122

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2019), 92, 122–143

© 2018 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Climate and organizational performance in

long-term care facilities: The role of affective
commitment
Haley M. Woznyj1* , Eric D. Heggestad2, Susan Kennerly3 and
Tracey L. Yap4
1
Longwood University, Farmville, Virginia, USA
2
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
3
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
4
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

Organizational climate represents the shared perceptions that employees have about their
experiences at work. A persistent goal of the literature has been to relate organizational
climate to organizational outcomes. Yet, potential mediating mechanisms of those
relationships remain underexplored. This study addresses this shortcoming by exploring
the mediating role of affective organizational commitment in the relationship between a
climate for nursing and organizational performance. Our data included responses from a
sample of 268 nurses working in 28 long-term care facilities and multiple years of
government ratings of the quality of care provided by each of those facilities. Using multilevel
structural equation modelling, we found that the nurses’ affective commitment mediated the
relationship between nursing climate and quality care provided both concurrently (in the
same year as the data were collected) and predictively (one year later). We also found that
the mediational process predicts unique variance in the lagged assessment of quality of care
provided that is not accounted for by the previous year’s performance. This suggests the
influence of climate on affective commitment and, consequently, organizational perfor-
mance may take time to become apparent. Implications for the roles of climate and affective
commitment on organizational performance are discussed.

Practitioner points
 Our results suggest that creating a beneficial nursing climate may help organizations foster positive job
attitudes, such as organizational commitment.
 Creating a positive climate, like a nursing climate, and fostering job attitudes among employees, such as
organizational commitment, are associated with organizational performance benefits.
 The implications of a climate may not be fully realized immediately; organizational leaders driving
initiatives to create a positive climate should expect it will take some time to realize benefits on
organizational performance indicators.

Organizational climate has been of interest to researchers and practitioners alike for
decades (Schneider, 2011; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). From a theoretical

*Correspondence should be addressed to Haley M. Woznyj, Longwood University, 201 High Street, Farmvilla, VA 23909, USA
(email: woznyjhj@longwood.edu).

DOI:10.1111/joop.12235
 Organizational climate and performance 123

perspective, organizational climate represents employees’ holistic conceptualizations of

an organization; it captures the sense-making process and shared meaning that employees
create about their organizational environment (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). It signifies
the shared meaning that employees assign to aspects of the organization, like policies,
practices, procedures, and behaviours that get rewarded and are expected (Schneider &
Barbera, 2014; Schneider et al., 2013). One goal of organizational climate is to coordinate
employee thought and action. Consequently, the climate of an organization can be a
powerful predictor of employee attitudes and behaviours, as well as firm-level outcomes
(Denison & Mishra, 1995; Sackmann, 2011).
All organizations strive to perform at high levels to ensure the survival of the firm, and,
of course, organizations are evaluated on their performance, in terms of stock prices, net
sales, profit, etc. Therefore, organizational performance is the quintessential dependent
variable within the management and applied psychology fields (March & Sutton, 1997).
Exploring and identifying the factors that increase organizational performance has been
both a practical and theoretical endeavour (Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, 2009). As
such, it is not surprising that the literature on organizational climate has focused on
understanding the role that climate can play in influencing organizational performance
(e.g., Byles, Aupperle, & Arogyaswamy, 1991; see Sackmann, 2011 for a review of the
relevant literature).
While previous research has shown a link between climate and various indicators of
organizational performance (e.g., Byles et al., 1991; Denison & Mishra, 1995), the
mechanisms explaining this relationship remain underexplored. The lack of research to
identify such mechanisms is problematic because, theoretically, climate must exert
influences on employee, group, and/or organization processes for its effects to manifest.
However, only a handful of studies have explored the relationships between key
mediating processes that act between climate and organizational performance. For
example, Christian, Bradley, Wallace, and Burke (2009) looked at the mediating role of
safety motivation, compliance, and participation in the relationship between safety
climate and safety outcomes.
This study seeks to address this shortcoming and extend the organizational climate
literature by identifying one such mechanism, particularly in a health care context.
Scholars have argued that climates are domain-specific; that is, organizations have
climates for something (e.g., service, safety, inclusion) that is often dictated by the
strategic focus of the organization (Schneider & Barbera, 2014). Following this trend,
we consider a climate for nursing, which captures shared meaning regarding the
appropriate goals and behaviours for nurses in health care settings (Yap, Kennerly, &
Flint, 2014). In particular, we argue that a nursing climate can foster positive job
attitudes, particularly organizational commitment, among nurses working in long-term
care facilities. Reinforced by a strong climate, committed nurses can be expected to
help the organization achieve higher levels of results – at least to the extent that quality
work on the part of the workers can lead to organizational outcomes (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997). In this study, organizational performance is operational-
ized using government ratings of the quality of the long-term care facilities. We also
advance the literature by considering the potential for a delayed effect over time of
nursing climate on organizational performance. Many studies have taken a static view,
assessing climate and performance at similar points in time (Patterson, Warr, & West,
2004). Yet, it is possible that the influence of a strong climate may take time to
manifest. We address this gap by investigating the lagged effects on organizational
124 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

performance, evaluating how climate relates to organizational performance assessed at

later points in time.

Organizational climate and the relationship with performance

Nursing climate
West, Topakas, and Dawson (2014) introduced a model highlighting the specific elements
of climate that are important in health care settings. The authors argue that climates in
health care settings are comprised of two overarching dimensions. The first, values in
action, refers to the extent to which the values of the organization regarding the quality
and safety of patient care are enacted. In addition to a focus on quality and safety, it
includes variables such as staff engagement and communication. The second dimension,
front-line processes, captures the extent to which upper management policy decisions
(those based on values in action) are implemented and enacted. It includes processes such
as leadership actions, teamwork, and inter-team processes. West et al. (2014) suggest
that, together, the values in action and front-line processes can lead to important
outcomes, such as patient care, productivity, and staff well-being.
Within the health care setting, we chose to focus specifically on a climate for nursing.
A climate for nursing captures the shared meaning regarding the appropriate goals and
behaviours for nurses in a particular health care setting (Yap et al., 2014). Through an
extensive process that involved the use of field observations, interviews, and a review of
the literature, Kennerly and her team (2012) of sociologist, linguist, and nursing experts
identified a set of dimensions that were important to a nursing climate. Specifically,
Kennerly et al. (2012) presented five dimensions (behaviours, expectations, teamwork,
communication, and satisfaction) that are quite similar to the components captured in
West et al.’s (2014) values in action and front-line processes. However, Kennerly et al.’s
(2012) perspective focuses particularly on the values in action and front-line processes
among nursing staff, whereas a more global approach would also consider, for example,
administrative and service staff within a more broadly defined health care setting.
The behaviours dimension of nursing climate represents the extent to which nursing staff
carry out appropriate behaviours. The expectations dimension captures the expectations
that leaders and colleagues hold for each other’s behaviours. Together, these aspects of
climate refer to how staff are managed and the extent to which they are engaged with the
practices and policies of the organization. The communication dimension of the nursing
climate focuses on the effective transfer of information, underscoring the importance of
effective communication. Satisfaction, another dimension of nursing climate, captures the
extent to which there is a positive atmosphere within the organization. The above
dimensions are reflective of an organization’s values regarding the expected behaviours of
nursing staff and their working environment. The final dimension of a nursing climate is
teamwork, which is indicative of front-line processes. It refers to the trust and respect that
team members have for one another and their connection to each other. When taken
together, nursing climate provides shared meaning regarding the appropriate goals and
behaviours for nurses and influences the way that nursing staff interacts with various
stakeholders (e.g., co-workers, patients; Yap et al., 2014).

