Approaches to studying organizational culture

According to Deal & Kennedy (2000), cultures need to give meaning to our lives at work, to define and learn acceptable rules of behaviour, and to justify and at least rationalize hours spent on the job. But the question is; what does culture mean?

Culture is not easily defined, nor is there a consensus among scholars’: philosophers and politicians (nor, probably, among the rest of us) as to what exactly the concept should include. Culture has however been characterized by authors as “something to do with the people and unique quality and style of organization”, “the way we do things around here” or the “expressive non-rational qualities of an organization” (Kilman et al., 1985).

Research on the effectiveness of an organization has led to the outlining of several factors that do have a determinant role on the organizational performance. Organizational culture is one factor that governs the organizational effectiveness and has been the centre of much discussion.

The beginnings of formal writing on the concept of organizational culture started with Pettigrew (1979). He introduced the anthropological concept of culture and showed how related concepts like “symbolism”, ‘myth” and “rituals” can be used in organizational analysis. Dandridge et al. (1997) showed how the study of these myths and symbols aid in revealing the “deep structure” of an organization. More recent researchers include have introduced various definitions of the culture concept (Denison and Mishra, 1995).

This plethora of research definitions is due to the different research framework adopted by the various authors. Smircich (1983) identified four scientific lenses through which the body of culture and its effect on strategy research can be viewed. This includes the view of culture first as an external variable, led by proponents like Ouchi (2003). Culture can also be viewed as an internal variable of an organization, which is the most common definition used by researchers like Collins and Porras (1994).

From the anthropological school, culture is conceptualized either as a system of shared cognitions (Rossi and 0’Higgins, 1980) or as a system of shared symbols and meanings.

1.1 The University of Nairobi

The University of Nairobi (UON) is the largest university in Kenya. Although its history as an educational institution goes back to 1956, it did not become an independent university until 1970 when the University of East Africa was split into three independent universities: Makerere University in Uganda, the University of Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania, and the University of Nairobi.

The inception of the University of Nairobi is traced back to 1956, with the establishment of the Royal Technical College which admitted its first lot of A-level graduates for technical courses in April the same year. The Royal Technical College was transformed into the second University College in East Africa on 25th June, 1961 under the name Royal College Nairobi. The college was entitled to a special relation with the University of London whereupon it started preparing students in the faculties of arts, science, and engineering for degrees awarded., by the University of London.

On 20th May 1964, the Royal College Nairobi was renamed University College Nairobi as a constituent college of the inter-territorial Federal University of East Africa, and henceforth the enrolled students were to study for degrees of the University of East Africa rather than the University of London. In 1970, the University College Nairobi transformed into the first national university in Kenya and was renamed the University of Nairobi.

In 2002 the University had some 22,000 students, of whom 17,200 were undergraduates and 4,800 postgraduates. The university has launched several policy frameworks and introduced module 2 degrees to cope with the demand of higher education in Kenya.

2.0 Literature Review

The concept of organizational culture has become one of the most important topics in organization science. Although organizational culture is a term that researchers, managers and the public use regularly, it is still far from being interpreted universally. Schein (1990, p. 109), based on previous studies, referred to this issue noting that “each culture researcher develops explicit or implicit paradigms that bias not only definitions of key concepts but the whole approach to the study of the phenomenon.”

According to Kotter & Heskett (1992) all firms have cultures although some are stronger than others. These cultures can exact a powerful effect on individuals and on performance especially in a competitive environment. The influence of Culture may even be greater than all those factors that have been discussed most often in organizational and business literature namely: strategy, organizational structure, management systems”, financial analysis tools and leader hip to mention but a few.

Ott (1989) claimed that organizational culture is a concept in debate which does not load into a single definition. As such, an integrative approach is needed.

A similar approach is also followed by other researchers. Pettigrew (1979, p. 574) suggested that we should “regard culture as the source of family of concepts” (i.e. symbol, language, ritual and myth). By focusing culture research and operationalizations on relevant factors, Rousseau (1990) suggested that we might consider the following major components of culture in organization, organized on the continuum line from readily assessable to difficult to assess (e.g. material artifacts, patterns of activities, behavioural norms, values, and fundamental assumptions). In the absence of a consensus about the definition of organizational culture, Hofstede et al. (1990, p. 286) proposed that most scholars would not dispute that the construct is: holist, historically determined, related to anthropological concepts, socially constructed, soft, and difficult to change. In this study organizational culture refers “to the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members” (Denison, 1996, p. 624).

