Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

The Psychometric Properties


of the Italian Version of the
Organizational Culture Assessment
Instrument (OCAI)
Giovanni Di Stefano1, Fabrizio Scrima2
1 Dipartimento di Scienze Psicologiche, Pedagogiche e della Formazione,
Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy
2 Département de Psychologie, Université de Rouen, France

ᴥᴥ ABSTRACT. Il Competing Values Framework (CVF) è un modello concettuale ampiamente utilizzato nella
letteratura psicologica e manageriale per la valutazione delle culture organizzative. Lo strumento più noto
derivato dal CVF è l’Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI): esso offre una valutazione delle culture
organizzative secondo quattro dimensioni e la ricerca lo ha mostrato essere valido e attendibile. Tuttavia, solo
pochi studi sono stati condotti con la specifica finalità di validarne le sue due versioni di risposta (ipsativa e Likert);
inoltre, non esiste in letteratura uno studio di adattamento dello strumento in lingua italiana. Nel presente lavoro
sono state utilizzate strategie di analisi esplorative e confermative per valutare la dimensionalità e l’attendibilità della
versione italiana dell’OCAI attraverso due studi. Nel primo studio, è stata applicata un’analisi fattoriale esplorativa
(EFA) su dati provenienti dal questionario in forma Likert, e lo scaling multidimensionale (MDS) sui dati provenienti
dal questionario in forma ipsativa; nel secondo studio, è stata svolta un’analisi fattoriale confermativa (CFA) su un
campione indipendente sul questionario in forma Likert. Sia l’EFA e il MDS, sia la CFA hanno confermato la struttura
fattoriale a quattro dimensioni, fornendo pertanto un sostegno alla validità e all’attendibilità all’OCAI anche in lingua
italiana.

ᴥᴥ SUMMARY. The Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been widely used in organizational research to assess
organizational culture. The best-known instrument derived from CVF model, the Organizational Culture Assessment
Instrument (OCAI), which measures organizational culture according to four dimensions, is generally presented as
valid and reliable. However, only few studies have been conducted for the purpose of validation considering both its
ipsative and Likert version; also, this instrument has never been adapted to the Italian context. We used exploratory
and confirmatory analyses to examine the underlying structure of data from an Italian adaptation of the OCAI. In the
first study, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on data from Likert response scale, and multidimensional
scaling (MDS) on data from ipsative response scale, and, in the second study, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on
data from Likert response scale, obtained from an independent sample. Both MDS and EFA in the first study and CFA
in the second study supported the hypothesized four-factor structure, thus indicating that the OCAI Italian version yields
good validity and reliability estimates to measure the CVF model.

Keywords: Competing Values Framework; Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument; Psychometric properties

