1B1BFEBDd01

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

1/17

Organizational Values:The Inside View of Service Productivity

Dawn DobniUNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN

J. R. Brent RitchieUNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Wilf ZerbeUNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

In this study, we examined relations between organizational value systems assess empirically the presumption that organizational valuespromote higher performance in service firms. To do this, weand the productivity of service workers. Research was conducted in 92investigate the relationship between organizational value sys-service firms to construct an empirical taxonomy of organizational valuetems and service worker productivity. Because the competitivesystems based on the content focus of values, and the resulting taxonomyperformance of service firms is driven largely by the perfor-was used as a framework to examine the relationship between valuemance of the individuals who staff them, Peter Drucker (1991)system types and individual productivity, conceptualized in terms of job-predicts that the challenge of raising the productivity of servicerelated behaviors, attachment, and affect. Four value system types wereworkers will dominate the management agenda for the nextidentified, and, as predicted, were shown to be differentially associatedseveral decades. Incongruously, productivity is a concept thatwith all three ingredients of service productivity. These findings indicatehas also been underexamined in the services context (Filia-the importance of the value system as a marketing and management tool,trault, Harvey, and Chebat, 1996).and underscore the need for services managers to determine the behavioral

We begin by examining the morphology of organizationaland psychological responses that define productive performance in their or-value systems. Then, we elaborate the concept of productivityganizations and to diagnose and develop the value systems that will reinforceas it relates to service employees, suggesting that its primarythem. J BUSN RES 2000. 47.91107. 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.ingredients are job-related behaviors, attachment, and affect(Kopelman, Brief, and Guzzo, 1990). In so doing, we recognizethat productive performance in service work is largely a func-tion of how individuals think, feel, and behave on the job.

Judging by contemporary services management and mar-

Next, the relationship between organizational values and pro-keting theory, organizational values are almost beyond hy-ductivity is explored, and the methodology and results ofperbole. An appropriately managed value system has beenresearch conducted to examine it are presented. Specifically,characterized as an essential mechanism that exists betweena taxonomy of organizational value systems is developed basedservice quality specifications and the service actually deliveredon the content focus of values, and the resulting classifications(Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, 1990), an important sourceare used to compare employee behavioral and psychological

for guiding and controlling the behavior of service employees responses across value system types. We conclude by discussing(OReilly, 1989), a prerequisite to competitive excellence (Par-implications for services marketing and management practice.asuraman, 1987), a lever for increasing service quality and

employee productivity (Pickworth, 1987), and a vital elementin the implementation of a service strategy (Gronroos, 1990). Morphology of Organizational

Despite this support at the theoretical level, services schol-Value Systemsars have undertaken relatively few empirical studies of organi-

zational values. The purpose of this research is, therefore, to Organizational values are about the means and ends thatmatter most to organizations. Just as personal values definewhat individuals consider to be intrinsically desirable and

Address correspondence to Dawn Dobni, 25 Campus Drive, University ofSaskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A7, Canada. guide their actions and judgments to these ends, organiza-

Journal of Business Research 47, 91107 (2000)

1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/00/$see front matter655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148-2963(98)00058-7

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

2/17

92 J Busn Res D. Dobni et al.2000:47:91107

tional values play an important guiding and directing role demand irregularities through price changes and influences onconsumer behavior (Filiatrault, Harvey, and Chebat, 1996).in the functioning of the organization. Defined as enduring

preferences for certain modes of conduct and end states (Enz, Unfortunately, the primary emphasis of these strategies oncost or quantity of output often involves a trade-off with1986), organizational values give direction to the hundreds

of decisions made at all levels of the organization every day quality. This has led such experts as Peter Drucker (1991) tosuggest that increases in service worker productivity can only(Schmidt and Posner, 1983).

Attesting to their impact, organizational values are often come from working smarter. This can be done, he says,be defining the essential task of any given service job, byused interchangeably with or as a proxy for organizational

culture. There are several reasons for this, among them that concentrating work on that task, and by understanding whatproductive performance in a job actually represents. De-this level of the multilayered and enigmatic culture construct

is deep yet accessible (Rousseau, 1990a), is tractable to pending upon the organizations strategic direction, the lattermight be defined anywhere on a continuum ranging fromoperational definition and measurement (Badovick and Beatty,

1987; Wiener, 1988), and is considered to be an absolutely quantity of output to quality of output. Cleghorn (1992) simi-larly emphasizes the symbiosis between productivity and qual-fundamental component of organizational culture (Enz, 1986;ity, suggesting that both can be maximized if organizationsRousseau, 1990a).concentrate on doing what is important and on doing theAt the risk of oversimplifying, an organizations value sys-

right things right. He consequently urges organizations to re-tem can be described using three dimensions: direction, perva- examine the way they work and the thousands of processessiveness, and intensity. These refer, respectively, to the contentthat animate organizational life.and combination of values that comprise the value system, the

In an approach that subsumes this focus on key tasks,degree of consensus among organizational members regardingKopelman, Brief, and Guzzo (1990) propose that organiza-what the value system emphasizes, and the extent to whichtional productivity is a function of individuals behavior, andthe value system dominates the organizations control mecha-that individual productivity is, in turn, the combination ofnisms. Collectively, these dimensions are manifest in theperformance, attachment, and citizenship-related behaviors.course the organization follows and its methods of operation,These refer, respectively, to carrying out ones formal organiza-its tendency to develop value systems in layers that are lesstional role, to minimizing absenteeism and turnover fromthan organizationwide, and the level of pressure put on em-work, and to exhibiting nonmandatory constructive or cooper-ployees to behave in value-prescribed ways (Kilmann, Saxton,ative gestures that contribute to organizational effectiveness.and Serpa, 1985).If employees engage enthusiastically in role-prescribed and

constructive extra-role activities and maximize their tenureNature of Service Productivity with the organization, it is expected that gains in productivity

will occur through increases in the quality or quantity ofAlthough an organizations values have been widely creditedoutput or decreases in labor costs.with affecting the productivity of its workers (Deal and Ken-

Intuitively, this focus on behavioral and affective responsesnedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Parasuraman, 1987; Peters andas the primary ingredients of productivity seems particularlyWaterman, 1982; Pickworth, 1987), in the services sector,appropriate for service firms, where often the only productthere has been little systematic research on this link. Thisthat is produced is literally the demeanor and decorum ofmay be because the conceptualization and measurement ofindividual employees. Theoretically, it is supported by a col-productivity is complicated by the inherent characteristicslection of works that links the ways in which people think,of services. Their intangibility and variability preclude thefeel, and behave at work to their own role and extra-rolecounting of a finished goods inventory, and customer partici-performance and longevity on the job and, consequently, topation in the service process complicates control of and ac-

the performance of the organizations to which they belongcountability for output (Shiffler and Coye, 1987). Similarly,(Carlson, Charlin, and Miller, 1988; Isen and Baron, 1991;

the service encounter has a human element as well as aKopelman, Brief, and Guzzo, 1990; OReilly and Chatman,

technical one, which is very difficult to dissect and discuss1986; Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Shore and Martin, 1989).

in precise operational terms.As a result, most strategies for enhancing service productiv-

ity have come straight from the industrial engineering camp. Linkages Between Value SystemsThese include working employees harder, investing in more and Service Productivityefficient equipment, automating labor tasks, eliminating bot-tlenecks, using activity-reporting systems, standardizing the In examining the linkages between value systems and serviceservice delivery process, and instituting tighter control across worker productivity, we are concerned with the influencethe board (Lovelock, 1990; Smith, 1985). Other productivity of the context on individuals in organizations. The contextstrategies focus on capability management techniques, such as encompasses stimuli and phenomena that surround and thus

exist in the environment external to the individual, most oftenoff-loading work to customers and subcontractors, or modifying

