Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An exploratory study of the relationships among hospital sub-cultures, job involvement, upward striving,… Hawkes, Elizabeth Lawrence 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A6_7 H38.pdf [ 7.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097664.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097664-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097664-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097664-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097664-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097664-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097664-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097664-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097664.ris

Full Text

EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HOSPI SUB-CULTURES, JOB INVOLVEMENT, UPWARD STRIVING, ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND JOB SATISFACTION By ELIZABETH LAWRENCE HAWKES B.A., Hood C o l l e g e , 1966. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (Health S e r v i c e s Planning and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ) i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Health Care and Epidemiology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard ' THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1988 C j E l i z a b e t h Lawrence Hawkes, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of H e a l t h Care and E p i d e m i o l o g y The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October Ik, I 9 8 8 DF-fin/fi-n i i A b s t r a c t The purpose of t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y study was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether there i s any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s t r e n g t h of the c u l t u r e i n a h o s p i t a l work group and the job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment and job s a t i s f a c t i o n of the employees w i t h i n t h a t work group. The c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r t h i s study i s the symbolic frame of r e f e r e n c e f o r understanding o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour. The concept i s d e s c r i b e d by Bolman and Deal (1984). Two h o s p i t a l s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study, which provided two data s e t s . Subjects were employees of c e r t a i n departments w i t h i n each of the h o s p i t a l s . Each s u b j e c t completed a f o u r - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The f i r s t p a r t c o l l e c t e d demographic data, p a r t two contained q u e s t i o n s on job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, p a r t three focussed on job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and p a r t four was the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e . The c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e s were developed s e p a r a t e l y a t each h o s p i t a l and, t h e r e f o r e , c o n t a i n e d items which were r e l e v a n t to a s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t y . There were two major f i n d i n g s from the study. F i r s t , there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h . R e s u l t s a t both h o s p i t a l s were c o n s i s t e n t i n t h i s r e g a r d . No r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , and/or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h . The second f i n d i n g was t h a t a t the l a r g e r h o s p i t a l there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s among some work u n i t s , while a t the s m a l l e r h o s p i t a l t h i s was not the case. T h i s f i n d i n g supports the idea t h a t s i z e of an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a f a c t o r i n the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o sub-c u l t u r e f ormation. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i v L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of F i g u r e s v i i i Acknowledgement i x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 11 C u l t u r e 12 C u l t u r e " A r t i f a c t s " 15 Sub- c u l t u r e s 20 C u l t u r e Strength 22 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment 24 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n 27 Job Involvement 32 Upward S t r i v i n g 34 Summary 35 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY 37 Sample 38 Recruitment of U n i t s 39 S e l e c t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l s For Group Sessions 41 Conduct of the Group S e s s i o n 45 The Measures 55 Pa r t 1 55 Part 2 55 P a r t 3 58 Data Analyses 59 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 60 Vancouver General H o s p i t a l 60 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample 60 The C u l t u r e Strength Scale 67 The Study Questions 68 Lions Gate H o s p i t a l 80 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample 80 The C u l t u r e S t r e n g t h Scale 85 The Study Questions 85 Summary 96 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 100 I m p l i c a t i o n s 100 L i m i t a t i o n s and G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y 105 Conclusi o n s 106 REFERENCES 109 APPENDIX A LETTERS AND FORMS 114 APPENDIX B INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRES 121 APPENDIX C EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRES 134 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE I A Typology of R i t e s by T h e i r M a n i f e s t , E x p r e s s i v e S o c i a l Consequences 18 Table II Examples of Items Which Could be on the L i s t of C u l t u r a l A r t i f a c t s 46 Table I I I C u l t u r e " A r t i f a c t s " L i s t from VGH Groups 50 Table IV C u l t u r e " A r t i f a c t s " L i s t from LGH Groups 52 TABLE V Qu e s t i o n n a i r e Response Rate 61 TABLE VI D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years of H o s p i t a l Tenure 63 TABLE VII D i s t r i b u t i o n of U n i t Tenure i n Years 64 TABLE VIII Years of Formal Educa t i o n 65 TABLE IX Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n by U n i t s 66 TABLE X Combined s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s based on s u b - c u l t u r e s c a l e score 69 TABLE XI Job Facet A s s o c i a t i o n s With Sub-culture Strength 77 TABLE XII C u l t u r e Strength Scores, I n t e r n a l versus E x t e r n a l P e r s p e c t i v e s 79 TABLE XIII Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Response Rate 80 TABLE XIV D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years of H o s p i t a l Tenure 81 TABLE XV D i s t r i b u t i o n of Years of U n i t Tenure 82 TABLE XVI Years of Formal Education TABLE XVII Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n by U n i t s TABLE XVIII Mean C u l t u r e Scale Scores f o r LGH U n i t s TABLE XIX Job Facet A s s o c i a t i o n s with Sub-Culture Strength TABLE XX C u l t u r e Strength Scores, I n t e r n a l versus E x t e r n a l P e r s p e c t i v e LIST OF FIGURES Fi g u r e 1 A proposed model of the antecedents o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment Fi g u r e 2 A modified model of the antecedents o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment i x Acknowledgements I would l i k e t o take t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y to express my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e to a l l the people who helped make completion of t h i s t h e s i s p o s s i b l e . In p a r t i c u l a r , I wish to say thank you to Dr. L a r r y Moore, my t h e s i s a d v i s o r , f o r h i s e n t h u s i a s t i c support throughout t h i s p r o j e c t , and f o r s k i l l f u l l y g u i d i n g me through some of the i n t r i c a c i e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour. I would a l s o l i k e to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to my Committee members, Dr. Brenda Morrison and Dr. Clyde Hertzman f o r t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i v e comments and suggestions f o r improvement i n the manuscript as w e l l as t h e i r encouragement and words of wisdom. And to Dr. Morrison a g a i n f o r l e a d i n g me through the mysterious world of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Most of a l l I am g r a t e f u l to my e v e r - p a t i e n t husband f o r p u t t i n g up with a "s t u d e n t - w i f e " a l l t h i s time. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Bolman and Deal (1984) suggest that organizations may be studied from a va r i e t y of perspectives. In t h e i r text, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations, they provide four frameworks fox the study of organizational theory. The f i r s t t h e o r e t i c a l frame i s based on structure. This approach r e f l e c t s assumptions based on r a t i o n a l theories of organization. The organizational chart Is a key element, "created to f i t an organization's environment and technology" (p. 5). The human resources frame i s constituted ln the humanist movement, which followed in the wake of Taylor's s c i e n t i f i c management p r i n c i p l e s . The focus of these theories i s to find an "organizational form that w i l l enable people to get the job done while f e e l i n g good about what they are doing" (p. 5). The t h i r d frame described by Bolman and Deal (1984) i s based on p o l i t i c a l perspectives of organization theory. Analysing organizations through t h i s framework requires one to "view organizations as arenas of scarce resources where power and influence are constantly a f f e c t i n g the a l l o c a t i o n of resources among Individuals and groups" (p.5). 2 In contrast to the preceding frames, which assume a ce r t a i n element of r a t i o n a l i t y , the symbolic frame provides a means by which to explain the " I r r a t i o n a l " . "Organizations are viewed as held together more by shared values and culture than by goals and p o l i c i e s . They are propelled more by r i t u a l s , ceremonies, s t o r i e s , heroes, and myths than by rules, p o l i c i e s , and managerial authority" (p. 6). It Is the fourth, symbolic, frame, which provides the t h e o r e t i c a l basis for t h i s study. Ouchi and Wllkins (1985) comment that, "Pew readers would disagree that the study of organizational culture has become one of the major domains of organizational research,..." (p. 457-8). This view i s shared by others, among them Oandridge, M i t r o f f , and Joyce, (1980) and Gregory (1983). The l a t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d the impetus to s h i f t from more conventional t h e o r e t i c a l frames with the following statement that the goal of much current corporate culture research i s "to i l l u s t r a t e the impact of ' i r r a t i o n a l ' human factors on ' r a t i o n a l ' corporate objectives" (p. 363). The stimulus to do t h i s study arose from a health manpower issue. Shortages in many categories of health professionals are well-known and documented. These shortages contribute to easy mobility for the worker. If i t i s true that strong culture increases organizational commitment, then the benefit to hospital managers of developing a strong culture may be an increase in s t a f f tenure. Since an 3 Informal network among health care workers communicates which work places are desirable, an increase in rate and numbers of applications for vacancies may also r e s u l t . A method for Identifying strong and weak sub-cultures among the "hodge-podge" (Deal, Kennedy, and Spiegel, 1983) of hospital work groups may prove useful to those in human resource management and manpower planning positions, by providing a focus for e f f o r t s to decrease absenteeism and turnover. Anecdotal statements such as the following are not uncommon in the popular l i t e r a t u r e on organizational culture. I stcoio, aid appropriate lBst l t i t iooal coltire Is itdispeisable to ODtstatdlng performance ia any orfaaltatlea. (Peal, et a l , 1983, p.21) ...caltaret cat geaerate coaaitteat to corporate valaes ot •aaageieat philosophy so that employees feel they are vorkiao, for seaethiaf, they believe i a . (Nartia i Siehl, M i l l I stroag oigaaixat tonal caltare is capable of l up l r lo? high levels of c o v i t i e a t and ttaly inspired behavior. (Schlealager i Baiter, 1)1$) The suggestion i s that t r y i n g to achieve a strong culture i s a desirable, l f not v i t a l , a c t i v i t y . No reference i s made to empirical studies which support these claims of a positive r e l a t i o n s h i p between culture strength and commitment, performance, and/or any other job 4 facets, such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e turned up only two such references. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985) refer to an unpublished paper, "O'Reilly d i s t r i b u t e d questionnaires in seven high technology companies in S i l i c o n Valley to test the association between the presence of a 'strong culture' and employee i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the firm. He found general support" (p. 475). No description i s provided to indicate how O'Reilly defined culture or how he determined that the companies surveyed had strong cultures. Gordon (1985) states that data c o l l e c t e d by Hay Associates on over 500 companies, "...indicates that culture i s r e a l , i s measurable, and bears a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to company performance" (p. 103). Once again, t h i s study lacked any indication of how the culture strength was measured. Hospitals, according to Deal, et a l , (1983), are remarkable for t h e i r lack of strong company culture. C r i t e r i a and data upon which t h i s pronouncement may be based are absent from the a r t i c l e . The authors do suggest a v a r i e t y of reasons for t h i s state of a f f a i r s , however. F i r s t , where businesses are generally able to select c e r t a i n market segments as the focus of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , hospitals are required to provide a wide v a r i e t y of services which they may or may not wish to provide. Second, hospitals are vulnerable to a much greater number of externally imposed controls than other businesses. This forces hospitals to focus outward and depletes the energy resource required to develop a strong Internal i d e n t i t y . Third, t r a d i t i o n a l 5 measures o£ performance, such as bottom l i n e and market share, are not s a t i s f a c t o r y for a ho s p i t a l . "The problem of a r t i c u l a t i n g measures of performance acts as a barrier to building a strong cohesive culture" (p. 25). The l i s t of barriers i s lengthy. Of relevance to t h i s paper are the ones which refer to the many sub-cultures in hospitals and the role they play in hospital performance. "Any hospital i s a hodge-podge of individual departmental sub-cultures - some strong, some weak, some Internally focused, some externally focused - a l l of which must be knit together i f the hospital i s to carry out i t s basic mission" (p. 25). Sub-cultures may be defined or bounded in d i f f e r e n t ways. One locus of sub-culture i s a horizontal s l i c e of the organization (for example, a l l department managers). A second way that sub-cultures may be bounded i s with a v e r t i c a l s l i c e through the organization, as with a project team in a research and development company. The l a s t method Is to define sub-cultures by department or functional unit. As hospitals have t r a d i t i o n a l l y used t h i s l a s t method for defining work units, i t i s the d e f i n i t i o n which has been adopted for t h i s study. Using a functional sub-culture boundary d e f i n i t i o n serves the dual purpose of cl u s t e r i n g people by both the nature of the work and usually by professional a f f i l i a t i o n . There i s a lack of empirical research to substantiate the anecdotal claims as to the benefits of having strong 6 cultures In an organization. Therefore,the primary aim of t h i s thesis i s to explore several questions surrounding such an investigation. S p e c i f i c a l l y : 1. Do f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures show s i g n i f i c a n t differences in scores on a culture strength scale? 2. For f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures, i s there a rel a t i o n s h i p between culture strength scores and job involvement? 3. For f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures, i s there a rel a t i o n s h i p between culture strength scores and upward s t r i v i n g ? 4. For f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures, i s there a relat i o n s h i p between culture strength scores and organizational commitment? 5. For f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures, i s there a relat i o n s h i p between culture strength scores and job sa t i s f a c t i o n ? 6. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between age within a sub-culture and scores on the culture strength scale? 7. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between tenure within a sub-culture and scores on the culture strength scale? 7 8. Is culture strength for f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-cultures perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by those external to the group than by those who are part of the group? The f i r s t question addresses d i r e c t l y the comment quoted above from Deal, et a l , (1983), that hospital sub-cultures vary from strong to weak in culture strength. Questions two through f i v e address the issue of whether there i s any c o r r e l a t i o n between c e r t a i n work behaviours and culture strength. There i s a great deal of l i t e r a t u r e on the subject of organizational behaviour, yet there s t i l l seems to be a l o t which i s unknown. Perhaps s h i f t i n g the perspective from a psychophysiological (stimulus/response) to a s o c l o c u l t u r a l one w i l l shed some new l i g h t on the area. Studies of job behaviours such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n , job involvement, and organizational commitment have shown relationships with both tenure and age. These relationships have been varied, but frequently are described as U-shaped, Gibson & K l e i n (1970). Questions s i x and seven deal with the relationships of age and tenure with culture strength scores. The l a s t question s h i f t s the focus from the internal perspective of the groups themselves to an external perspective. How do outsiders see the group? Is the image a group has of i t s e l f the same or s i m i l a r to the image an observer has? 8 By seeking answers to these eight questions, a s t a r t may be made toward developing a new model of organizat ional behaviour which goes beyond the bounds of r a t i o n a l i t y and includes the effect of an organiza t ion ' s cul ture or sub-cul tures on behaviour. As the purpose of t h i s study was to explore the questions noted above, a quant i ta t ive instrument for measuring the r e l a t i v e strength of a sub-culture had to be developed. Rather than pursue the more t r a d i t i o n a l methods, such as interviews or " l i v i n g i n " , for analysing organizat ional cu l tu re , the method used here was to involve two panels of "experts". One panel consisted of outsiders (people who do not work in the sub-cultures p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study, but who in terac t with those groups f a i r l y regular ly) who could provide an external perspective (BP). The second group was comprised of representatives from each of the sub-cultures being studied (providing an in te rna l perspective - I P ) . Using a modified nominal group process (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson, 1975), each panel of experts was guided through the development of a l i s t of items representing v i s i b l e manifestations of cul ture in the i r pa r t i cu la r organiza t ion . From t h i s l i s t , a "customized" cul ture strength scale was developed with which cul ture strength could be assessed, not through the eyes of the researcher, but by members of the sub-cul tures . 9 These questions formed part of a longer questionnaire which included scales to rate job involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , upward s t r i v i n g , and organizational commitment. The instrument was used to gather data from a variety of sub-cultures within each of the two p a r t i c i p a t i n g hospitals. Culture strength data about p a r t i c i p a t i n g departments was also c o l l e c t e d from the external perspective group members who participated i n the nominal group session. This paper i s organized in the following manner: Chapter II provides a review of the l i t e r a t u r e . It i s designed to lead the reader through an understanding of the concept of culture in i t s general anthropological sense, then more s p e c i f i c a l l y to the ap p l i c a t i o n of the culture concept to organizations. A discussion of organizational sub-cultures and culture strength i s next. The chapter concludes with a discussion of each of the dependent variables in the study. Chapter III describes the methodology of the study. It includes a description of the development of the measurement scale used for ranking the r e l a t i v e strength of various sub-cultures. The psychometric and other properties of the instruments used to measure the dependent variables - job s a t i s f a c t i o n , upward s t r i v i n g , job involvement, and organizational commitment are delineated. The s t a t i s t i c a l 10 tests used to manipulate the data are also discussed ln t h i s chapter. The fourth chapter provides r e s u l t s of the data analysis with respect to each of the study questions. And f i n a l l y , Chapter V presents discussion, conclusions, and suggestions for further research. In summary, organizational behaviour i s a very complex subject, not yet very well understood. T r a d i t i o n a l approaches to understanding organizations and the behaviour of the people ln them have focused on the assumption that human behaviour i n organizations i s r a t i o n a l . More recently attention has become focused on the symbolic perspective for understanding or interpreting behaviour in organizations. Since i t i s a f a i r l y new approach, there i s much to develop in terms of background knowledge and methods for study. Unsubstantiated claims have been made about the benefits of strong cultures which may be quite v a l i d , or may be a r t i f a c t u a l . The aim of t h i s study i s to investigate the v a l i d i t y of some of these claims. 11 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Corporate culture, as a subject of study, has recently been gaining increased attention from both p r a c t i t i o n e r s and academicians (Ouchl & Wilkins, 1985). This i s obvious from the rate of p r o l i f e r a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e over the past several years. Some argue that the study of organizational culture Is just another fad whose time has come (Ut t a l , 1983). Others (Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, and Associates, 1985) are equally c e r t a i n that the interest i n corporate culture has been with us, " l i k e an old wine in a new bottie"(p. 422), for a long time, i s here to stay, and worthy of continuing attention. The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to develop the concept of organizational culture and to provide some background about the job behaviours which comprise the dependent variables in t h i s study. In order to achieve t h i s , the review s t a r t s with the term 'culture', as understood by the anthropologists. Then, building on the understanding of culture, the concept of organizational culture i s developed. Ways in which culture makes i t s e l f observable are also described followed by a review of many of the ways in which c u l t u r a l sub-groups may be bounded. Culture also varies in i t s strength. The components of culture which a f f e c t strength are also discussed. 12 The job facets being studied for possible c o r r e l a t i o n with culture strength include job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , organizational commitment, and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e aimed at i d e n t i f y i n g potential relationships between each dependent variable and organizational culture i s included in the l a s t portion of the chapter. CULTURE Often, culture i s not c l e a r l y defined by those writing on the subject of corporate culture. Authors have a tendency to describe elements or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of culture, but not to c l e a r l y define the concept. An example of t h i s i s Deal and Kennedy's (1982) reference to culture as "the way we do things around here" (p. 4), followed by a l i s t of 5 elements of cu l t u r e . In order to c l e a r l y define organizational culture, i t is f i r s t necessary to understand the meaning of the term culture. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the study of culture has been the domain of anthropology and sociology. Cultural anthropologists have also struggled with a d e f i n i t i o n of culture. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) discovered over 160 d e f i n i t i o n s of culture. Keesing and Keeslng (1971) define culture as "those s o c i a l l y transmitted patterns for behavior c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l group" (p. 20). These same authors l a t e r quote a comprehensive, and perhaps s l i g h t l y confusing, d e f i n i t i o n of culture from the Kroeber 13 and Kluckhohn (1952) work. Culture i s "Patterns, e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t , of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, co n s t i t u t i n g the d i s t i n c t i v e achievement of human groups, including t h e i r embodiments in a r t i f a c t s " (p. 20). These two d e f i n i t i o n s are t y p i c a l examples of the wide gamut of a c t i v i t y as well as complexity i n the conceptual d e f i n i t i o n of culture. The complications of defining culture may help explain why authors, such as Deal and Kennedy (1982) noted above, tend to define culture by giving examples. To further complicate the picture, one must be aware that anthropologists use the term culture in two ways. In one sense, the term i s used to refer to observable behaviour and/or physical objects. The f i r s t d e f i n i t i o n above suggests t h i s approach. Culture i s also used to refer to systems of shared Ideas (Keesing and Keesing, 1971), as the second, more complex d e f i n i t i o n suggests. Since ideas are i n v i s i b l e to observation, they are usually inferred through interpretation of the observable phenomena or a r t i f a c t s , such as behaviour, language, and physical objects. KB the foregoing shows, anthropologists and so c i o l o g i s t s define culture in many d i f f e r e n t , though overlapping, ways. With respect to organizations, as Jelinek, et a l , (1983) note, "...the concept of culture in the study of organizations i s not well developed" (p. 331). Sathe (1985) provides a d e f i n i t i o n which Is e a s i l y 14 understood and captures the essence of most other d e f i n i t i o n s of organizational culture. At the same time, i t s anthropological roots are clear through i t s s i m i l a r i t y to Kroeber and Kluckhohn's d e f i n i t i o n above. "Culture i s the set of Important assumptions (often unstated) that members of a community share i n common" (p. 10). It i s t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of organizational culture which has been adopted for t h i s study. Sathe goes on to explain that "important assumptions are those that are s u f f i c i e n t l y c e n t r al to the l i f e of the community to be of major s i g n i f i c a n c e " (p. 11). The components of assumptions are b e l i e f s and values. B e l i e f s are grounded in actual experience or trust in the experiences of others, and values relate to ideals about how the world should work. According to Trice & Beyer (1984), there are various interdependent e n t i t i e s comprising culture which influence one another to form a p a r t i c u l a r culture. Although the l i s t s of what these e n t i t i e s are vary in s p e c i f i c content, there seems to be general agreement among authors (Trice & Beyer, 1984; Sathe, 1985; Schusky & Culbert, 1967) that culture has two basic components: 1) i t s substance; and 2) i t s forms. Relating back to Sathe's d e f i n i t i o n , substance refers to the o f t unstated shared assumptions ( b e l i e f s and values). The meaning-laden a r t i f a c t s constitute the forms. 15 CULTURE "ARTIFACTS" Some authors (Trice & Beyer, 1984) consider a r t i f a c t s in a narrow sense, r e f e r r i n g to physical objects only. In t h i s paper, the term i s used in a broader sense to include any manifestations of shared values and b e l i e f s . Since shared assumptions (values and b e l i e f s ) are i n v i s i b l e and thus not r e a d i l y measured or observed, the manifestations of these values and b e l i e f s are generally r e l i e d upon for evaluating a cultu r e . These manifestations include shared things, doings, feelings, and sayings (Sathe, 1985). Things may include physical s e t t i n g , objects, or in some cases, r e a l or abstract representations of objects -c a l l e d symbols. Trice and Beyer (1984) define symbol as "any object, act, event, q u a l i t y , or r e l a t i o n that serves as a vehicle for conveying meaning, usually by representing another thing" (p. 655). Dandridge, et a l , (1983) state that "symbols...actively e l i c i t the internal experience of meaning...Symbols...help to translate an unconscious or i n t u i t i v e l y known world of feelings into the comprehendable terms of our v i s i b l e r e a l i t y " (p. 71). Daft (1983) delves deeper into the concept of symbol and suggests a dual-content framework. Symbols have an instrumental content which helps the organization do i t s 16 work by f a c i l i t a t i n g l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g and r a t i o n a l purpose. Examples of symbols high i n i n s t r u m e n t a l content i n c l u d e r e c e i p t s , achievement awards, and o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t s . The e x p r e s s i v e content of symbols d e a l s with meeting the emotional needs of i n d i v i d u a l s or groups. Myths, s t o r i e s , and ceremonies are examples Daft g i v e s of symbols high i n e x p r e s s i v e c o n t e n t . The model i s two-dimensional. The s u g g e s t i o n being t h a t some l e v e l of both content areas i s always present i n any g i v e n symbol. Daft proposed t h i s framework i n an e f f o r t t o analyse how something as co n c r e t e as a r e c e i p t and as a b s t r a c t as a company s t o r y or myth co u l d be e q u a l l y and u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y c o n s i d e r e d as a r t i f a c t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . Doings i n c l u d e a c t i v i t i e s of the group such as r i t u a l s , r i t e s , and ceremonies. T r i c e and Beyer (1984) provide the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n of r i t u a l . "A s t a n d a r d i z e d , d e t a i l e d s e t of techniques and behaviors t h a t manage a n x i e t i e s , but seldom produce intended, t e c h n i c a l consequences of p r a c t i c a l importance" (p. 655). According to U l r i c h (1984) examples of company r i t u a l s "may i n c l u d e t h r e e - m a r t i n i lunches, e v a l u a t i o n and reward procedures, s t a f f meetings, paper work, f a r e w e l l p a r t i e s , p a r k i n g a l l o c a t i o n s , and work s c h e d u l i n g procedures" (p. 121). Other s i t u a t i o n s which are shared by members of a c u l t u r a l group i n c l u d e r i t e s and ceremonies. T r i c e and Beyer (1984) have developed a t y p o l o g y of r i t e s i n order to 17 f a c i l i t a t e use of these events as a means for understanding organizational cultures. They suggest that, by the i r nature, r i t e s and ceremonials are often more public and known about in advance, thus making i t easier for a researcher: a) to attend; and b) not to provoke unintended influence on the a c t i v i t i e s just by virtue of being present. Rite i s defined by Trice and Beyer as " r e l a t i v e l y elaborate, dramatic, planned sets of a c t i v i t i e s that consolidate various forms of c u l t u r a l expressions into one event, which i s c a r r i e d out through s o c i a l interactions, usually for the benefit of an audience" (p. 655). A ceremonial i s defined, in the same source as "a system of several r i t e s connected with a single occasion or event" (p. 655). The model l i s t s s i x types of r i t e s which may occur i n organizations and suggests examples of both manifest and latent consequences. An adaptation of the Trice and Beyer typology with examples of manifest consequences of r i t e s i s shown in Table 1. It i s anticipated that at least some of the " a r t i f a c t s " i d e n t i f i e d and examined in the present study w i l l be types of r i t e s . Trice and Beyer's typology w i l l be useful in c l a r i f y i n g the meanings of the events thus derived. 18 Table I A Typology of Rites bv Their Manifest, Expressive Social Consequences; TYPE OP RITES EXAMPLE MANIFEST, EXPRESSIVE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES RITES OF PASSAGE RITES OF DEGRADATION RITES OF ENHANCEMENT RITES OF RENEWAL RITES OF CONFLICT REDUCTION RITES OF INTEGRATION INDUCTION AND BASIC TRAINING, INTO THE ARMY FIRING AND REPLACING THE TOP EXECUTIVE MARY KAY SEMINARS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OFFICE CHRISTMAS PARTY FACILITATE TRANSI-TION OF PERSONS INTO SOCIAL ROLES AND STATUSES THAT ARE NEW FOR THEM DISSOLVE SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND THEIR POWER ENHANCE SOCIAL IDENTITIES AND THEIR POWER REFURBISH SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVE THEIR FUNCTIONING REDUCE CONFLICT AND AGGRESSION ENCOURAGE AND REVIVE COMMON FEELINGS THAT BIND MEMBERS TOGETHER AND COMMIT THEM TO A SOCIAL SYSTEM Adapted from Tr i c e and Beyer (1984) Feelings shared by a p a r t i c u l a r group are a natural human response to sharing b e l i e f s and value systems in the overt manners described above. They may cover the whole gamut of human emotion and are l i k e l y to surface when the group's values are either challenged (threatened) or rewarded (reinforced). 19 Sayings Include a var i e t y of verbal communication a c t i v i t i e s . The following l i s t , with d e f i n i t i o n s , from Trice and Beyer (1984, p. 655), is quite complete. l y t h - A dramatic s a n a t i v e of imagined e v e i t t , usoally used to explain origins or traasforaatiens of something. Also, an angaestloaed b e l i e f aboot the p r a c t i c a l beaefits ef c e r t a i n techniques aad behaviors that Is not supported by demonstrated f a c t s . Saga - In h i s t o r i c a l narrative describing the tniqoe accomplishments of a groap and i t s leaders - t s o a l l y in heroic terns. legend - A handed-dovn narrative of some vonderfal event that i s based i a history bot has been embellished v i t a f i c t i o n a l d e t a i l s . (tory - A narrative based on trne events - often a combination of tro t h aad f i c t i o n . Folktale - A completely f i c t i o n a l narrative. Laagaage - A particular f o r i or manner in which members of a groap ase vocal soands and v r i t t e a signs to convey meanings to each other. The purpose of t h i s paper i s not to analyze, and type-la b e l a hospital culture, but to measure ( r e l a t i v e ) strength of culture among various functional groups. The method t h i s study uses to derive a "strength c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " i s dependent upon i d e n t i f y i n g a r t i f a c t s and e l i c i t i n g t h e i r manifest and latent meanings. It i s , therefore, necessary to have an understanding of the modes through which culture i s displayed and the concept of sub-culture within an organization. 20 I n i t i a l l y "corporate culture" was described as a singular phenomenon, unique to an entire corporation. As mentioned e a r l i e r . Deal, et a l (1983) and Smith (1984) write that hospitals, with a few exceptions, are not noted for t h e i r strong cultures. They suggest that professional and departmental subcultures compete with the organization as a whole for the workers' l o y a l t y . The organizational structure I t s e l f may set up competing sub-cultures for example, the matrix reporting structure which has become quite popular, e s p e c i a l l y in settings committed to m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y treatment teams. Individuals working in such a s i t u a t i o n usually are expected to exhibit l o y a l t i e s to three groups -the functional department, the "program team," and the profession. More recently, Schein (1985), Louis (1985) and Davis (1985) give support to the hypothesis that subcultures e x i s t in organizations. The notion that organizations, unless very small, exhibit a v a r i e t y of cultures, i s f a i r l y r e a d i l y accepted. D e f i n i t i o n of the l o c i and bounds of i n t e r n a l cultures i s more d i f f i c u l t . It i s l i k e l y that any one individual in an organization w i l l be involved in several sub-cultures. Since t h i s study is using hospital sub-cultures as units for data c o l l e c t i o n , a rationale for bounding hospital sub-cultures must be defined. 21 Louis (1985) suggests five " l o c i " for c u l t u r a l sub-groups within an organization. The f i r s t of these i s the management group at the top of the organization. Second i s a v e r t i c a l s l i c e of the company or hos p i t a l , such as psychiatric services, which would include a variety of professional s t a f f within a defined hierarchy. A horizontal s l i c e of the organization i s the t h i r d potential locus for sub-group a l l i a n c e s . For example, middle managers or department heads may comprise a p a r t i c u l a r h i e r a r c h i c a l sub-group. A fourth locus i s the more t r a d i t i o n a l functional unit or hospital department. F i n a l l y , Louis suggests that "any group, regardless of whether members come from the same or d i f f e r e n t formal organizational u n i t s " (p. 79) may develop a unique culture. The example the author gives for th i s group i s people who get together every week to play bridge at lunch. External to the organization are other potential c u l t u r a l influences which may include ethnic groups, professional a f f i l i a t i o n s or unions, to name a few. Schein (1985) i d e n t i f i e s some of the cohesive elements which provide the foundation from which a culture grows and strengthens. He states that a stable group membership and a history of j o i n t problem-solving are contributory elements to c u l t u r a l groups forming along the li n e s of "function, geography, rank, project teams, and so fo r t h " (p. 26). Other authors (Nordstrom & Allen , 1987, and Schein, 1984) include the taking in of new members and passing the 22 culture along to the next generation as two other elements of equal relevance with stable membership and shared history of j o i n t problem-solving. And, f i n a l l y , Sathe's (1985) contribution to the d e f i n i t i o n of sub-cultures i s the following. "Any definable set of people i n the organization who come from the same national, regional, ethnic, r e l i g i o u s , professional, or occupational cultures, and who have had enough of a shared his t o r y in working out solutions to the problems of external adaptation and internal integration, may develop a d i s t i n c t i v e sub-culture" (p. 23). Hospitals' organizational structures have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been drawn along functional l i n e s . The outcome of t h i s type of structure i s the grouping of people of l i k e professional or occupational focus. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , the members of a functional d i v i s i o n work in geographic proximity, i n B r i t i s h Columbia these groups w i l l also often share a common union a f f i l i a t i o n . And further, as Schein (1985) notes, the opportunity i s thus created for comparing and contrasting one's own group with other groups. "In other words, JLotexgroup comparison, competition, and/or c o n f l i c t s helps to build and maintain lntraqroup culture" (p. 39). CULTURE 3TRBWQTH The strength of a culture or sub-culture as described by Sathe (1985) depends on three features, thickness, extent 23 of sharing, and c l a r i t y of ordering. Sathe defines thickness as "the number of important shared assumptions" (p. 15) and equates increasing layers of thickness with stronger culture. The extent to which the b e l i e f s and values of the group are shared varies d i r e c t l y with the strength of the culture also. S i m i l a r l y , when the r e l a t i v e importance of shared b e l i e f s and values i s c l e a r , the culture i s stronger. In summary, Sathe states, "The stronger cultures are thicker, more widely shared, and more c l e a r l y ordered and consequently have a more profound influence on organizational behavior" (p. 15). The mechanisms of influence, or s p e c i f i c organizational behaviours, are not described in any of the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed for t h i s t h e s i s . An attempt to discover whether culture strength a f f e c t s a l l organizational behaviours equally or only selected facets, i s the main aim of t h i s study. To t h i s end, four of these organizational behaviours have been selected as dependent variables (culture strength being the independent variable) for t h i s study. They are organizational commitment, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , job involvement, and upward s t r i v i n g . In p a r t i c u l a r , organizational commitment i s most often mentioned (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Deal and Kennedy, 1983) as a benefit derived from a strong culture. 24 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Organizational commitment i s a construct which has been widely researched in recent years. Becker (1960) suggests that organizational commitment i s achieved by making side bets (having something at stake) and/or by accruing investments which make i t d i f f i c u l t to leave. Results from a study involving school teachers and nurses by Hrebinlak and Alutto (1985) support Becker's suggestion. A number of studies Investigate antecedents of organizational commitment. Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979), in t h e i r report on the development of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) used in t h i s study, note the varie t y of d e f i n i t i o n s which have been put forth for organizational commitment. Some of the d e f i n i t i o n s are behavioural (Grusky, 1966; Wiener, 1982) and others are a t t i t u d i n a l (Zahra, 1987; Sheldon, 1971) in the i r focus. The a t t i t u d i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s generally incorporate some sort of statement about values and normative expectations. For example, Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979) define organizational commitment as "the r e l a t i v e strength of an individual's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with and involvement in a par t i c u l a r organization" (p. 226). They go on to state that organizational commitment has "at least three related factors: (1) a strong b e l i e f in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert considerable e f f o r t on behalf of the organization; and (3) a 25 strong desire to maintain membership in the organization" (p. 226). Wiener and Gechman (1977) describe commitment behaviours as " . . . s o c i a l l y accepted behaviours that exceed formal and/or normative expectations relevant to the object of commitment" (p. 48). Wiener, (1982) in a l a t e r a r t i c l e , provides the following d e f i n i t i o n . "Organizational commitment i s viewed as the t o t a l i t y of internalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizational goals and i n t e r e s t s " (p. 421). Zahra views organizational commitment as "...a complex s o c i a l exchange process, the purpose of which i s to enhance the match between the goals and values of the individual and those of the organization. He goes on to i d e n t i f y the f i r s t of three components of organizational commitment as a "...value commitment which refers to the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the organization and/or work" (p. 189). As values and b e l i e f s are the foundation of organizational culture, i t may be that organizational sub-cultures provide the building blocks for organizational commitment. Luthans, Baack, and Taylor (1987) note that the variables Involved In these studies f a l l into three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : a) personal-demographic variables, b) organizational relationships, and c) person-organization f i t , which he describes as the interaction between personal and organizational variables. Wiener (1962) suggests very 26 si m i l a r categories of antecedent variables. Luthans, et a l , (1987) propose a model (Figure 1) which describes how these variables relate to one another and act as antecedents to organizational commitment. His study describes a tes t of the proposed model. The res u l t s of the study support the model. FUSWAL-MMXaftmC VARIAIMS PlIJOI-ORGillMIOl 0I6UII1TI0IU NT C0M1TMBHT OMAIIlAflQMl lELMIOISHIPS (Figure 1. A proposed model of the antecedents of organizational commitment, adapted from Luthans, et a l (1987)) The s p e c i f i c personal-demographic variables which are used vary from study to study, but in some studies include personal values. If one assumes that organizational relationships are based on organizational values, then the person-organization f i t box in the model represents the process described by Zahra (1987), of matching individual and organizational goals and values. The organizational relationships box then, must include those behaviours and a c t i v i t i e s which represent the organization's values. Since these values are expressed through c u l t u r a l " a r t i f a c t s " , the 27 organizational cultures and sub-cultures, may be expected to exert t h e i r influence at t h i s l e v e l in Luthans, et a l ' s , model. Thus a rel a t i o n s h i p would be expected between organizational culture and organizational commitment, but with some mediation by the person-organization f i t process. Zahra (1985), in a study investigating determinants of organizational commitment in a health care s e t t i n g , found that job s a t i s f a c t i o n and the need for achievement were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to predicting organizational commitment. JOB SATISFACTION A thorough review of job s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e and theories i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . However, as i t is one of the dependent variables in t h i s study, a br i e f discussion of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and the potential for co r r e l a t i o n with culture strength follows. In 1943, A. H. Maslow published an a r t i c l e in Psychological Review, e n t i t l e d , nA Theory of Human Motivation." In t h i s work, Maslow i d e n t i f i e d a group of human needs and arranged them in a hierarchy, postulating that man cannot be concerned with higher order needs u n t i l his lower order needs are f u l f i l l e d . From lowest to highest the categories of needs are: 1) basic physiological needs; 2) safety and s e c u r i t y needs; 3) s o c i a l (affection) needs; 4) esteem needs; and 5) s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n needs (Gruneberg, 1979, p. 10) 28 I t is now commonly b e l i e v e d t h a t job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s d e r i v e d through f u l f i l l m e n t of needs (Gruneberg, 1979). In f a c t , Maslow was not attempting to e x p l a i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h i s t h e o r y , but o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s have chosen to use h i s t h e o r y i n t h i s way. Among these t h e o r i s t s i s P. Herzberg whose famous two-f a c t o r theory (Herzberg, e t a l , 1959) used Maslow's needs h i e r a r c h y as a b a s i s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Herzberg's r e s u l t s l e d him to conclude t h a t job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are not one continuum, but two d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s ( f a c t o r s ) which he l a b e l l e d hygiene f a c t o r s (the d e f i n i t i o n of which Includes the lower order needs from Maslow's h i e r a r c h y ) and motivators (mostly higher order needs). Presence of hygiene f a c t o r s , such as pay or job s e c u r i t y , does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n , but absence of hygiene f a c t o r s r e s u l t s i n job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Conversely, absence of motivators does not r e s u l t i n job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , but r a t h e r a lack of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . C o ntroversy about Herzberg's t h e o r y focuses on h i s technique and/or the c o n c l u s i o n s he drew from the r e s u l t s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the t h e o r y c o n t i n u e s to be s t u d i e d today. While the above two t h e o r i e s focus on content of job s a t i s f a c t i o n , t here are other t h e o r i e s which focus on the process of i n t e r a c t i o n between v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . "Process t h e o r i s t s see job s a t i s f a c t i o n as 29 being determined, not only by the nature of the job and i t s context, but by the needs, values and expectations that Individuals have in r e l a t i o n to the i r job" (Gruneberg, 1979, p. 19). Gruneberg (1979) describes expectancy/equity theories as processes through which individuals relate to the job from an individual frame of reference. Such personal frames of reference are based on individual values and b e l i e f s . Expectancy theory focusses on individual need f u l f i l l m e n t . It attempts to Include various parameters of need f u l f i l l m e n t including: (a) the r e l a t i v e importance of various needs to any one in d i v i d u a l ; (b) how much the need is wanted; and (c) how much OF the need i s wanted. Equity theories suggest that individuals use a peer (or referent) group for judging the degree to which they (the employees) are being treated equitably. It i s through the reference group that the individual determines what i s reasonable to "expect from his job in terms of reward, and what i s reasonable to give in terms of e f f o r t " (Gruneberg, 1979, p.31). In other words, job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s based on s o c i a l l y derived expectations, groups norms. These norms are the product of the group's shared values and b e l i e f s , or culture. Based on t h i s theory, a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p may be expected between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and sub-culture strength scores. 