A Scale of Organizational Values Framed on Schwartz's Theory of Cultural Values¹

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to develop and empirically test a new scale to measure organizational values based on a theory of cultural values. Three studies were conducted. The first addresses the internal structure through a multidimensional scaling analysis. The second describes a confirmatory factor analysis and its relation with external variables. And the third relates the scale with the Competing Values Framework. Results from the set of studies support the adequacy of the scale and the theoretical model used. This scale may advance the area allowing for the development and identification of different patterns of cultural configurations beyond previous works.

Keywords:
Organizational values; Scale validation; Schwartz’s theory of cultural values

RESUMO

O objetivo deste estudo foi desenvolver e testar empiricamente a estrutura interna de um instrumento de medida dos valores organizacionais, adotando como modelo de referência a teoria de valores culturais. Três estudos foram conduzidos. O primeiro testou a estrutura interna da escala por meio de escalonamento multidimensional. O segundo descreve a análise fatorial confirmatória da escala e a sua relação com variáveis externas. O terceiro relacionou a nova escala com a Escala de Valores Competitivos. Os resultados do conjunto de estudos apresentaram evidências de adequação da escala e suporte ao modelo teórico. Essa escala pode avançar os estudos na área ao permitir o desenvolvimento e identificação de configurações culturais para além dos modelos anteriores.

Palavras chave:
Valores organizacionais; Validação de escala; Teoria de Schwartz

Organizational culture has been used to explain several organizational phenomena and has become common among consultants, managers, and academics. Until the early 1990s, there was little empirical evidence to support the theoretical arguments and demonstrate the relevance of the construct to understand the organizational phenomena (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990). In the last two decades, the academic studies on the subject have intensified and have been devoted to developing measurement scales and exploring the impact of culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011; Oliveira & Tamayo, 2004; Sarros, Gray, Densten, & Cooper, 2005; Tamayo, Mendes, & Paz, 2000).

There is no consensus on the value dimensions that should be used to compare organizations, despite the recent developments in organizational culture (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). Furthermore, most of the scales have been developed empirically, i.e., without the support of theoretical models that allow the evaluation of the derivation of relevant dimensions. In this sense, they measure different elements of the organizational culture (values, beliefs, practices), as well as different dimensions of these elements, without a clear definition of concepts in general. This makes the comparison of results between studies difficult. Previous studies have also argued for the need to converge the studies on organizational values with those on general values conducted in psychology (Bilsky & Jehn, 2002; Borg, Groenen, Jehn, Bilsky, & Schwartz, 2011; Tamayo et al., 2000). Therefore, a framework based on a solid theoretical model is needed; one that proves able to incorporate the dimensions identified in previous studies as well as new dimensions relevant to the characterization of values endorsed by organizations. Oliveira and Tamayo (2004) and Tamayo et al. (2000) made an endeavor to develop scales using Schwartz’s theory (Schwartz, 1999). Nevertheless, the scale using the cultural approach supported the theory only partially Thus, the objective of this paper is to further develop and empirically test the internal structure of a scale of organizational values, adopting as a reference the theory of cultural values by Schwartz (1999).

Organizational Values

Organizational values can be defined as shared mental representations (Tindale, Smith, Thomas, Filkins, & Sheffey, 1996) about the principles that guide organizational practices and standards (Katz & Kahn, 1974). These are shared by organizational members who live in the same environment for a relatively long period of time (Schneider & Barbera, 2014); are hierarchically organized (Tamayo et al., 2000) and transcend practices or specific standards.

Organizational values are the core element of the organizational culture (Schneider & Barbera, 2014; Tamayo et al., 2000). These are at the conscious level and are more general than the organizational practices (Schein, 2010). For this reason, here we chose to work with the values in order to allow more precise delimitation of the phenomena.

Criticisms of studies on organizational values have been raised. Stackman, Pinder, and Connor (2000) state that it is difficult to define which actors must have their personal values accessed and how these values can be mathematically aggregated to compose the organizational values. To move away from this critique, the perspective adopted in this study is that organizational values are shared mental representations (Tindale et al., 1996) hich emerge from the individual perception to form an aggregate perception of what is important to the organization. Therefore, they do not constitute individual perceptions of organizational values or the individual values’ mean. This solution equates the question of who should be accessed in an organizational value survey. Finally, recent developments in multilevel analysis, especially regarding emergent processes in organizations (Chan, 2014) olve the mathematical issue raised by Stackman et al. (2000)

The most cited scales on organizational values in the international and national literature were developed by Hofstede et al. (1990) Cameron and Quinn(2011) O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) Oliveira and Tamayo (2004) and Tamayo et al. (2000) Some of them analyze not only the values but also other components of the culture, as is the case of Hofstede’s scale that covers values and practices. The scale by Cameron and Quinn is a typological measure and does not measure the cultural dimensions. The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) by O’Reilly et al. was developed mainly for measuring individual-organization fit and factors were derived empirically. Following, we will further discuss the application of Schwartz’s theory to organizational values.

