Thomas Jefferson University

Jefferson Digital Commons

College of Nursing Faculty Papers & Jefferson College of Nursing

Presentations

2-10-2011

Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture

Jennifer Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA
Thomas Jefferson University

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Nursing Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you

Recommended Citation
Bellot PhD, RN, MHSA, Jennifer, "Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture" (2011). College of
Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations. Paper 34.
[Link]

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital
Commons is a service of Thomas Jefferson University's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is
a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly publications, unique historical collections
from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and interested
readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been
accepted for inclusion in College of Nursing Faculty Papers & Presentations by an authorized administrator of the
Jefferson Digital Commons. For more information, please contact: JeffersonDigitalCommons@[Link].
 Organizational Culture 1

As submitted to:

Nursing Forum

And later published as:

Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture

Volume 46, Issue 1, pages 29–37, January-March 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00207.x

The target of much debate, organizational culture has occupied a prominent

position in multidisciplinary publications since the early 1980s. Fraught with

inconsistencies, the early research and literature addressing organizational culture was

often conflicting and recursive. As one researcher stated, culture is “one of the two or

three most complicated words in the English language” (Williams, 1983). Years of

conceptualization, comparison and assessment have led to an emerging consensus on the

appropriate definition and role for organizational culture. This manuscript documents the

historical development of organizational culture as a construct and its ensuing

assessment, comparing and contrasting prominent theories and methods of understanding

organizational culture. Subsequently, a brief review of the health care literature

illustrates the applicability of organizational culture to the health care setting.

Development
 Organizational Culture 2

Most researchers agree that the notion of studying work environments first

emerged with the work of a social psychologist, Kurt Lewin. Lewin, Lippitt and White

(1939) first coined the term organizational climate in the study “Patterns of Aggressive

Behavior in Experimentally Created ‘Social Climates.’” This term was used

inconsistently for the next two decades until the 1960s. By this point, research on

organizational climate research was flourishing.

Climate research represented a convergence of psychological and sociological

epistemologies. During the 1960s and 1970s, climate research generally addressed

professional socialization and the orientation or integration of the new employee. The

terms climate and culture were often used interchangeably or within quotation marks, and

were not well defined conceptually (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). In the mid-1970s the

emergence of symbolic framing introduced anthropologic epistemology to the study of

organizational climate. Among climate researchers, the sense that the climate construct

was not capturing the holism of the work environment led to the development of

organizational culture. Hence, this represented the beginning of defining culture,

acknowledging its intangibility and integrating psychologic, sociologic and anthropologic

methods and philosophies (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000).

Pettigrew (1979) was the first to introduce formally the term organizational

culture, incorporating a distinct anthropologic base. Shortly thereafter, an explosion of

literature was produced regarding organizational culture and its ideal management. Texts

by Deal and Kennedy (1988), Ouchi (1981) and Peters and Waterman (1982), in

particular, were responsible for the widespread popularity of this concept. These works,

however, were prescriptive, solutions-based, largely atheoretical and non-academic. This

 Organizational Culture 3

early writing was marketed to managers within a typical corporate structure and was

designed to provide a quick fix and competitive edge.

Meanwhile, academia struggled to keep up with the commercial sector. The

central issue behind an academic rise of interest in organizational culture was that “a hard

‘scientific’ management of institutions could and should be augmented with, or even

displaced by, an approach that stressed a softer, more humane understanding of human

values and culture” (Parker, 2000, p. 1). The organizational culture perspective was the

“counter culture” of organizational theory, as it challenged much of the contemporary

organizational behavior theory (Shafritz & Ott, 1987). Until this point, organization

studies were dominated by a positivist paradigm. The introduction of anthropological

epistemology propagated the notion that the organizational environment (specifically,

culture) should be studied using qualitative methods.

During the 1980s, the conceptual base for organizational culture was developed

further. As previously mentioned, there was much disagreement among scholars and

disciplines regarding appropriate definition and assessment. The next sections provide a

review of the prevailing themes and controversies surrounding the definition of

organizational culture.

