Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
342
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN SMALL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS by Danette L. Brown RUDOLPH RYSER, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair LINDA-MARIE SUNDSTROM, PhD, Committee Member DEBORAH GANGLUFF, PhD, Committee Member Suzanne Holmes, DPA, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University September 2011
  • 2. UMI Number: 3478080 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3478080 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
  • 3. © Danette L. Brown, 2011
  • 4. AbstractThe purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between organizationalculture and job satisfaction within small nonprofit organizations. A review of theliterature revealed a 30-year history of research that has contributed to organizationalmanagement literature. However, little empirical evidence was found that describes arelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction within small nonprofitorganizations. Yet this relationship is important, as it has the potential to affectorganizational performance. This study investigated the research question, “To whatextent does a correlation exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction withinsmall nonprofits?” through the administration of two quantitative instruments,Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) developed by Cooke and Lafferty (1983) whichmeasured organizational culture and the Job in General Scale (JIG) developed byIronson, Smith, Brannick, & Gibson (1989) which measures job satisfaction. In addition,to determine if there was a correlation between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine ifthere are any significant differences between selected demographic variables andorganizational culture. Eight organizations participated in the study, which resulted in104 participants, a return rate of 80%. While this study did not address causation, acorrelation was anticipated and found between organizational culture and job satisfactionwithin small nonprofit organizations.
  • 5. DedicationThis work is dedicated to my grandfather and my children, Dejane and Courtney. iii
  • 6. AcknowledgmentsAn accomplishment such as this is not easily accomplished and it takes a circle ofrelatives, friends and colleagues to do so. I would first like to thank my mentor Dr.Rudolph Ryser for his patience and guidance during this process as well as my committeeDr. Gangluff and Dr. Sundstrom for their assistance. I also wish to thank MelissaWilliams for her continuous support and encouragement. I am grateful to my colleaguesover the years that inspired, mentored and encouraged me to pursue a terminal degree. Iam grateful to the Saunders family for their continued support. In addition, I would liketo thank a very special person who has motivated and inspired me to complete thisdegree. Finally, words alone cannot express the thanks I owe to my mother, stepfather,grandmother, sister, brothers and children who are my biggest cheerleaders and continueto motivate me to keep aiming high. iv
  • 7. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of TablesCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 Background of the Study .....................................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................8 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................9 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................10 Rationale ............................................................................................................................10 Conceptual/Theoretical Framework...................................................................................11 Research Questions ............................................................................................................14 Study Variables ..................................................................................................................14 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................15 Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................15 Nature of the Study ............................................................................................................16 Organization of the Remainder of the Study .....................................................................19CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................20 Overview of Nonprofit Organizations ...............................................................................21 An Overview of Organizational Culture ............................................................................25 An Overview of Job Satisfaction .......................................................................................39CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY/DESIGN OF THE STUDY ....................................................47 Population and Sampling ...................................................................................................50 v
  • 8. Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................52 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................57 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................60 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................64CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.............................................................68 Overview of the Study .................................................................................................68 Participants and Demographics....................................................................................70 Education and Salary of Participants ...........................................................................73 Level in and Time With Organization .........................................................................75 Demographics of Participants by Organization ...........................................................76 Analysis of Survey Instruments ...................................................................................96 Analysis and Discussion of Research Questions .......................................................102CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................139 Summary and Discussion of Results..........................................................................139 Discussion ..................................................................................................................148 Significance of the Study and Implications ...............................................................153 Conclusions ................................................................................................................156REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................158APPENDIX A. JOB IN GENERAL SCALE ..............................................................................173APPENDIX B. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE INVENTORY.............................................174 vi
  • 9. List Of TablesTable 1. Response Rates by Organization ....................................................................................71Table 2. Age, Gender, and Ethnicity of Participants ....................................................................72Table 3. Education and Salary of Participants ..............................................................................74Table 4. Participant’s Level and Time With Organization ...........................................................75Table 5. Age by Organization .......................................................................................................77Table 6. Gender by Organization ..................................................................................................80Table 7. Ethnicity by Organization ...............................................................................................81Table 8. Level of Education by Organization ...............................................................................84Table 9. Annual Salary by Organization.......................................................................................87Table 10. Organizational Level by Organization ..........................................................................91Table 11. Years Employed by Organization .................................................................................93Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) Subcultures ..........98Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations for Constructive Style Behaviors by Organization ...............................................................................................................100Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Passive/Defensive Behaviors by Organization ...............................................................................................................101Table 15. Means and Standard Deviations for Aggressive/Defensive Style Behaviors by Organization ...............................................................................................................102Table 16. Summary of Pearson r Results: OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale ..............104Table 17. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization A—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................107Table 18. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization B—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................108Table 19. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization C—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................109 vii
  • 10. Table 20. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization D—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................110Table 21. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization E—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................111Table 22. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization F—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................112Table 23. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization G—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................120Table 24. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization H—OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale...................................................................................................114Table 25. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Achievement Subculture..........116Table 26. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Self-Actualizing Subculture ..................................................................................................................116Table 27. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Humanistic–Encouraging ............. Subculture ..................................................................................................................117Table 28. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Affiliative Subculture ..............118Table 29. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Approval Subculture ................119Table 30. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Conventional Subculture .........120Table 31. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Dependent Subculture..............120Table 32. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Avoidance Subculture..............121Table 33. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Oppositional Subculture ..........122Table 34. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Power Subculture .....................122Table 35. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Competitive Subculture ...........123Table 36. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Perfectionistic Subculture ........123Table 37. Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Job Satisfaction by Organization .........124Table 38. Analysis of Variance for Job Satisfaction Among Participating Organizations .........125 viii
  • 11. Table 39. Summary of ANOVA Post Hoc Results: Job Satisfaction by Organization ..............126Table 40. Summary of Spearman’s Rho Results: Demographic Variables and Job in General Scale .............................................................................................................130Table 41. Analysis of Variance for Ethnicity and Job Satisfaction ............................................131Table 42. Summary of Independent Samples Test: Gender and Job Satisfaction ......................132Table 43. Job in General Responses ...........................................................................................134Table 44. Job in General Mean Score by Item by Organization (Organizations A–D) ..............135Table 45. Job in General Mean Scores by Item by Organization (Organizations E–H).............136 ix
  • 12. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In the past decade, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have grown from 1.2 millionto over 1.6 million (Salmon, as cited in Dolan, 2002), thus increasing the number oforganizations competing for similar resources. As a result, organizations are continuallyevaluating their core processes and organizational paradigms to gain a competitive edge(Lettieri, Borga, & Savoldelli, 2004). These core processes and paradigms become part ofthe organization’s culture. According to Sethia and VonGlinow (as cited in Pool, 2000a),organizational culture is a set of processes that bind together members of an organizationbased on shared patterns of beliefs. However, while shared beliefs and binding processesare important, their absence is equally profound. Organizational culture’s contribution to organizational management literature hasbeen documented; however, little evidence of a relationship between organizationalculture and job satisfaction has been found, with even less relative to small NPOs.Nevertheless, a review of the literature yielded research on organizational culture and itsrelationship to employee attitudes (Bowling, Beehr, & Lepisto, 2006; Carmeli, 2005;Silverthorne, 2004). A contributing factor to the scarcity of research found on therelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction may be due to thechallenge of studying phenomena that differ from one organization to another, and, attimes, even among departments within the same organization (Mills, 2002). Yet it isthese differences that especially speak to the need for continual assessment of theorganization’s culture to ascertain the relationship between employee behavior andorganizational performance. 1
  • 13. Organizational management literature examines the topic of organizational culturedue to its influence on a host of individual and organizational outcomes (McKinnon,Harrison, Chow, & Wu, 2003). For example, research has found that an organization thatlacks unity among its members may find itself with employees who are dissatisfied, lackcommitment, and resent change (Lok & Crawford, 2004; Rashid, Sambasivan, &Rahman, 2004; Trimble, 2006). As a result, negative work-related behaviors such asabsenteeism and tardiness may occur that potentially affect organization performance(Pool, 2000b). Thus, examining the culture of the workplace remains a profound area ofinterest in organizational management literature (Lok & Crawford, 2004). The proposedresearch study will investigate the relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction within small NPOs. Background of the StudySpecial Characteristics of NPOs The growth of the nonprofit sector is expected to continue as the demand forservices provided by NPOs continues to rise (Boris, as cited in Dolan, 2002). Accordingto Hall (as cited in Macedo & Pinho, 2006), an NPO is defined as a body of individualswho associate for any of the following purposes: (a) To perform public tasks that havebeen delegated to them by the state; (b) to perform public tasks for which there is ademand that neither the state nor for-profit organizations are willing to meet; or (c) toinfluence the direction of policy in the state, the for-profit sector, or other NPOs. Thesedistinctions set NPOs apart from for-profit organizations; however, the most distinctivecharacteristic of for-profit organizations is their inability to distribute “profit” to anyonewith a beneficial interest in the organization such as staff, trustees, and stakeholders 2
  • 14. (Courtney, 2002). While this may be true, within the last decade the lines separating thefor-profit and nonprofit sector have become blurred. For example, NPOs are increasinglyfocused on financial resources and improving efficiency while for-profit organizationsare now focusing on their values and social mission (Macedo & Pinho, 2006). The nonprofit sector is heterogeneous with members ranging from small localassociations managed by a few volunteers to large international organizations withthousands of members and local branches (Lettieri et al., 2004). For this reason,classification of organizations as large or small may be difficult because size can meanmany things and be measured in many ways. For example, Gronjberg and Child (as citedin Garvey, 2006) classified a small organization as any tax exempt organization under theInternal Revenue Code 501(c)3 with 15.5 or fewer full-time employees whose grossannual revenue and/or assets were less than $100,000. Small NPOs face many challenges because of their flexible and lenient approachto operational and personnel issues. According to David and Rubenfeld (2005), smallNPOs have a reputation for avoiding written policies because they want greater flexibilityin responding to situations. However, this flexibility tends to lead to perceptions offavoritism or ad hoc decision- making that does not consider the needs of all employees(David & Rubenfeld, 2005). While this may be true, small organizations have beenapplauded for generally having a simpler, more streamlined operational structure thatadapts relatively well to change (Strandholm & Kumar, 2003), thus providing specificcharacteristics that may contribute to the development of the organization’s culture. 3
  • 15. Concepts of Organizational Culture As mentioned above, organizational management and leadership literature hasgiven significant attention to the concept of organizational culture. It is likely that interestin organizational culture is based on its recognition as a factor in organizationaleffectiveness (Denison, as cited in Schraeder, Tears, & Jordan, 2005). The study oforganizations dates back to the work of Quinn, who discovered that organizations sendconflicting messages about expectations, values, and beliefs referred to as the competingvalues framework (Schimmoeller, 2006). This framework suggests that the ability ofmanagers to perform well is based on how they use these different and conflicting sets ofskills: boundary spanning, human relations, coordinating, and directing skills(Schimmoeller, 2006). More importantly, the way these skills are demonstrated by themanager help shape the culture that becomes part of organizational life. Unfortunately,external environmental demands and organizational culture may differ from the cultureenvisioned by the managers (Bradley & Parker, 2001), resulting in a disparity betweenthe preferred and the necessary cultures. The idea of organizational culture dates back to research conducted in the 1980sby Edward H. Schein, who envisioned it as a pattern of basic assumptions that a givengroup has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems ofexternal adaptation and internal integration. Schein further contends that as basicassumptions become valid, new members are taught the correct way to perceive, think,and feel about the organization. Although Schein and other organizational managementresearchers have attempted to establish a single operational definition for organizationalculture, their attempts, along with others, resulted in the development of multiple 4
  • 16. definitions. For instance, organization culture has been defined as the collectiveprogramming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one organization fromanother (Hofstede, as cited in Gambrel & Cianci, 2003); the way the organization feels tothose on the inside (Katopol, 2006); and the set of shared values, beliefs, assumptions,and practices that shape the attitudes and behavior of members within the organization(Wilson, 2001). These definitions have been found to have individual and collectivevalue as research on organizational culture expands to include its relationship to humanbehavior. In as much as organizational culture has contributed to management literature,this integration of human behavior into the discussion has proven valuable. Schulz (2001)contends that organizations with strong cultures in which employees share commonvalues enjoy distinct performance advantages over firms with weak cultures. To supportthis association, a closer look at Schein’s (1992) hierarchical conceptualization of cultureis appropriate (Schimmoeller, 2006). Schein asserts that artifacts and visible aspects areat the highest level of the organization’s culture (Schimmoeller, 2006). At the next levellies an underlying culture, which is simply an existing set of beliefs referred to asespoused values. The lowest level contains the underlying assumptions alleged to affectthe organization’s beliefs and subsequent practices. This hierarchical approach toorganizational culture contends that these levels explain “how” the environment isdeveloped and “what” behavior patterns are visible. Although this approach neglects toaccount for “why” behaviors are displayed, the presence of such behaviors, whetherpositive or negative, reveals perceptions of the workers’ overall employment experience. According to Johnson and Johnson (2000), job satisfaction is employees’ 5
  • 17. contentment with their employment experiences. Individuals satisfied with their jobsexhibit relatively low stress and absenteeism, affirming that their important needs arebeing met (Gavin & Vinten, 2005). Relative to job satisfaction, the concept of humanmotivation is at the core of discussions within management-related disciplines, such ashuman resource management, organization behavior, strategy, and organization theory(Welbourne, Andrews, & Andrews, 2005). This is based on the assumption that moremotivation leads to better performance (Lawler, as cited in Welbourne et al., 2005).While this may be true, motivation has also been linked to the identification andsatisfaction of human needs as outlined in the works of Maslow (1943) and McGregor(1960). The investigation of human behavior through the identification of human needsbegan with the early work of Maslow (1943) and McGregor (1960). In his “Hierarchy ofNeeds,” Maslow identified five basic human needs in order of importance: Physiological,safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. He contends that individuals are notmotivated to fulfill a higher need until lower needs are met. This is relevant for this studybecause this theory supports the notion that employees will not be satisfied or motivatedto reach for higher needs until their basic needs are met. Maslow’s theory has been citedas the theoretical framework for recent studies on organizational behavior, organizationalculture, and job satisfaction (Alas, 2005; Freed, 2003; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). McGregor (1960) proposed two theories by which employee motivation should beviewed: Theory X and Theory Y. Similar to Maslow’s theory, McGregor’s work has beencited as the relevant theory for investigating organizational culture (Cseh, Ardichvili,Gasparishvili, Krisztian, & Nemeskeri, 2004); job satisfaction (Kennedy, 2002); and 6
  • 18. organizational values (Jin, Drozdenko, & Bassett, 2007). According to McGregor (1960),Theory X assumes that the average person dislikes work, has no ambition, has littleconcern for organizational goals, and resists change. The assumptions associated withTheory X are problematic because they cause managers to operate the organization withlittle flexibility and tight controls. Furthermore, McGregor points out that suchassumptions are incorrectly used in practice and that a higher order of motivation isrequired to acquire job satisfaction. Theory Y thus assumes that people will be self-directed and committed if rewards are in place that address their higher needs. TogetherMaslow’s and McGregor’s theories support an existing relationship between humanbehavior and human needs that also contributes to describing employee job satisfaction. Research has shown that job satisfaction is affected by individual, organizational,and job characteristics (Warner, Reynolds, & Roman, 2005). Work-related attitudes, suchas organizational commitment and job involvement, have been studied and proven to berelated to changing work environments (Bowling et al., 2006). However, Bowling et al.found that career commitment and job satisfaction were not affected. The researchersspeculated that some work attitudes are less susceptible to environmental changes thanothers and indicated that further research needs to be conducted in this area. They furthersuggested that improvement in job satisfaction starts with building a sense ofachievement, increasing recognition, and increasing involvement. For this reason,continued research on managers’ contribution to employee job satisfaction is necessary todevelop a framework that managers can use to determine the methods best fitting theirorganization. One approach to achieving job satisfaction begins with the hiring process, in 7
  • 19. which hiring managers determine which candidates best suit the organization. The topicof “person-organization fit” (P-O fit) has contributed to discussions on organizationalculture and its relationship to job satisfaction in management and human resourcesliterature (Carless, 2005). Research on the study of individual fit and its relationship toemployee satisfaction has focused on areas such as cultural fit (Testa, Mueller, &Thomas, 2003) and organizational commitment (McConnell, 2003) where evidence of arelationship has been proven. However, the study of fit does not always produceconsistent results. For example, according to Schwepker and Hartline (2005), when therelationship between individual fit and ethical fit was investigated, Sims and Galen(1994) found a relationship between individual fit and ethical fit, whereas Koh and Boo(2001) were unable to establish one based on their data. The findings of these studies areindicative of the difficulty of studying a topic that is driven by human behavior, whichtends to be constantly changing. Statement of the Problem It was not known whether and to what extent a relationship existed betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs. A review of the literatureyielded little evidence describing the relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction; even less literature was located relative to small NPOs. This studydetermined whether a relationship exists between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction within small NPOs. It studied this relationship by surveying employees ofsmall NPOs about their organizational culture and job satisfaction. 8
  • 20. Significance of the Study The growth in the number of NPOs in both scope and scale speaks to theirincreasing importance in society (Macedo & Pinho, 2006). The rapid growth of thenonprofit sector has encouraged managers to identify organizational culture as aninfluential factor of organizational effectiveness. The proposed study will investigate therelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs. Thestudy of organizational culture and its relationship to job satisfaction within smallnonprofits is important for several reasons. First, it will provide managers with insightabout the characteristics of the organization that will help them manage or change theculture (Schraeder et al., 2005). This, in turn, will allow managers to make the necessarymodifications to help their organization achieve its organizational goals. Second, it willencourage organizational researchers to conduct further research using various criteriasuch as the organization’s size and the services it provides as they relate to organizationalculture, job satisfaction, or both—an area that has not been fully established as part of theorganizational management literature. The researcher’s interest in the topic of organizational culture and its relationshipto job satisfaction originated from work experiences within various NPOs. Eachorganization had its own set of values, beliefs, operational processes, procedures, andpolicies. Those organizations that had a positive effect aligned with the values and beliefsof the researcher, while those that did not caused feelings of stress, awkwardness, anddissatisfaction resulting in the researcher choosing to explore other career opportunities. The researcher expected to find a relationship between organizational culture andjob satisfaction within small NPOs. It was also expected that key items would be 9
  • 21. identified specific to the organization’s culture that are valued as well as those areas thatwould benefit from change. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this non-experimental study was to investigate the relationshipbetween organizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs. There is verylittle published literature that provided evidence of a relationship. To determine anyassociation between organizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs, theresearcher chose two survey instruments: one to measure organizational culture, and theother to measure job satisfaction. These instruments were administered to employees ofeight small NPOs to determine whether a correlation would be found betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction. Rationale The overall purpose of this study was to explain the relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs. This study willcomplement organizational culture literature while providing new data relative to smallNPOs. In addition, the study will describe how the culture of an organization relates toemployees’ feelings about their work experiences. Although there have been significant advances in the research of organizationalculture within NPOs, researchers believe further studies are needed (Jaskyte, 2002;Snipes-Bennett, 2006). Furthermore, this research is important to managers because itmay raise their awareness of factors that may be directly related to the organization’spersonnel problems and performance. The studies that have been undertaken examining the relationship between 10
  • 22. organizational culture and job satisfaction have shown that a relationship exists(Amburgey, 2005; McKinnon et al., 2003; Sikorska-Simmons, 2006).While this may betrue, the lack of research on organizational culture and job satisfaction within smallnonprofits is somewhat surprising given evidence from the literature on the relationshipbetween organizational culture and employee attitudes and behaviors (Carmeli, 2005;Kathrins, 2007; Waris, 2005). This study contributes to organizational culture research by providing data thatwill encourage managers to look at their organization’s culture and staff as vehicles thatcan guide the direction of the organization. The condition to be addressed is creatinghealthier organizational cultures that increase job satisfaction while decreasing negativework-related behaviors exhibited by employees. According to Gillett and Kroese (2003),organizational culture has captured the attention of individuals in varying organizationsand sectors because of its influence on the aspects of organizational performance thatserve as obstacles to meeting organizational objectives. This study contributes to researchby documenting an existing relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction within small NPOs. If a positive relationship is found, then further researchinto causative factors would be appropriate. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework The theoretical frameworks presented below will illustrate how and why arelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction within small nonprofitorganizations may exist. According to Katz and Kahn (1978), organizations consist of interrelated andinterdependent parts in which altering one part of the system affects the organization as a 11
