, .r... g»...

:lile a a
2%,..Mx

‘5 I h
a. 2...?23E... ,.
. \ . & (01...! I 331‘...
All {VI . y 1
3.2.5.. 5!. 3.915an
iffax .Lw
.,

5.1.5,».

$§utfifi
2.5.9. flue PH

. . .3; 5.4.3...
2.3..

2...:

.3.

. .. )
{.33.
27...: 2.:

3121...

. - 3.. .

.x

‘hfiha v

,5: .

41~:.!.§§‘I .
at)» 9. t. 1.:1 .

51......
£03.13:
V 1 .5 a o

 

MICHIGAN

I III I IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII

ERSITY LIBRARIES

II IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII

7529

II

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Central Tendency and Dispersion: Two Measures
of Climate in Local Emergency Planning Committees

presented by

Christina Jean Brandt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements. for

(flaws degree in M

WW

Wprofessor

 

Date ‘ S’s/a“ as

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

V I

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your mood.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I: An Nflrmatlvo Action/EM Opportunity Inflation

 

CENTRAL TENDENCY AND DISPERSION:
TWO MEASURES OF CLIMATE IN LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
COMMITTEES
By

Christina Jean Brandt

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1996

ABSTRACT
CENTRAL TENDENCY AND DISPERSION:
Two MEASURES OF CLIMATE IN LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
COMMITTEES
By

Christina Jean Brandt

The amount of dispersion within groups on climate measures is proposed to be an
interesting property in its own right in terms of understanding the climate construct, particularly
in relation to member socialization and early development of organizations. A literature review
is first presented addressing six areas of climate research Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCS) are then described along with the benefits of using these organizations to
study climate consensus and quality. Finally, a model of climate quality and consensus is
presented along with hypotheses

The proposed model was tested on 180 LEPC Chairs and 1196 LEPC members.
Results indicate that climate consensus is afi'ected, to a small degree, by socialization and
structural firetors. Climate quality has significant relationships with outcomes, while climate
consensus does not add significantly to the variance explained by climate quality. Potential
implications of these results are discussed along with interesting findings concerning

aggwgation

Capyrisht by
CHRISTINA JEAN BRANDT
1996

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Neither this thesis nor my coursework could have been completed without the support of

many peOple. Those individuals deserving special thanks are acknowledged below.

Michael K Lindell, Ph.D., my thesis committee Chair, for all of his help and guidance
throughout this process and for treating all of my ideas as potentially great, no matter how

crazy they sounded. You have become not only my mentor, but my fiiend as well.

The members of my thesis committee, Steve Kozlowski, PhD. and Dan Ilgen, Ph.D. for all of

their ideas, comments and recommendations.

My loving husband, Jeff Brandt, for his patience, understanding, and endless encouragement.

With you by my side, I can do anything.

The rest of my family, for all of their support and encouragement.

I also would like to express my thanks to God, for providing me with the spiritual strength I

needed throughout the most dificult challenges.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
Locus of Climate
Number of Climates

Measuring Consensus

Affect in Climate
Develgpment of M’ 'onal Climate

D__es_c;rp° tion of Local E_m_ergeng Planning Committees
Proposed Model of Climate guilty and Climate Consensus
Hypothesized Antecedents of Climate gm
Mothesized Antecedents of Climate Consensus
figmthesized Cmences of Climate 9m
Mothesized Cmences of Climate Consensus

METHOD

Sweets and Procedures

Measm’es

Method of Aggregation

10

15

15

16

22

23

24

29

32

34

34

37

41

RESULTS 43
MM Climgte Scafis 43
Correlations Betwear anization Level Antecedents and anizational Climate

em 43
Distributions of ram Values 43

Correlations Between anization Level Antecedents and anizational Climate

 

 

Consensus 46
Correlations Between anizational Climate ' and Individual Level Outcomes 52
Correlations Between Climate Quay and figm' 'on Level Criteria 57
Correlations Between Organintional Climate Consensus and Criteria 61

Individual Level Criteria 62

O_rganization Level Criteria 70
DISCUSSION 88
APPENDIX It SURVEY OF LEPC CHAIRS 98
APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF LEPC MEMBERS 105
APPENDD( C: SCALE STATISTICS 112
APPENDIX D: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF rm) 114
REFERENCES l 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sources of Information

Table 2a: Organimtion-Level Antecedmts and Organizational Climate Quality Afler
Calculating rm I

Table 2b: Organimtion-Level Antecedents and Organimtional Climate Quality Before
Calculating rm

Table 3a: Correlations Between Organimtion-Level Antecedents and Organizational
Climate Consensus

Table 3b: Correlations Betwear Organimtion-Level Antecedents and Organimtional
Climate Consensus after Calculating rm)

_ Table 4a: Correlations Between Psychological Climate Quality and Individual Level
Criteria

Table 4b: Correlations Between Organimtional Climate Quality After Calculating
rm) and Individual Level Criteria

Table 4c: Correlations Betwem Organizational Climate Quality Before Calculating
rm and Individual Level Criteria

Table 5: Organimtional Climate Quality Afier Calculating raw) and Organization Level
Criteria

Table 6a: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 1

36

45

45

50

51

54

55

56

60

63

Table 6b: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 2
Table 6c: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 3
Table 6d: Moderated Regression Results for Citizenship Behavior
Table 6e: Moderated Regression Results for Perceived Effort
Table 613 Moderated Regression Results for Perceived Rewards
Table 6g: Moderated Regression Results for Attendance
Table 7a: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover
Table 7b: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality
Table 7c: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item A
Table 7d: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item B
Table 7e: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item C
Table 715 Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item D
Table 7g: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item E
Table 7h: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item F
Table 7i: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item G
Table 7j: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item H
Table 71: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item I
Table 71: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item I
Table 7m: Moderated Regression Results for Flaming Quality, Item K
Table 7n: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item L
Table 70: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item M
Table 7p: Moderated Regression Results for Percent Attendance
Table 7q: Moderated Regression Results for SERC Ratings

65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78 .
79
8O
81
82

83

85
86

87

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: A General Model of Antecedents and Consequences of Climate Consarsus

and Climate Quality

21

INTRODUCTION

Organimtional climate is an important variable which mediates the relationship between
environmental conditions in an organimtion and the behavior of individuals in that
organimtion As a construct, "climate" is widely recognized in industrial and organimtional
psychology. Organimtional climate can be defined as the shared set of individual perceptions of
the organizational context, features, evmts, and processes (James & Jones, 1974; Kozlowski &
Hnlts, 1987). It is a single, multidimensional construct with dimensions that apply across a
variety of organizations (Kopehnan, Brief; & Guzzo, 1990). Organimtional climate is
perceived by members of the organization, serves as a basis for interpreting the situation, and
acts as a source of pressure for directing activity (Abbey & Dickson, 1983). Katz and Kahn
(1978) describe climate as affected by shared norms and vahres of members of the
organimtion; as well as reflecting the history of internal and external struggles, the types of
people attracted to the organimtion, its work processes and physical layout, methods of
cormmmication, and the exercise of authority within the system These things are reflected by
distinctive patterns of collective beliefs which are passed along to new group members through
the socialization process

Organimtional theorists have drawn a distinction between psychological and _
organizational climate. Psychological climate refers to the perceptions one individual holds

concerning his or her environmmt. Organizational climate, on the other hand, refers only to

2
organizational climate nnrst be taken at the level of the individual because of the psychological

processes (perceptions and feelings) which can only occur within individuals James, Joyce and
Slocum (1988) make the point that organizations themselves do not cognize. Thus,
psychological climate refers to the perceptions of a single individual, while organimtional
climate is an aggregated measure of these perceptions across individuals
Several issues are currently at the forefront of climate research First, debate continues

as to whether organizations contain one climate or many climates. James and colleagues
(James, 1982b; Jones & James, 1979; James & James, 1989) hold that climate is a single,
nnrltidimensional construct which can be examined by sirrrilar means in various types of
organizations while Schneider proposes that many climates exist in organintions (Schneider,
1987a, 1987b; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Second, there has been some disagreement as to
who should be surveyed to obtain measures of climate. Glick has asserted that climate can be
measured by several methods (Glick, 1985, 1988) while James believes that climate should
only be measured at the level of the individual (James, 1992a; James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988).
Third, researchers continue to examine ways of measuring consensus to bring climate from the
individual level to the organization level. Several methods have bear utilized, inchtding
ANOVA (Zohar, 1980), the intraclass correlation (Schneider & Bowen, 1985), and raw,
(Kozlowslci & Hults, 1987). Fourth, the relationship between afl‘ect (i.e., job satisfiction) and
climate is one researchers have struggled with for twenty years In particular, Guion (1976)
questioned the use of climate as a construct which is conceptually distinct from job satisfaction.
Frfih, the development of climates has been raised by several authors on a theoretical level
(Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schneider & Reichers, 1983), but has been virtually ignored empirically.

The idea that socialimtion processes affect the development of climate is particularly prevalent

3
in the current literature (Schneider & Reichers, 1983), but has not been examined empirically.

Last, there has been quite a bit of interest in other antecedents and consequences of
organimtional climate. Several audies have focused on the influence of demographic variables
on climate quality and the subsequmt effect climate quality has on measures ofefi‘ectiveness
(Lindell & Whitney, 1995; Kodowski & Hults, 1987; Zohar, 1980). Each of these issues will
be explored here in further detail with the primary focus of the paper concentrating on the
antecedents and consequences of climate consensus.

Specifically, this paper will first address some of the theoretical and measurement issues
surrounding climate by elaborating on the rationale supporting the contartion that climate is
most usefirlly conceptualized and measured at the individual level and should be considered a
property of the organization only after demonstrating an adequate level of consensus among
organizational members Second, I ofi‘er a perspective that shows how Schneider’s multiple
(“strategically-focused”) and James’ single (“universal fimctionality”) approaches can be seer
as complementary rather than strictly competitive views Third, a measure of agreement, raw) ,
is described, and its usefulness as a method of justification for aggregating climate perceptions
to the organizational level is ilhrstrated Fourth, the theoretical development of climate into a
non-affective measure is explained Fifth, the proposed relationship between the socialization
process and climate consensus is described Last, models of climate consensus and climate
quality will be described along with hypotheses and proposed methods of analyzing these
models
.L0_ws__0.f£i;_lmate

A great deal of attention has focused on ‘ ere” climate resides. Some researchers

claim that climate resides within the organimtion itself (Glick, 1985, 1988). This perspective

4
holds that climate arises from the interactions of members within a group or organization.

Thus, meaning must be a property of the system in which social interactions occur. Researchers
who follow this line of reasoning ofien use managers or leaders as informants to assess climate
as an organizational characteristic (Angle & Perry; 1986), although Glick (1985) suggests
using multiple sources Following this viewpoint, Angle and Perry (1986) used managemart
and labor leaders as informants to assess labor management relationship climates as an
organintion-level characteristic. They examined 22 nnmicipal bus companies and found the
dual commitment of employees toward the organintion as well as the union to be stronger in
cooperative climates, while this relationship was moderated by 1mion participation.

This method is problematic, however, as there is no way of knowing whether the
leaders’ judgments accurately predict those of the group members Leaders’ judgments can be
biased if they have experiences that are different from those of members (Glick, 1985). This
would be a viable method of data collection to the degree that the leader does have accurate
information about the climate in the organization; for example, what there is open
comrmmication and trust. However, it is possible that leaders’ judgments are likely to be biased
by role-related difi‘erences in erqreriences and differences in personal values (generated by
differartial attraction, selection, and attrition to organizational positions). Moreover it is
possible for leaders to overestimate the quality of the climate by reporting the climate they
intend to create rather than the climate that exists, and there is no way of determining if this is
the case (James, Joyce & Slocum, 1988).

Another problem that arises whet using leader reports of climate is that investigations
thus far have requested respondents to provide only their judgments of central tendency (i e.,

“how would the typical member respond?”). Because group members’ perceptions are ahnost

5
certain to form a statistical distribution, collecting information only on cmtral tendmcy

necessarily overstates the degree of member agreement This problem could be overcome if
informants were specifically asked to describe the range of opinion or the degree of consmsus
on a particular facet of climate. Because leaders have not hem asked such questions in
previous climate studies, they could not possibly contribute information about dissensus Even
if leaders were asked about the variability of members’ perceptions, informants’ judgmmts of
variability (i.e., “how much do members agree?”) it is likely that their eaimates would be
biased by cognitive processes such as assumed self-typicality which would tmd to yield
overestimates of consensrs Consequently, using leaders is a second best solution because it
assumes, rather than tests, consmsus of organizational members In addition, using leaders as
informants inhermtly constitutes a sample that is small, and thus potmtially rmrepresmtative.
In summary, using a single informant appears to be an empirically inferior method of collecting
information on organizational climate.

Other researchers believe climate is most usefirlly defined as residing within the
members of the organimtion (James, 1992a; James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988). This viewpoint
maintains that climate is a property of individuals, and stresses that organizations themselves do
not cognize. Organizational climate involves a set of group-level perceptions which reflect the
cognitive represmtation of mvironmmts in terms of their psychological meaning and
significance to the members of that group. This is difi‘ermt fi'om the concept of psychological
climate in that the latter refers to the significance of environmmtal attributes in terms of their
acquired meaning and significance to a single individual (James, James, & Ashe, 1990).
Climate does not become an organization level construct until those perceptions are similar

mough to justify aggregating them Measuremmts of organizational climate are therefore

6
typically taken by surveying the attitudes and perceptions of a represmtative sample of

organizational members, and, if there is adequate evidmce of consensus, aggregating these
results to bring climate to the organizational level of analysis

One study that is representative of this viewpoint (James & Tetrick, 1986) utilized a
heterogmeous sample consisting of 260 firefighters from a metropolitan fire department, 113
systems analysts and programmers fiom a private health care program, 40 incumbmts from
less technical jobs fiom the same health care program, 164 production line personnel from four
small paper product manufacturing plants, and 65 nonproduction ‘White collar” personnel from
the same four plants. Individual workers were all given the same survey, then the average
irrtercorrelations between items were computed for each scale. This computation was
performed for workers in each of the separate organizations to justify the existence of climate
at the organizational level The mean score on the climate measure was then assigned to the
individuals within each organization, and a Pearson correlation coeflicient was computed
betwem the mean score on the climate measure and employee satisfaction. The authors
concluded that the results supported the contention that organimtional climate causes
individual satisfaction among employees.
Number ome

The debate as to how many climates reside in an organization has persisted for some
time. James and colleagues (James, 1982b; James & James, 1989: Jones & James, 1979)
conceptualize climate as a single, multidirnmsional construct for which the same measures
would be appropriate within all types of organimtions They argue that organizational members
interpret evmts and processes in terms of personal relevance, and these interpretations affect

gmeral outcomes such as attendance and turnover intentions Because climate is thought to

.7
represmt the cognitive represmtations an individual holds of the events and processes within

the organimtion, several climate scales are used to examine the various components of climate.
There may be an affective componmt underlying these perceptions, however; causing a single,
higher-order firctor to emerge from a second order analysis (James & James, 1989).

James' single higher-order factor perspective allows climate to be measured by the
same scales in any organimtion Several subscales have hem developed to represmt the
multiple dirnmsions of climate along the lines of reasoning proposed by Katz and Kahn (1978).
These inchrde leader facilitation and support; role conflict, ambiguity and overload; job
challmge, importance and variety; and workgroup cooperation, fiiendliness, and warmth
(Jones & James, 1979; James & Sells, 1981; James & James, 1989).

In contrast to James’ focus on climate as a single, gmeral construct with multiple
dirnmsions, Schneider and Reichers (Schneider, 1987a, 1987b; Schneider & Reichers, 1983)
propose the idea that numerous climates exist within the organization. These climates are
thought to be for something (such as customer service or technology). Along these lines, other
researchers have examined climates strategically focused on service (Schneider & Bowm,
1985), technical updating (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987), and safety (Zohar, 1980; Dedobeleer &
Beland, 1991).

The apparmt conflict betwem James’ position that climate has a universal functionality
and Schneider’s position of strategically focused climate can be resolved in part by noting that
the two theorists are implicitly addressing difi‘ermt outcomes James’ work has addressed the
overall impact of climate on individual workers, while Schneider’s focuses upon more specific
outcomes within the organimtion. Schneider’s perspective can be explained fitrther in terms of

Katz and Kahn’s (1978) contmtion that organizations consist of distinct subsystems for

8
production (the work that gets done), support (procurement, disposal, and institutional

relations), maintenance (tying people to fimctional roles), adaptation (organizational change),
and management (direction, adjucation, and control). Accordingly, climate for service can be
interpreted as being related to organizational evmts and practices that promote arpport,
climate for safety as related to organimtional events and practices that promote maintmance,
and climate for updating as related to organizational events and practices that promote
adaptation. Thus, James’ focus is on global impacts of climate while Schneider’s focus is on
more specific fimctional impacts

In conjlmction with this idea, studies focusing on strategically focused climate
(Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Zohar, 1980; Dedobeleer & Beland,
1991) examine only singular and very specific organizational goal emphases In other words,
these studies examined climate at a high level of specificity. For exarrrple, Schneider and
Bowm examined climate for customer service by surveying 142 employees and 968 customers
in the branch ofices of banks, while Zohar (1980) examined climate for safety by surveying 20
workers in each of 20 industrial organimtions in Israel

Schneider’s view implies that the kind of organizational goal is crucial to defining the
type of climate that should be examined. While this may be true in organizations which have
one specific goal-orientation, it is not necessarily crucial to the existmce of climate. For
example, much of the work performed by James and colleagues has examined climate in
military rmits that serve many difi‘ermt fimctions, and, thus require examination at a high level
of gmerahty (i. e., a lower level of specificity). A sample of organimtions with similar
organizational goals must be uwd to examine climate at the level of specificity Schneider deals

with, but having a sample of organimtions with similar organimtional goals does not require

9
Schneider’s approach James’ perspective can be used to examine effectiveness in organizations

with either a homogeneous set of organimtional goals (such as banks) or a heterogeneous set
of organizational goals (such as military units) because the level of specificity is lower.
However, there is certainly a tradeofi‘betwem predictive accuracy (achieved by using
Schneider’s approach) and transportability (achieved using James’ approach).

The preceding analysis suggests that the perspectives taken by Schneider and by James
are not mtirely incompatible. The strategically focused climate perspective examines climate in
terms of the importance of employees’ perceptions of one or more strategic imperatives, or
specific organimtional goals, made manifest through work place routines and rewards
(Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992). For exanrple, a climate for service can be interpreted as
members’ shared perceptions of those aspects of the organizations’ context, features, evmts,
and processes that promote the organization level goal of providing quality service to
customers James’ perspective suggests that adherence to goals is one of multiple dirnmsions
of organizational climate. In this perspective, supervisory goal emphasis, supervisory support,
role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload refer to formal properties of goals and roles. not
their substantive content. For example, James’ measure of climate addresses the strengrh of
leaders’ goal emphasis, but does not assess which specific goals (e.g., production, customer
service, safety) are being emphasized

Asserting that James’ and Schneider’s positions are compatible could itselfbe
considered controversial givm that Schneider and Bowm (1985) claim to have shown
strategically focused climate measures produce stronger relationships with specific
organizational outcomes than less-focused measures Schneider and Bowm’s study actually

supports the level of specificity idea, however, in that more specific predictions typically have

1 O
manger relationships with more specific criteria. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) reported that

thereisgreater consistmcybetwem attitudes andbelraviorwhmboth aremeasured at a similar
level of specificity. In any evmt, the conchrsions from Schneider and Bowm’s study must be
considered tentative because their sample sizes were very low (less than 7 informants), and the
measure of climate consensus used to justify aggregation of individual members’ responses (the
intraclass correlation) is thought to be biased in such sample sizes (James, 1982a, 1982b)
because samples tmd to vary a great deal from the true score of the population with such small
samples Schneider and Bowen’s data can only be taken to show that strategically focused
climate might be difi‘ermt from less-focused measures; their study provides no conchrsive
evidmce that strategically-focused climate is a better approach in any case, let alone all cases.
Because Schneider and Bowm’s study is the only one to date which has compared the two
methods of measuring climate, the issue must be considered to remain tmresolved mrtil more
research has hem conducted on the issue. Despite the fact that these two perspectives have
both been used by many climate researchers, there is no evidmce to date that either of them is
theoretically or methodologically superior to the other across a broad set of organizationa.
Because the organizations in this study might have a heterogmeous set of organizational goal
emphases, the survey irrstrummts adopted James’ perspective - a lower level of qrecificity.
Meamg' Consmsus

Research on climates has also addressed multiple levels of analysis and measurement in
studying organizational phenomena It is now widely accepted by organizational psychologists
that organizational climate is a concept which involves the shared perceptions of those within
the organization (James, et a1, 1988; Rousseau, 1989). If the perceptions are not shared, the

existmce of organimtional climate is questionable. Because attitudes and perceptions can only

1 1
be assessed on an individual level, an aggregated measure of individual perceptions is necessary

to represmt the opinions of all the members involved. However, consmsus must be verified
before this aggregation can be justified, and this requires an index of consensrs

Early studies of climate aggregated individual perceptions without examining the
degree of consensus For example, a study on safety climate by Zohar (1980) utilized analysis
of variance (AN OVA) to determine whether the variance could be attributed more to
difiermcm within or between groups Other studies have utilized the intraclass correlation
coefiicimt (ICC), which is based on the ANOVA procedure (James, Demaree & Wolf; 1984) .