Culture establishes and underpins: order, structure, membership criteria, conditions for judging effective performance, communication patterns, expectations and priorities, the nature of reward and punishment, the nature and use of power, decision making practices, and management practices ( Schneider, 1994).

The notion ‘organizational culture’ draws attention not only to what is observed in the way an organization formally goes about its business, but also to the less obvious and more implicit informal characteristics that influence how decisions are made in practice and how people actually treat each other at work, It is these informal, latent and implicit aspects of organization life, which are increasingly being acknowledged as important facets of an organization’s makeup and which profoundly influence its behaviour and the well being of staff (Walton, 1997),

According to Hagberg & Heifetz in their paper “Organizational Culture: Understanding and Assessment”, understanding and assessing the organization’s culture can mean the difference between success and failure in today’s fast changing business environment. The culture of an organization operates at both conscious and unconscious level and it drives the organization and its action. It is somewhat like “the operating system” of the organization. Its guides how employees think, act and feel. It is dynamic and fluid, and it is never static. They go on to say that if the organization wants to maximize its ability to attain its strategic objectives, it must understand if the prevailing culture supports and drives the actions necessary to achieve it strategic goals.

The difficulties in interpreting the meaning and content of organizational culture limit our capability to generalize the results. It also brings up the issue of selecting the “appropriate” method – qualitative, quantitative, or both – that we should adopt in studying organizational culture (Cooke and Rousseau, 1988). Over the past two decades, organizational culture scholars have engaged in a great debate about the research methods that should be adopted. Qualitative-oriented scholars have criticized the use of quantitative methods. However, the quantitative approach for studying organizational culture has been established.

Over the years, several measures of organizational/corporate culture have been developed (see Xenikou and Furnham, 1996). Since “organizational researchers, though conceptualized culture similarly, have assessed widely different elements” (Rousseau., 1990, p. 154), two basic manifestations of culture have been identified – values and activities (behaviours) (Rousseau, 1990). Assessing different elements of organizational culture calls for an examination of the redundancy of the elements examined. Xenikou and Furnham (1996) have identified and explored this issue. They have empirically tested four measures of organizational culture that Rousseau (1990) considered the most established measures of organization.,al culture. These measures were the organizational culture inventory (Cooke and Lafferty, 1989), culture-gap survey (Kilman and Saxton, 1983), organizational beliefs questionnaire (Sashkin, 1984), and the corporate culture survey (Glaser, 1983). The findings of Xenikou and Furnham (1996) indicated an overlap between the subscales of the four measures examined. This overlap might result in the conclusion that although there are differences in the measures of organizational culture, most studies refer to a similar set of elements (see Barley, 1983). In this study, the organizational culture index developed by Zeitz et al. (1997) is used.

2.1 Changing Organizational Cultures

Culture is the outcome of group learning. The process involves a shared problem definition and a shared recognition that something invented actually works and continues to work. When the established patterns no longer serve, at least to the required degree, the purpose of the organisation, then the latter may be facing the beginning of a cultural changing process. Although changing organizational cultures can be difficult, because once formed they tend to become entrenched (Robbins, 1990), there are some conditions that have been observed to favor and even initiate cultural change.

A major facilitating force for cultural change is a dramatic crisis, which, however, is consciously perceived by the organization’s members (Harrison, 1995). When people recognize that significant aspects of the way in which the organisation operates are not any more effective and that the survival of the organisation is threatened, they are more willing to give up old values and practices and take up new ones. For instance, cultural change has been observed when the organisation experiences economic difficulty or inability to respond to drastic changes in the environment, which prevents it from achieving its goals and damages its public image and reputation. Second, a change in the organization’s leadership has been found to have an impact on cultural change. A new, respectful leadership carrying with them a new, clear set of values and ideas and the ability to communicate them successfully favor a shift in the existing culture.

