Master Thesis - Bibliotheek

Master Thesis

Amsterdam Business School

-Executive Programme in Management Studies-

‘What effect has a perceived organizational culture on employee outcomes?’

(Identifying the perceived organizational culture, using the Competing Values Framework approach)

Supervisor: Dhr. dr. M. Venus

Name: M.I. Hooiveld

Student number: 11078189

Date: 30.03.2018

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Monique Hooiveld who declares to take full responsibility for the

contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources

other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion

of the work, not for the contents.

3

Abstract

Purpose – The Competing Values Framework is one of the most influential and extensively

used model in the area of organizational culture research. The efforts are seen not only as ways

of improving employee morale or quality of work life, but also as vital for improving a firm’s

financial performance. Due to a change in my workplace, I am interested in the effect of the

perceived organizational culture on employee performance.

Design / methodology – In this research, a quantitative method is used and the data is collected

with a survey. This survey is developed by combining several existing surveys, which are to be

found online. The self-administered structured survey elected responses from employees on all

levels on several issues, including perceived organizational culture, job satisfaction, innovation,

role-clarity and goal motivation. Participation was voluntary for all employees and

confidentiality of responses was assured.

Findings – This study did find significant positive relationships for three perceived

organizational culture types. First, a perceived clan-oriented organizational culture is positive

related to the level of job satisfaction. Second, a more adhocracy-oriented organizational culture

leads to a higher level of innovative work behavior. And the degree of role clarity will be higher

in a more hierarchy-oriented perceived organizational culture. Besides those hypotheses, two

additional results are found: the level of job satisfaction is higher when the perceived

organizational culture is adhocracy-oriented and when the perceived organizational culture is

more hierarchy-oriented, the level of innovative work behavior will be lower.

Keywords Perceived Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction, Role-Clarity, Innovative Work

Behavior, Goal Motivation, Competing Values Framework

4

Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

2. Literature review and hypotheses development ..................................................................... 8

2.1 Competing Values Framework ......................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Clan culture ............................................................................................................. 12

2.2.2 Job satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 12

2.2.3 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................................ 13

2.3.1 Adhocracy culture ................................................................................................... 14

2.3.2 Innovative work behavior ........................................................................................ 14

2.3.3 Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................................ 15

2.4.1 Hierarchy culture ..................................................................................................... 16

2.4.2 Role clarity .............................................................................................................. 16

2.4.3 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................................ 17

2.5.1 Market culture ......................................................................................................... 18

2.5.2 Goal motivation ....................................................................................................... 18

2.5.3 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................................ 19

2.6. Conceptual model .......................................................................................................... 21

3. Research design .................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Sample and data collection ............................................................................................. 22

3.2 Measurement Independent Variables ............................................................................. 23

3.2.1 Measurement perceived clan culture ....................................................................... 24

3.2.2 Measurement perceived adhocracy culture ............................................................. 24

3.2.3 Measurement perceived hierarchy culture .............................................................. 24

3.2.4 Measurement perceived market culture .................................................................. 25

5

3.3 Measurement Dependent Variables................................................................................ 25

3.3.1 Measurement job satisfaction .................................................................................. 25

3.3.2 Measurement innovative work behavior ................................................................. 25

3.3.3 Measurement role clarity ......................................................................................... 26

3.3.4 Measurement goal motivation ................................................................................. 26

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 28

4.1 Descriptive statistics ....................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Normality analyses ......................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Correlation analyses ....................................................................................................... 30

4.4 Hypotheses testing .......................................................................................................... 33

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 37

5.1 Interpretation results ....................................................................................................... 37

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications ........................................................................... 39

5.3 Limitations and suggestions ........................................................................................... 41

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 44

References ................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 49

A. Survey .............................................................................................................................. 49

B. Q-Q plots of all variables ................................................................................................. 51

6

1. Introduction

Understanding organizational culture is important because it is the single largest factor

that inhibits organizational improvement and change (Cameron, 2005). Firms with strong

cultures are pointed out as examples of excellent management (Peter & Waterman, 1982). The

efforts are seen not only as ways of improving employee morale or quality of work life, but

also as vital for improving a firm’s financial performance. The organization I work for, a

recycling company for non-Ferro metals, is a fast-growing company that was founded seven

years ago in 2010. At the time, the founder had no idea that it would perform so well and that

they were growing from three employees to twenty-nine in the next four years. Moreover, the

financial results are better than expected. Now, due to the small team and the fastness of the

growth, the perceived organizational culture needs to change as well. When you have about

five employees, a clan culture type can work but with an increase of more than twenty

employees, this will be different. There are now strict rules and regulations to hold on to and

the work performance of an employee is more important than the mutual relationships. Because

of the changes I am interested in the level resistance employees may have, how they perceive

the organizational culture and what the consequences could be on their work outcomes.

However, there are not enough respondents to only investigate this within my organization, the

outcomes would not be valid and reliable. Therefore, I will gather data from two other recycling

companies in the Netherlands and by uploading the survey online, via Social Media, increase

the sample size to a minimum of 100 respondents.

Some research has already been done with regards to the effect of the Competing Values

Framework in organizations. Most of them are in a specific field like organizational climate

models in hospitals (Ancarani, Mauro & Giammanco, 2009), to help leaders execute a

transformational strategy (Hooijberg & Petrock, 1993), and studies of the interplay between

organizational and national cultures in, for example, Canada and South Korea (Dastmalchian,

7

Lee & Ng, 2000). But there are similar investigations as well. Lund (2003) investigated the

relation between organizational culture and job satisfaction. The results indicate job satisfaction

levels varied across corporate cultural typology. Job satisfaction was positively related to clan,

- and adhocracy cultures, and negatively related to market and hierarchy cultures. However,

this research was done in Nevada (USA) and the respondents were marketing professionals, so

the results could probably not be copied.

During the track Leadership & Management, the different organizational cultures got

my attention and that is why I want to investigate the following research question: ‘What effect

has a perceived organizational culture on employee outcomes?’ The effect of perceived

organizational culture on job satisfaction, employee innovation, role clarity and goal motivation

determined by using the Competing Values Framework. This thesis is structured as follows: In

the next chapter a literature review is given. Thereafter, the theoretical framework and

hypotheses are explained followed by the research question. Then the research design and

results are presented. Finally, the discussion and conclusion of this study are given.

8

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

This chapter describes the current state of the literature of the different variables used

in this research. First, the literature of the framework Competing Values Framework is

explained and reviewed followed by the variables job satisfaction, employee innovation, role

clarity and the definition of goal motivation. These four variables were chosen after reading

existing research and literature. As already mentioned, there is a lot existing research available

on organizational culture and what the effect can be on employees. However, all researchers

take one particular variable and test this variable with all types of cultures. For example, there

is an Australian engineering consultancy company with a dominant market-oriented culture and

the finding, which is considered in the light of recent research, identifies a positive relation with

achieving construction quality outcomes (Igo & Skitmore, 2006). I am interested in all types of

perceived organizational cultures and the predicted outcome, also because there is no

organization that has just one typical organizational culture. It is always a mix of different

cultures but one type of culture is predominant. That because it starts with that there is no one

definition of organizational culture and different people think of different slices of reality when

they talk about culture. The confusing part is that, unlike other concepts, culture does not have

some true and scared meaning that is to be discovered (Sathe, 1983). Each opinion has its place,

it is the perceived culture of an employee.

2.1 Competing Values Framework

Before explaining the Competing Values Framework, it is important to know what

organizational culture is? Chenhall (2003) concludes in his study on culture by suggesting

organizational culture may have greater impact on organizational structure compared to

national culture. Organizational culture covers the shared values and norms inherent within a

company and can be seen as a leadership tool where leaders identify their personal philosophies

9

and translate them in organizational values and norms. Early on, in 1984, Kimberly and Quinn

already emphasized the importance of organizational culture. They stated that the character of

organizational development is powerfully shaped by choices made about ideology, organizing,

planning, learning, external relations with constituents, stakeholder influence and membership

definitions. Culture can be institutionalized in three ways: first, through rewarding practices

and activities that are consistent with desired values. Second, by staffing key positions with

individuals who have a clear cultural bias. Thirdly, by developing new cultural norms in formal

training events (Kimberly and Quinn, 1984). However, according to Rousseau (1990), scientists

do not disagree on the definition nor the implementation of culture, but rather on how it is

operationalized. Chenhall (2003), for example, states culture is only conceptualized as a set of

isolated characteristics to suit the methodological and scientific needs of the research

community. On the contrary, Uttal and Fierman (1983) state organizational culture is

operationalized as the shared values that interact with an organization’s structures and control

systems to produce behavioral norms.