30 In 1969, E. A. Locke published a paper intended to provide a more conceptual approach to the study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . According to Locke (1969), "Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are...complex emotional react ions to the job" (p. 314). In order to bu i ld the conceptual approach, Locke begins with a fundamental d i scuss ion of human emotions. Stat ing that "emotions are the product of value judgments" (p. 315), he goes on to exp la in : "Mae's most basic emotions ate those of pleasure aad displeasure...Pleasare i s the consequence of (perceived) valae achievement ... Displeasure ... proceeds f r o i the (perceived) negatioa or destruction of one's values* (p. 310. Having establ i shed an understanding of the intertwining of human values and emotional react ions , Locke then puts for th d e f i n i t i o n s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . 'Job s a t i s f a c t l o a i s the pleasirable enetlonal state m a l t i n g f r e t the appraisal of one's Job as achievlag or f a c i l i t a t i n g the achieveient of one's Job v a l i e s . Job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s the aapleasarable e i o t i o n a l state r e s u l t i n g from the appraisal of one's lob as f r u s t r a t i n g or blocking the attainment of one's job valaes or as e a t a i l i a g disvalaes. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n aad d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are a function of the perceived relationship betveen vnat one vaats fron one's job and vhat one perceives it as o f f e r i n g or e a t a i l i a g * (p. 316). Locke's comments a l so suggest a strong re l a t i onsh ip between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and cu l ture strength. 31 Many studies have been done on job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Of par t i c u l a r interest to the subject of t h i s paper i s a series of f i v e studies done by Mobley and Locke (1970). Their purpose was to show that a link exists between 1) an individuals' values and the r e l a t i v e importance of each value, and 2) job aspect s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Pour of the fi v e studies focused on tes t i n g one hypothesis -"that value attainment and value f r u s t r a t i o n would produce more s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , respectively, when the value was more important than when i t was less important" (p. 463). The other hypothesis, tested by the f i f t h study, was "that o v e r a l l v a r i a b i l i t y i n s a t i s f a c t i o n with a job aspect would be proportional to the importance of that aspect" (p. 463). The findings of the studies supported the respective hypotheses. Since values are a key element of culture, the findings of Mobley and Locke's study suggest that job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s an appropriate variable to include in t h i s investigation. The perspective in t h i s case being s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t , because the perspective would be that of whether the extent of shared group values Is re f l e c t e d in individual job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s often combined with a s i m i l a r , but d i s t i n c t , concept - job involvement. 32 JOB INVOLVEMENT Lodahl and Kejner (1965) f i r s t defined job involvement as "the degree to which a person i s i d e n t i f i e d psychologically with his work, or the importance of work in his t o t a l self-image" (p. 24). In 1977 Rabinowitz and Hall reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e on job involvement. In 11 references c i t e d , they found 11 d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of job involvement. Although these authors conclude that Lodahl and Kejner's (1965) d e f i n i t i o n contains the essence of a l l those which followed, they also state, " I t i s clear that there i s a great deal of conceptual confusion and p r o l i f e r a t i o n of terms in our theorizing about the construct lab e l l e d job involvement" (p. 267). Baba (1979), following an extensive review (27 references) of d e f i n i t i o n s of job involvement also concludes that Lodahl and Kejner's d e f i n i t i o n continues to be the common thread in any of the other d e f i n i t i o n s . Stated another way, "job involvement i s the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of values about the goodness of work or the importance of work in the worth of the person, and perhaps i t thus measures the ease with which the person can be further s o c i a l i z e d by an organization" (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965, p. 24). As the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of an individual to an organization or work group includes the learning of the work group culture, one would expect that organizational groups with strong (broadly shared) cultures would be comprised of 33 i n d i v i d u a l s whose value systems have become congruent. Where these value systems i n c l u d e a high importance of work t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s worth, high job involvement can be expected as a r e s u l t . In p r e v i o u s (unpublished) r e s e a r c h , u s i n g data obtained from women i n p r e c i s i o n e l e c t r o n i c s assembly work, Lodahl ( c i t e d i n Lodahl and Kejner, 1965) found t h a t job involvement i s r e l a t e d to team involvement, product knowledge, and time on the j o b . The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r de v e l o p i n g shared v a l u e s and assumptions i s i n c r e a s e d by both teamwork and l o n g e v i t y of the group. Thus, the c o r r e l a t i o n with team involvement and time on the job, r e i n f o r c e s the premise t h a t s t r o n g e r c u l t u r e s are l i k e l y to Influence l e v e l of job involvement. In the same study, j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n was found t o be independent of job Involvement. I t appears t h a t while job involvement and job s a t i s f a c t i o n share many common determinants, they a r e , i n f a c t , d i s t i n c t concepts (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965). Job involvement appears t o be f a i r l y s t a b l e over time, not e a s i l y a f f e c t e d by environmental changes i n the j o b . I t i s important t o note, a l s o , t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l can be h i g h l y job Involved, but not experience job s a t i s f a c t i o n . When a job i n v o l v e d person p e r c e i v e s t h a t h i s s e l f worth i s being n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t e d by the job, he may experience anger and f r u s t r a t i o n r a t h e r than s a t i s f a c t i o n . Job involvement seems to be p r i m a r i l y a 34 f u n c t i o n of the I n d i v i d u a l ' s value system and would thus be l e s s l i k e l y t o show a r e l a t i o n s h i p with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . UPWARD STRIVING The P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c i s a c o l l e c t i o n of b a s i c values and b e l i e f s which form p a r t of the North American c u l t u r e . I t s i n f l u e n c e on the work f o r c e i s through t e a c h i n g young members of s o c i e t y t h a t work should be one's c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t . Thus c o n t i n u a l l y seeking a higher l e v e l job i s a l o g i c a l outgrowth of the value system of s o c i e t y as a whole not the v a l u e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . WoHack, Goodale, W i j t i n g , and Smith (1971) d e f i n e upward s t r i v i n g (a s u b s c a l e of The Survey of Work Values (SWV)) as "the d e s i r e to seek c o n t i n u a l l y a higher l e v e l job and a b e t t e r standard of l i v i n g " (p. 332). Reference to t h i s v a r i a b l e has not been found i n any p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s , other than the one c i t e d here, which i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the development of the s c a l e . Upward s t r i v i n g i s an aspect of the P r o t e s t a n t B t h i c and symbolizes man's i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s . Since t h i s v a r i a b l e d e a l s more with s o c i e t a l values than o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a l u e s , and i f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e i s i n f a c t d i f f e r e n t from s o c i e t a l c u l t u r e , then no p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p would be expected between upward s t r i v i n g and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . 35 SUMMARY Cu l t u r e i s a concept adopted by students of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour from c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s . The study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y new f i e l d and d e f i n i t i o n of the term i s s t i l l u n c l e a r . Most of the d e f i n i t i o n s which are suggested imply t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e has something to do with shared assumptions and/or v a l u e s . Sathe's (1985) d e f i n i t i o n t h a t " C u l t u r e i s the s e t of important assumptions ( o f t e n unstated) t h a t members of a community share i n common" (p. 10), seems t o i n c o r p o r a t e most of the elements expressed by other authors when d e f i n i n g c u l t u r e . Because c u l t u r e i s composed of (unstated, i n v i s i b l e ) assumptions, i n order to study c u l t u r e , one must i d e n t i f y v i s i b l e e x p r e s s i o n s of shared assumptions. There are a v a r i e t y of media through which c u l t u r e can be expressed. These i n c l u d e p h y s i c a l a r t i f a c t s , shared behaviours and a c t i v i t i e s , shared f e e l i n g s , and s p e c i a l language such as slogans and mottoes, or unique vocabulary, such as medical terminology. In l a r g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , pockets of c u l t u r e tend t o develop, r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s paper as s u b - c u l t u r e s . These sub-groups may e x h i b i t s t r o n g c u l t u r e s , weak c u l t u r e s , or somewhere i n between. There are g e n e r a l l y three determinants of s t r e n g t h of c u l t u r e i n any g i v e n group. These components are how many v a r i e d shared assumptions there a r e , how widely 36 they are shared by the group, and how c l e a r I t i s which assumptions take precedence over o t h e r s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of four dependent v a r i a b l e s with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s i s being i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , job involvement, and upward s t r i v i n g have a l l been found to be r e l a t e d to each other i n v a r i o u s , but d i f f e r i n g ways. Because t h e r e i s not a c l e a r model of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a l l these v a r i a b l e s , t h i s study must be d e f i n e d as e x p l o r a t o r y . The methodology used to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e s mentioned above i s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter I I I . 37 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s have g e n e r a l l y adopted techniques used by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s f o r s t u d y i n g c u l t u r e i n a s o c i e t y . P e l t o (1970) l i s t s 10 d i f f e r e n t t o o l s used f o r s t u d y i n g c u l t u r e . One t o o l commonly used by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; and Kilmann, et a l , 1985) i s i n t e r v i e w i n g key informants. These may be s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e s , company heroes, or those persons i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s who tend t o a t t r a c t i n f o r m a t i o n . Another f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y used approach i s the p a r t i c i p a n t -observer method - where the re s e a r c h e r a c t u a l l y " l i v e s i n " to experience the o r g a n i z a t i o n f i r s t hand. While a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s may c o l l e c t and study l i f e h i s t o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s as yet another means of l e a r n i n g about a c u l t u r e , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s look through annual r e p o r t s , minutes of meetings, and other such i n d i c a t o r s of an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s h i s t o r y . Other a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l techniques which have been employed from time t o time i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e r e s e a r c h are s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r a t i n g s and r a n k i n g s , semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l techniques, p r o j e c t i v e techniques, and other p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h instruments. 3 8 T h i s study uses a combination of approaches. The group process, d e s c r i b e d l a t e r , employed to develop the s c a l e f o r measuring c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h , i n c o r p o r a t e s use of key informants, the s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w , and r a t i n g and r a n k i n g . The primary t o o l f o r data c o l l e c t i o n , however, i s a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the methodology i n d e t a i l , i n c l u d i n g : - sample s e l e c t i o n - d e r i v a t i o n of the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e instruments used t o c o l l e c t data on the dependent v a r i a b l e s - methods used f o r data a n a l y s i s . SAMPLE As t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s e x p l o r a t o r y , r a t h e r than h y p o t h e s i s - t e s t i n g , random sample s e l e c t i o n technique was not employed. In order t o r e c r u i t h o s p i t a l s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , an i n t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r and i n f o r m a t i o n package was sent to the p r e s i d e n t s of s e v e r a l l o c a l h o s p i t a l s . The l e t t e r o u t l i n e d e x a c t l y what the h o s p i t a l s ' involvement and commitment would be should they agree t o p a r t i c i p a t e . The i n f o r m a t i o n package 39 i n c l u d e d samples of a l l l e t t e r s , forms, and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s used i n the study. (See Appendices A and B) Two h o s p i t a l s agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e . Vancouver General H o s p i t a l i s a l a r g e 1,000 bed t e a c h i n g h o s p i t a l with approximately 4,500 employees. The other, L i o n s Gate H o s p i t a l , i s a 400 bed community h o s p i t a l , with approximately 2,000 employees. The t o t a l s e l e c t i o n process was m u l t i - t i e r e d . Once h o s p i t a l s agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e , the second task was to r e c r u i t s u b - c u l t u r e groups or u n i t s 1 w i t h i n those h o s p i t a l s , to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the o v e r - a l l study. The t h i r d task was to r e c r u i t i n d i v i d u a l s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n one of two group s e s s i o n s used t o c r e a t e the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h measurement s c a l e . The next two s e c t i o n s d i s c u s s these r e c r u i t m e n t methods. RECRUITMENT OP UNITS At each study h o s p i t a l the r e s e a r c h e r was assign e d t o a co n t a c t person. Through t h i s i n d i v i d u a l , c o n t a c t was made with v i c e p r e s i d e n t s and through them arrangements were made to d i s c u s s the study with department heads and head nurses. XN.B. A p p l y i n g the term "group" t o both the c u l t u r e s c a l e development s e s s i o n s as w e l l as to s u b - c u l t u r e s or work groups becomes both cumbersome and c o n f u s i n g , t h e r e f o r e , the term " u n i t s ( s ) " w i l l h e n c e f o r t h be used to denote s u b - c u l t u r e groups such as departments or n u r s i n g u n i t s . 40 P r i o r to these meetings, each v i c e p r e s i d e n t was sent a l e t t e r of i n t r o d u c t i o n (Appendix A) and an i n f o r m a t i o n package (Appendix B) which was a l s o used as an i n t r o d u c t i o n f o r department heads and head nurses. The g o a l s i n speaking to the v i c e p r e s i d e n t s , p r i o r to c o n t a c t i n g department heads, were t o : 1. E n l i s t t h e i r support f o r the p r o j e c t , and 2. Draw on t h e i r knowledge of the departments t o estimate a p o t e n t i a l f o r v a r i e t y i n the s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e . V i c e p r e s i d e n t s were asked to keep c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a In mind when su g g e s t i n g u n i t s which might be approached and asked to p a r t i c i p a t e . S p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a i d e n t i f i e d as being known to a f f e c t c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h i n a work group i n c l u d e having (or not having) s t r o n g l e a d e r s h i p , average l e n g t h of tenure (turnover r a t e ) , c l o s e g e o g r a p h i c a l p r o x i m i t y of the work group members when performing t h e i r d u t i e s , and s i m i l a r i t y of employee backgrounds and v a l u e s w i t h i n a work group. For s t a t i s t i c a l purposes u n i t s with l e s s than 10 employees were not i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. F o l l o w i n g meetings with the v i c e p r e s i d e n t s , c o n t a c t was made with the r e s p e c t i v e department heads/head nurses. The i n f o r m a t i o n package was sent t o each and a meeting was 41 arranged to answer q u e s t i o n s , e x p l a i n the study, and i n q u i r e whether they f e l t t h a t t h e i r u n i t s would be abl e t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Every e f f o r t was made to ensure t h a t the agreement was v o l u n t a r y . A l l forms and l e t t e r s were worded i n accordance with both the UBC E t h i c s Committee and the h o s p i t a l ' s review committee standards. The i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n was th a t the same u n i t s from each of the two h o s p i t a l s would be r e c r u i t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e . As i t turned out, t h i s was not p o s s i b l e . The d e c i s i o n about u n i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n was l e f t with each u n i t head, who judged whether or not s t a f f i n g p a t t e r n s and/or workloads made i t p o s s i b l e t o send someone t o a c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e development s e s s i o n . The d e c i s i o n , once made, had t o be re s p e c t e d i n r e s p e c t of p a r t i c i p a t o n being v o l u n t a r y . The s e l f - s e l e c t e d sample, who responded t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , was u l t i m a t e l y drawn from a l l r e g u l a r f u l l -time and par t - t i m e (not c a s u a l ) employees working i n u n i t s whose department head or head nurse agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. At VGH, a t o t a l of nine u n i t s p a r t i c i p a t e d . S i x u n i t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study a t LGH. SELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS FOR NOMINAL GROUP SESSIONS Once p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s were i d e n t i f i e d , the process advanced t o r e c r u i t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . They were r e q u i r e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n one of two d i f f e r e n t group s e s s i o n s which were convened, a t separate times, f o r each h o s p i t a l (four 42 s e s s i o n s i n t o t a l ) . One group (at each h o s p i t a l ) was comprised of i n d i v i d u a l s from the p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s , who met s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i a (noted below). As the i n d i v i d u a l s i n these groups worked w i t h i n the p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s , they are r e f e r r e d t o throughout the remainder of t h i s paper as the i n t e r n a l p e r s p e c t i v e (IP) group. Nine members, one from each of the nine u n i t s , attended the VGH IP group and a t the LGH IP group s i x areas were r e p r e s e n t e d . The other group (at each h o s p i t a l ) c o n s i s t e d of i n d i v i d u a l s e x t e r n a l t o the experimental u n i t s , but who i n t e r a c t r e g u l a r l y with the u n i t s . T h i s group w i l l h e n c e f o r t h be r e f e r r e d t o as the e x t e r n a l p e r s p e c t i v e (EP) group. While exact composition of the EP groups was d i f f e r e n t a t the two h o s p i t a l s , some group members a t each h o s p i t a l came from such departments as, ed u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s , labour r e l a t i o n s , p e r s o n n e l , p l a n t s e r v i c e s , q u a l i t y assurance, and one or two o t h e r s . S e l e c t i o n of these p a r t i c i p a n t s was a c c o r d i n g t o the same c r i t e r i a as f o r the IP p a r t i c i p a n t s . At VGH four of the s i x i n d i v i d u a l s were i n v i t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e d i r e c t l y by the r e s e a r c h e r , upon r e c e i v i n g recommendation and/or permis s i o n from the i n d i v i d u a l ' s immediate s u p e r v i s o r . The other two were s e l e c t e d by t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r , f o l l o w i n g c o n s u l t a t i o n with the r e s e a r c h e r . At LGH one i n d i v i d u a l was r e c r u i t e d d i r e c t l y by the r e s e a r c h e r , the other three were s e l e c t e d by t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r , a l s o i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the r e s e a r c h e r . 