1. Bachelor
Thesis
The
Influence
of
Organizational
Culture
on
Job
Stress
June
21,
2010
Supervisor:
Dr.
Josje
Dikkers
Author:
Thomas
Trip
E-­mail:
t.f.trip@student.vu.nl
Faculty
of
Economics
and
Business
Administration
Vrije
Universiteit,
Amsterdam
International
Business
Administration
bachelor
Abstract
This thesis has sought to investigate the influence of organizational culture on job stress, and the
way in which personality influences this relationship. In order to answer this question, three
models of organizational culture have been presented: The Competing Values Framework of Quin
and Rohrbaugh (1983), Trompenaars and Woolliams’ (2003) Four Culture Types and six
dimensions of organizational culture by Hofstede (2001). Furthermore, models of job stress have
been discussed: The Job Demands-Resources Model of Demerouti and Bakker (2006), the DISC
model (de Jonge et al., 2008) and War’s vitamin model (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). This part
has shown when there is a mismatch between job demands, job resources and capabilities of the
employee; it is likely for job stress to be experienced. Additionally, the Big Five Personality
Traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991) have been presented in order to distinguish between personalities.
By combining the organizational culture models, a new model has been developed: The Four
Culture Typology. This model consists of four organizational cultures: target culture, functional
culture, innovation culture and pack culture. It can be concluded the different organizational
cultures have different job demands and different job resources for their employees. Job stress is
most likely to be experienced in the target culture, followed by the functional culture and, later,
the pack culture and the innovation culture. However, personality-culture fit results in less
negative experience of the culture’s job demands, while job resources are utilized in the best
manner. As a result, this fit results in a decreased likelihood of job stress to be experienced.
Key words: Organizational Culture, Job Stress, Personality, Competing Values Framework, Four
Culture Types, Job Demands-Resources Model, DISC model, Big Five Personality Traits, Four
Culture Typology

2.
ii
Table of Contents
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research Question .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Sub Questions ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Thesis Structure...................................................................................................... 3
II.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE .......................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Identifying and Defining Organizational Culture .................................................. 4
2.2 Classifying Organizational Culture ........................................................................ 5
2.2.1 The Competing Values Framework.........................................................................6
2.2.2 Four Culture Types..................................................................................................7
2.2.3 Six Dimensions to Characterize Organizational Culture .........................................9
2.3
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 10
III.
JOB STRESS................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Defining Job Stress ............................................................................................... 11
3.3 The Causes of Job Stress....................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Organizational Stress-related Hazards...................................................................12
3.3.2 Towards Modeling job Stress ................................................................................13
3.3.3 The Job-demands Resources Model ......................................................................14
3.3.4 The Demand-induced Strain Compensation Model...............................................16
3.3.5 The Vitamin Model................................................................................................17
3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 18
IV.
PERSONALITY ............................................................................................. 19
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Defining Personality.............................................................................................. 19
4.3 The Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................................ 20
4.4 Person-job Fit ....................................................................................................... 21
4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 23
V.
ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 24
5.1 The Macro Level................................................................................................... 24
5.1.1 Organizational Culture Models: Similarities (and Differences).............................24
5.1.2 Towards a New Model of Organizational Culture.................................................27
5.2 The Meso Level..................................................................................................... 31
5.2.1 Job Stress: The Demands and Resources of the Organizational Cultures..............31
5.2.2 Target Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources..................................................32
5.2.3 Functional Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ...........................................33
5.2.4 Innovation Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources...........................................34
5.2.5 Pack Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ....................................................35
5.2.6 Job Stress and Organizational Culture...................................................................35
5.3
The Micro Level................................................................................................. 36
5.3.1 The Connection of the Big Five with Organizational Culture ...............................36
5.3.2 Personality and Job Stress......................................................................................39
VI.
CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 41
6.1 Limitations and Future Research ..............................................................................44
6.2 Theoretical Implications ...........................................................................................45
6.3 Practical Implications ...............................................................................................45
VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 47

3. I. INTRODUCTION
In today’s highly competitive and globalized world that is characterized by organizational
downsizing and restructuring, job stress has become a topic of growing concern. The term
stress is used regularly to describe a wide variety of “aches and pains”, which are the result of
a hectic pace of life (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997). In the United States, one third of all
employees are reporting high levels of job stress (Sauter, 2007), while 75% of all employees
state there is more on-the-job stress than a generation ago (AIS, 2004). As a result, employees
that perceive job stress experience a wide variety of health problems, which results in
increased health expenditures, absenteeism and lower performance (Bakker & Demerouti,
2006). Even in organizations that focus heavily on employee performance, the productivity-
killing effect of stress has been recognized. General Electric, for example, now invites
comedians into the company to lighten up the working environment and does not use the
companies’ famous term for low performers, “bottom 10s”, anymore (BusinessWeek, 2007).
Although job stress is increasingly being recognized within organizations, the question
remains what job stress exactly is and what the causes of this phenomenon are.
According to Daft (2009), the key elements of an organization are that it is made up of people
and the relationships between those people. As a result, an organization exists when these
people interact in order to perform functions that help in the attainment of goals. These
interactions, functions and goals can vary widely among organizations. For example, there is
an office building in Mountain View, California, where dogs, lava lamps, large inflatable
balls, massage chairs, slides and swimming pools coexist. Here, multinational cloud
computing and search engine company Google has based its headquarters, the Googleplex
(Google, 2010). This campus, accompanied with Google’s unofficial motto, “Don’t Be Evil”,
tries to stimulate it’s employees’ commitment to innovation and creativity, while sharing the
belief that customers should not be exploited in order to make profit (Lenssen, 2007).
On the other hand, when most people hear “Enron”, they will think about corruption on a
large scale – “a company where a handful of highly paid executives were able to pocket
millions of dollars while carelessly eroding the life-savings of thousands of unwitting
employees (Sims & Brinkman, 2003, p. 243)”. In 2001, Enron’s scandal became famous, as it
was revealed that financial statements were purposely altered by means of accounting fraud.
According to Sims and Brinkman (2003), Enron’s former CEO, Jeff Skilling, created a
culture that would push the limits with as motto: “Do it right, do it now and do it better”. In a
Harvard case study, employees state, “You were expected to perform to a standard that was
continually being raised” and “the only thing that mattered was adding value” (Sims &
Brinkman, 2003, p. 244).
These examples show how organizational culture can differ among companies. But how does
the culture of an organization influence the stress that its employees encounter? During the

4.
2
past decades, researchers have developed several frameworks to clarify organizational
culture. In that same time period, the causes, effects and prevention of job stress have been
studied extensively as well. This literature study aims to investigate the influence of
organizational culture on job stress. However, as job stress is a concept that deals with
individuals, the characteristics of the individual might moderate the influence of
organizational culture on job stress. Therefore, literature concerning personality will be
discussed as well in order to find out how this moderator influences the aforementioned
relationship. As a result, the following research question has been formulated.
1.1 Research Question
• What is the influence of organizational culture on job stress and how does personality
influence this relationship?
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
In order to answer the research question, the following sub questions have been developed,
which will be discussed in the subsequent chapters.
1.2 Sub Questions
• What is organizational culture?
• Which types of organizational cultures can be distinguished?
• What is job stress?
• What are the causes of job stress?
• How can personality be defined?

5. 3
1.3 Thesis Structure
This bachelor thesis will have the following structure. Chapter one has introduced both
organizational culture and job stress, accompanied with the aim of this thesis. Chapter two
will discuss organizational culture. This chapter tries to identify and define organizational
culture and will present typologies classifying organizational culture. Chapter three will
present literature regarding job stress. Job stress will be defined and stress-related hazards
will be presented. This will lead to models of job stress, which include the job demand-
resources model, the demand-induced strain compensation model and the vitamin model.
Additionally, chapter four will elaborate on personality in order to find out how personality
influences the relation between organizational culture and job stress. This will include
working towards a useful definition of personality, the Big Five Personality Traits and the
person-job fit model. All concepts will be analyzed and integrated in chapter five. This will
eventually lead to a new, combined model of organizational culture (the macro level): The
Four Culture Typology. On the meso level, job demands and job resources will be connected
to the four organizational cultures in order to show in which cases it is likely for job stress to
emerge. Furthermore, the Big Five Personality Traits will be connected to the organizational
cultures in order to find out what the influence of personality is on the emergence of job
stress. The conclusion chapter will summarize this thesis’ findings, provide limitations and
suggestions for future research, and will end with both theoretical and practical implications.
The structure of this thesis has been depicted in figure 2, which can be found below.
Figure 2: Thesis Structure