  • 23. whole (B. Wright, 2001). Thus, careful management of the system needs is required tosatisfy and balance internal needs and to adapt to the external environment. To addressthe internal needs of the organization and its members, the open systems theory employedby Katz and Kahn identifies three social psychological elements: Role of behaviors ofmembers, norms prescribing those behaviors, and values in which norms are embedded.Organizational norms and values can have a significant influence on employees byproviding them with cognitive support and structure while satisfying their affiliativeneeds. This indicates the relevance of need theories in discussions of the relationshipbetween organizational culture and job satisfaction within small NPOs. Maslow’s (1943) “Hierarchy of Needs” hypothesized that human needs aredetermined by biological, cultural, and situational conditions. He further explained thatneeds arrange themselves based on hierarchies of importance that differ for eachindividual and situation. However, the emergence of one need usually relies on the priorsatisfaction of another more urgent need, all of which is relative to an individual’s state ofsatisfaction or dissatisfaction in other areas. The work of Maslow has contributed toresearch on leadership (Rodsutti & Swierczek, 2002); organizational culture (Detert,Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000); and motivation (Mann, 2006). For example, Detert et al.(2000) highlight Maslow’s theory as fundamental to the study of human andorganizational behavior that presently dominates organizational management literature.The authors suggest future research and theory development should be focused onunderstanding the gaps between organizational culture and its members. Relevant to thisproposed study, the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction willbe reflected in how the culture of the organization correlates with the motivation and 12
  • 24. satisfaction of its employees. Another theory relevant to studying the relationship between organizationalculture and job satisfaction was developed by McClelland (1985). McClelland’s theoryhighlights the need of individuals for achievement, power, and affiliation, defined as (a)the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards, and to strive to succeed; (b)the need to make others behave in a way they would not have otherwise; and (c) thedesire to have friendly and close interpersonal relationships. According to McClelland,many people exhibit a combination of these characteristics, but are strongly attached to aparticular motivational need which then affects their behavior and managing style. Theseconcepts have been highlighted in the organizational behavior literature to draw attentionto the needs of managers and employees. McClelland’s work has been cited in recentresearch on the motivational theory of charismatic leadership (Choi, 2006), jobsatisfaction (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004), and voluntary turnover(Tang, Kim, & Tang, 2000). These studies have collectively shown that people aremotivated by different things. For example, Tang et al. found that individuals motivatedby money tend to ignore job dissatisfaction because their immediate needs are being met. The theories of Katz and Kahn (1978), Maslow (1943), and McClelland (1985)are relevant to this proposed study because they point out that human behavior is guidedby the fulfillment of needs. These theories provide the groundwork for conducting astudy that investigates the relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction. It is posited that a relationship exists between the culture of the organizationand the level of job satisfaction based on individual needs affect on organizationalculture. This topic is challenging because individual needs differ, thus making it difficult 13
  • 25. to determine each individual’s hierarchy of needs. Research Questions The principal research question examined by this study is: To what extent does arelationship exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small nonprofitorganizations? Subquestions were the following: 1. To what extent does organizational culture differ among small nonprofit organizations? 2. To what extent does job satisfaction differ among small nonprofit organizations? 3. To what extent does a relationship exist between job satisfaction and selected demographic variables of employees of small nonprofit organizations? 4. What is the level of overall satisfaction of employees in small nonprofit organizations? The hypotheses of this study were H0: There is no relationship between organizational culture and job satisfactionwithin small nonprofit organizations. HA: There is a relationship between organizational culture and job satisfactionwithin small nonprofit organizations. Study Variables To examine any correlation between organizational culture and job satisfaction,the researcher must first identity the study variables. In this case, the independentvariable was the organizational culture of each small NPO, while the dependent variablewas job satisfaction. It was anticipated that a positive culture will be predictive of jobsatisfaction, whereas a negative culture will predict job dissatisfaction (Leedy & Ormrod, 14
  • 26. 2001), thus illustrating the correlation between organization culture and job satisfaction.If this was found to be the case, additional research would be useful to determine whetherthe relationship is causal. Definition of Terms The following definitions are provided to ensure understanding and consistencythroughout the study: • Employees personnel between the age 18-75 years old who are employed by theorganization (Nguyen, 2009). • Job satisfaction Employees’ contentment with their employment experience(Johnson & Johnson, 2000). • Nonprofit private, nongovernmental organizations that instead of aiming tomaximize profits for their owners or controllers have service objectives to members,users, or other beneficiaries (Ben-Ner, 2002). • Normative beliefs Perceptions held by an individual regarding others’expectations for behavior of that individual as a member of a particular group ororganization (Szumal, 2003). • Organization culture A set of processes that bind together members of anorganization based on a shared pattern of beliefs (Sethia & Von Glinow, 1985). • Shared behavioral expectations Those normative beliefs that are held in commonby members of a group or organization (Szumal, 2003). • Small nonprofit Any 501(c)3 organization with 50 or fewer employees whosegross annual revenue and/or assets are less than $1,000,000 (Garvey, 2006). Assumptions and Limitations The following assumptions have been made for this research study: 1. All employees will understand the purpose of the instrument and answer the questions honestly and to the best of their knowledge, skills, and abilities. 2. Employees may opt not to respond to the survey because of their concerns about the implications of participation. 15
  • 27. 3. Each respondent has experienced personally and has some reaction to the effect of the organization’s culture. The researcher acknowledges the following limitations: 1. The study is limited to those employees who have been employed with the non profit organization 12 months or more. 2. The response rates may be affected due to an employee’s workload and inability to participate in activities that are not work-related (Sproull, 2003). 3. Results may represent data that could change if the data were collected at another time. 4. This study will not establish cause and effect. 5. Employees may not report accurately if they base their beliefs about their present organization’s culture on prior work experiences, as found in a study conducted by Cable, Smith, Mulvey, and Edwards (2000). 6. Responses to the study may be affected by the length of time individuals have been employed at the organization. 7. The difficulties in interpreting the meaning and content of organizational culture limit the capability of generalizing the results (Carmeli, 2005). 8. The administration of a survey instrument requires a large number of respondents to reply and depends on the respondent’s ability to recall information (Neuman, 2003). 9. The data will not be generalizable to nonprofits in other states or regions, nonprofits that are larger, and other types of organizations. 10. There may be more or less of a correlation as a result of the function or role within the organizational structure of those in management/supervisory positions. Nature of the Study This study investigated the relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction and was based on the theoretical knowledge claim “positivism,” which iscommonly used for the purpose of exploring correlations and associations among 16
  • 28. variables (Creswell, 2003). The basic assumptions of positivism state that acceptableknowledge is obtained through natural science using a mixture of mathematics andempirical investigation into cause-effect relationships, with the resulting theories capableof prediction and control over nature (Creswell, 2003). The researcher acknowledged thelimitations of positivism as: (a) lacking the ability to develop theory that becomesregarded as fact, and (b) using different measurement procedures stemming fromdifferent operational definitions, which may lead to different conclusions about the sameconstruct (Kim, 2003). However, for the purpose of this study, it is best to build upon aknowledge base appropriate for examining relationships. Thus, in accord with themathematic and measuring aspects of positivism, a quantitative approach was selected toexplore the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction. Specifically, quantitative research involves counting and measuring of events andperforming the statistical analysis of a body of numerical data (Sproull, 2003). This formof research has the ability to provide results that are valid, reliable, and generalizable.According to Sproull the advantages of the quantitative method are that it producesresults generalizable to a larger population and demonstrates direct comparisons amongvariables using testable and verifiable methods. However, the topic of organizational culture and job satisfaction is not exemptfrom the debate over the use of quantitative versus qualitative methods to investigate arelationship. In particular, the quantitative approach has been scrutinized for its inabilityto provide distinct information about a phenomenon (Mark, 1996). Qualitativeresearchers argue that, as human behavior is relevant at the time the behavior is observed,it should be studied holistically because some factors cannot be represented numerically 17
  • 29. (Mark, 1996). Researchers favoring qualitative methods also argue that qualitativeresearch provides a personal approach to research because its findings are detailed(Reissner, 2005). Yet while these points may be well taken, the purpose of this study wasto provide findings that will be generalizeable and applicable over time, and qualitativemethods would limit its ability to do so. While both perspectives were considered, thequantitative approach appeared to be suitable for this type of research because it allowedinvestigation of the relationships among the variables through the use of numeric valuesand statistical analysis using a quantitative instrument. A non-experimental quantitative research design was chosen based on its abilityto test relationships among variables without controlling or manipulating subjectconditions (Creswell, 2003). The survey method of inquiry was appropriate for a studysuch as this because the independent variable (organizational culture) and dependentvariable (job satisfaction) will be measured using two survey instruments that will beadministered at the same time. While the survey method was appropriate for this study, itmay be limited by providing evidence only of association rather than causation, as citedin a study conducted by McKinnon et al. (2003). The decision to use a survey instrument to measure the aforementioned variablescould not have been made without the researcher considering both the strengths andweaknesses of the approach. The strengths of using a survey instrument to measurevariables are its low cost, usefulness in describing a large population, and ability toproduce results that are statistically reliable (Neuman, 2003). The limitations of using asurvey instrument are that a large number of respondents must reply and must be able torecall information (Neuman, 2003). However, while these disadvantages are important, 18
  • 30. the strengths justify the choice of using the survey. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The remainder of this study has been divided as follows: Chapter 2 provides aliterature review of the history and current research on organizational culture and jobsatisfaction, and their interdependent relationship. Further, the definitions and thetheoretical framework that has been developed relevant to both are discussed. Chapter 3describes the methodology of the study, including the sampling, data collection, andstatistical data analyses that will be used. Chapter 4 reviews the results, including adescription of the organization, demographics of respondents, and the results of theOrganizational Culture Index (OCI) and the Job in General (JIG) Scale. Finally, chapter 5describes the results, limitations, implications, and recommendations for future research. 19
  • 31. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Organizational development should move to establish principles with evidence of what an organization ought to be like rather than what it is forced to be like. (Spurgeon, 1999, p. 28) During the 1980s, the activities of the nonprofit sector began to affect all aspectsof society through providing services, involvement in community, or volunteerism(Goulet & Frank, 2002), spawning interest in structures, practices, and employee issueswithin the nonprofit sector. However, few research studies were located that haveattempted to investigate the relationship between organizational culture and its effect onemployees. Thus the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction within small nonprofit organizations (NPOs). A review of the literature yielded significant results relating organizational cultureand job satisfaction in individuals to variables such as organizational behavior (Chew &Basu, 2005; Lok & Crawford, 2004; T. Wright, 2006); leadership (Buble & Pavic, 2007;Politis, 2006; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006) and employee attitudes (Bowling et al.,2006; Carmeli, 2005; Silverthorne, 2004). However, little has been found investigatingthe relationship of organization culture to job satisfaction. The ability to diagnose the culture of an organization proves valuable because itprovides managers with information about the organization that will assist inaccomplishing organizational objectives and enhancing performance (Dunnett, 2007).According to Atkins and Turner (2006), the presence of negative work-related behaviorstranslates to a culture that neglects to meet the needs of employees, resulting inemployees moving on to other opportunities. Therefore, understanding howorganizational culture serves as an asset or liability is crucial. As an asset, it eases 20
  • 32. communication, facilitates organizational decision making and control, and possiblygenerates higher levels of cooperation and commitment; however, as a liability it canimpede operational and process efficiency (Whitfield & Landeros, 2006). Furthermore,its classification as an asset is linked to its ability to include individuals, while as aliability it tends to exclude, resulting in segregation and a potential decrease in jobsatisfaction (Rutherford, 2001). Job satisfaction similar to organizational culture has been linked to organizationaloutcomes such as higher profitability and productivity (Koh & Boo, 2001). According toMount, Ilies, and Johnson (2006), dissatisfaction with employment conditions and unjustworkplaces forces employees to retaliate against conditions resulting in behavior harmfulto the organization. These negative work-related behaviors can be costly due to the highercosts of hiring and training (Koh & Boo, 2001). To support the need for research in thisarea, the following discusses the interdependent relationship between organizationalculture and job satisfaction. Overview of Nonprofit Organizations The historical role of nonprofit organizations in service delivery, policy advocacy,and social movements has been documented by both scholars and researchers (Jackson-Elmoore & Hula, 2000). According to Alexis de Tocqueville (1835), associations shouldbe formed to promote public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion. Theformation of such associations occurred for two reasons: (a) The government adopted thephilosophy of helping people by giving them skills and support to supplementgovernment assistance, and (b) the government reallocated the responsibility for domesticprograms from the national to the state and local levels (Berry, as cited in Garvey, 2006). 21
  • 33. As a result, the nonprofit sector has been able to thrive and advance in size and services.For example, between 1977 and 1997, the number of nonprofit organizations increasedfrom 276,000 to 693,000 (Berry, as cited in Garvey, 2006). According to Ben-Ner (2002), NPOs are private, nongovernmental organizationsthat instead of aiming to maximize profits for their owners or controllers have serviceobjectives to members, users, or other beneficiaries. The Internal Revenue Service hasreported 26 different types of nonprofits varying in mission, services, and size (Berry, ascited in Garvey, 2006), which makes it difficult to establish concrete distinctions withinthe nonprofit sector. However attempts have been made; for example, Schuppert (as citedin Theuvsen, 2004), in 1995, described organizations within the nonprofit sector asfollows: (a) “Typical” nonprofit organizations characterized by autonomy from the state,solidarity with their beneficiaries, more or less democratic structures, honorary work by aconsiderable portion of their members, and a direct, non-market relationship with theirclients; (b) commercialized nonprofit organizations that have a more market-likerelationship with their clients and often apply company-like management techniques; (c)semipublic nonprofit organizations that have largely come under state control (due forexample to legislative regulation or heavy reliance on public money) and beentransformed into large bureaucracies; and (d) grassroots organizations that show somesimilarities to informal social groups. For example, small size, democratic structuresbased on common goals and friendship, and absence of full-time workers or managers. The distinction between NPOs and other organizations is that NPOs are unable todistribute profits to stakeholders and staff. Interestingly, although many believe it is 22
  • 34. illegal for NPOs to make a profit, the actual differentiation lies in how any profit is to bedistributed, rather than whether a profit can be earned (Berry, as cited in Garvey, 2006). According to Myers (2004), the external and internal environmentalconsiderations within the nonprofit sector tend to be more complex than those in the for-profit sector. The external considerations of nonprofit organizations include the diversityof stakeholder needs and requirements of multiple revenue streams, while internalenvironmental considerations include relationships with and between staff, volunteers,service users, and trustees (Myers, 2004). It is within this context that the challenges ofmanagers within the nonprofit sector have been investigated and identified. Management of organizations within the nonprofit sector is becomingincreasingly difficult because of the influence of the central government, regionaldevelopment agencies, and local authorities on the services to be provided (Myers, 2004).Myers further contends that nonprofits continue to be scrutinized for their failure todemonstrate efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. As a result, managers must beable to assess the organization’s priorities and develop a practical plan of action toaccomplish organizational objectives (Myers, 2004). A review of the literature revealed discussions about small organizations withinthe for-profit sector, but few specifics regarding the nonprofit sector. However, thediscussions of small organizations in the for-profit sector appear to have both merit andrelevance to the nonprofit sector. For example, the classification of organizations basedon size contributed to the discussions of small organizations in the for-profit sector.According to Hansson and Klefsjo (2003), although small organizations can be definedbased on sector or market share, most definitions are based on the number of employees. 23
  • 35. Thus this relates to a study conducted by Gronjberg and Child (2004) defining as a smallorganization as any 501(c)3 organization with 15.5 or fewer full-time employees that hasan annual income and/or assets of less than $100,000. However, according to a studyconducted by Strandholm and Kumar (2003), the use of relative size as opposed toabsolute size has been deemed appropriate for examining differences in behavior betweenlarge and small organizations. The relative size of an organization is usually computed byaveraging numbers based on a specific criterion. For example, Strandholm and Kumarcollected the number of beds in each hospital and used the median number of beds as thethreshold to classify the organization as large or small. Strandholm and Kumar (2003) contend that organizational functions are the samefor small and large organizations; however, small organizations face the challenge ofprioritizing tasks and meeting organizational objectives with fewer resources. Accordingto David and Rubenfeld (2005), large organizations are more concerned with establishingpersonnel practices that align with acceptable human resource management practices. Assmall NPOs tend to operate informally, they may lack job descriptions or writtenprocedures, resulting in the dissolution or inactivity of many organizations (David &Rubenfeld, 2005). The misconception inherent in such informal procedures is that theywill allow for greater flexibility in making organizational decisions. However, suchpractices present the danger of perceptions of favoritism or ad hoc decision-making thatdoes not consider the needs of all employees (David & Rubenfeld, 2005). The informaloperations of small organizations may also be due to a lean staffing strategy that resultsin the organization lacking employees possessing the same knowledge, skills, abilities, or 24
  • 36. work experience (David & Rubenfeld, 2005), thus forcing managers to use externalresources to complete work assignments. Regardless of their sector, small organizations must stay competitive whilerelying on limited resources (Martin & Martin, 2005). However, the literature tends toimply that small organizations embrace challenges and are naturally inclined to adapt(Macri, Tagliaventi, & Bertolotti, 2002). Small organizations also are able to promoteknowledge sharing and exploitation to create an organization culture that is innovative,flexible, effective, and efficient (Macri et al., 2002). An Overview of Organizational Culture The importance of organizational culture to the success of organizations wasvalidated through the increasing number of instruments and methodologies developed inthe 1960s and 1970s (Agbenyiga, 2005). The use of these instruments and methodologieshas generated debate within the literature as to how organizational culture should beinvestigated and defined (Wilson, 2001). This debate is primarily centered around whatorganizational culture means, how it manifests itself, and the way it should be managedfor the mutual benefit of the organization, its members, customers, and otherstakeholders. According to Dunnett (2007), organizational culture is manifested throughshared learning, unique experiences, managers, societal culture, and environmentalclimate. It is through this lens the researcher can investigate the effect of organizationalculture on the organization and its members. According to Ritchie (2000), strong cultures internalized by an organization’smembers lead to organizational outcome behaviors such as job satisfaction, jobcommitment, and performance. Organizational culture has also been cited as a vital 25
  • 37. source of information that defines the diversity of the environment and assists withmanaging differences among employees (Spataro, 2005). As a result, managers are urgedto do away with the “one-size-fits-all” approach and begin thinking creatively about howto accommodate the environment produced by diversification (Coffey & Tombari, 2005).The impact of organizational culture on members has been pushed to the forefront oforganization and management discussions. For example, Atkins and Turner (2006)contend that an unsatisfactory culture that neglects the needs of its employees risksemployees becoming disillusioned and therefore motivated to pursue and move on toother opportunities. In contrast, a satisfactory culture promotes a more enjoyable workenvironment resulting in high morale (Sadri & Lees, 2001). Investigation into organizational culture has proven valuable in establishingrelationships with several aspects of the organization. It has been suggested thatorganizational culture affects such outcomes as productivity, performance, commitment,self-confidence, and ethical behavior (Rashid et al., 2004). The dominance oforganizational culture in organizational and management literature for over two decadesis due to the inability of researchers to make absolute statements about its relationship toother variables or to even establish a universal definition of organizational culture. As aresult of these problems, this topic will continue to lead discussions within organizationalbehavior and management literature.Defining and Studying Organizational Culture The literature contains many varying definitions and perspectives forconceptualizing organizational culture. According to Sackmann (1991), organizational 26
  • 38. culture can be studied using both the variable and cognitive perspectives (Yahyagil,2006). The variable perspective focuses on expressions of cultures such as verbal andphysical behaviors or practices, along with artifacts and their underlying meanings, whilethe cognitive perspective involves studying and defining ideas, concepts, blueprints,beliefs, values, or norms that are viewed as the core of the culture (Yahyagil, 2006). Thevariable and cognitive perspectives of Sackmann have been highlighted in relevantstudies as a theoretical framework to studying organizational culture (McMurray, 2003;Yahyagil, 2006). Organizational behavior theorists have used variable and cognitive perspectivesalone or in tandem to frame their definitions of organizational culture. For example,organizational culture has been defined as a system of shared meaning based on theinterrelated concepts of symbol, myth, ritual, ideology, belief, and language (Pettigrew,as cited in Davis, 2000); a set of processes that binds together members of anorganization based on a shared pattern of beliefs (Sethia & Von Glinow, 1985); a patternof the basic assumptions a group has invented, discovered, and developed that have beenvalidated and considered the norm (Schein, as cited in Agbenyiga, 2005); and the degreeto which organizational members agree with an organizations culture or value system asa whole (Wiener, as cited in Crow & Hartman, 2002). In addition to definingorganizational culture in general, determining the culture of an individual organization isa complex task that requires defining the organization, identifying its values, determininghow it operates, and recognizing how it is viewed internally and externally (Atkins &Turner, 2006). 27
  • 39. The study of organizational culture within individual organizations has beendiscussed in the works of Edward H. Schein. Using an integration of the variable andcognitive approach, he conceptualized organizational culture at the following threelevels: Level 1—artifacts Level 2—values and beliefs Level 3—basic underlying assumptions(Schein, as cited in Schimmoeller, 2006). At the higher and lower tiers are the variableperspectives of culture composed of artifacts and assumptions. Artifacts are described aswhat is observed upon entry into the organization (Schein, as cited in Schimmoeller,2006); they are the symbols and signs of communication to organization membersthrough visible and audible behaviors. Assumptions are unconscious, taken-for-grantedbeliefs that are the source of values and actions (Schein, as cited in Schimmoeller, 2006),with basic assumptions being the unquestioned truths organization members holdregarding the nature of human nature, human activity, and human relationships. In thecenter is the cognitive perspective of culture in which values and beliefs are reflected inthe strategies, goals, and philosophies of the organization (Schein, as cited inSchimmoeller, 2006). Finally, values are conscious, affective desires or wants, whilebeliefs are cognitive views about truth and reality. The literature presents various ways of investigating organizational culture usingquantitative and qualitative methods. In the ongoing debate between the use ofquantitative versus qualitative methods, the methodology preference of the researcherusually takes precedence. However, according to Carmeli (2005), the difficulty with 28
  • 40. interpreting the meaning and content of organizational culture is the limitations ongeneralizing the results, as arguably the study of organizational culture requiresinvestigation of underlying assumptions, unique behaviors, language, and cultural modelsthat can only be captured using qualitative methods of inquiry (Faull, Kalliath, & Smith,2004). Qualitative methods have also been applauded for their ability to provide a richer,more comprehensive view of the culture (Schein, as cited in Davis, 2000). For example,Harris (as cited in Yauch & Steudel, 2003) used a case study methodology to analyzeresponses of employees whose organizations have embarked on strategies of culturalchange. He justified his choice by pointing out that case studies provide contextualinformation leading to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. However, in a recent study, Yauch and Steudel (2003) indicated that a drawbackto the qualitative method in studying organization culture is that it may overlookimportant issues or take significant time. In this situation, data collection took two tothree weeks while interpretations were limited, thus reflecting quantitative researchers’arguments that qualitative methods are unable to ensure data reliability and validity. Thequantitative method also may allow the researcher to conduct theoretical testing, developuniversal statements, and facilitate intra- and inter-unit comparisons (Creswell, 2003;Yauch & Steudel, 2003). Overall, although the quantitative method has been criticized for its inability toprovide underlying reasoning behind answers in examining organizational culture (Yauch& Steudel, 2003), the literature reflects it as being the dominant method being used,particularly via survey instruments such as the OCI developed by Cooke and Lafferty(Maslowski, 2006). 29
  • 41. Assessing Organizational Culture While undeniably it is important to assess the culture of an organization, doing socan be challenging as that culture may be influenced by several factors (Wakabayashi,2005). For an effective assessment, managers must pay attention to those items that arenoticed as well as those ignored (Wakabayashi, 2005). It is also important to notice thoseitems that are promoted versus being silenced as these factors permeate throughout theorganization (Wakabayashi, 2005). As noted above, the OCI has been cited in the literature as a viable instrument forassessing organizational culture. While instruments may be helpful, there are subtletiesand behaviors that can be studied to accomplish the same goal in a less academic manner.For example, Bolman and Deal (as cited in Wakabayashi, 2005) suggest the followingstrategies to assist managers with assessing and understanding the culture of theirorganization: [1.] observing employee reactions to the behaviors of others [2.] watching for nonverbal body language that may convey unspoken messages [3.] asking staff members for their opinions or perspectives [4.] challenging assumptions, including the manager’s own [5.] seeking candid comments during exit interviews [6.] conducting interviews with new employees who may offer fresh perspectives [7.] offering the opportunity for staff to provide feedback to each other [8.] gathering input through organizational cultural surveys [9.] asking employees what behaviors they would like to see more or less of 30
  • 42. [10.] asking what actions leaders should start, stop, or continue [11.] encouraging open dialogue while modeling a non-defensive reaction [12.] paying attention to items bothering the manager’s conscience [13.] self-awareness and modifying actions accordinglyFunctions of Organizational Culture The literature has presented several theories illustrating the role of culture in themotivation and coordination of activities of the organization. According to Katz andKahn (1978), organizational norms indicate the appropriate behaviors expected fromemployees while values provide the justification for the normative requirements of theorganization as well as for organizational activities and functions (B. Wright, 2001). Thediscussions of Katz and Kahn have been highlighted as the theoretical framework fordiscussing the role and relationships between phenomena and variables of organizationalculture (Carmeli, 2005; Pool, 2000b; Sarros, Gray, Densten, & Cooper, 2005). Thecognitive function of organizational values and norms is to facilitate the employees’ workin the organization and their adjustment to it while providing moral justification fororganizational activities (Pool, 2000b). According to Katopol (2006), organizational culture determines what we findimportant, how we show its importance and what people consider the correct or incorrectways to act within the organizational setting. Upon establishing a systematic way ofdoing things, terminology such as “that is the way things are” or “that is how we are usedto doing things” becomes the language of the organization (Rashid et al., 2004). This ishow the culture of an organization is developed, taught, and reinforced, resulting in a 31
