Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings

Stacey R. Kessler

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

A definitional component of organizational climate is the focus on employees' shared perceptions of the focal climate domain. To operationalize the notion of sharedness, researchers typically aggregate employees' domain-specific climate perceptions to a higher level and justify this aggregation using quantitative indices of agreement. In the current paper, I argue that although accounting for sharedness among employees can provide some valuable insight, our overreliance on sharedness obscures some of the very organizational phenomena of interest. I discuss this issue by focusing on four costs of making unfounded assumptions regarding sharedness: (a) Aggregation assumes individual differences are a function of random error; (b) aggregation assumes that social situations are uniform across employees; (c) aggregation assumes that the unit of analysis is clear-cut; and (d) aggregation assumes the group mean is meaningful. I argue that researchers carefully need to weigh the costs of violating these assumptions against the expected benefits of aggregating employees' climate perceptions, recognizing that sometimes employees' perceptions (i.e., psychological climate) might provide greater insight into phenomena of interest. Although I discuss these costs within the context of organizational climate research, these arguments apply to other research areas where individual perceptions are aggregated (e.g., research on leadership and teams).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1046-1054
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Organizational Behavior
Volume40
Issue number9-10
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Climate
aggregation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
rating
employee
climate
costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research
Research Personnel
Individuality
social situation
Psychology
Rating
Employees
Costs
Organizational climate
leadership
Group

Keywords

  • aggregation
  • organizational climate
  • perception

Cite this

@article{30ef93ecc09c48969265a135d67b11e6,
title = "Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings",
abstract = "A definitional component of organizational climate is the focus on employees' shared perceptions of the focal climate domain. To operationalize the notion of sharedness, researchers typically aggregate employees' domain-specific climate perceptions to a higher level and justify this aggregation using quantitative indices of agreement. In the current paper, I argue that although accounting for sharedness among employees can provide some valuable insight, our overreliance on sharedness obscures some of the very organizational phenomena of interest. I discuss this issue by focusing on four costs of making unfounded assumptions regarding sharedness: (a) Aggregation assumes individual differences are a function of random error; (b) aggregation assumes that social situations are uniform across employees; (c) aggregation assumes that the unit of analysis is clear-cut; and (d) aggregation assumes the group mean is meaningful. I argue that researchers carefully need to weigh the costs of violating these assumptions against the expected benefits of aggregating employees' climate perceptions, recognizing that sometimes employees' perceptions (i.e., psychological climate) might provide greater insight into phenomena of interest. Although I discuss these costs within the context of organizational climate research, these arguments apply to other research areas where individual perceptions are aggregated (e.g., research on leadership and teams).",
keywords = "aggregation, organizational climate, perception",
author = "Kessler, {Stacey R.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/job.2415",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "1046--1054",
journal = "Journal of Organizational Behavior",
issn = "0894-3796",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "9-10",

}

Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings. / Kessler, Stacey R.

In: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 9-10, 01.12.2019, p. 1046-1054.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings

AU - Kessler, Stacey R.

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - A definitional component of organizational climate is the focus on employees' shared perceptions of the focal climate domain. To operationalize the notion of sharedness, researchers typically aggregate employees' domain-specific climate perceptions to a higher level and justify this aggregation using quantitative indices of agreement. In the current paper, I argue that although accounting for sharedness among employees can provide some valuable insight, our overreliance on sharedness obscures some of the very organizational phenomena of interest. I discuss this issue by focusing on four costs of making unfounded assumptions regarding sharedness: (a) Aggregation assumes individual differences are a function of random error; (b) aggregation assumes that social situations are uniform across employees; (c) aggregation assumes that the unit of analysis is clear-cut; and (d) aggregation assumes the group mean is meaningful. I argue that researchers carefully need to weigh the costs of violating these assumptions against the expected benefits of aggregating employees' climate perceptions, recognizing that sometimes employees' perceptions (i.e., psychological climate) might provide greater insight into phenomena of interest. Although I discuss these costs within the context of organizational climate research, these arguments apply to other research areas where individual perceptions are aggregated (e.g., research on leadership and teams).

AB - A definitional component of organizational climate is the focus on employees' shared perceptions of the focal climate domain. To operationalize the notion of sharedness, researchers typically aggregate employees' domain-specific climate perceptions to a higher level and justify this aggregation using quantitative indices of agreement. In the current paper, I argue that although accounting for sharedness among employees can provide some valuable insight, our overreliance on sharedness obscures some of the very organizational phenomena of interest. I discuss this issue by focusing on four costs of making unfounded assumptions regarding sharedness: (a) Aggregation assumes individual differences are a function of random error; (b) aggregation assumes that social situations are uniform across employees; (c) aggregation assumes that the unit of analysis is clear-cut; and (d) aggregation assumes the group mean is meaningful. I argue that researchers carefully need to weigh the costs of violating these assumptions against the expected benefits of aggregating employees' climate perceptions, recognizing that sometimes employees' perceptions (i.e., psychological climate) might provide greater insight into phenomena of interest. Although I discuss these costs within the context of organizational climate research, these arguments apply to other research areas where individual perceptions are aggregated (e.g., research on leadership and teams).

KW - aggregation

KW - organizational climate

KW - perception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076215806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/job.2415

DO - 10.1002/job.2415

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85076215806

VL - 40

SP - 1046

EP - 1054

JO - Journal of Organizational Behavior

JF - Journal of Organizational Behavior

SN - 0894-3796

IS - 9-10

ER -