See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227558978

An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer Organization

Climate Questionnaire

Article  in  Personnel Psychology · December 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb00388.x

CITATIONS READS

53 5,569

2 authors, including:

Henry P. Sims
University of Maryland, College Park
129 PUBLICATIONS   13,513 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Henry P. Sims on 13 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 zyxwvutsrq
PERSONNEL PsYciroLocv
1975, 28, 19-38.

zyxw
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LITWIN AND STRINGER
ORGANIZATION CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE

HENRY P SIMS, JR
Indiana University

WILLIAM LAFOLLETTE
Ball Stntc Universiti
zyxw
THEpsychological climate of an organization is generally referred
t o as organizational climate (Pritchard and Karasick, 1973). Fore-
hand and Gilmer (1964) have defined organizational climate as:

zy
the set of characteristics that describe an organization and that
(a) distinguish the organization from other organizations, (b) arc
relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of
people in the organization [p. 3621.
“Operationalization of this verbal definition has proceeded along
two lines: objective and perceptual (Johannesson, 1973, p. 1).”
Among those utilizing the objective approach, Evan (1963), Palmer
(1961), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), and Prien and Ronan (1971)
have attempted to characterize organizational differences in terms
of objective variables such as size, levels of authority, ratio of
administrative personnel to production personnel, quantity of formal
rules, etc. These studies call attention to the importance of the
environment in influencing behavior and generally subscribe to the
views of Sells (1963) and Bloom (1964) that situational or environ-
mental measures must be obtained independently of the individual’s
perceptions of them.
However, a far larger group of researchers has attempted t o
operationalize organizational climate in terms of participant per-
ceptions of different aspects of the work organization. For instance,
Litwin and Stringer (1968) state that organizational climate: refers
to a set of measurable properties of the work environment, perceived
Copyright @ 1975, by PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY,
INC

19
 zyxwvutsrq
zy
20 PERSONNEI, PSYCHOLOGY
directly or indirectly 1)y the people who live and work in this
enviroiirnciit and ashuine to influence motivation and behavior
(p. 1 ) .
Tlieir lint. of rcwxrcli .tenmicd from inquirics of Koffka (1935) ,

zyxwv
who tlistinguidied hetwcc~ngeographical environment (the objective

zyxwv
phybical and .ocial environment) and the behavioral environment
(thc cnvironnicnt as perceived and reacted t o by the subject).
Koffka concluded that bchavior could be more meaningfully under-
htood if it w:i> related to thc heliavioral cinvironment. “In general
(the 1)mx>ptualapproach) wa5 also held by Welder, Murray, Lewin,
and Ilunt (Pervin, 1968) .”
The perceptual approach nieilbiire:, climate hy having participants
indicatc thr cxtmt to which various attributes characterize in-
tlivi(tlin1 Tvork iituations Litwin and Stringer (19681, Tliornton

zyxwv
( I 969) , Schneidcr and Bartlett (1970) , Payiie and Phrysey ( I 971),
31eyc.r 11!368) , and Friedlander and Xargulies (1969) represent
this line of inquiry.
I n TJitwin and Stringer’? (1968) model, the conccpt of organiza-
tional cliinatc i:, used :ih aii intervening variable.. mediating between
organization:il factors and motivation tendencies. Organizational
factors buch as structurc, leadership, iiianagerial practices, and the
decision procc‘s>esarc realities. But these “realities of the organiza-
tion arc. undt1r.;tood oiily as they are perceived by mcinbers of the
orgaiiization, allowing climate to I)c viewed as a. filter through which
ohjectioc p1icnomen:x must pass (Litwin and Stringer, 1968, p. 43) .’,
According to tlicir viewpoint, this perceived organizational climate
motivation, cniihing einergciit hehavior, which results in
variou> corihequcnces for the organization such as: satisfaction,
productivity or performance, and retention or turnover.
1,ltn.in and Stringer conducted laboratory experiments using their
modc~land found that distinctive organizational climates could be
creatcd through the proces? of experimenting with a variety of
lcadcr~hipstyle>. Thcsc climatcs could be established in short pe-
riot15 of time and havc fairly stable characteristics. Once created,
thcw cliinatc? n erc found t o have significant effects on motivation
and, correspondingly, on performance and job satisfaction (Litwin
and Stringer, 1968). Subsequent field .tudies mere conducted, but
the rciult. are difficsiilt to a s m i because objective performance
indices were either not nvailablt. or wcrc definitely biased.
Aftcr an extensive rexTiew of thc literature, Lirtzman, House, and
Rizzo (1973) statcd that only a few attempts had been made
ton-ard the systematic iiieasiircrneiit of the theoretical construct of
 zyxw
zyxwv
SIMS AKD I,AFOI,I,ETTE

Organizational climate. The authors stated that to their knowledge

only three sets of scales are “currently available for which there
are some evidence of validity ( 2 ) . ” One of the sets that Lirtzman
21

et al. referred to were the a priori scales derived from the instrument

zyx
developed by Litwin and Stringer (1968). However, the reliability
and validity of some of these original a priori scalcs have heen
quebtioned even by tlie autliors of that instrument (Litwin and
Stringer, 1968, pp. 88-92). Therefore, the objectives of this research
were to utilize factor analysis to explore the validity and reliability
of the Litwin and Stringer Organization Climate indmiment.

