Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation

ISSN: 1047-4412 (Print) 1532-768x (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

Organizational Climate and Culture: A Conceptual

Analysis of the School Workplace

Wayne K. Hoy

To cite this article: Wayne K. Hoy (1990) Organizational Climate and Culture: A Conceptual
Analysis of the School Workplace, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1:2,
149-168, DOI: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4

Published online: 08 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 615

View related articles

Citing articles: 28 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hepc20
JOURNALOF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 1(2), 149-168
Copyright @I 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Organizational Climate and Culture:

A Conceptual Analysis of the
School workplace

Wayne K. Hoy
Rutgers University

The concepts of organizationalclimate and culture have become part of the

standard rhetoric in contemporary discussions of school effectiveness.
Unfortunately, both terms are complex and neither is clearly defined. This
article examines the intellectual traditions and conceptual underpinnings
of climate and culture and then provides working definitions for each.
Examples of frameworks to study school climate and school culture are
presented and contrasted. The tension between research on climate using
multivariate statistical analyses and studies of culture using the tools of the
phenomenologist and ethnographer provides a healthy competition, one
that should enhance our understanding of the school workplace if both
perspectives are given an opportunity to flourish.

The nature of the school workplace has long been of interest to scholars
of educational organizations, but it is only recently that other educa-
tional researchers and school reformers have become fascinated with the
topic as well. Although the indigenous "feel" of the workplace has been
studied under a variety of labels, including organizational character,
milieu, atmosphere, and ideology, the related concepts of climate and
culture have provided the impetus and general framework for contem-
porary discussions of the school workplace. Both concepts have an
appealing ring to them; they suggest a natural, spontaneous, and
human side to organization. People resonate with the terms because
they make intuitive sense and seem to capture organizational life in a
holistic fashion. Teachers, administrators, and parents use the terms

Requests for reprints should be sent to Wayne K. Hoy, Graduate School of Education,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
150 HOY

with ease, yet there is no consensus about a definition for either

concept.
Why the allure of these abstract and ambiguous concepts? In part,
they have become components of the school effectiveness and reform
movement in education. For example, school climate is often identified
with the Edmonds' (1979) effective schools model in which he argued
that strong administrative leadership, high performance expectations, a
safe and orderly environment, an emphasis on basic skills, and a system
of monitoring student progress constitute a school climate that promotes
academic achievement. Thus, in spite of limited empirical evidence
(Purkey & Smith, 1983; Ralph & Fennessy, 1983; Rowan, Bossert, &
Dwyer, 1983), positive school climate gets translated into effective
school rhetoric and is advocated by educational practitioners and
reformers as a specific means for improving student achievement.
The notion of organizational culture also has received widespread
public notoriety (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos,
1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982) as well as serious attention among
organizational theorists and researchers (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundbeg,
& Martin, 1985; Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, & Associates, 1985; Ouchi &
Wilkins, 1985; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985). With the publication two
"best sellers," Ouchi's (1981) Theory Z and Peters and Waterman's
(1982) analysis of America's most successful business corporations, the
concept of organizational culture was propelled into contemporary
thought as model for examining effective organizations. Not surpris-
ingly, organizational culture has become part of the language of not only
the business world but also of educators and researchers.
Because the use of culture and climate has become commonplace in
the discussion and study of schools, the concepts are defined, com-
pared, and critically analyzed in this article.' Examples of typical
conceptualizations of each are presented and the analysis concludes
with suggestions for research in schools.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

The concept of organizational climate was developed during the late 1950s
when school scientists were trying to conceptualize variations in work
environments. Although researchers interested in educational organiza-
tions (Halpin & Croft, 1963; Pace & Stern, 1958) made the early efforts
to specify and measure aspects of organizational climate, the utility of

'The basic framework for contrasting climate and culture is taken from Hoy and Miskel
(1987).
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 151

the concept was soon recognized by scholars of business organizations

(Taguiri, 1968). Climate was initially conceived as a general concept to
express the enduring quality of organizational life. Taguiri (1968, p. 23)
noted that "a particular configuration of enduring characteristics of the
ecology, milieu, social system and culture would constitute a climate, as
much as a particular configuration of personal characteristics constitute
a personality." Gilmer (1966, p. 57) defined organizational climate as
"those characteristics that distinguish the organization from other
organizations and that influence the behavior of people in the organi-
zation." Litwin and Stringer (1968, p. 1)introduced perception into their
definition of climate-"a set of measurable properties of the work
environment, based on the collective perceptions of the people who live
and work in the environment and demonstrated to influence their
behavior." According to Gilmer (1966)) the notion of psychological
climates was introduced in the industrial psychology literature by
Gellerman (1960), and other writers (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Halpin
& Croft, 1963; Taguiri, 1968) have noted that definitions of climate are
quite similar to early descriptions of personality types. Indeed the
climate of an organization may roughly be conceived as the "personal-
ity" of the organization (i.e., climate is to organization as personality is
to individual).