Assessing consmsusbymeans ofthe ICC isbetterthanfirilingto assessit at a11,butis
problematic because it assumes that the mvironmmts employed in a study comprise a random
sample of mvironmmts from a heterogmeous population of mvironmmts (James, 1982b). An
implication of this assumption is that betwem-mvironment variance in mean climate
perceptions is necessary for high interrater reliability. If there is little variation among the mean
climate perceptions across mvironmmts, ICC will be low even if the individuals surveys in
each mvironmmt agree ahnost perfectly. In addition, ICC is noted to have problems with
range restriction in small sarrrples of organizations, or individuals within organimtions (James,
1982a, 1982b). A related issue, pointed out by Kozlowski and Hattrup (1992) is that ICC is a
measure of reliability, not consensus. The distinction between reliability and consensus is
important to survey research on climates. It is well known that the variation among a group of
individuals can be consistent (i e., reliable) without being the same (i. e., consmsus). For
example, one person surveyed could produce item scores of 5, 4, 4, and 5. A second person
could produce item scores of 2, l, 1, and 2. This would result in perfect reliability (i.e., a

perfect correlation) with virtually no consensus

12

Because of the three reasons listed here, a new index of consensus was proposed for
climate research. by James, Demaree, & Wolf( 1984). Specifically, the currmt indicator used to

assess consensus is raw). This measure was derived from rm, which is calculated as follows:
rwg = 1- (sz/OEZ) [1]
where:
rag = within-group interrater agreement for a single group of raters on a single item X,
s3 = the observed variance on item X in the group, and ‘
052 = the variance on item X that would be expected if the raters responded randomly,
which implies zero interrater reliability and no agreemmt. Whm “random
response” is operationalized as a uniform distribution,. 052 = (AZ-1)/12, where A

is the number of response alternatives on item X.

The equation for raw) is as follows:

_ MM
‘W‘41-(;3j;...2)].(;;7...2) ”1

where:

raw) = the within-group interrater agreement for judges’ mean scores based on J

essentially parallel items within each climate subscale,

S: = the mean of the observed variances on the J items within each climate subscale,

and

can ’ = the variance on Xj that would be expected if raters responded randomly.

13
Following the introduction of raw), Schmidt and Hunter (1989) criticized it as lacking

a conceptual formdatiorr As an alternative, they suggested using the standard deviation of
ratings, SDx, as an index of interrater agreemmt and the standard error of the mean, SEM, as an
index of the average amount of error in the average rating. As pointed out by Kozlowski and
Hattrup (1992), however, SDK is a measure of reliability, not consensus, and SEM is critically
dependent on the number of raters in the group. Since Kozlowski and Hattrup’s paper in
1992, rm has remained an accepted means ofassessing consensus betwem members on
climate measures, although there remain manswered questions about raga) (i. e., whether a
uniform distribution is the most appropriate model of “random response” and the measure’s
stability under difi‘ermt sample sizes).

One especially important rmanswered question regarding raw) concems the minimum
magnitude of the index at which an investigator can conchrde that a climate exists By
convmtion, a vahre of ram); 70 has hem considered necessary to justify aggregating perceptual
measures of climate to the organimtional level (James, 1982b). Organimtions with raw) less
than .70 typically are not examined fiuther (e.g., Kozlowski & Hults, 1987). This procedure,
which can result in a severe reduction in data, implies that organintional climate does not exist
in organizations with only moderate levels of consmsus

A broader perspective suggests that climates my exist and can be examined at lower
levels of consmsus, but are simply not completely formed to the point of examining it as an
organizational-level variable represmtative of all individuals This perspective suggests that
degree ofconsmsrsitselfcanbeexamined asalegitimatefocus ofanalysis(James, et a1,
1984), although it is important to remember that the same efl’ects found in the relationship

betwem measures of dispersion and cmtral tmdmcy hold true in the relationship betwem

14
amormt of consmsus (rm) and climate quality. A high measue of climate quality cannot be

achieved without having high consmsus.

Conversely, consensus as measured by rm) might fail to attain a conventionally
accepted level because only a few members (or perhaps everr just one) fail to share the
majority’s view of organizational events and processes A legitimate cause may be present for
these members to have aberrant views For example, those members having aberrant views
may have joined the organimtion only recmtly. Thus, the low degree of consmsus could be
due to the presmce of one or more statistical “outliers” whose presmce in the organization can
be explained in terms of newcomer socialimtion processes Alternatively, low levels of
consensus could reflect pervasive disagreemmt about the meaning of organimtional conditions
and evmts that have arism because of structural characteristics of the organization itself; such
as little opportrmity for communication betwem members.

Despite its theoretical significance, climate research has not addressed the degree of
consensus as a dependmt variable in its own right. This might be due to previous studies’
focus on full-time employees in established organizations but is not attributable to a complete
lack of recognition of this important issue. Schneider and Reichers (1983), for example, noted
that research is needed to idmtify firctors leading to the developmmt of strong consensus
betwem organizational members, and especially how these varying degrees of consmsus are
related to potmtial antecedents such as selection, mvironmmtal irrflumces, and particularly,
socialimtion (Katz & Kahn, 1978). They also called attmtion to the importance of exanrinirrg

the relationship betwem climate consensus and potmtial consequences such as production

quantity and quality-

1 5
Affect in Climate

The first climate measures developed contained an affective component. However,
Guion (1973) suggested that with its afi‘ective componmt, climate was extremely similar - if
not idmtical - to job satisfaction. Since that time, researchers have struggled to eliminate the
affective componmt fiom climate measures by creating a purely cognitive construct. While the
attempt to disentangle climate and satisfaction has bem laudable theoretically, it has not hem
an unqualified success empirically. James and Jones (1980) and James and Tetrick (1986)
fornrd the relationship betwem psychological climate and job satisfaction to be reciprocal; job
satisfaction leads to more positive impressions of climate, and positive climate perceptions, in
turn, lead to greater job satisfirction. These data suggest that climate consists of a gmeral
perceptual firctor, with a gmeral affective componmt closely related to the cognitive
componmt (James & James, 1989).
Development of Organizational Climate

Schneider’s (1987a, 1987b) Attraction-Selection-Attrition Theory provides a usefirl
fiamework for explaining the development of organizational climate. This theory proposes that
the attributes of people are the fundamental determinants of organizational behavior. In the first
phase, people are attracted to organizations they expect to be instrumental in obtaining
outcomes they desire. Next, the theory suggests represmtatives of the organization (recnriters,
interviewers, etc.) select those individuals from the applicant pool that they feel will fit well in
the organization. Finally, individuals who have hem selected into an organization progress
through a socialization process during which the vahres and norms of the organimtion are
transferred to the individual. If the vahres and norms the individual brings to the organization fit

well with those of the organization, little adjustmmt is necessary. If the newcomers’ vahres and

1 6
norms differ from those of the organimtion, they must either change their values to fit those of

the organimtion, or they must leave the organization. Thus, the socialization process plays a
critical part in determining whether an individual will remain with the organization and
internalize its vahres, norms, and other such attributes; or leave the organization completely.

The socialimtion process, in particular, plays a key role in the formation of
organimtional climate. Feldman’s (1976) model of socialization delineates three stages of
socialization. The anticipatory stage occurs before members enter a group and involves all of
the irrpressions and learning presmt at that time. During the accommodation stage, the
individual tries to rmderstand the processes within the organization and become a participating
member. The final stage, role managemmt, inchrdes the employee’s attempts of conflict
managemmt afier the tasks and roles have hem learned. It is during the accommodation stage
that perceptions of climate are likely to be formed, as this is the period during which new
members learn tasks and roles within the organinrtion.

In sum, individuals with simrilar characteristics are attracted to similar types of settings,
are socializedirr similarways, are exposedto simrilarfeatureswithin contexts, and sharetheir
interpretations with others within the setting This process leads to increasing consmars on
climate perceptions over time (Koflowski & Doherty, 1989). By contrast, individuals of
difi‘ermt backgrormds designated for membership in a anal], informal grorp that meets
infrequmtly would not be expected to share consensual perceptions of climate.

mm 'on of Local Mara Planning Committees

The previous research on LEPCs suggests that these organizations mright be

particularly usefirl in examining the arrtecedmts and consequences of organizational climate.

LEPCs are mandated by Title III of the Superfirnd Ammdmmts and Reauthorization Act of

1 7
1986 (SARA Title III), and they are charged with the responsibility of preparing

comprehensive emergmcy response plans for toxic chemical emergmcies. LEPCs are
comprised of vohmteer representatives from commnmity agencies arch as public safety, public
health, public administration and environmental protection, as well as represmtatives from
private organizations, arch as facilities handling hazardous chemricals Each LEPC determines
its own focus, sets its own goals, and plans its own schedule. The only requiremmt they all
hold in common is the necessity to write site-specific plans for all potmtially hamdous
industries within their districts.

Previous research has shown that LEPCs vary significantly with respect to
organimtional conditions and levels of performance (Lindell & Meier, 1994; Lindell &
Whitney, in press), even though they all have the same date of initiation and performance
requiremmts This gives them a unique vahre for studying organimtional climate. Specifically,
the investigation of LEPCs has distinct research advantages because clear irrfermces can likely
be made about the causal relationships involved in creating effective emergmcy planning teams
(Lindell, 1993). Moreover, there is also variation in the extemal physical mvironmmt (hazard
vuhrerability), extemal social mvironmmt (community resources and comnnmity apport) and
internal mvironmmt (emergmcy planning resources, stalling, and structure) of LEPCs In
particular, variations in size, meeting frequmcy, and formalization of meetings are likely to be
important in the socialimtion experiences of LEPC members, and thus the developmmt of
organizational climate. Other characteristics which vary across LEPCs are the use of computer
technology and the member orimtation process.

‘ As mentioned previously, James’ perspective appears particularly suitable for

heterogmeous samples such as organimtions used in this study. Recent research (Lindell,

1 8
Whitney, Futch, Clause & Rogers, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a) shows that LEPCs vary in their

emphasis on difi‘ermt emergmcy planning activities Some LEPCs focus on hazard assessment,
while others focus on hazard mritigation or preparedness Several dirnmsions of climate
previously examined by James and colleagues are proposed to be relevant to LEPCs These
include leadership, role stress, and teamwork. All of these variables are likely to define the
climate within each LEPC.

LEPC mandates designate members to be chosm in such a way that specific groups
will be represmted (National Response Team, 1987). For example, at least one represmtative
from fire departrnmts, police departrnmts, and education are mandated to hold positions on
the LEPC, along with twelve other groups. Some members are ‘pure vohnrteers” while others
have experimced some pressure to be members (Lindell, Whitney, Futch, & Clause, 1995b).
Few, if any, are sanctioned for non-participation. Thus, because LEPCs have little control
over attraction and selection, these componmts of Schneider’s ASA model are not likely to
have as nnrch of an impact as in other organizations. However, socialization and training are
particularly likely to be important in LEPCs

Because members of LEPCs may not have complete control over their inchrsion in the
organization, they also might not be able to leave if their vahres do not match those of the other
members Thus, it is possible to have members on LEPCs with very different norms and vahres
(see Lindell, Whitney, Frrtch, & Clause, 1995b for case study data to apport this proposition).
It follows that because norms, vahres, and other arch attributes affect organimtional climate, it
is possible that LEPCs vary considerably in their degrees of consmsus ’

Another source of variation in LEPC conditions and climate comes from Schneider’s

(1987a, 1987b) arggestion that the founder’s personality uarally determines the structure and

1 9
strategy of an organimtion. Because of the specific federal requiremmts for organizing LEPCs,

the founders are members of numerous types of organizations with diverse interests and
focuses This could produce significant variation in organizational structure and strategy across
LEPCs Moreover, because LEPCs are self-directed and managed, the times, dates, and
locations of meetings may be set or variable, causing socialimtion opportrmities to vary across
LEPCs Additionally, membership size varies across LEPCs, as does the existmce and number
of arbcommittees Some LEPCs are very structured, irrchrding setting and evaluating annual
goals for the organization, while others have little or no structure (Lindell, Whitney, Futch, &
Clause, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b). Strategy varies across LEPCs as well Some LEPCs
have focused on providing emergmcy training, while others have chosm to focus on
emergmcy planning, and still others have focused on providing information to the public. Some
LEPCs have more formalized orimtation process, while others rely on the individual to adapt
to the organimtion on his or her own.

In summary, past research on LEPCs indicates that they vary considerably in their
extemal (hazard vulnerability, commnmity resources, comnnmity apport) and internal (staffing,
structure, and process) characteristics, as well as their overall efi‘ectivmess Some preliminary
evidmce arggests that LEPC climate is related to important organimtional antecedmts and
consequmces, but methodological concerns limit the confidmce that can be placed in this
conchrsion. The broader literature on organizational climate provides a theoretical perspective,
specific scales, and meaarremmt procedures that would provide a more conchrsive test of the
relationships of organimtional climate with its antecedmts and consequmces ‘

Specifically, the proposed research will seek to answer the following two questions for

LEPCs The first question concerns which organimtional and mvironmmtal variables are

2 0
related to the climate comensus within LEPCs As noted earlier, climate consensus is

important because it is a developmmtal issue in organizations. Climate theory holds that a
climate does not simply exist or not exist, it exists to some degree and develops as the
organization develops This progression emerges from the interaction of individuals working
on group tasks, and should be reflected in the degree to which organizational characteriaics are
indicative of the developmmt of climate consmars Thus, the variance within LEPCs of
members’ perceptions of difi‘ermt facets of climate can be used as a measure of climate
dissensus and, across organizations, these variances can be correlated with other variables

The second question concerns which organizational and mvironmmtal variables are
related to the climate quality. Similarly, a measure of cmtral tmdmcy of LEPC members
perceptions of different fircets of climate can be uwd as a measure of climate quality and these
means can also be correlated across organizations with other variables.

Previous research on LEPCs and on organizational climate provides a basis for
enumerating 13 specific hypotheses related to these two broad questions The following
sections presmt the hypotheses and arpporting rationales regarding the relationships betwem
climate consmars and its antecedmts, climate quality and its antecedmts, climate consmars

and its outcomes, and climate quality and its outcomes.

21

   
  
  
  
 

  

. :.- m
' \ \ 3.3
\“V‘K‘A'Vs' \
. . .~ «a
\~ amass.

  

 

    

\v. "is
‘38?

Ami-t
K

    
        

 

    
  

Mam,“ we, s.
coolness masses;
7 ._ .\ t . :_ ; -.-

        
 
  

2.»

      

    

   
 
   

new: .
.... .
..
.

   

   
  

  

.V
. e0
Rx v woke \vn.
aura-revs: \rx
«\ ~ \. '

\\§\.<

     
 

       
     

Figure 1:
A General Model of Antecedents and Consequences
of Climate Conserrars and Climate Quality

22

Proposed M_odel of Climate Qua_lrty' and Climate Consensus
The studies described below provide apport for the model of climate consmars and

 

climate quality shown in Figure l. Hypotheses for these relationships are proposed in the
following discussion

Although researchers have recognized the need to consider the developmmtal stage of
grorps whm making hypotheses and interpreting analyses (Levine & Moreland, 1990), not a
single study has yet attempted to idmtify specific characteristics that vary within a sample of
organimtions and could potmtially be capable of predicting climate consmars This mright be
because climate studieshavefocusedonmature organizations No studyyethasexamineda
group of organizations having the same fimctions and goals, but varying in their stages of
developmmt. However, existing theories of organimtional climate clearly predict that
organizations in various stages of development will display a wide range of climate consmars
Presumably, variations in the level of climate consmars will irrflumce organizations’ levels of
efi‘ectivmess, with the most efi‘ective organizations having the greatest consmars and average
to high climate quality.

It’s logical to assume that subscales of climate will be difl’ermtially related to
antecedmt and consequmce variables, but past research on climate has implicitly dealt with
climate as a single firctor construct. Researchers have correlated multidirnmsional measures of
climate with other variables, but hypotheses and rearlts have hem couched ill terms of climate
as a single construct (James & Jones, 1980; Kozlowski & Hults, 1989; Lindell & Whitney,
1995; Zohar, 1980;). There is empirical apport for this (apparently implicit) asamnption of a
single climate dimmsion, as James & James (1989) found a single higher-order factor

rmderlying all oftheir climate arbscales which they termed pc® As will be seen later, the

2 3
presmt study addresses three distinct subcategories within climate (leader, team and role

characteristics). James & James’ (1989) first order factor analysis seems to indicate that these
three climate dimensions are distinct and would have differmtial relationships with antecedmts
and consequences However, because they did find one higher-order firctor and other studies
are consistmt with this idea (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Lindell & Whitney, 1995), there is
really no basis to make specific difi‘erential predictions concerning these three subcategories of
climate. Thus, because previous studies arggest only that there may possibly be difi‘erences in
relationships betwem each of the three subcategories of climate and other variables, the three
arbcategories of climate used in this study will be examined using separate sub-hypotheses -
one for leadership scales, one for team scales, and one for role scales, evm though no specific
difiamfifl prediction are made for these scales.

Hypothesized Antecedmts of Climate my

James and James (1989) formd climate to be related to structural variables including
size and number of levels; socialization, or role formation; and context variables, including
technology and available fimds. These relationships held true for both homogenous
organizations (fire fighters) and heterogmeous organizations (navy personnel).

Lindell and Whitney (1995) found a relationship betwem climate scales, measured
using only the perceptions of LEPC Chairs, and structural variables, inchrding LEPC stafling,
federal emergency planning resources, LEPC Association membership, commrunity apport,
and size of the LEPC, using only the perceptions of LEPC chairs In voluntary organizations
like LEPCs, size may be a meaarre of the organization’s ability to attract and reward members.

This finding is expected to be replicated here using climate data collected fiom LEPC

members (as opposed to LEPC Chairs).

24

Hypothesis 1a: The number of members within the LEPC will be positively
related to the level of quality on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis lb: The nrnnber of members within the LEPC will be positively
related to the level of quality on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 1c: The number of members within the LEPC will be positively
related to the level of quality on role subscales of climate.

Dedobeleer & Beland (1991) also used surveys to examine climate for safety. A total
of 384 workers in 9 nonresidential construction sites were surveyed The authors utilized two
linear structural relations procedures to examine the goodness of fit of their model They found
that two factors, managemmt commitmmt to safety and workers’ irrvolvemmt in safety, to be
indicative of a good climate for safety in construction sites For LEPCs, managemmt
comnritrnmt at the level of the organization comes from the apport shown by local elected
ofiicials

Hypothesis 2a: The degree to which elected officials are supportive of the efforts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 2b: The degree to which elected oflicials are apportive of the efi‘orts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 2c: The degree to which elected oficials are supportive of the efforts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on role arbscales of climate.

Mothesized Antecedents of Climate Consensus

Payne and Pugh (1976) arggest that climates emerge from objective aspects of the
work mvironmmt, such as organization size, cmtralimtion of authority, number of hierarchical
levels, technology, and degree to which rules and policies constrain individual behavior.
Organimtional climate develops as members converge on their perceptions of their

arrrourrdings (i.e., as members solidify their impressions and variation in perceptions is

2 5
mirrimrized). Therefore, Payne and Pugh’s (1976) assertion would arggest that these objective

aspects of the organimtion will lead to greater climate consmars.