T h e Sample
This research was conducted at a major midwestcrri medical
complex. The respondents included registered nurses, licenvd prac-
tical nurses, nurse aides, technologists, tlierapids, dietitians, tech-
nicians, clerical, and huilding and janitorial service>. The respon-
dents provided a rich cnvironment in terms of the variety of skills
and professions encompassed in one organization.
The respondents reported t o separate classroom and seminar

zyx
facilities on the premisc3s of the hfcdical Center a t various sched-
uled tinies for questionnaire admii-iktration. The assembled em-
ployeeb were informed of the nature and purposc of the study, the
gericral background of the researchers, and the confidentiality in-
volved in their responses. Questionnaire booklets, which included
Litwin and Stringer’s Organizational Climate Questionnaire (1 9681,
in addition to organizational practices, satisfaction, and job char-
acteristics, were distributed to the respondents. The questionnaire
booklets were completed in tlie samc room and returned to the

zyxwvu
rescarchers as the respondents departed. The questionnaires were
collectcd from a total of 1161 employees. Some questionnaires were
deleted from the sample becausc of excessive missing data or pat-
ently obvious response errors. A total of 997 questionnaires were
used in the final organization climate analysis.

T h e Organizat ion a1 Ctima te Questionnaire

The Organizational Climate Questionnaire used in this research
was constructed by Litwin and Stringer (1968) in order to collect
member’s perceptions of and subjectivc responses to the organiza-
tional environment. The climate of an organization could then be
22 zyxwvutsrq PEIISONNEI, PSYCI-IOI~OGY
defined operationally as the sum of the perceptions of individuals
working in that organization (p. 66).
The questionnaire contained 50 statements about an organiza-
tion. The rebpondent was asked to reply: if lic definitely agreed
with the statement, if he was inclined to agree with the statement,
if he was inclined t o disagree with the statement, or if he definitely
disagreed with tlie statement-as it applicd to his organization.
In thtiir rciearch Litwin and Stringcr (1968) constructed nine
scparate a priori scales which they defined as:
1. Structure-the feeling that tmployees have about the con-
straints in the group, how many rulc., regulations, proccdures there
arc; i5 there an rmp1i:tsis on “red tape” and going through channels,
or is there a loose and informal atmosphere.

zyx
2. Responsibility-the feeling of hving your 0n-n boss; not having
to douhle-check a11 your drciiions; when you have a job to do,
knowing that it is your job.

zyxw
3. Reward-the feeling of being rewarded for a job well done;
cmphasiaing positive rclwirds rather than punishments; the per-
ceivcd fairneb. of the pay and promotion policies.
4. Risk-the senw of riskiness and challenge in the job and in
the organization; is there a n emphasis on taking calculated risks, or
is playing it bafe the best way to opcrate.
5 . TVnrwLth-the feeling of general good fellowship t h a t prevails
in the work group ntrnosphcre; the cmphasis on being well-liked ;

7. Standard-the zyxwv
the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups.
6. Suppo~f--the perceived hclpfulness of the managers and other
cniployec.. in thc group; empliasis on mutual support from above
and k)elow.
ptrcrived importance of implicit and explicit
goal< and performance standards; the emphasis on doing R good
.jot); the ch:illrnge represented in personal and group goals.
8. Conflict-tht feeling that managers and other workers want
to licar differcnt opinion<; tlie rmphabis placed on getting problems
out in the open, rathrr than smoothing them over or ignoring them.
9. Identity-the feeling that you belong to a company and you
are n valuable menihc,r of a working team; the importance placed
on this kind of spirit (pp. 81-82),
Over a period of time an improvcd version of the instrument
(Litwin and Stringer, 1968, pp. 264-2671 was administered t o over
500 inanageri, supervisors, technicians, $pccialists, and salesmen in a
wide variety of organizations. According t o the authors, seven of
thc nine scales showed good scale consistency (i.e., the extent that
 zyxw
zyxwv
zyxw
zyx
SIMS A K D LAFOLLETTE 23

items in a scale are positively related and measuring the same

zyxwvut
thing). Scale independence was evaluated through analysis of scale
intercorrelation. Due to very strong relationships between the
Warmth and Identity scales ( T = .69) ; Identity and Support ( r =
5 9 ) ; and Warmth and Support (T = 5 7 ) ; it was concluded by
Litwin and Stringer (1968) that these three scales t a p a common
dimension of climate and should he combined in future research.
There was also significant intercorrelation between the Reward and
Warmth ( T = 5 4 ) and Identity ( T = .56) scales. However, it was
recommended by Litwin and Stringer (1968) to leave Reward as a
separate, though not independent, scale because of the important
relationship existing between rewards and motivation. Among the
problems encountered by thp authors, two items in the Standards
scale were found to correlate substantially with the Responsibility
scale. According to Litwin and Stringer (1968), rewording should
solve this problem. I n addition, the Conflict scale showed the poorest
consistency. Due to the ambiguous interpretation of the scale, the
researchers suggest t h a t it either be dropped from the questionnaire,
or it be used merely to measure the presence of conflict in the
organizational unit.
Litwin and Stringer concluded that the refined climate instrument
had improved scale consistency. Though scale overlap existed, the
researchers proposed that some grouping, and eventual collapsing of
scales would correct this problem.
I n this research, certain questions were reworded very slightly
to fit the Medical Center’s environment. T h e instrument was factor
analyzed and submitted t o reliability examinations on both the
rcsultant factors and a priori scales. T h e results of these examina-
tions were compared with Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) results.

