Public Employees' Psychological Climates and Turnover Intention: Evidence From Korean Central Government Agencies

Public Management Review
ISSN: 1471-9037 (Print) 1471-9045 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20
Public employees’ psychological climates and

turnover intention: evidence from Korean central
government agencies
Chan Su Jung, Hon S. Chan & Chih-Wei Hsieh
To cite this article: Chan Su Jung, Hon S. Chan & Chih-Wei Hsieh (2017): Public employees’
psychological climates and turnover intention: evidence from Korean central government agencies,
Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1257060
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1257060
Published online: 21 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpxm20
Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 01 March 2017, At: 07:32

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1257060
Public employees’ psychological climates and turnover

intention: evidence from Korean central government
agencies
Chan Su Junga, Hon S. Chanb and Chih-Wei Hsiehb
a
Samhwa Global Ltd, Hong Kong, Republic of China; bDepartment of Public Policy, City University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Republic of China
ABSTRACT
The psychological climate has been argued to influence employees’ work attitudes.
However, despite the abundance of recent empirical studies on turnover intention,
multiple psychological climate types as predictors of turnover intention have rarely
been explored in the public management domain. This study used the four types of
psychological climates – clan, developmental, hierarchical and rational – of the
competing values framework, which is typically used to analyse organizational
effectiveness. Challenging the assumption held in prior studies of linear associations
between the psychological climate and turnover intention, this study examined
U-shaped associations. Curvilinear associations are based on the rarely tested
assumption that an overly biased psychological climate has a deleterious effect on
turnover intention. The regression results corroborated a U-shaped association of
clan and rational (market) climates with turnover intention but revealed a linear
association for the hierarchical climate. These findings, determined using large-
sampled data from Korean central government agencies, can advance the under-
standing of the psychological climate and turnover intention in public management.
KEYWORDS Turnover intention; psychological climate; competing values framework; nonlinear relationship
Introduction
Turnover intention, the propensity of employees to withdraw from a particular job
(Hanisch and Hulin 1990; Van Knippenberg, Van Dick, and Tavares 2007), is considered
a crucial organizational topic by scholars and practitioners. When an employee strongly
intends to leave a job, he or she is more likely to expend effort and time towards gaining
an alternative job, and his or her attitude towards participating in the organizational
decision-making process is expected to be less proactive than otherwise. Furthermore, in
the event of finding an alternative job, the employee is much more likely to exit the
current organization. In other words, employee turnover intention can indicate a lack of
organizational health, at least just as well as can turnover itself, because turnover
intention can deter employees from fulfilling their obligations and in turn diminish
their individual and organizational performance (Jung 2014; Taylor et al. 1996). Through
CONTACT Chan Su Jung oraenby@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. S. JUNG ET AL.
these means, an organization can be negatively affected by employees’ turnover inten-

tion, irrespective of whether they act out their intention.
In an organization, affective reactions, such as turnover intention, are the con-
sequences of value judgments, which result from a process of subjective and psycho-
logical measurement (Mahdi et al. 2012). Under the assumption that employee
perceptions have substantial effects on both individual and organizational outcomes,
psychological climate surveys have been widely accepted as a diagnostic tool for
organizational improvement and change (Parker et al. 2003). Understanding the
relationship between the psychological climate and employees’ job attitude (in parti-
cular, for this study, turnover intention) is critical for developing effective interven-
tions to guide organizational change processes (Church and Waclawski 2001; James
et al. 2008). However, despite the numerous recent empirical studies on turnover
intention, multiple psychological climate types as predictors of turnover intention
have rarely been explored in the public management domain.
Against this backdrop, this study challenged both the assumption and empirical
results of previous studies regarding linear relationships between the psychological
climate (i.e. employees’ perception of their organizational climate) and turnover
intention. Drawing on the competing values framework (CVF) for organizational
effectiveness, this study considered four categories of psychological climate: clan,
developmental, hierarchical and rational (market). Previous empirical studies (e.g.
Goodman, Zammuto, and Gifford 2001; Park and Kim 2009) have assumed the
relationship between each climate type and turnover intention to be linear:
Hierarchical and rational climates are positively correlated with turnover intention,
whereas clan and developmental climates are negatively correlated (Goodman,
Zammuto, and Gifford 2001). However, social information processing theory posits
that employees can only have a positive valuation of each climate type to a certain
degree, which suggests a negative association with turnover intention. Beyond the
certain degree, according to the untested assumption of Quinn (1988) in the CVF, the
overly biased clan, developmental, rational and hierarchical climates become like an
‘irresponsible country club’, a ‘tumultuous anarchy’, an ‘oppressive sweatshop’ and a
‘frozen bureaucracy’, respectively, implying a positive association with turnover
intention. Accordingly, the main research questions of this study were ‘Is the
association between the psychological climate and turnover intention linear or curvi-
linear?’ and ‘Are the associations between turnover intention and the psychological
climate the same among the different climate types?’
Exploring the answers, the goal of this study was to establish some theoretical and
empirical advances over existing studies on the relationship between the psychologi-
cal climate and turnover intention. By using large-sampled data from 14 South
Korean central government agencies, this analysis demonstrated U-shaped associa-
tions between clan and rational climates and turnover intention and a positive linear
association between the hierarchical climate and turnover intention. This study,
which is the first on this topic in the field of public management, is also significant
because it was conducted in Asia, as the majority of turnover intention studies have
been US- or Europe-centred.
The next section elaborates on turnover intention in public management, the
psychological climate, and the CVF for organizational effectiveness. Subsequently,
the four main hypotheses on the curvilinear relationship between each psychological
climate type and turnover intention are suggested, on the basis of Quinn’s
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 3
assumption and social information processing theory. The method section explains
the sample, data and measurements of the criterion, predictors, and controls. On the
basis of the analyses of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, a discussion is then
presented, followed by limitations, suggestions and a conclusion.
Literature review
Turnover intention in public management
Turnover intention is recognized as the final cognitive step before actual exit,1 as
Mobley’s (1977) model of turnover suggested and then was also empirically verified
by Zimmerman and Darnold (2009). Turnover intention itself can harm organiza-
tional health by diminishing employees’ positive attitudes and efforts towards parti-
cipating in the decision-making process of an organization and contributing towards
organizational performance. Furthermore, compared with actual turnover, turnover
intention has its own research values (Moynihan and Landuyt 2008, 129) such as
being compatible with cross-sectional models, accessing the perceptions of employees
with potential to quit and connecting them to the organizational context, enabling
examination of a larger sample of employees and identifying differences between
those who wish to stay and those who intend to leave.
Because of the theoretical and practical importance of turnover intention, numer-
ous scholars of public management have provided it with much empirical research
attention (e.g. Bertelli 2007; Cho and Lewis 2012; Choi 2009; Jung 2010, 2014; Kim
2005; Lee and Whitford 2008; Moynihan and Landuyt 2008; Moynihan and Pandey
2008; Whitford and Lee 2015). These studies have reported various predictors of
turnover intention, such as work–life balance, diversity management, goal ambiguity,
participative management, loyalty, empowerment, social network and person–orga-
nization value fit. However, scant research has focused on multiple psychological
climate types as relevant predictors or explored the non-linearity of the associations
in public management. By addressing these research gaps, this study can contribute
towards the development of more refined predictive models of turnover intention in
public management, demonstrating that different psychological climate types are
meaningful predictors in different ways (i.e. U-shaped or linear).
Psychological climate and CVF for organizational effectiveness

