Measures
of Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture Instrument
W. T. van de Post, Y. J. de Coning, et al. |
|
Reviewed by Shelley A. Berg |
|
Compiled by W. van der
Post and T. de Coning at the University of Stellenbosch’s Graduate
School of Business in 1997, this instrument was created with the aim of
evaluating the major elements of an organization’s culture. While the
instrument’s results are not intended to assign an organization to a
specific culture type, such as the Organizational Assessment Culture
Instrument, it does provide insight to the norms and attitudes of an
organization’s members on the 15 elements examined in the
questionnaire.
|
|
Structure |
|
While
the questionnaire used in the early trials of the survey consisted of
225 questions and took respondents approximately 30 minutes to complete,
the final version only includes 97 questions, requiring about 15 minutes
for completion. Similarly, despite the fact that Post and Coning’s
literature review in preparation of this questionnaire identified 114
dimensions of culture, the assistance of human resource experts narrowed
that number down to the 15 that are actually included in the
questionnaire. The 15 dimensions measured in the final questionnaire
are listed below: |
|
· Culture management
The extent to which the organization actively and deliberately engages in shaping the
organization's culture |
· Customer orientation
The extent to which the organization takes the views of customers seriously and
actively responds to such views |
· Disposition towards change
The degree to which employees are encouraged to be creative and innovative and to
constantly search for better ways of getting the job done |
· Employee participation
The extent to which employees perceive themselves as participating in the decision-
making process of the organization |
·
Goal clarity
The degree to which the organization creates
clear objectives and performance
expectations |
· Human resource orientation
The extent to which the organization is perceived as having a high regard for its human
resource |
·
Identification with the organization
The degree to which employees are encouraged
to identify with the organization |
·
Locus of authority
The degree of authority, freedom and independence
that individual employees have in
their jobs |
· Management style
The degree to which managers provide clear communication, assistance and support to
their subordinates |
· Organization focus
The extent to which the organization is perceived to be concentrating on those
activities which form part of the fundamentals of the business |
· Organization
integration
The degree to which various subunits within
the organization are actively encouraged to
operate in a coordinated way by co-operating
effectively towards the achievement of
overall organizational objectives |
· Performance orientation
The extent to which emphasis is placed on individual accountability for clearly defined
results and a high level of performance |
· Reward orientation
The degree to which reward allocations are based on employee performance in
contrast to seniority, favoritism or any other non-performance criterion |
· Task structure
The degree to which rules, regulations, and direct supervision are applied to manage
employee behavior
|
|
Each item on the
questionnaire is in the form of a positive or negative statement, which
is rated on a seven-point Likert scale by the respondent according to
its application to his/her perceptions of the organization being rated.
In scoring the questionnaire, scores for the positive statements are
added together along with the inverse scores of the negative statements,
producing an overall total for each dimension. |
|
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Application |
|
In terms of strengths,
the questionnaire has scored high in both reliability and validity.
Each of the 15 dimensions included in the survey has a reliability
coefficient alpha above the generally accepted minimum of .7, ranging
from .788 to .932. Post and Coning also reported an acceptable level of
construct validity upon conducting a factor analysis. |
|
Weaknesses of Post and
Coning’s organizational culture instrument are not directly discussed.
One shortcoming that may be considered, however, is a lack of
interpretation for the questionnaire’s scores. Although patterns among
the responses for individual items clarify the manner in which an
organization is perceived, the numerical scores resulting from
individual dimensions provide little insight. |
|
Weaknesses of Post and
Coning’s organizational culture instrument are not directly discussed.
One shortcoming that may be considered, however, is a lack of
interpretation for the questionnaire’s scores. Although patterns among
the responses for individual items clarify the manner in which an
organization is perceived, the numerical scores resulting from
individual dimensions provide little insight. |
|
|
|
Weaknesses of Post and
Coning’s organizational culture instrument are not directly discussed.
One shortcoming that may be considered, however, is a lack of
interpretation for the questionnaire’s scores. Although patterns among
the responses for individual items clarify the manner in which an
organization is perceived, the numerical scores resulting from
individual dimensions provide little insight. |
|
|
|
|