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE OF SCHOOLS

Following the lead of industrial and social psychologists, school climate is

a broad term that refers to teachers' perceptions of their general work
environment; it is influenced by the formal organization, informal
organization, personalities of participants, and the leadership of the
school. Taguiri's (1968) formulation of climate as a molar concept
comprised of the more descriptive dimensions of ecology, milieu, social
system, and culture has been used to summarize the literature on school
climate (Anderson, 1982; Miskel & Ogawa, 1988). Ecology refers to the
physical and material aspects of schools; milieu consists of the social
aspects of particular individuals and groups in schools; social system
deals with the patterns of relationships that exist between individuals
and groups in organizations; and culture refers to belief systems, values,
and cognitive structure. Most studies of school climate focus on the
social system and cultural dimensions (Anderson, 1982).This analysis is
on organizational climate as a social systems concept and on organiza-
tional culture as a cultural dimension of the school environment, not as
an aspect of climate. Climate and culture are viewed as separate and
competing concepts at the same level. Anderson (1982) noted that
152 HOY

contributions to the literature on the school climate are anchored in two

different traditions: the study of organizational climate and the exami-
nation of school effects. The current emphasis is on organizational
climate.
Put simply, the organizational climate of a school is the set of internal
characteristics that distinguishes one school from another and influ-
ences the behavior of its members. In more specific terms: School
climate is the relatively enduring quality of the school environment that
is experienced by participants, affects their behavior, and is based on
their collective perceptions of behavior in schools. The focus of my
analysis is on collective perception of teachers and its effect on school
life.
Undoubtedly the most well-known conceptualization and measure-
ment of organizational climate in schools is the pioneering study of
elementary schools by Halpin and Croft (1963). Their approach was to
develop a descriptive questionnaire to identify critical aspects of
teacher-teacher and teacher-principal interactions, the Organizational
Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ). The OCDQ is adminis-
tered to the professional staff of each school, and respondents are asked
to describe the extent to which each statement characterizes his or her
school. Examples of items include, "Administrative paper work is
burdensome in this school," 'The principal goes out of his way to help
teachers," "The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor,
and pleasure," and "In faculty meetings, there is a feeling of 'let's get
things done.' " Using factor analytic techniques, eight dimensions of
school climate were mapped: Hindrance, Intimacy, Disengagement,
Esprit, Production Emphasis, Aloofness, Consideration, and Thrust.
These eight dimensions define six basic climate types that are arrayed
along a rough continuum from open to closed: open, autonomous,
controlled, familiar, paternal, and closed.
An open climate is one in which both the principal and faculty are
genuine in their behavior. The principal leads by example (thrust),
providing the proper blend of structure and direction as well as support
and consideration-the mix dependent on the situation. Teachers work
well together and are committed to the task at hand (engaged). Given
the reality-centered leadership of the principal, there is no need for
burdensome paperwork (hindrance), close monitoring (production em-
phasis), or impersonality and a plethora of rules (aloofness). Acts of
leadership emerge easily and appropriately as they are needed. The
open school is not preoccupied with either task achievement or social
needs satisfaction, but both emerge freely (morale).In brief, behavior in
the open climate is authentic. At the other extreme, the closed climate is
the antithesis of the open climate.
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 153

Although the OCDQ provided the basic conceptual framework and

measurement for the study of school climate for nearly 25 years, time
and change have taken their toll on the instrument. The framework and
instrument have been criticized for conceptual and psychometric short-
comings as well as for neglecting students and focusing on only
elementary schools (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy & Miskel, 1987;
Kottkamp, Mulhern, & Hoy, 1987). The original OCDQ has been
superceded by variety of contemporary conceptualizations and mea-
sures of the organizational climate of schools that address many of the
earlier shortcomings (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy & Feldman, 1987;
Kottkamp et al., 1987). Our analysis turns to one of these contemporary
frameworks (for others, see Hoy & Miskell, 1987) that shows not only
strong potential for mapping the domain of organizational climate of
schools but also for linking the climate of a school to student outcomes.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AS HEALTH: A

FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH

The descriptive metaphor of organizational health has been used to

conceptualize the school climate (Hoy & Feldman, 1987). The idea of
organizational health is not new and underscores conditions that
facilitate or impede growth, development, and constructive organiza-
tional dynamics. Miles (1969, p. 375) noted that a healthy organization is
one that "not only survives in its environment, but continues to cope
adequately over the long haul, and continuously develops and extends
its surviving and coping abilities." Implicit in this definition is the idea
that healthy organizations deal successfully with disruptive outside
forces while effectively directing their energies toward the major goals
and objectives of the organization. Operations on a specific day may be
effective or ineffective, but the long-term outlook is good in healthy
organizations.
The work on organizational health draws its conceptual foundations
from Parsonsian social systems theory (Parsons, 1967; Parsons, Bales, &
Shils, 1953). All social systems, if they are to survive and prosper, must
satisfy the basic needs of adaptation, goal achievement, integration, and
latency (Parsons et al., 1953). In other words, organizations must solve
the problems of (a) acquiring sufficient resources and accommodating to
their environments, (b) setting and implementing goals, (c) maintaining
solidarity within the system, and (d) creating and preserving the unique
values of the system. Thus, the organization must meet its instrumental
needs of adaptation and goal achievement as well as its expressive needs
154 HOY

of social and normative integration; in fact, it is postulated that healthy

systems effectively meet both set of needs.
Parsons (1967) also noted that social systems such as schools exhibit
three distinct levels of responsibility and control over these meeds-the
technical, managerial, and institutional levels. The technical level is
concerned with the basic function of school-the teaching-learning
process. Teachers should have the last word on what and how to teach.
The managerial system mediates and controls the internal operation of
the school, an administrative process that is qualitatively different from
teaching. Principals must find ways to develop loyalty and trust,
motivate teachers, and coordinate the work. The institutional level
links the school with the community. It is important to have the backing
of the community. Administrators and teachers need support to make
their respective contributions in a harmonious fashion without undue
influence from individuals and groups outside the school.
The preceding Parsonian formulation provides the scheme for con-
ceptualizing and measuring school climate in terms of health. To be
more specific, "a healthy school climate is one in which the technical,
managerial, and institutional levels are in harmony. The school is
meeting both its instrumental and expressive needs; and is successfully
coping with disruptive outside forces as it directs its energy toward its
mission. (Hoy & Feldman, 1987, p. 32).
The organizational health of schools is operationally defined by seven
specific interaction patterns among students, teachers, and administra-
tors. These critical elements of behavior meet both the instrumental and
expressive needs of the social system as well as represent the three
levels of responsibility and control within the school.
Morale and academic emphasis are the key elements of the technical
level. Morale is a collective sense of satisfaction, enthusiasm, pride, and
friendliness that teachers feel about their job and school. Academic
emphasis, on the other hand, is the school's press for achievement-
setting high, but achievable goals and providing an orderly and serious
learning environment.
Four key aspects of the managerial level are also examined-principal
influence, consideration, initiating structure, and resource support.
Influence is the ability of the principal to affect the decisions of superiors,
to effectively "go to bat" for teachers. Consideration is principal behavior
that is friendly, open, supportive, and collegial. Initiating structure is
both task- and achievement-oriented principal behavior. Finally, resource
support is the extent to which the principal obtains the materials and
supplies that are needed and requested by teachers.
The institutional level is studied in terms the school's integrity, that is,
the school's ability to cope with the community in a way that maintains
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 155

the educational integrity of its programs. When institutional integrity is

high, teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental
demands.
The Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) has been developed to
measure these seven defining elements of the school health. The
instrument is a series of short descriptive statements of interaction
patterns among teachers, administrators, and students that is adminis-
tered to the professional staff of a school. Factor analysis has confirmed
the seven dimensions as well as a single, second-order factor labeled
health (Hoy & Feldman, 1987).*
A school with a healthy climate is protected from unreasonable
community and parental pressures. The school successfully resists all
narrow efforts of vested interest groups to influence policy. The prin-
cipal of a healthy school provides dynamic leadership, leadership that is
both task-oriented and achievement-oriented. Such behavior is sup-
portive of teachers and yet provides direction and maintains high
standards of performance. Moreover, the principal has influence with
his or her superiors as well as the ability to exercise independent
thought and action. Teachers are committed to teaching and learning.
They set high but achievable goals for students and maintain high
standards of performance in an orderly and serious learning environ-
ment. Consequently, students work hard on academic matters, are
highly motivated, and respect other students who achieve academically.
Classroom supplies and instructional material are accessible. Finally, in
a healthy climate teachers like each other, are enthusiastic about the
work, and are proud of their school.
School health is positively related to teachers' trust in the principal
and in each other (Tarter & Hoy, 1988) as well as to the organizational
commitment of teachers to the school (Tarter, Hoy, & Kottkamp, 1989)
and to teacher efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1989). Not only do the
dimensions of health have the expected relationships with teacher
variables, but initial results indicate a strong relationship between
aspects of organizational health and student achievement as measured
by standardized achievement tests. Moreover, the health-achievement
relationship exists after controlling for socioeconomic status of the
districts (Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, in press).
Our attention now shifts from organizational climate to organizational
culture. Although some writers (Anderson, 1982; Miskel & Ogawa,
1988), have discussed culture as a dimension of climate, there is a
second school of thought that treats organizational culture as a com-
peting construct.

