Organizational Climate and Job ' Satisfaction;~

H. Kirk Downey, University of Kentucky Don Hellriegel, Martha Phelps and John W. Slocum, Jr., The Pennsylvania State University

During the past six years, organizational researchers have displayed increasing interest in thc potential utility of the organizational climate construct and its relationship to job satisfaction. In one of the broadest concept~lalizations, organizational climate is discussed a~,: "the set of characteristics that desc~ ibe an organization and that (a) distin- guish the organization from ,~ther organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) "nfluence the behavior of people in the organization" [6, p. 362]. The interest in this construct, as well as the objective and perceptual instruments used to measure it , has been stimulated by the possibility that organizational climate may have a powerful impact on such variables aJ satisf:~ction, performance, turnover, and the like ['3, 7, 15, 24, 32].

A number of questions have been raised recently with respect to the nature and measurement of organizational climP.te. For example, studies [8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 33] have offeled one or all of the following hypotheses: perception of organizational climate in. fl~aences (job) satisfaction; individual job satisfaction influences per- ception of the organization climate and/or; organizatiom~.l climate and satisfaction are one and the same.

One objeclive of this article is to consider whether climate and job satisfaction are one and the same. Studies [2, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31] have examined the relationships between organizational climate, job satisfaction, and level in the organization; and between organizational climate and job performance. However, no studies investigated the relationship between organizationM climate and job satisfaction while controlling for the possible moderating effects of organizational level and/or job performance on the reia- tionship between climate and job satisfaction. Examination of the

Volume 2, Number 3 July, 1974

234 Journal o/Business Research

nature of this relationship represents the second major objective of this article.

Backgromtd Literature

Hellriege~ and Stocum [11] have systematically reviewed a number of research papers dealing with one or more aspects of the organiza- tional ciimate-job satisfaction cont~-oversy. Thus, only a few of the key sources addressing the primary issues of concern here are mentioned.

Joh~nne,~son [13, 14] sees the problem oi assessing the relatior- ship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as one of redundant measures. He attributes this redundancy to two main causes. 1~e first lies i~ scales used in the construction of climate instrw meats--they are generally formed using items from already existing satisfaction measures. Secondly. Johannesson [13, 14] emphasizes tJlat the method of measurement employed may be faulty. Specifi- cally, he claims measures of perceived ~limate are administered in such a way as to elicit affective responses. Thus, Johannesson hypo- tlh~iz~ that "climate factors can be readily accounted for by satis. faction factors which have had the benefit of a history of careful study and repeated investigation" [14, p. 122]. The data he reported in a study of 499 workers supported the hypothesis that climate and job satisfaction are inextricably interrelated, implying a con- clusion of 'why erpend time and energy on overlap'.

Others have recogni~d these sho~lcomings of climate instru- ~nents, but 81~o have identified alternative explanations for the re- dundancy. For e--'.ample, Guion [9] recognizes the problems of mea- surement, but also cites "semantic confusion o-,rer precisely who or wight is the subject of study" [9, p. 121]. He claims organizational climate is "one of ~he fuz~iest concepts to come along in some time" [9, p. 121] and a~tributes the problem to poor definition of the construct. Similarly,. Schneider [24, 25] considers questionnaire formulation and the unit o~ analysis used in most research as the basis for overlap and confusion between climate and satisfaction. This unit of analysis problem is described as follows: "If cli~mte is con- cept~alized as the property of an organization then the individual is not the approl~riate unit of analysis" [25, p. 10].

Nearly all climate research has involved single organizations, the major exception being Schneider's [25] own study of 50 life insurance agencies. Therefore, the results of any one study are the collective perceptions oi a group of individuals about the climate of one organization. Schneider maintains that this approach is inap- propriate for the measurement of ar~ organizational trait. Rather, he suggests sampling a number of organiza~tions in the same business.

Organizational Climate and lob Satis/action 235

However, if the climai~e of one particular organization is at ques. tion, it is difficult to see the rationale for an industry-wide storey. It has already been demoI~strated [10, 16, 18"[ that a climate con- ducive to one function in an organization may be incongruent for another function in terms of job satisfaction and/or performance.

This brief review suggested three possible explanations for the alleged redundancy between organizational climate and job satisfac- tion: problems in instrument formulation; poor definition of the con- struct; and incorrect unit of analysis. However, in this study, it was hypothesized that the nature of the relationship between job saris, faction and organizational climate may be attributable to the effects of other variables--organizational level and/or job perform~nce.

