You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Administrative Sciences
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

28 April 2024

Organizational Climate Scale for Public Service: Development and Validation

,
,
,
and
Department of Administrative Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, RS, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci.2024, 14(5), 90;https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050090
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This research presents four studies that developed and validated the Organizational Climate Perception Scale for Public Service (OCPS-PS). The first qualitative study consulted the literature and conducted a focus group to develop the initial version of the scale. The second study involved expert evaluation and pre-testing, aiming at the semantic and face validation of the items. This study resulted in 80 items forming the thirteen dimensions of organizational climate. The third study obtained the first quantitative sample for the exploratory validation phase of the scale. The final study, using a new sample, conducted confirmatory tests for the validation of the scale. A methodology for applying the scale was developed, allowing all interested parties to use the OCPS-PS for the assessment of the organizational climate in public service. The results of the four conducted studies indicate the adequacy of the OCPS-PS according to the proposed criteria of validity and reliability. Finally, the OCPS-OS was built to be applied in different public organizations and at different government levels.

1. Introduction

In environmental psychology, psychological environments encompass the various meanings individuals associate with their physical surroundings (; ). Specifically within the organizational setting, the psychological climate refers to the meanings individuals attribute to their jobs, coworkers, leaders, compensation, performance expectations, promotion opportunities, and fairness in treatment ().
Building upon these concepts, the initial primary purpose of organizational climate was to identify and assess the work environment through the direct and indirect perceptions of individuals working in that environment (). Shortly thereafter, () observed that organizational climate serves as a tool for managing employee motivation.
In the view of (), organizational climate is an essential dimension in the workplace, providing a means of study for organizational behavior research by identifying individual and group behaviors. In this context, () define climate as the cognitive representations of individuals and the psychological interpretations of their organizational environment. These designations already indicate the multidimensional nature of the concept (), regardless of whether it is a public or private organization.
Public organizations intervene with private organizations in terms of ownership, financing, and control (). Therefore, several factors must be taken into consideration, such as hierarchical levels, objectives and responsibilities, economic forecast/unfeasibility, legal and formal restrictions, flexibility/inflexibility in decision-making, social characteristics and functions, among other differences (; ; ; ; ; ; ).
In addition to these, () emphasize the traditional distinction between human resource management in public and private contexts, highlighting the search for equal opportunities in the public sector and the orientation towards performance in private sectors. In this sense, it is observed that management is also different, reflecting autonomy, coexistence with internal and external stakeholders, accountability, and values, affecting the organizational climate of each organization (; ).
Especially concerning public organizations, there is a pressure for changes, setting a new pace for transformations, requiring constant adaptations in legal structures and political preferences, modifying the organizational climate (OC) unexpectedly and without the involvement of the majority of public servants (; ). In several countries, the traditional, hierarchical, legalistic public administrations have been partially replaced by results-oriented public organizations. Public organizations have adopted the two central new public management goals, efficiency and effectiveness (). Performance in the public sector is now universally recognized as outcomes and impacts (). Additionally, when compared to the private sector, public organizations exhibit significant differences in people management processes, including selection and entry methods, progression and performance rules, job stability, and the occupation of management positions, among others.
However, the literature lacks scales specifically constructed and validated for assessing the organizational climate in the public context. One of the first models to study organizational climate was proposed by (), who concluded that organizational climate fluctuated and could be modified (). This reasoning was refined in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, leading to the emergence of new models to identify organizational climate, including (); (); (); (); (), and (). The oldest scale found was that of (). In addition to this, numerous scales have been constructed for developed countries and adapted for developing countries, but without extensive cross-cultural validation (; ; ) or psychometric procedures ().
There are several motivations that led us to build a new scale, we list four: (i) the mismatch of the main scales already developed in the private context for investigating the organizational climate in the public sector; (ii) the need to adapt some concepts, dimensions, and items from private-oriented scales to the public service; (iii) the creation of new items and dimensions such as public value and professional performance that aim to highlight the perception of public servants; (iv) the scarcity of organizational climate scales that had psychometric validation.
In light of the above, the proposition of a specific measure of the organizational climate for public service holds central significance. Thus, the aim is to develop and validate the Organizational Climate Perception Scale for Public Service (OCPS-PS).
The construction of an organizational climate scale for public service can offer both theoretical and practical contributions. On the theoretical side, it seeks to deepen academic knowledge in the field of people management in public organizations. From a practical perspective, it provides managers with the means to assess the work environment by identifying employees’ perceptions. Moreover, it serves as an important management tool. In this regard, the scale will enable the investigation of inter- and intra-organizational issues in various public agencies (), fostering new approaches.