The psychological climate has been defined as ‘the individual’s cognitive representa-
tions of relatively proximal situational conditions, expressed in terms that reflect
psychologically meaningful interpretations of the situation’ (James et al. 1978, 786).
Such cognitive representations are an interpretation and valuation (Mandler 1982) of
work environmental attributes, which are performed on the basis of whether an
individual’s knowledge structures reflect personal or organizational values (Parker
et al. 2003). A valuation is ‘a judgment or cognitive appraisal of the degree to which a
value is represented in or by a (perceived) environmental attribute’ (James et al. 2008,
8). Individuals’ valuations of work environmental attributes can be reflected by
psychological climate measures (James and James 1989). Thus, like the valuations,
perceptions of the psychological climate2 vary among individual employees even
within the same organization (Hassan and Rohrbaugh 2011). For the psychological
4 C. S. JUNG ET AL.
Figure 1. Competing values framework for organizational effectiveness.
climate, this study drew upon the CVF for organizational effectiveness as a
framework.
Through a review performed by a panel of organizational researchers, Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1981) grouped performance criteria into three value dimensions: orga-
nizational focus, structure and means–ends. These value dimensions were then
combined to represent the CVF for organizational effectiveness to reflect fundamen-
tal dilemmas that represent what people value about organizational effectiveness
(Cameron and Quinn 2006; Rainey 2014). As shown in Figure 1, organizational
focus (horizontal axis) reflects the contrast between an internal focus on the well-
being of the organizational members (e.g. integration and unity of processes) and an
external emphasis on the success of the entire organization (e.g. adaptation to and
interaction with external environment). Furthermore, structure (vertical axis) is
concerned with the distinction between a focus on flexibility (and discretion) and
an emphasis on control (and stability) (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011; Quinn and
Rohrbaugh 1981; Rainey 2014). In this manner, the different ends of the CVF axes
represent conceptual opposites regarding effectiveness criteria, so that scholars con-
sider them as requiring different solutions. Subsequently, by assigning primary means
and ends into the four quadrants, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) named the four
effectiveness models. Furthermore, this third value dimension (means–ends) is the
basis upon which each effectiveness model is associated with an organizational
culture type3 (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011). The human relations model empha-
sizes cohesion, trust and open communication as a means to promote employee
morals and commitment, and matches the clan climate. The open-system model
stresses flexibility, adaptability and risk taking as a means to enhance growth and
innovation, and is associated with the developmental or adhocracy climate. The
rational goal (or market) model emphasizes careful planning and competitiveness
as a means to promulgate productivity and goal achievement, and matches the
rational climate. The internal process model stresses precise communication, forma-
lization and consistency as a means to enhance efficiency and timeliness and is linked
to the hierarchical climate.
The assumptions of the CVF are that the four climate types and performance
models are present in every organization and that organizations can perform well or
poorly in all four quadrants simultaneously (Cameron and Quinn 2006). Therefore,
competing values imply that an overemphasis on a climate type causes a reduction in
the other climate types (Cameron and Quinn 2006; Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011).4
The next section discusses the associations between the four competing climate types
and turnover intention.
Psychological climate and turnover intention

Theoretically, the relationship between the perceived psychological climate and turn-
over intention can be explained by social information processing theory. The foun-
dational assumption of this theory is that employees can learn the most about
appropriate behaviour in their organization by studying the informational and social
environment to which they need to adapt (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). Such adapta-
tion is a cognitive and affective process, which is inextricably linked to perceived
positive and negative valuations of their organizational environment (Forgas and
George 2001). The reason is that their immediate work environment functions as a
psychological resource or as a critical source of information for their cognitive,
affective and motivational processes (Trope, Ferguson, and Raghunanthan 2001).
Thus, when an employee’s valuation of his or her organizational environment is
more positive, the employee is likely to have a higher level of job satisfaction or a
lower level of turnover intention (Jung 2014). By contrast, a more negative valuation
of the work environment can be associated with increased turnover intention.
Accordingly, a U-shaped association can be expected between the psychological
climate and turnover intention. Each of the four next sections suggests a particular
association for the four psychological climate types.
Clan climate and turnover intention

The perceived clan (group) climate can be negatively associated with turnover
intention to a certain point. Involvement in decision-making or participative man-
agement and information sharing through open communication enables organization
members to gain more information about their social and political environment and
to overcome difficulties experienced during the process of organizational manage-
ment and service delivery (Brewer and Walker 2006; Lazonick and West 1995). These
activities can result in desirable employee work attitudes, such as a higher organiza-
tional commitment and reduced turnover intention, through their enhanced sense of
responsibility (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011). Similarly, the group engagement
model of procedural fairness states that involvement in the decision-making process
helps organization members to develop and maintain a satisfying, positive social
identity with their organization (Blader and Tyler 2009), which in turn reduces
turnover intention (Jung 2014).
This aforementioned negative association can become positive. Quinn (1988, 69)
noted that an overemphasis on flexibility and integration to the organization but an
ignorance of control and external situations can lead to a climate that resembles one
of an ‘irresponsible country club’. In such an organization, laxity, negligence and
participation are implemented to inappropriate lengths, and morale and human
6 C. S. JUNG ET AL.
development turn into extreme permissiveness. In South Korea, an element of the

Confucian tradition, humanization, has contributed towards fostering the benefits of
the clan climate, but an excessive level has had adverse effects such as cronyism and
corruption (Han 1999). Hence, inappropriate levels of this climate can induce a
negative valuation of the work environment, thereby leading to increased turnover
intention.
Hypothesis 1: A clan climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover intention in

government agencies.
Developmental climate and turnover intention

Appropriate degrees of employees’ perceived developmental climate, involving an
appropriate focus on flexibility and external orientation, are typically assumed to be
negatively related to employees’ turnover intention. This climate is expected to be
generally and relatively weak because of the unique constraints in government
agencies (Bozeman and Kingsley 1998) and the weakest among the four climate
types in the Korean central government (Han 1999). However, this expected weak-
ness does not guarantee that its negative association with turnover intention is the
strongest or that its positive association is the weakest among the four climate types.
As a property of this climate, a decentralized system can facilitate information
sharing among employees and participative management (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki
2011). Moreover, a developmental climate can prompt managers to take risks,
determine methods to cope with red tape in government agencies and act with a
more entrepreneurial approach rather than dwell on constraints (Pandey and
Moynihan 2006). Information processing theory posits that these favourable effects
can lead to a positive valuation of the work environment. According to the work
design literature, autonomy, a key value in a developmental climate, is a motivational
characteristic that negatively relates to turnover intention (Humphrey, Nahrgang,
and Morgeson 2007).
An organization that overvalues its developmental climate can come to resemble a
‘tumultuous anarchy’ (Quinn 1988, 69–70). Excessive emphasis on insight and
innovation can lead to premature responsiveness and disastrous experimentation,
and immoderate concern for external support and growth can encourage political
expediency and unprincipled opportunism (Quinn 1988). In such an overly empha-
sized climate, employees’ trust in and identification with their organization are likely
to become weaker through a negative valuation of the organization, and in turn their
intent to exit will become stronger, in accordance with information processing
theory.
Hypothesis 2: A developmental climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover

intention in government agencies.
Rational climate and turnover intention

A rational (market) climate is typically negatively associated with turnover intention
to a certain degree because of an enhanced positive valuation of the work environ-
ment. Since the enactment of New Public Management (NPM) reforms, this climate
type has become generally stronger in the government agencies of many countries,
including South Korea (Park and Oh 2006). When organizations accomplish their
goals, a rational climate stimulates positive affective outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction
and organizational commitment) and diminishes negative job attitudes (e.g. burnout
and turnover intention) (Cameron and Quinn 2006). Well-defined goals can impart
meaning as well as direct organization members’ attention towards appropriate
activities and behaviour in the organization (Denison and Mishra 1995).
Furthermore, organizational members are encouraged to competitively achieve orga-
nizational goals, because in a rational climate rewards are more likely to be con-
tingent on goal attainment (Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011). This adequate
competition and the successful achievement of adequate goals can become mean-
ingful inducements to employees to stay in their organization.
If a rational climate is developed beyond an appropriate degree, the negative
association can become positive. A serious bias towards a rational climate creates a
climate similar to that of an ‘oppressive sweatshop’ (Quinn 1988, 71); the over-
emphasis on external orientation through productivity and competition causes
employees to become easily exhausted, because individual differences are not reason-
ably considered. Furthermore, distrust among organizational members can develop
to the detriment of interpersonal collaboration. In such a situation, employees are
likely to develop a stronger intention to leave, their positive valuation of the organi-
zation having been diminished. In the Korean central government, numerous
employees had reported experiencing fatigue from the strengthened rational climate
caused by NPM reforms, which could lead to an increase in turnover intention (You,
Hong, and Park 2006).
Hypothesis 3: A rational climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover intention

in government agencies.
Hierarchical climate and turnover intention

A hierarchical climate can be negatively associated with turnover intention to a
particular degree by facilitating a positive valuation of the organization. A critical
principle of this climate type is the achievement of control and stability through
formalization (Hasselbladh and Kallinikos 2000). Formalization is based on the logic
of organizational rationalization, which treats structure as a means of making beha-
viour more predictable and effective for accomplishing organizational goals (DeHart-
Davis, Davis, and Mohr 2014). Therefore, this climate type can contribute towards
organizing the multiple complex tasks undertaken by large government agencies,
maintaining a clear line of accountability and building consensus and acceptance for
organizational change or action (Jaques 1990; Moynihan and Pandey 2007).
Additionally, employees can perceive themselves as being involved with their orga-
nization to an optimal degree (Delbridge 2007). In turn, their job satisfaction and
8 C. S. JUNG ET AL.
organizational identification typically increase (DeHart-Davis, Davis, and Mohr