Prevailing Themes

Drawing from the traditions of three different disciplines, the definition of

organizational culture is complicated by disagreements regarding what it should and

should not include and the best to assessment method. Although many theorists in the

1980s advanced the conceptual understanding of organizational culture, a select group

has dominated the majority of culture research (Table 1). Further, it is widely accepted
 Organizational Culture 4

that there is no singular, correct definition of culture. Van Maanen (1985) states, “The

term ‘culture’ is powerfully evocative, but it does not come from anthropology as an

intact structural package ready to serve as a paradigmatic foundation on which to build

the analysis of organizations” (p. 57).

Through the continued work and conceptual development from such scholars as

Edgar Schein, Mats Alvesson and Benjamin Schneider, some consistency of thought has

arisen. This loose consensus of principles has guided much inquiry about organizational

culture (Siehl & Martin, 1983; Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott, 1997).

1. Organizational culture exists.

Although it may seem simplistic, it took years of inquiry and theory to conclude that

organizational culture exists. This debate is intimately related to the next tenet of culture.

2. Cultures are inherently fuzzy in that they incorporate contradictions, paradoxes,

ambiguities and confusion.

Throughout the development of organizational culture, it has been recognized that

culture is not a “surface” phenomena. Rather, it is “infused with symbols and

symbolism” (Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott, 1997, p. 69) and is “undetectable most of

the time” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The lack of tangibility and potential for confusion

and inconsistency lend to complex assessment of the concept. This thought paradigm is

more involved than the positivist tradition of business research, thus necessitating greater

conceptual development.

3. Organizational culture is socially constructed, the product of groups, not individuals,

and based on shared experiences.

 Organizational Culture 5

A core tenet regarding organizational culture is the group nature of the concept.

Theorists have used this property to distinguish organizational culture from other, similar

constructs, and to differentiate methods from previous work in organizational climate.

Culture provides an organization’s members with a framework for understanding and

making sense of their work environment and

experiences (Siehl & Martin, 1983).

4. Each organization’s culture is relatively unique, malleable and subject to continual

change.

Central to this tenet was the debate over whether culture is something an organization

has or something that an organization is. Originally, anthropological scholars relied

on their disciplinary traditions and asserted that organizations were cultures in

themselves (Rousseau, 1990). Further research, however, has led to relative

consensus that culture is a property that the organization possesses. Further, since

culture is a possession, there is the sense that it can be controlled, or at the very least

influenced and changed, by its members. Culture, therefore, is developed over time

and is not a static property. The assertion that culture is unique has led to some debate

over how it is assessed. Generally, academic researchers believe that each

organization’s culture is distinct, although some instruments have demonstrated the

ability to group separate cultures into broad categories. The notion that culture was

malleable was an attractive attribute to corporate managers. Those that subscribed

to this theory believed that molding organizational culture to an ideal form would thereby

improve organizational output.

 Organizational Culture 6

Several accepted definitions of organizational culture are used in the literature, a

reflection of the epistemologic backgrounds or interests of the researcher. Most recent

research on culture either cites Schein’s (1987) definition or uses a derivation of his

work. Schein’s roots as a sociologist and his interests in the integration of new

employees are apparent in his definition:

Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions which a given group has

invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external

adaptation and internal integration, which have worked well enough to be considered

valid, and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think

and feel in relation to those problems…it is the assumptions which lie behind values

and which determine the behavior patterns and the visible artifacts such as

architecture, office layout, dress codes, and so on (1987, p. 383).

Controversies

Despite the growing consensus among researchers interested in organizational

culture, there is also considerable disagreement. This does not necessarily mean that

organizational culture is a weak or ill-defined concept. Rather, this divergence is

indicative of a continually developing body of research (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, &

Peterson, 2000). Several controversies surrounded the definition and operationalization

of organizational culture. Therefore, this paper will limit discussion to the three most

frequently cited.