Relationship between nursing climate and organizational performance

The main assumption underlying the anticipated relationship with meaningful perfor-
mance outcomes is that the shared meaning a climate creates helps to coordinate
 Organizational climate and performance 125

employees, align employee goals, and increase effort (Byles et al., 1991). As such, there
has been a strong emphasis in the climate literature exploring the relationship between
organizational climate is related to key organizational outcomes. The relationship
between climate and organizational performance has received considerable attention in
health care settings, in particular, in part because of the high-risk nature of health care
settings (West et al., 2014).
Instead of using financial performance as an indicator of organizational effectiveness,
these studies have mostly focused on the quality of care that patients receive, which has
serious implications for the long-term health and wellness of those individuals (Seddon,
Marshall, Campbell, & Roland, 2001). For example, West, Guthrie, Dawson, Borrill and
Carter (2006) found that bundles of high-performance work practices, which help create
a climate, that include teamwork and input in decision making can help to reduce patient
mortality in hospital settings. In addition, Shipton, Armstrong, West and Dawson (2008)
examined the effects of a care quality climate, which represents a commitment to
addressing patient concerns, increasing patient well-being, and other patient needs. The
authors found that care quality was positively related to ratings of hospital trust. As a final
example, Aiken et al. (2012) found that nurses working in positive environments with
good organization of care (e.g., nurse staffing, managerial support, promotion of care
quality) were less likely to report poor quality care or poor safety grades in their ward.
Based on theoretical grounding and supporting empirical evidence, we propose:
Hypothesis 1: There will be positive relationship between nursing climate and organizational
performance.

Despite research linking climates to organizational performance outcomes, there

seems to be a ‘black box’ in this line of research similar to the strategic human resource
management literature where the mechanisms linking sets of human resource practices to
organizational outcomes remain a question (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Messersmith, Patel,
Lepak, & Gould-Williams, 2011). It is important to consider the mechanisms of the
climate–organizational performance relationship because climate alone cannot result in
organizational outcomes. Rather, the climate must act on various processes in the
organization, including those related to employees working to produce desired outcomes.
Climate, by creating expectations and standards for behaviours and attitudes, must, in
part, exert influence through the attitudes and behaviours of the employees who, in turn,
help to produce the organizational results.
Consider, for example, a strategic decision on the part of hospital management to develop
a stronger nursing climate in the hopes of increasing patient safety and positive patient
outcomes. For an increase in patient safety and outcomes to manifest, employees have to
experience the climate and adjust their evaluations of their organization and behaviours
towards it accordingly. Thus, understanding the mediating psychological mechanisms of the
climate-organizational performance relationship is an important step in advancing theory on
organizational climate. However, the identification of the psychological mechanisms
through which strong positive climates lead employees to engage in organizationally
relevant behaviours and develop organizationally relevant attitudes that, in turn, produce
organizational performance outcomes are relatively unknown.

Mediating role of affective commitment

It is possible that the attitudes employees hold about their jobs can be one mediating
mechanism that helps to explain the link between climate and organizational outcomes.
126 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

Recent work in strategic human resource management and talent management have
highlighted the role of human capital and employees’ attitudes in organizational
performance (Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Wright & Kehoe, 2009). As such, organizational
leaders are focused on attracting and retaining valuable human capital by developing key
organizational policies and procedures that foster job attitudes among employees
(Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001). We focused particularly on employees’
affective commitment to the organization because it represents a powerful attitude that
employees develop about their organization. Affective commitment to the organization
represents one’s bond with and emotional attachment to the organization (Meyer & Allen,
1997). Employees who feel affectively committed to the organization have an increased
willingness to help pursue organizational goals and an increased desire to remain with the
organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Committed employees have
increased performance (both in-role and extra-role), as well as lower absenteeism and
intentions to leave the organization (and lower actual turnover; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). As a result, organizations are more
likely to retain employees who are committed to the organization.
There is extensive literature on both organizational climate and organizational
commitment, yet the dynamic aspects of how they work together have been underex-
plored. From a theoretical perspective, social information processing theory offers an
explanation for how a positive organizational climate, such as a nursing climate, can
cultivate affective commitment among employees. Social information processing theory
suggests that the social environment in which employees work provides cues and other
information about the appropriate opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours that
employees should display (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Various social influence processes
(e.g., interactions with others) help employees to interpret the meaning of events and, as a
result, enhance or diminish the salience of certain aspects of the social context. The
climate of the organization is a critical component of the social context as it conveys the
procedures, values, and norms of the organization that are shared among the employees
(Schneider & Barbera, 2014). The shared meaning that climate creates helps employees to
interpret events and makes certain aspects of their work environment more salient by
helping employees to prioritize certain policies and practices over others.
The dimensions of the work environment that a nursing climate makes salient can
provide cues to employees that they should develop a commitment to the organization
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). For example, as nurses demonstrate and talk about the respect
they have for one another or effectively communicate patient information (both
dimensions of nursing climate), nurses are more likely to feel they have a supportive work
environment and co-workers, and thus, a sense of belongingness in the organization
emerges. A sense of belongingness induces affective commitment by strengthening
employees’ bonds, identification, and desire to remain with the organization
(Gao-Urhahn, Biemann, & Jaros, 2016; Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006).
In addition, a nursing climate emphasizes certain behaviours such as helping one
another and effectively carrying out their roles and responsibilities (Yap et al., 2014). The
nursing climate creates a social context that sends consistent information suggesting that
such behaviours are valued, rewarded, and expected (Beyer, Hannah, & Milton, 2000).
These seemingly individual employee behaviours have implications for crucial organiza-
tional objectives, such as quality of patient care, patient safety, and other patient
outcomes. Consequently, as nurses are rewarded for engaging in such behaviours
repeatedly, they also become more invested in the overall organization’s success, which is
a large component of affective commitment to the organization. That is, affective
 Organizational climate and performance 127

commitment to the organization develops as employees internalize the goals of the