2. Method

To construct and validate the OCPS-PS, four distinct studies were conducted. The implementation period of this study was the year 2023. The first study involved a literature review and a focus group. The literature review was carried out by searching the Web of Science and Scopus databases, focusing on the time frame from 2012 to 2022 and including documents with the defined terms “organizational climate scale” in the title. The final sample consisted of 60 articles, allowing for the identification of key definitions, dimensions, and items of existing scales, leading to the preliminary construction of the OCPS-PS dimensions. Subsequently, a focus group was conducted with the participation of ten public servants from diverse socioeconomic, demographic, and professional backgrounds.
The second study included expert validation and a pre-test phase. Following () recommendation, six experts were selected—three with experience in scale construction and three with subject-matter expertise. A specific instrument was created for this step, providing specific instructions for the experts. For each item, questions were posed to assess the degree of pertinence (1—Should be removed, 2—Should be retained after reformulation, 3—Should be retained as is), the degree of relevance (1—Slightly Relevant, 2—Relevant, 3—Very Relevant), and the dimension represented by the item. To evaluate the level of agreement among the experts, the Content Validity Coefficient (CVC) and Fleiss’ kappa () were used. Content validity refers to the extent to which a scale adequately samples items that represent the construct of interest (). The CVC is suitable for Likert-type scales, while Fleiss’ kappa is appropriate for nominal scales.
For the pre-test, 10 individuals were selected based on convenience sampling, in line with the suggestion of () that pre-test samples should include between 5 and 15 participants. The individuals were chosen from a variety of backgrounds to ensure that the language used in the instrument was appropriate for the entire target population.
For the third study, a new instrument with the OCPS-PS was developed and applied to a sample of 394 public servants for the purpose of exploratory validation of the scale. The polychoric correlation matrix was used, employing the Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (RDWLS) factor extraction method and Robust Promin rotation ().
Following ’s () recommendation, the parallel analysis was optimally implemented to estimate the number of factors. Additionally, the H index was evaluated (), indicating factorial replicability. Items with values above 0.80 corresponded to the observed factors, suggesting that the factor structure could be replicated in other studies.
Internal consistency was assessed through calculations of Cronbach’s Alpha () and McDonald’s Omega (ω) (). Values equal to or greater than 0.7 were considered adequate for both measures ().
In the fourth study, the OCPS-PS was administered to 374 public employees from a higher education institution for the purpose of confirmatory validation of the scale. Convergent validity, unidimensionality, and discriminant validity of the constructs were assessed. The models were estimated using maximum likelihood via a direct procedure.
Convergent validity was examined by observing the magnitude and statistical significance of the standardized coefficients, utilizing absolute fit indices such as chi-square statistics (χ2), residual root mean square (RMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Criteria considered for adequacy were values greater than 0.950 for CFI, RMSEA, and RMR values lower than 0.060 and 0.080, respectively, and a chi-square/degrees of freedom relationship with values below 3.0 (; ; ; ).
The research received approval from the Research Ethics Committee, and the participants provided their informed consent by signing the Free and Informed Consent Term (ICF). The instrument used was completely anonymously.

3. Analysis of Results

3.1. Study 1: Literature Review and Focus Group

Potential dimensions for the OCPS-PS were identified based on a literature review. The literature review was carried out for the period of 2012–2022 using the terms “climate organizational scale” in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. After removing duplicates, a database with 60 articles was obtained. From reading their contents, 10 articles were identified whose scales were used in the most diverse sectors (; ; ); industrial (; ; ); services (); educational (); cooperative (); and electronic devices () sectors and which could serve as inspiration for the construction of the OCPS-PS items and dimensions.
The focus group included ten public servants with diverse socioeconomic, demographic, and professional profiles. The research protocol outlined the involvement of four researchers as facilitators for the method’s application: a moderator, an observer, and two recorders. The dimensions of the OCPS-PS were presented to the participants, who were encouraged to raise and discuss issues related to the topic. The interview was recorded and transcribed. Appendix A provides a summary of the terms that emerged during the focus group.
Thus, by the end of this initial study, it was possible to construct the first version of the OCPS-PS. For the construction of the scale, we started from the concept of organizational climate, in which the OC is an essential dimension in the work environment, providing a means for investigating organizational behavior through the identification of individual and group behaviors (). Organizational climate is thus defined as the cognitive appraisal of the practices, policies, and procedures that are recognized and rewarded in the workplace (; ; ). Therefore, we define the organizational climate in public service as the cognitive evaluation of the practices, policies, and procedures that are recognized and rewarded in public organizations. The Organizational Climate Perception Scale for Public Service (OCPS-PS) thus assesses the perception of organizational climate in public service.
Following the extensive literature arguing that organizational climate cannot be measured from a single dimension (), the OCPS-PS was constructed from a set of 13 dimensions. Table 1 below presents the definitions of the 13 dimensions of the scale, indicates which items comprise each one, and provides the sources of inspiration for the items. Thus, The OCPS-PS assesses the perception of organizational climate in the public service from a second-order construct formed by these dimensions. The list of the 80 items forming the dimensions is found in Appendix B.
Table 1. Dimensions, definitions, and items of OCPS-PS.