43 The r a t i o n a l e f o r having both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s i s expressed by Van Maanen & B a r l e y (1985) who s t a t e t h a t "members of a s u b - c u l t u r e approach not o n l y t h e i r work, but a l s o those who witness t h e i r work, i n mannered ways. Sub - c u l t u r e s provide t h e i r members with a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e " (p. 50). Gregory (1983) s t r e s s e s the importance of c o n s i d e r i n g both e x t e r n a l and " n a t i v e view" p e r s p e c t i v e s . " 'Native* i s a t e c h n i c a l term a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s use to r e f e r to t h e i r r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r s t u d y i n g n a t i v e views comes from the b e l i e f t h a t meanings are l i n k e d to behavior, and those who take t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e d e f i n e c u l t u r e as a system of meanings" (p. 363). Since o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e i s seen as a system of shared assumptions which are made manifest through behaviour and other symbolic a c t i v i t i e s , i t i s important to understand t h a t t h i s symbolism may v a r y i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to whether the one doing the i n t e r p r e t i n g i s an o u t s i d e r or an i n s i d e r . Because e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s may vary, both of these views (EP and IP) were represented d u r i n g the d e r i v a t i o n of the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e , and i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e feedback. i ^ n f e ^ . .t^G y ^ ?fii|^fe I ^ I ^ ^ i Q^ L^P i II y^^^fi y S ^  3i ^* fe ^  ft Once a u n i t agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e , department heads or head nurses were asked t o request a v o l u n t e e r to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the group s e s s i o n . Information d e s c r i b i n g how the s e s s i o n would be conducted was p r o v i d e d . Department heads/head 44 nurses were g i v e n the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a and d e f i n i t i o n f o r use when a s k i n g f o r v o l u n t e e r s . a. Nominees s h a l l be people who are c u r r e n t l y f u l l - t i m e employees who have worked i n t h i s department (not n e c e s s a r i l y p o s i t i o n ) f o r a t l e a s t three f u l l y e a r s . b. The nominee s h a l l be someone who normally i n t e r a c t s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s (one or more times a day) with s t a f f from a v a r i e t y of other departments throughout the h o s p i t a l . c. The nominee s h a l l have a good command of the E n g l i s h language. For purposes of t h i s study the term h o s p i t a l s h a l l mean o n l y the acute care (not long term care) s e c t i o n of the f a c i l i t y . The department head/head nurse decided how to r e c r u i t someone from t h e i r u n i t . The same c r i t e r i a were a p p l i e d f o r r e c r u i t i n g v o l u n t e e r s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e x t e r n a l p e r c e p t i o n group as f o r the IP group. Request was u s u a l l y made d i r e c t l y by 45 the r e s e a r c h e r to the i n d i v i d u a l i n q u e s t i o n f o r t h i s group, s i n c e they f r e q u e n t l y were one-of-a-kind p o s i t i o n s . Where a p p r o p r i a t e , the department head was con t a c t e d as above. At Vancouver General, a t o t a l of s i x people comprised the EP group. There were four EP group members a t L i o n s Gate H o s p i t a l . CONDUCT OP THE GROUP SESSION Nominal group technique (NGT) i s a s t r u c t u r e d group s e s s i o n which f o l l o w s the process summarized (by the authors) below (Delbecq, e t a l , 1975). T h i s technique was f i r s t used i n 1969. I t s p a r t i c u l a r advantages are t h a t i t assures a balanced p a r t i c i p a t i o n by a l l group members and i t i n c o r p o r a t e s v o t i n g techniques designed t o f a c i l i t a t e group decision-making. NGT s t e p s : "1) S i l e n t g e n e r a t i o n of ideas i n w r i t i n g 2) Round-robin feedback from group members to re c o r d each idea i n a t e r s e phrase on a f l i p c h a r t 3) D i s c u s s i o n of each recorded idea f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n 46 4) I n d i v i d u a l v o t i n g on p r i o r i t y ideas with the group d e c i s i o n being mathematically d e r i v e d through r a n k - o r d e r i n g or r a t i n g " (p. 8) In each case, the EP group was conducted p r i o r t o the IP group. The s e s s i o n s began with a review of the study purpose, an i n t r o d u c t i o n to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e , and an e x p l a n a t i o n of the s p e c i f i c task a t hand. P a r t i c i p a n t s were give n a handout with examples of c u l t u r e " a r t i f a c t s " (see Table I I ) . I t was f e l t t h a t i t was e a s i e s t to get an e x p l a n a t i o n a c r o s s of what c o n s t i t u t e s c u l t u r e , c u l t u r a l symbolism, or c u l t u r a l events by demonstration, so a l i s t was drawn up from which the group was i n s t r u c t e d to work. P r o v i d i n g t h i s l i s t a l s o ensured t h a t each group s t a r t e d from the same b a s e l i n e . The l i s t i s shown i n Table I I . Table II E,xamplej3_of Items Which Could be on the L i s t of C u l t u r a l A r t i f a c t s 1. Ceremonies - r e c o g n i t i o n of r e t i r e m e n t - r e c o g n i t i o n of promotion - r e c o g n i t i o n of f a m i l y event, e.g. b i r t h , engagement, marriage, e t c . - r e c o g n i t i o n of l e a v i n g , due to l e a v i n g town (spouse t r a n s f e r r e d ) , or a c c e p t i n g a new job elsewhere (con't.) (continued from page 46) 2. R i t u a l s - nodding a g r e e t i n g t o a l l whom you pass i n c o r r i d o r s v s . i g n o r i n g o t hers - r e g u l a r s t a f f meetings - keeping workload s t a t i s t i c s - s i t t i n g o n l y with your co-workers f o r breaks and meals - o r i e n t a t i o n s e s s i o n s - awards i - performance a p p r a i s a l s 3. Other - a f t e r - h o u r s s o c i a l i z i n g , e.g. a department b a s e b a l l team, or v o l l e y b a l l team, or going to employee f i t n e s s as a group 1. work spaces 2. o f f i c e s or desks 3. equipment 4. logos or department T - s h i r t s , buttons, or p i n s 5. heroes 6. t r o p h i e s ( s e r i o u s or funny) and other awards 7. other symbols Shared Sayings 1. having a common " j a r g o n " or unique language 2. having a s l o g a n or motto 3. myths, s t o r i e s , or sagas (con't.) 48 (continued from page 47) 1. r e s p e c t f o r immediate s u p e r v i s o r (or lack t h e r e o f ) 2. a t t i t u d e s about s i c k time or overtime or c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n 3. a t t i t u d e s about p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s 4. a t t i t u d e s about other work groups w i t h i n the h o s p i t a l When the group had no f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the task, and working d e f i n i t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e , they were then i n s t r u c t e d t o s i l e n t l y go through the l i s t presented to them, i d e n t i f y which items might a p p l y s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e i r h o s p i t a l , t o e l i m i n a t e any items which had no r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r h o s p i t a l and to add any items which they f e l t belonged on the l i s t . The group was g i v e n 30 minutes f o r t h i s s i l e n t a c t i v i t y . The next s t e p was the round r o b i n feedback. Members were i n s t r u c t e d to s e l e c t one item (at a time) from the l i s t and share i t with the group. There was no d i s c u s s i o n a t t h i s p o i n t , s i m p l y s h a r i n g items from the l i s t s u n t i l a l l the members ideas were exhausted. T h i s e x e r c i s e took approximately 45 minutes. ^ The t h i r d s t e p of the nominal group process was to d i s c u s s each recorded idea f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . T h i s was done and a l l of the ideas were c l a r i f i e d t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the group members. 49 Step four was m o d i f i e d so t h a t BP group members si m p l y a f f i r m e d t h a t the items generated were v a l i d ones f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the f i n a l instrument. The i n t e r n a l p e r c e p t i o n group s e s s i o n was conducted i n e x a c t l y the same f a s h i o n as f o r the e x t e r n a l p e r c e p t i o n group, with the f o l l o w i n g two e x c e p t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n t o the handout m a t e r i a l s g i v e n to the f i r s t group, the IP group a l s o r e c e i v e d a copy of the l i s t which was d e r i v e d by the EP group. T h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s were to go through the l i s t d e r i v e d by the EP group and to i d e n t i f y which items should remain or be d e l e t e d , and to add any other items which they f e l t were r e l e v a n t f o r the l i s t . The IP group a l s o had the l i s t of examples which the EP group worked from, t o use as r e f e r e n c e should they choose t o do so. Again the group was g i v e n 30 minutes f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y . As b e f o r e , the next two steps were round r o b i n feedback followed by d i s c u s s i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the items. A number of items were added t o the o r i g i n a l l i s t generated by the EP group. F i n a l l y , although the items were not r a t e d and ranked, items now were voted on by the IP group to a f f i r m whether or not any items should be dropped from the l i s t as being i n a p p l i c a b l e to a l l of the nine u n i t s . The group decided t h a t some of the items were d i f f e r e n t e x p r e s s i o n s of the same t h i n g and combined them i n t o one item. Two items were s t r u c k from the l i s t . The end r e s u l t a t the completion of 50 the second group s e s s i o n was a consensus t h a t a l l the items on the l i s t were events which occurred i n one place or another around the h o s p i t a l and should remain. Two s i m i l a r s e s s i o n s were h e l d a t L i o n s Gate H o s p i t a l , u s i n g the same procedure and same handouts. Although they a l l s t a r t e d with the same i n f o r m a t i o n , the l i s t s generated a t the two h o s p i t a l s were d i f f e r e n t . L i o n s Gate, the s m a l l e r h o s p i t a l , had a longer f i n a l l i s t than VGH, the l a r g e r h o s p i t a l . The outcome of the group s e s s i o n s were l i s t s of 30 and 44 c u l t u r a l elements from the l a r g e r and s m a l l e r h o s p i t a l s r e s p e c t i v e l y . T a bles I I I and IV are the complete l i s t s . Table I I I C u l t u r e " A r t i f a c t s " L i s t from VGH Groups ITEMS 1. Retirement, l e a v i n g , promotion, b i r t h , marriage, e t c . , p a r t i e s 2. "Theme" weeks and open houses 3. Need t o know what i s going on i n r e s t of h o s p i t a l - day to day 4. B a s e b a l l / v o l l e y b a l l / g o l f / f u n d r a i s i n g events 5. S p e c i a l event d i n n e r s , e.g. Christinas 6. Sharing-food events f o r no p a r t i c u l a r reason, e.g. pot-luck lunch, p l a t e of c o o k i e s f o r c o f f e e 7. Meetings ( p e r t i n e n t or not; frequency) 8. Jargon 9. Seminars, c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n (con't.) 51 (continued from page 50) 10. Performance a p p r a i s a l s 11. Group " c l i q u i n e s s " ; need to be seen as the "hub" of the wheel 12. M a i n t a i n i n g a common sense of purpose, "why we are here" 13. The "VGH" f e e l i n g 14. S t a f f d i s s e n s i o n 15. Shared work spaces and equipment \ 16. S a f e t y a t the work s i t e / s h a r e d r i s k 17. F r u s t r a t i o n with slow r a t e of change 18. O r i e n t a t i o n s e s s i o n s - h o s p i t a l and departmental 19. I n t r a - and in t e r - d e p a r t m e n t a l n e w s l e t t e r s 20. Work group, p r o f e s s i o n a l , or union p i n s , buttons, t i e s e t c . 21. S e r v i c e awards 22. A t t e n d i n g employee f i t n e s s c e n t r e 23. Shared sense of lack of c o n t r o l due to ou t s i d e work group i n f l u e n c e s 24. S o c i a l h i e r a r c h y 25. S t o r i e s , e.g. around the 1977 time 26. Lack of communication about major i s s u e s and p r o j e c t s 27. Lack of c e l e b r a t i o n of h o s p i t a l successes 28. Keeping workload s t a t i s t i c s 29. "Tunnel" c u l t u r e 30. Uniforms, colour-coded ID ta g s , name p i n s , t i t l e s Table IV ITEMS 1. Ceremonies f o r : academic achievement c l i n i c a l achievement r e t i r e m e n t employee r e c o g n i t i o n luncheon (10, 15, e t c . , years) buying p r o p e r t y (house, c a r ) b i r t h d a y s s e c r e t a r i e s week Christmas l u n c h / d i n n e r / p a r t y h o s p i t a l wine and cheese p a r t y h o s p i t a l p i c n i c / s p o r t s day 2. R i t u a l s humor (gags, pranks) co-workers s i t t i n g together i n c a f e t e r i a u s i n g o n l y one c a f e t e r i a open house/theme weeks departmental f u n d r a i s e r s (e.g. bake s a l e ) v o l u n t e e r r e c o g n i t i o n week g r e e t i n g s i n c o r r i d o r s r i t u a l i z e d c r i t i c i s m of s u p e r v i s o r s and each other The Garage Sale r e g u l a r s t a f f meetings the g o l f tournament p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n (con't.) 53 (continued from page 52) p a r t i c i p a t i o n on committees o r i e n t a t i o n - h o s p i t a l and departmental employee of the month performance a p p r a i s a l s workload s t a t i s t i c s e x p e c t a t i o n of community p a r t i c i p a t i o n expected to p a r t i c i p a t e i n c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n 3. Other shared doings b a s e b a l l teams- i n t e r h o s p l t a l league union membership s h a r i n g e x p e r t i s e h e l p i n g each other o u t s i d e of work spontaneous pub n i g h t s o c c a s i o n a l pot luck dinner shared p e r s o n a l experiences 4. Shared f e e l i n g s a t t i t u d e s of one department about another s h a r i n g the sense of the primary Importance of p a t i e n t care r e s p e c t f o r s u p e r v i s o r p u b l i c d i s p l a y of a p p r e c i a t i o n expressed by others f e e l i n g s about s h a r i n g the " a i r " h o s p i t a l employee i d e n t i t y , as separate from o u t s i d e r s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n boundaries sense of r i g h t s v s . p r i v i l e g e s shared f e e l i n g s about other i n s t i t u t i o n s and agencies competitiveness/achievement/pride (con't.) 54 (continued from page 53) 5. Shared t h i n g s m i s s i o n statement ph i l o s o p h y g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s uniforms - f o r i d e n t i t y s h a r i n g equipment and spaces departmental medical r e c o r d i s kept the computer departmental n e w s l e t t e r c a r d s f o r b i r t h d a y s or s i c k n e s s 6. Shared sayings unique jargon l n each department The r e s e a r c h e r then took the l i s t s and c r e a t e d statements which formed P a r t 4 of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix B) g i v e n t o members of p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s . The p a r t i c i p a n t s (IP) were asked t o respond on a seven p o i n t s c a l e (from s t r o n g l y agree (7) to s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e (1)) how much they agreed or d i s a g r e e d with each statement with r e s p e c t t o t h e i r u n i t . The response o p t i o n f o r "does not app l y " ( r a t e d 0) was provided i n order not t o p e n a l i z e any group not a s c r i b i n g to a l l the elements l i s t e d . The EP group of p a r t i c i p a n t s a l s o r e c e i v e d s e t s of these q u e s t i o n s , a s e t con t a i n e d one c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h r a t i n g s c a l e r e f e r r i n g t o each p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were to respond to the s e t of statements f o r each of the s i x 55 or nine u n i t s . One copy of each s e t (VGH and LGH) i s i n Appendix C. P a r t s 1, 2, and 3 of the data c o l l e c t i o n instrument are d e s c r i b e d below. THE MEASURES Demographic data were c o l l e c t e d with s i n g l e items f o r respondents' sex, age, number of years of formal e d u c a t i o n , l e n g t h of tenure with t h i s h o s p i t a l and with t h i s work group. A s i x item s h o r t form of the Job Involvement Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965) was used to measure job involvement. T h i s instrument has a r e l i a b i l i t y of .72 to .89. The s h o r t form c o r r e c t e d s p l i t h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n i s .73. The authors summarize t h e i r v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s by s a y i n g "the s c a l e d i s c r i m i n a t e s among groups and has p l a u s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s with other v a r i a b l e s " (p. 32). In a s t u d y of f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g job involvement of middle managers, Schwyhart and Smith (1972) found an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r Lodahl and Kejner's 1965 s c a l e of an odd-even s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o r r e c t e d by the Spearman-Brown formula to be .80. T h i s study i n v o l v e d 149 white c o l l a r male s u b j e c t s under the age of 40, a l l of whom 56 worked f o r one company but In v a r i o u s branches a c r o s s the United S t a t e s . For r e p l i c a t i o n a second study was done with 58 s u b j e c t s from 4 other companies. The s p e c i f i c type of company was not mentioned i n the r e p o r t . In 1969, Goodman, Furcon, and Rose, i n an "Examination of some measures of c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y by the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d m atrix" found t h a t i n u s i n g job involvement as a c o n t r o l measure f o r t h e i r study, o n l y t h i s p a r t i c u l a r measure and one other e x h i b i t e d s u b s t a n t i a l convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y . T h e i r sample c o n s i s t e d of 68 employees i n a government r e s e a r c h l a b o r a t o r y . Upward S t r i v i n g i s a s u b s c a l e of The Bowling Green U n i v e r s i t y Survey of Work Values (SWV) (Wollack, e t a l , 1971). Nine items were used from t h i s s c a l e . The survey i s intended t o measure a worker's " a t t i t u d e s toward work i n g e n e r a l , r a t h e r than h i s f e e l i n g s about a s p e c i f i c j o b " (p. 331). Thus i t should be c l e a r t h a t upward s t r i v i n g i s a c o n s t r u c t which i s more g e n e r a l i n nature, i d e n t i f y i n g g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s toward work, as opposed to job s a t i s f a c t i o n which i s a s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e about one's own c u r r e n t job. A l l of the s u b s c a l e s i n the Survey of Work Values are based on the concept of man's i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s which as the authors note, "represent the most c r i t i c a l a spect of the P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c " (p. 331). Most of the s u b s c a l e s i n the SWV q u e s t i o n n a i r e f i t i n t o one of two dimensions, i n t r i n s i c or e x t r i n s i c . There are two, however, 57 which ace thought to be of a mixed c h a r a c t e r , one of these i s the v a r i a b l e c a l l e d Upward S t r i v i n g , used i n t h i s study. T h i s s c a l e was i n i t i a l l y t e s t e d l n a g l a s s manufacturing company a c r o s s seven d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. These i n c l u d e d management, s u p e r v i s i o n , p r o f e s s i o n a l , t e c h n i c i a n s , c l e r i c a l , s k i l l e d t r a d e s , and s e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d workers. The instrument has an adequate i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of .59 and a t e s t - r e - t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of .76. The authors f e e l t h a t the i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y i s a c c e p t a b l e because of the "range of s c a l e values...and s m a l l number of items" (p.336) per s u b s c a l e . In a f u r t h e r study, d e s c r i b e d i n the same a r t i c l e , t o determine whether the s u b s c a l e s c o u l d d i s c r i m i n a t e between d i f f e r e n t groups of workers, the s c a l e s were gi v e n to f i v e f u r t h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l groups ranging from u n s k i l l e d employees through to p r o f e s s i o n a l s . The r e s u l t s d i d show t h a t there were d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s i n t h i s Survey. Four q u e s t i o n s from the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Mowday, e t a l , 1974) were i n c l u d e d as the f i n a l p o r t i o n of P a r t 2 of the t o t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Commitment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been w i d e l y used s i n c e i t s development and has an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y range from .82 to .93, with a median of .90. T e s t - r e - t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y ranges from .53 to .75. I t has been found to have adequate convergent v a l i d i t y , i n one example ra n g i n g from .63 to .74. The c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h i s 58 example was with Sources of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Attachment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Norms are provided f o r both males and females. The s h o r t (four item) form of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used. Part I The Job D e s c r i p t i v e Index ( K e n d a l l , Smith, H u l i n , and Locke, 1963) i n i t s e n t i r e t y was used to measure job s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s i s another w e l l documented q u e s t i o n n a i r e instrument, c o n s i s t e n t l y having an a l p h a c o e f f i c i e n t i n the range of .80 or b e t t e r . T h i s instrument has 5 s u b s c a l e s : work, co-workers, s u p e r v i s i o n , pay, and promotions, a l l elements which are thought to c o n t r i b u t e to job s a t i s f a c t i o n . In d e s c r i b i n g a number of t o o l s a v a i l a b l e to measure job s a t i s f a c t i o n , Gruneberg (1979) s t a t e s , " . . . d e s p i t e the d i v e r s i t y of measures, one measure, the C o r n e l l Job D e s c r i p t i v e Index (JDI), i s regarded by many workers as the most c a r e f u l l y developed instrument f o r measuring job s a t i s f a c t i o n " (p. 3). In summary, the sample p o p u l a t i o n was not s e l e c t e d through random sampling technique. Group s e s s i o n p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e c r u i t e d and q u e s t i o n n a i r e respondents were s e l f - s e l e c t e d . Two h o s p i t a l s provided the two p o p u l a t i o n s from which the samples were drawn. The data g a t h e r i n g instrument was a f o u r - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 59 comprised of demographic i n f o r m a t i o n , job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, and job s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e s and a c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e . The l a t t e r was developed with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the respondent p o p u l a t i o n u s i n g a m o d i f i e d nominal group technique. DATA ANALYSES When the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were re t u r n e d , the data was prepared f o r a n a l y s i s . The study questions r e q u i r e d one of two techniques - t e s t i n g f o r a s s o c i a t i o n or f o r d i f f e r e n c e s . The a n a l y s e s were done u s i n g SPSS" (1983). G e n e r a l l y , r e s u l t s have o n l y been r e p o r t e d when s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s are a t 0.05 or l e s s and/or, i n the case of t e s t s of a s s o c i a t i o n , the a b s o l u t e r - v a l u e was g r e a t e r than 0.5. To i n v e s t i g a t e whether there i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s among d i f f e r e n t work groups, The SPSS:X one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t e s t was used. For t e s t s of a s s o c i a t i o n , Pearson's product-moment t e s t of c o r r e l a t i o n was used. 60 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The primary focus of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether any r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the s t r e n g t h of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u b - c u l t u r e and an employee's sense of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , job involvement and upward s t r i v i n g . To t h i s end, data were c o l l e c t e d and analysed a c c o r d i n g to the procedure d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter I I I . The r e s u l t s of the data a n a l y s i s f o r the two h o s p i t a l s i s presented i n t h i s c h a p ter. Since "customized" c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e s were used to c o l l e c t the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h data, no comparison can be made between the r e s u l t s from VGH and the r e s u l t s from LGH. For each h o s p i t a l the d i s c u s s i o n f o l l o w s the same format. F i r s t a d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s provided; next, r e l i a b i l i t y s c o r e s f o r the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e are g i v e n ; and f i n a l l y , a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s as they r e l a t e t o each of the of the study q u e s t i o n s posed i n Chapter I i s presented. VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL Response Rafrs Based on f i g u r e s g i v e n by the heads of the nine p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s , 627 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d to t h e i r employees. One hundred and twenty f i v e were ret u r n e d 61 y i e l d i n g a response r a t e of 20%. Rates v a r i e d among u n i t s from a low of 10% to a hig h of 33%. The breakdown of r e t u r n r a t e s by u n i t i s presented i n Table V. The h i g h e s t r a t e of r e t u r n was from S o c i a l Work with 33%. Biomedical E n g i n e e r i n g and Medical Records were c l o s e behind with 31% and 30% r e t u r n r a t e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . TABLE V Qu e s t i o n n a i r e Response Rate UNIT DISTRIBUTED RETURNED PERCENT RESPONSE (a) (ft) TOTAL 627 125 20% 1. STORES 51 5 10% 2. ACCOUNTING 37 6 15% 3. SOCIAL WORK 30 10 33% 4. X-RAY 135 35 26% 5. FOOD 230 30 13% SERVICES 6. PHARMACY 55 14 25% 7. BIOMED. 