  • 43. deep-rooted routine that becomes difficult to comprehend and/or change (Brown,Nicholson, Dran, & Stanton, 2004). Organizational culture plays a significant role in whether the organization is ahappy and healthy place to work. Culture serves as the knowledge within the organizationthat allows each worker to operate appropriately (Lettieri et al., 2004). However, whilemany managers acknowledge the significance of culture, few realize the roles andresponsibilities they have in its development (Urrabazo, 2005). Managers are responsiblefor creating the core culture because they bring to their work experiences their personalhistory, nature of socialization experiences, and perception of what it takes to succeed(Rashid et al., 2004). Schneider (2000) contends that organizations do not have a single culture, but thatthere is a culture that exists at the core of every organization. He notes this core cultureshould coincide with the organizational strategies and leadership practices that are at thecenter of how the organization operates. Therefore, the shift in the culture of anorganization starts and ends with those in management positions, giving them the powerto change it, but also leaving them responsible for its impact on organizational outcomes.For this reason, managers should be interested in how their employees, peers, citizens,and other stakeholders view them and the organization they operate (Atkins & Turner,2006). By understanding how organizational culture functions within the organizationmanagers are able to reduce anxiety, uncertainty, and confusion among its members(Atkins & Turner, 2006). Much of the discussion on organizational culture focuses on the members’contributions to its development. However, it has been found that external factors 32
  • 44. influence organizational culture because organizations tend to reflect the beliefs, values,and attitudes of their customers, suppliers, and competitors (Nahm, Abraham, &Vonderembse, 2004).Organizational Culture: Values-Based Approach Cooke and Lafferty (1987) asserted that shared values of organizational memberscould be measured by specific aspects of organizational culture, mainly behavioralexpectations of members (Davis, 2000). This assertion led Cooke and Rousseau toinvestigate organizational culture using a values-based approach. This investigation of 18organizations using the OCI provided empirical support for organizational consensus anddirection regarding perceived culture (Davis, 2000). This value-based approach includesthe investigation of value-based cultures such as those that are constructive, passive-defensive, or aggressive-defensive. Specifically, an organization that has a constructiveculture is one whose members are encouraged to interact with others and approach tasksthat will help them meet their higher-order satisfaction needs. According to Szumal(2003), a passive-defensive culture encourages its members to interact with people inways that will not threaten their own security. Finally, an aggressive-defensive culturesupports its members who approach tasks in forceful ways to protect their status andsecurity. The constructive, passive-defensive, and aggressive-defensive cultures have beenacknowledged in organizational behavior research as culture preferences commonlyfound within organizations (Corbett & Rastrick, 2000; Hursthouse & Kolb, 2001;Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2004). In studies conducted by both Corbett and Rastrick (2000) 33
  • 45. and Kwantes and Boglarsky (2004), it was found the expectations and norms of theconstructive style were preferred by employees. However, although the results were similar, the populations that were surveyedwere quite different. Kwantes and Boglarsky (2004) used a population employed in fiveoccupations: accounting, management information systems, marketing, production, andsecretarial/clerical. These occupations were further divided with marketing, production,and secretarial/clerical representing the people-oriented category and accounting,information systems, and production representing the task-oriented category. Thosewithin the people-oriented occupations not only preferred the constructive style, but alsoindicated a stronger preference for the defensive style than task-oriented employees(Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2004). It was suggested that further research be conducted toinvestigate other types of occupations. Thus Corbett and Rastrick (2000) surveyedemployees within a manufacturing company, with yet again the constructive style beingidentified as the culture that most likely would result in good performance. Corbett andRastrick suggest that altering the current style of an organization to resemble theconstructive culture would require integrating its characteristics into training, job design,work practices, supervision structure, and leadership from top management. However, theintegration of the constructive culture would continue to be influenced by the values ofthe leaders and members within the organization (Agbenyiga, 2005). Therefore, to anextent, all cultural learning reflects one’s original values—a sense of what ought to be, asdistinct from what is (Schein, as cited in Agbenyiga, 2005). 34
  • 46. Competing Values Framework Another values-based approach to studying organizational culture arises from acompeting values framework, which requires an empirical analysis of the valuesindividuals within an organization hold about its performance and the manner in which itfunctions (Schimmoeller, 2006). However, from a review of the literature it appears thisframework is best used to assess the values of those in leadership positions as opposed tosimply an organization’s members. The competing values model developed by Quinn is an analytic framework builtaround two dimensions forming four quadrants representing competing orientations orvalues in the organizational context (Edwards, Yankey, & Altpeter, 2001). The twodimensions are flexibility-control and internal-external. The vertical dimension deals withthe organization’s flexibility in dealing with issues while the horizontal dimension dealswith the internal or focus of the organization (Edwards et al., 2001). According toCameron and Quinn (1999), organizations focusing externally tend to be concerned withthe market, new customers, and competitors as opposed to organizations with an internalfocus who tend to be concerned with employee morale and the way work is accomplished(Schimmoeller, 2007). The four cultures defined and measured by the competing values framework areclan, hierarchical, adhocracy, and market cultures. These cultures align themselves withthe leadership characteristics exhibited by those in management positions, thus aligningwith their own set of values. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999), clan leaders arevisionaries who inspire and motivate organization members by ensuring they share valuesand objectives (Schimmoeller, 2006). Within the market culture, leaders tend to excel at 35
  • 47. negotiating terms and achieving results. Leaders within the adhocracy culture break rules,while those in the hierarchical culture enforce rules by setting standards, then criticizingmember performance. Along with leadership characteristics, the four cultures can be differentiated as totheir focus. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999), the clan culture focuses on internalmaintenance with flexibility, concern for people, and sensitivity to customers(Schimmoeller, 2006). The hierarchical structure is characterized by stability and controlthrough clear task setting and enforcement of strict rules, while the adhocracy cultureconcentrates on external positioning with a high degree of flexibility and individuality.Finally, the market culture is represented in organizations that work toward clear andrational goals achieved through high productivity and economical operations. The competing values framework has been highlighted in studies investigatingorganizational culture and its effect on higher education institutions (Obendhain &Johnson, 2004), commercial organizations (Igo & Skitmore, 2005), and purchasingmanagers (Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003). In most institutions of higher learningsurveyed by Obendhim and Johnson (2004), clan culture was dominant; however, someinstitutions reported no culture type, which supports the presence of multiple cultures.There can also be a disparity between the existing culture and the desired one. Inparticular, Igo and Skitmore found that although market-oriented culture dominatescommercial organizations, employees would prefer an employee-focused culture thataligns with the clan culture. According to Perrone et al. (2003), the clan culture has beenacknowledged for its encouragement of trust-based practices and routines. Perrone andhis colleagues found that the presence of a clan culture promotes trust from external 36
  • 48. parties who then extend their trust to employees, possibly increasing levels ofsatisfaction. Overall, the competing values framework continues to be used to describe alllevels of the organization while assisting managers with examining the role of differentlevels of organizational hierarchy (DiPadova & Faerman, as cited in Schimmoeller,2006).The Significance of Organizational Culture According to Macedo and Pinho (2006) organizational culture affects suchoutcomes as productivity, performance, commitment, self-confidence, and ethicalbehavior. However, a large portion of the research has concentrated on the "strong versusweak" culture dichotomy (Macedo & Pinho, 2006), suggesting that culture holds varyingdegrees of influence over the members of an organization. Organizational cultureinfluences include the implicit shared values of the members about how the world works,what is human nature, how work should be organized, and on what criteria decisionsshould be made. Thus organizational culture is a socially constructed phenomenon. Altering the culture of an organization can be a lengthy but valuable processbecause it is an attempt to close the gaps between the present and desired cultures (Buch& Wetzel, 2001). However, difficulty arises due to employee attachment to the artifactsand espoused values to which they have become accustomed (Rutherford, 2001).Research on the effects of organizational culture is overwhelming; however, the goal is tointegrate different approaches that will evolve into an approach that can be useduniversally (Tefry, 2006). 37
  • 49. Organizational Culture: Job Satisfaction Link The link between organizational culture and job satisfaction has been indirectlyaddressed through increasing interest in the work environment of organizations and itseffect on various aspects of the organization, namely its employees. In fact, Ouchi (1981)a renowned organizational culture researcher, was one of the first to explicitly explore theeffect of organizational culture on organization members (Wilderom, Glunk, &Maslowski, 2000). Ouchi (1981) argued that the success of firms within the for-profitsector is attributed to their strong emphasis on the well- being of their employees(Wilderom et al., 2000). The literature has addressed the importance of organizational culture and itsrelationship to personal-related variables such as satisfaction, commitment, cohesion,strategy implementation, and performance (Carmeli, 2005; Lund, 2003). However, a voidexists in the literature regarding the link between organizational culture types and jobsatisfaction (Lund, 2003). Nevertheless, the psychological/affective implications of theindividual organization’s fit as to employee behaviors perhaps has the same impact onemployees’ overall satisfaction with their employment (Carmeli, 2005). Research has suggested that evaluating employee ability to fit within anorganization begins with the hiring process (Koh & Boo, 2001). Specifically, applicantswho perceive prospective employment opportunities as matching their values, needs, andgoals predicted the organization would be a positive place to work (Carless, 2005).Carless also found that a person’s job fit had a stronger attraction to the job offer andgreater intention to accept as compared to a person’s organization fit. However, the 38
  • 50. findings in this study could not be generalized because applicants were applying fordifferent positions; therefore, the subject warrants further research. An Overview of Job Satisfaction Similar to organizational culture, several definitions have been developed todescribe job satisfaction. The research has defined job satisfaction as a function of theextent what a member receives from a job matches what the person thinks should bereceived (Lawler, as cited in Welbourne et al., 2005); in other words, it is a function ofthe perceived relationship between what one wants from ones job and what one perceivesthe job as offering (Locke, as cited in Muhammad, 2006). Later research has defined jobsatisfaction as the general attitude employees have towards their jobs, which is directlytied to individual needs (Ostroff, as cited in Williamson, 2005) and the extent to whichpeople find gratification or fulfillment in their work (Pool, 2000a). Thus, as withorganizational culture, no single universal definition of job satisfaction has beenestablished. This may be due to the varying elements that can contribute to anindividual’s level of satisfaction; in addition, the extent to which individuals are satisfiedor dissatisfied with their jobs may be contingent on whether the job threatens other self-relevant roles (Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005).Theoretical Framework The work experience has contributed to motivation theory discussions beginningwith Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs developed in 1943 and McClelland’s theorydeveloped in 1965 was based on the needs of achievement, power, and affiliation.Maslow and McClelland’s need theories serve as the theoretical framework for recentstudies on job satisfaction (Lord, 2002) that suggest high achievers are those who will 39
  • 51. succeed. These need theories have been used to establish the link between needs andsatisfaction (Baysinger, 2004). However, Locke’s discrepancy theory (based on thenotion that employees will be dissatisfied with their jobs when they cease to get whatthey want) argues that an individual’s level of satisfaction does not stem from fulfillmentof needs but what the person finds important (Muhammad, 2006). Those values may infact be more external than internal as Bandura believes that individuals value what theyperceive is valued by others around them (Paswaters, 2006). The dominant theory of satisfaction relevant to this study is Lawler’s (1973)model, which identifies as determinants of job satisfaction the age, experience, seniority,education, and commitment an individual brings to the job situation as well as perceivedjob characteristics such as difficulty of task and amount of responsibility (Welbourne etal., 2005). However, these are not the only determinants of job satisfaction as severalstudies identify other factors that influence it such as pay increases, promotions, time off,new and interesting assignments, and recognition; rewards and recognition, opportunityfor growth, work life balance, perceptions of the work environment training anddevelopment; and promotion, stress, work standards, and fair rewards (Paswaters, 2006). Lawler argues that extrinsic rewards such as pay and promotion play a vital rolein motivation and in the overall culture of the organization (Welbourne et al., 2005).Extrinsic rewards define what behaviors are valued while motivating management stylesand types of performance that ultimately help to determine how satisfying employees findwork experiences, while intrinsic rewards validate an individual’s skills and abilitiesthrough accomplishments associated with actual work. The concepts of intrinsic versusextrinsic satisfaction have been discussed as part of the job satisfaction literature and 40
  • 52. presented in several studies (Tang et al., 2000; Udechukwu, 2007). According toHirschfield (2000), intrinsic job satisfaction is how people feel about the nature of the jobtasks themselves while extrinsic job satisfaction is how people feel about aspects of thework situation external to the job tasks or work itself. The studies conducted by Tang et al. (2000) and Udechukwu (2007) investigatedthe relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover,both finding that intrinsic job satisfaction is a predictor of voluntary turnover whileextrinsic job satisfaction predicts withdrawal cognitions. However, the studies can bedistinguished related to their findings about extrinsic job satisfaction. While theUdechukwu (2007) study found no relationship existed between extrinsic satisfaction andintention to leave, Tang et al. (2000) found such a relationship. The disparity between theresults may be due to Tang et al.’s inclusion of attitudes toward money as a moderatorbetween extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction. Nevertheless, both studies agree thatmanagers are somewhat responsible for the leaving behaviors of employees becausemanager actions affect both intrinsic and extrinsic employee satisfaction. However,within the nonprofit sector there may be a disparity between intrinsic and extrinsicsatisfaction of employees, perhaps due to the history, mission, and characteristics ofNPOs as these organizations are less likely to attract employees who respond to extrinsicrewards (Theuvsen, 2004).Measuring Job Satisfaction Factors that influence job satisfaction have been recognized within the literaturefor the purpose of developing or identifying an appropriate instrument of measurement,such as the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and JIG, both developed by Bowling Green State 41
  • 53. University. The JDI provides the advantage of comparing the satisfaction of similargroups of employees and organizations. Recent studies have used this instrument toinvestigate the relationship between job satisfaction and training (Bennett, 2006), jobperformance (Kidd, 2006), and emotional intelligence (Muhammad, 2006). Kidd found arelationship between job satisfaction and job performance; however, another studyreported a weak relationship (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001) reflecting aninconsistency in findings using the same variables, although Judge and colleaguessuggested introducing mediating variables. In many research studies the JDI and JIG assessments were administered at thesame time. However, as unlike other instruments, the JIG measures overall jobsatisfaction rather than just aspects of it (Bowling Green State University, 2002), the JIGhas been used to investigate the overall job satisfaction of nursing home administrators(Murphy & Fridkin, 2004), information technology professionals (Bennett, 2006), andteachers (Williamson, 2005). For example, using the JIG, Williamson found significantcorrelations between job satisfaction and supervision. While Williamson acknowledgedthe use of the JDI without the JIG may yield results suggesting respondents were nothappy with supervision, this would not conclusively prove that respondents were nothappy with their job overall. According to Vila and Mora (2005), research on job satisfaction has taken twomain approaches: the first highlights relevance of job satisfaction as an economicvariable, while the second approach explores diverse elements that are likely to influenceworkers’ levels of job satisfaction. As an economic variable, research has focused on theimpact of such behaviors as productivity (Ndambakuwa & Mufunda, 2006), absenteeism 42
  • 54. (Carmeli, 2005), turnover (H. Lee & Liu, 2006), and intention to quit (Saari & Judge,2004). The second approach has been examined by focusing on the effects of individualattributes such as gender (Dodson & Borders, 2006), age (Lord & Farrington, 2006), andethnicity (Dole & Schroeder, 2001). Managers increasingly have focused on employee job satisfaction because of itsinfluence on job mobility in the labor market (Bonache, 2005). While H. Lee and Liu(2006) found that job satisfaction was not a predictor of turnover intentions, Saari andJudge (2004) found that reduced job satisfaction indirectly influences employeeintentions to quit. The disparity in the two findings may be attributed to the differences inthe populations sampled, as Saari and Judge used working individuals who also attendeda public university while H. Lee and Liu (2006) sampled Taiwanese banking repatriatesassigned to other countries. As Saari and Judge (2004) suggest, sampling differentpopulations may yield different results and increase generalizability. Dole and Schroeder (2001) conducted a study which investigated job satisfactionand its relationship to ethnicity and gender, finding that a relationship exists between jobsatisfaction and turnover intentions among the Anglo-American ethnic group. Althoughno significant relationship between job satisfaction and gender was found, thesignificance of job satisfaction and its relationship to gender was supported by a studyconducted by Dodson and Borders (2006), who found men regardless of their professionto be dissatisfied with their work if it interfered with their home life. Dodson and Bordersrecommended lessening work-family conflict in spite of gender as this may increase jobsatisfaction and influence decisions to stay on the job. 43
  • 55. Effects of Job Satisfaction The literature has presented various studies investigating the effects of jobsatisfaction on work-related and organizational behaviors. Many of the findings simplysuggest that high levels of satisfaction are related to positive work behaviors whilenegative work behaviors are related to lower levels of satisfaction. Research also presentsmany studies on job satisfaction and its relationship to employee turnover, as it isbelieved a lack of satisfaction with one’s employment experience translates into thoughtsof quitting and finding a job that is more satisfying (Saari & Judge, 2004). Freed (2003) conducted a study showing that job satisfaction is negatively andpositively related to levels of productivity. Furthermore, high levels of job satisfactionrelate to low levels of turnover, accidents, and absenteeism. According to Koh and Boo(2001), absenteeism and turnover are not only costly, but disruptive to the organizationand employees, with such behaviors leading to decreases in productivity and moralewhile costs of hiring and training increase. Therefore, an organization that is able toaccurately diagnose levels of job satisfaction during the employee selection process couldraise the overall level of job satisfaction of its workforce and decrease these problems. Managers should ignore myths that increases in pay will solve their personnelissues. Although it seems counterintuitive, research has found that monetary rewards donot result in any improvement in performance, however the lack thereof has been foundto contribute to lower satisfaction of employees (B. Wright, 2001). According to Currall,Towler, Judge, and Kohn (2005), employee attitudes toward pay are shared with theirfeelings about other aspects of the job; therefore, attempting to increase satisfaction byaltering only the single element of pay may not be sufficient. 44
  • 56. The relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction has receivedlimited attention in literature on organizational behavior and management. Theimportance of organizational culture is based upon its ability to influence how people setpersonal and professional goals, perform tasks, and administer resources to achieve them(Lok & Crawford, 2004). Carmeli (2005) conducted a quantitative study and found that arelationship exists between organizational culture and employee withdrawal behaviorsand intentions. This study supports the notion that employees must be challenged on theirjob, and that the organizational culture must support such action. Lund (2003) conductedresearch on the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction in aneffort to expand the research on the topic. This study used two instruments to investigatetheir relationship. Using the four culture typologies— clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, andmarket, Lund found that higher levels of job satisfaction were found in the clan andadhocracy cultures; however, this did not translate to higher levels of performance thanhierarchy and market cultures. Management’s cognizance of the effect of the environment can assist with theevaluation of inherent strengths and limitations of their strategies (Lund, 2003). Theevaluation of organization culture and its impact on job satisfaction also assists with acompany maintaining a competitive advantage by using what is learned to nurturerelationships with employees. On the other hand, Coffey and Tombari (2005) caution thatorganizations are not responsible for "creating balance" between personal andprofessional priorities, but simply for providing resources, tools, and opportunities toassist employees with better managing, integrating, or blending. As this misconceptioncauses many employees to feel dissatisfaction with their employer, the literature presents 45
  • 57. the concept of Person-Organization (P-O) fit that suggests employees find theorganization that suits them.Summary The rise in the number of nonprofits is due to their proven ability to meet theneeds of American society (Berry, as cited in Garvey, 2006). As a result, issues regardingthe structure and employees of organizations within the nonprofit sector have piqued theinterests of organizational researchers. Organizational culture and job satisfaction bothhave an effect on organization performance, suggesting that it is a critical area of interest.A summary of the literature reveals a variety of studies investigating individually therelationship of organizational culture and job satisfaction to organizational factors (Kidd,2006; Rashid et al., 2004; Ritchie, 2000). However, little empirical evidence has beenfound documenting the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction.Finally, the literature search yielded little evidence of the use of a single instrument toinvestigate the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction. Given the limited research and the conflicting results as outlined in this review,further research on the topic is needed. It is the object of this proposed research to presentempirical evidence of a relationship between organizational culture and job satisfactionwithin small NPOs. 46
  • 58. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY/DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology and procedures thatwill be employed to determine if a relationship exists between organizational culture andjob satisfaction within small NPOs. It will also describe the population of the study andthe instruments chosen to measure the independent and dependent variables. This chapteris divided into six sections. The first section will describe and discuss the appropriatenessof the chosen methodology. The second section describes the study population. The thirdsection discusses the instrumentation used in this proposed study. The fourth sectioncontains a description of the data collection process, while the fifth section presents themethods of data analysis for the research questions. The final section discusses ethicalissues the researcher considered. This study used a correlational research design, which is commonly used toexamine relationships between two measures during a single administration (Creswell,2003). The purpose of using a correlational design was to determine the degree to whicha relationship existed between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small NPOs.Although a correlational design does not establish causal relationships, it providesinferential information about the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2003), withresearchers suggesting that association among variables is necessary to establishcausation. Therefore, if a positive relationship is found between organizational cultureand job satisfaction in small NPOs, an inference could be drawn that investigation ofcausation would be appropriate. The majority of studies located concerning NPOs have used literature reviews andpost-positivist methodologies including surveys and interviews, to determine the 47
  • 59. knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for effective nonprofit administration (Dolan,2002). This study is important for both managers and employees, as managers will havethe opportunity to use the findings to alter the environment in an effort to decreasenegative work-related behaviors, while employees will be able to determine whichenvironments best suit their needs. This study was guided by the following researchquestion: To what extent does a relationship exist between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction in small nonprofit organizations? Subquestions were the following: 1. To what extent does organizational culture differ among small nonprofit organizations? 2. To what extent does job satisfaction differ among small nonprofit organizations? 3. To what extent does a relationship exist between job satisfaction and selected demographic variables of employees of small nonprofit organizations? 4. What is the level of overall satisfaction of employees in small nonprofit Conceptual Framework The building blocks of this study were based on the early work of Maslow (1943),who developed what is known as “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” Maslow’s theory tellsus that once lower needs are satisfied, individuals will be motivated to satisfy higher levelneeds. This set the stage for additional studies on the topic of motivation. Motivationaltheorists have focused their discussion around two viewpoints, one that classifies peopleas lazy and awaiting external stimulation or self-motivated based on the social andmonetary benefits they receive (N. B. Jones & Lloyd, 2005). In essence, the extent to 48
  • 60. which organizational culture satisfies the needs of individual’s influences thoseindividuals’ level of satisfaction with their work experience. This study was based on the positivist claim for developing knowledge.Generally, the positivist researcher investigates phenomena by beginning with a theory,collecting data that supports or refutes the theory, and allowing the data to shapeknowledge (Creswell, 2003). Creswell further explains that the assumptions associatedwith this knowledge claim are: Absolute truth can never be found; research is the processof making claims and then refining or abandoning them for other claims more stronglywarranted; research seeks to develop relevant true statements that will describe therelationship among variables; and researchers must examine methods and conclusions forbias. Based on these assumptions, the researcher for this study chose a quantitativemethod of inquiry. According to Cooke and Rousseau (1988), quantitative methods bring morestructure to assessment, reduce uncertainty, and allow input from people across all levelsand organizations, while qualitative methods tend to be broad and vague, resulting inoversight of critical issues (Agbenyiga, 2005). Although it is argued that the behaviorsunderlying an organization are best captured using qualitative methods (Faull et al.,2004), a quantitative method of inquiry has been selected for this study. The researcher acknowledged the existence of varying measurement instruments.As pointed out in the literature review in chapter two, researchers including Goodman,Zammuto, and Gifford (2001); Corbett and Rastrick (2000); Gillett and Kroese (2003);Sarros et al. (2005); and S. K. Lee and Yu (2004) have used quantitative measurements todiagnose and measure organizational culture. Specifically, the quantitative method is 49
