- Email: [email protected]
Organizational culture relationships with creativity and other job-related variables
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
397
Organizational Culture Relationships with Creativity and Other Job-Related Variables Christine S. Koberg
Leonard H. Chusmir
University of Colorado at Boulder
Florida International University
The relationship between three types of organizational cultures and managerial creativity, motivation, and other job-related variables were examined. Respondents were 165 managers in a western metropolitan area (69 females, 96 males). Bureaucratic culture combined with high need for power was found to have significant positive relationships to job satisfaction and involvement, and negative connections to propensity to leave. Innovative culture combined with high need for achievement was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and significantly and negatively to propensity to leave. Supportive culture combined with high need for affiliation was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to propensity to leave. Introduction Prior research suggests that favorable work outcomes are a function of how well people’s needs or personalities are matched by a number of work-environment variables [5, 10, 17, 2.5, 521. One environmental variable may be the culture of the organization. Because these favorable outcomes include critical factors such as high levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement, as well as low absenteeism and turnover, the study of the connection between organization culture and needs is especially important. One of the purposes of this research is to determine which needs are likely to be fulfilled in each of three different types of organization cultures-bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive. Organizational culture is a system of shared values and beliefs that produce norms of behavior and establish an organizational way of life [42,48,50]. It shapes behavior by conveying a sense of identity to workers, encourages commitment beyond self, increases stability of the social system, and gives recognized and accepted premises for decision making [44]. The characteristic culture of a company has strong impact on the level of creativity likely to be exhibited by its workers and managers [20, 21, 24, 47, 501. Creativity in turn is one of the most important determinants of successful management and organizational success [l, 9, 11, 19, 511. The relationship of culture and creativity, therefore, has important implications
Address
correspondence
to Leonard
Journal of Business Research 15,397-409 (1987) 0 1987 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1987 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
H. Chusmir,
5660 Collins Ave.
17-D Miami Beach,
FL 33140
0148-2%3/87/$3.50
398
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
for academics and practitioners, and is another thrust of the research described in this paper. Because the definition of organizational culture is so general and nonoperational, subcategorizing or labeling types of culture has been limited. Deal and Kennedy [S] identified four culture types based on the amount and frequency of feedback and risk taking in the organization: 1) tough-guy macho, 2) work hard-play hard, 3) bet your company, and 4) process. They did not, however, offer any objective instrument to measure these types. Likert [25] gave both a typology and a measurement (Systems 1, 2, 3 and 4)) but they were more descriptive of management style than organization culture. Others made reference to culture such as high tech [13], matrix [6], or winners and losers [49]. None of the labels were well defined and none are measurable by existing instruments. One useful and measurable typology is that of Wallach [50]. She identified and defined three separate organizational cultures. Bureaucratic Cultures. Bureaucratic cultures have clear lines of responsibility and authority; work is highly organized, compartmentalized, and systematic. The information and authority flow is hierarchical and based on control and power. Overall, bureaucratic companies tend to be mature, stable, and relatively cautious. They are described by the following adjectives: hierarchical, procedural, structured, ordered, regulated, established-solid, cautious, power oriented. Innovative Cultures. These are creative work environments where challenge and risk taking are the norm. Stimulation is a constant companion to workers in this culture, but innovative environments also take their toll on people who often are under great stress and burned out. Innovative cultures are described by the following adjectives: risk taking, results oriented, creative, pressurized, stimulating, challenging, enterprising, and driving. Supportive Cultures. The work environment is friendly, and workers tend to be fair and helpful to each other and to the organization. An open, harmonious environment is encouraged and ‘family’ values are promoted. The company is supportive of its employees, expressing that support through attitudes that establish the firm as trusting, equitable, safe, social, encouraging, relationships oriented, collaborative, and as a giver of personal freedom. It attempts to base its style on humanistic principles.
Links
between
Culture
and
Other
Work
Variables
Most writers agree that a strong bureaucratic culture is likely to attract and retain persons who are low both in creativity and risk taking [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 501. Bureaucracies discourage creativity and innovativeness because they encourage managers to seek solutions to problems in safe, predictable ways [23, 471. Innovative or creative managers solve problems in untested ways that may appear to be risky and may cause unwelcomed ripple effects. Bureaucratic cultures are better for adaptor personalities [ 171. In motivational terms, high-need-for-power (n Pwr) individuals are associated with management in a bureaucratic culture where they have ample opportunity to have impact and influence on others [50]. Innovative
Organizational
Culture Relationships
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
399
cultures, as the name implies, are thought to encourage creativity and risk taking because they are exciting and dynamic [50]. Ambitious people do well in an innovative climate [46, 501, and are found more often in a “turbulent” environment [23,47] such as that found in innovative cultures. Creativity is enhanced in a culture where risk taking and nonconformity are both explicit and implicit goals of the organization [46]. Wallach [50] contended that high-need-for-achievement (n Ach) people should be a good match for innovative cultures. McClelland [30] also found n Ach, along with its autonomy characteristic, significantly linked to innovation and entrepreneurship. No research directly linked creativity with a supportive culture, but one indirect connection might be assumed. Creative people often appear to be “hostile, conceited, contentious, domineering, nonconforming and emotional” [46, p. 1811. This suggests that highly creative individuals might do poorly in a supportive culture in which descriptors all illustrate warm relationships and team work. This indirect link is speculative, but suggests creativity will not be related to a supportive culture. High n Ach managers will not do well in this culture [50] because they tend to be task oriented [30] rather than people oriented. But high need Affiliation (n Aff) individuals desire a warm, friendly environment along with an opportunity to work in groups in a cooperative, friendly way [4].
The
Concept
of Cultural
Match
The notion of a cultural match suggests that individual job performance is a function of the match or fit between the individual’s needs (motivation) and the organization’s culture [50]. This concept is derived from other related “good-match” theories that have been tested many times and found to be an effective means of increasing workers’ level of motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement, while decreasing absenteeism and turnover. Winter [52] matched motivational needs and occupations in general; Chusmir [5] matched motivational needs and specific jobs; Holland [17] matched personality types and vocations; Fiedler [lo] and Likert [25] matched leadership personalities and styles with leader-subordinate relationships. Although each theory involved research with different environmental variables, each proposed that favorable work outcomes were a function of how well the person’s needs or personality were matched by a specific work-environment variable. In Holland’s [17] case, his decade-long research concluded that the quality of a person’s work performance would depend on the congruity between his or her personality type and the type of work environment. Chusmir [5] linked high levels of job satisfaction and job involvement in nine separate studies with a good match between a person’s actual motivation needs and those likely to be fulfilled by his or her particular job. Winter [52] found that unmet needs were a significant predictor of persons leaving their jobs within two to five years. Likert [25] contended that organization effectiveness and employee job satisfaction are maximized when leaders operate in a particular environment that involves subordinates in the decision-making process. In Fielder’s [lo] contingency model, he developed a leadermatch system that trains leaders to modify their leadership situation to fit their needs or personality. Leaders with a good match between leadership situation and their needs and personality received significantly higher performance ratings than those with poor matches.
400
Purpose
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
of Present
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
Study
In this present study, the environment studied is organization culture. The match is between type of culture and work-related variables including motivational needs (n Ach, n Aff, n Aut, and n Pwr), creativity, and propensity for risk taking. The job outcomes of the match are job satisfaction, job involvement, and propensity to leave. Because of previous research findings presented earlier, it was anticipated that someone with a high n Ach would be effective in an innovative culture whereas individuals with a high n Aff would be effective in a supportive culture. In addition, someone with a high n Pwr likely would be effective in a bureaucratic culture. Individuals faced with a cultural “mismatch” would most likely experience decreased work effectiveness, frustration, and loss of satisfaction [50]. When a person’s motivation needs do not match those fulfilled by the job, the individual would be expected to experience low levels of job satisfaction and job involvement, and would have a high propensity to leave the organization [5, 14, 521. Specifically, it was expected that: Hypothesis 1: The higher the n Pwr, the greater the positive correlation between bureaucratic culture and satisfaction and involvement; and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave. Hypothesis 2: The higher the n Ach, the greater the positive correlation between innovative culture and satisfaction, involvement, and creativity; and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave. Hypothesis 3: The higher the n Aff, the greater the positive correlation between supportive culture and satisfaction and involvement, and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave.