3.2. Study 2: Expert Analysis and Pre-Test

In order to assess content validity, intelligibility, and relevance of the dimensions and items of the scale, a convenience sample of six experts was selected based on the desired type of experience (scale construction and scale theme) (). All experts hold doctoral degrees, are researchers in human resource management with experience in survey research, and three have extensive experience in scale construction. Data collection for observations took place through a Google Forms instrument.
For each item in the instrument, questions were presented regarding the item’s relevance (1—Should be removed, 2—Should be kept after reformulation; 3—Should be kept as it is), the degree of relevance (1—Slightly relevant, 2—Relevant; 3—Very relevant), the wording of the item in terms of language (1—Adequate, 2—Inadequate), and the represented dimension. The Content Validity Coefficient (CVC) was calculated for each dimension based on the experts’ responses. Table 2 summarizes the results.
Table 2. Content Validity Coefficient of the dimensions in the OCPS-PS.
It is observed that all the average content validity coefficients were above 0.800. However, for the Inefficiency Dimension, it was necessary to remove Item 55 from the scale as it presented a CVC below the recommended threshold of 0.700, as established by (). Thus, all 79 items were revised based on the experts’ comments, and a new printed instrument was created for the pre-test.
Ten public servants participated in the pre-tests, selected for convenience, with different socioeconomic and demographic profiles. After analyzing the observations from the pre-test and making adjustments, the final instrument remained with 13 dimensions and 79 items.

3.3. Study 3: Exploratory Validation

For this study, a sample of 394 instruments was collected through an online application among public servants. Exploratory factor analysis was used with a polychoric correlation matrix and estimation by Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (RDWLS).
Following the approach of (), items with factor loadings below 0.5 were removed from each dimension. The removed items for each dimension were as follows: autonomy, item 4 (−0.446); participation, item 16 (−0.081), item 15 (−0.266), and item 17 (−0.469); formalization, item 35 (0.301) and item 33 (0.480); professional performance, item 65 (−0.318).
After removal, the results for each dimension of OCPS-PS are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Dimensions, factor loadings, explained variance, parallel analysis, H index, Cronbach’s alpha, and McDonald’s omega for the OCPS-PS.
Table 3 indicates that the factor loadings were high, with all values above 0.5, indicating adequate representability of each item in the dimension. All values from the parallel analysis were higher than the random mean, and all explained variances were high, confirming unidimensionality. Additionally, the H indices were above 0.800, characterizing the possibility of replicating the factors in new studies. The values of Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega were also satisfactory (greater than 0.700), denoting internal consistency for the dimensions.
Thus, the third study suggested that the OCPS-PS can be maintained with the 13 dimensions and that 72 items are suitable for its measurement.

3.4. Study 4: Confirmatory Validation

In this study, a second quantitative sample was used, making a total of 374 respondents. Table 4 lists the results of the initial and final fit indices for each of the dimensions. For constructs in which the initial models were not adequate, the model improvement strategy was adopted, mainly with the removal of variables with low factor loadings.
Table 4. Adjustment indices for the OCPS-PS constructs.
As demonstrated in Table 4, the dimensions of autonomy, participation, formalization, and professional acting retained the same items from the exploratory stage. However, aiming to optimize the dimensions, some items were removed as they had factor loadings below 0.700, and some correlations were necessary.
For the dimension of interaction and cooperation, it was necessary to remove items 10 (0.558), 11 (0.608), 8 (0.618), and 9 (0.625). As for management support, correlations between the errors of items 25 and 26 (0.188), 20 and 24 (0.153), 18 and 21 (0.175) were found, and item 19 (0.731) was removed. Regarding training, items 27 (0.443), 28 (0.657), and 29 (0.622) were removed. For resistance to change, items 38, 39, and 40 were retained, and item 41 (0.395) was excluded. For public value, items 48 (0.538), 42 (0.678), 45 (0.631), and 44 (0.676) were removed. Regarding organizational clarity, the following correlations between the errors of items 51 and 52 (0.512), 49 and 52 (0.377), 49 and 51 (0.196) were found. For inefficiency, items 57 (0.519), 54 (0.548), 56 (0.660), and 61 (0.647) were removed. In terms of performance, items 68 (0.641) and 69 (0.648) were excluded. For diversity, items 74 (0.570), 75 (0.633), 76 (0.614), and 80 (0.643) were removed.
The next step was verifying the discriminant validity between each pair of constructs. For this purpose, the criterion proposed by () was applied, where the calculation of the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) should be greater than the correlation between the constructs. Table 5 presents the results.
Table 5. Discriminant Validity Tests according to Fornell and Larcker.
It appears that the criterion was observed for all constructs, indicating discriminant validity. Additionally, all dimensions had standardized residuals below 2.58 (), confirming unidimensionality.
After the validation of each construct, the estimation of the OCPS-PS was conducted. Table 6 presents the initial and final results. Two models were considered: Model 1 is the OCPS-PS scale with all dimensions correlated with each other, and Model 2 is a second-order model.
Table 6. Adjustment indices for the OCPS-PS.
As the initial models were found to be poorly fitting, a model adjustment strategy was adopted. For Model 1, correlations between the errors of the same constructs were added for 66 and 67, 58 and 59, 5 and 6, and 49 and 50. Subsequently, correlations were added between errors of different constructs that had theoretical sense: 12 and 77, 40 and 63, 46 and 63, 14 and 53, 12 and 36, 2 and 18, 39 and 58, 70 and 24. In Model 2, several correlations were made, as shown in Appendix C. After the adjustments, both models were deemed well-fitting. However, due to having lower AIC and BIC, Model 2, represented in Figure 1, was more parsimonious.
Figure 1. Final model of the OCPS-PS. Note: * p < 0.01; ¹ z-value not calculated, where the parameter was set to 1, due to model requirements. For simplicity, the correlations between the errors were not represented in the figure.
All thirteen dimensions significantly contributed to the formation of organizational climate perception. The dimensions with the highest loadings were performance and diversity, while autonomy and tradition were the least important for the formation of the OCPS-PS. The final model comprised 48 items, all with factor loadings above 0.5, indicating a substantial representativeness of the items in forming the measurement model.
Finally, a methodology for applying the scale was developed. Table 7 presents the calculations for forming the dimensions and for evaluating the perception of the organizational climate in public organizations. The weights of each item were defined based on the weighting of the factor loadings obtained in the final model.
Table 7. Calculations for measuring dimensions and the OCPS-PS.
From the identification of each respondent’s perception, it was possible to obtain the perception for each dimension and for the OCPS-PS by calculating the simple average of the sample. These averages can be interpreted according to Table 8.
Table 8. Classification of the sample’s OCPS-PS.
This application methodology can be used to identify the perception of the organizational climate in public organizations as a whole or in specific sectors of the institution. It is also possible to use specific dimensions since each construct has been individually validated. For example, autonomy can be evaluated using the items from that construct. Furthermore, the OCPS-PS was developed to be self-administered. For applications involving interviews, the items will need to be adjusted.
This OCPS-OS was built to be applied in different public organizations and at different government levels. In this way, the scale can be applied to public hospitals and health centers, public universities, public security, and social security, among other public organizations. It can also be useful in studies focused on evaluating the OC in a specific area and at different levels of government. For example, OC studies in the educational sector may involve the Ministry of Education, education departments, public universities, and public basic and secondary schools.