51
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

INTRODUCTION 1983; and the Comparative Emphasis Scale: Meglino &


Ravlin, 1986). Nevertheless, in these instruments valuable
Organizational culture (OC) can be defined as the set theoretical backgrounds is generally lacking (Delobbe,
of values, norms, assumptions, and beliefs that exist among Haccoun & Vandenberghe, 2002; Denison, Nieminen &
organizational members, which influence employee attitudes, Kotrba, 2014; Marchand, Haines & Dextras-Gauthier, 2013),
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. According to Schein since they simply accept the very basic premise that values
(2004), at the basis of OC are the embedded organizational are central components of OC. On the contrary, most of
values that eventually influence employee behaviors. So, the measures of OC values that follows a theory-based
although culture can be defined in many different ways, measurement approach are grounded in the CVF, such as the
it can be referred to the certain values that leaders try to FOCUS (Van Muijen et al., 1999), the Quality Improvement
incorporate in their organizations. From this point of view, Implementation Survey (Shortell et al., 2000), and the Denison
the construct of OC is the extent to which members share Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS: Denison & Mishra,
core organizational values (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 1995); but, with the exception of the latter, these instruments
2004; Trice & Beyer, 1993) that conduct to possible outcomes had little research following the initial publication (Delobbe
within organizations. Hence, the values can be considered et al., 2002; Denison et al., 2014; Jung et al., 2009). In the case
as the fundamental component of organizational culture; of DOCS, although this questionnaire is based on CVF and
also, culture influences employees’ behavior ‘[…] because has generated an appreciable amount of research (Denison et
individuals behave in ways that are consistent with their al., 2014), it uses a profile approach, designed to explore the
values, and organizational culture is a set of shared values. nature and extent to which any cultural dimension is present
Therefore, the culture of an organization should create in an organization; in contrast, the CVF properly proposes a
behavioral expectancies that direct the employees to behave typological approach, which goes one step further: depending
in ways that are consistent with its culture’ (Gregory, Harris, on an organization’s dominant characteristics, organizations
Armenakis & Shook, 2009: p. 674). are categorized into predefined types (Ashkanasy, Broadfoot
One of the most elaborate approaches which focalizes on & Falkus, 2000). Last but not least, there have been a limited
distinct culture types based on core values of the organization number of studies validating CVF instruments.
is the Competing Values Framework (CVF: Cameron & The aim of the present study is to test the psychometric
Quinn, 2011; Howard, 1998; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), a properties of the Italian version of the Organizational
comprehensive theoretical model, which serves as a way to Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), probably the best
diagnose and initiate change in the organizational culture known instrument derived from CVF (Cameron & Quinn,
that organizations develop as they progress through their 2011; Heritage, Pollock & Roberts, 2014), administered to two
life cycles and cope with external environmental pressures. samples of employees in Italian organizations, considering
Although it is not the only value theory with competing the results obtained from an ipsative scale and a Likert
values (i.e., Borg, Groenen, Jehn, Bilsky & Schwartz, 2011), response scale.
it is widely applied in studies that address the influence of
OC on workplace phenomena. To operationalize the CVF,
Cameron and Freeman (1991) developed a six-item ipsative THE COMPETING VALUES
measure, the items being related to six dimensions of OC, FRAMEWORK
which are based on how organizations work and the kinds
of values upon which their cultures are founded (dominant The CVF designates four unique value orientations that
characteristics; organizational leadership; management style are the dominant activities that encourage value creation
of employees; organizational glue; strategic emphases; and and represent a simple structure of OC core values (e.g.,
criteria of success). collaborate, create, control, and compete) (Cameron, Quinn,
In organizational research, a number of questionnaires Degraff & Thakor, 2014). The studies have revealed two
were designed to assess OC as shared values (i.e., the orthogonal primary dimensions used in the CVF: Flexibility
Organizational Culture Profile: O’Reilly, Chatman & and Discretion vs. Stability and Control, and Internal focus
Caldwell. 1991; the Organizational Culture Index: Wallach, and Integration (e.g. emphasis on people) vs. External

52 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

focus and Differentiation (e.g. emphasis on organization), cohesion. The Clan culture, since it places high value on
respectively (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Denison & Mishra, employees and the organization’s flexibility, represents a
1995). These two dimensions show a matrix with four collaborative value orientation. Adhocracy culture refers
quadrants, known in the CVF as Hierarchy culture, Market to organizations with an external focus and emphasis on
culture, Adhocracy culture, and Clan culture (see Figure 1), flexibility: they exhibit innovation and change designed to
which designates four distinct culture types based on the core satisfy external stakeholders. This orientation concentrates
values of the organization. These four cultures are proposed on growth, stimulation, individual creativity, and variety.
as archetypes.; in reality, organizations are expected to reflect Finally, Market culture differentiates organizations with
all four cultures to some degree. an external focus and an emphasis on control: they are
Organizations with a Hierarchical culture have an characterized by clarity of tasks and goals. The Market
internal focus and emphasis on control: they adopt centralized culture emphasizes a highly competitive value orientation,
authority over organizational processes; respect formal not only placing great importance on success, but also
hierarchy; and adhere to rules, policies, and procedures. The defining the competitive struggle for personal achievement
Hierarchy culture is based on the values of control, stability, as a positive, rather than negative activity. Employees in these
and predictability. Clan culture characterizes organizations organizations are driven to be assertive and competitive,
with an internal focus and emphasis on flexibility: they taking initiative and valuing material reward.
encourage broad participation by employees, emphasize The best known instrument developed on the basis of the
teamwork, employee involvement, empowerment, and CVF model (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991;

Figure 1 – The Competing Values Framework

Flexibility and Discretion

Clan Adhocracy
International Focus and Integration

External Focus and Differentiation

(Collaborate) (Create)

Hierarchy Market
(Control) (Compete)

Stability and Control

Source: adapted from Quinn and Cameron (2011), p. 39.

