Hartnelletal.2019JAP FullManuscript

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330294148
A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association With Elements of

an Organization's System and Its Relative Predictive Validity on Organizational
Outcomes
Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · January 2019

DOI: 10.1037/apl0000380
CITATIONS READS
65 6,124
5 authors, including:
Chad Hartnell Amy Yi Ou

Georgia State University National University of Singapore
25 PUBLICATIONS 2,822 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 2,233 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Dongwon Choi
NEOMA Business School
9 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Amy Yi Ou on 23 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE META-ANALYSIS
A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association with Elements of an

Organization’s System and its Relative Predictive Validity on Organizational Outcomes
CHAD A. HARTNELL
Georgia State University
AMY Y. OU
National University of Singapore
ANGELO J. KINICKI
Kent State University
Arizona State University
DONGWON CHOI
NEOMA Business School
ELIZABETH P. KARAM
Texas Tech University
Author Note
Chad A. Hartnell, Department of Managerial Sciences, Georgia State University; Amy Y.

Ou, Department of Management and Organisation, National University of Singapore; Angelo J.
Kinicki, College of Business Administration, Kent State University, and Department of
Management, Arizona State University; Dongwon Choi, Department of People and
Organisations, NEOMA Business School; Elizabeth Karam, Department of Management, Texas
Tech University.
We thank Cheri Ostroff for her valuable feedback on earlier drafts. An earlier version of
this article was presented at the 2016 Academy of Management Conference in Anaheim, CA.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy Y. Ou, Department
of Management and Organisation, NUS Business School, Mochtar Riady Building, BIZ 1 Storey
8 -36, 15 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 119245. E-mail: bizyo@nus.edu.sg.
© 2018, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not
exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without
authors' permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI:
10.1037/apl0000380
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE META-ANALYSIS 1
Abstract
Organizational culture is an important predictor of organizational effectiveness, but it is also part
of an organizational system that consists of highly interdependent elements such as strategy,
structure, leadership, and high performance work practices (HPWPs). As such, accounting for
the effect of culture’s system correlates is important to specify more precisely organizational
culture’s predictive value for organizational outcomes. To date, however, efforts to connect
culture with its system correlates have proceeded independently without integration. This trend
is problematic because it raises questions about the strength of culture’s association with its
system correlates, and it casts uncertainty about organizational culture’s predictive validity for
organizational outcomes relative to other elements of an organization’s system. We addressed
these issues by conducting a meta-analysis based on 148 independent samples (N = 26,196
organizations and 556,945 informants). Results generally supported hypothesized predictions
linking culture with strategy, structure, leadership, and HPWPs. Meta-analytic regressions and
relative weight analyses further revealed that culture dimensions explained unique variance in
effectiveness criteria after controlling for the effects of leadership and HPWPs but varied across
effectiveness criteria in terms of relative importance. We discuss theoretical and practical
implications and highlight several avenues for future research.
Keywords: Organizational culture, organizational system, organizational effectiveness,
leadership, high performance work practices

A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association with Elements of an
Organization’s System and its Relative Predictive Validity on Organizational Outcomes
Organizational culture, which consists of “shared values and basic assumptions that
explain why organizations do what they do and focus on what they focus on” (Schneider,
González-Romá, Ostroff, & West, 2017, p. 468), has become indelibly ingrained into the
corporate lexicon. For example, 92% of corporate executives believe that organizational culture
is linked to firm value according to a survey of more than 1,300 North American organizations
(Graham, Harvey, Popadak, & Rajgopal, 2016), a conclusion supported by both quantitative and
qualitative reviews (Ehrhart, Schneider, & Macey, 2014; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011;
Sackmann, 2011). The narrow focus on the bivariate relationship between culture and
effectiveness omits a broader consideration of the concurrent effects of organizational culture
alongside other interrelated elements of an organization’s system on organizational effectiveness.
This gap is important because culture’s predictive validity may be accounted for by other
unmeasured correlates in an organization’s system. The purpose of this meta-analysis is thus to
address this gap through the pursuit of two objectives.
The first objective is to theoretically enumerate and empirically examine the relationship
between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s system. Organizations are
social systems that consist of “highly interdependent elements” (Csaszar, 2013, p. 1085) that
coordinate action among organizational members and compose the organizational environment
in which they work (March & Simon, 1958; Morgeson, Dierdorff, & Hmurovic, 2010).
Organizational theory paradigms provide a theoretical foundation to specify the elements of an
organization’s system.
Katz and Kahn (1978) argue that organizational systems rely upon elements such as
strategy, structure, culture, leadership, and high performance work practices (HPWPs) to secure
their current and future viability. They note that elements of an organization’s system “develop
specific role expectations and penalties for failure to meet them, rewards to bind their members
into the system, norms and values to justify and stimulate required activities, and authority
devices to control and direct organizational behavior” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 47).
This conclusion highlights the essential functions of structure (i.e., specific role expectations),
HPWPs (i.e., rewards), culture (i.e., norms and values), and leadership (i.e., authority devices) to
coordinate employees’ effort and achieve organizational objectives. These functions combined
with an organization’s strategy (i.e., plans to obtain competitive advantage) are critical for
system survival.
Moreover, dominant taxonomies within the organizational design (Daft, 2016; Galbraith,
1973) and organizational architecture (Nadler & Tushman, 1992) literatures also identify
strategy, structure, culture, leadership, and HPWPs as prominent elements of an organization’s
system. Given this consensus, it is not surprising that strategy, structure, leadership, and HPWPs
have been studied most frequently alongside culture empirically and in sufficient volume to
examine their relationships meta-analytically. 1 Unfortunately, research remains fragmented
regarding the interrelationships between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s
system, and little theoretical development exists regarding the strength of association between
culture dimensions and other elements of an organization’s system.
This gap is problematic because strong correlations among culture and other elements of
an organization’s system have significant implications regarding the reciprocal effects of
1
An organization’s technology is sometimes identified as an element of an organization’s system, but it is studied
infrequently alongside culture. Consequently, insufficient primary studies investigating the association between
organizational culture and technology exist to examine relationships meta-analytically in this study.
changing only one element to increase organizational effectiveness. For instance, changing a
reward system to be more team focused, which is part of HPWPs, is likely to impact
organizational culture. The point is that the interdependence among an organizational system’s
elements suggest that initiatives to change one element may result in subsequent changes to other
elements. Consequently, Chatman and O’Reilly (2016) concluded that exploring the links
between culture and its correlates is one of the most critical directions for future culture research.
Our second objective is to examine culture’s predictive validity relative to other elements
in an organization’s system. Disregard to culture’s correlates may render results linking culture
and organizational effectiveness spurious or confounded because culture’s predictive validity
may be accounted for by other unmeasured correlates in an organization’s system. For example,
meta-analytic reviews indicate that leadership and HPWPs positively relate to similar
effectiveness criteria as those studied in organizational culture research (DeRue, Nahrgang,
Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012). Whether and to what degree
culture still matters for organizational outcomes when accounting for these elements thus
remains an empirical question. We address this limitation by conducting meta-analytic
regression and relative weights analyses to quantify organizational culture’s relative predictive
validity for organizational effectiveness criteria in the presence of leadership and HPWPs.
Results will enhance our understanding about organizational culture’s role in an organization’s
system.
Our study contributes to the organizational culture literature in three important ways.
First, we theoretically distinguish organizational culture and its system correlates conceptually
and then document the relationship between them. This contribution advances the culture
literature by more clearly identifying culture’s distinctive role in the organization’s system and
illuminating the magnitude of the interrelationship between culture and its correlates. Second,
we develop a clearer understanding of culture dimensions’ predictive validity relative to two
system correlates: leadership and HPWPs. Results shed insight into the degree to which culture
matters for different effectiveness criteria. These two extensions collectively provide a more
nuanced understanding of organizational culture’s effect on organizational outcomes.
Third, our results provide three extensions to Hartnell et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic study.
Hartnell et al.’s (2011) study examined the bivariate relationship between three culture
dimensions from the Competing Values Framework (CVF) and organizational effectiveness
(hierarchy culture was omitted from their results due to insufficient data). Our study extends
these findings by examining the degree to which all four of the CVF’s culture dimensions
explain unique variance in organizational outcomes. In addition, the narrow scope of Hartnell et
al.’s (2011) research question omitted a broader consideration of the concurrent effects of
organizational culture on organizational effectiveness alongside other interrelated elements of an
organization’s system. Our study provides a more nuanced view of culture’s impact on
organizational effectiveness criteria by examining its predictive validity relative to leadership
and HPWPs. Finally, our study extends Hartnell et al. (2011) by refining the focal level of
analysis. Hartnell et al. (2011) reported effects that spanned multiple levels of analysis whereas
our study is bounded at the organizational level of analysis. Systems research underscores the
importance of explicitly defining levels of analysis because systems operate at different levels –
an organizational system is composed of subsystems (i.e., units and departments) and is
embedded in a supersystem (i.e., the external environment; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006). The level
of analysis for this study is restricted to the organizational level because our focus is on the
relationship between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s system as well as

culture’s relative influence on organizational outcomes. Our study thus provides more precise
estimates of organizational level relationships among culture dimensions, its correlates, and
effectiveness criteria. Taken together, these three extensions to Hartnell et al. (2011) contribute
valuable insights to organizational culture as well as organizational system theory and research.
Focal Dimensions Underlying Culture and Elements of an Organization’s System
Seminal or dominant taxonomies within the culture, strategy, structure, leadership, and
HPWPs literatures reveal common thematic foci underlying their dimensions. These points of
commonality exist because organizational system elements share a collective purpose – to clearly
and consistently communicate the organization’s goals and facilitate formal and informal
exchanges among organizational members to accomplish them. Classical management
perspectives (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Katz & Kahn, 1978) suggest
that organizations pursue (1) consistency and efficiency and (2) adaptability to ensure their
survival, or their current and future viability (March, 1991). Elements of an organization’s
system support these two superordinate organizational goals. As a result, their underlying
dimensions have common theoretical threads that provide a useful point of comparison to
understand organizational culture’s relationship with other elements of an organizational system.
We will explain our logic for selecting each element’s underlying dimensions, starting with an
expanded discussion of organizational culture due its central role in this manuscript. Table 1
organizes our discussion of each element’s definition, central focus concerning organizational
functioning, and underlying dimensions.

------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 About Here
------------------------------------
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture’s core content consists of shared social beliefs, values, and norms.
It answers questions about how organizational members should perceive, think, and feel in
relation to organizational events (Schein, 2017; see Table 1). We used the Competing Values
Framework (CVF; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) as organizational culture's organizing framework
because of its ubiquitous use in organizations (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Cameron, Quinn,
DeGraff, & Thakor, 2014). The CVF is composed of two competing meta-dimensions. One
meta-dimension reflects an organization’s focus on internal capabilities and integration, such as
developing people, versus an orientation focused on external opportunities and differentiation
from competitors. The second meta-dimension represents a continuum of values from flexibility
and discretion on one end to stability and control on the other end (Cameron et al., 2014). The
CVF framework consists of four quadrants formed by crossing these two meta-dimensions.
The CVF’s four culture quadrants – clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy – represent
core values that prioritize fundamental organizational goals and articulate preferred means to
attain them. Importantly, the framers of the CVF acknowledged that while organizations tend to
gravitate toward a dominant culture, all four culture quadrants are present to some degree
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Cameron et al., 2014). Therefore, we refer to culture quadrants as
culture dimensions to convey that all four sets of values coexist within organizations.
Clan culture combines internal focus and integration with flexibility and discretion. Its
core values include commitment, communication, and development. Clan cultures focus on
coordinating employees’ interrelationships through encouraging participation, cooperation, and
collaboration, and prioritizing employees’ development. Adhocracy culture combines flexibility
and discretion with external focus and differentiation. The core values underlying an adhocracy
culture include innovative outputs, transformation, and agility. Adhocracy cultures emphasize
novel solutions, vision, responsiveness and adaptability to the external environment. Market
culture combines stability and control with external focus and differentiation. Its core values
include goal achievement, profitability, and a results orientation. Market cultures underscore the
importance of setting and achieving goals, aggressively competing, and focusing on customers.
Hierarchy culture combines internal focus and integration with stability and control. Core
values within a hierarchy culture include efficiency, timeliness, consistency, and uniformity.
Hierarchy cultures focus on efficiency and consistency by developing formal roles, rules, and
operating procedures.
Strategy
Strategy is centrally concerned with competitive advantage. It is a deliberate plan of
action to use core competencies to obtain competitive advantage (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson,
2007; see Table 1). Although several theoretical strategy frameworks exist (e.g., Porter’s [1980]
competitive strategies, Miles & Snow’s [1978] adaptive strategies), we used March’s (1991)
operational framework because it addresses how organizations reduce uncertainty related to
internal integration and external adaptation and is increasingly adopted in the literature.
According to March (1991), exploration and exploitation are two strategies organizations use to
compete in their respective markets (Matzler, Abfalter, Mooradian, & Bailom, 2013).
Exploration focuses on external adaptation and involves experimenting with new alternatives and
includes activities such as risk taking, flexibility, diversification, and innovation. March (1991)
notes that the returns from exploration are “uncertain, distant, and often negative” (p. 81).
Exploitation focuses on internal integration and involves maximizing efficiencies in existing
environments. March (1991) contends that “the essence of exploitation is the refinement and
extension of existing competences, technologies, and paradigms. Its returns are positive,
proximate, and predictable” (p. 85).
Structure
Organizational structure involves the way companies organize their resources and
formalize the flow of information to achieve goals (see Table 1). It answers the question, “How
do we organize roles to attain organizational goals?” An organizational structure reflects “the
attempted division of tasks among organizational members and an arrangement for coordination
of their different task activities” (Pawar & Eastman, 1997, p. 94). It encompasses elements such
as work specialization, formalization, and centralization (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner,
1968) and provides direction regarding power distribution (Thompson, 1967). We adopt the
organic – mechanistic typology to categorize structure because organic and mechanistic
structures differ in the degree to which they prioritize efficiency or flexibility and adaptability,
and they are most frequently used to empirically measure structure. An organic structure, which
is the opposite of a mechanistic structure, is characterized by lateral communication,
decentralized decision-making, and low levels of work specialization (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
Conversely, a mechanistic structure is composed of formalization, highly centralized decision-
making, and high levels of work specialization. Because organic and mechanistic structures
theoretically occupy opposite ends of a continuum (Rebelo & Gomes, 2011), we reverse-coded
variables relating to mechanistic structure and only posit hypotheses linking culture dimensions
to organic structure.
Leadership
Leadership’s central focus is interpersonal influence (see Table 1). Leadership’s
distinctive function within the organizational system is to monitor employee behavior and direct
their effort to accomplish organizational goals. Organizational leadership supports an
organization’s superordinate goals in three ways. It supports the organization’s internal
production and human maintenance functions through task and relational leadership (Katz &
Kahn, 1978). Task leadership provides task direction to help group members optimize
organizational functioning. Relational leadership provides employees with social
supportiveness. Organizational leadership also has a boundary spanning function (i.e., change
leadership) in which it adapts to environmental change by instituting corresponding changes
within the organization and inspiring employees to implement these changes to enhance
organizational survival (Katz & Kahn, 1978). These leadership functions correspond with three
dominant meta-themes that summarize the classical and contemporary leadership literature: task,
relational, and change leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008; DeRue et al., 2011).
HPWPs
HPWPs are bundles of human resource (HR) practices that “increase employees'
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), empower employees to leverage their KSAs for
organizational benefit, and increase their motivation to do so” (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen,
2006, p. 502; see Table 1). Huselid (1995) first emphasized, and subsequent scholarship (Korff,
Biemann, & Voelpel, 2017) continues to underscore, the importance of studying HPWPs as a
bundle due to the conceptual and empirical limitations of studying individual HR practices and
the observation that firms commonly utilize multiple HPWPs to enhance individual performance.
The ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) model of HPWPs provides a gestalt view of

