A multiple climates approach to understanding business unit effectiveness

Abstract

We propose four theoretically competing climates that are important for businessunit performance: climates for external control, internal control, internal flexibility, and external flexibility. Using a sub-sample of 620 business units from multiple companies across different industries and countries, we identified mechanisms by which climates influence business performance, accounting for different stakeholder interests. Climate for external control related directly to perceived business performance; climates for external flexibility and internal control both related to customer loyalty, which in turn predicted perceived business performance. Importantly, we show the moderating role of context whereby climate for internal flexibility was positively associated with perceived business performance, but only when market volatility was high. Drawing on the notion of ambidexterity, business units with higher effectiveness measures for all stakeholders also had high levels of all four climates, concurrently. The study supports the value for organizational effectiveness of having multiple climates that collectively accommodate an internal-and external-focus, as well as control and flexibility.

Assessing Performance: The Impact of Organizational Climates and Politics on Public Schools' Performance

“…This finding reflects the problematic relationship between micro‐ and macro‐performance as spotted recently in the context of organizational climate (e.g. MacCormick and Parker 2010). We therefore suggest that the impact of organizational climate on micro‐performance of public schools is stronger from its impact on macro‐performance in such environments.…”

“…One important aspect of organizational climate research is its multi‐dimensionality (MacCormick and Parker 2010). Whereas early writing on organizational climate treated it as a uni‐dimensional factor, later and more recent studies are quite univocal in adopting the multiple‐climate perspective.…”

“…This ‘climate‐for‐something’ approach has the advantage of being focused and therefore enhances predictability; however, at the same time not many studies allow for the possibility of multiple climates‐for‐something occurring in the same organization (Ostroff et al . 2003; MacCormick and Parker 2010). Our article follows this line of thinking, suggesting multiple aspects of organizational climate in heterogeneous public domains.…”

Coping With Paradoxical Demands Through an Organizational Climate of Perceived Organizational Support

“…In recent years, however, the need for organizations to accommodate competing demands, rather than choosing one before the other, has been increasingly acknowledged. MacCormick and Parker (2010) found that four climate types specified through the competing values framework (CVF, presented further below; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) had different impacts on customer loyalty, business performance, and staff engagement. Their results supported an emerging shift of focus in organizational research, from studying trade-offs between contrasting phenomena in an either/or perspective, to perspectives open to paradox, both/and.…”

Influence of Organizational Climate on Employees Intrapreneural Innovative Behaviour in Hotel Industries at the Kenyan Coast

“…In this context, the skills, abilities and the knowledge of an employee within the context of the organizational climate is a crucial factor that may render an organization to succeed in their entrepreneurial abilities. Nevertheless, the effects of various organizational climates on individual-level employee outcomes have been surprisingly under-researched (MacCormick and Parker, 2010). There is little research output on how such initiatives have been affected by the organizational climate within the hotels.…”