2For a complete copy of the OH1 and its subtests, see Hoy and Forsyth (1986).
156 HOY

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The notion of organizational culture has resurfaced as a vehicle for

understanding the basic meaning and character of institutional life.
Concern for the culture of the workplace is not new. In the 1930s and
1940s, both Mayo (1945) and Barnard (1938) were stressing the signifi-
cance of norms, sentiments, values, and emergent interactions in the
workplace as they described the nature and functions of the informal
organization. Similarly, Selznick (1957) emphasized the importance of
viewing organizations as institutions rather than merely rational struc-
tures. Institutions, according to Selznick (1957, p. 17), are "infused with
value beyond the technical requirements at hand." The infusion of value
produces a distinctive identity of the organization that colors all aspects
of organizational life and provides a social integration that goes well
beyond formal coordination and command. This distinctive character
ties the individual to the organization and generates in its members a
sense of commitment to the organization.
The notion of organizational culture is also clearly an attempt to
capture the feel, sense, character, or ideology of the organization, but it
brings with it conceptual complexity and confusion. No intact definition
of culture from anthropology or sociology readily lends itself for use as
an organizational construct. It should not be surprising, therefore, that
there are a variety of definitions. For example, Ouchi (1981, p. 41)
defined organizational culture as "systems, ceremonies, and myths that
communicate the underlying values and beliefs of the organization to its
employees." Lorsch (1985, p. 84), on the other hand, used culture to
mean "the beliefs top managers in a company share about how they
should manage themselves and other employees." To Mintzberg (1983,
p. 152) culture is simply "a system of beliefs about the organization,
shared by its members, that distinguishes it from other organizations."
Wilkins and Patterson (1985, p. 265) argued that "an organization's
culture consists largely of what people believe about what works and
what does not," whereas Martin (1985, p. 95) maintained that "culture is
an expression of people's deepest needs, a means of endowing their
experiences with meaning." Schwartz and Davis (1981, p. 33) regarded
culture as "a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organi-
zation's members, that produces norms that powerfully shape the
behavior of individuals or groups in organizations." In contrast, Schein
(1985, p. 6) argued that culture should be reserved for "the deeper level
of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an
organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic
'taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its
environment."
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 157

Although differences exist in conceptions, there is common ground

for defining culture. Organizational culture is a system of shared
orientations that hold the unit together and give it a distinctive identity.
There is, however, some disagreement about what is shared-norms,
values, philosophies, beliefs, expectations, myths, ceremonies, or arti-
facts. One way to begin to untangle this problem of definition is to
examine culture at different leveh3

LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION
Culture is manifest in norms, shared values, and basic assumptions,
each occurring at a different level of abstraction (Hoy & Miskel, 1987;
Kilman et al., 1985; Schein, 1985). At its most abstract level, culture is
the collective manifestation of tacit assumptions, basic premises about
the nature of relationships, human nature, truth, reality, and the
environment (Dyer, 1985). For example, a tacit assumption about the
nature of truth deals with the question of whether truth is revealed by
external authority figures or is determined by a process of personal
investigation and testing. When members of an organization share a
view of the world around them and their place in that world, a culture
exists. That is, a pattern of basic assumptions has been invented,
discovered, or developed by the organization that is useful in defining
itself. Such assumptions are difficult to identlfy because they are
abstract, unconscious, and hard to confront. Schein (1985), however,
suggested an elaborate set of procedures to decipher the tacit assump-
tions of members based on a combination of anthropological and clinical
techniques, which involves a series of encounters and joint explorations
between the investigator and motivated informants who live in the
organization and embody its culture. The joint effort usually involves
extensive data-gathering activities that explore the history of the orga-
nization, critical events, organizational structure, myths, legends, arti-
facts, stories, and ceremonies. Questionnaires are eschewed as devices
to identlfy tacit assumptions; at best, it is argued that such instruments
produce only some of the espoused values of group members.
At a middle range of abstraction, culture is defined as shared values.
Values are shared conceptions of what is desirable. They are reflections
of the more basic assumptions of culture that define what members
should do in the organization to be successful. When individuals are
asked to explain why they behave the way they do, their answers may
reflect the basic values of the organization. Core values define the

3For an alternate view of culture, see Erickson (1987).

158 HOY

character of the organization and give it a sense of identity and mission.