53
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

Zammuto & Krakower, 1991) is the OCAI, a questionnaire six-point and five-point Likert version, respectively. Only the
containing statements linked to the four culture types study by Helfrich et al. (2007) was not supportive of the CVF;
with six dimensions each: (1) dominant characteristics; (2) in fact, results from the confirmatory factor analysis they
organizational leadership; (3) management of employees; (4) performed on a 14-item, five-point Likert version, suggested
organization glue; (5) strategic emphases; and (6) criteria of that a two-factor solution provided a more parsimonious fit
success (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & Cameron, 1983). to the data as compared to the original four-factor model.
The early version of the OCAI was first validated by Quinn However, they used a somewhat modified instrument, in
and Spreitzer (1991) by means of multi-trait/multi-method which wording of the items was notably different from
analysis and multi-dimensional scaling. The researchers used original OCAI; so, these scale changes may have significantly
two forms of the instrument, one with ipsative response scale, influenced the results they found.
and one with Likert scale: in the ipsative scale, respondents are The present paper examined the factor structure of the
asked to divide 100 points, among four scenarios, describing Italian version of OCAI in two independent studies, using
each of the four quadrants in the CVF, and according to how both the ipsative and Likert version of this instrument. In the
similar the description is to the respondent’s organization; first study, we performed an explorative analysis on OCAI
the Likert scale comprises 16 items and requires respondents ipsative response scale and on OCAI Likert response scale,
to allocate between one and five points per item, independent utilizing multidimensional scaling and explorative factor
of how they scored other items. Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) analysis, respectively. In the second study, we performed a
found that data from both versions conformed to the CVF confirmatory factor analysis on the OCAI Likert response
model. scale.
The OCAI has been widely used for assessing and
profiling organizational cultures in a variety of organizations
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & Cameron, 1983): for STUDY 1
instance, health care (Kalliath, Bluedorn & Gillespie, 1999);
schools and universities (Zammuto & Krakower, 1991; Kwam The aim of the first study was to explore the factor structure
& Walker, 2004); manufacturing companies (Braunscheidel, of OCAI ipsative response scale (henceforth: OCAI-I) and
Suresh & Boisnier, 2010); and public administrations (Quinn OCAI Likert response scale (henceforth: OCAI-L).
& Spreitzer, 1991). Also, OCAI has been applied in different
countries, including Australia (Lamond, 2003); China (Kwam
& Walker, 2004); Korea (Choi, Seo, Scott & Martin, 2010); Method
Turkey (Oney-Yazici, Giritli, Topcu-Oraz & Acar, 2007); and
the USA (Braunscheidel et al., 2010; Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Participants
Helfrich, Li, Mohr, Meterko & Sales, 2007; Howard, 1998). The first study was carried out with 288 Italian adults
However, despite its frequent use in both theoretical and working in two different organizations (food and services).
applied situations, only few studies have investigated the They were aged 20 to 69 years (M = 46±12.41) and 49.4%
dimensionality and internal consistency of the OCAI. Kalliath were men; 47% worked in the public sector (32% managers,
et al. (1999), in their validation study of an earlier version 35% office employees and 33% factory workers) and 53% in
of OCAI, performed a confirmatory factor analysis on data the private sector (21% managers, 42% office workers, 37%
obtained from 16-item, seven-point Likert-scale version; their factory workers); 97% had a permanent contract and the
findings were consistent with the four-quadrant structure of organizational tenure was 1 to 45 (M = 18.50±11.70).
the model. Lamond (2003), using multidimensional scaling
analysis on data from a 16-item, seven-point Likert-scale, Measures
produced support for a structure of organizational culture For establishing semantic equivalence of the Italian
values consistent with the CVF. Further support for the version of OCAI, the back-translation approach was adopted
hypothesized structure of the OCAI was also more recently (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). After translating the original
found by Choi et al. (2010), on a Korean translation of the questionnaire into Italian by a native Italian-speaking
instrument, and by Heritage et al. (2014), using a 24-item, researcher, the Italian version was back-translated into

