See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344831516

The Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS): A Culture Measurement

Critique

Presentation · April 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24995.68643

CITATIONS READS
0 5,762

3 authors:

Florencio Kabigting Dilys Brooks

Claremont Graduate University Claremont School of Theology
11 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Larissa Loures
cgu
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Paradoxical Strengths Regulation View project

Grit 2.0 - Towards a New Theory of Grit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Florencio Kabigting on 23 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 1

The Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS):

A Culture Measurement Critique

Jun Kabigting

Larissa Loures

Dilys Brooks

Claremont Graduate University

DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 2

Abstract

Organizational culture is based on a widely shared set of essential beliefs and values that affect a

broad range of behaviors. There are wide ranges of cultural assessment measurement tools

available in the market to facilitate the identification of constructs that impact their ability to

diagnose and change their organizations. This cultural measurement critique focuses on the

Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) instrument that is designed to give a simple, yet

comprehensive analysis of the culture of an organization. We provide a brief description of the

instrument itself, its theoretical underpinnings, methodological considerations, and the

instrument’s strengths or advantages as well as, weaknesses or disadvantages.

Keywords: culture, organization, assessment, Denison, culture model

DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 3

Instrument Description

The Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS), developed in the 1990s by Dr.

Daniel R. Denison is focused on organizational culture change and provides a guide for

organizational change through two frameworks: The Organizational Culture Model and the

Leadership Development Model (Sult, 2013). The questionnaire, initially with 60 items but more

recently decreased to 48 questions, can be taken in 47 different languages. DOCS aims at helping

understand the impact of organizational culture on performance.

The assessment process starts with an online self-report survey. Upon completion, full-

color infographics and charts are generated to guide further exploration. In comparison to other

cultural models, DOCS is behaviorally grounded, designed and created using the lexicon of

business terminology to investigate business-level concerns, while focusing on meeting the

bottom-line. It is also fast and easy to implement, suitable for all levels of any organization.

Meetings are scheduled to allow employees to discover, plan, analyze and gain deep

understanding about what should help create accurate actions to be implemented aligned with the

organization’s strategy, always aiming at improving systemic performance.

Denison and Neale (2019) argue that the follow-up interviews begins with a discovery

phase to explore in-depth of “why culture is important to performance.” Once its relevance has

been acknowledged, the planning phase on how to promote an effective and sustainable cultural

development is done and then followed by the investigation of the current state (diagnosis phase)

and where the organization wants to go (analysis) based on a honest conversation that will

support action plans towards the desired change. According to Denison and Neale (2019), the

model is in a circle to emphasize the importance of viewing culture assessment as an ongoing

process.
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 4

Theoretical Perspectives

DOCS was constructed in tandem with the development of a theory of cultural

effectiveness that concentrates on four key traits as drivers of organizational performance

(Denison, Nieminen, & Kotrba, 2012).

Culture is not given. It is built up over time from the experiences that everyone involved

in the organization learned as being essential to survival. It is about looking at the values and

principles of actions that help achieve its purpose. It is about checking how built-in beliefs and

practices affect the actual performance and helping make meaning out of what it has been and

what it aims to be. The Denison culture model (Figure # 1) highlights some key traits (i.e.,

second-order factors) that must be observed in doing any organizational cultural analysis:

Mission. A shared vision of the future that should be pursued by everyone inside the

organization. A good statement of mission articulates the vision and strategic direction besides

pointing out some essential goals everyone at all levels of the organization should work towards.

Adaptability. This relates to listening to external needs, trends, and perceptions that can

point to current demands that internal actions should address. Adaptability requires a customer

focus as well as creativity to adapt and create the necessary change.

Involvement. The mission statement must be appealing enough to make people engage. A

sense of ownership and commitment must be cultivated, as well as shared responsibility to

achieve goals. Empowerment, team orientation, articulation, and capability development are key

success factors to be addressed.

Consistency. Relates to management of internal communication, agreement issues, the

orchestration of actions according to the mission and shared values and principles. Consistency

means the integration of organizational systems, processes, and structures that create an internal
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 5

system of governance supported by everyone.

Figure # 1

The Denison Culture Model, Daniel Denison, retrieved from https://www.denisonconsulting.com/culture-surveys/

Each trait is assessed by three indices (i.e., as first-order measurements) of managerial

practice. They operationalize a specific facet of the trait at the level of observable and

measurable behavioral norms and values. These 12 resultant sub-traits are then measured using

the original 60-item questionnaire (Denison & Mishra, 1995).