4. Final Considerations

Despite the importance of identifying the organizational climate for personnel management, no consolidated scales specifically tailored to the context of public organizations have been identified. Public organizations exhibit significant differences in personnel management compared to private organizations, especially regarding career entry and progression, as well as job management. Additionally, public organizations operate within a legal and normative framework that directly influences how they manage their workforce. Thus, the innovation of this study lies in the pursuit of constructing and validating an organizational climate scale suitable for public service.
The results of the four conducted studies indicated the adequacy of the OCPS-PS according to the proposed criteria of validity and reliability. The OCPS-OS distinguishes itself from existing scales both by creating specific items in dimensions already proposed in the literature and by creating new fundamental dimensions for public organizations such as public value and professional performance.
The proposed application methodology is easy to implement and has the potential to be used in different contexts. Among the possible applications, the following can be highlighted: (1) a study using one or more of the proposed dimensions, as all dimensions were considered suitable. For example, researchers interested in studying diversity can use the five items from the dimension; (2) building models with the OCPS-PS as a precursor to other factors, such as well-being at work; (3) using difference tests and cluster analyses to identify groups with different perceptions of the organizational climate in the same public organization; (4) effects of changes in legislation and internal regulations on organizational climate; (5) longitudinal studies to identify changes in work perception over a professional career, among others.
Although this study is a significant step in the search for a measurement model of organizational climate in public services, one limitation is the lack of validation in different countries. Another limitation of the study is that in survey research, there is a possibility of response bias due to socially desirable answering. In this regard, further steps are required, including validation and implementation in other cultures, as well as investigating the possibility of adding new dimensions or items.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V., E.d.R.L. and V.d.F.B.E.; methodology, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V. and E.d.R.L.; software, T.K.M. and K.M.V.; formal analysis, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V., E.d.R.L. and V.d.F.B.E.; investigation, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V., E.d.R.L. and V.d.F.B.E.; data curation, K.M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V., E.d.R.L. and V.d.F.B.E.; writing—review and editing, T.K.M., S.A.P.d.C., K.M.V., E.d.R.L. and V.d.F.B.E.; project administration, K.M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors thank the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) for the financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Santa Maria (CAAE: 61808022.8.0000.5346).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Focus Group Perceptions