Method

The subjecgs of this study were 104 personnel from management of a specialty steel firm in central Pennsylvania. They were repre- sentative of the technical and organizational levels of management [21]; specifically, production foremen, marketing, financial and per- sonnel specialists, and various specialists in metallurgy, industrial engineering and production control.

Measures A questionnaire booklet was distributed and collected from each respondent during normal working hours at the company location. Instructions were included with each section of the question- naire, and ultimate anonymity was assured. It was explained that identification was necessary to enable researchers to match certain d3ta in their personnel files with individual responses, but that the final results reported back to the organization would be grouped and anonymous.

Job Satit~faetion The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) [30] was used to measure an individual's job satisfaction. Job satisfaction represents the difference between v/hat is expected and "whal~ is experienced in relation to the ahernafves ava~i,ble in a given situation" [30, p. 6]. The JDI is intended tJ measure the affective responses to this differ- ence by measuring f,~elings associated with differeat facets of the job situation It measure,~ satisfaction over five areas o~E a job: work itself, supervisi:on, pay, co-wu.L~cs ~nd opportunities fo~" promotion on the job. For each area the responde~t is asked to indicate the applicability of a short statement or word to his own particular work, situation. Each area is scored independently of the others, resulting in five separate scores for each respondent. OE'gani.mtional Climate The organizational climate instrument (Form iB) developed by Litwin and Stringer [16] was used. These authors have defined organizational climate as: " . . . . a set of measur-

236 Journal of Business Research

able properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indi. rectly by the people who live and! work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behavior" [16, p. ]]. Based on this concept of climate, Litwin and Stringer attempted to develop an instrument that " . . . would collect members' perceptions of and subjectiw~ responses to the organizational environment. The climate of an or~;anization could then be defined operationally as the sum of the perceptions of individuals working in that organization" [16, p. 66]. They [16] measured organizational climate on the fol. lowing nine scales: structure, risk, responsibility, reward, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and identity.

Campbell, et al. ['1] found in a review of existing climate mea- sures that at least four facto:'s were common in all climate instru- ments: (1) individual autonomy--Litwin and Stringer's responsibility, standards, and identity scales relate to this factor; (2) the degree of structure imposed upon the position .... Litw;n and Stringer's ~truc. lure scale relates to this factor; (3) reward orientation Litwin and Stringer's reward scale relates to this ~actor; (4) consideration, warmth, support---Litwin and Stringer's warmth and support scales l'elate to this ~actor.

Data from the Climate Questionnaire were submit'.ed to factor analysis. The primary reason for the factor ana!ysis routine was to ascertain whether or not the factors conceptually derived by Litwin and Stri:lger represented separate dimensions or whether they were really measuring only one factor. Factor analysis is one method for establishing the construct validity of a , instrument. The subprogram FACTOR from the Statistical Packa~,~ for Social Sciences (SPSS) (University of Chicago, 1970) was used to identify the factor struc- ture most representative of the ,data drawn from ~e questionnaire. The method of factoring selected from this subprogram was PA2, principal factoring with iteratic,n. FA.'2 automatically replaces the main diagonal elements of the correlation matrix with communality estimates. Orthogonal rotations using the Varimax method were com- pl~ed yielding six factors. The ~lection of factors and the inclusion of items in each factor were based upon criteria suggested by Nun- na~.ly [19]. These criteria include decision ru!es such as eigenvalues ~-- 1.00 and communalities ~ 0.50. The i~ems included in each factor are ~hown in Table 1.

The six factors emerging are: 1. Decision ?daking--tbe perceptions that employees have about decision

making prc~esses in the organization, and the structure and standards associated with decision making.

2. Warmth.-.~e sense of friendliness and trust prevalent in the organiza- tion, as ~rczived by the employees.

Organizational Climate and Job Satis/action 237

a i ii i l i l t 1

Tabl~ 1 : Climate Factors i ii

Fac to r 1 - -Dec i s ion Making. Items

*34. In t h i s O r g a n i z a t i o n i t i s sometimes unc lea r who has the formal a u t h o r i t y to make a d e c i s i o n .

*40. Decis ion making in t h i s Organ iza t ion i s too cau t ious f o r maximum e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Item C mpo i t i o s on of't h , e Six Dimensions ~, ,

*.¢2.

43 .