Schwartz’s Values Theory

Schwartz (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012) eveloped a theory of basic human values to explain the dynamic relations between values. He proposes that values are derived from universal human needs and are structured around two bipolar dimensions: 1) self-transcendence versus self-promotion in which an emphasis on the welfare of others opposes an emphasis on oneself; 2) openness to change versus conservation in which the independence of thought, actions and feelings opposes the maintenance of the status quo.

Recent studies have pointed to the adequacy of Schwartz’s basic human values model for understanding organizational values (Bilsky & Jehn, 2002; Borg et al., 2011) Bilsky and Jehn (2002) and Borg et al. (2011) have analyzed the structure of the OCP (O’Reilly et al., 1991) nd concluded that there is support for using Schwartz’s individual theory since the two theoretical dimensions could apprehend the OCP content.

However, since organizations are a collective phenomenon and represent a macro variable in organizational behavior, we agree with Tamayo et al. (2000) that we should use theories developed at the group level. In this sense, a theory of cultural values would be more appropriate to understand organizational values. In the opinion of Sagiv and Schwartz (2007) the cultural dimensions of values are an important element for the comparison of organizations.

Schwartz (1999, 2006) also proposed and tested a theory of cultural values based on data from 49 nations. He proposes a comprehensive and universal structure that represents the compatibilities and conflicts between values in a circumplex model. He argues that cultural values reflect basic issues that all societies must confront. The first issue is to define the nature of the relation between the group and individuals. The second is to establish a responsible behavior to preserve the social tissue. And the third issue is to define the relation of humankind with the social and natural environment.

Cultural values emerge from the resolution of these issues. Thus, he defines three bipolar dimensions. The first sets Autonomy (Intellectual autonomy emphasizes the desirability of individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions while Affective autonomy emphasizes the desirability of individuals pursuing affectively positive experiences) in opposition to Conservatism (which emphasizes the maintenance of the status quo and the restraint of actions that might disrupt the group or traditions). The second dimension sets Hierarchy (which emphasizes the legitimacy of unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources) in opposition to Egalitarianism (which emphasizes the transcendence of selfish interests in favor of voluntary commitment to promote the others’ welfare). Finally, the third dimension places Mastery (emphasizing success through active self-assertion) in opposition to Harmony (emphasizing harmonious adjustment to the environment).

Tamayo et al. (2000) dapted this theory to the context of organizations and proposed that organizations face the same three major issues all societies do: 1) to solve the tension between individuals and the group; 2) to develop a framework that ensures the functioning of the organization; and 3) to define the organization’s relationship with the natural and social environment. These needs have led to the establishment of three dimensions with two opposing poles that coincide with Schwartz’s model (1999). However, empirical data partially supported the model. The opposition between poles was confirmed only for the dimension Hierarchy and Egalitarianism. The other dimensions were adjacent - a major theoretical drawback. Tamayo et al. have justified the lack of opposition between the poles based on the Brazilian hierarchy of values. Nevertheless, differences in the priorities of values should not generate differences in the structure. Additionally, analyses of items that represent each of the dimensions suggest some inconsistencies. For example, the items “environmental protection” and “exchanges with other organizations,” which were grouped in Hierarchy, should, in fact, be in Harmony. In short, the lack of opposition between the poles can be attributed to an inadequate representation of the dimensions, which justifies further investigations. Based on this rationale, this paper adopted the cultural values theory of Schwartz (1999) to develop a new instrument in an attempt to solve the aforementioned limitations.

Three studies were developed. The first addresses the internal structure of the scale through exploratory multidimensional scaling, using a sample of public and private organizations. The second study describes a confirmatory factor analysis for the scale and its relationship with external variables (ethical climate, affective organizational commitment, work well-being, proactive behavior, and job engagement). Study 3 relates the scale with the Cameron and Quinn Competing Values Scale (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) one of the most used scales for measuring organizational culture (Hartnell et al., 2011).