organization and when the goals of the organization and the employee are in agreement
(Gao-Urhahn et al., 2016; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). As such, the consistent
signals that a nursing climate sends to employees help to increase their affective
commitment.
A nursing climate creates shared meaning and thus signals to employees that they
should develop commitment to the organization, which is suggestive of shared variance in
affective commitment. Nevertheless, it is likely that the strength of each employees’
commitment to the organization may be slightly unique (i.e., suggestive of individual-level
variance in affective commitment). That is, social information processing suggests that
employees’ biases and past experiences colour their perceptions. Some aspects of the
environment, such as a particular dimension of the nursing climate, may be more or less
salient than other dimensions for certain employees (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). In
addition, some dimensions may resonate with certain employees compared to others. As a
result, some employees may become more or less committed to the organization than
their co-workers.
There is also reason to expect that affective commitment should be positively related
to organizational performance. When employees are affectively committed to the
organization, they have a vested interest in helping the organization to reach its goals (e.g.,
Rhoades et al., 2001). Consequently, employees are willing to work harder on behalf of
the organization. In line with this theorizing, previous research has shown that affective
commitment is related to important behaviours that are valuable to the organization,
mainly increased job performance and citizenship behaviours (Meyer et al., 2002). Meta-
analytic estimates in the organizational commitment literature suggest that the relation-
ships between affective commitment to the organization and job performance and
citizenship behaviours are q = .17 and q = .32, respectively (Meyer et al., 2002).
Affectively committed employees fulfil the duties required of them and are also more
willing to complete extra-role tasks, such as helping co-workers or working longer hours.
For example, it may be that a strong nursing climate signals to nursing staff that they are
working in an environment where there are strong expectations for quality care and
communication, and that emphasizes trust and respect among co-workers and a general
positive atmosphere. Such a climate not only facilitates the nursing staff’s ability to
perform their jobs at a high level, it does so while encouraging a healthy working
environment.
Theoretically, behaviours such as increased performance and citizenship behaviours
and reduced absenteeism, when pooled across employees, should contribute to the
overall functioning of the organization (Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). When
employees are present at work, work hard, and help others, it increases the productivity
and efficiency of the organization. Indeed, research has provided empirical support for a
relationship between average (or aggregated) levels of affective commitment among
employees and performance of the organizations in which they work. For example, in a
study on Chinese firms, Gong, Law, Chang, and Xin (2009) found that aggregated affective
commitment of middle managers was positively related to the firm’s overall performance.
Likewise, Ostroff (1992) found that aggregated attitudinal commitment (similar to
affective commitment) among school teachers and principals was related to performance
(e.g., academic achievement, student behaviour, administrative performance). We would
expect similar findings in nursing and health care contexts. Nurses with higher levels of
affective commitment should put in more effort and perform their jobs more effectively.
In addition, affective commitment should lead nurses to stay in their roles, keeping the
128 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

organization from constantly having to spend time and resources recruiting, selecting, and
training replacements. In sum, we argue that a nursing climate creates a positive
environment where nurses feel attached to the organization and more invested in helping
the organization to achieve its goals. In doing so, health care settings in which the average
levels of affective commitment among nurses is higher should see benefits at the
organizational level, such as higher levels of the quality of patient care. In this study,
organizational goals and success are defined in terms of the quality of care provided to
patients. As such, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment to the organization will mediate the relationship between
nursing climate and organizational performance, such that a nursing climate will be
positively related to affective commitment to the organization, which in turn will be
positively related to organizational performance.

Research in the organizational climate literature has almost exclusively used a

concurrent design, wherein the climate and outcomes variables have been measured at
similar time points (Patterson et al., 2004). Yet, it is possible that the effects of climate
on organizational performance take time to manifest. A beneficial climate is likely to lead
to positive outcomes, as we argued above. As leaders and employees come to realize that
the climate is effective, they are likely to maintain the climate by retaining certain
policies and practices that help to create it. Pursuant to social information processing
theory, the climate will continue to convey certain behaviours (e.g., high-quality care),
attitudes (e.g., affective commitment), and opinions that employees are expected to
have (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). As the employees receive more consistent signals from
the organization and other organizational members regarding the attitudes and
behaviours that, in theory, contribute to increased organizational performance, they
become crystallized among the organization’s workforce. Lagged performance improve-
ments may occur as a result. In contrast, detrimental climates or a climate that is not
shared among most employees might lead to stagnated, or even decreasing levels of
organizational performance outcomes over time if the climate turns toxic. To explore
the lagged effects of organizational climate:
Hypothesis 3: Affective commitment to the organization will mediate the relationship between
nursing climate and (a) lagged organizational performance and (b) lagged
organizational performance, controlling for the previous years’ performance.

Our theoretical hypothesized model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Method
Sample and procedure
We surveyed 278 members of nursing staff working in 29 long-term care facilities. One
facility was dropped from our final analyses because outcome data were not available – it
was a new facility and government rated performance metrics were not available. Thus,
our final sample was comprised of 268 nursing staff from 28 facilities (M = 9.57 nurses per
facility, range = 1–36). Approximately 95% of the sample was female. There was
variability in the job category of nursing staff sampled: 51% were certified nurse assistants,
21% were licensed practical nurses, and 28% were registered nurses. Ages were
distributed as follows: 1% were 18–20, 10% were 21–25, 20% were 26–35, 28% were 36–
45, 22% were 46–55, and 19% were over the age of 56. The average number of Medicaid
 Organizational climate and performance 129

Overall
facility
quality
1-year prior

Overall
Nursing
facility
climate
quality

Level 2: Facility
Level 1: Individual

Affective
organizational
commitment

Figure 1. The hypothesized model. Note: The dotted line depicts Hypothesis 2b regarding changes in
organizational performance (i.e., controlling for the previous years’ performance). The relationships
depicted here are theoretical. Cross-level relationships represent relationships between between-group
(shared group) variance in affective organizational commitment and the other variables (see LoPilato &
Vandenberg, 2014 for more details).

and Medicare certified beds across the facilities was 123.34 (SD = 54.61). In addition, the
vast majority of facilities were for-profit (86.2%, as opposed to non-profit) and were
owned by a corporation (86.2%, as opposed to an individual [3.4%] or partnership
[10.3%]).
The climate and organizational commitment measures were administered in two
different manners across the sample. Data were collected in person for local long-term
care facilities (21 sites). The third author attended organizational meetings and asked
nursing staff to take the survey using iPads. For non-local facilities (seven sites), an online
survey was sent to facility administrators, who distributed the link to their nursing staff. At
the individual level, the subsamples did not differ in age, sex, or job category across the
two data collection approaches. Data on facility performance were gathered from
government websites in the Fall of 2014 and Fall of 2015, shortly after yearly performance
data were released.

Measures
Affective commitment
Affective commitment was measured with the six-item scale used in Rhoades et al.
(2001), which combines items from measures presented by Meyer and Allen (1997) and
Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). The response scale ranged from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree. A sample item is ‘I feel strong sense of belonging to my
organization’. Coefficient alpha for these items was .91.