Method of Analysis
The subprogram FACTOR from the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences ( S P S S ) (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1970) was used t o
identify the factor structure which was the most representative of
the data from the Organizational Climate Questionnaire. The
method of factoring selected was PA2, which replaces the main
diagonal elements of the correlation matrix with communality esti-
mates. Eighteen separate Factor Analyses were run on the data
from this instrument. Both orthogonal rotations (utilizing Varimax
method) and oblique rotations (utilizing direct oblimin method)
were completed, rotating from two to ten factors with each method.
24 zyxw
zyxwvutsrq PEIISOSNEI, PSl-cHOI>OG’J
Results
After careful e x a m n a t i o n of the rtsultant factor structures, i t

zyxwv
was determined t h a t tlie factor structure which best represented
t h e d a t a from the qucrtioiinaire was that of t h e six factor orthogonal
rotation, which i i shown in Tables 1 through 6. E a c h factor is
preicntcd ~eparatc.lyin t h e tablcs.

The six factors may be ideutificd as:

I. General Affect Tone toward Other People in the Organization:
T h i s factor idrntificq tlie wiy in nhich the reipontlent perceives his
coworker.; and othcr people in the organization.
I1 Clmeral Affect Tone toward l l a n a g e m e n t and/or t h e Organi-
zation Thib factor identifies the way in which the respondent, per-
cc,ivc+ ~nanagcmciit.Furthermorc, managcLment in turn represents
the organization One might say t h a t the heretofore unidentifiable

1;.
:I6
42
.43
-- .a9
.70
.YO
zyx
zyxwvu
zyxwv
.07 - . I 8
.I3
.01 - .05
- 04 - . 0 4 - . 0 2
- .02 .I2 .03
- .06 - . O T - .09
.23
.28

zyxw
5‘2
50 .6T - . 0 4 - . 1 4 .04 - . l 6 -.03 .50

zyxw
r
t .46 - . O i - . 2 5 .23 - , 0 2 .05 .34
30 .6T, - . l o - . 0 3 . 1 9 -.13 .04 .49
20 .49 - ,17 - .2,i .24 - . 2 3 .02 .44
14 .a8 - . 0 8 - l a . I 9 -.04 .I5 .42
41 .20 .18-.17 .08 .03 .17 .14
40 .64 - . 2 2 - . I 1 .04 - . l o .04 .48
ti .54 - . I 1 - . 2 8 .06 -.01 .I7 .41
29
__
.:I:> - . I 1 -.01 .09 .0.5 .21 .3T
10 .r)8 - .26 - .14 .24 .04 .14 . 60
13 .50 - . I 2 - - . 2 3 .20 -..OH .19 .40
:3 4 .60 - 23 - . 0 8 .19 - . 0 7 .14 , .55

44 .?A .13--.00 .l5 .02 .I3 .16

48 -.48 .4% .25 .03 .ll .05 .40
43 .38 .18 - .2R .‘LG .31
47 -
- - ..00
.t)!) 43
- .0.5
.lT .O1 .I5 .04 . ,54
27 - .58 .41 .05 -.I2 .13 .06 .54
Eigcri l’nlue of Factor I 12. 08
Pcrcciit ;igc of Variance of Factor I 24.2
Chunri1:ttive Perrentage of Variance 24.2
’( Thr final \rr?ion of F a c t o r I d o r s not inrlnde ilems 17, 19 and 21.
 zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyx
SIMS ASD LAFOLI,ETTE 25

zyxwvu
Fartor I I . Gfncral A#&

zyxw
Con espo tiding
TABLE 2
Tone toward illnnaycmcnt/Oi yccnzzntion"
- _________ ~~ -

zyxw
Qiiestioriiiaire L & S Item FACTORS Commuri-
Item Number Number I I1 I11 IV V \'I dity

zyxw
1 8 - 13 50 .22 .I2 .01 -.2% .3x

zyxwv
2 31 - 40 . 58 .I<i - . I 1 .OX - . 0 1 .,i4
6 46 - 21 .36 .19 .12 - .00 - .12 .24
14 33 - 19 .51 . 2 3 - . 12 . 3 s - .03 .40
26 40 03 .60 .07 - .0.i .02 .04 .37
29 28 - 21 . 50 .07 - .28 .07 .I% .40
34 23 09 .40 .02 .29 .18 .03 .29
37 4 - 11 .4:1 .2G . 0 2 - . 0 3 - . 17 .29
39 17 - a5 .49 .20 - . l t i .33 .04 .54
40 11 - 09 .39 - .O1 .05 .03 .1G .19
46 10 oa .21 .03 .08 -00 .02 .or,
Eigeii Value of Factoi I1 4 06
Percentage of Variance of E':tc(or I1 8 1
Ciimalat ive Percentage of Vnriancr 32 3
The final version of Factor I1 does not include itrm 16.

"They," that persons talk about in an organization, is actually

represented by this particular factor (management).
111. Policy and Promotion Clarity: This factor dcscribcs the way
people feel about the clarity of promotion policy and the oppor-
tunity for promotion in the organization. I n addition, it taps the
clarity of organizational policies, organizational structure, and job
definition.
IV. .Job Prwsure and Standards: This factor identifies the feel-
ing of pressure on the job and the emphasis placed on high job
standards hy thc management of tlie organization.

