How Does Organizational Climate Affect Job Satisfaction - Literature review Example

LITERATURE REVIEW Lecturer: 2 Organization climate 2 1 Definition of organization climate Organizational climateis among the most often researched topics in the psychological or organizational behaviour field. The concept, alongside its framework has advanced over the years with the most basic reference on the framework/concept being traced to 1939. During that time, leadership was correlated to the social climate, but it never availed a framework for gauging it. Over time, numerous persons have defined organizational climate in numerous way. According to Bock et al (2005), organizational climate can be defined as business environment properties in the place of work that is observed by staff that sturdily affects their actions, alongside job performance. For instance, a business manager might take the trouble of surveying the employees regarding organizational climate to establish, as well as, promote those factors that are exceedingly conducive to attaining corporate goals. Organization climate is also referred to as corporate climate. Further, Bock et al (2005) describes organizational climate as a system of shared values, assumptions, and benefits that controls the behaviour of individuals in an organization. Nonetheless, according to Mehrotra (2005), organizational climate describes the perception of the members regarding their environment of work. The author further defines organizational climate as a culmination of tangible perceptions regarding conspicuous aspects of the organization or the work environment. Despite the fact that organizational climate concept stemmed from the theory put forward by McClelland-Atkinson’s, Anderson & Billings-Harris (2010)defined organizational climate as the set of measurable properties of the environment at work that is either directly or indirectly perceived by the workers that work within the environment of the organization, which influence and motivates them. According to this author, the operational definition of organizational climate is the sum of the personal perceptions working in the organization. Anderson & Billings-Harris (2010) went on further to define organizational climate as the common discernment of the manner in which things are around the organization. The author went on further to explain organizational climate as the molar perception, which pinpoints the aims of the organization, and the means to attain them. On that note therefore, organizational climate is the common informal and formal discernment of organizational practices, procedures, and policies. Thus, in terms of associations among organizational members, organizational climate emphasizes on the discernment of its members regarding the way things are around the organization. Svyantek (2007) defines organizational climate as the label utilized in describing the dimensions of the environment of work that can be gauged with relative precision. In his definition, the author included that organizational climate is determined by numerous factors including leadership, the structure of the organization, historical forces, accountability standards, behaviour standards, vision, and many other determinants. 2.2 Organization climate dimensions An initial theoretical and research assumption regarding organizational climate was that a limited number of dimensions could characterize a social environment. For example, Giacalone (2007) established four dimensions common to numerous climate researches. The four dimensions included structure degree imposed on the situation, individual autonomy, reward orientation, and warmth, consideration, and support. However, Eikelenboom (2005) describe the four dimensions they established across numerous diverse work contexts as lack of harmony and role stress, autonomy and job challenge, leadership support and facilitation, and work group friendliness, warmth and corporation. Further, Eikelenboom (2005) suggests that people developed a holistic or universal perception of their environment of work, which is applicable to any number of industries and contexts. Nonetheless, the number of climate dimensions established as assessment targets has multiplied over time causing confusion, along with slow progress in theory. For instance, according to Peek (2003), a field review described an abbreviated list of dimensions of climate including the psychological distance of leaders, managerial consideration and trust, communication flow, open-mindedness, risk-orientation, service quality, equity and centrality. Since that review, the development of new scales for climate has progressed. For instance, the Business Organization Climate Index was revised in 1992 with the addition of gauges measuring regarding customer service, information quality impact, and culture management capability. Inceoglu (2002) abjures the utilization of wide-ranging multi-dimensional climate measures and argues for a facet-particular climate strategy where climate has an aim, and is related to something of importance. The author laments that the organizational climate dimensions will vary depending on the investigation’s purpose and the interest criterion. Further, he exemplifies that the general organizational climate measures will have dimensions that are irrelevant for each particular research. Consequently, this argument has encouraged the emergence of measures of numerous climate dimensions including service and innovation. Succinctly, instead of considering domain-specific and global strategies to organizational climate as opposing strategies, it is worthwhile perceiving both as a valid basis for perception of work environment investigations. The favoured approach relies largely on the investigation’s interest. The global strategy is advantageous in regards to its provision for a general organizational functioning snapshot. Thus, it allows a perception of the ways of operation of the whole organization. Inceoglu (2002) laments that a multi-dimensional global strategy can, highlight subcultures and establish the influences of specific dimensions on particular outcome measures including organizational innovation or productivity. The domain-specific strategy contributes more targeted and precise information for utilization in areas including the enhancement of customer satisfaction, along with the enhancement of the safety of the company. 