  • 61. commonly used to measure the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of humans(Sproull, 2003). The advantage of using quantitative instruments for the purpose ofstudying organizational culture and its relationship to job satisfaction is the ability tocollect information efficiently from a large number of respondents. In addition, surveysare easy to administer, and because of their standardization they tend to be free fromerror. The most important aspect of the survey method relative to this study was theability to generalize results from a sample to a population so that inferences can be madeabout the shared norms and expectations that influence employee feelings about theirwork experiences (Neuman, 2003). However, this method does have the disadvantage ofrelying on the subject’s motivation, honesty, memory, and ability to respond. Population and Sampling The population of this study was all New York State based 501(c)3 nonprofitorganizations with 50 or fewer employees and gross annual revenue of >$1,000,000. Forthe purpose of this study, only employees who had been employed with the organizationfor longer than 12 months were chosen to participate, as studies suggest that thoseemployed within an organization a year or more tend to have clearer understanding of theculture and leadership (Garvey, 2006). The researcher attempted to use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) masterdatabase of NPOs as a sampling frame. However, due to the lack of responses theresearcher decided to use a different sampling frame. The researcher generated a list of30 nonprofit organizations that met the qualifications so it would be easier for theresearcher to make contact. The number of organizations was entered into the web 50
  • 62. calculator http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html using a confidence level of 95% andthe number needed to obtain a representative sample of organizations was 28. Using information obtained from the organization’s website, initial contact wasmade with the executive director via e-mail requesting permission to survey employees.A letter summarizing the research plan and instruments was forwarded for review(Appendix G). After the initial e-mail the executive director was given one week torespond. If a response was not received a follow-up e-mail was sent requesting aresponse. After a two-week period if a response was not received the executive directorof the backup organization was sent a letter summarizing the research plan andinstruments via e-mail (Appendix G). The backup organization was also contacted if theexecutive director declined participation. When written approval was received, theresearcher forwarded a request in writing to the Executive Director requesting a completelist of employees, including last name, first initial, employment start date, and e-mailaddresses. The researcher generated the sampling frame by eliminating those employeeswho had been employed with the organization for less than 12 months. Each employeewas assigned a number, and the researcher chose the random and backup samples usingSPSS. The sample size of employees within each organization for this study wascalculated via a web calculator resource http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html using aconfidence level of 95% as suggested by Neuman (2003). After establishing theappropriate sample size of employees within each organization, the researcher employedthe random sample method. This method was chosen because it gives each individual inthe population an equal probability of being selected (Sproull, 2003), and eliminated the 51
  • 63. possibility that the sample was biased by the preferences of the researcher. Although itdid not guarantee a representative sample (Sproull, 2003), the use of SPSS to choose anappropriate sample and backup sample increased the likelihood that a representativesample of the population was obtained. Instrumentation The researcher chose to administer two survey instruments to investigate therelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction within small nonprofits.As a thorough evaluation of the literature produced little evidence of their being a singleinstrument that can measure both organizational culture and job satisfaction, twoinstruments were chosen to conduct this study. The two instruments were the OCI andJIG (Appendix C).Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) The instrument chosen to measure organizational culture was the OCI, developedby Cooke and Lafferty (1983) according to Cooke and Szumal (2000). The OCI is a 120-item self-reporting instrument that was designed to evaluate the culture of organizationsby examining the behavioral norms and expectations related to the shared beliefs andvalues held by organizational members. The OCI measures 12 sets of normative beliefsand shared behavioral expectations that may influence the thinking and behavior oforganizational members, along with their motivation, performance, satisfaction, andstress. According to Cooke and Szumal (2000), the normative beliefs and sharedbehavioral expectations are associated with the following 12 cultural styles: [1.] Approval: Making sure people accept you; “going along” with others. 52
  • 64. [2.] Conventional: Always following policies and practices; fitting into the “mold.” [3.] Dependent: Pleasing those in positions of authority; doing what is expected. [4.] Avoidance: Waiting for others to act first; taking few chances. [5.] Oppositional: Pointing out flaws; being hard to impress. [6.] Power: Building up one’s power base; motivating others any way necessary. [7.] Competitive: Turning the job into a contest; never appearing to lose. [8.] Perfectionistic: Doings things perfectly; keeping on top of everything. [9.] Achievement: Expecting members to set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach those goals, and pursue them enthusiastically. [10.] Self-Actualization: Encouraging members to gain employment from their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting activities. [11.] Humanistic-Encouraging: Expecting members to be supportive, constructive, and open to influence in their dealings with one another. [12.] Affiliative: Expecting members to be friendly, open, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group. The aforementioned 12 styles are relative to the constructive, passive-defensive,and aggressive-defensive cultures (Cooke & Szumal, 2000). There are 10 itemsassociated with each culture style that may be expected or required by members. Theitems are ranked on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“to a verygreat extent”), indicating the level at which the behavior helps people to fit in and meetexpectations. Individual scores were aggregated and plotted onto a circumplex, whichprovided a method for displaying the scores from the OCI as they compare to thenormative responses of 500 organizations. As a result, organizations will be able to 53
  • 65. convert their raw scores into percentile scores, thus providing a clearer picture of theirorganization. While this may be true, conversion of the raw scores will not be necessarybecause the researcher is interested in only the results of the organizations that elected toparticipate in the study. The OCI also consists of eight items that will be used to collectdemographic data from respondents. These items are outlined as follows: (a) age asks forthe age range of the respondents; (b) sex refers to the gender of the respondent; (c)education asks the respondent to indicate the highest level of education completed withDoctorate at the highest level and high school at the lowest; (d) organizational level asksrespondents to indicate their role within the organization structure; (e) salary asksrespondents to indicate their range of pay per year; (f) years at organization asksrespondents to indicate length of time employed with the organization; (g) organizationtype lists 19 industries and asks respondents to indicate the one in which they arepresently employed; and h) profession/occupation lists 27 professions and asks therespondent to indicate their interest. The OCI has been used extensively for quantitative assessment of behavioralnorms within organizations (Bahamonde-Gunnell, 2000; Gillett & Kroese, 2003;Lageson, 2001; Yauch & Steudel, 2003). The OCI has also been used to investigate therelationship of organizational culture to other variables; for example, Corbett andRastrick (2000) used this instrument to examine the relationship between organizationalculture and quality performance. The reliability and validity of the OCI has beendocumented extensively within the literature. Testing of internal consistency reliabilitiesproduced a Cronbach alpha ranging from .75 to .92, .67 to 92, and .68 to .90, as reportedby Rousseau (1990), Cooke and Rousseau (as cited in Agbenyiga, 2005), and Klein, 54
  • 66. Masi, and Weidner (1995), respectively, Schnier (2004) revealing high correlationsamong the items in the scale. According to Agbenyiga (2003), in terms of validity, theOCI has produced high levels of within-organization agreement on OCI responses acrosssamples. However, as pointed out by Hursthouse and Kolb (2001), a limitation of theOCI is its inability to portray fully the rich subtleties of an organization, providing only asnapshot of the myriad of complexities of either old established or newly created cultures.In addition, according to Yauch and Steudel, respondents complained about their inabilityto interpret some of the questions, claiming that their answers would vary depending onthe interpretation. Nevertheless, the OCI is one of the most popular instruments used toexamine organizational culture, with the instrument being deemed capable of providinginformation about the need and direction for cultural change and the potential businessresults that can come from it (Agbenyiga, 2003). The researcher obtained permission touse the OCI by forwarding the complete proposal to Human Synergistics for review andapproval (Appendix C1). In addition, another request to Cheryl Boglarsky from HumanSynergistics resulted in a letter explaining the reasons that duplication of the instrumentfor the purpose of attaching it to the dissertation proposal and IRB application was notallowed (Appendix C2).Job in General (JIG) Scale The literature presents various instruments to measure job satisfaction, with themost commonly used being the Job Description Index (JDI) developed by Bowling GreenState University. While this 72-item instrument has proven reliable in many researchstudies (Border, 2004; Yetim & Yetim, 2006), this instrument was developed over 30years ago. The researcher sought a more recent instrument that also would not overwhelm 55
  • 67. the respondents with the number of items. As a result, the instrument used for this studywas the 18-item JIG (Appendix C) developed by Ironson, Smith, Brannick, and Gibson(1989), which has been cited in recent studies measuring the overall satisfaction ofemployees (Border, 2004; Paswaters, 2006;Williamson, 2005). The JIG was developed as an instrument that could be used as a global measure ofjob satisfaction. To gain permission to use this instrument, the researcher forwarded acompleted non-commercial agreement as requested by Bowling Green State Universityand written approval was received (Appendix B). The developers of the JDI used several methods for validation of the overallgeneral satisfaction scale, such as the Brayfield and Rothe, Kunin’s “Faces” scale, withpre-scaled adjectives and anchors formed by Ironson and Smith (1989) and also anumerical rating scale producing correlations ranging from .66 to .80 (Ironson et al., ascited in Border, 2004). In addition, Balzer et al. (1997) reported the reliability coefficientfor the JIG to be .92 (Border, 2004). The advantage of using the JIG is its ability to serve as a global scale while othermeasurements yield results relevant only to facets of the job (Kidd, 2006). The JIG isalso simple in nature and easy to score and analyze. It is made up of dichotomousresponse items. However, instruments using this response format, while simple, havebeen criticized for forcing the respondent to give an unrealistic answer (Sproull, 2003).For example, respondents asked to respond “yes” or “no” to the question “do you eatoatmeal,” may be uncertain about how to respond if they only eat it twice a year. Sproullsupports the use of multiple choice items because of their ability to generate moreinformation. The JIG asks respondents to indicate whether items are descriptive of their 56
  • 68. jobs (e.g., worthwhile) with “yes,” “no,” or “?” for unsure. Responses will be scored byassigning numeric values to each response, with “Y” responses receiving a point value of3, “N” responses receiving a point value of zero and “?” receiving 1 point. For theremaining items (which are negatively worded), a “Y” response indicates dissatisfaction.The unfavorable items are reverse-scored, with “N” receiving 3 points, “Y” receiving 0points, and “?” receiving 1 point. Scores above 27 indicate satisfaction, while scoresbelow indicate dissatisfaction. The minimum score a respondent can achieve is 0,translating to a high level of dissatisfaction, while a maximum score of 54 indicates ahigh level of satisfaction. Data Collection The researcher received written permissions from Bowling Green State Universityand Human Synergistics for the use of the JIG and OCI via e-mail (Appendices D and E).The executive director was contacted via e-mail introducing the study and requesting theorganization’s participation (Appendix G). Upon receiving written permission of theorganization’s participation from the executive director, a complete employee list wasrequested. Employees who were chosen via the random sample method describedpreviously were contacted by the researcher via e-mail if provided by the executivedirector. The initial e-mail to potential participants included a brief explanation of thestudy. However, in cases where the executive director declined to provide employee e-mail addresses he/she was asked to designate a liaison to assist the researcher with theadministration of the survey. In this case, potential participants were asked to responddirectly to the researcher via e-mail. Those who agreed to participate were asked toprovide their address and phone number. The goal of this communication is to secure the 57
  • 69. appropriate number of respondents based on the number provided by the web-basedcalculator specified above. The appropriate number of respondents was based on 10% ofthe total number of employees within each organization as recommended by Sproull(2003). However, the researcher attempted to enlist 50% more than the suggested samplesize to ensure the sample size requirement was met. Once respondents agreed toparticipate, they were immediately mailed a packet that includeD the following: (a) A cover letter containing a brief description of the study, statement of confidentiality, statement of informed consent, and instructions for completing the packet (Appendix A). (b) The OCI and JIG, which will be paper-clipped together. (c) An 8.5” x 11” manila envelope with an adhesive flap to prevent tampering. Each envelope will be color-coded to identify the participating organization. After sealing the envelopes, participants will be asked to put an “X” over the seal and return it directly to the researcher via the self- addressed, stamped envelope provided.The researcher contacted all participants via e-mail to notify them that the packet wasarriving shortly and to ensure that they continue to be willing to participate. Alternatively, in the event the organization asked to administer the surveythemselves, the researcher mailed the following items to the contact person: (a) Instructions for distribution of the study packets to the staff. (b) The master survey list. (c) A return label (which will include a mechanism for C.O.D.) (d) A cover letter containing a brief description of the study, statement of confidentiality, statement of informed consent, and instructions for completing the packet (Appendix A). (e) The appropriate number of clipped OCI and JIG instruments with envelope attached. 58
  • 70. According to Creswell (2003), this method of survey administration is less expensive andallows large populations to be surveyed at a single place and time. More importantly, thismethod of survey administration provides participants with anonymity and privacy,which encourages candid and honest responses. However, this method also has thedisadvantage of little intervention by the researcher, which may yield errors in responsesthat can affect results (Creswell, 2003). The researcher repeated this administrationprocess for each organization that chose to self-administer the surveys. In either case, three follow-up attempts were made via e-mail (or phone, ifnecessary) to either the participant or the Executive Director. The first e-mail was sentone week after the survey was mailed to confirm its receipt. The second e-mail was senttwo weeks later to confirm that the distribution and collection process was taking placeand to discuss any unforeseen problems that may have arisen. The third e-mail was sentat the end of the data collection period to determine if additional time was needed. It wasanticipated that the data collection process would take approximately two months. Uponcompletion of the data collection process, a note was sent to the contact organizations orthe individual respondents thanking them for their participation and/or assistance. Upon receipt of the completed packets, the researcher opened the envelopes andexamined the contents to ensure that identifying information was not written on any ofthe items received. The informed consent form was immediately separated from thecompleted survey to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. Subsequently, in caseswhere the completed informed consent form did not accompany a completed OCI andJIG, the researcher made three attempts by phone and/or e-mail to receive it. In caseswhere the researcher was unable to obtain the informed consent form after three attempts, 59
  • 71. the participant was eliminated from the study. The surveys submitted without a signedconsent form was eliminated because the researcher was unable to locate the participantsdue to the lack of identifying information. In cases in which all items have been returned,identifying information found on the survey was removed. Using the random sample list,the researcher compared the number of returned surveys to the number of employees todetermine if the minimum return rate was achieved per organization. If the minimumreturn rate was not achieved, the contact person was e-mailed with a request fordistribution of a second round of surveys. Data Analysis The researcher manually scored and coded the OCI and JIG. The coded responseswere entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Services (SPSS) version 13.0 foranalysis of the survey results. Prior to analyzing the JIG surveys, it was necessary toreverse code responses as appropriate. The researcher examined the data results for all variables for missing data andoutliers. Neuman (2003) recommended two processes of validation that would be suitablefor this study. The first is wild code checking, which involves checking for impossiblecodes, which, in the case of the OCI, would be any entry other than 1-5 or, in the case ofthe JIG, numbers other than 0,1, or 3. The second process is called contingency cleaning,which is the process of cross classifying two variables and looking for logicallyimpossible combinations; for example, if a respondent indicates an education level ofhigh school, but reports a job title as CEO, this may represent a coding error. In this casethe survey was pulled to check the response. In cases where the response was answeredincorrectly the question was coded as “9” representing incorrect or missing responses. 60
  • 72. A frequency distribution was computed to generate the raw numbers andpercentages of responses obtained from the OCI and JIG for each organization.Demographic data such as age, sex, ethnic background, education, organizational level,organization type, and profession/occupation was collected from the OCI and analyzed tosummarize the profile of respondents from each organization. Demographic data wasanalyzed further to include means and standard deviations. The research questions were analyzed using the following statistical analysisprocedures: 1. To what extent does a relationship exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small nonprofit organizations? In order to examine the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction the perceived culture of each organization was determined, using the raw scores of each organization. Upon this determination of the perceived culture of each organization, the researcher conducted a Pearson’s product moment correlation, which is a statistical technique used to measure the relationship between two variables. The determined perceived culture of each organization served as the independent variable and the computed results from the JIG from each organization served as the independent variable (Lageson, 2001; Sproull, 2003). The hypotheses were H0: There is no relationship between organizational culture and job satisfactionwithin small nonprofit organizations. HA: There is a relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction 61
  • 73. within small nonprofit organizations.The rejection criteria for the null hypothesis was 0.05, rendering a 5% chance that thestudy results would represent a Type 1 error (Neuman, 2003). 2. To what extent does organizational culture differ among small nonprofit organizations? The OCI responses from each organization were calculated. The total of the raw scores for each data set were used to compute the means for each organization. To assess the significance of differences among the means for each organization, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted, which is a statistical technique commonly used to test the perceptual differences between groups (Bahamonde-Gunnell, 2000; Sproull, 2003; Weinbach & Grinnell, 2004). If significant differences were found, post hoc comparison testing was used such as the Scheffe test which is a statistical technique commonly used to compare means was calculated (Sproull, 2003). The Scheffe test was chosen because it is a conservative method that allows all possible comparisons among means to be tested (Sproull, 2003). Each organization surveyed was the independent variable while the culture style was the dependent variable. The hypotheses were H0: Organizational culture does not differ among small nonprofit organizations. HA: There are significant differences in organizational culture among smallnonprofit organizations. 3. To what extent does job satisfaction differ among small nonprofit organizations? 62
  • 74. The responses from each organization obtained from the JIG scale were analyzed using the total of the raw scores for each data set to compute the means for each organization. To assess the significance of differences among the means for each organization, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The rejection criteria for the null hypothesis was 0.05. If a significant difference was found, then a Scheffe post hoc analysis was calculated. The hypotheses were: H0: Job satisfaction does not differ among small nonprofit organizations. HA: There are significant differences in job satisfaction among small nonprofit organizations. 4. To what extent does a relationship exist between job satisfaction and selected demographic variables of employees of small nonprofit organizations? The respondent’s demographics were available as individual and aggregated data for age, gender, ethnicity, education, salary, and years with the organization. A series of one-way ANOVAs were computed with the demographic variables serving as the independent variable and job satisfaction serving as the independent variable using the mean scores of the JIG scale. The rejection criteria for the null hypothesis was 0.05. If significant results were found, then a Scheffe post hoc comparison was used to pinpoint group differences. The hypotheses were: H0: There is no relationship between organizational culture and selecteddemographic variables of employees within small nonprofit organizations. HA: There is a relationship between organizational culture and selected 63
  • 75. demographic variables of employees within small nonprofit organizations. 5. What is the level of overall satisfaction of employees in small nonprofit organizations? The responses from each organization obtained from the JIG scale were calculated. The total of the raw scores for each data set were used to compute the means for each organization. Ethical Considerations A researcher must give careful thought and consideration to any research thateither impacts or involves human participants to ensure that human subjects will not beharmed physically or psychologically. The establishment of guidelines and ethical reviewboards that protect those participating in research traces back to Germany. TheNuremberg Code that arose in reaction to the Nazi experiments on Jewish concentrationcamp inmates laid the foundation for the current ethical standards for psychological andmedical research (Mark, 1996). There are 10 major principles of the Nuremberg Code(Katz, as cited by Neuman, 2003, pp. 305–306). The first requires that participation inresearch be voluntary, and that subjects should be aware of the nature, purpose, andlength of the research. Principles 2 and 3 indicate that human subjects should not be usedfor research if there is an alternative to acquiring the same information. Principles 4-8indicate that human subjects should not be exposed to harmful experiments or researchpractices. Finally, principles 9 and 10 require that the subject or researcher be able toterminate the research if it appears the outcome is not obtainable. These principles wereused to develop the ethical standards adopted by the APA, while later the InstitutionalReview Boards (IRBs) were established to review proposed research, including its 64
  • 76. sampling and data collection methods. Ethical protections of human participants areguided by basic principles such as voluntary participation, informed consent,confidentiality, and anonymity. These principles will be discussed as they pertain to theproposed study. The principle of voluntary participation states that people cannot be coerced intoparticipating in research. Participation in this proposed study was optional andparticipants had the right to decline as per the informed consent. The principle ofinformed consent states that participants must be notified about the procedures and risksinvolved in the research and give their consent to participate (Mertens, 1998). Aninformed consent form, which was approved by the respective IRB was developed. Theinformed consent document that was attached to the front of the survey; it outlined thepurpose of the study and provided a statement of risks, guarantee of anonymity,identification of the researcher, statement of voluntary participation, statement ofalternative procedures, statement of benefits compensation (if applicable), an offer toprovide the results, and the option to drop out of the study at any time as recommendedby Neuman (2003). Within the informed consent process, problems can occur especiallyin cases where the participants have a relationship with the researcher because theparticipants may find it difficult to decline participation (Mark, 1996). For this reason, theresearcher used organizations where no relationship existed. Although consent was given,the researcher complied with ethical obligations as to how the data will be collected,used, and protected. Data must be kept confidential if improper use can be potentially harmful to theperson (Garwood, 2005). The researcher acknowledges the importance of confidentiality 65
  • 77. because this proposed study asks participants to report on aspects of their job, with therebeing the potential of negative consequences to them if their responses are discovered. Although confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, every attempt will be made tomaintain confidentiality. After obtaining IRB approval and informed consent, theinstrument was completed by those chosen via the random sampling process. Once thedata was validated, identifying information was no longer required. Each survey entered and identified was based on a number assigned by theresearcher. Because this numbering system may limit the researcher’s ability to followup with non-respondents (Mertens, 1998), the lists with identifying information werestored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home and will be held for a period of atleast seven years. In addition, the number of non-respondents may make it difficult tomaintain participant anonymity because it allows the survey to be easily linked to therespondent. For example, in a case when a survey is being administered to twoorganizations if a participant’s title is executive director, the identity of the personcompleting the survey may be revealed because it is evident who occupies that position,thus causing an indirect breach of confidentiality (Mertens, 1998). However, due to thesize of the population in this study those in a singular position will not be easilyidentified. In addition, the size of the population allows for increased generalizability.While there are no guarantees that a breach of confidentiality will not occur, it is theresponsibility of the researcher to ensure that every measure is taken to protect the data(Neuman, 2003). To ensure that individual or organizational responses are not revealedand confidentiality and anonymity are maintained, the results will be aggregated. Theelectronic data will be stored on a flash drive that will be kept in a locked cabinet in the 66
  • 78. researcher’s home. However, the paper data including consent forms will be kept in aseparate locked cabinet, also located in the home of the researcher. After the requiredseven year period, the paper data will be shredded and destroyed and the electronic datawill be permanently deleted from the flash drive. This chapter presented the detailed methodology used for this study. Thiscorrelational study collected data using responses from 2 survey instruments fromemployees of 8 small nonprofit organizations. Chapter 4 presents the results of this studyand data analyses conducted to answer the research question and subquestions. 67
  • 79. CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The purpose of this chapter is to summarize data collected and to explain themethods employed for analyzing those data. Overview of the Study The following research question guided this study: To what extent does arelationship exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small nonprofitorganizations? The study also addresses the following subquestions: 1. To what extent does a relationship exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small nonprofit organizations? 2. To what extent does organizational culture differ among small nonprofit organizations? 3. To what extent does employee job satisfaction differ among small nonprofit organizations? 4. To what extent does a relationship exist between employee job satisfaction and selected demographic variables of employees of small nonprofit organizations? 5. What is the level of overall satisfaction of employees of small nonprofit organizations? The study employed a correlation research design because the primary researchquestion examined the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction. Itwas not expected to establish causal relationships; however, there was a reasonableexpectation that inferential information would be available about the relationship(Creswell, 2003). Such inferential information about the relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction was intended to provide insight into whetherrelationships between variables occurred by chance. The study sample was chosen from 30 nonprofit organizations, of the 30 68
  • 80. organizations, 28 were randomly chosen to obtain a representative sample; however, only8 organizations agreed to participate. For this study, employees of the eight organizationswho were employed by their respective organizations for more than 1 year were asked toparticipate. Of the 130 eligible employees, 104 returned completed survey instruments. Data were collected using two survey instruments: the OCI (Cooke & Szumal,2000) and the JIG, developed by Ironson et al. (1989). The OCI contained demographicquestions and statements pertaining to employees’ perceptions of the subcultures withintheir respective organizations. The JIG contained 18 words that asked the employees torate their overall feelings about their jobs in general. The original data collection period was 1 month. However, the initial response toparticipate was not favorable. During the initial contact period, prospective participantsdid not respond to e-mails; some participants cited internal deadlines, conferencepreparations, and requiring additional approvals as reasons for declination. As a result,the data collection period was expanded to 3 months, which included changing thesampling frame to a manageable number. By altering the sampling frame to 30, arepresentative sample of organizations with a confidence level of 95% and a 5% marginof error would be 28, according to Sproull (2003). Therefore the study is not arepresentative sample or generalized to the population because only eight organizationsparticipated. The overall response rate from eligible employees was 80%. To measure therelationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction as well as the differencesbetween variables, the Pearson correlation coefficient and an ANOVA was employed. 69
