The Value of Organizational Climate Analysis in Preventing and Solving Professional Environment Conflicts

Ticu Constantin, PhD1

Abstract The current article firstly offers a brief organizational climate concept presentation (as related to the concept of organizational culture), with a stress on the importance of organizational climate analysis in preventing and solving work environment conflicts. An organizational climate analysis standardized procedure (called the E.C.O. System2) is then described. By using this system, employees are able to assess the extent to which certain attitudes or behaviours are characteristic to their group activities. This leads to the assessment of 14 specific factors. Each factor is then connected to four organizational climate functionality areas (dysfunctional, deficient, functional, successful) and to four collective significance indicators (advantages, disadvantages, ambiguities, opportunities). The ECO System can be used to periodically evaluate organizational climate and can, at the same time, function as an emotional gauge during corporate crises or major changes (likely to affect organizational and individual security).

Introduction Solving professional environment conflicts depends on (1) social-economic background factors associated to the organizational context (such as legislation, fiscal issues, competition, social community or environmental pressures), on (2) staff personality factors (attitudes, motivations, individual personality traits, conflict-solving styles etc.) and on (3) various inherent factors (specific to ongoing organizational contexts). Regarding the third category, organizational climate analysis is intended to identify and analyze organizational factors related to an organizations optimal functioning (including company productivity and employee satisfaction levels). Organizational climate analysis provides: a. organization and organizational context analysis (including its external connections);

Professor, Department of Psychology, The Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Al. I. Cuza University of Iasi, Romania 2 Author-chosen term.

b. an accurate diagnosis of conflict-related factors (causes, maintaining factors, consequences) relevant to organizational and individual welfare; c. obtaining critical information on efficient conflict management and solving; d. relevant information for anticipating, planning and managing organizational changes. Conclusions provided by organizational climate analysis can be used to improve interpersonal relationships, team work and organizational performance. Moreover, introducing company managers to organizational climate analysis tools and data is essential in developing good managing skills. This article will provide a brief introduction to the concept of organizational climate (as related to the concept of organizational culture), and will describe an organizational climate analysis standardized procedure (E.C.O. System) which can serve to solve conflicts and improve individual and organization welfare.

1. Organizational climate versus organizational culture The concept of organizational climate refers to the staffs current state of mind, which reflects both the organizational culture and recent organizational changes (Cherrington, 1989, p. 99). The organizational climate is a sum of employees perceptions, mainly influencing their behaviours during a certain period of time. It is a representation of both individual and collective organizational culture (Constantin, 2008). Organizational climate analysis emphasizes organizational culture elements and what organization personality stands for. Organizational climate is not an organizational culture variety, although it is often described as a result of collective perceptions and assessments. While organizational culture refers to persistent, stable elements deeply-rooted in employees mentality, the organizational climate indicates rather superficial elements (such as employees reactions, opinions and tendencies regarding changing or conflictive organization contexts. Organizational climate analysis reveals rather obvious, superficial components of an organizations personality. As opposed to organizational culture analysis (of a rather abstract importance), organizational climate analysis provides real, practical information easy to use when trying to improve 2

employees performance and labour satisfaction. Moreover, its conclusions provide an objective basis in staff-related decision making, thus reducing organization management. Company-employed specialists or expert consultants can use organizational climate analysis tools to make organizational diagnoses and implement changes.

2. Describing an Organizational Climate Analysis Tool (The E.C.O. System) There are many theoretical and empirical studies on various organizational climate dimensions, which makes it difficult to isolate a set of variables relevant to organizational climate analysis (Constantin & Zaharia, 2007). By reviewing specific articles on organizational culture and climate, it was possible to create a custom research strategy; the purpose was to identify relevant organizational climate factors and to design a standardized measure for their evaluation (such a measure would be a valuable asset to any organizational consultancy service). From a methodological point of view, we began by reviewing international scientific research which we later adapted (by using interviews and expert-groups) to the Romanian reality, in order to obtain a standardized procedure to improve organizational climate variables analysis.