54 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

English by an independent English-speaking researcher. This coefficients of multivariate kurtosis were used to test the
last version was then compared with the original, yielding a multivariate normality between variables (Barbaranelli,
high index of agreement (Cohen’s k = .81). 2006). Next, we calculated descriptive statistics for each
The items constitute four dimensions of six items each, item and carried out exploratory factor analysis using
with every group related to one of the four competing models: Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation. Reliability
Clan (e.g., “The organization is a very personal place. It is like was calculated with Cronbach’s alpha.
an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves”), – For ipsative data. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was
Adhocracy (e.g., “The leadership in the organization is conducted to examine the factor structure of OCAI-I.
generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, According to Davison (1985), in fact, compared to factor
innovation, or risk taking”), Market (e.g., “The glue that holds analysis, MDS allows to obviate the limitations of the
the organization together is the emphasis on achievement ipsative data providing a more parsimonious factorial
and goal accomplishment”), and Hierarchy (e.g., “The analysis. The Euclidean distances method was used for
management style in the organization is characterized by aggregating the variables. The matrix was introduced
security of employment, conformity, predictability, and into the routine ALSCAL of SPSS 20.0 to generate a two-
stability in relationships”)1. dimensional graph of relationships between items and
In OCAI-L, each of the 24 items is a statement that therefore offer a view of the interrelations of interpretation.
respondents are asked to apply to their organization. The To evaluate the fit of the model, Kruskal’s Stress index and
extent of their agreement is measured on a five-point Likert RSQ were calculated.
scale, anchored on the bipolar 1 = “very strongly disagree”
and 5 = “very strongly agree”. In OCAI-I, for each of six
dimensions of relevance to CVF (dominant characteristics; Results
organizational leadership; management of employees;
organization glue; strategic emphases; and criteria of success), Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the 24 items
respondents are given four descriptions of organizations of OCAI both for Likert and for ipsative response scale. All
(each corresponding to one of the four competing values) and indices of skewness and kurtosis are within the range -1
asked to distribute 100 points among them, according to how and +1, indicating absence of the violation of the normality
similar the description is to the respondent’s organization. assumption. This result is confirmed by the Mardia’s index
that is below the threshold of 24 x 26 = 624.
Procedure Table 2 shows factors extracted with EFA from OCAI-L.
To qualify for inclusion in our study, participants needed The criterion for the extraction of factors was an eigenvalue
to work full time and be willing to evaluate their perceived greater than one. All 24 items saturated in the hypothesized
values regarding their environmental satisfaction. We factors with factor loadings greater than .35, and no items
sent letters explaining the study and the requirements for with substantial crossloadings on other factors. The four
inclusion to 300 employees working in two organizations. factors extracted accounted for 43.8% of variance in scores.
Questionnaires were completed individually in the workplace Factor 1 (Market) accounted for 12.6% of the variance, factor
and in paper format. The questionnaire was composed of 2 (Adhocracy) accounted for 11.4%, factor 3 (Clan) for 10.9%,
three sections: the first one provided information about the and factor 4 (Hierarchy) accounted for 8.9% of the variance.
aim of the research, instructions for completing the survey, Internal consistency was satisfactory, with all alpha indices
and a consent form; the second section comprised the Italian greater than .70.
version of the OCAI-I and of the OCAI-L; the third section Figure 2 shows the graphical representation of MDS
collected personal data. Finally, participants were asked to performed on the OCAI-I. If the results of the MDS conform
put the questionnaire into a dedicated mailbox. to those expected from the competing values framework
(see Figure 1), the Clan items (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21) should
Statistical Analysis appear together in one quadrant, while the Market items (3,
– For Likert data. After verifying the univariate normality of 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23) should appear together in the quadrant
distributions using skewness and kurtosis indices, Mardia’s diagonally opposite. Similarly, the Adhocracy items (2, 6,

55
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

Table 1 – Study 1: Descriptive statistics for items of OCAI-Likert and OCAI-ipsative response scale