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

3/17

93Organizational Values J Busn Res2000:47:91107

at a different level of analysis (Mowday and Sutton, 1993, For example, Hochschild (1983) recognized that the emotionsthat employees express on the job are not always a reflectionp. 189). As a specific feature of its social context, an organiza-of their true feelings, but rather are often socially constructedtions value system has been found to influence a wide rangeto reflect existing organizational norms. This form of influenceof individual perceptions, behaviors, and psychological states

is believed to have impact whether agreement about the under-(Hochschild, 1983; OReilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991;lying value system is real or only perceived. Calling the latterSutton, 1991). Fundamentally, these links are based on thea co-orientation approach to consensus, Scheff (1967, p. 33)notion that organizational members do not think, feel, orexplains that if no one agrees with a view, but everyone thinksbehave in isolation (Cappelli and Sherer, 1991; Mowday andthat everyone else does, the effect on behavior is sometimes theSutton, 1993; OReilly, 1991).same as if everyone actually agreed.Under this logic, organizational values have been systemati-

Normative influence is particularly relevant in services or-cally related to both affect and attachment at the individualganizations because of the distinctive characteristics of serviceslevel. Studies have found that such outcomes as job satisfac-described earlier. These make the organizations operationstion, organizational commitment, inclination to quit, and ac-nonroutine and unpredictable, and consequently less suscepti-tual turnover are derived from the fit between an individualsble to such conventional control mechanisms as rules andvalues and those prevalent in his or her organization (Meglino,procedures, behavioral control, output control, supervisoryRavlin, and Adkins, 1989; OReilly, Chatman and Caldwell,

surveillance, and formalized goal setting (OReilly, 1989).1991; Schneider and Bowen, 1985). Considerable evidenceand theory also tie these outcomes to the direction of thevalue system. Rousseau (1990b) found that such norms as Methodologyachievement and self-expression correlated strongly and posi-tively with individual satisfaction and intention to remain in The primary concern of this research was with the relationship

between organizational values and the productivity of servicethe organization, and Ouchi (1981) suggested that a Theory Zworkers. To study it, an empirical taxonomy of value systemsculture increases the intrinsic reward orientation of employeeswas developed based on the content focus of values, andand thus their propensity to do their jobs well. Others havethe resulting classifications were used to examine whetherobserved that an employee-friendly culture may lead to en-different value system types were associated with differenthanced affect among the work force (Isen and Baron, 1991).productivity outcomes. Underlying this research was the as-There is also consensus that organizational value systemssumption that, although values that are considered importanthave an impact on individual behavior (Beyer, 1981; Hochs-may vary from one organization to the next, there is a tendencychild, 1983; Kelley, 1992; Rousseau, 1990a; Sutton, 1991).for them to group together in observable and recurring config-In this regard, it is believed that organizational values performurations (Cooke and Rousseau, 1988; Deal and Kennedy,dual duty as a unifying theme that provides meaning and1982; McDonald and Gandz, 1992). In light of the literaturedirection for organizational members (James, James, and Ashe,reviewed above, relationships between the resulting system1990) and as a tool of social control that informally approves,types and service worker productivity were expected, becauseconstrains, or prohibits behaviors (OReilly, 1989). These ef-value systems that vary in direction support different perceivedfects are also known as informational and normative influences.role behaviors, different levels of enthusiasm and willingnessCapturing the essence of informational influence, Akin andto invest effort in them, and different propensities for individ-Hopelain (1986, p. 20) described an organizations culture asual attachment to the organization.the insiders view of the fundamental structures and processes

that constitute productivity in a particular setting. In thisSamplecapacity, an organizations value system is a sense-making

device for its members, spelling out what is important, how Data for this study were collected within 92 service firmsand why things happen, and how work is expected to be operating in Western Canada. These organizations were re-done (OReilly, 1989). It does so by making certain features cruited on a convenience basis, using contacts through univer-of the environment salient to employees and through them, sity and professional affiliations where possible to enhanceinfluencing their perceptions and interpretations of organiza- participation rates. To qualify for inclusion in the sample,tional functioning. It also facilitates social contagion, a process organizations had to meet the broad definition of servicesby which individuals depend on co-workers for information provided by the AMA Services Marketing Division, whichto interpret and understand the organizational condition. includes intangibles, professional services, and tangible prod-

In a related sense, an organizations values represent an ucts that have a critical service component. Also, becauseimplicit agreement among its members about what constitutes organizational values are by definition a group-level phenome-appropriate behavior (OReilly, 1989). Normative influence is non, it was decided that each organization required a mini-operative when organizational members conform to this code mum of three members to qualify for participation in theof behavior in order to gain social acceptance, out of fear of research. Table 1 provides some relevant statistics on the

participating organizations. As can be seen, although nonran-social reprisal, or generally to avoid feeling guilty (Blau, 1960).

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

4/17


Table 1. Characteristics of Sample Organizationsdom, the sample showed good variation in terms of firm size,technology, and service category. Frequency

Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires.Type of OrganizationThese were coded by organization and distributed as a package

Accounting firm 4to the chief executive officer of each participating organization Airline service 1or a contact person otherwise designated. Accompanying in- Automobile sales and dealership 1

Automotive service, supplies, and repair 4structions requested that the questionnaires be distributed toBank 6respondents drawn randomly from all levels and positions inBeauty salon 2

these organizations. Participation in the study was voluntary, Business machine sales and service 1Car rental agency 1and confidentiality was assured at all stages of the research.Carpet/drapery cleaning and restoration 1At the conclusion of the recruitment process, a total of 114Communications and marketing agency 1

organizations had confirmed their agreement to participate in Community-based service agency 1this research. A total of 931 questionnaires was distributed Computer software consultants 3

Computer hardware sales and service 2to these organizations, and the data reported here reflect theCourier service 1

responses from a total of 415 individuals who returned com- Data/information management consultants 1pleted questionnaires. This represented a response rate of Dental office 1

Drapery manufacture and installation 144.57% by individual and 80.7% by organization. Drug store 1

Drycleaner 1Educational institution 1MeasurementEmployment referral agency 1

ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES. The list of 31 value statements Fabric store 1described in Table 2 formed the basis for the taxonomic in- Fire department 1

Fitness center 1quiry. Derived from a content analysis of academic and prac-Furniture store 1titioner-oriented writings on organizational values (cf. Bado-Hospital pharmacy department 1

vick and Beatty, 1987; Enz, 1986; OReilly, 1989; Peters and Hydraulic equipment sales and service 1Industrial safety service 1Waterman, 1982; Sashkin and Fulmer, 1985; Treacy andInvestment and stock brokers 3Wiersema, 1993; Wiener, 1988), the development of this listLaw firm 2

was guided by the need to tap a broad range of content so Life insurance agents and brokers 1Management and marketing consultants 3that the value systems could be characterized in detail, toMenswear store 1

have a value inventory that was widely applicable across firms Office equipment and supplies 4but also capable of discriminating among individual organiza- Optical supplies and services 1Paging service 1tions, and to examine values that were identified as beingPaint sales and supplies 1strongly related to organizational effectiveness.Pest control 1

Respondents were asked to indicate on an eight-point re- Photography studio 1Plumbing and heating sales and service 2sponse scale the degree to which they believed each of thesePrecision instrument sales and service 1values was a priority to the people in their organizations. InPrinting and reproduction services 3

labeling the response categories the intent was to measure Property management firm 3Real estate appraisal and evaluation 1the extent to which organizational values were implementedRestaurants, takeout, and nightclubs 3rather than simply espoused. Respondents were instructedScreen printing service 1

to distance themselves when answering, stressing that the Special care home 1question did not measure anything about them personally, Television station 1

Temporary help, office services 1but rather, about the people in their organization in general.