2014).
An overly hierarchical climate can increase turnover intention. Inordinate empha-
sis on internal orientation and stability creates a climate similar to a ‘frozen bureau-
cracy’ in which the organization atrophies as a result of excessive documentation,
bureaucratic malaises such as procedural sterility and trivial rigour can prevail
(Quinn 1988, 71), and individuals’ obligations are emphasized much more than
their rights are (Brett 2001). These are situations which information processing
theory posits can enhance a negative valuation of the organization. In the Korean
central government, this climate type that has been traditionally stronger than the
other three climate types is still dominant even after NPM reforms (Chai and Cho
2004) and is considered to be a critical factor of turnover intention (Kim 2014).
Hypothesis 4: A hierarchical climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover inten-

tion in government agencies.
Methods
Sample and data
This study used a large-scale survey conducted by the Ministry of Government
Administration and Home Affairs (MoGAHA) in the central government of South
Korea in 2005.5 The purpose of the survey was to examine various aspects of
employee attitude, organizational culture and human resource management within
central governmental agencies. The survey was administered to 14 central agencies
from August to September 2005. The primary focuses of these 14 agencies were
finance, police, home affairs, education, environment, agriculture (and forestry),
welfare (and health), construction (and transportation), customs service, procure-
ment service, culture (and tourism), veterans administration, government legisla-
tion and meteorological administration, respectively. The MoGAHA sent the paper
questionnaires to all full-time employees in each agency. The response rate was
approximately 71.7 per cent; of the 6,903 public employees who received the
survey, 4,947 completed it. Because of missing values, the final sample size for
this analysis was 4,136; 15.5 per cent were female and 75.9 per cent were bache-
lor’s or master’s degree holders. With respect to their hierarchical positions, 16.5
per cent were senior managers, 42.4 per cent were middle managers and 41.1 per
cent were not managers.6
Measures
Criterion variable
Turnover intention was measured by calculating the average score from two ques-
tionnaire items that directly asked about the respondents’ intention to search for a
new job and quit their current job, as shown in Table 1. These items used a 6-point
Likert-style scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The relia-
bility coefficient was 0.67, which is larger than the acceptable level, 0.65, for a small
number (2 or 3) of items (Peterson 1994).
Table 1. Questionnaire items for turnover intention and psychological climate.

Variables Questionnaire items Loadings
Turnover I am often searching for alternative positions −0.02 −0.04 0.69 0.02 0.04
intention 1 outside of my organization
Turnover I am considering leaving my organization within 1 0.02 0.04 0.72 −0.02 −0.04
intention 2 or 2 years
Clan climate 1 My organization is a very personal place. It is like 0.62 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.03
an extended family. People seem to share a lot
of themselves
Clan climate 2 The climate inside my organization is participative 0.61 0.10 −0.01 0.01 0.03
and comfortable. High trust and openness exist
Developmental My organization is a very dynamic and 0.01 0.68 0.01 −0.01 −0.02
climate 1 entrepreneurial place. People are willing to
stick their necks out and take risks
Developmental The climate inside my organization emphasizes 0.14 0.60 −0.01 0.01 0.00
climate 2 dynamism and readiness to meet new
challenges. Trying new things and trial-and-
error learning are common
Rational climate 1 My organization is very competitive in orientation. 0.11 −0.08 −0.01 0.01 0.81
A major concern is with getting the job done.
People are very production and achievement
oriented
Rational climate 2 The climate inside my organization is competitive −0.32 0.23 0.02 −0.02 0.56
and confrontational. Emphasis is placed on
beating the competition
Hierarchical My organization is a very formalized and −0.26 0.24 0.00 0.69 −0.12
climate 1 structured place. Bureaucratic procedures
generally govern what people do
Hierarchical The climate inside my organization emphasizes 0.23 −0.22 0.00 0.72 0.12
climate 2 permanence and stability. Expectations
regarding procedures are clear and enforced
Eigenvalues 1.79 1.65 1.52 1.48 1.44
Cronbach’s α Reliability coefficient 0.67 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.66
Main predictors
The four psychological climate types (i.e. clan, developmental, rational and hierarch-
ical) suggested by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) were originally operationalized with
Zammuto and Krakower’s (1991) four items for each climate type, which have been
validated by several studies (e.g. Goodman, Zammuto, and Gifford 2001; Lund 2003;
Park and Kim 2009; Zazzali et al. 2007). The four items for each climate type indicate
four properties: dominant characteristics of the agency, organizational emphases,
organizational leadership style and organizational glue (Zammuto and Krakower
1991). The survey contained three properties for each climate type, excluding orga-
nizational glue. The survey items for these three properties used a constant-sum scale;
respondents were asked to entirely distribute 100 points among the four climate type
descriptions for each aforementioned property, on the basis of their evaluation of
how similar each item was to their own agency (Lund 2003). For example, regarding
question items about dominant characteristics of the agency, a respondent could
appoint 50 points to hierarchical climate, 30 to rational climate, 15 to clan climate
and 5 to developmental climate. This constant-sum scale appropriately reflects the
assumptions of CVF theory; the four climate types exist in every organization and
compete with each other (Cameron and Quinn 2006; Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki
2011). To reflect these assumptions (e.g. a high score for a particular climate type
represents an overemphasis relative to the others), the climate types required being
10 C. S. JUNG ET AL.
measured with the same number of items. However, the leadership item of the
hierarchical climate was removed because of its problematic face validity.7
Accordingly, this study used two items regarding dominant characteristics of the
agency and organizational emphases (out of the four aforementioned items) for the
four climate types, as shown in Table 1. From a principal component analysis that
involved all the items of turnover intention and all four climate types, the five
concepts revealed discriminant and convergent validity, based on factor loadings
(greater than 0.55) and eigenvalues (greater than 1). In addition, the reliability
coefficients of the five concepts ranged from 0.66 to 0.78.
Controls
To reduce the possibility of spurious results caused by observed differences, this study
included a host of controls, based on prior studies. Job security was included, because
a lack of job security, which is a substantial sign of investment strategy, decreases
employees’ attachment to their organization (Ashford et al. 1989). This construct was
measured through respondents’ answers to the question: ‘How satisfied are you with
your job security?’ On the basis of consistent research results indicating the negative
impact of pay satisfaction on turnover intention, pay satisfaction was also considered
(e.g. Kim 2005; Lee and Whitford 2008). It was measured through respondents’
answers to the question: ‘How satisfied are you with your pay?’ Work overload can
increase turnover intention by causing burnout (e.g. Kim 2005; Moynihan and
Landuyt 2008). This study measured respondents’ perception of work overload
through their responses to two questions (reliability coefficient = 0.744): ‘How
often do you have trouble in finishing work within the set period?’ and ‘How often
do you have work overload?’
This study also considered two task- or role-related variables. When employees
perceive higher task significance, their work is likely to be more meaningful (Grant
2008), and when they experience lower levels of role conflict, which is defined as ‘the
degree of incongruity or incompatibility of expectations associated with the role’ (Bowen,
Ledford, and Nathan 1991, 474), they are likely to perceive lower levels of role-related
stress and to complete their work responsibilities successfully (Glisson and Durick 1988;
Wright and Davis 2003). As such, higher task significance and lower levels of role conflict
can lead to higher job satisfaction and in turn be associated with less turnover intention.
Task significance was measured through respondents’ rating of one statement: ‘The work
I do is meaningful to me’ (Hackman and Oldham 1980). Role conflict was measured
through the combination of ratings of three statements (Bowen, Ledford, and Nathan
1991): ‘I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment’, ‘I receive
incompatible requests from two or more people’ and ‘I work on unnecessary things’
(reliability coefficient = 0.67).
This analysis also considered respondents’ demographic variables, including gender,
education, hierarchical position and job tenure. At the organizational level, this study
controlled for agency fixed effects and included organization-level indicators, which
allowed the analysis to account for the variation (unobserved difference) in different
working environments. Doing so could strongly contribute towards an explanation of
underlying heterogeneity among respondents from different agencies in the data.8
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for all the variables of this analysis.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Variables Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
Turnover intention 2.547 0.978 1 6
Clan climate 0.205 0.110 0.01 0.85
Developmental climate 0.162 0.072 0.05 0.45
Rational climate 0.310 0.135 0.02 0.94
Hierarchical climate 0.322 0.116 0.05 0.9
Job security satisfaction 3.519 0.798 1 5
Pay satisfaction 2.259 0.897 1 5
Work overload 3.327 0.717 1 5
Task significance 2.824 1.199 1 5
Role conflict 3.970 0.998 1 7
Gender 0.847 0.360 0 1
Education 2.995 0.686 1 5
Hierarchical position 1.755 0.718 1 3
Job tenure 2.761 1.733 1 7
Analyses and findings