Study 1

Method

Participants. A total of 207 employees from private (78%) and public (22%) organizations voluntarily answered the scale. The majority of the sample was female (59%), had a bachelor’s degree (76%), and varied in age from 18 to 63 years (mean = 30.57, sd = 9.15). Tenure in the organization varied from 1 to 29 years (mean = 5.06; sd = 5.24).

Organizational values scale development. The development of the Organizational Values Scale involved a literature review of the most cited scales on values and organizational culture - the Organizational Culture Scale from Hofstede et al. (1990), the Competing Value Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) OCP(O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) the Organizational Values Profile Inventory (Oliveira & Tamayo, 2004) and the Organizational Values Scale (Tamayo et al., 2000) The items related with values were used. Additionally, the research team added new items to cover the theoretical dimensions based on values declared by organizations. Those items were theoretically evaluated to match the proposed dimensions of Schwartz’s values theory. The aim was to obtain at least nine items per dimension. A group of specialists on values judged the items’ adequacy. The final questionnaire contained 55 items that mapped the six dimensions - Autonomy, Conservatism, Hierarchy, Egalitarianism, Harmony, and Mastery. A semantic analysis was conducted, and participants confirmed they understood the instructions and the items, but expressed concerns with the item “Elimination of competitors.”

The items were randomly listed and participants were instructed to rate the importance of each value to the organization where they worked. Responses ranged from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important).

Procedures. A member of the research team contacted employees in their workplace or in classrooms. The researcher explained the objectives, guaranteed anonymity to participants, and invited them to fill in a questionnaire. Those who volunteered received the printed questionnaire, answered it immediately, and returned it to the researcher.

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) was used to evaluate the scale structure and Guttman’s Lambda 2 used to evaluate the reliability. We used the SPSS 20 MDS Proxscal program, with interval proximity transformations, Euclidian distance measures, and Z-score transformations of items.

Results

In support to the theoretical model, the results of the MDS identify the six theoretical regions as presented in Figure 1. Additionally, all the expected oppositions between motivational types are identified and reliability coefficients are adequate. The MDS bidimensional model presents adequate Goodness-of-fit: S-Stress was equal to .12 and Tucker’s congruence coefficient was .97. From the original 55 items, 17 were eliminated because they had similar content to another item or fell in a different dimension. In order to achieve a smaller scale and better balance between motivational types, we tested the structure with four items representing each type (Figure 1b). The model also presented adequate Goodness-of-fit (S-Stress = .06 and Tucker’s congruence coefficient = .98) and reliability coefficients. Table 1 presents the items by motivational type and Guttman’s Lambda 2 reliability coefficient for the short scale.

Figure 1
MDS Configuration for Study 1

Table 1
Items for motivational type and precision coefficients for the organizational values Scale (Study 1).

Items (in Portuguese)	Motivational types	Guttman’s Lambda 2
DO13 Posicionamento agressivo no mercado.	Mastery	.74
DO15 Eliminação de concorrentes.	Mastery
DO20 Lucros cada vez maiores.	Mastery
DO35 Ambição nos negócios.	Mastery
HA8 Relações transparentes com a sociedade.	Harmony	.85
HA18 Respeito à sociedade.	Harmony
HA23 Respeito às leis.	Harmony
HA40 Proteção do meio ambiente.	Harmony
H3 Centralização das decisões.	Hierarchy	.75
H14 Centralização da definição das normas na alta hierarquia.	Hierarchy
H50 Tratamento diferenciado aos ocupantes de cargos de chefia.	Hierarchy
H52 Poder concentrado nos níveis hierarquicamente superiores.	Hierarchy
I10 Cordialidade no relacionamento entre os empregados.	Egalitarianism	.87
I17 Saúde e bem-estar dos empregados.	Egalitarianism
I19 Trabalho em equipe.	Egalitarianism
I43 Oportunidades iguais a todos os empregados.	Egalitarianism
C11 Fidelidade às práticas consagradas da organização.	Conservatism	.83
C25 Respeito aos costumes da organização.	Conservatism
C38 Obediência às normas da organização.	Conservatism
C48 Atuação dos empregados de acordo com a missão da organização.	Conservatism
IN4 Busca de novidades.	Autonomy	.82
IN9 Liderança de mercado por suas ideias criativas.	Autonomy
IN28 Autonomia dos empregados na realização de tarefas.	Autonomy
IN30 Capacidade de inovar.	Autonomy

Discussion

The results indicate the adequacy of Schwartz’s theoretical model to understand organizational values in line with Sagiv and Schwartz (2007)and Tamayo et al. (2000) Only items originally designed to fit the dimensions were retained, adding power to the validity of the construct. The scale with four items per factor represents the structure well, is more balanced, and generates less fatigue. Although the results are promising, confirmatory studies are needed. This is the objective of the next study.