Action becomes infused with such values as openness, trust, coopera-
tion, intimacy, or teamwork; and stories, myths, ceremonies, and rituals
reinforce the basic core values of the organization. Much of the contem-
porary work on organizational culture is at this middle level of abstrac-
tion. For example, Ouchi's (1981)Theory Z describes a corporate culture
where commitment, cooperation, teamwork, trust, loyalty, and egalitar-
ianism are basic, and Peters and Waterman (1982) suggested that
succesful business organizationshave cultures that value action, service,
innovation, people, and quality.
In contrast to the abstract conception of culture as a set of tacit
assumptions, or even as shared values, a more concrete perspective on
culture emerges when behavioral norms are used as the basic shared
orientations of culture. Norms are usually unwritten and informal
expectations that influence behavior. They are more overt than either
tacit assumptions or values; consequently, they provide a more tangible
means for helping people understand the cultural aspects of the
organization. Further, as norms are the building blocks of culture,
change may be most directly attacked at the normative level. Allen and
Kraft (1982) noted that norms are universal phenomena; they are
essential and tenacious, but also quite malleable. Kilmann (1985, p. 361),
moreover, suggested that with a little prodding and a few illustrations to
get a group started, members quickly begin to enumerate many norms;
in fact, they revel in being able to articulate what before hand was not
formally stated and rarely discussed. Prevailing norms map the "way
things are" around the organization. For example, "Around here, it is all
right to admit mistakes, as long as you don't make them again," or "we
don't wash our dirty linen in public."
Each of the three views of culture has advantages as well as disad-
vantages. The more abstract formulations offer opportunities for rich
and penetrating analyses of the workplace and seem to be preferred by
theorists interested in understanding culture rather than managing it.
Organizationalparticipants, however, have difficulty openly identifying
their tacit premises and discussing their basic assumptions of organiza-
tional life; in fact, they define such activities as merely academic
(Kilmann et al., 1985). On the other hand, those definitions of culture
that focus on behavioral norms are more useful to people who are
interested in assessing and managing organizational cultures, albeit in a
limited, and some would argue, superficial way.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN SCHOOLS

The concept of culture in the study of schools is not new. Waller (1932)
emphasized the importance of culture, rituals, rites of passage, ceremo-
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 159

nies, and values in his seminal analysis of the school as a social system.
Sarason (1971) described how school culture is an important vehicle for
resisting and redefining educational innovations, and B. Clark (1972)
studied the organizational sagas of three colleges, each with a distinctive
culture that inspired pride and encouraged identification among its
members.
The current popularity of organizational culture as a construct to
analyze schools, however, derives in large part from the literature on
corporate cultures. Although culture has become fashionable in educa-
tion, much of the recent discussion of school culture remains analytical,
philosophical, and rhetorical rather than empirical. For example, in a
special issue of the Educational Administrative Quarterly devoted to
organizational culture and schools (Cusick, 1987); only one of the six
pieces was an empirical investigation of school culture.
It is not difficult to use the research findings from corporate cultures
(Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982) and the
effective schools literature (Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, &
Wisenbaker, 1979; D. L. Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984; Rutter, Maugham,
Ousten, & Smith, 1979)to develop an ideal profile for an effective school
culture. Deal (1985) proposed that effective schools have strong cultures
with the following elements: (a) shared values and consensus on how
things get done, (b) the principal as hero or heroine who embodies core
values, (c) distinctive rituals that embody widely shared beliefs, (d)
employees as situational heros or heroines, (e) rituals of acculturation
and cultural renewal, (f) potent rituals to celebrate and transform core
values, (g) balance between innovations and tradition and autonomy
and control, and (h) widespread participation in cultural rituals.
What are the common beliefs that bind a school together? These
include: "schools are for students," "experiment with your teaching,"
"teaching and learning should be cooperative processes," "stay close to
your students," "strive for academic excellence," "demand high but
realistic performance," "be open in your behavior," "trust your col-
leagues," "be a professional," "commit yourself to teaching," and
''respect autonomy and innovation." Are these core values or empty
slogans? If the beliefs are strongly and widely shared and clearly
enacted, these slogan-like themes can define a strong school culture.
Unfortunately, little research directly addresses the institutional cultures
of effective schools.
It is likely that the study of school culture will be anthropological and
sociological in nature. The thick description of qualitative studies is
necessary to map the cultures of schools, especially if the goal is to
identlfybasic assumptions and common values. Educational researchers
need to consider the school as a whole and examine how its practices,
beliefs, and other cultural elements relate to its social structure as well as
160 HOY

function to give meaning to social life. To study culture one must

understand the complex clustering of symbols people use to give
meaning to their world (Geertz, 1973), a problem that is probably best
addressed through an ethnographic approach.

A FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING SCHOOL CULTURE

Although there has been limited empirical investigation of school

culture, Firestone and Wilson (1985) provided a useful framework for
beginning to study the organizational cultures of schools. They sug-
gested that three symbol systems communicate the basic contents of an
organization's culture: stories, icons, and rituals. Stories are narratives
that are based on true events, but they frequently combine fact and
fiction. Some stories are myths; they communicate an unquestioned
belief that can not be demonstrated by the facts. Other stories become
legends that are retold and elaborated with fictional details. For exam-
ple, the principal, who stood by her teachers despite overwhelming
pressure from parents and superiors, becomes a symbol of the cohesive-
ness and loyalty in a school's culture. It is a story retold many times to
new teachers, one that takes on special meaning as it is interpreted and
embellished. Stories are often about organizational heroes who epito-
mize the distinctive character of the school and provide insight into the
culture.
Icons and rituals are also important. Icons are physical artifacts that are
used to communicate culture (logos, mottoes, and trophies) and rituals
are the basic ceremonies that provide tangible examples of what is
important in the organization. Rituals can be studied in terms of rites;
for example, the typology of rites and their expressive consequences
developed by Trice and Beyer (1985) includes rites of passage, enhance-
ment, renewal, and integration. Much of the culture of a school can be
constructed from artifacts, rites, rituals, and ceremonies related to
assemblies, faculty meetings, athletic contests, community activities,
cafeterias, report cards, awards, lesson plans, and the general decorum
of the school.
The examination of the informal communication system is also
important in the cultural analysis of the school. The communication
system is a cultural network itself. As Deal and Kennedy (1982)
observed, storytellers, spies, priests, cabals, and whisperers form a
hidden hierarchy of power within the school that communicates the
basic values of the organization. "Mythmakers" are storytellers who are
so effective in informal communication that they become the creators of
important organizational myths. The identification of not only the
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 161

myths but the process of their creation is important to a full under-

standing of culture.
Although other similar frameworks for mapping the school culture in
terms of values, beliefs, and ideologies are available (see Deal, 1985;
Trice & Beyer, 1985), the determination of culture at this level of analysis
is not easy. The core values of a school may be easier to determine than
its tacit assumptions, but the analysis remains difficult and time con-
suming, a factor that probably explains why there is more rhetoric than
empirical analysis of school culture.

A COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

AND CULTURE

Although the definitions of climate and culture are often blurred, one
useful difference is that culture consists of shared assumptions and
ideologies, whereas climate is defined by shared perceptions of behavior
(Ashforth, 1985).To be sure the conceptual leap from shared assumptions
(culture) to shared perceptions (climate) is not large, but the difference
is real and seems meaningful.
Scholars of climate tend to use quantitative techniques and
multivariate analyses to identify patterns of perceived behavior in
organizations. They typically assume that organizations are rational
instruments to accomplish purpose; thus, they search for rational
patterns. Their background and training are more likely to be in
multivariate statistics and psychology or social psychology rather than
in ethnography and anthropology or sociology. Moreover, these re-
searchers tend to be interested in climate as an independent variable,
that is, how the climate influences organizational outcomes. The goal of
studying climate is often to determine effective strategies of change.
In some contrast, scholars of organizational culture tend to use the
qualitative and ethnographic techniques of anthropology and sociology
to study the character or atmosphere of organizations. This work on
culture derives from two basic intellectual traditions: holistic studies in
the tradition of Radcliffe-Brown (1952) and Malinowski (1961), which
focus on the organization as a whole and how its cultural elements
function to maintain a social structure; and semiotic studies in the
tradition of Geertz (1973) and Goodenough (1971), which focus on
language and symbolism. Many of those who study culture take a
natural-systems view of organizations and conclude that the culture of
an organization is a natural outgrowth of a particular time and place. As
such, it is not responsive to attempts at manipulation and change (Ouchi
& Wilkins, 1985).
162 HOY

In brief, studies of climate usually deal with perceptions of behavior,

use survey research techniques, employ multivariate statistics, have
their intellectual roots in industrial and social psychology, assume a
rational-systems perspective, examine climate as an independent vari-
able, and are interested in using the knowledge to improve organiza-
tions. In contrast, studies of culture typically focus on assumptions,
values, and norms; use ethnographic techniques; eschew quantitative
analysis; have their intellectual roots in anthropology and sociology;
assume a natural-systems perspective; and study culture as a dependent
variable. There are, of course, exceptions to these patterns, but they do
seem to be the dominant ones in the general literature on organizations
as well as in specific work on educational organizations (Anderson,
1982; Miskel & Ogawa, 1988; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985). Basic differences
between organizational climate and culture are presented in Figure 1.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

For the most part, the concept of climate remains a confusing term. It is
used in the educational literature to refer to virtually any school

ORGANIZATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL
CLIMATE CULTURE

Discipline: Psychology and Anthropology and

Social Psychology Sociology

Methodology: Survey Research Ethnographic Techniques

Multivariate Statistics Linguistic Analysis

Systems
Assumptions: Rational System Natural System

Level of
Absbaction: Concrete Absbact

Content: Perceptions of Behavior Shared Assumptions and

Values

FIGURE 1 Contrasting characteristics of organizational climate and organizational