Because the criterion variable and predictors were from the same survey, common
method bias (CMV) was a relevant concern for the findings. However, Siemsen, Roth
and Oliveira (2010) argued that U-shaped relationships in an OLS regression, which
is the main topic of this study, cannot be artefacts of CMV. By using a statistical
analysis, these authors found that CMV can severely deflate quadratic relationships
rather than inflate them. Therefore, the evidence for non-linear relationships in a
data set subjected to CMV should be recognized as strong evidence for the presence
of such relationships (Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira 2010).9
Table 3 presents correlations among the criterion variable, main predictors, and
controls. No serious correlation existed among predictors in this table. This study
tested the hypotheses by using OLS regression analyses with a robust standard error,
as presented in Table 4. The main purpose of this research was to explore quadratic
relationships between the four psychological climate types and turnover intention. To
reflect competing relations among the four climate types, this study included all sets
of original and quadratic terms for all four psychological climate types in one model
(Model 2). Doing so could cause high variance inflation factors (VIFs) and in turn
cause the multicollinearity problem.10 However, high VIFs were not a problem in this
study, because the multicollinearity in such situations does not affect the p-values for
the original and quadratic terms (Allison 2012).
The analysis began with individual-level controls and agency-fixed effects, as
shown in Model 1. Model 2 then contained all the predictors. The results
provided evidence that different psychological climate types were differently
associated with turnover intention in the data. The data corroborated
Hypotheses 1 and 3, which concerned a U-shaped relationship between, respec-
tively, clan and rational climates and turnover intention. First, the quadratic terms
of these two climate types were determined to be significant (coefficient = 2.582,
p < .05 for clan climate; coefficient = 2.189, p < .05 for rational climate). Second,
the tipping points were determined using the formula B/(−2A), where A and B
were the coefficients of the quadratic and original terms, respectively. The tipping
points at which the benefits of clan and rational climates became negative or at
which point their negative association to turnover intention became positive were
12
C. S. JUNG ET AL.
Table 3. Correlations of all the variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Turnover intention
2. Clan climate −0.15
3. Developmental climate −0.08 0.29
4. Rational climate 0.12 −0.53 −0.39
5. Hierarchical climate 0.06 −0.39 −0.42 −0.27
6. Job security −0.23 0.10 0.00 −0.08 0.02
7. Pay −0.21 0.13 0.09 −0.12 −0.04 0.20
8. Work overload 0.11 −0.11 −0.04 0.08 0.03 −0.06 −0.12
9. Task significance −0.13 0.10 0.10 −0.08 −0.05 0.13 0.13 0.10
10. Role conflict 0.03 0.12 0.04 −0.10 −0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.08
11. Gender −0.02 −0.06 0.02 0.04 0.01 −0.05 −0.06 0.11 0.10 0.02
12. Education −0.03 0.06 0.03 −0.09 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.17 −0.03
13. Hierarchical position −0.03 −0.21 −0.12 0.22 0.01 −0.08 −0.01 0.02 −0.04 −0.18 0.18 −0.10
14. Job tenure 0.02 −0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 −0.02 −0.13 −0.01 0.07 0.18 0.23 −0.13 0.02
All correlation coefficients above or equal to |0.03|are significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 4. OLS regression results for the relationships between psychological climates and turnover intention.
Model 1 Model 2
Coef. SE Coef. SE
Clan climate −1.686* 0.727
Clan climate2 2.582* 1.311
Developmental climate 1.680 0.959
Developmental climate2 −3.657 2.336
Rational climate −1.326* 0.543
Rational climate2 2.189* 1.033
Hierarchical climate 1.319* 0.592
Hierarchical climate2 −1.036 0.684
Job security satisfaction −0.238*** 0.019 −0.232*** 0.019
Pay satisfaction −0.171*** 0.017 −0.159*** 0.017
Work overload 0.122*** 0.021 0.110*** 0.021
Task significance −0.056*** 0.013 −0.052*** 0.013
Role conflict −0.010 0.017 −0.006 0.017
Gender −0.113* 0.042 −0.110* 0.042
Education −0.041 0.024 −0.047 0.029
Hierarchical position 0.004 0.030 0.005 0.030
Job tenure −0.026* 0.010 −0.024* 0.010
Agency-specific effect Included Included
Constant 3.714*** 0.170 3.445*** 0.372
F value 26.11*** 21.93***
R2 0.118 0.140
Sample size = 4136 (for these two models).
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
SE indicates robust standard error.
at 0.33 for the clan climate (33 point in the original data) and 0.30 for the rational
climate (30 point in the original data), as shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
These results indicate that if public employees perceived the clan and rational
climates of their organization as reasonably emphasized (up to the tipping point),
their turnover intention weakened with the increase in emphasis of each climate
type; however, if those climate types became emphasized too strongly (after the
tipping point), their negative association with turnover intention became positive.
By contrast, Hypotheses 2 and 4, concerning a U-shaped association between
developmental and hierarchical climates and turnover intention, respectively, were
not corroborated. Rather, the hierarchical climate was significantly and linearly
associated with turnover intention. That is, a more strongly perceived hierarchical
climate was correlated with a stronger turnover intention in the survey sample
(Figure 4). However, the developmental climate did not achieve any significance
in the data.
Regarding the control variables, job security, pay satisfaction, work overload and
task significance demonstrated a significant relationship with turnover intention,
yielding results similar to those of previous turnover intention studies. For the
demographic controls, gender and job tenure achieved significance; males reported
weaker turnover intention than females did and public employees with longer job
tenure reported weaker turnover intention.
Figure 2. Non-linear relationship between clan climate and turnover intention.
Figure 3. Non-linear relationship between rational climate and turnover intention.
Discussion
Drawing on the untested assumption of Quinn (1988) in the CVF concerning the
negative effects of an over-emphasized climate on job attitude and social information
processing theory, and by using survey data from a large number of Korean central
government employees, this study demonstrated a U-shaped association of clan and
rational climates with turnover intention and a linear association for a hierarchical
climate. These findings provide implications for public management.
First, the use of curvilinear hypotheses to test for results contrary to prior
empirical studies can be theoretically more convincing and practically more realistic
or implicative, and further the understanding of turnover intention in public man-
agement. The theoretical arguments about and empirical studies on whether the four
Figure 4. Linear relationship between hierarchical climate and turnover intention.
climate types of the CVF positively or negatively affect turnover intention have
primarily been developed and conducted in the field of management, in particular
from hospitals (e.g. Goodman, Zammuto, and Gifford 2001; Park and Kim 2009).
These previous studies have examined only linear associations between the four
climate types and turnover intention. These associations were not consistent across
different studies: for example, Goodman, Zammuto and Gifford (2001) reported a
positive correlation of hierarchical and rational climates with turnover intention, but
Park and Kim (2009) reported that only the hierarchical climate was positively
correlated and the other three climate types were negatively correlated with turnover
intention. These results contrast with those in this study, possibly because of different
bureaucratic settings (i.e. hospitals vs. government agencies). Therefore, testing
different types of associations in different settings is worth further research.
Moreover, the dichotomous categorization between good and bad climate types in
prior studies can limit theoretical and practical implications. Conceptually, as the
foremost contribution, this study contributes support to the empirically untested
concept (in public management, to the best of our knowledge) that there can be a
‘Goldilocks’ zone, not too strong, not too weak, but suitably adequate, of each
psychological (organizational) climate type regarding public employees’ negative
and positive job attitudes. In practical terms, the U-shaped relationships determined
in this study indicate that the psychological climate can or should be managed to
achieve the balance required to maintain low levels of turnover intention and con-
tribute towards individuals’ positive job performance in government agencies.
By being the first empirical research on the topic in public management, this study
can further the understanding of psychological climate theory, particularly as it
relates to the CVF. Employees’ valuations of their organizational clan and rational
climates could to a certain degree remain positive and still reduce turnover intention;
however, beyond that degree the valuation could become negative, because over-
emphasis on a clan or rational climate can result in a climate similar to an ‘irrespon-
sible country club’ or ‘oppressive sweatshop’, respectively. In turn, employees are
likely to develop an increased turnover intention. These two climates have aforemen-
tioned characteristics with positive influences (e.g. stimulating positive affective out-
comes through participative management and adequate competition) on public
employees’ intentions to stay in their organization. However, a clan climate, which
is associated with the Confucian tradition in Korean government agencies, has been
criticized as fomenting paternalism and cronyism, which harm employees’ morale
and work attitudes through unequal treatment of internal and external stakeholders
and corruption (Han 1999). Regarding a rational climate, public employees might
have a strongly negative valuation of an atmosphere that emphasizes competition
among individuals in the same organization or among central government agencies,
causing employees to experience innovation fatigue (Park and Oh 2006). At the time
of the survey used for this analysis, all agencies had been implementing NPM reforms
for approximately half a decade and the rational climate had become as dominant as
the hierarchical climate. Under the NPM movement, public employees likely came to
understand the demand for innovation to achieve better public service. However, an
overemphasis on introducing innovative characteristics, such as performance-based
pay and strategic planning, into government agencies seemed to increase employee
turnover intention. That is, in contrast to the NPM reform rhetoric that evoked
positive ideals, the actual reform methods may have been perceived as ineffective and
burdensome by public employees. This could be a distinctive situation of the Korean
central government. Yet, some public management scholars have indicated the
negative aspects (e.g. effort substitution and gaming) or limitations (e.g. limited
managerial discretion and lack of budgetary allowance for performance-based pay)
of the NPM movement for public employees’ attitudes and organizational perfor-
mance in Western countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom (e.g.
Boyne and Chen 2007; Kelman and Friedman 2009; Moynihan 2006). Furthermore,
the findings revealed that the quadratic effects of the two dominant climate types had
different tipping points (Figures 2 and 3). Specifically, the rational climate demon-
strated a shorter interval before tipping towards a positive association with turnover
intention than the clan climate did. The reason might be that employees in Korean
central government agencies have become more used to a clan climate than a rational
climate and thus the acceptable degree could be higher for the former than for the
latter.
The hierarchical climate showed a positive and linear effect on turnover intention.
In the South Korean government, a hierarchical climate, which had been traditionally
dominant, maintained this status despite the NPM reforms (Kim 2014), as shown in
the data of Table 2. The hierarchical climate has been criticized in South Korea as
being connected with closed authoritarianism, which harms employees’ work atti-
tudes (Chai and Cho 2004). Furthermore, according to recent surveys conducted by
the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, 16.3 per cent of 1,053 respon-
dents in 2013 and 24.6 per cent of 1,066 respondents in 2014 expressed a strong
turnover intention; the respondents included public officials in 32 central govern-
ment agencies; a strong hierarchical climate was one of the main reasons reported for
such turnover intentions (Kim 2014). Only the developmental climate did not achieve
a statistical significance. Even with the NPM reforms, a developmental climate was
not perceived to be as acceptable as the other climate types by government agency
employees; this climate type may have been too progressive for public employees who
were used to the hierarchical climate and its many rules and regulations and who
already felt competition fatigue (Bozeman and Kingsley 1998). Therefore, this climate
has not been established as well as the other three climate types have. As shown in
Table 2, the developmental climate had the lowest values of mean and standard
deviation (Han 1999).
This study contributed to the generalizability of the CVF and turnover intention
literature in the public management domain. The majority of studies on turnover
intention in public management have been US- and Europe-centred; however, the
data for this study came from the central government of South Korea in Asia. The
analysis in this study supported the arguments of Zammuto and Krakower (1991)
and Quinn (1988) about the importance of multiple psychological climate types for
positive employee attitudes and non-linear relations by connecting the CVF climate
types and turnover intention literature.
Limitations and suggestions