  Likert response scale Ipsative response scale

  Min Max Mean SD Skew. Kurt. Min Max Mean SD

Item_01 1 5 3.25 1.27 –.39 –.82 0 100 33.38 18.25

Item_02 1 5 2.75 1.30 .36 –.95 0 50 18.64 9.55

Item_03 1 5 3.24 1.34 –.20 –1.04 0 80 25.16 13.71

Item_04 1 5 3.97  .97 –1.03 .86 0 90 25.76 16.52

Item_05 1 5 3.73 1.23 –.53 –.84 0 100 29.74 16.68

Item_06 1 5 2.87 1.28 .20 –1.05 0 70 21.52 10.75

Item_07 1 5 4.03 1.06 –.98 .24 0 70 21.00 13.55

Item_08 1 5 4.08  .76 –.76 1.03 0 90 34.63 12.57

Item_09 1 5 3.73 1.02 –.46 –.43 0 100 29.73 14.35

Item_10 1 5 2.47 1.31 .29 –1.03 0 60 18.70 10.21

Item_11 1 5 3.63 1.23 –.61 –.64 0 70 19.88 11.77

Item_12 1 5 4.16  .80 –.83 .32 0 100 33.12 13.99

Item_13 1 5 3.67 1.10 –.32 –.78 0 100 28.59 14.68

Item_14 1 5 3.11 1.30 .04 –1.07 0 50 20.16 8.671

Item_15 1 5 3.88 1.08 –.67 –.37 0 80 23.74 10.57

Item_16 1 5 4.00  .76 –.80 1.00 0 100 28.28 15.32

Item_17 1 5 3.58 1.02 –.31 –.38 0 90 28.15 12.90

Item_18 1 5 3.12 1.12 –.18 –.83 0 48 17.20 8.44

Item_19 1 5 3.27 1.13 –.18 –.55 0 80 19.89 13.57

Item_20 1 5 4.01  .86 –.90 .83 0 90 35.93 16.05

Item_21 1 5 4.02 1.07 –1.02 .41 0 100 37.32 17.18

Item_22 1 5 2.56 1.24 .43 –.76 0 50 14.79 8.69

Item_23 1 5 3.32 1.31 –.38 –.91 0 70 19.43 12.34

Item_24 1 5 4.09  .93 –1.08 1.02 0 93 29.88 15.32

Note. N = 288. Skew. = Skewness; Kurt. = Kurtosis. Index of multivariate Kurtosis = 589 < 624 (Likert response scale).

56 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

Table 2 – Study 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis of OCAI-Likert response scale

  Factor
  1 2 3 4

Item_23 (Market)   .745

Item_19 (Market)   .670

Item_15 (Market)   .582

Item_11 (Market)   .530

Item_07 (Market)   .469

Item_03 (Market)   .444

Item_22 (Adhocracy)   .808

Item_06 (Adhocracy)   .746

Item_14 (Adhocracy)   .641

Item_18 (Adhocracy)   .545

Item_10 (Adhocracy)   .542

Item_02 (Adhocracy)   .493

Item_17 (Clan)   .724

Item_09 (Clan)   .677

Item_13 (Clan)   .675

Item_21 (Clan)   .547

Item_05 (Clan)   .465

Item_01 (Clan)   .446

Item_16 (Hierarchy)  .769

Item_08 (Hierarchy)  .614

Item_20 (Hierarchy)  .523

Item_12 (Hierarchy)  .446

Item_04 (Hierarchy)  .430

Item_24 (Hierarchy)  .365

Alpha   .81   .76   .74  .70

Explained Variance (%) 12.6 11.4 10.9 8.9


Note. N = 288. Extraction Method = Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation. Total Variance explained = 43.8%. Factor
weights less than .35 are omitted

57
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

Figure 2 – Study 1: Multidimensional Scaling for OCAI-ipsative response scale

Dimension 2

Dimension 1

10, 14, 18, and 22) should appear together in the quadrant an emphasis on flexibility and discretion, while the items
adjacent to the Clan and diagonally opposite the quadrant, in the lower-left and the lower-right quadrants share an
which contains the Hierarchy items (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24). emphasis on stability and control. The model seems to show
Figure 2 shows that the items generally conform to the CVF, a good fit, if we take into account the indices of fit: Kruskal’s
where they nearly all appear in the expected quadrants. stress = .10 and RSQ = .95.
Also, the items in the upper-left and the lower-left quadrants It’s noteworthy that the paired correlations calculated on
share an emphasis on external focus, while the items in the same culture with OCAI-I and OCAI-L are significant
the upper-right and the lower-right quadrants share an and positive for all four pairs of cultures: Clan (r = .56,
emphasis on an internal focus; conversely, as expected, the p<.01), Adhocracy (r = .45, p<.01), Market (r = .48, p<.01) and
items in the upper-left and the upper-right quadrants share Hierarchy (r = .58, p<.01), respectively (see Table 3).

58 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

STUDY 2 performed: c2/df, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)


(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), and Root Mean Square Error
The purpose of Study 2 was to test the factor structure of of Approximation (RMSEA) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). As
the scores obtained from the 24-item of OCAI-L utilized in recommended by Carmines and McIver (1981), a ratio of
Study 1, utilizing data from an independent sample, with the c2 to degrees lower than or equal to 2 indicates a good fit.
use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the remaining indices, Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested
thresholds greater than or equal to .90 for the AGFI, and lower
than or equal to .06 for the RMSEA. Statistical analyses were
Method performed using AMOS 20.0.