DimensionFocus Group Perceptions
AutonomyResponsibility; Commitment; Transparency; Communication/Dialogue; Respect; Flexibility; Team; Freedom of opinion; Trust; Change; Empowerment; Support; Ability to participate in final decisions; Freedom to propose improvements and changes; Encouragement from leadership for decision-making; Involvement in the construction process; Guidance; Clear rules; Security; Understanding; Clarity of legal support; Freedom to make mistakes; Participatory decision-making process; Initiative for decision-making; Delegation; Support; Management; Acceptance
Interaction and CooperationMonitoring established goals; Mutual knowledge (increases tolerance); Participation in joint activities; Willingness to collaborate with colleagues’ work; Improve communication; Committees/Working groups; Team interaction; Results; Reciprocity in actions and activities; Collective work; Cordiality; Recognition; Problem-solving; Moments of socialization; Collaborative environments; Dialogue and shared decisions; Strategic development; Interpersonal relationships; Welcoming/Orientation; Positive interactions; Responsibility; Construction; Listening; Autonomy; Reduce noise.
ParticipationCommunication; Clarity; Positioning; Competence; Responsibility; Expression; Identity; Discuss; If people are heard-listening; Committees/Representation; Openness to suggestions; Openness/freedom of expression; Manager-centered; Making suggestions, observations; Pride in being part of it; Calls for discussions; Greater effort to achieve results; Commitment and responsibility for decisions; Collegial decisions; Organizational and managerial aspect; Lack of willingness; Space for both; Dialogue; Feedback.
Management Support Guidance/Example; People management; Priorities; Discussion/Debate; Team integration; Technical competence; Availability of leadership/support; Work organization; Welcomes and promotes initiatives that enhance the climate; Recognition for the work done; Recognition of leadership and capability; “Defending” the team’s employee; Involving employees in decision-making; Recognition, Praise; Advocating for your employee; Available time; Listening and communicating; Feedback; Infrastructure; Tranquility; Communication; Reciprocity; Security; Trust; Trust in guidance; Listening, Empathy, Respect; Work dynamics; Support in decisions.
TrainingGenerate growth opportunities; Leave for training, Opportunities; Technical understanding of changes and assess viability; Metrics for course participation; Application of knowledge covered in training; Offering training courses (Participation, Promotion); Survey sent to employees about desired training/interests; Ensures results and employee satisfaction; Budgetary resources; Execution capacity; Diversity of content/themes; Employee appreciation; Needs assessment; Return to the institution; Human and professional development; Promote changes; Sharing; Sensitization; Qualifies the work; Training.
FormalizationNecessary; Conduct; Transparency; Guidance; Evaluation; Study; Hierarchy; Procedures; Compliance/Behavioral standards; Establishment of rights, duties, obligations; Rationalization to avoid discomfort; Equity (rules are applied equally for everyone); Important for regulating activities; Safety in process development; Legality/Necessary bureaucracy; Rules reduce autonomy and limit action; Rules correct distortions; Dialogue, Communication; Division of responsibilities; Common sense, Justice, Innovation, Efficiency.
Resistance to ChangeTraining; Length of service; Inflexibility; Meritocracy; Modification of thinking with new functionalities; Employee resistance to changes/updates; Lack of training (employees who have been in the institution longer); Rituals/Rites propagating values and mission; Tradition versus New Norms; Openness to innovation; Clash of cultures (New versus Old); Inhibits initiative; Attachment due to fear of feeling undervalued; Is it easy to change practices that don’t work?; Where does the need for changes come from?; Average time/Ease of changes; Frequency of reviewing practices and rules; Changes are externally provoked (laws) or internally; Updating and revising practices for efficiency; Responsibility versus Resistance to change; Uncertainties; Culture; Innovation; Changes.
Public ValueOrganization’s performance and its importance; Promotion of activities carried out; Sense of pride/Belonging; Service complaints (Negative Impact); Communicate with society; Defense of public service; Recognition of one’s work; Understanding the entire process; Sense of work; Addressing public issues; Impacts of the activity; Delivery to society; Ownership; Recognition; Delivery to society; Belonging; Organization promotion; Organization’s goals and objectives; Organizational policy; Dissemination of goals and objectives.
Organizational ClarityWell-established formal communication; Daily activity versus institutional mission; Participation, involvement in defining; Justice, transparency, appreciation; Equity; Daily activities; Knowledge and priority: everything that is a priority has no ordering; Well-defined formal organizational communication; Communication; Quantity of questions about a particular subject/norms/communications; Frequency with which the organization’s reason for existence is referenced internally; Priorities; Participation; Something tangible; Clear information; How important is my daily activity to my organization; Fulfilling its mission; Setting goals, except for atypical ones, to improve activity execution; Understanding the function one performs, their role as part of the process; Is the development of work transparent, clear?
InefficiencyLeadership/managerial support; Planning disconnected from reality; Actions/Measures to prevent inefficiency; Resource scarcity/same workload; Satisfaction; Low self-esteem; Training; Tradition; Lack of clear evaluation mechanisms; Lack of communication within the team; Errors, conflicting/distorted information; Work organization/Ineffective tools; Goal monitoring with direct support from leadership; Lack of work; Well-defined workflows; Rework; Accountability; Employee overload; Resource availability; Delayed deliveries; Organizational clarity.
Professional ActingSocialization; Training; Understanding; Clarity; Well-defined goals/Supervisory monitoring; Predefined competencies; Professional recognition/Appreciation; Job description (Restrictive?) versus Performance (Job deviation); Clear deliverables and goals; Possibility of promotions; Professional appreciation; Institutional recognition; Recognition by management of innovative initiatives; Weight of management for recognition; Employee feels capable of performing their job; Adequate development conditions; Mastery of activities; Effective recognition; Sense of belonging; Involvement with work.
PerfomanceIncentive mechanism; Employed criteria; Continuous assessment; Opportunity for improvement; Familiarity with expectations; Dialogue; Fair evaluation; Clear employment contract; Degree of fairness; Knowledge; Agreement; Change tool; Opportunity to assess and propose changes; Feedback: Reinforcement of the positive; Utilize the performance evaluation process; Performance evaluation; Mastery of activities and effective recognition; Improve or enhance the work structure.
DiversityInclusion; Sensitivity; Understanding; Inclusive management; Preparation and training to correctly address differences; Emotional intelligence to deal with personal differences; Employee perception regarding opportunities for diversity; Adopt effective actions regarding diversity; Inclusive diversity; Technical capability; Professional development; Veiled Decisions/Actions.