Several methodological issues need to be discussed, along with relevant suggestions. First,
this cross-sectional analysis cannot make any inferences about the causal relationships
between psychological climate types and turnover intention. In addition, controlling for
variation across time for economic factors such as unemployment rate was not possible
(Moynihan and Landuyt 2008). Therefore, for a more accurate turnover intention model
and more useful practical implications, future research should gather more comprehen-
sive (e.g. incorporation of another source of data) and multiyear data to test the U-shaped
causal relationships; additionally, future research should employ an experimental
method to test such relationships by fabricating weak, medium and strong climate
scenarios. Second, the present findings could be unique to the sampled central govern-
ment agencies of South Korea. Thus, conducting empirical studies in different places,
such as central or federal and local government agencies of different countries, is
required. Third, historic periods of different economic and political contexts (e.g. routine
periods vs. reform periods) can produce different results, shedding new light on this
topic: The survey for this study was conducted during the NPM reform; thus, different
results or different tipping points may be obtained from conducting studies during a
more stable period. Fourth, this study focused on individual-level perceptions of orga-
nizational climates. Employing organization-level measures of climates that have been
aggregated through the inclusion of a larger number of agencies could have improved the
present analysis. Whether organizational-level measures yield similar results from hier-
archical linear modelling may also be a beneficial investigation. Fifth, the explanatory
power of psychological climates, that is, R2 in the regression, was relatively low. Several
possible reasons for this may exist. One possible reason could be the conceptual distance
between a psychological climate and turnover intention.11 This implies that diverse
mediators or moderators may exist; determining these possible mediators or moderators
may also be a beneficial topic for future studies. There are diverse possible avenues
related to this point for future researchers. Future studies can test the inverted U-shaped
association between climate types and job satisfaction (the immediate antecedent of
turnover intention) or other job attitudes (e.g. organizational commitment) and the
mediation effect of job satisfaction on the U-shaped association between climates and
turnover intention in a structural equation modelling. Furthermore, future studies can
find positive and negative moderators that can lift up or take down the U-shaped
associations, such as leadership styles, organizational structures, group dynamics and
technology. Another possible reason for the low R2 could be the wording of the ques-
tionnaire items: no item had negative wording such as ‘My organization overemphasizes
permanence and stability and so employees are not prepared to experiment or try new
things’. Thus, considering significant modifiers between a psychological climate and
turnover intention and revising the wording of the survey items,12 future studies should
investigate the explanatory power of the four climate types for turnover intention or
other work attitudes.13 Finally, because this analysis used two questionnaire items to ask
respondents directly about their turnover intention, it could not investigate diverse
models of turnover intention, such as voluntary versus involuntary and internal versus
external (Jung 2014). Future research should determine differences in predictors of
different turnover intention types to facilitate developing effective strategies to reduce
turnover intention.
Conclusion
For the argument that a psychological climate is manageable, many scholars have
suggested that the climate or cultural values in organizations facilitate reducing the
costs related to human resource management and improve individuals’ job attitudes
and organizational performance (Cameron and Quinn 2006; Hassan and Rohrbaugh
2011, 2012; Kopelman, Brief, and Guzzo 1990). The findings of the U-shaped associa-
tions suggest a requirement to determine an appropriate and balanced optimal degree of
each climate type in government agencies. No one of the four climate types is likely to
provide any organization with all of the values and characteristics necessary to reduce
turnover intention (Gregory et al. 2009). Successful organizations must strike a balance
between contradictory climate types (e.g. between clan and rational climates and between
developmental and hierarchical climates) and combine them into a climate profile that
uses all four climate types to meet the demands of employees and the organization
(Gregory et al. 2009; Quinn 1988). In addition, rather than overemphasizing reform
components, modest and gradual changes would likely be more effective in improving
employees’ turnover intentions. Thus, public managers and scholars may be well advised
to promote or control climate values, on the basis of the current and desired profiles of
their psychological and organizational climates, to foster balanced organizational devel-
opment and enhance employees’ satisfaction with their job and organization, rather than
focus on a particular climate or on selecting persons who fit a specific profile of a
particular climate (Davis-Blake and Pfeffer 1989). The findings of this study suggest
that doing so can improve the health of public organizations by reducing organizational
members’ turnover intention and behaviour.
Notes
1. However, recent empirical studies in public management have suggested that turnover
intention might not lead to actual turnover. For instance, Jung (2010) linked turnover
intention rates to actual turnover rates at the organizational level across US federal agencies
and observed statistically insignificant correlations between intention rates and actual rates
for the turnover dimensions of quit, transfer-out and total turnover. Furthermore, after
reporting a negative correlation at the agency level in the US federal government, Cho and
Lewis (2012) also suggested the need for caution in applying the implications of turnover
intention analysis to actual turnover. The insignificant or negative relationship between
turnover intention and actual turnover may be attributable to several factors: First, the
relationship could be significantly influenced by the economic situation of the period in