6.
4
II. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
2.1 Introduction
Culture is a concept that is being used in a wide variety of occasions. The general perception
is that it refers to rituals and customs that societies have developed over time (Schein, 2004).
Since the last decades, culture is being used to describe the practices and climate in an
organization that has been developed around the handling of employees. The individual
continuously learns about culture by experiences in the family, groups, school, communities
and occupation. As a result, culture evolves as new groups are joined, which results in new
cultures for the individual. Schein argues a social unit, which also includes an organization,
with some shared history will result in the evolvement of a culture. However, the strength of
that culture depends on how long it has existed, how stable its membership is and how
emotionally intense the shared historical experiences have been. Often, members of
organizations agree that organizational culture exists and that it is influencing the way they
work, but definitions of members show to be different (Schein, 2004). This chapter will
discuss what organizational culture is, discusses its levels of analysis and presents three
typologies that have tried to identify types of organizational culture.
2.2 Identifying and Defining Organizational Culture
Based on the line of reasoning that has been portrayed above, Schein (2004) defines
organizational culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group
as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 2004, p. 17)”. As a result,
elements of the culture will be transferred to new generations of members of the organization.
Hofstede (2001) describes this as the collective programming of the mind. It is what
distinguishes one member of an organization from another. Studying what is being taught to
new members of an organization results in learning what the surface aspects of the
organizational culture are, but does not reveal what lies beyond this surface. Therefore,
Schein (2004) shows that culture can be analyzed at several degrees to which a certain
cultural phenomenon can be visualized by the observer. Three levels of culture exist, which
are being called artifacts, espoused beliefs and values and basic underlying assumptions.
The artifact level includes all phenomena that can be seen, heard and felt when an unfamiliar
organizational culture is encountered. Such visible products are, for example, language,
clothing, manners of address and observable rituals and ceremonies. The point with this level
of culture, according to Schein (2004), is that artifacts are easy to observe, but difficult to
interpret and understand. What is seen and felt can be described, but it is not possible to
reconstruct what a specific artifact means for the organization by analyzing artifacts alone. As

7. 5
a result, Schein suggests analyzing the espoused beliefs and values, which provides the
operating principles the members of the organization use to lead their behavior.
When an organization is facing a problem, the solutions being proposed by an individual to
deal with this problem ultimately reflect assumptions of that individual about what will work
and what will not work. In other words, it reflects the individual’s original beliefs and values.
If the members of the organization agree to act upon this solution, the solution works and the
members share the success of the solution, a gradual transformation can take place; the
solution turns into a shared value or belief. Shared values and beliefs at the conscious level
can be seen in the organization’s mission statement and goals, which are supported by
strategies, rules and codes of conduct. As a result, part of the behavior at the artifacts level
can be predicted by the beliefs and values at the conscious level. However, areas of behavior
are still unexplained. In order to deepen this understanding, the level of basic underlying
assumptions should be examined.
The difference between basic assumptions and shared beliefs and values is that the latter still
leaves room for alternatives. There is a preferred solution, but the culture still displays the
alternatives that could be chosen from time to time. Basic assumptions, on the other hand, do
not allow any variation at all. When there is a strongly held basic assumption among members
of the organization, other behavior is perceived as inconceivable. Schein states, basic
assumptions “tell group members how to perceive, think about, and feel about things (Schein,
2004, p.31)”. The result of the existence of basic assumptions in organizations is that
members act upon and comply to them in order to make the world around them more stable
and predictable. Changing basic assumptions in an organization would result in
destabilization and anxiety. This forms the basis of culture as being perceived in numerous
occasions. Organizational culture can be seen as a set of basic assumptions telling what
deserves attention, what something means, how the emotional reaction should be and what
actions should be taken in different situations. Schein argues, once an organization has a set
of basic assumptions that are being shared among its members, maximal comfort will exist
among people sharing the same assumptions. But members of different organizations may
perceive large discomfort, as different assumptions can cause misinterpretation and
misperception of the actions of the other. As a result, understanding the basic assumptions of
a culture will result in better understanding of the articulated values and the artifacts of a
culture and improved ability to deal with these levels (Schein, 2004).
2.2 Classifying Organizational Culture
During the last decades, many researchers have tried to make a distinction between different
types of organizational culture. This has resulted in the development of typologies, of which
many have been criticized by other researchers. Deal and Kennedy (1982), for example, made

8.
6
four classifications of organizational culture by focusing on feedback and risk. However, due
to a lack of insight into the methodology, this approach was criticized by Gorden (1984) in
the Academy of Management Review.
2.2.1 The Competing Values Framework
A widely accepted typology showing the differences in organizational culture is the famous
competing values framework by Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983). Their research showed that
organizational researchers share a theoretical framework that can be identified in three value
dimensions: organizational focus, organizational structure and organizational means and
ends (Quin & Rohrbaugh, 1983). These dimensions can be subdivided in three axes. The
organizational focus axis ranges from an internal emphasis on the well-being and
development of the employees to an external emphasis on the well-being and development of
the organization itself. The organizational structure axis ranges from emphasis on structure to
emphasis on flexibility. The axis, organizational means and ends, has a range from emphasis
on important processes to an emphasis on final outcomes. The matrix, resulting from the
integration of the abovementioned axes, has been displayed below.
Figure 3: Competing Values Framework (adapted from Burton and Obel, 2004)
Burton and Obel (2004) show that the competing values framework identifies four different
organizational cultures: group culture, developmental culture, internal process culture and
rational goal culture.
The group culture can be described as a culture in which its members share much of
themselves, which is perceived as a friendly place to work. Burton and Obel characterize this
by arguing that a group culture has both a low level of conflict and a high level of trust.
Organizations with a group culture emphasize on employee cohesion and attach high
importance to morale. This organizational culture has less emphasis on receiving individual
rewards. Teamwork, consensus and participation are important for this culture’s main focus;

9. 7
concern for people and sensitivity to the customer. However, this type of organizational
culture is characterized by high resistance to change.
The developmental culture is being characterized as a creative, entrepreneurial and dynamic
place to work in. Also here, there is a low level of conflict and trust is high. Additionally,
there is a high morale among employees. The employees in this organizational culture are
considered to be risk-takers and innovators. Therefore, resistance to change is low, as the
culture focuses on innovation, growth and the acquisition of new resources.
The internal process culture can be described as a structured and formalized place to work.
What the employees are required to do is based on the organizational procedures. These
organizations focus on predictability, stability and efficiency. Leaders in this culture are seen
as organizers and coordinators. This organizational culture can be characterized by high
resistance to change, a low level of trust and a low level of employee morale.
The rational goal culture can be found in organizations that are result-oriented. Leaders in this
culture are seen as tough, demanding competitors that focus on winning. In this culture, there
is a focus on competitive actions and achieving measurable goals and targets. Therefore, for
employees, the competitive character of the rational goal culture results in low loyalty to the
organization. As a result, trust is low and the conflict level is high. However, resistance to
change is low as well (Burton & Obel, 2004).
2.2.2 Four Culture Types
Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) have based their typology of organizational culture on
organizational relationships. Three aspects have been distinguished, which are determined by
the culture in which they appear: the general relationships among employees, the hierarchical
relationships with superiors or subordinates and the views and goals of the employees.
Organizational culture is derived from two dimensions, which are related to the three aspects
of organizational relationships. The first dimension, task or person, deals with whether there
is high or low formalization in the organization. The hierarchical or egalitarian dimension
determines whether there is high or low centralization. By combining the abovementioned
dimensions, Trompenaars and Woolliams were able to identity four types of culture: the
incubator culture, the guided missile culture, the family culture and the Eiffel tower culture.

10.
8
Figure 4: four culture types (Trompenaars & Woolliams, 2003)
The incubator culture is a person-oriented culture characterized by low levels of formalization
and centralization. The individual obtains a powerful role, as the organization exists to fulfill
the needs of its members. As a result, the organization is seen as an instrument through which
the individuals can achieve their goals. The organization’s structure is flexible and control
only takes place in the form of persuasion or mutual concern for the other members’ needs.
The guided missile is a task-oriented culture characterized by a low level of centralization and
a high level of formalization. The relationships within the organization are results-oriented
and, therefore, are limited to the functional aspects of the members involved. Effectiveness
and achievement are seen as more important than the individual and authority. The guided
missile culture deals with high levels of change, which results in the culture being highly
adaptive, but difficult to manage. Management by objectives and pay for performance are
concepts that are likely to be used in this culture.
The family culture is a power-oriented culture characterized by a high level of centralization
and a low level of formalization. The members in this type of culture interact around the
centralized, absolute power of the leader who directs the organization. Despite the high level
of centralization, the amount of rules is low, which results in little bureaucracy. As the source
of power is the organization’s leader, its members try to be as close as possible to the center
of the organization. This focus, accompanied with trust and affinity, results in hierarchical
differentiation of power and status.
The Eiffel tower culture, as its name already suggests, is characterized by high levels of both
formalization and centralization. In this culture, there is a focus on control and respect for
authority. Members are constantly subordinated to rules and procedures in order to achieve
order and predictability in these organizations. As a result of this bureaucracy, the Eiffel
tower culture is inflexible, which leads to slow adoption to change (Trompenaars and
Wooliams, 2003).