HR practices (Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006; Wright & Snell, 1991) and has emerged as
the dominant taxonomy of HR practices (Jiang et al., 2012). According to the AMO model
(Jiang et al., 2012), HPWPs include skill-enhancing (e.g., recruitment, selection, and training),
motivation-enhancing (e.g., performance management, compensation, incentives, benefits, career
development, and job security), and opportunity-enhancing HR practices (e.g., flexible job
design, work teams, employee involvement, and information sharing). Consistent with the gestalt
focus in the HPWP literature, we examine associations between organizational culture
dimensions and an organization’s HPWPs as a whole.
Theoretical Model
Figure 1 shows the predicted relationships between culture dimensions and the elements
of an organization’s system examined in this study. We depict reciprocal relationships between
culture and its correlates’ dimensions to demonstrate their interdependence. Consequently, we
do not make causal predictions but rather hypothesize the strongest relationships between culture
dimensions and its correlates’ dimensions.
--------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 About Here
--------------------------------------
Hypotheses
Organizational Culture and its Correlates
Strategy and culture. Firms adopting an exploration strategy require flexibility, values
underlying clan and adhocracy cultures (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991; Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
A clan culture is conducive to an exploration strategy because it focuses on the development and
coordination of human resources. As such, a clan culture emphasizes teamwork, empowerment,

participation, and open communication, behaviors than increase an organization’s flexibility and
adaptability. An adhocracy culture fosters exploration by emphasizing adaptability, visionary
communication, flexibility, growth and creativity (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Although values
underlying adhocracy culture directly correspond with the strategic emphases underlying an
organization’s exploration strategy, clan culture facilitates an exploration strategy through
fostering high-quality relational exchanges among organizational employees that engender trust,
fairness, and positive affect. Positive relationships among employees support the interpersonal
risk-taking necessary to execute an exploration strategy. This line of reasoning is consistent with
arguments that a clan mode of governance (which encompasses both clan and adhocracy values)
is more efficient than market or bureaucracy modes of governance in complex environments
(Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983) because it fosters flexibility and creativity necessary for organizations
to adapt.
In contrast to values that facilitate flexibility, a hierarchy culture focuses more rigidly on
process efficiency and product consistency attained through more formal organizational
arrangements. A market culture’s values engender less rigidity than hierarchy culture but also
less flexibility than clan and adhocracy cultures. It facilitates exploration through seeking
customer feedback and monitoring and quickly adapting to competitor behaviors but also
prioritizes the development of internal financial controls to deliver short-term financial results
for shareholders (Cameron et al., 2014). This dual focus is likely to attenuate market culture’s
relationship with an organization’s exploration strategy. Considering the above discussion, we
predict the following:
H1a: Clan and adhocracy culture will each have a stronger positive relationship with an
organization’s exploration strategy than will a market or hierarchy culture.

Firms adopting an exploitation strategy depend upon rigorous cost controls, frequent
reports, quality operations, and refinements to existing products and/or market scope (March,
1991). Hierarchy cultures facilitate an exploitation strategy because they value stability, order,
and control. A hierarchy culture enhances cost savings and generates efficient ways to utilize
existing resources and technologies through routinization, process formalization, and uniformity.
These values complement an organization’s exploitation strategy by improving consistency,
reducing ambiguity, and improving operational efficiency (Matzler et al., 2013). As described in
the preceding section, a market culture’s values support both an exploration and exploitation
strategy through its dual focus on market responsiveness and internal controls, diminishing its
relationship with exploitation strategy. Consequently, we expect hierarchy culture to have a
stronger positive relationship with exploitation strategy, resulting in the following hypothesis:
H1b: Hierarchy culture will have a stronger positive relationship with an organization’s
exploitation strategy than will a clan, adhocracy, or market culture.
Structure and culture. An organic structure distributes power to employees within the
organization through decentralization (Hage & Aiken, 1967). Decentralization facilitates open
communication channels and enhances adaptability to changing market conditions by limiting
rules and regulations (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Clan, adhocracy, and market cultures value
elements that are consonant with this component of an organic structure. Clan and adhocracy
cultures value flexibility and discretion and empower employees to work together in developing
novel and insightful solutions. Market cultures value “rapid response and speed of action”
(Cameron et al., 2014, p. 35) because organizations must adjust quickly to changing market
dynamics, react to competitors’ actions, and respond to evolving customers’ preferences. Market
culture values thus encourage lateral communication and decentralized decision-making to

enhance organizational competitiveness. In contrast, hierarchy cultures value quality control and
productivity improvements to increase consistency and efficiency (Cameron et al., 2014). These
values are less supportive of an organic structure. Therefore, we predict the following
relationship:
H2: Clan, adhocracy, and market culture will each have a stronger positive relationship
with an organization’s organic structure than will a hierarchy culture.
Leadership and culture. Task leadership interprets, clarifies, and adapts generalized
rules to solve specific organizational problems. It develops “ways and means for implementing
existing policies and reaching existing organizational goals” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 547). The
behaviors comprising task-oriented leadership are similarly emphasized in the values and basic
underlying assumptions of market and hierarchy cultures. Market cultures value competition,
aggressiveness, competence, and achievement as means to increase product quality, productivity,
and unit profitability (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Hierarchy cultures value routinization,
consistency, and uniformity as means to increase organizational efficiency (Quinn & Kimberly,
1984). Task leaders support market values through their directive and commanding leadership
style that communicates clear performance standards and focuses employees’ effort on achieving
valued organizational outcomes. Task leaders also support hierarchy values through defining
followers’ role responsibilities, clarifying role expectations, and encouraging rule adherence to
produce consistent outcomes efficiently. Taken together, we hypothesize the following:
H3a: Market culture and hierarchy culture will each have a stronger positive
relationship with task leadership than will a clan or adhocracy culture.
Relational leadership motivates group members to work together and coordinate their
efforts to accomplish organizational goals (DeRue et al., 2011). Relational leaders develop
positive unit interpersonal processes by building relationships characterized by mutual trust,
respect, and support. They also invite followers’ cooperation, feedback, and participation in
decision-making. Drawing upon social learning theory, followers observe relational leader
behavior and derive normative expectations prompting them to interact similarly with their peers
or direct reports (Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman, & Rupp, 2009). Relational leadership thus
supports a social context that values teamwork, collaboration, and open communication—values
that comprise clan cultures. This discussion leads to the following prediction:
H3b: Clan culture will have a stronger positive relationship with relational leadership
than will an adhocracy, market, or hierarchy culture.
Change leadership is a visionary form of leadership that improves an organization’s
adaptability by monitoring changes in the external environment, identifying and articulating a
clear and compelling vision of the future, encouraging creative thinking, and facilitating
collective learning (DeRue et al., 2011; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). Change leaders rely on
behaviors associated with external monitoring, envisioning change, encouraging innovation, and
taking personal risks (Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). They direct followers’ attention externally
to creatively anticipate and identify organizational problems. They also encourage followers to
take risks by instituting novel approaches to resolve unique challenges. These leadership
behaviors reify core values such as flexibility, adaptability, risk taking, and innovation that are
foundational to adaptive, or adhocracy, cultures (Kotter & Heskett, 1992). Change leaders and
adhocracy cultures both encourage employees to anticipate, adapt, and respond quickly to
changing customer needs. These similarities result in the following hypothesis:
H3c: Adhocracy culture will have a stronger positive relationship with change leadership
than will a clan, market, or hierarchy culture.

HPWPs and culture. Clan, adhocracy, and market cultures are expected to have
stronger relationships with HPWPs than hierarchy culture because they constitute development-
focused values that are foundational to HPWPs. Clan cultures support HPWPs by valuing
collaboration, trust, support, and open communication and thus motivating employees to work
together to learn new skills, solve complex problems, and share important information with
others. Adhocracy cultures support HPWPs by valuing opportunities to enhance employees’
growth and development and giving employees’ discretion to make important decisions. Market
cultures support HPWPs’ performance management and results-based incentives through valuing
clear objectives and employees’ development concerning task-oriented functions such as goal-
setting, planning, task-focus, and execution. Hierarchy cultures are expected to have a weaker
relationship with HPWPs because they emphasize process efficiency and consistency rather than
employee development. As a result, hierarchy cultures support mistake-avoidant HR practices
and behaviors. Although this focus can be valuable to prevent organizations from incurring the
negative effects of costly errors and mistakes, hierarchy values do not intend to motivate or
empower employees to work harder or work smarter – key characteristics of HPWPs (Pfeffer,
1998). As such, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4: Clan, adhocracy, and market culture will each have a stronger positive relationship
with HPWPs than will a hierarchy culture.
Organizational Culture’s Relative Predictive Validity with Leadership and HPWPs
Katz and Kahn (1978) suggest that organizations function “under the continuing
necessity of motivating the behavior required of its human members” (p. 535). Not all elements
of an organization’s system directly and proximally influence employees’ motivation. The
central foci of strategy and structure are to gain competitive advantage and organize resources,
and thus have a more distal impact on employee motivation and behavior. Culture, leadership,
and HPWPs, however, directly influence and motivate employees to align their efforts with
organizational goals. Given their common socio-motivational influence, we pose a research
question to investigate culture’s relative predictive validity on organizational effectiveness
criteria after accounting for the influence of leadership and HPWPs.
Scant theory exists to generate a priori predictions about the degree to which
organizational culture matters as a predictor of organizational effectiveness when accounting for
the influence of leadership and HPWPs. According to organizational systems logic (Katz &
Kahn, 1978), elements of an organization’s system have different functions to achieve an
integrated purpose and should, therefore, explain unique variance in organizational outcomes.
For example, culture conveys social normative expectations (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996),
leadership influences followers through providing task direction, social support, and inspiring
change (DeRue et al., 2011), and bundles of HR practices “elicit and reinforce patterns of
behavior” (Snow & Snell, 2012, p. 997) by rewarding and supporting desirable attitudes and
behaviors. Whether culture predicts unique variance in organizational outcomes beyond
leadership and HPWPs, however, remains equivocal. We thus consider the relative predictive
validity of the CVF’s four culture dimensions on organizational outcomes after accounting for
variance explained by leadership and HPWPs, resulting in the following research question:
Research Question: Do organizational culture dimensions explain additional variance in
organizational outcomes apart from variance explained by leadership and HPWPs?
Method
Literature Search
We relied on three sources to identify empirical studies related to organizational culture.