Moreover, Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) suggest that socialimtion involves
experimces and learning with the policies and practices involved ill mforcing the rules of the
organization. If organizations have made these policies explicit through a formal orimtation
process, then, socialimtion should occur more quickly, allowing new members to converge
with the group on climate perceptions. The end result of this process should be greater
consmars on perceptions of climate.

Despite the obvious implications of these theoretical positions (see also James, et a1,
1984), no research to date has systematically examined the relationships betwem climate
consmars and organizational factors related to its developmmt. The one study that did
examine raw) as a depmdmt variable was conducted by Kozlowski and Hults (1987) who
hypothesized all the organizations they examined would have high vahres of raw However,
like most other organizations, the ones ill their sample had close and continuing
interdepmdmcies among members and operated at least forty hours per week. The
organimtional climate would he expected to be nnrch more developed ill arch organimtions,
although there are filctors, arch as lack of commnmication, which can affect this developmmt.

As noted previously, LEPCs vary in their stages of organizational developmmt. Some
have met frequmtly and have hem continually active since 1987; others are virtually moribund
(Adams, et a1, 1994). Thus, LEPCs vary considerably in the fiequmcy of their meetings,
allowing differences in the time members have to move through the stages of socialimtion or to
undergo similar experiences concerning the organization and its processes Alternatively, the

more meetings an LEPC holds, the more likely climate consmars is to form The presmce of

2 6
subcommittees ill LEPCs should have a simrilar effect on climate consmars Subcommittees

mnrst meet periodically, thus allowing for more interaction between group members.

An examination of climate consensus may prove fiuitfill because relationships betwem
work mvironmmt variables and climate have not rmiformly hem arpported by previous
studies (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). For example, Lindell and Whitney (1995) formd the
climates of emergmcy planning tearm were related to their commnmity apport and federal
emergmcy planning resources, but not to the availability of automated technology or their
community’s hazard vulnerability. One possible explanation for their filihlre to find a
relationship betwem climate and technology is that technology might only affect the
development of climate (and, thus, consmars), not its quality. This point is equally applicable
to other studies of the relationships betwem environmental aspects and climate quality (the
degree to which climate is positive or negative). These studies also have failed to address the
relationships of antecedmt variables to climate consmars (the degree to which members are in
agreemmt) as Payne and Pugh (1976) arggest.

It is important to note that defining climate in terms of members’ perceptions of the
organizational mvironmmt implicitly places as mulch emphasis on perceptual processes as it
does on the characteristics of the organization itself Because individuals’ perceptual
judgments are strongly influmced by their vahres, the more formalized the organization’s
socialization process, the more mtrmched its vahres and norms are likely to become within
members As organizations vary ill terms of the formalimtion and lmgth of their socialization
processes, so too should the developmmt of climates within these organizations ‘

Hypothesis 3a: The existence of arbcommittees will be positively related to the
amormt of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

27

Hypothesis 3b: The existmce of subcommittees will be positively related to the
amormt of consmars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 3c: The existence of subcommittees will be positively related to the
amount of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 4a: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting
places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars
on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 4h: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting
places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars
on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 4c: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting
places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars
on role arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 5a: The more metings an LEPC has per year, the higher will be the
level of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 5b: The more meetings an LEPC has per year, the higher will be
the level of consmars on team arbscales of climte.

Hypothesis 5c: The more meetings an LEPC has per year, the higher willbe the
level of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 6a: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will erperimce
higher levels of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 6b: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will experience
higher levels of consmsus on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 6c: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will experience
higher levels of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 7a: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hazard
vuhrerahility and resource analyses) will be positively related to consmars on
leadership arbscales of climate.

2 8
Hypothesis 7b: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hamd

vulnerability and resource analyses) will be positively related to consmars on

team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 7c: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hamd

vulnerability and resource analyses) will be positively related to consmars on

role arbscales of climate.

Organimtions require resources to develop. LEPCs derive most of the
resources they need from the surrounding community. Thus, the more community
resources an LEPC has, the firster it can develop as an organization. As mmtioned
previously, organizational climate is thought to develop along with the organization.

Hypothesis 8a: The amount of community resources will be positively related
to the level of consmsus on leadership subscales of climate.

Hypothesis 8b: The amount of commnmity resources will be positively related
to the level of consmars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 8c: The amount of community resources will be positively related

to the level of consmsus on role arbscales of climate.

Direct experimces with emergmcies and emergmcy exercises give the LEPC members
greater opportrmity to interact with one another and work together toward a specific grorp
goal This fircilitates the socialization process by forcing individuals to work together as a
closely-linked team, thus providing an opportunity for the perceptions of individual members to
coalesce. Thus, the emergmcy situations are proposed to facilitate the developmmt of climate
consmsus

Hypothesis 9a: Direct experience with emergencies or emergmcy exercises will
be positively related to consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 9b: Direct experience with emergmcies or emergmcy exercises will
be positively related to consmars on team arbscales of climate.

29

Hypothesis 9c: Direct experimce with emergmcies or emergmcy exercises will
be positively related to consmars on role arbscales of climate.

Motheazed Cmences of Climate QM'

Previous studies have formd relationships betwem climate quality and outcome
measures at the individual and organimtional levels. Kopehnan, Brief; & Guzzo (1990) state
that organimtional climate does have an impact on meaames of productivity. Moreover, ill
relation to individual outcomes, Schneider and Bowen (1985) examined the level of climate
quality among hank employees and conchrded that climate for service, as rated by employees
and customers, is related to the tumover intentions of both grorps In Zohar (1980), climate
for safety was formd to be related to safety program effectivmess and accident prevmtion.
Two factors were important ill determining the quality of climate for safety, inchrding workers’
perceptions of managemmt attitudes about safety and their perceptions regarding the relevance
of safety ill gmeral production processes Hacklnan and Oldham (1975) and Kopehnan, Brief
and Guzzo (1990) formd climate to be related to measures of member satisfirction. James and
Jones (1974, 1976) formd that organizational climate is related to several outcome measures
including productivity and tumover. James and Tetrick (1986) and James and Jones (1980)
formd reciprocal relationships betwem organizational climate and individual satisfirction. Smith,
Organ, and Near (1983) formd leader apport (one dimension of climate in this study) to be
related to citizmship behaviors

Hypothesis 10a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be negatively
related to members’ intmtions to tumover.

Hypothesis 10b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be negatively related
to members’ intentions to turnover.

Hypothesis 10c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be negatively related
to members’ intentions to turnover.

30

Hypothesis 11a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively correlated
with citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 1 lb: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively correlated with
citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 11c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively correlated with
citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 12a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively correlated
with the attendance of LEPC members.

Hypothesis 12b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively correlated with
the attmdance of LEPC members

Hypothesis 12c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively correlated with
the attmdance of LEPC members

Hypothesis 13a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 13b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 13c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 14a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported efl‘ort.

Hypothesis 14b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported effort.

Hypothesis 14c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported efi‘ort.
At the organizational level, Kozlowski and Hulls (1987) examined relationships

betwem climate for technical updating and outcome variables. Results indicated climate for

3 1
technical updating was related to overall effectiveness, technical performance, updating

orientation, growth satisfaction, organizational commitmmt, and job involvemmt. More
recmtly, Lindell and Whitney (1995) examined climate as a mediator betwem some structural
variables and efi‘ectiveness meaames in Local Emergmcy Planning Committees (LEPCs).
Chairs from 48 LEPCs were arrveyed as to their perceptions of climate, factors of the extemal
mvironment, and outcome variables Moderately strong relationships were formd between
climate and factors in the extemal mvironmmt (commnmity apport and emergmcy planning
resources), intemal mvironmmt (stafing and structure), and overall organinltional
efi‘ectivmess. However, because climate data were only collected from LEPC Chairs,
consensus among members could not be assessed. In addition, the meaarres used to assess
climate also were derived fromthe LEPC Chair andusedresponse scales similarto thoseused
for assessing organizational efl‘ectivmess data This creates an opportlmity for method effects
to inflate true meaarres of relationships betwem these variables, a problem that was recognized
by the authors, and addressed by examining the correlations betwem climate and objective
archival meaarres obtained fl'om the State Emergency Response Comnrission (SERC). The
climate measures were formd to have lower correlations with the SERC archival measures than
with LEPC Chair self-reports, but the relationships with both types of criterion meaarres were
statistically and practically significant. These results arggest a firrther examination of the
relationship betwem climate (measured at the individual-level) and organizational efl‘ectivmess
measured by organimtional level data on tumover, attmdance, planning quality, and general
efi‘ectiveness ratings given by the State Emergmcy Response Commission A

Hypothesis 15a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be negatively
related to actual tumover ill LEPCs

32

Hypothesis 15b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be negatively related
to actual turnover ill LEPCs

Hypothesis 15c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be negatively related
to actual turnover in LEPCs

Hypothesis 16a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively
related to organizational ratings given by the staff of the State Emergency
Response Commission

Hypothesis 16b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively related
to organizational ratings givm by the staff of the State Emergmcy Response
Commission

Hypothesis 16c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively related
to organizational ratings givm by the staff of the State Emergency Response
Commission

Hypothesis 17a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively
related to LEPC Chairs’ judgrnmts of the quality of emergmcy planning
activities

Hypothesis 17b: Quality on team arbscales of climate will be positively related
to LEPC Chairs’ judgments of the quality of emergmcy planning activities

Hypothesis 17c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively related

to LEPC Chairs’ judgments of the quality of emergmcy planning activities
Hypothesis 18a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively related to
actual member attmdance at LEPC meetings

Hypothesis 18b: Qlality on team arbscales of climate will be positively related to actual
member attmdance at LEPC meetings.

Hypothesis 18c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be positively related to actual
member attmdance at LEPC meetings

Mothesized Commas of Climate Consensus
As noted earlier, only one climate study to date has made any predictions at all using

consmars as a dependent variable (Kozlowski & Hulls, 1987). This study demonstrated some

3 3
interest in trying to predict degree of consmars, as the organizations were predicted to have

high vahres of raw Although the hypothesis was confirmed, no data were collected on
organizational factors that might have influmced inter-organizational variation in the level of
raw, as the study’s design intmt was predicated on finding high consensus

Climate consmsus may be related to some outcome meaarres, but because level of
consmars has not been previously considered, there is no empirical basis for any specific
predictions. However, research on group performance (e. g., Zander, 1994) indicates that
groups must allow their members to interact freely, depmd upon each other, and desire to
remain in the group to achieve their goals Because all of these conditions imply some degree
of consmsus about conditions in the organimtion, a gmeral prediction is that clinulte
consmars will lead to greater levels of individual and organizational outcomes whm climate
quality is better than average.

Hypothesis 19a: Consmars on leadership arbscales of climate will be related to

both individual (e.g., effort, tumover intmtions, and citizmship behaviors) and

organizational (e.g., actual tumover, attmdance, and LEPC task efl‘ectivmess)
outcome meaarres arch that it will add information over that explained by

climate quality.

Hypothesis 19b: Consmars on team arbscales of climate will be related to both
individual (e.g., effort, turnover intmtions, and citizenship behaviors) and
organizational (e.g., actual turnover, attmdance, and LEPC task effectiveness)
outcome meaarres arch that it will add information over that explained by
climate quality.

Hypothesis 19c: Consmars on role arbscales of climate will be related to both
individual (e.g., efi‘ort, tumover intmtions, and citizenship behaviors) and
organizational (e. g., actual tumover, attmdance, and LEPC task effectiveness)
outcome meaarres arch that it will add information over that explained by

climate quality.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedures

A list of LEPC Chairs was obtained fiom the State Emergmcy Response Commissions in
Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan A total of 296 LEPC Chairs were smt surveys containing a cover
sheet explaining the study and requesting participation, a five page questionnaire, and a self-
addressed stamped mvelope (see Appendix A). Those Chairs not returning the initial copy of the
questionnaire were sent a reminder postcard and as many as two follow-up copies of the
questionnaire. A total of 180 LEPC Chairs retumed completed instruments, for an overall
response rate of 60.8% (42.3% ill Illinois, 68.5% ill Indiana, and 73.9% in Michigan).

A list of LEPC members was obtained either from the SERC or through requests to
LEPC chairs for address lists of members Those members for whom we received address
information were smt a cover sheet explaining the study and requesting participation, a six page
questionnaire, and a self-addressed aamped mvelope (see Appendix B). As was the case for the
LEPC Chairs, subsequmt mailings were sent to those members not responding to the initial
survey. Surveys were smt to 367 LEPC members ill Illinois, 884 LEPC members ill Indiana,
and 1,193 LEPC members in Michigan. A total of 1,196 surveys were returned in usable
condition - 162 from Illinois, 456 from Indiana, and 578 from Michigan This resulted in
response rates of44. 14%, 51.58%, and 48.45% respectively, with the average within-group

response rate estimated to he 51.%. The actual compliance of LEPC members in this study might

be higher than indicated by the response rates, however. A number of individuals whose

34

3 5
names appeared on LEPC rosters indicated they believed they should not have hem selected

for participation in this study. These individuals reported they had retired, were brand new
members who had not yet attmded an LEPC meeting, or did not lmow what an LEPC was.
All rmknown number of nonrespondmts mright have hem in similar situations, yet not reported
this information to the research team as a reason for declining to retum a questionnaire.

A summaryofthe sources ofmeasuresusedinthisstudycanbeformdin Table 1.

number of
formal orientation

LEPC size

of elected oflicials
climate
actual turnover

effectiveness
turnover intentions
behavior
commitment
rewards

36

Table 1: Sources of Information

>4 >< >< >< >< >< >< ><

><><

 

3 7
While there is potmtial for method bias ill some of the relationships assessed, the use of

different data collection formats, times, and arbjects, should reduce the effects ill many of the
relationships (Spector, 1975; Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989, Crampton & Wagner, 1994).
As Table 1 indicates, the sources of information on antecedmt variables were the LEPC Chairs
and cenars data; climate measures were collected fi'om the members of the LEPC; and
outcome variable meaarres were takm fiom the LEPC Chair arrvey, the LEPC member
arrvey, and the SERC.

Miles

The LEPC Chair questionnaires collected data on the number of meetings held ill 1993,
number of members (size), lmgth of meetings, regular scheduling of meetings (date, time,
place, agenda), presmce of subcommittees, tumover, specificity of instructions given to
members (formalization of group processes), formal orimtation program for members, goal
setting and feedback, apport of elected oflicials, experimce with emergmcies or emergency
exercises, and use of technology (see Appmdix A). All of these variables were assessed directly
using objective questions except apport of elected officials, which was measured using a 8
item scale derived fiom James’ leader goal emphasis and apport scales (James & Jones, 1980;
James & Sells, 1981).

The survey smt to LEPC members assessed multiple dimmsions of climate inchlding
teamwork, afl‘ect, roles, tasks, and leader behaviors, as well as some individual outcome
meaarres Five-point Likelt scales were used for all of the items except individual demographic
characteristics (gmder, age, and organization represmted). Teamwork was assessediusing four
scales, illchlding team coordination (items 7 a-7h), team cohesion (items lOa-10f& 10h), team

pride (items lla-l 1c), and team task-orimtation (items 8a-8c, 8i; 8h & 9c). Items for the first

3 8
three scales were adapted from an instrument previously developed by James and his

colleagues (James & Sells, 1981). The team task-orientation scales was derived fiom
instrummts devised by Seers (1989) and Bales (1950), and was intmded to provide a group
level analogue of the leader initiating structure scale from the LBDQ. Team coordination
contained 8 items and exhibited an intemal consistmcy reliability of or = .95. Team cohesion
contained 8 items and demonstrated an intemal consistency reliabilities of a = .86. Team pride
contained 3 item and exhibited an ilrtemal consistmcy reliability of a = .92. Team task
orimtation contained 8 items and displayed an internal consistmcy reliability of a = .89.

Scales used to meaarre role and task characteristics inchrded role clarity (items 4a-4e),
role conflict (items 5a-5 g), and role overload (items 6a-6d). Role clarity and role conflict
scales were modified from scales developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Role
clarity contained five items and exhibited an intemal consistmcy of a = .92, while role conflict
corfiained seven items and demonstrated an intemal consistmcy of a = .83. Role overload was
derived from studies performed by James and colleagues (James & Jones, 1979; James & Sells,
1981). This scale contained 4 items (items 6a-6d) and exhibited an internal consistency of a =
.7 1.

Three leadership dimmsions were assessed inchrding leader commnmication (items 1a-
lh), leader consideration (items 2a-2h), and leader initiating structure (items 3a-3h). Leader
communication consisted of an eight item scale adapted from the leader goal facilitation and
apport scales of James’ Climate Questionnaire (James & Jones, 1979; James & Sells, 1981).
Leader consideration consisted of eight items adapted from the leader consideration subsection
of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (IBDQ) (Stogdill, 1963). The leader

initiating structure scale was takm directly from the leader initiating structure arbscale of the

3 9
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Stogdill, 1963 ). These three scales

exhibited internal consistmcies of or = .95, .93, and .87 respectively.

Antecedmt variables were derived from the Chair questionnaire and cmsus data.
Existence of subcommittees (question 12b), was assessed on the LEPC chair arrvey. Three
items (items 7a-7c) were combined into a scale to assess the formalimtion of meetings This
scale erdlibited intemal consistmcy of a = .85. To determine the number of metings ill 1993,
LEPC chairs were asked to circle the months in which meetings were held (question 4), for a
rearlting scale of0-12. The LEPC chairs were asked to fill out a five item scale concerning
formal orimtation of LEPC members (items 9a-9d, 12a). The internal consistmcy of this scale
was or = .79. LEPC chairs were asked three items conceming use oftechnology and
computers in their LEPCs (items 16a, 16b, 211). This scale exhibited intemal consistmcy of a
= .87. Direct experimce with emergencies was assessed by summing three items (items
13a-c) concerning experience with natural, fixed cite, and transportation emergencies ill
the past five years. This scale had a range of 0 to 3 and a reliability of or =.46. LEPC size
was derived from the LEPC Chairs’ reports of the total number of members ill their LEPCs
(item 6a). Support fiom elected oflicials was assessed using an 8 item scale (items 20a-h) with
internal consistency of a = .92. Commnmity resources were assessed from 1982 cmsus data
on the nmnber of police and firefighters, and the population of each cormty (1987 Cmsus of
Govemmmts). The number of public safety personnel per capita was then computed by
dividing the population by the arm of police and firefighters

Criterion variables were assessed in three ways: (a) the Chair questionnaire; (b) the
member questionnaire; and (c) the State Emergency Response Commission archives.

Organization-level variables assessed on the Chair questionnaire include actual tumover (item

4 0
8), percmt attmding meetings (item 6a divided by item 6b), and quality of LEPC planning

activities (13 items: 28a-28m, scale (1 =92). Individual-level outcomes assessed on the
member questionnaire inchrde intmtion to tumover (3 items: 22a-22c), effort (5 items: 18a-
18e, scale or = .75), attmdance takm fiom Whitney and Lindell (1995) (4 items: 21a-21c & 27,
or = .85), perceived rewards (9 items: 14a-l4i, a = .89), and citizenship behavior derived from
Organ (1988) (5 items: 19a-e, scale a = .83). LEPC efi‘ectivmess ratings for Michigan LEPCs
were derived from the Michigan SERC archives and were based on overall ratings on a l to 5
Likert scale.

Principal componmts factor analysis of the items in the member questionnaire yielded
25 factors having eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and 16 factors accormting for more than 1.0%
of the variance. A scree plot of the eigmvahres suggested a 17 factor solution, but a varimax
rotation yielded only 12 interpretable factors (i e., 3 or more items having firctor loadings
greater than .35 and a theoretically deferrahle commonality of content). Factor 1 was defined
by all of the items from the scales for leader initiating structure, leader consideration, leader
commnmication, role clarity, team coordination, team task orimtation and team cohesion
Factor 2 was defined by the items fi'om the effort and citizenship scales, while factor 3 was
defined by perceived rewards Factor 4 consisted of the role conflict and role overload scales,
and factor 5 consisted of items from the normative commitment scale. Factor 6 consisted of
the job characteristics items, factor 7 was defined by the attmdance items, factor 8 consisted of
the team social/emotional items, and factor 9 was comprised of self eflicacy items. Factor 10
was defined by the task significance items, factor 11 consisted of the job satisfaction and
tumover intentions items, and firctor 12 was comprised of the planning eflicacy items Factor

13 had only one item with loading greater than .35, factor 14 consisted of three personal afl‘ect

4 1
items ill the team cohesion scale (10b, lOe, and Mt), and factor 15 picked up a few cross-

loaded items from the team coordination and team task orimtation scales (7g, 7b, 8a, and 8c).
Finally, factor 16 was defined by two measures of organizational membership, while filctor 17
was defined by tmure on the LEPC and age.