Nursing climate
We used 15 items from the Nursing Culture Assessment Tool (NCAT) to assess the climate
in the long-term care facilities (Kennerly, Heggestad, Myers, & Yap, 2015). Kennerly et al.
(2012) developed the NCAT to assess nursing staff’s views of care standard and the set of
appropriate behaviours; these perceptions and behaviours are believed to produce
130 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

quality care outcomes. Disciplinary differences exist between the nursing and the
organizational sciences in the distinction and understanding of culture versus climate.
Scholars in both fields tend to agree on the technical definitions of culture and climate;
culture represents shared meanings that employees derive from norms, values, and
assumptions that are deeply embedded in the organization, while climate represents
shared meaning that employees assign to more apparent aspects of the organization, like
policies, practices, procedures and behaviours that get rewarded (Kennerly et al., 2012;
Schneider & Barbera, 2014). The literature in the organizational sciences is moving
towards distinguishing climate and culture based on their measurement (Schneider &
Barbera, 2014).
On the one hand, organizational scholars tend to measure culture using a
phenomenological approach in order highlight the meaning and understanding that
employees assign to their experiences as members of a unique organization (Denison &
Mishra, 1995) – although some research has been done in which culture was measured in a
more quantitative manner (Schneider et al., 2013). On the other hand, organizational
scholars tend to measure climate using quantitative measures, as climates are concep-
tualized as the aspects of culture are likely to occur in similar ways across organizations. In
contrast, however, in the health care sciences, the distinction between climate and
culture is not as apparent and not necessarily based on how the constructs are measured.
For example, Scott, Mannion, Davies, and Marshall (2003) reviewed the quantitative
measurement of culture and climate in health care settings and found that quantitative
measures assessed both climate and culture.
Thus, although the measure is called the NCAT, and it is completely appropriate in the
health care sciences to interpret the scores from the tool as culture, we chose to interpret
the scores as climate because we are working from an organizational science disciplinary
perspective. The NCAT captures shared meaning among employees that is likely to occur
similarly across organizations (i.e., is not unique to a particular organization) and is
measured quantitatively and therefore fits the definition of climate from an organizational
science lens. In addition, the dimensions assessed by the NCAT represent a domain-
specific approach which are strikingly similar to West et al. (2014) discussion of climates
in health care settings.
We used five subscales of the NCAT1 : Expectations (three items; e.g., ‘Standards of
care are clearly defined in this facility’), Behaviours (three items; e.g., ‘Nurses effectively
carry out their roles and responsibilities’), Teamwork (four items; e.g., ‘Staff help each
other in daily tasks’), Communication (three items; e.g., ‘Staff use appropriate language
with residents and family’), and Satisfaction (two items; e.g., ‘Staff are satisfied with their
jobs’). Responses to all items were made using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 4 = strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they agreed with
each item.
To operationalize nursing climate at the individual level, we computed the item mean
for each respondent on each of the five subscales. We then calculated the mean value
across the five subscales. Coefficient alpha across the 15 items was .94. To justify the
calculation of overall nursing climate scores at the individual level, we conducted a series
of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) consistent with recommendations by Cred
e and
Harms (2015) for justifying the use of a higher-order factor. The results of these analyses

1
The NCAT also includes a Professional Commitment subscale. Given that the referent for this subscale is the nursing profession
rather than the working context within the facility, we chose not to include scores from this scale in our operationalization of
nursing climate.
 Organizational climate and performance 131

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analyses model fit indices

Model CFI TLI v2 df Difference RMSEA

Orthogonal First Order .64 0.58 1,131.66* 90 .21

Single Factor .82 0.79 616.87* 90 514.79* .15
Higher Order .92 0.91 308.04 85 308.83* .099
Oblique Lower Order .93 0.91 287.31* 80 20.73* .099

Notes. CFI = comparative fit index; Difference = difference in chi-square from the next model;
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.
N = 268.
*p < .05.

are illustrated in Table 1. First, we ran an orthogonal first-order factor model, where the
five dimensions (excluding the professional commitment dimension for reasons
described above) of the NCAT were not correlated; this model did not fit the data well.
Next, we ran a single-factor model, which treats all the climate items as a single climate
factor. This model also did not fit the data well. We then ran a higher-order factor model,
with the five dimensions leading to a higher-order climate factor. The CFA suggests that
the model fits the data well (RMSEA = .099; CFI = .92; TLI = 0.91), and the factor
loadings of the dimensions on the higher-order factor were strong (.78–.91). The final
model we ran was an oblique lower-order model where each of the five dimensions was
modelled to be correlated with each other, with no higher-order factor. This model fits the
data equally as well as the higher-order factor2 . However, the correlations among the
dimensions were quite strong, ranging from .70 to .93, which also suggests the viability of
a higher-order factor. What is more, the results we observed were consistent with prior
research on the NCAT (Kennerly et al., 2012, 2015; Yap et al., 2014). Thus, the use of an
overall nursing climate score calculated on the basis of scores from the five dimensions is
justified.
Because climate represents a shared perception, we aggregated the individual perceived
climate scores up to the facility level (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Empirical analyses justified the aggregation of the nursing climate to the higher
level (mean rwg by facility = .87; range of rwg = 57–1.00; ICC(1) = .13; ICC(2) = .58). Thus,
the aggregated climate scores were used in subsequent analyses.
To explore the discriminant validity of our climate and affective commitment
measures, we examined the results from two confirmatory factor models. In the first, we
added the affective commitment items to the higher-order model of the NCAT described in
the previous paragraph, such that the affective commitment items were indicators of a
sixth first-order factor, which was not an indicator of the higher-order factor. This model
fits the data well (RMSEA = .094; TLI = 0.89; CFI = .90). The second model was a one-
factor model where all of the NCAT and the affective commitment items defined a single,
first-order overall factor. This model did not fit the data well (RMSEA = .15; TLI = 0.70;
CFI = .73). Thus, there is evidence that affective commitment is a distinct construct from
the nursing climate.

2
After examining the modification indices, the less-than-ideal fit indices are due to cross-loading items. This is not as problematic
because we are operationalizing an overall nursing climate score rather than scores on each of the dimensions.
132 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

Facility outcomes
Outcomes for each facility were collected from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services Nursing Home Compare (https://www.medicare.gov/nursinghomecompare/
search.html), a database compiled by the U.S. government based on health inspection
reports and nursing home assessments. As part of their evaluation of nursing and long-
term care facilities, the government provides an overall star rating of each facility (on a
scale of 1–5), which is calculated based on the ratings in three areas: (1) health
inspections, measured with outcomes from state health inspections; (2) quality measures,
such as the percentage of patients with pressure ulcers, which is based on resident-level
data from the Minimum Data Set (a federally mandated assessment process for nursing
homes that accept Medicare and Medicaid); and (3) staffing, based on the facilities’ nursing
staff levels.
The health inspection rating is at the core of the overall star rating and is adjusted up or
down based on the staffing and quality measures ratings. Information on the procedures
for collecting data on each of these domains as well as how they are combined into the
overall star rating can be found in the Technical User’s Guide (https://www.cms.gov/Med
icare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/use
rsguide.pdf). The primary purpose of this program is to provide the public with
information about the quality of nursing homes and long-term care facilities (Hohlbein,
2015). Data from the Nursing Home Compare website has been used in previous research
to operationalize, for example, quality and performance of skilled nursing facilities (e.g.,
Castle & Lin, 2010; Neuman, Wirtalla, & Werner, 2014). Although the website contains a
number of different data points (e.g., the percentage of patients who develop pressure
ulcers or the number of deficiencies at the facility) and metrics (e.g., star ratings of health
inspections and staffing), we chose to use the Overall Star rating as our dependent variable
given our focus on the overall nursing climate at each facility (Schneider, 1975).
We collected the Overall Star ratings from the Nursing Home Compare website in Fall
of 2014. We had a trained research assistant search the Nursing Home Compare website
for the names of the facilities where we collected the data and record the overall star
rating. We then had a second research assistant check the rating recording by the first
research assistant to prevent any data entry errors. We repeated the same process again
one year later (Fall of 2015) so that we could conduct both concurrent models and
predictive tests of our hypotheses.