Trade show and convention marketing 1In doing this, the intent was to obtain a co-orientation assess- Transportation and freight service 2ment of value consensus rather than the aggregation of value Travel agency 2

Truck leasing, sales, and service 1preferences and priorities of individual organizational mem-Trust company 1

bers (Scheff, 1967). Utilities (telephone, electric) 3Wholesale industrial distributors 3

SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY. Adapting the approach advanced byNumber of EmployeesKopelman, Brief, and Guzzo (1990), service productivity was

110 21operationalized by three variables assessing perceived role 1125 26

2650 22behaviors, organizational commitment, and employee affect.51100 7

1011,000 10(1) Perceived Role Behaviors. To measure perceived role behav-More than 1,000 6

iors, respondents were presented with 16 seven-point bipolarscales that described contrasting behaviors and personal styles,

such as be reliable and predictable versus be creative and innova-

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

5/17


T

able

2.

ValueGenres

S

caleName

Factor

Alpha

Interitem

I

tem

c

Loading

Eig

envalues

Coefficient

Correlation

E

mployeemutualism:

8.53726

0.9100

0.5210

Respectforemployees:valuingemploye

esashumanbeings,notjustascogsinamachine

orhiredhelp

0.82537

Employeesatisfaction:improvingemployeemotivation,jobsatisfactionandmorale

0.77800

Supportingfailures:creatinganatmosphereinwhichpeoplecanexploreandexp

eriment

withoutfeelingtheywillbepunished

iftheyfail

0.77679

Openness:ensuringthatitiseasyto

giveandgetinformationintheorganization;

encouragingemployeesatalllevelstovoicetheirideasandopinionsabout

theway

thingsaredone

0.77610

Equality:removingstatusdistinctionsa

ndtreatingallemployeesatalllevelsasequals

0.74326

Enjoyment:havingfunatwork

0.74228

Employeeresponsibility:givingemploy

eestheauthoritytousetheirownjudg

mentin

dealingwithcustomerconcernsoractingonwork-relatedproblems

0.70636

Employeedevelopment:expandingthe

skillsandabilitiesofemployees

0.60228

Innovation:seekinginnovativenewwa

ysofdoingthings;constantlysearching

fornew

anddistinctivegoods,services,andp

roductsa

0.41889

C

ompetitiveconsciousness:

3.2212

0.8060

0.3725

Industryleadership:beingattheforefrontofindustrydevelopments

0.76678

Aggressiveness:beingconsideredabold,enterprisingcompany;activelyhustlin

ginthe

marketplace

0.77202

Outperformingcompetitors:meetingco

mpetitivethreatsorbeatingthecompetition

0.66041

Growth:increasingsalesand/ormarket

share

0.57964

Companyidentity:havingauniqueide

ntityasacompany;beingseenasdifferentfrom

thecompetition

0.57457

Adaptability:respondingquicklytocha

ngesintheoutsideenvironment

0.49342

Risktaking:takingriskstogetahead

0.42347

C

ustomerintimacy:

1.94889

0.8083

0.5132

Customersatisfaction:bendingoverbackwardtosatisfyeachandeverycustomer

0.73180

Customerrelationships:winningtheloyaltyofcustomers,buildinglong-termrelationships

withthem

0.68003

Quality:providingproductsandservicesoftheveryhighestquality

0.66557

Zerocustomerdefections:keepingeachandeverycustomerthattheorganizationcan

profitablyserve

0.64184

O

perationalefficiency:

1.56769

0.6186

0.3588

Efficiency:providingtheorganizations

goodsandserviceswithminimaleffort,waste,

andexpense

0.72176

Perfectionism:doingthingsperfectly,avoidingmistakes

0.60371

Highproductivity:increasingtheoutpu

tofemployees

0.58302

Costreduction:cuttingcostsa

0.52238

(continued)

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

6/17


T

able

2.

continued

S

caleName

Factor

Alpha

Interitem

I

tem

c

Loading

Eig

envalues

Coefficient

Correlation

O

rganizationalpreservation:

1.41940

0.5453

0.2856

Short-termfocus:focusingonthemaximizationofcurrentprofitsandearnings

moreso

thanongrowthandprofitabilityoverthecoming510years

0.76269

Profitmaximization:makingasmuchm

oneyasacompanycan

0.58921

Survival:stayinginbusiness

0.54552

C

hangeaversion:

1.07730

0.5298

0.3604

Stability:maintainingtheorganizationanditsoperationsasis

0.78726

Caution:beingcautiousandconservative;playingitslow,safe,andsure

0.69753

S

ocialresponsibility:

0.97950b

0.5490

0.3784

Servicetocommunity:havingconcernforandbeingactivelyinvolvedinthecom

munity

0.79567

Concernfortheenvironment:protecting

andcaringforthenaturalenvironmento

nwhich

theorganizationhasanimpact

0.51188

a

Indicatesitemsthatwereeliminatedtoimprovethe

internalconsistencyofthescales.

b

Itwillbenotedthattheseventhfactorresultedin

aneigenvalueofmarginallylessthan1.0.Theseve

n-factorsolutionwasnonethelessfavoredoverthe

six-factorsolution,becauseitproducedcomponentsthatweremore

intellectuallyconsonantandthatresultedinscaleswithhigherinteritemcorrelationsandinternalreliabilityconsistencies.

c

Respondentswereaskedtoindicatethedegreetowhichtheybelievedeachoftheseitemswasapriority

tothepeopleintheirorganizations,usingthefollowingresponsecategories:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Itisnota

Peoplesayitisa

Itisamoderately

Itisanobsession;

priorityatall.

priority,butitis

importantpriority;

itdictatesalmost

notgiven

much

itisreinforcedbythe

everysteptakenby

supportin

actionsofmanypeople

peopleinthis

practice.

intheorganization.

organization.

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

7/17


tive, be concerned with quality versus be concerned with quantity, Data Analysisand be good team players versus perform well individually. Re- The data analysis consisted of four distinct stages: data reduc-spondents were asked to indicate the point on each scale tion, data aggregation, cluster analysis, and multivariate analy-that best described their perceptions of how employees must sis of variance.behave in order to fit in and meet expectations in theirrespective work environments. This emphasis on role percep- DATA REDUCTION. Principal components analysis and vari-tions is prevalent in the role theory literature, primarily be- max rotation were used to transform the 31 value statementscause the perceived role is thought to be the most immediate into a reduced number of components, hereafter called valueantecedent of behavior (Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen, 1980). genres. The seven-factor solution shown in Table 2 was ac-

The descriptive anchors for these scales were constructed cepted as the most interpretable, and it accounted for slightlyby the researchers on the basis of findings and theories in the more than 60% of the total variation in the data. Value genreliterature concerning behaviors that were presumed to be scores were calculated by taking the mean of items with highinstrumental to organizational effectiveness in a wide range loadings on the respective seven factors. The internal consis-of service situations, that have been postulated to vary as a tency reliability of each value genre was then estimated byfunction of an organizations cultural or value system make- computing its coefficient alpha. Items that exhibited low in-up and that collectively gave a detailed and rich description teritem correlations were eliminated to improve the internal

of potential behavioral styles within service organizations (cf. consistency of the scales. The final value genres, number ofDrucker, 1991; Gronroos, 1990; Kelley, 1992; Kopelman, items comprising each scale, and associated internal consis-Brief, and Guzzo, 1990; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Rous- tency reliabilities are:seau, 1990b; Schneider and Bowen, 1985; Schuler and Jack-

1. Employee Mutualism (8 items, 0.9100): the extentson, 1987). These scales are reproduced in Figure 1.to which organizations provide opportunities for em-