11. 9
2.2.3 Six Dimensions to Characterize Organizational Culture
Hofstede’s dimensions for describing national culture are well known, as concepts such as
power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation
have been published in several textbooks. However, Hofstede (2001) has also developed six
dimensions to specifically identify organizational culture.
The first dimension, process oriented versus results oriented, deals with organizational goals.
In process-oriented organizational cultures, people spend a limited effort in their job, avoid
risks and perceive each working day as the same. On the other hand, the results-oriented
culture consists of employees spending maximum effort in their jobs, while being
comfortable in unfamiliar situations. Additionally, employees in this organizational culture
see each day as bringing new challenges.
The second dimension, employee oriented versus job oriented, discusses the concern for
people and the concern for getting the job done. In an employee-oriented culture, personal
problems of the members are taken into account, important decisions are being made by
groups or committees and the organization focuses on employee welfare. The job-oriented
culture is characterized by a perception that the organization is only interested in the work of
the employees, and not in their personal welfare. Additionally, important decisions are being
made by individuals.
Parochial versus professional, the third dimension, discusses whether employees derive their
identity from the organization or identify themselves with their type of job. In parochial
cultures, the organization’s norms cover the employee’s behavior both at home and on the
job. Additionally, social and family backgrounds are taken into account and the employees do
not look far ahead, as they assume that that is something for the organization to do. In a
professional culture, members see their private lives as something the organization should not
interfere with. Members are hired based on job competence only and do look far ahead.
The fourth dimension deals with the communication climate within an organization. Here,
Hofstede (2001) distinguishes between open versus close systems. In open systems, members
consider themselves and the organization open to newcomers and believe that almost anyone
will fit in the organization. The contrary, the closed system, consists of members that feel
closed and secretive. As a result, there is a belief that only special people can fit into the
organization, which leads to new employees needing at least a year to feel at home.
The internal structure in an organization is discussed in the fifth dimension, which is called
loose versus tight. Loose structures focus less on cost, have less meetings and more jokes are
made about the company and the jobs of the members. In tight structures, the work
environment is more cost-conscious, there are more meetings and jokes about the company or
job rarely occur.
Hofstede’s last dimension, normative versus pragmatic, deals with the amount of structure in

12.
10
the organization’s external contacts. This dimension can be related to customer orientation, as
pragmatic organizations can be seen as market driven. In pragmatic organizations there is a
large emphasis on customer needs and results, while normative organizations see correctly
following organizational procedures as most important activity. Normative organizations
attach high value to concepts such as business ethics and honesty (Hofstede, 2001).
2.3 Conclusion
Organizational culture is a phenomenon of which members of an organization agree that it
exist, but have difficulties in defining what it is. This chapter has shown organizational
culture emerges from a set of shared basic assumptions to solve problems that have proved to
be working and, therefore, are being taught to newcomers as the right way to perceive, think
and feel towards these problems. As Hofstede (2001) states, it is the collective programming
of the mind. However, in order to understand organizational culture it is not sufficient to
analyze what is directly observable. Schein has shown organizational culture consists of
artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. In order to know the
meaning and value of the artifacts and espoused beliefs and values, one needs to understand
the basic underlying assumptions in the organization.
In order to clarify what types of organizational cultures exist, typologies by Quin and
Rohrbaugh, Trompenaars and Woolliams, and Hofstede have been presented. From the
typologies, it can be concluded that the dimensions on which the different types of
organizational culture are based are largely similar. The model adapted from Burton and Obel
(2004) in which the competing values framework of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) is discussed,
bases its dimensions on organizational focus, organizational structure and organizational
means and ends. Trompenaars and Woolliams’s (2003) task or person dimension focuses on
the degree of formalization, where the hierarchical or egalitarian dimension focuses on the
amount of centralization. As a result, it can be seen that the amount of centralization in
Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) is related to the organizational structure in Quin and
Rohrbaugh (1983). Additionally, the degree of formalization can be related to organizational
means. Hofstede’s six dimensions, on the other hand, shows similarities with both the
competing values framework and the four culture types. The process versus results oriented
dimension is related to Quin and Rohrbaugh’s organizational means and ends, as they both
discuss the importance of organizational goals. Additionally, the loose versus tight dimension
of Hofstede is related to Trompenaars and Woolliams’s hierarchical or egalitarian dimension,
as they both discuss the amount of centralization within an organization.
Although these examples show overlap exists between the discussed typologies, a complete
overview of key elements that are being covered by all models needs to be presented in order
to clarify which types of organizational culture can be distinguished. Additionally, even the

13. 11
types within the dimensions of all typologies show many similarities, which can lead to four
organizational cultures that cover all the previously mentioned typologies. This will be done
in the analysis part of this thesis, which can be found in chapter five.
III. JOB STRESS
3.1 Introduction
Just like organizational culture, job stress is a concept that is being used widely in daily life.
“I’m feeling stressed”, is often said to express one’s vague but existing feeling of disquiet.
Alternatively, stress is used to explain behavior of individuals that express irritation or show
forgetfulness: “He’s under a lot of stress”. According to Fontana (1989), signs of job stress
include aches, pains, sleeplessness and anxiety. Additionally, stressed employees in a certain
organization may feel miserable, lack energy and show self-absorbedness (Fontana, 1989).
Still, it is likely that there are other employees it that same organization with the same
workload that are able to stay in control of it. These employees are able to handle frustrations
in their job without getting irritated and depressed, while renewing their energy and resources
(Fontana, 1989). This chapter will discuss what stress is and which organizational and job
related characteristics can lead to job stress.
3.2 Defining Job Stress
What can be stressful for one person can have little effect on others (AIS, 2004). The concept
of stress has been depicted in the Human Function Curve that has been developed by Nixon
(1974).
Figure 5: The Human Function Curve (Nixon, 1974)

14.
12
Nixon (1974) showed that acceptable levels of stress even result in higher productivity up to
the point where this so-called good stress turns into distress, the type of stress described at the
beginning of this introduction. This point, the hump, differs for each person.
According to Fontana, stress in general can be described as “a demand made upon the
adaptive capabilities of the mind and body (Fontana, 1989, p. 3)”. This definition stipulates
that stress can be perceived as good or bad and shows that stress is a demand on the
individual’s capacities. Schuler shows that job stress can be defined as “a misfit between a
person's skills and abilities and demands of the job and a misfit in terms of a person's needs
supplied by the job environment” (Schuler, 1980, p. 187). More, recently Sauter (2007)
described job stress in a simplified manner as the mismatch between job demands and the
resources and capabilities of the employee. All these attempts to clarify what job stress
actually is have in common that there is a mismatch between what the organization demands
from the employee and what the capabilities and resources of the employees are.
The difference between stress in general and job stress is not the type of stress. Stress itself,
whether it occurs because of work-related or non work-related situations, does not differ, but
the difference between stress in general and job stress lies in its origins: the stressors (Smith,
2001). The stressors that can lead to job stress will be discussed in the next part of this
chapter.
3.3 The Causes of Job Stress
3.3.1 Organizational Stress-related Hazards
According to Leka, Griffiths and Cox (2004), how organizations are managed and the way
work is designed can be considered as the major causes of job stress. Based on a literature
study, eight categories of stress related hazards have been identified. These categories can be
classified into two dimensions: job content and job context. However, as the researchers
already state themselves, these hazards are not universally causing job stress; it is likely that
they can cause job stress. Therefore, they will only be described briefly in order to provide an
idea of organizational elements that can contribute to job stress.
The work content dimension consists of four categories: job content, workload and work
pace, working hours, and participation and control. The job content category deals with the
task of the employee itself. Here, the main hazards are meaningless, unpleasant and aversive
tasks that lack variety. Workload and work pace includes hazards such as time pressures and
having too much to do. However, having too little to do can cause job stress as well. The
working hours category deals with hazards such as inflexible schedules, long hours that
refrain from social activity and unpredictable working hours. In the participation and control
category, the lack of both control and participation and decision-making are seen as the main
hazards for job stress.