TABLE 3
Factor 111: Policy and Promotion C/arit?p
-- __
Corresponding
Questionnaire L & S Item FACTORS Commiin-
Item Number Number I I1 111 IV V VI ality
30 18 - .16 .45 .38 .02 .23 .05 .43
44 3 - .19 .35 ,60 .02 .O6 .OX .52
45 16 -.I9 .34 ,49 .17 .20 -02 .47
48 2 .29 - .O8 - .38 ,1:3 .o" .I5 .27
50 1 - .23 .31 .53
-.
.06 .I3 .oo .45
Eigeii Valire of Factor I11 1.87
Percentage of Variance of Factor 111 3.7
Cumulative Percentage of Variance 36.0
*Tile final version of Factor III does not include item 48
26 zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwv
zyxw PEHSOSSEI, PSTCHO1,OGY

zyxwv
~ ~ _ ___

zyxw
_ ~ __--
__________
Corresponding
TABLE 4
Factor I V : J o b Plcsswe and Siantlardsa

zy
Qiiestioiirinire I, & S Itern FA CTO 1<S Commiin-
Itern Niiniber Niimher I I1 I11 IV V VI ality
-
3 21 .:31 - .20 - .07 .SO - .oo .08 .25
.:33 - . I 0 .oo .07

zyxw
7 26 22 .37 - .31
31 12 .21 .21 - 13 .23 .19 .06 .20
33 39 .13 .04 - 0 3 .53 .03 .00 .33
41 32 .32 - . 0 4 - .16 .40 - . 3 1 .17 .41
43 38 .05 .07 .11 .30 - . I 0 .13 .19
47 37 - .3:1 .11 .2.5 .34 .26 .02 .37
19 9 .20 -.01 0.5 .31 .00 .I6 .16
Eigen Valtie of Factor IV I .59
Percentage of Variance of Factor IV 3.2
Cirrnrilcttive Perceiitage of Variance 59.2
a Tile iiriai version o f Fartor I V does not include items 3 1 and ,W.

V. Opennc>s of Upward Communication : This factor describes

tlie cormnunication between employees and management, the will-
ingness of managers to accept and act on subordinate’s ideas, and
the career couriscling of subordinates by management.
VI. Risk in Decision Making: This factor identifies the degree
of risk concomitant with management decision-making in the or-
ganiza tion.
The mean and standard deviation of each factor, shown in Table
7 , was computed by summing the scores of the items loading most
significantly (the highest loading) on that factor and then dividing
the s u n by the number of itcms used in the summation. Split-half
reliabilities, corrected hy the Spearman-Brown formula, are also
Jiou.11 in the Table. Factor I, Affect Tone toward People, and
Factor IT, Affect Tone toward Management, have very high re-

Qiiestioiirinirc
Item Niimber
1.i
16
Fnclor

zyxwvu
L & S Item
Niimher
4,i
25
J7:

Corresponding

I
-.23
TABLE 5
Openness of Uprunrd Cowiniunication

- .29
IT
37
.44
FACTORS
111 IV
.ll -.I1
,1:3 - .02
V VI
.46 - . 0 6
.41 - . I 3
Commiin-
ality
.43
.49
:j2 33 - .l5 .3G .30 .08 .33 - .06 .R7
Eigeri V:rlrie of Fct.ct,or V 1.33
Perrentage of Variance of Factor V 2.7
Cimi~llativePerc,eiit:ige of Variance 41 . 8
 zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvut
SIMS AND 1,AFOLLETTE 27

zyxw
TABLE 6

zyxwvut
Faclor V I . Itislc i n Dccwon X a k i n g
Corresponding
Qiestionnaire L & S Item FACTORS Conimiiii-
Item Nnmbei Number I I1 III IV V VI ality
2.5 24 -38 - .07 - .26 .11 - -08 .38 .38
28 5 .26 - .18 - .24 . 11 - .03 .35 .3 0
42 22 .02 .l5 .09 .12 - . 0 3 .4L ,23
Eigeii Value of Factor V l I 28
Percentage of Variance of Factor VI 2 6
Ciimiilative Percentage of Variance of Factor V I 44 4

liabilities, .92 and .82, respectively, Two othcr Climate factors,

Factor 111, Policy and Promotion Clarity, and Factor V, Openness
of Upward Communication, closely approach a .70 criterion of
reliability. The two Climate factors, Factor IV, ,Job Pressure and
Standards, and Factor VI, Risk in Decision Making, which contains
only three items, have lower reliabilities. Overall, the Climate
factors have higher reliabilities than do the original a priori scales
identified by Litwin and Stringer. Indeed, four of the nine a priori
scales, Responsibility, Risk, Standards, and Conflict, have reliabili-

zyx
ties far below an acceptable level.

TABLE 7
Split-Half Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deaiations
of the Organizational Climate A Priori Scales
and the Organizational Climate Factors

zyxwvut
~~ -
Reliabilit~iesMean Staridaid Deviation
A Priori Scalps
I. Striictiire .79 2 .4 0 .53
2. Responsibility -34 2.43 . 3,;
3. Reward .67 2.30 .5n
4. Ilisk -12 2.34 .44
5. Warmth .76 2.58 .64
6. Support .69 2.51 .59
7. Standards .x7 2.25 .72
8. Conflict, .21 2.20 .44
9. Identity .79 2.53 .70
Factors
I. Affect Tone toward People 92 2 5Y, .58
11. Affect Tone toward Managemerit 8'2 2 48 .51
111. Policy arid Promotion Clarity 69 2 31 .68
IV. Job Pressure and Standards 58 2 56 .46
V. Openness of Upward
Communication .69 2.38 .73
VI. Risk in Decision hlaking .45 2.31 .5x
28 zyxw
zyxwvutsr PEIISONNEI, PSYCHOT,OC:Y

zyxwvut
nisrussiolz
A litcrnture review revealed only one previously reported factor
analysis of Litn in and Stringer’s Climate Questionnaire. This
analysis was rcported hy Meyer (1968), who administered the
questionnaire t o 350 professional and clerical employees in two