(2) Organizational Commitment. Commitment was measured ployees to grow and develop within the company and

using Mowday, Steers, and Porters (1979) 15-item summated in turn expect their employees to support their activities

scale. This scale assesses an individuals identification with with evidence of progress;and involvement in an organization by tapping three related 2. Competitive Consciousness (7 items, 0.8060): thefactors: a strong belief in and acceptance of its goals and extent to which an organization is aggressive in thevalues, a willingness to exert considerable effort on its behalf, marketplace and constantly seeks to exploit the dynam-and a strong desire to maintain membership in it. Respondents ics of its macroenvironment and task environments;were asked to indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement 3. Customer Intimacy (4 items, 0.8083): the extent tothat each item was descriptive of their feelings toward their which organizations strive to engender customer loyaltyorganizations. Typical scale items are I am willing to put a great and continually tailor and shape products and servicesdeal of effort beyond that normally required in order to help this to fit an increasingly fine definition of the customer;organization be successful and I really care about the future of 4. Operational Efficiency (3 items, 0.6186): the extentthis organization. After eliminating one item that exhibited a to which companies concentrate on minimizing over-low interitem correlation, a Cronbachs alpha reliability coeffi- head costs and making their operations lean and effi-cient of 0.9163 was recorded for this scale, indicating that it cient;can be regarded as highly reliable. 5. Organizational Preservation (3 items, 0.5453): the

extent to which an organization is preoccupied with(3) Employee Affect. To measure affect, the Positive and Nega-

the maintenance and survival of its business;tive Affect Schedule (PANAS) developed by Watson, Clark,

6. Change Aversion (2 items, 0.5298): the extent toand Tellegen (1988) was used. This instrument consists of which an organization is averse to change and takingtwo 10-item scales that measure the two primary dimensions

risks; andof mood. Positive affect is a state of high energy, full concentra-

7. Social Responsibility (2 items, 0.5490): the extenttion, and pleasurable engagement, and is tapped by such

to which an organization is concerned with being adescriptors as attentive, interested, alert, excited, and enthusias-

good citizen in the community.tic. Negative affect is a general dimension of subjective distress

Coefficient alpha is a reliability estimate that increases mono-and unpleasurable engagement that is measured by such itemstonically with the number of scale items. When this numberas distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, and scared. Respondentsis small, the mean interitem correlations are thought to be awere asked to respond to the PANAS scales on the basis ofbetter test of internal consistency (Joyce and Slocum, 1984).the way they generally feel when they are at work. All items

As reported in Table 2, all mean interitem correlations forin these scales exhibited high interitem correlations and thethese scales exceed 0.25, the minimum level recommendedalpha reliabilities were also acceptably high, being 0.8950 for

the positive affect scale and 0.8730 for the negative affect scale. by Nunnally (1978).

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

8/17


Figure

1.

Valuesystemscoresonexpectedon-the-jobbehaviors.

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

9/17


Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Value Genres by Organization First, the HIERARCHICAL CLUSTER procedure in SPSS for Win-dows was used to establish the number of clusters that bestValue Genre Eta-Squared F pportrayed the data and to profile cluster centroids. Hierarchical

Employee mutualism 0.4784 3.2103 0.000 clustering techniques begin by viewing each object as a sepa-

Market leadership 0.4620 2.9957 0.000 rate cluster and then aggregate them into successively smallerCustomer intimacy 0.4841 3.2953 0.000 numbers of groups until the entire dataset is clustered intoOperational efficiency 0.3811 2.1758 0.000

one final group. Initial clusters were identified using both theOrganizational preservation 0.3504 1.8877 0.000group-average linkage and Wards joining methods, two ofChange aversion 0.3645 2.0522 0.000

Social responsibility 0.4357 2.7113 0.000 the more popular hierarchical clustering algorithms. BecauseWards method provided better insight into the data and per-formed much better in terms of the ratio of within-groupdistance to between-group distance, it was selected for thegeneration of the taxonomy. To decide how many clusters

DATA AGGREGATION. Because of the essence of organiza- provided the most meaningful portrayal of the data, a proce-tional value systems, the organization was selected as the dure recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Blackprimary unit of analysis for this portion of the study. To arrive (1992) was followed. Specifically, solutions were computed

at organizational scores for the value genres, the responses of for several different numbers of clusters using Wards method,individual organizational members were transferred into an and the cluster centroids, variabilities, and sizes were exam-organization mean. In establishing organization scores, all ined and compared to determine which solution performedrespondents scores were included and equal weights were best in terms of manageability, communicability, and discrimi-given to all individual responses. natory ability. Based on this examination, it was decided that

Two criteria were used to justify the use of aggregated data the four-cluster solution provided the upper limit on whatas organizational variables: low within-group variation in the could be conveyed usefully and insightfully in this analysis.variables and significant between-group differences in the av- The K-MEANS CLUSTER procedure in SPSS for Windows waseraged scores (Rousseau 1990b). Assessing the first criterion, then used to optimize the results from the four-cluster solu-analysis of variance (ANOVA) contrasted mean value genre tion. This is a nonhierarchical procedure based on nearestscores across organizations and, as reported in Table 3, indi- centroid sorting; a case is assigned to a cluster for which thecates significant differences. To test the second criterion, the distance between the case and the center of the cluster (theeta-squared statistic for each value genre was computed. It centroid) is the smallest. Each case was removed from itssimilarly indicates organizational consensus regarding the initial cluster and clustered with K-MEANS CLUSTER using the

cluster centers from the hierarchical results as the initial seedvalue genres, with the observed level of agreement matchingpoints. If reallocation to an alternative cluster improved theor exceeding that found for perceptual measures of othersolution (by reducing the pooled within-group variance), theorganizational characteristics (Cooke and Rousseau, 1988;case was assigned to this subject, and the new cluster meansJoyce and Slocum, 1984).were computed. This procedure was repeated until cluster

CLUSTER ANALYSIS. Cluster analysis was used to develop the assignments were stable, and subsequent iterations of thetaxonomy of organizational value systems. Cluster analysis procedure failed to produce a decrease in pooled within-consists of a family of algorithms designed to identify similar cluster variance. The optimum solution was achieved on theobjects and to classify them into groups. Four key method- sixth iteration.ological issues arose in the use of this technique: selecting the Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used toclustering variables, choosing a clustering algorithm to classify test for differences among the final clusters profiles. Table 4

objects, selecting the number of clusters, and testing for differ- contains the mean scores on the value genres for each of theences among clusters (Ketchen and Shook, 1996). four clusters, and the results of the significance tests used to

The variables used as criteria for clustering were the seven determine if differences existed among them. As indicated,value genres identified in Table 2. Multicollinearity was exam- the multivariate tests showed significant main effects. Tableined by constructing a pair-wise correlation matrix including 4 also reports the results of univariate analyses of variance forall of these clustering variables. An inspection of the matrix each of the value genres and the Duncan multiple range testrevealed that the majority of intercorrelations were of small for paired comparisons. The results indicate that each of themagnitude and that all were well within the limitations recom- four clusters was statistically different from each of the othersmended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989). It was, therefore, on at least one clustering criterion, and this was considered toconcluded that relatively little multicollinearity existed. be good evidence that the four clusters were distinct. External

To sort organizations into clusters based on similarities on validation was provided by comparing the clusters on thethese value genres, a two-stage procedure combining hierar- measures of service productivity described earlier (Aldenderfer

and Blashfield, 1984).chical and nonhierarchical clustering algorithms was used.