2.1. E.C.O. System description The ECO System requires employees to assess 14 specific organizational climate factors (13 main factors and one secondary factor). Each of the 14 factors is described by using a language employees can easily understand; these factors are then described as 8 sentences expressing various organizational conducts and attitudes. Employees assess to what extent each described conduct and attitude is present in an individual, a working group or their entire organization. Following each factors 8-sentence description, employees are asked to: 1) describe real problems they have encountered; 2) identify these problems causes; 3) make suggestions for improving the respective dimension (if the situation demands it). As a next step, employees then provide their input on the following topics: assigned tasks (clearly-defined goals and tasks), relationships (positive interpersonal relationships), motivation (stimulating motivation), support (performance-oriented support), management (efficient management), evaluation (objective assessment), justice (organizational fair play), 3

attachment (personal attachment to the organization), decision-making (quality of decisions), learning (organizational learning), satisfaction (stimulating activities), security (professional safety), communication (efficient communication), overloading (work overload), importance (subjective impact). The ECO System is a simple standardized procedure; it is descriptive, appreciated by managers and has great practical value. The system has been verified and used on thousands of employees belonging to various companies, thus having proven its practical value.

2.2. E.C.O. System Results Analysis

2.2.1. General Assessments Analysis The ECO System provides relevant graphical charts and analyses of each organizational climate factor, outlining its impact on individual and global performance levels. Four different areas are being taken into account: Successful climate This is an ideal case for any company, all analyzed factors receiving highly positive employee assessments. This areas group evaluations indicate high levels of individual and general performance. There are very few companies or institutions with most factors situated in this case-area. Functional climate Analyzed factors receive mostly positive employee evaluations; however, the situation is not completely satisfactory. Most effective companies or institutions normally fall under this category. They have good organizational climates and average performance levels. Functional does not necessarily mean successful, and achieving a successful level depends on proper organizational performance conditions. Deficient climate Assessed factors appear to be neglected by company management and employees consider them a negative influence on individual satisfaction and global performance levels. Many factors falling under this category should have an alarming role, as they definitely induce negative consequences on individual and global performance levels. Companies in this situation should adopt immediate measures in order bring these factors to the functional area. 4

Dysfunctional climate This area includes neglected organizational factors considered deficient, conflictive and negative organizational influences (as affecting individual and group performance or personal satisfaction levels) by employees. Companies that fall under this category should be alarmed, negative effects on individual and group performance being certain. The company should take immediate action and push factors up towards the functional area.

Work n munca sup raincarc areaoverload Efficient communication comun icare e ficienta Personal security securitate pe rsonala Stimulatingstim ulativa activi tate activities Organizational learning n vatare o rganiz ationala Quality of decisions calitatea de ciziilor
identificare c u firma
Per sonal attachment A AA A A A A A A A A AA
2.0
DYSFUNCTIONAL

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A

Department
A A A

Departament
Department X Department Y Department Z

Organizational equity e chitate o rganiza tionala Fair evaluation

eva luare o biectiva

Effective management conducere e ficienta Performance-oriented support sprijin pentru perfo rmanta Stimulating motivation motiv atie stim ulativa relatiiPositive interpersonal interpersonale pozitive relationships
Clearly-defined tasks and goals
ob iective si sarcini clare
1.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

DEFICIENT

FUNCTIONAL

SUCCESSFUL

Fig. 1. Graphical illustration of organizational climate factors (Company K)

2.2.2. Collective Significance Indicators Analysis The E.C.O. System also provides analyses of each assessed factors significance, defining specific organizational climate aspects as advantages, disadvantages, opportunities or ambiguities, and pointing out efficiency / cupidity / economy / squander-related scenarios. Organizational climate dimensions assessed average scores assessment (positive/negative, according to employees) will be related to a specific dimensions attributed importance mean (determined by groups members assessment) importance (the dimensions organizational importance). Combining these two values will result in four dimension areas.