It may also be that not fundamental change but a strengthening of the current culture is required, This can prove very effective for organisations that have a feasible strategy and a solid culture but are not at the highest level of functioning that can be obtained within their basic cultural assumptions, ‘Strengthening a culture means bringing it to the top of its capability without changing its fundamental values and beliefs” (Harrison, 1995), This can be achieved by looking critically into the weaknesses and deficiencies of the organisation and primarily adjusting to the dynamic environment by reorganizing and allocating resources to those areas which are crucial to success,

2.2 Approaches to Studying Organizational Culture

There are two basic approaches to studying organizational culture, the typological approach (cultural types) and the trait approach (cultural dimensions). As in the case of conceptualization of culture, there is little agreement on the way to categorize cultural types. Wallach (1983) develops a useful and measurable typology of culture where three types of organizational culture are distinguished: bureaucratic, innovative and supportive culture. Other categorizations are available (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Hood and Koberg, 1991; Quinn, 1988) from the domains of risk taking and feedback to centralization and decentralization of power. Apart from the conceptualization of types of culture, there have also been various studies in the dimensions of culture from different perspectives such as socio-psychological (e.g. Ansari et al., 1982), technological (e.g, Chatman and Jehn 1994) and socio-structural (e.g. Reynolds, 1986; Hofstede et al., 1990). It is found that career success and satisfaction is a function of the fit of a manager’s personal orientation with culture in the organisation (Ansari et al., 1982) and that culture can be measured as a multidimensional set of values and practices embraced by the organization (Hofstede et al., 1990). Other examples include the models on six dimensions from Bate (1984) of unemotionality, depersonisation, subordination, conservatism, isolationism and antipathy; two dimensions from Albert and Whetten (1985) of holographic and ideographic; three dimensions from Cooke and Lafferty (1987) of constructive, passive/defensive and aggressive/defensive; four dimensions from Denison and Mishra (1995) of involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission; five dimensions from Marcoulides and Heck (1993) of organizational structure, organizational values, task organisation, organizational climate and employee attitudes; ten dimensions from Ashkanasy et at. (2000) of leadership, structure, innovation, job performance, planning, communication, environment, humanistic workplace, development of individual and socialization on entry.

According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2000), each of us has developed ways of organizing our experience to mean something, i.e, a phenomenological approach whereby people perceive (and make sense of) phenomena around them, This phenomenological approach contrasts the traditional studies which are based on the physical, verifiable characteristics of organisations giving a common definition for all people, everywhere, at all times, Hence, researchers in organizational culture look for consistent ways in which cultures affect the perceptions of what people experience

2.3 Model for Describing Organizational Culture

Several models have been developed to describe the relationships between phenomena and variables of organizational culture. Some examples are the model of organizational culture as part of organisation reality developed by Sathe (1985), which focuses on the influence of leadership, organisation systems and personnel on the actual and expected behaviour patterns, the effectiveness thereof for the organisation and the level of personnel satisfaction brought about by these behaviour patterns. The criticism of this model is that it does not examine the influence of external factors on the organizational culture, Schein’s (1985) model depicts the levels of organizational culture, namely artifacts, values and basic assumptions and their interaction. Schein’s model is criticized for not addressing the active role of assumptions and beliefs in forming and changing organizational culture (Hatch, 1993), Some researchers see organizational culture in organisations against the background of the systems theory developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1950) and adapted by several authors such as Katz and Kahn who initially applied the systems theory to organisations in 1966 (French and Bell, 1995), Kast and Rosenzweig (1985) and Kreitner and Kinicki (1992) for application in ‘the organizational development field. The systems approach offers a holistic approach, but also emphasizes the interdependence between the different sub-systems and elements in an organisation, which is regarded as an open system (French and Bell, 1995). The organisation system model explains the interaction between the organizational sub-systems (goals, structure, management, technology and psycho-sociology). This complex interaction, which takes place on different levels, between individuals and groups within the organisation, and with other organisations and the external environment, can be seen as the primary determinant of behaviour in the workplace. The patterns of interaction between people, roles, technology and the external environment represent a complex environment which influences behaviour in organisations.

Against this background and the work of Schein (1985), Martins (1987) developed a model to describe organizational culture based on the typical ideal organisation and the importance of leadership in creating an ideal organizational culture. Martins’ model is based on the interaction between the organizational sub-systems (goals and values, structural, managerial, technological and psycho-sociological sub-systems), the two survival functions, namely the external environment (social, industrial and corporate culture) and the internal systems (artifacts, values and basic assumptions), and the dimensions of culture. The dimensions of culture encompass the following (Martins, 1987, 1997):

Mission and vision. This determines personnel’s understanding of the vision, mission and values of the organisation and how these can be transformed into measurable individual and team goals and objectives

External environment. It determines the degree of focus on external and internal customers and also employees’ perception of the effectiveness of community involvement).