In the present research, the Competing Values Framework (CVF) of Cameron and

Quinn (2011) is used in order to categorize different perceived organizational culture types.

CVF was originally developed through research on organizational effectiveness (Cameron &

Quinn, 2011). The main purpose of the CVF is helping managers to understand, diagnose and

facilitate the change of an organization’s culture in order to enhance its effectiveness. Many

more frameworks are developed to analyze organizational culture and all frameworks have

different dimensions to focus on. For example, Sathe (1983), Schein (1984) and Kotter &

Heskett (1992) argued for cultural strength and congruence as the main cultural dimensions of

interest. Deal and Kennedy (1983) proposed a dimension based on speed of feedback and a

degree of risk dimension. Arnold and Capella (1985) developed a strong-weak dimension and

an internal-external focus dimension. In the same year, Alpert and Whetten (1985) identified

10

a holographic versus ideographic dimension and Ernst (1985) argued for people orientation

(participative versus non-participative) and response to the environment (reactive versus

proactive). One reason so many dimensions have been proposed is that organizational culture

is extremely broad and inclusive in scope (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Culture comprises a

complex, interrelated, comprehensive and ambiguous set of factors. Therefore, no framework

can be argued to be right or wrong. Probably one of the most well-known studies in the

Netherlands is the dimensions of Hofstede (1980). He focused on the social effects of power

distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. Organization theorists are

slowly realizing their theories are much less universal than they once assumed: theories also

reflect the culture of the society in which they were developed (Hofstede 1984). Hofstede has

the following definition of culture ‘Culture consists of the patterns of thinking that parents

transfer to their children, teachers to their students, friends to their friends, leaders to their

followers, and followers to their leaders. Culture is reflecting in the meanings people attach to

various aspects of life: their way of looking at the world and their role in it; in their values; in

the way, they consider as good and as evil’ (Hofstede, 1984, page 82).

The CVF rests on two dimensions. The first dimension is flexibility versus stability,

which differentiates flexibility, discretion and dynamism from stability, order and control.

Meaning some organizations are viewed most effective if they are changing, adaptive and

organic while other organizations are viewed most effective if they are stable, predictable and

mechanistic (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). The second dimension represents the contrast

between internal orientation, integration and unity on one hand and external orientation,

differentiation and rivalry on the other hand (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983). That is, some

organizations are viewed as more effective if they have harmonious internal characteristics,

while other organizations are viewed as more effective if they are focused on interacting or

competing with others outside their boundaries (Cameron and Quinn, 2006).

11

Those two dimensions form four organizational culture types: clan, adhocracy,

hierarchy and market culture. (See figure 1). Each culture type is characterized by a particular

set of shared beliefs, style of leadership, set of shared values that act as a bond or glue to its

members. According to Denison and Spreitzer (1991) the Competing Values Framework does

not attempt to highlight unique qualities of an organization but rather groups them into broad

categories based on general characteristics shared by all organizational systems.

Figure 1: Competing Values Framework adapted from TruPath (2017)

While validating the usefulness of the four organizational cultures, Deshpande et al.

(1993) emphasizes these culture types are modal or dominant ones rather than mutually

exclusive ones. Most organizations can and do have elements of several types of cultures. As

Cameron (1986) found, paradoxical combinations of values are often found in organizations.

As a typology based on general characteristics of organizational cultures, this framework does

not attempt to highlight the unique qualities of an organizations culture, but rather group

cultures into broad categories based on general characteristics shared by all social systems

(Hofstede, 1980; Ouchi, 1981). O’Neill and Quinn (1993) added the Competing Values

12

Framework received its name because the criteria within the four models seems, at first, to carry

conflicting messeages. Organizations should be adaptable and flexible but also stable and

controlled. Organizations want growth, resource acquisition and external support but they also

want strong information management and formal communication. There is need for emphasis

on the value of human resources but also on planning and goal setting. In any organization all

of these are, to some extent, necessary. While the framework is divided into four entirely

different dimensions or perspectives, these can be viewed as closely related and interwoven.

2.2.1 Clan culture

The clan culture, also called group culture, has a flexible and an internal focus (Cameron

& Quinn 2011; Hartnell, Ou & Kinicki 2011). William Ouchi (1987) used the term clan to

describe a control system based on socialization and internalized values and norms. The

individuals’ long-term commitment to the organization (loyalty) is exchanged for the

organizations long-term commitment to the individual (security). This relationship is predicated

on mutual interests. Often old members of the clan serve as mentors and role models for

younger members. It is through these relationships that the values and norms of the organization

are maintained over successive generations of managers. The development of human resources

and employee participation in decision-making are highly valued. Emphasis is placed on

teamwork and cohesiveness.

2.2.2 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been widely studied over the last four decades of organizational

research (Currivan, 1999). In general, overall job satisfaction has been defined as a function of

the perceived relationship between what one wants from their job and what one perceives it is

offering (Locke, 1969). Because the overlap in the definition of job satisfaction and

13

organizational commitment, the following criteria are taken into consideration: commitment

emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values, while

satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs his or her

duties. In addition, organizational commitment should be more stable over time than job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction is influenced by day-to-day events in the work place and that may

affect an employee’s level of job satisfaction (Porter, 1974). For example, reactions to specific

and tangible aspects of the work environment like salary and supervision. Job satisfaction is a

popular variable to study given the number of researchers. Most of them use job satisfaction as

a moderator or mediator, for example, with employee turnover and employee citizenship

(Mobley, 1977; Bateman, 1983). I am curious to research the another perspective; if a company

has a clan-oriented culture, will the employees feel happier directly or do the work activities

have more influence on their satisfaction.

2.2.3 Hypothesis 1

Following Hooijberg and Petrock (1993) clan culture is characterized as a friendly place

to work where people share a lot of themselves. Extended family, loyalty and tradition are key

words. The organization emphasizes the long-term benefit of human resources development

with high cohesion and morale being important. It is expected organizations dominated in clan

culture are focused on employee well-being. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: The more clan-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of job

satisfaction.

14

2.3.1 Adhocracy culture

The adhocracy culture type combines informal governance with an external orientation

(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Firm members take risks in this dynamic and creative workplace.

It is like a temporary institution, that is dismissed whenever the organizational tasks are ended,

and reloaded rapidly whenever new tasks emerge. Individual initiative and spontaneity are

highly valued. Adhocracy culture is in the quadrant external positioned: high degree of

flexibility and individuality. It assumes change is inevitable. Individuals are motivated by the

importance and ideological appeal of the tasks to be addressed. Unlike the clan culture, it is

characterized by an emphasis on external positioning, a long-term frame, and achievement-

oriented activities. The entrepreneur and innovator leadership styles are prevalent in adhocracy

cultures; the bonding mechanisms emphasize innovation and development.

2.3.2 Innovative work behavior

Innovativeness in an organization can be broadly defined, ranging from the intention to

be innovative to the capacity to introduce some new product, service or idea through to the

introduction of processes and systems which can lead to enhanced business performance.

Cultural openness is concerned with the organization’s cultural attention needed to recognize

the need for employee innovation (Van de Ven, 1986). When employees are showing

innovative work behavior, Farr and Ford (1990) define this concept as in individual’s behavior

that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or

organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures. Innovative work

behavior has several dimensions, linked to different stages of the innovation process. For

example, Kanter (1988) outlined three stages: idea generation, coalition building and

implementation. Due to the broad scope of those stages, de Jong and den Hartog (2010) divided

IWB into four stages: idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing and idea

15

implementation. The first stage is the discovery of an opportunity or some problem arising. It

includes looking for ways to improve current products, services or processes or trying to think

about them in alternative ways (Kanter, 1988; Farr and Ford, 1990). The second stage, idea

generation, appears to be the combination and reorganization of information and existing

concepts to solve problems or to improve performance. Once an idea has been generated, idea

championing becomes relevant. Most ideas need to be promoted, as they often do not match

what is already used. In the last stage, the idea needs to be implemented. Idea implementation

also includes making innovations part of regular work processed (Kleysen & Street, 2001).