Excess ive r u l e s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t a i l s , and r ed - t ape make i t d i f - f i c u l t fo r new and o r i g i n a l ideas t o r ece ive c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

In t h i s O r g a n i z a t i o n we se t very high s tandards fo r performance.

F a c t o r 2--Warmth Items

13. A f r i e n d l y atmosphere p r e v a i l s among people in t h i s Organ iza t ion .

27. There i s a l o t o f warmth in the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between management and workers in t h i s Organ iza t ion .

*46. People in t h i s Organ iza t ion d o n ' t r e a l l y t r u s t each o t h e r enough.

Fac to r 3 - -Risk Items

7. Around here t h e r e i s a f e e l i n g of p r e s su re to c o n t i n u a l l y improve our persona l and group performance.

19. We have to t ake some p r e t t y b ig r i s k s o c c a s i o n a l l y to keep ahead o f the compe t i t ion in the bus iness we ' re in .

F a c t o r 4--Openness I t e~

*11. I t ' s very hard to ge t to know people in t h i s Organ iza t ion .

F a c t o r 5--Rewards Items

10. In t h i s Organ i za t i on the rewards and encouragements you get u s u a l l y outweigh the th~reats and the c r i t i c i s m .

18.

*20.

The ph i losophy o f our management emphasizes the human f a c t o r , how people f e e l , e t c .

You don't get much sympathy from higher-ups in this Organization if you make a mistake°

Fac to r 6 - - S t r u c t u r e Items

45. l~e p o l i c i e s a~d o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e of the 0 rgan iza t iGn have been c l e a r l y exp la ined .

*50 There are an awful l o t of excuses around here when somebody makes a mis take .

aItems a:ce keyed to Li twin ~ S : r i n g e r ' s Form B c l imate ins t rument . A L i k e r t s c o r i n g s y s t e m - - d e f i n i t e l y agree , i n c l i n e d to agree , i n c l i n e d to d i s - ag ree , and d e f i n i t e l y d i s ag ree - - - a l so i s used I,)y Litwin ~ S t r i n g e r Appro- p r i a t e i tems are added in each dimension to d~=rive the s i x c l ima te dimensions.

&~ter i sk (*) denotes i tems reve r sed fo r s co r ing b i a s e s . I I i I I I I I

238 , Journal o/Business Research

3. Risk--the feeling of personal cha|lenge and corporate risk taking as- sociated with the success of the organization.

4. Openness--the employees' percept!ion of ease or difficulty in getting acquainted with others in the organization.

5. Rewards--the feeling that management's encouragement and a humani- tarian approach are important~ components of the reward system.

6. Structure--tl~e perception held by" employees that policies, organiza- tional structure, and responsibilhies are well defined.

A summa~, of the lesults from the factor analysis is provided in Table 2. The items which loaded most significantly on a particular factor are presented in the matrix for that factor. Each factor, along with its communality, eigenvalue and the percentage of explained variance is indicated in Table 2. An intercorrelation matrix of the six climate dimensions generally reveals low correlations between the dimensions. The notable exception is the correlation between "struc- lure" and "decision making" (r = .494; p < .05).

Organizational Level Each participant was categorized acco~ing to his respective !~el of management within the organization. This classification system was organized from a listing of salaried person- nel and their re]afive positions. The levels are: President (N = 0) ; Functional Depa~aent Heads (N - - 0); Managers ~f Subfunctions (N - - 24); Supe:rvisors, Specialists and Superintendents of areas such as Metallurgy: Quality Control, Personnel and Accounting Func- tions, Sales Divisions, and Production Operations (N ~ 34); As. sistant Superintendents and Engineers (N ~ 20); General Foremen. Coordinators, Maintenance Area Supe:~isors~ Melting Operations Foremen (N - - 3[0) ; Assistant General Foremen (N --- 0) ; and Pro- duction and Maintenance Foremen (N - - 16).

Job P e d o r m a n e e To compare the performance of subjects, a job performance index was constructed. The performance index is com. posed of two part~: movement in terms of positions occupied within the company during the past four years; a r, d salary increases ovel- a two year periodl of time.

Position cbange~,; were measured in t~hree ways: number of upward job changes--promotion such that the manager moved to a higher level of management (according to our level classification system); number of horizontal lob changes---change of job without change of level; and number of downward job changes change resulting in movement to a lower level of management. The above measures were combined to produce a movement index. This index was constructed to give heavier positiive weight to promotions and hJ~avier negative weight to demotions (relative to horizontal job changes)° The following formula was used for the construction of f he movement index: M = 2x 2 -}- y - 2z 2 (where M w movement, x = promotions, y -=

Organizational Climate and Job Saris~action 239

~111 ii e l i i i

Table 2: Summary of the Factor Analysis of the Climate Instrument i i i i i i i ~

Cxl

4-J

U'~

0

U,,

0

(b 4-)

• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~

II II II II 0

. . . . ~ . - . ~ . . ~ • ~ . . .