Scale reliabilities were first examined for each of the climate arbscales using intemal
consistmcies measured by coeflicimt alpha. Scales with coeflicients less than .70 were further
examined to determine whether their reliabilities can be improved by deleting irrelevant items
or partialling out distinct arbscales Interrater consmars on climate measures was then assessed
using the calculation for raw Scores on hypothesized antecedmt variables were correlated
with the variance on climate perceptions within the organization to test hypotheses about the
antecedents of climate consmars Variances were used because all climate items were
measured on 5 point Likert scales; thus, using climate variance as the dependent variable would
produce the same results as analyzing vahres of rm), but would be computationally simpler.
Moderated regression analyses were performed to test hypotheses 10a through 10c by first
mtering the climate quality vahres, then the climate consmars vahres, thm the interaction
variable. Mean substitution was used to accormt for missing data, as it is a conservative, yet
depmdable estimate of the relationships.

Method of Aggegation

Items within all ten climate scales were examined for every individual Ifmore than
30% of the items were missing, the other items within the scale were removed for that
individual, on the asannption that the items did not make sense as a scale for that person. Thus
no scale score was derived for those subjects missing more than 30% of the items. Scale

scores were then calculated for each individual by taking the average of the item scores.

42
Equation2wasthenusedto examrinethe consmsuswithineachLEPC onthe 10

climate scales The relationship betwem the number of respondmts and the vahres given by
rm) was examined to determine a cutoff point for the size of groups to be examined at the
grorp level Afier examining this relationship graphically and the rearlting number of grorps
which would be available for analysis, it was determined that organizations with fewer than 7
members would not he examined at the group level This step was performed because rm) is
known to becomes increasingly biased downward as the size of the group decreases (James, et
al, 1984). The remaining grorps were scremed to eliminate those groups with vahres of rm
less than .70 from analyses for the particular scales (James, 1982b). Organimtions with values
of raw, outa'de the expected range for agreement (.00 to 1.0) were also eliminated fiom
analyses for the particular scales

This process of screening out organizations lacking adequate levels of climate
consmars produced moderate (34%) to severe (60%) attrition in sample size. Because anal]
sample sizes introduce lower power into the statistical tests as a plausible explanation for

nonsignificant results, tables of correlations also are displayed that do not screen out LEPCs

having inadequate levels of consmsus

RESULTS

Ann-lass of Climate Sm

Appendix C contains information concerning scales used in this study. The climate
scales, when aggregated to the organizational level, are almost all highly correlated. The only
exceptions are role conflict and role overload, which are themselves highly correlated. These
results indicate that there is little reason to expect subsequent analyses of climate facets
(leader, team, and role characteristics) to show strong patterns of differential relationships
with antecedents and consequences. Also included ill Appmdix C are tables displaying
information for scales used as antecedents and outcomes.
Distributions of ram values

Appendix D includes frequency distributions of rwgg) values across the LEPCs having
adequate amount (i. e., n >=7) of individual data. Consensus generally was greatest on leader
characteristics, somewhat less on the team characteristics, and least on role characteristics. It
is noteworthy that some values of raw) appeared outside the proper interval (0<=r,..3(,-)<=1) for
all scales. Values obtained that fell outside this interval were set to - 1.00 on the graphs for
purposes of clarity and display.
Correlations Betwem Organization Level Antecedents and Organizational Climate @131

Hypothesis 1a: The number of members within the LEPC will be positively related
to the level of quality on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis lb: The number of members within the LEPC will be positively related
to the level of quality on team subscales of climate.

43

44

Hypothesis 1c: The nmmher of members within the LEPC will be positively
related to the level of quality on role arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 2a: The degree to which elected oflicials are apportive of the efforts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on leadership subscales of climate.

Hypothesis 2b: The degree to which elected oflicials are apportive of the efforts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 2c: The degree to which elected officials are apportive of the efi‘orts of the
LEPC will be positively related to quality on role subscales of climate.

Results show the number of members within LEPCs was not significantly
correlated with climate consensus on any of the climate scales, while the presence of
arpport by local oficials was only correlated with climate quality on the role overload
scale (see Table 2a). This indicates that LEPCs do not need a large number of members to
have a positive climate, but the support of local oficials may make a difi‘erence in the

quality of at least one aspect of the climate in LEPCs.

45

32.96 28 n .96.:

88:8 28 n 28M
bra—o 28 n Sam

:otfifiio Mas Eco“ u 2H
025 :82 u EH
commence :38 u ash,

nous—€58 Snow n 838
3520238 have“: u a?—
aouaomnafifioo 323— ” eased
0:536 museum—um 823— .1. EA

Merv.—

.88558n E “.8862 a one. 295m 0
Quezon—Bu 29: no b can on. 55 Sachem ea; me $29 9m: 633 819 Sup—=0 05% 58 Sm 339:8 was eve—bone 883:8 828m 2F.

 

 

 

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

GE GE GE GE GE 35 GE GE 3.: GE “Bones
:8? *8”; :3. as. ram. :2. .52. as. two”. tea. 86% see eooea

E: as: as: E: as: as: 2.5 «2: cs: :5
ea. e8. .52. e8. 3 E. as. as. one Ema

 

 

 

89; magic—a0 vacuum baa—.0 038:0 385.3590 can $8308: _o>oq-=ezaN_§m5 5N 035,—.

88588.“ E 323%.: mm one 2.38m o
.3“ng 29: no N. 98 oh 55 55E 33 mo 82g 9n: 6:? «28m Sag—o 05% :08 com Baas—8 33 use? Sun—oboe 838m 25..

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 as $8 2.8 as me an as :5 :5 asses
ion- 2N- m8. mg. as. as oeo. «S. M: _. 8o. Ease see 8&3

:3 9.8 as as $8 at as at Ev at

a: .- o8; GT 98.. see. e: - $9- £9. £0 - 98.. see 0%:
lies ashram see}; .. . .3 teen 5 Hartwell:

 

3?; mesa—dofio 8% 3:35 Seam—U $83.35ch 28 353823. figs—eoufimaumuo uaN 03$.

 

 

4 6
Interestingly, the correlations between support from local oflicials and climate

quality before calculating rm) are much higher (Table 2b). This may indicate that the
relationships betwem meaarres of climate and this antecedent variable may be different for
LEPCs with fewer members, as the groups with less than 7 members were screened out
during the aggregation process. That is, it may be more important for small LEPCs to
have strong support from local officials.
Correlations Betwem Organizational Level Antecedents and Organizational Climate
Consmars

The correlations between antecedent variables and climate consmsus for most of
the scales are not significant (see Table 4a). In fact, the number of significant findings
(10) is only slightly above what would be expected by chance (7 of 70 correlations, or
10%). However, there do seem to be patterns in the data, which may indicate these
relationships are not solely explainable by chance fluctuations in the data.

Hypothesis 3a: The existence of arbcommittees will be positively related to the
amount of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 3b: The existmce of arbcommittees will be positively related to the
amount of consmars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 3c: The existmce of arbcomnnittees will be positively related to the
amormt of consmars on role subscales of climate.

The existmce of arbcommittees is significantly correlated with climate consmars on
the leader consideration (p<.01), team coordination (p < .01), and team cohesion (p < .05).
Thus, having subcommittees may increase climate consmars on team and leadership
dimensions of climate.

Hypothesis 4a: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting

places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars
on leadership arbscales of climate.

47

Hypothesis 4b: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting

places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars

on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 4c: LEPCs which have formalized meetings (regular meeting

places, meeting times, and meeting dates) will have higher levels of consmars

on role arbscales of climate.

The existmce of formalized meetings is positively correlated with consmsus on leader
consideration (p <.01) and team cohesion (p < .01). This may indicate that climate consmars
for leadership and team dimmsions of climate are affected by the degree to which LEPC
meetings are formalized

Hypothesis 5a: The more meetings an LEPC has per year, the higher will be the
level of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 5b: The more meetings an LEPC has per year, the higher will be
the level of consenars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 5c: The more meetings an LEPC has per year, the higher will be the
level of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

The number of meetings an LEPC held in 1993 is positively correlated with consensus
on leader consideration (p<.01) and team coordination (p < .05). As with Hypotheses l and 2,
the leader and team dimmsions of climate may be afieaed by the number of meetings held per
year.

Hypothesis 6a: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will experience
higher levels of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 6b: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will experimce
higher levels of consmars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 6c: LEPCs which have a formal orimtation process will experimce
higher levels of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

4 8
Having a formal orimtation process is not significantly correlated with consensus on

any of the climate arbscales. This finding may be due to socialization involving a great deal of
informal orimtation as well. Simply understanding the mles of the organimtion does not
inform new members about the implicit norms and vahres of the organization’s members.
Hypothesis 7a: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hazard
vulnerability and resource analyses) will be positively related to consmars on
leadership arbscales of climate.
Hypothesis 7b: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hazard
vuhrerahility and resource analyses) will be positively related to consmars on
team subscales of climate.
Hypothesis 7c: The use of computer technology (for commnmity hazard
vulnerability and resource analyses) will be positively related to consensus on
role arbscales of climate.
The use of technology was not significantly correlated with consmsus on any of the
climate scales except leader consideration (p<.01).

Hypothesis 8a: The amormt of commnmity resources will be positively related
to the level of consmars on leadership arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 8b: The amormt of commnmity resources will be positively related
to the level of consmars on team arbscales of climate.

Hypothesis 8c: The amormt of commnmity resources will be positively related
to the level of consmars on role arbscales of climate.

The amount of commnmity resources was significantly correlated with consmars on
leader consideration (p < .01) and role overload (p < .01). Interestingly, these findings were
opposite the hypothesized relationships, with more commnmity resources leading to greater
dissmsus on these two scales

Hypothesis 9a: Direct experimce with emergmcies or emergmcy exercises will
be positively related to consmars on leadership subscales of climate.

Hypothesis 9h: Direct experience with emergmcies or emergency exercises will
be positively related to consmars on team arbscales of climate.

49

Hypothesis 9c: Direct experimce with emergencies or emergency exercises will
be positively related to consmars on role arbscales of climate.

Direct experience with emergmcies was not correlated with consensus on any of
the climate scales.

Comparing the results obtained after raga) was used to screen groups not
demonstrating consmsus (Table 3a) to those obtained before rm) was calculated (Table
3b) shows some interesting differences. While the socialization factors are important to
forming consmsus on leader consideration and team coordination ill both tables, team
cohesion seems to be important as well before raga) calculations eliminated many of the
groups. This may indicate a difference in results for smaller groups or those with less

agreement on climate measures.

50

36326 28 M
8:88 28 n

3320 28 u E

83883.. «38 883 u
028 883 M

83080 883 u
8383.88 883 n
8382.380 832 n
8388888 832 M
08836 93.33: 832 n

fjjéégfidjj

5|

883828 E 3383:: 2a 85 29:3 9
gnaw—So 8.33 8 “.822 2 3888.8 23 8838 883:8 .33sz o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A~e_v A___v Ao__v Am__v Am_~v
em_r oeo. _eCl eeo. mmo. ooeoeoexoeooee
Ao_~v Aeo_v AN__V A___v Am__v
NE. E tnom. 20.. N: 388258888
Ae__v Am__v Aw~_v Ao__v Ae__v
RT :5; toe? m:. 55.. $2888
as: 3: E:
o8. moo 83888 388.3
£3 E:
So. 3; - 3:302:38 838::
as: E:
wmo. wfl - mme328 Bum—«88.3
5: as:
Moor woofimaacoanm

 

 

emo.

 

 

 

 

  

. we

 

mama—880 8835 fiao3§3§m5 and 383.835., 83-83.3580 808m m=o3£oboo am 03am.

 

51

c.8308 0.8 u use...

30.380 0.8 n .28”—

3320 2c. M 5J—
835838 038 883 u e.,—-
028 883 u E...

83080 8.8 n goo-F
838.380 853 n 53,—.
83.20.0380 3080— n .5...
8383888 8.2.0. "sass.
083085 83.38. 8.80. n at.
law.

885.88 E 8383.... m. on... 038mm 0
.8838 8.3.... 8 8320.. 3 38888 0.3 28.6... mco3£0=8 02887. 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 as $8 .83 as $8 an a: .5 .E

N: - to. as.- 8: 8... es. .- 82.- 2.... 8.. e... .- ooeocoes 88:0

as: .3 33 .5 .8 .3 Rd .83 :3 :8

8o. 2.... So- 9.... es. .2. n... .5. E... E 88823888

33 88 $8 $8 83 $8 an 9: at 2:

Ne..- on..- L: E. 2.... wm.. es. woo- s... 2..- 32888

39 83 98 as an .83 83 at a: .E

a... .32. 2o .8.- Neo. SN. .2... 8N. .2. m8. 8.888 .88

33 88 2,8 98 88 $8 an :5 .8 .E

:5- an... m... t..- oNN. .5...- 3... tan.- 8? .3- 888532.88

63 88 $8 2.8 88 68 .3 met .8 2:

sec em..- .8 8..- 8.. 2..- «no. ten.- .8. mm..- 83.88.08.188

we 89 as as $3 $8 33 a: a: a:

8... mm... as.- .N..- .8. .8. as? 1mm? 80. em..- 82882.3
In... es...“ s... 3. sh a... are nu 2...... 7...... same-a

39: wig—830 .32

2.8880 88—0 38388.0 8.. 38808.9, 854-83.38.90 8953. 803200.80 5m 03am.

 

 

5 2
Correlations Between Organizational Clim_ate Wand Inidividual Level Outcoms

Hypothesis 10a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be negatively
related to members’ intentions to turnover.

Hypothesis 10b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be negatively related
to members’ intentions to turnover.

Hypothesis 10c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be negatively related
to members’ intentions to turnover.

Hypothesis 11a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively correlated
with citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 11b: Quality on team subscales of chmate will be positively correlated with
citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 11c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively correlated with
citizenship behaviors of LEPC members

Hypothesis 12a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively correlated
with the attendance of LEPC members

Hypothesis 12b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively correlated with
the attendance of LEPC members

Hypothesis 12c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively correlated with
the attendance of LEPC members

53

Hypothesis 13a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 13b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 13c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ perceived rewards of participating in the LEPC.

Hypothesis 14a: Quality on leadership arbscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported efl‘ort.

Hypothesis 14b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported efl‘ort.

Hypothesis 14c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively related to
members’ self-reported effort.

54

vac—8.8 28 n 53M

85.80 28 u 28m

E... 22 n 5..
aouauuotc x8. Ego. n 2H
03:— 88. n EH

862—8 :88 u ssh.
858888 8.3 u 58H

8680288 888. u .54
83.885888 832 flees..—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0836 8.8.8. .33— " EA
"4%.
.8855an E 3.88:. .2 oumm 28am.
:8: $2.: 8...: .80: 3...: ......: 92.. 82: $2: $2:
tawov .1. — 2 .- them. $1.0M. .3le. :wov. fawn. :Nvm. aiwhm. 5.3.0 «8538500
32.: a8: .21: 38: a3: a2: 9.2.: $2: $2: :2:
3.02.- {*mmur :mow. *swmn. IRNO. aim—w. firth. ..:..NOW. 19%. Etc—m. 3:952 60300.59
.28: 3.8: 8...: :8: 3...: ......: 32.: 82: $2: $2:
:2; .. xiv: .- five». 1.33.. {*vwv. 1.3%. **NNV. :ONV. .1.va 3.00%. “hobo wozoeom
.26: 92.: a... : $8: 9.... : 9.... : a2... 62 : 2.2 : 3.2 :
.3..wa one. Ifiwv. 1.53”. airwm. aim—v. :Nwm. IRNM. aimomw .1.— ~m. how/anon— Egfiumo
as: $2.: an. : :8: a2 : Q2 : 5...: $2 : An... : a... : m 88.
1&2. **mo_. 13.”. **NNN.- .35.”- **NMN.- {*moNr 1.3”- gov”- 1.315- macmaoufim 5.55
$8: $2.: a... : $3: .2. : .22 : $8: 82: a... : a... : a 88.
*amnN. *smmN. ivmmr .35—mi *sowmr **omm.- :ommr 3&ri 80o”- 1N5”- mnomaaowam 52.63
:8: 98: 8...: a8: 9...: 5.: 22.: $2: :2: G2: .88.
1.8.. 3% .. 1w. mg 393.. it? 822.38 8258...

 

«.an .23 15.2.3. as. 3.8.0 238 3.3.2.0.... 82.5.. 8.3050 n... 0...:

 

  
 

 

55

33.96 0—... n

56¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85.80 0.... n as»:
at... 22 u .5.
5.333... «.8. Eco. n 3h
03:. :88 n EH
fiofioaoo anew H soak.
uoflwfivucoo Eco» H 88,—.
:Oflauufimmflon. How—3— ” Eu)—
:Omuaogoo .523— H 358..—
05838 923...... .38. n .5...
u OVH
88. 88. .8: .8: 82.. .8: .8: g: .8: .8:
*mwor tom—r **0w_. 1&2. 3.2.. 1.0:. 3&3. 1mg. .1.me 1mg. «38:580....
.8: 88. .8: .8: 83.. .8: 8m: 8.: .8: .8:
given..- :OMNr .I.wwN 1.00m. :mmm. .ILOM. tow” .1.th 1.2.” :NoN. 3.330.— “5300.59
88. 88. .8: .8: 82.. .8: .8: .2: .3: .8:
**mM—.- Erwflr *LNN. 3.52. tummm. .I.mmm. **hw—. **mo—. INS. .ILNN. “hobo “5200.53
.8: .8: .8: 88: .8... .8: .8: .2: .8: .8:
000.. .I.N— ~.- :wvm. tag. 1.3.” twovm. :02. 3.2L. .332. 1.00” Hogwaon QEmGDNmumo
88. .8: .8: .8: .8... .8: .8: .8: .8: .8: m as.
:2... 1.: .. 8...- 8...- :3..- .80.- ..8.- 38...- $8...- .88.- 82.8.... .266...
88. .82 .8: .8: 8m... .8: .8: .8: .8: .8: N 88.
:3... ..:..—w—. 1.2”- .IBONV from”- Egmomf tuner twoomr :mw—r 1mm..- mfiOfifiOfi—m 5.65
.8: .8: .8: 8m: 83.. .8: 8m: .2: .8: 8m: . 82.
£50.. 1.3;. ..:..mm—.. *_..o:.- :MNNE IBM—- *bwor 1N2- 1.2 —.- SLR—.-

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

88.... .23 .338... .a.
a... 8.3.3.8 .3... 8.25 2.2.... 33.3.5»... :85... 28.3050 58...:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

322.8... 82.83

 

 

 

56

3252. 28 u 56¢

SE80 2°.— " 28m

Ea 22 u .2
5:82.23 #2: Snow u 2H
03a :88 n EH

aofioaoo :88
gang-380 :38 n 58H
28330238 832 n .54
55825888 Beno— n 58-—
ohdosbm maximum Seco— u .31—
aw

 

$8: $8: 8:: 28: a: a $2 a as; 82 a £2 5 G2 3
:38.- .28- .1 8m. :32. :82. :02”. :82. £32. :88. is”.
38: $8: a: 3 a8: a: a 82: 28: $2 a G2 a :2 :
**NMON.- “cw—com.- ..iwooM. tho—m. taken. 5...va” “Sousa. :34.” *iwvom. *Lvom.
$8: 98: as: 28: a: 5 $1: 38: 82 c :2 s 32 :

325E580

 

$338 32083

 

 

 

1:: .- :88. int-N. 3.2%. 2:02. :23. .308. :Nnmm. :SR. :88. robe 82859
$8: 98: a: 3 $8: $2 3 $2 a as: 32: :2: $2 3

88.- 2 8.- :82. :— _ a. :32. .3; SN. :Som. :22. 1:2. :88. 8323 gamma-ago

m

as: :8: a2: 38: R2: 32: a3: $2: $2: 5.5
12:. :38. :22.- :$S.- :82.- 122- :22.- 232- :92.- :_:2.- 88332833388

GB: 83: a2: Es: :2: $2: $3: 82: 8:: 92: N
:32. :22. 1:8.- ..32- :88.- ..N2N.- :22.- :_2~.- :23. :32.- 882328825583

:8: G8: 8:: as: 9.2: 8:: :8: 62: :2: G2: _
:88- ...28; :32. :32. 2.8:. 2:02. 12:. :22. 3.2.2. :32. Sommaoufifisgg

 

 

 

 

 

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
 

 

«tofu ES 3:329: Ea
ABE wag—5030 880m 3:35 038:0 fiaotfimqawuo nooBuom Sofia—280 ”303g

5 7
All five of the hypotheses were confirmed, regardless of whether the test involved

psychological climate (Table 4a), organizational level measures of climate afier screening
for rm) (Table 4b), or organizational level measures of climate before screening for rm)
(Table 4c). The quality of the climate scales (as indicated by the mean scale scores for
each LEPC) were all highly correlated with outcome variables at the member level
including turnover intentions, citizenship behaviors, perceived effort, perceived rewards,
and attendance, although the magnitude of the correlations declined when the climate
measures were aggregated to the organizational level and subsequently screened for
consensus. The fact that all climate and individual level outcomes were derived fiom the
same instrument would seem to be grounds for caution in interpreting these results.
However, the lack of significant finding for role conflict and citizenship behavior in Table
4a, and tmnover intentions item 3 and team coordination, team task orientation, and role
clarity in Table 4b, suggests that the very high values for the other correlations are not
solely caused by a common method artifact. Indeed, even if one assumes that the
correlations involving the role conflict and role overload scales are nothing more than a
pure measure of method variance, and partialled out this variance from the other
correlations, the latter would remain statistically and practically significant.
Correlations Between Climate Guam and Organization Level Criteria

The quality of climate scales (as indicated by the mean of members’ scale scores
within an LEPC) exhibited significant efi‘ects on the organization level criteria (see Table
5) despite the low sample sizes for the SERC ratings.