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

10/17


Table 4. Value Genres by Value System Type

Mean Score by Value System Type

(2)(1) Performance- (3) (4)

Entrepreneurial Pressured Integrated Temperate Significant (p 0.05) DuncanValue Genre (n 30) (n 15) (n 32) (n 15) F Statistic Paired Comparisons

Employee mutualism 4.2253 2.3852 4.7510 3.3247 43.0986* 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34Competitive

consciousness 4.8465 4.1224 5.1308 3.4948 26.0558* 13, 14, 23, 24, 34Customer intimacy 5.3613 4.0243 5.9357 4.5383 30.9463* 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34Operational efficiency 4.6646 4.2770 5.2281 4.5667 7.2544* 13, 23, 34Change aversion 2.6984 3.1140 3.9896 3.5389 11.7082* 13, 14, 23Organizational

preservation 4.6184 5.4213 5.0210 4.0026 10.0869* 12, 13, 14, 24, 34Social responsibility 2.8509 3.4406 4.3331 2.1833 27.820* 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34

Multivariate testsPillais 14.03794*

Hotellings 17.69813*Wilks 16.10073*

* p 0.05.

someness, and pro-activity, and that is likely to be typical ofInterpretations of the Valuecompanies that not only respond rapidly to environmental

System Types influences, but also work hard to influence the environmentto their advantage. This type tends to be one that is drivenThe clusters derived from this analysis appear to form fourby a philosophy of being first in in new product and marketdistinct types of organizational value systems, characterizedareas, and that places a high priority on distinguishing itselfby their relative emphases on customers, internal operations,from and staying out in front of the competition.human resources, and the macroenvironment. Table 5 pre-

Organizations in this group score very low on the socialsents the resulting taxonomy and identifies the key features ofresponsibility discipline. This may be the result of an unrelent-each cluster. The clusters are also named: the entrepreneurialing focus on growth, which consumes much of the organiza-system, the performance-pressured system, the integrated sys-tions energy and resources and may be single-mindedly pur-tem, and the temperate system. Each value system type issued with little regard for the greater societal good.described in more detail below, using the results presented

in Tables 4 and 5. This taxonomy confirms the argumentsType 2The Performance-Pressuredof previous authors that distinct, consistent, and recurring

patterns of organizational values exist, and bears a good resem- Value Systemblance to value system and cultural types classified by such The second type, the performance-pressured value system, isother researchers as Cooke and Rousseau (1988), Deal and one that puts organizational survival and operational efficiencyKennedy (1982), and McDonald and Gandz (1992). first and the people who deliver service to customers last.

This system is probably best described as following an indus-

Type 1The Entrepreneurial Value System trial model, based largely on the principles of traditional mass-production manufacturing, which emphasize hierarchicalThis system represents 32.6% of the sample and possesses

those traits typically associated with entrepreneurship. Morris control, quantity of output, and bottom-line results. It ac-counts for 16.3% of the total sample.and Paul (1987) define an entrepreneurial orientation as one

in which a company has a propensity to take calculated risks, Organizations that exhibit this value profile are likely tobe under strain caused by recession or unrelenting competi-to be innovative, and to demonstrate pro-activeness. In keep-

ing with this description, this system type scores high on the tion, and as such are in a mode of survival and consolidation.They look at the world as a rough-and-tumble place wherecompetitive consciousness genre and lowest over all on change

aversion. profit margins dominate decision making and correspondinglyplace a high emphasis on maximizing current returns, grab-The keynotes of this configuration include an emphasis on

growth and market sensitivity, meeting competitive threats, bing more market share, working harder, or wringing moreprofits out of their businesses. Preoccupied with day-to-dayand adapting to changing economic or social environments.

This is a value system that stresses risk-taking, venture- survival, they are likely to view a quick victory as far more

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

11/17


T

able

5.

KeyFeaturesoftheValueSyste

mTaxonomy

V

alueSystem

Type

Frequency

KeyFeatures

ExampleFirms

1

.Entrepreneurialsystem

30

Concernedprimarilywithexternalfactors

Inform

ationmanagementconsultants,Automobilesales,

Emphasisonaction

Travelagency,Advertisingandmarketingag

ency,

Conductsactiveopportunityscansandrespondsrapidlyto

Computersoftwareconsultants,Propertymanagement

earlysignals

firm

,Plumbingandheatingservice,Drapery

Takescalculatedrisks

manufactureandinstallation,Bank

Meetscompetitivethreatsanda

daptstochangingeconomic

orsocialenvironments

Isaggressive,bold,growthoriented,innovative,proactive

2

.Performance-pressured

15

Dominatedbyconcernsofsurvival

Autom

otiveserviceandrepair,Furnitureandoffice

system

Drivenbyashort-termtimehorizon

sup

plies,Pestcontrol,Charteredaccountant

s,

Subjugatestheimportanceofth

eorganizationshuman

Investmentandstockbrokers,Airlineservic

e

resourcestooperationalefficien

cy

Respondswithcautiontodevelopmentsinthemarketplace

Tendencytominimizetheimpactofthecustomer

3

.Integratedsystem

32

Blendsexternalandinternaloperationalconsiderations

Temporaryhelpandofficeservices,Menswea

rstore,

Seekstomaximizepureefficien

cygoals(e.g.,lowcost,

Automotiveserviceandrepair,Carpet/drape

rycleaning

routinizedproduction)andtoc

oncurrentlyincrease

and

restoration,Beautysalon,Carrentalage

ncy

effectiveness(e.g.,increasedcustomerresponsivenessor

improvedquality)

Placesparticularemphasisoncustomerconsciousness,

customizationofserviceexchan

ge,andservicequality

Emphasizestheimportanceoft

hepersonandemployee

empowerment

Profitdrivenandfinanciallydis

ciplined

4

.Temperatesystem

15

Middle-of-the-roadorientationthatplacesamoderate

Furnitureandofficesupplies,Fabricstore,Pro

perty

priorityonallvaluesratherthanembracinganyinthe

managementfirm,Dentaloffice,Bank,Hosp

ital

extreme

pha

rmacy

Notaparticularlydistinctivevaluesystem

Mayhaveaweakinfluenceonorganizationallife

Withoutclearlyorderedpriorities,organizationislikelyto

beapathetic,confused,andmanipulatedbyenvironmental

pressures

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

12/17


important than building long-term loyalty. Human relation- 16.3%of the sample, organizations falling into this type place amoderate importance on all value genres rather than indicatingships are given a last priority, and consequently, the organiza-

tions employees may feel that they are given little respect as clear preferences for specific means and ends. Consequently,they represent rather ambiguous work environments in whichhuman beings and instead are simply treated as one more

factor of production. employees are probably never required to push the envelope.Without highly understood goals and values, these organi-As if concerned that one false move could precipitate the

organizations downfall, this system type scores relatively high zations might also be interpreted as being apathetic, confused,or unable to find a clear route to business success. If so,on the genre of change aversion. This means that there are

likely to be few rewards for innovation and risk-taking and employees may not understand the priorities in the corpora-tion, and, lacking a rudder, the organization is likely to besubstantial punishments for failure in these organizations.

Understandably, timidity and maintenance of the status quo pushed by environmental pressures rather than charting itsown course. Competitively speaking, the temperate systemare strong temptations in a complex and competitive world.

On the downside, they can cause organizations to be func- represents a more reactive model, and organizations of thisnature may be vulnerable to threats from those that demon-tional laggards and less aggressive than competitors in pursu-

ing new product and market opportunities. strate more distinct methods of operation at either end of thespectrum. With few basic or ordered assumptions guiding the

behavior of organizational members, this system may alsoType 3The Integrated Value System have a weak influence on organizational life and perhapsThe third type is labeled the integrated value system becausebe more susceptible than others to the rise of competingof its emphasis on functional integration and its focus on thecountercultures.customer and external environments, while simultaneously

being internally oriented. This is a system in which the com-mon goal is total quality, and in which it is apparently under- Relationship Withstood that all parts of the organization are important to the

Service Productivityachievement of that goal. It comprises 34.8% of the sample.