culture.
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 163

property. It is an umbrella term under which the notions of climate,

culture, and characteristics of effective schools are freely mixed. Re-
searchers and reformers need a handy term to describe all the features
of school organizations that have been related to achievement in one
study or another. Climate has been chosen, but increasingly it has a rival
in culture. As we have seen, both organizational climate and culture
have long, rich intellectual histories, but this heritage is forgotten or
ignored as the terms are pressed into service by those promoting
effective schools.
At least for the present, it seems useful to distinguish between the
terms. Although climate and culture both refer to the general atmo-
sphere or feel of the school, they evolve from different perspectives, use
different research strategies, and concentrate on different organizational
aspects-perceptions of behavior (climate) or shared values and ideolo-
gies (culture). The distinction is useful. Indeed, there is much refine-
ment and work needed within each perspective. It is premature to
combine the climate and culture frameworks. The research rooted in the
school-effects literature is confusing and lacks any kind of theoretical
consistency. Confusion becomes chaos when school-effects research
masquerades as studies of climate or culture.
The distinction between culture and climate also encourages a com-
petition among research techniques and strategies. On the one hand, it
has been said by those who are statistically inclined that organizational
culture has become the refuge of untrained and incompetent researchers
(Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985). On the other hand, many students of culture
argue that any attempt to describe character or atmosphere of an
organization using quantitative techniques is superficial, simpleminded,
and misleading. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985, p. 479) described the conflict
as a, "confrontation between those who feel that the statisticians
continue to be too powerful and those who feel that the phenomen-
ologists have sapped the scientific rigor of the field." It is a confrontation
that is probably conducive to better research on the school workplace;
both qualitative and quantitative perspectives can make contributions to
our understandings.
Research on school climate is becoming revitalized as old frameworks
are refined and new measures are developed (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy
& Feldman, 1987; Kottkamp et al., 1987). The organizational health
formulation discussed earlier is based on a Parsonian perspective that
provides a theoretical formulation for a model of organizational effec-
tiveness (see Hoy & Miskel, 1987). Climate, conceived and measured as
health, seems especially useful for linking properties of schools with
positive student effects, cognitive as well as affective outcomes. The
relationships between dimensions of healthy schools and a variety of
164 HOY

student and teacher outcomes, however, need further specification.

Moreover, organizational climate provides a framework for the study of
such other important organizational processes as leadership, motiva-
tion, decision making, and communication.
Although organizational climate is typically studied as an indepen-
dent variable, it also can be conceived as an important end in itself. The
health of a school can and likely does change. Little is known about the
antecedents of such change. This is an area that lends itself to a
thoughtful combination of quantitative and qualitative research tech-
niques as longitudinal studies are designed to examine the conditions
that lead to both the improvement and deterioration of school health.
Indeed, it can be argued that organizational health should be the prime
target in change efforts in schools because only when the system's
d.ynamics are open and healthy will more specific change strategies be
effective. For example, Miles (1969, p. 388) argued: "Economy of effort
would suggest that we should look at the state of an organization's
health as such, and try to improve it-in preference to struggling with a
series of more or less short-run change efforts as ends in themselves."
Contemporary research on school culture is limited. True, there have
been numerous analyses of corporate cultures and interpolations of the
those findings to public schools, but few researchers have tested those
findings directly in schools. There are a number of important theoretical
and practical issues that must be addressed in the study of school
cultural. I have suggested that the conceptual frameworks developed by
Firestone and Wilson (1985) and Deal (1985) are useful in the analysis of
school cultures. Bates (1987), however, argued that such formulations
treat organizational culture as synonymous with managerial culture and
are much too narrow to capture the essence of culture. This observation
leads to a more general issue of whether most organizations have a
culture or a variety of subcultures. To expect schools to bear unique and
unitary cultures may be more hope than fact, but it is an empirical
question.
The issue of whether culture can or should be intentionally managed
is one that will be fervently debated. Much of the recent literature on
school cultures is directed toward change and school improvement and
assumes that understanding culture is a prerequisite to making schools
more effective (Deal, 1985; Metz, 1986; Rossman, Corbett, & Firestone,
1988). The success of cultural change and its influence on effectiveness
are worthy topics for inquiry. One argument suggests that the process of
changing culture is influenced by the level and number of cultures in the
organization. A change of norms, for example, is more likely than
changes in shared values or tacit assumptions. Others contend that any
change in culture is difficult and fraught with ethical dilemmas. For
example, Schein (1985) strongly argued that a large part of an organi-
zation's culture represents the ways its members have learned to cope
with anxiety; therefore, attempts to change culture can be tantamount to
asking people to surrender their social defenses. To Schein, the issue of
cultural change becomes an ethical question. In a somewhat similar
vein, Bates (1987) maintained that advocates of strong organizational
cultures are conducting cultural analyses on behalf of managers. What is
good for management is not necessarily good for the workers.
The school workplace has been discussed in terms of organizational
climate and culture. The two concepts are used as competing ways to
examine school life. I have argued that it is useful to keep the two
perspectives distinct and to avoid the indiscriminate use of culture and
climate in rhetoric on reform and school effectiveness. Organizational
climate and culture have different intellectual traditions. Climate studies
typically have their roots in industrial psychology and social psychology
and employ survey research techniques and multivariate statistical
analyses to describe shared perceptions of patterns of behavior. Studies
of culture, in contrast, have their bases in anthropology and sociology
and use qualitative and ethnographic techniques to identdy a system of
shared beliefs and values. Although both climate and culture are
attempts to describe the basic atmosphere of schools, each delivers a
distinct view of school life. The contrasting perspectives bring with them
a natural tension, one that can breath vitality and creativity into the
study of schools.