~, I I I

II II II H II II

0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0

II C ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ II ~ 0 II ~ I! 0 ~ ~ II I I

I

! !

0

L;.

H'> P,- xO ,-4 ¢xl ,q"

U~ .P'l

I I

~o ,-4

i

W 0 4J O a o o U ,.~ ,..4 ¢xl

r - , i '~

t ~ o 0

, ,o , ,o

c ~ c ~

o ~ o ~ i . n o ~ I '- . c ) o'~ ,,D sJ~ LI~

U'~ Lr~ t,"> P.-. P4 (",,I

C.~ r', l

0 0 0 t ~ C )

I

o o c h o 0 1 ~ 0 " ~ " P, I O

.,~- C,4 P3 ,-~

0 ~

I , ~ o o

0 ¢ 3

I I I II

240 JournoJ o/Business Researclt

horizontal movement, z =-: demotions). Salary increase wa,~ measured by the average percent increase in salary over the previous two years.

The performance index was constructed after first transforming each subject's score on each index (movement, salary increase) lo standardized scores [X,~ - X~I/S. and then ~tdding the two resultant standardized scores. The movement c~mponent was based upon a dis- tribution of scores with a mean of 1.]6 and a standard deviation of 2.50, The salary increase c~, ~lponent was based upon a distribution of scores with a mean of 8.4!9 percent and a standard deviation of 1.63 percent. The resultant performance index is a distribution with a mean of 0 (zero) and a. standard deviation of ].56.

Results

Zero.order correlations between the six factors derived from the Or- ganizational Climate ~t~:u~,~,nt and the five satisfaction scales, organization level, and iob performance are provided in Table 3. The correlations were calculated using the subprogram PPMCR from St~- tistical Package (STPAC).

Table 3: Zero-Order C~Tela~tion Coefficients between Job Satis- faction and Climate Dimensions

# ' m

CLI-I CLI-2 CLI-3 CLI-4 CLI-5 CLI-6

Decision Hakin 6 .Narmth Risk Openness Rewards Structure

JDI-I .065

Work

• 304 xx .001 .373 xx .401 xx .156

£I)1-2 .332 xx ~ 292 xx .134 .369 xx .287 xx . ~4 3 xx

Supervision

.279 xx .327 xx .113 .230 x .344 xx .308 xx J 9 I - 3 Pay

JDI-4 .142 .278, xx -. 01~0 .176 .277 xx .252 x

Co-corkers

JDI-5 .321 xx • 218 ~ . Z27 x .205 ~ .4 38 xx • 388 xx

P r c ~ o t i o n s

LEVEL .617 .204 x -.020 .283 xx .25~ x .096

PERI~A]ICE . Ol I .046 .140 .061 • 150 .071

N ,. 104 x g p < .05 ( S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e ,0!~ l e v e l . )

x x m p < .01 ( S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . ) 4 1 1 Ill | ~ - - I

Of the 42 possible relationships, 18 are signif~icant at the p < .0] level while 7 are significant with p < .05. Strong relationships exist :for the warmth and rewards scaJes with the job satisfaction scales. Highly significant relationships also are evident ]~etween most of the satisfaction scales and Clim~tes for Decision Making, Openness and Structure. A weak vvlationship appears between the Risk scale and the satisfaction dimensions.

~grganizational Climate and Job Satisfaction 241

Three positive and significant relationships between organiza. tional level and climate are reported. Position level is related to a manager's perception of his organization's warmth, openness and rewards. These data suggest that climate perception~ may be partially dependent upon the level of the respondent. There was no significant relationship between performance and climate. These data support re- search by Kaczka and Kirk [15], Pritchard and Karasick [23] and Cawsey [2] who did not find a systemic relationshipbetween climate and organizational performance.

The correlation coefficients for job satisfaction and organizational climate with partial correlations resulting from controlling organi- zational |evel and/or job performance are presemed in Tables 4, 5 and 6. For ease of interpretation, level and job performance have been presented separately before controlling for the moderating effect of both variables.