zyxwv
General Electric plants. Based on this sample, RIeyer identified six
factor>. Although lie ncglcctccl to report the items or questions com-
posing each factor, the factor loadings, the communalities, the
eigcnvalucb, (tc., Xlcycr did define each of the six factors t h a t he
identified:
Conhtrnining Coiifoririity : The fccling employees have about the
constraints in the office; e.g., the degree to which they feel there are
inany rules. 1)rorcdures,policies, and practiccs to which people have
to conform.
Responsibility: The feeling that employees have a lot of in-
dividual rc.poiisibility delegated to them ; that they can run their
johi pretty much on their own without having t o check with the
hoqs crcry time a decision must be made. Thii dimension also
includes items regarding the willingness of nianagement to take
some ri-ks in opcrating the business.
Standards: The empliasis that employees feel is being placed on
doing a good J O ~ This
. includes the degree to which people feel that
challenging goals are set and that there is some pressure to improve
personal and group performancc.
Reward: The degree to which cmployccs feel that, they are fairly
rewarded for good work, rather than only being punished when
qomcthing goes wrong.
Organizational Clarity: Thc feeling that things are pretty well
orgaiiizcd rather than being disordcriy, confused, or chaotic. While
too much organization leads to a feeling of constraint, too little
organization as such does not cngeiider achievement motivation, but
lack of it may he frustrating to thc achievement oriented individual.
Friendly, Team Spirit: The feeling that general “good fellowship”
prevails in the atmohpherc, that management and fellow employees
are warm and trusting, and that the organization is one with which
people identify and are proud to belong. This dimension is also to
be considered as iupportive in character, since a friendly atmo-
sphere will not necessarily lead to achievcment, hut a cold, untrust-
ing climatc will usually stifle achievement motivation (pp. 161-162).
It is impossible to critically compare the results of the factor
analysis of this study and that of Meper because of the paucity of
 dIMS AKD T,AFOLI,ETTE zyxw
information provided by the latter Nevertlieless, certain I)roacl
29

zy
generalizations arc attcmpted.
Both factor analyses resulted in six factors. Factor I: Affect
Tone toward People of the present study somcwhat corrcspoiids to
Meyer’s dimension, Friendly Team Spirit. Factor 11: Affect Tone
toward Management of the present study somewhat corresponds
to Meyer’s dimension, Organizational Clarity. Factor I11 : Policy
and Promot ion Clarity of tlie present study corresponds somewhat
t o bleyer’s dimension, Rcward. Factor IV: Job Pressure and Stan-
dards of the present study is similar to Illeyer’s dimension, Stan-
dards. Factor V: Opcnness of Upward Communication might
vaguely resemble hleyer’s dimension, Constraining Conformity.
Factor VI : Risk in Decision Making resembles Rleycr’s dimension,

zyxwv
Responsibility.
While these two factor analyses appear to be somewhat similar,

zyxwvu
further discussion without statistical evidence is not possible. More
meaningful conclusions inay be drawn by comparing the Litwin and
Stringer a priori scales and the factors obtained from the factor
analysis of tlie present study.
T h e Relationships of the A Priori Scales cind the Climate Factors
T o compare the scales and factor3 of the Organizational Climate
Questionnaire a cross-clas>ification matrix was prrparcd and is
shown in Table 8. In this table, the factors are shown along the
horizontal axis and the a priori scales arc along the vertical axis. I n
this matrix, the following critefion was utilized in order to place a
particular item: All the items which loaded most significantly (the
highest loading) on a particular factor were arrayed in the column
representing that factor. Then the particular items were placed in
that column across or adjacent to the a priori scale in which Litwin
and Stringer had originally placed the item. The item numbers
underlined in Table 8 were not included in the final structure be-
cause of insignificant (very low) factor loadings across all factors.
Items contaiiied in eight of the a priori scales loaded on Factor I,
Affect Tone toward Peoplc. Four items from the Identity Scale
loaded on Factor I. Three itcms from the Responsibility Scale and
three items from the warmth scale loaded on Factor I. Only items
included in the a priori scale, Risk, did not load on Factor I. Siini-
larly, items froin eight of the a priori scales loaded on Factor 11,
Affect Tone toward Management. Only the items from the a priori
scale, Identity, did not load on Factor 11. The combined variance
of these two factors account for 32.2% of thc total variance of the
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
zyxw
zy
zy
TABLE; 8
Cross Classijicalion of Organizational ClimatP A Priori Scales and Organization Climate Factors W
- 0
DERIVED FACTORS
General Affect
Tone toward General Affect Openness of
Original
lPriori
:
Scales
Striict Lire
1, 10, 19, 28,
37, 44, 48, 50
Responsibility
4, 13, 22, 31,
40, 46, 40
I

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvut
Other People
in the Org.

10, 19"

4, 13, 22
z
zy
Tone toward
hIgt./Organization
I1

1, 37

40,46
Policy and

44, do
4s
Job Presstire

3L49
Upward
Promotion Clarity and Standards Communica(ion
I11 IV V
Risk in
Decision Making
VI

28
v
M
gz
Reward aM
3, 12, 21, 30 12, 21 39 30, 45 3 F
39, 4.5 +c
Risk m
7, 16, 25. 34 7 16 2,5, 42 4
Q
34,4i
Warmth
2, 11, 20, 11, 20, 38 2, 29
29, 38
Support
5, 14, 23,
32, 41
Standards
8, 17, 26, 35
43, 47
Conflict
6, 15, 24, 33
Identity
zyxwvutsr
5, 23