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, in this system roughly as The analysis to explore the relationships between value systemmuch emphasis is placed on the growth, contribution, and types and the measures of service productivity was performedsatisfaction of the employee as it is on the value of a smooth in two parts. First, profile analyses were performed on the 16and efficient running plant. Members of the organization de- scales that comprised the role behavior measure to assessscribe a supportive organization characterized by teamwork,

whether there were significant differences in the profiles ofpersonal development, and high-performance goals. At the role behavior scores among the value system types. Then,same time, customer sovereignty is a central priority, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to ex-members of the organization clearly understand the impor- amine the effect of value system membership on organizationaltance placed on developing lifetime customers. It is clear, commitment and employee affect. All analyses in this portiontherefore, that this system seeks a balance between an out- of the study were performed at the individual employee level ofand-out aggressive environment and a human environment. analysis. A random sampling procedure was used to equalizeOrganizations in this group seem not to be intent merely on membership sizes across all four value system types to increasetheir own profits and growth, but also measure success based robustness to potential violations of the assumptions for MA-on the realization that they operate to benefit people NOVA (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). This resulted in thecustomers, employees, and the members of the surrounding assignment of 59 cases to each cell, well in excess of thesociety. They are similarly aware of the need to care for integral minimum cell sizes required for MANOVA and profile analysis.publics and could be expected to be highly ethical, law abid-

ing, good community citizens, and to operate with great re- Role Behaviorsspect for the natural environment. Profiles of mean scores on the role behavior scales for the

Comparatively speaking, this system scores high on both four value system types are presented in Figure 1. Using Wilksthe genres of change aversion and competitive consciousness. criterion (F 1.89, p 0.001), these profiles were found toThis suggests that, although these organizations exercise a deviate significantly from parallelism, indicating differenceshigh level of adaptiveness and market aggressiveness, they do across the value system types. To test the specific nature ofso with a high priority placed on well-conceived strategic the differences, confidence intervals were calculated aroundmoves, steady, sure growth, and financial discipline. the mean of the profile for all clusters combined, and individ-

ual clusters were evaluated in terms of whether they fell out-Type 4The Temperate Value System side the confidence interval of the pooled profile (Tabachnick

and Fidell, 1989). Alpha error for each confidence intervalWhereas the previous three systems have clearly defined valueorientations, the temperate value system is labeled as such was set at 0.000781 to achieve an experimentwise error rate

of 5%. Therefore, 99.92% limits were evaluated for the pooledbecause of its middle-of-the-road orientation. Comprising

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

13/17


profile. For several of the scales, one or more groups had means service infrastructure and in their face-to-face encounters withcustomers.that fell outside these limits, indicating that the role profiles

The temperate system had different means than those ofdiffered considerably across the four value system types.the pooled groups on five behaviors, all of which indicate aThe entrepreneurial value system exhibited reliably differ-

dont rock the boat orientation. This behavioral profile wasent means from the pooled group on five scales. Comparativelydistinguished by: (1) reliability and predictability; (2) cautionspeaking, its behavioral profile was characterized by: (1) cre-in decision making; (3) conforming behavior; (4) an emphasisativity and innovativeness; (2) enjoyment of work; (3) toler-on stability rather than unpredictability; and (5) close adher-ance for unpredictability; (4) the onus to initiate improve-ence to formally laid down procedures. Cumulatively, therements continually on the job; and (5) the requirement to beis the sense that individual contributions by organizationalsupercapable technically. With the underlying emphasis onmembers are neither valued nor encouraged, because employ-provocative thinking, employees are called upon to questionees are discouraged from taking initiative in figuring out whatthe old ways of doing things, to tackle ill-structured tasks andcan be done to move the company ahead. The mentalityengage in nonroutine problem solving, and to input new ideasseems to be one that favors a stable, conservative, slow-movingand possibilities continuously. These characteristics call toorganization marked by impediments to action and that placesmind an organization such as Microsoft, which has been de-limitations on the ability of any individual to move the com-scribed as raw, predatory, confrontational, aggressive, fast,

pany off on a tangent. Employees are expected to do thingscreative, organized, and impatient. The Microsoft way, it the way they have always done things and to do them withinhas been said, demands that you be on top of your material,the confines of established rules and regulations.know your stuff, think through every angle, have a change-

the-world esprit, and enjoy the hard work, the excitement,Commitment and Affectthe energy, and the growth that comes with being a market-

driving organization (Meyer, 1994). Multivariate analysis was used to determine whether the valueThe performance-pressured value system differed from the system types differed statistically on the measures of organiza-

pooled means on six of the behavior scales. Primary among tional commitment and employee affect. The results of thesethese differences were: (1) a relatively high concern for quan- analyses are presented in Table 6. As indicated by the multivar-tity of output; (2) the requirement to take work very seriously; iate tests reported, omnibus MANOVA showed significant(3) an eagerness to get things done; (4) acceptance of things main effects of value system type. Table 6 also reports thethe way they are at work; (5) a relatively high emphasis on results of the univariate analyses of variance for each of thethe maximization of sales and profits; and (6) the need to

measures and the Duncan multiple range test for paired com-have good people skills. Collectively, this is a code of behavior parisons. The results indicate the congruence between valuebased on increasing the outputper person and a preoccupation system type and individual-level commitment and affect.with bottom-line results. Because there are indications of lim- The Duncans test of differences among pairs of meansited discretionary action for personnel, this is expected to be on the organizational commitment and positive affect scalesaccomplished not through working smarter or differently, but revealed a general hierarchical ordering. The mean scores onthrough pure hard work. Respondents from this system do these measures were greater for integrated systems than fornot describe it as one that nurtures fun or any sense of esprit entrepreneurial systems, for entrepreneurial systems than fordes corps. This may be because the working environment is performance-pressured systems, and for performance-pres-like a sweatshop, with the emphasis on relentlessly pushing sured systems than for temperate systems. These differencessales or maximizing financial indicators. The requirement to were not significant in every case, but the over-all pattern didsell may also account for the emphasis placed on having persist across all comparisons. Interestingly, the poor perfor-strong people skills. mance of the temperate system indicates that employee com-

Recording reliably different means from the pooled statistic mitment and enthusiasm may be stifled more by a value systemon four of the behavioral scales, the profile for the integrated that has no clear priorities than one in which values are clearsystem was distinguished by: (1) a high concern for quality but place the well-being of employees as a last priority.of output; (2) a high emphasis on achieving perfection; (3) Concerning the negative dimension of affect, Duncansthe requirement to initiate improvements continually on the mean comparisons revealed the entrepreneurial and perfor-

job; and (4) a high emphasis on satisfying customer needs. mance-pressured value systems to be inferior. Individuals inNotable for its focus on excellence, this profile stresses quality, these system types recorded the highest mean scores on thisresponsiveness, and ultrareliability. Employees are expected dimension, indicating a high level of workplace agitation,to be sensitive to the preferences and needs of customers, and frustration, and anxiety when compared to the integrated andto deliver the required service accurately, dependably, and temperate value systems. One explanation for these resultswith the utmost attention to detail. At the same time, they may be that the challenges, pressures, and do-or-die philoso-must constantly be on the lookout for ways to do things better, phies inherent in the entrepreneurial and performance-pres-

sured systems present a considerable source of stress for orga-which, it is presumed, may include refinements both in the

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

14/17


nizational members. Although these value system typesapproach their goals from different perspectives, conceivablythey both subscribe to the no-pain-no-gain school of thought.

Discussion and Implications

Whatever is said about productivity, Akin and Hopelain(1986) suggest that the meaning of the term finally comesdown to what those who do work accomplish. In this research,we have focused on uncovering value systems as they areunderstood by organizational insiders, and on exploring theconnections of these systems with service productivity. Theresults indicate the relevance of an organizations mix of valuesto how and what work gets done, primarily by affecting levelsof employee commitment and affect and influencing percep-tions about expected workplace behaviors.

