson R Correlation Matrix —Individual OCAQ Questions/Total OCAQ Score
Ql
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
SCORE 1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORES
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ 1
Ql
1.000
0.630
0.287
0.519
-0.437
0.214
-0.272
-0.008
0.566
0.524
0.505
0.503
-0.432
-0.425
-0.432
0.361
0.542
0.473
0.379
0.290
0.469
0.222
0.495
0.468
-0.141
0.490
0.480
0.486
0.520
0.524
0.712
0.585
0.459
0.600
0.181
0.667
0.533
0.673
Q2
Q3
Q4
1.000
0.292
0.556
-0.447
0.177
-0.274
-0.012
0.537
0.582
0.560
0.552
-0.446
-0.454
-0.441
0.303
0.600
0.543
0.407
0.312
0.493
0.240
0.519
0.485
-0.127
0.490
0.499
0.514
0.534
0.563
0.629
0.720
0.494
0.611
0.238
0.698
0.569
0.703
1.000
0.271
-0.206
0.427
-0.049
0.184
0.303
0299
0.293
0.307
-0.215
-0.172
-0.205
0.478
0.310
0.282
0.147
.0.084
0.253
0.370
0.314
0.252
0.055
0.280
0.264
0.328
0.321
0.315
0.506
0.426
0.681
0.333
0.176
0.543
0.675
0.539
1.000
-0.520
0.174
-0.289
-0.059
0.602
0.560
0.527
0.532
-0.424
-0.470
-0.448
0.294
0.560
0.503
0.401
0.292
0.479
0.221
0.523
0.500
-0.156
0.527
0.490
0.503
0.580
0.552
0.600
0.577
0.462
0.771
0.157
0.671
0.533
0.676
Q5
1.000
-0.123
0.315
0.139
-0.476
-0.531
-0.482
-0.507
0.367
0.362
0.437
-0.241
-0.479
-0.443
-0.326
-0.249
-0.421
-0.223
-0.531
-0.418
0.176
-0.417
-0.421
-0.445
-0.465
-0.518
-0.505
-0.493
-0.390
-0.545
0.141
-0.498
-0.453
-0.506
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
SCORE 1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORES
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
Q6
1.000
0.026
0.220
0.211
0.174
0.174
0.166
-0.152
-0.111
-0.135
0.411
0.194
0.167
0.083
0.047
0.179
0.273
0.187
0.174
0.048
0.207
0.167
0.198
0.226
0.189
0.560
0.287
0.375
0.224
0.103
0.413
0.381
0.409
Q7
Q8
Q9
QIO
1.000
0.228
-0.314
-0.323
-0.296
-0.306
0.251
0.272
0.286
-0.068
-0.305
-0.286
-0.232
-0.188
-0.274
-0.042
-0.313
-0.260
0.146
-0.260
-0.253
-0.264
-0.279
-0.306
-0.265
-0.035
-0.149
-0.326
-0.047
-0.218
-0.204
-0.227
1.000
-0.079
-0.077
-0.047
-0.055
0.018
0.090
0.085
0.182
-0.026
-0.017
-0.082
-0.053
-0.045
0.165
-0.041
-0.044
-0.194
-0.020
-0.030
-0.020
-0.009
-0.032
0.082
0.083
0.398
-0.054
0.121
0.146
0.355
0.139
1.000
0.625
0.571
0.562
-0.461
-0.498
-0.464
0.337
0.591
0.516
0.418
0.315
0.517
0.218
0.547
0.529
-0.160
0.560
0.523
0.519
0.594
0.571
0.659
0.591
0.472
0.783
0.224
0.709
0.553
0.715
1.000
0.661
0.631
-0.465
-0.480
-0.504
0.308
0.627
0.548
0.430
0.339
0.541
0.267
0.602
0.519
-0.163
0.529
0.537
0.558
0.576
0.649
0.654
0.649
0.513
0.660
0.419
0.731
0.591
0.737
117
Q ll
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
SCORE1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORE5
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
Q ll
1.000
0.644
-0.482
-0.476
-0.478
0.304
0.606
0.557
0.420
0.330
0.525
0.247
0.561
0.511
-0.156
0.499
0.512
0.545
0.555
0.603
0.725
0.636
0.500
0.624
0.258
0.713
0.584
0.720
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
1.000
-0.519
-0.484
-0.490
0.302
0.607
0.542
0.413
0.331
0.528
0.287
0.601
0.525
-0.151
0.523
0.551
0.581
0.576
0.614
0.637
0.760
0.513
0.628
0.233
0.719
0.606
0.729
1.000
0.444
0.409
-0.229
-0.487
-0.445
-0.345
-0.312
-0.428
-0.136
-0.438
-0.432
0.148
-0.439
-0.414
-0.453
-0.458
-0.460
-0.515
-0.488
-0.217
-0.496
-0.172
-0.495
-0.469
-0.546
1.000
0.440
-0.196
-0.509
-0.442
-0.509
-0.307
-0.467
-0.125
-0.439
-0.517
0.157
-0.510
-0.474
-0.447
-0.516
-0.486
-0.517
-0.494
-0.341
-0.443
-0.174
-0.513
-0.429
-0.525
1.000
-0.227
-0.522
-0.476
-0.373
-0.328
-0.453
-0.172
-0.526
-0.450
0.194
-0.454
-0.448
-0.468
-0.489
-0.531
-0.518
-0.499
-0.413
-0.528
0.114
-0.509
-0.485
-0.519
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
SCORE1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORES
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
Q16
1.000
0.331
0.276
0.158
0.099
0.274
0.410
0.332
0.281
0.049
0.309
0.336
0.321
0.353
0.333
0.680
0.461
0.483
0.363
0.167
0.568
0.500
0.563
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
SCORE 1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORE5
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
Q21
1.000
0.166
0.543
0.530
-0.214
0.542
0.525
0.537
0.554
0.570
0.707
0.561
0.483
0.615
0.248
0.679
0.554
0.684
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
1.000
0.622
0.474
0.363
0.572
0.259
0.613
0.555
-0.163
0.567
0.580
0.587
0.613
0.642
0.671
0.763
0.566
0.676
0.253
0.758
0.644
0.764
1.000
0.466
0.345
0.522
0.229
0.557
0.504
-0.161
0.509
0.490
0.526
0.550
0.590
0.597
0.597
0.649
0.621
0.219
0.691
_0.709
0.697
1.000
0.356
0.463
0.126
0.415
0.483
-0.172
0.465
0.427
0.411
0.452
0.446
0.463
0.449
0.351
0.669
0.196
0.548
0.412
0.552
1.000
0.433
0.048
0.332
0.359
-0.155
0.347
0.341
0.337
0.348
0.369
0.362
0.335
0.256
0.405
0.504
0.444
0.316
0.449
Q24
Q25
Q22
1.000
0.292
0.187
0.183
0.195
0.234
0.248
0.251
0.286
0.381
0.580
0.411
0.260
0.196
0.467
0.409
0.460
Q23
1.000
0.575
-0.168
0.554
0.555
0.577
0.601
0.667
0.639
0.636
0.684
0.658
0.207
0.730
0.738
0.734
1.000
-0.230
0.612
0.534
0.550
0.629
0.581
0.613
0.567
0.491
0.775
0.200
0.687
0.562
0.692
1.000
-0.233
-0.186
-0.181
-0.189
-0.186
-0.144
-0.076
-0.037
-0.222
0.404
-0.068
-0.073
-0.076
119
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
1.000
0.604
0.601
0.599
0.624
0.738
0.513
0.622
.230
0.707
0.577
0.710
1.000
0.670
0.649
0.636
0.638
0.685
0.653
0.244
0.734
0.743
0.739
1.000
0.709
0.686
0.644
0.586
0.813
0.265
0.772
0.655
0.776
1.000
0.671
0.672
0.602
0.703
0.414
0.774
0.671
0.778
Q26
1.000
Q27 0.591
Q28 0.575
Q29 0.662
Q30 0.592
SCORE 1 0.723
SCORE2 0.590
SCORE3 0.511
SCORE4 0.686
SCORE5 0.202
SCOREOCAQ 0.710
SCORE3
.582
SCOREOCAQ1 0.714
SCORE 1
SCORE2
SCORE3
SCORE4
SCORE5
SCOREOCAQ
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
SCORE1 SCORE2 SCORE3 SCORE4 SCORE5
1.000
1.000
0.753
0.664
1.000
0.686
0.691
0.599
0.742
1.000
1.000
0.280
0.280
0.312
0.258
0.456
0.907
0.883
-0.822
0.852
0.300
0.964
0.734
0.677
0.761
0.452
0.910
0.885
0.808
0.856
SCOREOCAQ
1.000
SCOREOCAQ
0.879
SCORE3
SCOREOCAQ1
0.998
SCORE3A
1.000
0.880
SCOREOCAQ 1
1.000
Number o f observations: 28611
120
Appendix F
Biographical Data
122
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Bom in Memphis, Tennessee
B.S. 1976, United States Air Force Academy
M.A.S. 1982, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
M.B.A.A. 1984, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
U.S. Air Force: Fighter Pilot, 1976-1986; Staff Officer, Headquarters USAF, 1986-1990; Wing
Quality Officer, 1990-1992; Deputy Director, Air National Guard Quality Center, 19921997; Director, Air National Guard Center for Excellence, 1997-1999
Principal Consultant, Sawner and Associates, 1999-Present
CONCERNING PERIOD OF PREPARATION
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE:
Marshall Sashkin, Professor o f Human Resource Development
David R. Schwandt, Professor o f Human Resource Development
James A. Belasco, Professor o f Management
RESEARCH TOOL FIELD COMPLETED: June 1995
TIME IN PREPARATION: 1993-1999
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS PASSED: May 1995

Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire

Transcription

Similar documents

Spanish 3 - Unit 2 At School Vocabulary B

Moneague Flooding (Jamaica)

Volume 1, Issue 4 - The New England Classic

Small Builders, Big Ideas

Venezia Italy, Hilton Molino Stucky 13/16 March

Artificial Insemination in Endangered Species

what is onenote?

View/Open - JEWLScholar@MTSU Home

Preventing and Identifying Potential Failures of Dead Break Elbows