8, 12

24,33
14

26

6
41

35, 43,
47
32

15

9, 18, 27, 36 9, 18, 27, 36

Note-Numbers refer to questionnaire item numbers.
Underlined items are not included in the final version of the factor structure.
 SIMS A K D LAFOJ,I,ETTE zyxw
instrument. All 5ix factors account for 44.4% of the total variance
of the instrument. Factors I and I1 contained 27 of the 50 items
composing the Organizational Climate Questionnaire. Each factor
31

ir a broad, general affect toward other people in the organization

(Factor I) and toward management (Factor 11).
The remaining four factors contained significant loadings from
only 16 items Factor 111, Policy and Promotion Clarity, contained
items from the Structure and Reward Scales. Factor I V , .Job
Prcssurc and Standards, containcd three items from the Standards
Scale arid one item each from the Reward, Risk and Support Scales.
Factor V, Openness of Upward Communication, contained one item

zyxwvu
each from Risk, Support, and Conflict Scales. Factor VI, Risk in
Decision Making, had loadings from two items contained in the
original Risk a priori Scale and one itern from the Structure Scale.
Together these factors account for only 12.1% of the cumulative
variance.
In Table 8 it 1s interesting to note the “spread” of the items
across the chart. If there were a high degree of correspondence
between the a priori scales and the factors derived in this study,
one would expect to see a “clustering” appearance of the items on
the chart. Each factor wouid have the great majority of items
corresponding to one or two of the a priori scales. However, from
the wide dispersion of the items, it is apparent that there is a general
lack of Correspondence between the a priori scales and the derived
factors.
T o verify this conclusion, correlation analysis was utilized to
determine the relationships between the a priori scales and the
derived factors of the Organizational Climate instrument. The pair-
wise deletion convention was utilized to exclude cases containing
missing values: from the computations (Nic, et al., 1970, p. 146).
The correlation matrix is presented in Table 9. The a priori scale,
Structure, correlates very highly with Factor 111, Policy and Pro-
motion Clarity which may indicate that Factor 111 does, in fact,
have an emphasis on structure. The Reward, Warmth, Support, and
Identity a priori scales correlate highly with Factor I, Affect Tone
toward People, and also with Factor 11, Affect Tone toward Man-
agement; Factor 111, Policy and Promotion Clarity; and Factor V,
Openness of Upward Communication. The factors of Job Pressure
and Standards, and Risk in Decision Making correlate highly with
the a priori scales of Standards and Risk. These factors appear to
be task related; however, the high correlations may or may not be
meaningful because the factors and scales have low reliabilities.
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq TABLE 9

zy
Corrclations of Organizational Climate A Priori Scales with Organizational Climatr Factors
- __
DERIVE11 FACTORS

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrqp
General Affect
Tone toward Geiieral Affect Openness of
Original Other People Tone toward Policy and Job Pressure Upward Risk in
.4 Priori in the Org. i\Igt./Organization. Promotion Clarity and Standards Commiinication Decision Xlalting
Scales I I1 111 IV v VI
Structure .68 .G5 . 74 - . 14 .:TO .48
Responsibility” .27 .30 .19 - .02 .19 .10
(N/S)c ( ,002)
Reward8 .T6 .69 .74 - .28 .62 . 34
--
Riskb

zyxwvuts .30 .49 3.5 .17 s3

zyxwvutsrqpo
, , :)!J

Warmth .83 .67 .46 - .2.5 .52 30

Supp0l.t .76 .67 ,
--
:,n - .32 .7l .34
Standardsb .29 - .06 .I7 .44 .08 , 10
i,048) (.016) ( ,003)
Conflictb .21 .12 .14 - .14 .46 .10
Identity .88 , 57 ,53 -. l i .52 .29
Note-997 Cases.
a Scales or factors with reliabilities 5 .69 hut >_ .59.
b Scales or factors with reliabilities < .59.
c Numbers in parentheses indicate level of significance. Othern ise. the correlation is significant at the .001 level.
 zyxw
zyxwvu
SIMS AND LAFOI,I,ETTE 33

zyxwv
B y carefully studying Tables 8 and 9, the various relationships
existing hetween the original Climate a priori scales and the Climate
factors can be observed. Factor I, Affect Tone toward People, and
Factor 11,Affect Tone toward Management are broad, general affect
factors and appear l o be very reliable. However, Litwin and
Stringer’s a priori scales are clearly not evident in the factor struc-
ture of the data from this study.
I n Table 10 the intercorrelations of the Organizational Climate
factors are presented. Factor I, Affect Tone toward Others; Factor
11, Affect Tone toward Management; Factor 111, Policy and Pro-
motion Clarity; and Factor V, Openness of Upward Communica-
tion, appear to be very highly interrelated factors. However, Factor
IV, .Job Pressure and Standards, and Factor VI, Risk in Decision
Making, are more independent. Of course, a major portion of the
lower intercorrelations exhibited by Factors IV and VI rnay very
likely be explained by lower reliabilities of these two factors.
Leavitt ( 1965) conceptualizes an organization as consisting of
task, structure, people and technology dimensions. Hellriegel and
Slocum (1973) state: For the most part, the climate instruments,
in terms of their scales, suggest the following priorities are generally
assigned in terms of Leavitt’s (1965) typology: people-strong
emphasis ; structure-moderate emphasis; task-moderate to slight
emphasis ; and technology-slight to no emphasis. I n sum, there seems
to he an over-emphasis, relatively speaking, on “people” oriented
scales (p. 40).
Certainly the original scales developed by Litwin and Stringer
werc “people” oriented scales. This orientation is made even more
evident hy the factor analysis which has separated and condensed
the majority of the “people” oriented items into two broad dimen-
sions which may be termed “An Affect Tone toward People” and
“An Affect Tone toward Management.” Factors I, 11,111,and V in
fact are highly interrelated factors that have a strong “people”
orientation. The items which compose these factors ask the re-
spondent to focus on characteristics of people in the organization.
The respondents, while able to differentiate between the charac-
teristics represented by the six factors, nevertheless appear to have
a strong “molar” perception of the organization. This unconscious
perception causes many of the differentiated characteristics to blend
significantly. It must be remembered that perceiving is not simply
an accurate registering of “the outside” but it may, as a matter of
fact, be considerably distorted by the general affect of the individual
 zyxwvu
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr TABLE 10