  • 81. The nature of the relationships and the differences between the variables are reportedlater in this chapter. Participants and Demographics The following sections discuss the demographic characteristics of participants.The discussion will include demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity,organizational level, salary, and time with the organization.Description of Participants and Response Rates Participants were employees from eight small nonprofit organizations (50employees or less) who have been employed with their respective organizations for 12months or more. The total number of employees from the eight organizations was 144.However, 14 employees were not eligible to participate because they were not employedby their respective organizations for more than 12 months. As a result, 130 employeeswere invited to participate; 104 surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 80%.Table 1 illustrates the response rate by organization. Organization A yielded the highestresponse rate among the eight organizations (100%), whereas Organization H yielded thelowest response rate (63.6%). 70
  • 82. Table 1. Response Rates by Organization Organization N Number of eligible employees Number of surveys returned % Returned A 7 7 7 100 B 14 12 9 75.0 C 34 32 24 75.0 D 11 10 7 70.0 E 10 9 6 66.7 F 32 32 30 93.8 G 23 17 14 82.4 H 13 11 7 63.6 Total 144 130 104 80.0Demographics of Participants The survey included seven demographic variables that will be used to describe theparticipants. Those variables were (a) age, (b) gender, (c) ethnic background, (d)education, (e) organizational level, (f) salary, and (g) time with the organization. Thesevariables will be discussed in the following sections.Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Table 2 provides an overview of the age, gender, and ethnicity of the 104participants. Participants were asked to choose from six age ranges to identify their age:(a) under 20 years, (b) 20–29 years, (c) 30–39 years, (d) 40–49 years, (e) 50–59 years,and (f) 60 years or older. The largest number of participants were between the ages of 30and 39 years (40.4%), whereas the smallest percentage of those who self-reported wereunder the age of 20 years (1%). Interestingly, 88.4% of the participants were between the 71
  • 83. ages of 30 and 49 years, and 10.6% of the participants preferred not to respond. Thegender distribution of participants was 78 women (75%) and 15 men (14.4%). The ethnicbreakdown was Asian (1.0%), Black/African American (41.3%), Hispanic (39.4%),White/Caucasian (9.6%), and 1.0% other; 7.7% preferred not to respond. Overall,analyses revealed that participants of the study were predominantly Black/AfricanAmerican women between the ages of 30 and 39 years; however, these results are notgeneralizable to this population.Table 2. Age, Gender, and Ethnicity of Participants (N = 104) N % Age (years) <20 1 1.0 20–29 30 28.8 30–39 42 40.4 40–49 20 19.2 50–59 6 5.8 >60 2 1.9 Prefer not to respond 3 2.9 Gender N % Female 78 75.0 Male 15 14.4 Prefer not to respond 11 10.6 72
  • 84. Table 2. (continued) Ethnicity N % Asian 1 1.0 Black/African American 43 41.3 Hispanic 41 39.4 White/Caucasian 10 9.6 Other 1 1.0 Prefer not to respond 8 7.7 Education and Salary of Participants Education and salary have been found to be significant factors in job satisfactionstudies. However, in this study, a disparity occurred in the response rate of inquiresregarding education (95.9%) and salary (79.8%). Table 3 illustrates the salary andeducational backgrounds of participants. Of the total population, 90.5% of participantsindicated that they have some college education or above, which is further evidenced byonly 5.4% of participants indicating that they have a high school diploma. In terms ofannual salary, 20.2% of the participants did not respond; however, of the participants whoresponded, the largest percentage of participants reported a salary range of $25,001 to$35,000 (32.7%), whereas the smallest percentage reported a salary of $18,000 or less(5.8%). 73
  • 85. Table 3. Education and Salary of Participants (N = 104) N % Education High school 5 4.8 Some college 35 33.7 Associate’s /technical 21 20.2 Bachelor’s degree 16 15.4 Some graduate work 9 8.7 Master’s degree 13 12.5 Other 0 0 No response 5 4.8 Annual salary (US$) N % <$18,000 6 5.8 $18,001–$25,000 8 7.7 $25,001–$35,000 34 32.7 $35,001–$45,000 30 28.8 $45,001–$60,000 5 4.8 $60,001–$75,000 0 0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0 >$90,000 0 0 No response 21 20.2 74
  • 86. Level in and Time With Organization Over half of the participants of this study occupy nonmanagement positions andhave been employed with their respective organizations between 1 and 4 years. Table 4illustrates participants’ levels and time with their organizations. Overall, participantsreported the following: 78.8% nonmanagement, 5.8% line management (supervisingnonmanagement personnel), and 1.0% middle management (managing managers).Interestingly, 14.4% of the participants did not respond. Of the participants who chose toself-identify, 70% were employed with the agency between 1 and 4 years. Twenty-fourpercent reported that they had been employed for 4 years or more, and 5.8% preferred notto respond.Table 4. Participant’s Level and Time With Organization (N = 104) N % Organizational level Nonmanagement 82 78.8 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 6 5.8 Middle management (managing managers) 1 1 Senior management 0 0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0 CEO/president 0 0 No response 15 14.4 75
  • 87. Table 4. (continued) Time with Organization N % <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 14 13.4 1–2 years 25 24.0 2–4 years 34 32.7 4–6 years 10 9.6 6–10 years 8 7.7 10–15 years 5 4.8 >15 years 2 1.9 No response 6 5.8 Demographics of Participants by Organization For purposes of confidentiality, each organization was assigned a pseudonym andis further referred to as Organization A, B, C, D, E, F, G, or H. The participatingorganizations were New York State–based nonprofit organizations with 50 or feweremployees and annual earnings of less than $1 million. In addition, according to their501c(3) status, they are classified as educational organizations. Table 5 outlines the age of employees by organization. The only organizationswith employees under the age of 20 years were Organization B (55.6%) and OrganizationC (4.2%). In addition, 50% of the participating organizations had the highest percentageof employees in the age range of 30–39 years (Organizations A, C, D, and G). However,on the basis of the analysis, it appears that employees over the age of 50 years wereunderrepresented by the eight participating organizations, evidenced by only eightparticipants (8%) accounting for this age group. 76
  • 88. As a result of the initial analysis of the overall population, it was found that89.4% of participants responded to inquiries pertaining to gender. Interestingly, whenconducting analyses by organization, a significant number of employees fromOrganization A (28.6%) and Organization E (16.7%) chose not to respond to thequestion. Table 6 outlines the gender distribution of each organization. Organization Hhad the largest number of female employees (85.7%), whereas Organization G had thelowest number of female employees (42.9%). Male employees were best represented byOrganization G (35.7%) and least represented by Organizations A and E, which had nomale employees.Table 5. Age by Organization Organization Age (years) N % A <20 0 0.0 20–29 1 14.3 30–39 4 57.1 40–49 1 14.3 50–59 1 14.3 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 B <20 5 55.6 20–29 2 22.2 30–39 2 22.2 77
  • 89. Table 5. (continued) Organization Age (years) N % 40–49 0 0.0 50–59 0 0.0 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 C <20 1 4.2 20–29 7 29.2 30–39 11 45.8 40–49 5 20.8 50–59 0 0.0 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 D <20 0 0.0 20–29 2 28.6 30–39 5 71.4 40–49 0 0.0 50–59 0 0.0 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 E <20 0 0.0 20–29 0 0.0 30–39 5 83.3 40–49 0 0.0 50–59 0 0.0 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 16.7 78
  • 90. Table 5. (continued) Organization Age (years) N % F <20 0 0.0 20–29 11 36.7 30–39 5 16.7 40–49 8 26.7 50–59 3 10.0 >60 2 6.7 Prefer not to respond 1 3.3 G <20 0 0.0 20–29 2 14.3 30–39 8 57.1 40–49 2 14.3 50–59 1 7.1 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 7.1 H <20 0 0.0 20–29 2 0.0 30–39 2 28.6 40–49 2 28.6 50–59 1 28.6 >60 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 79
  • 91. Table 6. Gender by Organization Organization Gender N % A Female 5 71.4 Male 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 2 28.6 B Female 6 66.7 Male 2 22.2 Prefer not to respond 1 11.1 C Female 20 83.3 Male 3 12.5 Prefer not to respond 1 4.2 D Female 5 71.4 Male 1 14.3 Prefer not to respond 1 14.3 E Female 5 83.3 Male 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 16.7 F Female 25 83.3 Male 3 10.0 Prefer not to respond 2 6.7 G Female 6 42.9 Male 5 35.7 Prefer not to respond 3 21.4 H Female 6 85.7 Male 1 14.3 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0 80
  • 92. The ethnicity distribution of participants by organization revealed that Asianswere underrepresented. The eight participating organizations reported only 1 Asianemployee out of the 104 participants. Table 7 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of eachorganization’s employees. Hispanics were largely represented by four out of eightorganizations: Organizations A (85.7%), B (44.4%), D (57.1%), and G (64.3%). TheBlack/African American ethnic group was largely represented by Organization E(83.3%). In addition, the Black/African American ethnic group was the second largestethnic group in four out of eight organizations: Organizations A (14.3%), B (33.3%), D(42.9%), and G (28.6%).Table 7. Ethnicity by Organization Organization Ethnicity N %A Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 1 14.3 Hispanic 6 85.7 White/Caucasian 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0B Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 3 33.3 Hispanic 4 44.4 White/Caucasian 1 11.1 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 11.1 81
  • 93. Table 7. (continued) Organization Ethnicity N % Black/African American 9 37.5 Hispanic 9 37.5 White/Caucasian 2 8.3 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 3 12.5D Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 3 42.9 Hispanic 4 57.1 White/Caucasian 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 0 0.0E Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 5 83.3 Hispanic 0 0.0 White/Caucasian 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 16.7F Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 17 56.7 Hispanic 7 23.3 White/Caucasian 4 13.3 Other 1 3.3 Prefer not to respond 1 3.3 82
  • 94. Table 7. (continued) Organization Ethnicity N %G Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 4 28.6 Hispanic 9 64.3 White/Caucasian 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 7.1H Asian 0 0.0 Black/African American 1 14.3 Hispanic 2 28.6 White/Caucasian 3 42.9 Other 0 0.0 Prefer not to respond 1 14.3 Table 8 illustrates the level of participants’ education by organization. The highestlevel of education reported was a master’s degree; a total of 13 participants fromOrganizations B, F, and H reported having a master’s degree. On the basis of theanalysis, it appears that the majority of participants have some college education or more.This result is evidenced by only 5 out of the 104 participants across the eightorganizations reporting their highest level of education as high school (5%). 83
  • 95. Table 8. Level of Education by Organization Organization Education N % A High school 0 0.0 Some college 2 28.6 Associate’s/technical 0 0.0 Bachelor’s degree 4 57.1 Some graduate work 1 14.3 Master’s degree 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 B High school 0 0.0 Some college 2 22.2 Associate’s/technical 3 33.3 Bachelor’s degree 2 22.2 Some graduate work 1 11.1 Master’s degree 1 11.1 Other 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 C High school 0 0.0 Some college 10 41.7 Associate’s/technical 11 45.8 Bachelor’s degree 2 8.3 Some graduate work 0 0.0 Master’s degree 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 1 4.2 84
  • 96. Table 8. (continued) Organization Education N % D High school 2 28.6 Some college 5 71.4 Associate’s/technical 0 0.0 Bachelor’s degree 0 0.0 Some graduate work 0 0.0 Master’s degree 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 E High school 0 0.0 Some college 4 66.7 Associate’s/technical 1 16.7 Bachelor’s degree 0 0.0 Some graduate work 0 0.0 Master’s degree 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 1 16.7 F High school 1 3.3 Some college 5 16.7 Associate’s/technical 2 6.7 Bachelor’s degree 6 20.0 Some graduate work 5 16.7 Master’s degree 9 30.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 2 6.7 85
  • 97. Table 8. (continued) Organization Education N % G High school 0 0.0 Some college 7 50.0 Associate’s/technical 4 28.6 Bachelor’s degree 2 14.3 Some graduate work 0 0.0 Master’s degree 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 No response 1 7.1 H High school 2 28.6 Some college 0 0.0 Associate’s/technical 0 0.0 Bachelor’s degree 0 0.0 Some graduate work 2 28.6 Master’s degree 3 42.9 Other 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 The highest annual salary reported was in the range of $45,001–$60,000;however, only five participants earned a salary within this range. While this may not bestatistically significant, this information may be useful in drawing inferential conclusionsabout the organization. The annual salaries of participants by organization are outlined inTable 9. Within each of the organizations, the salary range of participants appeared to be$25,000–$45,000. However, Organization F had the largest number of employees who 86
  • 98. earned a salary less than $25,000. In addition, Organization F had the largest number ofparticipants who did not respond to the question (40%).Table 9. Annual Salary by Organization Organization Annual salary (US$) N % A <$18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 0 0.0 $25,001–$35,000 3 42.9 $35,001–$45,000 4 57.1 $45,001–$60,000 0 0.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 B <$18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 0 0.0 $25,001–$35,000 5 55.6 $35,001–$45,000 1 11.1 $45,001–$60,000 1 11.1 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 2 22.2 87
  • 99. Table 9. (continued) Organization Annual salary (US$) N % C <18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 1 4.2 $25,001–$35,000 12 50.0 $35,001–$45,000 8 33.3 $45,001–$60,000 1 4.2 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 2 8.3 D <$18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 0 0.0 $25,001–$35,000 3 42.9 $35,001–$45,000 4 57.1 $45,001–$60,000 0 0.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 88
  • 100. Table 9. (continued) Organization Annual salary (US$) N % E <$18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 2 33.3 $25,001–$35,000 0 0.0 $35,001–$45,000 3 50.0 $45,001–$60,000 0 0.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 1 16.7 F <$18,000 5 16.7 $18,001–$25,000 3 10.0 $25,001–$35,000 5 16.7 $35,001–$45,000 2 6.7 $45,001–$60,000 3 10.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 12 40.0 G <$18,000 0 0.0 $18,001–$25,000 2 14.3 $25,001–$35,000 4 28.6 $35,001–$45,000 5 35.7 $45,001–$60,000 0 0.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 89
  • 101. Table 9. (continued) Organization Annual salary (US$) N % G $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 3 21.4 H <$18,000 1 14.3 $18,001–$25,000 0 0.0 $25,001–$35,000 2 28.6 $35,001–$45,000 3 42.9 $45,001–$60,000 0 0.0 $60,001–$75,000 0 0.0 $75,001–$90,000 0 0.0 >$90,000 0 0.0 No response 1 14.3 Table 10 illustrates the organizational levels of participants by organization. Ofthe eight organizations, seven have the highest number of employees in thenonmanagement category. Organization H was the only organization with more linemanagement staff than nonmanagement: 4 (57.1%) and 3 (42.9%), respectively. Anothercharacteristic of the participating organizations explored was length of time participantshad been employed with the organization. Table 11 depicts this statistic. Of the eightorganizations, employees of only Organizations A (two employees), B (one employee),and F (three employees) reported that they had worked with the organization 10 or moreyears. 90
  • 102. Table 10. Organizational Level by Organization Organization Organizational level N % A Nonmanagement 4 57.1 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 1 14.3 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 2 28.6 B Nonmanagement 7 77.8 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 0 0.0 Middle management (managing managers) 1 11.1 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 1 11.1 C Nonmanagement 22 91.7 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 0 0.0 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 2 8.3 91
  • 103. Table 10. (continued) Organization Organizational level N % D Nonmanagement 7 100 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 0 0.0 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 E Nonmanagement 5 83.3 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 0 0.0 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 1 16.7 F Nonmanagement 21 70.0 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 1 3.3 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 8 26.7 G Nonmanagement 13 92.9 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 0 0.0 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 92
  • 104. Table 10. (continued) Organization Organizational level N % G Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 7.1 No response 1 H Nonmanagement 3 42.9 Line management (supervising nonmanagement personnel 4 57.1 Middle management (managing managers) 0 0.0 Senior management 0 0.0 Executive/senior vice president 0 0.0 CEO/president 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0Table 11. Years Employed by Organization Organization Time with organization N % A <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 1 14.3 2–4 years 3 42.9 4–6 years 0 0.0 6–10 years 1 14.3 10–15 years 2 28.6 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 93
  • 105. Table 11. (continued) Organization Time with organization N % B <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 5 55.6 1–2 years 0 0.0 2–4 years 1 11.1 4–6 years 0 0.0 6–10 years 2 22.2 10–15 years 0 0.0 >15 years 1 11.1 No response 0 0.0 C <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 7 29.2 2–4 years 11 45.8 4–6 years 4 16.7 6–10 years 1 4.2 10–15 years 0 0.0 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 1 4.2 D <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 4 57.1 2–4 years 3 42.9 4–6 years 0 0.0 6–10 years 0 0.0 94
  • 106. Table 11. (continued) Organization Time with organization N % D 10–15 years 0 0.0 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 E <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 0 0.0 2–4 years 5 83.3 4–6 years 0 0.0 6–10 years 0 0.0 10–15 years 0 0.0 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 1 16.7 F <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 9 30.0 1–2 years 8 26.7 2–4 years 3 10.0 4–6 years 3 10.0 6–10 years 1 3.3 10–15 years 2 6.7 >15 years 1 3.3 No response 3 10.0 95
  • 107. Table 11. (continued) Organization Time with organization N % G <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 4 28.6 2–4 years 6 42.9 4–6 years 1 7.1 6–10 years 2 14.3 10–15 years 0 0.0 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 1 7.1 H <6 months 0 0.0 6 months–1 year 0 0.0 1–2 years 1 14.3 2–4 years 2 28.6 4–6 years 2 28.6 6–10 years 1 14.3 10–15 years 1 14.3 >15 years 0 0.0 No response 0 0.0 Analysis of Survey Instruments The OCI and JIG were used to gather data about the organizational culture andjob satisfaction of small nonprofit organizations. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, thestudy achieved an overall response rate of 80%. Of the 12,480 possible data entriesrelated to perceived subcultures (104 participants × 120 items), the response rate on the 96
  • 108. OCI was 99.1%. Only 110 OCI items were missing from the overall responses related tothe perceived subcultures. In addition, the OCI contained 12 organization-relatedquestions and 9 demographic questions; however, organization type and profession werenot analyzed or discussed in this study. Of the 1,976 entries (104 participants × 19 items),the response rate was 93.1%. Only 136 items were missing from the overall responses. Ofthe 1,872 possible data entries (104 participants × 18 items), the response rate on the JIGitems was 99.3%. Only 14 JIG items were missing from the overall responses. The datacollected from the OCI and JIG will be analyzed in the next section.Organizational Culture Inventory Results Using SPSS, the responses derived from the OCI were used to calculate averagesand standard deviations, as outlined in Table 12. According to the developers of the OCI,calculating the means, percentile scoring, and comparing results to a larger sample isnecessary to identify the primary culture. However, the nature of this study does notrequire this level of analysis, which is beyond the scope of this research. The means of the subcultures within the constructive, passive–defensive, andaggressive–defensive cultures were calculated. Within the constructive style culture, thesubcultures achievement, self-actualizing, humanistic–encouraging, and affiliativeyielded mean scores of 33.4, 32.5, 33.5, and 33.7, respectively. The constructive stylesubcultures yielded mean scores higher than the passive–aggressive and aggressive–defensive subcultures. The mean scores of the passive–defensive subcultures (approval,conventional, dependent, and avoidance) were 26.9, 28.5, 28.6, and 24.2, respectively.The aggressive–defensive subcultures oppositional, power, competitive, and perfectionistyielded mean scores of 24.7, 25.4, 23.6, and 27.7, respectively. 97
  • 109. Further analysis of the mean scores of each subculture revealed that participantsoverall did not perceive their organizations to have competitive subcultures. This wassupported by a mean score of 23.6, the lowest average score derived from the responsesof all participants. The competitive subculture is perceived as “turning the job into acontest; never appearing to lose” (OCI Interpretation & Development Guide, 2003, p.63). On the other hand, the highest average score among the 104 participants was 33.7 inthe affiliative subculture. The affiliative subculture specifies that “members are expectedto be friendly, open, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group” (OCIInterpretation & Development Guide, 2003, p. 23). On the basis of the analysis, it appearsthat participants perceive the subcultures of their organizations as affiliative.Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) Subcultures(N = 104) Culture Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Constructive styles Achievement 33.4 6.7 –0.5818 1.6286 Self-Actualizing 32.5 6.3 –0.2023 0.2469 Humanistic Encouraging 33.5 7.7 –0.2887 0.3185 Affiliative 33.7 8.1 0.2105 –0.8598 Passive/defensive styles Approval 26.9 6.0 –0.5368 –0.4076 Conventional 28.5 5.3 –0.0781 1.0892 Dependent 28.6 5.0 0.0780 –0.0108 Avoidance 24.2 7.3 –0.2023 0.2469 98
  • 110. Table 12. (continued) Culture Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Aggressive/defensive styles Oppositional 24.7 5.6 –0.4425 0.1352 Power 25.4 7.3 –0.4665 –0.2826 Competitive 23.6 7.4 –0.3468 –0.9023 Perfectionist 27.7 6.5 –0.0305 0.0325Organizational Culture Inventory Results by Organization The means and standard deviations of the constructive style behavior norms foreach organization are illustrated in Table 13. Within the constructive style domain,among the four subcultures (achievement, self-actualizing, humanistic–encouraging, andaffiliative), the affiliative subculture was the lowest mean calculated at 25.5 byOrganization E. Compared to the other eight organizations, employees of Organization Eperceived that the affiliative subculture least described their organization. Employees ofOrganization B perceived their organization as affiliative, with the highest meancalculated among the eight organizations of 40.8. 99
  • 111. Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations for Constructive Style Behaviors byOrganization Achievement Self-actualizing Humanistic– Affiliative encouraging Organization Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD A 36.1 7.1 31.1 6.0 38.7 6.5 39.4 4.0 B 35.7 4.9 35.8 4.4 38.1 5.2 40.8 5.7 C 29.8 7.4 29.2 5.2 26.8 6.6 27.1 4.8 D 30.0 5.7 31.1 5.8 29.6 5.1 30.3 3.4 E 30.0 3.5 31.3 3.4 29.0 5.6 25.5 5.2 F 37.1 5.4 35.7 5.9 388 5.7 40.0 6.4 G 29.2 3.4 28.5 4.4 29.7 3.9 27.7 2.8 H 39.0 6.6 38.0 8.1 38.4 6.5 37.4 7.7 The means and standard deviations for the passive–defensive behavior norms foreach organization are illustrated in Table 14. Within the passive–defensive style domain,among the four subcultures (approval, conventional, dependent, and avoidance), theavoidance subculture was the lowest mean calculated among the eight organizations (19.0by Organization H). Participants of Organization H felt that their organization was leastperceived as an organization classified as “waiting for others to act first; taking fewchances.” The highest mean calculated in the constructive style domain was 32.3 in theconventional subculture; however, this mean was reported for Organization E.Participants from Organization E, compared to the other eight organizations, perceivedtheir organization as conventional, that is, as “always following policies and practices;fitting into the mold.” 100
  • 112. Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Passive/Defensive Behaviors byOrganization Approval Conventional Dependent Avoidance Organization Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD A 26.7 5.7 27.0 2.2 30.3 4.0 17.4 3.8 B 26.0 5.7 27.4 4.1 29.1 5.8 19.1 5.5 C 28.0 5.5 27.3 5.0 27.5 3.7 28.6 6.6 D 29.3 2.4 30.4 4.6 26.6 3.3 29.7 6.2 E 30.1 4.9 32.3 4.1 31.7 2.7 26.7 4.5 F 24.9 6.7 29.7 6.0 29.2 6.5 20.5 6.2 G 29.6 4.0 28.8 3.4 29.2 2.9 29.7 3.8 H 21.7 6.8 25.0 8.2 25.4 6.1 19.0 5.2 The means and standard deviations for the aggressive–defensive behavior normsfor each organization are illustrated in Table 15. Within the aggressive–defensive styledomain, among the four subcultures (oppositional, power, competitive, andperfectionistic), the oppositional subculture was the lowest mean, calculated at 19.4 byOrganization A. Among the four subcultures, participants from Organization A did notperceive their organization as one that points out flaws and is hard to impress. Thehighest mean calculated in the constructive style domain was 31.2 in the perfectionisticsubculture. However, this mean was reported for Organization H, whose employeesperceive their organization as one that expects “employees to do things perfectly andkeep on top of everything” (OCI Interpretation & Development Guide, 2003, p. 64). 101
  • 113. Table 15. Means and Standard Deviations for Aggressive/Defensive Style Behaviors byOrganization Oppositional Power Competitive Perfectionistic Organization Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD A 19.4 2.9 20.6 7.0 17.1 8.1 27.1 4.7 B 22.6 4.2 22.1 6.6 17.7 5.4 27.0 5.7 C 27.2 5.8 27.8 7.2 26.2 6.8 25.7 6.5 D 25.7 2.1 29.2 4.9 27.1 4.5 26.6 4.7 E 25.5 4.6 28.0 2.0 27.7 5.7 26.3 5.1 F 23.6 6.3 22.0 7.5 20.5 6.7 29.8 7.3 G 26.8 3.2 29.5 2.9 30.7 3.0 27.0 4.9 H 22.4 6.6 25.7 10.1 21.0 6.3 31.2 9.7 Analysis and Discussion of Research Questions The following section will discuss the analysis of the data within the scope of theresearch questions. Question 1. To what extent does a relationship exist between organizationalculture and job satisfaction in small nonprofit organizations? The OCI was used to determine employees’ perceptions of the subcultures thatexist within their respective organizations. Twelve subcultures were associated with theconstructive, passive–defensive, and aggressive–defensive cultures. Chapter 3 containsthe descriptions for each organizational culture style and its subcultures. To examine therelationships between organizational culture and job satisfaction, the Pearson’s productmoment correlation coefficient was used because of its ability to measure the relationshipbetween two variables (Sproull, 2003). According to Rinkoff (2007), the 12 culture 102
  • 114. variables are classified as ratio data, which meets one of the criteria for using thePearson’s correlation coefficient. Rinkoff further suggested that data calculated frommeans are distributed in a way that normally meets the requirements for using thePearson’s correlation coefficient. The perceived culture of each organization served asthe independent variable. The computed results from the JIG from each organizationserved as the dependent variable (Lageson, 2001). To investigate the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction,previously calculated means and standard deviations for the 12 subcultures (independentvariable) and job satisfaction (dependent variable) were used to perform the Pearson’scorrelation coefficient. To evaluate the strength of the relationships betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction, the ranges described by Rowntree (as cited inRinkoff, 2007) were used as follows: .0–.2, very weak, negligible; .2–.4, weak, low; .4–.7, moderate; .7–.9 strong, high, marked; and .9–1.0 very strong, very high. Each of the three organizational cultures is associated with four of thesubcultures, and the data were analyzed as such. Table 16 illustrates the Pearsoncorrelation coefficient (r), the two-tailed significance levels, and an interpretation of thecorrelations between each subculture and job satisfaction. 103
  • 115. Table 16. Summary of Pearson r Results: OCI Subcultures and Job in General Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement 0.439** .000 Weak positive correlation, significant Self-actualizing 0.312** .001 Weak positive correlation, significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.532** .000 Moderate positive correlation, significant Affiliative 0.649** .000 Moderate positive correlation, significant Passive/defensive culture norms Approval –0.362** .000 Weak negative correlation, significant Conventional –0.142 .151 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Dependent 0.058 .556 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance –0.612** .000 Moderate negative correlation, significant Aggressive/defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.391** .000 Weak negative correlation, significant Power –0.451** .000 Moderate negative correlation, significant Competitive –0.596** .000 Moderate negative correlation, significant Perfectionistic 0.080 .419 Very weak positive correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). Of the 12 perceived subcultures, a significant correlation was found between theculture norm and overall job satisfaction in 9 subcultures. Correlation was considered tobe statistically significant at the .05 level, meaning that correlation was representative ofthe population and determining if the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Within theconstructive culture domain, each of the behavioral norms (achievement, self-actualizing, 104
  • 116. humanistic–encouraging, and affiliative) was found to have a positive and significantcorrelation with job satisfaction. While significance was found at the p < .05 level, it isworthy to note that significance was also found at the p < .01 level, decreasing theprobability that this event occurred by chance. The correlations revealed from the dataanalysis varied in strength between the selected subcultures and job satisfaction.Humanistic–encouraging and affiliative were both found to have moderate positivecorrelations with job satisfaction (r = .532, p = .000; .649, p = .000). Achievement andself-actualizing subcultures both had weak, positive correlations to overall jobsatisfaction (r = .439, p = .000; .312, p = .001, respectively). Within the passive–defensive culture domain, the dependent subculture was theonly norm where a positive correlation was found (r = .058, p = .556). However, thecorrelation was very weak and was not statistically significant, rejecting the nullhypothesis. The conventional, approval, and avoidance subcultures were found to havevarying negative correlations: –.142, p = .151; r = –0.362, p = .000; r = –.612, p = .000,respectively. Negative correlations signify that as the subculture shared beliefs and valuesincrease, the job satisfaction decreases. Of the subcultures with negative correlations(conventional, approval, avoidance), the r value revealed that approval had a weakcorrelation, conventional had a very weak correlation, and avoidance had a moderatecorrelation. Within the aggressive–defensive culture domain, the perfectionist subculture wasthe only one with a very weak positive correlation; however, it was not statisticallysignificant (r = .080, p = .419). Oppositional, power, and competitive were found to havevarying negative correlations that were statistically significant at the p < .05 and p < .01 105