There are several variables that can influence innovative work behavior, for example

motivation, job demands and leadership styles. But also, a study on organizational climate as

predictor of innovative work behavior (Imran & Saeed, 2010). However, an organizational

climate is not the same as an organizational culture and in all the studies so far, climate is being

used for the moderating power because it influences organizational processes such as problem

solving, decision-making, communications, motivation and commitment (Ekvall, 2008). Up to

now, there is no research or evidence that a specific culture stimulates innovative work

behavior.

2.3.3 Hypothesis 2

Adhocracy culture is characterized as a dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative

workplace. Employees stick their neck out and are willing to take risks. It has been found that

levels of innovativeness in an organization are associated with cultures that emphasize learning

development and participative decision-making (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Innovators are known

for taking risks and therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

16

H2: The more adhocracy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level

of innovative work behavior.

2.4.1 Hierarchy culture

Clear lines of decision-making authority, standardized rules and procedures, control and

accountability mechanism characterize hierarchy culture. This culture can be traced to the

image of bureaucracy in Weber’s (1947) works on modern organizational management. It

emphasizes internal efficiency, uniformity, coordination and evaluation. The focus is on the

logics of the internal organization and the emphasis is on stability. Leaders tend to be

conservative and cautions, paying close attention to technical matters. Effectiveness criteria

include control, stability, predictability, conformity and efficiency.

2.4.2 Role clarity

According to Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal (1964), role clarity is defined

as the degree to which individuals feel they have clear guidance about expected roles and

behaviors associated with their job. Role clarity may be helpful for employees who experience

high job demands because role clarity results in clear expectations. But role clarity can be

operationalized in two ways. First, it can refer to the presence or absence of adequate role

relevant information due to the restriction of the information or due to variations of the quality

of the information. This is called objective role clarity. Role clarity and its opposite, ambiguity,

can also refer to the subjective feeling of having as much or not as much role relevant

information as the person would like to have (Lyons, 1971). Role clarity and ambiguity have

been explored in hundreds of occupational stress studies. For example, Bliese and Castro (2010)

17

stated two hypotheses; (a) when supervisory support is high, high role clarity will buffer the

negative relationship between demands and strain. And (b) when supervisory support is low,

buffering effects of high role clarity will not be present. In some way, this is comparable to this

research. A hierarchical culture consists of layers of employees, tasks and functions.

2.4.3 Hypothesis 3

The hierarchy culture is a more structured and formalized place to work. Leaders are

coordinators and organizers in order to maintain a smooth-running organization. Participation

(getting people together with an opportunity to exercise influence) can usefully be regarded as

part of an organization structure (authorized interactions under formal rules and guidelines).

Participation democratizes hierarchical authority. It equals power in the organization, provides

human relations touch to impersonal organizations and provides creative input to routine work

(Dickson, 1983). On the other hand, there is a tradition that maintains that technology, task,

structure and people are congruent with each other (Leavitt, 1965). High-control structures

create feelings of alienation, whereas organic, high-self-control organizations create trust and

motivation in members (Burns and Stalker, 1961). This leads to the following prediction:

H3: The more hierarchy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the degree

of role clarity.

18

2.5.1 Market culture

Market culture is oriented toward the external environment and is focused on

transactions with external parties including suppliers, customers and regulators.

Competitiveness and productivity are achieved by placing great emphasis on external

positioning and control. This concept originates from Ouchi’s (1979, 1984) study on the market

control system. According to the CVF an assumption underlying market cultures is that an

achievement focus produces competitiveness and aggressiveness, resulting in productivity and

shareholder value in the short and immediate term (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The primary

belief in market culture is that clear goals and contingent rewards motivate employees to

perform and meet shareholders’ expectations. Therefore, market culture organizations value

communication, competences and achievement. Behaviors associated with those values are

planning, task focus, centralized decision-making and articulation of clear goals (Cameron et

al., 2006).

2.5.2 Goal motivation

According to Pintrich (1999) there are three general perspectives on goals, each

reflecting a different level of analysis of the goal construct. The most task-specific level is the

social cognitive research on individual’s goals for a particular task (Bandura, 1997). This

perspective includes target goals that do specify the standards or criteria by which individuals

can evaluate their performance, but they do not really address the reasons or purposes individual

may be seeking to attain these target goals for their achievement. The second perspective

concerns general goals that individuals may pursue addressing, not only the target goals, but

also the reasons why an individual is motivated. And the third perspective reflects an

intermediate level between the very specific target goals and the more global goal content

approach. This approach may be applied to many different contexts or type of goals, for

19

example happiness and safety. Specific goals, for example achievement goals, are to explain

achievement motivation and behavior. This perspective can be tested in a market culture type

of organization. As Elliot (1997) pointed out, achievement motivation research has been

concerned with the energization and direction of competence-related behavior, including

evaluation of competence relative to a standard of excellence. Goal achievement also influences

how individuals respond to task difficulty or task failure (Elliot and Dweck, 1988). With a

learning goal orientation, individuals pursue an adaptive response pattern in persisting, escalate

effort, engage in solution-oriented self-instruction and report to be enjoying the challenge.

Because employees often encounter work situations in which their task performance or

confidence is low, goal orientation is a potentially important predictor of employee responses

in such situations (van de Walle, 1997). Individual preferences, beliefs and values are often

argued to be the optimal sources for goal motivation. However, this assertion has been recently

called into question by cultural psychologist (Markus & Kiatayama, 2003). The degree to which

people consider the interest of close others in their reason for pursuing their goals can be a

powerful motivation for action. But those types of reasons for goals have not been examined in

cross-cultural studies. Employees’ work-related goals are expected to embody employees’ self-

imposed intentions and demands within their own work environment (Harris, Daniels & Briner,

2003). Salmela-Aro and Mutanen (2012) have investigated career preparedness and work

motivation and their results showed that intervention increased career preparedness, which in

turn was related to intrinsic work-goal motivation and increased this intrinsic work-goal

motivation.

2.5.3 Hypothesis 4

The fourth type of culture is market culture. Market culture is characterized as a results-

oriented organization. The leaders are hard drivers, procedures and competitors (Hooijberg and

20

Petrock, 1993). Due to the long-term focus, goals and targets are measured and incentives are

important. I assume that someone is only able to work in a market-oriented company when he

or she is competitive and target driven. Besides, in nine of the eleven studies reviewed by Locke

(1968) persons with highly specified goals performed at significantly higher levels than persons

with a more general goal of ‘doing their best’. Therefore, the following hypothesis is

formulated:

H4: The more market-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of

goal motivation.

This research studies the influence of the four dimensions of perceived organizational

culture as identified in the Competing Values Framework on employee performance. I predict

some culture types have a stronger positive relationship with employee performance than other

culture types. But irrespective of the specific culture type, it is critically important the culture

is strong in order to achieve maximum effectiveness (Smart & John, 1996). According to

Schein’s premise (1992) the only thing of real importance is for leaders to create and manage

culture. If the contributions are of an independent nature, this will suggest the benefits

(dependent variable) of a particular culture type in enhancing organizational outcome are not

dependent upon culture strength. On the other hand, if the contributions are of a conditional

nature, this will suggest the benefits (dependent variable) of a particular culture type are

dependent on the strength of that culture.

21

2.6. Conceptual model

Based on the literature review and hypotheses, the conceptual model in figure 2 is

proposed. Employee outcomes - job satisfaction, innovation, role-clarity and goal motivation -

are the dependent variables. The four different types of perceived organizational culture are the

independent variables. All the hypotheses refer to bivariate relationships between pairs of

variables. These hypotheses will be tested by regression analyses.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

H1 H2 H3 H4

22

3. Research design

Research question: What effect has a perceived organizational culture on employee outcomes?