High scores on Adaptability and Mission, the upper quarter, reveals a trend to be more

external focused while high scores on the bottom level, Involvement, and Consistency shows a

tendency to be more internal focus. Strengths and weakness in these traits affect the company’s

real values and principles and eventually its culture. A culture analysis should help identify what

should be the best balance to active best performance.

Methodological Considerations

The DOCS instrument was developed with a strong grounding in organizational culture

theory to assess the characteristics of high and low performing organizations. Denison et al.
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 6

(2012) conducted research using quantitative and qualitative methods while evaluating the

cultural characteristics of high and low performing organizations. The results of the research

indicated that generally, the highest performing organizations identify ways to “engage and

empower their employees (involvement), facilitate coordinated actions and promote consistency

of behaviors with core business values (consistency), translate the demands of the organizational

environment into action (adaptability), and provide a clear sense of purpose and direction

(mission)” (Denison et al., 2014). The survey instrument and measurement model were

developed in concert with the formulation of this organizational culture theory. According to

Denison (2012), the more colorful and balanced the graphic, the better it is for the organization.

There are dynamic tensions within organizations such as the competing demands of

external versus internal focus, as well as between stability and flexibility. The four traits assessed

by the DOCS instrument provides a frame for understanding how (and to what extent)

organizational cultures would be able to balance these ostensibly oppositional forces (Denison et

al., 2012). One focus of the work of Denison and his associates is on the ‘balance’ or mixture of

cultural components. An organization’s ability to thrive in a competitive global economy is

contingent upon its ability to attain the aforementioned balance between external and internal

values, as well as maintain stability and flexibility. The model proposes that the most effective

organizations are those that display a “full’ profile reflected in high levels of all four traits

(Denison et al., 2012).

Central to the early development of the instrument is the need to demonstrate empirically

the links between organizational effectiveness outcomes and DOCS. The study provided initial

evidence that culture traits affect different aspects of organizational effectiveness. Profitability

outcomes were predicted by the culture traits of mission and consistency which support stability,
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 7

while culture traits that affect flexibility, involvement, and adaptability positively impacted

growth outcomes.

Studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate the generalizability of the DOCS

predictive validity to other organizational effectiveness outcomes, as well as across the industry

and national-culture boundaries (Denison et al., 2012). The results indicate that DOCS can be

translated into other languages and has been used in countries such as Asia, Australia, Brazil,

Japan, Jamaica, South Africa, Russia, Spain, and India (Denison et al., 2012 and Nazir & Lone,

2008) with similar support for reliability and validity. However, there is a limitation because it

lacks a national culture component, that addresses today’s multi-national cross-cultural business

environment (Sult, 2013).

Strengths and Advantages

DOCS is the most comprehensive and business-focused organizational culture model,

widely known and used in academic research on organizational culture (Sult, 2013 and Denison

et al., 2012). The model is comprehensive, yet easily understood when it comes to organizational

culture change. It has proved useful in addressing company culture attributes and informing

organization design (Sult, 2013).

Assessment results and the ensuing reports generated are also provided to organizations

which use DOCS as their organizational assessment tool in a non-academic, business-style report

format. It should be noted that DOCS is a proprietary tool and is sold to clients (mostly

corporates) by Denison Consulting themselves or any of their affiliate partners worldwide.

DOCS’ strength as a scientific diagnostic tool comes from the following:

Internal reliability and validity. According to Denison et al. (2012), both internal

consistency reliability and second-order confirmatory factor analysis were done to test the tool’s
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 8

validity and reliability. The results of the internal consistency reliability of the indices as 5-item

subscales show (refer to Figures # 2 to 4 at Appendix) they are at an acceptable level of internal

consistency while the results of the second test also indicated that the second-order hierarchical

model yielded significantly better reproduction of the observed covariance matrix than the

alternative model specifications (refer to Figures # 5 to 7 at Appendix). This just means that the

conceptualization of the test items as representing 12 indices that group into four higher-order

culture traits are justifiable and valid.

Aggregation to the organizational level. Compared to other organizational culture

assessment tools, DOCS does not rely on individual-level relationships to reflect culture-

performance relationships among organizations (Denison et al., 2012). Instead, it uses

appropriate test criteria to examine the relationships between aggregated culture ratings and

matched effectiveness criteria.

However, as Dansereau and Alunto (1990) and Klein et al. (2000) posited, it is first

necessary to show that ratings are sufficiently homogenous before these individual ratings are

aggregated into an organizational-level variable. There are various statistical methods that can be

used for this purpose, but Denison et al. (2012) decided on computing rwg(j) for each organization

as a function of the five items comprising each index of the DOCS as well as based on deviation

from the uniform response distribution. The results (refer to Figures # 8 & 9 at Appendix) of this

analysis support the aggregation of the individual ratings to the organization-level and thus,

demonstrated that organizations are reliably differentiated by DOCS.