WeakPoints
Avarice
4

Goodpoints
Effficiency

relationships satisfaction motivation

3 1 2 3

evaluation
4 5

justice management assigned safety organizational tasks support learning decision attachment overloading
2

Ucertainty Economy
1

Opportunities Waste

Fig. 2. Sales Groups advantages / disadvantages / opportunities

I. The first described area (ADVANTAGES) includes dimensions employees: (a) considered important to their work, and (b) assessed positively. The closer a dimension gets to the top right corner, the more it positively affects organizational performance. Therefore, company resources were effectively invested in this dimension (EFFICIENCY). II. The second area (OPPORTUNITIES) includes organizational dimensions considered satisfactory by employees; they also consider these factors less important in their work and in organizational performance. The given dimensions can prove to be good starting grounds for implementing: a positive organizational climate, pride reasons for employees, personal accomplishments, organizational culture elements. On the other hand, the closer a dimension gets to the bottom right corner, the less the organization should maintain it, since it is effort, energy and resource consuming (SQUANDER). III. The third area (AMBIGUITIES) consists of negatively-assessed organizational climate dimensions considered less important for organizational performance. Theoretically, this area includes those organizational dimensions/matters which are not urgent (solving them can wait). If many dimensions are located within this area, one may suspect that beyond employees dissatisfaction lies general organizational indolence or mistrust in company promises/initiatives. Furthermore, management cautiously allocates resources to this area dimensions (ECONOMY).

IV. The fourth area (DISADVANTAGES) refers to negatively-evaluated dimensions (employees being unsatisfied by the current situation); concurrently, employees consider these dimensions important to them and to organizational performance. These are organizational disadvantages, which in organizational climate terms mean they negatively affect organizational performance. Organizational changes should focus on these specific dimensions, in order to improve organizational climate. Although considered very important by employees, very few resources were invested in these dimensions prior to the evaluation (CUPIDITY).

2.3. Result Analysis and Interpretation Options The E.C.O. System provides graphical charts and data analysis related to four climate functionality areas (dysfunctional, deficient, functional and successful) and to four collective significance indicators (advantages, disadvantages, ambiguities, opportunities), by following certain aspects: o Company (or institution) general profile representation, after undergone assessments; o Identifying organizational climate positive or negative factors belonging to advantageous areas or collective significance indicators; o Inter-team (departments, work units) comparisons, with the purpose of identifying functional or dysfunctional aspects within each team; o Profile comparisons subsequent to repeated evaluations (monthly, every three months) and highlighting long-term progress; o Comparing company/institution general profile to an external benchmark profile (resulted from other similar companies/institutions evaluations); o Comparing company (or institution) general profile to an internal benchmark profile, in order to emphasize changes determined by general organizational changes (in case of repeated assessments); o Comparisons depending on socio-demographic variables (age, sex, company work experience, hierarchic position); o Monitoring organizational climate improving strategies (in case of repeated assessments) by deficient factors identification, employee-provided solutions analysis and by determining the organizational changes impact;

work overcharge supraincarcarea n munca efficient communication comunicare eficienta professional safety securitatea profesionala stimulating activity activi tate stimulativa organizational learning nvatare organizationala decisionsdeciziilor calitatea quality identification with the firm identificare cu firma organizational equity echitate organizationala objective evaluation evaluare obiectiva efficient management conducere eficienta supportpentru performanta sprijin for performance stimulating motivation motivatie stimulativa positive interpersonal relations relatii interpersonale pozitive objective and concrete tasks obiective si sarcini clare
1 2

A A

A A A A AA A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
4 5

Divizia
A A A A A A Natural Drinks Detergents Fast foods So ft Drinks Logistic Cosmetics

A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A
3

A A A AA A A AA A A A A A A A A A A AA A

A A AA A A

A AA A AA

DYSFUNCTIONAL

INSUFFICIENT

FUNCTIONAL

C OMPETITIVE

Fig. 3. Comparative graphical illustration of organizational climate factors (by Products)

o Identifying and managing performance-related dimensions, by comparing their evolutions over a certain period of time and connecting them to recorded company performance; comparing similar groups with different performance levels, employee-provided suggestions analysis; o Increasing employees trust and involvement in organizational improvement activities (provided that evaluations confidentiality is respected and employees realize that organizational improvements are based upon their own assessments and suggestions).