Study 2

This study aimed to confirm the structure of the Organizational Values Scale through a confirmatory factor analysis. In this study we compared a 4-factor model (individual values theory based on Borg et al. [2011]) with a 6-factor model (cultural values theory based on Tamayo et al. [2000]) to test which model would be more appropriate to represent the organizational values. Additionally, we tested the scale relation with external variables - ethical climate, affective organizational commitment, work well-being, proactive behavior, and job engagement.

Ethical climate is a perception employees share about organizational practices and procedures with ethical consequences (Victor & Cullen, 1988). The Brazilian adaptation of the measurement by Victor and Cullen (1988) pointed to three factors: Benevolence (ethical criteria based on maximizing joint interest), Principles and Rules (ethical criteria based on adherence to principles), and Independence and Instrumentality (ethical criteria based on maximizing self-interest; Ribeiro, Porto, Puente-Palacios, & Resende, 2016). In this study the psychological climate, namely the employees’ individual perception about the procedures of their organization, was analyzed. Previous studies have not empirically addressed the relationship between organizational values and ethical climate, but the latter has been linked to altruistic leadership values (Engelbrecht, van Aswegen, & Theron, 2005). Additionally, practices of obedience to authority are positively correlated to the ethical climate of rules and procedures, and negatively related to employee-focused climate as well as community-focused and personal ethics climates (Trevino, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998). Based on the above research and the definition of each dimension we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Harmony, Egalitarianism, and Autonomy values are positively related and Mastery, Hierarchy, and Conservatism are negatively related to the ethical climate of Benevolence.

Hypothesis 2: Conservatism values are positively related and Autonomy is negatively related to the ethical climate of Principles and Rules.

Hypothesis 3: Autonomy values are positively related and Conservatism values are negatively related to the ethical climate of Independence and Instrumentality.

Affective organizational commitment is a classic variable in studies of organizational behavior. A number of studies have been conducted that associate organizational values with commitment (Abbott, White, & Charles, 2005; Fernandes & Ferreira, 2009; Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Strube, 1999; Tamayo, 1998, 2005, 2008; Vandenberghe & Peiro, 1999). Generally, organizational values equivalent to Egalitarianism tend to have a positive effect on affective commitment. Thus, these findings lead us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Egalitarianism organizational values are positively related and Hierarchy is negatively related to affective organizational commitment.

Work well-being is defined as “the prevalence of positive emotions at work and the individual’s perception that in their work they express and develop their potential / skills and advance in achieving their life goals” (Paschoal & Tamayo, 2008, p. 16). The studies on this subject point to the importance of contextual factors in their predictions, such as work autonomy, organizational justice, and social support (Paschoal, Álvaro, & Porto, 2015). Thus, we could expect that values that support these practices would have a positive impact on work well-being, and we derive the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Autonomy, Egalitarianism, and Harmony are positively related to work well-being and their opposite values are negatively related.

Proactive behavior is a “set of extra-role behaviors in which employees spontaneously seek changes in their work environment aiming at long-term goals that benefit the organization” (Kamia & Porto, 2009, p. 361). These behaviors are associated with higher levels of innovation (Baer & Frese, 2003) and involve a challenge to the status quo(Crant, 2000). Thus, we derive the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Autonomy is positively related and Conservatism is negatively related to proactive behaviors.

Finally, job engagement can be defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved and enthusiastic about one’s work. Absorption is characterized by fully concentrating on and being immersed in one’s work. Previous studies show that organizational cultures that emphasize values such as social justice, support for employees, respect for individual rights, equality, and inner harmony (Dylag, Jaworek, Karwowski, Kozusznik, & Marek, 2013; Matziari, Montgomery, Georganta, & Doulougeri, 2016; Suharti & Suliyanto, 2012) are positively associated with job engagement. Therefore, organizational cultures that attach more importance to management processes, rule orientation, goals and objectives, and leadership and innovation are also positively related to job engagement (Matziari et al., 2016; Naidoo & Martins, 2014). These empirical results lead us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Autonomy, Egalitarianism, and Harmony are positively related to work engagement while their opposite values are negatively related to work engagement.