LimitationsFurther research is needed, in part because of the limitationsof this study. First, the organizational values on which thetaxonomy was based can be regarded as general ones, applica-ble to varying degrees across organizations. Although effortswere made to select a value inventory that was theoretically

justified and would facilitate the detailed characterization ofthe value system types, future research might examine organi-zational value systems at a more microscopic level. The rangeof behavioral responses examined could likewise be enlarged,and efforts could be made to break down the relationship

between specific values and specific behavioral and affectiveresponses more precisely.Second, although cluster analysis is a widely accepted clas-

sification technique, it does have limitations. Apparent clusterstructures depend upon the clustering algorithm and decisionrules employed, and a heavy amount of managerial judgmentis needed to interpret the cluster results. In this research,these concerns were mitigated by the validation proceduresthat were performed on the cluster solution and the readyinterpretability of the resulting taxonomy and its consistencywith classifications offered by other researchers.

Productivity is a complex, integrative concept that meansdifferent things to different people. Other researchers may,therefore, choose to examine its relationship with organiza-tional value systems using other measures, methods, and per-spectives (Guzzo, 1988) or to look more intimately at theingredients of productivity examined in this investigation. Forexample, differing conceptualizations and types of organiza-tional commitment exist, and some researchers have foundthe organizational commitment instrument used in this re-search to have multiple factors rather than a unidimensionalstructure (Tetrick and Farkas, 1988). It would be useful tolearn whether these different types and components of com-mitment have different productivity-relevant outcomes.

A fourth limitation of this study concerns the sample. A

T

able

6.

RelationshipBetweenSystemTypeandIndividualAffect

MeanScorebyMembershipin

ValueSystem

Type

(2)

(1)

Performance-

(3)

(4)

Significant(p0

.05)Duncan

V

ariable

Entrepreneurial

Pressured

Integrated

Temperate

FStatistic

PairedComp

arisons

O

rganizationalcommitment

5.3814

4.7399

5.6822

4.7121

14.1291*

12,14,2

3,34

N

egativeaffect

1.9119

2.1390

1.5403

1.7661

6.9375*

13,23,

24

P

ositiveaffect

5.0981

5.0104

5.4546

4.6137

8.3425*

13,14,23,

24,34

M

ultivariatetests

Pillais

7.20967*

Hotellings

7.42586*

Wilks

7.38847*

*

p

0.05.

convenience sample was used; therefore, it is not representa-

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

15/17


tive of the population of all service organizations. This was structure, and its policies and processes around planning,staffing, appraising, compensating, training and development,compounded by the relatively small sample size and geo-

graphic concentration of sample members. Further research socialization practices, decision making, and communicating.Managers can indicate organizational values by what theyis needed using a larger, random sample less constrained

by geography. Also, the size of the sample did not permit teach, reward, support, model, and so on, and it is importantexploration within value system types to uncover value subsys- that they do these things in a way that communicates consis-tems or subcultures. This analysis would have generated too tent and appropriate messages.many clusters with too few members. The likelihood is high, This study indicates that value systems that emphasizehowever, that most organizations have one or more value conventionality, risk aversion, or behavior inhibition may hurtsubsystems that impact productivity. A larger sample might productivity, because they have a negative impact on attach-have permitted them to be identified and studied. ment and affect. To counteract these dysfunctional effects,

Finally, this study relied on self-report questionnaires as managers may want to manage the attractionselectionthe sole means of data collection, indicating the possibility attrition cycle better to ensure that organization membersof perceptpercept inflation. Although a recent investigation understand and are willing to accept the organizations valuessuggests this outcome is likely more the exception than the and do not have unrealistic expectations about what goes onrule where such external referents as organizational culture in it (Bowen and Schneider, 1988). It is also believed that

are being measured (Crampton and Wagner, 1994), an appro- enhanced positive affect and employee commitment can bepriate future research strategy would,nonetheless, be to collect induced by improving the physical work environment, isolat-multiple or more objective measures of the variables being ing and alleviating the negative aspects of the value system,studied. Organizational value systems might be measured by or shifting toward a more participative management style (Isenreputational methods or ethnographic studies, or employee and Baron, 1991; Schneider and Rentsch, 1988).behaviors through such independent sources as customers, Because the value system is used as a sense-making device,suppliers, or supervisors. managers should be obsessive about ensuring that it is under-

stood and accurately interpreted by employees. As GoldsteinImplications (1986) observed, we often fail to learn how the context is

perceived by the people working in it, and then we are sur-Despite these limitations, this study has important managerialprised when their behaviors and responses are different fromimplications. Among them, it provides insight into productiv-those anticipated. We recommend that managers frequentlyity as it relates to service work and suggests some approachescollect information on employees perceptions of the value

that organizations might take to improve it. As with others system through such vehicles as surveys, personal interviews,who study this phenomenon, we believe that productivityand roundtable discussions, and invest considerable time andoccurs when workers focus on doing the right things right. Atenergy in clarifying expectations and communicating and rein-a minimum, this means that managers must take a deliberateforcing any modifications that may be required. Obviously,approach to job design, isolating the high-impact behaviorswe see this as a situation in which information and communi-in each job that define productive performance. This entailscation can be put to productive use.developing better models of performance for jobs and aligning

them specifically with organizational goals (Campbell andCampbell, 1988). References

Given the support for the relationship between values and Alenderfer, M. S., and Blashfield, R. K.: Cluster Analysis, Jossey-Bass,the measures of productivity found in this research, we believe San Francisco. 1984.that managers must become more active orchestrators of their Akin, G., and Hopelain, D.: Finding the Culture of Productivity.value systems. Having said this, we do recognize that manag- Organizational Dynamics 14 (3) (1986): 1932.ing an organizations value system is not as easy as it sounds. Badovick, G. J., and Beatty, S. E.: Shared Organizational Values:By nature, organizational values are enduring preference Measurement and Impact Upon Strategic Marketing Implementa-

tion. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (1) (1987):states, and managing and changing them can require large1926.investments of energy and long periods of time (Kilmann,

Beyer, J. M.: Ideologies, Values, and Decision Making in Organiza-Saxton and Serpa, 1985; Schneider and Rentsch, 1988). How-tions, in Handbook of Organizational Design: Remodeling Organiza-ever, because an organizations value system can either betions and Their Environments, vol. 2, P. C. Nystrom, and W. H.

managed or left to grow on its own, we believe it is worthStarbuck, eds., Oxford University Press, London. 1981, pp. 166

the time and effort to take an interventionist approach. 202.The extent to which an organizations value system will Blau, P. M.: Structural Effects.American Sociological Review 25 (1960):

influence the productivity of its members will ultimately be 7893.a function of the systems direction, pervasiveness, and inten- Bowen, D. E., and Schneider, B.: Services Marketing and Manage-sity. These dimensions reflect, and are reflected by, myriad ment: Implications For Organizational Behavior. Research in Orga-

nizational Behavior 10 (1988): 4380.decisions about the organizations physical environment, its

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

16/17


Campbell,J. P., and Campbell,R. J.: Industrial-Organization Psychol- Analysis in Strategic Management Research: An Analysis and Cri-tique. Strategic Management Journal 17 (1996): 441458.ogy and Productivity: The Goodness of Fit, in Productivity in

Organizations, J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell, and Associates, Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., and Serpa, R.: Introduction: Five Keyeds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1988, pp. 8294. Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture, in Gaining Control

of the Corporate Culture, R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa, andCappelli, P., and Sherer, P. D.: The Missing Role of Context in OB: Associates, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1985, pp. 351369.The Need For a Mesolevel Approach. Research in Organizational

Behavior 13 (1991): 55110. Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., and Guzzo, R.: The Role of Climateand Culture in Productivity, in Organizational Climate and Culture,Carlson, M., Charlin, V., and Miller, N.: Positive Mood and HelpingB. Schneider, ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1990, pp. 282318.Behavior: A Test of Six Hypotheses. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 55 (1988): 211229. Lovelock, C. H.: Managing Interactions Between Operations andMarketing and Their Impact on Customers, in Service ManagementCleghorn, J. E.: The Productivity Side of Quality. Business QuarterlyEffectiveness, D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, T. G. Cummings, and(Summer 1992): 123127.Associates, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1990, pp. 343368.