2.4 Concepts and Principles on Organizational Culture

As explained above this study examines the effects of the five concepts of organizational culture (e.g. job challenge, communication, trust, innovation and social cohesiveness). Organizational culture is defined here as daily practices (Zeitz, Johanneson and Ritchie, 1997):

Job challenge

This concept refers to diversity and complexity in the work.

Communication

This principle refers to effectiveness of communication between top management and employees, and between the employees themselves.

Trust

This concept refers to the trust that exists between employees and their managers and among the employees themselves. a kind of trust, which enables free discussion, and an open-minded environment.

Innovation

This concept refers to a supportive environment for creativity, problem-solving, new ideas and sustained improvement.

Social cohesion

This dimension refers to the substance of the interrelationships among the organization’s members, and to the extent this interrelationship is featured by a sense of cooperation and solidarity.

2.5. Organizational Culture and Performance Measurement

Towards the late 1980s and 1990s many academics had recognized the limitations of financial, internal and historically-based performance measures (Skinner, 1974; Hayes and Abernathy, 1980; Keegan et al., 1989; Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Neely et al., 1995). Since then, there have been a number of frameworks and models developed for performance measurement and performance management (Bititci et al., 1997), such as strategic measurement and reporting technique (Cross and Lynch, 1989), the performance measurement matrix (Keegan et al., 1989). results and determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991), balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996, 2001), Cambridge performance measurement systems design process, (Neely et al., 1996) integrated performance measurement system reference model (Bititci et al., 1997) performance prism (Neely and Adams, 2001), as well as various business excellence models, such as the European business excellence model (EFQM, 1999).

Other research programmes and, to a certain extent, consultancy organisations, also developed approaches, procedures and guidelines for developing and designing effective performance measurement ystems (Dourneingts et al., 1995; Krause, 1999). There have been several other initiatives for developing and defining performance measures for various business areas and processes, including p rformance measures [or production planning and control (Kochhar et al., 1996), performance measures for the product development process (Oliver, 1996), and Oliver Wright’s ABeD check list [or operational excellence (Anon, 2000). In addition to these, there are also tools and techniques developed to support performance measurement, such as active monitoring (Turner and Bititci 1999), and quantitative methods for PMS (Suwingnjo et al., 1997), “

In 200 I, Holloway (2001) identified that much of the research and development effort has been focused on particular models and frameworks for performance measurement, but that little has been done to describe and analyse problems with the application of these models and frameworks. Similarly, Adair et al. (2003) have concluded that the majority of the empirical research in performance measurement comprises of case studies and surveys, with very few progressive and longitudinal research programmes. Only a handful of researchers (Neely et al., 2000; Bourne and Neely, 2000; Kennerley and Neely, 2003) have used action research methods to investigate and study the life-cycle of performance measurement systems (i.e. design, implement, use and review).

Bourne (2001) using systems dynamics and action research, identified two drivers and four blockers as key forces that affect success or failure of performance measurement implementations. Bourne (200 1) defines a successful performance measurement implementation as a performance measurement system, which is used by the management team on a regular basis to discuss and manage business performance related issues.

Nudurupati (2003), using action research, facilitated the implementation and use of IT-supported performance measurement systems in manufacturing organisations. Their research developed a causal relationship between infrastructural factors, structural factors, people factors and management and business implications of IT supported performance measurement systems. They concluded that performance measurement systems, if appropriately designed, implemented, and used, would result in a more dynamic and pro-active management style, leading to improvements in business performance.

In the performance measurement literature there are many instances where authors have referred to the impact of organisational culture and management styles on SUCG~SS and failure of performance measurement systems implementations. Nudurupati (2003), to some extent, described how performance measurement can impact the way management behaves. Empirical studies (Bourne et al., 2002) provide evidence that a “paternalistic culture” can lead to a successful PMS implementation. Franco and Bourne (2003), as a prerequisite to success, emphasize the importance of organizational culture that does not punish people’s errors and that encourages discussion and analysis around performance measures.