Participants, measures and procedure


Recruitment and administration procedures were the Results
same as in Study 1. The sample comprised 321 participants
working in different professional sectors (banking, health, We compared three models. The first consisted of a one-
food, industry, commerce); 63% worked in the public sector factor model where all items loaded in the same general latent
(42% managers, 40% office employees and 18% factory factor; the second model was a confirmatory model consisting
workers) and 37% in the private sector (40% managers, 40% of four factors; the third comprised four related factors. As
office workers, 20% factory workers), aged 20 to 70 years (M = shown in the Table 4, the four related factors model is the
48.32±16.12) and 55% were men. For this study, only OCAI-L only one with satisfactory fit indexes (c2/df = 2; AGFI = .95;
was administered with a Likert response scale from 1 (“very RMSEA = .05).
strongly disagree”) to 5 (“very strongly agree”). Figure 3 presents this model, with all the structural
indices significant at p<.001; the figure shows that R2 for the
six items measuring the Clan factor ranged from .39 (item
Statistical Analysis 1) to .71 (item 13), those for items measuring the Adhocracy
factor ranged from .32 (item 2) to .68 (item 18), those for items
CFA with Structural Equations Modelling (SEM) with measuring the Hierarchy ranged from .35 (item 3) to .72 (item
latent variables was used to compare three models: one 19), and those for Market ranged from .34 (item 4) to .68 (item
general latent factor, 4 uncorrelated latent factors and 4 20). Hence, a substantial portion of the variability in each
correlated latent factors. To evaluate the goodness of fit of indicator is accounted for by the latent variable factor, which
the theoretical model to the data, maximum likelihood provides a solid foundation for testing the hypothesized
estimation was used and the following indices of fit were measurement model.

Table 3 – Study 1: Correlation indices between factors in OCAI-Likert and OCAI-ipsative response scale

  r

Clan .560

Adhocracy .449

Market .475

Hierarchy .576

Note. N = 288. All the correlations are significant for p<.01.

59
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

Table 4 - Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis fit indexes (OCAI-Likert response scale)

90% C.I.
Model c2 df c2/df AGFI RMSEA
(Low) (High)

One factor 998 252 3.96 .740 .119 .115 .124

Four uncorrelated factors 944 252 3.74 .750 .117 .112 .121

Four correlated factors 492 246 2.00 .951 .051 .032 .077

Note. AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% C.I. = 90% Confidence
Interval for RMSEA.

Figure 3 – Study 2: Factorial model of OCAI-Likert response scale

Item_01 Item_05 Item_09 Item_13 Item_17 Item_21 Item_02 Item_06 Item_10 Item_14 Item_18 Item_22

.39 .57 .68 .71 .67 .62 .32 .55 .40 .67 .68 .41

.69
Clan Adhocracy

.42
.79 .49

.43

Hierarchy Market
.50

.35 .55 .59 .71 .72 .71 .34 .36 .50 .57 .68 .50

Item_03 Item_07 Item_11 Item_15 Item_19 Item_23 Item_04 Item_08 Item_12 Item_16 Item_20 Item_24

60 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

The correlations among the culture dimensions of OCAI all four cultures coexist in organizations, with some core
are all positive and significant at p<.001 (see Table 5), ranging values more dominant than others, and so the OCAI factors
from .42 (Clan and Market) to .79 (Clan and Hierarchy). measure the extent to which each culture is present. In other
words, the instrument is also measuring the respondents’
perceptions of the overall strength of their organizations’
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS cultures. Consequently, these results are not inconsistent
with the CVF model.
The purpose of this paper was to validate the Italian Findings from the present research provide additional
version of an instrument designated to evaluate the OC support that OCAI is both a valid and reliable measure. As
according to the CVF model by Cameron and Quinn (2011): such, the findings indicate that the CVF is valuable as a way
the OCAI. Findings from EFA and from MDS conducted in of operationalizing OC, also when the CVF is applied in a
the first study on the Likert response scale, and on the ipsative national context other than the USA, such as Italy.
response scale of the instrument, respectively, indicated that In spite of the contributions and implications of this
the OCAI scores have four distinct factors, in coherence paper, its results should not be interpreted without taking
with the CVF model: namely, Clan, Market, Adhocracy, into account some limitations. First, the sample of the first
and Hierarchy culture. This four-factor structure of OCAI study is composed of employees from only two organizations.
was confirmed via CFA in the second study. Multiple fit To overcome organizational bias when measuring
indices provided support that the hypothesized four-factor organizational variables, it would be better to compose
model with correlated factors had a good fit with the data. samples from different organizations. Future research should
Fit indices associated with both the competing one-factor confirm the obtained results with a more varied sample and
and four-factor models suggested poor fit, thus providing therefore less representative of the organizational uniqueness.
additional support for the correlated four-factor model. The Second, there is an inherent limitation in the use of survey
OCAI culture dimensions of Clan, Market, Adhocracy, and methodologies in assessing OC, that is their inability to
Hierarchy were found to have scores that were internally penetrate deeper cultural elements such as symbolic meaning
consistent, and the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha estimates and basic assumptions (Schein, 2004), and their use of
appears adequate for general research purposes (Nunnally & predefined and standardized questions which may fail to
Bernstein, 1994). capture what is unique about the organization. Finally, it
The emergence of four-correlated factors is consistent may be that evaluations of OC are influenced by gender,
with previous research (e.g., Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Choi age, nationality, education, and hierarchical level (Hofstede,
et al., 2010; Heritage et al., 2014). These results might be Neuijen, Ohayv & Sanders, 1990); length of service could also
considered counterintuitive, given that OCAI is a measure influence perceptions of OC as a result of the socialization
of competing values. Quinn (1988), however, argued that process and the internalization of OC values (O’Reilly et al.,