Effect of Level Thc zero-order and partial correlation coefficients representing the relationship between climate and satisfaction are in- dicated in Table 4. The partial correlation coefficients, which are shown in parentheses, show the effect of controlling for organizational level.

i i i

Table 4: Zero-Order and Partial Correlations between Job Satis- faction and Climate Dimensions t

i ii L ii

CL I- I CL I- 2 CLI- 3 CLI-4 CLI- 5 CL1-6 Dec is i on .Haklz g. Warmth Ris_k Openness Rewards . Structure

TDI-1 .066 .304 .001 • 373 .401 .156 Nork (.616) ~* (-.577)** (.491)** (-.544)** (.607) (.375)

JDI-2 .332 .292 • 134 .369 .287 .443 Supervision (.645)* (-.552)** (.419) (-.522)** (.629)* (.500)

JD I-3 .279 .327 .113 .230 .344 .308 ?ay (.663)** (-.584)** (.488) ~t (-.552)** (. 756)~* (. 374)

JDI-4 .142 .278 -.010 .176 .277 .252 Co-workers (.674)** (-.532)~." (.493) ~t* (-.490) *~ (.600):~ (.349)

JDI-5 .321 .218 .227 .205 .438 .388 Promotions (- .084)* (.062) (- .028) (. 308) (- .039)* (- .027) ~

t - - C o r r e i a t l o n s c o n t r o X l l n g f o r o r g a n l z a t l o n a X Xevel a r e tn p a r e n t h e s e s . N - 104 *--Denotes dlfference~ significant at p < .05.

**--Denotes dlfference~ significant at p < .01. l i l l n I I I I _ _ I I i l l i _ I i l l l

Of the 30 pairs of relationships, 21 are significantly changed when controlling io=' organizational level. The magnitude and direc- tion of these changes are indicated in Table 4. The relationships be- tween Decision Making, Warmth, and Openness climates avd the satis- faction scales for W~rk Supe~ision, Pay and Co-Workers arc signifi- cantly changed when ~he respondent's organizational level is held con-

2¢,2 Journal o/Business Research

stank On the other hand, relationships between Structure and satisfac- tion scales generally are not affect!ed. Three of the six possi01e rela- tionships between the Cliin, ate factors arid the Satisfaction scale for Promotions are significantly changed in a negative direction. These data suggest organizational level is having a powerful inte~Tening effect on the nature of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational climate.

Effect of Performance The relationshiip between climate and job satisfaction when controlling for the effects of job performance are indicated in Table 5. Fourteen of the 30 pairs of coe$cients, resulting

I I I I

Table 5: Zero-Order and Partial Correlation Coefficients between Job Satisfaction and Climate Dimensions*

¢ . . i m iii m e ii ~ ,R

CLI-1 ~LI-2 CLI-3 CLI-4 CLI-5 CLI-6 Decision Making Narmth Risk O.O.Openne.ss R,~wards S t r u c t u r e

JDI-i .066 Wo::k (-. 057)

JDI-2 .332 ~upervlslon (-. 125)**

JDI-3 .279 Pay (-. 151)**

JDI-4 .142 Co-,corkers (. 16i)

JDI-5 .321 P romot lo~',s ( - . 024) *

.1304 .001 .373 .401 .156 (-°604)** (,.135) (-.407)** (.155) (.244)

.292 ,,134 .369 287 .443 ( - .301)** ( - ,022)** ( - .306)*" (.107) (.410)

.3127 .113 .230 .344 .308

(-.348)** (.074) (~.349)** (.383) (.221)

• 2 7 8 -.010 .176 .277 .252 ( - .306)** (.149) ( - .292)** (.138) (.202)

• 218 .227 .205 .438 .388 (.224) (.028) (.502)* (=.031)** (=.066)**

tNCor::elatlons controlling f o r ' .~o,- performance are in parentheses. N = 10,~ *NDenotes differences slgnificamt at p < .05.

**NDenotes differences slgplfleant at p < .01. l

from hot,ling the performance ,variable constant, are significantly in- fluenced. The most notable changes occur in the correlations of Warmth and Openness with the satisfaction scales for Work, Super. vision, Pay aqd Co-Workers. All but one of the 14 significant changes are altered in a n~gati~,Je direction. Somewhat fewer changes are seen in the satisfaction correlations with the Decision Making and Reward climates. Only one siynJificant difference is present in the Risk and Structure climates. This one differenc~ indicates a significant (p < .05) change in the relationship between percep. tion of Structure and satisfactiion with Promotion.