which the research was conducted. A multiyear economic recession close to the period of the
studies conducted by Jung (2010) and Cho and Lewis (2012) could have weakened the
relationship, because of high unemployment rates and a lack of alternative jobs (Griffeth,
Hom, and Gaertner 2000; Hom and Kinicki 2001). Second, the inconsistency might derive
from differing analytical methods; some empirical studies of the private sector (e.g. Hom and
Kinicki 2001) have considered time lag at the individual level, whereas the government sector
studies have commonly used a cross-sectional correlation analysis at the organizational level.
Third, the public sector has lower turnover rates than the private sector does, because of less
managerial autonomy related to pay, promotion, and dismissal in the former (Brewer and
Walker 2010).
2. Concerning psychological climate, the appropriate level of theory, measurement and analysis is
individual (Parker et al. 2003). In contrast, organizational climate and organizational culture are
group-level constructs that have been confused with each other (James et al. 2008; James and
Jones 1974; Parker et al. 2003). Therefore, these two group-level constructs must be distin-
guished. Organizational culture is referred to as ‘the deep structure of organizations, which is
rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members’ (Denison 1996,
624). Hence, organizational culture studies have emphasized a profound understanding of
fundamental assumptions among organizational members (e.g. Kunda 2006; Schein 1990) and
the members’ cognition and action at work (e.g. Rosen 1991; Weick and Roberts 1993). However,
organizational climate scholars (e.g. Glick 1985; Schneider and Reichers 1983) have focused on
insiders’ shared perceptions of processes (e.g. attraction–selection–retention) and practices that
can be more easily observed near the surface of organizational life, as compared with compo-
nents of organizational culture. Thus, organizational climate is often considered to be relatively
temporary, subject to direct control and mostly restricted to those aspects of the social environ-
ment that organizational members consciously perceive (Denison 1996).
Because of these characteristics, organizational climate and organizational culture have also
been distinguished from psychological climate. Organizational climate is an aggregated molar
construct because it can be described by aggregating individual employees’ shared perceptions of
their work environment in a particular work group (James et al. 2008). By contrast, psychological
climate is defined as individual features, specifically the intervening psychological process in
which the individual interprets the interaction between perceived organizational attributes and
individual characteristics into a set of expectancies, attitudes and behaviours (James and Jones
1974, 1110). The crucial point is that the aggregation does not change the definition of
psychological climate; although the aggregated individual perceptions characterize the work
group, the perceptions per se remain a property of the individuals (James et al. 2008).
Psychological climate seems more conceptually distant from organizational culture than from
organizational climate. Organizational culture is an upshot of contemporaneous group dynamics
and an attribute of the system (Katz and Kahn 1966). This system orientation is crucial to
distinguish organizational culture from psychological climate.
3. Originally, the CVF scholars (e.g. Cameron and Quinn 2006; Goodman, Zammuto, and Gifford
2001; Zammuto and Krakower 1991) used the term ‘organizational culture’ rather than ‘psycho-
logical climate’. However, their measurements were at the individual level, that is, the individual
was the unit of analysis, as in this study. This reflected individual employees’ valuations of work
environmental attributes, which the scholars called the four types of ‘organizational culture’. Thus,
based on the aforementioned differentiations between psychological climate and organizational
culture, this study replaced ‘organizational culture’ with ‘psychological climate’.
4. The relative intensity of these four climates in a government agency varies at different
historic periods (e.g. routine periods vs. reform periods), across different leaderships, and
across different countries. In government agencies, because of an inflexible civil service
system, legal restrictions, and procedural rigidity, the hierarchical climate has traditionally
been dominant (Golembiewski 1976; Rainey 2014). However, NPM reforms, which empha-
size economy and efficiency through competition, economic incentives, and the reduction of
red tape, could weaken the hierarchical climate to a certain degree and foster a rational
climate instead (Lynn 2006; Pandey and Rainey 2006). The unique constraints (compared
with the private sector) and NPM reforms may likely cause public employees to neglect
intangible values such as human relations and avoid risk taking (Bozeman and Kingsley
1998; Jung and Lee 2015); therefore, in this study, clan and developmental climates were
expected to be weaker than hierarchical and rational climates were.
5. The use of the old data is still meaningful for several reasons. First, the test of the hypotheses
about non-linear associations between psychological climate types and turnover intention, which
is not time-bound but general, is independent of the data collection time point. Second, because
this empirical study is the first of its type in public management, other studies should be
conducted to test the validity of its findings; importantly, studies that use more recent data
sets conducted at periods of different social, economic, and political contexts (e.g. routine
periods vs. reform periods) will likely shed new light on this topic. Third, according to the
literature review, data are limited for the topics of this article in public management.
6. Because the questionnaires were distributed to all full-time employees (except for some
employees dispatched from the headquarters) in each agency and the response rate was
high, these overall demographic characteristics of the sampled respondents in each agency
were representative of the agency population. Hence, the data would not have a serious
nonresponse bias.
7. An anonymous reviewer indicated this problem, which was appreciated.
8. However, most agency dummies were statistically insignificant across the two models in
Table 4. These results suggest that agency-specific effects had a weak effect on turnover
intention. This was also observed in an analysis of variance; the effect size was small
(η2 = 0.022), although the F-value (9.23) was significant at the 0.05 level.
In addition, the within-group agreements of the four climatetypes were measured, on the basis
of the James et al. (1984, 1993) method: rwg ¼ σ 2E S2x =σ 2E ¼ 1 S2x =σ 2E . Overall, the
within-group agreement was high for each climate: The average within-group agreement
scores of developmental, clan, rational and hierarchical climates were 0.9654, 0.9487, 0.9434
and 0.9422, respectively. The order of the within-group agreement levels was opposite that of
the organizational dominance, as shown in Table 2. That is, within-group agreement was
higher for a less dominant climate. Furthermore, little variation (the difference between
minimum and maximum scores was low for each climate type) for the within-group agree-
ments across agencies existed.
9. Furthermore, to reduce CMV, the survey was designed and conducted in accordance with
several suggestions: The use of measures was validated by previous studies, conceptual and
terminological overlap in items for disparate constructs was avoided (Conway and Lance
2010), and respondents’ anonymity was guaranteed (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
10. High VIFs (ranging from 11 to 26) were observed for the original and quadratic terms of the
four climates in Model 2.
11. According to the literature of turnover intention, well-established predictors of turnover intention
concern a specific aspect related to ‘evaluation of existing job’ such as pay satisfaction and task
significance. However, perceived organizational climate is distant from ‘evaluation of existing job’.
12. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) suggested that testing the relationships between (organiza-
tional or psychological) climates and work attitudes with alternative measures of climate and
diverse samples is beneficial.
13. Despite various empirical studies on the associations between psychological climate and
work attitude existing, scant studies have clearly reported on R2 change by these variables,
unlike this study. Therefore, findings on this topic should be accumulated.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Chan Su Jung is consultant to Samhwa Global Ltd. His research interests include organizational goal
properties such as goal ambiguity, performance measurement and management, turnover, motiva-
tion and job satisfaction in public organizations.
Hon S. Chan is professor in the Department of Public Policy at the City University of Hong Kong.
Hon Chan works on Chinese civil service system, cadre personnel management, performance
measurement and management.
Chih-Wei Hsieh is assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy at City University of Hong
Kong. His research interests focus on public service delivery, human resource management and
organizational behaviour. He has published articles on emotional labour, public service motivation,
workplace diversity and employee well-being.
References
Allison, P. 2012. “When Can You Safely Ignore Multicollinearity?” Statistical Horizons. Blog,
September 10. http://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity.
Ashford, S. J., C. Lee, and P. Bobko. 1989. “Content, Cause, and Consequences of Job Insecurity: A
Theory-Based Measure and Substantive Test.” Academy of Management Journal 32 (4): 803–829.
doi:10.2307/256569.
Bertelli, A. M. 2007. “Determinants of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention: Evidence from the
Department of the Treasury.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (2):
235–258. doi:10.1093/jopart/mul003.
Blader, S. L., and T. R. Tyler. 2009. “Testing and Extending the Group Engagement Model: Linkages
between Social Identity, Procedural Justice, Economic Outcomes, and Extrarole Behavior.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2): 445–464. doi:10.1037/a0013935.
Bowen, D. E., G. E. Ledford, and B. R. Nathan. 1991. “Hiring for the Organization, Not the Job.”
Academy of Management Executive 5 (4): 35–51. doi:10.5465/AME.1991.4274747.
Boyne, G. A., and A. A. Chen. 2007. “Performance Targets and Public Service Improvement.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (3): 455–477. doi:10.1093/jopart/
mul007.
Bozeman, B., and G. Kingsley. 1998. “Risk Culture in Public and Private Organizations.” Public
Administration Review 58 (2): 109–118. doi:10.2307/976358.
Brett, J. M. 2001. Negotiating Globally. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, G. A., and R. M. Walker 2006. “An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Environmental
Constraints and Internal Management Practices on Red Tape.” Paper presented at the the Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August 31–September 3.
Brewer, G. A., and R. M. Walker. 2010. “The Impact of Red Tape on Governmental Performance: An
Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (1): 233–257.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mun040.
Cameron, K. S., and R. E. Quinn. 2006. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on
the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chai, W., and K. H. Cho. 2004. “Policy Measures for Reforming Culture in Governmental
Organizations.” [in Korean.]. Korean Society and Public Administration 15 (2): 73–95.
Cho, Y. J., and G. B. Lewis. 2012. “Turnover Intention and Turnover Behavior: Implications for
Retaining Federal Employees.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 32 (1): 4–23.
doi:10.1177/0734371X11408701.
Choi, S. 2009. “Diversity in the Us Federal Government: Diversity Management and Employee
Turnover in Federal Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (3): 603–
630. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun010.
Church, A. H., and J. Waclawski. 2001. Designing and Using Organizational Surveys. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conway, J. M., and C. E. Lance. 2010. “What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding
Common Method Bias in Organizational Research.” Journal of Business & Psychology 25 (3): 325–
334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.
Davis-Blake, A., and J. Pfeffer. 1989. “Just a Mirage: The Search for Dispositional Effects in
Organizational Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 385–400.
DeHart-Davis, L., R. S. Davis, and Z. Mohr. 2014. “Green Tape and Job Satisfaction: Can
Organizational Rules Make Employees Happy?” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu038.
Delbridge, R. 2007. “Explaining Conflicted Collaboration: A Critical Realist Approach to