Table 5 – Study 2: Correlation indices between factors in OCAI-Likert response scale

    1 2 3

1 Clan 1

2 Adhocracy  .69 1

3 Hierarchy  .79  .43 1

4 Market  .42  .49  .50

Note. N = 321. All the correlations are significant for p<.001.

61
276 • BPA G. Di Stefano, F. Scrima

1991). Future research should examine these differences, as inquiry to determine differences and similarities between
well as how a response varies within organizations over time. organizational members’ current and desired perceptions of
Despite these limitations, OCAI could be very useful organizational culture can also be conducted. As Cameron
for researchers interested in examining organizational and Quinn (2011) suggested, identifying congruence between
culture in a variety of organizations. For instance, the OCAI main OC and employee’s organizational cultures should be
provides a tool that organizations may use for organizational considered as an earlier step before planning activities for
diagnosis (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Furthermore, a research organizational development.

Note. The rights for all commercial uses of OCAI are reserved by Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn and Jossey Bass Publisher,
but it may be used free of charge for research purposes. For the original items, see Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing
and changing organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework  (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 52-54.
For the Italian version of OCAI, ask the authors of this paper sending e-mail: giovanni.distefano@unipa.it ; fabrizio.scrima@univ-rouen.fr

References

ASHKANASY, N.M., BROADFOOT, L.E. & FALKUS, S. (2000). CARMINES, E.G. & McIVER , J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with
Questionnaire measures of organizational culture. In N.M. unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G.W.
Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom & M.F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook Bohrnstedt & E.F. Borgatta (Eds.),  Social measurement: current
of organizational culture and climate (pp. 131-146). Thousand issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Oaks, CA: Sage. CHOI, Y., SEO, M., SCOTT, D. & MARTIN, J.J. (2010). Validation
BARBARANELLI, C. (2006). Analisi dei dati con SPSS. Vol. 2: Le of the organizational culture assessment instrument: An
analisi multivariate. Milano [Data analysis with SPSS. Vol. 2: application of the Korean version. Journal of Sport Management,
Multivariate analyses]: LED Edizioni Universitarie. 24(2), 169-189.
BORG, I., GROENEN, P.J.F., JEHN, K.A., BILSKY, W. & SCHWARTZ, DAVISON, M.L. (1985). Multidimensional scaling versus component
S.H. (2011). Embedding the organizational culture profile into factor analysis of test intercorrelations. Psychological Bulletin, 97,
Schwartz’s theory of universals in values. Journal of Personnel 94-105.
Psychology, 10(1), 1-12. DELOBBE, N., HACCOUN, R.R. & VANDENBERGHE, C. (2002).
BRAUNSCHEIDEL, M.J., SURESH, N.C. & BOISNIER, A.D. (2010). Measuring core dimensions of organizational culture: A review
Investigating the impact of organizational culture on supply of research and development of a new instrument. Unpublished
chain integration. Human Resource Management, 49(5), 883-911. manuscript, Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
BROWNE, M.W. & CUDECK, R. (1993). Alternative ways of DENISON, D.R. & MISHRA, A.K. (1995). Toward a theory
assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing of organizational culture and effectiveness.  Organization
structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park: Sage. science, 6(2), 204-223.
CAMERON, K.S. & FREEMAN, S.J. (1991).  Cultural congruence, DENISON, D., NIEMINEN, L. & KOTRBA, L. (2014). Diagnosing
strength, and type: Relationships to effectiveness. Research in organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of
Organizational Change and Development, 5, 23-58. culture effectiveness surveys. European Journal of Work and
CAMERON, K.S. & QUINN, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 145-161.
organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values GREGORY, B.T., HARRIS, S.G., ARMENAKIS, A.A. & SHOOK,
Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. C.L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study
CAMERON, K.S., QUINN, R.E., DEGRAFF, J. & THAKOR, A.V. (2014). of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of
Competing values leadership (2nd ed.). London: Edward Elgar. Business Research, 62, 673-679.