Singular versus plural

Is there one, single culture per organization or are there several different cultures

found within an organization? Early researchers of organizational culture, particularly

 Organizational Culture 7

those from the anthropologic perspective, posited that in order to be defined as a unique

culture, each organization possessed a singular, universal culture. More recent research,

however, has revealed the presence of subcultures, also known as “nested” cultures

(Parker, 2000). This is an important quality to consider when conceptualizing culture

management or change. Additionally, recent cultural research has addressed the duality

of perceived versus actual culture. More research is warranted to determine the

implications of perceived and actual culture within an organization.

Consensus versus dissensus

In the same vein as the preceding controversy, a body of research on

organizational culture has focused on the consistency of culture throughout an

organization. This often places administrative perceptions in opposition to the lived

experience of an organization’s employees. Meyerson’s (1991) research has focused on

the framing of culture within three paradigms: Integration, ambiguity and fragmentation.

Meyerson asserts that it is appropriate, when characterizing an organization’s

culture, to classify it within the bounds of its actual implementation. Based on her

qualitative study of hospital social workers, she states that an integrated culture is one

that “shares common and clear understandings and identities” (p. 131). Fragmentation

and ambiguity, in turn, account for differences in perceptions and experiences among

organization members. Many researchers, in an attempt to account for these differences,

have used Meyerson’s classification when assessing culture.

There is considerable disagreement regarding this method of classification.

Schein states:

If there is no consensus or if there is conflict or if things are ambiguous, then, by

 Organizational Culture 8

definition, that group does not have a culture in regard to those things. It may have

subcultures, smaller groups that have a shared … consensus about

something, but the concept of sharing or consensus is core to the definition (1991, p.

248).

Meyerson (1991) later argues that ambiguities may be viewed as normal or abnormal

within an organization’s culture and that most cultural assessments consciously exclude

ambiguities, since organizational researchers usually study objective and concrete

phenomena.

Culture versus climate: The same or different?

Much research has been devoted to the differentiation of culture from climate. As

culture was being developed into a separate field of inquiry in the early 1980s, a common

justification for its study was its unique qualities, separate from organizational climate.

Many articles, books and chapters have been written on this subject. Rather than present

this debate in its entirety, this paper will attempt to highlight the major elements of this

controversy.

In an early, simplistic attempt to delineate the two concepts, Schwartz & Davis

(1981) stated, “Whatever culture is, it is not climate” (p. 32). This distinction, although

not terribly sophisticated, formed the basis of much conceptual development in the 1980s.

The disciplinary origins of climate and culture overlap, with both sharing common

sociological threads. Climate research is grounded in Lewin’s Gestalt psychology,

whereas culture embodies references to anthropology (Schneider, 2000). Traditionally,

climate has been measured with quantitative measurements and is often compared across
 Organizational Culture 9

settings. Generally, climate is classified by its purpose (e.g., climate for service, climate

for productivity).

The most accepted definition of climate is “the relatively enduring organizational

environment that a) is experienced by the occupants, b) influences their behavior and c)

can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics or attributes of

the environment” (Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968, p. 25). This definition is quite similar to that

of organizational culture. In fact, several researchers have propagated the idea that

climate is a manifestation of culture (e.g., Schein, 1984; Reichers & Schneider, 1990;

Hatch, 1993) and that the “inadequacies of one approach become the justification for the

other” (Denison, 1996, p. 6).

During the emergence of culture as a distinct organizational quality, a central

issue was differentiating it from organizational climate. As the culture construct was

further developed, and methods for assessment were determined, these two areas

approached convergence. Meyerson, in fact, retrospectively asserted that the

development of culture “represented an ontological rebellion against the dominant

functionalist or ‘scientific’ paradigm” (1991, p. 256). Is the distinction between climate

and culture simply a divergence of methods or disciplines?