The effect of perceived organizational culture on job satisfaction, employee work

innovation, role clarity and goal motivation.

3.1 Sample and data collection

In past studies, researchers have collected data on perceived organizational culture from

individual respondents employed in firms in various industries (Appiah-Adu and Singh, 1999;

Boxx et al., 1991). In this thesis, a quantitative method is used and so the data is collected with

a survey. In appendix A, the full survey is given. Using a survey is a structured and affordable

way of collecting data from a population (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). This survey was

developed by combining several existing surveys, which were found in the literature. The self-

administered structured survey elicited responses from employees of all levels on several issues,

including perceived organizational culture, job satisfaction, innovation, role-clarity and goal

motivation. Whenever needed, items were translated in Dutch and reworded or adapted.

Surveys were administered in three organizations in the recycling industry, printed out on paper,

and could be completed during working hours. Participation was voluntary for all employees

and confidentiality of responses was assured. I used the online research program Qualtrics to

increase the sample size. The link was shared on Social Media such as Facebook and LinkedIn

where people could anonymously fill in the survey. Participants filled in the survey only once

since this is a cross-sectional study.

My sample of 101 respondents in different sectors, made judgements about the four

competing dimensions – clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture and hierarchy culture.

This non-probability volunteer sample also rated how much they agreed on judgements about

23

job satisfaction, employee innovative behavior, role clarity and goal motivation with their own

organization and / or job in mind. The overall employees are working in the recycling industry,

65 out of 101. The other 36 employees who filled in the survey are men and women between

30 and 60 years old, working in a Dutch (speaking) company and are active on Social Media.

3.2 Measurement Independent Variables

The original scale for measuring perceived organizational culture is the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument (OCAI) and has been widely used in past research and acceptable levels

of reliability and validity have been reported across numerous studies (Cameron and Quinn,

1999). For example, measures of perceived organizational culture that directly or indirectly

assesses the CVF have been administrated in over 10,000 organizations globally within the

following academic disciplines: management, marketing, supply-chain management,

accounting, social services, hospitality and health care (Cameron et al., 2006). Another way to

measure perceived organizational culture is by using descriptions for each type of

organizational culture. The respondents distribute 100 points among the four descriptions

depending on how similar the description is to their company. The four culture scores are

computed by adding all four values of the A items for clan, the B items for adhocracy, the C

items for hierarchy and the D items for market (Deshpande et al., 1993). In this study, the scale

for all variables is the same and so the statements that will lead to a perceived culture profile

are adapted to the 5-point Likert-scale. The perceived organizational culture scale consisted of

‘Strongly disagree (1)’, ‘Disagree (2)’, ‘Neutral (3), ‘Agree (4)’ and ‘Strongly agree (5)’. The

respondents rated each statement, attributing a score that he or she believes best represents

his/her organization.

24

3.2.1 Measurement perceived clan culture

The independent variable clan culture perception exists of four statements. Example

questions are ‘The head of my organization is generally considered to be a mentor, sage or a

father or mother figure’ and ‘The glue that holds my organization together is loyalty and

tradition. Commitment to this firm runs high.‘ The Cronbach’s alpha for this variable is .712.

3.2.2 Measurement perceived adhocracy culture

The second independent variable is adhocracy culture perception and like all the

variables of perceived organizational culture, this variable also exists of four statements. A

sample item is ‘The head of my organization is generally considered to be an entrepreneur, an

innovator or risk taker.’ Another sample item is ‘The glue that holds my organization together

is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being first.’ The

Cronbach’s alpha for the variable adhocracy culture is .632, which is low but the Cronbach’s

alpha will not increase when an item in this variable will be deleted.

3.2.3 Measurement perceived hierarchy culture

The next independent variable is hierarchy culture perception. The statements for this

type of perceived organizational culture are focused on rules and regulations of an

organization. Examples of statements are ‘My organization is a very formalized and structured

place. Established procedures generally govern what people do’ and ‘My organization

emphasizes hum resources. High cohesion and morale in the firm are important’. The

Cronbach’s alpha for the variable hierarchy culture is .522. Cronbach’s alpha if item ‘The head

of my organization is generally considered to be a coordinator, an organizer or an

administrator’ is deleted, is .584. Although this item increases the Cronbach’s alpha, it is not

significant higher (rule of thumb is ∆ > 0.10) so this item is not deleted.

25

3.2.4 Measurement perceived market culture

The fourth independent variable is market culture perception and is focused on

statements about for example productivity and competitors. A sample item is ‘The glue that

holds my organization together is the emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment. A

production orientation is commonly shared’. The Cronbach’s alpha is .316. This Cronbach’s

alpha will increase to .417 when the following item is deleted: ‘The head of my organization

is generally considered to be a producer, a technician or a hard-driver’. In this case it would

substantially affect reliability (∆ > .10) so this item is deleted.

3.3 Measurement Dependent Variables

3.3.1 Measurement job satisfaction

Job satisfaction measures were adapted from Wright and Cropanzano (1998). A five-

item scale operationalized job satisfaction and each item measured a dimension of the

satisfaction construct: degree of satisfaction with the work, co-workers, supervision, total salary

and promotion opportunities. For example, ‘All in all, I’m satisfied with the work of my job’

and ‘All in all, I’m satisfied with the promotional opportunities’. Each of the items was

measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 5 (=strongly agree). The

Cronbach’s alpha is .721.

3.3.2 Measurement innovative work behavior

The Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) survey consists of 17 items, inspired by Janssen

(2000), Kleysen and Street (2001), Scott and Bruce (1994) and adapted by de Jong and den

Hartog (2010). Due to the many questions in this survey, the questions that did not relate to this

research were deleted. Now, the measure contains five statements on employee innovation

26

behavior, for example the frequency of contacts with customers, suggestions for improvements

and implementation efforts related to new products and services. A sample item is ‘In your job,

how often do you make suggestions to improve current products or services?’ Another sample

item is ‘In your job, how often do you acquire new knowledge?’ Answers are measured on a 5-

point scale ranging from 1 (=never) to 5 (=nearly all the time). The Cronbach’s alpha for the

variable innovative work behavior is .791.

3.3.3 Measurement role clarity

To measure the degree of role clarity perceived by an employee, I used the Role Clarity

Index composed by Lyons (1971). This existing survey consists of four items with five possible

answers. The response categories for this index are: never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), rather

often (4) and nearly all the time (5). Lyons used those questions for a research in a hospital so

the last questions ‘In general, how clearly defined are the policies and the various rules and

regulations of the hospital that affect your job?’ is turned into ‘company’ instead of ‘hospital’.

The Cronbach’s alpha is .735.

3.3.4 Measurement goal motivation

Van de Walle (1997) developed and validated an instrument to assess the goal

orientation of adults in the work domain. Three dimensions and definitions of goal orientation

are developed: 1) Learning goal orientation: a desire for personal development by acquiring

new skills, mastering new situations and improving the competence. 2) Prove performance goal

orientations: the desire to prove one’s competence and to gain favorable judgements about it.

3) Avoid performance orientation: the desire to avoid the disproving of one’s competence to

avoid negative judgements about it. Due to the many questions in this existing survey, I used

the questions which are related to work motivation with emphasis on performance goals. An

27

example item is ‘I prefer to work in situations that require a high level of ability and talent’. A

5-point Likert-type response scale, (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)

is used for each item. One item would substantially affect reliability if it were deleted, (∆ >

.10). In this case the question ‘When I don’t understand something at work, I prefer to avoid

asking what might appear to others to be dumb questions that I should know the answer to

already’, will be deleted to increase Cronbach’s alpha by .35 to a α = .711.