Hypothesis 15a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be negatively
related to actual tumover in LEPCs

58

Hypothesis 15b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be negatively related
to actual trnnover in LEPCs

Hypothesis 15c: Quality on role arbscales of climate will be negatively related
to actual tmnover in LEPCs

Actual turnover was not related to climate quality on any of the scales except role
clarity (p<.05). This could be due in part to membership not being entirely vohmtary. In other
words, membership on LEPCs is required for many of the members as part of their primary
jobs Thus, some members may not be able to leave.

Hypothesis 16a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively

related to organimtional ratings given by the staff of the State Emergmcy

Response Commission.

Hypothesis 16b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively related

to organimtional ratings given by the stafi‘ of the State Emergency Response

Commission.

Hypothesis 16c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively related

to organizational ratings given by the stafi‘ of the State Emergency Response

Commission.

The ratings given by the State Emergency Response Commission were significantly
correlated only with leader comnnmication and team pride (p<.05 for both). This may be due I
in part to the smaller sample size, as only Michigan LEPCs were rated (11 = 20 to 34).

Hypothesis 17a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively

related to LEPC Chairs’ judgments of the quality of emergency planning

activities

Hypothesis 17b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively related
to LEPC Chairs’ judgments of the quality of emergency planning activities

Hypothesis 17c: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively related
to LEPC Chairs’ judgmarts of the quality of emergency planning activities.

Climate quality on the following scales was significantly related to the quality of

emergency planning activities: leader initiating structure, leader comnnmication, leader '

5 9
consideration, team pride, role conflict, and role overload Of particular interest are planning

activities A (organizing and administering the LEPC), D (developing site specific emergency
plans), and H (developing training programs for local emergency responders) which are
significantly related to most or all of the climate scales. Conversely, leader consideration, team
pride, role conflict, and role overload are especially important components of climate because
they are significantly correlated with most of the emergency planning activities This is
consistent with the correlation pattern seen at the scale level

Hypothesis 18a: Quality on leadership subscales of climate will be positively related to
actual member attendance at LEPC meetings.

Hypothesis 18b: Quality on team subscales of climate will be positively related to actual
member attmdance at LEPC meetings

Hypothesis 180: Quality on role subscales of climate will be positively related to actual
member attendance at LEPC meetings

Climate quality on leader initiating structure, leader comrmmication, leader
consideration, team cohesion, team coordination, and team task orientation scales is
significantly correlated with actual member attendance. Thus, the team and leader aspects
seem to play an important role in the attendance at meetings, while characteristics of roles

do not.

60

 

 

2 ass.“ 35%

 

 

 

4 been mega

 

v. been; 55%

 

 

 

H es?“ 9253

 

H 5ng wag—a

 

 

m £62 mega

 

 

 

o 35.8“ mega

 

 

 

 

a 358“ 3:53

 

 

m 33:2 mega

 

 

Q 3352 mag—a

 

 

0 £52 mega

 

m his“ @253

 

 

< 33:2 mega

 

28¢ 3:95 wag—a

 

 

acne ommm

 

3:356“ “Sodom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$363 333

   

2.5:.— o
o _ >3 usages 2... see mes—35 .22 £15 8.86 383590 a as:

 

6 l
Correlgtions Between Organizational Climate Consensus and Criteria

The most direct test of hypotheses 19a through 19c would involve inspection of
the zero-order correlations between the climate consensus scores for each of the scales
and each of the outcome measures. However, these direct tests would be theoretically
unreasonable because they implicitly assume that high consensus is just as effective when
climate quality is bad as when it is good. A more appropriate test of these hypotheses
would recognize that the relationship between climate consensus and outcomes is
moderated by climate quality. Accordingly, moderated regression analyses were
conducted in which climate quality was entered first followed by climate consensus and,
last, by the product of these two terms.

Hypothesis 19a: Consensus on leadership subscales of climate will be related to

both individual (cg, effort, tumovcr intentions, and cin'zenship behaviors) and

organimtional (cg, actual turnover, attendance, and LEPC task efl‘ectivmcss)
outcome meaarres

Hypothesis 19b: Consensus on team subscales of climate will be related to both

individual (cg, cfi‘ort, tumovcr intentions, and citizenship behaviors) and

organizational (e.g., actual turnover, attendance, and LEPC task effectiveness)
outcome measures

Hypothesis 19c: Consensus on role subscales of climate will be related to both

individual (cg, effort, tmnover intentions, and citizenship behaviors) and

organizational (e.g., actual turnover, attendance, and LEPC task effectiveness)
outcome measures

Individual Level Criteria. Climate consensus did not add significantly to the
explained variance for almost all of the criteria variables over the variance explained by

climate quality (see Table 6a through 6g). The few relationships where climate consensus

was found to add significantly to prediction may be attributed to chance. There were even

6 2
fewer cases in which the interaction term contributed significance to the prediction of

individual level criteria.

63

Table 6a: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Intention to
Turnover — Item 1
leader initiating Climate Quality .022"
Strucnn'e
Climate Consensus .024“ .002
Interaction .024" .000
leader consideration Climate Quality .024“
Climate Consensus .026“ .002
Interaction .026“ .000
leader comnnmicaton Climate QualiL .025"
Climate Consensus .025“ .000
Interaction .025" .000
team cohesion Climate Quality .029“
Climate Consensus .029" .000
Interaction .029" .000
team coordination Climate Quality .018"
Climate Consensus .018” .000
Interaction .018" .000
team pride Climate Quality .029“
Climate Consensus .029“ .000
Interaction .029“ .000
team task-orimtation Climate Quality .020“
Climate Consensus .022" .000
Interaction .025" .003
role clarity Climate Quality .023"
Climate Consensus .023" .000
Interaction .023" .000
role conflict Climate Quality .005“
Climate Consensus .008“ .003
Interaction .008""'I .000
role overload Climate Quality .007”
Climate Consensus .009" .002
Interaction .010“ .001

 

N = 1209 for all variables

 

64

Table 6b: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Turnover
Intentions Item 2
leader initiating Climate Quality .034“
structure
Climate Consensus .037" .003
Interaction .038" .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .043W
Climate Consensus .046" .003
Interaction .046" .000
leader commrmicaton Climate Quality .042“
Climate Consensus .042“ .000
Interaction .042" .000
team cohesion Climate Quality .042“
Climate Consensus .043“ .001
Interaction .043" .000
team coordination Climate Quality .031"
Climate Consensus .031" .000
Interaction .033“ .002
team pride Climate Quality .047“
Climate Consensus .047“ .000
Interaction .047" .000
team task-orientation Climate Quality .033"
Climate Consensus .033" .000
Interaction .035" .002
role clarity Climate Quality .044“
Climate Consensus .044" .000
Interaction .046“ .002
role conflict Climate Quality .020“
Climate Consensus .021" .001
Interaction .021" .000
role overload Climate Quality .025"
Climate Consensus .029“ .004*
Interaction .030M .001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

Table 6c: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover Intentions, Item 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered 1rz Increment
Measure in R2
Turnover
Intentions Item 3
leader initiating Clirmte Quality .015”
structure
Climate Consenms .017“ .002
Interaction .017“ .000
leader consideration Climate Quality .016"
Climate Consensus .019M .003*
Interaction .019" .000
leader comrrrunicaton Climate Quality .022"
Climate Consensus .022" .000
Interaction .022" .000
team cohesion Climate Quality .017"
Climate Consensus .018" .001
Interaction .019” .001
team coordination Climate Quality .009"
Climate Consensus .009" .000
Interaction .011" .002
team pride Climate Quality .024"
Climate Consensus .024“ .000
Interaction .024M .000
team task-orientation Climate Quality .013"
Climate Consensus .014" .001
Interaction .017" .003
role clarity Climate Quay .016"
Climate Consensus .016“ .000
Interaction .017” .001
role conflict Climate Quality .008"
Climate Consensus .009" .001
Interaction .009“ .000
role overload Climate Quality .012"
Climate Consensus .014“ .002
Interaction .016" .002

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 6
Table 6d: Moderated Regression Results for Citizenship Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Citizenship
Behavior
leader initiating Climate Quality .045"
structure
Climate Consmsus .050” .005"
Interaction .057“I .007“
leader consideration Climate Quality .035"
Climate Consensus .037“ .002
Interaction .038M .001
leader communicaton Climate Quality .033"
Climate Consensus .042" .009”
Interaction .045“ .003*
team cohesion Climate Quality .054"
Climate Consensus .059“ .004*
Interaction .059” .000
team coordination Climate Quality .03 6"
Climate Consensus .037“ .001
Interaction .037" .000
team pride Climate Quality .031"
Climate Consensus .036“ .005"
Interaction .037" .001
team task-orimtation Climate Quality .03 8"
' Climate Consensus .040" .002
Interaction .040M .002
role clarity Climate Quality .060"
Climate Consensus .068" .008“
Interaction .070" .002
role conflict Climate Quality .001
Climate Consensus .003 .002
Interaction .002 -.001
role overload Climate Quality .001
Climate Consmsus .001 .000
Interaction .005 .004"‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

Table 6e: Moderated Regression Results for Perceived Effort

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Perceived Effort
leader initiating Climate Quality .064"
structure
Climate Consensus .065“ .001
Interaction .065" .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .052M
Climate Consensus .052 .000
Interaction .053 .000
leader commrmicaton Climate Quality .060"
Climate Consensus .061" .001
Interaction .063" .002
team cohesion Climate Quality .066"
Climate Consensus .070""'I .004*
Interaction .070“ .000
team coordination Climate Quality .047"
Climate Consensus .047" .000
Interaction 047""II .000
team pride Climate Quality .047"
Climate Consensus .047" .000
Interaction .047" .000
team task-orientation Climate Quality .049“
Climate Consensus .051""'I .002
Interaction .052" .001
role clarity Climate Quality .054“
Climate Consensus .054" .000
Interaction .057" .003
role conflict Climate Quality .008"
Climate Consensus .008" .000
Interaction .008* .000
role overload Climate Quality .011“
Climate Consensus .012" .000
Interaction .012" .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 8
Table 6f: Moderated Regression Results for Perceived Rewards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Perceived
Rewards
leader initiating Climate Quality .079"
structure
Climate Consmsus .084" .005"
Interaction .085" .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .070"
Climate Consensus .071“ .001
Interaction .071" .000
leader comtmmicaton Climate Quality .081"
Climate Consmsus .082" .001
Interaction .085" .003“
team cohesion Climate Quality .101“
Climate Consensus .101" .000
Interaction . 102" .001
team coordination Climate Quality .065“
Climate Consensus .068" .003“
Interaction .070" .002
team pride Climate Quality .088"
Climate Consensus .089" .001
Interaction .091" .002
team task-orientation Climate Quality .084M
Climate Consensus .086" .002
Interaction .087 ** .001
role clarity Climate Quality .082"
Climate Consmsus .082" .000
Interaction .082" .000
role conflict Climate Quality .034”
Climate Consmsus .034" .000
Interaction .034" .000
role overload Climate Quality .036"
Climate Consensus .036" .000
Interaction .036" .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 9
Table 6g: Moderated Regression Results for Attendance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Attendance
leader initiating Climate Quality .045"
structure
Climate Consensus .045“ .000
Interaction .046" .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .004
Climate Consensus .004 .000
Interaction .004 .000
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .040"
Climate Consensus .041" .001
Interaction .043" .002
team cohesion Climate Quality .041"
Climate Consensus .044" .003*
Interaction .045" .001
team coordination Climate Quality .030"
Climate Consensus .030“ .000
Interaction .030" .000
team pride Climate Quality .026"
Climate Consensus .026" .000
Interaction .027" .001
team task-orientation Climate Quality .032"
Climate Consensus .032" .000
Interaction .032“ .000
rolc clarity Climate Quality .035"
Climate Consensus .035“ .000
Interaction .037“ .002
role conflict Climate Quality .004
Climate Consensus .004 .000
Interaction .004 .000
role overload Climate Quality .005"
Climate Consensus .006* .001
Interaction .006 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

7O

O_rgam_m' 'on Level Criteria. Climate consensus failed to add significantly to the
explained variance for almost all of the criteria variables over the variance explained by
climate quality (see Tables 7a through 7q). The few relationships where climate consensus
was formd to add significantly to prediction may be attributed to chance. As was the case

for individual level criteria, there were even fewer cases in which the interaction term

contributed significantly to the prediction of individual level criteria.

7 1
Table 7a: Moderated Regression Results for Turnover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered Rz Increment
Measure in R2
Tmnover
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .001
Climate Consensus .013 .012
Interaction .023 .010
leader consideration Climate Quality .001
Climate Consensus .002 .001
Interaction .003 .001
leader comnnmicaton Climate QualitL .000
Climate Consensus .000 .000
Interaction .001 .001
team cohesion Climate Quality .002
Climate Consensus .005 .003
Interaction .017 .012
team coordination Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .005 .000
Interaction .006 .001
team pride Climate Quality .001
Climate Consensus .029 .028“
Interaction .030 .001
team task-orientation Climate Quality .002
Climate Consensus .005 .003
Interaction .007 .002
role clarity Climate Quality .002
Climate Consensus .023 .021
Interaction .023 .000
role conflict Climate Quality .004
Climate Consensus .004 .000
Interaction .007 .003
role overload Climate Quality .010
Climate Consensus .016 .006
Interaction .024 .018

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

Table 7b: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Qualiy
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .073"
Climate Consensus .096" .023
Interaction . 104" .008
leader consideration Climate Quality .035*
Climate Consensus .053* .018
Interaction .061“ .008
leader comnnmicaton Climate Qualiy .050"
Climate Consensus .060" .010
Interaction . 106" .046“
team cohesion Climate Quality .032“
Climate Consensus .050* .018
Interaction .057* .007
team coordination Climate Quality .045"
Climate Consensus .053* .008
Interaction .056* .003
team pride Climate Qrality .100"
Climate Consensus .107“ .007
Interaction . 127” .020
team task-orientation Climate Quality .036*
Climate Consensus .040 .004
Interaction .040 .004
role clarity Climate Quality .048"
Climate Consensus .056“ .008
Interaction .057“ .001
role conflict Climate Quality .059"
Climate Consensus .085" .026*
Interaction .085" .000
role overload Climate Quality .131“
Climate Consensus .132“ .001
Interaction .132" .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Table 7c: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R’ Increment
Measure in R2
Plarming
Quality
Item A
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .117"
Climate Consensus .121" .004
Interaction .130 .009
leader consideration Climate Quality .066"
Climate Consensus .132" .066“
Interaction . 146" .014
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .073“
Climate Consmsus .091" .028“
Interaction .l 18" .027*
team cohesion Climate Quality .052"
Climate Consensus .075" .023
Interaction .081" .006
team coordination Climate Quality .086“
Climate Consensus .109" .023
Interaction .119" .010
team pride Climate Quality .142"
Climate Consensus .147" .005
Interaction .153" .006
team task-orientation Climate Quality .088"
Climate Consensus .090" .002
Interaction .091" .001
role clarity Climate Quality .057"
Climate Consensus .063“ .006
Interaction 068* .005
role conflict Climate Quality .046"
Climate Consensus .046* .000
Interaction .046 .000
role overload Climate Quality .090M
Climate Consensus .105" .015
Interaction .105" .015

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

Table 7d: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Quality
hem B
leader m structure Climate Quality .045"
Climate Consensus .050* .005
Interaction .055* .005
leader consideration Climate Quality .021
Climate Consensus .086" .065"
Interaction .086" .000
leader cormmmicaton Climate Quality .011
Climate Consensus .022 .011
Interaction .030 .008
team cohesion Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .028 .023
Interaction .032 .004
team coordination Climate Quality .026
Climate Consensus .044“ .018
Interaction .046 .002
team pride Climate Quality .072"
Climate Consensus .076" .004
Interaction .097 ** .021
team task-orimtation Climate Quality .032*
Climate Consensus .034 .002
Interaction .040 .006
role clarity Climate Quafity .031“
Climate Consensus .032 .001
Interaction .032 .000
role conflict Climate Quality .040“
Climate Consensus .047* .007
Interaction .047 .000
role overload Climate Quality .108"
Climate Consensus .118" .010
Interaction .133" .015

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

Table 7e: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Quality
Item C
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .062"
Climate Consensus .066" .004
Interaction .069“ .003
leader consideration Climate Qualiy .038“
Climate Consensus .055* .017
Interaction .060“ .005
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .069"
Climate Consensus .098“ .029*
Interaction .109" .01 1
team cohesion Climate Quality .037 *
Climate Consensus .047* .010
Interaction .049 .002
team coordination Climate Quafity .044"
Climate Consensus .047“ .003
Interaction .050 .003
team pride Climate Quality .060“
Climate Consensus .063" .003
Interaction .065* .003
team task-orientation Climate Quality .052“
Climate Consensus .053“ .001
Interaction .053 .000
role clarity Climate Quality .053"
Climate Consensus .053* .000
Interaction .056* .003
role conflict Climate Quality .025
Climate Consmsus .048* .023
Interaction .050 .002
role overload Climate Quality 028*
Climate Consensus .031 .003
Interaction .040 .009

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

Table 7f. Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Phnning
Quality
Item D
leader initiating dructurc Climate Quality .042“
Climate Consensus .094" .052"
Interaction .096" .002
leader consideration Climate Quality .022
Climate Consensus .030 .008
Interaction .044 .014
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .036“
Climate Consensus .042“ .006
Interaction .080" .038*
team cohesion Climate Quah'ty .008
Climate Consensus .013 .005
Interaction .013 .000
team coordination Climate Quality .026
Climate Consensus .026 .000
Interaction .029 .003
team pride Climate QlaIity .042*
Climate Consensus .074" .032“
Interaction .074” .000
team task-orientation Climate Quality .018
Climate Consensus .026 .008
Interaction .029 .003
role clarity Climate Quality .030“
Climate Consensus .051* .021
Interaction .052 .001
role conflict Climate Quay .032“
Climate Consensus 042* .010
Interaction .044 .002
role overload Climate Quality .012
Climate Consensus .012 .000
Interaction .015 .003

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

Table 7 g: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in It2
Planning
Quality
- Item E
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .039*
Climate Consensus .063“ .024"
Interaction .064“ .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .007
Climate Consensus .007 .000
Interaction .008 .001
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality 028*
Climate Consensus .034 .006
Interaction .041 .007
team cohesion Climate Quality .009
Climate Consensus .010 .001
Interaction .026 .016
team coordination Climate Quality .006
Climate Consensus .007 .001
Interaction .009 .002
team pride Climate Quality .047"
Climate Consensus .063” .016
Interaction .081" .018
team task-orientation Climate Quality .004
Climate Consmsus .015 .011
Interaction .015 .000
role clarity Climate Quality .029"‘
Climate Consensus .033 .004
Interaction .047 .014
role conflict Climate Quality .023
Climate Consensus .029 .006
Interaction .029 .000
role overload Climate Quality .063"
Climate Consensus .067“ .004
Interaction .067 * .000