Recent research indicates that, while not exactly the same, culture and climate are

not as different as originally conceptualized. Denison has written in-depth on this

controversy. He begins a lengthy essay on this topic by stating:

Although it is clear that culture and climate are, in fact, very different perspectives on

organizational environments, it is far less clear that they actually examine distinct

organizational phenomena…or whether they represent closely related phenomena that

 Organizational Culture 10

are examined from different perspectives (1996, p. 3).

In fact, it is clear that both culture and climate attempt to address the interplay between

individuals and their surroundings, but it becomes a circular debate to determine which

produces and/or affects the other.

Denison (1996) noted that the development of culture wreaked havoc with climate

researchers, introducing new methods and allowing for variation of assessment.

Although many acknowledge that climate is a more superficial manifestation of culture, it

is less clear if this overlap is indicative of different concepts or simply two aspects of the

same construct. With the introduction of quantitative and mixed methods for study of

organizational culture in the 1990s, this distinction became even more blurred. As the

conceptualization and assessment of culture have advanced, it is increasingly apparent to

many organizational researchers that the two concepts differ more in interpretation rather

than within the phenomena themselves (Denison 1996).

Assessment Methods

Qualitative Approach

It can be concluded from the literature on organizational culture that most

conceptualizations are of deep, intangible phenomena not easily objectified. For these

reasons, and because culture was initially differentiated from climate by its

anthropological influence, initial scholarly inquiry about culture employed qualitative

methods. Early studies of organizational culture largely used ethnography or participant

observation to describe cultures, one institution at a time (Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott,

1997). The development of cultural study, as distinct from climate study, used the

applicability of qualitative methods as justification for differentiation. Additionally, early

 Organizational Culture 11

researchers believed that standardized, quantitative instruments were inappropriate for

cultural assessment because they would be unable to capture the subjective and unique

aspects of each culture. Opponents of a strictly qualitative approach, however, asserted

that comparison between cultures is not possible using this technique.

Quantitative Tools

Frustration with the limited generalizability and time intensiveness of qualitative

methods led to the development of quantitative tools to assess culture. Rousseau (1990)

advocates for quantitative instruments, stating that cultural assessment would benefit in

strength and validity from the testing of psychometric properties in these instruments. In

order to support quantitative methods, however, the underlying conception of culture

must be that it is something an organization possesses, rather than embodies,

contradictory to some anthropological theory.

Cameron & Quinn (1999) argue that it is crucial, if using quantitative instruments,

that these be validated to ensure the reporting of underlying values and assumptions,

rather than climate. Further, many theorists argue that questionnaires or survey

instruments are inappropriate for measuring culture in that they “measure the dimensions

of culture determined in advance by the researcher, thus potentially missing or distorting

the actual dimensions of cultures existing a priori in the organization itself” (Druckman,

Singer, & Van Cott, 1997, p. 72). Taken together, the weaknesses of using qualitative or

quantitative methods alone leave potential for omission of crucial elements of culture.

Mixed Methods

In 1983, Siehl and Martin attempted to bridge this gap by using mixed methods.

Since then, mixed methods have emerged as the preferred method for assessing
 Organizational Culture 12

organizational culture. Most recent studies involve some combination of participant

observation, interview, focus group, survey and/or questionnaire. It is believed that

mixed methods allow the most explanation of error variance, greater depth in elaboration

of culture as a construct (Alvesson & Berg, 1992) and more opportunity for data analysis

(Fleeger, 1993). A great deal of writing has been devoted to promoting and employing

mixed methods (Siehl & Martin, 1990; Rousseau, 1990; Ashkanasy, Wilderom, &

Peterson, 2000; Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Smith, Francovich, & Gieselman, 2000;

Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Fleeger, 1993; Goodridge & Hack, 1996;

Siehl & Martin, 1983).

Assessment Tools

As the assessment of organizational culture evolved and quantitative methods

gained popularity and acceptance, various questionnaires and surveys were developed. It

is important to note that some of these tools were developed in order to be marketed to

managers and were therefore not subject to theoretical development by academic

researchers. Discussion in this paper will be limited to those tools developed by trained

researchers.