E~feet of Both Level and Performance The partial correlatic, n coefficients between the organizational climate scales and the job satisfaction ~ales when controlling for the effects of both organization level and job performance are indicated in Table 6. The significant changej represented in Table 6 are nearly identical to those pre- sented in Table 5. All of these changes are in a negative direction and,

Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction 243

i i i II I i

Table 6: Zero-Order and Partial Correlation Coefficients between Job Satisfaction and Climate Dimensions*

i [ i I [

J D I - 1 Work

J D I - 2 S u p e r v i s i o n

J D I - 3 pay

J i ) I - 4 Co-workers

J D I - $ Promot tont~

I I

CLI-1 CLI-2 CLI -3 CLI-4 CLI-5 CLI-6 D e c i s i o n

Making Warmth Risk Openness ........ Rewards S t r u c t u r e

. 066 .304 .001 .373 .401 .156 ( - .019) ( - .301) t * ( .162) ( - .273) ~* (.131) (.213)

.332 .292 .134 .369 .287 . ' ~ (- .099)** (-.219)** (-.010) (-.204)** (.087) (.302)

.279 .327 .113 .22~ .~44 .308 (- .123)** (-.261)** (.091) (-.240)** (.373) (.194)

. 142 .27S - . 0 1 0 .176 .217 .252 ( .198) (-.226) ~* (.166) (-.187)* ~.119) (.176)

.321 .218 .227 .205 .438 .388 (-.085)* (.035) (.007) (.334) (.013)* (-.008)*

• l ' - - C o r r e l a t i o n s c o n t r o l l i , ~ g f o r both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l and Job performance are in p a - e n t h e s e , q .

N = 104 ~ D e ~ o t e s d l f f e r e n c = s s i g n i f i c a n t at p < . 05 .

• * - - D e n o t e s d i f f e r e n c e s s i g n i f i c a n t at p < . 01 .

except for one, all result in a change from a positive to a negati,~e relationship. Again, differences exhibited between the zero-order and partial correlations of Warmth and Openness with the satisfaction Work, Supervision, Pay and Co-Workers scales are most affected. The Decision Making climate factor also is significantly affected in its relationship with the satisfaction scales of Supervision, Pay, and Promotion. The Reward and Structure scales are influenced only in their relationship with the satisfaction scale on Promotion. In sum, the data suggest level and/or performance have substantial interven- ing effects on the nature of the relationship between organizaiional climate and job satisfaction.

?~;scussion

Not mrprisingly, the zero-order correlation coefficients suggest that the : ix climate factors and the five satisfaction scales are, for the most part. significantly related. The individual's perception of the Climate Factt :-~mDecision Making, Warmth, Openness, Rewards and Struc- turc at,: generally related to his satisfaction with Work, Supervision, Pay, Co-Workers and Promotions. Several other researchers [8, 14, 23, 26] found similar results and these relationships have been dis- cussed at length. These types of outcomes have been attributed largely to difficulties in measurement, redundancies between satisfaction and climate scales, and poor definition of the climate construct. Thus, our initial findin~,s are not a significant revelation. However, further analysis of t~:e data reveals some very useful and significant findings

244 Journal o/Business Research

about the nature of the relationships between job satisfaction and organizatio:,al climate,

Some of the variance between job satisfaction and organizational climate was hypothesized as being attributable to organizational level and/or job performance. The data tend to support this hypothesis. The partial correlation coefficients between the climate and the job satis- faction dimensions are moderated when controlling for these vari- ables. The caveat by Siegel~ [29, p. 223] is especially salient here: "When correlation is observed between two variables, there is always the. possibility that this correlation is due to the association between each of {he two variables and a third variable . . . . ha partial correla- ti6n the effects of variation by a third variable upon the relation between the X and Y variables are eliminated."

T~e most striking result of controlling for organization level and job performance is the effect of this on the relationships between Warmth and Openness and the satisfaction scales :for Work, Super- vision, Pay, and Co-Workers. blgn;~ficant positive relationships are all transformed to significan~t negative partial correlations.

This negative relationship may be explained in terms of Schneider's [25, 28] micro-macro discuss;ion of the perceptual differences between satisfaction and climate. The climate construct is intended to be an organizational characteristic at the macro level while t~atisfaction is more a function of the individual and his particular job. The very nomenclature applied to these two concepts reflects this idea .Organ- iz,ztional Climate and Job Satisfaction. This idea is better conveyed in terms of an example. Whilie one may be very happy with his own work, his particular supervisor and so on, he may be very negative in his perceptions of the warmth, openness, and other characteristics of the organization.