First, we included all 84 studies contained in Hartnell et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis of data from
1980 to January 2008. Second, we searched two databases (PsycINFO and ABI/INFORM) from
2008 to April 2014 and retrieved 1,729 additional articles. We used the following keywords in
our search: corporate culture, organizational culture, competing values framework,
organizational culture profile, organizational culture inventory, and work practices survey.
Third, to minimize publication bias (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015), we obtained 28 additional articles
by posting inquiries for unpublished studies via three Academy of Management listservs. We
also contacted authors who appeared to have collected relevant data but did not report the data in
their studies, and we reviewed the reference lists in major handbooks on organizational culture
published before April 2014 (e.g., Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000; 2011). In total, we
obtained 1,841 studies for screening.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they were: (a) empirical studies written in
English; (b) measured organizational culture and other study variables at the organizational level;
(c) provided data that could be used to calculate effect sizes relevant to organizational culture
and its correlates; and (d) represented independent samples. Applying these criteria resulted in
retaining 165 articles with 188 independent samples. The coding process, which is described
below, further eliminated 40 samples whose variables could not be coded based on our
definitions/categories. The final data set contained 148 samples and 3,312 usable raw
correlations based on 26,196 organizations and 556,945 informants. Of these samples, 126 were
published in peer reviewed journals, and 22 were dissertations, unpublished datasets, or author-
provided data for published articles.
Variable Coding
We adopted a rigorous two-stage coding procedure commonly used in existing meta-
analyses. In stage 1, two authors independently coded each article for sample information (e.g.,
sample size, level of analysis, and number of informants), variable information (e.g., reliability,
mean, standard deviation, variable definition, source of measure, and aggregation statistics), and
correlations among variables. Other forms of effect sizes (e.g. t or F statistics) were converted
into correlation statistics using formulas from Arthur, Bennett, and Huffcutt (2001). Any
ambiguities at this stage were resolved by discussions between the two authors. In stage 2, we
coded variables into categories following procedures established in Kinicki, McKee-Ryan,
Schriesheim, and Carson (2002) to ensure the content validity of each coded variable. Two
authors independently coded all variables by reviewing each source article and carefully studying
each variable’s definition and measurement items. This detailed review was compared to the
variable definitions for each element of the organization’s system (i.e., culture, strategy,
structure, leadership, and HPWPs) and the organizational effectiveness outcomes. Authors then
made independent categorical judgments and subsequently met to discuss their categorizations to
identify and resolve discrepancies. When the two authors could not reach consensus, they
involved a third author who followed the same process until reaching consensus. 2 We excluded
variables with insufficient information for coding and variables that included items that referred
to more than one element of the organization’s system in the measure. Appendix A provides a
representative list of the sources of measures, variable labels, and coded studies. Appendix B
describes the number of correlations, sample size, and coded variables for each study.
2
We did not record the initial agreement between the two authors during the categorization process, but one
anonymous reviewer suggested that the degree of initial agreement could indicate coding reliability. Therefore, we
replicated the same categorization process and recoded 25% of the articles. The two authors generated the same
categories for 300 out of 317 variables, resulting in an initial agreement of 94.6%. This replication further supported
the rigor of our coding procedures.
Organizational culture. We used the CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1983) to code culture variables into clan, adhocracy, market, or hierarchy culture.
We reverse-coded variables (a) when the variable carried the opposite meaning of a CVF culture
dimension (e.g., uncertainty avoidance was reverse coded for adhocracy, Catana & Catana,
2010); or (b) when researchers used a reversed likert scale (e.g., 1 = strongly agree and 5 =
strongly disagree; Tsamenyi & Mills, 2002).
Strategy. Strategy was coded as either exploration or exploitation (March, 1991).
Exploration involves activities such as innovation, variation (e.g. diversification), risk-taking and
experimentation, and flexibility. In contrast, exploitation involves activities such as refinement,
production (e.g., quality), and efficiency (e.g., speed, low cost).
Structure. We used the organic-mechanistic framework to code organizational structure
(Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). We included variables specifying
specialization (number of titles or functional groups/specialties within an organization),
formalization (the extent of use of formally written rules, procedures, and communications), and
centralization (the locus of authority to make decisions). Organic structures were characterized
by low specialization, low formalization, and decentralized decision-making. We reverse coded
mechanistic structure variables because organic and mechanistic structures are typically
considered two ends of one continuum (Rebelo & Gomes, 2011).
Leadership. Leadership variables were coded into task, relational, or change leadership
(DeRue et al., 2011; Yukl et al., 2002). Task leadership included variables such as structuring,
autocratic, monitoring, and contingent reward. Relational leadership contained variables such as
relationship building, considerate, and encouraging the heart. Change leadership included
variables such as idealized influence, attributed charisma, challenging the process, and inspiring
a shared vision.
High performance work practices (HPWPs). We coded variables that represented
overall HPWPs as well as unique practices specified in the AMO framework (Jiang et al., 2012)
into HPWPs. We included ability-enhancing practices such as selection, recruitment, and
training; motivation-enhancing practices such as performance management, compensation,
career development, and job security; opportunity-enhancing practices such as employee
involvement, information sharing, and work teams; and measures that combined two or more
AMO practices. Because extant research recommends examining HPWPs as a bundle (Jiang et
al., 2012; Lepak et al., 2006; Combs et al., 2006), we combined all HPWPs into one code.
Organizational effectiveness. We coded for five broad categories of organizational-
level effectiveness criteria—employee, innovation, operational, customer, and financial—based
on existing classifications in the management literature (Jiang et al., 2012; Hartnell et al., 2011;
Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Organizational-level employee outcomes include
aggregated positive employee attitudes and behaviors. Aggregated positive employee attitudes
reflect employees’ positive psychological outcomes or emotional appraisals stemming from
employees’ experience in the workplace (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Examples include
aggregated job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived organizational support.
Aggregated positive employee behaviors include positive task and non-task performance related
behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness (Motowidlo, 2003; Borman &
Motowidlo, 1997). We coded for aggregated task performance, organizational citizenship
behaviors, and voice. We reverse coded conflict, turnover, and absenteeism.
Organizational-level innovation outcomes represent the development and/or introduction
of new and improved procedures, practices, or products (Anderson, Potocnik, & Zhou, 2014).
We coded variables such as organizational innovativeness, technical and administrative
innovations, and process innovations.
Organizational-level operational outcomes include product/service quality and
operational efficiency. Product/service quality refers to “the extent to which a product or service
meets customer needs” (Zhou, Li, Zhou, & Su, 2008, p. 986). Operational efficiency reflects the
efficiency with which a firm translates inputs into outputs (Soteriou & Zenios, 1999). We coded
variables such as service quality, defect rate reduction, product reliability improvement,
efficiency, and cycle time. We reverse-coded variables such as waiting time.
Organizational-level customer outcomes include customer satisfaction and market share.
Customer satisfaction refers to companies’ performance in satisfying customers’ expectations on
performance, affect, and equity (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Market share refers to the
proportion of the market controlled by the organization (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994).
Sample variables include aggregated customer loyalty, customer complaints reduction, customer
satisfaction, and market share. We also included variables that simultaneously measure customer
satisfaction and market share (e.g., market performance and market effectiveness).
Organizational-level financial outcomes include accounting and growth measures.
Accounting outcomes include objective and subjective measures of performance such as
profitability, return on assets, and return on sales. Growth outcomes include measures of change
in accounting outcomes. Sample variables include sales and revenue growth.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We followed Schmidt and Hunter’s (2015) random-effects meta-analytic approach to
estimate true population effect sizes. We first combined multiple correlations of the same
relationship within the same study using linear composites to fully utilize the available
information and avoid violating the assumption of independence for effect sizes (Schmidt &
Hunter, 2015). We then corrected sampling errors by weighting sample sizes when calculating
mean correlations. Next, we corrected measurement error in the two correlated variables using
alpha coefficients as indicators of reliability. For studies that did not report alpha coefficients,
we used reliability distributions to correct for measurement error. Although intraclass correlation
coefficient (2) (ICC[2]) is recommended to correct for measurement error in aggregated
organizational level variables (Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & Pierotti, 2015), we used alpha
coefficients rather than ICC(2) because most culture studies did not report the latter. Out of 148
studies, only 13 reported ICC(2)s, whereas 107 studies reported alpha coefficients for
organizational culture dimensions. Mean alpha coefficients (.82, .79, .80, and .77 respectively)
for clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy cultures were all higher than mean ICC(2)s (.72, .76,
.75, and .74 respectively). We replicated our meta-analyses using ICC(2) distributions to correct
for measurement errors of organizational culture variables and found identical or slightly higher
effect sizes (differences range from .00 to .04) with the same pattern of results, suggesting that
our findings are not sensitive to the approach used to correct for measurement errors.
We report corrected true population correlations, including their 95% confidence
intervals (CI), 80% credibility intervals (CV), I2 and Q-statistics. A CI indicates the possible
amount of error in the point estimate of a population correlation due to sampling error, while a
CV indicates the possible range of population correlation across studies after correcting
sampling error. We report I2 (i.e., percentage of variance due to artifacts) and Q-statistics (i.e.,
the chi-square test of homogeneity) to assess data heterogeneity. An I2 below 75% or a
significant Q-statistic suggests potential presence of moderators in the meta-analyzed
correlations. We also report ΔK to indicate the number of potentially missing studies from the
trim and fill analysis and adj-r to reveal the adjusted meta-analytic correlations after adding
potentially missing studies (Duval & Tweedie, 2000). We followed Paterson, Harms, Steel, and
Credé (2016) to assess the magnitude of effect sizes as the traditional Cohen’s (1988) rule of
thumbs may overestimate the magnitude of effect sizes. Accordingly, an uncorrected correlation
with a magnitude of .12 falls into the 25th percentile, .20 falls into the 50th percentile, and .31
falls into the 75th percentile.
To test the four hypotheses, we compared the magnitudes of meta-analytic correlations
obtained from overlapping samples and employed a modified Z test that accounted for sample
dependence (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992). We also conducted publication bias analysis and
outlier detection to ensure the validity of our results (see Appendix C). We followed procedures
set forth in Fang, Landis, Zhang, Anderson, Shaw, and Kilduff (2015) to examine our research
question that examines culture’s predictive validity relative to leadership and HPWPs. We first
constructed a meta-analyzed true-score correlation matrix that included all four organizational
culture dimensions, overall leadership (task, relational, and change leadership combined),
HPWPs, and five categories of organizational effectiveness. We used the harmonic mean of
sample sizes in the correlation matrix (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995) to conduct regression and
relative weight analyses with the four culture dimensions, leadership, and HPWPs as predictors
of organizational effectiveness. Culture dimensions were considered to explain unique variance
when (a) they had significant regression coefficients and contributed to significant R2 changes
after controlling for other predictors, and (b) their relative weights were substantial.
Results
Culture and Organizational System Correlates: Hypotheses 1-4
Table 2 reports meta-analytic correlations among the four culture dimensions (clan,
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) and the four elements of an organization’s system (strategy,
structure, leadership, and HPWPs). Hypotheses 1a – 1b concerned organizational strategy. All
relationships between exploration and exploitation strategies and culture dimensions were
significant. Consistent with Hypothesis 1a, clan culture ( ρ̂ = .47) had a stronger correlation
with exploration strategy than market ( ρ̂ = .38; Z = 3.62, p < .01) and hierarchy cultures ( ρ̂ =
.40; Z = 2.47, p < .05). Similarly, adhocracy culture ( ρ̂ = .45) had a significantly stronger
correlation with exploration strategy than market culture ( ρ̂ = .38; Z = 3.05, p < .01), and a
marginally stronger correlation than hierarchy culture ( ρ̂ = .40; Z = 1.49, p < .10). Hypothesis
1a was thus fully supported. Hypothesis 1b also received full support: hierarchy culture had a
stronger correlation with exploitation strategy ( ρ̂ = .51) than clan ( ρ̂ = .38; Z = 4.84, p < .01),
adhocracy ( ρ̂ = .42; Z = 2.33, p < .05), and market cultures ( ρ̂ = .40; Z = 4.31, p < .01).
---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 About Here
---------------------------------
Hypothesis 2 concerned relationships between culture dimensions and an organic
structure. Relationships between culture dimensions and an organic structure were generally low
and non-significant: the only significant relationship was with market culture. Significant
culture – structure correlations, however, are not a prerequisite to utilize modified Z tests which
compares several positive mean correlations (above zero) to a single negative correlation (below
zero). Thus, consistent with Hypothesis 2, results showed that clan ( ρ̂ = .07; Z = 5.76, p < .01),
adhocracy ( ρ̂ = .06; Z = 4.26, p < .01), and market cultures ( ρ̂ = .24; Z = 12.12, p < .01) each
had a stronger correlation with organic structure than did hierarchy culture ( ρ̂ = -.10).
Hypothesis 2 was thus supported.
Task, relational, and change leadership were all significantly associated with the four
culture dimensions, and 58 percent of the correlations (7 of 12) had effect sizes within the 75th
percentile (i.e., above .31). However, hypothesis 3a was not supported. The correlation between
market culture and task leadership ( ρ̂ = .33) was marginally stronger than that with clan culture
( ρ̂ = .28; Z = 1.91, p < .10) but was marginally weaker in comparison to adhocracy culture ( ρ̂ =
.36; Z = - 1.92, p < .10). The correlation between hierarchy culture and task leadership ( ρ̂ = .26)
was significantly weaker than that with adhocracy culture ( ρ̂ = .36; Z = 3.95, p < .05), but was
not significantly different from clan culture’s association with task leadership ( ρ̂ = .28; Z = .49,
n.s.). In contrast, hypothesis 3b was supported. Clan culture ( ρ̂ = .53) had a stronger positive
relationship with relational leadership than adhocracy ( ρ̂ = .43; Z = 6.50, p < .01), market ( ρ̂ =
.29; Z = 13.99, p < .01), and hierarchy cultures ( ρ̂ = .40; Z = 7.39, p < .01). Findings partially
supported hypothesis 3c. Adhocracy culture ( ρ̂ = .48) had a significantly stronger relationship
with change leadership than market culture ( ρ̂ = .44; Z = 2.28, p < .05), but not stronger than
clan ( ρ̂ = .48; Z = .32, n.s.) nor hierarchy cultures ( ρ̂ = .45; Z = 1.16, n.s.).
HPWPs were significantly related to all four culture dimensions, and 75 percent (3 of 4)
of effect sizes were within the 75th percentile. Hypothesis 4 was fully supported. As predicted,
clan ( ρ̂ = .46; Z = 6.27, p < .01), adhocracy ( ρ̂ = .40; Z = 2.44, p < .05), and market cultures ( ρ̂
= .50; Z = 9.24, p < .01) each had a stronger relationship with HPWPs than hierarchy culture ( ρ̂
= .34).
Culture’s Relative Predictive Validity: Research Question

Table 3 summarizes the meta-analytic correlation matrix for variables used to analyze the
research question, and Appendix D contains additional details about meta-analytic results of
organizational culture dimensions and effectiveness criteria. Data in Table 3 were used in the
meta-analytic regression and relative weight analysis shown in Table 4. Results indicate that
organizational culture dimensions explained unique variance in 75 percent (15 of 20) of the
relationships with organizational outcomes after controlling for overall leadership and HPWPs.
The four culture dimensions in total accounted for a substantial percentage of the relative
weights in organizational effectiveness criteria, with the highest in employee outcomes
(92.10%), followed by operational (77.60%), customer (62.30%), innovation (53.70%)
outcomes, and financial outcomes (31.20%). HPWPs was the only variable to uniquely explain
variance in all five outcomes, and it accounted for 66.80% of the explained variance (total R2 =
16%) in financial performance. HPWPs accounted for almost twice as much variance in
financial performance as explained by all four culture dimensions combined (31.20%).
Leadership’s unique explanatory power was highest for innovation (22.80%), second to HPWPs’
23.50% contribution. Leadership explained no significant variance in financial outcomes. Its
effect was negative for employee (β = -.17) and operational outcomes (β = -.31). The pattern of
correlations in Table 3, however, suggests that these negative coefficients are likely due to
suppression effects. Such suppression effects occur because predictors with relatively strong
positive intercorrelations mutually suppress shared variance with other predictors thus altering
the predictors’ regression coefficients. All told, results shown in Table 4 render strong support
for the conclusion that organizational culture dimensions explain unique variance in
organizational effectiveness apart from leadership and HPWPs.