Unfortunately, most tools assessing organizational culture were never subjected to

psychometric evaluation. It is recognized that there is no ideal instrument as each tool

has limitations for use or scope (Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003). That being

said, the two most cited and scientifically rigorous instruments are the Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI; Cameron & Quinn, 1999) and the Organizational

Culture Inventory (OCI; Cooke & Lafferty, 1986).

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

 Organizational Culture 13

The OCAI uses ipsative scoring scales to categorize organizational culture. In

ipsative scoring, respondents assign points to their answers and all answers must sum to a

predetermined total. The OCAI is based upon the Competing Values Framework,

originally conceptualized by Campbell in 1974. Derived from this framework, the OCAI

has undergone several revisions and, through factor analysis, has a well developed

classification system. Quinn refined Campbell’s work in 1983 to create four

organizational “types”: Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market. Ultimately, these types

became the basis for the OCAI. Cameron and Quinn (1999) emphasize that there is no

one “correct” typology for an organization. The OCAI assesses the degree of each type

represented in an organization and presents an individualized assessment of

appropriateness of that typology, given the organization’s goals.

The OCAI was deliberately designed to be simple, so as to facilitate maximum

participation at all levels of an organization. Additionally, it contains generalized

questions, in order to appeal to many different kinds of organizations. The OCAI, or

versions of it also based on the Competing Values Framework, have been used in several

studies of organizational culture (e. g., Denison, 1990; Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Jones,

DeBaca, & Yarbrough, 1997). Its reliability and validity were established in a series of

studies (Quinn & Spreitzer 1991; Yeung, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 1991; Zammuto &

Krakower, 1991).

Critics of the OCAI maintain that it does not precisely measure culture, instead

“pigeon holing” organizations into a priori diagnostic categories created by researchers

(Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott, 1997). Strict qualitative methodologists object on the

grounds that this does not reveal the unique aspects of an organization’s culture, instead
 Organizational Culture 14

lumping results into generic categories. Cameron and Quinn, however, readily admit that

the OCAI is intended to be both diagnostic and prescriptive in function. Further, ipsative

scoring inherently creates a situation where respondents’ answers are dependent upon

each other, since they must sum to a pre-determined total. This can obscure the

interpretation and clarity of results. Proponents of the OCAI point to its ease in

implementation and its low cost.

Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI)

Similarly, the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI; Cooke & Lafferty, 1986)

classifies organizations into three general types of cultures: Constructive,

Passive/Defensive and Aggressive/Defensive. Additionally, it evaluates twelve sets of

behavioral norms within an organization. The OCI has been used for many purposes and

is the most widely used industry tool for assessing organizational culture, completed by

over 2 million respondents worldwide as of the year 2000 (Cooke & Szumal, 2000).

Since this tool has been used so widely, a large information base exists on the behavior of

cultures.

The conceptual framework for the OCI was developed by Cooke and colleagues

and is based upon distinguishing between an organization’s concern for people versus its

concern for task. The OCI tool is built upon the Human Synergistics circumplex

conceptual framework, derived via factor analysis from many cultural studies. Sub-

constructs of the OCI have been empirically supported and validated by numerous

sources (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Cooke & Szumal, 1993; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996).

Similar to the OCAI, organizations are typed and classified into three predetermined

categories based on the degree of strength to which they represent each category. In
 Organizational Culture 15

addition to assessing the current culture of an organization, the OCI has the capacity to

determine the ideal culture for an organization, allowing for comparison between actual

and ideal cultures. This feature has led to the use of the OCI as the basis for planning

culture change.

A quantitative instrument with similar predetermined categories, the OCI shares

the same criticisms as the OCAI. Additionally, it is not as user-friendly and simple as the

OCAI. The OCI is a lengthier survey and is subject to proprietary analysis, eliminating

the possibility of internal organizational evaluation. Its widespread use and extensive

psychometric testing make it an attractive option for researchers. Cooke and Szumal

(2000) list more international testing (Asia, Africa, Latin America) as a next step in the

development of the OCI.