62 Experiences & Tools


The Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

HELFRICH, C.D., LI, Y.F., MOHR, D.C., METERKO, M. & SALES, A.E. and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to
(2007). Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management
the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
factor analyses. Implementation Science, 2(13), 1-14. ONEY-YAZICI, E., GIRITLI, H., TOPCU-ORAZ, G. & ACAR, E.
HERITAGE, B., POLLOCK, C. & ROBERTS, L. (2014). Validation (2007). Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction
of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. PloS one, industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
9(3), e92879. Management, 14(6), 519-531.
HOFSTEDE, G., NEUIJEN, B., OHAYV, D.D. & SANDERS, G. QUINN, R.E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the
(1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San
quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quarterly, 35(2), 286-316. QUINN, R.E. & CAMERON, K.S. (1983). Organizational life cycles
HOWARD, L. (1998). Validating the competing values model as and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence.
a representation of organizational cultures. The International Management Science, 29, 33-51.
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 231-250. QUINN, R.E. & ROHRBAUGH, J. (1983). A spatial model of
HU, L. & BENTLER, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55. QUINN, R.E. & SPREITZER, G.M. (1991). The psychometrics of
JÖRESKOG, K.G. & SÖRBOM, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the
guide. Scientific Software International. impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in
JUNG, T., SCOTT, T., DAVIES, H.T.O., BOWER, P., WHALLEY, Organizational Change and Development, 5, 115-142.
D., McNALLY, R. & MANNION, R. (2009). Instruments for SCHAFFER, B.S. & RIORDAN, C.M. (2003). A review of cross-
exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public cultural mythologies for organizational research: A best-practices
Administration Review, 69(6), 1087–1096. approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 169-215.
KALLIATH, T.J., BLUEDORN, A.C. & GILLESPIE, D.F. (1999). A SCHEIN, E.H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd
confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 143-158. SHORTELL, S.M., JONES, R.H., RADEMAKER, A.W., GILLIES,
KWAM, P. & WALKER, A. (2004). Validating the competing values R.R., DRANOVE, D.S., HUGHES, E.F.X. & HUANG, C.-F.
model as a representation of organizational culture through inter- (2000). Assessing the impact of total quality management and
institutional comparisons. Organizational Analysis, 12(1), 21-37. organizational culture on multiple outcomes of care for coronary
LAMOND, D. (2003). The value of Quinn’s competing values model artery bypass graft surgery patients. Medical Care, 38(2), 207-217.
in an Australian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), TRICE, H.M. & BEYER, J.M. (1993). The cultures of work
46-53. organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MARCHAND, A., HAINES, V.Y. & DEXTRAS-GAUTHIER, J. (2013). VAN MUIJEN, J.J., KOOPMAN, P., DE WITTE, K., DE COCK, G.,
Quantitative analysis of organizational culture in occupational SUSANJ, Z., LEMOINE BOURANTES, F.D. & TURNIPSEED,
health research: A theory-based validation in 30 workplaces of D. (1999). Organizational culture: The Focus questionnaire.
the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4),
13(1), 443. 551-568.
MEGLINO, B.M. & RAVLIN, E.C. (1986). Comparative emphasis WALLACH, E. (1983). Individuals and organization: The cultural
scale. University of South Carolina: Riegel and Emory Center. match. Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.
NUNNALLY, J.C., & BERNSTEIN, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory ZAMMUTO, R.F. & KRAKOWER, J.Y. (1991). Quantitative
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in
O’REILLY, C.A., CHATMAN, J. & CALDWELL, D.F. (1991). People Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.

63
Copyright of BPA - Applied Psychology Bulletin (Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata) is the
property of Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Potrebbero piacerti anche