Research
Design Respondents Respondents who volunteered for the study represented a convenience sample of 165 working adults. Although a convenience sample represents a potential for bias, to a large extent this problem is shared by most types of organizational research. All respondents (69 females and 96 males) were employed as managers in a major western metropolitan area. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of management positions, it was necessary to conduct tests at 11 different companies to obtain a sufficiently large number of female and male volunteers. The respondents represented a variety of industries and organizations ranging from manufacturing and wholesale to government, service, and retail industries (see Table 2). On the average, respondents were 41.4 years of age and had been with their present organization 10.5 years. A number of respondents (71%) held a college or advanced degree; a smaller proportion (29%) had received only a high-school education. Approximately 55% of the respondents designated themselves as SUpervisors or low-level managers (managers whose subordinates were all nonmanagement employees, and whose rank in the organization was below that of a department head). About 37% designated themselves as middle managers (managers below the rank of vice-president and above the supervisor level), and 8% as executives or top-level managers (people holding one of the top positions in the organization such as vice-president, division manager, or chief executive officer.
Organizational
Culture Relationships
Survey
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
401
Instrument
An unsigned survey instrument consisted of standardized scales that had been validated and previously shown to be reliable by other researchers. Job Satisfaction. Defined as an affective response resulting from one’s job [27], job satisfaction is the mean of four 7-point Likert-type questions developed by Hoppock [18] and revalidated by McNichols, Stahl, and Manley [32]. To determine the level of satisfaction with the job, respondents are asked, for example, to indicate how much of the time they feel satisfied with the job, the response varying from 1, never, to 7, all the time. The internal consistency of the scale as measured by coefficient of alpha was found by McNichols and his associates to range from .76 to 89 across four organizational samples. Job Involvement. A value orientation toward work [41], job involvement reflects the “importance of work in the worth of the person” [28, p. 241. Involvement in the job was determined by the Lodahl and Kejner [28] short-form questionnaire in which subjects are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with six 4-point Likert-type statements about involvement in work. Two statements from the scale include: 1) The most important things that happen to me involve my work, and 2) I live, eat, and breathe my job. Lodahl and Kejner’s’s short-form involvement scale is among the principal and most frequently used measures of job involvement [41]. It has a reported reliability of .73 and correlates 87 with their longer 20-item job-involvement scale. Evidence of both the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale may be found in a study of 63 government-research employees conducted by Goodman and his associates [12]. Propensity to Leave. Lyons’ [29] index of three 5-point Likert items determined propensity to leave: 1) If you were completely free to choose, would you prefer to continue working for your present employer or would you prefer not to? 2) How long would you like to stay in your present company? 3) If you had to quit for a while (for example, because of pregnancy), would you return to this company? Correlations of .54, 59, and .75 are reported among the three items, providing justification for assembling the items into a composite scale [29]. A reliability of .78 is also reported for the 3-item scale in a sample of 152 hospital personnel [2]. Needs for Achievement, AfJiliation, Autonomy, and Power. The Manifest Needs Questionnaire (MNQ) developed and validated by Steers and Braunstein [45] and based on the need theory of Murray [37] was used to measure the four needs of achievement (n Ach), affiliation (n Aff), autonomy (n Aut), and dominance or power (n Pwr). The MNQ asks respondents to indicate the extent to which 20 statements (“I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs” and “I try to avoid any added responsibilities on my job”) accurately describe their work behavior. Statements are grouped into four different need groups, each containing five items, and calling for a 7-point graded response, ranging from 1, always, to 7, never. Steers and Braunstein report coefficient of alphas of .66, .56, .61, and .83 for the n Ach, n Aff, n Aut, and n Pwr scales, respectively. Additional reliabilities of .63 and .68 are reported for need achievement and need for autonomy in a later
402
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
study of 262 university personnel [36]. Although the original analyses across three organizational studies indicated acceptable levels of convergent and discriminant validity [45], the validity of the MNQ may still need some additional empirical verification [3]. Propensity for Risk Taking. The means for measuring propensity for risk taking was a global Likert-type question calling for a 5-point self-rating, ranging from very low to high risk taker at work. To determine its empirical validity, the propensityfor-risk-taking measure was correlated with concurrent criterion measures. As would be predicted by theory [22, 301, risk taking correlated .23, .17, and .37 with the criterion measures of n Pwr, n Aut, and n Ach, respectively. Creativity. The remote associates test (RAT) formulated by Mednick [34] was used as a measure of creativity. This test, consisting of 30 items, captures an individual’s creative-thinking process described as the “forming of associate elements into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or are in some way useful” [34, p. 2211. In the test, the individual is presented with three words (poke, go, molasses) and asked to find a fourth word (slow) that forms a specific kind of associated connective link with all three. RAT score is expressed as the number of correct associations. The RAT has been criticized by some [7, 161 as being more a measure of verbal skill or IQ than creativity. But even one of its severest critics [I61 admits it is the only standardized measure of creativity that is directly linked to a psychological theory of creativity. According to the creator of the RAT [34], creativity involves the ability to form (word) associations that are not normally associated. Highly divergent or creative people are especially talented at effectively connecting together aspects of their backgrounds that, on the basis of past learning, do not really belong together. Also, it is assumed in the RAT that more creative individuals will make a greater number of associations to stimulus words than less creative persons [34]. Organizational Culture. To measure organizational culture, Wallach [50] deCulture Index veloped an instrument that she designated as “Organizational (OCI)“. Her instrument is based on the widely known climate questionnaire developed by Litwin and Stringer [26]. The OCI is described as a measure of organizational culture in three dimensions-bureaucratic, innovative, and supportiveall three of which are considered common in varying degrees to all organizations [50, p. 321. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which 24 different adjectives such as “hierarchical” correspond with how they see the organization. to The Likert-type response ranges from “does not describe my organization” have “describes my organization most of the time.” Studies by other investigators shown that respondents are generally able to make separate but convergent judgments [l]. Items are grouped into three culture profiles, each containing eight items, with scores for each profile or dimension expressed as a sum total. Data pertaining to respondents’ sex, age, education level, organizational level, and tenure were also obtained. Analysis
of Data
and
Research
Findings
Data on the distributional characteristics of and intercorrelations scales are presented in Table 1. Data generated by Likert-type
among the study scales have been
10. 11. 12.
15.12 14.39 14.37
4.79 5.05 4.56
.75 .53 .88 .85 .65 .97 .87 .87 6.22
SD
Standard
-
1
*p<.os
**p<.o1
tp<.oo1
are presented
in Table 3.
-.53t -.18**
3
and Selected
.43**
2
Deviations,
between culture and job outcomes a. d, c,f. g = 7-point Likert scale b = 4-point Likert scale ‘, ’ = Spoint Likert scale
Note; Relationship
Bureaucratic Innovative Supportive
Organizational Culture
5.15 2.54 2.07 5.21 3.91 4.44 3.99 3.39 19.26
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Job Sat” Job In@ Prop Lv’ n Achd n Aff n Pwr’ n Autg Risk Tk* Creativity
Mean
Scale
Table 1. Study Scales, Means,
.27t .19** -.20** -
4
Correlations
-.06 -.Ol -.12 -.12 -.05 -.04 .18** .46t .ll -
.Ol .05 -.05 .37t
.06 .23** .17* -
.03 -.02 -.04 .35t
.06 .20** -
Selcted Zero-Order Correlations 5 6 7 8
Zero-Order
.lO .05 -.23** .14* .08 .15* .02 -.03 -
9
.14* .19** .25t .09 .ll .17**
10
.33t ,257 .22** .13* .14* .15*
11
-.Ol -.07 -.lO -.17** .Ol -.02
12
0
s
WLI PW “C cg gw ;"g
z z m % g. 0 J Er 5’
s
s E
1.
E
5e.