---------------------------------------------
Insert Tables 3 and 4 About Here
---------------------------------------------
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to enhance our understanding of organizational culture’s
role in the organizational system, thereby gaining a more nuanced view of organizational
culture’s predictive validity. Our findings reveal important theoretical and practical implications
as well as future directions for organizational culture research.
Organizational Culture's Relationship with Elements of an Organization's System
Results generally support our predictions regarding organizational culture’s association
with the other four elements of an organization’s system – strategy, structure, leadership, and
HPWPs – indicating that culture dimensions are related with organizational system elements in
predictable ways. Five out of seven hypotheses are fully supported; one hypothesis is partially
supported, and one hypothesis is not supported. Three hypotheses warrant further discussion.
The pattern of correlations linking culture dimensions with task and change leadership
account for an unsupported and a partially supported hypothesis. Contrary to Hypothesis 3a,
market and hierarchy culture are marginally and significantly weaker, respectively, in their
relationship with task leadership than is adhocracy culture. With regard to Hypothesis 3c,
adhocracy culture’s association with change leadership is not significantly different from clan
and hierarchy cultures. These results suggest that the relationship between leadership and culture
is more complex than outlined in prevailing theories. For example, Hartnell, Kinicki, Lambert,
Fugate, and Corner (2016) documented competing theoretical arguments regarding whether
similarities between leadership and culture have a beneficial or deleterious effect on

organizational outcomes. Similarities create consistent cues that communicate unambiguous
expectations, but they might also provide redundant information. They found that similarities
between CEO leadership and organizational culture negatively impacted firm performance. This
type of interaction may partially explain the unclear pattern of relationships between leadership
styles and culture dimensions in our study. Additional research considering interactions is
clearly needed to more fully understand the dynamic relationship between leadership and culture.
Although the planned contrasts in Hypothesis 2 between culture dimensions and organic
structure are supported, it is important to note that market culture obtained the only significant
effect with structure. This result is surprising given Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad’s (2013)
proposition that organizational structure should be consistent with culture. If culture and
structure should theoretically be related, then future research is needed to uncover the practical
reason executives decouple these two elements of an organization’s system. It is possible that
executives do not consider culture when designing the organization’s structure. Rather,
structural decisions may be more often based on operational processes, products, or customer
locations. Future research is needed to investigate these possibilities.
Organizational Culture’s Relative Predictive Validity
Three important conclusions regarding organizational culture’s relative predictive
validity have implications for organizational culture theory and research. First, our results
provide empirical evidence that culture is functionally distinct from leadership and HPWPs.
Culture dimensions, as a set, predict unique and incremental variance in all five organizational
effectiveness criteria while accounting for variance explained by leadership and HPWPs. These
findings affirm Katz and Kahn’s (1978) contention that elements of an organization’s system
function differently to support organizational outcomes. This conclusion suggests the need to
investigate the degree to which these elements should be strategically aligned to maximize
organizational effectiveness. Strategic alignment “refers to the notion that the key attributes of
an organization (e.g., strategy, goals, culture, practices, structure) must be arranged and designed
in such a way that they complement one another and operate together harmoniously” (Ostroff et
al., 2013, p. 665). Tightly coupled organizational elements facilitate clarity and continuity
throughout the organization by conveying consistent signals that generate consensus among
organizational members. Organizational elements that are too tightly coupled, however, may
increase an organization’s myopia, reducing its ability to detect and adapt to environmental
changes. For example, Miller (1992) found that organizations with weaker linkages among their
organizational elements were more likely to meet the demands of uncertain external
environments. These perspectives highlight the need for future research to examine system
configurations, or combinations of strategy, structure, culture, leadership and HPWPs to specify
the effect of system consonance on organizational effectiveness (Ehrhart et al., 2014).
Second, the pattern of results linking organizational culture dimensions with
organizational outcomes is more nuanced than Hartnell et al.’s (2011) bivariate effects. Our
results demonstrate that some culture dimensions do not have unique predictive utility when
controlling for the CVF’s other culture dimensions as well as leadership and HPWPs. For
example, clan culture did not explain incremental variance in operational outcomes; hierarchy
culture did not explain additional variance in customer outcomes; market culture did not explain
significant variance in employee outcomes; and adhocracy and market cultures failed to explain
additional variance in financial outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of
accounting for the effects of multiple culture dimensions as well as elements of an organization’s
system when examining the direct relationship between individual culture dimensions and broad
organizational outcomes to strengthen the internal validity of culture – effectiveness research.
The pattern of results also highlights the need to develop more precise theory explaining
how, why, and when individual culture dimensions influence organizational outcomes (Ehrhart
et al., 2014). Chatman and O’Reilly (2016) lamented that “organizational culture is under-
theorized” (p. 213) and that scant attention has been given to elucidating the mechanisms
through which it influences individual and organizational outcomes. Clearly, culture research
would benefit from investigations of mediating and moderating factors between culture
dimensions and organizational performance as well as studies that parse out the effects among
culture content (i.e., specific norms and values), consensus (i.e., member agreement), and
intensity (importance to members; Chatman, Caldwell, O’Reilly, & Doerr, 2014). Furthermore,
empirical and theoretical work is needed to document the unique mechanisms through which
culture along with other elements of an organization’s system enhance organizational outcomes.
Studies employing longitudinal designs are also needed to examine the strength of the reciprocal
relationships among these elements. Such efforts will provide greater clarity into the
differentiated and integrated functioning of elements that comprise an organization’s system.
Third, our study’s pattern of positive correlations among the CVF’s four dimensions
support Hartnell et al.’s (2011) conclusion that these culture dimensions coexist and explain
unique variance in organizational outcomes. These findings indicate that higher levels of
organizational effectiveness may be driven by a complex combination of culture dimensions
rather than a single, dominant culture dimension. It is thus important to explore how the pattern
of relationships among culture dimensions, particularly among theoretically “competing” values,
impact organizational outcomes. Theory about managing paradox is helpful in this regard.
Managing paradox involves exploring and building awareness of competing tensions to
capture their “enlightening potential” (Lewis, 2000, p. 763), not suppressing tensions or
compromising (Leana & Barry, 2000; Lewis, 2000). Simultaneously developing culture
dimensions that emphasize paradoxical tensions such as stability and change, efficiency and
innovation, and collaboration and competition, may develop complementarities that amplify
organizational effectiveness. In support, Marinova, Cao, and Park (in press) reported that
multiple CVF culture dimensions combine to create a configuration – constructive organizational
values – that improves employees’ prosocial, proactive, and creative behaviors. This research
highlights the importance of identifying culture configurations that exist within organizations.
Theory about managing paradox is a promising theoretical foundation to develop a typology of
culture configurations and empirically examine their effect on organizational outcomes.
Practical Implications
Our results provide valuable guidance for practitioners engaged in organizational change.
The positive relationships between culture dimensions and its correlates suggest that elements of
an organization’s system are interdependent. Leadership, strategy, structure, and HPWPs are
embedding mechanisms that create and reinforce the organization’s culture (Schein, 2017). As a
result, attempts to change an organization’s culture by relying solely upon appeals for people to
change their values and accepted routines are likely to be ineffective. Direct efforts to change
culture without attending to other elements of an organization’s system are likely to generate
inconsistent messages and conflicting priorities. These change efforts “will either be ignored or
will be a source of internal conflict” (Schein, 2017, p. 196) that will impair organizational
functioning. Instead, “[w]hen changing culture, it is far wiser and more effective to focus on
changing people, incentives, controls, and organizational structure. These changes affect
behavior that, in turn, brings about changes in culture” (Hrebiniak, 2013, p. 298). Organizational
leaders are thus encouraged to adopt a systems perspective and produce culture change through
attending to factors that support organizational culture (Hrebeniak, 2013; Schaffer, 2012).
Our results also offer practical implications for improving organizational effectiveness.
Results show that organizational culture dimensions are collectively the most significant drivers
(relative to leadership and HPWPs) of employee and operational outcomes, suggesting that
adhocracy and clan values should be prioritized to support employee outcomes and adhocracy
and market values should be emphasized to support operational outcomes. As such,
organizational leaders should ensure that elements of the organizational system support, reward,
and reinforce these values. Results also indicate that HPWPs have the most important impact on
organizational criteria such as innovation, customer, and financial outcomes. Investing in
HPWPs may thus provide the greatest return when focused on enhancing these outcomes. Future
research, however, is needed to confirm this conclusion.
Limitations and Conclusion
Our results and implications should be considered in light of two limitations. First,
results are bounded by the frameworks used to categorize variables used in the meta-analysis.
The typologies used to organize the strategy, structure, leadership, and HPWPs variables in this
meta-analysis are ubiquitous in their respective literatures and inclusive for our quantitative
summary, but they are not exhaustive. Researchers and practitioners should be careful not to
generalize our findings beyond the specific dimensions measured in this study. Similarly, the
CVF is not comprehensive in its ability to categorize all culture dimensions. We organized the
culture literature based upon the CVF’s four culture dimensions because they are meta-categories
that relate to fundamental problems related to organizational survival (Schein, 2017). Lending
support to our decision to classify culture measures into the CVF, a post hoc analysis indicated
that intercorrelations among culture dimensions were not significantly different between studies
using the CVF’s culture measure (average ρ̂ = .51) and those that did not (average ρ̂ = .50; t =
.20, n.s.). In aggregate, these results affirm the CVF’s parsimony in consolidating different
culture measures within four archetypal culture dimensions.
The second limitation pertains to research design. Many of the studies in this meta-
analysis measured culture and its correlates using cross-sectional data. Such a research design
may generate inflated correlations and are insufficient to examine temporal precedence.
Longitudinal investigations can better assess whether causal sequences exist among elements of
an organization’s system or whether they mutually influence each other in a dynamic manner.
Furthermore, longitudinal research designs are needed to investigate the veracity of causal
models in which leaders influence unit performance sequentially through the organization’s
culture, HR practices, and climate (Ostroff et al., 2013).
Our findings consolidate knowledge about culture’s relationship with elements of an
organization’s system and provide insight into culture’s relative predictive validity. We hope
this study will motivate theoretical and empirical work to more fully understand organizational
culture’s role within the organizational system and document its unique effects.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
*Aarons, G. A., & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational climate partially mediates the effect of
culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental health services. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 289-301.
*Aier, S. (2014). The role of organizational culture for grounding, management, guidance and
effectiveness of enterprise architecture principles. Information Systems and e-Business
Management, 12, 43-70.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the
relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational
support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295-305.
*Andersen, E. S., Dysvik, A., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2009). Organizational rationality and project
management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 479-498.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share,
and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-66.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40, 1297-1333.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2001). Conducting meta-analysis using SAS.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). The handbook of
organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (2011). The handbook of
organizational culture and climate (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm
performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 502-517.
*Baird, K., Harrison, G., & Reeve, R. (2007). The culture of Australian organizations and its
relation with strategy. International Journal of Business Studies, 15, 15-41.
*Bajdo, L. M., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and women's
advancement in organizations: A cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles, 45, 399-414.
Bass, B. J., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &
managerial implications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
*Behram, N. K., & Özdemirci, A. (2014). The empirical link between environmental conditions,
organizational culture, corporate entrepreneurship and performance: The mediating role
of corporate entrepreneurship. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5,
264-276.
*Benitez-Amado, J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Perez-Arostegui, M. N. (2010). Information
technology-enabled intrapreneurship culture and firm performance. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 110, 550-566.
*Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615-633.
*Boggs, W. B., & Fields, D. L. (2010). Exploring organizational culture and performance of
Christian churches. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 13, 305-
334.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
*Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product
innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 385-419.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
*Büschgens, T., & Bausch, A. (2012). Organizational culture and ambidexterity in innovation:
Evidence from China and Germany. Journal of International Management Studies, 12(1),
1-23.
*Çakar, N. D., & Ertürk, A. (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized
enterprises: Examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment. Journal
of Small Business Management, 48, 325-359.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2014). Competing values
leadership: Creating value in organizations (2nd ed.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
*Carmeli, A. (2004). The link between organizational elements, perceived external prestige and
performance. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 314-331.
Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). How leaders cultivate
social capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1553-1561.
*Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). Resources, capabilities, and the performance of industrial
firms: A multivariate analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 299-315.
*Catana, G.-A., & Catana, D. (2010). Organisational culture dimensions in Romanian finance
industry. Journal for East European Management Studies, 15, 128-148.
*Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., & Martínez-Martínez, A. (2009). Linking corporate social
responsibility with admiration through organizational outcomes. Social Responsibility
Journal, 5, 499-511.
*Černe, M., Jaklič, M., Škerlavaj, M., Aydinlik, A. Ü., & Polat, D. D. (2012). Organizational
learning culture and innovativeness in Turkish firms. Journal of Management &
Organization, 18, 193-219.
*Chan, L. L. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive
advantage: The impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and human
resource management practices on firm performance. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 15, 17-35.
*Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. W. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and
consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 25, 59-76.
*Chang, S. E., & Lin, C.-S. (2007). Exploring organizational culture for information security
management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 438-458.
*Chang, W., Park, J. E., & Chaiy, S. (2010). How does CRM technology transform into
organizational performance? A mediating role of marketing capability. Journal of
Business Research, 63, 849-855.
Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., O'Reilly, C. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). Parsing organizational
culture: How the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture
consensus and financial performance in high‐technology firms. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35, 785-808.
Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2016). Paradigm lost: Reinvigorating the study of
organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 199-224.
*Chen, Y.-S. (2011). Green organizational identity: Sources and consequence. Management
Decision, 49, 384-404.
*Chow, I. H. S. (2012). The roles of implementation and organizational culture in the HR-
performance link. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3114-
3132.
*Chow, I. H. S., & Liu, S. S. (2007). Business strategy, organizational culture, and performance
outcomes in China's technology industry. Human Resource Planning, 30(2), 47-55.
*Chow, I. H. S., & Liu, S. S. (2009). The effect of aligning organizational culture and business
strategy with HR systems on firm performance in Chinese enterprises. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2292-2310.
*Christensen, E. W., & Gordon, G. G. (1999). An exploration of industry, culture and revenue
growth. Organization Studies, 20, 397-422.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work
practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 501-528.
Courtright, S. H., Thurgood, G. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pierotti, A. J. (2015). Structural
interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of
Csaszar, F. A. (2013). An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a
determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organization Science, 24, 1083-1101.
Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization theory and design (12th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
*Damanpour, F., Devece, C., Chen, C. C., & Pothukuchi, V. (2012). Organizational culture and
partner interaction in the management of international joint ventures in India. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 453-478.
*Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (2004). High performance work systems, organisational
culture and firm effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 14, 55-78.
*Denison, D. R., Haaland, S., & Goelzer, P. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational
effectiveness: Is Asia different from the rest of the world? Organizational Dynamics, 33,
98-109.
*Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223.
*Denison, D. R., Nieminen, L. R. G., & Kotrba, L. (2014). Diagnosing organizational cultures: A
conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 145-161.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational
development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 5, 1-21.
*Densten, I. L., & Sarros, J. C. (2012). The impact of organizational culture and social
desirability on Australian CEO leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 33, 342-368.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative
validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
*Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variation in organizationally-
shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487-505.
*Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2010). The effect of organizational culture on knowledge
management practices and innovation. Knowledge and Process Management, 17, 82-94.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing
and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455-463.
*Dwyer, S., Richard, O. C., & Chadwick, K. (2003). Gender diversity in management and firm
performance: The influence of growth orientation and organizational culture. Journal of
Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2014). Organizational climate and culture: An
introduction to theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
*Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The
moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 395-
406.
*Fang, E., & Zou, S. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of marketing dynamic capabilities
in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 742-761.
Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M., Shaw, J., & Kilduff, M. (2015). Integrating
personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and
work outcomes in organizations. Organization Science, 26, 1243-1260.
*Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., & Thomas, C. H. (2012). Organizational learning:
Subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural
antecedents. Journal of Management, 38, 640-667.
Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
*Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2012). The adoption of Toyota Way principles in large Chinese
construction firms. Journal of Technology Management in China, 7, 291-316.
*Gimenez-Espin, J. A., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Costa, M. (2013). Organizational
culture for total quality management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
24, 678-692.
*Givens, R. J. (2012). The study of the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational performance in non-profit religious organizations. International Journal of
Organization Theory and Behavior, 15, 239-263.
*Goll, I., & Sambharya, R. B. (1995). Corporate ideology, diversification and firm performance.
Organization Studies, 16, 823-846.
*Gonzalez-Padron, T., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. (2008). Exploiting innovative
opportunities in global purchasing: An assessment of ethical climate and relationship
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 69-82.
Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., Popadak, J., & Rajgopal, S. (2016). Corporate culture: Evidence
from the field (No. w23255). National Bureau of Economic Research.
*Guerra, J. M., Martinez, I., Munduate, L., & Medina, F. J. (2005). A contingency perspective
on the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organizational culture.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 157-176.
*Haas, L., Allard, K., & Hwang, P. (2002). The impact of organizational culture on men's use of
parental leave in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 5, 319-342.
*Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2007). Gender and organizational culture: Correlates of companies'
responsiveness to fathers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 21, 52-79.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural
properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 305-325.
*Hartnell, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., Lambert, L. S., Fugate, M., & Corner, P. D. (2016). Do
similarities or differences between CEO leadership and organizational culture have a more
positive effect on firm performance? A test of competing predictions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101, 846-861.
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's
theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory. Cambridge: Oxford University
Press.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Strategic Management: Concepts:
Competitiveness and Globalization (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education.
*Homburg, C., Fassnacht, M., & Guenther, C. (2003). The role of soft factors in implementing a
service-oriented strategy in industrial marketing companies. Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, 10(2), 23-51.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2013). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
*Huang, Y.-T., & Tsai, Y.-T. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of brand-oriented
companies. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 2020-2041.
*Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., Giunipero, L. C., & Nichols, E. L., Jr. (2000). Organizational
learning in global purchasing: A model and test of internal users and corporate buyers.
Decision Sciences, 31, 293-325.
*Hung, R. Y. Y., Yang, B., Lien, B. Y.-H., McLean, G. N., & Kuo, Y.-M. (2010). Dynamic
capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on
performance. Journal of World Business, 45, 285-294.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
*Jabnoun, N., & Sedrani, K. (2005). TQM, culture, and performance in UAE manufacturing
firms. The Quality Management Journal, 12(4), 8-20.
*Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15, 153-168.
*Jaskyte, K. (2010). An exploratory examination of correlates of organizational culture.
Administration in Social Work, 34, 423-441.
*Jaskyte, K., & Kisieliene, A. (2006). Organizational innovation: A comparison of nonprofit