15. 13
The work context dimension is build upon career development, the role in the organization,
interpersonal relationships and leadership. Insecurity about one’s job, being over-skilled or
under-skilled and unclear performance evaluation systems are examples of hazards in the
career development category. The role of the employee in the organization can contain
hazards when this role is unclear and when conflicting roles in the same job occur.
Additionally, responsibility for people can also become a stress-related hazard. In the
interpersonal relationships category, isolated work and unsupportive supervision are
described as the main hazards. The leadership category includes poor communication and
leadership as potential causes of job stress.
3.3.2 Towards Modeling job Stress
Although the overview by Leka et al. (2004) provides examples of organizational demands
and characteristics that can cause job stress, it remains unclear in which situation job stress
occurs. In other words, these are examples of stressors: events that might trigger stress. As a
result, Leka et al. (2004) show what causes stress, but do not argue how stress is caused. For
job stress to occur, there needs to be a misfit between organizational demands and the
resources and capabilities of the employee. Therefore, more extensive and process-based
models will be discussed, which focus on positive and negative indicators of the well being of
employees. In paragraph 3.3.3, the job demands-resources model will be presented. A related
model, the demand-induced strain compensation model will be discussed in 3.3.4. Both
models show the influence of job demands and job resources on both job stress and one
another. The subsequent paragraph will deal with the vitamin model, which uses regular
vitamin intake as a basis for explaining the effect of certain job characteristics on the well
being of the employee. All three models have used the demand-control model and the effort-
reward imbalance model as foundation or point of departure. Briefly stated, the demand
control model argues job strain is caused by high job demands and low job control, while the
basic assumption in the effort-reward imbalance is that a lack of reciprocity between effort
and reward leads to stress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006).

16.
14
3.3.3 The Job-demands Resources Model
Figure 6: The Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006)
The job demands-resources model, which has been developed by Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner and Schaufeli in 2001, is build around the assumption that each job can have
specific risk factors (such as the hazards portrayed in Leka et al. (2004)) that are associated
with job stress. Despite the specific nature of these risk factors, Bakker and Demerouti (2006)
argue they can be classified into two general categories: job demands and job resources (See
Figure 6). Job demands are defined as “those physical, psychological, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological
(cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain
physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006, p. 312).” Although
physiological and psychological costs are mentioned in this definition, job demands do not
necessarily have to be negative. Following Nixon’s (1974) human function curve, Bakker and
Demerouti (2006) state job demands are negative when they require high effort while the
employee has not recovered from (previous) demands. In this case job demands turn into job
stressors, such as high work pressure, demanding client interactions or an unfavorable
physical environment.
Job resources are aspects of the job that help in achieving work goals, reduce the job demands
and their related costs and stimulate learning, development and personal growth. These
resources can be physical, social, psychological or organizational aspects of the job. The
description shows that besides helping to deal with job demands, job resources are also
important on their own, as they motivate employees on both the task-level and the general
level. Bakker and Demerouti show job resources are evident at “the level of the organization
at large (e.g. pay, career opportunities, job security), the interpersonal and social relations

17. 15
(e.g. supervisor and co-worker support, team climate), the organization of work (e.g. role
clarity, participation in decision making), and at the level of the task (e.g. skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, performance feedback)” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006, p.
312).
In the job-demands resources model, two underlying psychological processes influence the
development of job strain and motivation: the health impairment process and the motivational
process. The health impairment process states that poorly designed jobs and chronic job
demands exhaust the physical and mental resources of the employee, which leads to both a
depletion of energy and health problems. In the motivational process, job resources lead to
better performance and higher work engagement. Job resources play two roles in this process:
an intrinsic motivational role and an extrinsic motivational role. The intrinsic role fulfills
basic human needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness. This results in employees’
learning, development and growth. The extrinsic role is key in achieving work goals, as work
environments that provide many resources support the willingness of the employees to
dedicate their effort and abilities in successfully completing the work task. Therefore, by
satisfying basic needs and achieving work goals, job resources result in employee
engagement. However, if job resources are not present, it is likely that a cynical attitude
towards work will emerge.
From the job demands-resources model, it becomes clear that it is mainly the interaction
between job demands and job resources that leads to the development of job strain and
motivation. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2006), job resources buffer the impact of
the job demands on job strain. Thus, the buffering resources can reduce generation of specific
stressors by organizational properties. Additionally, job resources can alter the perceptions
that are evoked by these stressors and even reduce the health-damaging consequences of job
stress. Some examples of resources proposed by Bakker and Demerouti include social
support, the predictability of a stressor (resources: performance feedback and role quality),
information provided by supervisors that makes the employee understand the reasons for the
presence of stressor and the extent to which the stressor is controllable by the employee
(resource: job autonomy).
Social support can help in the achievement of work goals, as colleagues can help in getting
work done, which will reduce the impact of work overload on stress. Information,
appreciation and support by leaders help employees in coping with job demands and may
even act as a protector for ill health. Furthermore, greater job autonomy leads to more
opportunities for the employee to cope with stressful situations. Additionally, constructive
feedback results in both higher work effectiveness and improved communication between
employees and supervisors.

18.
16
3.3.4 The Demand-induced Strain Compensation Model
Corresponding with the job demands-resources model, the demand-induced strain
compensation (DISC) model aims to integrate the demand-control model and the effort-
reward imbalance model (de Jonge, Dormann and Van Den Tooren, 2008). This model shows
many similarities with the job demands-resources model and can be seen as an addition in the
explanation of job demands and job resources.
The DISC-model is based on four key principles: the multidimensionality of concepts, the
triple matching principle, the compensation principle and the balance principle.
Multidimensionality of concepts implies that that job demands, job resources and the strains
related to the job contain emotional, cognitive and physical domains. Just like in the job
demands-resources model, stressful stimuli within the job are categorized in job demands and
job resources. However, according to de Jonge and Dormann (2003), although job resources
compensate for job demands, individuals that are confronted with job stress aim to minimize
their net loss of resources. Additionally, in the case that employees are not confronted with
job stress, resource surpluses are developed to prevent future loss. Connecting job demands
with the principle of multidimensionality of concepts leads to three types: cognitive demands
that have an effect on the brain processes that are involved in information processing,
emotional demands referring to effort needed to deal with desired emotions at interpersonal
transactions and physical demands that are related to the so-called musculo-skeletal system.
The same holds for job resources. When colleagues provide information, a cognitive-
informational component is evident. Colleagues providing affection and sympathy show the
use of an emotional component. Ergonomic aids or instrumental help of colleagues can be
seen as a physical component of job resources.
The triple match principle argues the strongest and most interactive relationships between job
demands and job resources can be seen when demands, resource and strains are based on
identical dimensions. A straightforward example is that emotional support by colleagues
buffers between emotional demands and emotional exhaustion. Additionally, the triple match
principle states stressors should match strains as well. For example, angry or insolent
customers are more likely to cause emotional disorders than physical complaints.
The compensation principle proposes, just like the job demands-resources model, that job
demands can be counteracted through job resources. However, this model adds that job
resources within the same domain (cognitive, emotional or physical) are more likely to
counteract job demands.
Therefore, de Jonge et al. (2008) conclude that in the ideal situation, a balanced mixture exists
of job demands and corresponding job resources within the same domains, which is called the
balance principle. However, if matching within these domains does not occur, it is likely that

19. 17
job stress will emerge. The demand-induced strain compensation model has been depicted in
Figure 7.
Figure 7: The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation Model (de Jonge et al., 2008)
3.3.5 The Vitamin Model
Warr’s vitamin model compares the effect of vitamins on our physical health to the effect of
job characteristics on our mental health (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). Vitamins influence the
human body. As a lack of vitamins can result in physical illness, one generally tries to take in
vitamins in order to improve health and physical functioning. However, continuous intake of
vitamins does not lead to an endless improvement. Instead, it can lead to two different kinds
of effects: the constant effect and the additional decrement. When the constant effect occurs,
health neither improves nor declines. According to Warr, this occurs by vitamin C and E
intake (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). On the other hand, an overdose of vitamin use can lead
to a toxic concentration in the body, which results in ill health. When taken in large
quantities, vitamins A and D are known to be toxic. Therefore this relation is labeled as AD
(Additional Decrement).
This has been graphically displayed in Figure 8.
Figure 8: War’s Vitamin Model (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998)

20.
18
Warr’s argument is that the effect of job characteristics on mental health follows the same
pattern. A specific job characteristic initially has a beneficial effect on the mental health of
employees (section A), as their absence would decrease mental health. However, beyond a
certain level, a plateau has been reached (section B). Further increase in that specific job
characteristic can produce a constant effect or can impair mental health (section C). Warr’s
research shows that nine features of jobs can potentially determine job-related mental health.
The following six job characteristics have the same effects as vitamin A and D: task feedback,
skill variety, skill utilization, social support, job demands and job autonomy. For example, job
autonomy has shown to be beneficial for dealing with job stress, as can be seen from the job
demands-resources model. However, very high levels of job autonomy can be harmful for
employees, as it implies uncertainty and high responsibility.
Salary, job significance and safety follow the vitamin C and E pattern. Initially, it is likely
that safety positively influences the employee’s mental health. However, there is a point at
which employees already perceive the working environment as safe. As a result, any further
increase in safety measures does not further increase the employees’ mental health.
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that stress itself does not necessarily have to be negative. Acceptable
levels of stress result in higher productivity up to the point where the “good stress” turns into
distress. The hump often occurs at the point where the employee is not able to recover from
the high effort that is demanded by the job or when there is an “overdose” of specific job
resources. As a result, job stress emerges when there is a mismatch between organizational
demands and the capabilities and resources of employees. This chapter specifically dealt with
job demands and job resources. The capabilities of the employee will be partly covered in the
next chapter. Leka et al. (2004) have shown a broad overview of possible causes of job stress.
However, although their identification makes clear what kind of stress-related hazards exist,
this overview only provides examples that might trigger stress. In order to stay close to the
definition of job stress, three models have been presented: the job demands-resources (JDR)
model, the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC) model and the vitamin model.
Comparing these three models shows they all agree job resources can act as buffer for job
demands. Furthermore, the JDR and DISC model both show job demands are only negative
when high effort is required from which the employee has not been recovered yet. As a result,
chronic job demands and poorly designed jobs are likely to lead to health problems, whereas
job resources result in employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). The DISC-model
supplements the JDR model by arguing job demands should be counteracted by job resources
in the same domain (cognitive, emotional and physical) in order to prevent job stress. In other
words, when there is no match between the domains of job demands and job resources, it is