2.3 Effects of organization climate For a long time organizational behaviour, researchers have been interested in comprehending the perception of employees regarding the environment of work. Additionally, they have also been interested in the manner in which these perceptions affect the attitudes of an individual that are related to his or her work. According to early researchers, the atmosphere or the social climate created in the place of work had extreme outcomes. This implies that the perception of the employees regarding the work context purportedly affected the degree to which individuals were satisfied. Numerous studies have been carried out on the effects of organizational climate. Hall (2005) exemplify that organizational climate considerably affects organizational member’s behaviour. Additionally, the author illustrates that employees with a particular motive work excellently when organizational climate is favourable for that motive. In addition, the author has explained that organizational climate affects the work life quality in the organization. The author further explains that organizational climate has numerous essential influences at group, individual and organizational levels. For example, organizational climate influences leader behaviour, along with turnover intentions. It also has the power to affect the level of job satisfaction, personal job performance, as well as the organizational performance. Therefore, it is extremely essential to comprehend the implication of correlation between the “bottom line” and organizational climate. The profit establishes at the end of enactment. Thus, it can be foretold with adequate confidence that the performance of an organization will worse when the organizational climate is not functioning appropriately and the performance of the organization will be advanced when the climate of the organization is functioning appropriately. Thus, as exemplified by Evans (1998), unlike profit, that is a sheathing gauge of the performance of an organization; organizational climate is a leading indicator of organizational performance. Furthermore, as explained by Evans (1998) organizational climate assists in establishing the success of an organization, and it is extremely essential for attaining organizational effectiveness. Thus, organizational climate illustrates how well the potential is being realized by the organization. Further, empirical findings have established that organizational climate exerts a substantial influence on the performance of an organization and vital employee outcomes including individual motivation, stress, turnover intent, and job satisfaction. Saiyadan (2009) articulated that there is an expanding body of research in the healthcare sector that illustrate that organizational climate is correlated with negative and positive patient outcomes. Saiyadan (2009) established organizational climate to be related to patient care innovation. Additionally, as put across by Saiyadan (2009), organizational climate can have severe influences for service users in the perception that stressed or demoralized employees may be incapable of availing the quality of work required for enhancing the performance of the organization. Thus, it is increasingly significant to scrutinize the correlation between individual outcomes such as morale, stress and satisfaction, and organizational climate. 2.4 Definition of job satisfaction There are not many, if any, perceptions more central to organizational or industrial psychology than job satisfaction. In these modern days, the initiation of the human relations movement is accredited with highlighting the essence of workplace attitudes. Nonetheless, from this propitious commencement, the literature of job satisfaction has had its flows and ebbs. Different persons have extensively defined the job satisfaction concept. Kusluvan (2003) explained that job satisfaction is a positive or pleasurable emotional state that comes from the appraisal of the job experience of an individual. Further, Scheider & Barbera (2014) refined this definition to constitute an attitudinal variable, which gauges how an individual feels regarding the job, including diverse features of the job. Scheider & Barbera (2014) went on further to define job satisfaction as an comprehensive feeling regarding ones career or job in regards to particular facets of careers or jobs. Such facets include autonomy, compensation and co-workers. It can be correlated to particular results, for instance, productivity. Porter et al (2014) also defined job satisfaction as the contentment of the servers due to their work. Thus, it is a personal assessment of the conditions of the job or the consequences or occupational security, wages, and many other more, attained from the job. Additionally, according to Porter et al (2014), job satisfaction is the sensation establishing the server’s contentment and seeming when qualifications of the job, alongside the server’s demands match. On that note, therefore, job satisfaction might be termed as the outcome resulting from the evaluation between the server’s expectations from the job and the job at hand, which is performed. The outcomes may come out as job dissatisfaction or satisfaction of the server. Further, as exonerated by Judge et al (2001) job satisfaction can be termed as an individual’s state of mind or feeling concerning the work’s nature. Numerous aspects such as academic relationship quality can affect Job satisfaction with the supervisor, physical environment quality, and the level of realization in the work. However, according to Chadha (1988), job satisfaction is a positive or pleasurable emotional state that comes from the appraisal of an individual’s job experience or job. On that note therefore, it is quite essential to highlight that the author utilizes both appraisal (cognitive) and emotional state (affect). Thus the author takes on that job satisfaction emerges from the interrelation of affect and cognitive, or feelings and thoughts. Recently, various scholars that argued that distinctive measures of job satisfaction are less effective than cognitive in orientation have questioned this view. Succinctly, most scholars appreciate that job satisfaction is a universal concept that also encompasses numerous facets. The most common facet categorization according to Chadha (1988) are five, and they include work, supervision, co-workers, promotion, and pay. Porter et al (2003) adds more facets including management, company, working conditions, and recognition. According to Schneider & Barbera (2014), job satisfaction is the overall job attitudes of the workers. The author divides job satisfaction into numerous facets including work group attitude, overall conditions of working, monetary benefits, and supervision attitudes that he said is involvedly connected with the state of mind of the individual regarding the life in general and the work itself. Further, Giacalone (2003) defines job satisfaction as a set of favourable feelings, along with emotions with which workers perceive their work. The author views job satisfaction as the level to which employees feel negative or positive regarding their job. Additionally, Eikelenboom (2005) view job satisfaction as the match between what the employee wants from the boss and the job wants and what he or she receives. Thus, on that note, job satisfaction is, therefore, the level to which the individual’s requirements, needs and expectations are met by the job. Finally, Anderson & Billing-Harris (2010) explain job satisfaction to be a multidimensional system of interrelated variables. 