2.4. Open Answers (Suggestions) Analysis Analyzing employees difficulties (for each given dimension, as referring to each division/unit activity), employee-provided causes (for their difficulties) and suggestions is crucial. By analyzing such descriptions according to certain categories (issues, causes, solutions) or as logical successions (issues, causes and employee-suggested solutions), the companys management can promptly and specifically intervene. Middle and long term strategies can also be generated (especially for time-consuming or financially-demanding interventions).

What are your main communication /collaboration problems? State the problem by suggesting possible causes and by describing possible solutions. Causes Obscure, poorly-structured. Some employees stubbornness, insufficient time or professional training. Inventory deducting of certain products. Excessive bureaucracy. No HR department involvement. No HR department involvement. Solutions Using a new editing format. Cause-uncovering and solution-finding discussions; job discharges. Product labeling and translation according to original invoices. Logical supply management. Clearly defined job descriptions and assigned tasks. Clearly defined job descriptions and assigned tasks. Job description clarifications. New workload distribution analysis; additional staff training for individual problem solving.

Problems Complicated company records. Professional communication (between one departments employees). Poor translations for imported merchandise. Missing merchandise.

No job description.

No job description. More efficient managing of supplies. Job description compliance.

Losing one working day due to machines configuration.

Additional tasks. Machines not arriving already configured and responsible staff postponing machines configuration.

2.5. Other E.C.O. System Applications The ECO System is constantly undergoing revisions and adjustments so it can properly evaluate most relevant organizational climate factors and provide useful data on organizational performance improvement strategies.

2.5.1. Social Desirability Tendency - Regular Application Effects Certain unexpected effects can arise when repeatedly applying this procedure, eliminating some reservations regarding desirability tendency or employees conformity (common to this evaluation type). After ECO System successive applications within companies, it was noticed that first assessments are mainly positive, second evaluations tend to be negative; further evaluations become increasingly stable (average scores specific to the company/institution). What do these patterns stand for? During their first evaluation, employees are usually quite skeptical, fearing evaluations being used against them. There is a tendency to provide less negative evaluations. However, once they realize nothing bad would occur to them after organizational climate evaluations and that some of their own suggestions help solving problems or improving working conditions (and climate), employees tend to become more forthcoming and say what they really think. Later on, employees become gradually more objective for future evaluations and offer more sensible evaluations, more specific problem descriptions and more practical suggestions for overcoming difficulties.

2.5.2. Employees Involvement the First Step Another important consequence of repeatedly applying an organizational climate evaluation system consists of employees increasing company attachment and organizational involvement. As we pointed up before, this happens only when individual evaluations remain confidential and employees realize that organizational changes are based upon their own evaluations and suggestions. Under these circumstances, employees realize that the management is truly interested in their organizational input and involvement. One of the managements most important objectives is gaining employees trust especially during crisis situations, latent management-employee conflicts or organizational change periods. Furthermore, one cannot expect employees to be committed to the organization if the management is unable to earn their trust this should be the first step in designing an efficient strategy for involving employees in organizational development plans. 10

2.5.3. Organizational Consultancy and Scientific Research Other ECO System uses relate to organizational consultancy services or organizational scientific research. Regarding the organizational consultancy field, such an analysis tool enables the consultant to initiate contact with the organizational climate, which he will then try to manage (understanding the organizational context). It will also be the starting grounds for: 1. creating a first consistent organizational diagnosis report (earning the managers trust); 2. identifying major setbacks and planning intervention measures (consultancy guiding); 3. obtaining feed-back after implementing various organizational change strategies (intervention effects validation); 4. offering flexible consulting services (customized consultancy services). 5. As for organizational scientific research, such analysis tools can prove to be useful in: 6. validating theoretical dimensions relevance in real-life organizational environments and identifying each dimensions importance in creating a stimulating working climate; 7. identifying secondary (hidden) dimensions likely to influence employee assessments (an organizational culture analogy); 8. validating organizational climate dimensions connection to (both intra- and inter-) organizational performance; 9. identifying connections to other individual or group psychological variables etc.