Results
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations for individual and facility variables, and reliability
coefficients are presented in Table 2. As shown in the Level 2 section of the table,
aggregated climate was positively correlated with 2014 Overall Star rating (r = .48,
p < .05) and 2015 Overall Star rating (r = .58, p < .05), which provides support for
Hypothesis 1. Interestingly, the correlation between the 2014 Overall Star rating and the
2015 Overall Star Rating is .58, indicating that there is some degree of variability in the
Overall Star ratings from year to year.
Because of the nested nature of our data (i.e., employees are nested in long-term care
facilities), we used multilevel structural equation modelling using MPlus version 6
(Muth
en & Muth
en, 2011) to examine the relationships between the climate, affective
commitment, and the Overall Star rating variables. Multilevel modelling is advantageous
when dealing with nested data because it partitions the variance into Level 1 (within-
 Organizational climate and performance 133

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for all study variables

M SD 1 2

Level 1 (individual level) variables

1. Individual climate perceptions 3.02 .56 .94
2. Affective Commitment 5.35 1.38 .71* .91

M SD 1 2 3

Level 2 (facility level) variables

1. Aggregated climate 3.03 0.27
2. Aggregated affective commitment 5.39 0.58 .64*
3. Overall star rating (2014) 3.14 1.43 .48* .32
4. Overall star rating (2015) 2.39 1.55 .58* .38* .58*

Notes. Level 1: N = 268; Level 2: N = 28.

Alpha reliabilities are bolded on the diagonal.
*p < .05.

group or individual level; e.g., affective commitment) and Level 2 (between-group or

facility level; e.g., nursing climate and Overall Star rating) components. It does not violate
the assumption of independence of errors associated with more traditional statistical
techniques (Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, 2011). It is important to note that ‘cross-level
main effect’ relationships are actually the relationship between Level 2 variables (i.e.,
climate and performance) and the between-facility (i.e., shared) portion of the variance in
Level 1 variables (i.e., affective commitment; LoPilato & Vandenberg, 2014; Preacher,
Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). Multilevel structural equation modelling addresses limitations of
standard multilevel modelling, particularly when testing indirect effect models (Preacher
et al., 2011). Specifically, multilevel structural equation modelling partitions Level 1 (e.g.,
affective commitment in the current context) into latent within and between compo-
nents, which allows for a more accurate estimate of the indirect effect (Preacher et al.,
2010).
The intraclass correlation (ICC(1)) for the individual level variable (i.e., commitment)
was .074. This value indicates that approximately 7% of the variance in commitment can
be explained by Level 2 (facility level) factors, such as climate. Although the value of the
ICC(1) is relatively small, it does indicate that there is a noteworthy amount of shared
variance in a construct typically treated as an individual level variable. That is, there are
certain factors about the facility in which the nurses work that can explain 7% of the
variance in their commitment to the organization. It is both theoretically and practically
important to understand the contextual factors, such as climate, that influence shared
variance in organizational commitment. Theoretically, it helps to more holistically
understand organizational commitment as a construct and a job attitude. Practically,
contextual factors (and organizational factors, in particular) are more easily manipulated
or changed through shifts in organizational practices or policies than personal or
dispositional factors, which have typically been studied in conjunction with organiza-
tional commitment. As such, exploring the factors that are related to organizational
commitment provides managers with a guideline when considering tactics to increase
commitment among their workforce.
The results for the outcomes collected in 2014 (T1) are presented in Figure 2. As
shown, nursing climate is positively related to the between-level variance in affective
134 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

Affective Overall
Nursing organizational facility
climate commitment quality (2014)
1.39* (0.24) 1.86* (0.72)
95% CI = [0.92, 1.86] 95% CI = [0.44, 3.27]
Level 2: Facility
Level 1: Individual

Figure 2. Results of proposed model with outcomes at T1 (2014). *p < .05; Standard errors are
presented in parentheses. The indirect effect of nursing climate on facility quality through organizational
commitment is 2.58 (p < .05; 95% CI = [1.06, 4.11]). Note: The relationships depicted here represent the
model that was statistically tested – the relationship between Level 2 variables (climate and the outcome)
and the shared or between-level variance in Level 1 variables (affective commitment; see LoPilato &
Vandenberg, 2014 for more details).

commitment to the organization (b = 1.39; 95% CI = [0.92, 1.86]). That is, the shared
perception of nursing climate within a facility is related to the shared variance among the
nurses in their levels of affective commitment. In addition, the between-level variance in
affective commitment to the organization is positively related to the Overall Star rating
(b = 1.86; 95% CI = [0.44, 3.37]), indicating that shared variance in facility-level affective
commitment is related to the quality of care that patients receive in those facilities. The
indirect effect of nursing climate on the overall star rating through affective commitment
is positive and significant (indirect effect = 2.58; p < .05; 95% CI = [1.06, 4.11]),
supporting Hypothesis 2.
Beyond concurrent validity, we were able to evaluate the possibility of a delayed or
lagged effected of climate on performance (Hypothesis 3a). The results for these analyses
are presented in Figure 3. As shown, the pattern of relationships for the 2015 Overall Star
rating is similar to those for the 2014 Overall Star rating, which provides evidence for the
robustness of the findings of a linkage between affective commitment and organizational
performance. Specifically, the relationship between nursing climate and the between-
level variance in affective commitment is the same as it was in 2014 (b = 1.40; 95%
CI = [0.96, 1.83]). Affective commitment to the organization is significantly and
positively related to the 2015 Overall Star rating (b = 2.42; 95% CI = [1.45, 3.38]). The
indirect effect of nursing climate on the Overall Star rating through affective commitment
is significant and positive as well (indirect effect = 3.37; p < .05; 95% CI = [2.15, 4.60]).
With outcome data for consecutive years, we were able to evaluate the extent to which
climate and affective commitment can explain unique variance in the lagged performance
assessments not accounted for by the previous year’s performance, as proposed in
Hypothesis 3b. As is seen in Figure 4, nursing climate is positively related to affective
commitment at the facility level, which in turn is positively related to the unique variance
in the 2015 Overall Star ratings that was not accounted for by 2014 performance. Similar to
the previous two models, the indirect effect of nursing climate on the unique variance in
2015 Overall Star ratings through affective commitment to the organization is significant
and positive (indirect effect = 2.92; p < .05; 95% CI = [0.85, 3.73]).