Herz~rg's [12] theory of mc~tivation also provides for some in- teresting observations on this phenomenon. His study of 200 engineers and accountants resulted in the isolation of factors associated with jobs which provide job satisfaction~labeled motivators, and those which prc~:ide a lack of dissatisfaction called hygiene factors. Ac- cording to Herzberg's classifications, Warmth and Opelmess could be conceived of as hygiene factors at the macro level while the satisfaction scales of Co-Workers and Supervision are hygiene factors at the micro level. The strong negative relationships between these supposedly similar factors of the work situation tend to supi~ort the position that organizational dlimate and job satisfaction are not re. dundant. The Work satisfaction scale could be called a motivator dimension. Yet, strong negatiive relationships ilor the Warmt!h and Openness scale with the Work satisfaction scale hold when controlling for level and/or performa~ee.

Organizational Climate amt Job Satis/action 245

The Structure scale was, for the most part, unaffected in its rela. tionship with the satisfaction scales for Work, Supervision, Pay, and Co-Workers. It was, however, significantly influenced in its relation- ship with Promotions when controlling for level and/or performance. This change from significant positive to nonsignificant negative cor- relations may be explained as follows. Perception of Structure, as related to one's opportunity for promotion within the organization, may be attributable more to the individual's own level in the organi- zation and to his job performance than to a simple relationship between the two dimensions--Structure and Promotions. With the ex. ception of the relationship between Openness and the satisfaction scale for Promotions, this lack of a simple relationship holds for all the climate factors with Promotions.

The Risk and Rewards scales generally were unaffected by their relationship with Work, Supervision, Pay, and Co-Workers when hold- ing performance or both performance and level constant. Risk, Rewards, and Decision Making were consistently influenced in tlieir relationships with these satisfaction scales when controlling only for organization level. This increase in correlation indicated the need for further investigation, possibly controlling for other variables. For ex- ample, as can be seen in Tables 5 and 6, controlling for performance ,~r ~oth performance and level reduced all but one of these relation- :~hips to a nonsignificant level.

246 Journal oJ i~us~iness Research

Conclusions

Johannesson [14] hypothesized that "most of the "variance in a per- ceptual measure of organizational climal.~e could be subsumed in factors traditionally found in satisfaction research" [15, p. 140]. Our results tend to support quite a different hypothesis---that much of this variance may be accountecl for by oth~.~:r var~able~ in the organi- zation. In this study, organization level and job performance exhibited strong effects on the nature of the relationship between the climate and satisfaction dimensions. The data provide some basis for con- cluding that organizational climate and job satisfaction are not one and the same. Moreover, it is imperative that future re,~earch involving both job satisfaction and organization climate scales consider the possibility that intervening variables, such as organizational level and job performance, can have a powerful influence when attempting to establish the nature of the relationship between ~he two constructs. While we ha'Je not resolved the disputes over the utility of the organi- zational climate construct, t!urther research is needed on such ques- tions as: Ate satisfaction and climate instruments redundant, and can the clim~.te construct be operationalized?

Relerenee,

1. Camp~lL J. P.; Dunnette, Lawler, E. E,, Ill ; Weick, K. E., Jr. ~lanagerial Behavior Per/ormance, and E/Jectiveness. l~!ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

2~ Cawsey, 1". "The Interaction of Motivation and Environment ilt the Prediction of Performance Potential and Satisfa~'tian in the Lfe Insurance Iildastry in Canada." Paper presented at ~6th Annual Midwest Academy of Mamg~ment C,nference, Chicago, IIL, April, Iff73.

S

Organizational Climate amt Job Satis/action 247

3. Dachler, ~I. P. "Work Motivation and the Concept of Organizational Climate." Paper presented at 10th Annual Eastern Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., May, 1973.

4. Dieterly, D. and Schneider, B. "The Effect of Organizational Environment on Per- ceived Power and Climate: A Laboratory Study." Organizational Behavior and Human Per]ormance, 1973, in press.

5. Forehand, G. and Gilmer, B. "Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior." Psychological Bulletin 22 (1964): 361-382.

6. Frederickson, N. "Some Effects of Organizational Climates on Administrative Per- formance." Research Memorandum RM.66.21, Educational Testing Service, 1966.