Method

Participants. To participate in the study, employees had to be working in the organization for at least six months. From a total of 460 respondents, 380 employees from private (55%) and public (35%) organizations met this criterion. The majority were female (65%), 55% had finished high school, the mean age was 30 years old (sd = 9.31), and tenure varied from six months to 32 years.

Measures. Organizational values scale: Organizational values were assessed with the final scale for Study 1. The item “Elimination of competitors” was not used because in the semantic analysis employees strongly rejected this as a value, as had already happened in Study 1. The same instruction was used but we added an explanation that organizational values are principles that guide the organization’s practices and norms.

Ethical climate: Ethical climate was assessed with the 36-item scale developed by Victor & Cullen(1988), translated and adapted by Ribeiro et al. (2016). Responses ranged from 1 (totally false) to 6 (totally true). The 3-factor solution found by Ribeiro et al. (2016) was used: Benevolence (α = .86), Principles and rules (α = .80), and Independence and Instrumentality (α = .65).

Affective organizational commitment: Affective organizational commitment was assessed with the 9-item scale from Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979) and adapted to Brazil by Borges-Andrade, Afanasief, and Silva (1989). The items should be rated in a Likert-type scale that varies from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability index for the sample was .88.

Work well-being: Work well-being was assessed with the 30-item scale developed by Paschoal and Tamayo (2008). The scale is composed of three factors: Positive affect (α = .95), Negative affect (α = .93), and Achievement (α = .91). Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot) when answering to the emotions items and 1 (never) to 5 (daily) when answering to the achievement items.

Proactive behavior: Proactive behavior was assessed with the 26-item unifactor scale developed by Kamia and Porto (2009). Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability index for the sample was .93.

Work engagement: Work engagement was assessed with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale(Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The nine items are grouped in one factor (α = .93). Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Procedures. Participants were contacted in their workplace or in classrooms. To avoid fatigue, two types of questionnaires were used. One type mapped the organizational values, ethical climate, and affective organizational commitment. The second type mapped the organizational values, work well-being, job engagement, and proactive behavior. The number of employees who answered the two questionnaires was 119 and 262, respectively.

Regarding the structure analysis, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimation method in MPlus 7.0 version 1.4, since it is a robust method for non-normal data distribution (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). The model Goodness-of-fit was analyzed based on the following criteria: χ2/gl < 5; Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .95; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .95; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We tested the two models explained in the literature review, the 4-factor individual structure (Borg et al., 2011) and the 6-factor cultural structure (Tamayo et al., 2000). Missing cases were less than 2% and were dropped pairwise.

Regarding the relation with external variables, we conducted a bivariate Pearson correlation. The organizational values were centered by the individual mean to represent the relative importance of organizational values. This procedure is the same used in the values literature (Schwartz, 1992, 2012).

Results

First, we tested the two proposed structures for the Organizational Values Scale. The results for the 6-factor solution ((²(gl) = 456.51(215), TLI = .91, CFI = .92, RMSEA (90% C.I.) = .05(.05-.06), SRMR = .06) are better than the 4-factor solution ((²(gl) = 629.40(224), TLI = .85, CFI = .86, RMSEA(90% C.I.) = .07(.06-.08), SRMR = .08). The RMSEA and SRMR fall in the cutoff criteria, but the CFI and TLI are below the criteria, although they are above .90. The parameter estimates are of moderate to strong magnitude (Table 2). The variables have R² values that ranged from .336 to .653. The residual variances ranged from .35 to .66, the highest being found for Mastery items. We decided not to make any changes in the model based on the modification index since it was not theoretically sound.

Table 2
Standardized regression weight coefficients for the 6-factor model.

Item	Latent construct	β	B	SE
VO10	Mastery	.58	1.00
VO15	Mastery	.60	1.29	.14
VO26	Mastery	.66	1.18	.16
VO05	Harmony	.77	1.00
VO13	Harmony	.81	.93	.05
VO18	Harmony	.69	.83	.06
VO28	Harmony	.63	.78	.08
VO07	Egalitarianism	.78	1.00
VO12	Egalitarianism	.80	1.17	.06
VO14	Egalitarianism	.79	1.02	.07
VO30	Egalitarianism	.70	1.05	.09
VO03	Hierarchy	.62	1.00
VO11	Hierarchy	.70	1.14	.12
VO35	Hierarchy	.64	1.10	.17
VO37	Hierarchy	.73	1.19	.18
VO02	Autonomy	.76	1.00
VO06	Autonomy	.76	.97	.07
VO22	Autonomy	.66	.78	.07
VO24	Autonomy	.80	1.08	.07
VO08	Conservatism	.78	1.00
VO20	Conservatism	.63	.78	.08
VO27	Conservatism	.65	.72	.09
VO33	Conservatism	.63	.75	.07

Finally, we analyzed the correlations between organizational values and external variables. Results are presented in Table 3. Results in line with the hypotheses are in bold and results not supported are underlined. For ethical climate, the hypotheses were all in the right direction, except for the relation between Conservatism and ethical climate of Benevolence. The hypothesis for organizational commitment was totally supported. The hypothesis for job engagement, work well-being, and proactive behavior were mainly supported, but the organizational values of Conservatism did not present a statistically significant correlation although the correlations are in the right direction.