 

 

78

Table 7h: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Quality
Item F
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .043"
Climate Consensus .058* .015
Interaction .065“ .007
leader consideration Climate Quality .028*
Climate Consensus .042* .014
Interaction .048 .006
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .044"
Climate Consensus .050“ .005
Interaction .068* .018
team cohesion Climate Quality .011
Climate Consensus .018 .007
Interaction .023 .005
team coordination Climate Qualiy .021
Climate Consensus .022 .001
Interaction .032 .010
team pride Climate Quality .046"
Climate Consensus .059“ .013
Interaction .063* .004
team task-orimtation Climate Quality .014
Climate Consensus .023 .009
Interaction .025 .002
role clarity Climate Quality .026
Climate Consensus .033 .007
Interaction .033 .000
role conflict Climate Quality .045“
Climate Consensus .059* .014
Interaction .065* .006
role overload Climate Quality .078
Climate Consensus .079 .001
Interaction .082 .003

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

Table 7i: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in 1?.2
Planning
Quality
Item G
leader initiatingstructurc Climate Quality .030“
Climate Consensus .042* .012
Interaction .068* .026
leader consideration Climate Quality .004
Climate Consensus .019 .015
Interaction .019 .000
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .013
Climate Consensus .020 .007
Interaction .043 .023
team cohesion Climate Quality .014
Climate Consensus .022 .008
Interaction .035 .013
team coordination Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .007 .002
Interaction .010 .003
team pride Climate Quality .044"
Climate Consensus 047* .003
Interaction .052 .005
team task-orientation Climate Quality .006
Climate Consensus .011 .005
Interaction .01 l .000
role clarity Climate Quality .019
Climate Consensus .023 .004
Interaction .023 .000
role conflict Climate Qualiy .035*
Climate Consensus .061" .026
Interaction .062" .001
role overload Climate Quality .109"
Climate Consensus .110" .001
Interaction .113" .003

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

Table 7j: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Plarming
Quality
Item H
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .084“
Climate Consensus .107" .023
Interaction . 108‘" .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .028*
Climate Consensus .034 .006
Interaction .035 .001
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .069“
Climate Consensus .069" .000
Interaction .091“ .022
team cohesion Climate Quality .035“
Climate Consenals .037 .002
Interaction .054 .017
team coordination Climate Quality .051“
Climate Consensus .052“ .001
Interaction .054 .002
team pride Climate Quality .1 14"
Climate Consensus .121“ .007
Interaction . 136" .015
team task-orientation Climate Quality .031“
Climate Consensus .038 .007
Interaction .042 .004
role clarity Climate Quality .051"
Climate Consensus .058“ .007
Interaction .076" .014
role conflict Climate Quality .058“
Climate Consmars .067" .009
Interaction .067“ .000
role overload Climate Quality .109"
Climate Consensus .117" .008
Interaction .118" .001

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

Table 7k: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment in
Measure R2
Planning
018th
Item I
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .041*
Climate Consensus .043* .002
Interaction .044 .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .016
Climate Consensus .018 .002
Interaction ‘ .027 .009
leader comnnmicaton Climate Qualiy .039"‘
Climate Consensus .046* .007
Interaction .068“ .022
team cohesion Climate glafity .007
Climate Consensus .017 .010
Interaction .021 .004
team coordination Climate Quality .007
Climate Consensus .012 .005
Interaction .012 .000
team pride Climate Quality .041“
Climate Consmsus .046* .005
Interaction .054* .008
team task-orientation Climate Quality .007
Climate Consensus .007 .000
Interaction .008 .001
role clarity Climate Quality .028"‘
Climate Consensus .030 .002
Interaction .038 .008
role conflict Climate Quality .033*
Climate Consensus .054* .021
Interaction .054 .000
role overload Climate Quality .080"
Climate Consensus .082" .002
Interaction .091" .009

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

Table 7]; Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered Ir2 Increment in
Measure R2
Planning
Quality Item J
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .015
Climate Consensus .026 .011
Interaction .029 .003
leader consideration Climate Quality .007
Climate Consensus .011 .004
Interaction .013 .002
leader corrmnmicaton Climate Quality .014
Climate Consmars .032 .018
Interaction .049 .017
team cohesion Climate Quality .014
Climate Consensus .017 .003
Interaction .031 .014
team coordination Climate Quality .020
Climate Consensus .022 .002
Interaction .022 .000
team pride Climate Quality .047"
Climate Consensus .049* .002
Interaction .095" .046“
team task-orientation Climate Quality .008
Climate Consensus .009 .001
Interaction .013 .004
role clarity Climate Quality .007
Climate Consensus .012 .005
Interaction .017 .005
role conflict Climate Quality .009
Climate Consensus .041 .032“
Interaction .042 .001
role overload Climate Quality ..067"‘
*
Climate Consensus .069" .002
Interaction .072* .003

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Table 7m: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Quality
Item K
leader initiatingstructure Climate Quality .009
Climate Consmsus .031 .022
Interaction .033 .002
leader consideration Climate Quality .004
Climate Consenals .007 .003
Interaction .017 .010
leader connmmicaton Climate Qualfl .007
Climate Consensus .009 .002
Interaction .015 .006
team cohesion Climate Quality .000
Climate Consensus .004 .004
Interaction .016 .012
team coordination Climate @ality .002
Climate Consensus .006 .004
Interaction .008 .002
team pride Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .012 .007
Interaction .046 .034“
team task-orimtation Climate Quality .000
Climate Consensus .000 .000
Interaction .001 .001
role cm Climate Quality .006
Climate Consensus .019 .013
Interaction .028 .009
role conflict Climate Quality .020
Climate Consensus .034 .014
Interaction .039 .005
role overload Climate Quality .031*
Climate Consensus .035 .004
Interaction .038 .003

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

Table 7n: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered It2 Incrementin
Measure R2
Planning
Quality
Item L
leader initiatingstructure Climate Quality .03 1*
Climate Consensus .031 .000
Interaction .032 .001
leader consideration Climate Quality .022
Climate Consensus .024 .002
Interaction .041 .017
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .031*
Climate Consensus .064" .033*
Interaction .076“ .012
team cohesion Climate Qualiy .022
Climate Consensus .035 .013
Interaction .038 .003
team coordination Climate Quality .015
Climate Consensus .041 .026
Interaction .043 .002
team pride Climate QualigI .030*
Climate Consensus .030 .000
Interaction .050 .020
team task-orientation Climate Quality .013
Climate Consensus .016 .003
Interaction .016 .000
role clarity Climate Quality 034*
Climate Consensus .035 .001
Interaction .035 .001
role conflict Climate Quality .032“
Climate Consensus .036 .004
Interaction .036 .000
role overload Climate Quality .064"
Climate Consmsus .070" .006
Interaction .074“ .004

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

Table 70: Moderated Regression Results for Planning Quality, Item M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment
Measure in R2
Planning
Quality
Item M
leader initiating Climate Quality .023
structure
Climate Consensus .026 .003
Interaction .045 .019
leader consideration Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .016 .011
Interaction .027 .011
leader connmmicaton Climate Quality .013
Climate Consensus .013 .000
Interaction .019 .006
team cohesion Climate Quality .014
Climate Consensus .046* .032“
Interaction .047 .001
team coordination Climate Quality .007
Climate Consmsus .039 .032*
Interaction .048 .009
team pride Climate Quafiy .031“
Climate Consensus .031 .000
Interaction .036 .005
team task-orientation Climate Quality .005
Climate Consensus .006 .001
Interaction .020 .014
role clarity Climate Quality .015
Climate Consensus .015 .000
Interaction .016 .001
role conflict Climate Quality .002
Climate Consensus .008 .006
Interaction .008 .000
role overload Climate Quality .053"
Climate Consensus .057“ .004
Interaction .057* .000

 

 

 

 

 

86

Table 7p: Moderated Regression Results for Percent Attendance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment in
Measure R2
Percent
Attendance
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .008
Climate Consensus .014 .006
Interaction .021 .007
leader consideration Climate Quality .014
Climate Consensus .014 .000
Interaction .023 .009
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .024
Climate Consensus .037 .013
Interaction .039 .002
team cohesion Climate Quality .045“
Climate Consensus .046“ .001
Interaction .047 .001
team coordination Climate Quality .004
Climate Consensus .006 .002
Interaction .007 .001
team pride Climate Quality .010
Climate Consensus .011 .001
Interaction .012 .001
team task-orientation Climate Quality .01 1
Climate Consensus .012 .001
Interaction .030 .018
role clarity Climate QualitL .000
Climate Consensus .000 .000
Interaction .001 .001
role conflict Climate Quality .016
Climate Consensus .020 .004
Interaction .021 .001
role overload Climate Quality .018
Climate Consensus .021 .003
Interaction .025 .004

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

Table 7q: Moderated Regression Results for SERC Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion Climate Subscale Variable Entered R2 Increment in
Measure Rz
SERC
Ratings
leader initiating structure Climate Quality .202"
Climate Consensus .207" .005
Interaction .207 ** .000
leader consideration Climate Quality .176“
Climate Consensus .177M .001
Interaction . 178" .001
leader comnnmicaton Climate Quality .162"
Climate Consensus .173“ .011
Interaction .173" .000
team cdhesion Climate Quality .094"
Climate Consensus .152" .058*
Interaction .164" .012
team coordination Climate Quality .146“
Climate Consensus .151” .005
Interaction .151" .000
team pride Climate Quality .376“
Climate Consensus .390" .014
Interaction .420" .030
team task-orientation Climate Quality .128"
Climate Consensus .141“ .013
Interaction . 142" .001
role clarity Climate Quality .112“
Climate Consensus .114" .002
Interaction . 146" .032
role conflict Climate Quality .020
Climate Consmsus .029 .009
Interaction .050 .021
role overload Climate Quality .042
Climate Consensus .042 .000
Interaction .043 .000

 

* F9, 133, for trunover, planning quality, and percent attendance
* Fan) for SERC ratings

 

DISCUSSION

All of the scales used to represent the climate construct in this study exhibited high
internal condstencics. The scales used as antecedents and outcomes also demonstrated high
internal consistencies, with the exception of experience with emergencies This latter result is
best explained by noting that natural (e.g., floods), fixed site, and transportation emergencies are
low fiequency evmts that are relatively independmt of each other. Thus, a low level of internal
consistency in the scale is not theoretically troubling even though it is psychometrically
problematic.

Climate quality does not seemto be afl‘ected by the size ofthe LEPC. Although this does
not support the hypothesized relationship, it is a positive outcome for LEPCs in general, as the
number of members within LEPCs varies widely. Climate quality also does not seem to be
affected by the support of local oflicials - at least in LEPCs with 7 or more members This
relationship is somewhat more ambiguous for snaller LEPCs, as correlations betwem climate
quality before using raga) as a screening device for agreement and support of local oflicials were
highly significant. This may indicate that those LEPCs with fewer members or those still
struggling to move throughout the developmental phase may need the support of local oflicials
more than those in which agreement on climate measures is high Future research should not
only examine the differences between this and other relationships in smaller and larger LEPCs,
but should examine the extent to which screening out groups using raw) may cloud true strength

of relationships In addition, it is possible that a negatively excellerated curvilinear

88

8 9

relationship exists between organization size and climate quality, with climate quality increasing
rapidly when organizational size is low, moderately when size is medium, and plateauing when
size is large. Research on antecedents of organizational climate should examine this possibility.

Climate quality is related to both organizational (percent attendance, effectiveness
ratings, planning quality, and actual turnover) and individual level outcomes (turnover
intmtions perceived efi'ort, perceived rewards, citizenship behaviors and attendance). This
demonstrates the importance of having a positive climate within an organization to create
effective outcomes at both the organizational and individual levels Another possible
explanation is that the individual level results are attributable to percept-percept bias, as both
the climate measures and the criteria measures were derived from the same questionnaire. This
seems Imlikely, as there was difl‘erartial prediction in the relationships studied and the
correlations themselves would indicate otherwise; even if the lowest of the correlations was
attributed solely to pcrcept-percept bias, partialling out that value from the other correlations
would still yield significant results. 5

Previous research has regarded climate subscales Imiformly in hypothesized
relationships with other variables. This paper examined three subsets of scales for each
hypothesis. While the data generally support the conceptualization of these scales as a single
construct through factor analysis and examination of correlations between scales, there were
some distinct differences in relationships with other constructs This may suggest that each of
the subcategories should be examined separately, as leadership climate, teamwork climate, and
role climate. Such an approach would fill] midway between Schneider’s and James’ theoretical
positions The low correlations between role conflict and role overload with the other eight

scales, however, indicates that there may be evidence for more than one construct within the

9 0
climate measure. The data suggest that the separation of constructs within climate may not be

as clear as separating the scales along the lines of leadership climate, teamwork climate, and
role climate. Unfortlmatcly, it is not clear whether results apply only for this study, only for
LEPCs, only for vohmteer organimtions, or for all organizations. Future research should
address the construct validity of climate measures in general, and within different types of
organizations specifically.

Examining climate consensus as a distinct variable is new to the climate literature.
Thus, all of the findings pertaining to this issue further our knowledge of organimtional
climate. Specifically, the results of this study indicate that aspects of climate consensus are
related to the presence of subconmlittees, formalized meetings, number of meetings, the use of
technology, and direct experience with emergmcies but not to connnunIty resources. Thus,
the socialization process does appear to have an effect on the formation of organimtional
climate. This would indicate that climate consensus may be improved by altering aspects of the
which foster the informal socialization ofmembers organization (i. e., by having more
opportlmity for interaction). Incorporating a formalized orientation process, however, seems
to have little effect. Futm'e studies should examine the effects of various socialization
processes on climate consensus It would also be interesting to examine relationships between
demographic characteristics of the LEPC, such as average tenure and the extent to which
group members are similar, and climate consensus

Results of stepwise regressions indicate that climate consensus does not add unique
variance to the prediction of either individual or organizational outcomes after altering climate
quality into the equation. Thus, team performance on the types of planning tasks performed by

LEPCsdoesnotrequirlememberconsalsusonclimateintherange ofconsensusformdinthis

91
study (recall that the distributions of raw) displayed ill Appendix D show that almost all LEPCs

had high levels of consensus about their organizational climate). From a practical standpoint,
this would imply that making an organization effective does not depend on members having
similar perceptions of their work environment, only that the group as a whole has a generally
positive view of the climate. Such a conchlsion requires testing on a sample of organimtions
with a greater range of climate consensus, although it is not clear if extremely low levels of
consensus can exist in a vohmteer organization without jeopardizing the viability of the
organization itself Further research is needed to generate more conclusive information '
conceming the relationship between climate consensus and outcomes ill various types of
organimtions, particularly those involving these factors

It is worth noting that LEPCs with consensually negative climate may tend to disappear
because vohmteer organizations depard on internal rewards such as fiiendship or sense of
accomplishment, not extemal rewards such as money. Thus, it is not likely to find many
LEPCswith a situation where climate qualityislow andthe climate consensusishigh, because
those LEPCs simply dissolve. In the current study, less than 1.0% of the LEPCs examined
experience climates of low quality and high consensus. Future research should examine the
extent to which this is true ill other organimtions - particularly those of a non-profit nature -
and the effects of this phenomenon on the ability of organimtions to survive over time.

It is noteworthy that the present study replicated Lindell and Whitney’s (1995) finding
of a significant correlation between LEPC climate and effectivaress This is interesting ill that
while Lindell and Whitney (1995) used only the LEPC Chairs for estimates oforganizational
climate quality, the present study used aggregated perceptions of LEPC members for this

purpose. The replication of results indicates that the two methods are both effective, lending

9 2
some support to Glick’s (1985, 1988) assertion that either organimtional members or expert

informants can be used While it is true that organizations do not cognize, an individual
informant may be in a position to accurately estimate the cognitive impressions of the members
within the group. This finding suggests that firrther research should be conducted on the
conditions lmder which expert informants’ judgments are suflicient.

Results indicate that raw) may have some serious problems in measuring agreement
within groups, as noted previously by Kozlowski & Hults (1992) and James, Demaree & Wolf
(1993 ). While most of the calculations resulted in expected values for agreement between 0
and 1.00, several of the estimations were negative or above 1.00. In fact, one LEPC had a
vahre of - 1243.0 for leader initiating structure! This problem seems to occur when the item
variances for the group are extremely high and the number of group members is low. The
calculation does not appear to have dificulties with sample sizes above 10, but as the samples
decrease from 10 down to 2 the estimate of agreement seems to increasingly fluctuate beyond
the expected range of 0 to 1.0 for more and more groups. Thus, as other researchers have
suggested previously (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) it is
reconnnended that row) not be used for small groups This restriction can cause many groups
to be eliminated from analyses as ill the current study.

Screening out those groups with low agreement is performed to deal with two
potential situations: (a) members may have formed opinions but not agree on the measure in
question; or (b) the members could be randomly responding because the questions do not make
sense in relation to their situation or group. In either case, the mean for those groups with low
consensus will be very close to the midpoint of the scale by definition. Ordinarily one would

expect to find attenuated correlations if such groups are inchrded ill the analyses Therefore,

9 3
the correlations should be lower before screwing for agreemwt than they are aflerwards This

wasnot always the case ill this study. The question, thw, is what is the distribution of climate
quality before and aflcr screwing for agreement. Obviously it is not the same in both cases.
This difference could occur because of psychological or methodological reasons
Psychologically, maller groups may have more of a chance for interactions to occur betwew
group members, thus allowing them a better chance to develop similar opinions.
Methodologically, one would expect groups with mall samples to have more similar responses
by chance as mall samples twd to lmderestimatc the vahres of the population variance. It is
not clear which of these two explanations applies to the results obtained in this study. Future
research should examine this question.

Afl‘ectwasnot examinedasapart ofclimateinthis study. Asmwtionedinthe
introduction, previous research has attempted to separate the cognitive aspects of climate from
affective constructs such as global and facet job satisfaction. However, the finding of strong
correlations among climate dimmsions in this study is quite consistwt with James and James’
(1989) explanation of a single, higher-order factor as being related to individuals’ appraisals of
the significance of these climate dirnwsions for their personal well-being This consistwt
pattem of strong correlations among climate dimwdons suggests that the role of afl‘ective
responses to climate perceptions be examined more thoroughly in future research.

This study demonstrates that climate conswsus may be worth examining in terms of
the developmwt of climate. While it is important to distinguish betwew a fully developed
organizational climate at one level and the psychological climate perceived by individual group
members at a second level, it is also important to address questions about how climate moves

from the individual level to the organimtional level. While the results found here indicate that

9 4
socialimtion may be related to the developmwt of climate to some extwt - particularly in

forming impressions about leader consideration - there are other factors unaccounted for here
that nnrst play a role in climate developmwt as well Future research should attempt to
lmcover these relationships

There were several limitations ill the preswt study which are typically found in any field
research First, the individual level criteria were assessed on the same questionnaire as the
climate measures This could result in percept-percept inflation. Results obtained at the
organimtional level would suggest that, while there may have bew some increase ill the
correlations due to percept-percept inflation, this probably did not accormt for all of the
variance as many of the correlations with organimtional level variables (measured in a separate
questionnaire) were also very high Second, many of the organizations ill Illinois did not
respond to the questionnaire, which could have produced sampling bias The overall response
rate, however, was consistwt with those usually obtained in survey research. Third, the role
overload scale contained only three items with low internal consistwcy (or = .71), which caused
many of the rm vahres to fall outside of the .70 to 1.00 range. Having low reliability within a
scaleis similartohavingfewmembcrsirr agroup inthattheyboth seemto afl'ectthcresults
obtainedin calculating raw Third, several ofthe LEPCswereremoved fromthe data set
because of low agreemwt or inadequate sample size within organimtions This naturally will
cause some attrition in the data but cannot be ignored because of the implications of inchlding
such data on results derived fi'om row calculations Fourth, the inability to get accurate
information about the number of members within the LEPC was problematic. The infOrmation
obtained for this variable was clearly inaccurate, as several persons to whom member surveys

were swt contacted us to determine what, exactly, an LEPC is These and other persons listed

95
asLEPC members indicated that they were not members ofan LEPC. Fifth, this studyis

limited in the ability to make causal inferwces because this is cross-sectional data. In order to
make such inferwces, three criteria must be met: (a) need to have reliable covariation; (b)
temporal precedwce must be established; and (c) the study must have the ability to rule out
rival hypotheses The first criterion was met for all of the statistically significant correlations,
and the third criterion was met ill part by casting doubt on the potwtial of method variance to
cause all of the results. This study does not, however, have temporal precedwce for all of the
relationships We do have some information indicating that climate preceded and is
indepwdwt of SERC ratings and organimtional characteristics reported by the Chair because
of the timing of data collection.