35 11 31% ENG. 8. MED. REC. 30 9 30% 9. NSG. UNIT 24 5 21% PemogKaptUcs Information was c o l l e c t e d on a number of demographic v a r i a b l e s . These Include l e n g t h of tenure w i t h i n the h o s p i t a l and w i t h i n the p a r t i c u l a r u n i t of c u r r e n t 62 employment. Respondent's years of formal e d u c a t i o n , age, and sex were a l s o requested. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s throughout the sample are d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r . Hospital Tenure i The data on h o s p i t a l tenure are grouped i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s . The f i r s t of these i s employees who have been employed a t VGH f o r 2 years or l e s s . The second group spans 3 to 7 years of employment at VGH, group three spans 8 to 15 y e a r s , and those with 16 years or over comprise the f o u r t h group. Of the 125 respondents, 40% are i n the 8 to 15 year tenure c a t e g o r y . The next l a r g e s t group i s the 3 t o 7 year group with 26%. T h i r d i s the 0 to 2 years group with 17%, and 16 years and over has 14%. C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t the average a d u l t may be employed from age 18 to 65, a t o t a l of 47 y e a r s , and t h a t 84% of the employees have o n l y been at VGH one t h i r d of t h a t time, i t would seem t h a t the employee sample i s somewhat t r a n s i e n t . In f a c t 44% percent of the respondents have o n l y been employed a t VGH f o r 7 years or l e s s . Two people d i d not respond to t h i s item. A breakdown by u n i t s i s d i s p l a y e d i n Table VI. 63 TABLE VI C A T E G O R I E S UNIT (n) 0-2 3-7 8-15 16 + % % % % 1. STORES 5 20 60 20 2. ACCOUNTING 6 17 17 68 3. SOCIAL WORK 10 20 30 40 4. X-RAY 35 9 20 43 29 5. FOOD SVC. 30 20 10 63 7 6. PHARMACY 14 21 64 14 7. BIOMED. ENG. 11 30 30 30 8. MED. REC. 9 22 33 33 11 9. NSG. UNIT 5 40 60 TOTAL 125 18 26 40 14 S R Q U E U n i t Tenure. The u n i t tenure c a t e g o r i e s are i d e n t i c a l t o the h o s p i t a l tenure ones and g e n e r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n among the 125 respondents i s as f o l l o w s . T h i r t y - t h r e e percent of the respondents are rep r e s e n t e d i n the 3 to 7 year category. Another t h i r d are represented l n the 8 to 15 year group (34%). The 0 to 2 year ca t e g o r y has 25% of the t o t a l and 7% have been with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e u n i t s f o r 16 or more y e a r s . F i f t y - e i g h t per cent of the respondents have been i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e work u n i t s f o r 7 years or l e s s , s u g g e s t i n g some degree of i n t e r n a l t r a n s i e n c e as w e l l . Again two people d i d not respond. For a u n i t by u n i t a n a l y s i s , r e f e r t o Table V I I . 64 TABLE VII C A T E G O R I E S UNIT (n) Q-2 3-7 8-15 16+ % % % % 1. STORES 5 80 20 2. ACCOUNTING 6 33 33 33 3. SOCIAL WORK 10 30 20 40 4. X-RAY 35 20 29 34 17 5. FOOD SVC. 30 20 23 53 3 6. PHARMACY 14 29 57 14 7. BIOMED. ENG. 11 40 30 20 8. MED. REC. 9 22 44 33 9. NSG. UNIT 5 80 20 TOTAL 125 25 33 34 7 GROUP Years of Formal Education t The years of formal e d u c a t i o n are grouped i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s , l e s s than 12 year s , 12 t o 15 year s , and g r e a t e r than 15 ye a r s . Of the 125, 6 (4. 8%) d i d not respond . In the l e s s than 12 year c a t e g o r y there are o n l y 3 .2% (or four i n d i v i d u a l s ) . The 12 to 15 year c a t e g o r y has 44%, and the over 15 years c a t e g o r y has 48%. In other words , 44% have completed high s c h o o l and may have some l e v e l of post high s c h o o l t r a i n i n g while n e a r l y h a l f have u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n or beyond. The 65 res u l t s are not surp r i s i n g given the requirements of the jobs involved. A unit by unit d i s t r i b u t i o n i s presented in Table VIII. TABLE VIII Education C A T E G 0 R I E S DEPARTMENT (n) ^12 YR• 3,2—15, XIR1 OVER 15 YR« TOTAL* 125 3.2% 44% 48% 1. STORES 5 20% 80% 2. ACCOUNTING 6 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 3. SOCIAL WORK 10 10% 20% 60% 4. X-RAY 35 68.6% 25.7% 5. FOOD SERVICES 30 3.3% 20% 70% 6. PHARMACY 14 7.1% 85.7% 7. BIOMED. ENG. 11 50% 50% 8. MED. REC. 9 66.7% 33.3% 9. WEST 6A 5 40% 60% Age. The mean age of the respondents at VGH i s 32.5 years with a range from 20 to 63 years. The standard deviation i s 12.5 years. Nine people chose not to respond to t h i s item. The mean age i s a b i t older than might be expected when 44% have less than 7 years tenure, even when provision i s made for extended time spent in education. Percentages do not add up to 100 because some individuals did not respond. 66 8,6 X D i s t r i b u t i o n t The male/female d i s t r i b u t i o n of the 125 respondents i s about 1 male t o every 3 females, 23.2% men and 75.2% women. Table IX shows the d e t a i l e d d i s t r i b u t i o n by u n i t s . Because males r e p r e s e n t n e a r l y 25% of the sample, and men and women may have d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward work and the work environment, most of the remaining a n a l y s e s were done s e p a r a t e l y f o r males and females. TABLE IX Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n by units UNIT MALES FEMALES TOTAL 125 23.2% 75.2% STORES 5 60% 40% ACCOUNTING 6 16.7% 83.3% SOCIAL WORK 10 20% 70% (1 d i d not respond) X-RAY 35 31.4% 68.6% FOOD SERVICES 30 3.3% 96.7% PHARMACY 14 28.6% 71.4% BIOMED. ENG. 11 60% 40% MED. REC. 9 100% WEST 6A 5 80% (1 d i d not respond) In summary, the sample i s M y o u n g i s h M (not yet middle aged), 75% female, somewhat t r a n s i e n t , and r e l a t i v e l y w e l l educated. 67 Due to the low response r a t e , the age, h o s p i t a l tenure and sex d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample were compared to those of the p o p u l a t i o n (n=627). The ages of the p o p u l a t i o n were provided by Vancouver General H o s p i t a l i n 5 year incremental c a t e g o r i e s . The mean age c a t e g o r y was the 31 to 35 year o l d group. The sample mean of 32.5 f a l l s w i t h i n t h i s range, so the sample i s comparable on t h i s v a r i a b l e . The sex d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the p o p u l a t i o n i s 21% male and 79% female, a l s o very s i m i l a r t o the sample group (23% male, 75% female, and 2% d i d not respond). There i s some d i f f e r e n c e i n the p o p u l a t i o n tenure and the sample tenure. The l a r g e s t group i n the p o p u l a t i o n i s the 0 t o 2 year category, where f o r the sample i t f a l l s i n the 8 to 15 year c a t e g o r y . There are 33% of the p o p u l a t i o n i n the 0 to 2 year category, 25% i n the 3 to 7 year c a t e g o r y , 27% i n the 8 to 15 year c a t e g o r y , and 15% i n the 16 years and over c a t e g o r y . Thus there are more responses from the longer tenured employees. Before performing analyses r e l a t e d to the que s t i o n s posed i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e i t s e l f was analysed f o r r e l i a b i l i t y . Cronbach's (1951) alpha c o e f f i c i e n t of r e l i a b i l i t y was 0.87 and the Guttman (1945) s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was 0.82. Thus the s c a l e demonstrates good i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y . 68 The SfcMtiy Questiftr>3 #1. Do f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? The one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e procedure (SPSS, 1983) was used t o determine whether there were any d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s c o r e s among the 9 p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s . The r e s u l t was an F - r a t l o of 4.10 and a s i g n i f i c a n t F p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.000. Fur t h e r a n a l y s i s u s i n g the Tukey(b) (1977) procedure i d e n t i f i e d which of the u n i t s c o n t r i b u t e d t o the d i f f e r e n c e s . Mean sco r e s f o r u n i t s 4, 5, 6, and 7 a l l d i f f e r e d from mean sco r e s f o r u n i t 2. In a d d i t i o n , the u n i t 6 mean score d i f f e r e d from u n i t s 3 and 8. As can be seen from Table X, u n i t s 2, 3, and 8 have the lowest 3 mean s c o r e s . U n i t s 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are i n the mid-range, while the mean score f o r u n i t 6 i s c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than the o t h e r s . Based on these r e s u l t s , the 9 u n i t s were c o l l a p s e d i n t o 3 c a t e g o r i e s f o r a l l the remaining a n a l y s e s . Category one was comprised of u n i t s 2, 3, and 8 and l a b e l l e d weak sub-c u l t u r e u n i t s . U n i t s 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 were c a t e g o r i z e d as moderate s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s , and u n i t 6 was r e l a b e l l e d as a s t r o n g s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t . Table X summarizes t h i s r e s t r u c t u r i n g . 69 TABLE X UNIT (n) MEAN SCORE DIFFERENT NEW UNIT FROM NAMES 2. Accounting 6 71 - Weak 8. Med. Rec. 9 94 - Sub-culture 3, Social Work 10 101 mm Unit 9. Nsg. Unit 5 109 -1. Stores 5 111 - Moderate 4. X-ray 35 113 2 Sub-culture 5. Pood Svc. 30 114 2 Unit 7, Biomed. Eng. ll 116 2 6. Pharmacy 14 137 2,3,8 Strong Sub-culture Upit The results 1 of the analysis of variance show that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between some of the groups, but not a l l of them. The fact that differences e x i s t at a l l supports Schein (1985), L o u i s (1985), and Davis (1985) hypothesis that within any organization there are a v a r i e t y of sub-cultures and that c u l t u r a l strength does d i f f e r . Analyses of the remaining questions were done for the entire group of respondents (n=125) without d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g sub-cultures, and by the three newly created sub-culture groups. Within those groups, r e s u l t s for both males and females were calculated. Pearson's product moment (two-t a i l e d ) was used as the test of association. Results are 70 noted o n l y i f the r - v a l u e of the Pearson's product-moment i s g r e a t e r than or equal to .50 and/or p i s l e s s than .05. Study Question #2 Job Involvement 2. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and job involvement? The r e s u l t s show no c o r r e l a t i o n between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and job involvement f o r the group as a whole. The group r - v a l u e i s .12, with p=0.171. Among the sub-groups, there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and job s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the three males i n the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t (r=-.72, p=0.484). The negative s i g n suggests t h a t as u n i t c u l t u r e gets s t r o n g e r , job involvement decreases. T h i s may r e p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n where the group's congruent value system i n c l u d e s p l a c i n g a low value on the importance of work to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s worth. If t h i s value i s g e n e r a l l y shared by the work u n i t , then i t i s s t r o n g l y grounded as p a r t of the c u l t u r e and thus would produce a negative a s s o c i a t i o n . However, the small sample means t h a t any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must be made with g r e a t c a u t i o n . SJ^ x J^„sil.gn„iyL i Upw§rd__,S.tr i v l n g 3. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores and upward s t r i v i n g ? 71 Upward s t r i v i n g i s a measure of one's a t t i t u d e toward work i n g e n e r a l , not one's s p e c i f i c j o b . Once again , the o v e r a l l group r e s u l t s showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p of upward s t r i v i n g with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores (r=-.07, p=0.411). As i n the preceding q u e s t i o n r e s u l t s , the three males i n the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t show a v e r y high negative c o r r e l a t i o n , r=-.95, which i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p=0.206). Again, a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the negative r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s share a negative b e l i e f about work needing t o be one's c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t . Study Quegfc.lon Qrganlaa.ttonaj Commitment 4. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment? For t h i s q u e s t i o n a l s o , the r e s u l t s show no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h f o r the t o t a l group a n a l y s i s ( r = . l l , p=0.232). For the t h i r d time, o n l y the males i n the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s show any r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . The r- v a l u e f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment was -.84, p=0.362. Given the s m a l l s i z e of the sample (three men), and t h a t o n l y t h i s group showed an a b s o l u t e r value g r e a t e r than 0.5, and p i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , i t i s reasonable to conclude 72 t h a t no apparent r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and any of these three job f a c e t s . O v e r a l l these f i n d i n g s do not support the statements of P e t e r s and Waterman (1982) and Deal and Kennedy (1983) t h a t i n c r e a s i n g c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h i n c r e a s e s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. However, the s m a l l c u l t u r a l u n i t sample s i z e s do not a l l o w d e f i n i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s to be drawn. Study Question #5. Job S a t i s f a c t i o n 5. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and job s a t i s f a c t i o n ? A n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores with job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a more complex issue than the three preceding v a r i a b l e s . The JDI measures f i v e d i f f e r e n t elements of job s a t i s f a c t i o n which produces f i v e s u b s c a l e s c o r e s . I t i s not meaningful to add these scores together to achieve an o v e r a l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n r a t i n g because the elements are so d i f f e r e n t . Thus separate c o r r e l a t i o n s were performed f o r each of the f i v e s u b s c a l e s - s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f (work), s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n (supv), s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (co-work), s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (pay), and s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion (promo). R e s u l t s f o r the group as a whole f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n shows four of the f i v e s u b s c a l e s with s i g n i f i c a n t p-values, 73 but o n l y Cor the women (n=94). The r e s u l t s f o r each of the v a r i a b l e s a r e : s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f , r=.32, p=0.002; s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n , r».36, p=0.000; s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers, r=.37, p=0.000; s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay, r=.10, p=0.347; s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion, r=.32, p=0.002. The o n l y s u b s c a l e item not showing any a s s o c i a t i o n i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay. T h i s may be due t o the f a c t t h a t pay i s d i c t a t e d by c o l l e c t i v e agreements. For the three males i n the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s , a v e r y s t r o n g , p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n occurs between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h score and s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (r=.93, p=0.232). S a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion y i e l d s an r - v a l u e of .60 and p=0.591. As b e f o r e , t h i s s m a l l sample d i c t a t e s c a u t i o n when i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s r e s u l t . None of the v a l u e s f o r the females (21 cases) i n t h i s group meet the r - v a l u e s g r e a t e r than 0.50 and/or p l e s s than 0.05 c r i t e r i a . In the moderate c u l t u r e u n i t s , the males (21 cases) show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f (r=.61, p=0.002), s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (r=.42, p=0.028), and s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (r=.38, p=0.045). While the r - v a l u e s are moderate to low moderate, the s i g n i f i c a n c e i s q u i t e high (see Table X I ) . 74 For women (63 cases) i n t h i s group, two of the same v a r i a b l e s appear as f o r the men, s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f (r=.4u p=0.001) and s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (r=.40, psO.001). Two other v a r i a b l e s a l s o show s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n (r=.46, p=0.000) and s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion (r=.32, p=0.005). In s p i t e of the s t r o n g s i g n i f i c a n c e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( r - v a l u e s ) are i n the low moderate range. S a t i s f a c t i o n with pay i s not r e l a t e d to c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e f o r the women i n t h i s group. In the s t r o n g s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t , s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (r-.78, pens) and s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (r=.99, p-0.005) show up ag a i n f o r the males (n=4) as w e l l as s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n , which has a v e r y s t r o n g , but negative a s s o c i a t i o n (r»-.99, p=0.007). The sample s i z e of t h i s group agai n g i v e s cause f o r c a u t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For women i n the s t r o n g s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t , the o n l y v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h score i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion (r».64, p=0.023). T h i s i s a l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t , but s t r o n g e r , a s s o c i a t i o n than f o r the women i n the moderate s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t . T h i s q u e s t i o n , then, i s answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e . There are p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and v a r i o u s aspects of job s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the group as a whole and f o r each of the sub-groups. For men, s a t i s f a c t i o n 75 with co-workers showed up i n each of the 3 sub-groups. S a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers a l s o i s a f a c t o r f o r females i n the moderate c u l t u r e group. For women, s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion i s the on l y v a r i a b l e which occurs more than once. study Question tt 6 has. 6. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between age w i t h i n a sub-group and scores on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? For the g e n e r a l group a n a l y s i s , there was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores and age (r=.04, p=0.659). Although there appears to be a very s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores f o r males i n the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s , the sample s i z e of o n l y three men makes i t v e r y l i k e l y t h a t the r e s u l t i s s p u r i o u s . C u r i o u s l y the d i r e c t i o n of the r e s u l t i s negative (r=-1.00, p=0 . 005). None of the other sub-groups demonstrated any r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h . Study Question # 7 un i t Tenure 7. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i t tenure w i t h i n a sub-group and scores on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? The a n a l y s i s showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and u n i t tenure (r=-.06, p=0.512). U n i t tenure shows up i n two p l a c e s i n the r e s u l t s . F i r s t men i n 76 the weak s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s have a very s t r o n g , but negative a s s o c i a t i o n (r=-.96, p=0.184) with u n i t tenure. Second, men i n the s t r o n g s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t a l s o show a r e l a t i o n s h i p , but a much more moderate and p o s i t i v e one (r=.62, p=0.388). Both of these groups are very s m a l l samples, and once again a spurious r e l a t i o n s h i p must be suspected. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s of age and tenure with other work v a r i a b l e s have been found to be U-shaped by other r e s e a r c h e r s . I t i s reasonable to c o n s i d e r t h a t t h i s may a l s o be the case i n t h i s study, thereby e x p l a i n i n g the lack of l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . TABLE XI J o b F a c e l : Associations J W J t h Sub-culture Strength VM11 V A R U M R-VM«ME P-VALUE GROUP RE3ULTS (n=125) Males (n=29) Females work i t s e l f .32 0.002 (n=94) s u p e r v i s i o n .36 0.000 co-workers .37 0.000 promotion 0.002 WEAK <n»24) Males job involvement -.72 0.484 <n=3) upward s t r i v i n g -.95 0.206 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment -.84 0.362 co-workers .93 0.232 promotion .60 0.591 age -1.00 0.005 u n i t tenure -.96 0.184 Females — MODERATE (n =84) Males work i t s e l f .61 0.002 (n=21) co-workers .42 0.028 pay .38 0.045 Females work i t s e l f .40 0.001 (n=63) s u p e r v i s i o n .46 0.000 co-workers .40 0.001 promotion 0.005 (con* t.) 78 (continued from page 77) UNIT VARIABLE R-VALUE P-VALUE STRONG (n=14) Males s u p e r v i s i o n -.99 0.007 (n=4) co-workers .99 0.005 pay .77 0.226 u n i t tenure .61 0.386 Females promotion .64 0.023 Ln=10J Study QMftgUpn I 8. External ys , Internal Perspective 8. Is c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h f o r f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t l y by those e x t e r n a l t o the group than by those who are p a r t of the group? The l a s t q u e s t i o n t o be addressed i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i s whether the s u b - c u l t u r e s are p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t l y by those who are e x t e r n a l t o the u n i t than those who are p a r t of the group. Although s i x people p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the EP group s e s s i o n , o n l y three r e t u r n e d t h e i r s e t s of c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , f o r a 50% response r a t e , and a ve r y s m a l l sample. For t h i s reason, r a t h e r than do s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , the mean s c o r e s f o r the two groups are l i s t e d i n Table X II. There does not appear to be any p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n t o the p a i r s of s c o r e s . Both s e t s are i n the same range, but do not rank the u n i t s i n the same ord e r . The mean EP score i s s l i g h t l y higher than the mean IP s c o r e . The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s case appear t o be i n c o n c l u s i v e . TABLE XII Culture Strenath Scores, Internal versus External Perspectives Dept. Jt of I.P.Mean E.P.Mean Rank Cases Score Score IP EP Stores 5 110.8 104.7 5 8 Acct. 6 71.2 107.0 9 7 Soc. Wk. 10 100.6 120.0 7 1 X-ray 35 113.2 104.3 4 9 Fd. Svc 30 114.5 115.0 3 4 Pharm. 14 137.4 111.0 1 5 Blomed. 10 116.2 118.5 2 3 Med. Rec 9 94.2 120.0 8 1 West 6A 5 108,6 109,7 6 6 80 LIONS GATE HOSPITAL The number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d a t L i o n s Gate H o s p i t a l (LGH) was based on f i g u r e s g i v e n by the heads of the 6 p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s . A t o t a l of 229 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d and 67 were ret u r n e d f o r a r e t u r n r a t e of 30%. The breakdown of r e t u r n r a t e s by u n i t i s shown i n Table X I I I . Returns range from a maximum of 60% to a minimum of 16%. TABLE XIII Quest; lonPftlK* UNIT DISTRIBUTED RETURNED PERCENT RESPONSE (n) (n) TOTAL 229 67 30% 10. LAB. 65 17 26% 11. 