  • 117. levels. The oppositional subculture had a weak but significant correlation to jobsatisfaction (r = –.391, p = .000). While this may be true, power and competitivesubcultures were found to have a slightly higher significant correlation to job satisfaction(r = –.451, p = .000; r = –.596, p = .000) than the oppositional subculture. The constructive culture domain reported the strongest correlations and statisticalsignificance. Overall, data revealed relationships between the perceived subcultureswithin the three culture styles; however, the strengths of these correlations were notgreater than moderate. To further examine the relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction, additional analysis was conducted by organization using the Pearson rcorrelation, as illustrated in Tables 17–24. Of the eight participating organizations, onlyOrganization A demonstrated a strong correlation. This correlation was found betweenself-actualizing within the constructive culture style domain and job satisfaction (r =.749, p = .053); however, the correlation was not statistically significant (see Table 17).The remaining relationships ranged from very weak to moderate. Organization C was theonly organization that showed significant results at p < .05 and p < .01; as illustrated inTable 19. Within Organization C, relationships between avoidance (passive–aggressivestyle), power and competitive (aggressive–defensive), and job satisfaction were found (r= –.695, p = .000; r = –.378, p = .005; r = –.678, p = .000, respectively). Althoughsignificant relationships were found, the strengths of the relationships in each case weremoderate. In essence, tests revealed that relationships between organizational culture andjob satisfaction exist. These relationships, however, are not very strong, and they arenotably significant in only a few cases. 106
  • 118. Table 17. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization A—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement 0.443 .319 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Self-actualizing 0.749 .053 Strong positive correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.101 .829 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Affiliative 0.722 .067 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval –0.068 .885 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Conventional 0.162 .728 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Dependent 0.186 .689 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance –0.445 .317 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.178 .708 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Power –0.050 .916 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Competitive –0.469 .289 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Perfectionistic 0.697 .082 Moderate positive correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 107
  • 119. Table 18. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization B—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement –0.156 .688 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Self-actualizing –0.247 .522 Weak negative correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.126 .746 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Affiliative –0.147 .707 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval 0.267 .487 Weak positive correlation, not significant Conventional –0.119 .760 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Dependent 0.031 .938 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance 0.061 .876 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.201 .604 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Power 0.099 .799 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Competitive 0.482 .189 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Perfectionistic 0.169 .664 Very weak positive correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 108
  • 120. Table 19. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization C—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement –0.247 .244 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Self-actualizing –0.344 .100 Weak negative correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging –0.356 .088 Weak negative correlation, not significant Affiliative –0.085 .692 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval –0.433* .035 Weak negative correlation, not significant Conventional –0.414* .044 Weak negative correlation, not significant Dependent 0.056 .794 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance –0.695** .000 Moderate negative correlation, significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.378 .069 Weak negative correlation, not significant Power –0.550** .005 Moderate negative correlation, significant Competitive –0.678** .000 Moderate negative correlation, significant Perfectionistic –0.417* .043 Weak negative correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 109
  • 121. Table 20. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization D—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement –0.106 .821 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Self-actualizing –0.248 .591 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging –0.385 .394 Weak negative correlation, not significant Affiliative 0.064 .892 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval 0.561 .191 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Conventional 0.621 .136 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Dependent 0.363 .424 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Avoidance 0.571 .181 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.188 .686 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Power –0.481 .275 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Competitive 0.185 .691 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Perfectionistic –0.492 .262 Moderate negative correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 110
  • 122. Table 21. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization E—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement –0.707 .116 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Self-actualizing 0.121 .820 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.174 .741 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Affiliative –0.420 .407 Weak negative correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval 0.191 .717 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Conventional 0.069 .896 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Dependent 0.120 .822 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance 0.018 .973 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.079 .881 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Power –0.612 .196 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Competitive 0.111 .835 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Perfectionistic 0.247 .637 Very weak positive correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 111
  • 123. Table 22. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization F—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement 0.372* .043 Weak positive correlation, not significant Self-actualizing 0.116 .541 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.418* .021 Weak positive correlation, not significant Affiliative 0.367* .046 Weak positive correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval –0.079 .677 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Conventional –0.115 .545 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Dependent 0.068 .722 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Avoidance 0.131 .489 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.014 .940 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Power 0.077 .688 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Competitive –0.030 .873 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Perfectionistic –0.166 .380 Very weak negative correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 112
  • 124. Table 23. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization G—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement 0.106 .719 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Self-actualizing –0.385 .175 Weak negative correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.065 .824 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Affiliative –0.027 .928 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval –0.148 .615 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Conventional –0.385 .174 Weak negative correlation, not significant Dependent –0.196 .502 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Avoidance 0.110 .709 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional 0.018 .951 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Power 0.205 .482 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Competitive 0.200 .492 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Perfectionistic 0.305 .289 Weak positive correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 113
  • 125. Table 24. Summary of Pearson r Results: Organization H—OCI Subcultures and Job inGeneral Scale r P Findings Constructive culture norms Achievement 0.480 .276 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Self-actualizing –0.059 .900 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Humanistic–encouraging 0.457 .302 Moderate positive correlation, not significant Affiliative 0.040 .932 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Passive–defensive culture norms Approval –0.401 .373 Weak negative correlation, not significant Conventional 0.039 .934 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Dependent –0.031 .948 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Avoidance –0.271 .556 Weak negative correlation, not significant Aggressive–defensive culture norms Oppositional –0.461 .298 Moderate negative correlation, not significant Power 0.024 .959 Very weak positive correlation, not significant Competitive –0.145 .756 Very weak negative correlation, not significant Perfectionistic –0.038 .936 Very weak negative correlation, not significant*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). 114
  • 126. Question 2 To what extent does organizational culture differ among small nonprofit organizations? To determine whether organizational culture among small nonprofit organizationsdiffers, an ANOVA was employed. The Scheffé test was employed for ANOVAs thatwere significant to determine where the significant differences occurred. The Scheffé testinvolves calculating an F ratio for each area of comparison within an ANOVA (Sproull,2003). Analyses were conducted on the means and standard deviations previouslycalculated for the constructive, passive–defensive, and aggressive–defensive cultures bydomain to determine if significant differences exist. For all statistical tests, the acceptablelevel of significance was equal to or less than .05 (p < .05). Within the constructive culture, achievement, self-actualizing, humanistic–encouraging, and affiliative subcultures were analyzed. Tables 25–28 illustrate the resultsof the ANOVA for each subculture within the constructive culture domain. The means ofthe constructive culture norm were compared to those of other participating organizationsto evaluate if any differences existed. The ANOVA results for each subculture were asfollows: achievement, F(7, 96) = 33.82, p = .000; self-actualizing, F(7, 96) = 30.28, p =.000; humanistic–encouraging, F(7, 96) = 33.19, p = .000; affiliative, F(7, 96) = 28.37, p= .000. Within each perceived subculture, significant differences were found at p < .05. Post hoc analyses were performed using the Scheffé test to identify exactly wheresignificant differences exist. Unexpectedly, analyses revealed that significant differenceswithin the achievement and self-actualizing subcultures were found betweenOrganizations C (M = 29.17, SD = 1.12) and F (M = 35.73, SD = 1.01) and betweenOrganizations F (M = 35.73, SD = 1.01) and G (M = 28.50, SD = 1.47). Interestingly,within the humanistic–encouragement subculture, Organization C was significantly 115
  • 127. different from all organizations, except Organizations D and E. In addition, significantdifferences were found among organizations within the affiliative perceived subculture:A (C, E, G); B (C, D, E, G); C (F, H); D (F); E (F, H); F (G); and G ( H). Analysesrevealed significant differences among the eight organizations between how participantsperceive their organizational cultures.Table 25. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Achievement Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 1422.624a 7 203.232 6.010 .000 .305Intercept 83,548.519 1 83,548.519 2470.621 .000 .963Pseudonym 1422.624 7 203.232 6.010 .000 .305Error 3246.414 96 33.817Total 120,714.000 104Corrected total 4669.038 103a 2R = .305 (adjusted R2 = .254).Table 26. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Self-ActualizingSubculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 1146.610a 7 163.801 5.409 .000 .283Intercept 79756.985 1 79756.985 2633.599 .000 .965Pseudonym 1146.610 7 163.801 5.409 .000 .283 116
  • 128. Table 26. (continued) Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Error 2907.303 96 30.284Total 114099.000 104Corrected total 4053.913 103a 2R = .283 (adjusted R2 = .231).Table 27. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Humanistic–EncouragingSubculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 2894.033a 7 413.433 12.458 .000 .476Intercept 84915.137 1 84915.137 2558.706 .000 .964Pseudonym 2894.033 7 413.433 12.458 .000 .476Error 3185.928 96 33.187Total 122928.000 104Corrected total 6079.962 103a 2R = .476 (adjusted R2 = .438). 117
  • 129. Table 28. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Affiliative Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 3966.921a 7 566.703 19.979 .000 .593Intercept 84392.274 1 84392.274 2975.193 .000 .969Pseudonym 3966.921 7 566.703 19.979 .000 .593Error 2723.070 96 28.365Total 125085.000 104Corrected total 6689.990 103a 2R = .593 (adjusted R2 = .563). The approval, conventional, dependence, and avoidance subcultures within thepassive–defensive culture norm were analyzed. Tables 29–32 illustrate the results of theANOVA for each subculture within the passive–defensive culture domain. The ANOVAresults were as follows: approval, F(7, 96) = 32.49, p = .024; conventional, F(7, 96) =26.61, p = .134; dependence, F(7, 96) = 24.52, p = .253; avoidance, F(7, 96) = 32.56, p =.000. Significant differences were not found within the approval, conventional, anddependence subcultures; however, significant differences were found within theavoidance subculture. Post hoc analyses were performed using the Scheffé test to identify exactly wheresignificant differences exist. Significant differences were found within the avoidancesubculture between Organizations A (M = 17.43, SD = 3.78) and C (M = 28.58, SD =6.63) and between Organizations D (M = 29.71, SD = 6.24) and G (M = 29.71, SD =3.75). Analysis revealed significant differences between Organizations B (M = 19.11, SD= 5.51), C (M = 28.58, SD = 6.63), and G (M = 29.71, SD = 3.75). Significant differenceswere found between Organizations C (M = 28.58, SD = 6.63), F (M = 20.50, SD = 6.17), 118
  • 130. and H (M = 19.00, SD = 5.20). Organizations D (M = 29.71, SD = 6.24) and F (M =20.50, SD = 6.17) also differed significantly. Significant differences were not foundbetween Organization E and the other organizations. Analyses revealed thatOrganizations F (M = 20.50, SD = 6.17) and G (M = 29.71, SD = 3.75) differedsignificantly. Significant differences were also found between Organizations G (M =29.71, SD = 3.75) and H (M = 19.00, SD = 5.20). Affiliative was the only subculturewithin the passive–defensive culture norm revealing significant differences. This resultprovided evidence that differences exist among organizations.Table 29. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Approval Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 553.803a 7 79.115 2.435 .024 .151Intercept 54925.523 1 54925.523 1690.540 .000 .946Pseudonym 553.803 7 79.115 2.435 .024 .151Error 3119.033 96 32.490Total 78681.000 104Corrected total 3672.837 103a 2R = .151 (adjusted R2 = .089). 119
  • 131. Table 30. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Conventional Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 305.028a 7 43.575 1.637 .134 .107Intercept 60949.737 1 60949.737 2290.191 .000 .960Pseudonym 305.028 7 43.575 1.637 .134 .107Error 2554.885 96 26.613Total 87505.000 104Corrected total 2859.913 103a 2R = .107 (adjusted R2 = .042).Table 31. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Dependent Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 225.190a 7 32.170 1.312 .253 .087Intercept 61460.024 1 61460.024 2506.234 .000 .963Pseudonym 225.190 7 32.170 1.312 .253 .087Error 2354.195 96 24.523Total 87510.000 104Corrected total 2579.385 103a 2R = .087 (adjusted R2 = .021). 120
  • 132. Table 32. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Avoidance Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 2289.983a 7 327.140 10.048 .000 .423Intercept 42652.908 1 42652.908 1310.064 .000 .932Pseudonym 2289.983 7 327.140 10.048 .000 .423Error 3125.556 96 32.558Total 66090.000 104Corrected total 5415.538 103a 2R = .423 (adjusted R2 = .381). Within the aggressive–defensive culture norm, the oppositional, power,competitive, and perfectionistic subcultures were analyzed using the ANOVA statisticaltest. Tables 33–36 illustrate the results of the ANOVA for each subculture within thepassive–defensive culture domain. The ANOVA results were as follows: oppositional,F(7, 96) = 27.92, p = .011; power, F(7, 96) = 45.55, p = .002; competitive, F(7, 96) =37.23, p = .000; perfectionistic, F(7, 96) = 41.97, p = .313. Significant differences werenot found within the power, oppositional, and perfectionistic subcultures; however,significant differences were found within the competitive subcultures. Post hoc analyses were performed using the Scheffé test to identify exactly wheresignificant differences exist. Significant differences were identified within thecompetitive subculture between Organizations G (M = 30.71, SD = 2.97), A (M = 17.14,SD = 2.31), B (M = 17.67, SD = 5.36), and F (M = 20.50, SD = 6.67). No significantdifferences existed between Organizations C, D, E, and H and the other organizations.Analyses revealed that significant differences occurred within the aggressive–defensiveculture among organizations; however, these significant differences were minimal. 121
  • 133. Table 33. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Oppositional Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 541.530a 7 77.361 2.771 .011 .168Intercept 43900.279 1 43900.279 1572.412 .000 .942Pseudonym 541.530 7 77.361 2.771 .011 .168Error 2680.230 96 27.919Total 66681.000 104Corrected total 3221.760 103a 2R = .168 (adjusted R2 = .107).Table 34. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Power Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 1126.620a 7 160.946 3.533 .002 .205Intercept 49267.730 1 49267.730 1081.589 .000 .918Pseudonym 1126.620 7 160.946 3.533 .002 .205Error 4372.919 96 45.551Total 72312.000 104Corrected total 5499.538 103a 2R = .205 (adjusted R2 = .147). 122
  • 134. Table 35. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Competitive Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 2013.752a 7 287.679 7.726 .000 .360Intercept 41500.865 1 41500.865 1114.627 .000 .921Pseudonym 2013.752 7 287.679 7.726 .000 .360Error 3574.363 96 37.233Total 63682.000 104Corrected total 5588.115 103a 2R = .360 (adjusted R2 = .314).Table 36. Analysis of Variance for Organizational Culture by Perfectionistic Subculture Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 350.899a 7 50.128 1.194 .313 .080Intercept 57190.798 1 57190.798 1362.669 .000 .934Pseudonym 350.899 7 50.128 1.194 .313 .080Error 4029.092 96 41.970Total 84411.000 104Corrected total 4379.990 103a 2R = .080 (adjusted R2 = .013). 123
  • 135. Question 3 To what extent does employee job satisfaction differ among small nonprofitorganizations? An ANOVA was performed to investigate the extent to which differences exist injob satisfaction among small nonprofit organizations. Using SPSS, the means andstandard deviations derived from responses to the JIG were calculated, and the results arepresented in Table 37. The analysis revealed that significant differences exist in jobsatisfaction among nonprofit organizations, F(7, 96) = 30.31, p = .000, as illustrated inTable 38. These significant differences prompted use of post hoc analyses tests to identifyexactly where significant differences exist, as illustrated in Table 39. Results from theScheffé test revealed that significant differences in job satisfaction occurred betweenOrganization A (M = 50.1, SD = 5.0) and Organizations C (M = 27.8, SD = 11.1), D (M =23.9, SD = 8.0), E (M = 23.0, SD = 4.9), and G (M = 22.9, SD = 10.0). Although jobsatisfaction differs among the participating small nonprofit organizations in some cases,this study was unable to determine conclusively why the differences in satisfactionoccurred.Table 37. Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Job Satisfaction by Organization Organization Mean SD A 50.1 5.0 B 52.8 1.6 C 27.8 11.1 D 23.9 8.0 124
  • 136. Table 37. (continued) Organization Mean SD E 23.0 4.9 F 46.9 6.3 G 22.9 10.0 H 45.1 8.4Table 38. Analysis of Variance for Job Satisfaction Among Participating Organizations(N = 8) Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2 Corrected model 14072.413a 7 2010.345 30.308 .000 .688 Intercept 100254.150 1 100254.150 1511.415 .000 .940 Pseudonym 14072.413 7 2010.345 30.308 .000 .688 Error 6367.808 96 66.331 Total 162151.000 104 Corrected total 20440.221 103R2 = .688 (adjusted R2 = .666).a 125
  • 137. Table 39. Summary of ANOVA Post Hoc Results: Job Satisfaction by Organization 95% confidence interval (I) (J) Mean SE Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Organization Organization difference (I – J)A A B –2.63 4.104 1.000 –18.40 13.13 C 22.39(*) 3.499 .000 8.96 35.83 D 26.29(*) 4.353 .000 9.57 43.00 E 27.14(*) 4.531 .000 9.74 44.54 F 3.28 3.419 .996 –9.85 16.40 G 27.29(*) 3.770 .000 12.81 41.76 H 5.00 4.353 .987 –11.72 21.72B A 2.63 4.104 1.000 –13.13 18.40 B C 25.03(*) 3.183 .000 12.80 37.25 D 28.92(*) 4.104 .000 13.16 44.68 E 29.78(*) 4.292 .000 13.29 46.26 F 5.91 3.095 .817 –5.97 17.80 G 29.92(*) 3.480 .000 16.56 43.28 H 7.63 4.104 .837 –8.13 23.40C A –22.39(*) 3.499 .000 –35.83 –8.96 B –25.03(*) 3.183 .000 –37.25 –12.80 C D 3.89 3.499 .989 –9.54 17.33 E 4.75 3.717 .976 –9.52 19.02 126
  • 138. Table 39. (continued) 95% confidence interval (I) (J) Mean SE Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Organization Organization difference (I – J)C F –19.12(*) 2.230 .000 –27.68 –10.55 G 4.89 2.739 .864 –5.62 15.41 H –17.39(*) 3.499 .002 –30.83 –3.96D A –26.29(*) 4.353 .000 –43.00 –9.57 B –28.92(*) 4.104 .000 –44.68 –13.16 C –3.89 3.499 .989 –17.33 9.54 D E .86 4.531 1.000 –16.54 18.26 F –23.01(*) 3.419 .000 –36.14 –9.88 G 1.00 3.770 1.000 –13.48 15.48 H –21.29(*) 4.353 .003 –38.00 –4.57E A –27.14(*) 4.531 .000 –44.54 –9.74 B –29.78(*) 4.292 .000 –46.26 –13.29 C –4.75 3.717 .976 –19.02 9.52 D –.86 4.531 1.000 –18.26 16.54 E F –23.87* 3.642 .000 –37.85 –9.88 G .14 3.974 1.000 –15.12 15.40 H –22.14* 4.531 .003 –39.54 –4.74F A –3.28 3.419 .996 –16.40 9.85 B –5.91 3.095 .817 –17.80 5.97 C 19.12* 2.230 .000 10.55 27.68 D 23.01* 3.419 .000 9.88 36.14 127
  • 139. Table 39. (continued) 95% confidence interval (I) (J) Mean SE Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Organization Organization difference (I – J)F E 23.87* 3.642 .000 9.88 37.85 F G 24.01* 2.636 .000 13.89 34.13 H 1.72 3.419 1.000 –11.40 14.85G A –27.29* 3.770 .000 –41.76 –12.81 B –29.92* 3.480 .000 –43.28 –16.56 C –4.89 2.739 .864 –15.41 5.62 D –1.00 3.770 1.000 –15.48 13.48 E –.14 3.974 1.000 –15.40 15.12 F –24.01* 2.636 .000 –34.13 –13.89 G H –22.29* 3.770 .000 –36.76 –7.81H A –5.00 4.353 .987 –21.72 11.72 B –7.63 4.104 .837 –23.40 8.13 C 17.39* 3.499 .002 3.96 30.83 D 21.29* 4.353 .003 4.57 38.00 E 22.14* 4.531 .003 4.74 39.54 F –1.72 3.419 1.000 –14.85 11.40 G 22.29* 3.770 .000 7.81 36.76 HNote. Based on observed means.*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 128
  • 140. Question 4 To what extent does a relationship exist between employee job satisfactionand selected demographic variables of employees of small nonprofit organizations? The Spearman rho rank correlation was performed to examine the relationshipsbetween age, education, organizational level, salary, time employed with theorganization, and job satisfaction. This test was chosen to analyze the aforementioneddemographic variables because it is most appropriate when analyzing ranked data(Sproull, 2003). Additional demographic variables were analyzed; however, due to thenature of the data, additional statistical tests were necessary. When determining statistical differences, tests are necessary when reports withmeans exist (Tello & Crewson, 2003). An independent t-test was performed to investigatethe relationship between gender and job satisfaction. The relationships of men andwomen to job satisfaction were tested, therefore justifying the use of the independent t-test. Last, an ANOVA was performed to investigate the relationship between ethnicityand job satisfaction. The ANOVA statistical test has the ability to examine relationshipsof categorical data such as ethnicity variables (Sproull, 2003). When p < .05, theresearcher concludes that the group mean is significantly different from the constant.Selected Demographics and Job Satisfaction Table 40 illustrates the results of the Spearman’s rho correlation analysisconducted to determine whether significant relationships exist between job satisfactionand selected demographic variables. There were no significant relationships foundbetween age (r = .167, p = .095), organization level (r = .197, p = .064), salary (r = .010,p = .927), years employed (r = –.032, p = .755), and job satisfaction. A moderate, 129
  • 141. positive correlation was found between education and job satisfaction (r = .421, p =.000). This relationship was statistically significant (p < .05). Significant relationships were revealed among demographic variables. Asignificant relationship between the number of years participants had been employed withthe organization, age (F = .418, p = .000), and salary (F = .271, p = .014) was revealed.In addition, a significant relationship occurred between the organizational level of theparticipant and his or her level of education (F = .306, p = .004). Although relationshipswere found, this research is unable to determine why these relationships exist.Table 40. Summary of Spearman’s Rho Results: Demographic Variables and Job inGeneral Scale Age Education Org. Salary Years JIG level totals Age Correlation coefficient 1.000 .112 –.080 .160 .418** .167 Sig. (2-tailed) .- .271 .459 .149 .000 .095 N 101 99 89 83 98 101 Education Correlation coefficient .112 1.000 .306** .161 .049 .421** Sig. (2-tailed) .271 . .004 .147 .633 .000 N 99 99 88 83 96 99 Org. level Correlation coefficient –.080 .306** 1.000 .152 .067 .197 Sig. (2-tailed) .459 .004 . .188 .536 .064 N 89 88 89 77 88 89 Salary Correlation coefficient .160 .161 .152 1.000 .271* .010 Sig. (2-tailed) .149 .147 .188 . .014 .927 N 83 83 77 83 82 83 130
  • 142. Table 40. (continued) Age Education Org. Salary Years JIG level totals Years Correlation coefficient .418** .049 .067 .271* 1.000 –.032 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .633 .536 .014 . .755 N 98 96 88 82 98 98 JIG totals Correlation coefficient .167 .421** .197 .010 –.032 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .095 .000 .064 .927 .755 . N 101 99 89 83 98 104*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). As mentioned previously, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate therelationship between ethnicity and job satisfaction. Table 41 illustrates the results of theone-way ANOVA. These results reveal that a significant relationship does not existbetween ethnicity and job satisfaction, F(4, 91) = 1.764, p > .05, partial η2 = .07.Table 41. Analysis of Variance for Ethnicity and Job Satisfaction Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial η2Corrected model 1347.988a 4 336.997 1.764 .143 .072Intercept 14430.681 1 14430.681 75.552 .000 .454Pseudonym 1347.988 4 336.997 1.764 .143 .072Error 17381.346 91 191.004Total 147796.000 96Corrected total 18729.333 95a 2R = .072 (adjusted R2 = .031). 131
  • 143. An independent t-test to evaluate the relationship was performed between genderand job satisfaction. Table 42 illustrates the results of the independent t-test. Analysisrevealed that women were more satisfied (M = 37.68, SD = 14.1) than men (M = 36.80,SD = 12.67); however, no significant differences were found between the two genders,t(91) = .225, p = .823, which may be due to the limited number of male participants.Table 42. Summary of Independent Samples Test: Gender and Job Satisfaction. JIG totals Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Levene’s test for equality of variances F .848 Sig. .359 t-test for equality of means T .225 .242 Df 91 21.259 Sig. (2-tailed) .823 .811 Mean difference .879 .879 SE difference 3.917 3.638 95% confidence interval of the difference Lower bound –6.901 –6.681 Upper bound 8.660 8.440 132
  • 144. Question 5 What is the level of overall satisfaction of employees of small nonprofitorganizations? To measure the overall, long-term satisfaction levels of employees within smallnonprofit organizations, participant responses to each item on the JIG were entered andscored. On calculating each participant’s overall score, descriptive statistics werecalculated for the JIG data using SPSS. Overall, the mean score for job satisfaction was36.91 (SD = 14.09), with scores from the JIG ranging from 8 to 54. As mentioned earlier,scores 27 and above represent a high level of satisfaction, whereas scores below 27translate to levels of dissatisfaction. Therefore it appears that employees within smallnonprofit organizations are generally satisfied with their current employers. A review of the overall response rates by item was conducted, as illustrated inTable 43. Analysis revealed that the largest percentage of participants answered yes whenasked if they would describe their jobs in general as “pleasant” (83.7%); 82.7% ofrespondents answered no when asked if they would describe their jobs in general as“bad.” It was observed that many of the respondents chose “undecided.” The number ofundecided responses ranged from 3.8% to 27.9% and may have affected the results of theanalysis. Although employees of the participating organizations overall appeared to begenerally satisfied with their current employers, further analysis was conducted toexplore the satisfaction of employees by organization. Using SPSS, the means andstandard deviations derived from the JIG responses by organization were calculated(Table 37). These scores were used to determine the overall job satisfaction of employeesby organization. On the basis of the analyses, Organization B had the highest level of 133
  • 145. satisfaction, yielding an average score of 52.8, whereas Organization G had the lowestaverage score of 22.9 among the eight organizations. The organizations whoseemployees’ average scores translated to dissatisfaction with their employers wereOrganizations D and E, which had scores of 23.9 and 23.0, respectively.Table 43. Job in General Responses (N = 104) Yes No ? No response Survey question N % N % N % N % Pleasant 87 83.7 12 11.5 4 3.8 1 1.0 Bad 7 6.7 86 82.7 9 8.7 2 1.9 Ideal 49 47.1 28 26.9 24 23.1 3 2.9 Waste of time 9 8.7 77 74.0 17 16.3 1 1.0 Good 61 58.7 27 26.0 16 15.4 0 0.0 Undesirable 7 6.7 75 72.1 22 21.2 0 0.0 Worthwhile 61 58.7 26 25.0 16 15.4 1 1.0 Worse than most 16 15.4 71 68.3 17 16.3 0 0.0 Acceptable 63 60.6 18 17.3 22 21.2 1 1.0 Superior 42 40.4 32 30.8 29 27.9 1 1.0 Better than most 54 51.9 29 27.9 20 19.2 1 1.0 Disagreeable 10 9.6 69 66.3 25 24.0 0 0.0 Makes me content 48 46.2 32 30.8 24 23.1 0 0.0 Inadequate 10 9.6 67 64.4 24 23.1 3 2.9 134
  • 146. Table 43. (continued) Yes No ? No response Survey question N % N % N % N % Excellent 47 45.2 33 31.7 24 23.1 0 0.0 Rotten 10 9.6 73 70.2 21 20.2 0 0.0 Enjoyable 60 57.7 28 26.9 16 15.4 0 0.0 Poor 9 8.7 72 15.4 23 22.1 0 0.0 Tables 44 and 45 illustrate the mean score of each item by organization.According to the mean scores calculated for each item, Organization G had the lowestlevel of satisfaction among the eight organizations; 10 out of 18 items (56%) received amean score of 1. According to the JIG, items that are assigned 1 point are defined as“undecided,” which may account for scoring below the satisfaction point. Similar toOrganization G, participants were undecided in 10 out of 18 items for Organization E.Table 44. Job in General Mean Score by Item by Organization (Organizations A–D) A B C D JIG item Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Pleasant 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.3 1.3 2.6 1.1 Bad 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 2.0 1.3 Ideal 2.1 1.1 2.8 0.7 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.4 Waste of time 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 2.1 1.1 Good 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 135