Criterion-related validity. Criterion-related validation is such an important process that

every cultural survey tool needs to undergo to be statistically valid. Simply put, every tool needs

to demonstrate that it is measuring what it is supposed to be measuring. To comply with this gold
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 9

standard, DOCS evaluated the criterion-related validity of the indices as organizational-level

predictors of organizational performance (Denison et al., 2012) using descriptive statistics. The

results (refer to Figure # 10 at Appendix) support the definite link between cultural indices found

in DOCS and the organizational performance or effectiveness measures.

Hence, as a result of DOCS showing pieces of evidence of the above trifecta of

instrument validation criteria, its reputation as one of the most, if not the most, validated

organizational culture tools in the market today remains undisputed.

Limitations and Disadvantages

As with other organizational assessment tools, DOCS is not immune to some limitations

in its use. We enumerate some of them as follows:

Diagnostics in approach. DOCS represents a blend of inductive and theory-driven

components. It has a diagnostic rather than a descriptive approach which leads to an inference

about cultural effectiveness without necessary consideration of possible contingency factors and

thus, may involve generalizability of predictive relationships (Denison et al., 2012).

Lack of national culture aspect. According to Sult (2013), since DOCS has no national

culture component, its utility and specific usefulness in addressing multinational cross-cultural

issues is limited. This is because the particular manifestations of these cultural concepts can

differ across national cultures which means that to be a capable instrument, DOCS may need to

become versatile enough to accommodate the culture aspect at varying levels of specificity

(Denison et al., 2012).

However, the second-order framework of DOCS may offer a possible solution to this

limitation by having the four traits that contribute to the organizational performance across

cultures (i.e., Mission, Consistency, Involvement, and Adaptability) rank-ordered differently or

DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 10

assigned different weights depending on what is applicable in a particular national context.

Further research, testing, and validation needs to be done on this.

Non-public nature and costs involved. Unlike other organizational assessment tools

which can be used for free and available publicly, DOCS is a proprietary organizational

assessment tool which can be “purchased” from Denison Consulting or their accredited

consultants or business partners around the world. Prices are undisclosed to the public, so

potential users need to contact Denison Consulting (or their licensed affiliates) for a quote and

possible engagement. Regardless of the cost, the benefits of using one of the world’s most

validated organizational assessment tools to understand their own organizational cultures,

challenges, and possible courses of action is a worthwhile investment.

Conclusions

Based on our review of this organizational cultural assessment instrument we concur with

the reputation and popularity of DOCS as one of the most, comprehensive organizational culture

tools in the market today. This is primarily attributed to DOCS’ strong grounding in

organizational culture theory to assess the characteristics of high and low performing

organizations, its high internal validity and reliability as well as criterion-related validity. Its

biggest drawback is the costs involved to do a Denison survey within an organization as the

instrument itself is proprietary and requires time and financial resources to maximize its use fully.

Nevertheless, companies do not seem to mind the associated costs and time commitment

involved since they get a good picture and understanding of their own organizational cultures,

their strengths, limitations, and specific pathways to improve organizational alignment and

performance.
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 11

References

Dansereau, F. and Alutto, J. (1990). Levels of analysis issues in climate and culture research. In
B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, p. 193-236. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Denison, D. and Mishra, A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
Organizational Science, 6, 204-223.

Denison, D., Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012). Diagnosing organizational cultures: A
conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-64. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.713173

Denison, D. and Neale, W. (2019). Denison Organizational Culture Survey Facilitator Guide
[Pamphlet]. Ann Arbor, MI: Denison Consulting, LLC.

Denison Consulting - Path to High Performance. Accessed on April 5th, 2019, retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kR1loHBb6w

Klein, K.J., Griffin, M.A., Bliese, P.D., Hofmann, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., James, L.R.,
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J., Gavin, M.B., & Bligh, M.C. (2000). Multilevel
analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In K.
Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations,
512-553. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nazir, N. A., & Lone, M. A. (2008). Validation of Denison's model of organizational culture and
effectiveness in the Indian context. Vision, 12(1), 49-58.

Sult, D. (2013). A critical analysis of mainstream assessment models in a cross-cultural context,

Aon-Hewitt
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 12

Appendix
Figure # 2

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 13

Figure # 3

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).

Figure # 4

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 14

Figure # 5

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 15

Figure # 6

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).

Figure # 7

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).
DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 16

Figure # 8

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).

Figure # 9

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).
 DOCS: A CULTURE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE 17

Figure # 10

Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys, Denison, D.,
Nieminen, L., and Kotrba, L. (2012).

View publication stats