28

4. Results

After processing all data of the organization culture surveys in SPSS, the data needed

to be checked and prepared before analyzing. To screen the data, frequency distribution is used

to show how many times each of the scores occurs in the data set. This test is also to examine

errors in the data entry. Four questions were not answered. Excluding those 4 incomplete

surveys or adding the values with the mean of the variable did not affect the results of the

analyses. In this study those missing values are substituted with the mean of the variable. In

this way I could include the whole survey instead of list wise deletion. Likert scales are

categorized as type numeric date with an interval scale. In this survey numbers are used to order

the answers in equal intervals. The difference between the different levels of the scale are the

same but there is not a true zero point.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

This section describes all variables of the model used in this study: perceived

organizational culture, job satisfaction, employee innovation, role clarity and goal motivation.

The four independent variables are perceived clan culture, perceived adhocracy culture,

perceived hierarchy culture and perceived market culture. The means of the four cultures are

close to each other, however, adhocracy culture has the highest mean (M = 3.46, SD = .64),

followed by clan culture (M = 3.33, SD = .75), hierarchy culture (M = 3.30, SD = .61) and

market culture (M = 3.22, SD = .55). There is a wide range in all four types of cultures

(rangeadhocracy= 3.00, rangeclan= 3.25, rangehierarchy= 3.75, rangemarket= 3.00), meaning

there is a lot of variation between the perceived organizational cultures indicated by the

respondents.

29

The means of the dependent variables job satisfaction (M = 3.69, SD = .61), goal

motivation (M = 3.33, SD = .47), role clarity (M = 3.28, SD = .60) and innovative work behavior

(M = 3.05, SD = .70) are more or less the same. Although innovative work behavior has a

relatively low mean, the range goes from 1 to 5.

4.2 Normality analyses

A normality analyses was conducted to assess whether the variables perceived clan culture,

perceived adhocracy culture, perceived hierarchy culture, perceived market culture, job

satisfaction, goal motivation, role clarity and innovative work behavior were normally

distributed. There are two main methods of assessing normality: graphically and numerically.

In this study, both are used because a visual inspection can be interpreted in different ways,

especially when the experience of interpreting normality graphically is low. However, a

statistical test has the disadvantage of being not sensitive enough at low sample sizes. The Q-

Q plots of all variables are shown in appendix B. The numerically data is shown table 1 whereas

the skewness explains the amount and direction of skew and the kurtosis explains the height

and sharpness of the central peak, relative to that of a standard bell curve. The general rule of

thumb for normality is that for highly skewed distribution the values of skewness is less than -

1 or greater than +1. If skewness is between -1 and -0.5 or between 0.5 and 1, the distribution

is moderately skewed and if the skewness is between -0.5 and 0.5, the distribution is

approximately symmetric. The values for kurtosis between -2 and +2 are considered acceptable

in order to prove normal univariate distribution (George and Mallery, 2010). The following

conclusions are based on above rules of thumb. Clan culture is normally distributed with a

moderate negative skewness of -.515 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of -.186 (SE = .476). Adhocracy

culture has a skewness of .059 (SE = .240), the distribution is approximately symmetric and has

a kurtosis of -.070 (SE = .476). Hierarchy culture is normally distributed with a moderate

30

negative skewness of -.552 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of 1.206 (SE = .476). Market culture is

normally distributed with a skewness of -.318 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of .474 (SE = .476).

Job satisfaction is also normally distributed with a skewness of -.333 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis

of -.130 (SE = .476). The distribution of goal motivation is approximately symmetric, a

skewness of -.086 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of .666 (SE = .476). Role clarity is normally

distributed but with a moderate positive skewness of .530 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of .557

(SE = .476). The last variable is innovative work behavior and is also normally distributed, a

skewness of .285 (SE = .240) and a kurtosis of 1.191 (SE = .476).

Table 1: Normality analysis (SE = Standard Error)

4.3 Correlation analyses

This section discusses the correlation of all variables. By doing correlation analyses we

can quantify the intensity and meaning of the relationship between two variables. Table 2 shows

the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation of all variables used in this study.

Variables

Skewness (SE = .240) Kurtosis (SE = .476)

Clan Culture -.515 -.186

Adhocracy Culture .059 -.070

Hierarchy Culture -.552 1.206

Market Culture -.318 .474

Job Satisfaction -.333 -.130

Goal Motivation -.086 .666

Role Clarity .530 .557

Innovative Work Behavior .285 1.191

Distribution

31

Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation

As shown in above table, innovative work behavior is negatively correlated with

hierarchy culture (r = -.204, p = .041). Meaning when one variable increases the other variable

decreases. In this case it means that the more an employee perceived the organizational culture

as a hierarchy-oriented culture, the lower the amount of self-reported innovative work behavior.

There is no correlation between innovative work behavior and market culture (r = .037, p =

.712). But innovative work behavior is positively correlated with clan culture (r = .214, p =

.032) and adhocracy culture (r = .264, p = .008). Role clarity has no correlation with market

culture (r = .156, p = .120). Role clarity has correlations with the other three perceived

organizational cultures, whereby with hierarchy culture the most (r = .441, p = .000). And role

clarity has a similar correlation level with clan culture (r = .280, p = .005) as with adhocracy

culture (r = .261, p = .009). The next dependent variable is goal motivation. Goal motivation

has a correlation with clan culture (r = .084, p = .406) and with hierarchy culture (r = .070, p =

.485). Besides, goal motivation is positively correlated with market culture (r = .211, p = .034)

and somewhat stronger with adhocracy culture (r = .218, p = .028). The last dependent variable

to explain is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is strong positively correlated with clan culture (r

32

= .448, p = .000) and positively correlated with adhocracy culture (r = .418, p = .000). Job

satisfaction has a tendency to positive relate with hierarchy culture (r = .249, p = .012) and has

a weak but positive relationship with market culture (r = .068, p = .496).

Concerning the correlation between the four culture types (the independent variables),

table 2 (page 30) shows that clan culture is positively correlated with adhocracy culture (r =

.484, p = .000). Clan culture is also positively correlated with hierarchy culture (r = .296, p =

.003). There is a negligible relationship between clan culture and market culture (r = .075, p =

.455). Adhocracy culture is positively correlated with hierarchy culture (r = .312, p = .001) and

also positively correlated with market culture (r = .327, p = .001). Hierarchy culture and market

culture are positively correlated with a r = .414 (p = .000).

Compared to the Competing Values Framework, these correlations are, more or less, in

line with the two dimensions of the framework; flexible versus stable and internal versus

external of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) and Cameron and Quinn (2006). The dimension

internal focus and integration are strongly positively correlated (r = .296) and external focus

and differentiation are also strongly positively correlated (r = .327). Looking at the other

dimension, flexibility and discretion are strongly positively correlated (r = .484) and stability

and control are also strongly positively correlated (r = .414). Figure 3, next page, shows the

figures in the Competing Values Framework to give an overview of those strong relationships

between the variables clan culture, adhocracy culture, hierarchy culture and market culture.

33

Figure 3: Correlations independent variables using the Competing Values Framework

4.4 Hypotheses testing

Linear regression is used to predict the value of a variable based on the value of another

variable. The variable I want to predict is the dependent variable (outcome variable, for example

job satisfaction) and the variable I am using to predict the other variable’s value is the

independent variable (for example clan culture). Each dependent variable is tested against all

independent variables in order to control for the influence of the other culture perceptions. All

of the tests were measured at 0.05 alpha level, implying that it is acceptable to have a 5%

probability of incorrectly rejecting the null hypotheses.

Model 1 exists of the dependent variable job satisfaction. The results in the coefficients

table, table 3, indicates that the p-value from perceived clan culture is .006, which means the B

coefficient is statistically significant. The B coefficients gives the information of how many

units the level of job satisfaction increases for a single unit increase in each predictor. In this

case, 1-point increase on the perceived clan culture corresponds to .236 points increase on the

level of job satisfaction. So, the main hypothesis for job satisfaction is supported, the more clan-

Clan culture Adhocracy culture

Hierarchy culture Market culture

Flexibility and discretion

Stability and control

Inte

rnal fo

cus

an

d in

tegra

tion

Extern

al fo

cus a

nd

differen

tiatio

n

r =

.29

6

r =

.32

7

r = .484

r = .414

34

oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of job satisfaction. Moreover,

the p-value for perceived adhocracy culture is .012 which means the null hypothesis is rejected

and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a significant relationship between job

satisfaction and perceived adhocracy culture.