  • 147. Table 44. (continued) A B C D JIG item Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Undesirable 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 1.7 1.3 Worthwhile 2.7 0.8 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.1 Worse than most 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.4 Acceptable 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 Superior 1.7 1.6 2.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.5 Better than most 2.4 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 Disagreeable 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.1 Makes me content 2.4 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 Inadequate 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 Excellent 2.7 0.8 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.7 1.1 Rotten 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.3 Enjoyable 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.1 Poor 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 1.9 1.5Table 45. Job in General Mean Scores by Item by Organization (Organizations E–H) E F G H JIG item Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Pleasant 1.7 1.5 2.8 0.7 2.4 1.3 2.7 0.8 Bad 2.2 1.3 2.7 0.7 2.6 1.1 3.0 0.0 Ideal 1.3 1.4 2.1 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.7 1.6 Waste of time 1.5 1.2 2.9 0.4 1.6 1.5 3.0 0.0 136
  • 148. Table 45. (continued) E F G H JIG item Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Good 1.0 1.6 2.9 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.6 1.1 Undesirable 1.2 1.0 2.9 0.4 1.6 1.2 2.3 1.3 Worthwhile 0.3 0.5 2.9 0.5 1.3 1.4 2.6 1.1 Worse than most 2.2 1.3 2.4 1.1 1.6 1.3 3.0 0.0 Acceptable 1.3 1.4 2.7 0.7 0.6 1.1 3.0 0.0 Superior 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.5 Better than most 0.5 1.2 2.5 1.1 1.0 1.2 2.1 1.5 Disagreeable 1.3 0.8 2.6 0.9 1.6 1.3 2.3 1.3 Makes me content 0.5 1.2 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.8 2.4 1.0 Inadequate 1.7 1.0 2.8 0.6 1.1 1.1 3.0 0.0 Excellent 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.9 1.5 Rotten 2.3 1.0 2.8 0.6 1.2 1.3 3.0 0.0 Enjoyable 0.3 0.5 3.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 2.6 1.1 Poor 0.8 1.2 2.9 0.5 1.6 1.2 3.0 0.0 The study revealed a relationship between organizational culture and jobsatisfaction and small nonprofit organizations. In addition, data revealed that significantdifferences exist in the way participants perceive their organizational culture. Resultsindicated significant differences in the job satisfaction of small nonprofit organizations.Several analyses were performed on the relationship between selected demographicvariables and job satisfaction. These analyses revealed that a significant relationshipexisted only between education of the employee and job satisfaction. Last, overall 137
  • 149. employees within small nonprofit organizations are satisfied with their jobs in general.The following chapter discusses study findings. 138
  • 150. CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and discuss the findings of this study.The first section of the chapter summarizes and discusses the study’s findings in relationto the research questions and supplemental findings. The second section discusses theresults, theoretical framework, and literature. The chapter concludes with discussions ofstrengths, limitations, implications, and recommendations relative to the study. Summary and Discussion of ResultsSummary This study recognizes that a relationship exists between organizational culture andjob satisfaction; however, research on the relationship between these variables withinsmall nonprofit organizations is limited. This may be due to difficulty defining “small”nonprofit organizations, which is discussed later in this chapter. This study wasconducted to add to the small body of knowledge that exists about small nonprofitorganizations, while gaining a better understanding of the relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction in small organizations. Initially, the researchwas to consist of a representative sample of New York State nonprofit organizations with50 or fewer employees and an annual income of less than $1 million. These organizationswere to be randomly chosen from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service database. Based onqualifying organization criteria, 380 would have been a representative sample. However,it was difficult to obtain participants; therefore the challenge was met by using a selectgroup of child care facilities. For this reason, the study results cannot be generalized, asmentioned in the limitations section. 139
  • 151. Nonprofit organizations have grown in size and are more varied in the types ofservices delivered in the past 20 years. Engaging in effective management within theseunique environments can be challenging. Though the literature highlights limited fundingand government interference as factors contributing to difficulty managing in theseenvironments, much of the literature focuses on large organizations. However, within thelimited body of research that exists about small nonprofit organizations, it is evident thatefficiency and productivity might be expected, although resources are limited. Thisexpectation ultimately becomes a burden for employees, possibly causing dissatisfactionsince with little support, employees have the same responsibilities and expectations asthose who have support and resources. The present study did not agree with thatassertion; in fact, in this study, employees of the participating organizations reported highlevels of satisfaction with their jobs. This was not surprising because the literaturehighlights small organizations’ ability to adapt quickly and embrace challenges,subsequently resulting in a culture that is innovative, flexible, effective, and efficient(Macri et al., 2002). According to Wilson (2001), organizational culture is a set of shared values,beliefs, assumptions, and practices that shape the attitudes and behaviors of memberswithin the organization. Organizational culture has played an important role indiscussions pertaining to organizational management and organizational behavior,specific to its effect on employees. The results of this study provide significant evidenceof an existing relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction and itseffect on employees. Culture is a cohesive system of meanings and symbols by whichsocial interactions occur (Atkins & Turner, 2006). The use of the OCI in this study wasmeant to gather information about employee’s collective beliefs of what is necessary to 140
  • 152. fit into their respective organizations. According to the OCI Interpretation andDevelopment Guide (2003), behavioral norms are those behaviors that all membersunderstand are expected of them if they are to “fit in” and “survive” within theirorganizations. Employees were asked to complete two survey instruments that weresubsequently used for data collection: (a) the OCI (Cooke & Lafferty, 1983), according toCooke and Szumal (2000), and (b) the JIG, developed by Ironson et al. (1989). Bothinstruments have been cited extensively in research to examine organizational culture andjob satisfaction. This study acknowledges the OCI’s inability to address all the behavioralnorms that influence organizational culture. However, its value lies in its elicitation of apoint-in-time picture of the culture of an organization measured in terms of 12 specificbehavior norms. The quantitative results of this study reveal the predominant, moderate,and least prevalent culture styles. The JIG measures overall job satisfaction rather thanaspects of it. Though the OCI and JIG have their merits, this study would have benefitedfrom qualitative data, providing additional support to the results derived from theinstruments. Qualitative data would have provided specific examples and details tosupport each employee’s survey responses and eliminated the need to make inferencesabout quantitative results.Discussion of Results Research conducted was centered on five research questions through surveying104 employees of eight small nonprofit organizations (50 or fewer employees) in thechild care industry serving children ages 3–5 years. Participants varied in age, gender,and organizational level. The first research question asked, To what extent does arelationship exist between organizational culture and job satisfaction in small nonprofit 141
  • 153. organizations? Analyses revealed a positive and significant relationship between each ofthe subcultures within the constructive culture (achievement, self-actualizing,humanistic–encouraging, and affiliative) and job satisfaction. In this study, the perceivednorms within the constructive styles increased job satisfaction. The OCI recognizes theconstructive style as one that encourages employees to approach tasks in ways that willhelp them to meet their higher order satisfaction needs. This resembles the early work ofMaslow (1943), who identified individuals’ five basic needs in order of importance asphysiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. He contended that individualsare motivated to meet higher needs once lower needs are met. Similarly, Katz & Kahn(1978) and McClelland (1985) both contend that human behavior is motivated by thefulfillment of needs. These needs are addressed by providing cognitive support andstructure that manifest themselves through organizational norms and values. This studysupports that assertion in that a positive relationship between all the constructive stylesubcultures and job satisfaction was found, and previous studies have had similar results. Balthazard, Potter, and Warren (2004) found that the constructive styles producepositive outcomes, whereas passive–defensive styles produce negative ones. Accordingto the OCI Interpretation and Development Guide (2003), the passive–defensive cultureencourages members to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the way they personallybelieve they should behave to be effective. The findings from this study confirm this inthat within the passive–defensive culture, inverse significant relationships were foundbetween two (approval and avoidance) of the four subcultures and job satisfaction. Thissuggests that personal beliefs of employees within the participating organizations do notcoincide with how the approval and avoidance subcultures manifest themselves withinthe environment. 142
  • 154. The avoidance subculture is one that does not reward success but punishesmistakes. However, McGregor’s Theory Y contends that people will be self-directed andcommitted if rewards are put in place. For this reason, the inverse relationship betweenthe avoidance subculture and job satisfaction was not surprising. In fact, significantdifferences in employees’ perceptions of the existence of the avoidance subculture withintheir respective organizations were found among seven of the eight participatingorganizations. Interestingly, the one organization that did not reveal significantdifferences in the avoidance subculture also had the lowest return rate, possiblycontributing to its exclusion. The finding concerning the approval subculture’s inverse relationship with jobsatisfaction also aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The approval subculture is onethat member’s feel they must agree and be liked by others, similar to Maslow’sidentification of esteem as a higher need to be met. However, Maslow (1943), contendsthat if lower needs are not met, such as physiological, safety, and social needs, thenesteem would not be deemed as important. Though we cannot say so conclusively, it canbe inferred that among employees whose lower needs are not being met and whoseorganizations have an approval subculture, dissatisfaction is likely to exist. This study found negative correlations between all of the aggressive–defensivesubcultures and job satisfaction, except for the perfectionist subculture. Although theresults were not significant, the perfectionist culture was the only culture that indicated apositive relationship with job satisfaction. Perhaps within these environments, theperfectionist culture may be valued by some employees because it demands a highstandard of performance. Aggressive–defensive environments do not encourage theirmembers to ask questions or ask for assistance. Within the aggressive–defensive culture, 143
  • 155. members are expected to approach tasks forcefully to protect their status and security(OCI Interpretation & Development Guide, 2003). Members are encouraged to appearefficient and competent, even if they are not. According to the OCI Interpretation andDevelopment Guide (2003), members feel they must avoid mistakes, keep track ofeverything, and work long hours to achieve narrow goals. The guide indicates that the expectations of the aggressive–defensive subcultureare not a bad thing in moderation, which may account for the positive relationship foundbetween the perfectionist subculture and job satisfaction. It is possible that members haveexpectations of themselves that align with the perfectionist subculture, causing them to becomfortable with their organizations expectations. Though this may be true, an anomalysuch as this would have benefited from the use of qualitative data, which would haveprovided detailed information specific to the positive correlation between theperfectionist subculture and job satisfaction. The second research question asked, To what extent does organizational culturediffer among small nonprofit organizations? Significant differences in organizationalculture existed between the eight participating organizations and the behavioral norms ofthe constructive, passive–defensive, and aggressive–defensive styles. Each subculturewithin the constructive culture revealed significant differences, however, differencesvaried. Within the passive–defensive culture, avoidance and approval were the onlybehavioral norms that significant differences were found. Within the aggressive–defensive culture, significant differences existed only within the competitive behavioralnorm. Analyses revealed significant differences in the achievement and self-actualizingbehavioral norms and Organizations F, C, and G. Interestingly, these three organizations 144
  • 156. accounted for 64% of the total number of completed surveys returned from theparticipating organizations. The remaining 36% of completed surveys came from the fiveorganizations, revealing a disparity that may have contributed to the findings. For thisreason, the conclusions reached are considered preliminary and limited to the includedsample of the study. Significant differences were also found within the humanistic–encouraging behavioral norm; however, only Organization C revealed such differences.From the analyzed data, Organization C differed from all but two of the organizationsand was the only organization that an inverse significant relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction was found. This inverse relationship existedbetween both the power and competitive behavioral norms and job satisfaction. Thesignificance and variations of differences found pertaining to Organization C, thoughinteresting, are not conclusive. Due to the parameters of this study, it cannot beascertained with any scientific confidence why the results are as such. However, thesefindings encourage additional research to gain better understanding. The third research question asked, To what extent does job satisfaction differamong small nonprofit organizations? According to this study, job satisfaction among theeight participating organizations was found to differ significantly; however, the meanswithin the constructive culture in most cases outweighed those in the passive–defensiveand aggressive–defensive cultures. A deeper look at the results revealed that three ofeight organizations scored below 27, translating to dissatisfaction according to the JIG.Although this study focused on organizational cultures’ relationships to job satisfaction,organizational culture is not the only factor that influences employees’ levels ofsatisfaction with their jobs. Recent studies have determined that morals, values, activity,and independence contribute to job satisfaction (C. Jones, Hohenshil, & Burge, 2009), 145
  • 157. which the JIG does not address. However, the use of both the OCI and JIG supportsmodels that have been used to predict job satisfaction. According to Franek and Vecera(2008), job satisfaction discussions are framed around three models, situational,dispositional, and interactional, and have been used to predict job satisfaction. The use ofthe JIG in this study supports the situational model, which looks at job characteristics,whereas the OCI supports the notion that fit between the person and the environmentdetermines the level of satisfaction supporting the interactional model. The dispositionalmodel considers employees’ personal characteristics independent of job characteristics.This study employs this model by examining specific demographic variables and theirrelationships to job satisfaction. Though this study’s use of all three models may notaccount for every contributor and/or predictor of job satisfaction, it is anticipated that theuse of this model will be replicated, adding to existing research on job satisfaction. The fourth research question asked, To what extent does a relationship existbetween job satisfaction and selected demographic variables of employees of smallnonprofit organizations? To address this question, the demographic variables chosenwere age, ethnicity, sex, education, organizational level, salary, and time employed withthe organization. Results from the research found that a significantly positive relationshipexisted between education and job satisfaction. The remaining demographic variableassociations with job satisfaction occurred by chance. Due to the low number ofparticipants who identified their salaries (21.2%), the power of the analysis as it appliesto salary is lower than the analysis of the other demographic variables. This study employed the dispositional model of investigating job satisfaction byinvestigating the relationship between selected demographic variables and jobsatisfaction. Among the demographic variables analyzed (age, ethnicity, sex, education, 146
  • 158. organizational level, salary, and time employed), education was the only variable where astatically significant positive relationship existed similar to the study conducted byFranek and Vecera (2008). A review of the research was not able to support this findingand, in some cases, found the relationship between education and job satisfaction to benegatively related. It is posited that perhaps highly educated employees view lower levelpositions unsatisfactorily; however, factors such as employee benefits, job security, andteamwork might make the job generally satisfactory (Sarmiento, Beale, & Knowles,2007). According to Martin and Shehan (1989), employees associate an increase ineducation with a reward of some sort; failure on the organization’s part to meet thisexpectation may result in a decrease in job satisfaction. This notion is supported by astudy conducted by Boston (2008), who found that education was significantly associatedwith opportunities for employment. It can be inferred that organizations participating inthe study rewarded their employees as they achieved higher levels of education. According to research by Campbell (2009), gender and ethnicity are not factors ofjob satisfaction; therefore significant relationships will not be found. However, researchconducted by Dhanasarnsilp, Johnson, and Chaipoopirutana (2006) spoke to the contrary,finding that a significant relationship between job satisfaction and ethnicity exists.Nevertheless, motivation and job satisfaction theorists do not include demographicvariables such as gender and ethnicity in their discussions. Therefore I must agree withCampbell that motivation and/or satisfaction with one’s employment is driven by one’sindividual experiences, independent of gender or ethnicity. The final research question asked, What is the level of overall satisfaction ofemployees in small nonprofit organizations? The results in this study revealed thatoverall, employees of the eight participating small nonprofit organizations are satisfied 147
  • 159. with their employers based on the results from the JIG. Although the overall analysesrevealed a high level of satisfaction, additional analysis uncovered that three out of theeight participating small nonprofit organizations’ employees were not satisfied with theirjobs. Discussion To address the primary research question, it was not necessary to convertparticipant responses into percentiles to determine the dominant culture. As analternative, the participant mean scores were calculated for each behavioral norm,revealing participants’ perceptions of the shared behavioral expectations that arenecessary to “fit in” within their respective organizations. The constructive culture was identified as a prevalent culture among the eightparticipating organizations. At the same time, the passive–defensive and aggressive–defensive cultures were less prevalent and revealed negative correlations. Again, thoseresults are not surprising as literature has cited both the passive–defensive andaggressive–defensive cultures to be the least preferred cultures (Agbenyiga, 2005).Previous literature has cited negative correlations between passive–defensive andaggressive–defensive cultures and job satisfaction (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter, 2006;Stebbins, 2008) as well as the inability to differentiate between the two culture styles(Bosley, 2005). Both the passive–defensive and aggressive–defensive cultures have been found tobe the least preferred cultures (Agbenyiga, 2005). It is not surprising that within thepassive–defensive (approval, conventional, dependent, and avoidance) and aggressive–defensive cultures (oppositional, power, competitive, and perfectionistic), inverserelationships were revealed, simply meaning that as the behavioral norms within the 148
  • 160. aforementioned cultures increase, job satisfaction decreases. Previous literature has citednegative correlations between passive–defensive and aggressive–defensive cultures andjob satisfaction (Balthazard et al., 2006; Stebbins, 2008) as well as the inability todifferentiate between the two culture styles (Bosley, 2005). Within the aggressive–defensive domain, members are expected to approach tasksforcefully to protect their status and security (OCI Interpretation & Development Guide,2003). Members are encouraged to appear efficient and competent, even if they are not.These environments do not encourage their members to ask questions or ask forassistance. All the behavior norms within the aggressive–defensive culture werenegatively significant, except for the perfectionist behavior norm. Although the resultswere not significant, the perfectionist culture was the only culture that indicated apositive relationship with job satisfaction. Job satisfaction decreased as the passive–defensive culture behavioral normsoppositional, power, and competitive cultures increased, indicating an inverserelationship. The oppositional culture is where negativity is rewarded and over time candevelop into an avoidance culture (OCI Interpretation & Development Guide, 2003). Thepower culture promotes taking charge and controlling subordinates, whereas competitivecultures value winning and members are rewarded for outperforming one another (OCIInterpretation & Development Guide, 2003). The passive–defensive culture, along withthe aggressive–defensive culture, can be compared with organizational cultures thatresemble bureaucratic structures. Max Weber, an early historian, viewed bureaucracy as astrongly controlled organization, with strict hierarchy and rule-governed functioning(Gajduschek, 2003). Development of this theory was based on Weber’s concern with theincreased power of public officials. He wanted those occupying such positions to realize 149
  • 161. their importance and to exercise power in their respective positions. However, theproblem with this way of thinking is that leadership is led to believe that to be aggressiveand competitive externally, they must be the same internally, which bears a resemblanceto both the passive–defensive and aggressive–defensive cultures (OCI Interpretation &Development Guide, 2003). The result of such cultures is a decrease in company loyalty,morale, and productivity and an increase in cynicism, absenteeism, and turnover, assupported in a study conducted by Lee (2007). Lee’s study revealed negativerelationships between the two cultures and job satisfaction, and he recommended that thepresence of these cultures be reduced. For these reasons, the inverse relationships thatoccurred between job satisfaction and the subcultures of the aggressive–defensive andpassive–defensive cultures were not a revelation. However, 78.8% of this studycomprised non-managers, and because culture is driven by leadership, it is possible thathaving a larger population of managers would have yielded different results. Although there were some differences found among the eight participatingorganizations relative to their perceived cultures, it appears that the constructive culturewas prevalent. Interestingly, this study revealed that employees are satisfied overall withtheir jobs. It can be inferred that employees’ job satisfaction is related to theenvironments that they work in. A review of the literature revealed discussions regarding the difficulty in definingsize dating back to the 1970s. According to Robey, Bakr, and Miller (1977), attempts todefine size have included measures of decentralization, administrative intensity, structuraldifferentiation, complexity, and formalization. However, Robey et al. concluded thatvariables continue to be added but that no general theory has been adopted. This assertionis true today as research continues to focus on developing a uniformed way to categorize 150
  • 162. organizations based on size. The Small Business Administration Act of 1953 states that asmall business is “one which is independently owned and operated and which is notdominant in its field of operation.” However, this distinction is not enough to adequatelycategorize organizations based on size. Its definition does not account for other variablessuch as number of employees, budget size, and industry, such as nonprofit versus forprofit. This study identified “small” nonprofit organizations as organizations with 50 orfewer employees and an annual income of less than $1 million. Zibarras and Woods(2010) operationalized organization size similarly by using the number of employees;organizations were then categorized using micro, small, medium, large, and very large.However, due to the variation in the participating industries, annual income was notincluded as a variable to determine size. Though not the intention, this study includedorganizations from one industry while meeting the criteria of the operational definition ofsmall. Though this study found significant differences in job satisfaction among theeight participating “small” nonprofit organizations, collectively, they reported overallsatisfaction. It was difficult to find studies that used organization size as a construct andsubsequently supported these findings. However, research that differed from this study’sfindings was conducted by Eskildsen, Kristensen, and Westlund (2004), who used thenumber of employees to operationalize organization size. Eskildsen et al. hypothesizedthat job satisfaction would decrease as company size decreased. However, there were nosignificant differences found in job satisfaction among organizations with fewer than 50employees and from companies with 50–499 employees. Interestingly, the expecteddecrease occurred for companies with 500 or more employees, leaving size as a construct 151
  • 163. that is ambiguous. For this reason, additional research is necessary to develop a modelthat can be used to categorize organizations by size, subsequently streamliningorganizational research.Strengths The strengths of the present study are as follows: • The study will not be costly to replicate using the same methodology. • Data can be easily aggregated and analyzed using quantitative methods. • The study employs two valid instruments that have been proven to be reliable. • The instruments are applicable in any sector, organization, or industry. • The overall response rates to OCI and JIG items were 99.1% and 99.3%, respectively. • The overall survey response rate was 80%.Limitations The limitations of this study are as follows: • References to “small” nonprofit organizations in this study are applicable to this study based on the researcher’s operational definition; therefore this study cannot be generalized. • This study does not include systems or structures in its discussions, which are known to influence organizational culture. • The profile of participants may not be accurate due to participants’ failure to respond to demographic questions, with salary having the highest non- response rate (20.2%). • The OCI provides a point-in-time picture of an organization, inferring that results may be different if the instrument is administered at another time. • The sample size is small, limiting the statistical analyses and therefore preventing generalization of the results. • This study does not include qualitative data, which would provide contextual information related to the findings. 152
  • 164. • Correlation between variables does not translate to causation. • It was difficult to obtain a large and varied number of small nonprofit organizations to participate. Significance of the Study and ImplicationsSignificance The study contributes to the small body of existing literature on organizationalculture, job satisfaction, and more important, small nonprofit organizations. First, thestudy provides evidence of an existing relationship between organizational culture andjob satisfaction within small nonprofits; however, future research should be conducted.This would include, but not be limited to, establishing a universal definition that could beused to identify “small” nonprofits. This will allow the body of research to be focusedand applicable rather than vague and ambiguous. Second, due to poor responses andparticipation, only eight organizations participated; however, replication should include amore representative sample of the total population of existing small nonprofitorganizations. Third, this study encourages managers to pay attention to employeeperceptions of the organization’s culture. Developing or changing the culture of anorganization must involve its members to be effective. Additional research would beappropriate on the implementation or development of organizational culture. Fourth,though this study did not discuss the systems and structures of each organization, it ispossible that these are contributing factors to organizational culture and/or jobsatisfaction, and managers should consider these aspects before diagnosing or changingtheir present culture.Implications 153
  • 165. This study can be used to clarify the different factors and relationships thatcontribute to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been extensively researched relative tovarious for-profit and nonprofit agencies; however, very little has been done on “small”nonprofit organizations. This has the ability to spawn additional research that is relativeto the size of the organization based on this study’s operational definition of small.Though this study has made an attempt to fill the gap in research related to smallorganizations, more research is encouraged and necessary. The results of this study, although not generalizable, are important to the childcare industry. Within the child care industry, staffing is critical to overall operations.There are regulations specifically designed to ensure that the health and safety needs ofchildren are met. In addition, teachers and their assistants are working with children, insome cases, who have behavioral and emotional issues, which contribute to stress andburnout. Therefore directors of these organizations must understand the needs of staff toincrease retention and reduce turnover. This assertion is not only applicable to the child care industry. High turnoversuggests that job satisfaction is low, which manifests itself in retention rates, and suchindustries would benefit from the findings of this study. Overall, this study’s findingsreveal what we already know about the culture that employees generally would like towork. It is expected that employees within any industry would view this study as a toolthat can be used to advocate for change within their work environments. This study’s significance lies in its ability to serve as a blueprint to meeting theneeds of employees, which ultimately benefits the employer. There are other factors thatemployers may find significant such as the relationship between job satisfaction anddemographic variables. The current demographic structure of the organization is worth 154