4 EAST 24 12 50% 12. X-RAY 50 17 34% 13. PD. SVC. 70 11 16% 14. SOC. WORK 10 6 60% IQ ., . , 4 ,, 40% The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample p o p u l a t i o n are d e s c r i b e d i n the next s e c t i o n . 81 P.isiflo.giaplhltcig Exact ly the same demographic data was co l l ec ted for t h i s group as for the VGH group. Hospi tal Tenure, The tenure categories are the same as previously noted for VGH. Of the 67 respondents, 34% are In each of the two middle tenure groups, 3 to 7 years and 8 to 15 years. The 0 to 2 years group has 18%, and 16 years and over has 13%. A breakdown by uni ts Is displayed i n Table XIV. TABLE XIV C A T E G 0 R I E g Mil (J3J 0^ 2 3rl 8-15 3,6+ % % % % LABORATORY 17 6 29 47 18 NSG. UNIT 12 25 25 50 X-RAY 17 29 41 12 18 POOD SVC. 11 27 36 27 9 SOCIAL WORK 6 - 50 33 17 STORES 4 - 25 50 25 TOTAL 67 18 34 34 13 Q.L^ L^ -^Jj^ ? 1 f ] - - - ••- • l r l 1 iri in i • • " n i l i i II i i [ i in Unit Tenure* Again, the uni t tenure categories are i d e n t i c a l to the hosp i ta l tenure ones and general d i s t r i b u t i o n among the 67 respondents i s as fo l lows. The largest group i s the 0 to 2 year category with 36%. This suggests a moderate degree of in te rna l t ransience. The 3 to 82 7 year category Is next with 30%. The 8 to IS year category has 24% and 10% have been with t h e i r respective units for 16 or more years. For a unit by unit analysis, refer to Table XV. TABLE XV C A T E G 0 R I E g UNIT (n) 0-2 3-7 8-15 16 + % % % % LABORATORY 17 35 6 41 18 MSG. UNIT 12 50 33 17 -X-RAY 17 41 41 12 6 FOOD SVC. 11 27 36 27 9 SOCIAL WORK 6 - 50 33 17 STORES 5 50 25 25 -TOTAL 67 36 30 24 10 GROUP Xeara o£ Formal Educationt Although one person did not respond to t h i s question, the 66 remaining have a l l completed grade 12. Over one t h i r d have completed more than 15 years of formal education. In the 12 to 15 year category there are 56.7%, and 41.8% in the over 15 years category. This r e s u l t i s to be expected, since 4 of the 6 units require post high school education to q u a l i f y . The unit by unit responses are presented in Table XVI. 83 TABLE XV][ C A T E G O R I E S UNIT (n> 12-15 YR. OVER 15 TOTAL 67 56.7% 41.8% 10. LABORATORY 17 70.6% 29.4% 11. 4 EAST 12 66.7% 33.3% 12. X-RAY 17 47.1% 47.1% 13. POOD SERVICES 11 54.5% 45.5% 14. SOCIAL WORK 6 100% 15. STORES 5 3,00% Age. The age of the respondents at LGH i s very si m i l a r to the group at VGH with the mean age being 33.4 years, as compared to 32.5 years at VGH. The ages ranged from 18 to 63 years. The standard deviation i s 13.3 years. Sex,n The male/female d i s t r i b u t i o n of the 67 respondents at LGH i s 6% men (n=4) and 92.5% women (n=62). One individual did not respond to th i s item. Table XVII shows the d e t a i l s . 84 TABLE XVII gex p i s t r l b u t l o n fry u n i t s UNIT (n) FEMALES TOTAL 10. LABORATORY 11. 4 EAST 12. X-RAY 13. FOOD SERVICES 14. SOCIAL WORK 15. STORES  67 17 12 17 11 6 _4_ 6% 5.9% 11.8% -25%. 92.5% 94.1% 91.7% (1 d i d not respond) 88.2% 100% 100% 75%  Because there was such a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of males among the respondents, a n a l y s e s were not broken down by sex. In summary, t h i s group of respondents are mostly young a d u l t s (mean age 33.4) who show s i m i l a r t e n dencies t o t r a n s i e n c e as t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s a t VGH. The group i s mostly female and v e r y w e l l educated. Since the response r a t e was so low, these demographics were compared t o the p o p u l a t i o n from which the sample was drawn (n=229). The v a r i a b l e s which were a v a i l a b e l f o r comparison were age, sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , and h o s p i t a l tenure. The mean age of the p o p u l a t i o n i s 36.5 y e a r s , which i s comparable to the sample mean of 33.4 y e a r s . The male/female d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the p o p u l a t i o n i s 14% male and 86% female, showing t h a t there i s s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r response from the females i n the p o p u l a t i o n . The tenure r e s u l t s show t h a t the 85 p o p u l a t i o n as a whole i s d i s t r i b u t e d among groups two and three (3-7 years and 8-15 years) with 30% and 32% r e s p e c t i v e l y , s i m i l a r to the sample r e s u l t s . The 0-2 year cat e g o r y r e p r e s e n t s 31% of the p o p u l a t i o n , compared to 18% of the sample. The 16 years and over c a t e g o r y has o n l y 7%, compared t o 13% of the sample. So there i s some under-r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from the low tenure group and g r e a t e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from the high tenure group. A s i m i l a r e f f e c t to t h a t which was noted i n the VGH r e s u l t s . The C u l t u r e strength Scale The i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y of the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e was t e s t e d u s i n g Cronbach's (1951) alpha and Guttman's (1945) s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s . The c o e f f i c i e n t alpha f o r the s c a l e was 0.9150 and the s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t was 0.8348. The s c a l e e x h i b i t s good i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y and e x h i b i t s high c o m p a r a b i l i t y with the VGH study. The Study Questions Study Question ttlt cu l ture strength Scores 1. Do f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s among the 6 p a r t i c i p a t i n g u n i t s ? The one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e produced an F - r a t i o of 1.6331 and an F-86 p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.165. No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i s d e t e c t a b l e . There i s , however, q u i t e a v a r i a t i o n i n the mean s c o r e s , from a low of 136.8 to a high of 196.2. (These raw scores should not be compared to the VGH scores because the LGH s c a l e had 14 more items than the VGH s c a l e . ) Standard d e v i a t i o n s are q u i t e l a r g e and some sample s i z e s are q u i t e s m a l l . Both of these f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e to the lack of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s c o r e s . Table XVIII pr o v i d e s d e t a i l s by u n i t f o r number of cases, mean s c o r e s , and standard d e v i a t i o n s . As a r e s u l t of t h i s f i n d i n g , a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h score and job involvement, upward s t r i v i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , age, and u n i t tenure was done f o r the group as a whole. The u n i t s were not c o l l a p s e d i n t o s m a l l e r groups as was done with VGH, because the l a r g e standard d e v i a t i o n s preclude c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of combinations. However, because there was a f a i r b i t of v a r i a b i l i t y i n the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s , i n d i v i d u a l t e s t s of a s s o c i a t i o n were performed f o r each of the 6 u n i t s . 87 TABLE XVIII tfeai) CflUux? gcalft Scores fqx Wtt .VnUff. 10 » » i 17 166.1 Et.tK.J • 51.2 11 12 136.8 73.8 12 17 169.9 18.6 13 11 167.1 26.1 14 6 196.2 26.2 15 4 158.0 L i o n s Gate H o s p i t a l Is c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r than VGH with r e s p e c t t o number of t o t a l employees and the geographic space w i t h i n which the employees work. S i z e and geography are both f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n among work groups. The f a c t t h a t LGH demonstrates no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the u n i t s surveyed supports t h i s i d e a . In a s m a l l e r o r g a n i z a t i o n there are l e s s l i k e l y t o be c u l t u r a l sub-groups forming which overshadow the e f f e c t s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole. Since the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s suggest t h a t a l l the u n i t s are q u a n t i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r i n t h e i r c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s , t h i s study may not be taken t o support Schein (1985), L o u i s (1985), and Davis' (1985) hypotheses t h a t sub-c u l t u r e s e x i s t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 88 Study Quest ton Job involvement 2. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores and job involvement? The a n a l y s i s f o r the group as a whole shows no p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h scores (r=.19, p=0.123). However, when the sub-groups are a n a l y s e d , u n i t 14 e x h i b i t s a moderate, but s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p (r=.54, p=0.270) f o r job involvement. T h i s i s a s m a l l u n i t , which had a good response r a t e , but s t i l l o n l y a t o t a l "n" of 6. The s m a l l sample probably a f f e c t s the r e s u l t s , but i t should a l s o be noted t h a t t h i s group ( s o c i a l work) probably tend to be i n v o l v e d with t h e i r work j u s t by the nature of the work. 3. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and upward s t r i v i n g ? The group as a whole shows a moderate, but q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t (r=.35, p=0.004) r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and upward s t r i v i n g . For the sub-group a n a l y s i s , again o n l y one u n i t (11) shows any r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s q u i t e a s t r o n g one, however (r=.83, p=0.001). 89 4. F O E f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment? The s t r o n g e s t a s s o c i a t i o n f o r the group as whole a n a l y s i s , r=.62, p=»0.000 i s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. Four of the s i x s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t s show a r e l a t i o n s h i p with o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. Two of these, u n i t s 11 and 12 have s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n s , with r e s p e c t i v e r - v a l u e s of .90 and .85. The p-values f o r both are p=»0.000. Moderate a s s o c i a t i o n i s noted f o r u n i t 14 (r».58, p=0.113) and u n i t 15 (r=.70, psO.152). Ne i t h e r of these values i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s f i n d i n g c e r t a i n l y supports the a n e c d o t a l o b s e r v a t i o n s of P e t e r s and Waterman (1982) and Deal, e t a l (1983) t h a t s t r o n g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s produce st r o n g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. 5. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and job s a t i s f a c t i o n ? Job s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s were analysed f o r each of the 5 s u b s c a l e s . 90 While a l l of the 5 s u b s c a l e s are i n c l u d e d i n the s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r the group a n a l y s i s , t h r e e , s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f (r=.57, p=0.002), s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n (r=.55, p=0.000), and s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers (r=.50, p=0.000), have s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s than s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (r«=.28, p=0.010) and s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion (r=».36, p=0.001). S a t i s f a c t i o n with pay has the weakest a s s o c i a t i o n of a l l , but t h i s may be a r e s u l t of the f a c t t h a t pay i s d i c t a t e d by the c o l l e c t i v e agreements. To some ex t e n t , o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion i s a l s o governed by the c o l l e c t i v e agreements. When the s u b - c u l t u r e u n i t f i g u r e s are a n a l y s e d , four u n i t s show s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s with the s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f s u b s c a l e . Two of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s t r o n g , u n i t 11 (r=.88, p=0.000) and u n i t 14 (r=.86, p»0.013). The other two are moderate, u n i t 12 (r=.57, p=0.008) and u n i t 13 (r=.53, p=0.045). Three of the four u n i t s mentioned above a l s o show r e l a t i o n s h i p s with s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n . These i n c l u d e u n i t 11 (r=.72, p=0.004), u n i t 12 (r».45, p=0.033), and u n i t 13 (r°.63, p=0.019). U n i t 10 a l s o has a moderate a s s o c i a t i o n (r=.75) which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p=0.000). 91 There are moderate a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers i n u n i t 11 (r=.78, p=0.001), and u n i t 12 (r».48, p=0.026). S a t i s f a c t i o n with pay and s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion are r e l a t i o n s h i p s shared by u n i t s 11 and 15. U n i t 11 has an r of .53 and p of 0.039 f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay while r«.65 and p=0.011 f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion. U n i t 15 has a moderate, negative a s s o c i a t i o n f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay (r»-.59, p=0.205) and a moderate, p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n with s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y f o r promotion (r=.59, p=»0.204). These r e s u l t s do support the P e t e r s and Waterman (1982) and Deal, e t a l (1983) a s s e r t i o n t h a t s t r o n g c u l t u r e s r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t seems, however, t h a t o n l y c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n are r e l a t e d i n any meaningful way w i t h c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h . S p e c i f i c a l l y those a s p e c t s which are not d i c t a t e d by c o l l e c t i v e agreements. Study Question 16. Age. 6. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between age w i t h i n a sub-group and s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? U n i t 13 i s the o n l y group which showed an a s s o c i a t i o n between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h score and age. Though o n l y moderate i n s t r e n g t h , i t i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The r - v a l u e Is .59 and p=0.027. There was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two v a r i a b l e s f o r the group as a whole (r=.06, p=0.648). 92 7. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i t tenure w i t h i n a sub-group and s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? Again, the group as a whole showed no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between tenure and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s (r=.13, psO.307). As with age, u n i t 13 Is the o n l y group which showed an a s s o c i a t i o n between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h score and u n i t tenure. For t h i s v a r i a b l e the r - v a l u e i s r=.69 and the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l i s p=0.009. A l l of the r e s u l t s d i s c u s s e d above are summarized l n Table XIX. TABLE XIX GROUP RESULTS (n=67) upward s t r i v i n g .35 0.002 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment .62 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f .57 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n .55 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers .50 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay .28 0.010 s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y .36 0.001 TI--I i i¥i n-rin i -^ |ft|^  • P^* Q*^0 feiirV^i?^i ir -mini • i i .1 1 L I 1 JIIIIII • . 1 LABORATORY (n=17) 1 m^ i^ JI»JDM01^51M MSG. UNIT (n=12) upward s t r i v i n g .83 0.000 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment .90 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f .88 0.000 s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n .72 0.004 s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers .78 0.001 s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay .53 0.039 s a t i s f a c t i o n with o p p o r t u n i t y .65 0.011 fipJE promotion X-RAY <n*17) s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f .57 0.008 s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p e r v i s i o n .45 0.033 s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers «JL8 Q t Q 2 6 (con* t.) 9 4 (continued from page 9 3 ) UNIT VARIABLE r-value p-value FOOD SVC. (n=ll) organizat iona l commitment . 6 5 0 . 0 0 0 s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f . 5 3 0 . 0 4 5 s a t i s f a c t i o n with supervis ion . 6 2 0 . 0 1 9 age . 5 9 0 . 0 2 7 unit tenure t_69 0 . 0 0 9  SOCIAL WORK ( n = 6 ) job involvement . 5 4 0 . 1 3 5 organizat iona l commitment . 5 8 0 . 1 1 3 s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f T 9 6 Q t 0 1 3 STORES ( n = 5 ) organizat iona l commitment . 7 0 0 . 1 5 2 s a t i s f a c t i o n with pay - . 5 9 0 . 2 0 5 s a t i s f a c t i o n with opportunity . 5 9 0 . 2 0 4 for promotion 8 . Is cu l ture strength for func t iona l l y defined sub-groups perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by those external to the group than by those who are part of the group? The question i s whether those who are fami l i a r with, but external to the un i t s , rated the units d i f f e r e n t l y on the cu l ture strength scale than those who work within the un i t s . Four people par t i c ipa ted in the EP group, as noted in Chapter III. These same four were given a set of cu l ture strength sca le quest ionnaires. The set contained one scale for each of the 6 un i t s . Three of the four sets were 95 r e t u r n e d , f o r a 75% response r a t e . Since there were o n l y 3 cases, s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s not meaningful, t h e r e f o r e mean sco r e s and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r IP and BP groups are presented i n Table XX. There were 44 q u e s t i o n s with a maximum p o s s i b l e s c o r e of 7 f o r any one item, g i v i n g a maximum t o t a l s c o r e p o s s i b l e of 308. In e v e r y case the BP group gave much higher s c o r e s than the IP groups gave themselves. Ranking of the 6 u n i t s i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n each case. The o n l y agreement i s the p o s i t i o n of u n i t 15, ranked 6th. Ranks f o r u n i t s 10 and 12 are r e v e r s e d . U n i t 13 i s c l o s e - 4 on the IP s i d e , 5 on the EP s i d e . U n i t s 11 and 14 show gre a t d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n the r a n k i n g . While no comment can be made about the a c c u r a c y of the r a t i n g s , i t does appear t h a t i n t h i s s e t t i n g , u n l i k e the l a r g e r VGH s e t t i n g , the u n i t s are viewed d i f f e r e n t l y from w i t h i n than from without. T h i s f i n d i n g supports Gregory's (1983) and Van Maanen & B a r l e y ' s (1985) o b s e r v a t i o n s about c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y l e s e x h i b i t e d by s u b - c u l t u r e s and the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which may be deduced by those e x t e r n a l t o the group. 96 TABLE XX C u l t u r e S t r e n a t h Scores,. I n t e r n a l versus E x t e r n a l U n i t # of Cases I.P.Mean Score E.P.Mean Score Rank IP EP Lab. 16 176.5 232.5 2 3 4 East 10 164.2 243.0 5 1 X-ray 17 169.9 239.7 3 2 Pd. Svc. 11 167.1 226.7 4 5 Soc. Wk. 6 196.2 229.0 1 4 4 15$,Q 2 Q 5 t 3 $ 6 SUMMARY The main aim of t h i s study was t o i n v e s t i g a t e p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of v a r i o u s job f a c e t s with s u b - c u l t u r e s and t h e i r c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h i n h o s p i t a l s . The study was conducted a t two h o s p i t a l s . E i g h t q u e s t i o n s were posed and the r e s u l t s f o r each h o s p i t a l recorded. Study Question 11. Do f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? At VGH s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05) d i f f e r e n c e s i n some of the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s were found. At LGH no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was apparent. Study Question #2. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and job involvement? 97 An Inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p was found with a s m a l l (n=3) sub-group a t VGH. The r e l a t i o n s h i p was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . S i m i l a r l y a t Li o n s Gate, one sub-group had a moderate, p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p which a l s o was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Study Question #3. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and upward s t r i v i n g ? At VGH the same s m a l l sub-groups as above showed a non-s i g n i f i c a n t n e g ative r e l a t i o n s h i p with upward s t r i v i n g . At LGH, upward s t r i v i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t (r=.35, p=.002) f o r the group as a whole and f o r one sub-group (r=.83, p=.000). Study Question #4. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s t here a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment? Again the same VGH sub-groups demonstrated a non-s i g n i f i c a n t n e g ative r e l a t i o n s h i p with o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. LGH f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h f o r the group as a whole and f o r 4 of the 6 sub-groups. Two of the four sub-group r e s u l t s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , two were not. Study Question #5. For f u n c t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sub-groups, i s there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s and job s a t i s f a c t i o n ? 98 At both VGH and LGH, the f i v e s u b s c a l e s of the JDI showed a v a r i e t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h o v e r a l l and throughout a l l the sub-groups i n the a n a l y s i s . At VGH s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers c o n s i s t e n t l y shows up f o r the whole group and f o r every sub-group. The f i n d i n g s a t LGH show s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work i t s e l f as the most c o n s i s t e n t e n t i t y . I t i s present with s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the group and sub-groups a n a l y s e s , except f o r one sub-group. Study Question #6. Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p between age w i t h i n a sub-group and s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? O v e r a l l , there was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s f o r e i t h e r VGH or LGH. One sub-group at each h o s p i t a l , however, does show a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and age. At VGH the r e s u l t i s negative and v e r y s t r o n g (r= - 1 . 0 0 ) and probably s p u r i o u s . At LGH the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s moderate, p o s i t i v e , and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Study Question #7. Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i t tenure w i t h i n a sub-group and s c o r e s on the c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c a l e ? The same two u n i t s which show c u l t u r e strength/age r e l a t i o n s h i p s have s i m i l a r r e s u l t s f o r u n i t tenure. As with the age v a r i a b l e , the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s f o r each h o s p i t a l show no r e l a t i o n s h i p between tenure and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . 99 Study Question #8. Is culture strength for f u n c t i o n a l l y defined sub-groups perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by those external to the group than by those who are part of the group? There i s no apparent difference i n the EP/IP scores at VGH. At LGH, the EP scores are consistently higher than the IP ones, but do not r e s u l t in the same culture strength ranking. There does seem to be a difference at LGH. A discussion of findings, implications, conclusions, and l i m i t a t i o n s of the study are subjects of the next chapter. 