ACKNOWLDGMENT

I thank my colleagues, Professors William Firestone of Rutgers Univer-

sity and C. John Tarter of St. John's University, who read an earlier draft
of this article and made a number of useful suggestions.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. F., & Kraft, C. (1982). The organizational unconscious: How to create the corporate
culhrre you want and need. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 52, 368-420.
Ashforth, S. J. (1985). Climate formations: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 837-847.
Barnard, C. L. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press.
Bates, R. J. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 23, 79-116.
166 HOY

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School
social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.
Clark, B. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 178-184.
Clark, D. L., Lotto, L., & Astuto, T. (1984). A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 20, 41-68.
Cusick, P. A. (1987). Organizational culture and schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 23, 5-115.
Deal, T . E. (1985). The symbolism of effective schools. Elementary School Journal, 85,
601-620.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dyer, W. G. (1985). The cycle of cultural evolution in organization. In R. H. Kilmann, M.
J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp.
200-230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37,
15-24.
Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 23, 11-24.
Fiestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to
improve instruction: The principal's contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly,
21, 7-31.
Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-381.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., &Martin, J. (1985). Organizational
culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.
Gilmer, B. (1966). Industrial psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodenough, W. (1971). Culture, language, and society. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center of the University of Chicago.
Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. R. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 22, 93-110.
Hoy, W. K., & Feldman, J. A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure.
journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38.
Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. B. (1986). Supewision of instruction: Theory into practice. New
York: Random House.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice.
New York: Random House.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., &Bliss, J. (in press). Organizational climate, school health, and
effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1989). School health 6 teacher efficacy. Unpublished
manuscript.
Kilmann, R. H. (1985). Five steps for closing the culture gap. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J.
Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp.
351-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kilmann, R. H., & Saxton, M. J., Serpa, R., & Associates (1985). Gaining control of the
corporate culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kottkamp, R. B., Mulhern, J. A., & Hoy, W. K. (1987). Secondary school climate: A review
of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23, 31-48.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivational and organizational climate. Boston:
Graduate School of Business Administration of H a m d University.
Lorsch, J. W. (1985). Strategic myopia: Culture as an invisible barrier to change. In R. H.
 CLIMATE AND CULTURE 167
Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate
culture (pp. 84-102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Martin, J. (1985). Can organizational culture be managed? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M.
R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 95-98). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of industrial civilization. Boston: Graduate School of
Business Administration, Haward University.
Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools. New
York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In F.
D. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior (pp. 375-391).
New York: McGraw-Ha.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Miskel, C., & Ogawa, R. (1988). Work motivation, job satisfaction, and climate. In N. J.
Boyan (Ed.), I-Iandbookof research on educational administration (pp. 279-304). New York:
Longman.
Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory z. Reading, MA: Free Press, Addison-Wesley.
Ouchi, W., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 11,
457-483.
Pace, C. R., & Stern, G. C. (1958). An approach to the measure of psychological
characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 269-277.
Parsons, T . (1967). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A. W.
Halpin (Ed.), Administrative theoy in education (pp. 40-72). New York: M a c d a n .
Parsons, T., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (1953). Working papers in the theoy of action.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. (1981). The art of Japanese management. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons fium America's best-run
companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A. W. (1979). On studying organizational culture. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School
Journal, 83, 427-452.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1952). Structure and function in primitine society. London: Oxford
University Press.
Ralph, J. H., & Fennessey, J. J. (1983). Science or reform: Some questions about the
effective schools model. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 689-694.
Rossman, G. B., Corbett, H. D., & Firestone, W. A. (1988). Change and effctiveness in
schools. Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Research on schools: A cautionary note.
Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31.
Rutter, M., Maugham, B., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary
schools and their efects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, H. M., &Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy.
Organizational Dynamics, 59, 30-48.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. W. Litwin
(Eds.), Organizational chute: Explorations of a concept (pp. 1-32).. Boston: Division of
168 HOY

Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (1988). The context of trust: Teachers and the principal. The
High School Journal, 72, 17-24.
Tarter, C. J., Hoy, W. K., & Kottkamp, R. (1989). School climate and organizutional
commitment. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1985). Using six organizational rites to change culture. In R.
H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate
culture (pp. 370-399). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley.
Wilkins, A. L., & Patterson, K. J. (1985). You can't get there from here: What will make
culture-change projects fail. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates
(Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 262-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.