Whilcthis study clearlyhasitslimitations, itis difl‘erwt frommost survey studiesin
several ways. First, as mmtioned previously, this study has more power to make causal
inferwces than most survey studies. Specifically, four sources of data (cwsus data, LEPC
Chairs, LEPC members, and the Michigan SERC) and two methods of data collection
(objective data, surveys) were used iii an attempt to minimize bias Second, the results are
likely to gweralize to LEPCs across the comrtry, as the conditions under which these LEPCs
operate are true for most others as well (Adams, 1994). Third, this study examined data at
both the individual and the organizational level, allowing for a broader examination of
relationships

Although results of this study did not demonstrate that climate conswsus adds
significantly to the variance explained by climate quality, this lack of findings may be
attributable to the type of sample examined, not the construct. LEPCs are clearly in various

stages of developmwt, thus they are a viable sample for examining the relationships betwew

9 6
antecedwts and climate conswsus (which were significant in this study). However, LEPC

fimctions may not require high interdepwdwcy among group members for tasks to be
completed For example, a site-specific emcrgwcy response plan could be writtw by a single
person, with the remainder of the LEPC only reviewing the work. Interdepedwcy within
groups may be a key requiremwt for climate conswsus to have an effect on outcomes at either
the individual or organizational level Climate conswsus should be examined in groups where
interdepwdwcy is requieg among members to successfillly complete tasks to determine if this
variable truly is a viable construct to study. There also may be other ways to examine this
construct other than the method used here, such as requesting that key informants estimate the
climate conswsus of the group as well as the climate quality.

In surmnary, this study examined the relationships of climate conswsus and climate
quality with both antecedwt and outcome variables Organimtional outcomes were examined
at both the individual and the organizational level Several socialimtion factors have bew
shown to be related to climate conswsus, but climate quality does not appear to be afl‘ccted by
size or support of local officials. Climate quality clearly has implications for organizational
efl‘ectivwess, while climate conswsus did not add significantly to the relationships betwew
clinmte quality and outcomes for this set of organizations Of particular interest are the
findings for climate consensus, as this variable has not been examined in previous research
Much more research is needed to examine the viability of this construct and the extwt to which
the findings here are true for other organimtions

The understanding of levels of analysis in research on climates has rapidly progressed
during the past tw years There is a much greater tmderstanding now about the difi’erences

betwew variables at the individual and the organizational level More could be learned about

9 7
the progression of constructs fiom lower levels to higher ones This study shows that

examining the conswsus of group members may be one potwtial method of accomplishing

that goal.

APPENDD( A

Survey of LEPC Chairs

98

APPENDIX A

Survey of LEPC Chairs

_MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
1994 SURVEY OF LEPC CHAIRS

Professor Michael K. Lindell
Principal Investigator
Community Emergency Preparedness Project

Person completing this survey

99

 

Phone number ( 1

2a.

9'!”

6a.

Which of the following organizations participate in your LEPC? Check all that apply.

 

 

 

 

 

_Civil Defense/Emergency Services _Firefighting
_Chief Administrative Officer’s Stafl' _Law Enforcement
_State/Local Elected Officials _Labor Groups

Emergency Medical/Hospitals _Public Health
_Municipal/County Attorney's Office Schools
_Public Works/Engineering _Local Industry

Truck/Rail Carriers Newsmedia

Environmental Agency _Community Groups
_Planning/Community Development _Agriculture
_Red Cross/Volunteer Groups _Other

To which of the above organizations does the LEPC chair belong?

 

Does the LEPC chair head the organization he/she represents on the LEPC?
No Yes (If No. go to question 3)

 

How many supervisory levels are there between the chair of the LEPC and the most senior
person in the organization he or she represents? __ levels

How long has the current LEPC chair... Less than 1 - 2 2 - 3 More than
1m item arm 3.1m:

been a member of the LEPC ............................ l 2 3 4

been chair of the LEPC ................................. l 2 3 4

Circle the months in which your LEPC or any of its subcommittees held a meeting during
1993. (You do not need to make any additional marks if more than one meeting was held in
a single month.)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

' On average, how long do LEPC meetings usually last? __ hours

How many members make up your LEPC? members

On average, how many usually attend meetings of the LEPC? _ members

 

100

7. How often do your LEPC's meetings have

each of the following... m Am

a. regularly scheduled meeting dates (e.g., always

on the same day of the month)? .................................... I 2 3 4 5
b. meeting times routinely scheduled to start at the same time of day? l 2 3 4 5
c. meeting location regularly scheduled for the same place? ............ l 2 3 4 S
d. an agenda circulated in advance? ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5
e. reports from subcommittees? ........................................... l 2 3 4 5
f. written minutes of the meeting? ....................................... l 2 3 4 5
g. guest speakers? ........................................................... l 2 3 4 5
h. training films or videotapes? ............................................ l 2 3 4 5

8 . What is the total number of members who left your LEPC in 1993? Please include anyone
who left without being rcplawd and also any replacements who themselves later left.

 

members
9. What type of instrucrions do LEPC Specific Specific General

members receive about these

“was of LEPC functioninsu assassins dermatitis dermatitis simulates
a. job duties ............................................ 4
b. hierarchy of authority .............................. l 2 3 4
c. LEPC policies ....................................... l 2 3 4
d. work rules and procedures ........................ l 2 3 4

10a. Does your LEPC have any full- or part-time staff specifically assigned to support the LEPC?
No Yes (If No, go to question 10)

 

 

b. How many hours per week do they work for the LEPC? hours
c. Which organization pays this staff?

 

l 1. Does your jurisdiction fund SARA Title III planning activities by charging fees to facilities
filing Material Safety Data Sheets, Tier 1 or Tier 2 reports? ......... No __ Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Does your LEPC...

a. . have a formal orientation program for new members? ............... No __ Yes
b. have any subcommittees? ................................................ _ No _ Yes
a. set annual goals and objecfives for itself? .............................. No - Yes
b. set annual goals and objectives for its subcommittees? .............. No __ Yes
c. assess its performance annually or more frequently? ................. No Yes
d. discuss this performance appraisal within the LEPC? ................ No Yes
e. present the performance appraisal orally or in writing

to local appointed or elected officials? ............................... No Yes

 

13.

99'!”

14.

15.

p—e
P’P?‘

17.

18.

999’!”

19. '

999'.”

101

In the past 5 years. has your community had a major emergency requiring members of the
public to evacuate their homes or businesses resulting from...

 

a natural hazard (e.g., flood)? ........................................... _ No Yes
an incident at a fixed site facility? ....................................... __ No _ Yes
a transportation incident? ................................................ __ No _ Yes

How many facilities in your area exceed the Threshold Flaming Quantity of Extremely
Hazardous SubStances? facilities

For how many facilities in your area have you calculated the size of the Vulnerable Zone
(e.g., using EPA's Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis)? facilities

Has your LEPC installed a computerized data base for tracking...

hazard data (e.g., MSDSs, Tier 1 and Tier 2 reports)? . ............. _ No _ Yes
community emergency response resource ............................ __ N o _ Yes
Is your LEPC a member of a statewide LEPC Association? ........ _ No __ Yes

Have any of the following taken place in your jurisdiction supporting SARA Title III
emergency planning?

 

 

 

local resolutions or commitments by elected officials ................ No Yes
editorials by local newsmedia ........................................... _ No __ Yes
actions by community groups ........................................... _ No Yes
legal opinions on LEPC member liability ............................. __ No __ Yes

Have any of the following taken place in your jurisdiction opposing SARA Title III
emergency planning?

 

 

 

local resolutions or commitments by eleCted officials ................ No __ Yes
editorials by local newsmedia ........................................... No __ Yes
actions by community groups ........................................... No Yes
legal opinions on LEPC member liability ............................. No _ Yes

 

20.

999'.”

grout-”9

21.

999'

ctr-“retort. 9

22.

23.

 

102

How much do elected officials and department heads Not Very great
in your jurisdiction... 3:311 m
encourage LEPC members to give their best efforts? ................ l 2 3 4 5
emphasize high standards of performance for the LEPC? ........... l 2 3 4 5
set specific goals for the LEPC? ........................................ l 2 3 4 5
make it clear how they will evaluate the perfomrance . -
of the LEPC? ......................................................... l 2 3 4 5
treat LEPC members with respeCt for the job being done? .......... l 2 3 4 5
pay close attention to the LEPC‘s progress? .......................... l 2 3 4 5
recognize and reward good performance? ....... , ...................... l 2 3 4 5
always comment on mistakes, but rarely on successes? ............. 1 2 3 4 5

Please rate the degree to which your LEPC has used each of the following resources in
SARA Title III emergency planning.

Not Very great

Bataan: stall extent
National Response Team Hazardous Materials Emergency

Planning Guide (NRT-I) ........................................... l 2 3 4 5
EPA Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis ...................... l 2 3 4 5
EPA Computer Systems for Chemical Emergency Planning . ...... l 2 3 4 5
State emergency planning agency

hazardous materials planning manuals ............................. l 2 3 4 5
Chemical Manufacturers Association Community Awareness

& Emergency Response Program Handbook ..................... I 2 3 4 5
FEMA Emergency Education Network broadcasts .................. l 2 3 4 5
Chemical Manufacturers Association videotapes ..................... l 2 3 4 5
FEMA or EPA training courses ......................................... l 2 3 4 5
State emergency planning agency training courses ................... l 2 3 4 5
Chemical Manufacturers Association training courses ............... l 2 3 4 S
State environmental agency Ton’c Release Inventory data .......... l 2 3 4 5
CAMEO, ARCHIE, or other computer software ..................... l 2 3 4 5

Has your jurisdiction contaCted the lntemational City/County Management Association
(ICMA) about its Peer Exchange Program?

No Yes, we received assistance Yes, we provided assistance

 

Approximately how many public requests for information did your LEPC receive during
1 993 .7 requests

24.

25.

103
Approximately how many talks did your LEPC give to community groups during 1993?
talks

 

How frequently were the following topics related to SARA Title [11 covered in your local
newspapers, radio or television during 1993. 7
Not 1-2 3-4 More

at times/umes/than4/

Iaaias . all m: M M
a. SARA Title 1]] requirements ........................... 1 2 3 4
b. Hazardous facilities in your jurisdiction .............. l 2 3 4
c. LEPC emergency planning activities .................. l 2 3 4
26. How frequently was your LEPC in contact (telephone, letter or face-to-face) with each of the
following during 1993.7
Not 1-2 3-4 More
at times] timed than 4/
Contacts all rear seat seat
a. FEMA regional staff ..................................... l 2 3 4
b. EPA regional staff ....................................... l 2 3 4
c. State emergency management agency ................. l 2 3 4
d. State environmental agency ............................. l 2 3 4
e. LEPCs in adjacent jurisdictions ........................ l 2 3 4
f. LEPCs tn other jurisdictions of your state ............ l 2 3 4
g. LEPCs tn other states ................................... 1 2 3 4
27. To what extent did your LEPC spend time in 1993 in each Not , Very great
of the following activities? null extent
a. organizing and administering the LEPC ............................... l 2 3 4 5
b. collecting and filing hazard data
(e.g., MSDSs, Tier 1 and Tier 2 reports) ......................... l 2 3 4 5
c. conducting site-specific vulnerable zone analyses .................... l 2 3 4 5
d. developing site-specific emergency plans .............................. 1 2 3 4 5
e. organizing and equipping HAZMAT response teams ................ l 2 3 4 5
f. inventorying local emergency response resources .................... l 2 3 4 5
g. acquiring and maintaining emergency communications .............. l 2 3 4 5
h. developing training programs for local emergency responders ..... l 2 3 4 5
i. ' developing protective action decision guides .......................... l 2 3 4 5
j. acquiring and maintaining warning systems ........................... l 2 3 4 5
k. analyzing air infiltration rates for local structures ..................... l 2 3 4 5
l. analyzing evacuation time for local populations ....................... l 2 3 4 5
m. promOting community toxic chemical hazard awareness ............. l 2 3 4 5

N
9°

9'!”

a rr‘r‘r'rrtn n9 9.0

29.

30.

104

 

 

How satisfied are you with the quality of the results that Not very Very
your LEPC has achieved tn each of the following activities? satisfied mm
organizing and administering the LEPC ............................... 2 3 4 5
collecting and filing hazard data
(e.g., MSDSs, Tier 1 and Tier 2 reports) ......................... l 2 3 4 5
conducting site-specific vulnerable zone analyses .................... l 2 3 4 5
developing site-specific emergency plans .............................. l 2 3 4 S
organizing and equipping HAZMAT response teams ................ l 2 3 4 5 -
inventorying local emergency response resources .................... l 2 3 4 5
acquiring and maintaining emergency communications .............. l 2 3 4 5
developing training programs for local emergency responders ..... l 2 3 4 5
developing protective aetion decision guides .......................... l 2 3 4 5
acquiring and maintaining warning systems ........................... l 2 3. 4 5
analyzing air infiltration rates for local structures ..................... 1 2 3 4 5
analyzing evacuation time for local populations ..... -- _ - l 2 3 4 5
. promoting community toxic chemical hazard awareness ............. l 2 3 4 5
Did your LEPC conduct an emergency exercise during 1993?...... _ No Yes
Please list any suggestions you have for improving the efiectiveness of SARA Title III

emergency planning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the time that you have taken in filling out this questionnaire.

APPENDD( B

Surve of LEPC Members

105

APPENDIX B

Surve of LEPC Members

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
1994 SURVEY OF LEPC MEMBERS

Professor Michael K. Lindell
Principal Investigator
Community Emergency Preparedness Project

106

In the following queStions. LEPC leaders include those in positions such as the LEPC chair. vice-
chair. secretary, and subcommittee chairs.

1. To what extent do your LEPC leaders... Mr; Always
a. letgroup members know whatisexpected ofthem?.................l 2 3 4 5
b. encourage the use of uniform procedures? ............................ l 2 3 4 5
c. ask that LEPC members follow standard rules and regulations?.... 1 2 3 4 5
d. assign group members to particular tasks? ............................ l 2 3 4 5
e. decide what shall be done and how it will be done? .................. l 2 3 4 5
f. make sure each member of the LEPC understands

his or her part ? ....................................................... l 2 3 4 5

g. ~ schedule the work to be done? .......................................... l 2 3 4 5

h. maintain definite Standards of performance? .......................... 1 2 3 4 5
Not at Very great

2. To what extent do your LEPC leaders... all m
a. act without consulting other LEPC members? ........................ l 2 3 4 5
b. do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the LEPC? .. . l 2 3 4 5
c. put suggestions made by LEPC members into operation? ........... l 2 3 4 5
d. treat all LEPC members as their equals? ............................... l 2 3 4 5
e. give advance notice of changes? ........................................ l 2 3 4 5
f. keep to themselves? ...................................................... I 2 3 4 5
g. look out for the personal welfare of LEPC members? ............... l 2 3 4 5
h. make changes willingly? ................................................. l 2 3 4 5
i. actfriendly and approachable?..........................................It. 2 3 4 5
j. refuse to explain their actions? .......................................... l 2 3 4 5

Not at Very great

3. To what extent all m
a. do you usually trust Statements made by LEPC leaders? ............ l 2 3 4 5
b. are LEPC leaders willing to liSten to your problems? ................ l 2 3 4 5
c. are LEPC leaders eager to recognize and to reward

good performance? ................................................... l 2 3 4 5
d. are LEPC leaders friendly and easy to approach? ..................... l 2 3 4 5
e. do LEPC leaders provide timely information? ........................ l 2 3 4 5
f. do LEPC leaders provide accurate answers to your questions? ..... l 2 3 4 5
g. do LEPC leaders pay attention to what you say? ..................... l 2 3 4 5
h. do LEPC leaders promore good communication with the

members of the LEPC? .............................................. l 2 3 4 5

4. How much do you agree with the following statements Stronrly Strongly
. about your role on your LEPC? ' am

a. I know that l have divided my time properly among tasks. ......... l 2 3 4 5
b. I know what my responsibilities are .................................... 1 2 3 4 5
c. I know exactly what is expected of me ................................. l 2 3 ‘ 4 5
d. Explanations are clear of what has to be done ......................... 1 2 3 4 S
e. It is easy to get accurate information about the policies

and procedures I muSt follow ....................................... l 2 3 4 5

r” papa!»

P O

999'

more???“

F‘PWS‘P-PP’P'

99-9979"

107

How much do you agree with the following statements Strongly Strongly
about your role on your LEPC? ' am
I receive an assignment without the personnel to complete it. ....... l 2 3 4 S
l have to buck a rule or policy in order to complete a task ........... l 2 3 4 5
I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently ..... l 2 3 4 5
I receive incompatible requeSts from two or more peOple. .......... l 2 3 4 5
I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and
not accepted by others. .............................................. l 2 3 4 5
I have to perform a task without adequate resources and
materials to execute it. ............................................... l 2 3 4 5
My work on the LEPC interferes with my family life ................ l 2 3 4 5
Not Very peat
To what depee do you believe that... null extent
the amount of work you have to do on the LEPC keeps
you from doing the best job you can? ............................. l 2 3 4 5
there are not enough people on the LEPC to get the work done? .. . l 2 3 4 5
you are asked to do things for which you are notfully qualified? . . l 2 3 4 5
you are under heavy pressure to get LEPC work done. ............. l 2 3 4 5
Not Very peat
To what extent do members of your LEPC... 313.11 cm
let other members know what help they need? ........................ l 2 3 4 5
work as a poup to make decisions and solve problems? ............ l 2 3 4 5
share information about important events and situations? ........... l 2 3 4 5
plan together and coordinate poup efforts? ........................... l 2 3 4 5
recognize how to use the knowledge and skills of other members? 1 2 3 4 5
understand the problems other members have to deal with? ......... l 2 3 4 5
ask others for suggesrions about how to solve difficult problems?. 1 2 3 4 5
ask others for input when they have to make decisions that
affeCt the resr of the poup? ......................................... 2 2 3 4 5
, Not Very peat
How much do members of your LEPC... null smut
cooperate to get the job done? ........................................... l 2 3 4 5
distribute the workload fairly among members? ...................... l 2 3 4 5
help each other out when they have problems? ....................... l 2 3 4 5
have a lot of friction in their interactions? .............................. l 2 3 4 5
hold back from expressing their real views? .......................... l 2 3 4 5
listen to everyone's opinions ? .......................................... l 2 3 ’4 5
have negative feelings that tend to pull the poup apart? 1 2 3 4 5
have a lot of respect for Other members' contributions? ............. l 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
The meetings of my LEPC focus mostly on.... dim - 3mg
personal issues and general socializing. ............................... l 2 3 4 5
abStraCt theoretical issues of emerency preparedness ................. 1 2 3 4 5
specific issues relevant to the tasks 1 work on. ....................... 1 2 3 4 5
internal politics of the LEPC ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5
external political issues involving Other organizations ............... l 2 3 4 5

:7?“

9

9'?!“

weapm

spew

as???