Applicability to Health Care

Most work on organizational culture concerns the traditional corporation.

Therefore, some adaptation to the central goals and focus of a human services

organization are necessary before application to a health care setting. Although not

always explicit, it appears that Schein’s conceptual work and theory have most

influenced the study of organizational culture in health care. Schein is frequently cited as

the conceptual reference for this inquiry. Sovie (1993) emphasizes that health care

organizations should be particularly concerned with organizational culture because “the

shared beliefs, values, and feelings that exist within an institution direct the perception of

and the approach to the work that is to be done” (p. 72).

Two teams of researchers (Gershon, Stone, Bakken, & Larson, 2004; Scott,

Mannion, Davies & Marshall, 2003) have completed in-depth searches and evaluated
 Organizational Culture 16

tools used to measure organizational culture in the health care setting. Both teams

reviewed biomedical literature via online databases and consulted with experts in the

behavioral research field. Although most instruments were developed and published in

the mid-1980s, Gershon and colleagues (2004) found that their application to health care

was largely limited to the previous five years. Additionally, most studies were completed

in hospitals and targeted nurses in their evaluations. They surmise that this could be in

response to a 1999 Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer

Health Care System, which advocated culture change in order to decrease medical error

rates.

Gershon and colleagues also found, predictably, that terminology differed across

instruments. Potentially, this contributes to the further confounding of assessment of

organizational culture. Reflecting frustration with the inconsistency of terms, the team

stated:

If aspects of the organizational culture are ill-defined, frequently shifting, poorly

communicated, not reinforced, and/or poorly supported administratively, both the

employees’ collective perceptions and their behaviors (i.e., delivery of care, safe work

practices, and teamwork) will be inconsistent (2004, p. 37, emphasis in original).

Gershon and team conclude, on the basis of reliability and validity, that the

Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Lafferty, 1986) is most appropriate for use in

the health care setting.

A year previous to Gershon’s article, Scott and colleagues (2003) performed a

similar analysis of organizational culture instruments in health care. They identified

thirteen tools designed specifically to measure culture only (without reference to climate).
 Organizational Culture 17

Nine of these thirteen were used in studies of health care environments. Schein’s

conceptualization of organizational culture was used when analyzing each tool, only

quantitative measures were evaluated.

Rather than choosing one “best” instrument for cultural assessment, the team

concluded that “the choice of instrument should be determined by how organizational

culture is conceptualized by the research team, the purpose of the investigation, intended

use of the results and availability of resources” (Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall,

2003, p. 923). In this way, the team’s recommendations are appropriate to a wider set of

applications for cultural assessment. Overall, however, Scott and colleagues devote a

large portion of their concluding thoughts to advocating mixed methods. Citing their

earlier work, Scott’s team deemed it appropriate to study surface manifestations of

culture with quantitative methods and follow up with assessment of underlying

assumptions with qualitative techniques. The team then provides examples of studies

using mixed methods in different order (e.g., Qual-quant, Quant-qual). They determined

that either order could be appropriate, depending on the goals of the study.

Conclusion

After 25 years of development, the construct of organizational culture has finally

reached some consensus. Although research does not universally subscribe to one

definition of organizational culture, there is relative agreement on major elements of its

definition. Organizational culture exists. It can be ambiguous, but it is unique to each

institution and malleable. Organizational culture is socially constructed, arising from

group interactions.
 Organizational Culture 18

As the construct has developed, so have methods for assessing it. Beginning with

the assertion that organizational culture can be evaluated using qualitative techniques,

researchers have moved on to consider broader methods. Quantitative measurement tools

have been developed and psychometrically tested, and, most recently, mixed methods

have been employed to provide a richer assessment of organizational culture. Although

most of the conceptual and measurement work regarding organizational culture has been

based upon the traditional corporate structure, research has shown that it is adaptable to

the health care sector. The recognition and assessment of organizational culture is

particularly valuable in health care, as it addresses the therapeutic milieu, thereby

creating the potential to maximize service, quality and outcomes for both health care

providers and recipients of care.