Appendix B. OCPS-PS Items

DimensionItem
Autonomy1. My boss allows me to make relevant decisions about the work I do.
2. My boss allows me to organize how the work is done.
3. I have autonomy to solve problems that arise during the execution of my work.
4. My autonomy in task execution is hindered by the rigidity of the rules. b
Interaction and Cooperation5. Collaboration among employees from different departments is effective.
6. There are cooperative interactions among employees from different departments.
7. The development of activities allows for friendly interactions with other employees.
8. Employees can openly discuss any work-related issues with their supervisors. c
9. There is a harmonious atmosphere among employees in my department. c
10. Informal relationships among employees contribute to the improvement of the organizational climate. c
11. The organization responds quickly to cases of interpersonal conflict. c
Participation12. In this organization, employees participate in decisions that affect them.
13. Managers involve employees when changes that affect them are implemented.
14. In this organization, decisions are widely shared.
15. In this organization, the concentration of assigning the same people for activities overburdens the employees who make themselves available to participate. b
16. In this organization, the level of interest of employees in participating in decisions affects the organizational climate. b
17. The political appointment of employees to participate in committees and/or projects reduces my effective possibilities to contribute to the organization’s decisions. b
Management Support 18. My boss establishes friendly relationships with subordinates.
19. My boss encourages training and development actions. c
20. My boss promotes measures that encourage the psychological safety of subordinates.
21. My boss recognizes a job well done.
22. My boss is committed to improving working conditions.
23. My boss communicates decisions made widely.
24. My boss encourages the involvement of subordinates in meeting goals.
25. My boss demonstrates trust in their subordinates.
26. My boss makes time available to listen to their subordinates.
Training27. Employees prioritize participation in training that promotes career advancement. c
28. Management encourages participation in training that assists in achieving institutional goals.c
29. Employees are strongly encouraged to develop their skills. c
30. This organization provides sufficient resources for the development of employees’ competencies.
31. In this organization, training and development actions are consistent with the duties of employees’ positions.
32. In this organization, there are clear criteria for supporting training and development actions.
Formalization33. In this organization, work requires adherence to high standards of quality and precision. b
34. In this organization, the existence of formal procedures contributes to improving the work environment.
35. In this organization, the employee’s work is restricted to activities inherent to their position. b
36. In this organization, the formalization of work rules reduces conflicts in the workplace.
37. The prevalence of formality in interactions contributes to maintaining a healthy climate between sections.
Resistance to Change38. In this organization, the way of doing work changes very slowly.
39. In this organization, management is not interested in trying new ideas.
40. In this organization, organizational changes happen very slowly.
41. In this organization, traditional ways of performing activities are valued. c
Public Value42. In this organization, the work performed positively contributes to the development of society. c
43. This organization seeks to address the demands of society in its planning.
44. Employees are concerned with improving ways to serve citizens. c
45. The fact that this organization has positive impacts on society is a source of fulfillment for employees. c
46. In this organization, the needs of society are considered top priorities.
47. This organization responds quickly to the needs of society.
48. I am proud to work for this public organization. c
Organizational Clarity49. Employees have a good understanding of what the organization is seeking to achieve.
50. The organization’s planning is clearly communicated to everyone.
51. In this organization, roles and responsibilities are clearly defined.
52. Employees have clarity about their responsibilities for achieving organizational objectives.
53. In this organization, implemented changes are widely communicated.
Inefficiency54. The way financial resources are spent in this organization is inefficient. c
55. Activities could be done much more efficiently if people took the time to think. a
56. Poor scheduling of activities often results in unmet goals. c
57. Productivity could be improved if job responsibilities were fulfilled.
58. In this organization, the lack of transparency in decisions hinders administrative efficiency.
59. Lack of impartiality contributes to the inefficiency of this organization.
60. In this organization, the internal communication process is inefficient.
61. Poor distribution of the workforce hampers the organization’s performance. c
Professional Acting62. In this organization, employees always perform to the best of their abilities.
63. In this organization, employees are familiar with the tools, technologies, and resources available to deliver quality work.
64. In this organization, employees are willing to make an extra effort to do a good job.
65. In this organization, some employees dedicate more effort than others to do a good job. b
Performance66. In this organization, employees always perform to the best of their abilities.
67. In this organization, employees are familiar with the tools, technologies, and resources available to deliver quality work.
68. In this organization, employees are willing to make an extra effort to do a good job. c
69. In this organization, some employees dedicate more effort than others to do a good job. c
70. Employees are encouraged to meet established goals.
Diversity71. In this organization, regardless of position, all employees are respected.
72. In this organization, employees’ conduct adheres to the principle of impersonality. c
73. In this organization, employees feel included.
74. In this organization, sufficient resources and time are invested in diversity-related actions. c
75. In this organization, prejudiced actions are punished. c
76. In this organization, employees feel that there is no prejudice. c
77. In this organization, the principle of equality prevails.
78. In this organization, ethical principles are respected.
79. In this organization, employees are treated fairly.
80. In this organization, employees are prepared to handle diversity. c
Legend: removed items (a, study 2; b, study, 3; c, study 4).