Table 3: Coefficients table model 1 – Job Satisfaction

Model 2 exists of the dependent variable goal motivation. All hypotheses about goal

motivation are non-significant, as shown in table 4. A higher level of perceived clan culture

(B= -.010, p = .870), perceived adhocracy culture (B= .097 p = .206), perceived hierarchy

culture (B= .015, p = .842) and perceived market culture (B= .149, p = .076) are not associated

with a significant higher or lower level of goal motivation.

Table 4: Coefficients table model 2 – Goal Motivation

Model 1Standardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 1.942 .415 4.679 .000

Clan Culture .236 .084 .288 2.797 .006

Adhocracy Culture .262 .102 .272 2.558 .012

Hierarchy Culture .116 .101 .116 1.147 .254

Market Culture -.101 .112 -.090 -.897 .372

Unstandardized Coefficients

a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction

Model 2Standardized

Coefficients


(Constant) 2.333 .308 7.581 .000

Clan Culture -.010 .062 -.019 -.165 .870


Hierarchy Culture .015 .075 .023 .200 .842

Market Culture .149 .083 .201 1.795 .076


a. Dependent Variable: Goal Motivation

35

The next regressions test the relation between role clarity and four types of perceived

organizational cultures. Those regressions are used to test hypothesis 3, which argues that role

clarity is positively influenced by a perceived hierarchy-oriented organizational culture.

Perceived hierarchy culture has a significant coefficient of .385 with a p-value of .000. All other

p-values are >.05 so the null hypotheses are supported: there are no significant relationships

found between role clarity and perceived clan, perceived adhocracy, and perceived market

cultures.

Table 5: Coefficients table model 3 – Role Clarity

According to the findings of the final model, it can be seen that two p-values from the

coefficients table, table 6, is less than .023. The null hypotheses can be rejected, which means

there is significant relationship between innovative work behavior and perceived adhocracy

culture (B= .284, p = .023) and between innovative work behavior and perceived hierarchy

culture (B= -.437, p = .000). Although the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is a

relationship between innovative work behavior and perceived hierarchy culture, the B

coefficient has a minus sign. This means that the more an employee perceived the

organizational culture as a hierarchy-oriented culture, the lower the amount of self-reported

innovative work behavior.

Model 3Standardized

Coefficients


(Constant) 1.555 .415 3.749 .000

Clan Culture .096 .084 .121 1.138 .258

Adhocracy Culture .089 .102 .094 .865 .389

Hierarchy Culture .385 .101 .395 3.819 .000

Market Culture -.052 .112 -.048 -.463 .644

a. Dependent Variable: Role Clarity


36

Table 6: Coefficients table model 4 – Innovative Work Behavior

Model 4Standardized

Coefficients


(Constant) 2.505 .498 5.029 .000

Clan Culture .182 .101 .195 1.803 .075


Hierarchy Culture -.437 .121 -.382 -3.611 .000

Market Culture .124 .135 .097 .918 .361

a. Dependent Variable: Innovative Work Behavior


37

5. Discussion

The results of this study are discussed in this chapter. This study tried to expand the

literature by specifying different perceived organizational culture types that could lead to higher

employee outcomes.

First, the interpretation of the results is discussed in order to define the main effect,

followed by additional results. Subsequently, theoretical and practical implications are given.

Finally, this chapter ends with the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

5.1 Interpretation results

This research tested the direct relationship between four different perceived

organizational culture types and four different employee outcomes. The pattern of results is

generally in line with the formulated hypotheses. The previous chapter showed that three of the

four main hypotheses are supported by the results. Besides those three supported main

hypotheses, there are two perceived organizational cultures that are linked to other employee

outcomes than first expected. The supported main hypotheses are presented in table 7 and the

additional supported findings in table 8.

Table 7: Supported main hypotheses

Table 8: Supported additional findings

H1: The more clan-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of job satisfaction.

H2: The more adhocracy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of innovative work behavior.

H3: The more hierarchy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the degree of role clarity.

H2.1: The more adhocracy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the higher the level of job satisfaction.

H3.2: The more hierarchy-oriented a perceived organizational culture is, the lower the level of innovative work behavior.

38

The results show a positive relationship between a perceived clan-oriented

organizational culture and the level of job satisfaction, hypothesis 1. Perceived adhocracy-

oriented organizational culture also had a significance positive impact on job satisfaction. The

difference between those perceived organizational cultures is that perceived adhocracy culture

has an emphasis on external positioning, a long-term frame, and achievement-oriented

activities. Besides, it also emphasizes the way individuals are motivated. But due to the fact

that employees take risks in this dynamic and creative workplace and given that spontaneity is

highly valued, this relationship can be explained.

The results that confirmed Hypothesis 2 showed the positive relationship between a

perceived adhocracy-oriented organizational culture and the level of innovative work behavior.

Meaning employees who work in a more perceived adhocracy-oriented organizational culture

are motivated to show innovative work behavior. A reason for this could be the level of risk

employees are taking in an adhocracy-oriented organizational culture and the focus on

innovation itself. Farr and Ford (1990) mentioned employee innovation as a concept that aims

to achieve new ideas, processes, products and procedures. Those are key words for an

organization that is oriented towards the external environment and has a focus on transactions

with external parties including suppliers and regulators. However, perceived hierarchy-oriented

organizational culture had a significance negative impact on innovative work behavior.

Meaning the more an employee perceived the organizational culture as a hierarchy-oriented

culture, the lower the amount of self-reported innovative work behavior. Characteristics of a

hierarchy-oriented organizational culture are clear lines of decision-making authority,

standardized rules and procedures, which could interfere the creativeness and innovativeness

of an employee.

39

Hypothesis 3, a perceived hierarchy-oriented organizational culture leads to a higher

degree of role clarity, can be explained by the values, structure and control, and coordination

and efficiency (Cameron et al., 2006). When it’s clear for employees what managers are

expecting from them, they can fulfill their tasks more efficiently. Besides to that, open

communication will lead to less confusion between employees, managers and departments.

An explanation for not finding a relationship between a perceived market-oriented

organizational culture and the level of goal motivation could be the different orientations.

Market culture is oriented toward the external environment and goal motivation is focused on

individuals (internal). Moreover, goal motivation is a broad concept that has several

perspectives. The questions used in the survey emphasized performance goals. This lead to a

narrow description of goal motivation.

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

Given the exploratory nature of the results, suggestions for theoretical and practical

implications are brief. First, being cognizant of the dominant perceived organizational culture

can help management assess inherent strengths and limitations of their strategies. Since

attributes of several cultures are present in most organizations, some of which have opposing

values and emphasis, managers’ sensitivity to the existence of these paradoxes can be

heightened towards more effective strategies (Lund, 2003). For example, attributes of a market-

oriented and a clan-oriented culture may exist in the same organization although these are

opposite in emphasis. This is the first study that takes into account all types of perceived

organizational cultures. The confirmation of the additional supported hypotheses raises new

questions for research, especially finding 2.1 where the level of job satisfaction will increase

when employees perceive their organizational culture as an adhocracy-oriented culture. How

40

can management encourage an adhocracy organizational culture? And how can they facilitate

this?

Second, the present study results suggest perceived clan-oriented organizational culture

is conducive for higher levels of job satisfaction. Literature suggests that employees who are

more satisfied with their jobs are less absent (Hackett and Guion, 1985), less likely to leave

(Carsten and Spector, 1987) and more likely to show organizational citizenship behavior (Organ

and Konovsky, 1989). For example, the clear lines of decision-making authority, standardized

rules and procedures of the hierarchy-oriented culture may not generate the level of job

satisfaction needed to foster loyalty and commitment to the organization. Based on the results,

managers could focus on creating an organizational culture with emphasis on people

orientation. The work environment should be based on employees, trust and support since these

are characteristics of clan culture, which is found to positively relate to job satisfaction.