 Organizational Culture 19

References

Alvesson, M. & Berg, P. O. (1992). Corporate culture and organizational symbolism.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage Publications.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E. & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures of

organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson

(Eds.) Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 131-147).

Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Cameron, K. M. & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type:

Relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 5, 23-59.

Cameron, K. M. & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cooke, R. A. & Lafferty, J. C. (1986). Organizational Culture Inventory (Form III).

Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.

Cooke, R. A. & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A

quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group &

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 245-273.

Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral

expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the Organizational

Culture Inventory. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Part II), 1299-1330.

Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to

understand the operating cultures of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.

 Organizational Culture 20

Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.) Handbook of organizational culture and

climate (pp. 147-163). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate

life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York,

NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.

Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 1-36.

Druckman, D., Singer, J. E. & Van Cott, H. (1997). Enhancing organizational

performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fleeger, M. E. (1993). Assessing organizational culture: A planning strategy. Nursing

Management, 24(2), 39-42.

Gershon, R. R. M., Stone, P. W., Bakken, S., & Larson, E. (2004). Measurement of

organizational culture and climate in healthcare. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 34(1), 33-40.

Goodridge, D. & Hack, B. (1996). Assessing the congruence of nursing models with

organizational culture: A quality improvement perspective. Journal of Nursing

Care Quality, 10(2), 41-48.

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of culture. Academy of Management Review, 18, 657-

693.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational

cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative

 Organizational Culture 21

Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286-316.

Jones, K. R., DeBaca, V., & Yarbrough, M. (1997). Organizational culture assessment

before and after implementing patient-focused care. Nursing Economic$, 15(2),

73-78.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in

experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-

299.

Meyerson, D. E. (1991). “Normal” ambiguity?: A glimpse of an occupational culture. In

P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),

Reframing organizational culture (pp.131-145). Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese

challenge. New York: Avon.

Parker, M. (2000). Organizational culture and identity. London: Sage Publications.

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from

America’s Best Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 24, 570-581.

Quinn, R. E. & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values

culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on

quality of life. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in

organizational change and development (pp. 115-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Inc.
 Organizational Culture 22

Reichers, A. E. & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs.

In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-40). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple

methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 153-

193). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan

Management Review, 25(2), 3-16.

Schein, E. H. (1987). Defining organizational culture. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott (Eds.),

Classics of organizational theory (2nd ed.), (p.381-396). Chicago: The Dorsey

Press.

Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.

Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp.243-254).

Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Schneider, B. (Ed.) (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P.

M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.) Handbook of organizational culture and

climate (pp. xvii-xxiii). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications

Schwartz, H. & Davis, S. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy.

Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30-38.

Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement
 Organizational Culture 23

of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments.

HSR: Health Services Research, 38(3), 923-945.

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S. (Eds.) (1987). Classics of organizational theory (2nd ed.).

Chicago: The Dorsey Press.

Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1983). Organizational culture and counter culture: An uneasy

symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 52-64.

Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance? In

B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Smith, C. S., Francovich, C. & Gieselman, J. (2000). Pilot test of an organizational

culture model in a medical setting. The Health Care Manager, 19(2), 68-77.

Sovie, M. D. (1993). Hospital culture-Why create one? Nursing Economic$, 11(2), 69-

75.

Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G. (Eds.) (1968.) Organizational climate: Explorations of a

concept. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. . In

P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),

Reframing organizational culture (pp.31-55). Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Williams, R. (1983). Keywords. London: Fontana.

Xenikou, A. & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four

questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49(3), 349-

371.
 Organizational Culture 24

Yeung, A. K. O., Brockbank, J. W. & Ulrich, D. O. (1991). Organizational culture and

human resources: An empirical assessment. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A.

Pasmore (Eds.) Research in Organizational Change and Development. (pp.59-

61). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Zammuto, R. F. & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of

organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5,

83-115.
Organizational Culture 25