3. Conclusions. Organizational Climate Analysis Value The thing that makes organizational climate analysis tools valuable is their use in emphasizing employees perceptions, reactions or opinions at certain times or when facing a specific organizational crisis (Constantin, Zaharia, 2007). Organizational climate analysis is all the more important when an organization faces a clash in employees opinions or attitudes (between different professional or group categories) or is affected by an obvious gap between mere employees and upper management. Organizational 11

crises or changes are defined by conflictive, tense moments which negatively affect organizational and individual balance. During such times, the organizational climate analysis proves to be particularly useful, since it: provides an anonymous and democratic expressing of all view points; elucidates and describes the real status of the organization; highlights conflict causes and divergent opinions; underlines employee satisfaction/dissatisfaction reasons; identifies ongoing and future difficulties; provides inter-department or inter-group comparisons; provides an analysis of climate dimensions over specific periods of time; provides indirect analysis of decision-making quality and management style (regarding middle or upper management employees); provides an objective basis for staff-related decisions; identifies best long-term and medium-term intervention methods and changes (organizational development strategies). By using a standardized organizational climate analysis procedure, managers can efficiently co-ordinate their Human Resources management department. Analyzing the general socio-professional climate should be a frequent managing practice for any company. This provides regular employee inputs and can elicit employees feed-back during organizational changes. Aside from describing the way employees perceive an organizational climates different problems. The benefits brought on by this standardized organizational climate analysis tool are important not only to the organization itself, but also in competing against other companies. The thing that makes a company efficient or perform ant (by comparison to a weaker, poorly organized, inefficient organization) is its employees and their commitment to organizational goals. A positive organizational climate is the only way to achieve high individual and group performance levels, by ensuring optimal organizational and individual welfare levels. variables and problems causes, consequences and possible solutions, socio-professional climate helps anticipating, preventing and solving possible future

12

References

Ashkanasy, N., Wilderom, C. & Peterson, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Alexoaie A. (2005). Analiza climatului organizational si a comunicarii in institutia medicala, Bachelors thesis (manuscript), Alexandru Iona Cuza University, Iai, Faculty of Psychology. Argyris, C. (1970), Participation et organisation, Dunod, Paris. Babakus, E., Zavas, U., Karatepe, O.M. and Avci, T. (2003). The Effect of Management Commitment to Service Quality on Employees Affective and Performance Outcomes, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 31, nr. 3, pp. 272286. Bain, P. G., Mann, L. and Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The Innovation: The Relationships between Team Climate, Innovation, and Performance in Research and Development Teams, Small Group Research, vol. 32, nr. 1, pp. 55-73. Chang, A., and Bordia, P. (2001). A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion Group Performance Relationship, Small Group Research, vol. 32 nr. 4, pp. 379405. Chelcea S., Marginean I., Zamfir C. and Zlate M., (1980). Dezvoltarea umana a ntreprinderii. Editura Academiei, Bucuresti. Cherrington J. D. (1989). Organizational Behavior, The Management of Individual and Organizational Performance, London, Allyn and Bacon, pp.580-583. Conrad, C. (1993), The Ethical Nexus, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Constantin, T. (2004), Evaluarea psihologic a personalului, Polirom, Iai. Constantin, T. & Stoica-Constantin, A. (2002). Managementul resurselor umane; ghid practic i instrumente pentru responsabilii de resurse umane i manageri, Institutul European, Iai. Constantin, T., and Zaharia, D. V. (2007), Analiza climatului organizaional; de la date ale cercetrii la practica evalurii, Revista de psihologie organizaional, nr. 1-2. 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, 619-654 13