21. 19
likely for job stress to occur. However, War shows in the Vitamin model although job
resources and job demands should match, at certain high levels of job characteristics there is
either no increase of employee well-being or a decrease in mental health (de Jonge &
Schaufeli, 1998). Therefore, in the case of a decrease, the job resource is less able to act as a
buffer, which can result in job stress.
What needs to be taken into account is that the effects of the concepts that have been
discussed throughout this chapter differ for each employee. As a result, the next chapter will
present the moderating effect of personality
IV. PERSONALITY
4.1 Introduction
Recently, vice president of the United States Joe Biden has been interviewed by CNN
television host Larry King. When he was asked how he thought about the former republican
nominee for Vice President of the United States, Sarah Palin, he responded by saying: “She
has a great personality” (CNN, 2010). What does this mean? It is likely that most people will
have some general idea of what is meant by this sentence, but to define personality is more
difficult than it initially seems to be. Still, personalities of individuals are being described and
assessed continuously. What does and does not fall under the umbrella of personality? First, it
is necessary to arrive at a definition of personality.
4.2 Defining Personality
According to Corr and Matthews (2009), defining personality is affected by how one is
selecting variables by studying this phenomenon and how one will determine what has to be
tested when conducting a personality test. However, when you talk about the phenomenon of
personality and the concept of a personality test, then you already presuppose there is
something like personality on itself. Personality can be defined in two contrasting manners:
either as a set of attributes characterizing the individual or as the underlying system
generating these attributes. However, Funder was able to develop a division that took both
into account: “personality is an individual’s characteristic patterns of thought, emotion and
behavior, together with the psychological mechanisms – hidden or not – behind those
patterns” (Funder, 1997, p. 1). Although this definition does not show what these
characteristic patterns exactly are, it is in line with most other definitions of personality (Corr
& Matthews, 2009). In 1937, Allport reviewed fifty distinct meanings of personality.
According to Corr and Matthews (2009), Funder’s definition fits all of them as a result of its
relatively broad continuum. Allport defines personality as “the dynamic organization within
the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his
environment” (Corr & Matthews, 2009, p. 380). Here, the focus is on the underlying

22.
20
mechanisms that generate personality, but also in this case one cannot deny that personality is
made up of patterns of thoughts, feelings and behavior that make one unique. A fundamental
characteristic of personality is that in general it is perceived to be consistent, which means
that there is a recognizable regularity and order to behavior. Additionally, personality is both
a psychological and physiological concept. Next to being a psychological construct,
personality is influenced by biological processes as well (Corr & Matthews, 2009).
Besides the wide variety of definitions of personality, a considerable amount of theories
concerning the development of personality has been developed. The major perspectives on
personality include type theories, psychodynamic theories, behavioral theories, humanist
theories and trait theories.
Type theories provide so-called personality types, while stipulating biological influences. For
example, according to type A/type B theory, a type A personality can be loosely described as
a person that aggressively wants to achieve more and more in less time. Despite that this type
theory is well known, it has been under a lot of criticism by other researchers, which have
labeled it as ‘obsolete’ (Corr & Matthews, 2009).
Psychodynamic theories focus on the relation between the unconscious on personality.
Behavioral theories see personality as the result of interaction between the individual and the
environment, thereby excluding feelings and thoughts. The importance of free will and
individual experience is being discussed in humanist theories. However, this thesis will focus
on trait theory, which considers personality as the result of genetically based internal
characteristics (Corr & Matthews, 2009). Traits can be described as relatively stable patterns
of behaviors, affect and cognitions (Fleeson, 2001). The most widely used trait theory, which
categorizes almost all trait descriptions in five broad domains, are the Big Five Personality
Traits that will be presented in the next section of this chapter.
4.3 The Big Five Personality Traits
Since 1932, numerous researchers have tried to classify personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
However, it was Norman who labeled discovered factors in order to describe personality,
which are used frequently in literature since 1963. These labels are called “The Big Five” and
consist of “Extraversion, Emotional stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Openness to Experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.2).”
The Big Five Personality Traits present five independent dimensions determining personality,
which makes it applicable for studying differences between persons. Although researchers
disagree about the precise definition of the five factors, there is a general agreement in the
personality traits that define the factors (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Corr & Matthews, 2009).
The first factor, Extraversion, is associated with being “active, talkative, assertive, sociable
and gregarious (Barrick & Mount, 1991: p.4).” This dimension deals with the comfort level

23. 21
of the individual regarding relationships. On the contrary, introverted persons tend to be quiet,
timid and reserved (Robbins, 2000).
High negative levels of emotional Stability, the second factor, are linked to “being anxious,
depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried and insecure (Barrick & Mount, 1991,
p.4).” As a result, this dimension deals with the ability of a person to withstand stress
(Robbins, 2000). Individuals with positive emotional stability are likely to be self-confident,
calm and secure.
According to Barrick and Mount (1991), Agreeableness, the third factor, is related to the
friendliness and likability of a person. The traits that are being associated with highly
agreeable persons are “being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative,
forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.4).” The dimension discusses
the natural tendency of an individual to defer on others. Individuals scoring low on
agreeableness can be described as cold and antagonistic (Robbins, 2000).
Conscientiousness, the fourth factor, includes both elements of a person’s free will and the
dependability of a person. Additionally, it can be seen as a measure of reliability. The traits
related to this factor have been defined as “being careful, thorough, responsible, organized,
planful, hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.4).”
Individuals scoring low on this dimension are disorganized, easily distracted and unreliable
(Robbins, 2000).
Openness to experience, the fifth dimension, has been associated with traits as “being
imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive
(Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.5).” As a result, this dimension deals with the range of interest and
the fascination with novelty of an individual. Therefore, individuals scoring low on openness
to experience can be seen as conventional and are likely to find comfort in the familiar.
4.4 Person-job Fit
There has always been an interest of organizations in the personality of employees, as it
enabled matching individuals to specific jobs. According to Robbins (2000), job requirements
act as a moderator between personality characteristics and job performance. Matching job
requirements with personality characteristics has formed the basis for the person-job fit theory
that has been developed by Holland (1985). As a result, six personality types have been
developed, with as main proposition of the model that job satisfaction and the natural
tendency to leave a job are dependent on whether individuals successfully match their
personality to the occupational environment (Robbins, 2000). Each personality type is
accompanied by both personality characteristics and a congruent occupational environment.
Holland (1985) has identified the following personality types: realistic, investigative, social,
conventional, enterprising and artistic.

24.
22
Realistic persons tend to prefer physical activities that require strength, skill and coordination.
These persons are likely to be practical, genuine, persistent, conforming and shy. Examples of
congruent occupations are farmers, mechanics and assembly-line workers.
Investigative persons are thinkers that prefer organizing and understanding. Their personality
can be characterized by being original, analytical, independent and curious. According to
Holland (1985), being a news reporter, economist and mathematician are examples of
congruent occupations.
Social persons tend to prefer activities that involve developing and helping others. These
persons can be characterized by being cooperative, sociable, understanding and friendly.
Examples of the congruent occupations are teachers, social workers and counselors.
Conventional persons prefer orderly, rule-regulated unambiguous activities. Personality
characteristics that can be assigned to these persons are being efficient, conforming, inflexible
and unimaginative. As examples of congruent occupations, Holland suggests jobs as
accountant, bank teller and file clerk.
Enterprising persons focus on power and prefer activities in which there are opportunities to
verbally influence others. Characteristics that can be related to these persons are being
dominant, self-confident, ambitious and energetic. As examples of congruent occupations,
lawyer, real estate agent and small business manager are suggested.
Artistic persons prefer unsystematic and ambiguous activities in which they are allowed to
express their creativity. These persons can be characterized as being imaginative, impractical,
disorderly and emotional. Being a painter, writer or musician are examples of congruent
occupations.
By developing a so-called Vocational Preference Inventory questionnaire containing
occupational titles, Holland has been able to develop personality profiles that have led to the
diagram that has been presented in Figure 9. From this figure it shows the closer two fields or
orientations are, the more compatible they are with one another. For example, a realistic
person is best of in a realistic job, as this is the most congruent situation. As a result, this
person is more likely to be satisfied with his or her job. Taking the opposite, a realistic person
in a social job is in the most incongruent situation and, therefore, will be less satisfied with
his or her job (Robbins, 2000).