100 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The s p e c i f i c findings of t h i s study have been presented in d e t a i l i n Chapter IV. The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to discuss the implications of the res u l t s as they relate to organizational culture theory, to i d e n t i f y the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, and to draw some conclusions. IMPLICATIONS The r e s u l t s of investigation for question 11, do sub-cultures d i f f e r i n t h e i r culture strength scores, was mixed. At VGH, there was a difference, at LGH there was not. One reason for t h i s mixed r e s u l t may be a function of differences i n s i z e of the two organizations. Schein (1985), Louis (1985), and Davis(1985) a l l suggest that except for the very small, any organization i s l i k e l y to have a var i e t y of sub-cultures. Lions Gate has about one-half the number of employees that VGH has, making i t small by comparison, but s t i l l a f a i r - s i z e d organization. It i s possible, however, that the s i z e difference does allow the over-arching organizational culture at LGH to exert a mediating influence over a l l the work units, thereby creating greater homogeneity of values. Another explanation relates to the s p e c i f i c units which participated at each h o s p i t a l . The moderate culture strength 101 units group at VGH was comprised of stores, x-ray, food services, biomedical engineering, and one nursing unit. Four of these units (biomedical engineering excepted) are the same as the units which participated at LGH. One of the remaining 2 units of the LGH sample, the laboratory, had no counterpart at VGH. The other unit, s o c i a l work, at VGH was in the weak culture strength units group. At LGH, s o c i a l work had the highest culture strength score. This explanation, thus, i s not as s a t i s f a c t o r y as the f i r s t . The Implication of t h i s r e s u l t , therefore, i s that further development of organizational culture theory needs to take into account the interaction between organizational culture and sub-cultures (Schein, 1984; Van Haanen and Barley, 1985). The second question investigated whether there was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between culture strength and job involvement. This study found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . This i s not the r e s u l t expected, based on work by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) who postulate that job involvement may be a measure of, "...the ease with which the person can be further s o c i a l i z e d by an organization" (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965, p. 24). It i s through c u l t u r a l mechanisms that an in d i v i d u a l becomes s o c i a l i z e d to an organization. The findings of t h i s study do not show that a l t e r i n g either job involvement or culture strength w i l l a f f e c t the other. Lodahl and Kejner's d e f i n i t i o n of job involvement implies 102 t h a t i t comes from an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l value system, i n v o l v i n g s e l f - w o r t h , not from the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s value system. The r e s e a r c h e r ' s argument t h a t job involvement i s a p e r s o n a l value not an O r g a n i z a t i o n a l value i s supported by the f i n d i n g s . Question #3 which i n q u i r e d whether a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and upward s t r i v i n g , produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s t o q u e s t i o n #2. The o v e r a l l r e s u l t s f o r both VGH and LGH produced no evidence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between upward s t r i v i n g and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . One sub-group, a t LGH, d i d show a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and upward s t r i v i n g . Upward s t r i v i n g was found to be of mixed i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c c h a r a c t e r by Wollack, e t a l (1971). Although i t ' s d e f i n i t i o n , l i k e job involvement, suggests i t i s a p e r s o n a l v a l u e , a p p a r e n t l y because i t i s of mixed c h a r a c t e r i t may be more s u b j e c t to the i n f l u e n c e of o r g a n i z a t i o n v a l u e s . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment i s the focus of q u e s t i o n #4. The l a r g e r h o s p i t a l , VGH, showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p , but LGH, the s m a l l e r h o s p i t a l d i d , v e r y d e f i n i t e l y . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s t h a t VGH i s not p e r c e i v e d by i t s employees to have an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . In f a c t , comments to t h a t e f f e c t were made to the r e s e a r c h e r d u r i n g the p r e l i m i n a r y stages of the data c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . 103 Perhaps there i s a " c r i t i c a l s i z e " beyond which u n i t commitment i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e concept than o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment may need to be generated i n d i r e c t l y i n l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s v i a commitment to the work u n i t . I f such a c r i t i c a l s i z e e x i s t s , the i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t the two h o s p i t a l s l i e one on e i t h e r s i d e of the l i n e . As with q u e s t i o n #1, the i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e and s u b - c u l t u r e s should be i n v e s t i g a t e d through f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The r e s u l t s from q u e s t i o n #5 suggest two t h i n g s . F i r s t , job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n g e n e r a l and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h c l e a r l y are r e l a t e d . The d i r e c t i o n of the e f f e c t i s not known and cannot be i n f e r r e d from t h i s study. The second o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n with the work I t s e l f and s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers have more c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s with c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h than the other 3 elements of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g suggests t h a t c u r r e n t a c t i v i t i e s In the f i e l d of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour, i n p a r t i c u l a r job enrichment and c u l t u r e a n a l y s i s and change, are a p p r o p r i a t e methods f o r i n c r e a s i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment. Job enrichment a c t i v i t i e s focus on changing the nature of the work i t s e l f t o make i t a more s a t i s f y i n g experience f o r the employee. C u l t u r e a n a l y s i s and change a c t i v i t i e s focus on employee a t t i t u d e s toward each o t h e r , the company, and the customer. 104 These f i n d i n g s a l s o support the r e s e a r c h e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n t h a t there would be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h s c o r e s . Without co-workers there can be no c u l t u r e , thus the l i n k between s a t i s f a c t i o n with co-workers and c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h seems I n e v i t a b l e . Questions 46 and #7 r e g a r d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and age and between c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h and u n i t tenure show no r e l a t i o n s h i p a t VGH or a t LGH, with the e x c e p t i o n of one sub-group, other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h (Gibson and K l e i n , 1970) us i n g age and u n i t tenure as dependent v a r i a b l e s found a U-shaped r a t h e r than l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Gibson and K l e i n (1970) note t h a t other s t u d i e s which they reviewed d i d not separate age and tenure when doing a n a l y s e s . When Gibson and K l e i n d i d t h e i r a n a l y s e s , they d i d separate the c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r age from t e n u r e . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a more l i n e a r r e s u l t , but with the s l o p e s i n opposing d i r e c t i o n s . They suggested t h a t superimposing the two curves r e s u l t s i n the U-shaped f u n c t i o n r e p o r t e d by pr e v i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s . R e s u l t s f o r the l a s t q u e s t i o n , about d i f f e r e n c e s i n c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h p e r c e p t i o n between i n s i d e r s and o u t s i d e r s are i n c o n c l u s i v e . At both h o s p i t a l s the number of BP group responses was too s m a l l t o perform any s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . An examination of the raw data d i d not produce any meaningful p a t t e r n . 105 LIMITATIONS AND GENERALIZABILITY L i m i t a t i o n s with r e s p e c t to t h i s study i n c l u d e : 1. The s e l e c t i o n of h o s p i t a l s was not done us i n g a random sampling technique. The h o s p i t a l s were s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c r u i t e d i n an e f f o r t to ensure a reasonably l a r g e employee sample w i t h i n each s u b u n i t . 2. One h o s p i t a l was a l a r g e , complex urban h o s p i t a l , the other a medium s i z e d community h o s p i t a l . Comparison of r e s u l t s or g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to s m a l l e r or r u r a l h o s p i t a l s may, t h e r e f o r e , be q u e s t i o n a b l e . 3. Since the survey was conducted a t one p o i n t i n time, some c a u t i o n must be a p p l i e d when drawing c o n c l u s i o n s . O r g a n i z a t i o n s are dynamic, as are the people who work i n them, and changes over time w i l l not be apparent from t h i s study. 4. The sample of employees w i t h i n each u n i t was v o l u n t a r y , thus some s e l f - s e l e c t i o n b i a s may have occurred which may, i n t u r n , have a f f e c t e d the r e s u l t s i n an unknown way. 5. Low response r a t e s and unexpected s m a l l sample s i z e s a l s o a f f e c t the p o t e n t i a l f o r sampling b i a s of the r e s u l t s . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be guarded and not g e n e r a l i z e d to other h o s p i t a l s or o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 106 CONCLUSIONS Two main c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from the r e s u l t s of t h i s t h e s i s . The f i r s t i s t h a t c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h seems to be c o n s i s t e n t l y and c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a s p e c t s of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Previous r e s e a r c h has shown p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment (Wiener and Gechman, 1977 and Zahra, 1985). The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study seem t o suggest t h a t s u b - c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h may, indeed, a f f e c t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment, through the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h job s a t i s f a c t i o n , as was i n d i c a t e d i n the LGH a n a l y s i s . The model developed by Luthans, e t a l (1987), lends i t s e l f to m o d i f i c a t i o n to i n c l u d e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . Luthans does not d e f i n e the concept of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s expressed l n the model, but r a t h e r o p e r a t i o n a l I z e s i t u s i n g l e a d e r s h i p behaviour. The i n t e r a c t i o n s of an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h the work i t s e l f , with co-workers and with the s u p e r v i s o r may a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d an o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n s t r u c t and f i t t e d Into the Luthans model a t t h a t p o i n t . The a c t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s and s u b - c u l t u r e s are seen t o be processes of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , which suggest t h a t t h e i r i n f l u e n c e i s t h a t of an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and p e r s o n - o r g a n i z a t i o n f i t . The r e v i s e d model i s shown i n F i g u r e 2. 107 PKIOUAL-tmOCIAPIIC VUI1IU8 NIIOI-4tt€MIUfIOI OKMUMIOIU PIT COMHTMIT QMMtUTIOMl SUB-COITOH PtOCUSIS 0I6MIUTIQML ML1T1M81IM J«b s a t i s f a c t l o i facets - m l , s t p e r v l s U a , and co-ioikecs ( F i g u r e 2. A m o d i f i e d model of the antecedents of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment - adapted from Luthans, e t a l (1987)) The second c o n c l u s i o n which may be drawn from t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t a dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n probably e x i s t s between the o v e r - a r c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e and e x i s t i n g sub-c u l t u r e s . The degree of Influence which the parent o r g a n i z a t i o n e x e r t s over the s m a l l e r p a r t s may be a f f e c t e d by a " c r i t i c a l s i z e " s i m i l a r to the c r i t i c a l mass theory of the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s . These c o n c l u s i o n s r a i s e s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The f i r s t being, i s c u l t u r e s t r e n g t h an 108 i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e r a t h e r than the independent v a r i a b l e i t i s u s u a l l y d e f i n e d t o be? I f so, how does i t i n f l u e n c e the p e r s o n - o r g a n i z a t i o n f i t , i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment the outcome? With r e s p e c t t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i z e , i s there a c r i t i c a l s i z e which mediates the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s s u b - c u l t u r e s ? 109 REFERENCES Baba, v.v. (1979). Qn the nature of lob Involvement; An i n q u l K y — i n t o — L t i — a n t e c e d e n t and consequent •I,cp,n,d,,i felons,. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The . A m e r i c a n Journal Pt Sociology, £6_, 32-40. Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing, o,E,ganlJsa,.fcA,o,ns,. san Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). C o e f f i c i e n t alpha and the Internal structure of te s t s . Psychometric, t i / 297-334. Daft, R.L. (1983). Symbols in organizations: a dual-content framework for analysis. In L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T.C. Dandridge, (Eds.), Organizat ional symbolism (pp. ) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc. Dandridge, T.C., M i t r o f f , I., & Joyce, W. (1980). Organizational symbolism: a topic to expand organizational a n a l y s i s . Academy of Management Review, 5.(1), 77-82. Davis, R.T.V. (1985). Managing culture at the bottom. In R.H. Kilmann, M.J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.). Gaining cont ro l of the corporate cu l tu re , (pp. ) san Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate cultures? The rites. ajQd. r i t u a l s 0£ corporate U f e « Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T.E., Kennedy, A.A., & Spiegel, A.H., I I I . (1983). How to create an outstanding hospital culture. Hospital Forum, l i d ) , 21-34. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Qistm techniques JEQK program planning; A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, i l l . : scott, Poresman and Co. Gibson, J.L., & Klei n , S.M. (1970). Employee attitudes as a function of age and length of service: a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Journa l , 11, 411-25. Goodman, P., Furcon, J . , & Rose, J . (1969). Examination of some measures of creative a b i l i t y by the m u l t l t r a l t -muitimethod matrix. Journal of. Applied Psychology/ 51 (3), 240-43. 110 Gordon, G.G., (1985). The re l a t i o n s h i p of corporate culture to industry sector and corporate performance. In R.H. Kilmann, M.J. Saxton, R. Serpa, & Associates (Eds.). Gaining cont ro l O f the corporate.,, culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gregory, K.L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture c o n f l i c t s in organizations. Gruneberg, M.M. (1979). Understanding Job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The MacMillan Press Ltd.: London. Grusky, 0. (1966). Career mobility and organizational commitment. Administrat ive science Quarterly, AO, 488-503. Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . pgychQmetKlRa, l&, 255-82. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to wprK. (2nd ed.) Wiley: New York. Hrebiniak, L.G., & Alutto, J.A. (1985, December). Personal and r o l e - r e l a t e d factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrat ive science Quarterly, 12, 555-573. Hulin, C L . (1966). Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and turnover in a female c l e r i c a l population. Journal of Applied Psychology/ 5JJ., 280-85. Jelinek, M., Smircich, L., & Hirsch, P. (1983). introduction: A code of many colo r s . Administrat ive Science Quarterly/ 21/ 331-8. Keesing, R.M., & Keesing, F.M. (1971). New perspectives in c u l t u r a l anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc. Kendall, L.M., Smith, P.C, Hulin, C.L., & Locke, E.A. (1963). Cornell studies of job s a t i s f a c t i o n : IV. The r e l a t i v e v a l i d i t y of the job descriptive index and other methods of measurement of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Ithaca: Cornell University, (mimeo). Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R., & Associates. (1985). Gaining cont ro l a l the , corporate cu l tu re , san Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kroeber, A.L. (1952). T_h§ nature O f cu l tu re . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Locke, E.A. (1969). What i s job s a t i s f a c t i o n ? Organisat ional Behavior and Human Performance/ 1/ 309-336. I l l Lodahl, T.M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The d e f i n i t i o n and measurement of job involvement. Journal oJ Applied Psychology/ Al, 24-33. Louis, M.R. (1985). An investigator's guide to workplace cul t u r e . In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.G. Lundberg, & J . Martin (Eds.). Organisat ional Culture (pp.73-93) Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L. (1987). Organizational commitment: Analysis of antecedents. Hjujnaji Relations r AQ_, 219-236. Martin, J . , & S i e h l , C. (1983, Autumn). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. O r g a n !actional Dynamics/ pp. 52-64. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychologica l Review/ M, 370-396. Mobley, W.H., & Locke, E.A. (1970). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of value Importance to s a t i s f a c t i o n . Organisat ional Behavior and Human Performance, 5:463-483. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Nordstrom, R.D., & Al l e n , B. (1987). Cultural change versus behavioral change. Health Care Management Review/ 12(2), 43-9. Ouchi, W.G., & Wilkins, A.L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology/ kk, 457-83. Pelto, p . j . (1970). Anthropological research; the S t r u c t u r e Qf Inquiry. New York: Harper & Row. Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H., J r . (1982). In search Of exce l lence. New York: Harper & Row. Rabinowitz, S. 6 H a l l , D.T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bu l l e t i n / Si.<2), 265-288. Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate r e a l i t l e a . Homewood, ILL., Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Schein, E.H. (1984, Winter). Coming to a new awareness of organizational c u l t u r e . Sloan Management Review/ 3-15. 112 Schein, E.H. (1985). How culture forms, develops, and changes. In Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R., & Associates (Eds.), Gaining contro l Of the corporate cu l t u re . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlesinger, L.A., & Balzer, R.J. (1985, September). An alter n a t i v e to buzzword management: The culture-performance l i n k . Personnel, 45-51. Schusky, E.L., & Culbert, T.P. (1967). Introducing culture. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. Schwyhart, W.R., & Smith, P.C. (1972). Factors i n the job Involvement of middle managers. J„QM*.M.1 pj Applied Psychology, S&(3), 2 2 7 - 3 3 . Sheldon, M.E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrat ive Science Quarter ly , 16, 1 4 3 - 1 5 0 . Smith, H.L. (1984). How hospitals can respond to changing values. Hospita l Topics, 6J>, 13-17. SPSS Inc. (1983). SPSS" Mse*'s Guide. New York, McGraw-H i l l . T r i c e , H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through r i t e s and ceremonials. Academy oJE Management Review, 2.(4), 653-669. Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory data ana ly s i s , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. U l r i c h , W.L. (1984) HRM and culture: History, r i t u a l , and myth. Human Resource Management, 2 1 ( 2 ) , 1 1 7 - 2 8 . U t t a l , B. (1983, October 17). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune, pp. 66-72. Van Maanen, J . , & Barley, S.R. (1985). Cultural organization: fragments of a theory. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C C . Lundberg, & J . Martin, O r g a n i s a t i o n a l Culture. Beverly Hi l i s : Sage Publications. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy ofi Management Review, 2(3), 418-28. Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A.S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioral approach. Journal of vocat ional Behavior, 1ft, 47-52. Wollack, S., Goodale, J.G., Wijting, J.P., & Smith, P.C. (1971) Development of the survey of work values, jpgrna l pj Applied Psychology, 5_, 331-338. 113 Zahra, S.A., (1985, P a l l ) Determinants of organizatlonal commitment i n a health care s e t t i n g . Journal QJE Health, and, Mmn Resources AdMnlStgatlon,/ pp. 188-208. APPENDIX A LETTERS AND FORMS us O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C U L T U R E S T U D Y A p r i l 26, 1988 Dear Department Head/Head Nurse: I am a graduate student at UBC, in my f i n a l year of the M.Sc. Health Services Planning and Administration program. As an area of study, I am p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in how organizations function. The purpose of t h i s study i s to explore whether there i s any rela t i o n s h i p between the unwritten and unspoken rules of hospital work groups (often c a l l e d the culture, or "the way we do things around here") and various job aspects such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n and organizational commitment. Knowing more about these relationships ( i f there are any) can help managers to be better leaders and help administrators have a better understanding of how their decisions and actions may a f f e c t employees, and vice versa. In order to develop a scale for measuring the strength of "the way we do things around here" by work groups, I need your help in r e c r u i t i n g one individual from your work group who would be able and w i l l i n g to par t i c i p a t e in a two hour group session. The time of t h i s sesson is yet to be determined, but i t w i l l probably be either 1300 to 1500, or 1400 to 1600, on a week day. I w i l l be contacting you in the next few days for an appointment to come and discuss the study and answer any questions you may have. If at a l l possible, I would l i k e to meet the person who has agreed to par t i c i p a t e when I come as well. They w i l l need to sign a consent to p a r t i c i p a t e , a copy of which i s attached. Following i s the l i s t of c r i t e r i a which should be kept in mind when suggesting an individual to represent your area: Critezia 1. Nominees s h a l l be people who are currently f u l l -time employees in your department/work group, and who have been employed ful l - t i m e in t h i s department/work group (not necessarily t h i s position) for at least three f u l l years. 2. The nominee should be someone who normally interacts on a regular basis (one or more times a day) with s t a f f from a v a r i e t y of other departments throughout the h o s p i t a l . 3. The nominee should have a good command of the English language. 117 O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C U L T U R E S T U D Y A p r i l 26, 1988 Dear Nominee, I am a graduate student at UBC, in my f i n a l year of the M.Sc. Health Services Planning and Administration program. As an area of study, I am p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in how organizations function. About the study The purpose of t h i s study i s to explore whether there is any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the unwritten and unspoken rules of hospital work groups (often c a l l e d culture, or "the way we do things around here") and various job aspects such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n and organizational commitment. Knowing more about these relationships ( i f there are any) can help managers to be better leaders and help administrators have a better understanding of how their decisions and actions may a f f e c t employees, and vice versa. In order to develop a scale for measuring the strength of "the way we do things around here" by work groups, I need help in r e c r u i t i n g one individual from your work group who would be able and w i l l i n g to par t i c i p a t e in a two hour group session. Your department head/head nurse has suggested that you might be w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e . The time of t h i s sesson is yet to be determined, but i t w i l l probably be either 1300 to 1500, or 1400 to 1600, on a week day. I w i l l be contacting you shortly, through your department head/head nurse to discuss the study and answer any questions you may have. An explanation of the process involved i s attached to t h i s l e t t e r . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i s voluntary. If you are w i l l i n g to part i c i p a t e in the 2 hour group session, please read and sign the agreement below. N O M I N A L G R O U P P R O C E S S The nominal group methodology i s a well-accepted technique devised to f a c i l i t a t e overcoming barriers for groups who need to define problems and explore solutions. It was f i r s t used in 1969. The nominal group technique (NGT) i s also described as a strategy for generating ideas. The process i s described step-by-step i n , Group Techniques for Program Planning:A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes by A. L. Delbecq, A. H. Van de Ven and D. H. Gustafson (1975). x For purposes of t h i s study two d i f f e r e n t groups w i l l be convened (at separate times). One group w i l l be comprised of indiv i d u a l s , who meet s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i a , nominated by department heads of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g sub-units. It i s anticipated that there w i l l be one representative from each sub-unit for a t o t a l of 10 people. The second group w i l l be comprised of 5 individuals, external to the experimental sub-units, but who interact regularly with members of the sub-units, e.g. education services, labour r e l a t i o n s , personnel. Each group w i l l be led through the same procedure, but the perspectives of the groups w i l l be d i f f e r e n t . The f i r s t group w i l l have an internal perspective, the second an external perspective. The sessions are structured and w i l l follow the NGT process as summarized by the authors (Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, and Gustafson, DH, 1975). The steps noted below w i l l be preceded by an introduction to organizational culture and an explanation of the task. NGT steps: "1) S i l e n t generation of Ideas i n writing 2) Round-robin feedback from group members to record each idea in a terse phrase on a f l i p chart 3) Discussion of each recorded idea for c l a r i f i c a t i o n and evaluation 4) Individual voting on p r i o r i t y ideas with the group decision being mathematically derived through rank-ordering or rating* 1 (p. 8) The outcome of the group sessions w i l l be a l i s t of approximately 9 to 12 c u l t u r a l elements which the group xDelbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, and Gustafson, DH, Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes, Glenview, 111., Scott, Foresman and Co., 1975. 120 feels pertains to (or has meaning for) any or a l l of the sub-units. This exercise w i l l be performed separately by the external and internal groups, r e s u l t i n g in two l i s t s . LIST NUMBER 1 Culture Elements L i s t (example only, exact content of t h i s l i s t w i l l be determined by the group process) 1. wears uniforms 2. jargon unique to th i s department 3. r i t u a l s (such as birthday parties, or farewell dinners) : etc. *********************************************** Following completion of the l i s t , the group w i l l be asked to i d e n t i f y , as best they can, the primary meaning or signi f i c a n c e of each of the items or events l i s t e d . From t h i s l i s t of events and meanings, a questionnaire w i l l be developed for c i r c u l a t i o n to members of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g departments, along with the questionnaire on demographic data, organizational commitment, upward s t r i v i n g , job involvement, and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . For the external perception group, a questionnaire w i l l be derived from the l i s t of meaningful a c t i v i t i e s and a r t i f a c t s as above, but w i l l be ci r c u l a t e d only to the group par t i c i p a n t s . Meaning of c u l t u r a l elements (MXflMHFMt QMhX) ELEMENT MEANING 1. wears uniforms status symbol 2. has unique jargon creates group i d e n t i t y 3. r i t u a l s (a s p e c i f i c recognition type w i l l be l i s t e d ) ******************************************* 121 APPENDIX B INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRES O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C U L T U R E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E Aqreemen£._kP p a r t i c i p a t e lD_t;he study Your completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i g n i f i e s t h a t you have agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study. You have read the cover l e t t e r and understand t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y , that you may choose to leave any of the questions unanswered, and t h a t the r e s u l t s w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . BACKGROUND INFORMATION The f o l l o w i n g questions are to provide me with a ge n e r a l idea of the backgrounds of people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Please complete them by p r o v i d i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n requested. 1. The name of the department i n which you work i s : 3. i s : The number of years you have worked at t h i s h o s p i t a l i s : The number of years you have worked i n t h i s department 4. The t o t a l number of years of formal education you have had i s : 5. Your age i s : years 6. Your sex i s M F ( c i r c l e one) Please continue on to P a r t s 2, 3, and 4 on the next pages. 124 PART 2 QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS WORK AND YOUR JOB The following section contains a number of statements concerning your feelings about work and your job. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. J I I I I 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. 3. I live, eat, and breathe my job. 4. I am very much involved personally in my work. 5. I'm really a perfectionist about my work. 6. Most things in life are more important than work. 7. Even if a person has a good job, he/she should al-ways be looking for a better job. 8. In choosing a job, a person ought to consider his/her chances for advancement as well as other factors. 9. A person should always be thinking about pulling him/herself up in the world and should work hard with the hope of being promoted to a higher-level job. 10. If a person likes his/her job, he/she should be satis-fied with it and should not push for a promotion to another job. 11. The trouble with too many people is that when they find a job in which they are interested, they don't try to get a better job. 12. A worker who turns down a promotion is probably making a mistake. 13. A promotion to a higher-level job usually means more worries and should be avoided for that reason. 14. A well-paying job that offers little opportunity for ad-vancement is not a good job for me. 15. A worker is better off if he/she is satisfied with his/her job and is not concerned about being promoted to another job. 16. I don't mind putting in extra time if the hospital needs me to. 17. I am willing to work extra hard at my job in order to help this hospital to be successful. 18. I really care about the fate of the hospital. 19. It bothers me very much to be absent from work. 125 PART 3 Now I would like to ask you some specific questions about particular aspects of your pressor job. Specifically, I would like you to indicate whether or not each of the adjectives shown describe your job. So, for each aspect of your job men-tioned (the work itself, the pay, etc.) please write a "Y" or an "N" in the space beside each adjective to indicate "yes" or "no", whether you think the adjective describes your present job. Please be sure to place a "Y" or an "N" beside each ad-jective under each aspect of your job. If you cannot decide, place a question mark (?) beside the item in doubt. WORK CO-WORKERS _ Fascinating _ Routine _Satisfying _ Boring .Good .Creative .Respected .Hot .Pleasant .Useful .Tiresome .Healthful .Challenging .On your feet .Frustrating .Simple .Endless .Gives sense of accomplishment . Stimulating . Boring . Slow . Ambitious . Stupid . Responsible . Fast . Intelligent . Easy to make enemies . Talk too much . Smart Lazy . Unpleasant . No privacy Active Narrow interests Loyal Hard to meet SUPERVISION PAY _Asks my advice Income adequate for normal expenses _Hard to please Satisfactory profit sharing Jmpolite Barely live on income _Praises good work Bad _Tactful Income provides luxuries Jnfluential Insecure -uP-to-date Less than I deserve _Doesn't supervise enough Highly paid _Quick tempered Underpaid _Tells me where I stand _Annoying .Stubborn PROMOTIONS Bad* 8 ^ Good opportunity for advancement Opportunity somewhat limited J n t e l l i g e n t Promotion on ability .Leaves me on my own Dead-end job - L a z y Good chance for promotion .Around when needed U n f a j r p r o m o t J o n ^ Infrequent promotions Regular promotions Fairly good chance for promotion 126 PART 4 Part 4 contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things which you and your work group (department) may share. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retirement, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. PART 4 (continued) 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 . STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 129 O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C U L T U R E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E Agreement tQ participate In the Study Your completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i g n i f i e s t h a t you have agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study. You have read the cover l e t t e r and understand that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y , t h a t you may choose t o leave any of the quest i o n s unanswered, and t h a t the r e s u l t s w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . PART 1  BACKGROUND INFORMATION The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s are to provide me with a gen e r a l idea of the backgrounds of people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study. Please complete them by p r o v i d i n g the in f o r m a t i o n requested. 1. The name of the department i n which you work i s : The number of years you have worked a t t h i s h o s p i t a l i s : The number of years you have worked i n t h i s department 4. The t o t a l number of years of formal e d u c a t i o n you have had i s : 5. Your age i s : years 6. Your sex i s M F ( c i r c l e one) Please continue on to P a r t s 2, 3, and 4 on the next pages. PART 2 130 QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS WORK AND YOUR JOB The following section contains a number of statements concerning your feelings about work and your job. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my job. 3. I live, eat, and breathe my job. 4. I am very much involved personally in my work. 5. I'm really a perfectionist about my work. 6. Most things in life are more important than work. 7. Even if a person has a good job, he/she should al-ways be looking for a better job. 8. In choosing a job, a person ought to consider his/her chances for advancement as well as other factors. 9. A person should always be thinking about pulling him/herself up in the world and should work hard with the hope of being promoted to a higher-level job. 10. If a person likes his/her job, he/she should be satis-fied with it and should not push for a promotion to another job. 11. The trouble with too many people is that when they find a job in which they are interested, they don't try to get a better job. 12. A worker who turns down a promotion is probably making a mistake. 13. A promotion to a higher-level job usually means more worries and should be avoided for that reason. 14. A well-paying job that offers little opportunity for ad-vancement is not a good job for me. 15. A worker is better off if he/she is satisfied with his/her job and is not concerned about being promoted to another job. 16. I don't mind putting in extra time if the hospital needs me to. 17. I am willing to work extra hard at my job in order to help this hospital to be successful. 18. I really care about the fate of the hospital. 19. It bothers me very much to be absent from work. 1 3 1 P A R T 3 Now I would like to ask you some specific questions about particular aspects of your present job. Specifically, I would like you to indicate whether or not each of the adjectives shown describe your job. So, for each aspect of your job men-tioned (the work itself, the pay, etc.) please write a "Y" or an "N" in the space beside each adjective to indicate "yes" or "no", whether you think the adjective describes your present job. Please be sure to place a "Y" or an "N" beside each ad-jective under each aspect of your job. If you cannot decide, place a question mark (?) beside the item in doubt. WORK .Fascinating Routine Satisfying .Boring Good Creative Respected Hot Pleasant Useful Tiresome Healthful Challenging On your feet Frustrating Simple Endless Gives sense of accomplishment CO-WORKERS Stimulating Boring Slow Ambitious Stupid Responsible Fast Intelligent Easy to make enemies Talk too much Smart Lazy Unpleasant No privacy Active Narrow interests Loyal Hard to meet SUPERVISION PAY _Asks my advice Income adequate for normal expenses _Hard to please Satisfactory profit sharing _lmpolite Barely live on income _Praises good work Bad _Tactful Income provides luxuries .Influential Insecure .Up-to-date Less than I deserve .Doesn't supervise enough Highly paid .Quicktempered Underpaid .Tells me where I stand -tTr9 PROMOTIONS .Stubborn .Knows job well Good opportunity for advancement - ^ a d Opportunity somewhat limited .Intelligent Promotion on ability .Leaves me on my own Dead-end job _ L a 2 v Good chance for promotion .Around when needed U n f a i r promotion policy Infrequent promotions Regular promotions Fairly good chance for promotion 132 PART 4 Part 4 contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things which you and your work group (department) may share. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. PART4(con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records.in addition to the hospital record. 133 STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 APPENDIX C EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRES VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL 135 HOSPITAL CULTURE STUDY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. V A N C O U V E R G E N E R A L HOSPITAL 1 3 7 H O S P I T A L C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. Please relate these responses to the FINANCE DEPARTMENT STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL 1 3 9 HOSPITAL CULTURE STUDY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T SOCIAL WORK DEPARTMENT AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. S T R O N G L Y S T R O N G L Y DOESN A G R E E D ISAGREE A P P L Y 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. V A N C O U V E R G E N E R A L H O S P I T A L 141 HOSPITAL C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T X-RAY DEPARTMENT AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. V A N C O U V E R G E N E R A L H O S P I T A L 143 HOSPITAL C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P Q U E S T I O N N A I R E This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T NUTRITION SERVICES A G R E E DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. 144 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 V A N C O U V E R G E N E R A L H O SPITAL 1 4 5 HOSPITAL C U L T U R E STUDY F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T PHARMACY DEPARTMENT AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. 146 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 s VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL 147 HOSPITAL CULTURE STUDY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING A G R E E DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN A G R E E DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. V A N C O U V E R G E N E R A L H O S P I T A L 149 HOSPITAL C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P Q U E S T I O N N A I R E This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at VGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 9 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T NURSING UNIT WEST 6A AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have a lot of department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newsletter. 4. Our department has a clear cut hierarchy. 5. One way we communicate with each other informally is with skit nights. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, engagement, marriage, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold an open house or theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given every year. 9. There is frequently an air of dissension by staff in our department. 10. People in our department are often seen wearing professional, or union or other pins or badges on their uniforms. 11. Job titles are important to most people in our depart-ment. 12. Our team leader takes us out to lunch occasionally as a form of recognition. 13. We enjoy having special social events together, such as a Christmas party or dinner, etc. 14. Most people in our department like to know about what is going on in the rest of the hospital. 15. Our department usually has a team of some sort in ac-tion, either volleyball, baseball, or other. 16. The main purpose of meetings in our department is to maintain a sense of being a group because our work keeps us spread out. 17. People sometimes bring a plate of goodies for us to share, for no particular reason. 18. We have certain stories in our department which we like to tell. 19. Most people in our department wear their own name pin in addition to the one provided by VGH. 20. We often play pranks and jokes on one another. 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the VGH orientation. 22. Periodic skit nights let us share an evening of fun together. 23. The shift work we do interferes with our sense of belonging with the rest of the group. 24. We all have a common sense of purpose for being here. 25. We all share the "VGH" feeling. 26. We all share a sense of frustration about sharing work spaces and/or equipment. 27. We all share the same attitude about workload statis-tics. 28. We all share a concern for our own and our workmates safety at work. 29. We often feel powerless to deal with situations, due to the presence of external influences beyond our con-trol. 30. We all agree that it is important to attend seminars and continuing education sessions whenever possible. 1 5 0 STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 5 1 LIONS GATE HOSPITAL HOSPITAL CULTURE STUDY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the S T R O N G L Y S T R O N G L Y D O E S N ' T LABORATORY A G R E E D I S A G R E E A P P L Y 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. PART 4 (con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records,in addition to the hospital record. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 STRONGLY DOESN DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 153 LIONS G A T E H O SPITAL HOSPITAL C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. Please relate these responses to 4 EAST PART 4 (con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records,in addition to the hospital record. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 STRONGLY DOESN DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 1 5 5 LIONS G A T E H O SPITAL HOSPIT AL C U L T U R E S T U D Y F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. Please relate these responses to X-RAY PART 4 (con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records,in addition to the hospital record. 1 5 6 STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 LIONS GATE HOSPITAL HOSPITAL CULTURE STUDY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE 1 5 7 This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to NUTRITION SERVICES 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 PART4(con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records.in addition to the hospital record. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 5 158 STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 0 LIONS G A T E HOSPITAL H O S P I T A L C U L T U R E STUDY F O L L O W - U P QUESTIONNAIRE 1 5 9 This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to SOCIAL WORK 1. We have regular department meetings. 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 PART4(con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records,in addition to the hospital record. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 5 1 6 0 STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 161 LIONS G A T E H O S P I T A L HOSPITAL C U L T U R E STUDY F O L L O W - U P Q U E S T I O N N A I R E This questionnaire contains a number of statements about activities, sayings, feelings, and things employees in various departments at LGH share among themselves. As an external observer to each of these departments, your perceptions are important to my study. Please check the response ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Dis-agree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements for each of the 6 departments. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be sure to provide a response to each statement. Please relate these responses to the STORES DEPARTMENT 1. We have regular department meetings. STRONGLY AGREE 7 6 STRONGLY DOESN'T DISAGREE APPLY 3 2 1 0 2. We often use our own jargon when speaking with each other. 3. Our department puts out its own informational newslet-ter. 4. In our department we are aware of stratification boun-daries within the hospital. 5. We accord recognition to individuals for academic or clinical achievement. 6. We usually consider events like promotion, retire-ment, marriage, birthdays, etc., a reason for some sort of celebration. 7. We usually hold a theme "week" once a year or so. 8. Individual performance appraisals are given at least once a year. 9. In our department we share certain attitudes about other departments. 10. People in our department think it is important to wear a uniform. 11. People in our department think it is important not to wear a uniform. 12. In our department we occasionally have a spon-taneous "pub night". 13. We enjoy having a special social event at Christmas, such as a party or dinner. 14. We always do something during "secretaries week" to recognize our secretarial staff. 15. Our department usually has a baseball team. 16. When our department opens a new area, we usually arrange a ceremony of some sort. 17. Sometimes we have spontaneous pot luck dinners. 18. We often share our personal experiences with each other. 19. In our department, there is an expectation that we will become involved in community service. 20. We share a certain bunch of "in jokes", pranks and gags with one another. PART4(con't.) 21. The department has a thorough orientation for new employees, in addition to the LGH orientation. 22. We like to help each other outside of work on various things. 23. There is an expectation that we will participate in con-tinuing education. 24. We all share a sense of the primary importance of patient care. 25. We usually nod or exchange a greeting when we pass one another in corridors. 26. We take sharing work spaces and/or equipment for granted. 27. We are expected to record workload statistics. 28. We always sit together in the cafeteria, during break time. 29. We always use the same cafeteria. 30. We have a sort of ritual of criticizing our supervisor and/or each other. 31. We occasionally have departmental fundraisers. 32. Our department participates in The Garage Sale. 33. Our department participates in the annual golf tourna-ment. 34. We have a high rate of participation on hospital com-mittees. 35. We all share membership in the same union. 36. We are usually happy to share expertise with each other. 37. We share a willingness to provide assistance for each other with work tasks. 38. We generally share respect for our supervisor. 39. Our department all share the same feeling about "sharing the air". 40. We all share a togetherness sense of being an LGH employee. 41. Within our group, we share the same feelings about other institutions and agencies. 42. We give a card, from the group, when people are ill, have birthdays, etc. 43. Our department has a mission statement, philosophy, and goals and objectives. 44. Our department maintains its own medical records,in addition to the hospital record. STRONGLY STRONGLY DOESN'T AGREE DISAGREE APPLY 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097664/manifest

Comment

Related Items