404
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
shown to sufficiently approximate interval-level data to be employable with parametric tests [39]. Coefficients of alpha between .75 and .91 for the study measures were obtained and compared favorably with that reported for other studies of this type [cf., 451. Although not shown in Table 1, intercorrelations among the culture subscales, all of which were positive except for a negative bureaucratic-supportive coefficient, were sufficiently low (ranging from - .17 to .33) to justify the use of each subscale. As evidence of the empirical validity of the study scales, and consistent with previously established findings of researchers, job satisfaction and involvement were appreciably correlated with each other and were negatively correlated with propensity to leave [35]. Except for a positive correlation between n Ach and n Aff, correlations found among the MNQ subscales (n Pwr with n Aut; n Ach with n Pwr and n Aut) are consistent with earlier findings [45]. Also, in keeping with their findings, n Ach was positively linked to job satisfaction and involvement and negatively linked to propensity to leave. As would be expected from theory [22], propensity for risk taking was positively related to n Aut, n Pwr, and n Ach, the latter confirming McClelland’s research [30, 311 that high n Ach individuals dislike high-risk gambling, but like to take moderate risks. Creativity. Creativity was found to correlate positively with both n Ach and n Pwr and to correlate negatively with propensity to leave (see Table 1). The low negative creativity-risk-taking coefficient found would not be predicted given the presumed association of creativity with risk [22, 33, 43, 461. Although not shown on the table, creativity was further found to yield significant correlations of .13 and .19 with tenure and age, respectively. Based upon the results of a univariate F test, creativity was found to be unrelated to hierarchical level and related to level of education (F=2.80, df=4, p= .03). Employing the Scheffe method of pairwise comparisons, people holding professional degrees were found to have significantly higher RAT scores than did people with bachelor degrees. These data indicate that people who score high on the remote associates test for creative thinking tend to be older, have been with their organization a longer period of time, may hold a professional degree, have high needs for achievement and power, and are strongly influenced to remain with the organization. Culture. Bureaucratic culture yielded significant positive correlations with both n Pwr (consistent with expectations, [50]), and RAT scores, (contrary to expectations [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 47, 501). Bureaucratic culture also yielded positive correlations with both n Ach and n Aff. As would be expected from theory [30, 45, 491, innovative culture was positively related to n Ach, n Aut, RAT creativity scores, and risk taking. Innovative culture scores were also found to correlate positively with n Aff and n Pwr. Supportive culture scores were unrelated to n Aff (contrary to expectations [4]) and positively linked to n Aut. The importance of categorical variables influencing perceptions of culture was evaluated through analysis of variance and Scheffe’s multiple-comparison technique. Not surprisingly, all three types of culture were found to be related to type of organization (F=6.89, df= 4,159, p = .OOlfor innovative culture; F= 3.06, df= 4,159,~ = .02 for supportive culture; F= 12.31, df= 4,159, p = .OOl for bureaucratic culture). Mean innovative scores (see Table 2) were found to be significantly greater for government, man-
Organizational
J BUSN RES 1987:1.5:397-409
Culture Relationships
405
Table 2. Mean Culture Scores by Type of Organization
Organization n
Innovative
Government Service
13 92
Retail Wholesale Manufacturing
25 14 21
16 15 10 14 16
Mean Culture Score Supportive Bureaucratic 13 14 17 15 15
17 16 10 15 16
ufacturing, and service than for retail organizations. Mean bureaucratic scores were greater for government than for retail organizations, and supportive scores greater
for retail than for service and government
organizations.
Hypotheses I, 2, 3 Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were evaluated through multiple-regression analysis. Individual unstandardized regression coefficients of job-outcome variables on the interactions between need and culture variables, and their main effects, are presented in Table 3. Variables relevant to Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 consist of the interactions between the need and culture variables. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the n Pwr-Bureaucratic culture (Xl, X2) interTable 3. Standardized
Regression Coefficients of Outcome Variables Independent
Outcome Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave
Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave RAT (creativity)
“df=3,160 ‘Creativity *p<.o5 **p<.o1 tp<.oO1
was ommitted
nPwr (Xl)
Bur (X2)
Mul R
1.14** .76* -.79*
-.53** -.47* .39*
-.95** -.75** .44*
.27 .26 .22
nAch Innvt
nAch
Innvt
Mu1 R
F
(X3 X4)
(X3)
(X4)
-.02 .15 -.18 .38*
.21 .24 -.24 .31
.34 .20 .44 .23
6.79t 2.31 12.71t 2.75*
nAff (X5)
SuPPt (X6)
MulR
.35 .25 -.23
.24 .14 -.29
.71* .20 -.77* .21 h
Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave
nPwr Bur (Xl X2)
Variable
nAff Suppt (X5 X6) .59* .24 -.53*
from these analyses
because the theory does not support
a relationship.
.30 .15 .119
F
4.08** 3.94** 2.59*
F
5.10** 1.20 2.95*
406
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg
and L. H. Chusmir
action was found to have significant positive effects on job satisfaction and involvement and to have a significant and negative effect on propensity to leave. Table 3 also shows that n Pwr alone and bureaucratic culture alone both had a significant negative relationship with satisfaction and involvement and a significant positive effect on propensity to leave. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, the n Ach-Innovative culture (X3, X4) interaction was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction, and significantly and negatively related to propensity to leave. Although it failed to reach statistical significance, the effect of the interaction on RAT was in the expected positive direction. Last, results partially support Hypothesis 3. The n Aff-Supportive culture (X5, X6) interaction was found to be positively and significantly related to job satisfaction and to be negatively related to propensity to leave. No other significant relationship was found.
Discussion This study examined how three types of organizational cultures relate to managerial motivation, creativity and several other job-related variables. Generally confirming the hypotheses presented, analysis of data suggests that high n Pwr managers are more likely to experience positive job outcomes in bureaucratic cultures; high n Ach managers in innovative cultures, and high n Aff managers in supportive cultures. Other results showed a significant connection between creativity and low propensity to leave for all managers, regardless of culture and motivational need. However, those managers high in n Ach and n Pwr are more likely to be highly creative, and therefore less likely to leave the organization than those with dominant n Aff or n Aut. By better understanding culture and the relationship it has to the needs of its managers, an organization may be able to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. For example, a business firm may be able to reduce absenteeism and turnover by correctly matching the culture of the organization with the motivational needs of its managers. By testing its present workforce with the Wallach organizational culture index, the organization may first determine the prevailing culture in each of its major departments or divisions as well as for the company as a whole. When hiring new managers or promoting from within, the MNQ can be added to the normal battery of tests to determine motivational needs. All other things being equal, those managers with a “good” match might be given hiring preference. In that way, job satisfaction and job involvement likely will be high, resulting in substantial cost savings through lower levels of both absenteeism and turnover. In the same way, tests using the RAT would indicate those managers who are most creative, enabling the organization to predict those most likely to stay with the firm. Bureaucratic culture was positively correlated with creativity, contrary to previous writers’ expectations that the two would be negatively linked. There may be several possible reasons for this unexpected result. First, although an entire organization may be said to have a dominant culture, types of culture may vary from department to department and even within occupational groups. For example, Kirton [23] found that adaptors and innovators may be found within the same organization culture but in different departments where the departmental system
Organizational
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
Culture Relationships
or style encouraged
more or less creativity. When problem solving involves situations confined within the organization (e.g., production or other line management positions), safe, adaptive decision making is the norm. In departments that interface with the public (e.g., sales, finance, public relations, or personnel), creative workers are welcomed. Because subjects were chosen from a wide variety of organizations and because perceptions of organization culture and individual personality may vary from unit to unit, conclusions about the culture-personality relationships should be made with some caution. Another explanation may involve the type of structure in which the bureaucratic culture operates. Flat hierarchies are said to characterize the structure that encourages creative thinking while steep hierarchies foster an environment where the individual responds more quickly but predictably ]341. Although a significant link between supportive culture and creativity was not predicted by hypothesis, the nonsignificant results are nevertheless interesting. Steiner and Miner [46] contended that creativity will be limited when the organization culture or climate is “inhibiting, restricting and highly controlled” (p. 181). Although these adjectives appear to describe a bureaucratic culture, they might also describe a supportive culture that tends to direct people toward highly cohesive group social norms. In addition, a safe, relationship-oriented, collaborative environment-typical of supportive cultures-may discourage task orientation, competition, entrepreneurship, and nonconformity, all characteristic of creativity. Creativity traditionally has been connected to risk taking [22, 33, 43, 461. Data from this study, however, showed that the two are not significantly correlated. Research by Kirton [21] may provide a clue to this surprising result. Kirton found that both “adaptors and innovators are creative in their own way” (p. 623). Although Kirton did not measure the risk-taking characteristic, adaptors may be creative thinkers but low risk takers, while innovators may be both creative and risk taking. Future research is suggested to examine the risk-taking link to Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory. A limitation of this study concerns the selection of subjects. Because of reasons discussed earlier, managers from 11 different firms were used in the research. Although all subjects were asked to volunteer, the wide variety of testing settings and situations may have contributed to some unintentional pressure, creating pseudovolunteers rather than pure volunteers. Also, there is no practical way of judging what types of persons did not volunteer. Because volunteers, nonvolunteers, and pseudovolunteers may be different psychologically, answers to test questions may have been impacted, thereby decreasing the generalizability of the results.