human-service organizations in Lithuania and the United States. International Social
Work, 49, 165-176.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management
influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating
mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264-1294.
*Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2010). Performance implications for the relationships among top
management leadership, organizational culture, and appraisal practice: Testing two
theory-based models of organizational learning theory in Japan. The International
*Kalyar, M. N., & Rafi, N. (2013). 'Organizational learning culture': An ingenious device for
promoting firm's innovativeness. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 1135-1147.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
*Keskin, H., Akgun, A. E., Gunsel, A., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). The relationships between
adhocracy and clan cultures and tacit oriented KM strategy. Journal of Transnational
*Kim, N., Pae, J. H., Han, J. K., & Srivastava, R. K. (2010). Utilization of business technologies:
Managing relationship-based benefits for buying and supplying firms. Industrial
Marketing Management, 39, 473-484.
*Kinicki, A., Fugate, M., Hartnell, C. A., & Corner, P. (2010, August). Examining CEO
leadership, culture, and firm effectiveness in small- to medium-sized enterprises. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
*Kinicki, A. J., Hartnell, C. A., Reina, C., & Peterson, S. J. (2012, August). A look inside the
black box: Exploring the link between CEO change leadership and firm performance.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the
construct validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Korff, J., Biemann, T., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). Human resource management systems and work
attitudes: The mediating role of future time perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 45-67.
*Kotrba, L. M., Gillespie, M. A., Schmidt, A. M., Smerek, R. E., Ritchie, S. A., & Denison, D.
R. (2012). Do consistent corporate cultures have better business performance? Exploring
the interaction effects. Human Relations, 65, 241-262.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.
*Koufteros, X. A., Nahm, A. Y., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, K.-H. (2007). An empirical assessment
of a nomological network of organizational design constructs: From culture to structure
to pull production to performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 106,
468-492.
*Kowalczyk, S. J., & Pawlish, M. J. (2002). Corporate branding through external perception of
organizational culture. Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 159-174.
*Kriemadis, T., Pelagidis, T., & Kartakoullis, N. (2012). The role of organizational culture in
Greek businesses. EuroMed Journal of Business, 7, 129-141.
*Küskü, F., & Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of corporate citizenship in
Australia and Turkey. British Journal of Management, 15, 57-72.
*Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Verhoest, K. (2011). Explaining the innovative culture and
activities of state agencies. Organization Studies, 32, 1321-1347.
*Lai, M.-F., & Lee, G.-G. (2007). Relationships of organizational culture toward knowledge
activities. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 306-322.
*Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinn's competing values model in an Australian context.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 46-59.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.
Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in
organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25, 753-759.
*Leisen, B., Lilly, B., & Winsor, R. D. (2002). The effects of organizational culture and market
orientation on the effectiveness of strategic marketing alliances. Journal of Services
Marketing, 16, 201-222.
*Lejeune, C., & Vas, A. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness in business schools: A
test of the accreditation impact. Journal of Management Development, 28, 728-741.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human
resource management systems in strategy human resource management research.
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 25, 217-271.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 760-776.
*Li, W.-D., Wang, Y.-L., Taylor, P., Shi, K., & He, D. (2008). The influence of organizational
culture on work-related personality requirement ratings: A multilevel analysis.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 366-384.
*Mahalinga Shiva, M. S. A., & Suar, D. (2012). Transformational leadership, organizational
culture, organizational effectiveness, and programme outcomes in non-governmental
organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 23, 684-710.
*Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder
orientation: Development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 313-338.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2, 71-87.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Marinova, S. V., Cao, X., & Park, H. (in press). Constructive organizational values climate and
organizational citizenship behaviors: A configural view. Journal of Management.
Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0149206318755301.
*Marsh, S. M. (2005). Strategy selection and implementation in corporate acquisitions:
Examining the role of the CEO (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA.
*Martin, J. H., & Grbac, B. (2003). Using supply chain management to leverage a firm's market
orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 25-38.
*Matzler, K., Abfalter, D. E., Mooradian, T. A., & Bailom, F. (2013). Corporate culture as an
antecedent of successful exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 17(5), 1-23.
*McDermott, C. M., & Stock, G. N. (1999). Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing
technology implementation. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 521-533.
*Melo, T. (2012). Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational

culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8,
33-47.
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation
coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D. (1992). Environmental fit versus internal fit. Organization Science, 3, 159-178.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
*Mohr, D. C., Young, G. J., & Burgess, J. F., Jr. (2012). Employee turnover and operational
performance: The moderating effect of group-oriented organisational culture. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22, 216-233.
Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C., & Hmurovic, J. L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding
the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31, 351-360.
Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job Performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39-53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
*Mrozowski, S. J. (2001). A study of quality management in county behavioral health
organizations: The influence of organizational characteristics and leadership perceptions
of organizational culture (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State
University, State College, PA.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1992). Designing organizations that have good fit: A
framework for understanding new architectures. In D. A. Nadler, M. S. Gerstein, R. B.
Shaw, & Associates (Eds.), Organizational architecture: Designs for changing
organizations (pp. 39-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Nahm, A. Y., Vonderembse, M. A., & Koufteros, X. A. (2004). The impact of organizational
culture on time-based manufacturing and performance. Decision Sciences, 35, 579-607.
*Naranjo Valencia, J. C., Sanz Valle, R., & Jiménez Jiménez, D. (2010). Organizational culture
as determinant of product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13,
466-480.
*Nekrep, M. (2009). Success factors in new financial services development. Nase Gospodarstvo,
55(5/6), 30-39.
*Ngo, H.-Y., & Loi, R. (2008). Human resource flexibility, organizational culture and firm
performance: An investigation of multinational firms in Hong Kong. The International
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Sims, M. (2006). Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing
SMEs. Technovation, 26, 251-261.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and
commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J. & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In I.
B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 643-676). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
*Ou, A. Y. (2011). CEO leadership, organizational culture, middle manager attitudes and firm
performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Paterson, T. A., Harms, P. D., Steel, P., & Credé, M. (2016). An assessment of the magnitude of
effect sizes: Evidence from 30 years of meta-analysis in management. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23, 66-81.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 80-109.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
*Plewa, C. (2009). Exploring organizational culture difference in relationship dyads.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 17, 46-57.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
*Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2005). The relationship between total quality management
practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25, 1101-1122.
*Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2011). The relationship between multidimensional
organizational culture and performance. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 31, 712-735.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
Quinn, R. E., & Kimberly, J. R. (1984). Paradox, planning, and perseverance: Guidelines for
managerial practice. In J. R. Kimberly & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Managing organizational
transitions (pp. 295–313). Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.
*Rad, A. M. M. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on the successful implementation
of total quality management. The TQM Magazine, 18, 606-625.
*Rebelo, T. M., & Gomes, A. D. (2011). Conditioning factors of an organizational learning
culture. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23, 173-194.
*Rhodes, J., Hung, R., Lok, P., Lien, B. Y.-H., & Wu, C.-M. (2008). Factors influencing
organizational knowledge transfer: Implication for corporate performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 12(3), 84-100.
*Ridnour, R. E., Lassk, F. G., & Shepherd, C. D. (2001). An exploratory assessment of sales
culture variables: Strategic implications within the banking industry. The Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 247-254.
*Roi, R. C. (2006). Leadership, corporate culture and financial performance (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
*Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2001). Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of
organizational culture and intranet implementation. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 44, 37-52.
*Russo, G. M., Tomei, P. A., Linhares, A. B. J., & Santos, A. M. (2013). Correlation between
organizational culture and compensation strategies using Charles Handy's typology.
Performance Improvement, 52(7), 13-21.
Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M.
F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp. 188-
224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through
transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15, 145-158.
*Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Densten, I. L., & Cooper, B. (2005). The organizational culture profile
revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 30,
159-182.
Schaffer (2012). To change the culture, stop trying to “change the culture.” Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2012/12/to-change-the-culture-stop-try.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., González-Romá, V., Ostroff, C., & West, M. A. (2017). Organizational climate
and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in Journal of Applied
Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 468-482.
*Seong, J. Y. (2011). The effects of high performance work systems, entrepreneurship and
organizational culture on organizational performance. Seoul Journal of Business, 17(1),
3-36.
*Shao, Z., Feng, Y., & Liu, L. (2012). The mediating effect of organizational culture and
knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning
systems success: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2400-
2413.
*Simosi, M., & Xenikou, A. (2010). The role of organizational culture in the relationship
between leadership and organizational commitment: An empirical study in a Greek
organization. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1598-
1616.
Snow, C. C., & Snell, S. A. (2012). Strategic human resource management. In S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 993-1008).
New York: Oxford University Press.
*Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational
exchange mechanisms: The role of social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of
Soteriou, A., & Zenios, S. A. (1999). Operations, quality, and profitability in the provision of
banking services. Management Science, 45, 1221-1238.
*Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A
field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517-536.
*Stock, G. N., & McDermott, C. M. (2001). Organizational and strategic predictors of
manufacturing technology implementation success: An exploratory study. Technovation,
21, 625-636.
*Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R., III. (2007). Organizational culture, critical
success factors, and the reduction of hospital errors. International Journal of Production
Economics, 106, 368-392.
*Stock, G. N., McFadden, K. L., & Gowen, C. R., III. (2010). Organizational culture, knowledge
management, and patient safety in U.S. hospitals. The Quality Management Journal,
17(2), 7-26.
*Stock, R. M., Six, B., & Zacharias, N. A. (2013). Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented
corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: A
contingency approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 283-299.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29, 16-35.
*Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The
preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73, 3-23.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
*Tsamenyi, M., & Mills, J. (2002). Perceived environmental uncertainty, organizational culture,
budget participation and managerial performance in Ghana. Journal of Transnational
Management Development, 8(1/2), 17-52.
*Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. (2006). Unpacking the
relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 113-137.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801-814.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis
and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.
*Vo, T. Q., & Nguyen, D. K. (2011). Corporate ownership structure and organizational culture in
a transition economy: The case of Vietnam. International Journal of Economics and
Finance, 3(4), 36-47.
*Wang, D., Su, Z., & Yang, D. (2011). Organizational culture and knowledge creation
capability. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 363-373.
*Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. (2008). The impact of market orientation and strategic HRM on firm
performance: The case of Chinese enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies,
39, 980-995.
*Wei, L. Q., Liu, J., & Herndon, N. C. (2011). SHRM and product innovation: Testing the
moderating effects of organizational culture and structure in Chinese firms. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 19-33.
*Wei, Y. S., Samiee, S., & Lee, R. P. (2014). The influence of organic organizational cultures,
market responsiveness, and product strategy on firm performance in an emerging market.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 49-70.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between
culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Toward an integrative view of strategic human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 203-225.
*Yarbrough, L., Morgan, N. A., & Vorhies, D. W. (2011). The impact of product market
strategy-organizational culture fit on business performance. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, 555-573.
*Yilmaz, C., Alpkan, L., & Ergun, E. (2005). Cultural determinants of customer- and learning-
oriented value systems and their joint effects on firm performance. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 1340-1352.
*Yilmaz, C., & Ergun, E. (2008). Organizational culture and firm effectiveness: An examination
of relative effects of culture traits and the balanced culture hypothesis in an emerging
economy. Journal of World Business, 43, 290-306.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9, 15-32.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing roles is essential
for organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 361-375.
*Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family
firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 28, 363-381.
*Zajec, M., & Roblek, M. (2011). Are there important differences in success and in
organizational culture between family companies in production and service sector in
Slovenia? Organizacija, 44, 195-205.
*Zeng, K., & Luo, X. (2013). Impact of ownership type and firm size on organizational culture
and on the organizational culture-effectiveness linkage. Journal of Business Economics
and Management, 14, S96-S111.
*Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2010). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of high-
performance human resource practices on corporate entrepreneurship: Evidence from
China. Human Resource Management, 49, 743-765.
*Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,
strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management.
Journal of Business Research, 63, 763-771.
*Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in
China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of
*Zhou, K. Z., Li, J. J., Zhou, N., & Su, C. (2008). Market orientation, job satisfaction, product
quality, and firm performance: Evidence from China. Strategic Management Journal, 29,
985-1000.
Table 1
Elements of an Organization’s System: Definitions and Central Questions Related to Organizational Functioning
Central Focus Concerning