Appendix C. Correlations between OCPS-PS Errors

CorrelationsValuesSignificance
e43↔e470.290***
e12↔e130.362***
e66↔e670.275***
e70↔e240.252***
e51↔e520.453***
e49↔e520.323***
e51↔e490.128***
e25↔e260.194***
e20↔e240.142***
e21↔e180.162***
e58↔e390.234***
e77↔e120.199***
e53↔e140.274***
e63↔e400.333***
e62↔e460.274***
e2↔e180.213***
e22↔e400.309***
esu↔eaut0.489***
ede↔eatu0.369***
etra↔einef0.314***
epar↔einef0.333***
eaut↔ediv0.233***
efor↔eaut0.226***
etra↔eatu0.257***
einef↔ediv0.227***
etra↔eva0.183***
eva↔esu0.179***
epa↔eva0.233***
esu↔eint0.182***
Note: *** Sig < 0.01, significant at 1%.

References

  1. Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Andreas Boesen, and Lene Holm Pedersen. 2016. Performance in public organizations: Clarifying the conceptual space. Public Administration Review 76: 852–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Babapour Chafi, Maral, Annemarie Hultberg, and Nina Bozic Yams. 2022. Post-pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability 14: 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Banwo, Adeleke Oladapo, Uchechi Onokala, and Bola Momoh. 2022. Organizational climate–institutional environment nexus: Why context matters. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 12: 357–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benzer, Justin, and Margaret Horner. 2015. A meta-analytic integration and test of psychological climate dimensionality. Human Resource Management 54: 457–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boateng, Godfred O., Torsten B. Neilands, Edward A. Frongillo, Hugo R. Melgar-Quiñonez, and Sera L. Young. 2018. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health 6: 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boye, Stefan, Rebecca Risbjerg Nørgaard, Emily Rose Tangsgaard, Mathilde Andreassen Winsløw, and Mathias Rask Østergaard-Nielsen. 2022. Public and private management: Now, is there a difference? A systematic review. International Public Management Journal 2022: 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bozeman, Barry. 1987. All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  8. Buttner, E. Holly, Kevin B. Lowe, and Lenora Billings-Harris. 2012. An empirical test of diversity climate dimensionality and relative effects on employee of color outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 110: 247–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Byrne, Barbara M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, John P., Marvin D. Dunnette, Edward E. Lawler, III, and Karl E. Weick, Jr. 1970. Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Curvo, Leandro Dias, and Lígia Maria Heinzmann. 2017. Estudo do clima organizacional da secretaria de gestão de pessoas de uma universidade federal. Revista Eletrônica Científica do CRA-PR-RECC 4: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Amato, Alessia. 2023. From research to action and back again: The long journey of organizational climate—A review of the literature and a summative framework. Journal of General Management 2023: 03063070231152010. [Google Scholar]
  14. D’Amato, Alessia, and Fred R. Zijlstra. 2008. Psychological climate and individual factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17: 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. DeVellis, Robert F., and Carolyn T. Thorpe. 2021. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. New York: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  16. Do Amaral, Derly Jardim, Andreza Heringer Venicio, Enido Fabiano de Ramos, and Vanessa Scalise. 2005. A influência do clima organizacional na remuneração por competência. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia 4: 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferrando, Pere J., and Urbano Lorenzo-Seva. 2018. Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 78: 762–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ferreira, Patricia I., and Andrea Ramal. 2013. Clima Organizacional e Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho. Rio de Janeiro: LTC. [Google Scholar]
  19. Finsel, Julia, Anne Wöhrmann, Mo Wang, Max Wilckens, and Jürgen Deller. 2021. Organizational Practices for the Aging Workforce: Validation of an English Version of the Later Life Workplace Index. Innovation in Aging 5 S1: 826–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fleiss, Joseph. L. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76: 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 382–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Limited. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hannevik, Martine B., Jon A. Lone, Roald Bjørklund, Cato A. Bjørkli, and Thomas Hoff. 2014. Organizational climate in large-scale projects in the oil and gas industry: A competing values perspective. International Journal of Project Management 32: 687–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hinkin, Timothy R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management 21: 967–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hooper, Daire, Joseph Coughlan, and Michael R. Mullen. 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6: 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hur, Hyunkang, and Gordon Abner. 2024. What makes public employees want to leave their job? A meta-analysis of turnover intention predictors among public sector employees. Public Administration Review 84: 115–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hutchinson, Derek M., Stephanie A. Andel, and Paul E. Spector. 2018. Digging deeper into the shared variance among safety-related climates: The need for a general safety climate measure. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 24: 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jafari, Mohammad Javad, Davood Eskandari, Firouz Valipour, Yadollah Mehrabi, Hossein Charkhand, and Mostafa Mirghotbi. 2017. Development and validation of a new safety climate scale for petrochemical industries. Work 58: 309–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jain, Mahima, and Sanjay Dhir. 2022. Antecedents of organization ambidexterity: A comparative study of public and private sector organizations. Technology in Society 70: 102046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. James, Lawrence R., and Allan P. Jones. 1974. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin 81: 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. James, Lawrence R., Carol C. Choi, Chia-Huei Emily Ko, Patrick K. McNeil, Matthew K. Minton, Mary Ann Wright, and Kwang-il Kim. 2008. Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17: 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. James, Lawrence R., Lois A. James, and Donna K. Ashe. 1990. The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. Organizational Climate and Culture 40: 84. [Google Scholar]