Similarly, research on organizational culture recognizes that culture guides and shapes behaviors and attitudes of all employees (Hofstede, 1980; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996; Burnes et al., 2003), which suggests that culture might also have an effect on business performance. In spite of a number of studies intending to understand the effect of organizational culture on business performance (Denison. 1990; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Scott et al., 2003), recent studies suggest that this relationship is not yet well understood (Scott et al., 2003; Wang and Ahmed, 2003).

Although a few researchers seem to have studied the implementation of performance measures and made observations with regards to the dynamic relationship between performance measurement, organizational culture and management styles, there seems to be limited empirically-based research that has attempted specifically to understand the dyadic interplay between these variables. Similarly, research into organizational culture recognizes that it has an impact on performance, but again this relationship is not well understood.

2.6 Management information systems and organizational culture

“

From the 1980s, the management information systems literature started to pay increasing attention to soft aspects of information systems in organisations. In particular, authors such as Olson (1982), Pliskin et al. (1993) and Claver et al. (2001) studied the relationship between organizational culture and management information systems using different approaches.

Some studied organizational culture as the determining factor for acquiring and developing management information sy terns (Allard, 1998; Brown an_d Starkey, 1994; Gordon and Gordon, 1992; Katz and Townsend, 2000; Thompson and Wildavsky, 1986; Tolsby, 1998), others studied how management information systems influence the organizational culture (Boland et al., 1994; Newman and Chaharbaghi, 1998; Olson, 1982). These studies suggest that there is indeed a dyadic relationship between management information systems and organizational culture.

Other research focuses on this dyadic relationship and identifies the need to understand organizational culture and to manipulate it to support the implementation of management information systems through cultural change programmes (Avison and Myers, 1995;).

2.7 Management Control Systems and Organizational Culture

Research linking management control systems and culture seems to largely focus on National culture rather than organizational culture. Harrison and McKinnon (1999) and Chenhall (2003) independently reviewed the cross-cultural work in management control systems developed in the last 20 years. They found that these studies examine a different combination of cultural dimensions and different aspects of management control systems. They conclude that the findings are difficult to compare and generalization cannot be made. Harrison and McKinnon (1999) write that their studies examine a great variety of management control systems and organisational characteristics and there is little replication or confirmatory work on these characteristics. Chenhall (2003) concludes that it is possible to derive only one general proposition on the relationship between culture and management control systems, and that is “national culture is associated with the design of management control systems”. This conclusion is also supported by Johnson and Gill (1993).

However, Baskerville (2003) criticizes the use of Hofstede’s (1980) five cultural dimensions (i.e. power distance, individualism uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and Confucian dynamism (Hofstede and Bond, 1988) in management control systems research as it is mainly focused on national culture. Similarly, Mooraj et al. (1999) identify different types of culture that can affect performance measurement (national, occupational and organisational), but consider organisational culture to be the most relevant because it can override national and occupational differences (Collins and Porras, 1994).

2.8 Types of Organizational Culture

Harrison (1987) suggests four types of organizational culture, which are based on Hofstede’s work on national cultures (Hofstede, 1980). These types of organizational culture are: role culture, power culture, achievement culture and support culture. In addition, Pheysey (1993) elegantly links research on management style with research on organizational culture, highlighting the types of management style that are more compatible with each type of organizational culture. These are as follows.

2.8.1 Role culture

In the role culture, work is performed out of a respect for contractual obligations backed up by sanctions and personal loyalty towards the organisation or system (Handy, 1985). Here the power base of the leader is legitimacy and followers accord status out of respect for the office (Pheysey, 1993). The leader does what he/she is authorised to do. Leadership tends to be invisible, impersonal and even evasive. The leader practices “selling”, which is an intermediate position between telling and consulting. Quinn and McGrath’s (1958) empirical expert type of leadership fits within the role culture. The leader is technically expert and well informed. He/she keeps track of all details and contribute expertise. His/her influence is based on information control, and as a result, documentation and information management are actively pursued (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). The empirical expert leader does what he or she is authorised to do (Pheysey, 1993). Another common management style to find in organisations with a role culture is Laissez-faire (Lippitt and White, 1958), which means “leave alone, leave others to do”. In this case, leadership is once again invisible, impersonal and even evasive.

