Climate as a group level phenomenon: Theoretical assumptions and methodological considerations

• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2417
• Author: Gil Luria

POINT‐COUNTERPOINT

Climate as a group level phenomenon: Theoretical assumptions

and methodological considerations

Gil Luria

Department of Human Services, Faculty of

Welfare and Health Sciences, University of

Haifa, Israel

Correspondence

Gil Luria, Department of Human Services,

University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, Postal code.

31905.

Email: gluria@univ.haifa.ac.il

Summary

Climate is a group‐level phenomenon that should be measured and studied at the

group level. The group level has theoretical and methodological advantages over

the individual level. In this paper, I theoretically review the assumptions in measuring

climate at the individual and group levels and demonstrate that the group‐level

assumptions are more adequate for climate research because of their influences in

exposure to events, interpretation of events, and preservation of perceptions. Meth-

odologically, I discuss advantages in group‐level climate measurement accuracy that

are based on multiple evaluators of climate and I suggest group aggregation is an

organizational form of “wisdom of the crowds.”Finally, I point to three topics that

remain to be investigated to understand climate at the group level better. The first

is use of variability measures to compensate for information that is lost in aggrega-

tion. The second is challenging the assumption that formal organizational structure

defines the group boundaries. I suggest that other levels of analysis apply to group‐

level climate measurement and demonstrate the use of informal, more natural groups

as an additional level. Third, I point to recently developed statistical procedures that

can aid the study of climate perception emergence over time.

1|INTRODUCTION

Climate is a central construct in organizational behavior. Many pub-

lished papers focus on climate, and even more use the climate construct

in their models. The growing body of research on the conceptof climate

(Flin, Mearns, O'Connor, & Bryden, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Luria,

2016; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2012; Schneider, Ehrhart, &

Macey, 2013; Zohar, 2010, 2011; Zohar & Hofmann, 2012) advanced

our understanding of the concept. Recently, climate was studied as a

facet‐specific variable—that is, employees' perceptions that relate to a

specific facet of procedures, policies, and practices (Luria, 2016).

Operationalizing this approach to multiple facets made it possible to

explain a variety of topics in organizations, such as service (Ostroff

et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2013; Schneider, Macey, Lee, & Young,

2009), safety (Luria, 2016; Zohar, 1980; Zohar & Luria, 2004), produc-

tivity (Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004), initiative and psychological

safety (Baer & Frese, 2003), quality (Luria, 2008), goal orientation

(González‐Romá, Peiró, & Tordera, 2002), supervisory support

(Bacharach & Bamberger, 2007), co‐worker support (Bacharach,

Bamberger, & Doveh, 2008), sharing concerns (Kossek, Colquitt, &

Noe, 2001), justice (Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007;

Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Spell & Arnold, 2007), sexual harassment

(Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996), violence (Kessler, Spector, Chang,

& Parr, 2008), and volunteering (Rodell, Booth, Lynch, & Zipay, 2017).

Various levels of analysis (individual, organizational, and units

within the organization) have been used in climate research. These

levels not only were methodological in nature but also obscured

conceptualization of the construct and therefore caused debate and

confusion among researchers. The main confusion has been between

conceptualizing climate as an individual‐level construct (also known

as psychological climate) and conceptualizing organizational climate as

a group‐level construct (focusing on organizations or subgroups within

Received: 15 May 2019 Revised: 2 June 2019 Accepted: 10 September 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2417

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:1055–1066. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1055