7. Friedlander, F, and Greenberg, S. "Effect of Job Attitudes, Training and Organiza. tional Climates on Performance of the Hard-Core Unemployed." Journal o/ Applied Psychology 55 (1971) : 287-295.

8. Friedlander, F. and Margulies N. "Multiple Impacts of Organizational Climate and Individual Value Systems upon Job Satisfaction." Personnel Psychology 22 (1969~: 171-183.

9. Guion, R. M. "A Note on Organizational Climate." Organizational Behavior and Human Per/ormance 9 (1973): 120-125.

I0. Hall, D. and Lawler, E. "Unused Potential in Research Development Organizations." Research Management 12 (1969): 339-354.

11. Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J. W., Jr. "Organizational Climate: Measures, Research, and Contingencies." Academy o~ Management Journal, 1974, in press.

12. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Snyderman, B. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.

13. Johannesson, R. E. "Job Satisfaction and Perceptually Measured Organizational Climate: Redundancy and Confusion." In New Developments in Management and Organization Theory, edited by M. W. Frey. Procee~ngs of the 8th Annual Eastern Academy of Management Conference~ 1971, pp. 27 I.

!4..~ohannesson, R. "Some Proble;iJtg in the Measurement of Organizational Climate." Orgonizational Behavior and Human Per/ormance i0 (1973): 118-144.

15. Kaczka, E. and Kirk, R. "Managerial "" :,,ate, Work Groups, and Organizational Per- formance." Administrative Science Quarterly 12 {1968): 252-271.

16. Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R. A., jr. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1968.

17. Meyer, H. "Achievement Motivation in Industrial Climates." In Organizational Climate: Explorations o/ a Concept, edited by R. Taguiri and G. Litwin. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, 1969.

]8. Morrow, A.; Bowers, D.; and Seashore, S. Management by Participation. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.

19. NunnMly, J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 20. Payne, R. and Pheysey, D. G. G. "Stem's Organizational Climate Index: A Reconcep-

tualization and Application to Business Orgaaizations.' Organizational Behavior and Human Per/ormance 6 (1971) • 77-98.

21. Petit, T. A. "A Behavioral Theory of Managcnent." Academy o~ Management Journal 10 (1967) : 349.

22. Porter, L. and Lawler, E. "Properties of Organization Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior." Psychological Bulletin 41 {1965~: 23-51.

23. Pritchard, R. arid Karasick, B. "The Effects of Organizational Climate on Managerial Job Performance and Job Satisfaction." Organizational Behavior and Human Per- /ormance 9 (1973) : 110-119.

24. Schneider, B. "Organizational Climate: Individual Preferences and Organizational Realities." Journal o~ Applied Psychology 56 (1972): 211-218.

25. Schneider, B. "The Perceived Environment: Organiz~,qonal Climate." Paper pres{nted at Midwest Psych logy Association, May, 1973.

26. Schneider, B. "The Perception of Organizational Climate: The Customer's View." Journal o~ Applied Psychology 57 (]973a) : 248-256.

248 Journal o] L~usiness Researci~

27. $¢Jmeider, B. and Bartlett, C. "Individual Differences and Organi:,~ational Climate II: Measurement of Organizational ~imate by Multitrait-Multirater Matrix." Personne! Psychology ~ (1970): 493-512.

28. ~%hneider, B. and Hall, D. "Toward ~pecifying the Concept of Work Climate: A Study of Rou;an Catholic Diocesan Pri~s~s." Journal o] AppJied Psy,~ho/ogy 56 ~ 1972J : 447456.

29. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 195~,. 30. Smith, P. C.; Kendall L. M.; and Hu]in, C. L. The .~easur~r~ent of Satis/action

in Work and Retirement: A Strategy ]or the Study o] Attitud~,s. Chicago: Rand McNaily, 1%9.

31. Stin,son, J. and LaBelle, T. "The Organizational Climate c,f Paraguayan Elementary Schools: Rural-Ud~m D,-'ffcrentiation." Education and Urban Socieo 3 ~1971~ : 333-349.

32. Taguiri, R. "The Concept of Organi~,~tional Climate." In Organizational Climate: Explorations o! a Concept, edited by R. Taguiri and C Litwin. t3osion: Division of Research, Graduate School of Busines~, 1969.

35 Thornton, C. G., 111. "The Dimensions of Organizatk, nal Climaf~ ~f Office Situations." Experimental Publication System 2 {1%911, : Ms. No. 0~TA.