Post hoc analyses

In an attempt to explore the sequencing of the variables, we tested a set of post hoc
alternative models, although our data do not allow us to make claims of causality. First,
we examined climate as a mediator of the relationship between commitment and
organizational performance. The relationship between commitment and climate was
 Organizational climate and performance 135

Affective Overall
Nursing
organizational facility
climate
1.40* (0.22) commitment 2.42* (0.49) quality (2015)
95% CI = [0.96, 1.83] 95% CI = [1.45, 3.38]
Level 2: Facility
Level 1: Individual

Figure 3. Results of proposed model with outcomes at T2 (2015). *p < .05; Standard errors are
presented in parentheses. The indirect effect of nursing climate on facility quality through organizational
commitment is 3.37 (p < .05; 95% CI = [2.15, 4.60]). Note: The relationships depicted here represent the
model that was statistically tested – the relationship between Level 2 variables (climate and the outcome)
and the shared or between-level variance in Level 1 variables (affective commitment; see LoPilato &
Vandenberg, 2014 for more details).

Overall star
rating (2014)

0.42* (0.18)
Affective Overall 95% CI = [0.07, 0.76]
Nursing
organizational facility
climate
1.40* (0.22) commitment 1.64* (0.50) quality (2015)
95% CI = [0.96, 1.83] 95% CI = [0.66, 2.62]
Level 2: Facility
Level 1: Individual

Figure 4. Results of proposed model with the outcomes T2, controlling for T1 performance. *p < .05;
Standard errors are presented in parentheses. The indirect effect of nursing climate on facility quality
through organizational commitment is 2.92 (p < .05; 95% CI = [0.85, 3.73]). Note: The relationships
depicted here represent the model that was statistically tested – the relationship between Level 2
variables (climate and the outcome) and the shared or between-level variance in Level 1 variables
(affective commitment; see LoPilato & Vandenberg, 2014 for more details).

non-significantly weaker (there was slight overlap in the confidence intervals) in this
model than in the hypothesized model (b = 0.70; 95% CI = [0.44, 0.95] for the
alternative model v. b = 1.39; 95% CI = [0.92, 1.86] for the hypothesized model). The
relationship between climate and performance was not significantly different than the
relationship between commitment and performance for both years. The relationship
between climate and performance was b = 2.57 (95% CI = [1.20, 3.93]) for 2014 and
b = 3.03 (95% CI = [2.17, 4.54]) in 2015. For reference, the relationship between
commitment and performance was b = 1.86 (95% CI = [.44, 3.37]) in 2014 and
b = 2.42 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.38]) in 2015.
Second, we explored whether climate and commitment were both predictors of
organizational performance (i.e., a direct effect model). For both performance years, the
commitment was a stronger predictor of performance than climate, though not
significantly, as the confidence intervals overlapped. Specifically, the relationship
between performance and commitment in 2014 was b = 3.75 (95% CI = [1.21, 6.26]),
while the relationship between performance and climate was b = 2.29 (95% CI = [1.20,
3.93]). In 2015, the relationship between performance and commitment was b = 3.75
(95% CI = [1.51, 5.99]), while the relationship between performance and climate was
b = 3.36 (95% CI = [2.17, 4.54]) for climate.
In comparing these alternative models to the hypothesized model, we also examined
the extent to which each model fits the data. We found negligible differences in the fit
136 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

indices across the models. For example, for the hypothesized model (using outcomes at
T1), the fit indices were as follows: CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.03, SRMR = 04, and v2 = 50.62.
The fit indices for the model where climate served as the mediator (predicting outcomes at
T1) were as follows: CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.5; v2 = 43.45. Finally, again using
T1 outcomes, the fit indices for the direct effects model were as follows: CFI = 1.00;
TLI = 1.00; SRMR = .02; v2 = 32.25. This pattern of relationships held for the models
predicting performance at T2 as well.
While there are slight differences in the strength of the beta coefficients and model fit
indices, it is reasonable to suggest, as we argued in the introduction, that commitment is
better suited as a mediator in the relationship between climate and performance.
Although the commitment of employees might have a small influence on the shared
meaning that constitutes climate (see the discussion section for more on this), the
stronger theoretical arguments suggest that climate leads to commitment. Climate is
mostly a top-down process; that is, it is the result of leadership, policies, and practices that
the organization implements which, in turn, shapes employee attitudes.

Discussion
In this study, we examined the extent to which affective commitment mediates the
relationship between climate and organizational performance. In a sample of nursing staff
working in long-term care facilities, we found that a climate for nursing was positively
related to nursing staff’s affective commitment to the organization, which in turn, was
positively related to organizational outcomes, as measured by objective government
ratings of long-term care facilities. Thus, our results suggest that affective commitment
serves as at least one of the ‘black box’ mechanisms though which climate influences
organizational outcomes.
Specifically, our results suggest that shared perceptions among nursing staff regarding
values and beliefs of the organization regarding appropriate behaviour and expectations
for nursing staff engenders emotional attachment to the organization. In turn, the feelings
that these employees have towards their organization are related to the quality of care that
patients receive. We found these results when the outcomes were measured concurrently
and the same pattern of relationships held in a predictive context as well. In other words,
perceptions of climate and affective commitment to the organization positively, and more
strongly, predicted quality of care one year later. Similarly, we also found that climate and
affective commitment predicted performance even after controlling for the previous
year’s performance. These latter two sets of results suggest that the effects of climate and
affective commitment on organizational performance (quality of patient care provided in
this case) may take time to materialize (i.e., that they have a delayed manifestation).

Theoretical implications
The primary contribution of the current study is to the organizational climate literature;
we advance the extant research on organizational climate by identifying a mediating
mechanism that helps to explain the relationship between climate and organizational
performance. Previous studies emphasized the relationship between organizational
climate and performance; however, it was not clear how climate exerted its effects. The
current study suggests that one way climate takes shape is by influencing key employee
attitudes: affective commitment to the organization. That is, facilities with a climate where
 Organizational climate and performance 137