Hegemony.” Organization Studies 28 (9): 1347–1357. doi:10.1177/0170840607080744.
Denison, D. R. 1996. “What Is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational
Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars.” The Academy of Management
Review 21 (3): 619–654.
Denison, D. R., and A. K. Mishra. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and
Effectiveness.” Organization Science 6 (2): 204–223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204.
Forgas, J. P., and J. M. George. 2001. “Affective Influences on Judgments and Behavior in
Organizations: An Information Processing Perspective.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 86 (1): 3–34. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2971.
Glick, W. H. 1985. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate:
Pitfalls in Multilevel Research.” The Academy of Management Review 10 (3): 601–616.
Glisson, C., and M. Durick. 1988. “Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in
Human Service Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 33 (1): 61–81. doi:10.2307/
2392855.
Golembiewski, R. T. 1976. Perspectives on Public Management: Cases and Learning Designs. Itasca,
IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Goodman, E. A., R. F. Zammuto, and B. D. Gifford. 2001. “The Competing Values Framework:
Understanding the Impact of Organizational Culture on the Quality of Work Life.” Organization
Development Journal 19 (3): 58–68.
Grant, A. M. 2008. “The Significance of Task Significance: Job Performance Effects, Relational
Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (1): 108–124.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108.
Gregory, B. T., S. G. Harris, A. A. Armenakis, and C. L. Shook. 2009. “Organizational Culture and
Effectiveness: A Study of Values, Attitudes, and Organizational Outcomes.” Journal of Business
Research 62 (7): 673–679. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021.
Griffeth, R. W., P. W. Hom and S. Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates
of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next
Millennium”. Journal of Management 26 (3): 463–488.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Han, S.-T. 1999. “A Study on the Confucian Elements in Korean Administrative Culture: Literature
Review.” Korean Republic Administration Review 33 (4): 95–111.
Hanisch, K. A., and C. L. Hulin. 1990. “Job Attitudes and Organizational Withdrawal: An
Examination of Retirement and Other Voluntary Withdrawal Behaviors.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 37 (1): 60–78. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90007-O.
Hartnell, C. A., A. Y. Ou, and A. Kinicki. 2011. “Organizational Culture and Organizational
Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework’s Theoretical
Suppositions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (4): 677–694. doi:10.1037/a0021987.
Hassan, S., and J. Rohrbaugh. 2011. “The Role of Psychological Climate on Public Sector Employees’
Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Assessment for Three Occupational Groups.”
International Public Management Journal 14 (1): 27–62. doi:10.1080/10967494.2011.547818.
Hassan, S., and J. Rohrbaugh. 2012. “Variability in the Organizational Climate of Government
Offices and Affective Organizational Commitment.” Public Management Review 14 (5): 563–
584. doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.642568.
Hasselbladh, H., and J. Kallinikos. 2000. “The Project of Rationalization: A Critique and Reappraisal
of Neo-Institutionalism in Organization Studies.” Organization Studies 21 (4): 697–720.
doi:10.1177/0170840600214002.
Hom, P. W., and A. J. Kinicki. 2001. “Toward a Greater Understanding of How Dissatisfaction
Drives Employee Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 975–987. doi:10.2307/
3069441.
Humphrey, S. E., J. D. Nahrgang, and F. P. Morgeson. 2007. “Integrating Motivational, Social, and
Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the
Work Design Literature.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (5): 1332–1356. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.5.1332.
James, L. A., and L. R. James. 1989. “Integrating Work Environment Perceptions: Explorations into
the Measurement of Meaning.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (5): 739–751. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.74.5.739.
James, L. R., C. C. Choi, C.-H. E. Ko, P. K. McNeil, M. K. Minton, M. A. Wright, and K. K.-i. 2008.
“Organizational and Psychological Climate: A Review of Theory and Research.” European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology 17 (1): 5–32. doi:10.1080/13594320701662550.
James, L. R., R. G. Demaree, and G. Wolf. 1984. “Estimating within-Group Interrater Reliability with
and without Response Bias.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.69.1.85.
James, L. R., R. G. Demaree, and G. Wolf. 1993. “Rwg: An Assessment of within-Group Interrater
Agreement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (2): 306–309. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306.
James, L. R., J. J. Hater, M. J. Gent, and J. R. Bruni. 1978. “Psychological Climate: Implications from
Cognitive Social Learning Theory and Interactional Psychology.” Personnel Psychology 31 (4):
783–813. doi:10.1111/peps.1978.31.issue-4.
James, L. R., and A. P. Jones. 1974. “Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and Research.”
Psychological Bulletin 81 (12): 1096–1112. doi:10.1037/h0037511.
Jaques, E. 1990. “In Praise of Hierarchy.” Harvard Business Review 68 (1): 127–133.
Jung, C. S. 2010. “Predicting Organizational Actual Turnover Rates in the U.S. Federal
Government.” International Public Management Journal 13 (3): 297–317. doi:10.1080/
10967494.2010.504124.
Jung, C. S. 2014. “Why Are Goals Important in the Public Sector? Exploring the Benefits of Goal
Clarity for Reducing Turnover Intention.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
24 (1): 209–234. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus058.
Jung, C. S., and S.-Y. Lee. 2015. “The Hawthorne Studies Revisited: Evidence from the U.S. Federal
Workforce.” Administration & Society 47 (5): 507–531. doi:10.1177/0095399712459731.
Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley
&Sons.
Kelman, S., and J. N. Friedman. 2009. “Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction:
An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target
in the English National Health Service.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19
(4): 917–946. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun028.
Kim, J. 2014. “16.3% of Public Officials Hope to Leave Their Organization.” Joongang Daily, January
15. http://article.joins.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=13647879&ctg=.
Kim, S. 2005. “Factors Affecting State Government Information Technology Employee Turnover
Intentions.” The American Review of Public Administration 35 (2): 137–156. doi:10.1177/
0275074004273150.
Kopelman, R. E., A. P. Brief, and R. A. Guzzo. 1990. “The Role of Climate and Culture in
Productivity.” In Organizational Climate and Culture, edited by B. Schneider, 282–318. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kunda, G. 2006. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lazonick, W., and J. West. 1995. “Organizational Integration and Competitive Advantage:
Explaining Strategy and Performance in American Industry.” Industrial and Corporate Change
4 (1): 229–270. doi:10.1093/icc/4.1.229.
Lee, S.-Y., and A. B. Whitford. 2008. “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Pay: Evidence from The. Public
Workforce.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 647–671. doi:10.1093/
jopart/mum029.
Lund, D. B. 2003. “Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 18 (3): 219–236. doi:10.1108/0885862031047313.
Lynn, L. E. 2006. Public Management: Old and New. New York: Routledge.
Mahdi, A. F., M. Z. M. Zin, M. R. M. Nor, A. A. Sakat, and A. S. A. Naim. 2012. “The Relationship
between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention.” American Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (9):
1518–1526. doi:10.3844/ajassp.2012.1518.1526.
Mandler, G. 1982. “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste.” In Affect and Cognition: The
Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, edited by M. S. Clark and S. T. Fiske, 3–
36. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mobley, W. H. 1977. “Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Employee Turnover.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (2): 237–240. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.62.2.237.
Moynihan, D. P. 2006. “Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform.”
Public Administration Review 66 (1): 77–89. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-1.
Moynihan, D. P., and N. Landuyt. 2008. “Explaining Turnover Intention in State Government:
Examining the Roles of Gender, Life Cycle, and Loyalty.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 28 (2): 120–143. doi:10.1177/0734371X08315771.
Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 2007. “The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service
Motivation.” Public Administration Review 67 (1): 40–53. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-1.
Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 2008. “The Ties That Bind: Social Networks, Person-
Organization Value Fit, and Turnover Intention.” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 18 (2): 205–227. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum013.
Pandey, S. K., and D. P. Moynihan. 2006. “Bureaucratic Red Tape and Organizational Performance:
Testing the Moderating Role of Culture and Political Support.” In Public Service Performance,
edited by G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. O’Toole, and R. M. Walker, 130–151. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pandey, S. K., and H. G. Rainey. 2006. “Public Managers’ Perceptions of Organizational Goal
Ambiguity: Analyzing Alternative Models.” International Public Management Journal 9 (2): 85–
112. doi:10.1080/10967490600766953.
Park, J. S., and T. H. Kim. 2009. “Do Types of Organizational Culture Matter in Nurse Job
Satisfaction and Turnover Intention?” Leadership in Health Services 22 (1): 20–38. doi:10.1108/
17511870910928001.
Park, S., and H. Oh. 2006. “Performance-Oriented Systems and Organizational Effectiveness.” [in
Korean]. Korean Public Administration Review 40 (4): 225–252.
Parker, C. P., B. B. Baltes, S. A. Young, J. W. Huff, R. A. Altmann, H. A. Lacost, and J. E. Roberts. 2003.
“Relationships between Psychological Climate Perceptions and Work Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic
Review.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (4): 389–416. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379.
Peterson, R. A. 1994. “A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha.” Journal of Consumer
Research 21 (2): 381–391. doi:10.1086/jcr.1994.21.issue-2.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Quinn, R. E. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands
of High Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Quinn, R. E., and J. Rohrbaugh. 1981. “A Competing Values Approach to Organizational
Effectiveness.” Public Productivity Review 5 (2): 122–140. doi:10.2307/3380029.
Rainey, H. G. 2014. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. 5th ed. ed. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosen, M. 1991. “Scholars, Travelers, and Thieves: On Concept, Method, and Cunning in
Organizational Ethnography.” In Reframing Organizational Culture, edited by P. J. Frost, L. F.
Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, and J. Martin, 271–284. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Salancik, G. R., and J. Pfeffer. 1978. “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and
Task Design.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (2): 224–253. doi:10.2307/2392563.
Schein, E. H. 1990. “Organizational Culture.” American Psychologist 45 (2): 109–119. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.45.2.109.
Schneider, B., and A. E. Reichers. 1983. “On the Etiology of Climates.” Personnel Psychology 36 (1):
19–39. doi:10.1111/peps.1983.36.issue-1.
Siemsen, E., A. Roth, and P. Oliveira. 2010. “Common Method Bias in Regression Models with
Linear, Quadratic, and Interaction Effects.” Organizational Research Methods 13 (3): 456–476.
doi:10.1177/1094428109351241.
Taylor, M. S., G. Audia, and A. K. Gupta. 1996. “The Effect of Lengthening Job Tenure on Managers’
Organizational Commitment and Turnover.” Organization Science 7 (6): 632–648. doi:10.1287/
orsc.7.6.632.
Trope, Y., M. Ferguson, and R. Raghunanthan. 2001. “Mood as a Resource in Processing Self-
Relevant Information.” In The Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, edited by J. P. Forgas,
256–274. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Knippenberg, D., R. Van Dick, and S. Tavares. 2007. “Social Identity and Social Exchange:
Identification, Support, and Withdrawal from the Job.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37
(3): 457–477. doi:10.1111/jasp.2007.37.issue-3.
Weick, K. E., and K. H. Roberts. 1993. “Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on
Flight Decks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (3): 357–381. doi:10.2307/2393372.
Whitford, A. B., and S.-Y. Lee. 2015. “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty with Multiple Exit Options: Evidence
from the Us Federal Workforce.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (2):
373–398. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu004.
Wright, B. E., and B. S. Davis. 2003. “Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Role of the Work
Environment.” The American Review of Public Administration 33 (1): 70–90. doi:10.1177/
0275074002250254.
You, M.-B., H.-S. Hong, and Y. Park. 2006. “The Effects of Psychological Contract Violation on
Employee Intent to Leave and Work Motivation: The Moderating Effect of Workplace Familism.”
Korean Journal of Public Administration 50 (4): 135–162.
Zammuto, R. F., and J. Y. Krakower. 1991. “Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Organizational
Culture.” Research in Organizational Change and Development 5: 83–114.
Zazzali, J. L., J. A. Alexander, S. M. Shortell, and L. R. Burns. 2007. “Organizational Culture and
Physician Satisfaction with Dimensions of Group Practice.” Health Services Research 42 (3): 1150–
1176. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00648.x.
Zimmerman, R. D., and T. C. Darnold. 2009. “The Impact of Job Performance on Employee
Turnover Intentions and the Voluntary Turnover Process: A Meta-Analysis and Path Model.”
Personnel Review 38 (2): 142–158. doi:10.1108/00483480910931316.