2.8.2 Power culture

In the power culture, work is performed out of hope of reward, fear of punishment or personal loyalty towards a powerful individual (Handy, 1985). The power base of the leader forces a degree of fear, deference or utility (Pheysey, 1993). Terms such as authoritative (Likert, 1967), autocratic (Lippitt and White, 1958) and idealistic prime-mover (Quinn and McGrath, 1958) have been used to define the dominant leadership style commonly found within the power culture. Here the leader tells others what to do and he/she motivates employees by “the carrot and the stick”.

2.8.3 Achievement culture

In the achievement culture, work is performed out of satisfaction in the excellence of work and achievement and/or personal commitment to the task or goal (Handy, 1985). The power base of the leader is his/her expertise (i.e. knowledge and skills) and followers’ accord status out of recognition of contribution (Pheysey, 1993). The leader is energised by competitive situations and actively pursues goals and targets. He/she continuously gives direction and encourages participation of employees. Appropriate management styles within the achievement culture are consultative (Likert, 1967) and rational achiever (Quinn and McGrath, 1958). Pheysey (1993) argues that these leaders believe that employees are already motivated but need encouragement to continuously achieve high performance.

2.8.4 Support culture

In the support culture work is performed out of enjoyment of the activity for its own sake and concern and respect for the needs and values of the other persons involved (Handy, 1985). Here leaders need to have personal charisma, which symbolises esteemed values. Followers accord status out of liking or identification (Pheysey, 1993). The leader in the support culture is people orientated, caring and empathic. He/she listens to the views of subordinates and takes them into account. His/her influence is based on getting people involved in the decision-making and on mutual respect and trust. This leader continuously manages conflict and seeks consensus and actively pursues participation, commitment, openness and morale (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Terms such as participative (Likert, 1967), democratic (1958) and existential team-builder (Quinn and McGrath, 1958) have been used to describe this type of leadership style.

3.0 Organizational Culture at Nairobi University

According to the findings in the study, it was clear that there was a culture unique to public university. Culture change is however, necessary in the University of Nairobi. This could be because of the effects of culture change for example, labor turnover, and also because change of culture means change of technology which many employees may not have at the moment.

The study also found out that there were organizational changes at “the workplace and studentship, which were for example, technological changes whereby traditional file keeping methods have been replace by electronic, corporate reorganization, student problem solving mechanism, student election approach, corporate governance and change of strategic direction.

The study found out that the organisation culture at is characterized by lack of proper relationship between staff, subordinate and students’ body. This is characterized by staff and subordinate staff using shunning diplomatic methods of solving problem between them and students. Subordinate staff has also developed culture whereby they aren’t motivated to work in time; this is characterized by delays in fixing student’s utility grievances. This could be as a result of newly acquired student culture of diplomacy. These elements of the University of Nairobi organisation culture impacts greatly the productivity of employees and hence the creates discontent among students. To bring a remedy to the current situation, both the staff and the subordinate staff should understand that organizational change should acceptable to all the party concerned for the change to bring positive results.

4.0 Recommendations

From the above findings the following recommendations were made. Whereas the students have abandoned their militant dispositions, the staff and the subordinate staff shouldn’t unnecessarily take advantage of that and serve the students with negligence. The subordinate staff should also ensure that they provide timely services to students for it is through the culture of “scratch my back, I scratch yours that an organisation can be stable”.

5.0 Conclusions

The study concludes that, rather than there being “one best way of organizing”, there can be several ways – some are more culturally appropriate and effective than others. With globalization, the understanding of organizational cultures (overlaid with national cultures) is an important element of any public institution, and organizational culture research in the public university field ought to take its steps forward.

The study further concludes by highlighting on the five dimensions of organizational culture developed by Zeitz et al. (1997). According to Cooke and Rousseau (1988), organizational culture is a multidimensional construct, and therefore it is essential to evaluate each dimension. The five dimensions, which consist of 23 (originally 26) items, are job challenge, communication, trust, innovation, and social cohesion. Sample items include “I have new and interesting things to do in my work” Gob challenge), “Management here does a good job of communicating with employees” (communication), “My supervisor shows complete trust in employees’ ability to perform their jobs well” (trust), “People in my work unit are encouraged to try new, and better ways of doing the job” (innovation), and “Co-workers in my work unit are like a family” (social cohesion).

Order Now