Cooke, R. A., and Rousseau, D. M.: Behavioral Norms and Expecta-McDonald, P., and Gandz, J.: Getting Value From Shared Values.tions: A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of Organiza-

Organizational Dynamics 20 (Winter 1992): 6477.tional Culture. Group & Organization Studies 13(3) (1988): 245Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., and Adkins, C. L.: A Work Values273.

Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of the Value Congru-Crampton, S. M., and Wagner, J. A.: PerceptPercept Inflation in

ence Process and its Relationship to Individual Outcomes. JournalMicroorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and

of Applied Psychology 74 (1989): 424432.Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1) (1994): 6776.Meyer, M.: Culture Club. Newsweek (July 11, 1994): 3842.

Deal, T. E., and Kennedy, A. A.: Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley,Morris, M. H., and Paul, G. W.: The Relationship Between Entrepre-Reading, PA. 1982.

neurship and Marketing in Established Firms. Journal of BusinessDrucker, P.: The New Productivity Challenge. Harvard Business Re- Venturing 2(3) (1987): 247259.

view (NovemberDecember 1991): 6979.Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L.: The Measurement of Organiza-

Enz, C.: Power and Shared Values in the Corporate Culture, UMI tional Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (1979):Research Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 1986. 224247.

Filiatrault, P., Harvey, J., and Chebat, J. C.: Service Quality and Mowday, R., and Sutton, R.: Organizational Behavior: Linking Indi-Service Productivity Management Practices. Industrial Marketing viduals and Groups to Organizational Context. Annual Review ofManagement 25 (1996): 243255. Psychology 44 (1993): 195229.

Goldstein, I. L.: Values and Interventions: How and Where Are We Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., and Ilgen, D. R.: A Theory of BehaviorLooking?Presidential Address, Meeting of the Society For Indus- in Organizations, Academic Press, New York. 1980.trial and Organizational Psychology, Washington, DC, August,

Nunnally, J. C.: Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New1986. York. 1978.Gronroos, C.: Relationship Approach to Marketing in Services Con- OReilly, C.: Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation

texts: The Marketing and Organizational Behavior Interface. Jour- and Social Control in Organizations. California Management Re-nal of Business Research 20(1) (1990): 311. view (Summer 1989): 925.

Guzzo, R. A.: Productivity Research: Reviewing Psychological and OReilly, C.: Organizational Behavior: Where Weve Been, WhereEconomic Perspectives, in Productivity in Organizations, J . P. Were Going. Annual Review of Psychology 42 (1991): 427458.Campbell, R. J. Campbell, and Associates, eds., Jossey-Bass, San

OReilly, C., and Chatman, J.: Organizational Commitment and Psy-Francisco. 1988, pp. 6381.

chological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, IdentificationHair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C.: and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-

Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan, New York. chology 71(3) (1986): 492499.1992.

OReilly, C., Chatman, J., and Caldwell, D. F.: People and Organiza-Hochschild, A. R.: The Managed Heart, University of California Press, tional Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Per-

Berkeley. 1983. sonOrganization Fit. Academy of Management Journal 34(3)

(1991): 487516.Isen, A. M., and Baron, R. A.: Positive Affect as a Factor in Organiza-tional Behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 3 (1991): Ouchi, W.: Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA. 1981.153. Parasuraman, A.: Customer-Oriented Corporate Cultures Are Crucial

to Services Marketing Success. The Journal of Services MarketingJames, L. R., James, L. A., and Ashe, D. K.: The Meaning of Organiza-1(1) (1987): 3946.tions: The Role of Cognition and Values, in Organizational Climate

and Culture, B. Schneider, ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1990, Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H.: In Search of Excellence, Harper &pp. 4084. Row, New York. 1982.

Joyce, W. F., and Slocum Jr., J. W.: Collective Climate: Agreement Pickworth, J. R.: Minding the Ps and Qs: Linking Quality and Produc-as a Basis for Defining Aggregate Climates in Organizations. Acad- tivity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterlyemy of Management Journal 27(4) (1984): 721742. (May 1987): 4047.

Kelley, S. W.: Developing Customer Orientation Among Service Em- Reichheld, F. F., and Sasser, W. E.: Zero Defections: Quality Comesployees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20(1) (1992): to Services. Harvard Business Review (SeptemberOctober 1990):2736. 105111.

Rousseau, D. M.: Assessing Organizational Culture: The Case ForKetchen, D. J., Jr., and Shook, C. L.: The Application of Cluster

8/2/2019 1B1BFEBDd01

17/17


Multiple Methods, in Organizational Climate and Culture, B. Shore, L. M., and Martin, H. J.: Job Satisfaction and OrganizationalCommittee in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Inten-Schneider, ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 1990a, pp. 153192.tions. Human Relations 42 (1989): 625638.

Rousseau, D. M.: Normative Beliefs in Fund-Raising Organizations:Smith,R. H.:Productivityin theServices IndustryA Must. IndustrialLinking Culture to Organizational Performance and Individual

Management 27(6) (1985): 46.Responses. Group& Organization Studies 15(4) (1990b): 448460. Sutton, R. I.: Maintaining Norms About Emotional Expression: TheSashkin, M., and Fulmer, R.: Measuring Organizational Excellence

Case of Bill Collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1991):Culture with a Validated Questionnaire. Paper presented at the

245268.August meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego. 1985.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S.: Using Multivariate Statistics, 2ndScheff, T. J.: Toward A Sociological Model of Consensus. American ed., Harper & Row, New York. 1989.

Sociological Review 32 (1967): 3246.Tetrick, L. E., and Farkas, A. J.: A Longitudinal Examination of the

Schmidt, W. H., and Posner, B. Z.: Managerial Values in Perspective, Dimensionality and Stability of the Organizational CommitmentAmerican Management Association, New York. 1983. Questionnaire (OCQ). Educational Psychology Measure 48 (1988):

723735.Schneider, B.,and Bowen,D. E.:Employeeand Customer PerceptionsTreacy, M., and Wiersema, F.: Customer Intimacy and Other Valueof Service in Banks: Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied

Disciplines. Harvard Business Review (JanuaryFebruary 1993):Psychology 70 (1985): 423433.8493.

Schneider, B., and Rentsch, J.: The Management of Climate andWatson, D., Clark, L., and Tellegen, A.: Development and ValidationCulture: A Futures Perspective, in Futures of Organizations, J.

of Brief Measures of Positive andNegativeAffect: The Panas Scales.Hage, ed., Lexington Books, Lexington, KY. 1988, pp. 181200. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (1988): 10631070.

Schuler, R. S., and Jackson, S. E.: Linking Competitive Strategies Wiener, Y.: Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organization Effec-With Human Resource Management Practices. The Academy of tiveness and Cultural Change and Maintenance. Academy of Man-Management Executive 1(3) (1987): 207219. agement Review 13(4) (1988): 534545.

Shiffler, R. E., and Coye, R. W.: Monitoring Employee Performance in Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L.: Delivery ServiceService Operations. International Journal of Production Management Quality: Balancing Consumer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free

Press, New York. 1990.8(2) (1987): 513.

1B1BFEBDd01

Documents

Transcript of 1B1BFEBDd01