  33. Johansen, Morgen, and Ling Zhu. 2014. Market competition, political constraint, and managerial practice in public, nonprofit, and private American hospitals. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24: 159–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jones, Allan P., and Lawrence R. James. 1979. Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23: 201–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kline, Rex B. 2023. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Knies, Eva, Rick T. Borst, Peter Leisink, and Elaine Farndale. 2022. The distinctiveness of public sector HRM: A four-wave trend analysis. Human Resource Management Journal 32: 799–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kolb, David A., Irwin M. Rubin, and James. M Mcintyre. 1986. Psicologia Organizacional: Uma Abordagem Vivencial. São Paulo: Atlas. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lapuente, Victor, and Steven Van de Walle. 2020. The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance 33: 461–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Litwin, George H., and Robert A. Stringer, Jr. 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Graduate School of Business. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lorenzo-Seva, Urbano, and Pere J. Ferrando. 2019. Robust Promin: A method for diagonally weighted factor rotation. Liberabit 25: 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McClelland, David C. 1972. What is the effect of achievement motivation training in the schools? Teachers College Record 74: 129–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McDonald, Roderick P. 1999. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  43. Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. 2011. Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 S3: i283–i299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mor Barak, Michal E., David A. Cherin, and Sherry Berkman. 1998. Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 34: 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mutonyi, Barbara R., Terje Slåtten, and Gudbrand Lien. 2020. Organizational climate and creative performance in the public sector. European Business Review 32: 615–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nikolova, Irina, Joris Van Ruysseveldt, Hans de Witte, and Karen Van Dam. 2014. Learning climate scale: Construction, reliability and initial validity evidence. Journal of Vocational Behavior 85: 258–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Patterson, Malcolm G., Michael A. West, Viv J. Shackleton, Jeremy F. Dawson, Rebecca Lawthom, Sally Maitlis, David L. Robinson, and Alison M. Wallace. 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 379–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pérez-Vallejo, Carlos, and Juan José Fernández-Muñoz. 2020. Quality of leadership and organizational climate in a sample of spanish workers. The moderation and mediation effect of recognition and teamwork. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rainey, Hal G. 2014. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 5th ed. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rizzatti, Gerson. 1995. Análise de Fatores Significativos do Clima Organizacional da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina: Contribuição para Implantação do Programa de Qualidade. Master’s thesis, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. [Google Scholar]
  51. Santos, Leda Jung, and Mauricio D. Paranhos. 2017. Os trabalhadores das Equipes de Saúde da Família no Rio de Janeiro: Aspectos da liderança em pesquisa de clima organizacional. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 22: 759–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Sbragia, Roberto. 1983. Um estudo empírico sobre o clima organizacional em instituições de pesquisa. Revista de Administração 18: 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schneider, Benjamin. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology 28: 447–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Siegel, Saul M., and William F. Kaemmerer. 1978. Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 63: 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sims, Henry P., Jr., and Wiliiam LaFollette. 1975. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate questionnaire. Personnel Psychology 28: 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Steinfeld, Joshua M. 2023. Stewardship Theory over Agency Theory. Public-Private Stewardship: Achieving Value-for-Money in Public-Private Partnerships. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 123–34. [Google Scholar]
  57. Timmerman, Marieke E., and Urbano Lorenzo-Seva. 2011. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods 16: 209–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Torfing, Jacob, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Carsten Greve, and Kurt K. Klausen. 2020. Public Governance Paradigms: Competing and Co-Existing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tripathi, Swati, and Divya Tripathi. 2022. Organizational climate and organizational politics: Understanding the role of employees using parallel mediation. In Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 10, pp. 241–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Wart, Montgomery. 2013. Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration 91: 521–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wynen, Jan, Jan Boon, Bjorn Kleizen, and Koen Verhoest. 2020. How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior: Evidence from the Australian Public Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration 40: 491–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zappala, Salvatore, Vicente Martínez-Tur, and Marco Giovanni Mariani. 2018. Service climate in organizations: Validating the Italian version of the Service Climate Scale (ISCS). TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology 25: 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Main Challenges of E-Leadership in Municipal Administrations in the Post-Pandemic Context
Previous
An Approach to Sustainable Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation in Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Next