Introduction: Issues in the aggregation of climate scores

• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Author: Paul E. Spector
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2409

POINT‐COUNTERPOINT

Introduction: Issues in the aggregation of climate scores

KEYWORDS

aggregation, multi‐level, organizational climate, psychometrics, research methodology

Organizational climate is typically assessed as the aggregate (mean) of

individual employee perceptions within groups or organizations. It is

assumed that the aggregate reflects a higher‐order phenomenon by

removing the idiosyncratic responses of individual employees. This

practice is well established, not only in the study of climate but also

in the study of any social phenomenon where people are assessed in

higher social units, such as teams or departments. In this exchange,

two well‐established climate researchers will discuss the pros and cons

of aggregation.

Stacey R. Kessler (in press) begins the exchange with a critique of

the practice of aggregation. She makes her case by noting four issues:

assuming that individual differences are merely random error, assum-

ing uniformity of experience across individual employees, complexity

in the nature of the unit of analysis, and assuming the group mean is

a meaningful measure of organizational climate. She provides sugges-

tions about how climate should best be studied.

Gil Luria (in press) argues that climate by its nature is a group‐level

phenomenon and must be studied in this way. He makes the case for

using the group mean as the unit of analysis in the study of climate,

noting that the mean of individuals is more accurate than individual

ratings. He further notes three topics that need to be researched: var-

iability among individuals within groups, the impact on climate of the

informal organization, and studying climate emergence over time.

These two papers provide different perspectives on whether to

use the group mean as a climate measure. Kessler argues against

aggregation, whereas Luria argues that climate by its nature is a group

level phenomenon requiring aggregation. There is common ground,

however in that both note limitations in how we study climate, and

both note the need to further investigate within‐group variability in

climate perceptions. Together, they provide a balanced discussion of

the pros and cons of aggregating climate measures and provide sug-

gestions for a way forward.

Keywords

aggregation, multi‐level, organizational climate, psychometrics,

research methodology

ORCID

Paul E. Spector https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6881-8496

Paul E. Spector

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida,

USA

Correspondence

Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida,

Tampa, FL 33620, USA.

Email: pspector@usf.edu

REFERENCES

Kessler, S. R. (in press). Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared percep-

tion and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings. Journal of

Organizational Behavior.

Luria, G. (in press). Climate as a group level phenomenon: Theoretical

assumptions and methodological considerations. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Paul E. Spector is distinguished professor of industrial‐organiza-

tional psychology at the University of South Florida. He also

teaches executive doctor of business administration students in

the USF Muma College of Business. He is the Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior Associate Editor for Point/Counterpoint and is on

the editorial board for Human Resource Management Review.

Received: 14 May 2019 Accepted: 18 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2409

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1045

1045.