Definition Organizational Functioning Focal Dimensions
Strategy "An integrated and coordinated set of commitments and How do we gain competitive  Exploration
actions designed to exploit core competencies and gain a advantage?  Exploitation
competitive advantage" (Hitt et al., 2007, p. 4).
Structure "The ways in which [an organization] divides its labor into How do we organize resources and the  Organic/Mechanistic
distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them" flow of information to attain
(Mintzberg, 1979, p. 2). organizational goals?
Culture "A pattern of shared assumptions, beliefs, and expectations What is the appropriate way to  Clan
that guide members' interpretations and actions by defining perceive, think, and feel in relation to  Adhocracy
appropriate behavior within an organization" (Chatman et organizational events?  Market
al., 2014, p. 787).  Hierarchy
Leadership "Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a How do individuals with authority  Task
group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (Northouse, influence employees to accomplish  Relational
2012, p. 3). organizational goals?  Change
High Performance Bundles of HR practices “increase employees' knowledge, What corporate policies, practices,  Overall HPWPs
Work Practices skills, and abilities (KSAs), empower employees to leverage and procedures reward and support
(HPWPs) their KSAs for organizational benefit, and increase their employees’ development, motivation,
motivation to do so” (Combs et al., 2006, p. 502). and opportunities to contribute to
achieve organizational goals?
Table 2
Meta-Analytic Relationships between Culture Dimensions and Organizational System Correlates
Variable k N r ρ̂ 95% CI 80% CV Q I2 ΔK adj-r
Strategy
Exploration
Clan 8 1,473 .39 .47 [.32, .62] [.20, .74] 64.33 ** 12.44% 0 .39
Adhocracy 5 871 .37 .45 [.41, .50] [.39, .52] 7.12 70.20% 0 .37
Market 5 1,136 .31 .38 [.23, .52] [.17, .58] 28.36 ** 17.63% 0 .31
Hierarchy 6 798 .32 .40 [.27, .53] [.21, .60] 22.32 ** 26.88% 0 .32
Exploitation
Clan 5 1,063 .31 .38 [.34, .42] [.30, .46] 8.31 60.19% 0 .31
Adhocracy 2 383 .33 .42 [.35, .48] [.42, .42] .72 100.00% 0 .33
Market 4 966 .32 .40 [.26, .53] [.23, .56] 15.22 ** 26.27% 1 .28
Hierarchy 5 1,063 .40 .51 [.38, .64] [.33, .69] 18.29 ** 27.33% 0 .40
Structure
Organic
Clan 5 1,159 .06 .07 [-.21, .35] [-.33, .48] 119.62 ** 4.18% 0 .06
Adhocracy 5 824 .05 .06 [-.17, .28] [-.26, .37] 53.83 ** 9.29% 0 .05
Market 5 1,325 .20 .24 [.13, .35] [.10, .38] 19.90 ** 32.42% 0 .20
Hierarchy 5 1,159 -.08 -.10 [-.33, .13] [-.42, .22] 76.37 ** 6.55% 0 -.08
Leadership
Task
Clan 7 1,158 .23 .28 [.12, .43] [.02, .53] 54.15 ** 12.93% 0 .23
Adhocracy 8 1,877 .30 .36 [.29, .43] [.25, .47] 21.37 ** 37.44% 3 .27
Market 8 1,793 .271 .33 [.27, .39] [.24, .42] 16.23 * 49.31% 1 .269
Hierarchy 6 1,710 .21 .26 [.13, .40] [.06, .47] 44.93 ** 13.35% 0 .21
Relational
Clan 16 2,519 .44 .53 [.47, .59] [.37, .68] 46.96 ** 34.08% 0 .44
Adhocracy 11 2,219 .35 .43 [.32, .53] [.20, .65] 66.44 ** 16.56% 2 .30
Market 14 3,302 .24 .29 [.20, .38] [.09, .49] 85.45 ** 16.38% 0 .24
Hierarchy 13 2,647 .32 .40 [.30, .51] [.17, .64] 81.09 ** 16.03% 0 .32
Change
Clan 12 2,283 .39 .48 [.38, .58] [.27, .70] 66.06 ** 18.17% 0 .39
Adhocracy 11 2,277 .38 .48 [.35, .60] [.20, .75] 91.87 ** 11.97% 0 .38
Market 13 3,659 .36 .44 [.39, .50] [.33, .56] 32.18 ** 40.40% 0 .36
Hierarchy 11 2,619 .36 .45 [.38, .53] [.30, .61] 37.23 ** 29.54% 0 .36
High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs)
HPWPs
Clan 17 2,409 .39 .46 [.34, .59] [.13, .79] 158.44 ** 10.73% 0 .39
Adhocracy 13 1,402 .33 .40 [.27, .54] [.10, .70] 87.80 ** 14.81% 0 .33
Market 21 3,354 .42 .50 [.42, .59] [.25, .76] 124.72 ** 19.99% 0 .42
Hierarchy 14 1,899 .27 .34 [.20, .48] [.00, .68] 135.12 ** 10.36% 0 .27
Note. k = number of studies; N = total number of organizations; r = sample size weighted mean
correlation; ρ̂ = estimated population correlation (sample size weighted mean correlation
corrected for unreliability in both measures); CI = confidence interval; CV = credibility interval;
Q = Chi-square test of homogeneity; I2 = proportion of observed variance in the observed
correlation due to statistical artifacts. ΔK = number of filled studies in trim & fill analysis; adj-r
= adjusted r after adding filled studies in trim & fill analysis.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 3
Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix of Organizational-Level Effects for Organizational Culture, Leadership, HPWPs, and Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Clan
2. Adhocracy
r/ ρ̂ .49 / .59
k/N 67 / 10,551
3. Market
r/ ρ̂ .38 / .45 .50 / .61
k/N 73 / 11,336 66 / 10,393
4. Hierarchy
r / ρ̂ .39 / .49 .27 / .35 .41 / .52
k/N 60 / 10,839 59 / 10,346 61 / 11,107
5. Overall leadership
r/ ρ̂ .44 / .52 .46 / .56 .39 / .46 .38 / .47
k/N 21 / 3,072 17 / 2,889 20 / 3,993 14 / 2,834
6. HPWPs
r / ρ̂ .39 / .46 .33 / .40 .42 / .50 .27 / .34 .22 / .26
k/N 17 / 2,409 13 / 1,402 21 / 3,354 14 / 1,899 2 / 258
7. Employee outcomes
r / ρ̂ .37 / .43 .36 / .43 .29 / .34 .31 / .38 .21 / .23 .18 / .21
k/N 26 / 3,111 19 / 1,805 22 / 2,632 21 / 1,691 6 / 772 6 / 1,202
8. Innovation outcomes
r / ρ̂ .36 / .43 .35 / .43 .33 / .41 .21 / .27 .36 / .43 .34 / .41 .30 / .35
k/N 23 / 2,410 28 / 4,579 23 / 3,519 19 / 2,052 3 / 234 3 / 813 13 / 1,104
9. Operational outcomes
r / ρ̂ .22 / .25 .29 / .34 .33 / .38 .26 / .31 .06 / .07 .26 / .30 .30 / .33 .48 / .55
k/N 30 / 4,465 25 / 3,131 25 / 3,156 26 / 2,825 4 / 960 3 / 399 16 / 1,119 15 / 1,009
10. Customer outcomes
r / ρ̂ .26 / .31 .21 / .26 .34 / .41 .21 / .26 -a .35 / .41 .33 / .38 .32 / .37 .04 / .05
k/N 17 / 1,581 13 / 783 18 / 1,626 16 / 1,147 5 / 507 14 / 888 10 / 414 14 / 1,094
11. Financial outcomes
r / ρ̂ .12 / .13 .13 / .14 .20 / .23 .19 / .22 .11 / .12 .34 / .38 .25 / .26 .36 / .40 .15 / .15 .54 / .58
k/N 38 / 4,592 39 / 4,349 41 / 5,733 26 / 2,060 8 / 1,172 10 / 1,628 14 / 811 12 / 837 17 / 1,463 16 / 1,1691
Note. r = sample size weighted mean correlation; ρ̂ = estimated population correlation (sample size weighted mean correlation corrected for
unreliability in both measures); k = number of studies; N = total number of organizations; HPWPs = High Performance Work Practices.
a
Data not available for this bivariate relationship.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 49
Table 4
Meta-Analytic Regression Models and Relative Weight Analyses of Organizational Culture Dimensions, Leadership, and HPWPs on
Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
Employee Innovation Operational Customer Financial

β RW %RW β RW %RW β RW %RW β RW %RW β RW %RW
Clan .23 ** .08 27.20% .14 ** .06 18.20% .02 .02 8.00% .12 ** .03 13.30% -.12 ** .01 3.70%
Adhocracy .32 ** .08 30.00% .09 ** .05 17.00% .27 ** .06 23.50% -.09 ** .02 6.90% -.01 .01 3.30%
Market .03 .03 11.10% .10 ** .05 14.40% .19 ** .06 25.30% .29 ** .08 34.20% .02 .02 10.40%
Hierarchy .25 ** .07 23.80% -.07 ** .01 4.10% .23 ** .05 20.80% -.01 .02 7.90% .13 ** .02 13.80%
Leadership -.17 ** .01 4.70% .23 ** .07 22.80% -.31 ** .02 9.00% -a -a -a .01 .00 2.00%
HPWPs -.08 ** .01 3.20% .22 ** .07 23.50% .09 ** .03 13.40% .25 ** .09 37.70% .38 ** .11 66.80%
Total R .53 .56 .49 .49 .40

(R2) (.28) (.32) (.24) (.24) (.16)
ΔRClan .027 ** .010 ** .000 .007 ** .007 **
ΔRAdhocracy .045 ** .004 ** .033 ** .004 ** .000
ΔRMarket .000 .005 ** .016 ** .040 ** .000
ΔRHiearchy .037 ** .003 ** .031 ** .000 .011 **
ΔRLeadership .017 ** .030 ** .054 ** -a
.000
ΔRHPWPs .004 ** .034 ** .006 ** .043 ** .094 **
Harmonic
mean
sample size 1,805 1,441 1,690 1,904 2,051
Note. β = standardized regression coefficient; RW = raw relative weights; %RW = percentage of the total variance of the dependent
variable explained by the focal predictor; Total R = multiple correlation; R2 = total explained variance of the dependent variable; ΔRX
= incremental change in multiple R values for predictor X over other predictors; HPWPs = High Performance Work Practices.
a
Variable excluded from analysis due to missing data in meta-analytic correlation matrix.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Elements of an Organization’s System
Strategy Leadership
Exploration (H1a) Task (H3a)

Organizational
Culture
Exploitation (H1b) Relational (H3b)
Clan
Change (H3c)
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
High Performance
Structure Work Practices
Organic (H2) HPWPs (H4)
Figure 1
Hypothesized Relationships between Organizational Culture Dimensions and Elements of an Organizational System
Note. Arrows reveal only the hypothesized (i.e., strongest predicted) relationships between culture dimensions and the dimensions
underlying other organizational system elements. We depict reciprocal relationships (i.e., bidirectional arrows) between culture and
its correlates’ dimensions to illustrate interdependence.
Appendix A
Representative Sources of Measures, Variable Labels, and Coded Studies
Table A1: Organizational Culture
Source of measure Variable label Coded study

Clan culture
Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, Constructive culture Aarons & Sawitzky (2006)
1988) Affiliative culture Simosi & Xenikou (2010)
Organizational Culture Profile (O’Reilly et al., 1991) People orientation Jaskyte (2010)
Team orientation Zhang & Jia (2010)
Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, Involvement Yilmaz & Ergun (2008)
1999; Denison, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Cooperativeness Chang & Lin (2007)
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991) Group culture Stock et al. (2010)
Empowerment Denison et al. (2004)
Adhocracy culture
Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, Self-actualizing culture Simosi & Xenikou (2010)
1988)
Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, Adhocracy Boggs & Fields (2010)
1999; Denison, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Adaptability Denison et al. (2014)
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991) Creating change Denison et al. (2004)
Organizational learning Denison et al. (2004)
Open systems Lamond (2003)
Market culture
Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Rousseau, Achievement culture Simosi & Xenikou (2010)
1988)
Organizational Culture Profile (O’Reilly et al., 1991) Aggressiveness Zhang & Jia (2010)
Performance orientation Sarros et al. (2008)
Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, Mission Seong (2011)
1999; Denison, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Market Behram & Özdemirci (2014)
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991) Goal and objectives Denison et al. (2004)
Strategic direction and Denison et al. (2004)
intent Denison et al. (2004)
Vision
Market orientation (Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, Market orientation Zhou et al. (2008)
1993; Narver & Slater, 1990)
Hierarchy culture
Work Practices Survey (Hofstede et al., 1990) Bureaucracy Stamper & Van Dyne (2001)
Organizational Culture Profile (O’Reilly et al., 1991) Stability Densten & Sarros (2012)
Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, Hierarchical culture Shao et al. (2012)
1999; Denison, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Consistency Chang & Lin (2007)
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991)
Table A2: Correlates of Organizational Culture