Table 3
Pearson correlations between organizational values and ethical climate, organizational commitment, work well-being, proactivity, and work engagement.

	Mastery	Harmony	Egalitarianism	Hierarchy	Autonomy	Conservatism
Ethical climate of Benevolencea	-.43*	.36*	.54*	-.58*	.15	.02
Ethical climate of Principles and Rulesa	.03	.15	-.15	-.04	-.14	.21^
Ethical climate of Independence and Instrumentalitya	.10	-.15	.02	.09	.10	-.21^
Affective commitmenta	-.36*	.20*	.29*	-.29*	.13	.05
Positive affectb	-.18*	.16^	.25*	-.28*	.28*	-.05
Negative affectb	.30*	-.17*	-.22*	.17*	-.20*	-.04
Achievementb	-.13^	.17*	.15^	-.21*	.25*	-.10
Proactivityb	-.10	.11	.06	-.10	.15^	-.03
Engagementb	-.19*	.16*	.17*	-.19*	.19*	-.03

• *p < .01, ^p < .05, ^an = 119, ^bn = 262

Discussion

This study tested the structure of the organizational values scale. The CFA results for the overall Goodness-of-fit suggest that the model does not totally fit the data, but results are promising since the values for the cutoff criteria are close. Additionally, these results point to a better Goodness-of-fit of a 6-dimension structure over the 4-dimension structure. The Mastery dimension may be improved in the future since the residuals for the items were the highest.

The results for the correlation with external variables were all in line with the hypotheses, but some were not statistically significant. This may reflect a weak relation between organizational values and some work outcomes due to its distal relation. In general, the correlations were moderate with higher impact for the organizational climate variables that are conceptually closer to the organizational values construct.

In sum, results support the adequacy of the scale and the theoretical model used. Moreover, this scale draws on the literature of organizational values and social values, bringing together these two approaches. To further explore how the dimensions derived from Schwartz’s theory can summarize the organizational values, in the next study we relate the organizational values scale with the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

Study 3

The Competing Values Framework was developed empirically based on what makes an organization effective. Two dimensions were derived, the first that opposes flexibility and adaptation to the stability and control and the other that opposes efficiency of internal processes to external competitive positioning. The intersections of these two dimensions derived four quadrants representing four cultural types: clan (internal focus and flexibility), adhocracy (external focus and flexibility), market (external focus and stability), and hierarchy (internal focus and stability). This model is one of the most cited in the literature and the instrument developed by the authors was used in several studies (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). It is important to note that the OCAI is a typological scale and it does not measure the underlying dimensions of the model (Hartnell et al., 2011). Thus, we hypothesized which dimensions of the organizational values scale would correlate with each organizational type.

Hypothesis 1: The Egalitarianism dimension is positively correlated with clan type since it emphasizes friendship and a focus on the group welfare highlighted by egalitarian values.

Hypothesis 2: The Autonomy dimension is positively correlated with adhocracy type since it emphasizes innovation and employees’ autonomy and risk-taking.

Hypothesis 3: The Conservatism and Hierarchy dimensions are positively correlated with the hierarchy type given their focus on stability and a formalized structure.

Hypothesis 4: The Mastery dimension is positively correlated with the market type since it emphasizes a competitive workplace and a focus on success.

Method

Participants. To participate in the study, employees had to be working in the organization for at least six months. From a total of 168 respondents, 115 employees from private (68%) and 40 from public (24%) organizations met this criterion. The majority were female (80%) and had finished high school (80%), the mean age was 30 years (sd = 9.02), and tenure varied from six months to 30 years.

Measures. Organizational values scale: Organizational values were assessed through the same scale as for Study 2.