References 1. Abbey,
A., and Dickson, J. W., R & D Work Climate and Semiconductors, Academy of Management Journal 26 (1983): 362-368.
2. Brief, A. P., and Aldag, R. J., Psychology 61 (1976): 468-472.
Correlates
of Role Indices,
Innovation
Journal
in
of Applied
3. Brief, A. P., Aldag, R. J., Darrow, A. L., and Power, D. J., The Examination of Responses of Registered Nurses to Manifest Needs Questionnaire, Psychological Reports 46 (1980): 1233-1234. 4. Chusmir, L. H., Sex Differences in the Motivation of Managers: A Look at Need
408
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
Achievement, Need Affiliation, and Need Power, Ph.D. dissertation, Miami, 1981. Dissertation Abstracts International, (1981): 42104-A.
University
of
5. Chusmir, L. H., Matching Individuals to Jobs: A Motivational Answer for Personnel and Counseling Professionals. AMACOM Books, New York, 1985.
6. Clelland,
D. I., The Cultural Ambience 1981): 25-39.
of the Matrix Organization,
Management
Review 70 (November
7. Cropley, A. J., S-R Psychology and Cognitive Psychology, in Creativity. P. E. Vernon, cd., Penguin Education, Hammendsworth, N.Y., 1973, Chapter 11, p 116+. 8. Deal, T. E., and Kennedy, A. A., Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1982. 9. Deveau, R. J., The Relationships between the Leadership Effectiveness of First-Line Supervisors and Measures of Authoritarianism, Creativity, General Intelligence, and Leadership Style. Dissertation Abstracts International 37, 3-A (1976): 1360-1361. 10. Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., and Mahar, L., improving Leadership Effectiveness: The LEADER MATCH Concept. Wiley, New York, 1976. 11. Gillis, J. G., Creativity, Problem Solving and Decision Making, Journal of Systems Management
34 (1983): 40-42.
12. Goodman, P., Rose, J. H., and Furcon, J. E., Comparison of Motivational Antecedents of the Work Performance of Scientists and Engineers, Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (1969): 491-495.
13. Hacker, A., High-Tech Culture, Fortune 107 (April 30, 1983): 365 + . 14. Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E. III, Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics, Journal of Applied
Psychology
55 (1971): 259-286.
15. Hamner, W. C., and Tosi, H. L., Relationships of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity to Job Involvement Measures, Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 497-499. 16. Hayes, J. R., Cognitive Psychology: Thinking and Creativity. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL, 1978. 17. Holland, J. L., A Psychological Classification Scheme for Vocations and Major Fields, Journal of Counseling
Psychology
3 (1966): 278-288.
18. Hoppock, R., Job Satisfaction. Harper & Row, New York, 1935. 19. Kanter, R., The Middle Manager as Innovator, Harvard Business Review 60 (1982): 90-105.
20. Kaplan, R. E., The Perils of Intensive Management Professional
Psychology
21. Kirton, M. J., Adaptors and Innovators: Psychology
22. Kirton,
Training and How to Avoid Them,
Research and Practice 14 (1983): 756-770.
A Description and Measure, Journal of Applied
61 (1976): 622-629.
M. J., Adaptors
and Innovators
in Culture Clash, Current Anthropology
19
(1978): 611-612.
23. Kirton,
M. J., Adaptors
Range Planning
and Innovators-Why
New Initiatives
Get Blocked,
Long
17 (1984): 137-143.
24. Korman, A., Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977. 25. Likert, R., The Human Organization. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. 26. Litwin, G. H., and Stringer, R. A., Motivation and Organizational Climate. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968. 27. Locke, E. A., The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M. D. Dunnette, ed., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976. 28. Lodahl, T. M., and Kejner, M., The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement, Journal of Applied
Psychology
49 (1965): 24-33.
29. Lyons, T. F., Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Organization
Behavior and Human Performance
Tension,
6 (1971): 99-110.
and Withdrawal,
Organizational
Culture
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
Relationships
30. McClelland,
D. C., The Achieving Society. The Free Press,
New York,
31. McClelland,
D. C., The Urge to Achieve,
32 (1966): 19-23.
32. McNichols, Satisfaction 33. Management 77.
Think Magazine
1961.
C. W., Stahl, M. J., and Manley, T. R., A Valuation of Hoppock’s Measure, Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 737-742. Today,
How to Create
34. Mednick, S. A., The Associative 89 (1982): 220-232.
Job
Management Today 68 (May 1984): 74-
Creativity,
Basis of the Creative
Psychological Review
Process,
A. T., An Evaluation of Precursors 35. Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., and Hollingsworth, of Hospital Employee Turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 408-414. 36. Morris, J. H., and Snyder, R. A., A Second Look at Need for Achievement for Autonomy as Moderators of Role Perception-Outcome Relationships, Applied Psychology 64 (1979): 173-178. H. A., Explorations in Personality. McGraw-Hill,
37. Murray,
J. C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill,
V., Some Attitudinal Barriers 40. O’Leary, Psychological Bulletin 81 (1974): 809-826.
to Occupational
S., and Hall, D. T., Organizational 41. Rabinowitz, Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 265-288.
New York,
1978.
Aspirations
in Women,
Research
42. Sathe, V., Implications of Corporate Culture: A Organizational Dynamics 12 (Autumn 1983): S-23. 43. Sinetar, M., SMR Forum: Entrepreneurs, Really Survive Large Company Structure? 57-62.
1938.
K., and Bent, 0. H., Statistical New York, 1975.
38. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 39. Nunnally,
New York,
and Need Journal of
on
Manager’s
Job Guide
Involvement, to
Action,
Chaos, and Creativity--Can Creative People Sloan Management Review 27 (Winter 1985):
44. Smircich, L., Concepts of Culture and Organizational Quarterly 28 (September 1983): 342.
Administrative Science
Analysis,
45. Steers, R. M., and Braunstein, D. N., A Behaviorally-Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work Settings, Journal of Vocational Behavior 9 (1976): 251-266. 46. Steiner, G. A., and Miner, J. B., Management Policy and Strategy, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York, 1982. 47. Thomson, D., Adaptors and Innovators: a Replication Study on Managers and Malaysia, Psychological Reports 47 (1980): 383-387. 48. Uttal,
B., The Corporate
Culture
Vultures,
49. Vroman, H. W., Primer. on Changing Banker 94 (October 1983): 46-48+.
Fortune 108 (Oct.
Cultures:
The
51. Winer, L., How to Add Goal-Directed (1983): 30-36+.
to Planning,
52. Winter,
Creativity
14, 1983): 66.
The CentraBank
50. Wallach, E. J., Individuals and Organizations: Development Journal 37 (February 1983): 29-36.
D. G., The Power Motive. The Free Press,
Cultural
New York,
in Singapore
case, Match,
United States Training and
Managerial Planning 32 1973.