25. 23
Figure 9: Holland’s (1985) hexagonal diagram
Approximately fifteen years after Holland’s model has been published, attention has
expanded to matching individuals to organizations in addition to matching individuals to jobs.
Robbins (2000) argues when an organization is facing a dynamic and changing environment,
it is likely to require employees that can easily move between teams and can readily change
tasks. In this case, it is more important that the personalities fit with the organization as a
whole instead of the characteristics of specific jobs. This so-called person-organization fit
will be discussed in the analysis section.
4.5 Conclusion
Defining personality has shown to be more difficult than one would initially expect.
According to Corr and Matthews (2009), this is due to variables selected and the manner in
which it is decided what and how to test when conducting a personality test. Despite the wide
variety of definitions, it is agreed upon that personality is made up of patterns of thoughts,
feelings and behavior that make one unique. Additionally, personality is both a consistent
psychological and physiological concept.
A brief overview of different personality theories has been provided, which resulted in a more
detailed display of one specific trait theory: the Big Five Personality Traits. The five labels of
this personality trait theory help in describing the personality of the individual. Furthermore,
Holland’s person-job fit model has shown six personality types and their congruent
occupations. Additionally, by using the hexagonal diagram one can see which job will fit best
with one’s personality. An enterprising person will be best of in an enterprising job. Other
(less) congruent jobs will be conventional or social jobs, while the least congruent job is an
investigative job.

26.
24
When further examining both the Big Five and the person-job fit, it can be seen that some
labels and types overlap one another. This could imply that if one scores high on a specific
label it is likely to match a related personality type with its accompanied congruent
occupation. For example, the openness to experience label deals with the range of interests
and fascination of novelty of the individual. This can be related to the artistic personality, as
they are both focused on being imaginative, creative, emotional and artistically sensitive. The
social person type corresponds with both the extraversion and the agreeableness label, as they
all focus on being sociable, cooperative and understanding.
The person-job fit model at the micro level will be supplemented by connecting the Big Five
Personality Traits to organization culture. This macro level person-organization fit analysis
will be conducted in the analysis section.
V. ANALYSIS
In this part of the thesis, the aforementioned theories will be applied and combined in order to
create a new model that explains the relationship between organizational culture and job
stress, including the influence of personality. At the macro level, the organizational culture
models will be analyzed in order to develop a new model of organizational culture, which will
be supported with relevant examples. The meso level, analyzing job stress, will present both
the demands and resources of the new organizational cultures. Personality, the micro level,
will be analyzed by connecting the Big Five Personality Traits to organizational culture.
5.1 The Macro Level
5.1.1 Organizational Culture Models: Similarities (and Differences)
The concluding remarks at the end of the second chapter (§2.3) already indicated that the
dimensions on which the different models of organizational culture are based are largely
similar. The Competing Values Framework (Quin & Rohrbaugh, 1983) bases its dimensions
on organizational focus and organizational structure. Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003)
have labeled their dimensions task or person (degree of formalization) and hierarchical or
egalitarian (degree of centralization). Additionally, two dimensions of Hofstede’s (2001) Six
Dimensions Model can be added to the aforementioned models, namely: process oriented
versus results oriented, employee versus job oriented and loose versus tight. In order to clarify
all these dimensions, table 1 is presented below.

27. 25
Table 1: Matching dimensions of the three typologies of organizational culture
Axis Quin &
Rohrbaugh (1983)
Trompenaars &
Woolliams (2003)
Hofstede (2001)
X Organizational
Focus
Task or Person Employee vs. Job-
oriented
Y Organizational
Structure
Hierarchical or
Egalitarian
Loose vs. Tight
The organizational focus dimension of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) ranges from an internal
emphasis on the well-being and development of the employees to an external emphasis on the
well-being and development of the organization itself. This can be related to the task or
person dimension of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) and the employee-oriented versus
job-oriented dimension of Hofstede (2001), as those both distinguish between either focusing
on the employee or focusing on the job.
When investigating the so-called Y-axes of the models, it can be seen that the organizational
structure dimension of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) matches the hierarchical or egalitarian
dimension of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003), as they both refer to the amount of
centralization within the organization. Additionally, Hofstede’s loose versus tight dimension
can be added to this comparison as this dimension focuses on the extent to which the
organization is structured.
Besides the existence of overlapping between the dimensions, most cultures that have been
distinguished by the authors can be related to one another as well. This has been displayed in
figure 10.
Figure 10: Connecting the Cultures
The rational goal culture can be described as a result-oriented culture, which is characterized
by tough leaders who focus on winning. Competitive actions and the achievement of
measurable goals and targets are key elements of culture. According to Burton and Obel
(2004) this results in low loyalty, low trust, low resistance to change and a high level of

28.
26
conflict. On the other hand, the guided missile culture has been described as task and result-
oriented. As a result, there is a low level of centralization and a high level of formalization.
Effectiveness and achievement are more important than the employee and authority.
According to Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003), the guided missile culture is subject to
change, which is difficult to manage. However, the culture itself is adaptive (Trompenaars
and Woolliams, 2003). This would explain the high level of conflict and high resistance to
change in The Competing Values framework, but show that the culture itself is able to adapt
to the environment. However, one important difference between these to types of
organizational culture has to be noted. Although the main focus of both cultures is the
achievement of targets and goals, the rational goal culture is more centralized in comparison
to the guided missile culture.
The internal process culture of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) can be described as a structured
and formalized place to work. What the employees are required to do is based on
organizational procedures. High resistance to change, a low level of trust and a low level of
employee morale characterize this culture. Similarly, the Eiffel tower culture is characterized
by high levels of both formalization and centralization. This culture is focused on control and
respect for authority. Also here, employees are subordinated to rules and procedures in order
to achieve order and predictability. Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) also state the Eiffel
tower is an inflexible culture, which leads to slow adaptation to change. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the internal process culture is almost exactly similar to the Eiffel tower
culture.
Quin and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) developmental culture can be described as creative,
entrepreneurial and dynamic place to work in. This can be characterized by a low level of
conflict and a high level of trust. The employees working in this culture can be considered
risk-takers and innovators who do not mind changing environments, as the culture focuses on
innovation, growth and the acquisition of new resources. This mindset is replicated by
Trompenaars and Woolliams’ (2003) incubator culture, which is described as a flexible
culture that focuses on the achievement of the goals of its members. The culture is
characterized by a low level of both formalization and centralization. The person-oriented
character of this culture results in a powerful role of the individual. It can be seen that Quin
and Rohrbaugh (1983) describe this culture as a more risk-taking endeavor of individuals
compared to powerful person-oriented culture of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) that
focuses on the achievement of the goals of its individual members. However, in the end it
boils down to the same idea: an entrepreneurial climate with low formalization and
centralization where individuals can dynamically achieve their goals.
Although it can be seen that these first three pairs of cultures largely overlap, there is a
mismatch between Quin and Rorhbaugh’s (1983) group culture and Trompenaars and

29. 27
Woolliams’ (2003) family culture. The group culture can be described as a culture with a low
level of conflict and a high level of trust. This corresponds with the family culture, which
focuses on trust and affinity. However, the group culture is focused less on individual
rewards, while this is inevitable in the family culture. This inevitability stems from main
difference between these two cultures: the amount of centralization. The family culture is
based around the leader, who is the centralized, absolute power. As a result, there is a
hierarchical differentiation of power and status; something that cannot be found in the
equalitarian group culture. However, despite it is impossible to connect these two cultures,
they do share the most important characteristic with each other: cohesion. Both cultures are
highly cohesive groups consisting of members that feel connected to one another. The
difference between the two cultures is the division of power. By investigating and comparing
the different organizational cultures that have been mentioned above, a new model for
organizational culture has been developed: The Four Culture Typology.
5.1.2 Towards a New Model of Organizational Culture
As can be seen from Table 1, both axes of the models of Quin and Rorhbaugh (1983) and
Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) can be combined. Additionally, two of the six
dimensions of Hofstede (2001) can be added to this comparison. As a result, two new axes
have been developed. The X-axis is called employee-focused versus result-focused, and
distinguishes between an emphasis on the employee and an emphasis on results. The Y-axis is
labeled centralized versus decentralized and distinguishes, as its name already suggests,
between the amount of centralization of the organizational cultures.
Now that the two axes have been developed, four organizational cultures have been created,
which have been depicted in figure 11: the target culture, the functional culture, the
innovation culture and the pack culture.

