Validating the organizational climate measure:links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation

This paper describes the development and validation of a multidimensional measure of organizational climate, the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM), based upon Quinn and Rohrbaugh's Competing Values model. A sample of 6869 employees across 55 manufacturing organizations completed the questionnaire. The 17 scales contained within the measure had acceptable levels of reliability and were factorially distinct. Concurrent validity was measured by correlating employees' ratings with managers' and interviewers' descriptions of managerial practices and organizational characteristics. Predictive validity was established using measures of productivity and innovation. The OCM also discriminated effectively between organizations, demonstrating good discriminant validity. The measure offers researchers a relatively comprehensive and flexible approach to the assessment of organizational members' experience and promises applied and theoretical benefits. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Organizational climate and climate strengths in UK hospitals

In recent years, researchers have paid increasing attention to the idea of “climate strength”—the level of agreement about climate within a work group or organization. However, at present the literature is unclear about the extent to which climate strength is a positive attribute, and is concerned predominantly with small teams or organizational units. This article considers three theoretical perspectives of climate strength, and extends these to the organizational level. These three roles of climate strength were tested in 56 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Positive relationships were discovered between two of three climate dimensions (Quality and Integration) and expert ratings of organizational performance, and a curvilinear effect between Integration climate strength and performance was also found. Very high or very low Integration climate strength was less beneficial than a moderate level of climate strength. However, there were no interaction effects discovered between climate and climate strength. Implications for future climate strength research are discussed.

Do organizational climate and competitive strategy moderate the relationship between human resource management and productivity?

This study examined whether the effectiveness of human resource management (HRM) practices is contingent on organizational climate and competitive strategy. The concepts of internal and external fit suggest that the positive relationship between HRM and subsequent productivity will be stronger for firms with a positive organizational climate and for firms using differentiation strategies. Resource allocation theories of motivation, on the other hand, predict that the relationship between HRM and productivity will be stronger for firms with a poor climate because employees working in these firms should have the greatest amount of spare capacity. The results supported the resource allocation argument. © 2005 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

Creativity and innovation:the role of team and organizational climate

This chapter argues that creative, innovative organizations are places where there is a firm and shared belief among most members in an inspirational vision of what the organization is trying to achieve. There is a high level of interaction, discussion, constructive debate, and influence among the members of the organization as they go about their work. Trust, cooperative orientations, and a sense of interpersonal safety characterize interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Members of the organization, particularly those at the upper echelons (and there are few echelons) are consistently positive and open to members' ideas for new and improved ways of working, providing both encouragement and the resources for innovation. Creativity is heralded as key for organizational survival and success. As global economic models become the norm and competitiveness assumes an international character, leaders realize that, in order to prosper in a highly challenging environment, companies must innovate. The source of organizational innovation is unquestionably the ideas generated by individuals and teams. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

How innovation can alleviate negative consequences of demanding work contexts:The influence of climate for innovation on organizational outcomes

This study examines climate for innovation as a method by which negative organizational consequences of demanding work may be lessened. It was expected that a climate for innovation would enable employees to develop coping mechanisms or improved work-related processes which counteract negative consequences of work demands. Extending the job demands-resource model (Karasek, 1979), we predicted and found that among the sample of 22,696 respondents from 131 healthcare organizations, organizational climate for innovation alleviated the negative effects of work demands on organizational performance. Thus, this study informs climate theories and guides practitioners' efforts to support the employees. © 2007 The British Psychological Society.

Towards a multilevel model of the high performance work systems–workplace safety relationship