397
Organizational Culture Relationships with Creativity and Other Job-Related Variables Christine S. Koberg
Leonard H. Chusmir
University of Colorado at Boulder
Florida International University
The relationship between three types of organizational cultures and managerial creativity, motivation, and other job-related variables were examined. Respondents were 165 managers in a western metropolitan area (69 females, 96 males). Bureaucratic culture combined with high need for power was found to have significant positive relationships to job satisfaction and involvement, and negative connections to propensity to leave. Innovative culture combined with high need for achievement was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and significantly and negatively to propensity to leave. Supportive culture combined with high need for affiliation was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to propensity to leave. Introduction Prior research suggests that favorable work outcomes are a function of how well people’s needs or personalities are matched by a number of work-environment variables [5, 10, 17, 2.5, 521. One environmental variable may be the culture of the organization. Because these favorable outcomes include critical factors such as high levels of motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement, as well as low absenteeism and turnover, the study of the connection between organization culture and needs is especially important. One of the purposes of this research is to determine which needs are likely to be fulfilled in each of three different types of organization cultures-bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive. Organizational culture is a system of shared values and beliefs that produce norms of behavior and establish an organizational way of life [42,48,50]. It shapes behavior by conveying a sense of identity to workers, encourages commitment beyond self, increases stability of the social system, and gives recognized and accepted premises for decision making [44]. The characteristic culture of a company has strong impact on the level of creativity likely to be exhibited by its workers and managers [20, 21, 24, 47, 501. Creativity in turn is one of the most important determinants of successful management and organizational success [l, 9, 11, 19, 511. The relationship of culture and creativity, therefore, has important implications
Address
correspondence
to Leonard
Journal of Business Research 15,397-409 (1987) 0 1987 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1987 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
H. Chusmir,
5660 Collins Ave.
17-D Miami Beach,
FL 33140
0148-2%3/87/$3.50
398
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
for academics and practitioners, and is another thrust of the research described in this paper. Because the definition of organizational culture is so general and nonoperational, subcategorizing or labeling types of culture has been limited. Deal and Kennedy [S] identified four culture types based on the amount and frequency of feedback and risk taking in the organization: 1) tough-guy macho, 2) work hard-play hard, 3) bet your company, and 4) process. They did not, however, offer any objective instrument to measure these types. Likert [25] gave both a typology and a measurement (Systems 1, 2, 3 and 4)) but they were more descriptive of management style than organization culture. Others made reference to culture such as high tech [13], matrix [6], or winners and losers [49]. None of the labels were well defined and none are measurable by existing instruments. One useful and measurable typology is that of Wallach [50]. She identified and defined three separate organizational cultures. Bureaucratic Cultures. Bureaucratic cultures have clear lines of responsibility and authority; work is highly organized, compartmentalized, and systematic. The information and authority flow is hierarchical and based on control and power. Overall, bureaucratic companies tend to be mature, stable, and relatively cautious. They are described by the following adjectives: hierarchical, procedural, structured, ordered, regulated, established-solid, cautious, power oriented. Innovative Cultures. These are creative work environments where challenge and risk taking are the norm. Stimulation is a constant companion to workers in this culture, but innovative environments also take their toll on people who often are under great stress and burned out. Innovative cultures are described by the following adjectives: risk taking, results oriented, creative, pressurized, stimulating, challenging, enterprising, and driving. Supportive Cultures. The work environment is friendly, and workers tend to be fair and helpful to each other and to the organization. An open, harmonious environment is encouraged and ‘family’ values are promoted. The company is supportive of its employees, expressing that support through attitudes that establish the firm as trusting, equitable, safe, social, encouraging, relationships oriented, collaborative, and as a giver of personal freedom. It attempts to base its style on humanistic principles.
Links
between
Culture
and
Other
Work
Variables
Most writers agree that a strong bureaucratic culture is likely to attract and retain persons who are low both in creativity and risk taking [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 501. Bureaucracies discourage creativity and innovativeness because they encourage managers to seek solutions to problems in safe, predictable ways [23, 471. Innovative or creative managers solve problems in untested ways that may appear to be risky and may cause unwelcomed ripple effects. Bureaucratic cultures are better for adaptor personalities [ 171. In motivational terms, high-need-for-power (n Pwr) individuals are associated with management in a bureaucratic culture where they have ample opportunity to have impact and influence on others [50]. Innovative
Organizational
Culture Relationships
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
399
cultures, as the name implies, are thought to encourage creativity and risk taking because they are exciting and dynamic [50]. Ambitious people do well in an innovative climate [46, 501, and are found more often in a “turbulent” environment [23,47] such as that found in innovative cultures. Creativity is enhanced in a culture where risk taking and nonconformity are both explicit and implicit goals of the organization [46]. Wallach [50] contended that high-need-for-achievement (n Ach) people should be a good match for innovative cultures. McClelland [30] also found n Ach, along with its autonomy characteristic, significantly linked to innovation and entrepreneurship. No research directly linked creativity with a supportive culture, but one indirect connection might be assumed. Creative people often appear to be “hostile, conceited, contentious, domineering, nonconforming and emotional” [46, p. 1811. This suggests that highly creative individuals might do poorly in a supportive culture in which descriptors all illustrate warm relationships and team work. This indirect link is speculative, but suggests creativity will not be related to a supportive culture. High n Ach managers will not do well in this culture [50] because they tend to be task oriented [30] rather than people oriented. But high need Affiliation (n Aff) individuals desire a warm, friendly environment along with an opportunity to work in groups in a cooperative, friendly way [4].
The
Concept
of Cultural
Match
The notion of a cultural match suggests that individual job performance is a function of the match or fit between the individual’s needs (motivation) and the organization’s culture [50]. This concept is derived from other related “good-match” theories that have been tested many times and found to be an effective means of increasing workers’ level of motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement, while decreasing absenteeism and turnover. Winter [52] matched motivational needs and occupations in general; Chusmir [5] matched motivational needs and specific jobs; Holland [17] matched personality types and vocations; Fiedler [lo] and Likert [25] matched leadership personalities and styles with leader-subordinate relationships. Although each theory involved research with different environmental variables, each proposed that favorable work outcomes were a function of how well the person’s needs or personality were matched by a specific work-environment variable. In Holland’s [17] case, his decade-long research concluded that the quality of a person’s work performance would depend on the congruity between his or her personality type and the type of work environment. Chusmir [5] linked high levels of job satisfaction and job involvement in nine separate studies with a good match between a person’s actual motivation needs and those likely to be fulfilled by his or her particular job. Winter [52] found that unmet needs were a significant predictor of persons leaving their jobs within two to five years. Likert [25] contended that organization effectiveness and employee job satisfaction are maximized when leaders operate in a particular environment that involves subordinates in the decision-making process. In Fielder’s [lo] contingency model, he developed a leadermatch system that trains leaders to modify their leadership situation to fit their needs or personality. Leaders with a good match between leadership situation and their needs and personality received significantly higher performance ratings than those with poor matches.
400
Purpose
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
of Present
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
Study
In this present study, the environment studied is organization culture. The match is between type of culture and work-related variables including motivational needs (n Ach, n Aff, n Aut, and n Pwr), creativity, and propensity for risk taking. The job outcomes of the match are job satisfaction, job involvement, and propensity to leave. Because of previous research findings presented earlier, it was anticipated that someone with a high n Ach would be effective in an innovative culture whereas individuals with a high n Aff would be effective in a supportive culture. In addition, someone with a high n Pwr likely would be effective in a bureaucratic culture. Individuals faced with a cultural “mismatch” would most likely experience decreased work effectiveness, frustration, and loss of satisfaction [50]. When a person’s motivation needs do not match those fulfilled by the job, the individual would be expected to experience low levels of job satisfaction and job involvement, and would have a high propensity to leave the organization [5, 14, 521. Specifically, it was expected that: Hypothesis 1: The higher the n Pwr, the greater the positive correlation between bureaucratic culture and satisfaction and involvement; and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave. Hypothesis 2: The higher the n Ach, the greater the positive correlation between innovative culture and satisfaction, involvement, and creativity; and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave. Hypothesis 3: The higher the n Aff, the greater the positive correlation between supportive culture and satisfaction and involvement, and the greater the negative connection to propensity to leave.