30.
28
Figure 11: The Four Culture Typology
The target culture can be seen as a combination of the guided missile culture and the rational
goal culture, as it is a result-oriented culture. However, it tends a bit more towards the guided
missile culture, as it is depicted as a decentralized culture. This is done because its main focus
lies at the achievement of results. It is the end goal that counts and not the way that leads
toward this end goal. Therefore, the employees in this culture have more autonomy than they
would have according to the description of the rational goal culture. An example of a target
culture is Enron.
Enron was founded in 1985 when a merger occurred between two Houston pipeline
companies. Three years later, the company turned into a so-called “energy-broker” by
connecting buyers and sellers in the power industry. The company earned money by the profit
made on the difference between the buying and selling prices. Hence, the importance of
closing deals among these parties. Deregulation allowed Enron to be creative in order for
these deals to happen. Enron stimulated a culture that rewarded “cleverness”, which resulted
in pushing the limits to be a survival skill. Former CEO Jeffry Skilling had as espoused belief
“Do it right, do it now and do it better”, which emphasized the need for independent,
innovative and aggressive employees. In this result-oriented culture, Enron employees have a
self-image and espoused belief of being the best, the brightest and the cleverest. And if you
meet those qualifications, you do not make business deals that fail.
Although this is quite an extreme example of a target culture, the following quotes from
former Enron employees do match with the description of the target culture that has been
provided above. These quotes mainly show the focus on results rather than how these results
are derived:
“Profits at all costs” (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003, p.247).
“The best workers (determined through day-to-day bottom line results) received staggering
incentives and exorbitant bonuses. One example of this was Car Day. On this day, an array of
lavish sports cars arrived for the most successful employees” (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003, p.
251).
The functional culture, as its name and logo already suggest, is focused around rules, order
and hierarchy. One is focused on results, but the way to reach these goals is by procedures,
goals and predictability. This efficient, but inflexible and bureaucratic culture is a
combination of both the internal process culture as well as the Eiffel tower culture.
As an example of a functional culture, the well-known assembly line of Henry Ford could
have been presented. However, a more recent example of the functional culture can be found
in McDonalds restaurants. In this well-known international fast-food chain, which is highly

31. 29
focused on efficiency and standardization, a functional culture is evident as can be seen in
McDonalds’ rules, order and hierarchy. As Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds, based the
chain’s principles on customer quality, service, cleanliness and value (the basic underlying
assumptions), which today is being supplemented by “giving back” to the communities in
which the company does business (Kincheloo, 2002). For this example of a functional culture,
one can specifically look at the culture within the restaurants (instead of as the franchise
system as a whole). Kroc’s principles are being put into practice by means of standardized
processes, which in the end have resulted in a Big Mac hamburger (which can be seen as an
artifact of the McDonalds culture) to taste the same all over the world. To enable this same
experience over and over again, McDonald’s restaurants make use of standardized processes
and a hierarchical organization. Despite some local customizations in the country of
residence, McDonalds restaurants are largely similar to one another. Just like Henry Ford’s
assembly line for cars, the food is ‘assembled’ in a standardized manner by employees
performing specialized tasks. This has even led to Merriam-Webster adding the word McJob
to the dictionary. The word has been defined as “a low-paying job that requires little skill and
provides little opportunity for advancement” (Merriam-Webster, 2010). Although this
definition has been criticized by (employees of) McDonalds, it can be said that this
standardized approach is efficient, but inflexible (the efficiency will, for example, decrease
once customers start ordering customized burgers).
The innovation culture is a decentralized and employee-focused culture, which results in a
highly creative and dynamic environment where its risk-taking members are autonomous in
their actions. This results in a culture where development can take place, hence, the name
innovation culture. The culture combines the innovative character of the developmental
culture with powerful individual focus of the incubator culture.
3M is a 108 year-old industrial company that is characterized by inventions such as masking
tape, Thinsulate and the famous Post-It notes. According to Larry Wendling, 3M’s vice
president of the corporate research lab, 3M has managed to continue to stay inventive because
the company relies on so-called seven pillars of innovation; 3M’s basic underlying
assumptions. For the company’s organizational culture this implies that it is fully committed
to innovation from chief executive on down. As an industrial manufacturer, 3M spends
unusually high amounts on Research & Development (R&D) in order to stimulate innovation.
Furthermore, (and this directly matches the innovation culture in the Four Culture Typology)
the company focuses on “hiring good people and let them do their job in their own ways. And
tolerate mistakes” (BusinessWeek, 2006). Employees that join the company also learn the
stories about 3M developing the first audiotape, or Scotchgard (signs of artifacts). As
BusinessWeek states, “tribes and peoples keep their cultures alive through oral histories; so

32.
30
does 3M” (BusinessWeek, 2006). By maintaining a highly autonomous workforce, 3M also
hopes to engage their employees to innovate on all kinds of technologies, because according
to Wendling, companies that remain one-dimensional run out of ideas after a first success.
Furthermore, 3M puts a lot of emphasis on communication among its employees, so best
practices are being shared. Labs are allowed to host their own conferences and webcasts, and
can set up governing bodies for policy-setting.
3M sets individual expectations for each employee and rewards them when outstanding work
is delivered. 3M even developed a so-called dual-career ladder, which enables research
veterans to continuously move up without becoming a manager if they do not wish to become
one. Additionally, employees are being stimulated to work on their own inventions during
working hours. The company’s official policy allowed employees to use 15% of their time for
pursuing independent projects. Furthermore, 3M is a company that encourages risk and
tolerates failure. This description of 3M fits the decentralized and risk-taking, employee-
focused innovation culture, as both the focus on the individual employee and the strive for
development and innovation are evident at 3M.
The label pack culture has been coined as it refers to social groups formed by canines. In
canine packs there is one alpha dog, the leader, who forms the central point in the group. The
others are formed around the alpha dog, while there is a strong focus on group cohesion. The
same holds for this organizational culture. This culture with a central leader is based on group
cohesion and, therefore, has a high level of trust and affinity. Just like canines voluntarily
hunt in packs, this culture values teamwork, participation and concern for people. As a result,
this culture is a combination of the centralized power of the family culture and the focus on
cohesion of both the group culture as well as the family culture.
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. has been founded by Soichiro Honda and Takeo Fujisawa in 1948
(Furlan, 2002). The company started by producing engines that were attached to bicycles.
Today, Honda has obtained a leadership position in the fields of motorcycles, automobiles
and power products. Both Honda and Fujisawa (the “alpha dogs”) have played a major role in
the growth of Honda since its foundation. Furlan (2002) believes the most valuable thing of
Honda is the philosophy of its founders, which are the basic underlying assumptions of this
culture. This philosophy serves at the basis of the company’s business endeavors. In this
philosophy, the “Honda family” is described, which shows the existence of the pack culture
within this company. In a translated endeavor of vice president of Honda Italy, Umberto
Furlan, the combination of family and group culture that has formed the pack culture, can
especially be seen in the part that discusses the respect for the employee. Honda is composed
of individuals, which are called associates that work together for a common purpose. Using

33. 31
the word associates instead of referring to employees indicates the cohesive character of this
organizational culture.
“Every associate is important; every associate should be respected; every associate should be
given the opportunity to develop his or her full potential; every associate should be expected
to contribute to the company’s success; every associate should be honored for his or her
efforts and contribution” (Furlan, 2002, p. 4). This shows the emphasis on stimulating
participation and the concern for people. Another characterizing idea of the pack culture can
be found in the philosophy of Honda, namely the statement that one should think creatively
and act on their own initiative, but at the same time understand that responsibility should be
taken for the results of those actions. Furthermore, in Honda and Fujisawa’s philosophy it is
stated that relationships among Honda associates should be based on mutual trust. Trust is
created by respecting and recognizing each other as individuals, helping each other out,
accepting help when you are in need of it, sharing knowledge and fulfilling responsibility.
This almost exactly matches the characteristics of the group culture, which has formed the
basis for the pack culture in the Four Culture Typology.
5.2 The Meso Level
In chapter three it has been concluded that acceptable levels of stress can even result in higher
productivity up to the point where this “good stress” turns in distress. The area after this
turning point, the hump, is where there is a mismatch between job demands and the resources
and capabilities of the employee. This part of the analysis will focus on job demands and job
resources of the organizational cultures presented in the Four Culture Typology. The
capabilities of the employee will be discussed in the micro level part of the analysis.
5.2.1 Job Stress: The Demands and Resources of the Organizational Cultures
Based on the brief business cases that have been presented in paragraph 5.1.2, numerous job
demands and job resources can be derived. In table 2, job demands and job resources that
have been suggested by Demerouti and Bakker (2006) have been connected to the Four
Culture Typology. Job demands require both psychological and physical effort and skills, and
are associated with psychological and physical costs. On the other hand, the job resources
counter these job demands and help in achieving goals, while also stimulating learning,
development and personal growth.