zyx
Infcrcorrdat ions 0.f Organizational Clinzafc Factors
- _ _ ______ __ _ __ _
_~ _
__ ___ ~ _ ~

zyxwvutsr
_ _.~ ___ _.-__ _______~ --_

zyxwvutsrqp
Policy & Openness of liisk in
Affect. Tone Affect. Tone Proniotion Job Pressure UlJWiiTd Decision
toKard Others toward Rlgt. Clarity and Standardsa Cornmimication Makinga
I I1 111 IV V 1' I
-___
I. Affect Tone toward Others 1 .o . 53 .49 - .3(! 5I .40
11. Affect Tone toward 1Ianagerneut .53 1.o ,6% - .01 .63 . 32
-
111. Policy & Promotion Clarity .49 .ti2 1. 0 .or, . *54 .20
- .os

zyxwvutsrqpon
IV. Job Presstire arid Standards' - .31 - .01 .05 1. 0 - .23
V. Openness of Upward
Communication .5l .63 , ,54 - .08 1 .o .2.i
VI. Risk in Decision Xlakinga 40 .2% .20 - .23 25 1 .o
Note--997 Cases.
aOrganizational Climate Factors n ith reliabilities < .SS.
 zyxwv
zy
SIMS AXD L.iFOLI,F:TTE
(Costello and Zalkind, 1963, p. 3 ) . While Factors I V and VI have
lower reliabilities, they appear not to be tapping into the same
overall affect toward the organization as the other four factors.
35

zyx
Conclusions
Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) Organizational Climate Question-
naire was used in this study to assess the organizational climate of
the Medical Center. However, the reliability and validity of some
of the original scales were questioned even by the authors of the
instrument (Litwin and Stringer, 1968, pp. 88-92) . Therefore, re-
sults from this instrument were submitted to factor analysis and to
reliability analysis of both the original a. priori and of the derived
factors. The majority of the items in the questionnaire collapsed
into two broad, general factors: An Affect Tone toward Other
People in the Organization and An Affect Tone toward Manage-
ment.
Campbell, et al. (1970), in an extensive review of the existing
climate measures, found that four factors have generally been coni-
mon across all the investigations: ( 1 ) Individual Autonomy-(Fac-
tor 11, Affect Tone toward Management, and Factor V, Openness

zy
of Upward Communication, relate to this factor) ; (2) The Degree
of Structure Imposed Upon the Position-(Factor IV, Joh Pressure
and Standards, and Factor VI, Risk in Decision Making, relate to
this factor) ; (3) Reward Orientation-(Factor 111, Policy and
Promotion Clarity, relate to this factor) ; (4) Consideration,
Warmth, Support-(Factor I, Affect Tone toward Other People,
relates t o this factor). Thus, the factors that Campbell, et al. (1970)
mention appear to be present to some extent in the factored climate
instrument.
The first two factors stand out significantly from the other factors
and explain over 32% of the variance of the questionnaire. These

zy
two factors appear to capture the essence of what the Climate
instrument is actually trying t o measure or describe. Using Leavitt’s
(1965) typology, this instrument has a strong “people” emphasis.
Hellriegel and Slocum (1973) stated t h a t “There seems to be an
overemphasis, relatively speaking, on ‘people’ oriented scales (p.
20) .” They posit an explanation for this “overemphasib”: “This may
be partially a consequence of abstracting climate items from satis-
faction scales (.Johannesson, 1971). A more subtle explanation,
which is admittedly somewhat speculative, is the fact that most of
the instruments have been developed by professionals with a strong
36

zyxw
PERSOXXEL PSYCHOLOGY
background in ‘psychology’ who are primarily interested in the
‘human-Yide’ of the enterprise (p. 20) . I ”
The results of this study have indicated considerable doubt t h a t
the original Climate a priori scales were able to measure what they
w r e purported to measure. While the instrument was supposed to
he measuring specific facets of an organization such as structure
and standards, the Climate instrument was actually measuring a
general affect tone toward other people and a general affect tone
toward management. Thus, if the original scales do not describe
what they have been purported to measure, they should not be used
as such.
I n the course of research, social scientists select various instru-
ments to utilize in measuring constructs of their choice. I n some
cases, the measures may have been subjected many times t o rigorous
reliability and \Talidity examinations ie.g., the Job Description In-
dex, Smith et al., 1969); therefore, these measures may be used
with confidence that the instrument will measure what it is intended
t o nieabure. However, without extensive previous investigations, the
measure may have doubtful reliability and validity, as was found
in this research. I t is clearly evident that proper research procedure
precludes the use of an instrument unless the data obtained from

zyxwvut
that instrument is subjected to rigorous reliability and validity
examination. A recent critique of the Lawrence and Lorscli (1967)
mealsure of environmental uncertainty (Tosi, Aldag, and Storey,
1973) is a cogent and timely commentary on the dangers and prob-
lems associated with the use of an iinvalidated and unreliable
instrument. Blind acceptance of previously developed scales can be
misleading and ~shonldbe avoided.
I n summary, the factor structure dcrived froin administering
Litwin and Stringer’s instrument to subjects in this research appears
to be a meaningful and reliable structure. On the other hand, the

zyx
a priori scales developed by Litwin and Stringer do not appear to
measure what they are purported t o measure, nor do they demon-
strate acceptable levels of validity and reliability. iZbove all, this
analysis clearly presents thc dangers of blind use of instruments
without adequate reliability and validity analysis.