Strategy: Exploration
He & Wong (2004) Exploration [E] Matzler et al. (2013)
Hurley & Hult (1998) Innovation orientation [E-I] Zhou et al. (2005)
Rumelt (1974) Diversification strategy [E-V/D] Goll & Sambharya (1995)
Volberda (1996) Strategic agility [E-F] Benitez-Amado et al. (2010)
Miller (1983) Corporate entrepreneurship [E-R] Zahra et al. (2004)
Strategy: Exploitation
He & Wong (2004) Exploitation [EX] Matzler et al. (2013)
Doty et al (1993) Product market scope [EX-Re] Yarbrough et al. (2011)
Schuler & Jackson (1987) Quality [EX-P] Chow & Liu (2009)
Miller & Vollmann (1984) Speed / responsiveness [EX-E] Stock & McDermott (2001)
Organic Structure
MECOR scale (Caetano & Vala,1994) Organizational structure [Org] Rebelo & Gomes (2011)
Hage & Aiken (1967) Centralization (reverse coded) Hult et al. (2000)
[Org-C]
Hage & Dewar (1973) Formalization (reverse coded) Jaskyte (2010)
[Org-F]
Jaworski & Kohli (1993) Departmentalization (reverse Fang & Zou (2009)
coded) [Org-S]
Leadership: Task
Global Leadership and Organizational Structuring leadership Dickson et al. (2006)
Behavior Effectiveness Autocratic leadership Dickson et al. (2006)
questionnaire (GLOBE; House,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004)
Tsui, Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu (2004) Monitoring Tsui et al. (2006)
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Contingent reward Simosi & Xenikou (2010)
(MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990)
Leadership: Relational
Tsui, Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu (2004) Relationship building Tsui et al. (2006)
Global Leadership and Organizational Considerate leadership Dickson et al. (2006)
Behavior Effectiveness
questionnaire (GLOBE; House,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Encouraging the heart Jaskyte (2010)
Kouzes & Posner, 1993)
Leadership: Change
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Idealized influence Hult et al. (2000)
(MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1991, 1995, Attributed charisma Hult et al. (2000)
2004)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Challenging the process Jaskyte (2004)
Kouzes & Posner, 1993) Inspiring a shared vision Jaskyte (2010)
Table A2: Correlates of Organizational Culture (cont.)

High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs)
Huselid (1995) HR practices [HR-AMO] Chan et al. (2004)
Chow (2012) High Performance HR Practices Chow (2012)
[HR-AMO]
Shortell (1995) Employee quality training [HR-A] Mrozowski (2001)
Homburg, Fassnacht, & Guenther Personnel recruitment [HR-A] Homburg et al. (2003)
(2003)
Delery & Doty (1996) Performance evaluation [HR-M] Den Hartog & Verburg (2004)
Wang et al. (2003) HR provided inducements [HR-M] Song et al. (2009)
Delery & Doty (1996) Information sharing [HR-O] Den Hartog & Verburg (2004)
Shortell (1995) Employee quality planning Mrozowski (2001)
involvement [HR-O]
Delery & Doty (1996) Information sharing meetings [HR- Den Hartog & Verburg (2004)
O]
Note. Exploration strategy variables: [E] = general exploration; [E-I] = innovation; [E-V/D] =
variation/diversification; [E-F] = flexibility; [E-R] = risk-taking/experimentation. Exploitation strategy variables:
[EX] = general exploitation; [EX-Re] = refinement; [EX-P] = production; [EX-E] = efficiency. Organic structure
variables: [Org] = organic structure; [Org-C] = centralization; [Org-F] = formalization [Org-S] = specialization.
HPWPs variables: [HR-AMO] = composite of ability-motivation-opportunity enhancing HPWPs; [HR-A] = ability-
enhancing HPWP; [HR-M] = motivation-enhancing HPWP; [HR-O] = opportunity-enhancing HWPW.
Table A3: Organizational Effectiveness Criteria

Employee
Positive attitudes
Jaworski & Kohli (1993) Organizational commitment Kusku & Zarkada-Fraser
(2004)
Job Satisfaction Scale (Melia & Peiro, Job satisfaction Guerra et al. (2005)
1989)
Wood, Chonko, & Hunt (1986) Employee satisfaction Zhou et al. (2005)
Eisenberger et al. (1997); Rhoades et al.
(2001) Perceived organizational support Zhang & Jia (2010)
Positive behaviors
Tsui et al. (1997) Task performance Song et al. (2009)
Lam, Hui & Law (1999) Organizational citizenship Song et al. (2009)
behavior
Van Dyne et al. (1994) Voice Stamper & Van Dyne (2001)
Organizational Conflict Scale (Cox, 1998) Relationship conflict Guerra et al. (2005)
Objective Turnover rate (reverse coded) Chow & Liu (2009)
Objective Absenteeism rate (reverse coded) Jung & Takeuchi (2010)
Innovation
Damanpour (1987); Perri (1993) Organizational innovativeness Jaskyte & Kisieliene (2006)
Hurley & Hult (1998); Škerlavaj et al. Technical innovations Cerne et al. (2012)
(2010) Administrative innovations Cerne et al. (2012)
Zahra & Das (1993) Process innovation Donate & Guadamillas (2010)
Operational
Product/Service quality
Webster (1992) Service quality Ridnour et al. (2001)
Firm product performance measure Defect rate reduction Jabnoun & Sedrani (2005)
(Huarng & Chen, 2002) Product reliability improvement Jabnoun & Sedrani (2005)
Operational Efficiency
Self-developed Efficiency (ratio between sales Berson et al. (2008)
and number of employees)
Hult (1998) Cycle time Gonzalez-Padron et al. (2008)
Objective Waiting time (reverse coded) Mohr et al. (2012)
Customer
Maignan & Ferrell (2000) Customer loyalty Kusku & Zarkada-Fraser
(2004)
Firm product performance measure Customer complaints reduction Jabnoun & Sedrani (2005)
(Huarng & Chen, 2002)
American Customer Satisfaction Index Customer satisfaction Yarbrough et al. (2011)
(ACSI; Fornell, Johnson, Anderson,
Cha, & Bryant, 1996)
Denison (2000) Market share Denison et al. (2004)
Homburg & Pflesser (2000) Market performance Maignan et al. (2011)
Vorhies & Morgan (2005) Market effectiveness Chang et al. (2010)
Table A3: Organizational Effectiveness Criteria (cont.)

Financial
Covin, Slevin, & Covin (1990) Profitability (subjective) Seong (2011)
Objective Return on assets Zhou et al. (2008)
Objective Return on sales Tsui et al. (2006)
Denison (2000) Sales growth Denison et al. (2004)
Objective Revenue growth (corrected) Christensen & Gordon (1999)
Appendix B
Coding Information for Samples Included in the Meta-analyses
No. of
Sample correlations
size included
(no. of (raw / Organizational Data
Study units) aggregated) culture Correlates Effectiveness source
Aarons & Sawitzky 49 1/1 C - EM P
(2006)
Aier (2014) 138 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
Andersen et al. (2009) 164 6/4 A, M, H - - P
Bae & Lawler (2000) 138 3/3 C SR, HR - P
Baird et al. (2007) 184 10 / 7 C, A, M, H - - P
Bajdo & Dickson 114 1/1 C HR - P
(2001)
Behram & Özdemirci 187 45 / 24 C, A, M, H SR CU, FI P
(2014)
Benitez-Amado et al. 203 3/3 A SR, LT - P
(2010)
Berson et al. (2008) 26 15 / 15 C, A, H - EM, OP, FI P
Boggs & Fields (2010) 53 21 / 16 C, A, M, H HR FI P
Brockman & Morgan 323 6/6 C, A - IN, FI P
(2003)
Büschgens & Bausch 110 21 / 16 C, A, M, H - IN, OP U
(2012; Sample 1)
Büschgens & Bausch 91 21 / 16 C, A, M, H - IN, OP U
(2012; Sample 2)
Çakar & Ertürk (2010; 43 6/6 C, A, M - IN P
Sample 1)
Çakar & Ertürk (2010; 50 6/6 C, A, M - IN P
Sample 2)
Carmeli (2004) 73 1/1 H - FI P
Carmeli & Tishler 93 15 / 7 H HR CU, FI P
(2004)
Catana & Catana (2010) 13 6/4 C, A, M - - P
Cegarra-Navarro & 100 1/1 - - IN, OP P
Martínez-Martínez
(2009)
Cerne et al. (2012) 112 3/2 A - IN P
Chan et al. (2004) 49 36 / 18 C, A, M, H SR, HR - P
Chandler et al. (2000) 23 3/3 A HR FI P
Chang & Lin (2007) 87 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
Chang et al. (2010) 209 10 / 7 M HR CU, FI P
Chen (2011) 138 1/1 M LC - P
Chow (2012) 243 10 / 7 C, M, H HR - P
*Chow & Liu (2007) 132 21 / 16 C, M, H SR, SI, - P
HR
Chow & Liu (2009) 451 28 / 22 C, M, H SI, HR EM, IN P
Christensen & Gordon 119 21 / 5 C, A, M - - P
(1999; Sample 1)
Christensen & Gordon 13 7/3 C, A, M - FI P
(1999; Sample 2)
Appendix B (cont.)
No. of
Sample correlations
size included
(1999; Sample 3)
(1999; Sample 4)
(1999; Sample 5)
(1999; Sample 6)
(1999; Sample 7)
Damanpour et al. (2012) 127 1/1 C, M - - P
Den Hartog & Verburg 175 136 / 17 C, A, M, H HR EM P
(2004)
Denison & Mishra 674 12 / 9 C, A, M - EM, OP, FI P
(1995; Sample 1)
Denison & Mishra 220 3/3 C, A, M - FI P
(1995; Sample 2)
Denison & Mishra 409 3/3 C, A, M - FI P
(1995; Sample 3)
Denison et al. (2004; 20 120 / 40 C, A, M, H - EM, IN, OP, P
Sample 1) CU, FI
Sample 2) CU, FI
Sample 3) CU, FI
Sample 4) CU, FI
Sample 5) CU, FI
Sample 6) CU, FI
Sample 7) CU, FI
Sample 8) CU, FI
Sample 9) CU, FI
Denison et al. (2014) 155 45 / 37 C, A, M, H - EM, IN, OP, P
CU, FI
Densten & Sarros 635 66 / 18 A, M, H LT, LR, - P
(2012) LC
Dickson et al. (2006) 103 3/2 H LT, LR - P
Donate & Guadamillas 111 5/2 M - IN P
(2010)
Dwyer et al. (2003) 177 10 / 7 C, A - FI P
Erdogan et al. (2006) 30 6/4 C, M LR - P
Fang & Zou (2009) 114 28/16 A ST FI P
Flores et al. (2012) 230 6/6 C, A LR FI P
Gao & Low (2012) 93 44 / 9 M, H HR OP, CU, FI P
Gimenez-Espin et al. 451 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
(2013)
Appendix B (cont.)
No. of
Sample correlations
size included
Givens (2012) 43 28 / 16 C, A, M, H HR FI P
Goll & Sambharya 92 6/4 H SR FI P
(1995)
Gonzalez-Padron et al. 200 5/5 C, A SR OP P
(2008)
Guerra et al. (2005) 50 15 / 11 C, A, M, H - EM P
Haas & Hwang (2007) 200 1/1 C, M - - P
Haas et al. (2002) 6 3/3 C, M LR - P
*Hartnell et al. (2016) 119 10 / 10 C, M LT, LR FI P
Homburg et al. (2003) 271 14 / 5 M HR FI P
Huang & Tsai (2013) 106 3/3 H SR EM P
*Hult et al. (2000; 355 55 / 18 C, H ST, LR, OP P
Sample 1) LC
Hult et al. (2000; 200 55 / 18 C, H ST, LR, OP P
Sample 2) LC
Hung et al. (2010) 355 36 / 14 C SR OP, CU, FI P
Jabnoun & Sedrani 81 18 / 12 C, M, H HR OP, CU, FI P
(2005)
Jaskyte (2004) 19 78 / 26 C, A, M, H LR, LC IN P
Jaskyte (2010) 79 35 / 12 C, A, M, H ST, LR, - P
LC
Jaskyte & Kisieliene 21 36 / 18 C, A, M, H LR IN P
(2006)
Jung & Takeuchi (2010) 225 15 / 11 C HR, LR EM, OP P
Kalyar & Rafi (2013) 50 3/2 A - IN P
Keskin et al. (2005) 178 1/1 C, A - - P
Kim et al. (2010) 102 3/2 A, H - - P
*Kinicki et al. (2010) 91 78 / 32 C, A, M, H LT, LR EM, FI U
Kinicki et al. (2012) 119 10 / 10 C, A, M LC FI U
Kotrba et al. (2012) 137 28 / 11 C, A, M, H - FI P
Koufteros et al. (2007) 224 21 / 8 C, M, H ST - P
Kowalczyk & Pawlish 6 10 / 8 C, A, M, H - OP P
(2002)
Kriemadis et al. (2012) 33 6/4 C, A, M - - P
Kusku & Zarkada- 178 28 / 12 C, M, H - EM, CU P
Fraser (2004)
Lægreid et al. (2011) 121 6/4 M ST, HR - P
Lai & Lee (2007) 154 3/3 A, M, H - - P
Lamond (2003) 462 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
Leisen et al. (2002) 128 28 / 12 C, A, M, H - OP P
Lejeune & Vas (2009) 31 21 / 21 C, A, M, H HR EM, CU P
Li et al. (2008) 37 3/3 C, A, M - - P
Mahalinga Shiva & 312 45 / 18 C, A, M, H LR, LC - P
Suar (2012)
Appendix B (cont.)
No. of
Sample correlations
size included
Maignan et al. (2011) 151 3/3 C - EM, CU P
*Marsh (2005) 187 28 / 22 C, A, M, H LT, LC FI U
Martin & Grbac (2003) 282 83 / 5 M - CU, FI P
Matzler et al. (2013) 232 21 / 21 C, A, M, H SR, SI IN P
McDermott & Stock 97 10 / 10 C, A, M, H - OP P
(1999)
Melo (2012) 295 1/1 - SR, HR - P
Mohr et al. (2012) 114 10 / 7 C - EM, OP, CU P
Mrozowski (2001) 146 15 / 11 C, A, M, H HR - U
Nahm et al. (2004) 224 3/3 C, M, H - - P
Naranjo Valencia et al. 420 3/3 A, H - IN P
(2010)
Nekrep (2009) 60 4/3 - - EM, OP, CU, P
FI
Ngo & Loi (2008) 181 3/3 A HR EM P
O'Regan et al. (2006) 194 3/3 A - IN P
Ou (2011) 63 66 / 23 C, A, M, H LR, LC EM U
Plewa (2009; Sample 1) 62 3/3 A, M, H - - P
Plewa (2009; Sample 2) 62 3/3 A, M, H - - P
Prajogo & McDermott 194 4/4 C, A, M, H HR - P
(2005)
*Prajogo & McDermott 194 21 / 16 C, A, M, H - IN, OP P
(2011)
Rad (2006) 12 6/4 A, H - OP P
Rebelo & Gomes 107 3/2 A ST - P
(2011)
Rhodes et al. (2008) 223 16 / 5 C, A - IN P
Ridnour et al. (2001) 86 4/3 M HR EM, OP P
Roi (2006) 94 6/4 A LC FI U
Ruppel & Harrington 44 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
(2001)
Russo et al. (2013) 46 10 / 2 M, H HR - P
Sarros et al. (2005) 1918 6/6 C, A, M, H - - P
Sarros et al. (2008) 1158 28 / 5 M LR, LC - P
*Seong (2011) 162 21 / 16 C, A, M, H HR FI U
Shao et al. (2012) 75 36 / 17 C, A, M, H LR, LC - U
Simosi & Xenikou 34 10 / 7 C, A, M LT - U
(2010)
Song et al. (2009) 33 21 / 13 C, A, M HR, LT EM P
Stamper & Van Dyne 6 3/2 H - EM P
(2001)
Stock & McDermott 97 21 / 7 C, H SI - P
(2001)
Stock et al. (2007) 549 10 / 10 C, A, M, H - OP P
Stock et al. (2010) 202 10 / 10 C, A, M, H - OP U
Appendix B (cont.)
No. of
Sample correlations
size included
Stock et al. (2013) 216 6/2 A - IN U
Tellis et al. (2009) 1544 4/2 A, M - IN U
Tsamenyi & Mills 89 4/2 A, M HR - P
(2002)
Tsui et al. (2006; 542 36 / 23 C, A, M, H LT, LR, - P
Sample 1) LC
Tsui et al. (2006; 152 55 / 31 C, A, M, H LT, LR, FI P
Sample 2) LC
Vo & Nguyen (2011) 43 6/6 C, A, M, H - - U
Wang et al. (2011) 212 3/3 C, A, H - - U
Wei & Lau (2008) 600 15 / 6 M ST, HR FI P
Wei et al. (2011) 223 6/6 A ST, HR IN P
Wei et al. (2014) 180 6/6 C, A, M - FI P
Yarbrough et al. (2011) 151 45 / 30 C, A, M, H SI OP, CU, FI U
Yilmaz & Ergun (2008) 100 45 / 29 C, A, M, H - EM, IN, OP, U
FI
Yilmaz et al. (2005) 134 1/1 A, M - - P
Zahra et al. (2004) 536 5/4 M SR FI P
Zajec & Roblek (2011) 24 3/3 C, A, M - - U
Zeng & Luo (2013) 106 6/6 C, A, M, H - - U
Zhang & Jia (2010) 139 10 / 10 C, M HR EM, IN P
*Zheng et al. (2010) 301 10 / 10 C, A, M, H ST - U
Zhou et al. (2005) 180 10 / 7 C SR, LC EM P
Zhou et al. (2008) 180 15 / 11 M LC EM, OP, FI U
Note. For coding content: C = clan culture; A = adhocracy culture; M = market culture; H = hierarchy culture; SR = strategy
(exploration); SI = strategy (exploitation); ST = organic organizational structure; LT = leadership (task); TR = leadership
(relational); LC = leadership (change); HR = HPWPs; EM = employee outcomes; IN = innovation outcomes; OP = operational
outcomes; CU = customer outcomes; FI = finance outcomes. For data source, P = published; U = unpublished (dissertation,
unpublished manuscript, or published sample but with additional author provided data).
* Studies excluded after outlier analyses.
Appendix C
Publication Bias and Outlier Detection
Table 1 shows that some of our meta-analytic correlations are based on relatively small
number of studies (k < 10), raising the concern that our results may be distorted by publication
biases (Ferguson & Brannick, 2012) or outliers (Cortina, 2003). Although recent research
suggests that publication biases are not a major threat for meta-analyses (Paterson et al., 2016;
Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, & Pierce, 2012), we conducted trim-and-fill analyses (Duval &
Tweedie, 2000) using Wilcoxon distribution and funnel plots. This approach is widely used in
behavioral science and biomedical meta-analyses because it is easy to use, generates results
similar to more complex methods, and provides estimated effect sizes after correcting for
publication bias (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). We reported the number of potentially missing effect
sizes imputed by trim-and-fill analysis (ΔK) and the estimated correlations (adj-r) after including
those missing effect sizes (i.e., after correcting for publication bias). As shown in Table 2,
correlations between exploitation strategy and market culture, task leadership and adhocracy
culture, task leadership and market culture, and relational leadership and adhocracy culture had
some potentially missing effect sizes, suggesting that publication biases were present in these
four relationships but not in other relationships. The adjusted r’s of these relationships (.28, .27,
.269, and .30, respectively) were different from the sample size weighted mean correlation r
(.32, .30, .271, and .35, respectively), but were not substantial to invalidate the effect sizes.
For outlier detection, we adopted Huffcutt and Arthur’s procedures (Beal, Corey, &
Dunlap, 2002; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995) to calculate modified SAMD statistics involving
Fisher’s z transformation. We used the cut-off of three (Leslie, Mayer, & Kravitz, 2014) and
identified eight studies (i.e., Chow & Liu, 2007; Hartnell, Kinicki, Lambert, Fugate, & Corner,
2016; Hult, Hurley, Giunipero, & Nichols, 2000; Kinicki, Fugate, Hartnell, & Corner, 2011;
Marsh, 2005; Prajogo & McDermott, 2005; Seong, 2011; Zheng, Yang, & McLean, 2010) each
with more than three outliers. We carefully examined each study, found no reporting errors, and
decided to retain the studies in the analysis. For robustness check, we excluded these eight
studies and replicated the meta-analyses. The meta-analytic correlations were generally lower
than without exclusion because most of the outliers were exceedingly higher correlations;
however, the result patterns remained the same. Therefore, we reported the results including
those eight studies, as they represented a more conservative test of the hypotheses.
Appendix D
Meta-Analysis Results of Organizational Culture Dimensions and Organizational Effectiveness
Criteria
Variable k N r ρ̂ 95% CI 80% CV Q I2 ΔK adj-r