Research
Design Respondents Respondents who volunteered for the study represented a convenience sample of 165 working adults. Although a convenience sample represents a potential for bias, to a large extent this problem is shared by most types of organizational research. All respondents (69 females and 96 males) were employed as managers in a major western metropolitan area. Because women hold a disproportionately low percentage of management positions, it was necessary to conduct tests at 11 different companies to obtain a sufficiently large number of female and male volunteers. The respondents represented a variety of industries and organizations ranging from manufacturing and wholesale to government, service, and retail industries (see Table 2). On the average, respondents were 41.4 years of age and had been with their present organization 10.5 years. A number of respondents (71%) held a college or advanced degree; a smaller proportion (29%) had received only a high-school education. Approximately 55% of the respondents designated themselves as SUpervisors or low-level managers (managers whose subordinates were all nonmanagement employees, and whose rank in the organization was below that of a department head). About 37% designated themselves as middle managers (managers below the rank of vice-president and above the supervisor level), and 8% as executives or top-level managers (people holding one of the top positions in the organization such as vice-president, division manager, or chief executive officer.
Organizational
Culture Relationships
Survey
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
401
Instrument
An unsigned survey instrument consisted of standardized scales that had been validated and previously shown to be reliable by other researchers. Job Satisfaction. Defined as an affective response resulting from one’s job [27], job satisfaction is the mean of four 7-point Likert-type questions developed by Hoppock [18] and revalidated by McNichols, Stahl, and Manley [32]. To determine the level of satisfaction with the job, respondents are asked, for example, to indicate how much of the time they feel satisfied with the job, the response varying from 1, never, to 7, all the time. The internal consistency of the scale as measured by coefficient of alpha was found by McNichols and his associates to range from .76 to 89 across four organizational samples. Job Involvement. A value orientation toward work [41], job involvement reflects the “importance of work in the worth of the person” [28, p. 241. Involvement in the job was determined by the Lodahl and Kejner [28] short-form questionnaire in which subjects are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with six 4-point Likert-type statements about involvement in work. Two statements from the scale include: 1) The most important things that happen to me involve my work, and 2) I live, eat, and breathe my job. Lodahl and Kejner’s’s short-form involvement scale is among the principal and most frequently used measures of job involvement [41]. It has a reported reliability of .73 and correlates 87 with their longer 20-item job-involvement scale. Evidence of both the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale may be found in a study of 63 government-research employees conducted by Goodman and his associates [12]. Propensity to Leave. Lyons’ [29] index of three 5-point Likert items determined propensity to leave: 1) If you were completely free to choose, would you prefer to continue working for your present employer or would you prefer not to? 2) How long would you like to stay in your present company? 3) If you had to quit for a while (for example, because of pregnancy), would you return to this company? Correlations of .54, 59, and .75 are reported among the three items, providing justification for assembling the items into a composite scale [29]. A reliability of .78 is also reported for the 3-item scale in a sample of 152 hospital personnel [2]. Needs for Achievement, AfJiliation, Autonomy, and Power. The Manifest Needs Questionnaire (MNQ) developed and validated by Steers and Braunstein [45] and based on the need theory of Murray [37] was used to measure the four needs of achievement (n Ach), affiliation (n Aff), autonomy (n Aut), and dominance or power (n Pwr). The MNQ asks respondents to indicate the extent to which 20 statements (“I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs” and “I try to avoid any added responsibilities on my job”) accurately describe their work behavior. Statements are grouped into four different need groups, each containing five items, and calling for a 7-point graded response, ranging from 1, always, to 7, never. Steers and Braunstein report coefficient of alphas of .66, .56, .61, and .83 for the n Ach, n Aff, n Aut, and n Pwr scales, respectively. Additional reliabilities of .63 and .68 are reported for need achievement and need for autonomy in a later
402
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
study of 262 university personnel [36]. Although the original analyses across three organizational studies indicated acceptable levels of convergent and discriminant validity [45], the validity of the MNQ may still need some additional empirical verification [3]. Propensity for Risk Taking. The means for measuring propensity for risk taking was a global Likert-type question calling for a 5-point self-rating, ranging from very low to high risk taker at work. To determine its empirical validity, the propensityfor-risk-taking measure was correlated with concurrent criterion measures. As would be predicted by theory [22, 301, risk taking correlated .23, .17, and .37 with the criterion measures of n Pwr, n Aut, and n Ach, respectively. Creativity. The remote associates test (RAT) formulated by Mednick [34] was used as a measure of creativity. This test, consisting of 30 items, captures an individual’s creative-thinking process described as the “forming of associate elements into new combinations which either meet specified requirements or are in some way useful” [34, p. 2211. In the test, the individual is presented with three words (poke, go, molasses) and asked to find a fourth word (slow) that forms a specific kind of associated connective link with all three. RAT score is expressed as the number of correct associations. The RAT has been criticized by some [7, 161 as being more a measure of verbal skill or IQ than creativity. But even one of its severest critics [I61 admits it is the only standardized measure of creativity that is directly linked to a psychological theory of creativity. According to the creator of the RAT [34], creativity involves the ability to form (word) associations that are not normally associated. Highly divergent or creative people are especially talented at effectively connecting together aspects of their backgrounds that, on the basis of past learning, do not really belong together. Also, it is assumed in the RAT that more creative individuals will make a greater number of associations to stimulus words than less creative persons [34]. Organizational Culture. To measure organizational culture, Wallach [50] deCulture Index veloped an instrument that she designated as “Organizational (OCI)“. Her instrument is based on the widely known climate questionnaire developed by Litwin and Stringer [26]. The OCI is described as a measure of organizational culture in three dimensions-bureaucratic, innovative, and supportiveall three of which are considered common in varying degrees to all organizations [50, p. 321. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which 24 different adjectives such as “hierarchical” correspond with how they see the organization. to The Likert-type response ranges from “does not describe my organization” have “describes my organization most of the time.” Studies by other investigators shown that respondents are generally able to make separate but convergent judgments [l]. Items are grouped into three culture profiles, each containing eight items, with scores for each profile or dimension expressed as a sum total. Data pertaining to respondents’ sex, age, education level, organizational level, and tenure were also obtained. Analysis
of Data
and
Research
Findings
Data on the distributional characteristics of and intercorrelations scales are presented in Table 1. Data generated by Likert-type
among the study scales have been
10. 11. 12.
15.12 14.39 14.37
4.79 5.05 4.56
.75 .53 .88 .85 .65 .97 .87 .87 6.22
SD
Standard
-
1
*p<.os
**p<.o1
tp<.oo1
are presented
in Table 3.
-.53t -.18**
3
and Selected
.43**
2
Deviations,
between culture and job outcomes a. d, c,f. g = 7-point Likert scale b = 4-point Likert scale ‘, ’ = Spoint Likert scale
Note; Relationship
Bureaucratic Innovative Supportive
Organizational Culture
5.15 2.54 2.07 5.21 3.91 4.44 3.99 3.39 19.26
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Job Sat” Job In@ Prop Lv’ n Achd n Aff n Pwr’ n Autg Risk Tk* Creativity
Mean
Scale
Table 1. Study Scales, Means,
.27t .19** -.20** -
4
Correlations
-.06 -.Ol -.12 -.12 -.05 -.04 .18** .46t .ll -
.Ol .05 -.05 .37t
.06 .23** .17* -
.03 -.02 -.04 .35t
.06 .20** -
Selcted Zero-Order Correlations 5 6 7 8
Zero-Order
.lO .05 -.23** .14* .08 .15* .02 -.03 -
9
.14* .19** .25t .09 .ll .17**
10
.33t ,257 .22** .13* .14* .15*
11
-.Ol -.07 -.lO -.17** .Ol -.02
12
0
s
WLI PW “C cg gw ;"g
z z m % g. 0 J Er 5’
s
s E
1.
E
5e.