Human Resource (HR) systems and practices generally referred to as High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs), (Huselid, 1995) (sometimes termed High Commitment Work Practices or High Involvement Work Practices) have attracted much research attention in past decades. Although many conceptualizations of the construct have been proposed, there is general agreement that HPWPs encompass a bundle or set of HR practices including sophisticated staffing, intensive training and development, incentive-based compensation, performance management, initiatives aimed at increasing employee participation and involvement, job safety and security, and work design (e.g. Pfeffer, 1998). It is argued that these practices either directly and indirectly influence the extent to which employees’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics are utilized in the organization. Research spanning nearly 20 years has provided considerable empirical evidence for relationships between HPWPs and various measures of performance including increased productivity, improved customer service, and reduced turnover (e.g. Guthrie, 2001; Belt & Giles, 2009). With the exception of a few papers (e.g., Laursen &Foss, 2003), this literature appears to lack focus on how HPWPs influence or foster more innovative-related attitudes and behaviours, extra role behaviors, and performance. This situation exists despite the vast evidence demonstrating the importance of innovation, proactivity, and creativity in its various forms to individual, group, and organizational performance outcomes. Several pertinent issues arise when considering HPWPs and their relationship to innovation and performance outcomes. At a broad level is the issue of which HPWPs are related to which innovation-related variables. Another issue not well identified in research relates to employees’ perceptions of HPWPs: does an employee actually perceive the HPWP –outcomes relationship? No matter how well HPWPs are designed, if they are not perceived and experienced by employees to be effective or worthwhile then their likely success in achieving positive outcomes is limited. At another level, research needs to consider the mechanisms through which HPWPs influence –innovation and performance. The research question here relates to what possible mediating variables are important to the success or failure of HPWPs in impacting innovative behaviours and attitudes and what are the potential process considerations? These questions call for theory refinement and the development of more comprehensive models of the HPWP-innovation/performance relationship that include intermediate linkages and boundary conditions (Ferris, Hochwarter, Buckley, Harrell-Cook, & Frink, 1999). While there are many calls for this type of research to be made a high priority, to date, researchers have made few inroads into answering these questions. This symposium brings together researchers from Australia, Europe, Asia and Africa to examine these various questions relating to the HPWP-innovation-performance relationship. Each paper discusses a HPWP and potential variables that can facilitate or hinder the effects of these practices on innovation- and performance- related outcomes. The first paper by Johnston and Becker explores the HPWPs in relation to work design in a disaster response organization that shifts quickly from business as usual to rapid response. The researchers examine how the enactment of the organizational response is devolved to groups and individuals. Moreover, they assess motivational characteristics that exist in dual work designs (normal operations and periods of disaster activation) and the implications for innovation. The second paper by Jørgensen reports the results of an investigation into training and development practices and innovative work behaviors (IWBs) in Danish organizations. Research on how to design and implement training and development initiatives to support IWBs and innovation in general is surprisingly scant and often vague. This research investigates the mechanisms by which training and development initiatives influence employee behaviors associated with innovation, and provides insights into how training and development can be used effectively by firms to attract and retain valuable human capital in knowledge-intensive firms. The next two papers in this symposium consider the role of employee perceptions of HPWPs and their relationships to innovation-related variables and performance. First, Bish and Newton examine perceptions of the characteristics and awareness of occupational health and safety (OHS) practices and their relationship to individual level adaptability and proactivity in an Australian public service organization. The authors explore the role of perceived supportive and visionary leadership and its impact on the OHS policy-adaptability/proactivity relationship. The study highlights the positive main effects of awareness and characteristics of OHS polices, and supportive and visionary leadership on individual adaptability and proactivity. It also highlights the important moderating effects of leadership in the OHS policy-adaptability/proactivity relationship. Okhawere and Davis present a conceptual model developed for a Nigerian study in the safety-critical oil and gas industry that takes a multi-level approach to the HPWP-safety relationship. Adopting a social exchange perspective, they propose that at the organizational level, organizational climate for safety mediates the relationship between enacted HPWS’s and organizational safety performance (prescribed and extra role performance). At the individual level, the experience of HPWP impacts on individual behaviors and attitudes in organizations, here operationalized as safety knowledge, skills and motivation, and these influence individual safety performance. However these latter relationships are moderated by organizational climate for safety. A positive organizational climate for safety strengthens the relationship between individual safety behaviors and attitudes and individual-level safety performance, therefore suggesting a cross-level boundary condition. The model includes both safety performance (behaviors) and organizational level safety outcomes, operationalized as accidents, injuries, and fatalities. The final paper of this symposium by Zhang and Liu explores leader development and relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity and innovation in China. The authors further develop a model that incorporates the effects of extrinsic motivation (pay for performance: PFP) and employee collectivism in the leader-employee creativity relationship. The papers’ contributions include the incorporation of a PFP effect on creativity as moderator, rather than predictor in most studies; the exploration of the PFP effect from both fairness and strength perspectives; the advancement of knowledge on the impact of collectivism on the leader- employee creativity link. Last, this is the first study to examine three-way interactional effects among leader-member exchange (LMX), PFP and collectivism, thus, enriches our understanding of promoting employee creativity. In conclusion, this symposium draws upon the findings of four empirical studies and one conceptual study to provide an insight into understanding how different variables facilitate or potentially hinder the influence various HPWPs on innovation and performance. We will propose a number of questions for further consideration and discussion. The symposium will address the Conference Theme of ‘Capitalism in Question' by highlighting how HPWPs can promote financial health and performance of organizations while maintaining a high level of regard and respect for employees and organizational stakeholders. Furthermore, the focus on different countries and cultures explores the overall research question in relation to different modes or stages of development of capitalism.

Cross-cultural variations in climate for autonomy, stress and organizational productivity relationships:A comparison of Chinese and UK manufacturing organizations

Cross-cultural researchers have questioned the extent to which European–American management practices can be transported to major markets in Asia, such as the People's Republic of China. Applying employee involvement theory, we examined the relationships between climate for autonomy, work demands climate, employee stress and organizational productivity in a cross-national study of 51 UK and 104 Chinese manufacturing organizations. We predicted and found that climate for autonomy was positively and negatively related to stress in the Chinese and UK contexts, respectively. The interaction of climate for autonomy and work demands climate was significant: climate for autonomy was positively related to organizational productivity only when work demands climate was low.