Employee
Clan 26 3,111 .37 .43 [.35, .51] [.17, .68] 149.01 ** 17.44% 10 .28
Adhocracy 19 1,805 .36 .43 [.35, .50] [.23, .62] 62.17 ** 30.56% 8 .27
Market 22 2,632 .29 .34 [.24, .43] [.07, .60] 135.10 ** 16.28% 8 .22
Hierarchy 21 1,691 .31 .38 [.27, .49] [.07, .69] 118.40 ** 17.73% 4 .27
Innovation
Clan 23 2,410 .36 .43 [.37, .49] [.26, .60] 66.08 ** 34.80% 0 .36
Adhocracy 28 4,579 .35 .43 [.37, .49] [.24, .63] 121.82 ** 22.99% 8 .31
Market 23 3,519 .33 .41 [.35, .46] [.25, .56] 69.40 ** 33.14% 2 .33
Hierarchy 19 2,052 .21 .27 [.15, .39] [-.06, .59] 146.82 ** 12.94% 3 .20
Operational
Clan 30 4,465 .22 .25 [.17, .34] [-.04, .55] 259.00 ** 11.58% 8 .16
Adhocracy 25 3,131 .29 .34 [.29, .39] [.21, .47] 55.98 ** 44.66% 2 .29
Market 25 3,156 .33 .38 [.32, .44] [.22, .54] 71.80 ** 34.82% 9 .28
Hierarchy 26 2,825 .26 .31 [.25, .37] [.14, .48] 72.88 ** 35.68% 6 .24
Customer
Clan 17 1,581 .26 .31 [.24, .38] [.16, .46] 36.93 ** 46.04% 0 .26
Adhocracy 13 783 .21 .26 [.16, .35] [.09, .42] 25.75 * 50.49% 1 .20
Market 18 1,626 .34 .41 [.32, .51] [.16, .67] 73.54 ** 24.48% 0 .34
Hierarchy 16 1,147 .21 .26 [.15, .37] [.00, .52] 61.80 ** 25.89% 0 .21
Financial
Clan 38 4,592 .12 .13 [.09, .18] [-.02, .29] 105.68 ** 35.96% 1 .13
Adhocracy 39 4,349 .13 .14 [.09, .19] [-.02, .30] 107.67 ** 36.22% 6 .11
Market 41 5,733 .20 .23 [.18, .27] [.06, .39] 138.04 ** 29.70% 9 .17
Hierarchy 26 2,060 .19 .22 [.14, .29] [.00, .43] 84.41 ** 30.80% 7 .13
Note. k = number of studies; N = total number of organizations; r = sample size weighted mean correlation; ρ̂ =
estimated population correlation (sample size weighted mean correlation corrected for unreliability in both
measures); CI = confidence interval; CV = credibility interval; Q = Chi-square test of homogeneity; I2 = proportion
of observed variance in the observed correlation due to statistical artifacts. ΔK = number of filled studies in trim &
fill analysis; adj-r = adjusted r after adding filled studies in trim & fill analysis.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Appendix E
Detection of Negative Suppression in Organizational Effectiveness Criteria
Employee Employee Innovation Operational Customer Financial

Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b
Leadership .23** -.17** -.17** .23** .07** -.31** - - .01
HPWPs -.08** .21** -.08** .22** .09** .25** .38**
Clan .23** .23** .14** .02 .12** .13** -.12**
Adhocracy .32** .32** .09** .27** .26** -.09** -.01
Market .03 .03 .10** .19** .29** .02
Hierarchy .25** .25** .27** -.07** .23** -.01 .14**
Total R .23 .53 .21 .53 .27 .56 .07 .49 .26 .49 .13 .40
(R2) (.05) (.28) (.04) (.28) (.07) (.32) (.01) (.24) (.07) (.24) (.02) (.16)
ΔR2model a to
.23** .24** .25** .23** .17** .14**
model b
** p < .01.
View publication stats

Hartnelletal.2019JAP FullManuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hartnelletal.2019JAP FullManuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association With Elements of

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · January 2019

Chad Hartnell Amy Yi Ou

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association with Elements of an

Chad A. Hartnell, Department of Managerial Sciences, Georgia State University; Amy Y.

Organizational culture is an important predictor of organizational effectiveness, but it is also part

of an organizational system that consists of highly interdependent elements such as strategy,

organizational outcomes relative to other elements of an organization’s system. We addressed

these issues by conducting a meta-analysis based on 148 independent samples (N = 26,196

organizations and 556,945 informants). Results generally supported hypothesized predictions

effectiveness criteria in terms of relative importance. We discuss theoretical and practical

implications and highlight several avenues for future research.

Keywords: Organizational culture, organizational system, organizational effectiveness,

leadership, high performance work practices

A Meta-Analytic Test of Organizational Culture's Association with Elements of an

Organization’s System and its Relative Predictive Validity on Organizational Outcomes

effectiveness omits a broader consideration of the concurrent effects of organizational culture

alongside other interrelated elements of an organization’s system on organizational effectiveness.

unmeasured correlates in an organization’s system. The purpose of this meta-analysis is thus to

address this gap through the pursuit of two objectives.

between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s system. Organizations are

Organizational theory paradigms provide a theoretical foundation to specify the elements of an

strategy, structure, culture, leadership, and HPWPs as prominent elements of an organization’s

examine their relationships meta-analytically. 1 Unfortunately, research remains fragmented

regarding the interrelationships between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s

culture dimensions and other elements of an organization’s system.

an organization’s system have significant implications regarding the reciprocal effects of

and organizational effectiveness spurious or confounded because culture’s predictive validity

effectiveness criteria as those studied in organizational culture research (DeRue, Nahrgang,

remains an empirical question. We address this limitation by conducting meta-analytic

we develop a clearer understanding of culture dimensions’ predictive validity relative to two

nuanced understanding of organizational culture’s effect on organizational outcomes.

organizational culture on organizational effectiveness alongside other interrelated elements of an

organizational effectiveness criteria by examining its predictive validity relative to leadership

an organizational system is composed of subsystems (i.e., units and departments) and is

relationship between organizational culture and elements of an organization’s system as well as

Focal Dimensions Underlying Culture and Elements of an Organization’s System

exchanges among organizational members to accomplish them. Classical management

understand organizational culture’s relationship with other elements of an organizational system.

functioning, and underlying dimensions.

Insert Table 1 About Here

meta-dimension reflects an organization’s focus on internal capabilities and integration, such as

developing people, versus an orientation focused on external opportunities and differentiation

coordinating employees’ interrelationships through encouraging participation, cooperation, and

collaboration, and prioritizing employees’ development. Adhocracy culture combines flexibility

Strategy is centrally concerned with competitive advantage. It is a deliberate plan of

operational framework because it addresses how organizations reduce uncertainty related to

Exploitation focuses on internal integration and involves maximizing efficiencies in existing

proximate, and predictable” (p. 85).

do we organize roles to attain organizational goals?” An organizational structure reflects “the

organic – mechanistic typology to categorize structure because organic and mechanistic

is the opposite of a mechanistic structure, is characterized by lateral communication,

Conversely, a mechanistic structure is composed of formalization, highly centralized decision-

Leadership’s central focus is interpersonal influence (see Table 1). Leadership’s

their effort to accomplish organizational goals. Organizational leadership supports an

organization’s superordinate goals in three ways. It supports the organization’s internal

organizational functioning. Relational leadership provides employees with social

leadership) in which it adapts to environmental change by instituting corresponding changes

The ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) model of HPWPs provides a gestalt view of

motivation-enhancing (e.g., performance management, compensation, incentives, benefits, career