2.5 Relationship between organization climate and job satisfaction The interest in the relationship of organizational climate to other phenomenon of organization such as job performance, job satisfaction, and leadership behaviour and work group interaction quality has been long-standing. However, previous research on job satisfaction has put more focus on the job itself as the elementary means of elevating satisfaction. The key argument is that, if work or job climate are developed to avail a work environment that is more desirable, the outcome will be an enhanced job satisfaction. The pressure of organizational work, having a schedule of work, which meets personal need, safety at work, organizational quality environment and receiving feedbacks indirectly influence intention to leave via staff job satisfaction. Evans (1998) exemplifies that the contribution of the management of people to organizational performance results such as profitability and productivity has a relationship to a satisfaction climate in the place of work. As exemplified by Scheider & Barbera (2014) a substantial evidence illustrates that exists correlations between climate aspects and job satisfaction measures. According to Inceoglu (2002), it is possible for organizational climate to cause negative or positive work outcomes. Positive incentives of work make work more interesting. For instance, an attractive work environment, benefits provision, excellent personal policies, and job compensation and structure. Enabling environments of work results to excellent personal policies, motivation, constructive work environment, and benefits provision, job compensation and job satisfaction. Nonetheless, negative incentives of work include the incentives that cause the work to be boring, dissatisfying, and unchallenging. They cause elevated turnover, absenteeism and accidents. Thus, in an effort to avert such negative outcomes, it is extremely essential to establish the aspects in organizational climate that can result to satisfaction among the workers in order to progressively have satisfied, productive, and contented jobs. Eikelenboom (2005) explains that even though job satisfaction and organizational climate have distinctive and separate indicators, they have a symbiotic relationship, which entirely rests on one assuaging the other, alongside the styles of leadership and the environments they exist. The author continues to explain that public and private organizations take on exclusive characteristics and they deserve enhanced scrutiny as to the manner in which the dynamics of the climate of the organization, alongside job satisfaction interrelate and influence each other. Bock et al (2005) lamented that organizations take their corporate form from the process of making decisions and, their disparities take arise in the reformation of the process as necessitated by their task, alongside the manner in which the public identifies the task. Giacalone (2007) explains further that, so as, to have a sense of value within the place of work, realization is reliant upon the employees having a sense of fulfilment that can discernibly be correlated to involvement with the process of decision-making. According to a research carried out by Saiyadan (2009) regarding the relationship of job satisfaction and organizational climate, there exists are strong relationship between organizational climate and the dependent variable of job satisfaction. Additionally, the outcomes of stepwise regression analysis illustrated nine dimensions of the influence of organizational climate on the projected job satisfaction. References ANDERSON, R., & BILLINGS-HARRIS, L. (2010). Trail blazers how top business leaders are accelerating results through inclusion and diversity. Hoboken, N.J., J. Wiley & Sons. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=36523. Bock, G. W., ZMUD, R. W., KIM, Y. G., & LEE, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111. CHADHA, N. K. (1988). Organizational climate and job satisfaction. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient. EIKELENBOOM, B. (2005). Organizational capabilities and bottom line performance: the relationship between organizational architecture and strategic performance of business units in Dutch headquartered multinationals. Delft, Eburon. EVANS, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction, and motivation. London, P. Chapman Pub. GIACALONE, R. A. (2003). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Armonk, NY [u.a.], Sharpe. HALL, L. M. (2005). Quality work environments for nurse and patient safety. Sudbury, Mass. ; Toronto, Jones and Bartlett Pub. INCEOGLU, I. (2002). Organizational culture, team climate, workplace bullying and team effectiveness: an empirical study on their relationship. München, Herbert Utz Verlag Wissenschaft. JUDGE, T. A., THORESEN, C. J., BONO, J. E., & PATTON, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376. KUSLUVAN, S. (2003). Managing employee attitudes and behaviors in the tourism and hospitality industry. New York, Nova Science Publishers. MEHROTRA, A. (2005). Leadership styles of principals: authoritarian and task oriented. New Delhi, India, Mittal Publications. PEEK, R. C. (2003). Relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as responted by institutional research staff at Florida Community College. Thesis (Ed.D)--University of Florida, 2003. PORTER, L. W., ANGLE, H. L., & ALLEN, R. W. (2003). Organizational influence processes. Armonk (N.Y.), M.E. Sharpe. SAIYADAIN, M. S. (2009). Human resources management. New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill Pub. SCHNEIDER, B., & BARBERA, K. M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. Oxford, Oxford University Press. SVYANTEK, D. J. (2007). Refining familiar constructs: alternative views in OB, HR, and I/O. Charlotte, NC, IAP, Information Age Publ. Read More