Competing values: Competing values were assessed with the OCAI Assessment developed by Cameron and Quinn (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The scale evaluates the organizational culture based on six dimensions: dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, people management, organizational cohesion, strategic emphasis, and success criteria. Each dimension is represented by four assertions according to the type of culture. The employees’ task is to assess how much each of the assertions is present in their organizations, making a distribution of 100 points among the four assertions for each dimension. The first part of the questionnaire assesses the organization as a whole and the second evaluates each sector. We used only the assessment for the organization as whole. The version translated and adapted to Brazil by Latorre (2006) was used.

Procedures. Participants were contacted in their workplace or in classrooms. The researcher explained the objectives, guaranteed anonymity to participants, and invited them to fill in a questionnaire. Those who volunteered received the printed questionnaire, answered it immediately, and returned it to the researcher. Data were analyzed through Pearson correlation. Prior to the analysis, the organizational values were centered to the individual mean.

Results

Table 4 presents the correlations between the Organizational Values Scale and the OCAI. The hypothesized correlations are in bold. As shown in the table, all hypotheses were supported and the correlations were of moderate magnitude. Additional relations were found. All the opposing organizational value dimensions presented a negative correlation with the OCAI types.

Table 4
Pearson correlations between organizational values and OCAI.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1) Mastery	1.00
2) Harmony	-.59*	1.00
3) Egalitarianism	-.55*	.41*	1.00
4) Hierarchy	.33*	-.54*	-.75*	1.00
5) Autonomy	-.40*	.23*	.45*	-.66*	1.00
6) Conservatism	-.04	-.27*	-.34*	.24*	-.43*	1.00
7) Clan	-.39*	.26*	.41*	-.33*	.24*	-.04	1.00
8) Adhocracy	.05	.04	.22*	-.29*	.29*	-.26*	-.04	1.00
9) Market	.50*	-.30*	-.34*	.22*	-.19^	-.03	-.64*	-.14	1.00
10) Hierarchy	-.15	.03	-.23*	.31*	-.23*	.22*	-.39*	-.38*	-.29*	1.00

• *p < .01, ^p < .05

Discussion

The results evidence the adequacy of the structure of the organizational values scale. The moderate magnitudes of correlations permit us to conclude that the scales are logically related but measure different constructs - the OCAI is a typological measure while the Organizational values scale measures value dimensions. Furthermore, the OCAI measures values and practices.

The results also indicate that other dimensions not previously mentioned by Cameron and Quinn (2011) are important to understand the values underlying the practices of each organizational type. As argued by Hartnell et al. (2011, p. 687), “researchers who describe organizational cultures according to their predominant culture type ignore the synergistic interaction among the values that define an organization’s culture.”

Conclusion

The main objective of this paper was to develop and test the structure of a new organizational values scale based on Schwartz’s cultural values theory. The three studies presented support the model. This scale can advance the area allowing for the development and identification of different patterns of cultural configurations beyond the work of Cameron and Quinn (2011), as suggested by Hartnell et al. (2011). Additionally, it can be used for diagnostic purposes and in studies identifying antecedents, consequents, and mediators of organizational culture.

A limitation that should be stressed is that the analyses were all at the individual level. Future studies should identify the degree to which these values are shared within units and organizations. Studies identifying the effect of shared organizational values on individual and organizational outcomes are needed, especially focusing on the recent developments in the literature on emergent processes (Chan, 2014). Finally, the Mastery dimensions should be improved as mentioned in Study 2.