108

How much do you agree with the following statements Strongly
about your role on your LEPC? '

l have confidence and trust in the members of my LEPC ............ l 2
Everyone in my LEPC fits my idea of a good member .............. l 2
I feel I am included by the LEPC in all of its activities ............... l 2
If most of the members decided to dissolve the LEPC

by leaving. I would try to talk them out of it. ..................... 1 2
HI went to work on another project like this one, I would like

to be with the same people who are in my LEPC ................ l 2
I like the members of this LEPC much more than the

people I have dealt with in other organizations. .................. I 2
The work I turn out depends largely on the performance

of members of my LEPC Other than the LEPC leaders .......... l 2
I receive very useful information and advice from

members of the LEPC Other than the LEPC leaders ............. l 2

Not
How much do you... mail
feel your LEPC is one of the best in the state? ........................ I
tell other people you are proud to be on the LEPC? .................. l 2
believe that your LEPC is doing a great job? .......................... l 2
Strongly

How much do you apee with the following statements? '
My role in the LEPC is well within the sc0pe of my abilities. ...... 1 2
I have not had problems in adjusring to work in this LEPC. ........ l 2
I feel I am overqualified for the work I am doing on the LEPC ..... l 2
I have all the technical knowledge I need to deal with my

LEPC work. all I need now is practical experience. ............. l 2
I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed

those of my colleagues on the LEPC. ............................. l 2
My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence _

that I will be able to perform successfully in this LEPC ......... l 2
I could handle a more challenging role than the one I am

doing on the LEPC ................................................... l 2

Not

To what extent does your LEPC job allow you to... null
choose your own method of working? ................................. 1 2
judge your work performance, right away, when actually

doing LEPC work? .................................................. l 2
do a whole and complete piece of work? .............................. l 2
use of a lot of skill and effort to do it well? ............................ I 2
work on tasks that are very different from your day-to-day job? . . I 2
try to solve difficult and challenging problems? ...................... l 2
work on all aspects of LEPC aCtivities rather than

specializing in one area? ............................................. l 2

U U u U U mum

uuu'

UUUUUMU

U UUUUU U

Strongly
agree
4 S
4 5
4 5
4 5 -
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Very peat
extent
4 S
4 5
4 5
Strongly
m
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Very peat
m '
4 5
4 5
4 5
' 4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

P

F?“ 2'”? Pa" 9'!”

we
0

F"

9

archive

99.0

thP-PP'P?‘

.O'Prl

109

How likely is it that doing good work on the LEPC will Not at all

lead to each of these outcomes? likely
You will feel better about yourself as a person ........................ l 2
You will have an opportunity to develop your skills and abilities. . l 2
You will be given chances to learn new things ........................ l 2
You feel you've accomplished something worthwhile ............... I 2
You will have the opportunity to interact with Other people. ........ l 2
Your LEPC leaders will recognize your efforts ....................... 1 2
Other LEPC members will appreciate what you do ................... 1 2
Residents within your community will think your work
is worthwhile. ........................................................ l 2
You will be more likely to be rewarded in your regular job ......... l 2
Strongly
How much do you apee with the following statements? diam
My community is highly vulnerable to toxic
chemical hazards. .................................................... l 2
My community is likely to have a major fixed-site
toxic chemical release in the next 5 years .......................... I 2
My community is likely to have a major transportation
related toxic chemical release tn the next 5 years. ................ l 2
Emergency planning is really not necessary considering the
small likelihood of a chemical emergency in my community. . . I 2
Emergency planning would definitely limit damage to
life and property in an actual chemical emergency. .............. I 2
Emergency planning requires more time and money
than is worthwhile. .................................................. l 2
Training through emergency drills and exercises is
unlikely to have much impact during an actual disaster .......... I 2
The biggesr reason for having an LEPC tn my
community is because it is required by federal law. ............. I 2
Strongly
How much do you apee with the following statements? dim
I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this LEPC. ................... l 2
This LEPC has a great deal Of personal meaning for me ............. I 2
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my LEPC. ...................... l 2
I do not feel like "part of the family" at this LEPC. .................. I 2
I enjoy discussing my LEPC with people outside it .................. I 2
I really feel as if this LEPC's problems are my own. ................ l 2
Strongly
.How much do you apee with the following statements? dim
I do not feel any obligation to remain with my LEPC ................ 1 2
Even if it were to my advantage. I do nOt feel it would be
right to leave my LEPC now ........................................ l 2
I would feel guilty if I left my LEPC now ............................. l 2
This LEPC deserves my loyalty. ....................................... 1 2
I would nOt leave my LEPC right now because I have a
sense of Obligation to the peOple in it. ............................. 1 2
I owe a great deal to my LEPC .......................................... l 2

UM UUUUUUU

UUUUUUUU

NU MUD) b)

UUUQUU

Extremely
hkalx
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 S
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
an:
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
acres
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
am
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 S

.—
9? a?

P-

9

21.

9.6:»

23.

24.

25.

999???

new?

110

 

Strongly
How much do you agree with the following statements? disagree
I work to the cht of my ability toward achieving the
goals of my LEPC. .................................................. l 2
I could work much harder for the LEPC if I really wanted .......... l 2
I work harder than most LEPC members to achieve the
goals Of this LEPC ................................................... l 2
I exert a great deal Of effort toward accomplishing the
work Of this LEPC ................................................... l 2
I work hard to to accomplish the mission of my LEPC. ............. l 2
Strongly
How much do you apee with the following statements? disagree
I Often volunteer for extra work on the LEPC ......................... I 2
I Often help orient new LEPC members ................................ l 2
I help Others on the LEPC who have heavy work loads. ............ 1 2
I always give advance notice if unable tO attend LEPC meetings. . . l 2
I frequently meet with Others tO perform LEPC business outside
regular LEPC meetings .............................................. I 2
Strongly
How much do you apee with the following statements? disagree
All in all, I am satisfied with my role in this LEPC - I 2
In general, I don't like my LEPC work ................................ l 2
All things considered, I like being on this LEPC. .................... l 2
How much do you apee with the following statements Strongly
about your attendance at LEPC meetings? '
I never miss the meetings Of my LEPC. ............................... l 2
I am always on time when the meetings of the LEPC start. ......... I 2
I never leave the meetings Of the LEPC early. ........................ l 2
Strongly
How much do you apee with the following statements? disagree
I plan on staying with my LEPC indefinitely .......................... 1
I'd discontinue serving as a member Of my LEPC if it
was possible tO leave. ............................................... I 2
I plan on quitting serving as as member of this LEPC
within the next year. ................................................. I 2
DO you have a full-time job?_ NO Yes

 

If yes, what is your occupation?

U NUUU' U9) 0) NU

MUM

UUU

 

What was your age on your last birthday? years

What is your sex? Male Female

 

 

Strongly
am
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
3213:.
4 5
4 5 '
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
arm
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
am
4 5
4 5
4 5
Strongly
am
4 5
4 5
4 5

26.

27.

28.

29.

111

How long have you been a member of this LEPC? __ months

What percent of the LEPC meetings have you attended in the past year? ___%

 

 

 

 

 

DO you have an official leadership role on your LEPC?__ NO __ Yes
Which of the following organizations do you represent as a member of your LEPC?
Civil Defense/Emergency Services _Firefighting
Chief Adminisrrative Officer's Staff ___I.aw Enforcement
_State/Local Elected Officials _Labor Groups
_Emergency Medical/Hospitals _Public Health
_Municipal/County Attorney's Ofice Schools
_Public Works/Engineering _Local Industry
Truck/Rail Carriers Newsmedia
Environmental Agency _Community Groups
_Planning/Community Development _Apiculture
_Red Cross/Volunteer Groups _Other

DO you have any further comments concerning your LEPC and/or toxic chemical emergency
planning that you think might be helpful?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the time you have taken to fill out this questionnaire.

APPENDIX C

Scale Statistics

ewe—~26 28 u

.261

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85:8 £8" 28%

35—0 28"... EJ—
eetaceote x23 :38 u 3H.
aura—:83" EH.
:33an :88 u 28.5
news—€88 :88 n 88,—.
guano—i=3 830— n .84
sewage—See 832 n 5.84
2.82.. was? .88. u an
aw.—

8133383..

_5. 1.00. 1.NN.- 1.NN.- 1.90- 1.07. 1%Nr ..&—.u _.&~.- 1LN... 5m.m v0.& FINN

1.00. &. 1&Nr 1&N... 1.nm... 1&N... 1&Nr 1.5m... 1.Nm.- 1&Nr &0.n 0m.n_ an.”

1&Nr 1&Nr N&. 1&5. 1.?5. 1&5. 1.05. 1.N&. 1.05. 1.n&. 36 00.0_ J...—

1.NN.- 1&Nr 1&5. O&. 1&5. _1.~&. 1.05. 1&5. 1.05. 1.N&. 5&4q owAN 8“

1%”- 1.me 1&5. 1&5. N&. 1&5. 1.5. 1&5. 1.95. 1&5. and O&.& 18H.

...0~.u 1&N... 1&5. 1.3. 1&5. m&. 1&5. 1.—&. 1.3. 1&&. 5.5 55.5N “on.

1%”- 1&Nr 1.05. 1.05. 1.5. 1&5. 0&. 1.55. 1.N5. 1L5. 0m.m noéN up

..&~.u 1.5Nr 1.N&. 1&5. 1&5. 1.5. 1.55. n&. 1.m&. 1.5&. 3.0 o&.om Ewe—l

..&~.u 1.Nm.u 1.05. 1.05. 13.5. 1.3. 1&5. 1.m&. m&. 1&5. 0Y5 8.&N MM.

SLN: 1&Nr .1.n&. 1.N&. 1&5. 1.m&. 1L5. Kw. 1.l&5. l5&. MN.0 mm.&N .3—

iiisiiijjsaafi

 

seamen. 2: 8 sand. 5.3 seem 3.8.6 .e as: 8388

alloemmllllafim 030m

0 592mm:

 

(113

£35 mew—Ea:— n

030mme 100:0 €233 u
momoeoweofio .23 02.0.2098 n
Regine“ M

508800 38.8.0 u

$30008 .«e 00:85: N

dd.

53
80—0
580

:08
note
808

manage 0030003 n 3032
0.8.00 0020003 n 8000;
50300an n 0003
83300 3858 u 3:0
fig

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.50 .1

as u one 23.8 +

a. :3. ram. :2. 1.2.- :2. 8. 3.0 aa

13. Na. *2. 13. 1.3.- 18. me. :.~ 60—0

1mm. *2. we. 1.3. S .. S. 00. i3. 0E0

sewn. 1.0m. 1&N. 5w. 1&~ .. 1.Nm. &&. .Tlor :03

13..- 1.8.- S .- 12 .- 2.. 1-r 0m. 3; 800

1mm. 13. 2. 1mm. 1mm: 3. 1: 5nd 008
:03 60—0 .680 :08 Ste 008 Gm 508

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

magma 2.. 8 was... 5.3 8.3 .23 82.0st .e as: 822.8

Sentencing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

&&. 1&9. 1.8. 1.5m. 55 min 0.830.—
tw... a. ton. in... 00. can £22.
:8. :0“. a. in... 2. 23 8am
1.5m. 1.3a. 1.3.. Q. ~&. m5.N gamma

€032 520m 0039 game Gm 508

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3805 2e 8 was... as. snow .33 3.3...— .e as: 832.8

 

 

APPENDIX D

Frequengy Distributions of rum

114

APPENDIX D

Frgumgy Distributions of rum

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Leader Initiating Structure

 

 

 

 

60

50'

40'

30'
>.

20'

Std. Dev=.46

10' Mean=.77

u. 0 N=82.00

-1.00 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 .50 .75 '1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .83 .88

M90)

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Leader Consideration

 

  
  
 

 

 

60

50*

40-

30'
>

20'

._.__ Std. Dev=.30

10' Mean=.84

u. o ‘ N=82.00

   

-1. -.75 1509.250. .25 .50 P .75 '1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .83 .88

M96)

 

115

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Leader Communication

 

 

 

50
40:
30‘
> 20' .
10I Std. Dev=.23
~ Mean=.89
LI. 0: _ N=81.00

-1.00 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 .50 .75 f 1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .83 .88

M96)
Frequency Distribution of M90)
Team Cohesion

 

 

 

 

50
40'
30'
>. 20:
10' Std.Dev=.23
Mean=.81
u. oI _ N=77.00

-100 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 f .50 .75 '1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .63 .88

M90)

116

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Team Coordination

 

 

 

  

 

  
  

 

 

50
40'
30'
> 20'
. Std.Dev=.33
E 10 Mean=.81
u. o _ N=74.00
-1.00 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .63 .88
M90)
Frequency Distribution of M90)
Team Pride
30
20l
>5
10'
Std. Dev=.38
g Mean=.59
u.o ________N=77.00

 

-1.00 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .63 .88

MG)

117

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Task Orientation

 

Sthv=26
=.83
N=75.m

 

 

 

“"903

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Role Clarity

 

 

 

 

-100 -.75 -.50 -.25 0.00.25 .50 .75 1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .83 .88

rng)

118

Frequency Distribution of M90)
Role Conflict

 

Std. Dev = .38
Mean = .74
N = 73.00

 

 

       

-1.00 -.75 f -.50 -.25 0.00 .25 .50 ' .75 1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .63 .88

M00)

Frequency Distribution of M90) Values
Role Overload

 

   
 

 

 

30
20-
>.
10'
Std. Dev=.53 ‘
Mean=.56
u. 0 N=73.00

-1.00 -.75 f -.50 f -.25 10.00 .25 ' .50 ' .‘75 '1.00
-.88 -.63 -.38 -.13 .13 .38 .83 .88

M00)

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbey, A & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in
semiconductors Acadm of Management Journal, g, 362-368.

Adams, W. C., Burns, S. D. & Handwerk, P. G. (1994). Nationwide LEPC survg.
Washington, DC: George Washington University Department of Public Administration.

Angle, H L, & Perry, J. L. (1986). Dual commitment and labor-managemmt relationship
climates Acadgy of Management Journal, 22, 31-50.

Carmnann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michggg' Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Census of Governments (1987). Finances of County Govemments, Volume 4. U. S.
Deparnnent of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

Crampton, S. M & Wagner, J. A (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganintional
research: An investigation of prevalence and efl‘ect Journal of Applied P_svch__;ology, 22, 67-76.

Dedobeleer, N. & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites
Journal of 8% Research, 2, 97-103.

Fishbein, & Azjen (1972). Attitudes and opinions Annual Revigw of chhology, Q, 487-
544.

Click, W. H (1985). Conceptualin'ng and measuring organizational and psychological
climate: Pitfalls in nmltilevel research Acadm of Management Review, E, 601-616.

Glich W. H (1988). Response: Organimtions are not central tendencies: Shadowboxing in
the darlg rotmd 2. Acadm of Management Review, E, 133-137.

Guion, R M (1973). A note on organizational climate. O_rgam_At1' 'onal Behavior an
Human Performance, 2, 120—125. .

Hackman, J. R, & Oldham, G. R (1975). Development of the job diagnostic smvey.
Journal of Applied mchology, 99, 159-170.

119

120

James, L. R (19828). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61, 219-229.

James, L. R (1982b). gganizational climate: Another look at a potenm' Q12. ortant
construct (Report No. IBR 82-4). Arlington, VA Ofice of Naval Research

James, L. R, Demaree, R G., & Wolf; G. (1993). I“: An assessmart of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psycholoy, 3, 306-309.

James, L. R, Demaree, R G., & Wolf; G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Mbology, Q2, 85-98.

James, L. A, & James, L R (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions:
Exploration into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied mchology, _711, 739-751.

James, L. R, James, L. A, & Ashe, D. K. ( 1990). The meaning of organizations: The

role of cognition and vahres In B. Schneider (Ed), M’ 'onal Climate and Culture. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass

James, L. R & Jones, A P. (1974). Organimtional climate: A review of theory and
research chhological Bulletin, §_l_, 1096-1112.

James, L. R & Jones, A P. (1976). Organimtional structure: A review of structural
dimmsions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior.
Qrganizational Behavior and Ihrman Performance, 25, 74-113.

James, L. R & Jones, A. P. (1980). Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction:
An examination of reciprocal causation Personnel P_sychology, 22, 97-135.

James, L. R, Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, Jr., J. W. (1988). Cormneut: Organimtions do
not cognize. Acadm of Management Review, 1_3, 129- 132.

James, L. R & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and

empirical research In D. Magnusson (Ed), Toward a pgchology of situations: An
interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

James, L. R & Tetrick, L. E. (1986). Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal
models relating job perceptions to job satistirction. Journal of Applied Echology, fl, 77-82.

Jones, A P. & James, L. R (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and
relationships of individual and aggregated work mvironmmt perceptions O_c_cupational
Behavior and Hmnan Performance, 23;, 201-250.

Jones, G. (1986). Socialimtion tactics, self-eflicacy, and newcomer’s adjustment to
organizations. Acadm of Management Journal, 22, 262-279.

121

Katz, D. & Kahn, R L. (1978). The social pachology of organizations (2nd ed).
New Yorlc Wiley.

Kopehnan, R E., Brief; A P., & Guzzo, R A (1990). The role of climate and culture

in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed), mam tional Climate and Culture. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass

Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership:
Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied chhology, 14, 546-553.

Kozlowslci, S. W. J. & Hattrup, K (1992). A disagreement about within-group
agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus Jornnal of Applied
lisychology, fl, 161-167.

Kozlowsld, S. W. J. & Hults, B. M (1987). An exploration of climates for technical
updating and performance. Personnel chhology, fl, 539-563.

Levine, J. M & Moreland, R L. (1990). Progress in small group research Annual
Review of P_sychology, fl, 585-634.

Lindell, M K. (1994). Motivational and organizational firctors affecting
implementation of worker safety training. Qc_cr_rpational Medicine State of the Art Reviews, _12,
21 1-241.

Lindell, M K (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of local eme_rgeng planning
committees East Lansing: MSU Departmart of Psychology.

Lindell, M K. & Meier, M J. (1991). Effectiveness ofconnmmity planning for toxic
chemical emergencies Joumgl of th_e American Planning Association, Q, 222-234.

Lindell, M K & Whitney, D. J. (1995). Effects of organizational environment, internal
structure and team climate on the effectiveness of Local Emagency Planning Committees.
Rim .12, 439-447-

Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. J., & Clause, C. S. (19958).
Organizational characteristics of effective LEPCs. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Department of Psychology.

Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. J., & Clause, C. S. (1995b). 4
Organizational assessment of the Muskegon LEPC. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Department of Psychology.

Lindell, M. K, Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. J., Clause, C. S., & Rogers, W. M
(19948). First year feedback report for the Michigan SERC. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University Department of Psychology.

122

Lindell, M. K, Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. 1., Clause, C. S., & Rogers, W. M.
(1994b). First year feedback report for the Indiana SERC. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University Department of Psychology.

Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. 1., Clause, C. S., & Rogers, W. M.
(1995). First year feedback rgport for the Illinois SERC. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University Department of Psychology.

Major, D. (1990). Differential efl‘ects of interaction content and proaction on
organ_g° tional socialization outcomes. Unpublished master’s thesis Michigan State University,
E. Lansing, MI.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the “side bet theory” of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied chhology, _62, 372-
378.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Qrganimtional m ' ' : The good soldier _sv_ndrome.
Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books

Payne, R L., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate. In M D.

Dtmnette (Ed), Handbook of Industrial and mm 'onal Lsychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Rizzo, 1, House, R, & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organimtions Administrative Science Ouartfiy, 12, 150-163.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1989). Interrater reliability coeflicients cannot be
computed when only one stirmrlus is rated Journal of Applied chhology, 2, 368-370.

Schneider, B. (19878). The people make the place. Personnel Pmmog, 42, 43 7-
453.

Schneider, B. (1987b). E=IIP,B): The road to a radical approach to person-
environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 353-361.

Schneider, B. & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service
in banks: Replication and extension Administrative Science mm, 23, 423-434.

Schneider, B. & Reichers, A E. (1983 ). On the etiology of climates Personnel
Pachology, 2Q, 19-39.

Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K, & Cox, J. F. (1992). A passion for service: Using
content analysis to explicate service climate themes Journal of Applied chhology, 21, 705-
7 16.

123

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds). (1982). Observing
and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York Wiley.

Seers, A (1989). Team-member exchange quality. A new construct for role-making
research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisipn Processes, fl, 118-135.

Smith, C. A, Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents Journal of Applied Pachology, 68, 653-663.

 

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and

perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Pachology, _7_2_, 438-
443.

 

Stogdill, R (1963 ). Manual for the Le_ader Behavior Des_cr;rp' tion Questionnaire - Form
XII: An emrimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in social groups. chhological
Bulletin, _6_3, 384-399.

Whitney, D. J. & Lindell, M K (1995 ). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational
commitment and participation in voluntary organizations. East Lansing, Michigan State
University, Department of Psychology.

Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A, & Buckley, M R (1989). Lack of method variance in self-
reported afiect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Pachology, 3,
462-468.

lander, A (1994). Making gzogps affective (2nd Ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied
implications. Jo al of Applied Psychology, 6_5, 96-102.

"‘lllllllllilllllllllll“