34.
32
5.2.2 Target Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources
Job demands of the target culture are that its members are required to achieve the goals that
have been set out by the supervisors “at all costs”. This can be a heavy stress-causing
demand, as this focus on achieving goals continuously requires a great deal of effort and skills
from the members of this culture. The continuous nature of this job demand makes it difficult
to recover from the demands on the member’s capabilities. Therefore, achieving goals at all
costs can result in job stress going over the hump, which leads to distress.
Furthermore, members of this culture are required to be both autonomous and aggressive,
which are cognitive demands, in their decision making in order to force actions that help in
achieving the company’s goals. Employing an aggressive work style is more likely to lead to
conflicts in compared to a more passive work style. This can result in negative job stress.
Independent decision-making is a job demand that is connected to job autonomy as a job
resource. On one hand, autonomy can result in a decrease of stress as it provides the
individual more freedom to work in a way he or she prefers. Job autonomy enables individual
decision making “as long as the goals are attained”. However, as discussed in the Vitamin
model of War (de Jonge, 1998), too much “intake” of AD-vitamins causes a decline in the
affective well being of the employee. In other words, too much of this cognitive resource,
Target
Culture
Functional
Culture
Innovation
Culture
Pack
Culture
Achieving
goals
“at
all
costs”
Efficiency
in
standardized
tasks
Flexibility
Respect
for
one
another
Aggressive
work
style
Following
rules
and
procedures
Being
a
autonomous
risk-­‐
taker
Satisfying
the
goals
of
the
leader
Independent
decision-­‐making
Relying
on
hierarchy
Withstand
ambiguity
about
success
Responsibility
Job
autonomy
Role
clarity
Job
autonomy
Job
security
Pay
Performance
feedback
Supervisor
and
co-­‐
worker
support
Trust
and
support
Career
opportunities
Training
Skill
variety
Task
significance
JobResourcesJobDemands
JobDemands
Table 2: Job demands and job resources connected to the Four Culture Typology

35. 33
although it is a job resource, can result in negative stress. Being too autonomous is likely to
lead to job stress, as it results in higher responsibility and more anxiety.
Another job resource of the target culture is pay, as it can help in partly offsetting the high
pressure its employees have to deal with. Those with outstanding performance by reaching
the goals are rewarded in terms of money or material compensation (with as an extreme
example Enron’s Car Day). Although pay does not directly decrease any potential negative
job stress, it stimulates the members of this culture in continuing to work hard, as money is
what they are working for. Related to pay are career opportunities. Career opportunities work
by the same principle as pay: they do not directly help in decreasing job stress, but they do
help in ascertaining the members of the target culture in establishing personal goals and
enable them to personally grow and develop.
5.2.3 Functional Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources
The characteristic job demands of the functional culture are that its members need to be
efficient in the standardized tasks they perform. This need for efficiency, which is connected
to goals (e.g. output goals), can be seen as a potential creator of job stress. In order to prevent
deviation from that what is expected, training is required. As a result, the members of the
functional culture are required to follow an extensive set of rules and procedures, thereby
cognitive demands, which is accompanied by a strict hierarchy. Although rules and
procedures reduce uncertainty, as they can serve as guidelines “to hold on to” for the
members of this culture, they can also be potential stressors. Members of this culture need to
achieve goals in a highly efficient and standardized manner. As a result, they do not have the
autonomy to decide for themselves in what way they prefer to work. The same holds for
hierarchy. This concept leads to clarity and certainty, as every member knows who is in
charge and, more importantly, who is responsible. However, this hierarchy can also serve as a
job stressor, as the members of the functional culture are likely to have series of superiors to
report to. Obviously, the other organizational cultures are also likely to have superiors to
whom members are required to report, but this does not occur in the extensive manner that is
the case in the functional culture.
One of the job resources of the functional culture is role clarity. Because of this resource, it is
likely that the members of the functional culture know exactly what to do, while in the case of
a deviating situation they can always resort to their supervisor as he or she is up the hierarchy.
As a result, this job resource counters potential negative job stress. Related to this cognitive
resource is performance feedback. Because the tasks that are performed by the members of
the functional culture are set up in a predictable and standardized manner, performance can be
easily measured and benchmarked against other members. As a result, superiors are able to
provide performance feedback to their employees, which stimulates development and growth,
while taking away ambiguity about how to perform their tasks.

36.
34
Efficiency in standardized tasks requires training, which results in this job resource playing a
key role in the functional culture. Without training in how to perform one’s job in a functional
culture, it will be unlikely that the required efficiency will be reached, as training helps the
members of this culture to familiarize themselves with rules and procedures.
5.2.4 Innovation Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources
As its name already suggests, the most important job demand for members of the innovation
culture is having the creative skills that result in innovation, such as flexibility. Innovation is
not something you can plan out entirely. Unfortunately it is not possible to schedule one
invention for Wednesday morning, followed by another on Friday afternoon. As a result, the
innovation culture requires a great deal of flexibility from its members, as this is needed for
its dynamic and creative nature. Therefore, this required flexibility could potentially lead to
negative job stress.
In the example of 3M it already shows that innovation does not come without risks.
Therefore, the members of the innovation culture are required to be risk-takers. As discussed
in the target culture, being required to autonomously making decisions can, to a certain
extent, result in a decrease of job stress. However, the uncertainty and anxiety that comes
with this job demand can also increase job stress. Therefore, in this case where both
autonomous decision-making and risk-taking are required, it is possible for negative job stress
to emerge. Related to being able to take risks, the members of the innovation culture also
have to deal with the ambiguity of having or not having success on their road to innovation.
Outcomes are not guaranteed, as it is likely to be the case in the functional culture. As a
result, this uncertainty can lead to job stress.
Also in the innovation culture, job autonomy is an important job resource. In the business
case of 3M, it can be seen that 3M’s employees are allowed to make decisions for themselves
and can spend 15% of their time on their own independent projects. Related to this job
resource is the support that members from this culture are giving to one another. Members are
free to organize symposiums and connect to other members of the culture in order to expand
their network for support when it is needed. Additionally, even when members are not in need
of help, other members can pitch ideas on their current projects in order to stimulate
innovation. Therefore, this support can counter the job stress that might emerge from the
ambiguity about success and the need for taking risk autonomously. Innovation requires
different tasks, thus also different skills. As the 3M business case shows, this is done by
stimulating its members to look at all different kinds of technology in order to let them
acquire a broad spectrum of skills and ideas, which positively influences development of the
members of the culture. As Bakker and Demerouti (2006) have shown, performing the same
task over an over again can lead to job stress, while task and skill variety have shown to
decrease job stress.

37. 35
5.2.5 Pack Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources
In the business case of Honda, the founders’ philosophy focuses on cohesiveness and respect
for every individual working for the company. Every associate in the family is expected to
contribute to the company’s success. This is done by following the vision and the goals that
have been developed by the member’s leader. Because of the central position of the leader
and the desire of the members of this culture to position themselves as close as possible to
him or her, a significant amount of effort and skills are continuously expected from its
members, which can result in negative stress. Although the members are stimulated to be
creative in attaining those goals, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Because
this culture is characterized by its members’ commitment to the organization, responsibility
might serve as a stressor, because failure is not only failure for the member, but also for his or
her leader and the organization as a whole. The pack culture is characterized by the
importance of trust among its members. As a result, employees are required to help one
another and, on the other hand, accept help when they are in need of it.
One of the characterizing job resources of the pack culture is job safety. Once an employee
becomes a member of the group, full commitment is expected while it is unlikely that the
member will leave the group. In return, it is highly unlikely that the member will be fired,
even with the aforementioned emphasis on taking responsibility for one’s actions. As a result,
this job resource should decrease job stress, as members of this culture are less likely to be
fired compared to the other cultures. Trusting and supporting one another are job demands, as
they require effort and skills of the members. However, at the same time they are also both
cognitive and emotional job resources, as they help members achieving goals and stimulate
learning and development. The quote of the Honda philosophy in which it is stated that every
associate is important, should be respected and should be honored for his or her efforts and
contributions shows the value that is attached to task significance. With this approach, loyalty
is further stimulated, which gives the members the feeling that their task is contributing value
to the company who is embodying the pack culture. This task-level job resource serves as a
buffer for job demands, thereby reducing (potential) job stress (Demerouti & Bakker, 2006).
5.2.6 Job Stress and Organizational Culture
In Table 2, the job demands and job resources of the four organizational cultures have been
presented. Although the previous paragraphs have shown all job demands can potentially
cause negative job stress, some job demands are more likely to cause job stress than others.
Of all cultures, the target culture is most likely to cause negative job stress, mainly because its
members are required to aggressively achieve goals at all costs. At the same time there are no
adequate job resources to act as a buffer against these demands. Pay and career opportunities
only indirectly support the members of this culture to deal with these demands.