Referências

• Abbott, G. N., White, F. A., & Charles, M. A. (2005). Linking values and organizational commitment: A correlational and experimental investigation in two organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 531-551. doi:10.1348/096317905X26174
  » https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26174
• Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68. doi:10.1002/job.179
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
• Bilsky, W., & Jehn, K. A. (2002). Organisationskultur und individuelle werte: Belege für eine gemeinsame struktur. In M. Myrtek (Ed.), Die Person im biologischen und sozialen Kontext (pp. 211-228). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., Jehn, K. A., Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Embedding the organizational culture profile into Schwartz’s theory of universals in values. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(1), 1-12. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000028
  » https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000028
• Borges-Andrade, J. E., Afanasief, R. S., & Silva, M. S. (1989). Mensuração de comprometimento organizacional em instituições públicas. In SBP (Ed.), Anais da Reunião Anual de Psicologia (p. 236). Ribeirão Preto, SP: SBP.
• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.
• Chan, D. (2014). Multilevel aggregation issues in climate and culture research. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture (pp. 484-495). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. doi:10.1177/014920630002600304
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
• Dylag, A., Jaworek, M., Karwowski, W., Kożusznikc,M., & Marekd, T. (2013). Discrepancy between individual and organizational values: Occupational burnout and work engagement among white-collar workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43, 225-231. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2013.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.01.002
• Engelbrecht, A. S., van Aswegen, A. S., & Theron, C. C. (2005). The effect of ethical values on transformational leadership and ethical climate in organisations. South African Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 19-26.
• Fernandes, H. de A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2009). O impacto dos valores pessoais e organizacionais no comprometimento com a organização. Psico-USF (Impresso), 14(3), 341-354. doi:10.1590/S1413-82712009000300010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712009000300010
• Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677-94. doi:10.1037/a0021987
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987
• Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286. doi:10.2307/2393392
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value congruence effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1175-1198.
• Kamia, M., & Porto, J. B. (2009). Desenvolvimento e validação da escala de comportamento proativo nas organizações - ECPO. Avaliação Psicológica, 8(3), 359-367.
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1974). Psicologia social das organizações. São Paulo: Atlas.
• Latorre, S. Z. (2006). Perfis de cultura e de valores organizacionais: Um estudo em empresas de tecnologia (Dissertação de mestrado não publicada). Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brasil.
• Matziari, A., Montgomery, A. J., Georganta, K., & Doulougeri, K. (2016). The relationship between organizational practices and values with burnout and engagement. Current Psychology, Early Cite: doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9413-7.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9413-7
• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Psychology, 14, 224-247.
• Naidoo, P., & Martins, N. (2014). Investigating the relationship between organizational culture and work engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12, 432-440.
• Oliveira, A. de F., & Tamayo, A. (2004). Inventário de perfis de valores organizacionais. Revista de Administração, USP, 39(2), 129-140.
• O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. doi:10.2307/256404
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/256404
• Paschoal, T., Álvaro, J.-L., & Porto, J. B. (2015). The moderating effect of personal values in the relationship between working conditions and wellbeing / El efecto moderador de los valores personales en la relación entre condiciones de trabajo y bienestar. Revista de Psicología Social, 30(1), 89-121. doi:10.1080/02134748.2014.987505
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.987505
• Paschoal, T., & Tamayo, A. (2008). Construção e validação da escala de bem-estar no trabalho. Avaliação Psicológica, 7(1), 11-22.
• Ribeiro, P. E. C. D., Porto, J. B., Puente-Palacios, K. E., & Resende, M. M. (2016). Clima ético nas organizações: Evidências de validade de uma escala de medida. Temas Em Psicologia.
• Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural values in organisations: Insights for Europe. European Journal of International Management, 1(3), 176. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2007.014692
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2007.014692
• Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Densten, I. L., & Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational culture profile revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 159-182. doi:10.1177/031289620503000109
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/031289620503000109
• Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
• Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1-65). San Diego: Academic.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23-47. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
• Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 137-182. doi:10.1163/156913306778667357
  » https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357
• Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.*
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.*
• Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., … Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-88. doi:10.1037/a0029393
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
• Stackman, R. W., Pinder, C. C., & Connor, P. E. (2000). Values lost. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 37-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Suharti, L., & Suliyanto, D. (2012). The effects of organizational culture and leadership style toward employee engagement and their impacts toward employee loyalty. World Review of Business Research, 2, 128-139.
• Tamayo, A. (1998). Valores organizacionais: Sua relação com satisfação no trabalho, cidadania organizacional e comprometimento afetivo. Revista de Administração, USP, 33(3), 56-63.
• Tamayo, A. (2005). Impacto dos valores pessoais e organizacionais sobre o comprometimento organizacional. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamento nas organizações (pp. 160-186). Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
• Tamayo, A. (2008). Valores organizacionais e comprometimento afetivo. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 6(3), 192-213.
• Tamayo, A., Mendes, A. M., & Paz, M. G. T. (2000). Inventário de valores organizacionais. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 5(2), 289-315.
• Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In E. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (pp. 81-103). New York, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447. doi:10.2307/3857431
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3857431
• Vandenberghe, C., & Peiro, J. M. (1999). Organizational and individual values: Their main and combined effects on work attitudes and perceptions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 569-581. doi:10.1080/135943299398177
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398177
• Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101. doi:10.2307/2392857
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857

• 2
  Manuscript prepared in: 2016
• 1
  This research was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES (Grant no. BEX 5750/15-6 awarded to Juliana B. Porto) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq (Grant no. 30.4015/2015-6 awarded to Juliana B. Porto)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  2016

History

• Received
  07 Sept 2016
• Accepted
  06 Nov 2016