  • 166. analyzing. This study found that a significant relationship did not exist between jobsatisfaction and gender. In this study, women represented 75% of the population, whichmay have accounted for the lack of significance. Female dominance is not surprising inthe child care industry. Therefore employers may consider focusing their efforts onattracting more men to the field. The implications of increasing the number of men in thefield may reveal significant relationships between job satisfaction and gender. Finally,this study encourages managers to assess and modify their culture as well as promotesresearch on implementing change. In addition, managers are encouraged to assess theirculture and use their assessment during the hiring process to evaluate an employee’sability to fit in the current culture. This will increase the employee’s satisfaction withtheir job.Recommendations To understand organizational culture and/or job satisfaction, it will be necessaryto examine factors other than perceived behavioral norms. As mentioned earlier, it isimperative to look at all aspects of organizational culture, which include, but are notlimited to, organizational systems, structures, and leadership styles. This will provide anin-depth picture of the contributing factors that helped to create the culture of theorganization. If an instrument is to be developed to diagnose the culture of anorganization, it should have the ability to measure the consistency and pervasiveness ofthe beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices among organizational members (Baker &Sinkula, 2002), which a point-in-time picture does not provide. In addition, as suggestedby Metle (2003), further research is needed emphasizing demographic variables and jobsatisfaction by sector. Further research is needed using a larger sample, which will lend more strength to 155
  • 167. the study’s findings. Future studies should include other industries and sectors that arewithin the scope of the operational definition of small organizations such as small forprofit organizations. A similar study using small for profit organizations would bebeneficial because similarities and differences can be explored. Every attempt should bemade to ensure that demographic questions are completed. This will increase the validityof the profile of the sample population, and there will be assurances related to thediversity of the participants. The disparity of participants in terms of gender may beinfluenced by industry. Therefore, additional efforts should be made to obtain an equalnumber of males and females to adequately determine differences in gender. In addition,this study should be replicated using various methodologies and instruments to test thevalidity of the results as well as provide another approach to investigating the relationshipbetween organizational culture and job satisfaction. For example, the use of a mixedmethodology, or using qualitative questions will assist with determining why participantsresponded the way they did. Finally, the following research questions should beconsidered for future research. 1. Does a relationship exist between organizational culture and organizational size? 2. Does a relationship exist between job satisfaction and gender within organizations providing child care services? 3. Does a relationship exist between job satisfaction and organization size? Conclusions Understanding factors that contribute to organizational culture will improveorganizational performance and employee satisfaction. This study has revealed that inmost cases, when employees are pleased with the culture of the organization, they tend to 156
  • 168. be more satisfied. Research is unable to concretely define what organizational culture isand how it functions. However, Denison (as cited in Baker, 2000) has four basic views oforganizational culture: consistency, which implies that there is common perspective;mission, which is a shared sense of purpose; involvement–participation, which iscontributing and having a sense of responsibility, resulting in organizational commitmentand loyalty; and adaptability, which is the ability to receive, interpret, and translatesignals from the environment into internal organizational and behavioral change(Denison, as cited in Baker, 2000). These are different aspects of culture; however, thesebasic views should be kept in mind as we continue to research and develop instrumentswith the ability to diagnose organizational culture. The initial purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship betweenorganizational culture and job satisfaction. Though this topic is important, the futureresearch that this study encourages is equally if not more so. Organizational culture is aphenomenon that contributes to and influences a host of variables, and for this reason, itwill continue to be a major topic among organizational management and organizationalbehavior literature. 157
  • 169. REFERENCESAgbenyiga, D. L. (2005). An organizational culture assessment: Does understanding provide implications for effective services for children in foster care? (Michigan State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305425860?accountid=35812Alas, R. (2005). Job related attitudes and ethics in countries with different histories. Cross Cultural Management, 12(2), 69–84.Amburgey, D. (2005). An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction, organizational culture, and perceived leadership characteristics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(8), 2849.Atkins, J., & Turner, D. (2006). Upgrade stakeholder service by changing your agency’s organizational culture. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 76(12), 30– 32, 37.Bahamonde-Gunnell, M. A. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of school culture in relation to job satisfaction and commitment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(9), 3419.Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation: Delving into the organizations black box. Journal of Market - Focused Management, 5(1), 5-5-23.Balthazard, P., Cooke, R., & Potter, R. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 709–709.Baysinger, S. (2004). The relationship between participative management and job satisfaction in an insurance industry environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(10), 3896.Ben-Ner, A. (2002). The shifting boundaries of the mixed economy and the future of the nonprofit sector. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(1), 5–40.Bennett, S. M. (2006). Exploring the relationship between continuing professional education and job satisfaction for information technology professionals in higher education. (University of North Texas). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305294161?accountid=35812Bonache, J. (2005). Job satisfaction among expatriates, repatriates and domestic employees: The perceived impact of international assignments on work-related variables. Personnel Review, 34(1), 110–124. 158
  • 170. Border, H. R. (2004). Job satisfaction of Floridas middle school assistant principals as a factor for preserving an administrative workforce. University of Central Florida). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305081192?accountid=35812Bosley, C. L. M. (2005). Organizational culture and student empowerment in baccalaureate nursing programs. Kent State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304992664?accountid=27965Boston, T. M. (2008). The impact of stress, burnout, and job satisfaction on rural social workers. Instructional Systems, Leadership, and Workforce Development). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304533127?accountid=35812Bowling Green State University. (2002). "The Job Descriptive Index." [Online publication; retrieved 11/03.] http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/JDI/#desc.Bowling, N., Beehr, T., & Lepisto, L. (2006). Beyond job satisfaction: A five-year prospective analysis of the dispositional approach to work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 315–330.Bradley, L., & Parker, R. (2001). Public sector change in Australia: Are managers’ ideals being realized? Public Personnel Management, 30, 349–361.Brown, M. L., Nicholson, S., Dran, G., & Stanton, J. (2004). Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Organizational Development and Leadership, 53(1), 33–53.Buble, M., & Pavic, I. (2007). Interdependence between organizational culture and leadership styles: The Croatian case. The Business Review, 7(1), 143–150.Buch, K., & Wetzel, D. (2001). Analyzing and realigning organizational culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 40–44.Cable, D., Smith, L., Mulvey, P., & Edwards, J. (2000). The sources of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1076– 1085.Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture Based on the Competing Values Framework: Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston.Campbell, D. G. (2009). Diversity and job satisfaction in the workplace: Managers and supervisors in luxury resorts. School of Business). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305161899?accountid=27965 159
  • 171. Carless, S. (2005). Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411–429.Carmeli, A. (2005). The relationship between organizational culture and withdrawal intentions and behavior. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 177–195.Chew, I., & Basu, S. (2005). The effects of culture and HRM practices on firm performance: Empirical evidence from Singapore. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 560-560-581, 604-605.Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24– 43.Coffey, C., & Tombari, N. (2005). The bottom-line for work/life leadership: Linking diversity and organizational culture. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1-1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216175550?accountid=35812Cooke, R.A., & Lafferty, J.C. (1987). Organizational Culture Inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.Cooke, R.A., & Rousseau, D.M. (1988). Behavior norms and expectations: a quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group and Organizational Studies, 13, 245-273.Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to understand the operating cultures of organizations. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Corbett, L. M., & Rastrick, K. N. (2000). Quality performance and organizational culture: A New Zealand study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(1), 14–26.Courtney, R. (2002). Strategic management for voluntary and non-profit organizations. London: Routledge.Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Crow, S., & Hartman, S. (2002). Organizational culture: Its impact on employee relations and discipline in health care organizations. Health Care Manager, 21(2), 22–28. 160
  • 172. Cseh, M., Ardichvili, A., Gasparishvili, A., Krisztian, B., & Nemeskeri, Z. (2004). Organizational culture and socio-cultural values: Perceptions of managers and employees in five economies in transition. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(2), 5–27.Currall, S., Towler, A., Judge, T., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613–613.David, J., & Rubenfeld, S. (2005). Employee accommodations in small business organizations. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 16(2), 55–67.Davis, R. W. (2000). Relationship among organizational culture, absenteeism turnover and selected social characteristics of hospital-based nursing personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(6), 2664.Detert, J., Schroeder, R., & Mauriel, J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863.de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. New York, NY: New American Library.Dhanasarnsilp, P., Johnson, H., & Chaipoopirutana, S. (2006). An investigation of work values and resulting job satisfaction in relation to two work roles in Thailand. The Business Review, 5, 161–170.Dodson, T., & Borders, L. D. (2006). Men in traditional nontraditional careers: Gender role attitudes, gender role conflict, and job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly, 54, 283–296.Dolan, D. A. (2002). Training needs of administrators in the non-profit sector: What are they and how should we address them? Non-profit Management & Leadership, 12, 277–292.Dole, C., & Schroeder, R. (2001). The impact of various factors on the personality, job satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16, 234–245.Dunnett, J. A. (2007). The role of organizational culture in customer service. The Business Review, 7(1), 38–44.Edwards, R. L., Yankey, J. A., & Altpeter, M. A. (Eds.). (2001). Skills for effective management of nonprofit organizations. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Westlund, A. H. (2004). Work motivation and job satisfaction in the Nordic countries. Employee Relations, 26, 122–136. 161
  • 173. Faull, K., Kalliath, T., & Smith, D. (2004). Organizational culture: The dynamics of culture on organizational change within a rehabilitation center. Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 40–55.Franek, M., & Vecera, J. (2008). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction. Ekonomie a Management, 4, 63–76.Freed, D. (2003). Material benefits, advancement, or fulfillment: A study into the causes and predictors of job satisfaction based on how people view their work. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 116–136.Gajduschek, G. (2003). Bureaucracy: Is it efficient? Is it not? Is that the question? Uncertainty reduction: An ignored element of bureaucratic rationality. Administration & Society, 34, 700–723.Gambrel, P., & Cianci, R. (2003). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture? Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143–161.Garvey, D. G. (2006). Investigation of the dynamics of collaboration experienced by small, enterprising nonprofits. University of Connecticut). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305321598?accountid=35812Garwood, D. (2005). Confidentiality and when to tell. Update, 70(3), 72-76.Gavin, T., & Vinten, G. (2005). Job satisfaction in the workplace and its financial implications. Credit Control, 26(7), 22–29.Gillett, E., & Kroese, B. (2003). Investigating organizational culture: A comparison of “high”- and a “low” performing residential unit for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16, 279–284.Goodman, E., Zammuto, R., & Gifford, B. (2001). The competing value framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organizational Development Journal, 19(3), 58–68.Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: Public, non-profit, and for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 201–210.Grandey, A., Cordeiro, B., & Crouter, A. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323. 162
  • 174. Gronbjerg, K. & Child, C. (2004). Indiana nonprofits: Affiliations, collaborations, and competition. (Nonprofit Survey Series, No. 5). Joint report: Center on Philanthropy, Indiana University; School of Public and environmental affairs, Indiana University.Hansson, J., & Klefsjo, B. (2003). A core model for implementing total quality management in small organizations. TQM Magazine, 15(2), 71–81.Hirschfield, R. R. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 255–270.Hursthouse, P., & Kolb, D. (2001). Cultivating culture in greenfields: The Heinz Wattie’s case. Personnel Review, 30(30), 317–330.Igo, T., & Skitmore, M. (2005). Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using the competing values framework. Construction Innovation, 6, 121–139.Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193-200.Jackson-Elmoore, C., & Hula, R. (2001). Emerging roles of nonprofit organizations: An introduction. Policy Studies Review, 18(4), 1-5.Jaskyte, K. (2002). Organizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10), 3729.Jin, K., Drozdenko, R., & Bassett, R. (2007). Information technology professionals’ perceived organizational values and managerial ethics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 149–159.Johnson, G., & Johnson, W. (2000). Perceived overqualification and dimensions of job satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Psychology, 134, 537–555.Jones, C., Hohenshil, T., & Burge, P. (2009). Factors affecting African American counselors’ job satisfaction: A national survey. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87, 152–158.Jones, N. B., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24, 929–943.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), 376-407. 163
  • 175. Kathrins, R. (2007). The relationship of leadership style and types of organizational culture to the effectiveness and employee satisfaction in acute care hospital. Touro University International). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304702349?accountid=35812Katopol, P. (2006). We don’t do that here: Using cognitive work analysis to learn about organizational culture. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 33(1), 9–11.Katz, D., and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: WileyKennedy, M. H. (2002). Spirituality in the workplace: An empirical study of this phenomenon among adult graduates of a college degree completion program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(1), 269.Kidd, C. A. (2006). An exploration of the impact of employee job satisfaction, affect, and performance on organizational financial performance in the health care industry. University of Louisville). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305320133?accountid=35812Kim, S. (2003). Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes of inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 9–18.Koh, H., & Boo, E. (2001). The link between organizational ethics and job satisfaction: A study of managers in Singapore. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 309-324.Kwantes, C., & Boglarsky, C. (2004). Do occupational groups vary in expressed organizational culture preferences? A study of six occupations in the United States. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 335–354.Lageson, C. J. (2001). First line nurse manager and quality: Relationship between selected role functions and unit outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(3), 1320.Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 527–545.Lawler, E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Lee, H. (2007). The relationships among personality traits, self-efficacy, and organizational commitment in fitness center staff. Education). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304736807?accountid=27965 164
  • 176. Lee, H., & Liu, C. (2006). The determinants of repatriate turnover intentions: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Management, 23, 751–762, 942.Lee, S. K., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 340–359.Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Lettieri, E., Borga, F., & Savoldeli, A. (2004). Knowledge management in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 16–30.Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership styles on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23, 321–338.Lord, R. (2002). Traditional motivation theories and older engineers. Engineering Management Journal, 14(3), 3–7.Lord, R., & Farrington, P. (2006). Age-related differences in the motivation of knowledge workers. Engineering Management Journal, 18(3), 20–26.Lund, D. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18, 219–234.Macedo, I. M., & Pinho, J. C. (2006). The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation: The specific case of nonprofit organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 40, 533–553.Macri, D., Tagliaventi, M., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in small organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 292–310.Mann, G. (2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource management and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 33–48.Mark, R. (1996). Research made simple: A handbook for social workers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Martin, B. A., & Martin, J. H. (2005). Building a market-oriented organizational environment: An implementation framework for small organizations. American Journal of Business, 20(2), 45–58.Martin, KJ. and Shehan, L.C. (1989). Education and job satisfaction: the influence of gender, wage-earning status, and job values. Work and Occupations, 16(2), pp. 184-99. 165
  • 177. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370– 396.Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 6-6-35.McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, CA: Scott Foresman.McConnell, C. J. (2003). A study of the relationships among person-organization fit and affective, normative, and continuance components of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 137–156.McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.McKinnon, J., Harrison, G., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). Organizational culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain and information sharing in Taiwan. International Journal of Business Studies, 11(1), 25–44.McMurray, A. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3(1–2),Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Metle, M. (2003). The impact of education on attitudes of female government employees. The Journal of Management Development, 22(7), 603-626.Mills, A. (2002). Studying the gendering of organizational culture over time: Concerns, issues and strategies. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(3), 286-307.Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591-622.Muhammad, D. T. (2006). The relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the claim that emotional intelligence quotient predicts level of job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(11), 6322.Murphy, B., & Fridkin, D. (2004). Nursing home administrators’ level of job satisfaction. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49, 336–344.Myers, J. (2004). Developing managers: A view from the nonprofit sector. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 639–656. 166
  • 178. Nahm, A. Y., Vonderembse, M., & Koufteros, X. (2004). The impact of organizational culture on time-based manufacturing and performance. Decision Sciences, 35, 579–608.Ndambakuwa, Y., & Mufunda, J. (2006). Performance appraisal system impact on university academic staff job satisfaction and productivity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 117–126.Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Nguyen, K. K. (2009). An analysis of the preferred managerial tactics of health care organization employees. School of Psychology). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305165635?accountid=27965Obendhain, A. M., & Johnson, W. C. (2004). Product and process innovation in service organizations: The influence of organizational culture in higher education institutions. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 91–113.Ouchi, W. (1981), Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Paswaters, R. W. (2006). A study of florida public elementary school principals job satisfaction following the implementation of floridas A+ system for grading schools. University of Central Florida). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304945248?accountid=35812Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14, 422–439.Politis, J. (2006). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: The mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 203–216.Pool, S. (2000a). The learning organization: Motivating employees by integrating TQM philosophy in a supportive organization culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21, 373–378.Pool, S. (2000b). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring outcomes among business executives. Journal of Management Development, 19(1), 32–48.Rad, A., & Yarmohammadian, M. (2006). A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, 19(2), 11–28. 167
  • 179. Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward change. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25(1–2), 161–179.Reissner, S. (2005). Learning and innovation: A narrative analysis. Journal of Organizational Change, 18, 482–494.Rinkoff, C. Z. (2007). Learning styles diversity: Implications for the organizational culture of university student cohorts. School of Business). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304719992?accountid=27965Ritchie, M. (2000). Organizational culture: An examination of its effect on the internalization process and member performance. Southern Business Review, 25(2), 1–13.Robey, D., Bakr, M. M., & Miller, T. S. (1977). Organizational size and management autonomy: Some structural discontinuities. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 378-378.Rodsutti, M., & Swierczek, F. (2002). Leadership and organizational effectiveness in multinational enterprises in Southeast Asia. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5–6), 250–259.Rutherford, S. (2001). Organizational cultures, women, managers and exclusion. Women in Management Review, 16(7–8), 371–382.Saari, L., & Judge, T. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395–407Sackman, S. A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations: Exploring the collectivemind. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage. Journal of Management Development, 20, 853–859.Sarmiento, R., Beale, J., & Knowles, G. (2007). Determinants of performance amongst shop-floor employees. Management Research Review, 30(12), 915-915-927.Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Densten, I., & Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational culture profile revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 159–182.Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Poss Publishers. 168
  • 180. Schimmoeller, L. J. (2007). An empirical investigation of the relationship between organizational culture and leadership styles. Nova Southeastern University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304717926?accountid=35812Schneider, W. (2000). Why good management ideas fail: The neglected power of organizational culture. Strategy & Leadership, 28(1), 24–29.Schnier, K. (2004). Organizational culture of faculty members at regionally accredited, associate degree granting, proprietary institutions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(3), 858.Schraeder, M., Tears, R., & Jordan, M. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector organizations: Promoting change through training and leading by example. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 492–502.Schulz, J. W. (2001). Tapping the best that is within: Why corporate culture matters. Management Quarterly, 42, 29–35.Schwepker, C., & Hartline, M. (2005). Managing the ethical climate of customer service employees. Journal of Service Research, 7, 377–397.Sethia, N. and Von Glinow, M. (1985), "Arriving at future cultures and managing the reward system", in Saxton, M., Serpa, R. and Associates (Eds), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, CA.Sikorska-Simmons, E. (2006). Organizational culture and work related attitudes among staff in assisted living. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 32(2), 19-27.Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 592–599.Sims, L. & Galen K. (1994). The Influence of Ethical Fit on Employee Satisfaction, Commitment and Turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 939-47.Snipes-Bennett, V. (2006). A study of the effectiveness of a diverse workforce within nonprofit organizations serving older adults: An analysis of the impact of leadership styles and organizational culture. Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304908100?accountid=35812Spataro, S. (2005). Diversity in context: How organizational culture shapes reactions to workers with disabilities and others who are demographically different. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 21–38. 169
  • 181. Sproull, N. L. (2003). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and students in social sciences (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Spurgeon, P (1999). Organizational development: from a reactive to a proactive process. In Mark, A. L. & Dopson, S. (Eds.) (1999) Organizational behaviour in healthcare. Basingstoke:Macmillan Business.Stebbins, L. H. (2008). An investigation of individual job satisfaction as an outcome of individual perception of organizational culture. TUI University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304380392?accountid=27965Strandholm, K., & Kumar, K. (2003). Differences in environmental scanning activities between large and small organizations: The advantage of size. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3, 416–421.Szumal, J. (2003). Organizational Culture Inventory: Interpretation and development guide. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.Tang, T., Kim, J., & Tang, D. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53, 213–245.Tefry, M. (2006). A double-edged sword: Organizational culture in multicultural organizations. International Journal of Management, 23, 563–575.Tello R, & Crewson, P.E. (2003). Hypothesis testing II: means. Radiology, 227, 1–4.Testa, M., Mueller, S., & Thomas, A. (2003). Cultural fit and job satisfaction in a global service environment. Management International Review, 43, 129–148.Theuvsen, L. (2004). Doing better while doing good: Motivational aspects of pay-for performance effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 117-136.Trimble, D. (2006). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention of missionaries. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 349–360.Udechukwu, I. (2007). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction on organizational exit (voluntary turnover): Evidence from a correctional setting. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12, 127–141.Urrabazo, C. (2005). Management’s role in shaping organizational culture. Journal of Nursing Management, 14I(3), 188-194.Vila, L., & Mora, B. (2005). Education and the determinants of job satisfaction. Education Economics, 13, 409–425. 170
  • 182. Wakabayashi, P. (2005). Culture: The character of an organization. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(1), 130.Waris, R. (2005). An examination of organizational culture, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behaviors: A path analysis approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(7), 3988.Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Organizational justice and job satisfaction: A test of three competing models. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 391-409.Weinbach, R. W., & Grinnell, R. M. (2004). Statistics for social workers (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Welbourne, T., Andrews, S., & Andrews, A. (2005). Back to basics: Learning about employee energy and motivation from running on my treadmill. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 55–66.Whitfield, G., & Landeros, R. (2006). Supplier diversity effectiveness: Does organizational culture really matter? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(4), 16–28.Wilderom, C., Glunk, U., & Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture as a predictor of organizational performance. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 193–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Williamson, J. N. (2005). The relationship between teachers’ level of social interest and teacher efficacy and their degree of job satisfaction: An exploratory study Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(7), 2495.Wilson, A. M. (2001). Understanding organizational culture and the implication for corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 353–367.Wright, B. (2001). Public sector work motivation: A review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 559–586.Wright, T. (2006). The emergence of job satisfaction in organizational behavior: A historical overview of the dawn of job attitude research. Journal of Management History, 12, 262–277.Yahyagil, M. (2006). The fit between the concepts of organizational culture and climate. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 10(2), 77–104.Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481. 171
  • 183. Yetim, N., & Yetim, U. (2006). The cultural orientations of entrepreneurs’ and employees’ job satisfaction: The Turkish small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s) case. Social Indicators Research, 77, 257–286.Zibarras, L. D., & Woods, S. A. (2010). A survey of UK selection practices across different organization sizes and industry sectors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 499-511. 172
  • 184. APPENDIX A. JOB IN GENERAL SCALE 173
  • 185. APPENDIX B. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE INVENTORYThe Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) is trademarked and copyrighted by Human Synergistics www.humansynergistics.com 174