404
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
shown to sufficiently approximate interval-level data to be employable with parametric tests [39]. Coefficients of alpha between .75 and .91 for the study measures were obtained and compared favorably with that reported for other studies of this type [cf., 451. Although not shown in Table 1, intercorrelations among the culture subscales, all of which were positive except for a negative bureaucratic-supportive coefficient, were sufficiently low (ranging from - .17 to .33) to justify the use of each subscale. As evidence of the empirical validity of the study scales, and consistent with previously established findings of researchers, job satisfaction and involvement were appreciably correlated with each other and were negatively correlated with propensity to leave [35]. Except for a positive correlation between n Ach and n Aff, correlations found among the MNQ subscales (n Pwr with n Aut; n Ach with n Pwr and n Aut) are consistent with earlier findings [45]. Also, in keeping with their findings, n Ach was positively linked to job satisfaction and involvement and negatively linked to propensity to leave. As would be expected from theory [22], propensity for risk taking was positively related to n Aut, n Pwr, and n Ach, the latter confirming McClelland’s research [30, 311 that high n Ach individuals dislike high-risk gambling, but like to take moderate risks. Creativity. Creativity was found to correlate positively with both n Ach and n Pwr and to correlate negatively with propensity to leave (see Table 1). The low negative creativity-risk-taking coefficient found would not be predicted given the presumed association of creativity with risk [22, 33, 43, 461. Although not shown on the table, creativity was further found to yield significant correlations of .13 and .19 with tenure and age, respectively. Based upon the results of a univariate F test, creativity was found to be unrelated to hierarchical level and related to level of education (F=2.80, df=4, p= .03). Employing the Scheffe method of pairwise comparisons, people holding professional degrees were found to have significantly higher RAT scores than did people with bachelor degrees. These data indicate that people who score high on the remote associates test for creative thinking tend to be older, have been with their organization a longer period of time, may hold a professional degree, have high needs for achievement and power, and are strongly influenced to remain with the organization. Culture. Bureaucratic culture yielded significant positive correlations with both n Pwr (consistent with expectations, [50]), and RAT scores, (contrary to expectations [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 46, 47, 501). Bureaucratic culture also yielded positive correlations with both n Ach and n Aff. As would be expected from theory [30, 45, 491, innovative culture was positively related to n Ach, n Aut, RAT creativity scores, and risk taking. Innovative culture scores were also found to correlate positively with n Aff and n Pwr. Supportive culture scores were unrelated to n Aff (contrary to expectations [4]) and positively linked to n Aut. The importance of categorical variables influencing perceptions of culture was evaluated through analysis of variance and Scheffe’s multiple-comparison technique. Not surprisingly, all three types of culture were found to be related to type of organization (F=6.89, df= 4,159, p = .OOlfor innovative culture; F= 3.06, df= 4,159,~ = .02 for supportive culture; F= 12.31, df= 4,159, p = .OOl for bureaucratic culture). Mean innovative scores (see Table 2) were found to be significantly greater for government, man-
Organizational
J BUSN RES 1987:1.5:397-409
Culture Relationships
405
Table 2. Mean Culture Scores by Type of Organization
Organization n
Innovative
Government Service
13 92
Retail Wholesale Manufacturing
25 14 21
16 15 10 14 16
Mean Culture Score Supportive Bureaucratic 13 14 17 15 15
17 16 10 15 16
ufacturing, and service than for retail organizations. Mean bureaucratic scores were greater for government than for retail organizations, and supportive scores greater
for retail than for service and government
organizations.
Hypotheses I, 2, 3 Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were evaluated through multiple-regression analysis. Individual unstandardized regression coefficients of job-outcome variables on the interactions between need and culture variables, and their main effects, are presented in Table 3. Variables relevant to Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 consist of the interactions between the need and culture variables. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the n Pwr-Bureaucratic culture (Xl, X2) interTable 3. Standardized
Regression Coefficients of Outcome Variables Independent
Outcome Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave
Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave RAT (creativity)
“df=3,160 ‘Creativity *p<.o5 **p<.o1 tp<.oO1
was ommitted
nPwr (Xl)
Bur (X2)
Mul R
1.14** .76* -.79*
-.53** -.47* .39*
-.95** -.75** .44*
.27 .26 .22
nAch Innvt
nAch
Innvt
Mu1 R
F
(X3 X4)
(X3)
(X4)
-.02 .15 -.18 .38*
.21 .24 -.24 .31
.34 .20 .44 .23
6.79t 2.31 12.71t 2.75*
nAff (X5)
SuPPt (X6)
MulR
.35 .25 -.23
.24 .14 -.29
.71* .20 -.77* .21 h
Job satisfaction Job involvement Propensity to leave
nPwr Bur (Xl X2)
Variable
nAff Suppt (X5 X6) .59* .24 -.53*
from these analyses
because the theory does not support
a relationship.
.30 .15 .119
F
4.08** 3.94** 2.59*
F
5.10** 1.20 2.95*
406
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg
and L. H. Chusmir
action was found to have significant positive effects on job satisfaction and involvement and to have a significant and negative effect on propensity to leave. Table 3 also shows that n Pwr alone and bureaucratic culture alone both had a significant negative relationship with satisfaction and involvement and a significant positive effect on propensity to leave. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, the n Ach-Innovative culture (X3, X4) interaction was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction, and significantly and negatively related to propensity to leave. Although it failed to reach statistical significance, the effect of the interaction on RAT was in the expected positive direction. Last, results partially support Hypothesis 3. The n Aff-Supportive culture (X5, X6) interaction was found to be positively and significantly related to job satisfaction and to be negatively related to propensity to leave. No other significant relationship was found.
Discussion This study examined how three types of organizational cultures relate to managerial motivation, creativity and several other job-related variables. Generally confirming the hypotheses presented, analysis of data suggests that high n Pwr managers are more likely to experience positive job outcomes in bureaucratic cultures; high n Ach managers in innovative cultures, and high n Aff managers in supportive cultures. Other results showed a significant connection between creativity and low propensity to leave for all managers, regardless of culture and motivational need. However, those managers high in n Ach and n Pwr are more likely to be highly creative, and therefore less likely to leave the organization than those with dominant n Aff or n Aut. By better understanding culture and the relationship it has to the needs of its managers, an organization may be able to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. For example, a business firm may be able to reduce absenteeism and turnover by correctly matching the culture of the organization with the motivational needs of its managers. By testing its present workforce with the Wallach organizational culture index, the organization may first determine the prevailing culture in each of its major departments or divisions as well as for the company as a whole. When hiring new managers or promoting from within, the MNQ can be added to the normal battery of tests to determine motivational needs. All other things being equal, those managers with a “good” match might be given hiring preference. In that way, job satisfaction and job involvement likely will be high, resulting in substantial cost savings through lower levels of both absenteeism and turnover. In the same way, tests using the RAT would indicate those managers who are most creative, enabling the organization to predict those most likely to stay with the firm. Bureaucratic culture was positively correlated with creativity, contrary to previous writers’ expectations that the two would be negatively linked. There may be several possible reasons for this unexpected result. First, although an entire organization may be said to have a dominant culture, types of culture may vary from department to department and even within occupational groups. For example, Kirton [23] found that adaptors and innovators may be found within the same organization culture but in different departments where the departmental system
Organizational
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
Culture Relationships
or style encouraged
more or less creativity. When problem solving involves situations confined within the organization (e.g., production or other line management positions), safe, adaptive decision making is the norm. In departments that interface with the public (e.g., sales, finance, public relations, or personnel), creative workers are welcomed. Because subjects were chosen from a wide variety of organizations and because perceptions of organization culture and individual personality may vary from unit to unit, conclusions about the culture-personality relationships should be made with some caution. Another explanation may involve the type of structure in which the bureaucratic culture operates. Flat hierarchies are said to characterize the structure that encourages creative thinking while steep hierarchies foster an environment where the individual responds more quickly but predictably ]341. Although a significant link between supportive culture and creativity was not predicted by hypothesis, the nonsignificant results are nevertheless interesting. Steiner and Miner [46] contended that creativity will be limited when the organization culture or climate is “inhibiting, restricting and highly controlled” (p. 181). Although these adjectives appear to describe a bureaucratic culture, they might also describe a supportive culture that tends to direct people toward highly cohesive group social norms. In addition, a safe, relationship-oriented, collaborative environment-typical of supportive cultures-may discourage task orientation, competition, entrepreneurship, and nonconformity, all characteristic of creativity. Creativity traditionally has been connected to risk taking [22, 33, 43, 461. Data from this study, however, showed that the two are not significantly correlated. Research by Kirton [21] may provide a clue to this surprising result. Kirton found that both “adaptors and innovators are creative in their own way” (p. 623). Although Kirton did not measure the risk-taking characteristic, adaptors may be creative thinkers but low risk takers, while innovators may be both creative and risk taking. Future research is suggested to examine the risk-taking link to Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory. A limitation of this study concerns the selection of subjects. Because of reasons discussed earlier, managers from 11 different firms were used in the research. Although all subjects were asked to volunteer, the wide variety of testing settings and situations may have contributed to some unintentional pressure, creating pseudovolunteers rather than pure volunteers. Also, there is no practical way of judging what types of persons did not volunteer. Because volunteers, nonvolunteers, and pseudovolunteers may be different psychologically, answers to test questions may have been impacted, thereby decreasing the generalizability of the results.