Public Employees' Psychological Climates and Turnover Intention: Evidence From Korean Central Government Agencies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Employees' Psychological Climates and Turnover Intention: Evidence From Korean Central Government Agencies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Management Review

ISSN: 1471-9037 (Print) 1471-9045 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20

Public employees’ psychological climates and

Chan Su Jung, Hon S. Chan & Chih-Wei Hsieh

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1257060

Published online: 21 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 01 March 2017, At: 07:32

Public employees’ psychological climates and turnover

CONTACT Chan Su Jung oraenby@gmail.com

these means, an organization can be negatively affected by employees’ turnover inten-

Psychological climate and CVF for organizational effectiveness

Figure 1. Competing values framework for organizational effectiveness.

Psychological climate and turnover intention

Clan climate and turnover intention

development turn into extreme permissiveness. In South Korea, an element of the

Hypothesis 1: A clan climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover intention in

Developmental climate and turnover intention

Hypothesis 2: A developmental climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover

Rational climate and turnover intention

Hypothesis 3: A rational climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover intention

Hierarchical climate and turnover intention

organizational identification typically increase (DeHart-Davis, Davis, and Mohr

Hypothesis 4: A hierarchical climate has a U-shaped relationship with turnover inten-

Table 1. Questionnaire items for turnover intention and psychological climate.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Analyses and findings

Table 3. Correlations of all the variables.

Figure 2. Non-linear relationship between clan climate and turnover intention.

Figure 3. Non-linear relationship between rational climate and turnover intention.

Figure 4. Linear relationship between hierarchical climate and turnover intention.

Limitations and suggestions

relationship could be significantly influenced by the economic situation of the period in

Delbridge, R. 2007. “Explaining Conflicted Collaboration: A Critical Realist Approach to

You might also like