Furthermore, this study makes a contribution to the recent literature about work

innovation behavior by showing that a perceived adhocracy-oriented organizational culture has

a direct, positive influence on the level of employee innovation. This finding supports previous

research into the effect of employee innovation by Imran & Saeed, 2010. Moreover, due to this

cross-sectional type of study, it could have a self-selecting effect; employees with a high level

of innovative behavior tend to work in a perceived adhocracy-oriented type of organization.

This finding is in line with the situation-selection argument of Cohen and Morse (2014) which

stated that people choose to opt in or opt out in a certain situation. For example, people with

high levels of innovativeness will avoid strict rules and regulations and therefore should avoid

hierarchy-oriented type of organizations.

The results of this study can also contribute to future research in the way to debate the

importance of congruence between employees and organizational cultures. These results

41

demonstrate that the fit between an individual’s preference for a particular culture is related to

commitment and satisfaction. This study can help clarify both the nature of organizational

perceived culture and the impact of that perceived culture on employees.

5.3 Limitations and suggestions

Before drawing conclusions, limitations of this study will be discussed, as well as

suggestions for future research. Some important limitations concern the sample and research

methodology.

First, the type of measurement used in this study to measure the type of perceived

organizational culture needs to be considered. Cameron and Quinn (2011) originally developed

the OCAI (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument) as an ipsative rating scale, in which

respondents have to divide 100 points among alternatives. Due to other questions in this

research, a 5-point Likert scale was considered the most appropriate statistical technique for

this research. A disadvantage of using a Likert scale is that less differentiation between the four

types of values tends to occur (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) and in the OCAI respondents can

divide 100 points among four organizational culture types.

Together with the fact that the statements of the OCAI for this research are translated

from English to Dutch and the self-reported measures is probably the reason that not all

independent variables have a Cronbach’s alpha of >.70. Another measure-related concern is

that all variables are measured by questionnaires. Although a survey method offers many

advantages, such as being cost effective, familiar to respondents and easy to analyze (Saunder

et al., 2009), a multimethod approach may produce richer data. Besides this, all variables are

self-reported and on the individual level, which could lead to several biases. For instance, self-

reporting will lead to social durability. Respondents give answers which are socially desired

42

(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Future research could for example use supervisor ratings or peer

ratings.

Second, a total of 101 people completed the survey. Although 4 questions were not

answered, taking the mean did not change the value. Around 64% of the respondents work in

the recycling industry (convenience sampling technique) which means that the respondents tend

to have many things in common and not vary in terms of demographics, beliefs and interest

(Nadler, 2015). The other 36% of the sample consists of employees who found the survey online

via Social Media websites and due to a connection with my page, they do not accurately

represent a hypothesized population. Due to the small sample size and convenient sample, the

generalizability of this study remains a question. Therefore, I recommend larger studies across

different contexts.

Limitations in regard to establishing causality have to be considered while this study

involves a cross-sectional research design. The results in regard to all hypotheses support there

is a positive relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable,

assuming the first influences the second. Although all hypotheses are tested two-tailed (non-

directional), this research could not conduct in a controlled environment, so the opposite could

also have been the case.

Another point to discuss is the choice of employee outcome variables. The choice for

this study - job satisfaction, role-clarity, goal motivation and innovative work behavior – is

based on several articles about organizational culture. According to the literature, the

hypotheses should be supported so it is interesting to investigate more why this is not the case

for perceived adhocracy, - hierarchy, - and market organizational culture. But besides testing

the same employee outcome variables, there are many more types of employee outcomes to test

in a certain perceived organizational culture. For example, in a hierarchy-oriented culture,

43

emotional distress could be important. That can include symptoms of emotional distress that is

psychological in nature as well as anxiety or depression. In a perceived market-oriented culture

an outcome like absenteeism could be interesting. Both incidents and number of days of

absence. In a clan-oriented culture the level of organizational commitment can be measured.

For example, with the existing Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Porter,

Steers, Mowday and Boullan (1974). Besides, in an adhocracy-oriented culture, future

researchers can think of the number of targets achieved or the level of risk that will take by

employees. So, next to methodological limitations, it would be interesting to compare the effect

of perceived organizational culture on different other employee outcomes.

As mentioned earlier, the Competing Values Framework, and therefore also this study,

makes the assumption that organizations can be characterized according to cultural traits or

dimensions common to all organizations. Although similar arguments have been made by

others (Denison, 1990 and Hofstede, 1980) there have been relatively few attempts to study

cultures from this perspective. The lack of attention given to universal characteristics of culture

stems from the fact that there is little agreement among scholars concerning the appropriate

methods for studying and understanding organizational culture (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991).

Some researchers argue quantitative techniques are superficial and simple-minded (Ouchi and

Wilkins, 1985) and cannot assess basic assumptions and values (Lundberg, 1985). Because not

much empirical research has been conducted regarding perceived organizational culture, future

researchers would benefit from longitudinal studies and resources. And that would, for

example, allow for more pilot testing of the constructed survey, which could help in ensuring

reliability and validity.

44

6. Conclusion

The aim of this research was to create a better understanding on the benefits of perceived

organizational culture by companies and to answer the following research question: ‘What

effect has a perceived organizational culture on employee outcomes?’ This question is

answered through a total of 4 hypotheses and a cross-sectional survey (N = 101). In this

research, each of the 4 types of perceived organizational culture is associated with an employee

outcome. But, unexpectedly, not all perceived organizational cultures have a positive effect on

the employee outcome. However, this study did find significant positive relationships for three

perceived organizational culture types. First, a perceived clan-oriented organizational culture is

positively related to the level of job satisfaction. Second, a more adhocracy-oriented

organizational culture leads to a higher level of innovative work behavior. And last, the degree

of role clarity will be higher in a more hierarchy-oriented perceived organizational culture.

Moreover, this study did also find two additional findings, namely: the level of job satisfaction

is higher when the perceived organizational culture is adhocracy-oriented and when the

perceived organizational culture is more hierarchy-oriented, the level of innovative work

behavior will be lower.

Let me conclude by repeating the words of Smart and John (1996): ‘Irrespective of the

specific culture type, it is critically important the culture is strong in order to achieve maximum

effectiveness’. And to add Schein’s premise (1992): ‘The only thing of real importance for

leaders is to create and manage culture’.

45

References

Ancarani, A., Di Mauro, C., & Giammanco, M. D. (2009). How are organisational climate

models and patient satisfaction related? A competing value framework approach. Social

science & medicine, 69(12), 1813-1818

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 63, 1–18

Appiah-Adu, K. and Singh, S. 1999), `Marketing culture performance in UK service firms',

The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 152-70

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhu, W. (2004a). MLQ Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire: Technical report, leader form, rate form, and scoring key for MLQ

form 5x-Short (3rd ed.). Redwood City: Mind Garden

Boxx, R.W., Odom, R.Y. and Dunn, M.G. (1991), `Organizational values and value

congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: an empirical

examination within the public sector’, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20,

pp. 195-205

Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support:

Multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work & Stress, 14(1), 65-73

Carsten, J.M. and Spector, P.E. 1987), `Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employment

turnover: a meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

72, pp. 374-81

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:

Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing values

leadership: Creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Elgar

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:

based on the competing values framework, Revised Edition.

Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context:

findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Organizations and

Society, 28(2–3), 127–168

Cohen, T. R., & Morse, L. 2014. Moral character: What is it and what it does. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 34: 43-61

Currivan, D.B. 1999), ``The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in

models of employee turnover'', Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 495-524

Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational

46

development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and

development, 5(1), 1-21

Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr 1993), ``Corporate culture, customer

orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis'', Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 57, January, pp. 23-7

Dickson, J. (1983). Organization Type, Formality of Participation, Beliefs about Work, and

Rationales for Participation. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(3), 43-

61. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40396915 on 16.09.2017

Elliot, A. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘classic’’ and ‘‘contemporary’’ approaches to achievement

motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M.L.

Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10., pp. 143–

179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Hackett, R.D. and Guion, R.M. 1985), ``A reevaluation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction

relationship'', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 53,

pp. 340-81

Harris, K. Daniels, R.B. BrinerA daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76 (3) (2003), pp. 401-410

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (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

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal

of management, 1(2), 81-99

Hooijberg, R., & Petrock, F. (1993). On cultural change: Using the competing values

framework to help leaders execute a transformational strategy. Human resource

management, 32(1), 29-50

Igo, T., & Skitmore, M. (2006). Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian

engineering consultancy using the competing values framework. Construction

Innovation, 6(2), 121-139

Kalliath, T., Bluedorn, A., & Strube, M. (1999). A Test of Value Congruence Effects. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 20(7) 1175-1198. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100353

Kanter, R.M. (1988) When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective and Social

Conditions for Innovation in Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211

Kimberly, J.R. and Quinn, R.E. (1984). Managing Organizational Transitions, Homewood IL,

Dow Jones-Irwin

Kleysen, R.F. and Street, C.T. (2001) Towards a Multi-Dimensional Measure of Individual

Innovative Behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284–296



47

Locke, E.A. 1969), ``What is job satisfaction?'', Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, Vol. 4, pp. 309-36

Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and

withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(1), 99-110

Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of business &

industrial marketing, 18(3), 219-236

Markus, H. R., & Kiatayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the

construction of action. In G. Berman & J. Berman (Eds.), The Nebraska symposium on

motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on self (Vol. 49, pp. 1–57). Lincoln,

NE: University of Nebraska Press

O'Neill, R.,M., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Editors' note / applications of the competing values

framework. Human Resource Management, 32(1), 1

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values, The Free Pres

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of applied

psychology, 59(5), 603

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems

and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation

terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 92-104

Salmela-Aro, K., Mutanen, P., & Vuori, J. (2012). Promoting career preparedness and

intrinsic work-goal motivation: RCT intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 67–

75

Sathe, V. (1983). Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to

action. Organizational dynamics, 12(2), 5-23

Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and

organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63-82

Schein, Edgar A. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass

Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher

education: A test of the “culture type” and “strong culture” hypotheses. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-241

Van de Ven, A.H. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management

Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607

48

Van de Walle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation

instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015

Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. 1998), ``Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job

performance and voluntary turnover'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.83, pp. 486-93

49

Appendices

A. Survey

Vol

ledi

g ee

ns (1

)

One

ens (2

)

Neu

traa

l (3)

Een

s (4

)

Volledi

g ee

ns (5

)

V1.1 Mijn organisatie is een erg persoonlijke plaats. Het voelt als een tweede familie.

V1.2 Mijn organisatie is een erg dynamische en ondernemende plaats. Mensen zijn

bereid hun nek uit te steken en risico’s te nemen.

V1.3 Mijn organisatie is heel erg geformaliseerd en een gestructureerde plaats. In het

algemeen werken de medewerkers volgens de procedures.

V1.4 Mijn organisatie is zeer productiegericht. Een grote zorg is om het werk af te

krijgen zonder veel persoonlijke betrokkenheid.

V1.5 Het hoofd van mijn organisatie wordt algemeen beschouwd als een mentor of

een vader, - moeder figuur.

V1.6 Het hoofd van mijn organisatie wordt algemeen beschouwd als een ondernemer,

een vernieuwer of een risico nemer.

V1.7 Het hoofd van mijn organisatie wordt algemeen beschouwd als een coördinator,

organisator of als een beheerder.

V1.8 Het hoofd van mijn organisatie wordt algemeen beschouwd als een producent,

technicus of een harde werker.

V1.9 De kernwaarden loyaliteit en traditie is wat mijn organisatie samenhoudt. De

saamhorigheid in dit bedrijf is hoog.

V1.10 De rode draad die in mijn organisatie loopt is inzet voor innovatie en

ontwikkeling. Er is een nadruk op de eerste zijn.

V1.11 Mijn organisatie wordt gevormd door regels en beleidslijnen. Het handhaven

van een duidelijk beleid is hier belangrijk.

V1.12 De focus op taken en doelstellingen lopen als een rode draad door mijn

organisatie. Een productie doel wordt vaak gedeeld.

V1.13 Mijn organisatie benadrukt het belang van personeelszaken. Hoge cohesie en

moralen in het bedrijf zijn belangrijk.

V1.14 Mijn organisatie benadrukt groei en het verwerven van nieuwe middelen.

Bereidheid om nieuwe uitdagingen aan te gaan zijn belangrijk.

V1.15 Mijn organisatie benadrukt prestaties en stabiliteit. Efficiënte, soepele

uitvoeringen zijn belangrijk.

V1.16 Mijn organisatie benadrukt concurrerende acties en prestaties. Meetbare doelen

zijn belangrijk.

V2.1 Globaal genomen ben ik tevreden met mijn baan.

V2.2 Globaal genomen ben ik tevreden met mijn collega’s.

V2.3 Globaal genomen ben ik tevreden met mijn leidinggevende.

V2.4 Globaal genomen ben ik tevreden over mijn loon.

V2.5 Globaal genomen ben ik tevreden met de promotiemogelijkheden.

50

Noo

it (1

)

Zelde

n (2

)

Som

s (3

)

Nog

al vaa

k (4

)

Alti

jd (5

)

V3.1 Ik lees vaak (vak)bladen, gerelateerd aan mijn werk om mijn kennis te

verbeteren.

Vol

ledi

g ee

ns (1

)

One

ens (2

)

Neu

traa

l (3)

Een

s (4

)

Volledi

g ee

ns (5

)

V3.2 Ik geniet van uitdagende en moeilijke taken op het werk waar ik nieuwe

vaardigheden leer.

V3.3 Ik ben bereid om een uitdagende werkopdracht te kiezen waar ik veel van kan

leren.

V3.4 Ik kijk vaak naar mogelijkheden om nieuwe vaardigheden en kennis te

ontwikkelen.

V3.5 Voor mij is de ontwikkeling van mijn werkkunde belangrijk genoeg om risico’s

te nemen.

V3.6 Ik heb de voorkeur aan werken in situaties die een hoog niveau van vermogen en

talent vereisen.

V3.7 Ik zou liever mijn kennis willen bewijzen op een taak die ik goed kan doen dan

een nieuwe taak te proberen.

V3.8 Ik ben bang om te laten zien dat ik beter kan presteren dan mijn collega’s.

V3.9 Ik probeer erachter te komen wat er nodig is om mijn kennis en ervaring aan

anderen op het werk te bewijzen.

V3.10 Ik kan ervan genieten wanneer anderen op het werk zich bewust zijn van hoe

goed ik het doe.

V3.11 Ik heb de voorkeur aan werken aan projecten waar ik mijn kennis en kunde aan

anderen kan bewijzen.

V3.12 Ik vermijd situaties op werk waar ik slecht zou kunnen presteren.

V3.13 Als ik iets niet op het werk begrijp, verkies ik het niet te vragen boven voor wat

anderen als ‘domme vragen’ zouden kunnen zien.

V3.14 Zijn de grenzen van uw gezag in uw huidige baan duidelijk?

Vol

ledi

g on

duid

elijk

(1)

Ond

uide

lijk

(2)

Neu

traa

l (3)

Dui

delij

k (4

)

Volledi

g du

idelijk

(5)

V3.15 Hoe duidelijk gedefinieerd is het beleid met de verschillende regels en

voorschriften van het bedrijf dat uw functie beïnvloedt?

Noo

it (1

)

Zelde

n (2

)

Som

s (3

)

Nog

al vaa

k (4

)

Alti

jd (5

)

V4.1 Voelt u dat u altijd zo duidelijk bent als u zou willen zijn over welke taken

gedaan moeten worden?

V4.2 Voelt u dat u altijd zo duidelijk bent als u zou willen zijn over hoe de taken

gedaan moeten worden?

In uw baan, hoe vaak bent u...

V5.1 . . . suggesties aan het doen om de huidige producten of diensten te verbeteren?

V5.2 . . . ideeën aan het bedenken om het werkproces te verbeteren?

V5.3 . . . nieuwe kennis aan het verwerven?

V5.4 . . . actief aan het bijdragen tot de ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten of

diensten?

V5.5 . . . nieuwe (groepen) klanten aan het verwerven?

51

B. Q-Q plots of all variables

Master Thesis - Bibliotheek

Documents

Transcript of Master Thesis - Bibliotheek