References 1. Abbey,
A., and Dickson, J. W., R & D Work Climate and Semiconductors, Academy of Management Journal 26 (1983): 362-368.
2. Brief, A. P., and Aldag, R. J., Psychology 61 (1976): 468-472.
Correlates
of Role Indices,
Innovation
Journal
in
of Applied
3. Brief, A. P., Aldag, R. J., Darrow, A. L., and Power, D. J., The Examination of Responses of Registered Nurses to Manifest Needs Questionnaire, Psychological Reports 46 (1980): 1233-1234. 4. Chusmir, L. H., Sex Differences in the Motivation of Managers: A Look at Need
408
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
C. S. Koberg and L. H. Chusmir
Achievement, Need Affiliation, and Need Power, Ph.D. dissertation, Miami, 1981. Dissertation Abstracts International, (1981): 42104-A.
University
of
5. Chusmir, L. H., Matching Individuals to Jobs: A Motivational Answer for Personnel and Counseling Professionals. AMACOM Books, New York, 1985.
6. Clelland,
D. I., The Cultural Ambience 1981): 25-39.
of the Matrix Organization,
Management
Review 70 (November
7. Cropley, A. J., S-R Psychology and Cognitive Psychology, in Creativity. P. E. Vernon, cd., Penguin Education, Hammendsworth, N.Y., 1973, Chapter 11, p 116+. 8. Deal, T. E., and Kennedy, A. A., Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1982. 9. Deveau, R. J., The Relationships between the Leadership Effectiveness of First-Line Supervisors and Measures of Authoritarianism, Creativity, General Intelligence, and Leadership Style. Dissertation Abstracts International 37, 3-A (1976): 1360-1361. 10. Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., and Mahar, L., improving Leadership Effectiveness: The LEADER MATCH Concept. Wiley, New York, 1976. 11. Gillis, J. G., Creativity, Problem Solving and Decision Making, Journal of Systems Management
34 (1983): 40-42.
12. Goodman, P., Rose, J. H., and Furcon, J. E., Comparison of Motivational Antecedents of the Work Performance of Scientists and Engineers, Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (1969): 491-495.
13. Hacker, A., High-Tech Culture, Fortune 107 (April 30, 1983): 365 + . 14. Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E. III, Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics, Journal of Applied
Psychology
55 (1971): 259-286.
15. Hamner, W. C., and Tosi, H. L., Relationships of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity to Job Involvement Measures, Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 497-499. 16. Hayes, J. R., Cognitive Psychology: Thinking and Creativity. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL, 1978. 17. Holland, J. L., A Psychological Classification Scheme for Vocations and Major Fields, Journal of Counseling
Psychology
3 (1966): 278-288.
18. Hoppock, R., Job Satisfaction. Harper & Row, New York, 1935. 19. Kanter, R., The Middle Manager as Innovator, Harvard Business Review 60 (1982): 90-105.
20. Kaplan, R. E., The Perils of Intensive Management Professional
Psychology
21. Kirton, M. J., Adaptors and Innovators: Psychology
22. Kirton,
Training and How to Avoid Them,
Research and Practice 14 (1983): 756-770.
A Description and Measure, Journal of Applied
61 (1976): 622-629.
M. J., Adaptors
and Innovators
in Culture Clash, Current Anthropology
19
(1978): 611-612.
23. Kirton,
M. J., Adaptors
Range Planning
and Innovators-Why
New Initiatives
Get Blocked,
Long
17 (1984): 137-143.
24. Korman, A., Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977. 25. Likert, R., The Human Organization. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. 26. Litwin, G. H., and Stringer, R. A., Motivation and Organizational Climate. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968. 27. Locke, E. A., The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M. D. Dunnette, ed., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1976. 28. Lodahl, T. M., and Kejner, M., The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement, Journal of Applied
Psychology
49 (1965): 24-33.
29. Lyons, T. F., Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Organization
Behavior and Human Performance
Tension,
6 (1971): 99-110.
and Withdrawal,
Organizational
Culture
J BUSN RES 1987:15:397-409
Relationships
30. McClelland,
D. C., The Achieving Society. The Free Press,
New York,
31. McClelland,
D. C., The Urge to Achieve,
32 (1966): 19-23.
32. McNichols, Satisfaction 33. Management 77.
Think Magazine
1961.
C. W., Stahl, M. J., and Manley, T. R., A Valuation of Hoppock’s Measure, Academy of Management Journal 21 (1978): 737-742. Today,
How to Create
34. Mednick, S. A., The Associative 89 (1982): 220-232.
Job
Management Today 68 (May 1984): 74-
Creativity,
Basis of the Creative
Psychological Review
Process,
A. T., An Evaluation of Precursors 35. Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., and Hollingsworth, of Hospital Employee Turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 408-414. 36. Morris, J. H., and Snyder, R. A., A Second Look at Need for Achievement for Autonomy as Moderators of Role Perception-Outcome Relationships, Applied Psychology 64 (1979): 173-178. H. A., Explorations in Personality. McGraw-Hill,
37. Murray,
J. C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill,
V., Some Attitudinal Barriers 40. O’Leary, Psychological Bulletin 81 (1974): 809-826.
to Occupational
S., and Hall, D. T., Organizational 41. Rabinowitz, Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 265-288.
New York,
1978.
Aspirations
in Women,
Research
42. Sathe, V., Implications of Corporate Culture: A Organizational Dynamics 12 (Autumn 1983): S-23. 43. Sinetar, M., SMR Forum: Entrepreneurs, Really Survive Large Company Structure? 57-62.
1938.
K., and Bent, 0. H., Statistical New York, 1975.
38. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 39. Nunnally,
New York,
and Need Journal of
on
Manager’s
Job Guide
Involvement, to
Action,
Chaos, and Creativity--Can Creative People Sloan Management Review 27 (Winter 1985):
44. Smircich, L., Concepts of Culture and Organizational Quarterly 28 (September 1983): 342.
Administrative Science
Analysis,
45. Steers, R. M., and Braunstein, D. N., A Behaviorally-Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work Settings, Journal of Vocational Behavior 9 (1976): 251-266. 46. Steiner, G. A., and Miner, J. B., Management Policy and Strategy, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York, 1982. 47. Thomson, D., Adaptors and Innovators: a Replication Study on Managers and Malaysia, Psychological Reports 47 (1980): 383-387. 48. Uttal,
B., The Corporate
Culture
Vultures,
49. Vroman, H. W., Primer. on Changing Banker 94 (October 1983): 46-48+.
Fortune 108 (Oct.
Cultures:
The
51. Winer, L., How to Add Goal-Directed (1983): 30-36+.
to Planning,
52. Winter,
Creativity
14, 1983): 66.
The CentraBank
50. Wallach, E. J., Individuals and Organizations: Development Journal 37 (February 1983): 29-36.
D. G., The Power Motive. The Free Press,
Cultural
New York,
in Singapore
case, Match,
United States Training and
Managerial Planning 32 1973.