Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The OCAI
Reliability Study 1
Reliability Study 2
Yeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich (1991) also provided evidence of reliability in their
study of 10,300 executives in 1064 businesses. These businesses included many of
the corporations on the list of Fortune 500 companies. The key respondents were
human resource executives and various associates that these executives selected to
complete the assessment instrument.
The number of respondents averaged nine per business. The OCAI was used to
gather data on the culture of each of these organizations. The various question
alternatives were grouped together into the appropriate culture types, and reliability
coefficients were computed. The results showed that the clan culture reliability
was .79, the adhocracy culture reliability was .80, the hierarchy culture
reliability was .76, and the market culture reliability was .77. In each case,
reliability coefficients exceeded satisfactory levels. Parenthetically, Yeung et al. found
that the largest percentage of firms was dominated by the hierarchy culture (44
percent), clan and adhocracy cultures were next (15 and 14 percent, respectively),
and, surprisingly, no firms were dominated by the market quadrant. All had moderate
emphasis on the market culture type. Six percent of the firms had all the cultures
equally dominant, and 22 percent had no culture emerge as dominant.
Reliability Study 3
Validity : OCAI
The multi trait-multi method analysis was produced by using two different
instruments to assess organizational culture. One instrument was the OCAI
being explained here. The other instrument assessed the same cultural
dimensions using a different response scale, namely, a Likert-type scale
where each alternative scenario was rated from 1 to 5.
The scales of the four culture quadrants represented the four traits and the
two different instruments represented the two methods. The goal of the
analysis was to determine if the variance explained between the four traits
(the four cultures) exceeded the variance accounted for by the method used
(the two different instruments).
To produce evidence of validity, correlation coefficients in the same culture
quadrant should be significantly different from zero and of moderate
magnitude (Campbell & Fisk, 1959). Convergent validity was supported, as
it turned out, when the multi trait multi method correlation matrix was
examined. As required, all diagonal correlation coefficients were statistically
different from zero (p < .001), and they ranged between .212 and .515, a
moderate level of correlation.
Validity : OCAI
Discriminant validity was tested in three ways. In the first test, scales in the
same culture quadrant were tested to see if they correlated higher with each
other than they did with scales of different culture quadrants measured by
separate instruments (Campbell & Fisk, 1959).
Twenty-three out of the twenty-four comparisons were consistent with
expectations, providing solid support for discriminant validity. In the second
test, scales in the same culture were expected to correlate higher with each
other than with scales in a different culture quadrant measured by the same
method (Campbell & Fisk, 1959). In sixteen of the twenty-four scales this
was the case, providing moderate support for discriminant validity. In the
third test, the same pattern of interrelationships was expected to exist within
and between each of the independent methods (Campbell & Fisk, 1959).
Kendall's co- efficient of concordance was computed, which produced a
coefficient of .764 (p < .001), indicating strong support for discriminant
validity. In other words, these three tests using the multi trait-multi method
procedure provided support for both convergent and discriminant validity of
the model and the instrument.
Validity : OCAI
10
11
Item-Dimension Correlations
An examination of the correlations with each item and the other items in its theorized
dimension (within-dimension correlations) compared to the correlations between each
item and the other three dimensions (outside-dimension correlations) reveals that
every competency dimension has strong reliabilities (well above .50, a very strong
reliability using ipsative measures). Two items on the survey-no. 31 and no. 60appear to be rather weak measures of their theorized dimensions, and eliminating
them from the MSAI would strengthen the psychometric power of the questionnaire.
On the other hand, they are items that assess important aspects of a manager's
behavior, and, although not strongly correlated with other items on the survey, they
are important aspects of a successful manager's behavior.
In sum, these analyses provide strong support for the MSAI as an instrument that can
assist the culture change process. It maps very well the relationships among
quadrants and competency dimensions theorized by the Competing Values
Framework. The critical management skills being assessed by the instrument
possess the same theorized relationships to one another as do the culture quadrants.
It may be used with some confidence, then, in assisting managers to develop
competencies that will foster culture change in desired directions.
12