nursing staff understand the goals and behaviours expected of them, and where quality
patient care is a key focus, have nursing staff that are more attached to the organization. In
turn, having a more affectively committed workforce is beneficial in terms of organiza-
tional performance. Even though our study was conducted in a specific context, it is likely
that the model we tested is applicable to other beneficial climates, such as a diversity or
ethical climate.
In addition, our study contributes to the organizational climate literature by examining
the predictive effects of climate on organizational performance. The results suggest that a
positive climate is both beneficial for organizational outcomes concurrently and future
performance as well. It is possible that having a positive climate sets an organization up for
positive performance spirals, whereby climate increases performance, which increases
the organization’s self-efficacy and consequently amplifies organizational performance
further (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Patterson et al., 2004). The effects of climate
may be take time to manifest, meaning that, as employees continue to internalize the
climate, climate fosters organizational commitment, which in turn may reinforce the
climate because it creates another shared mentality among employees and helps to retain
employees (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997). Understanding the process by which climate leads
to future performance improvements is important. Ideally, we would have been able to
measure nursing climate and affective commitment at a second point in time to test these
assertions directly. However, this limitation of our data provides an opportunity for future
research to explore climate longitudinally.
Our study also offers a few secondary contributions to the climate literature. First, in
developing our arguments regarding the relationship between climate and affective
commitment in the introduction, we drew on social information processing theory. We
found general support for the theory in the current context. That is, the climate is
seemingly part of the social context that employees use to help make sense of their work
environment and what is expected of them in terms of attitudes and behaviours. The
social influence processes provide an explanation as to why employees develop
commitment (both individual and shared variance) as a result of climate. Using existing
theory to help explain climate’s relationship with other variables marks an important
contribution to the organizational climate literature, which has tended to be relatively
atheoretical (Schneider, 2011).
Second, our results also advance the literature on affective commitment. That is, the
observed positive relationship between affective commitment to the organization and
organizational performance provides support for the notion that affective commitment
leads to behaviours that, when pooled, influence organizational functioning on the whole.
Nursing staff who are affectively committed to the organization may do a better job at
providing care to their patients and may take additional steps that go beyond their
prescribed duties to help the organization achieve its goals (e.g., helping a fellow nurse to
tend to a difficult care or taking on a co-worker’s patient when overloaded). The
government ratings we used as an indicator of organizational performance capture
behaviours like those described, though at the facility level. They include a measure of
patient care, which encapsulates the tasks that nursing staff must complete on a daily
basis. Variation in such ratings is positively related to the between-level variance in
affective commitment to the organization. Although we were unable to measure job
performance and extra-role behaviours to explicitly examine job performance as a
potential mechanism in the commitment – performance relationship, this limitation
presents an important avenue for future research to explore.
138 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

Finally, we would like to exercise our due diligence by discussing the relatively strong
disciplinary divides that exist in the organizational climate and culture literature. Although
health care scholars and organizational scholars define culture and climate in similar ways,
they differ in their perspectives on how each is best measured and otherwise
conceptualized. It is important to consider such differences, as the conclusions may
vary depending on one’s field. It would be wrong for nurse scholars to assume that our
decision to interpret scores from the NCAT measure as climate undermines the authors’
(Kennerly et al., 2012) decision to refer to the measure as an assessment of culture.
Likewise, it would be wrong for organizational science scholars to assume that scores
from the measure are invalid as a measure of nursing climate simply because the authors,
who developed the measure from a different disciplinary perspective, identified the
measure as an assessment of culture. Given the difficulties that organizational sciences
have had historically differentiating climate and culture (e.g., Schneider, 2011; Schneider,
Gonz
alez-Rom
a, Ostroff, & West, 2017), it is not surprising that there is some inconsistent
use of these terms across disciplines that are largely independent of one another.
However, such disciplinary differences also present an opportunity to communicate
across fields and develop synergies and collaborations in an attempt to come to agreement
on the distinguishing features of climate and culture.

Practical implications
The current study also offers practical implications with theoretical underpinnings. Our
findings are complementary to the literature on Strategic Human Resource Management
(SHRM). Organizational climate fits into the discussion of SHRM because well-designed
and aligned sets of human resource (HR) practices create homogeneity in employees’
perceptions of such practices, which in turn help to create a climate (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004). Though, it is important to note that this may be a reciprocal relationship whereby
an established climate can, in part, dictate the HR practices that get implemented in an
organization. Nonetheless, organizations may achieve higher performance by creating
bundles of HR practices that are designed to specifically reward particular behaviours
(based on the strategic goals of the organization). Creating and implementing such
bundles of HR practices is likely to coordinate employee thought and behaviours and,
consequently create shared meaning among employees, allowing a climate to emerge.
Integrating the SHRM literature with the current investigation would help to shed light on
which particular HR practices would facilitate a particular climate and/or commitment
among employees.
In addition, our findings regarding the delayed effects of climate and affective
commitment on performance suggest that organizational leaders should have some
patience as they seek to drive climate initiatives and realize the benefits of a strong positive
climate. The outcomes that leaders envision as they attempt to create and implement an
organizational climate may take time to manifest. Consequently, such interventions
should be taken with an eye to a longer-term evaluation of their effectiveness.
Related to our previous point, although practices and policies are components of and
help to create organizational climate (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), we were unable to identify
the particular policies and procedures that might contribute to the development and
maintenance of a climate for nursing. In an attempt to increase the practical utility of the
results of the current study, future studies could attempt to understand which particular
practices can create a positive nursing climate. For example, using a case study approach,
Eaton (2000) found differences in HR practices among nursing homes. More specifically,
 Organizational climate and performance 139

she found that low-quality nursing homes tended to impose formal work structures with
more rigid supervision on their employees and did not welcome input from workers.
Higher-quality nursing homes were more likely to share information and work in teams
that are flexible and adaptive. It is likely that the types of HR practices that would help to
create a climate for nursing, as measured by the NCAT, would be similar to those adopted
by higher-quality nursing homes. That is, they promote teamwork and communication, as
two examples.

Limitations
There are limitations to the current study, which we believe present opportunities for
future research to further advance the literature on organizational climate. First, the data
are based on a rather small sample. Although we collected data from over 250 nurses, the
Level 2 (facility) sample size could be considered small by some measures (Scherbaum &
Ferreter, 2009). Thus, our power to detect small effects is likely low. Nonetheless, we
were able to find significant effects at the between-facility level.
Second, both our independent variable and theoretical mediator were collected at the
same point in time. Thus, it is difficult to make claims of causal ordering. While we argue
theoretically that climate leads to affective commitment, it is certainly possible that the
relationship between these two constructs is reciprocal, as we discussed previously.
Longitudinal research examining the possible reciprocal relationships between climate
and commitment and linking those reciprocal relationships to organizational perfor-
mance would be very valuable to developing a richer understanding of the processes by
which climate and affective commitment work together to drive organizational outcomes.
Third, some caution needs to be exercised when considering the meaning of the
climate and organizational commitment variables. Data from both variables came from the
individual nurses responding to questionnaires. The nursing climate questions were
indicative of a referent-shift model, where the items refer to the facility’s perceptions
rather than individual perceptions (Chan, 1998). Such an approach is important in
capturing the shared perceptions among a group of people. Our aggregation statistics (rwg
and ICCs) show that there is agreement in the nurses’ ratings of the nursing climate within
the facilities. Thus, when aggregated together, the value on the climate variable can be
interpreted as an indication of the strength of the nursing climate in that particular facility;
that is, the variable exists at the organizational level.
A referent-shift model was not used for the organizational commitment variable,
however. Instead, nurses were asked about their own levels of commitment. The ICC(1)
suggests that there is a considerable variance in the levels of commitment among the
nurses within a facility. The ICC(1) value also shows that there is a sizeable amount of
shared variance; that is, there are systematic differences in the level of commitment
between the facilities. In the context of our multilevel modelling analyses, it is only the
between-facility variance in organizational commitment that is being modelled. Some care
must be taken when interpreting the organizational commitment variable in our models,
as we are not looking at variable at the individual level, as is typically done in the
commitment literature. Rather, using a multilevel modelling approach, organizational
commitment is best characterized as the portion of a nurse’s commitment that is common
or shared with the other nurses within the same facility. Employees often engage in social
interactions with other employees, which contributes to the shared meanings they assign
to aspects of their work environment (resulting in a strong climate), as well as potentially
shared attitudes (James & James, 1989). As a result, the notion of a group- or
140 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