Ekvall, G. (1990). Manual, Formulr A: Arbetsklimatet, GEFA [Users guide, Questionnaire A: Working climate]. Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing And Measuring Organizational And Psychological Climate: Pitfall In Multilevel Research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601616. Hellriegel, D., Slocum Jr., J. W. and Woodman, R. W. (1995). Organizational Behaviour, West, Minneapolis /St. Paul (7 ed.). James, R.L. and Jones, P.A. (1974). Organizational Climate: A Review Of Theory And Research, Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096-1112. Johlke, M.C. and I Duhan, D.F. (2000). Supervisor Communication: Practices and Service Employee Job Outcomes, Journal of Service Research, vol. 3, nr. 2, pp. 154-165. Jones, A.P. and James, L.R. (1979), Psychological Climate: Dimensions And Relationships Of Individual And Aggregated Work Environment Perceptions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, pp. 201-250. Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002). Transformational Leadership in Work Groups: The Role of Empowerment, Cohesiveness, and Collective-Efficacy on Perceived Group Performance, Small Group Research, vol. 33, nr. 3, iunie, pp. 313-336. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organization, 2nd ed. New York: John Willy & Sons. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939). Patterns of Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp. 271-299. Lippitt, R. (1939). An Experimental Study of the Effect of Democratic and Authoritarian Group Atmospheres. In F. Stoddard (Ed.), Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, Vol. XVI, No. 1, 45-195. Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Morse, N.C. and Reimer. E., (1956). The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational Variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 32, 120-129. McGregor, D., (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. 14
th

Naumann, S.E. and Bennett, N. (2002). The Effects Of Procedural Justice Climate On Work Group Performance, Small Group Research, vol. 33, nr. 3, pp. 361-377. Neal, A., West, M. and Patterson, M. (2004). Do Organizational Climate and Strategic Orientation Moderate the Relationship between Human Resource Management Practices and Productivity?, CEP Discussion Paper No. 624, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. OConnell, M.S., Doverspike, D. and Cober, A.B. (2002). Leadership and Semiautonomous Work Team Performance: A Field Study, Group & Organization Management, vol. 27, nr. 1, pp. 50-65. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J. and Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational Culture And Climate. In Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Chicago: Richard. D. Irwin, Inc. W.C. Borman and D.R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook Of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, p. 565-593), New York, NY: John Wiley. Patterson, M., West, M.A., Lawthom, R. and Nickell, S. (1997), Impact of People Management Practices on Business Performance, Institute of Personnel and Development, Londra. Patterson M.G., West M.A., Shackleton V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinsonan D.L. and Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the Organizational Climate Measure: Links to Managerial Practices, Productivity and Innovation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp. 379-408. Pun, E. (1999). coala abordare sociopedagogic, Editura Polirom, Iai. Peterson, E., Mitchell, T.R., Thompson, L., and Burr, R. (2000). Collective Efficacy and Aspects of Shared Mental Models as Predictors of Performance over Time in Work Groups, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 3, nr. 3, pp. 296316. Pitariu H. D., and Budean A. D., (2007). Cultura organizaional; modele i metode de intervenie, Editura ASCR, Cluj Napoca. Reichers, A.E. & Schneider, B. 1990, Climate and Culture: An Evolution of Constructs, in: Organizational climate and culture, ed. B. Schneider, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp. 4084.

15

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I.M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Perceived Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being and Task Performance among Electronic Work Groups: An Experimental Study, Small Group Research, vol. 34, nr. 1, pp. 43-73. Savoie A., Brunet L., (2000). Climat organisationnel et culture organisationnelle: apports distincts ou redondance? In: Revue qubcoise de psychologie, vol. 21, n 3. Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational Climates: An Essay, Personnel Psychology, 36, pp. 19-36. Schneider, B., Ed. (1990). Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossy-Bass. Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W.D., Avolio, B.J., and Jung, D.I. (2002). A Longitudinal Model of the Effects of Team Leadership and Group Potency on Group Performance, Group & Organization Management, vol. 27, nr. 1, pp. 66-96. Trice, H. & Beyer, J. 1993, The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Venkatesh, R., Challagalla, G., and Kohli, A.K. (2001). Heterogeneity in Sales Districts: Beyond Individual-Level Predictors of Satisfaction and Performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 29, nr. 3, pp. 238-254. Vigoda, E., and Cohen, A. (2003). Work Congruence and Excellence in Human Resource Management: Empirical Evidence from the Israeli Nonprofit Sector, Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 23, nr. 3, pp. 192-216.

16