zyxwvutsrqponm
1 T h c clueation of how climatc related to saiibfaction In this snrnplc (raised
by Johannesson, 1973; and Guion, 1973) is examined in detail by LaFollettc
and Sirns, 1974.
 zyxw
zyxwvutsr sInm A N D LAFOI,I,ETTE 37

zyx
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S. Stability and change i n human chamcterktics. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.
Campbell, J . P., Dunnette, M . D., I,a.wler, E. E.. and Weick, K. E., Jr.
Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York : McGraw-
Hill, 1970.
Costello, T. W. and Zalkind, S. A. Psychology in ndminGtration: B research
orientation. Englcwood Cliffs, K. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
Evan, W. 11. Indices of hierarchical structure of organizations. Management
Science, 1963, 9, 468477.
Forehand, G. A . and Gihner, B. von H . Environmental variation in studies of
organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 361-382.
Friedlander, F. and Margulies, N. Multiple impacts of organizational climate
and individual systems upon job satisfaction. PERSONNEL Psucao~ocu,1969,
22, 171-183.
Guion, R. M. A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior and
Xzrman Performance, 1973, 9, 126-125.
Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J . W., Jr. Organizational climate: Measures, re-
search, and contingcncies. Paper presented a t the 16th Annual Midwest
Academy of Managcmcnt. Meetings, Chicago, Illinois, April I, 1973.
House, R. J. and Rizzo, J . R. Organizational practices questionnaire. Unpuh-
lished organizational questionnairc, University of Toronto, 1972.
Johannesson, R. E. Job satisfaction and pcrceptually measured organization
climate: Redundancy and confusion. In M . W. Prey (Ed.), N e w develop-
ments in management and organization theory. Proceedings of the Eighth
Annual Conference, Eastern Academy of Management, 1971, 27-37.
Johannesson, R. E. Some problems in the measuremcnt of organizational
climate. Organizational Behavior and H u m a n Performance, 1973, 10, 118-144.
Koffka, K. Principles of gestalt psychology. Kew York: Harcourt, Brace, and
Company, 1935.
LaFollcttc, W. R . and Sims, H. P., Jr. Is satisfaction redundant with organi-
zational climate? Organizational Behavior and H u m a n Performance, 1975,
in press.
Lawrmcc, P . R. and Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment. Boston:
Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard
University, 1967.
Leavitt, H. J. Applied organizational change in industry: Structural tech-
nological, and humanistic approaches. I n J. C. March (Ed.), Handbook o f
Organizations. Chicago : Rand McNally, 1965, 1144-1170.
Lirtznian, S. I., House, R . J., and Rizzo, J. R. An alternative to organiza-
tion climate : The measurement of organization practices. Unpublished
nxmuscript, Bernard M. Baruch College, 1973.
Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R . A., Jr. Motivation and organizational climate.
Boston : Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration,
H a r m r d University, 1968.
Meyer, H. H. Achievement motivation and industrial climates. I n R. Taguiri
and G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: E q l o r a t i o n s o f a eon-
cept. Boston : Division of Rescarch, Graduate School of Business Admin-
istration, Harvard University, 1968.
 38
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvut
PKHSOXYEI, PSYCHO1,OGT
Nie, X,, Bcnt,, D., and Hull, C. Stutisticul pnclinge for the socinl sciences
(SPSS). Nrw York: McGraw-Hill Hook ComIiany, 1970.
Pnlmrr, C. J. Test of a theory of Iratlrrslrip and organization behavior with
m:magrmcnt gaming. Second Annual Report, Louisiana State University,
Contract, NONR 1575 (05), Office of Kav:il Rrsearch, Group Psychology
Branch, 1961.
Payne, K. L. and Pheysey, D. C. G. G. Stcrn’s organizational climate index:
A rtconceptualization and application to busincw organizations. Orga~iizn-
tional Belinvior and Hiimnn Performnnce, 1971, 6, 77-98.
Pervin, A . Performanre and satisfartion as a function of individual-environ-
mcnt, fit. Psychological Bullelin, 1968, 69, 56-68.
Prien, E. P. and Ronan, W. W. An analysis of organization characteristics.
Organization Behniiior and Human Performnce, 1971, 6, 215-234.
Pritchard, R . D. and Karasick, B. R. The effects of organizat,ional climate
on managerial job performance and job sat isfact ion. Organizational Be-
hnijior nnd Iliimnn Performance, 1973, 9. 126-146.
Schneider, B. and Bartlett, C. J. Individual differences and organizational
climatr I1 : Measurcment of organizational cliniate by the multitrait-multi-
ratrr matrix. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1970, 23, 493-512.
Sells, S. B. Dimrnsions of stimulus situations which account for bcliavior
variancts. I n S. B . Sells (Ed.), Slimitlns tlcicrminanls of behuz’ior. ?Jew
York : Ronald Press, 1963, 3-15.
Smith. P. C., Kcndall, M., and Hulin, C. I,. T h e mensurement of satisfacfion
in zi~orlz nnd retirement: A strategy for the s t u d y of attitudes. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Compnny, 1969.
Thornton, G. C. The dimensions of organimtional climate of office situations.
Experimental Publication System, 2, 057A. 1969.
Tosi, H., Aldag, R.. and Storey, R. On thc mrasurrmrnt of the rnvironment:
cssment of t,he T,:iwrrnt.e and T,orsch rnvironmental uncprtainty
qucslionnairr. Adminisfrnfiiie Science Q t i n r t e i . l y , 1973, 18, 27-36.

View publication stats