organizational-level commitment is a valid concept to consider (Ostroff, 1992; Patterson

et al., 2004). From this perspective, then, perhaps the best way to summarize our main
finding is that that the strength of the nursing climate is positively associated with the level
of shared commitment among the nursing staffs, which, in turn, is positively reacted to the
quality of care provided by those nursing staffs.
Finally, due to the nature of the data collection, we were unable to collect information
regarding the response rate of the surveys or the representativeness of the sample against
the population of employees at the facilities. As a result, we are unable to evaluate whether
our within-facility samples were representative of the nursing staffs within those facilities.
However, research on non-response bias suggests that a large majority of non-responders
do not significantly differ from respondents in their attitudes (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007).
That is, decisions not to participate in the study were generally unrelated to the
perceptions they held about the organization. In our study, it could be likely that, for
example, participants could not step away from their patients to take the survey.
Halbesleben and Whitman (2013) and Rogelberg and Stanton (2007) suggest that when
access to the sample or population information is not available (as is the case in the current
study), that future research can address issues of non-response replicating the results in
additional samples.

Conclusion
In this study, we sought to identify a potential mechanism of the climate – organizational
performance relationship. In doing so, we advance the literature on organizational
climate. Within the context of nurses working in long-term care facilities, we found that
level of affective commitment among nursing staff working within these facilities
mediated the relationship between a climate for nursing and government ratings of the
quality of care provided in the facilities. We found these relationships to hold when
examining the outcomes concurrently (i.e., 2014) and predictively (i.e., 2015). We also
found that the mediational process explained unique variance not accounted for by the
previous year’s performance, suggesting that the influences of climate on affective
commitment and, in turn, organizational performance may be realized at a later point in
time. We are optimistic that our efforts to theoretically understand the results of this
inductive study will lay the foundations for theoretically based work in the future.

References
Aiken, L. H., Sermeus, W., Van den Heede, K., Sloane, D. M., Busse, R., McKee, M., . . . Moreno-
Casbas, M. T. (2012). Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: Cross sectional
surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ, 344, e1717.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1717
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where do we go
from here? Journal of Management, 32, 898–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630
6293668
Beyer, J. M., Hannah, D. R., & Milton, L. P. (2000). Ties that bind: Culture and attachments in
organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational culture and climate (pp. 323–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the
“strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076
 Organizational climate and performance 141

Byles, C. M., Aupperle, K. E., & Arogyaswamy, B. (1991). Organizational culture and performance.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 3, 512–527.
Castle, N. G., & Lin, M. (2010). Top management turnover and quality in nursing homes. Health Care
Management Review, 35(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181c22bcb
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–
246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis
of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.
04.001
Cred
e, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the
organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 845–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2008
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
Organization Science, 6, 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204
Eaton, S. C. (2000). Beyond ‘unloving care’: Linking human resource management and patient care
quality in nursing homes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 591–
616. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851900339774
Gao-Urhahn, X., Biemann, T., & Jaros, S. J. (2016). How affective commitment to the organization
changes over time: A longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal relationships between affective
organizational commitment and income. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 515–536.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2088
Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm
performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013116
Halbesleben, J. R., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). Evaluating survey quality in health services research: A
decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Services Research, 48, 913–930.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12002
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship
between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an
exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
88.1.170
Hohlbein, L. (2015). Trending up the center’s OM five-star rating. Provider (Washington, DC), 41,
27, 29–30.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the
measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.74.5.739
Kennerly, S. M., Heggestad, E. D., Myers, H., & Yap, T. L. (2015). Using the Nursing Culture
Assessment Tool (NCAT) in long-term care: An update on psychometrics and scoring
standardization. Healthcare, 3, 637–647. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare3030637
Kennerly, S. M., Yap, T. L., Hemmings, A., Beckett, G., Schafer, J. C., & Borchers, A. (2012).
Development and psychometric testing of the nursing culture assessment tool. Clinical Nursing
Research, 21, 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773812440810
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions,
and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
1995.9508080333
142 Haley M. Woznyj et al.

LoPilato, A. C., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). The not-so-direct cross-level direct effect. In C. E. Lance &
R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp.
292–308). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Crossroads—Organizational performance as a dependent
variable. Organization Science, 8, 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.698
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking the black box:
Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024710
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward
an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665–683. https://doi.org/10.
1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.
2001.1842
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-
8791(79)90072-1
Muth
en, L. K., & Muth
en, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables
(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Neuman, M. D., Wirtalla, C., & Werner, R. M. (2014). Association between skilled nursing facility
quality indicators and hospital readmissions. Journal of the American Medical Association,
312, 1542–1551. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.13513
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.77.6.963
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The
role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77, 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904774202144
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in
multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 161–
182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.557329
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing
multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The
contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational
performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35, 718–804.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560
 Organizational climate and performance 143

Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with
organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693
Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom & M. F.
Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 188–224).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for
organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347–
367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 447–479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01386.x
Schneider, B. (2011). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom
& M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. xvii–xxii).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (2014). Introduction: The Oxford handbook of organizational
climate and culture. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The oxford handbook of
organizational climate and culture (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Oxford Press. https://doi.org/
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.001.0001
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual
Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
Schneider, B., Gonz
alez-Rom
a, V., Ostroff, C., & West, M. A. (2017). Organizational climate and
culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000090
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Services
Research, 38, 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.00154
Seddon, M., Marshall, M., Campbell, S., & Roland, M. (2001). Systematic review of studies of quality
of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. BMJ Quality & Safety,
10, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100152
Shipton, H., Armstrong, C., West, M., & Dawson, J. (2008). The impact of leadership and quality
climate on hospital performance. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 20(6),
439–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn037
West, M. A., Guthrie, J. P., Dawson, J. F., Borrill, C. S., & Carter, M. (2006). Reducing patient
mortality in hospitals: the role of human resource management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(7), 983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.396
West, M. A., Topakas, A., & Dawson, J. F. (2014). Climate and culture for health care performance. In
B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational climate and
culture (pp. 335–359). New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13, 21–36. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x
Wright, P. M., & Kehoe, R. R. (2009). Organizational-level antecedents and consequences of
commitment. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations:
Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 285–309). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Yap, T. L., Kennerly, S. M., & Flint, E. P. (2014). Nursing culture assessment tool (NCAT): Empirical
validation for use in long-term care. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 1(3), 241–249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2014.08.001

Received 19 September 2017; revised version received 11 July 2018

Copyright of Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell 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.